Rabbi Frand on Parshas Miketz
These divrei Torah were adapted from the hashkafa portion of Rabbi
Yissocher Frand's Commuter Chavrusah Tapes on the weekly Torah portion:
Tape # 77, Prohibitions During Times of Crises. Good Shabbos!
The Two Year Prison Extension: Theory of Relativity
Our Parsha begins with the words, "And it was two years later, and
Pharaoh dreamt that he was standing by the Nile" [Bereshis 41:1]. The
obvious question is: what happened during this two year interval? At the
end of last week's Parsha, Rash"i quotes a Medrash that tells us what
happened during this period.
Rash"i says that because Yosef put his trust in the Butler, by asking
the Butler to put in a good word for him with Pharaoh, Yosef was
punished. For the two words he spoke -- "u'zchartani, v'hotzaisani"
(and remember me and take me out), Yosef's stay in jail was extended
for two more years.
Rash"i alludes to a very enigmatic Medrash [M. Rabbah] at the beginning of
this week's Parsha. The Medrash says: "'Happy is the man who places his
trust in G-d...' [Tehillim 40:5] -- this refers to Yosef; '...and turned not
to the arrogant and to strayers after falsehood' [ibid.] -- whose sentence
in jail was extended for two years because of the two words he said to the
butler."
This Medrash contains an internal contradiction. At first it singles out
Yosef as the prime example of a person who places his trust in G-d.
Then it turns around and says, because he asked the butler to put in a
good word for him and did not trust G-d sufficiently, he was punished with
two extra years in jail.
Which way is it? Is Yosef the "Truster" par excellence, or is Yosef a
person who puts his trust in people?
There are two basic approaches used to answer this question. Rav Eliyahu
Lopian, the Beis HaLevi, and many others use the approach that Bitachon
[trust] is a relative concept. It depends on a person's level.
For instance, the Ramba"n states in Parshas Bechukosai that the Talmudic
teaching [Brochos 60a] which tells us that it is permitted to seek medical
treatment, and for doctors to practice medicine, based on the verse "and
he shall surely heal" [Shmos 21:19], is only a permission for "everyday
people." However, those individuals who live on such an exalted level
that they put all their trust in G-d, should not go to doctors. They can
(and perhaps should) rely on miracles. {Certainly, the Ramba"n says, a
normal person who conducts himself in all matters "based on the laws of
nature," must use a doctor.}
Similarly, we find in Brochos [35b] a disagreement between Rav Shimon
bar Yochai and Rav Yishmael regarding how a person should balance his
obligation to learn Torah with his need to support himself and his family.
Rav Yishmael says that a person should work, and set aside regular times
for learning Torah. Rav Shimeon bar Yochai says no: a person should sit
and learn, and G-d will send him a livelihood. The Talmud says that many
people followed the teaching of Rav Yishmael and were successful, and many
people followed the teaching of Rav Shimeon bar Yochai and were
unsuccessful. The level of Rav Shimeon bar Yochai was not appropriate for
the masses. There are individuals who are on that level, and for them
G-d will send them their livelihood - but this is not to be common practice.
Bitachon, say Rav Eliyahu Lopian, is a relative concept that depends on
the level of the individual. If one clings to G-d, does everything for
the Sake of Heaven, and is perfectly righteous, then it is true that G-d
will provide for him. G-d will take care of his sicknesses, and He will
feed and sustain him. The person will not have to make any human effort.
However, if one is a normal human being, not only is he allowed to
make an effort (hishtadlus) for his living and his health, but he is
obligated to make that effort.
This is the interpretation of the Medrash. "'Happy is the one who
places his trust in Hashem' -- this refers to Yosef." Yosef was of such
a stature that he put his entire trust in G-d. He was a Tzadik, who was
a pillar of the world. Therefore, commensurate with the type of person
he was, he was obligated not to make an effort. He should have remained
at his level of trusting in G-d alone and not seeking human intervention
(by the butler). For Yosef to step down from this level was in fact a
sin, says Rav Eliyahu Lopian, and so he was punished with two extra years
in jail.
The Two Year Prison Extension: Theory of Cause and Effect
There are, however, those who understand that the two year prison
extension was not a punishment. Yosef did no sin in asking for the
butler's intervention. The other approach to the above-quoted Medrash
is that what we have here can be called 'the natural consequences of
a person's actions.'
This means as follows: there was absolutely nothing wrong with Yosef
exerting effort by seeking human intervention to gain freedom. The
two extra years in prison were not a punishment. They were, however,
the natural consequence of his actions.
If one wants to conduct himself with G-d in a manner that rises above
nature (l'maale m'derech haTeva), and this is how the person always
conducts himself with G-d, then G-d will respond to him in the same way.
But if one lives his life according to the way of nature, then G-d's
response to him will also be according to the way of nature.
The Baal Shem Tov offers a beautiful parable to illustrate this concept.
It says in Tehillim [121:5] "G-d is your shadow next to your right
hand." The Baal Shem Tov explains the metaphor. When one raises his
hand, one's shadow raises its hand. When one jumps, the shadow jumps.
When one goes fast, the shadow goes fast. The relationship a person has
with G-d is like that of a shadow. However one conducts him/herself
with Him is reciprocal. That is how G-d will conduct Himself with the
person.
If one conducts himself in such a manner that he places all his trust in
G-d, there will be a reciprocal relationship -- that trust will be well
placed. But if one conducts himself through "normal channels," the
conduct of normal human beings, then that is how G-d will conduct
Himself with the person.
The reason Yosef had to spend the extra two years in jail was not a
punishment. Rather, by virtue of the fact that Yosef went through the
channels of normal human beings, and asked the Butler to intervene for
him with Pharaoh, G-d allowed nature to take its course. It is quite
natural that if one asks a person to do a favor, the person forgets
about the favor and remembers two years later.
The Key To Confession: No Buts
It says in the Parsha that Yosef told his brothers "If you are truthful
people, one of your brothers must remain here as a prisoner..." To
which the brothers respond among themselves, "Indeed (Aval) we are
guilty concerning our brother, inasmuch as we saw his heartfelt anguish
when he pleaded with us and we paid no heed; that is why this anguish
has come upon us." [Bereshis 42:19-21]
The usage of the word 'Aval,' over here, is somewhat troubling.
Literally the verse means "But, we are guilty." How does 'but' fit in
here? Rash"i quotes the Targum that, over here, the word 'Aval' does
not mean 'but', rather it means 'Indeed.' Rash"i then cites a Medrash
Rabbah that the interpretation is in fact 'but.' If so, our original
question returns, how does 'but' fit in this context?
We see that there are a number of connections between Yom Kippur and the
sale of Yosef. On Yom Kippur we read the narrative of the Ten Martyrs,
who were an atonement for the sale of Yosef. Furthermore, according to
Kabbalah, the reason we do not wear shoes on Yom Kippur is that Yosef's
brothers (according to the Medrash) took the money they received from
the sale of Yosef and bought shoes. Finally, the Ramba"m in Hilchos
Teshuva [2:8] defines the essence of Confession (Vidui) on Yom Kippur as
the recital of the formula "But we and our fathers have sinned" (Aval
anachnu v'avoseinu chatanu). These are almost the same words that we
have in our Parsha "But, we our guilty" (Aval ashemim anachnu).
We see that there is a link between the confession that we say on Yom
Kippur and the confession of Yosef's brothers. Beyond that, there is a
link between the whole incident of the sale of Yosef and the service of
Yom Kippur.
I saw a commentary who explained this homiletically as follows: The
brothers are saying "Our sin was 'aval' -- the word 'but.'" They said,
"We weren't maliciously trying to hurt Yosef." They felt that it was
self-defense. They thought Yosef was trying to kill them. They had all
sorts of calculations. Their crime was not one of malice, but of
rationalization.
"But... he's trying to get us." "But... father loves him more." But...
if we don't do something, this will be the end of us." "Our sin," the
brothers said, "stems from the fact that we said 'but.'" By saying
'but,' one can rationalize anything.
Rav Yitzchak Breuer says that there are three types of senses. There is
the animalistic feeling that a person has, there is the human feeling
that a person has, and there is a prophetic or profound feeling that a
person can have. If a person only has the first two senses, he can take
those urges and rationalize that anything is not only permissible but
that it is a mitzvah. A person needs, not only the human feeling, but
he also needs the prophetic vision to know whether this is really what
G-d wants of him.
This was the sin of the Yosef's brothers. 'But, we have sinned.' Our
sin came about because we did everything through rationalization. We
rationalized our jealousy and our hatred and the hidden feelings we had
toward him. We went ahead and put it in the guise of a mitzvah.
This is what we try to do on Yom Kippur. We state that we are not
people that are maliciously bad. We are not wicked or intentionally
evil. What then is the nature of our sin?
"Aval, it's too difficult to learn every night. But, it's too difficult
to give maa'ser. "But, but, but, but..." Ours are sins of 'but.' That
is why we read the incident of the Ten Martyrs. That is why we take off
our shoes. To remind ourselves that they sold him and took the money to
buy shoes... because with 'aval' one can rationalize anything. We take
off our shoes to remind ourselves what can happen when one lets
rationalizations take over.
Therefore, this is the text of our Confession -- but, we and our fathers
have sinned. We say 'but' too often. We rationalize everything. This
is the tikun we seek on Yom Kippur.
Vocabulary
Bitachon -- trust (in G-d)
Parnasah -- means of (earning a) living
Tzadik -- Righteous person
mussar classic -- literature focusing on perfecting human ethical and
spiritual behaviour
mitzvah -- a Divine command
ma'aser -- (giving) a tenth (of one's earnings to Charity)
tikun -- correction; improvement
Personalities & Sources:
Rav Eliyahu Lopian (1872-1970) author of Lev Eliyahu, a modern mussar
classic. Kelm, Etz Chaim Yeshiva (London), Kefar
Hasidim (Israel).
Beis HaLevi -- Rav Yosef Dov HaLevi Soloveitchik (1820-1892); Rosh
Yeshiva in Volozhin, Rav in Slutzk and Brisk.
Ramba"n -- Rav Moshe ben Nachman (1194-1270), Gerona, Spain and Israel.
Baal Shem Tov -- Rav Israel Baal Shem Tov (1698-1760), founder of the
modern Chassidic movement, Mezhibuzh.
Rash"i -- Rav Shlomo ben Yitzchak (1040-1105); Troyes and Worms, France.
Targum -- Authorized Aramaic translation of Torah by proselyte Onkelos
(around 90 C.E.)
Ramba"m -- Rav Moshe ben Maimon (1135-1204), Spain and Egypt.
Rav Yitzchak Breuer -- (1883-1946) Frankfurt, one of founders of Agudas
Yisrael.
This week's write-up is adapted from the hashkafa portion of Rabbi
Yissocher Frand's Commuter Chavrusah Torah Tapes on the weekly Torah
portion (#77). The corresponding halachic portion for this tape is:
Prohibitions During Times of Crises. The other halachic portions for
Miketz from the Commuter Chavrusah Series are:
Also Available: Mesorah / Artscroll has published a collection
of Rabbi Frand's essays. The book is entitled:
and is available through your local Hebrew book store or from
Judaica Express, 1-800-2-BOOKS-1.
