Parashat Hashavu'a Chat #5 - Vayechi 5772 – Conversation in V'dibarta Bam

msh210

Jan 4, 2012 17:19

Hi, @IsaacMoses, @ShmuelBrill, @jake, @ZeevFelsen!

Isaac Moses

@msh210 Hi! Parashat Hashavu'a Chat will begin in about 10 minutes, but if anyone wants to start throwing out topics now, feel free.

Ze'ev Felsen

@msh210 Hi

jake

@msh210 Hey.

msh210

@IsaacMoses Okay, here's one: e-daf.com/index.asp?ID=1363&size=1: Rav Yitzchak said, "Rabi Yochanan said, 'Yaakov avinu did not die'". Rav Nachman said, "Did the eulogizers (?) eulogize him, and the embalmers embalm him, and the buriers (?) bury him, all for nothing?". He replied, "I'm doresh a pasuk, 'fear not my servant Jacob... your offspring...': it compares him to his offspring: just as they're alive, so is he".

@msh210 Okay, you're doresh a pasuk. That doesn't answer Rav Nachman's objection!

jake

:2888140, I can't believe you brought this up! It was going to be my first topic to mention!

msh210

Jan 4, 2012 17:30

@Alex, hi!

Alex

Hello

Shmuel Brill

@msh210 there is a famous sicha on that question

Alex

@ShmuelBrill I'm actually trying to find it now

msh210

I mean Rashi addresses it: he says "the embalmers thought he was dead".

Shmuel Brill

sichosinenglish.org/books/beacons-on-the-talmud-sea/14.htm

jake

Jan 4, 2012 17:32

@msh210 Now that I have Abarbanel open here, I see he discusses it as well. Let me read it quickly.

msh210

@jake @ShmuelBrill Great

Isaac Moses

Begin Parashat Hashavu'a Chat #5 - Vayechi 5772

Sorry for the delay

msh210

@msh210 ... which leaves much unanswered

Isaac Moses

Also, I forgot to bring my R' Hirsch today.

msh210

@IsaacMoses Yes, and I was planning to bring Tol'dos Yitzchak (R' Yitzchak Karo) and forgot also.

Isaac Moses

Jan 4, 2012 17:35

@msh210 Neither omission is fatal.

Alex

@msh210 Per that sicha that @ShmuelBrill found, that's just it: from their POV he was indeed dead, and needed to be embalmed and buried; that has validity according to Torah too. But on a higher level - the one represented in the verse that R. Yitzchak cites - he is indeed still alive.

Isaac Moses

@Alex "A higher level" that doesn't include the body?

msh210

@Alex Yeah... I'm still in the middle of it.

Alex

@IsaacMoses The expression there is "his true being (which applies also to his bodily existence)." So primarily it seems to apply on a spiritual level, but it also is true in a certain sense bodily (the Rebbe used to also mention in this connection the story in Kesubos, where R. Yehudah Hanassi would come and recite kiddush for his family after his death).

So maybe Yaakov is like Schroedinger's cat: both alive and not-alive at the same time!

Isaac Moses

@Alex So they embalmed a body which was actually alive?

jake

Jan 4, 2012 17:39

@msh210 ,Okay. According to Abarbanel, R' Yochanan is saying that the name "yaakov" (and "yisrael") never died, since it lives on in that his descendants are called by his name. In this, he is explaining why the Torah never actually says "Yaakov died" like it says by the other Avos; since we are not called by the name of Avraham or Yitzchak, but rather by Yaakov's name.

Isaac Moses

@jake Does he employ the concept of "a community doesn't die"?

jake

Just to be clear, though, Yaakov himself did die.

@IsaacMoses Don't think so. Just that "his name lives on".

msh210

@jake The g'mara says "Yaakov avinu lo mes" (emphasis added, of course)

jake

@msh210 Your point...

Alex

@IsaacMoses It was alive only on a level which they couldn't perceive and therefore was irrelevant to them. Same way as halachah deals with what we perceive with our senses, even if scientifically it's inaccurate (as with microscopic bugs, etc.)

msh210

Jan 4, 2012 17:41

@jake He's saying "Yaakov did not die" means "the Jewish people did not die"?

Isaac Moses

@IsaacMoses R' Hirsch employs that concept to explain why only a minyan can say, e.g. in Barechu - "May H' the Blessed be blessed for ever and ever" An individual can't guarantee that people will keep blessing God "forever," but a community (represented by the minyan) can.

Alex

@msh210 Considering that the prooftext is "zar'o bachayim," that would seem to be an obvious way to understand it.

@IsaacMoses Nice! That's in his commentary on the siddur, I guess?

Isaac Moses

@Alex Yes.

msh210

@Alex except that it says "avinu"

jake

@msh210 , First, you might be interested to know that when Abarbanel quotes the gemara, he leaves out the word "avinu". But even still, I think you misunderstood. The idea is not that the nation lives on, but that Yaakov lives on through having his descendants called by his name.

msh210

Jan 4, 2012 17:44

@jake Ah, okay, that makes sense. Thank you

jake

If I may switch topics...

Isaac Moses

@jake So the nation somehow embodies Yaakov? Or it's just strictly talking about the name? I think we have to be talking about the nation here, since there are plenty of individuals named Avraham and Yitzchak.

Alex

@jake That actually would make sense even if he did have the word "avinu" in his text. Calling him "Yaakov Avinu" rather than plain "Yaakov" itself implies that we're looking at him more as our forefather than as an individual.

msh210

@jake Of course.

jake

@Alex , Yes, as I noted above.

Shmuel Brill

Jan 4, 2012 17:46

There is another sicha where the Rebbe asks the same question with regards to Moshe (about whom it says in the Gemara "Moshe lo Meis")

jake

Sorry, that was directed to @Alex

Isaac Moses

@IsaacMoses ... and the fact that the nation is named for him is either the mechanism by which he lives on through it or a representation of the embodiment.

msh210

@ShmuelBrill Hm, that quote is less popular...

jake

@IsaacMoses Not that people are named after him. People are named after Nimrod too. Rather that the nation in its entirety is called by his name,.

Isaac Moses

@jake (fixed it for you. You can't have punctuation right after the ":###")

jake

Jan 4, 2012 17:47

@IsaacMoses Yeah, I figured.

Alex

@msh210 Well, it is only a "yesh omrim" in the Gemara - and anyway, they still have to deal with the fact that the Torah actually says "vayamas sham Moshe," unlike with Yaakov

msh210

@ShmuelBrill It says "Likkutei Sichos, Shabbos Parshas Vayechi, 5751". Any idea whether it's in Yiddish or Hebrew?

jake

New topic: In this parsha, I think we find our first explicit reference to an angel. ("Hamalach hagoel...")

I think

Shmuel Brill

He answers that the difference between Moshe (and Yaakov) to other Tzaddikim (about whom it says "they are found in all the worlds") is that Moshe (and Yaakov) represent "truth". Therefore (unlike other Tzaddikim), they continue affecting the physical world in a physical way.

Isaac Moses

@jake As opposed to previous uses of the word "Mal-ach," which could just mean messenger?

Alex

Jan 4, 2012 17:50

@msh210 Hebrew. (It's in vol. 35, pp. 223ff.)

jake

Anyhow, how can Yaakov say that the angel should bless Efraim and Menashe. Do angels have the power to bless people?

@IsaacMoses Yes.

msh210

@Alex Many thanks.

Alex

@jake They can be even called by Hashem's name, as in "vayera elav Hashem" according to someone (I forget who)

Shmuel Brill

@Alex I think I saw it in Torah Or (from the Alter Rebbe)

jake

@Alex Perhaps.

Alex

Jan 4, 2012 17:52

Found it: Rashbam to that verse. (He also mentions the burning bush, where it starts by saying that Moshe saw "malach Hashem" and then continues with him talking directly with Hashem.)

Isaac Moses

@jake We see that people have the power to bless people (and angels, depending on how you see the "man" Yaakov fought with)

jake

But (1) Like above, how can the angel bless people, and (2) what's the deal with this angel that protects Yaakov. Not Hashem Himself?

Isaac Moses

@jake Indeed. Praying to angels was supposed to be a step in the downfall of Man toward avoda zara in the early generations.

jake

@IsaacMoses I understand people's blessings as prayers to God that He bless them. But angels praying to God is uncomfortable for me to accept.

Isaac Moses

Hi, @joshwaxman!

josh waxman

Jan 4, 2012 17:55

hi

Isaac Moses

... and I forgot to post the resources link this time! parsha.blogspot.com/2011/12/vaychi-sources-2012-edition.html

jake

Another problem: Is Yaakov praying to the Angel by asking that the angel bless his grandchildren?

Alex

@jake That itself is a whole discussion among the posekim, about tefillos where we address malachim, or Hashem's middos, or whatever (there've been a couple of J.SE discussions on this)

jake

@Alex True. Maybe we should discuss a lighter topic.

Alex

...where one explanation is that we're simply asking them to serve as conduits for Hashem's blessing

Shmuel Brill

Jan 4, 2012 17:55

@Alex there it's us asking angels. Here it's angels asking Hashem.

msh210

@jake barech I suspect is a more general word than "bless (~=ask God for good stuff for someone)"...

josh waxman

one possible answer is that it is Angel

rather than angel

jake

@joshwaxman By that you mean...

Shmuel Brill

Angels are creations. Why can't they pray?

jake

@ShmuelBrill Rocks are creations too.

msh210

Jan 4, 2012 17:56

@joshwaxman en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Angel#German

josh waxman

one moment

Alex

@ShmuelBrill Huh? It sounds like Yaakov is asking the angel for a blessing (as jake is saying), not that he's asking the angel to pray to Hashem

josh waxman

meaning Hashem

jake

@Alex What is a blessing if not a prayer to Hashem?

Alex

@jake True.

Shmuel Brill

Jan 4, 2012 17:57

@Alex I though his question was how can an angel pray?

Not how could Yaakov ask.

josh waxman

this is not proof, but the Samaritans emend the test to Hamelech hagoel oti

jake

@joshwaxman Then why did he switch in the same sentence from calling him "HaElokim" to "Hamalach"?

msh210

@jake We also see barech used to mean "do good to, improve" or similar

jake

@msh210 I like.

josh waxman

poetic repetition; kefel inyan bemilim shonot

msh210

Jan 4, 2012 17:58

@msh210 as by Lavan (I'll try to find the pasuk bl"n)

josh waxman

here is what Shadal has to sayt

parsha.blogspot.com/2007/12/vayechi-hamelech-hagoel-oti.html

Alex

I see where Malbim actually breaks up the verse into two parts, with "hamalach hagoel osi" joined with the previous verse - Hashem has two ways of taking care of us, supernatural and natural - and then "yevarech" begins a new thought: may Hashem bless them by providing them both kinds of care.

josh waxman

"And the Samaritans emend it to: The King Who Redeems. And I initially would explain: The God, whose angel was the one who redeemed me from all harm."

jake

@joshwaxman Ooh, speaking of Shadal, would you mind taking a crack at this question? judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/12646/…

josh waxman

"And Rabbi S. Dubno explained: "The God" who is mentioned should send the redeeming angel, and this is farfetched."

very difficult to answer al regel achat. but bli neder, i'll give it a shot in the future

jake

Jan 4, 2012 18:01

@joshwaxman thanks.

Alex

@msh210 You mean "vayevarcheni Hashem biglalecha"? How's that any different than any other occurrence of "barech" in the Torah?

jake

@joshwaxman I like the "prayer to Hashem that the angel protect..." explanation.

Isaac Moses

@joshwaxman (To reply to a messsage, hover over the right edge of the message, and click on the arrow you find there. It helps people keep track of mi amar el mi.)

msh210

@msh210 he.wikisource.org/wiki/… and really anywhere we see Hashem "barech"ing someone, it can't mean "praying on behalf of".

josh waxman

@IsaacMoses got it. thanks

Alex

Jan 4, 2012 18:03

@msh210 OK, but when we say "baruch Hashem," it can't mean that we're "improving" Him either

msh210

@Alex True, there are discussions about what "baruch H'" or "baruch ata H'" means...

jake

@msh210 My understanding is in terms of my answer here.

msh210

So we have at least three meanings of the verb: to pray on behalf of; whatever it means in "baruch ata H'", and whatever it means when it says God "barech"ed someone

jake

@msh210 Yes, if I understand correctly.

msh210

@jake So whoever-it-was's question, above, "what does it mean for the angel to be praying to God?", might (conjecture) be based on a mistranslation... maybe whatever y'varech es han'arim means "should benefit the kids" (or whatever it means when we say God "baruch"s someone).

Isaac Moses

Jan 4, 2012 18:06

Want a new topic?

msh210

@IsaacMoses Sure.

@HachamGabriel, hi!

jake

@joshwaxman By the way, I don't like the idea of Hashem being called "malach". It implies His being subject to someone or something else.

@msh210 Yes, possibly.

Hacham Gabriel

@msh210 did I miss everything?

Isaac Moses

Do we ever see either immediately or later in history that the tribes whose blessings here included a good deal of criticism (Reuven, Shimon and Levi) resented that or otherwise reacted?

msh210

@jake He's also called melech (and en melech b'lo am) and av (subject to having kids) and....

josh waxman

Jan 4, 2012 18:08

@jake true; however, it depends on how literal one wants to be. sure, it means messenger. but it first came to mean 'celestial being'. enough for now

Isaac Moses

@msh210 These are ways in which we relate to Him. Do we relate to Him as a messenger?

msh210

@HachamGabriel No, just some. :-)

Alex

@IsaacMoses Someone (I don't know who) says that Reuven's impetuousness that Yaakov criticized also led to his jumping ahead to take a portion in Transjordan (which the Midrash criticizes as "nachalah mevuheles")

jake

@joshwaxman What do you mean by "first came to mean"

msh210

@IsaacMoses ... Did you mean "subservient", @jake?

jake

Jan 4, 2012 18:10

@msh210 Yeah, probably.

msh210

@Alex But that's further impetuousness, not a reaction to Yaakov's speech... right?

jake

@Alex Saw that in Abarbanel here also.

Alex

@msh210 Probably, but it might also be seen as something of a reaction: well, if I'm characterized as impetuous, I might as well continue along that path...

Isaac Moses

@Alex The former explanation seems more fitting to me, given that these blessings were prophetic characterizations of the essential natures of the tribes

Shmuel Brill

I don't get another concept. It says that Levi didn't carry Yaakov's coffin, as he would later carry the Aron. Then it also says that (one of the reasons) Levi wasn't enslaved was because Paaroh felt they were "special" as they were permitted not to carry the coffin. Because they weren't enslaved, they were the spiritual leaders of Bnei Yisrael in exile. If so, they had a stronger ability to withstand the pressure by the Eigel. Therefore, they became Hashem's servants, and carried the Aron.

Isaac Moses

Jan 4, 2012 18:13

It just seems to me that prophecy or not, someone, sometime, would take such a marked contrast in "blessing" style the wrong way.

Alex

@IsaacMoses True, but at the same time they were also prophecies of what they would do in the future (as with Dan's blessing referring to Shimshon).

jake

@IsaacMoses I agree. Not reactions, but more like Yaakov is hinting to future events.

Shmuel Brill

so what was the cause of what?

msh210

@ShmuelBrill Brilliant!

Alex

@ShmuelBrill In other words, you're saying that the cause and the effect seem to be backwards?

msh210

Jan 4, 2012 18:14

@Alex Circular.

Hacham Gabriel

I'm trying to catch up but I don't get what exactly the topic is...Can any fill me in?

jake

@ShmuelBrill What are you quoting when you say "it says"?

josh waxman

@jake language develops organically, over time. So malach means messenger. Then, it was often used to refer to messenger of Hashem (either angel or, according to Ralbag, prophet). And from messenger of Hashem, a power on high. And so, from there, any celestial force. And thus, Hashem. Here, by the way, is what we find in the Living Torah, from R' Aryeh Kaplan:

msh210

@HachamGabriel Parashas Vaychi. We've drifted from topic to topic within that general subject.

Alex

@jake Rashi quotes it to 50:13.

josh waxman

Jan 4, 2012 18:15

http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=1&CHAPTER=48
"sending an angel
(Saadia Gaon; Shmuel ben Chofni Gaon). Or, 'The angel who delivered me...' (Rashi; Abarbanel). Some say that the 'Angel' denotes God's providence (Shmuel ben Chofni Gaon; Ralbag; HaKethav VeHaKabbalah)."
Thus, according to Shmuel ben Chofni Gaon; Ralbag; HaKethav VeHaKabbalah, it means Angel with a capital A.

Hacham Gabriel

@msh210 I can tell :)

jake

@joshwaxman That makes sense. Before, I thought you were saying that "messenger" developed from "celestial force", which I thought was backward.

Isaac Moses

@joshwaxman ... and all of that evolution had happened by the time Yaakov was delivering his blessings.

josh waxman

@IsaacMoses right, because people were speaking Hebrew (or proto-Canaanite) for quite a while before. Sort of like how nefesh initially meant neck (see Akkadian; and see azay avar al nafsheinu hamayim hazeidonim) and then developed from there to life and life force, and from there to soul.

Alex

@ShmuelBrill They still had bechira, though. They had a leg up on everyone else, true, but they could have chosen to either (a) use their exemption from hard labor to laze around rather than studying Torah, or (b) get swept up like everyone else in the Eigel hysteria. (Knowledge of Torah doesn't necessarily prevent a person from being involved in avodah zarah, after all; see Yeravam and Menashe.) That they didn't made them worthy of getting what was destined for them all along.

@joshwaxman Interesting idea! That's somewhere on your blog, or where?

Isaac Moses

Jan 4, 2012 18:21

OFF-TOPIC: Anyone who hasn't is invited to participate in @ShmuelBrill's survey.

josh waxman

@Alex I don't recall if I've ever posted it. But nefesh as 'neck' is well known. The 'azay avar al nafshenu' and other such pesukim are obvious enough that most likely someone has said it. And perhaps we can add a support to shechita as being from the neck, as a sort of derasha from the related pesukim.

jake

New topic: Is there a midrash that the rest of the shevatim had their bodies brought to Israel to be buried as well as Yosef's at Yetzias Mitzraim?

msh210

@jake Yes. Okay, next topic. :-)

Seriously, yes, I'm pretty sure there is: I remember hearing it. I certainly don't know where, though.

josh waxman

@jake here is one such source, that they were indeed in the same coffin as Yosef: books.google.com/…

msh210

@joshwaxman That's odd... did they exhume him each time one of his brothers died?

jake

Jan 4, 2012 18:26

If so, why does the Torah specify that Moshe brought out Yosef's coffin specifically?

Alex

@joshwaxman Dunno where he gets that from, but yeah, Bereishis Rabbah 100:11 says that they did bring all of them up.

Isaac Moses

@jake One multi-exhumation after the last brother died would have been sufficient.

msh210

@jake ki hashbea hishbia? I mean, the Tora doesn't say Moshe took his wineflask out of Mitzrayim, either, but doubtless he did. The Tora lists what we need to know.

@IsaacMoses Sho nuff.

Alex

There's also someplace (maybe Sefer Hayashar) that actually lists where each of them was buried - each one is somewhere in his respective tribal territory - but I don't recall the details.

msh210

@Alex Levi?

Isaac Moses

Jan 4, 2012 18:30

End Parashat Hashavu'a Chat #5 - Vayechi 5772 But please feel free to keep chatting or to come here to chat about Parasha or anything else any time.

Alex

@msh210 Near one of the arei miklat. (Can't be in it - only murderers who died in exile are allowed to be buried there, Rambam says.)

Isaac Moses

Yeyasher kochachem to everyone for keeping it lively, informative, and interesting as always

msh210

@Alex And I guess Shim'on also would have to be in or near one of his cities. (He didn't have land except for cities, right?)

Isaac Moses

@msh210 Wasn't he supposed to be superimposed on Yehuda?

Alex

@msh210 I think some mefarshim say that he was granted the land surrounding the area of Yehudah where his cities were assigned (in other words, that it was one contiguous territory, just as an enclave within Yehudah).

msh210

Jan 4, 2012 18:32

@IsaacMoses I think he had cities within Y'huda's territory

@IsaacMoses ...but see what Alex just wrote. :-)

Alex

If not, then yeah, he could have been buried in one of his cities - there were no restrictions on those.

Isaac Moses

@msh210 So it was either in that sub-territory or somewhere in Yehuda generally.

Alex

Thanks, all, for a very interesting chat!

msh210

@IsaacMoses Yes, indeed.

Parashat Hashavu'a Chat #5 - Vayechi 5772

V'dibarta Bam

Participants