SO JOSEPH WENT UP TO BURY HIS

OF HIS COURT AND ALL OF EGYPT'S DIGNITARIES

(Bereishit 50: 7)

And with him went up – in his honor, so that he would not go by himself – This comes to

teach us that although Pharaoh's officials did not intend to honor the dead, it

is accounted to their merit as if they had. We similarly explained the honor

done by crying over the dead. Even though [the mourner] cries over his own

suffering, in any case it is counted as an honor to the dead and as the fulfillment

of a mitzvah. All of the details of the funeral, even walking behind the

casket, are things one does to fulfill one's own needs, but none the less we

receive a reward [from God] for accompanying the dead. After all, in any event

one has honored the dead; it is an example of a mitzvah performed with

imperfect intention, and such an act is still considered as the performance of

a mitzvah. All the more so in regard to an act of kindness, for which it is of

no consequence whether or not one thinks of oneself as performing a mitzvah. Rather,

all acts of kindness are meritorious, including walking behind the casket, since

in any case, it honors the dead, and is credited to the walker.

(HaEmek Davar and Harhev

Davar Bereishit 3: 7)

Our Father Jacob Did Not Die

Pinchas Leiser

Like

parashat Hayyei Sarah, parashat VaYechi describes the final days of our father

Jacob. After Jacob has taken leave of his sons and blessed them, the Torah

tells us about Jacob's death n these words: When Jacob finished his

last, he was gathered to his people. (49: 33) Rashi reads the verse

precisely and notes that no mention is made of Jacob actually dying. He

writes:

Breathing

his last, he was gathered to his people – but it does not say he died. Our rabbis of blessed memory said: "Our

father Jacob did not die."

Rashi's

comment is based upon an aggadic passage from the Talmud (Ta'anit 5b):

This

is what Rabbi Yohanan said: "Our father Jacob did not die." [They]

said to him: "Could it be that in vain they eulogized him, embalmed him,

and buried him? He answered: I learn this from a biblical verse, for it says (Jeremiah 30: 10) But you, have no fear, My servant Jacob – declares the Lord – be

the land of their captivity. We learn about him from his offspring. If his

offspring will be alive – then he also will be alive.

Other exegetes

grappled with this complex issue, among them the RaMBaN [following the Chavel

translation]:

Breathing

his last, he was gathered to his people. – but it does not say he died. Our rabbis of blessed memory said: "Our

father Jacob did not die." This is the language of Rashi. Now according to

this opinion of our Rabbis, the difficulty arises: Now Jacob applied the term "death"

to himself, as it is written (48: 21), Behold, I die, but God shall be with

you! Now perhaps he did not come to know it himself, or it may be that he

did not wish to pay honor to himself. Similarly, with respect to the verse (50:15),

And when Joseph's brothers saw that their father was dead, we must say

that to them he was dead, or it may be that they did not know all of this.

Now

the purport of this midrash [which states that, "Our father Jacob did not

die"], is that the souls of the righteous are bound in the bind of life

with the Eternal (I Samuel 25: 29), and his soul covers him all the day (Devarim

33:12), "wearing a scarlet

garment" [that drapes the soul after leaving the body after death] so that

it not be stripped naked, as Jacob's [soul was privileged to do continually],

or which it dons at certain occasions [as do the souls of lesser individuals]. This

whole matter will be understood in the light of what is told in the tractates

Shabbat (152b) and Ketubot (103a).

The

RaMBaN here attempts to work out the tensions between the plain meaning of the

biblical text and the midrash brought in by Rashi. His guiding assumption is

that "Scripture never escapes its literal meaning," and so, the plain

meaning of scripture must agree with worldly, concrete reality. Every human

being, regardless of religion, race, gender, or spiritual station, will

eventually succumb to physical death. That was just as true of our father Jacob

as it was of Moses our rabbi. Any attempt to "communicate with the dead"

is essentially idolatrous, making it necessary to insist on a clear distinction

between peshat [plain meaning] and derash [midrashic

extrapolation] regarding such issues.

The

RaMBaN briefly explains his understanding of the midrashic statement, "Jacob

did not die," using the expression bound in the bind of life and

pointing us towards the broader discussions to be found in the Talmudic

tractates Shabbat and Ketubot. Maimonides also makes use of the expression bound

in the bind of life in his description of the Next World, which constitutes

the sublime spiritual reward received by God's servants (Mishneh Torah, Teshuva 8).

Talmudic

source-texts, including those cited by RaMBaN, may enlighten us regarding the

distinction made by the Sages between bodily death and spiritual survival. However,

it seems to me that the passage from the tractate Ta'anit from which Rashi

draws his midrashic statement adds an additional and interesting stratum to our

discussion. It is clear that Rabbi Yohanan knew that, in the manner of all

humans, our father Jacob died a physical death many years ago. Therefore, let

us read his words with precision: "I learn [doresh, produce a

midrash about] this from a biblical verse…We learn about him from his

offspring" – one of the possible expressions of a person's eternal survival

is through his offspring who continue his heritage.

In

this connection, one might also mention Rashi's concise and apposite comments on

the beginning of the first mishnah of Perek Helek, which reads, "All

of Israel have a place in the world to come – those that do not have a place

there [include] one who says, 'There is no mention of resurrection in the

Torah.'" Rashi explains: "One who denies the midrashim."

One

who denies the midrashim sees life and scripture only in literal, concrete

terms. Such a view is both limited and limiting, making our lives finite. In contrast,

one who recognizes the authority of midrashim opens up many opportunities both

in Torah study as well as in perceiving life's additional dimensions.

In my

opinion, this is also true of our father Jacob's continuation in every

generation. The "midrashic" Jacob, whose souls is bound in the

bind of life (as RaMBaN applied the phrase) continues to live and develop

through us. Sometimes we may feel that our existence is devoid of hope. At

times, we ask ourselves hard questions about the future of the project of the

Jewish People's rebirth in its land. The "midrash" teaches us to see

reality not only as it appears to us through the eyes of "plain meaning,"

but also to see reality as it can and should be.

Pinchas Leiser, the editor of Shabbat

Shalom, is a psychologist.

The "Sword" Which Destroys the World Needs to be Distanced

and Scattered

Their weapons[mekhoroteihem]

are tools of lawlessness (Bereishit

49:5). In Greek this means "their

ruins." Jacob said: If these two tribes live together as one they shall

destroy the world, so I will scatter them (as it is written): I will divide

them in Jacob, scatter them in Israel

(49: 7)

(Midrash Aggadat

Bereishit 83)

How is Levi Different from Pinchas? The Dangers of Zeal

And behold, Levi and Pinchas

were both zealous against fornication, and risked their lives fighting it. As a

result, Pinchas rose to high station, while Levi was chastised by his father. Many

additional instances [of inconsistent reactions to zeal] have occurred. That is

why we read in Pirkei Avot: "An ignoramus is not pious." Great

precision of thought is required in order to properly weigh the appropriateness

of an action at a particular time and in a particular place, sometimes

requiring the consideration of Torah principles whose application is ambiguous

[And of Levi he said] Let

your Thummim and Urim be with your pious. (Devarim33:8): The piety of performing mitzvot with

devotion in order to preserve faith in God and His covenant among the masses

requires great cautiousness. That is why Moses mentioned Urim [literally:

lights] in his blessing so that the light of the true Torah prepare them for

this piety, that they direct themselves in the straight path and avoid strange

acts that are not in accordance with the words of the Torah.

(HaEmek Davar, as

quoted in Nehamah Leibowitz's Iyyunim beSefer Bereishit pg. 390)

Foe and Spoils: Even in War There is

Necessary and Unnecessary Violence

In the morning he consumes

the foe [Hebrew: la'ad], and in the evening he divides the spoils [shalal]… and anything which is necessary for a

person, that is, what he needs to consume to break the hunger of his household,

is something given cheerfully and he shall not want bread la'ad

his own consumption will eventually be left to others and divided among them – perhaps

to his widow's new husband – while he is denied [meshulal] and distanced

from those luxuries given him in the evening. That is why it says In

the morning [he consumes his foe], speaking of the thing given him

cheerfully, of which he consumes only his fill and which is given to him

forever. Even though la'ad also refers to spoils, the term la'ad was

used in order to imply eternity. And in the evening uses the term shalal

in the sense of removal, as in the verse the axe-head flies off [ve'nashal

habarzel] the handle (Devarim 19:5), in the sense of negation and casting off.

This matter (In the morning