Musings on the Torah

He may have just had a lot to be fearful of however almost every time we encounter Yaakov he is either nervous or concerned that something bad may happen.  By the berachos with getting caught (Bereishis 27). When leaving for Charan he is reassured by God that he'll be protected until returning and responds with "should that happen and you'll be my God / then you'll be my God etc" (ibid 28). Upon returning and meeting Esav (ibid 32). When Shimon and Levi destroy Shechem (ibid 34). When the brothers are grazing the flocks at Shechem (ibid 37). When Binyamin needs to be sent to Mitzrayim (ibid 43). HaShem reassures him on the way down to Mitzrayim telling him that he needn't be fearful (ibid 46). Asks sons to bury him in mearas hamachpelah even though Yosef swore to that effect already (ibid 49). The Talmud says that the fear from Esav—despite his having been promised safe return—was due to Yaakov's fear of sin potentially undoing the prophecy (Bavli berachos

R. O. Seforno writes (Bereishis 46:3) that had the Israelites stayed in Canaan they would have intermarried and assimilated, never developing a distinct national or religious identity, but being shepherds which was abominable to Egyptians they'd be given their own place to live and allowed to become a distinct national unit.  אנכי האל אלהי אביך – אני הוא שאמרתי  "אל תרד מצרימה" (בראשית כ"ו:ב'), אני הוא שאומר אליך אל תירא מרדה מצרימה – אתה, וזה כי לגוי גדול אשימך שם – כי אמנם אם היו בניך יושבים פה היו מתחתנים בגויי הארץ ומתערבים עמהם, אבל במצרים לא יקרה זה, "כי לא יוכלון המצרים לאכל את העברים לחם" (בראשית מ"ג:ל"ב), ובכן יהיו לגוי נבדל, כאמרם זכרונם לברכה: "ויהי שם לגוי" (דברים כ"ו:ה'), מלמד שהיו מצוינים שם (ספרי שם).  Ramban says that Hebrew was the spoken language in Canaan: רמב"ן בראשית מ"ה:י"ב ויתכן שאמר להם כך לאמתלא ולפיוס, כי איננה ראיה שידבר אדם אחד במצרים בלשון הקדש, כי על דעתי הוא שפת כנען. [כי אברהם ל

This piece attempts to explain some seemingly odd details in the narrative of the returned money in miketz Bereishis 42:27  וַיִּפְתַּח הָאֶחָד אֶת שַׂקּוֹ לָתֵת מִסְפּוֹא לַחֲמֹרוֹ בַּמָּלוֹן וַיַּרְא אֶת כַּסְפּוֹ וְהִנֵּה הוּא בְּפִי אַמְתַּחְתּוֹ.  Ibid:35  וַיְהִי הֵם מְרִיקִים שַׂקֵּיהֶם וְהִנֵּה אִישׁ צְרוֹר כַּסְפּוֹ בְּשַׂקּוֹ וַיִּרְאוּ אֶת צְרֹרוֹת כַּסְפֵּיהֶם הֵמָּה וַאֲבִיהֶם וַיִּירָאוּ.  The commentators grapple with why it is that initially only one brother saw that his money was returned whereas the others didnt notice until arriving back home, see Ramban and Hadar Zikeinim.  Id like to suggest the following:  Chazal (quoted by Rashi) identify the brother that found his money in the malon as Levi  רש"י בראשית מ"ב:כ"ז ויפתח האחד – הוא לוי, שנשאר יחיד משמעון בן זוגו.  He was bereft of his partner. (As opposed to ibn Kaspi who holds that his identity is unknown or ibn Ezra who ids him as the oldest—Reuven.)  Shimon and Levi have a history of collaborating

This essay attempts to discover what the significance of the neis shemen is all about Al hanissim focuses on the military victory which enabled the Jews to resume practicing their Judaism (with a passing mention of having lit neiros) whereas the passage quoted in Bavli Shabbos 21b (from megilas taanis) emphasizes the oil miracle with only incidental mention of the military victory to presumably explain the dearth of oil. Why the differing emphases?  It seems obvious that the main event was the astounding military victory against the vastly stronger Greek military with the attendant reclamation of Jewish sovereignty which allowed for the purification of the mikdash and resumption of religious rites and practices.  What does the miracle of the oil add to the picture and why emphasize it?  I've heard it said that as the Jews eventually lost their hegemony and fell under Roman rule it would be viewed as insurrectionist to celebrate the military victory and sovereignty and thus the focu

This write up attempts to explain why Haman planned for genocide whereas the Greeks opted for religious suppression As reflected in the differing formulations of al hanissim for Purim and Chanuka respectively, Haman was out for Jewish blood whereas Antiochus was for eradicating Jewish rites and rituals.  Practically speaking, Judaism would have been a relic of the past had either of them had their way.  That different approaches were employed may have been a function of most Jews having been religiously observant during the Purim story as opposed to during the Chanukah story when most were already hellenized—easier to annihilate a people than to get them all to change their ways as opposed to by the Chanukah where only a minority were still practicing it made more sense to just stamp out what remaining observance there was than to exterminate an already mostly hellenized nation.   Perhaps a more philosophical approach can be suggested: There's a well known divide amongst Jewish thi

Maharil cites a minhag not to work the first and last day of Chanuka.  Perhaps the custom developed due to the first Chanukah—per 2 Maccabees 1:9 and 1:18—having been some kind of delayed Sukkos celebration when work is forbidden on the first and last day. Maybe this as well could provide another reason as to why we complete hallel daily for the duration of Chanukah, see :מאירי שבת כ"א that asks: ואע"פ שבגאולת מצרים אין גומרין את ההלל אלא יום ראשון ולא אמרו לגמור בח' ימים של חג אלא שהקרבנות חלוקים לעצמם Even without invoking 2 Maccabees that Chanukah was a delayed Sukkos which is obviously not without its problems (and not part of the mesorah) perhaps the minhag can be explained in light of Ri Milunel (Shabbos 21b) who asserts that the main celebration of Chanuka was being able to fully practice Judaism again and that it was fixed at 8 days as that is the longest holiday we have in our calendar and as it was a tremendous salvation the longest holiday in the Jewish calenda

This short write up attempts to explicate a seemingly enigmatic midrashic assertion Reuven returned to the pit, and, behold, Yosef was not in the pit; and he rent his garments. He returned to his brothers and said, "The boy is gone! And I, where will I go?" (Bereishis 37:29-30) Rashi quotes a midrash as saying that he had gone to repent for messing with Yaakovs bed, begging the question as to why now of all times was he involved with penitence for that action? I would like to proffer that Yaakov—having recently suffered the tragic passing of his beloved Rachel at a young age—had moved his bed into Bilhahs room in a quest for consolation. Bilhah, as Rachels personal attendant, kept Rachels memory alive, allowing Yaakov a modicum of solace and succor. Rachels presence lingered on in and infused Bilhahs space. Consolation by association, if you will. Reuvens brash and rash action—albeit in defense of his mother Leahs feelings—deprived his father of that small measure of comfort.