Conference : RabbiFohrman.com : Overall Discussion Board http://www.rabbifohrman.com/messages [b]Now, The Contrasts in Majesticalness [/b] The he-goat mating dream (Gen. 31:10-13) and the stairway dream (Gen. 28:12-15) have the form: Purely Visual Image + Verbal Message. Last week I pointed out some little noticed thematic connections between them, and since then I've noticed a number of contrasts that also seem to connect the dreams, but now as a pair of opposites -- a dream of very limited scope v. a dream of sweeping scope. (a) The talking character: An angel of God v. The Lord himself. (b) The extended name of God: God of a random place chosen by Yaakov ("God Bethel") v. God of patriarchs chosen by God ("God of Avraham and of Yitzhak"). (c) The Characters & their Activity: Irregularly-colored goats engaged in a biological function v. Flawless human-form individuals in stately procession and recession. (d) Beneficiaries: Yaakov (and his family) alone is being made better off in a private grievance with Lavan v. All families of earth are made better off (i.e., blessed). (e) Inheritance: Yaakov's wives question whether they have an inheritance left in the house of their father v. Land inheritance is promised to Yaakov radiating out from the spot he called House of God. (f) Reach into the Future: In the near future Yaakov is to return to the land of his birth v. In the wide-open future millions of Yaakov's descendants will be born on this land. (g) Time/Place Setting of Dream: Time when flocks conceive v. Place called House of God and Gate to Heaven. (h) Number of Directions (Indicative of Scope): One direction (ascend up on the flock) v. Six directions (up and down the stairway; north, south, east and west). (i) Chronological Placement of Dream and Directness of its Recounting: Yaakov tells his wives that he once had such a dream v. Dream presented as part of straightforward history. Maybe not relevant, but interesting - (j) Outside the Dreams (Genesis 31:7 & 41 and 28:22): Yaakov's receives (at any given time) one out of ten different wage rates v. Yaakov promises he will give a tenth of what he receives. [i]* Last updated by: DaleT on 7/7/2010 @ 4:36 PM *[/i] http://www.rabbifohrman.com/messagesmessages.cfm?threadid=36E9DA83-5056-B27F-3E1D98C94EA42AFD&r=1 2010-03-19T12:27:36-06:00 Does G-d Speak with us? Had Yaacov decided to leave after his 14 years were over, he would have left with nothing - financially -- as,at that point, everything belonged to Laban. How then would he have been able to support his family? This is a factor that significantly impacted on the morality of Yaacov's decision to stay on and work for Laban knowing full well who this man was. What further complicates matters from a moral perspective is that Laban was essentially stealing from his own children. This irony is depicted in pasuk 30:35. After Yaacov clearly set out the terms of his employment where he stated: "I will pass through all your flock today, removing from there every speckled and spotted one, and every dark one among the sheep, and the spotted and speckled among the goats: and of such shall be my hire." (32) we are told immediately following Laban's vague confirmation of this agreement: "And HE removed that day the he-goats, that were streaked and spotted, and all the she-goats that were speckled and spotted, every one that had white in it, and all the dark ones among the sheep and gave them into the hand of HIS sons." (35) Who is the "he" --is it Yaacov or Laban? And whose sons are these? Upon reading this for the first time, one would assume given Yaacov's previous setting of terms that it would be Yaacov doing this. But no, the next posuk makes clear that "And Yaacov fed (shepherded) the rest of Laban's flocks."(36) In this regard the "sons" referred to in posuk 35 are Laban's immediate sons. But Yaacov's sons are essentially Laban's sons as well (as Laban points out prior to the covenant later made between the two). The Torah, in this way connects both Laban's and Yaacov's sons through the use of this pronoun-related purposeful ambiguity. The same is done in regards to connecting Laban and Yaacov (but I'm not quite certain at this point what the significance of this is). My study partner also noted that contained within Laban's name are the words "le'ben" (for the son). In this regard Laban's name points us here in two directions. According to Yaacov's offer, Laban (meaning white) would be left with all the cattle that were completely white. In this way Laban's cattle are completely identified with their owner. But, further, the matter of inheritance emerges, as Rochel and Leah point out -- what do we leave to our children? Not only financially -- but in regards to moral and ethical lessons. Laban being the father and Yaacov and the others being the children creates a vertical relationship. Later, during the covenant segment, the Torah refers to them all as "brothers". The Torah places them on an even footing -- the relationship becomes horizontal. Also, Gilead (that marks the place where this covenant between Laban and Yaacov took place) emerges very significantly during the actual sale of Yosef. We are told that the Ishmaelite merchants' point of departure was Gilead. I believe it is at Gilead and in the actions that informed the relationship between Laban and Yaacov where Yehudah learned the lesson that it is ok to exploit a brother financially. This appears to be one of the lessons that Yehudah inherited from his fathers and which later impacted significantly on Israel's (tribe) destiny. http://www.rabbifohrman.com/messagesmessages.cfm?threadid=36E9DA83-5056-B27F-3E1D98C94EA42AFD&r=2 2010-03-18T06:54:30-06:00 Does G-d Speak with us? Dale, as always, I greatly appreciate your creativity. In regards, though, to equating the angels ascent and descent with the copulation of the he-goats in Yaacovs Haran dream, I dont think you make your case. Firstly, the word sulam is somewhat vague in meaning. Although the Davidson Lexicon does refer to its meaning as ladder, Koehler and Baumgartner translate it as "stepped ramp, flight of steps, and tower with steps. My friend Carla mentioned that in Biblical Hebrew it can also be seen as an edifice of sorts -- somewhat like a ziggurat. Hence Yaacovs naming this place Beth El (House of G-d). Modern Hebrew has expropriated this word to refer to a ladder. Also, I dont believe the symbolism centering on mans exertion in climbing a ladder works in regards to the ascent of the angels upon a series of stone steps. From what we know of angels, they are not human and, therefore, I dont think they would be exerting themselves physically in doing this. The word olim used in regards to the he-goats, is significant in that it lies in the outskirts of a small chiasm that frames Yaacovs hineni response (31: 10  12) , and that acts as a reiteration of what Yaacov, in fact, saw. If you notice, this word is also used in Pharoahs dream in regards to the bad cows. The matter of ascending certainly appears to be significant when placed in juxtaposition to the descriptive adjectives: speckled, streaked and grizzled. To my mind there is no question that the Torah is connecting these two dreams. For one, G-d Himself does so by introducing Himself as the G-d who appeared to Yaacov at that place and reminding him of his promises. Also, these two dreams are paralleled to each other within a broad chiasm that goes like this: A: Yaacovs ESCAPE from Esau and leaving of fathers house B: First Dream C: Fertility  children Centre: Yaacovs negotiations with Laban C: Fertility  livestock B: Second Dream A: Yaacovs ESCAPE from Laban and leaving his father-in-laws house We can also stretch out this chiasm further by placing it within the context of Yaacovs estrangement from his brother that took place at the time of his cheating him out of the first-born blessings and ending with a seeming reconciliation of sorts between Yaacov and Esau following his escape from Laban. Note also that Yaacovs essentially bought Esau off through the livestock which he acquired from Laban. So, what would be the connections between these two dreams? To begin with, there are obvious differences that exist between them. In regards to the first  it took place at night while Yaacov was sleeping. This first dream was essentially a night vision  and it resulted in leaving him in awe: Surely the Lord is in this place; and I KNEW IT NOT. And he was afraid and said: How full of awe is this place. (28: 16  17) The emphasis appears to be on the place itself which he perceived now as being awesome. That doesnt appear to be the case regarding his second dream. As well, this second one appears to be presented as a day vision of sorts that confirms what Yaacov is himself seeing. Note the wording in 31:10  12 which comprises a classic chiasm. The angel essentially reiterates Yaacovs words and confirms the action of the he-goats and their outcome as being divinely ordained. Yaacovs seeing is then juxtaposed with G-ds seeing  for I have seen all that Laban does to you. As well, the place in which the dream took place holds no awe or fear for Yaacov and he doesnt anoint it in any way. Rather, as a result of the second dream, Yaacov is left feeling angry and self-justified in asking his wives to leave their fathers home. Another difference is that in the first dream there are three hineis that appear in reference to a sulam; angels ascending and descending; and G-d standing near him (whatever that means). It is following this third hinei that G-d begins to communicate with Yaacov. I believe that when the Torah uses the word vehinei (behold) it means to bring us directly into the consciousness of the individual doing the beholding. Likewise, there are three hineis in Pharoahs dreams. In contrast,in Yaacovs Haran dream, there are no hineis and the dream itself is divided into two sections: confirmation of Yaacovs sight and a directive from G-d that it is time for him to move on. One can argue that the timing may also be either contingent upon or influenced by what Laban has done to Yaacov. So what connects these two dreams on an organic level? The ascent of the angels upon this edifice is, no doubt, a form of communication. Symbolically, Yaacov is obviously being informed that there is a bridge connecting the earth to the heaven - the physical realm with the spiritual. And this is a connection that appears to be ongoing  at least at that spot. Similarly, in this second dream, the material is also connected to the spiritual  the insinuation being that all these streaked, speckled and grizzled he-goats that are ascending upon the sheep have taken on those physical characteristics because I have seen all that Laban does to you. When G-d sees injustice, He acts -- as He did with Leah. Notice that the theme of sight asserts itself by the repetition of the word reeh three times within this chiasm, but also through the image of the streaked, etc. he-goats. This mixture of black and white takes on symbolic meaning given that the Torah might be trying to communicate through this the reality that post Eden there is no black or white but only streaks of such which abound in each of us  light found in darkness and vice versa (a mixture of good and evil). This plays itself out particularly in the Laban/Yaacov relationship. Both view their positions in very black and white terms. Yaacov knows Laban and what he is capable of doing  yet, he continues to work for him after his 14 years are over rather than leave. An assumption can be made that Yaacov possibly knew that using these kinds of rods would be a means of protecting him from Labans machinations and guile. He clearly sees himself as the victim and by continuing to work for Laban has essentially placed himself in a situation where he must rely on his own guile in order to succeed. G-d, though, assures Yaacov that it was not the sticks that brought on these results, but G-d Himself and that by doing so He essentially played along with Yaacovs choice to continue working for Laban. Laban, on the other hand, later argues rightly that all Yaacov owns in regards to wives, children and livestock is essentially his  as Yaacov would have none of this if it hadnt been for him. The word "natan" to give, occurs 7 times in the Yaacov/Laban negotiation sequence which marks the centre of this broad chiasm. Perhaps it was this reality -- the ascension of the speckled over the white that was being communicated to Yaacov  as a means of characterizing the earthly realm and Yaacov's precarious position within it if not for G-d's aid? As well, the issue of place may also hold some significance. What G-d communicates to Yaacov is that now is the time for him to move on  to change places. G-d is revealing Himself to be a G-d who keeps his promises, now Yaacov must prove himself to be one who keeps his  and return to the land of his nativity and to his fathers house. In this way and in others, this narrative can perhaps be viewed as another creation story. http://www.rabbifohrman.com/messagesmessages.cfm?threadid=36E9DA83-5056-B27F-3E1D98C94EA42AFD&r=3 2010-03-17T08:20:08-06:00 Does G-d Speak with us? [b]A majestic dream, treated roughly[/b] What is the meaning of Yaakov's dream of an angel commenting on parti-colored goats going up on the flock? (Gen. 31:10-13) It seems to be assurance to Yaakov from God that the offspring of the flock's copulations will be parti-colored and so they will belong to Yaakov (rather than Laban). The angel delivers a message at the end of the dream -- "I am God of Bethel where you anointed a pillar and made a vow" --which points to the time and place of Yaakov's earlier dream about the stairway to heaven with angels ascending and descending on it (Gen. 28:13-15) One thing that the majesty of the stairway dream does is distract us from the dim awareness that we don't know what that dream means. But, based on that allusion in the mating goats dream to the time and place of the stairway dream, I think there is going to be a connection between the two dreams, and possibly a connection so close that they give us another instance of a dream pair. I wondered if the elements of the stairway dream's imagery were correlated with the parts of the Lord's message that followed the imagery. The message consisted of three parts: (1) The ground you are now on will be given to you and your seed. (2) You will have a great number of descendants. (3) I am with you (wherever you go) and will not leave you. What I noticed is that the verbal message interprets the imagery of the dream: (1) The stairway is set on the ground. (2) On the stairway which stretches off into the distant sky, angels are ascending and descending. (3) The Lord stood beside Yaakov. The correlations of the (1)'s and of the (3)'s are obvious, and the image of millions of angels correlates with the eventual millions of Yaakov's descendants. That leaves the stairway itself to be explained, as well as the angels' motions of ascending & descending. The angels are [b]ascending[/b]and descending on the stairway. Notice that in the mating goats dream that the goats [b]go up on[/b] (i.e., mount) the flock - the word is [i]ascend[/i], as in [i]ascending[/i]. Think of the stairway as a flock of steps, and the activity of the angels on it as symbolic of the activity the mating goats are engaged in. The stairway symbolizes copulation, as is obviously required to produce the millions of progeny promised to Yaakov. So there is a little more meaning to be extracted from the image of the stairway's being [i]set on the ground[/i] than I've said above; it does more than point out the promised land by touching it. That endless stairway, symbol of copulation, is set on the land that is promised to Yaakov and his seed; that is to say, without symbols, it will be on that land that Yaakov's progeny will produce more progeny for him. Of course, to possess the land forever there must be an endlessly reproducing population on the land. Freud rediscovered that a stairway is a symbol for copulation and explained the symbolism as being based on the breathlessness experienced on mounting a long flight of stairs. It seems that the author of Genesis was aware of the symbolism. The two dreams share a large theme and might count as a dream pair. The copulations explicitly depicted in the mating goats dream and symbolized in the stairway dream produce offspring that belong to Yaakov. [i]* Last updated by: DaleT on 3/11/2010 @ 6:31 AM *[/i] http://www.rabbifohrman.com/messagesmessages.cfm?threadid=36E9DA83-5056-B27F-3E1D98C94EA42AFD&r=4 2010-03-10T15:09:53-06:00 Does G-d Speak with us? It must indeed be very difficult to determine if a dream is a) prophetic and b) whether you are interpreting it correctly. These dreams that Pharoah and previously, the baker and butler had are unusual in that the text doesn't tell us that G-d sent these dreams to them. There are two other occasions when individuals had visitations from G-d through dreams (other than the Patriarchs) and that was Abimelech and Laban. On both occasions the Torah tells us straight out that this was happening. In neither of those occasions were these dreams prophetic. They were rather warnings to both parties that what they were doing or going to do would not be tolerated by G-d. Here, we have dreams that are being interpreted to the interpreter. Pharoah is qualifying these dreams by conveying his own personal responses to them. Yosef was able to determine that they were prophetic dreams and not simply dreams that represented Pharoah's emotional or psychological frame of mind. How did he know that? Also, how did Pharoah know that these dreams were so significant? In regards to Pharoah -- I'm only guessing -- but I'm assuming that these must have been dreams that were way out of the ordinary for him. Unlike the butler and the baker who were deeply concerned about their fate -- why should Pharoah have been so concerned? Therefore, these dreams must have literally come out of nowhere. And, moreso, they came on his birthday. They literally must have frightened him to the core. Being Pharoah, as well, his reference to Egypt, appears to indicate that on some subliminal level, he connected the welfare of Egypt with these dreams. So, how did Yosef know that they were prophetic? I had pointed out a while back an interpretation that I had read somewhere that suggested that his original dreams could possibly have alerted him to the prophetic nature of these kinds of dreams (e.g. the doubling, etc.) If we apply the same interpretive rules to Yosef's original dreams, we have the following. Dream #1: brothers' sheaves bowing to Yosef's sheave. How many sheaves are there? The assumption is either 10 or 11 -- 10 brothers or 11 brothers (does this include Binyamin's sheave?) Interestingly, there are no numbers given. Let's assume there are 11. So we have 11 X 1 (Yosef's sheave which is distinguished). 11 sheaves = 11 years. Dream #2: 11 stars plus 1 sun and 1 moon bowing to Yosef. The sun and the moon are larger than the stars and are thus distinguished. 11 X 2 (sun and moon) = 22. What happened 11 years after Yosef had those dreams? At the age of 28, the butler and baker's dreams came up. What happened 22 years after those original dreams? The brothers came down to Egypt (and he possibly brought the family down to Egypt as well). Could the baker's and butler's dreams have alerted Yosef to the fact that these kinds of dreams are prophetic ones and there is a specific methodology to interpreting them? Once he determined that they were indeed prophetic, he possibly learned the methodology of their interpretation through these other dreams. Single items distinguished by amounts signify time -- and whether days or years are involved must be considered in context of the circumstances. His interpretations of the butler and baker's dreams had proven to be accurate. (I'm presuming that his interpretations were not directly responsible for their fates.) Also, the language used by Pharoah to convey the dreams appeared to be significant to both of them. There was not only one meaningful reference, but quite a number of them that were being conveyed to Yosef. Given the unusual circumstances of a Hebrew slave standing before Pharoah who was seeking his expertise -- that alone must have alerted him to the significance of the encounter and these dreams in regards to both Pharoah's and his fate. Why didn't G-d just appear to Yosef and tell him that Pharoah was to have a dream and this is what it meant? Was Yosef up to having a G-dly visitation? I don't believe G-d appeared to Yosef at all, so I'm assuming there was a reason for this. If G-d chose not to appear to him via a dream, then how else could He choose to communicate with Yosef? It seems to me only through these kinds of inferences that were extremely meaningful to Yosef. How does G-d choose to speak with any of us? What is the nature of inspiration? When are we certain that thoughts or ideas come from G-d or merely from a higher source within ourselves? Is it possible to be certain? [i]* Last updated by: machla on 3/17/2010 @ 8:28 AM *[/i] http://www.rabbifohrman.com/messagesmessages.cfm?threadid=36E9DA83-5056-B27F-3E1D98C94EA42AFD&r=5 2010-03-09T21:19:10-06:00 Does G-d Speak with us? [b]Can there be a method that interprets dreams as predictions which turn out to be true?[/b] When it comes to interpreting dreams as predictions about what will what will happen in the world outside of our personal psychology, I don't see how any interpretation method can arrive at a true prediction unless -- 1) it's by luck, or 2) God explicitly tells the interpreter how to proceed with the dream (in which case, as far as the interpreter's abilities are concerned, God might just as well announce the prediction in plain language), or 3) God takes into account the interpreter's inclinations (including any crazy or baseless scheme of interpretation that might be used) to devise a dream that will cause the interpreter to think up and settle on the prediction that God intended to convey, or 4) God takes the prediction I "derive" or invent from the dream and arranges for that prediction to come true. So, faced with a dream that I think might be a prediction, I'm always going to be unsure about the truth of any interpretation I come up with. I don't think I'm going to be able to distinguish explicit instructions from God from some product of my vivid imagination, unless the instructions are delivered quite dramatically. And as for possibility 3, since I can always think of alternative predictive interpretations for a dream, with my ensuing vacillations and second-guessings I'm always going to be at a loss in trying to pick the one that God thought I would eventually settle on. [i]* Last updated by: DaleT on 3/10/2010 @ 3:33 PM *[/i] http://www.rabbifohrman.com/messagesmessages.cfm?threadid=36E9DA83-5056-B27F-3E1D98C94EA42AFD&r=6 2010-03-09T08:37:47-06:00 Does G-d Speak with us? There are a lot of ways to interpret Yosef's subsequent actions. Did he abuse his position? I've read a theory that suggests that by accumulating the seeds and storing them, this act in itself was responsible for bringing on the famine. After all, if you don't replant these seeds, there will be no harvest. Textually, it would appear that Yosef indeed believed that his interpretation of Pharoah's dreams was accurate and that the region was going to be hit by famine and that action needed to be taken to make certain that an epic catastrophe didn't result. I'm basing this conclusion on what he said to his brothers -- alerting them to the upcoming 5 years of famine. Regarding Yosef's relationship with the Egyptians -- arguments can be put forth to support both positions -- either he was their saviour or he was their abuser. The Egyptians, though, appear to favour the former position. "You have saved our lives. Let us find favour in the eyes of my lord, and we will be Pharoah's bondmen." 47:25. At this point, rather than enslave the people, he passed a statute that made it compulsory for a tax of one fifth of the land be given to Pharoah. It must be remembered that Pharoahs had absolute power over life and death, as well as property. An argument can possibly be made that Yosef was choosing to limit Pharoah's power at this point. If Yosef recognized these dreams for what they possibly were -- warnings against Pharoah's own abusive actions -- then I would assume that Yosef would not want to follow suite. His actions in regards to his brothers and their families -- taking care of them and not abusing them, would seem to confirm this kind of consciousness on his part -- that he had, indeed, integrated the lessons of the dreams. -- The dreams themselves appear to be quite straightforward. We have cows that represent an agricultural society. In case we didn't quite get it, we also have ears of corn upon which the entire Egyptian economy depended. Both cows and corn are consumed by themselves. The river, as well, represented not only life, but the source of fertility upon which Egypt depended. The repetitions of the numbers 7 can certainly alert dream interpreters to time. Remember, the butler was already privy to Yosef's interpretation wherein numbers represented precisely this -- although in his case it was days rather than years. So, why were the other interpreters not able to determine an accurate interpretation? My study-partner Gitel pointed out to me that it was very possible that they were, indeed, able to do that. But what stopped them from doing that? She suggested that it was because they were too frightened to do so. Again, as was apparent with what happened to the baker -- Pharoah's anger had led to the baker's death. In other words, kill the messenger. What Yosef did was preface his interpretation by claiming that it was not he who was doing the interpreting, but G-d. I'm not your messenger, so if you don't like the message - leave me out of it. But, moreover, he also read into the dreams a solution to the impending disaster. This is another element that might have distinguished his interpretations from the others and prevented them from being forthcoming. -- Regarding G-d's methodology in preparing these dreams for Pharoah's and Yosef's consumption -- although I certainly cannot claim to understand G-d's thinking, I am though reminded of a chassidic story that conveys the Rebbe's perspective of how the spiritual structure works. Unfortunately, I don't remember which Rebbe was involved but it goes like this: Prior to the High Holy Days, this Rebbe was visiting a small community. As was the custom, many people came to speak with him to unload their problems and issues and to seek spiritual guidance and blessings. The Rebbe listened intently to each. At one point, an especially despicable individual approached him and the two were secluded for a particularly long period of time. After this individual left, the Rebbe locked the door and refused to come out. One chassid, the story goes, courageously opened the door and peeking inside witnessed the Rebbe in a state of deep grief. He was fasting, beating his chest and praying incessantly to G-d. After about 3 days, the Rebbe opened the door and appeared to be back to himself. When he was asked what had happened to bring on this condition of mourning, he answered that this particular individual was informing him of acts that were so vile that on the surface they appeared to be way beyond the consciousness and understanding of the Rebbe. Yet, he understood that if G-d sent him this individual, there must be elements of those behaviours within himself -- elements of which he was not conscious. By fasting and praying, he believed, he was finally able to dig them out and confront them. By doing so, he was able to gain mastery over them, rather than have them gain mastery over him. This story appears to suggest that whatever we experience through our senses are there as information to us regarding our own spiritual states of being -- lessons we must learn about ourselves in order to grow. In this regard, everything is a mirror that reflects back to us ourselves and what is of significance to us. If it were not of significance, we would not be privy to it. In this regard, everything we see, think, hear, etc. is consciousness- raising. Similarly with dreams. Pharoah's dreams were personal to himself. They were gauged in language that was extremely meaningful to him, as we can see in regards to the way he chose to convey them to Yosef. But, similarly, they were meaningful to Yosef. As Rabbi Fohrman pointed out, they carried within them suggestions that were of a personal nature to him -- perhaps guiding him along. In examining these dreams a while back, I had noticed that the word "pater" (interpretation) occurs 7 times in these segments. What is perhaps being suggested was that it was all in the interpretation. Similarly, how are we choosing to interpret the messages that are being conveyed to us all the time? Is it consciousness-raising for us or are we being dismissive or blind? Are we connecting to our light side or to our dark? I would hate to think that Yosef was clueless and blundering along -- I think that the dreamer put into intimate contact with the interpreter empowered the interpreter to read the messages accurately and the dreamer to know that these messages were true. http://www.rabbifohrman.com/messagesmessages.cfm?threadid=36E9DA83-5056-B27F-3E1D98C94EA42AFD&r=7 2010-03-08T12:57:37-06:00 Does G-d Speak with us? The thin cows and the withered stalks of Pharaoh's dreams would suggest the [i]idea[/i] of famine to any dream interpeter, but in order for Yosef to conclude that those dreams meant that a famine was actually going to hit Egypt, he would need corrobation. Machla thinks Yosef may have found some corroboration in the Kedem ("East") associations of the second dream's center: it is a famine that makes Avraham leave the Eastern Mountain and go to Egypt. She also has an interesting hypothesis on why Pharaoh handed over so much power to Yosef: Pharaoh, as shown in his having the imprisoned baker killed (with little or no justification perhaps), was abusing his power, and needed to wake up, recognize that fact and cease (just as ominous happenings made the Pharaoh of Avraham's time realize ("wake up to the fact") that he was wrongly exercising his power in taking Sarai as wife). It seems that Pharaoh does wake up and successfully stop exercising power abusively by simply transferring lots of power to Yosef who then, as if continuing Pharaoh's old ways, exercises that power abusively(?) in enslaving the vulnerable, starving Egyptians (Genesis 47:15-26; Is there some way to see Yosef's image or character as not being marred by his programs described here?). ------------------------ I wonder if Pharaoh's dreams were prepared by God with Yosef's interpretative methods and inclinations in mind so that Yosef needn't have had any reliable method of interpretation or any non-arbitrary way of deciding what associations would yield a true interpretation. By knowing what method Yosef would employ or what associations Yosef would eventually settle on as being the key, God could have delivered dreams to Pharaoh that would cause Yosef to arrive at an interpretation that happened to coincide with what God had in store for the world. A perfectly clueless Yosef could have blundered into the correct interpretations (thanks to God's "cooking up" the dreams so that, without any element of luck, Yosef will seem to be accurate in his interpretations. [i]* Last updated by: DaleT on 7/7/2010 @ 4:35 PM *[/i] http://www.rabbifohrman.com/messagesmessages.cfm?threadid=36E9DA83-5056-B27F-3E1D98C94EA42AFD&r=8 2010-03-07T10:21:46-06:00 Does G-d Speak with us? Thanks Dale for alerting me to this lecture. I believe Rabbi Fohrman is correct in pointing out subliminal messages that were probably at play in Pharoahs dreams that possibly helped Yosef interpret their meanings. Man is composed of conscious and sub-conscious states of mind. Our intuition draws upon the subconscious to help us understand issues or situations that arise. Given that Yosefs interpretations appear to have come to fruition, one can possibly conclude that Pharoahs dreams were prophetic ones and that G-d was instrumental in helping Yosef interpret these dreams in ways that were meaningful to Pharoah. By the same token, Pharoah and Yosef were connected through these dreams and through their future relationship in significant ways. Yosefs life embodied the spiritual lessons that Pharoah had to learn, just as Pharoahs lessons were to become significant to Yosef later when he was placed in a position of leadership. Through the use of parallelisms and chiasms, the Torah appears to be referencing itself all the time. Whereby the first part of the dream  cows  could be seen to reference the Rochel/Leah relationship  in particular as it impacted upon Yaacov  and time (as R Fohrman pointed out), the second dream re: ears of corn  seems to be referencing a number of other incidences. This second dream is chiasmically structured (both the original and Pharoahs version of it) with an identifical centre: blasted with the east wind (kadim) sprouting forth after them (41:23). This centre is framed by the thin, withered ears of corn. The word for withered is dakot. In 12:8 we are informed that Avraham settled in the Eastern Mountain (hahar mikedem). Immediately after that we are informed that there is a famine in the land and Avraham goes down to Egypt. He encounters there another Pharoah who asserts his authority over Sarai (abuse of power). After leaving Egypt, we are told he returns to this same land which is between Beth El and Ai. Here we have a parallelism that connects the east wind of the dream directly with a famine and a descent into Egypt. Based upon the wording used in conversation among the key characters in the Torah, I believe, there is reason to assume that they are also referencing the Torah. A second place where the word east appears is in reference to Yaacov . We are told that: Yaacov picked up his legs and went to the land of the children of the East.  to Charan. It is there that he sees Rochel for the first time and then reveals his prowess by single-handedly picking up the rock that is covering the well. From the first parallelism, we can perhaps make an assumption that Yosef derived from it his understanding that the dreams predicted the coming of a famine. From the second parallelism, we pick up on a major theme that permeates these dreams and that is self-empowerment (or its lack). There are other places, as well, where kedem appears (e.g. Lot, after leaving Avraham, heads towards the east to settle in Sodom. Reference is made there, as well, to Egypt. The text is implying that Lots choice of Sodom is directly connected with Egypts fertile basin.) Another parallelism appears to be indicated by the word dakot (thin). I believe there is only one other place where this word is used in Sefer Bereishis and that is in reference to a name -- Diklah (10:27) which shares the same root. Diklah was the son of Yaktan. Yaktan and Peleg were brothers and they were both the sons of Eber. Yaktan had 13 sons of whom Diklah was the 7th. In contrast, Peleg had only one son Reu, but his claim to fame was that he was the direct ancestor of Avraham. In fact from Reus son until Yosef we have 7 generations. Getting back to Diklah, in reference to Yaktan, his having begot 13 sons was distinguished by framing their names with the information that these were the sons of Yaktan. (10:29) The Torah doesnt do that with any other individual mentioned in this genealogical section including Canaan who also fathered many children. In addition, we are informed that the sons of Yaktan and Peleg lived from Mesha as you go towards Sephir, onto the mountain of the east (har hakedem). (10:30) We have here a reference to the East that appears to be connected with the issue of fertility (Yaktans). Dreams are usually the property of the dreamer. When one attempts to interpret someone elses dream, it is best to keep this in mind. Even if you yourself become a character in another persons dream, the dream is ultimately not about you, but about the psychology of the dreamer; it is what you signify to him/her within the context of the dream that matters, not what this means about you. In order to try to understand Pharoahs dreams it is important to understand that these are essentially power dreams as one would expect the dreams of a Pharoah would be. There is textual reason to assume that Pharoah identified with the first set of cows that are grazing by the river. E.g. Both he and them are standing by the river shore. Also, contained within the name Pharoah is par (cows). As well, Pharoah, in reinterpreting these dreams to Yosef, makes reference to his not having seen like them in all the land of Egypt. (41:19). In this way we can see that Pharoah is deeply concerned about himself and about Egypt  probably his position within Egypt. Why did Pharoah dream these dreams? Because Yosef was able to accurately interpret them, we can assume that they were dreams sent to him by G-d. But, other than to further the story line and to bring Yosef into a position of power, does the Torah suggest any other reasons for them? I believe it does. We are told that these dreams took place at the end of two full years (41:1). Two full years from when? -- from when Yosef correctly interpreted the butlers and the bakers dreams. There are other parallelisms between these two sets of dreams. For instance, the butler is the one who informs Pharoah about Yosef. He does so by stating: My sins I mention this day. Pharoah was angered with his servants and put me into the ward of the house & and the chief baker. And we dreamed a dream in one night& (41: 9-11) which makes reference to the fact that Pharoah had him incarcerated. (Note the emphasis on Pharoah having him incarcerated.) Pharoah also uses the exact same words in asking Yosef for his interpretation of them I have dreamed a dream and there is none that can interpret it. (41:15) as did the butler and the baker (40:8). Of course, Yosef being the interpreter obviously connects the two as well. In this way we are given a great deal of information regarding the purpose why G-d sent these dreams to Pharoah. It would appear that Pharoahs relationship with his subjects/ underlings  as represented by the baker and the butler  is being called into question. What precisely did the baker do to warrant being killed? We are not told -- but, there is a presumption that whatever he did was not worthy of death. Still, Pharoah had him killed. It is this attitude that must be corrected: in order for Pharoah to continue to govern, he must not continue to abuse his position. Mirroring this, Yosefs narrative up to that point reflects precisely this kind of abuse. He is thrown into a prison/pit and denied his freedom at the say-so of one power individual, as did his brothers prior to that. The dreams represented not only a personal warning to Pharoah, but a warning regarding Pharoahs responsibilities to his people (all his subjects) and to those residing in other countries. Lets examine the second dream. Ears of corn are valued both for their ability to provide bread (life), but also for their seed. In this regard they represent fertility and the future. (Note as well the birthing/creation symbolism and parallelisms  e.g. these dreams also took place on Pharoahs birthday). Hence, we also begin to understand the Yaktan parallelism. Through these dreams, G-d alerted Pharoah to what was lacking or abusive in his relationship with his subjects, and warned him that unless he changed, disaster would not only befall him but all the people of the region  all of whom were to become dependent on Egypts fertile basin for survival. Contained within the second dream was information informing him that all was not yet lost. When Pharoah awoke, he became conscious of what was at stake. After Yosefs interpretation, he relinquished his power to Yosef who was not only a slave, but a hated foreigner as well. My brother offered an interpretation of Pharoahs dreams that I believe has a great deal of merit. He noticed that after recounting the cows dream, Pharoah states: And when they went into them, it could not be known that they had gone into them; and their appearance was bad as at the beginning. So I awoke. (41:21) At the conclusion of the second dream, he doesnt add this information. My brother suggests that the issue of Pharoahs waking at the conclusion of the first dream becomes a significant factor in determining the dreams meanings. They seem to be indicating two different scenarios. In the first (cows) there will be complete disaster. But, if Pharoah wakes up and does something about this, then this disaster can be averted (as symbolized by the second dream). This would suggest another reason why Pharoah found it necessary to give absolute control and power over to Yosef. According to the dreams -- in order for Pharoah to save himself and Egypt, it was absolutely necessary for Yosef to become Pharoahs surrogate, not merely a lowly Minister of Agriculture. In this sense, both explanations play off one another. http://www.rabbifohrman.com/messagesmessages.cfm?threadid=36E9DA83-5056-B27F-3E1D98C94EA42AFD&r=9 2010-03-06T22:37:27-06:00 Does G-d Speak with us? [b]How Did Cain Come Up with the Idea of Sacrifice?[/b] How did he know that a sacrificial offering would be acceptable to God, rather than a disappointment to God that perfectly edible produce was being wasted? Between humans, our giving up or giving back or destroying something given to us would liklier be taken as a lack of respect toward the one who gave it to us. I assume that he derived the idea of sacrifice from what he knew about the Lord and especially about how the relationship between the Lord and humans had changed in the Garden. Should we also assume that an offering of vegetable produce would -- like the meal Avraham prepared for the Lord and two angels -- be physically eaten by the Lord? There are a number of ways Cain might have understood the Garden's having been taken away from humans. Sacrifice, in Cain's eyes, may be - a symbolic re-enactment of the temptation the way it should have gone. If humans had forsaken (as being solely the Lord's) just a little part of the food available (such as the forbdden fruit) they could have enjoyed all the rest of the food. a symbolic re-enactment of the taking away of the Garden from humans, perhaps so its lesson would not be forgotten. a sign that he had controlled his acquisitiveness and did not need to be punished by food deprivation like his parents were for their acquisitiveness with respect to a property of God (knowledge of good and evil). By showing that he could control his acquisitiveness with respect to another property of God (creativity), he thought he could avoid being deprived of his total stock of food. an action that makes him a little more like Godlike (in two resepcts, as a giver of sustenance and as a depriver -- Cain knew God in both roles). ------------ There is, of course, the obvious similarity of sacrificial offerings to gifts of thanks, things given in exchange for material benefits, and payments to God -- tokens of his fair share --for his contribution to agricultural production. But for Cain the fundamental aspect of sacrifice might have been self-deprivation modelled after the great first deprivation (the loss of the Garden to humans). [i]* Last updated by: DaleT on 1/27/2010 @ 10:02 AM *[/i] http://www.rabbifohrman.com/messagesmessages.cfm?threadid=20C73456-5056-B27F-3E15B5ADA045F078&r=10 2010-01-26T17:50:58-06:00 Why did Cain build a city? [b]A Blast from the Past -- Why the last told Yaakov episode is out of chronological sequence[/b] The passage about the brothers "seeing that their father was dead" (50:15-21) is placed in the story flow at least 4 months after they had observed their father give his farewells from his deathbed in chapter 49. Why is this passage out of chronological order? (Notice that the verse immediately before the passage leads smoothly into the verse immediately following the passage, as though the passage has been inserted into the middle of consecutive text.) By making this episode the last one told in the Yaakov-Yosef story, the narrator is giving prominence to this episode so that the reader will notice something: Between this last told episode and the first episode that gets things heading to Egypt (the sale of Yosef) there is significant similarity: i) brothers devise a plan. ii) there is some indefinitive wording about how the plan is carried out. iii) there is something wrong with the plan, something missing (there is no Yosef in the pit to sell, there was no "Yosef, be forgiving" request to convey) and, anyway, the goals of the plans had already been accomplished (Yosef had already been sold and Yosef had already forgiven them). iv) Yosef is inclined to think that the brothers were doing father's bidding. (This point draws on Rabbi Fohrman's delvings into Yosef's understanding of what happened to him at Dothan -- "my brothers were doing father's bidding", an understanding which Yosef later realized from Yehudah's impassioned speech to be false. Will Yosef also conclude that the brothers are not doing father's bidding in this last told episode?) This passage's violation of chronology is evidence of skillful narration. Because it is inserted into the strictly chronological history of the surrounding text, this passage strikes the reader as "coming out of the blue". That's how the passage conveys to the reader something of Yosef's experience of the "Be Forgiving" request as coming out of the blue (just as what happened to him at Dothan came out of the blue - a fifth point of similarity). [i]* Last updated by: DaleT on 1/25/2010 @ 4:10 PM *[/i] http://www.rabbifohrman.com/messagesmessages.cfm?threadid=5426794D-5056-B27F-3EF8C243673457E0&r=11 2010-01-12T13:02:03-06:00 Jospeh Forum [b]The needless introduction of intermediaries balances out the needless removal of intermediaries[/b] [i]Two cases involving one intermediary[/i]: In chapter 50 Yosefs request to leave Egypt is presented to Pharaoh by the palace staff, thereby adding an intermediate link to the line of communication. In chapter 48 Yaakov adopts Yosefs sons as his own sons, thereby removing or bypassing an intermediate genealogical link between Yaakov and those sons. [i]Two cases involving two intermediaries[/i]: In Genesis 50:15-21, Yaakovs Be Forgiving request is conveyed to Yosef by the brothers having a messenger present the request to Yosef, thereby adding two links to the line of communication. (It is not perfectly clear that a messenger is used, but the text seems, at least, to want to put that thought in our heads.) In chapter 50, Yosef adopts (born on his knees) the sons of Makhir the son of Menashe, thereby removing or bypassing two intermediate genealogical links between Yosef and the adopted sons. All four incidents are puzzling. What was the point of adding or removing these links? Pondering this, I tried to make something out of the meaning of the name Makhir (it means sold). That meaning seems to be an allusion to the account of Yosef's being sold. And, as indicated above, Yosef's adoption of Makhir's children counterbalances the extra links of the last told episode about Yaakov (50:15-21). In that way, the Makhir passage is pointing both to that episode and to the account of Yosef's being sold. the reason? There is are similarities between them - i) The brothers talk about Yosef and devise a plan (to sell Yosef, to tell Yosef their fathers request). ii) There is a lapse of straightforwardness in the wording of the text so that it is not perfectly clear how many intermediate links there are (is there is one or two sales of Yosef before he gets to Egypt? Do the brothers tell Yosef directly or do they use a messenger?) iii) As Rabbi Fohrman has carefully explained, there are strong reasons in the text to doubt that the brothers sold Yosef, and there are good reasons to doubt that their father ever made the request the brothers claimed. These similarities and the conclusion that the brothers did not sell Yosef lead me to think that there was no Yosef, Be Forgiving request by their father to be conveyed. [i]* Last updated by: DaleT on 1/28/2010 @ 4:34 PM *[/i] http://www.rabbifohrman.com/messagesmessages.cfm?threadid=5426794D-5056-B27F-3EF8C243673457E0&r=12 2010-01-11T12:39:22-06:00 Jospeh Forum [b]A Question about the superfluous intermediaries in Genesis 50.[/b] In chapter 50, when Yosef is seeking permission to bury his father in Cannan, why are we told that Yosef makes his request of Pharaoh through Pharaoh's court or palace staff? Whether he asked permission of Pharaoh directly or through intermediaries is not a matter the reader is going to wonder about. So the purpose of the narrator's recounting this detail is not easy to say. The episode has the same pattern as another episode a little later in the chapter where the brothers convey Yaakov's request to Yosef that he forgive the brothers the wrong that they had done to him. Both episodes introduce a group of intermediaries who convey a request to a very high ranking official, and in both cases the group of intermediaries seem to be needlessly involved: you'd think that Yosef, considering all that he had done for Pharaoh and Egypt, would have easier access to Pharaoh than any other official. And, in the other case, there was opportunity for Yaakov to make the "Be Forgiving" request of Yosef directly because Yosef was (along with the other brothers) in Yaakov's presence during the last hours of his life. I don't know why the intermediaries were used. Faced with this similar pattern I find myself asking, Is Pharaoh's granting the requested permission supposed to lean me toward concluding that Yosef granted the requested forgiveness? Outside of this possibly fictional request made by Yaakov, is there any evidence that Yaakov was told how Yosef was wronged by his brothers? [i]* Last updated by: DaleT on 1/11/2010 @ 12:46 PM *[/i] http://www.rabbifohrman.com/messagesmessages.cfm?threadid=5426794D-5056-B27F-3EF8C243673457E0&r=13 2010-01-07T14:50:03-06:00 Jospeh Forum The issue of the fourth son makes an appearance right at the beginning of Sefer Bereshis, in two ways in the vineyard narrative. One is through the Midrash which offers an explanation regarding the nature of Hams sin by suggesting that following G-ds command after the flood for man to populate the world that Noah began to do just that. Hams sin was in preventing Noach from being able to father a fourth son. This is based on the words vayichal Noach  Noach began. Began what? To attempt to father a fourth son. Rabbi Fohrman pointed this out in a previous class. The second way the matter of the fourth son appears there is in reference to Canaan. It was Canaan who received the blunt of Noachs curses. Canaan was Hams fourth son. In the Yosef narrative, the fourth son is distinguished 5 times. Two of those times are when Yehudah and the Midianites play a prominent role in Yosefs sale. Yehudah was Yaacovs fourth son and Midian was Avraham and Keturahs fourth son. Can anybody ascertain what other fourth sons are being distinguished in the Yosef narrative? I dont mean by this merely noting the presence of a fourth son in a genealogy. I am referring to actual distinctions. In one case one will have to think a little out of the box. Also, can anybody offer an explanation as to what the fourth son signifies in the Torah? http://www.rabbifohrman.com/messagesmessages.cfm?threadid=0477A33F-5056-B27F-3E6EEFFF6A5A33B6&r=14 2010-01-01T11:41:17-06:00 Question of the Week for Toldot [b]Yosef's 17th Year of Age and Yaakov's 17th Year in Egypt[/b] The question was raised whether there was any significance in the fact that for 17 years Yaakov took care of the young Yosef and for 17 years Yosef took care of the old Yaakov (from 130 years to 147 years). In this one respect, at least, Yosef and Yaakov have switched positions, and it will be interesting to see if there are other respects in which they have switched positions in these two 17-year periods. I think I see one such a switch based on Yaakov's reaction to Yosef's second dream. At Gen 47:9 Yaakov refers to "the [b]days[/b] of the years of my life" as being [b]few[/b] and bad. Taken [i]very[/i] literally, Yaakov is here presenting himself, a few days after arriving in Egypt, as being a [b]few days[/b] old. At this same time he characterized himself as shorter-lived than any one else in his comparison class (i.e., his forefathers). Both of these remarks I have found puzzling --why didn't he just say the years of his life were few? And why talk about his comparative short-livedness? The role switching between Yosef and Yaakov finds a point for these puzzling remarks: the reader is being led to think of the clock on Yaakov being set back to zero at the time he enters Yosef's domain, and in that way of counting time he is only a few days old when meeting with Pharaoh. The reader is supposed to see Yaakov as being in a position analogous to that which Yosef occupied in the first days of his life. When Yosef was only days old he too was shorter-lived than anyone in his comparison class (his brothers). There seem to be correlations between what Yosef says at 17 years and what Yaakov says at 17 years (on his restarted clock). At age 17 Yosef made two disclosures to the brothers, and at 17 years on his restarted clock Yaakov made two disclosures to the brothers. I think that the two dreams Yosef tells the brothers are correlated with Yaakov's farewell address (chapter 49) and his "Be forgiving" message (chapter 50) that was to be conveyed to Yosef. Note an initial similarity of circumstance -- Yaakov reveals the future to the brothers from his deathbed whereas Yosef reveals the future in dreams received on his nightbed. Yosef's first dream (of the brothers bowed before him) comes true but his second dream is found to be questionable by his father. Now look at what is correlated with these dreams later in the story when the roles of Yaakov and Yosef have been switched. [i]Yosef's Second Dream and Yaakov's (Fictional?) Request of Yosef (Gen. 50)[/i] The second dream of Yosef which is told to Yaakov (in addition to the brothers) and arouses Yaakov's scepticism is correlated with the account of a supposed request made by Yaakov of Yosef which arouses the reader's scepticism. Just as Yaakov pondered Yosef's second dream and was sceptical of its truth, I think Yosef would have pondered and been just as sceptical of the brothers' account of Yaakov's request for the message "Be forgiving" to be conveyed to Yosef. Given the description of the brothers' motives for conveying the message, the reader is certainly meant to doubt that the request ever occurred; Yosef would have to suspect that such a motive was possibly at work and be similarly sceptical. Yaakov's scepticism of Yosef's second dream encourages the reader aware of the correlation to conclude that Yosef was correspondingly sceptical about Yaakov's supposed request of Yosef. Furthermore, since Yosef's second dream (as Yaakov understood it) turned out to be false (because Yaakov never bowed to Yosef) we have, as readers, literary grounds for expecting that the brothers' account of Yaakov's request is also false. [i]Yosef's First Dream and Yaakov's Farewell Speech[/i] The first dream (of the brothers bowed before Yosef) has a seond fulfillment (after the role switch) when the brothers are gathered around Yaakov to receive his final pronouncements.** Yosef's first dream did come true (when all eleven brothers appeared before him), and Yaakov's prophetic characterizations are read with the presumption that they will prove true. The reader is being encouraged by the correlation to regard the Farewell Speech as being as true as that first dream. (Also, Yosef's first dream and Yaakov's farewell address to the brothers were sources of displeasure for some of them.) ========== ** Note that in Yosef's first dream there is no count of the sheaves bowing - this lets the dream be fulfilled by the [i]eleven[/i] brothers that bow to Yosef and also by all [i]twelve[/i] brothers that gather around father for his deathbed pronouncements. In Yosef's second dream the brothers are counted - eleven, presumably the number of brothers that concocted or supposedly heard Yaakov's request of Yosef. [i]* Last updated by: DaleT on 12/30/2009 @ 11:50 AM *[/i] http://www.rabbifohrman.com/messagesmessages.cfm?threadid=85B70B3F-5056-B27F-3EA8EB904997F9DE&r=15 2009-12-27T13:27:50-06:00 Parshas Va'yeshev a14 years after Yosef was sold, he stood before Pharoah (age 30) and became vizier of Egypt. We are informed that there would be 7 years of plenty before the 7 years of famine hit. Prior to the 7 years of famine, we are informed that Yosef had 2 sons, the first of whom he named Menasseh for G-d has made me forget all my toil and all my fathers house. (51:51) The second he named Ephraim for G-d has made me fruitful in the land of my affliction.(52) Its possible that Menasseh was born the 4th year into the years of plenty when Yosef was 34 (placing this 17 years later into his sojourn in Egypt). But how can we be certain? I'm not certain if this is to what Rabbi Fohrman is referring. Thank you to the administration for allowing me to expand upon this forum by posing some questions to the class. a)Prior to Yosefs sale, Yehudah states: What profit is it if we kill our brother and conceal his blood? Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, but our hand let it not be upon him for our brother, our flesh is he. (37: 26-27) Is Yehudah suggesting that although one may not kill a brother, one may exploit him for financial gain? We can assume that the Cain/Havel narrative taught him that a brother is forbidden to kill another brother. Where, though, did the idea originate that it was permissible to exploit a brother instead? I believe that the Torah suggests an answer to this question by means of a direct parallelism found in 37:25 that marks as well the outer region of a chiasm that extends to 37:28. b)Reuvain was the brother whose intent it was to save Yosef and to return him to his father. Knowing the extremely hostile and volatile situation that existed, why did Reuvain absent himself during this crucial period? There is a parallelism suggested in 37:22 that refers us to the Hagar/Ishmael narrative. How do both these narratives interact and play off each other specifically in reference to the idea of absence? http://www.rabbifohrman.com/messagesmessages.cfm?threadid=0477A33F-5056-B27F-3E6EEFFF6A5A33B6&r=16 2009-12-12T19:49:54-06:00 Question of the Week for Toldot a)14 years after Yosef was sold, he stood before Pharoah (age 30) and became vizier of Egypt. We are informed that there would be 7 years of plenty before the 7 years of famine hit. Prior to the 7 years of famine, we are informed that Yosef had 2 sons, the first of whom he named Menasseh for G-d has made me forget all my toil and all my fathers house. (51:51) The second he named Ephraim for G-d has made me fruitful in the land of my affliction.(52) Its possible that Menasseh was born the 4th year into the years of plenty when Yosef was 34 (placing this 17 years later into his sojourn in Egypt). But how can we be certain? I'm not certain if this is to what Rabbi Fohrman is referring. Thank you to the administration for allowing me to expand upon this forum by posing some questions to the class. a)Prior to Yosefs sale, Yehudah states: What profit is it if we kill our brother and conceal his blood? Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, but our hand let it not be upon him for our brother, our flesh is he. (37: 26-27) Is Yehudah suggesting that although one may not kill a brother, one may exploit him for financial gain? We can assume that the Cain/Havel narrative taught him that a brother is forbidden to kill another brother. Where, though, did the idea originate that it was permissible to exploit a brother instead? I believe that the Torah suggests an answer to this question by means of a direct parallelism found in 37:25 that marks as well the outer region of a chiasm that extends to 37:28. b)Reuvain was the brother whose intent it was to save Yosef and to return him to his father. Knowing the extremely hostile and volatile situation that existed, why did Reuvain absent himself during this crucial period? There is a parallelism suggested in 37:22 that refers us to the Hagar/Ishmael narrative. How do both these narratives interact and play off each other specifically in reference to the idea of absence? http://www.rabbifohrman.com/messagesmessages.cfm?threadid=85B70B3F-5056-B27F-3EA8EB904997F9DE&r=17 2009-12-12T19:46:23-06:00 Parshas Va'yeshev [b]Here is a diluted chiasm -- [/b] A chiasm can be abstracted from the passage which begins with Esau being a source of bitterness (26:34-35) and ends with his crying bitterly (27:34). I'm not happy with the chiasm because it leaves so many verses out of the pattern. Despite that, the chiasm sets up a correlation between two passages that gives us a new appreciation of the passage about the wells Yitzhak digs and names. [26:34-5] Esau is source of bitterness // Esau sobbed bitterly [27:34]. [v.3] Esau is sent to hunt game // Question raised of who hunted the game [33]. [4] Esau is to prepare a dish // Esau prepares the dish [31]. [5b] Esau goes out hunting // Esau returns from hunting [30]. [12-13a] Yaakov expects a curse // Yaakov receives blessing [28-29]. [15] Esau's clothes are put on Yaakov// Yitzhak smells Esau's clothes worn by Yaakov[27]. [17] Rivka gives food to Yaakov // Yaakov gives food to Yitzhak [25]. [18-19a] Prompted by Yizhak's questioning, Yaakov presents himself (twice) as Esau [24]. [19b] Yaakov talks to Yitzhak // Voice of Yaakov is heard by Yitzhak [22]. [b][20a] "How did you succeed so quickly?"//"Because the Lord granted me success" [20b].[/b] Assuming this chiasm was originally planted in the text and is not just a figment of my imagination, What are we to make of the fact that "Because the Lord your God granted me success" appears in the center (verse 20)? Does it reassure us that Yaakov's actions are in accord with God's will? It does if we take verse 20 to have a double meaning so that it is as much about how Yaakov gets the paternal blessing so quickly as about how he got the "game-meat" so quickly. Carrying the chiasm one step further away from the center (verse 20) we begin to see some reason for including in scripture the passage about Yitzhak's naming his wells 'Contention', 'Animosity', 'Open Space' and 'Oath (of peaceful coexistence)' (26:18-33). This passage, in which the first two wells are taken from Yitzhak, is correlated by the chiasm with 27:35-36 in which Esau complains of two things taken from him and which cause contention and animosity -- his birthright and the paternal blessing. This correlation supports Robert Alter's view that the passage about the wells prepares the reader for the Yaakov-Esau conflict. (Alter expresses this view in his translation [i]The Five Books of Moses[/i].) The names of the wells do seem appropriate as chapter headings for the course of that conflict. [i]* Last updated by: DaleT on 12/15/2009 @ 7:19 AM *[/i] http://www.rabbifohrman.com/messagesmessages.cfm?threadid=0477A33F-5056-B27F-3E6EEFFF6A5A33B6&r=18 2009-11-27T14:54:25-06:00 Question of the Week for Toldot Interesting questions. Here's a couple ideas from one angle. Since Cain wouldn't be able to grow crops himself (and meat was not eaten until after the Flood) he would have to depend on others to grow food for him. (And did the curse also affect his immediate offspring?) It makes sense for him to start a community where he could live close to others who provided him with food in return for his services (as cook, carpenter, harvester or herdsman). Such a community which coheres by the division of labor -- if it stays in one place -- is like a city, or the beginning of one. Cain questioned whether we are our brothers' keepers. What would be the best way to teach him a lesson about that? -- Make him a wanderer who was prevented from producing his own food so that he would have to rely on others as his keepers. Wandering would multiply that lesson since he'd have to rely on a different people at the different places his wandering took him. ------- Perhaps the son and the city are named the same because Cain sees them as doing the same thing for him. Now here's one guess as to what that is. Cain's son Enoch and the city Enoch would equally continue the name and influence of Cain beyond his lifetime. In that sense they are equivalent, and if his own extended survival is the paramount quality he values in his son, Cain would also see that a self-sustaining city equally extends his influence and give it the same name. [i]* Last updated by: DaleT on 1/26/2010 @ 6:04 PM *[/i] http://www.rabbifohrman.com/messagesmessages.cfm?threadid=20C73456-5056-B27F-3E15B5ADA045F078&r=19 2009-11-25T17:53:26-06:00 Why did Cain build a city? God curses Cain to be a "restless wanderer of the earth." But he settles down in a city, naming it after his son, Enoch. Is there significance to that name? Also, it seems as though it is Cain's creativity which is cursed too. God says, "When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you." If Cain did wrong because he was overvaluing or obsessed with his creativity mirroring Eve's same tendency (according to Rabbi Forhman's Garden of Eden series), and then it seems like it was his creativity here that was cursed. He was no longer able to grow crops. Would that not also affect his ability to procreate, the most profound creative act? Do those questions make sense? http://www.rabbifohrman.com/messagesmessages.cfm?threadid=20C73456-5056-B27F-3E15B5ADA045F078&r=20 2009-11-23T05:22:23-06:00 Why did Cain build a city?