Bar-Ilan University
Parshat Hashavua Study Center
Parshat Vayehi 5776/December 26, 2015
This series of faculty lectures on the weekly Parsha is made possible by the Department of Basic Jewish Studies, the Paul and Helene Shulman Basic Jewish Studies Center, the Office of the Campus Rabbi, Bar-Ilan University's International Center for Jewish Identity and the Computer Center Staff at Bar-Ilan University.
Please feel free to like our facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/BIUParsha.
For inquiries, contact Avi Woolf at: opdycke1861@yahoo.com.
1101
“Although you intended me harm, G-d intended it for good”
On Positive Psychology
By Abraham Gottlieb*
We proclaim, “Hazak, hazak, ve-nithazek”—words of encouragement to those who study the Torah and apply its teachings—upon completing the public reading of the first book of the Pentateuch with Parashat Va-Yehi, at the Sabbath morning service, before beginning the book of Exodus, the “Book of Exile and Redemption” (Nahmanides, Introduction to Exodus), at the Sabbath afternoon service.
The end of the book of Genesis, also known as the “Book of Creation” and the “Yashar (=Righteous) Book” (cf. Avodah Zarah 25a) is amazing and super-human, most characteristic of the Israelites at their best, becoming a people. Joseph the Righteous, vizier to the king of Egypt (Gen. 41:40-43), was a pioneering, ground-breaking leader who restored the lost unity to be desired for his family, the tribes, and all the Jewish people. This accomplishment, however, was far from simple or self-evident and was achieved the hard way and over a long period of time. As Scripture says in this regard (Gen. 50:15):
When Joseph’s brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, “What if Joseph still bears a grudge against us and pays us back for all the wrong that we did him!”
Joseph’s brothers were motivated by hatred accompanied by apprehension and fear of revenge. They thought normatively, according to the accepted ways of human society, as is “natural” and routine. They plotted against him and sought to kill him, and therefore they were sure that he would repay them in like manner, reciprocating their hatred, especially after their father’s death. But they turned out to have been wrong, because his approach was different from theirs.
Unlike them, Joseph’s view of the world came from a place of love, everything being for the best. He perceived that every situation, whatever it might be, contained something positive, even when the process was drawn out and accompanied by physical and emotional suffering with no end in sight, even when his life was in danger.
Joseph, a wise and thoughtful man, was called Zafenat Pane`ah by Pharaoh, signifying in Hebrew that he solves hidden mysteries, because he solved Pharaoh’s dream (Gen. 41:45). Joseph, in his wisdom, knew that in practice repaying hatred for hatred does not resolve any issue or contribute anything to the situation. Therefore he approached the reality logically, thinking what is good and seeing the good. He arrived at this approach by way of deep intellectual analysis of reality, finding a balance between what is right and proper, between the desired and the actual.
The entire saga begins in Parashat Va-Yeshev (Gen. 37:1ff). Joseph, who would go out with his brothers to pasture their father’s flocks, tattled on them to his father, Jacob, also called Israel. As the child of his old age, Israel loved Joseph best of all his sons and made for him a many-colored tunic (v. 3). Jacob’s excessive love of Joseph led to powerful jealousy and hatred on the part of the brothers, unbridled hatred, as described in verse 4: “They hated him so that they could not speak a friendly word to him.”
In addition, this hatred was fueled by two dreams of leadership: all the sheaves of his brothers, who were older than him, bowed down to the sheaf of Joseph the leader. Joseph raised the level of hatred further by his second dream (v. 8), in which he saw the sun and moon and eleven stars bowing down to him, a dream for which even his father reproved him (v. 10):
And when he told it to his father and brothers, his father berated him. “What,” he said to him, “is this the dream you have dreamed? Are we to come, I and your mother and your brothers, and bow low to you to the ground?”
His father and brothers did not believe that little Joseph would rule over them and that they would be subject to his domination because they did not know it was the divine plan, devised for their welfare and the welfare of the Egyptian people. Therefore (vv. 11-12):
So his brothers were wrought up at him, and his father kept the matter in mind. His brothers went to pasture their father’s flock at Shechem.
Later on his father sent him to see how his brothers and the flocks were faring in Shechem (v. 14):
And he said to him, “Go and see how your brothers are and how the flocks are faring, and bring me back word.” So he sent him from the valley of Hebron, and he came to Shechem.
Joseph, a loyal son who respected his father, immediately did as his father bade him, charged with high motivation even though he was aware of the danger in store for him on account of his brothers’ hatred. Then, “a man came upon him wandering in the fields. The man asked him, ‘what are you looking for?’” (v. 15).
Ibn Ezra comments on this verse: “A man—according to the plain sense, one of the passersby.” In other words, a passerby found Joseph wandering in the fields and asked him what he was seeking. Joseph answered him full of powerful emotion (v. 16): “He answered, ‘I am looking for my brothers. Could you tell me where they are pasturing?’”
Joseph let out a mighty and bitter cry that became a watchword for future generations: I seek my brothers, who are my very own flesh and blood. In other words, I must find brotherhood, a way to heal and put back together the family unit, to bring about unity between my brothers, between the tribes, between all Jews—a structural modular plan comprised of precise units progressing from the individual to the whole community.
The continuation of the story is well known (v. 16ff.):
The man said, “They have gone from here, for I heard them say: Let us go to Dothan.” So Joseph followed his brothers and found them at Dothan. They saw him from afar, and before he came close to them they conspired to kill him.
As Rashi explains thoroughly, on the basis of the continuation of the text, and Nahmanides, following him, “they went away from brotherhood”—they had distanced themselves from brotherly feelings, nurturing their feelings of hatred. But Joseph showed his brothers and all the world that standing fast to a positive lofty objective is essential for life, it justifies the means and leads to results. Indescribable physical and emotional suffering was involved here. Joseph illustrated on his own flesh the practical principle, replete with suffering and grief, that the greater the distance the greater the sacrifice necessary to bring about the sense of brotherhood that led to the unification of the Jewish people in their nascent stage.
In the way he behaved, Joseph applied the fundamental principles of Positive Psychology,[1] a branch of psychology dealing with the attempt to find and nurture strengths, positive attributes and human talents, to change what is thought to be normative life into a more fulfilling experience. This is a motivational psychological approach that nurtures emotional strength and the growth of future abilities among the population at large, not only among those who look to it for treatment in the wake of difficulty coping emotionally. The aim is to direct people towards a healthy life with a positive and optimistic outlook and to prepare them to cope successfully with the difficulties that might come their way. That is the way of life Joseph adopted with love and faith, and was rewarded by seeing his efforts to achieve brotherhood succeed: “I am looking for my brothers.” And he found them!
Joseph’s view of the world and the opposing view taken by his brothers find expression in their first encounter after they had not found him in the pit, as described in Parashat Va-Yigash (Gen. 45:3-8):
Then Joseph said to his brothers,… “I am your brother Joseph, he whom you sold into Egypt. Now, do not be distressed or reproach yourselves because you sold me hither; it was to save life that G-d sent me ahead of you…G-d has sent me ahead of you to ensure your survival on earth, and to save your lives in an extraordinary deliverance. So, it was not you who sent me here, but G-d; and He has made me a father to Pharaoh, lord of all his household, and ruler over the whole land of Egypt.”
The brothers were astonished at seeing him and sure he would take revenge upon them. But Joseph was not vengeful. At that moment he understood their feelings and reassured them that it was only to ensure survival, to provide them food, that the Lord had sent him there. It was the divine plan that Joseph be appointed the supreme ruler of the great land of Egypt, in order to provide him and his entire family sustenance by virtue of his position, as it says in Parashat Mi-Ketz (Gen. 42:6):
Now Joseph was the vizier of the land; it was he who dispensed rations to all the people of the land.
Later on Joseph tested the patience of his brothers in several ways in order to strengthen their sense of brotherhood. His actions put into practice the advice given by the Psalmist for achieving brotherhood and peace (Ps. 34:12-15):
Come, my sons, listen to me; I will teach you what it is to fear the Lord.
Who is the man who is eager for life, who desires years of good fortune?
Guard your tongue from evil, your lips from deceitful speech.
Shun evil and do good, seek amity and pursue it.
The values inculcated here are that we must strive to live our lives with probity and honesty, to be true and to closely guard our tongue in order to avoid evil and negativity.
Moreover, in Joseph’s treatment of his brothers we see the practical realization of the words of the Sages in the Talmud (Kiddushin 40a): “Good intention the Lord combines with deed,” taking an optimistic view of the positive elements in any given situation. Just as we sing every Sabbath in the magical poem, Lekha Dodi, adopted by all Jewish communities as a central part of the Kabbalat Shabbat service and wisely composed by Rabbi Shlomo Ha-Levi Alkabez (kabbalist and liturgical poet, 16th-century Safed): “Sof ma`aseh be-mahashava tehillah” (=last realized but first planned).
Thus we see that Joseph, when he said, “Although you intended me harm, G-d intended it for good,” teaches us the very best positive psychology for the human body and soul: to think well and see the good, thoughtfully applying one’s mind and wisdom, along with an awareness of the lofty religious and educational idea in the words of King Solomon, the wisest of men (Prov. 19:21):
Many designs are in a man’s mind, but it is the Lord’s plan that is accomplished.
Translated by Rachel Rowen
* Dr. Abraham Gottlieb is a lecturer and coordinator of special courses at the Center for Basic Jewish Studies.
[1] Abraham Maslow, Psychology and Motivation, New York 1954; M. E. P. Seligman et al., “Positive Psychology: Progress, Empirical Validation of Intervention,” American Psychologist, July-August 2005; and in the two books by Martin Seligman: The Optimistic Child: A Proven Program to Safeguard Children Against Depression and Build Lifelong Resilience, Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston and New York, 1995, and Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential for Lasting Fulfillment, Simon and Schuster, New York, 2002.
Bar-Ilan University
Parashat Vayehi 5773/December 29, 2012
Parashat Hashavua Study Center
Lectures on the weekly Torah reading by the faculty of Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel. A project of the Faculty of Jewish Studies, Paul and Helene Shulman Basic Jewish Studies Center, and the Office of the Campus Rabbi. Published on the Internet under the sponsorship of Bar-Ilan University's International Center for Jewish Identity. Prepared for Internet Publication by the Computer Center Staff at Bar-Ilan University.
948
Raphael Yachin*
Switching Between the Names Jacob and Israel
Well-known exegetes and Bible scholars have dealt with the way Scripture uses the name Jacob even after the Lord's explicit promise, "You shall be called Jacob no more, but Israel shall be your name" (Gen. 35:10) and the statement, "Thus He named him Israel." Note that the man (angel) with whom Jacob wrestled at the ford of the Yabok had changed his name to Israel earlier (Gen. 32:29), but this name change was made under special circumstances and therefore perhaps should not be viewed as binding until it received divine confirmation. In any event, Jacob is the only instance of a person being given a new name that does not cancel all use of the former, original name. Let us examine the reason for this.
Several commentators have tried to provide a rationale for the alternation of names used for Jacob. Moshe Tzvi Segal, in Mesort u-Vikoret ha-Mikra,[1] devotes an entire chapter to this question, taking issue with the proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis and ultimately rejecting their approach. He also rejects the explanations of such commentators as Abraham Geiger,[2] Umberto Cassuto[3] and Benno Jacob who associated the use of particular names with specific content. Segal ultimately concludes that "one should not look for homiletic explanations and hidden reasons…for switching between the two names because [of] various Scriptural passages which contradict such assumptions."[4]
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch takes up this challenge and grapples with it throughout the Joseph narrative. He holds that the alternating names reflect Jacob's different emotional states in the light of what was transpiring. The name Jacob, he maintains, connects with the stooped, downcast man whereas the name Israel connotes hope and reinvigoration (see his commentary on 43:6):
Ever since the loss of Joseph, the name Jacob is always used. For Jacob denotes the downcast man, the sense of dependence and decline, as a person who "limps" after events, a person who is dragged along by events rather than marching in the lead.
The name Israel shows us the points of light in his life. On the verse, "Now Israel loved Joseph best of all his sons" (Gen. 37:3), Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch notes: "Israel—not Jacob—for he viewed him as his chosen son, because he was the son of his old age and in him he saw himself repeated and coming again to life; in him he saw the heir of all his spiritual wealth."[5]
Even though this approach explains a considerable number of alternations of Jacob/Israel, it does not account for all such instances. Here we suggest using statistical significance, commonly applied in textual analysis. Examining the distribution of appearances of each name, we find that in connection with Joseph the name "Jacob" is mentioned only 8 times, as opposed to 17 for "Israel", while in other contexts we find almost the opposite: "Israel" appears only 5 times, whereas "Jacob" appears 37 times.[6] Thus there appears to be a connection between the use of the name "Israel" and the appearance of Joseph on the stage. Insofar as "Israel" is known to be the national nomenclature for Jacob's descendants, this combination of names reinforces the notion of Joseph as chosen to realize the national destiny of "Israel". As we shall see below, switching between the names helps explain several important issues in the narrative about Joseph and his brothers.
Even though the cause of the brothers' hatred of Joseph - it being in the context of Jacob's preference of Joseph - is explicitly stated in Scripture, it does not suffice to account for the destructive intensity of this hatred. Let us try to further fathom the nature of the hatred and competitiveness among Joseph's brothers. The ornamented tunic in which Jacob dressed Joseph is symbolic of sovereignty,[7] and apparently attests that Joseph was not only destined to be Jacob's spiritual heir and the one to carry on the dynasty of the Patriarchs, but also to be heir of his material wealth. Moreover, the verses, "This, then, is the line of Jacob: Joseph…" (Gen. 37:2) and "Now Israel loved Joseph best of all his sons" (Gen. 37:3) stress the element of continuity evident in Joseph, in contrast to rejection of the other brothers who were not found worthy of that same inheritance. The midrash further supports such a perception: "Joseph was worthy that the twelve tribes should issue from him…but his lust came out from between his fingernails" (Sotah 36b).[8]
Seeing that Joseph was destined as the son to carry on the line of "Israel" and be the heir of the patriarchs, the other sons might well have feared that they would follow in the path of the other rejected branches of the family—Ishmael and Esau, who became the heads of clans of other, separate nations. Abraham had been told, "I will make you a father of a multitude of nations" (Gen. 17:5), and from him had issued Isaac, Ishmael, and the sons of his concubines. Rivkah had been told, "Two nations are in your womb, two separate peoples shall issue from your body" (Gen. 20:23), and from her came Esau and Jacob. Jacob had been given a similar promise: "A nation, yea an assembly of nations, shall descend from you" (Gen. 35:11), which might be taken as alluding to one important nation and "an assembly of nations" which is separate and distinct from the one chosen as successor. Moreover, the promise of progeny and of the land was only heard by Joseph (Gen. 48:3) without his sharing this information with the rest of his brothers. Thus Joseph's brothers discerned several signs that appeared to confirm their feeling of being destined to be the rejected "assembly of nations." Clearly this was especially hurtful to the sons of Leah, who herself had suffered Jacob's discrimination against her due to his love for Rachel. This perception throws a different light on the ties between the concubines' sons and Joseph—"a helper to the sons of his father's wives Bilhah and Zilpah" (Gen. 37:2); they were willing to accept Joseph's superiority in view of their lower status.
Judah is an exceptional figure in the Joseph narrative, in which he emerges as a resourceful leader in times of despair. In the verses describing Judah's willingness to take responsibility for Benjamin and to return to Egypt to buy more grain, the name "Israel" surfaces again several times.[9] This unusual occurrence can be explained in terms of Jacob being encouraged by Judah's leadership and therefore trusting him and seeing in him a substitute for the loss of his beloved son Joseph, whom he had destined to assume the role of leadership.[10]
Can these observations account for Jacob's great suffering over Joseph's disappearance? Was Jacob punished by twenty-two years of misery and mourning because he had erred in determining the destiny of the tribes and had seen them as rejected branches? Since Scripture does not reveal why "few and hard have been the years of my [Jacob's] life" (Gen. 47:9), as Jacob described his life to Pharaoh, we shall try to extract some hints from Jacob's blessings to his sons.
Only after concluding all the blessings does Jacob make the important declaration, containing an explicit promise: "All these were the tribes of Israel, twelve in number, and this is what their father said to them as he bade them farewell" (Gen. 49:28), unlike the previous reference to his sons: "Now the sons of Jacob were twelve in number" (Gen. 35:22). This summation, after his addressing each of the tribes, signifies that there will no longer be sons who are rejected, but that they will comprise the people of Israel together. In Scripture the expression, "what [he] said," can mean a promise, as in "who said to me and promised me on oath" (Gen. 24:7); "to the end that He may establish you this day as His people…as He said to you and as He swore to your fathers" (Deut. 29:12); "The Lord had given Solomon wisdom, as He had said to him" (I Kings 5:26).
If the above declaration of Jacob's is viewed as a promise to all the tribes that they will be the "children of Israel," - that is, the Jewish people – then this brings to an end the era of suspiciousness and doubt that so sorely gnawed away at the foundation of trust in Jacob's family. We speak not only of the suspicions of the brothers towards Joseph, but also of Joseph's silence throughout the years that he was serving in a lofty position in Egypt while his father, back home in Canaan, was grieving over the "death" of his son.[11] This is a fitting way to end the book of Genesis, bringing the story of Jacob and his sons to a successful conclusion. In the end all his sons, both those whom he blessed as well as those whom he rebuked, were included in the nation of Israel and no tribe from among his sons was rejected. Just as Joseph's brothers understood that their hatred of him had been a tragic mistake and that all that had befallen them in Egypt was had been punishment for their treatment of Joseph, so too Jacob understood that his attitude towards Joseph's brothers had been mistaken and that they were all worthy of being the "children of Israel," part of the emergent Israelite nation.*
Translated by Rachel Rowen
* Raphael Yachin lives in Kefar Sava.
[1] Moshe Tzvi Segal, "Ha-shemot Ya`akov—Yisrael be-Sefer Bereshit," Mesoret u-Vikoret ha-Mikra, Jerusalem 1957.
[2] "The name Israel appears instead of Jacob wherever Joseph and his brother Benjamin are concerned," Abraham Geiger, Ha-Mikra ve-Targumav: Be-Zikah le-Hitpathutah ha-Pnimit shel ha-Yahadut, 1948, p. 239.
[3] "The general rule is that wherever the name designates the father of the nation, there the name Israel is used…giving preference to or elevating Joseph or Benjamin over the other tribes. Elsewhere the name Jacob is used." Cited in Segal (note 1, above), p. 69.
[4] Ibid., p. 75.
[5] See other discussions by Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsh of the names by which Jacob is called: Gen. 45:27-28, 48:8.
[6] Counting every single appearance of the word "Jacob" and the word "Israel", as Segal did, yields 47 occurrences of the name Jacob as opposed to 29 of the name Israel, beginning with chapter 35:10. Segal, however, also included all the appearances of these names, including those in Jacob's blessing to his sons and in expressions such as "children of Israel" and "tribes of Israel," even though these occurrences do not reflect what was Jacob himself was undergoing.
[7] See II Sam. 13:18.
[8] Rashi, on verse 49:24, cites the midrash about Potiphar's wife, which describes Joseph's partial failing.
[9] See Gen. 43:6,8,11.
[10] Indeed, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch sees this moment as one of recovering strength: "As long as Jacob was plagued by doubts and believed that he must not let Benjamin go, his name appears as Jacob, but once he realized the utter necessity—Benjamin's life was in danger whether he stayed home or went with them—then he pulls himself up and becomes Israel" (commentary on 43:6).
[11] Nahmanides raises the issue of Joseph's disavowal of his father being a moral problem: "One wonders how it was that, after being long in Egypt and a clerk and overseer in an important Egyptian official's house, Joseph did not write to his father to inform him of his presence and console him; for Egypt is only six days' travel from Hebron, and had it been even a year's journey away, he should still have contacted him out of filial respect" (commentary on verse 42:9).
* Thanks to Dr. Meir Roth for his helpful comments.
Bar-Ilan University
Parshat Vayehi 5774/December 14, 2013
Parashat Hashavua Study Center
Lectures on the weekly Torah reading by the faculty of Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel. A project of the Faculty of Jewish Studies, Paul and Helene Shulman Basic Jewish Studies Center, and the Office of the Campus Rabbi. Published on the Internet under the sponsorship of Bar-Ilan University's International Center for Jewish Identity. Prepared for Internet Publication by the Computer Center Staff at Bar-Ilan University.
998
"Do not bury me in Egypt"
By Natan Aviezer*
One of the interesting questions raised by Parashat Va-Yehi concerns the burial place of Jacob and Joseph. As Jacob was about to die he called his son Joseph, second in rank to the Pharaoh and a man possessing almost unlimited authority, and requested of him that he be buried in the land of Israel:
"'Do me this favor, place your hand under my thigh as a pledge of your steadfast loyalty; please do not bury me in Egypt. When I lie down with my fathers, take me up from Egypt and bury me in their burial-place.' He [Joseph] replied, 'I will do as you have spoken'" (Gen. 47:29-30). With this explicit declaration by Joseph one could have taken the matter to be closed. But Jacob did not make do with this promise, rather he demanded that Joseph also swear to it: "'Swear to me.' And he swore to him" (Gen. 47:31).
What does this strange demand signify? Why did Joseph's promise not suffice? Why the need for an oath, as well? And one more question: when Joseph was on his death-bed he did not request to be taken for burial in the land of Israel. For the time being he was willing to be buried in Egypt and only requested that when the Israelites leave Egypt for the land of Israel they take his bones with them for final burial in the land of Israel: "So Joseph made the sons of Israel swear, saying, 'When G-d has taken notice of you, you shall carry up my bones from here'" (Gen. 50:25). As we know, the Israelites did not leave until Moses' day, hundreds of years after Joseph's death. Why the wait? Why did Joseph not ask to be buried in the land of Israel forthwith, as Jacob had? How did Jacob's situation differ from Joseph's, requiring that he demand to be buried in the land of Israel immediately, whereas Joseph was willing to wait centuries to be buried there?
The key to these questions lies in understanding Joseph's status in Egypt. When Joseph solved Pharaoh's dreams, he was chosen by the king to be his second-in-command, and thus Joseph's rank exceeded that of all Pharaoh's ministers and advisors. How did they view the man whom Pharaoh had so rapidly promoted to greatness? In their eyes Joseph was an outsider and a criminal who had been sentenced to prison for attempting to rape the wife of a senior Egyptian official. Worst of all, he was a Hebrew. The Torah spells out the Egyptians' attitude towards Hebrews: the second time the brothers came to Egypt, Joseph invited them to dine. The way the tables were set for this meal tells us all: the Egyptians sat at a separate table, not at the table where Joseph's brothers were seated. Why? "For the Egyptians could not dine with the Hebrews, since that would be abhorrent to the Egyptians" (Gen. 43:32). If even eating with the Hebrews was considered abhorrent to the Egyptians, we can well understand how Pharaoh's ministers must have felt when a Hebrew was appointed over them as second in command to the Pharaoh.
Pharaoh's ministers were full of jealousy and hatred towards the Hebrew who had been placed over them and waited for the moment that Joseph would take a false step so that they could blacken his face in Pharaoh's eyes. Joseph could survive in Pharaoh's court only if he acted prudently. He had to prove his loyalty to Egypt time and again and show that in his lofty station his only intention was to serve Pharaoh and to promote the affairs of the Egyptian people.
In this context we can understand why Jacob demanded that Joseph promise on oath not to bury him in Egypt. Joseph being requested to bury his father in the land of Canaan might be interpreted by the Egyptians as an insult: is not the soil of Egypt sufficiently holy for these Hebrews? There was only one way in which Joseph could justify such a request to Pharoah: the oath that he swore to his father: "My father made me swear, saying…Be sure to bury me in the grave which I made ready for myself in the land of Canaan" (Gen. 50:5). This Pharaoh could understand: the devoted son had to keep the oath he made to his elderly father: "And Pharaoh said, 'Go up and bury your father, as he made you promise on oath'" (Gen. 50:6).
This explanation also accounts for Joseph not being able to request that he himself be buried in the land of Israel, for he could not make the argument of a promise made on oath. In order not to jeopardize the delicate relations between him and Pharaoh, he made no request and was buried in Egypt. But of the tribes he requested that when the Holy One, blessed be He, take them out of Egypt, they also take his remains with them for final burial in the land of Israel.
The same argument also explains the strange audience Jacob had with Pharaoh (Gen. 47:7-10):
Joseph then brought his father Jacob and presented him to Pharaoh; and Jacob greeted Pharaoh. Pharaoh asked Jacob, "How many are the years of your life?" And Jacob answered Pharaoh, "The years of my sojourn [on earth] are one hundred and thirty. Few and hard have been the years of my life, nor do they come up to the life spans of my fathers during their sojourns." Then Jacob bade Pharaoh farewell, and left Pharaoh's presence.
Aside from Jacob's polite greetings, required by proper etiquette and protocol, the content of the interchange appears totally devoid of meaning. One has the impression that neither person knew what to say to the other, so they made do with a banal exchange. But Jacob's audience with Pharaoh was very important, not necessarily because of what was said in their conversation, but by the very fact of its existence. The object of the meeting was to show the court that not only Joseph but also his father and all his family were under Pharaoh's protection, as the next verse states: "So Joseph settled his father and his brothers, giving them holdings in the choicest part of the land of Egypt, in the region of Rameses, as Pharaoh had commanded" (Gen. 47:11).
Joseph's lofty station entailed not a few dangers. Throughout the years his position at court was extremely fragile. Only Pharaoh's warm attitude towards him enabled Joseph to survive amidst the Egyptian ministers. The special status of the Israelites in Egypt was based on the chemistry the developed between Joseph and Pharaoh. Little wonder, therefore, that after the death of Joseph and Pharaoh not many years passed before the inevitable reversal took place: a new ruler over Egypt turned the Israelites from a people who enjoyed preferential status into a nation of slaves (Ex. 1:8-14):
A new king arose over Egypt who did not know Joseph…So they set taskmasters over them to oppress them with forced labor…The Egyptians ruthlessly imposed upon the Israelites the various labors that they made them perform. Ruthlessly they made life bitter for them with harsh labor at mortar and bricks and with all sorts of tasks in the field.
Sadly, the history of the Jewish people is full of such reversals of fate. We have experienced on our own flesh that even the most amicable policy towards the Jews can in the end turn into hostility.
Translated by Rachel Rowen
* Natan Aviezer is Professor of Physics at Bar Ilan University and author of the books, "Bereshit Bara" and "Emunah be-Idan ha-Mada."
Bar-Ilan University
Parshat Hashavua Study Center
Parshat Vayehi 5775/January 3, 2015
This series of faculty lectures on the weekly Parsha is made possible by the Department of Basic Jewish Studies, the Paul and Helene Shulman Basic Jewish Studies Center, the Office of the Campus Rabbi, Bar-Ilan University's International Center for Jewish Identity and the Computer Center Staff at Bar-Ilan University. For inquiries, please contact Avi Woolf at: opdycke1861@yahoo.com.
1047
Jacob’s Blessing and its Impact on Given Names
By Yosef Rivlin*
According to many rabbis in later generations, the practice of giving children two names is relatively new. The name “Ben Oni,” given to Benjamin, is not indicative of conferring two names at birth, likewise the names of Sarah and the names of Jethro and Moses. The name “Abba” in Abba Saul is no more than a title, as in the names Abba Yodan, Abba Mari and others, as well.
Rabbi Yehezkel Landau (Prague, 17th century) wrote in a responsum: “To the best of my memory I cannot recall any place in the Mishna where a tanna or amora is mentioned by two names and both names are nouns.”[1] Likewise, the Hatam Sofer (Germany-Hungary, mid-18th to mid-19th century) wrote: “Further, it must be said that formerly it was not the practice to call a person by two names at once; rather, this is a recent innovation.”[2] Also Moshe Feinstein (20th-century United States) wrote: “Giving two names together was not done in previous generations.”[3]
The scholar of names Alexander Beider confirms that this practice only emerged in recent centuries, and notes that in 18th-century Germany approximately twenty percent of the Jewish population had two proper names from birth.[4] This custom was practically non-existent among Sephardic or Yemenite Jews.[5] The challenge in this field of investigation is to propose a reason why the practice only began in recent generations and specifically in the Ashkenazi community.
Professor Aaron Demsky, head of the Project for the Study of Jewish Names, suggests a connection between the development of printing in the 16th century and the incidence of two given names in Ashkenaz. Many of the double names are taken from Jacob’s blessings to his sons. Thus, for example, we have the pairs of names Benjamin-Ze’ev, and Judah-Aryeh. Demsky notes another three categories of double names based on traditional texts, where the two names appear together in a single verse. One category is pairs of names: “Abraham-Isaac,” taken from the verse, “the G-d of Abraham, Isaac,…” (Ex. 3:16), or “Jacob-Joseph,” from the verse, “These are the generations of Jacob, Joseph…” (Gen. 37:2). Another category relates to verbs, adjectives, or nouns: “Yoel-Moses,” from the verse, “Moses consented [va-yoel Moshe]” (Ex. 2:21), or “Haya-Sarah,” based on hayei Sarah (“Sarah’s lifetime [Va-yiheyu hayei Sarah],” Gen. 23:1), or “Esther-Malka” (= Queen Esther, Esther 5:2), and the like. The third category relates to midrashic material.[6]
The invention of printing, which brought about wide distribution of books, especially the Bible, did indeed lead to more extensive transmission of written material from generation to generation and from community to community, material which offered exposure to many first names. Thus it could have had an impact on giving double names. Nevertheless, we must seek an explanation for the practice catching on primarily in Ashkenazic communities. Investigation into the classic explanations, such as gentile influence, family names, and large numbers of children, has not produced convincing arguments.[7]
Unique practices among Ashkenazic communities appear to have had a considerable impact, including adhering to the will of Rabbi Judah the Hassid of Speyer (12th century) regarding the names of couples planning to marry: “A man should not marry a woman whose name is the same as his mother’s, or his name the same as his father-in-law’s; and if he does marry such a woman, one of them should change their name, and then perhaps there will be hope.”[8] The impact of this will on the Ashkenazic communities became evident after it appeared in print in the 16th century. Many writers of responsa dealt with the said instruction and its validity, the stricter rabbis instructing that one of the parties joining in marriage should take on an additional name. Clearly, therefore, after adopting an additional name, that name became an inseparable part of the groom’s or father-in-law’s compound name. When the next generation wished to commemorate the person memory after his death, his name would be perpetuated as a double name.[9]
The difference between Sephardic and Ashkenazic practice regarding names given in honor or in memory might also be a factor. When Sephardic Jews give a name in honor of a living grandfather,[10] they generally do not compound it with another name. But a name given in memory of the deceased might be compounded in order to commemorate several people. As Rabbi Joseph Hahn of Frankfurt wrote over four centuries ago, regarding an additional secular name given to Ashkenazic children after birth, in addition to the religious name conferred on them at birth:
Sometimes the mother and father might disagree over the name…and would reach a compromise…by one side giving the secular name and the other side giving the religious name.[11]
In the past there was also a difference between Ashkenazic and Sephardic communities in the way of changing the name of a sick person. In Ashkenazic communities, the first name would remain standing, and the change of name would find expression in adding another name; this could provide the basis for double names.[12]
Hida wrote that in Italy it was customary to add the name of an animal in the hope of recovering from illness.[13] In Ashkenaz, as we have said, second names coming from the names of animals were very common.[14] Most often used were the names of animals associated with the tribes in Jacob’s blessing, mentioned above: Judah-Aryeh, from “Judah is a lion’s whelp” (Gur aryeh Yehudah; Gen. 49:9), or Benjamin-Ze’ev from “Benjamin is a ravenous wolf” (Binyamin ze’ev yitraf; Gen. 49:27). However, not all the animals mentioned in Jacob’s blessing were taken on as names for people.
The wild ass, or shor, associated with Joseph is quite rare; apparently the strength of a domesticated animal, not of a wild beast, is what people wished to convey. Likewise, the serpent associated with Dan does not occur in the index of names, apparently because of the taint of the curse placed on it. Two other animals underwent a change of name: the ayalah (= hind) of Naphtali was changed to a related animal, the zvi; hence the common combination: Naphtali-Zvi. Issachar’s ass was replaced by a bear (dov), yielding the pair of names Issachar-Dov.[15] The names of animals also appear in translation to the vernacular, giving rise to various compound names such as: Naphtali Zvi Hertz and Naphtali Hirsch; Issachar Baer Dov and Dov Baer; Judah Leib and Aryeh Leib; Benjamin Ze’ev Wolff and Ze’ev Wolff, and many others.[16]
The practice of giving two names has been spreading throughout all Jewish communities. Alongside the wish to commemorate a grandfather or grandmother who had two names, or great Admors and prominent religious leaders and their wives who had two names, a new phenomenon has emerged of giving two names after two people, such as grandfathers on both sides of the family,[17] or a grandfather and an Admor, and the like. In certain circles today it is customary to give a modern Israeli name alongside a traditional name in commemoration of a relative.[18]
Regarding these practices, it should be noted that the rabbis of recent times have discussed two questions:
1) Is the objective of commemorating the name and memory of the deceased accomplished when the names of several deceased are joined together? Sefer Ikarei ha-Dat by Rabbi Daniel Tirani (18th-century Italy) says that a son may be named after his father and father-in-law together.[19] Opposing this view, the Hazon-Ish holds that two names after two different individuals comprise a totally new name in which there is no benefit to either of the deceased.[20]
2) Ought two names to be given when one intends only to use one of them in daily life? Sefer Keter Shem Tov says: “When giving two names, one ought to strive always to call the person by both names together.”[21] However, Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu is quoted as saying that two names may be given from the outset, even though one has no intention of using both in daily life.[22] The same view was expressed by Rabbi Abraham Isaac ha-Cohen Kook.[23]
Translated by Rachel Rowen
* Prof. Yosef Rivlin, Department of Talmud, Bar Ilan University.
[1] Resp. Nod`a bi-Yehudah, Tinyana ed., Orah Hayyim 113, s.v., “u-mah she-ratzah.”
[2] Resp. Hatam Sofer, Even ha-`Ezer, 2.18. Rabbi Shlomo Luria (Maharshal, 16th-century Poland), in: 16th-century Poland), in Yam Shel Shlomo, Gittin ch. 4, par. 26, was of the same opinion.
[3] Resp. Iggerot Moshe, Orah Hayyim, Part 5, par. 10.
[4] A. Beider, A Dictionary of Ashkenazic Given Names, (New Jersey, 2001), Introduction, pp. xlii-xliii; 1-19; A. Beider, “Methodological Principles for Determining Etymologies of Ashkenazic Given Names,” in: A. Demsky (ed.), These are the Names, 4 (Ramat-Gan, 2003), pp. 41-76, 68-74.
[5] L. Bornstein-Makovetsky, “Shemoteihem ha-Pratiyim shel Yehudei Izmir ba-`Et ha-Hadashah,” in Ve-Eleh Shemot, Mehkarim be-Otzar ha-Shemot ha-Yehudiim, 3 (A. Demsky, ed.), Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2002, p. 23; ibid., “Ha-Shemot ha-Pratiyim shel Yehudei Saloniki ba-Dorot ha-Aharonim,” in Ve-Eleh Shemot, Mehkarim be-Otzar ha-Shemot ha-Yehudiim, 4 (A. Demsky, ed.), Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2004, pp. 24-25; A. Gaimani, “Shemot Pratiyim be-Kehilot Teiman: Mehkar Shemot `al pi Shitrei Ketubah,” in Ve-Eleh Shemot, Mehkarim be-Otzar ha-Shemot ha-Yehudiim, 1 (A. Demsky, ed.), Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1997, pp. 49-61, p. 61.
[6] Such as the name Moses-Mordechai, given to a son born on the 7th of Adar, which by legend was Moses’ birthday, and circumcised on Purim. See A. Demsky, “Double Names in the Babylonian Exile and the Identity of Sheshbazzar,” in Ve-Eleh Shemot, Mehkarim be-Otzar ha-Shemot ha-Yehudiim, 2 (A. Demsky, ed.), Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1999, pp. 23-39.
[7] Y. Rivlin, “Matan Shenei Shemot le-Noladim,” in Ve-Eleh Shemot, Mehkarim be-Otzar ha-Shemot ha-Yehudiim, 5, (A. Demsky, ed.), Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2010, pp. 133-149.
[8] Sefer Hassidim, Margaliyot ed., Jerusalem: Rav Kook Institute, 1947, par. 23, pp. 17-19.
[9] This surely was not a common occurrence at the outset, but it may have had an indirect impact, with parents giving their children two names from the start in order to greatly reduce the chance of their future in-laws turning out to have the same names.
[10] Resp. Yabi`a Omer, Part V, Yoreh De`ah 21 states: “It is the practice of the Sephardic Jews to call newborns after living predecessors, and this is a sign of respect and honor.”
[11] Sefer Yosef Ometz, Jerusalem: Ha-Omnim, 1965 (ד"צ Frankfurt am Main, 1928), p. 362.
[12] `Arukh ha-Shulhan, Even ha-`Ezer par. 129.68, notes the practice of other communities: “In their days names were actually changed, removing the former name and giving another name…Thus it appear from the responsum to a certain Sephardic woman (cited in Get Pashut ס"ק צ"ג) וז"ל ע"ד the get of a person on his death-bed...and his name was changed, calling him Hayyim. Likewise, בתשו' מבי"ט the name of a person on his death-bed was changed from Isaac to Hayyim, etc., as cited in בב"י [Even ha-`Ezer, par. 129.18] in these words: a case was brought before הר"פ, dealing with an ill person whose name was changed during his illness, calling him by another name altogether.”
[13] Shem ha-Gedolim, letter waw, under Wolff.
[14] M. Gross, Shma Garrem, Bnei Brak 2003, pp. 38-41.
[15] These last two changes may well have been influenced by translations of the Bible into European languages, some of which suggest a single word for the two Hebrew words, ayalah and zvi . Some translations render the text on Issachar, va-yet shikhmo li-sbol (= He bent his shoulder to the burden, New JPS) with the English verb “to bear,” which may have provided the allusion to Dov or Baer.
[16] A. Demsky notes similar influence in other names, such as Ephraim Fischel, playing on the word ve-yidgu in the blessing to Ephraim (= “may they be teeming multitudes,” Gen. 48:16) and its similarity to the word dag (= fish). To the many examples presented by Demsky, attesting great desire to rely on a biblical text although not always taking into consideration content and parsing of the verse according to tropes, we can add the name Reuben Elizur, derived from the passage on the offerings of the chieftains: “On the fourth day, the chieftain of the tribe of Reuben, Elizur ben Shedeur” (Num. 7:30).
[17] Unlike the instance referred to above in Sefer Yosef Ometz, here both names are given together at birth. In this regard one should mention the testimony of Rabbi Solomon Luria (Maharshal) in whose time, as mentioned (note 2, above), the practice of giving two names at birth had not yet become widespread. He tells of an event in his family, where a son was born and each of the child’s parents wished to name him after their father. One of the grandfathers was called Meir and the other, Yair. In the end the sides compromised on the name Shneur (Shnei=2, Ur= light, a motif present in both names) thus hinting at both grandfathers (Yam shel Shlomo, Gittin, loc. cit.).
[18] A. Stahl, Motzeh ha-Shemot, Or Yehudah: Dvir, 2005, p. 102.
[19] Sefer Ikarei ha-Dat, Florence [חש"מ] 1906, Part II, Yoreh De`ah 26.7, p. 75b. Also cited by Rabbi Yosef Hayyim in Ben Ish Hai, Baghdad: Yehoshua Bekhor, 1912, Second Year, Parashat Shoftim, par. 27, p. 112b.
[20] Pe’er ha-Dor, Bnei Brak: Netzah, 1973, Part IV, p. 200. This view is shared by Rav Shakh, cf. Shma Garrem (note 14, above), p. 211. Apparently Rabbi Bezalel Stern also concurs (Resp. Be-Tzel ha-Hokhmah I, par. 34).
[21] A. Teherani, Keter Shem Tov, Jerusalem: Ginzei ha-Melekh Institute, 2000, 8th Branch, par. 2.9. In a note he quotes Resp. Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot of Rabbi Sternbuch, I, Yoreh De`ah, par. 608, citing the Hazon-Ish, that there is no benefit in giving two names. Therefore, if one has no intention of using both, one should avoid giving two names.
[22] E. Levy, Va-Yikra Shemo be-Yisrael, Jerusalem: Yefe-Nof, 2008, pp. 79-84. Rabbi Deblitzki concurs, as is said in the name of Rabbi Elyashiv, as well. Rabbi Neubirt generally gave his children an additional name of thanksgiving to the Holy One, blessed be He, for the beneficence bestowed upon him by the birth of a son or daughter.
[23] Resp. Ezrat Cohen, par. 28. He even called his son Zvi-Yehudah, however those who frequented the rabbi’s house and his close associates attest that Rav Kook was careful always to call his son by both names.
