Musings on the Torah

A true leader is one that is not only bothered by injustice but also acts quickly and boldly to remedy it.  Before Moshe is chosen we are told that he goes out to see how his brothers are doing and 1) defends a persecuted Israelite from an egyptian taskmaster; not only is he concerned about his own brethren vs others but also 2) intervenes to protect one Israelite from being assaulted by a fellow Israelite; not only that but he is even bothered by injustice where no Israelite is being victimized at all and 3) helps the defenseless daughters of Kohen Midyan from being driven away from the well.   (R Avraham ben HaRambam notes how this 3rd case demonstrates just how much injustice rankled him: התבונן בקנאותו ע"ה על העושק איך לא סרה ממנו ולא נסוג אחור ממנה אע״פ שלא ברח ממצרים אלא בגלל דבר כזה ואע״פ שהיה גר בארץ ולא נדכאה נפשו היקרה בגלות ולא נשתנתה נטיתו החשובה)  He was very sensitive to injustice and did all that was in his power to remedy it. The foregoing is what we are told about

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