Sylvester

What's going on? My laptop keyboard is broken. All of a sudden, most of the keys stopped working, while a few started "working" when they weren't supposed to. Every time I bump the laptop a bit, for example, it now thinks I pressed F9. Very annoying. Best case, I think I'll need to get the keyboard replaced ($100 repair when I next visit the US); worst case, it could be a sign of impending total system failure.

Anyway, I'm in the university library now. I thought I'd post an interesting cultural artifact. It's a discarded party invitation distributed to students at my college (and presumably elsewhere). The author is Israeli (as can be seen from subtle grammatical flaws such as "in the past few years"), and so is the intended audience. Yet the letter is all in sophisticated English - a foreign language for nearly everyone attending the party. I find it a striking example of the way American culture has become "cool" among young secular Israelis. If only they'd consider actual Americans, like me, to be equally cool...

comp keybd break

no post 4 real

Draw-down

I am no longer sure whether the value of this blog justifies the time I am putting into it.

So there might be a decline in posting in the future. If I have any really brilliant ideas (or even mediocre ideas that I find interesting) I don't think I will hold myself back. But I am abandoning the idea that I should post with a minimum specified frequency.

No matter how much I post, there's still interesting links in the sidebar. Enjoy.

Oops

I was the only one staying in my apartment this Shabbat. On Friday, I felt very sleepy. At about noon, I decided to take a nap, and set my alarm for 2 PM.

However the alarm didn't do its job. When I woke up, everything was dark. With some difficultly, I managed to read the clock on my wall, by the light of the streetlights outside my window. What I saw shocked me.

It was about 11:30 PM. I had overslept by 9 and a half hours. There had never been a Shabbat like this in my life. I checked to be sure it was indeed Shabbat, by looking out my window at the central bus station (far away but visible from my hilltop apartment). It was closed and dark - on a weekday a few buses would have still been running.

After cleaning myself up a bit I sat down to the only Shabbat meal I could have at that hour. I ended up eating cold (though somewhat tasty) leftovers, sitting in the darkness.

I felt like such a Sadducee.

Thoughts on Shemot

The first mention of the Egyptian slavery is Breishit 15:13, when God tells Avraham that "your offspring will be strangers in a land not theirs, and shall serve them 400 years".

This prediction is strange in the context it comes in. There is no clear background on what led to the decree. And following this brief mention, the issue of eventual slavery seems to disappear from the book. As I suggested, there seems to be an causual chain of events throughout Breishit, which inevitably leads to slavery in Egypt. But this chain is really an example of "how", not "why"; the "why" for slavery remains unclear.

Perhaps we can gain some insight by looking at the story which immediately follows Brit Bein Habetarim (Breishit 15, in which the promise of slavery is made). In chapter 16, Sarah is childless. She has Avraham take Hagar, an Egyptian woman, as a second wife. When Hagar becomes pregnant, Sarah becomes displeased with her and oppresses her. Nevertheless, Hagar goes on to gives birth to a son (Ishmael), while Sarah remains childless.

This reminds me of the Israelites' experience in Egypt, but with the ethnicities reversed. In that second story, it was the Egyptians who invited Jews into their country. When the Israelites began to reproduce abnormally fast, it worried the Egyptians, who tried to compensate by oppressing the Israelites. But that failed, as the Israelites only continued to reproduce.

Due to the multiple similarities between the stories, I wonder if Sarah sinned in her treatment of Hagar the Egyptian, and if the oppression of Sarah's descendants is a measure-for-measure punishment for her misdeed. There are probably additional reasons for the slavery, but this could be one significant contributing factor.

If so, this would provide a clear linkage between chapters 15 and 16. Excluding the Avimelech episodes in chapters 20 and 21 (which I'm not really sure the purpose of), chapters 15 and 16 are the only stories in Avraham's life which did not seem to be closely thematically interwoven with what comes before and after them. I think we have now identified the connection between them.

(In principle, there's no reason why "random details that had to be mentioned somewhere" couldn't be thrown it at some random point. But it's much cooler if you can justify the placement as well as the existence of each story.)

A new king arose over Egypt, who did not know Yosef. (1:8)

The simplest interpretation of this line is that the new king knew Yosef's legacy, but chose to ignore it.

But it's also possible that at some point Yosef really became unknown. The ancient Egyptians had a tendency, especially around the time period the Israelites were there, to erase all historical records of whatever was inconvenient to them. And Yosef, because of his "abominable" Hebrew ancestry and his (presumable controversial) political and economic policies, would seem to be a likely target for historical censorship.

[Yocheved] became pregnant and bore a son. She saw that he was good, and concealed him for three months. (2:2)
He was good - when he was born, the whole house filled with light. (Rashi)

2:2 is a difficult line - what does it mean for a baby to be "good", and why would a mother choose to save only "good" babies? A couple possibilities suggest themselves to me (and other people): perhaps the baby was healthy and likely to survive (thus worth endangering oneself in order to save), or else was well-behaved (thus unlikely to cry constantly and reveal himself to Egyptians).

Rashi seems to take a different approach: that due to Moshe's historical importance, unusual effort had to be put into saving him. In order to explain how Moshe's future role was recognized by Yocheved, Rashi says that a miraculous light filled his house. As Siftei Hachamim points out, there is a precedent for equating the phrase "it was good" with light, in the Breishit creation story.

Now, Breishit 1:4 is not the only place in the Torah where the phrase "it was good" ("ki tov") appears. So please indulge me as I compose a midrash of my own, which probably relies on the same thought process as the original. Elsewhere, we see restfulness equated with good: "vayar menucha ki tov". Therefore, when the Torah says that baby Moshe was "ki tov", it may be saying that he constantly slept all the time. Therefore he did very little crying, and hiding him did not endanger his mother's life.

Thoughts on Vayechi

After Yosef successfully interpreted Pharaoh's dreams, Pharaoh delegated to him virtually unlimited power. And yet, in the last two weeks' parshas, it is striking that in one particular sphere Yosef has no independence whatsoever. Regarding his own family - the brothers' arrival in Egypt, Yaakov's burial, etc. - Yosef feels the need to consult Pharaoh for permission before taking any decision, however small.

It seems that this oversight is motivated by concerns about Yosef's loyalty. When they first came down to Egypt, Yosef accused his 10 brothers of being spies. Yosef knew this was a false accusation, but how could Pharaoh have known? And how could Pharaoh have known that Yosef, for all his talents, would not be tempted to rebel? He was, after all, a despised "Asiatic" foreigner just like his family. Perhaps he shared their likely lack of concern for the existing political order in Egypt.

Of course, Yosef in fact has no plans to overthrow Pharaoh, and Pharaoh probably doesn't really expect him to try. But still, this is an area in which extra prudence is called for, and Yosef is smart enough not to allow any doubts to arise.

This reminds me of the situation in Potiphar's house, where Yosef controlled everything, except for Potiphar's wife. Similarly, here, Yosef had absolute control of everything in Egypt, except in relation to Pharaoh's "household", i.e. the monarchy and dynastic line.

[Yaakov] blessed them on that day, saying: "By you shall Israel bless, saying: 'God make you like Efraim and like Menashe.' " (48:20)

What does this blessing mean, and what is Efraim and Menashe's special quality which makes it a blessing to be compared to them?

I think the answer comes in the next two verses:
"Yisrael said to Yosef: 'Behold, I shall die; but God will be with you, and will bring you back to the land of your fathers. And I have given you one portion more than your brothers...' "

It seems that the blessing of Efraim and Menashe is related to the assignment of a double portion to Yosef's descendants. Yosef's brothers all received a single portion. In contrast, despite everything he went through (i.e. being thrown out of the family for decades), Yosef was unexpectedly rewarded with a double portion before Yaakov's death.

The blessing mentions Efraim and Menashe, the two sons who personify Yosef's double portion. It therefore expresses the hope we overcome adversity to not only reach our expected levels of accomplishment, but to surpass them.

Binyamin is a ravaging wolf; in the morning he consumes plunder, and in the evening he divides spoils. All these are the twelve tribes of Israel, and this what their father said to them and blessed them; each one he blessed according to his blessing. And he commanded them and said to them: "I am gathered to my people; bury me with my fathers, in the cave in Efron the Hittite's field..." (49:27-29)

The white spaces in a Torah scroll, otherwise known as parshiyah breaks, are almost always a good indication of the Torah's structure (though much less so for certain parts of Nach). But here, a parshiyah break separates Binyamin's blessing from his brothers' blessings, but not from the story of death which follows it. What can possibly lead the Torah to apparently "lump in" Binyamin's blessing with topics which are pretty much unrelated?

(Note: To grasp my explanation, it will immensely help to have a Torah scroll open to parshat Vayechi. If that's impractical, a Koren Tanach or a "tikkun", which have the same formatting, work equally well. :-) )

We can answer the question by saying there are two distinct types of parshiyah breaks - one "thematic" and one "stylistic". A "thematic" parshiyah break separates distinct sections or stories from one another. A "stylistic" parshiyah break (which occurs WITHIN a thematic parshiyah) indicates more minute distinctions, usually between individual items in a list. They can be seen as a looser version of the formatting used in (for example) Az Yashir. Everyone agrees that Az Yashir is a single thematic section, even though it has white space inserted in many places.

Here, Yaakov's blessings to the 12 sons are all part of one thematic section, even though there is white space between each of them. In fact, the blessings are not the only things in the section. The section actually begins with verse 49:1, when Yaakov gathers his sons together for the blessing. It continues with 1) the blessings themselves, 2) Yaakov's death and burial, 3) the brothers begging Yosef for forgiveness, and 4) Yosef's death, at the very end of Sefer Breishit. All this would be one continuous flow of text, were it not for the "stylistic" breaks inserted between the 12 sons' blessings.

To analyze such a long section, you break it down into thematic "sub-sections" as I have just done (1 through 4). These sub-sections are not separated by white space. But, within the first sub-section ("the 12 sons' blessings"), each blessing IS separated by white space. Thus Binyamin's blessing "appears" to be connected to what comes after it, because there is no white space. But in fact, it is separated from what follows by an invisible sub-section-break, and actually connects to the blessings before it, though it is spatially separate from them.

We see a very similar phenomenon in Devarim 33 - Moshe's blessing of Israel. Here, the 12 blessings are all separated from each other, but the first and last blessings (Reuven and Asher) are not separated from what comes (respectively) before and after them. Once again, the sub-section of blessings does not have a parshiyah break before or after it, but it does have stylistic breaks in the middle.

Another example is the story of Adam and Eve. There is a parshiyah break between each of the three curses (snake, woman, man). But there are no breaks either before or after the curses, or elsewhere in the story. Here the curses form a sub-section with stylistic breaks inside it.

One more instance is Vayikra 18. It is clear that there are two sets of prohibitions in this chapter: 1) incestuous relations, referred to as "uncovering nakedness", and 2) various other sexual sins, not called "uncovering nakedness". The first set has a parshiyah break between each verse, while the second set is a continuous run-on of verses. How should we categorize verse 18:17, which is on the boundary between the two sets? On one hand it talks about incest and "nakedness"; on the other hand it is part of the continuous run-on. But applying our previous model, it is clear that the sub-section on incest ends after verse 18:17, and the parshiyah break before 18:17 is simply stylistic, like the other parshiyah breaks in the incest sub-section.

[Yaakov's burial party] came to Goren Haatad, which is beyond the Jordan, and they lamented a very great and deep lamentation; and [Yosef] mourned for his father seven days. (50:10)

Yaakov died in Egypt and was buried in Hevron. Why would his burial party go to Goren Haatad for the mourning ceremony? Wherever exactly Goren Haatad is, it's definitely "beyond the Jordan" River and thus in modern-day Jordan - very far off the road leading from Egypt to Hevron.

It seems to me that the only conceivable significance of "beyond the Jordan" in this context is that Esav lives there. By this time, it's likely that none of Yaakov's family lived in Hevron. So it did not make sense to perform all the ceremonies there. It would be much more sensible to visit Yaakov's brother, and hold the "shivah" at his house in southern Jordan, with only a quick detour to Hevron for the actual burial procedure.

(The gemara in Sotah 13a connects Goren Haatad to Esav as well, but for different reasons.)

(UPDATE: fixed a stupid mistake and did some editing - i.e. basically corrected for the fact that this was written at 1AM)

Death

"Did you hear, Shloime, like, died."

"Oh that is so sad. When is the funeral?"

"There is no funeral."

"Why not?"

"Well because he is still breathing."

"So on what basis did you say that he is dead?"

"Because the doctor pronounced him, like, dead."

"LIKE dead?"

"Yes, LIKE dead."

"Which doctor?"

"Rabbi Dr. Moshe Tendler."

"Huh?"

"Shloime was in an accident and is now brain dead."

(Not that I intend to take a position one way or another on this controversy. And I must credit the source which inspired this post.)

A beautiful and informative view

Today is an incredibly clear day, and from my window in Haifa I can see the Hermon, bright and clear, an apparently little white hill on the horizon.

The Hermon's peak is 2814 meters above sea level, so it should tower above the Israeli mountains in front of it, whose elevations are 500-1000 meters. Why then does the Hermon appear only slightly higher than them?

This is due to the curvature of the earth. A quick trigonometric calculation reveals that, at about 120 km away from me, objects should appear about 1100 meters lower than their actual height. An apparently 1700-meter-high Hermon will of course appear much smaller against a 1000-meter backdrop than a 2814-meter high mountain would. (I'm neglecting the smaller impact of the earth's curvature on the nearby Israeli mountains.)

Today was so clear I had even hoped to see Cyprus, which has mountains almost as tall as the Hermon. However, another quick calculation shows that is impossible. At 300 km away from me, the earth's curvature will cause Cyprus to be depressed by 7000 meters. If Mount Everest were located on Cyprus I might be able to see it. But it's physically impossible to see Cyprus as it in fact exists today.

Strike Four

Yesterday I visited Haifa University library on one of my periodic quests for reading material (my university's library has only textbooks plus a few trashy romance novels and the like). The bus took an unexpected route and let me off far away from the center of campus. Walking towards that center, I saw it was blocked off by construction barriers, partially burnt tires, and other protest paraphernelia.

It's well known that the least favorite part of many professors' lives is teaching undergrads. So don't be surprised that Israeli professors, in their strike, cynically chose to stop teaching classes while continuing with their research. As the strike continues and it looks more and more likely that the semester will be canceled, the Haifa University students have became fed up with being held hostage to the professors' demands. If students' graduation will be delayed six months due to others' convenience, then at least let those others suffer along with them by not being able to work. Hence the attempted closing of campus.

I was lucky enough to take all my required courses last year, and the courses I'm TAing and grading are taught by non-faculty lecturers, so the professor strike has a negligible effect on me.

By the way, did you hear the midrash about Avraham when he left Haran? Eventually he reached Eretz Yisrael and saw that nobody was working - they were all on strike. He said "I hope my portion is not in this land." At that moment Hashem told him, "TOO BAD!!!"
(Source)

Thoughts on Miketz

It came to pass after two years, that Pharaoh dreamed: and, behold! he stood by the Nile. And, behold! there came up out of the river seven good-looking and fat cows, and they fed in the reeds. And, behold! seven other cows came up after them out of the river, ugly and skinny, and stood by the other cows on the riverbank. The ugly and skinny cows ate up the seven good-looking and fat cows, and Pharaoh awoke. He slept and dreamed a second time, and, behold! seven sheaves grew on one stalk, lush and good. And, behold! seven sheaves, thin and blasted by the east wind, sprouted after them. The thin sheaves swallowed up the seven lush and full sheaves. And Pharaoh awoke, and, behold! it was a dream. (41:1-7)

The word "vehineh" ("and, behold") indicates the sudden appearance and recognition of something unexpected. It is therefore appropriate for dreams, in which events evolve spontaneously from one another with little concern for the rules of logic. Thus, every few words in the dream description, there is an "and behold!" to indicate that another random dream-image is appearing without rhyme or reason or predictability.

In fact, when "vehineh" appears multiple times within a few verses in the Torah, it is usually in the context of a dream. This is the case for Yaakov's ladder dream and Yosef's bowing down dreams, as well as Pharaoh's dreams here.

A similar case is brit bein habetarim, where God appears to Avraham in a "vision", and "vehineh" is used three times (verses 4, 12, 17) to describe his experiences. This "vision" is not quite a dream, since he is more or less awake for much of it, but it has the same unpredictability that dreams do. (At the risk of sounding flippant, I would say that Avraham here views the world as if under the influence of a psychedelic drug.)

The only other occasions in the Torah on which "and behold" is used repeatedly are in describing the appearance of tzaraat (Shemot 4:6-7, Vayikra 13-14, Bamidbar 12:10). What the connection is between tzaraat and dreams, I have no idea.

Pharaoh took off his signet ring from his hand, and put it upon Yosef's hand, and clothed him in fine-linen garments, and put the gold chain about his neck. (41:42)

What is "the" gold chain which Yosef now gets to wear? We see here and here that it was a very distinctive type of collar frequently worn by pharoahs. Perhaps it was therefore a symbol not only of wealth, but of royal authority, like the signet ring which Yosef received at the same time.

Interestingly, the striped coat which made Yosef's brothers jealous may have had the same purpose. It was quite possibly a symbol that Yaakov had chosen Yosef as the future leader of the 12 tribes. If so, then Yosef could have seen this as vindication of him and a sign that his dreams were finally beginning to come true.

The next morning he was troubled; and he sent and called for all the magicians of Egypt, and all of its wise men, and Pharaoh told them his dream; but none could interpret them to Pharaoh. (41:8)

Pharaoh speaks of a single dream, but the interpreters speak in the plural. It may be that Pharoah knew instinctively that the dreams had the same message, yet the interpreters insisted on interpreting them separately. The very first words of Yosef's interpretation are "Pharaoh's dream is one." Thus, intentionally or not, he immediately hits on the exact point that Pharaoh insisted on so strongly, against the opinion of all the magicians. This demonstrates either incredible skill or incredible luckiness (read: Divine providence) on Yosef's part. Pharaoh assumes the former, which is why he is then so enthusiastic about giving Yosef authority and power.

Shabbat Guard

A program which automatically shuts down your web site at different times for different people, based on the location of the person visiting the site.

As the site says, "When a visitor comes from a place that's already Shabbat - your web site will be closed for him, while for one that arrives from a place that it is not yet Shabbat - your web site will be opened."

The obvious question is: The only people likely to buy this are Orthodox Jews, and how can they be sure that it works? Wherever they go to test it, if they themselves aren't breaking Shabbat, there will be no indication that the software is running! (The obvious answer: learn to use SSH.)

Sometimes, Google ads are interesting enough to click on even when you know you won't buy anything. I clicked this time, and this is what I found.

Artscroll "translation"

Ezer Kenegdo

What does the phrase "ezer kenegdo" mean? Does it mean man and women are facing each other? Confronting one another? One serving the other?

We find the answer in parshat Vayishlach.

[Esav] said: "Let us go and travel, and I will walk lenegdecha." (33:12)

Esav is suggesting that he and Yaakov walk together, side by side, to a common destination. Not that one walks normally while the other awkwardly backpedals in front of him!

Similarly "ezer kenegdo" means that the husband and wife are walking side by side. Not coincidentally, that's the way that couples normally do walk. So when you next see a man and woman walking side by side, think: that is how God intended them to relate to one another, and how God defined their relationship.

Adoshem

According to the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (6:3), one should say "Hashem" and not "Adoshem" when using God's name in a non-ritual context.

However, R' Soloveitchik seems to have disagreed, as you can see for your self 52 minutes 28 seconds into this recording.

Isn't modern technology great?

Real Brisk

Real Briskers don't go to Gush. They get their shiurim here and here.

Thoughts on the Avot

May you grant truth to Yaakov, kindness to Avraham, as you swore to our fathers from ancient times. (Michah 7:20)

Jewish tradition has associated Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov with the qualities of chessed (kindness), gevurah (strength), and emet (truth) respectively. With Avraham this makes sense: we know from his early stories that he is extraordinarily hospitable and selfless and otherwise kind.

But it is hard to see how Yitzchak exemplifies strength, or Yaakov truth. Strength is perhaps the quality we see least from Yitzchak; he doesn't resist when his hundred-something-year-old father brings him as a sacrifice, and he refrains from purposeful action after Yaakov steals Esav's blessing. Similarly, Yaakov apparently lies to his father and deceives Lavan. How can we possibly say that he exemplifies truth?

Indeed, it's even hard to say that Avraham consistently behaves kindly. On separate occasions he expels his children - Yishmael and Keturah's sons - from his home, and he is willing to kill Yitzchak on God's command. These actions appear to reflect an extreme lack of kindness. It therefore seems that the actions of all three of the Avot contradict the attributes ascribed to them!

We are forced to say that chessed, gevurah, and emet represent not any particular deeds of the Avot, but rather their innate personality traits. Avraham, as we can see in the initial stories, possessed a powerful desire to be kind to everyone he met. We can similarly say that Yitzchak, by his constitution, was never willing to accept defeat or the triumph of evil. And Yaakov was indeed an "ish tam yoshev ohalim", who longed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

If so, how do we explain the stories in which these qualities are not on display?

I think the answer is that the Torah does not tell us day-to-day stories of the Avot (or anyone else), but rather the most monumental and important events of their lives. Indeed, there were presumably many, many incidents in which Avraham demonstrated kindness, Yitzchak strength, and Yaakov truth. But these incidents were not the most important incidents in their lives, so the Torah does not mention most of them.

A person whose nature is kind will find it easy to perform kindness. But occasionally one is morally required to perform acts of apparent cruelty. Morality often requires that soldiers, surgeons, and politicians, for example, act in ways antithetical to the trait of kindness. A harsh or cruel person will find these deeds relatively easy, while having trouble with good deeds that require a more personal touch. For a kind person, things will be the other way round. Such is the case with every character trait, not just kindness.

For Avraham, the supremely kind person, the hardest conceivable moral challenge was to slaughter his son. For Yitzchak, whose personality would never allow him to submit to injustice, the hardest challenge was to allow himself to be slaughtered. And for Yaakov, who could never countenance falsehood, the hardest challenge was to deceive Yitzchak (or Lavan or Esav) when circumstances impelled it. In each case, the Avot's uniquely strong character traits were precisely those that had to be suppressed in order to carry out their most difficult missions.

Every person finds it easy to do good in some ways, according to the nature of their personality. But true spiritual greatness comes only when you are capable of overcoming your limitations, and do what is right even when it contradicts the inclinations of your character. This is where the Avot succeeded, and this is the ultimate goal that each of us should aspire to.

(Mostly taken from a shiur by R' Binyamin Tabory)

Thoughts on Toldot

Let's compare Yitzchak's command to Esav (27:3-4), to Rivkah's recounting of that command to Yaakov (27:7).

יצחק	לפי רבקה
ועתה שא נא כליך תליך וקשתך, וצא השדה, וצודה לי ציד.	הביאה לי ציד
ועשה לי מטעמים כאשר אהבתי	ועשה לי מטעמים
והביאה לי ואכלה	ואכלה
בעבור תברכך נפשי	ואברככה
	לפני ה'
בטרם אמות.	לפני מותי.

Rivkah's description is very accurate. Everything that Yitzchak said she repeats in more efficient language.

But there is also one thing she adds, which wasn't in Yitzchak's statement: the words "lifnei Hashem".

This change seems to reflect a deep misunderstanding between Yitzchak and Rivkah regarding the purpose of the blessing. Looking at the text of the blessing which Yitzchak thought he was giving to Esav, we see it is all about material success. The "consolation" blessing which Esav gets later is also about material success. In contrast, Yitzchak's blessing to Yaakov (28:3-4) speaks of Yaakov's receiving "the blessing of Avraham" - the spiritual inheritance which was passed down through the Avot and later through the Jewish people. Yitzchak never intended to bless Esav "before God". Both Esav and Yaakov were to be blessed, but only Yaakov's blessing was to be "before God".

Rivkah did not realize that this was Yitzchak's intention. She thought there would be only one blessing - which, by necessity, would be spiritual. And of course, only Yaakov could be the correct recipient for this blessing. Thus she inserted the words "lifnei Hashem" which Yitzchak had, in fact, purposefully refrained from using.

The misunderstanding between Yitzchak and Rivkah is part of a chain of events which resonates throughout Jewish history. Rivkah's misunderstanding led Yaakov to take Esav's blessing, which forced Yaakov to flee penniless to Haran, which allowed Lavan to trick Yaakov, which forced Yaakov to take two mutually antagonistic wives, which led to bitter conflict between Yaakov's children, which resulted in Yosef's sale to Egypt, which eventually caused the entire family to descend to Egypt and enter slavery.

I would like to extend this chain of causation in the other direction, back to God's promise to Avraham that "your offspring will be strangers in a land not theirs, and shall serve them..." (15:13) In the immediate aftermath of the Akedah (22:19) we hear that "Avraham" returns to Beer Sheva. Presumably Yitzchak is with him, but the lack of mention hints at a disconnect between them. Perhaps we may say that Yitzchak was permanently traumatized by the Akedah. Having his trust in his father so violently betrayed, he was unable to fully trust in anyone else for the rest of his life. The most notable consequence of this lack of trust was the misunderstanding over Yaakov and Esav's blessings.

If so, then we can trace the prophecy's inexorable progression through the generations, from Avraham's lifetime until its eventual fulfillment centuries later. While none of the characters involved could have realized what they were doing, in the end each of them contributed to the fulfillment of the Divine plan.

As Yosef says to his brothers, "You planned to do evil to me, yet God planned that it be for good, so that I might now save the lives of many people." (45:5) But even Yosef perceived only one small fraction of his contribution: the temporary escape from famine, but not the eventual enslavement and redemption which would follow from his descending to Egypt.

This is the book of generations of man: When God created man, He made him in the image of God. Male and female he made them, and he called them Adam/Mankind when He created them. Adam lived 130 years... [begin genealogy] (Breishit 5:1-3)

These are the generations of Yitzchak son of Avraham; Avraham begot Yitzchak. Yitzchak was 40 years old when he took Rivkah - daughter of Betuel the Aramean from Padan-Aram, sister of Lavan the Aramean - as his wife. Yitzchak entreated Hashem regarding his wife, since she was barren... (25:19-21)

What do these two selections have in common? 1) They are both "These-are-the-generations" formulas, indicating of the beginning of two of the sections of Sefer Breishit. 2) They both include a couple lines of background information, well-known from the previous stories, before the "real" story.

It seems that each "generations" section is intended to be self-contained. Therefore, each section begins with a brief summary of the necessary background information - the creation of man, and the marriage of Yitzchak and Rivkah, respectively. Perhaps you have read the preceding chapters and know this information already. But stylistically, in order to make clear that it is distinct from the other sections, each section assumes that perhaps you haven't.

These are the generations of Yitzchak son of Avraham; Avraham begot Yitzchak. (25:19)

Why must Avraham be mentioned (twice!) as Yitzchak's father? I think this is because - contrary to all expectations, due to Avraham's importance to the story - there is no section of Sefer Breishit entitled "These are the generations of Avraham". To account for this "gap" in the section headers, Avraham is mentioned in the headers of his sons - Yitzchak here, and Yishmael in 25:12. (Other than Yishmael and Yitzchak, no person's "generations" in Sefer Breishit mention their father.)

Yitzchak brought her to the tent of Sarah his mother. He took Rivkah and she became his wife, and Yitzchak was comforted after his mother['s death]. (24:67)
Rivkah took the best clothes of Esav her older son, which were with her in the house, and dressed Yaakov her younger son. (27:15)

When she first married Yitzchak, Rivkah was living in a tent, like Avraham and Sarah had. But by the time Yitzchak grew old enough to bless his kids, she was now living in a house.

If we look throughout Sefer Breishit, the term "house of" is used many times to refer to a person's family. But as far as I know, verse 27:15 is the only time when it is used regarding a physical structure. Sefer Breishit mentions over and over that Avraham and Yaakov were living in tents. Here we see that, by the end of his life, Yitzchak was living in a not a tent but a house.

As R' Amnon Bazak explains in an incredible article, Yitzchak succeeded in several ways in which Avraham (and Yaakov) did not. One of these areas was in asserting his connection and right to the land of Israel. We see this in the fact that Yitzchak does not offer to divide the land with someone else (i.e. Lot), nor does he make a covenant with the land's non-Jewish inhabitants (i.e. Avimelech). We see further evidence here, where instead of moving from tent to tent like a nomad, Yitzchak builds an immovable and permanent "house" which demonstrates the strength of his connection to the land.

News flash!!

The King of Spain told Hugo Chavez to shut up.

In other news, Vladimir Putin started crying after another head-of-state called him a "poopy-head".

Well, actually, I'm making that second one up. But not the first one. You'd think that the world's most influential politicians would have better things to do than hurl playground insults at each other. And the media would have better things to do than to breathlessly report it.

Blood money

Correlation does not *necessarily* indicate causation... but the correlation here is simply incredible.

Thoughts on Chayei Sarah

In the story in which Rivkah comes to marry Yitzchak, Avraham's servant (whom I'll call Eliezer) tells Rivkah's family about how he met Rivkah that day. Even though the Torah has just told us how it happened, it nevertheless gives us the entire text of Eliezer's explanation - telling us the exact same story, almost word-for-word, all over again.

There are a number of minor, incidental differences between the original story and Eliezer's retelling: changes in word choice and order, omission of irrelevant background information, and so on. Here are two differences that seem, in my mind, to be significant.

1) In the original story, Avraham tells Eliezer to go "to my land and heritage" to find Yitzchak a wife. In Eliezer's retelling, Avraham tells him to go "to my father's house and family".
2) In the original story, Eliezer gives Rivkah jewelry and then asks which family she belongs to. In his recounting, he mentions asking about her family, and only then mentions giving her jewelry.

These two difference apparently have the same cause. From Avraham's instructions, Eliezer did not conclude that Yitzchak's future wife had to be from any particular family. Avraham had only mentioned "my land and heritage" after all; literally, this criteria would be met by any woman in Haran. Indeed, upon arriving in Haran Eliezer made no effort to seek out the "Nachor family", which shouldn't have been hard, but rather went straight to the well to find a woman with good character traits.

But in the end, it "just so happened" that the woman was from Avraham's extended family. Eliezer must have realized that this was how God, and perhaps Avraham, had intended it the entire time. Thus he rephrased Avraham's statement to explicitly mention the woman's family.

Similarly, Eliezer had given Rivkah jewelry as soon as she had watered his camels. As far as he was concerned, the test was over and she had passed. All that was left was to convince her and her family that the marriage should take place, and the jewelry gift was part of that. But once she told him the family name, he realized there was more to the story. In the end, the destined wife was the woman who watered the camels AND who was from Avraham's family. In Eliezer's retelling, he does not give the jewelry until learning that both these conditions are fulfilled.

We need not say that Eliezer intentionally lied in either instance. On one hand, given his excitement at the miracle which had just occurred, he could have stumbled in his speech or erroneously remembered what the plan had been before the excitement began. On the other hand, Avraham's instructions might have alluded to the family (why should Eliezer look for a wife in Haran, but nowhere else, if the reason is the Canaanites' evil?). And regarding the jewelry giving, we should remember that Biblical narratives are often arranged partly thematically and partly chronologically, so Eliezer's speech could simply mean that he now saw the jewelry giving as a consequence of Rivkah's family identity.

Now, a third difference between the accounts which I think matters.

3) In the original story, Avraham release Eliezer from his oath in the case that "the woman does not desire to follow you". In Eliezer's retelling, the case is rather that "they [the family] do not give [the woman] to you".

It seems that Eliezer is just being polite here. He is discussing Rivkah's future with her family. Since they seem to be in charge of deciding whom she'll marry, Eliezer credits them with the ability to prevent her from going.

And yet, in the end Rivkah *is* asked whether she wants the marriage. Thus Avraham's statement, implying that the decision will depend on her, turns out to be correct. This is similar to Avraham's hint that the wife will come from his own family, which also turns out to be correct.

It's not obvious from a superficial reading, but in addition to his other qualities, Avraham appears to have been a pretty impressive prophet!