Monthly Archives: December 2015

Parshat ויחי – Genesis – 48:15 – What is Hard for God to Do?  

Genesis: 48:15 – And he blessed Joseph and said, “God, before Whom my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, walked, God Who sustained me [who sheparded me]  as long as I am alive, until this day,

Gemora Pesachim: 118(a): Rabbi Yochanan said: It is more difficult [for God] to provide food/sustenance for a person than to bring about the Final Redemption.

Torah Temimah – Colloquial translation of Note #11

In Midrashic texts instead of the word “difficult”, it quotes Rabbi Yochanan as saying it is “greater” for God to provide a person’s sustenance than to bring the Final Redemption. Perhaps Rabbi Yochanan’s statement here can be explained in light of his comment in Gemora Megila 31(a) “Every place where you find God’s greatness is [exactly] the place where He shows His humility”. [Rabbi Yochanan] cites as proof the verse: (Deuteronomy 10:17 and 10:18 – 10:17: For the Lord, your God, is God of gods and the Lord of the lords, the great mighty and awesome God, Who will show no favor, nor will He take a bribe. 10:18 – He judges on behalf of the orphan and widow, and He loves the stranger, to give him bread and clothing.

Rabbi Yochanan cites the end of the verse above as proving that God’s mightiness is shown by His providing food for the hungry. Even though mortal people also provide food for the hungry, God’s doing so shows His humility and therefore His greatness.

This topic can be further explained by that which has been noted by the wise men of truth: Angels, since they are pure spirituality, cannot feel [or empathize] with physical [beings or] issues. Therefore, even if an Angel were to be merciful, it still wouldn’t be able to provide for a person’s physical needs as another human being would be capable of doing. This is due to the Angel’s inability to feel physical things or understand this [aspect of] reality.  So, according to this reasoning, it would be logical to conclude that God, who is the Holy of Holies and the Ultimate in refined spirituality and purity, would certainly not feel [empathize], so to speak, physical issues and realities. That is why we teach that God, even though He is the Ultimate in spirituality, He is showing His humility in His ability to feel for man’s low, physical needs and He [himself] provides food for the stranger, the orphan and the widow. Thus the greatness is not in the giving of the food itself but in His knowledge and feeling/understanding of the need. Also, the reason why the Torah mentions specifically the stranger, the orphan and the widow [is not to limit God to just these but rather] because these are the most common instances of people who [urgently] need food. This is futher shown by the verse in Exodus 22:21- You shall not oppress any widow or orphan. 22:22 – If you oppress him, [beware,] for if he cries out to Me, I will surely hear his cry. It further says, “I am the Father of orphan and the Judge of widows and I respond to their needs”.

Now it is understood what is meant by the idea that it is more difficult to provide for a person’s food than it is to bring the Final Redemption. This is because the Redemption is a spiritual issue and it can be brought about by an Angel who has the ability to comprehend and feel such matters. This is not the case with providing food, however. This must necessarily be done exclusively by God [Himself] in all His glory. Based on this, the exact wording of the midrash is more appropriate. The act of providing food shows God greatness and is on a higher level than bringing the Final Redemption.

There is another facet that can explain the higher level of providing a person’s sustenance/livelihood exclusively through God Himself and not through an Angel. This relates to another saying in this same location in the Gemora Pesachim 118(a): “It is more difficult for God to provide sustenance for a person than to split the Red Sea”.

Some questions on this are: what relationship and comparison is there between providing someone’s sustenance and splitting the Red Sea??!! Further, how is is possible to say that anything is difficult for God to accomplish? Even the splitting of the Red Sea itself, how could one describe that as “difficult” for God to accomplish? Isn’t it true that nothing is difficult for God?

Perhaps one can explain this according to the Midrashim on Parshat Shlach where it says that at the time of the splitting of the Red Sea the Accusing Angel criticized the Jews and stated in front of God: “These (the Egyptians) are worshippers of idols and these (the Jews) are also worshippers of idols.” This can be said because in Egypt, the Jews had also succumbed to idol worship.) “Why,” the Accusing Angel asked God, “are you splitting the Red Sea for them?”

This question was difficult for God to answer and to defend the Jews and to find merit in their favor since, truthfully, there were many sins that they had committed. This is similar to a father who is pained when he tries to judge his son favorably even though he can see that the son has done wrong.

This is what it means when one says that the splitting of the Red Sea was difficult for God. It wasn’t the actual splitting that was difficult; it was the finding favor in the Jews to merit that the sea should be split on their behalf that was difficult.

Similarly, to the extent that good things happen to a person based on his deeds, it is understandable why even providing a person’s sustenance should be difficult for God. It is difficult for God to find favor against the claims of the Accusing Angel against a person. The Accusing Angel stands condemning a person who, in general, has more flaws than merits as it says in Ecclesiastes 7:20 – For there is no righteous man on earth who does good and sins not. Therefore it is necessary, so to speak, for God to overcome the Accusing Angel and [argue] in favor of a person’s merits. [This is what is meant by “difficult” for God to accomplish.]

Behold it states in Gemora Kedushim 82(b) as follows: “R. Simeon b.Eleazar said: In my whole lifetime I have not seen a deer engaged in gathering fruits, a lion carrying burdens, or a fox as a shopkeeper, yet they are sustained without trouble, though they were created only to serve me, whereas I was created to serve my Maker. Now, if these, who were created only to serve me are sustained without trouble, how much more so should I be sustained without trouble, I who was created to serve my Maker! But it is because I have acted evilly and destroyed my livelihood, as it is said, your iniquities have turned away these things.”

On other words, through my bad deeds I have squandered the ability to earn my sustenance through easy means and therefore I must toil hard for my bread. This shows that one’s ability to earn a living is dependent on one’s good deeds. It is because of this fact that the Accusing Angel has the ability to accuse us and prevent our livelihood. Thus, God, in order to provide for us, needs to overcome (so to speak) the Accuser and find favor for us, just as He did in the splitting of the Red Sea. Thus it is entirely appropriate to compare the level of difficulty for God in providing a person’s livelihood and the splitting of the Red Sea.  

Also, see how this approach clarifies another statement mentioned in the beginning of Gemora Gittin 2(a) where it says that finding an appropriate mate for a person is as difficult as splitting the Red Sea. Note that this is in the discussion of a possible second marriage, but in the case of one’s first spouse, this principle does not apply.

On the face of it, it is not clear what the comparison is between finding one’s mate and splitting the Red Sea. Further, why is a distinction made between one’s first spouse and one’s second spouse? The answer is because for one’s second spouse we believe that one merits one’s second spouse according to the level of one’s deeds. Thus, as is explained above, the Accuser is able to find flaws in the actions of a person and God needs to overcome the Accuser and whiten a person’s sins and find favor for the person, just as was the case in the splitting of the Red Sea. Thus, that Gemora also becomes explained.

All of this now explains Rabbi Yochanan’s original statement that “providing the livelihood of a person is more difficult that bringing the Final Redemption since the Final Redemption could be accomplished by an Angel.” The reason is because the livelihood of a person depends on his deeds, as mentioned above. Thus, this is difficult for God as it was in the splitting of the Red Sea, as stated explicitly in the Jerusalem Talmud Tractate Taanit, Chapter 2, Halacha 4 – “when there was no one to find merit with the Jews, it was necessary for God Himself to find favor for them.”

This is not the case with the Final Redemption, however. This event will occur in spite of the level of sins of man as it says “If they merit, it will come early; if they don’t merit it will come at its appointed time.” That is precisely why the Final Redemption can be brought about by an Angel.

Translator Note: I liked this note of the Torah Temimah because its central, unifying theme is humility; including God’s humility and also the humility that we need to have as people facing individual challenges and also the humility that the Jewish people need to maintain.

Parshat מקץ Genesis 42:1 – Don’t Show Off

Genesis 42:1 Jacob saw that they were selling [grain] in Egypt, so Jacob said to his sons: Why do you make yourselves [appear] conspicuous?

Gemora Taanit: 10(a) – Jacob said to his sons, don’t make yourselves appear as though you are satiated – don’t do it in front of Esav nor in front of Ishmael – in order that they not be jealous.

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #1:

In other words, even though you still have grain in your store houses, nevertheless you should go to Egypt to buy more grain in order that you not appear as satiated [satisfied]. It is possible to say that this homiletic explanation of the word: תתראו   takes it as though it were written:  תתרוו which has the root meaning of “satiated”. This meaning of “satiated” is shown by the verse in Deuteronomy 29:18 (למען ספות הרוה את הצמאה ); also the verse in Psalms 36:9; also the verse in Psalms 91:16: “ואראהו בישועת’” – With length of days I shall satiate (אשביעהו) him, and I shall show (ואראהו) him My salvation. Reading the word “show” as rather meaning “satiate” also fits with the beginning of the verse. [Additionally, the double, parallel sentence structure is a common biblical construction.]

We find [often] that an “aleph” is converted to a “vav”; this is also the case with the letters “aleph”, “heh”, “vav” and “yud” are often switched, as is well known. The Radak makes the same point in his book MIchlol. See also Rashi in his commentary on Parshat Matos (32:24). [Please, dear reader, do check out this Rashi!]

Similarly, we also find that the aleph is often placed instead of a double letter. Examples of this are in Isaiah 18 with the word: בזאו instead of the word בזזו. Also, in Psalms 48 with the word ימאסו instead of the word ימססו – so too here in our verse with the word תתראו instead of the word תתרוו. See also what we have written in our commentary on Parshat Chukas (Numbers 21:14) on the verse “ את והב”.

Regarding the reason why the Rabbis explained the word תתראו beyond its simple meaning is possibly because in most instances the verb “to see” is followed by a noun or the direct object of what is being seen. This occurs in the phrase “seeing the face” and other similar instances. Here [in our verse], however, the verb occurs without an object, which is unusual. That is why they explain the verb תתראו with the meaning of תתרוו – satiated; satiation being a verb that occurs on its own and is reflexive.

Also, one should keep in mind that based on this explanation we derive the law that one who is not fasting on a public fast day for some reason is prohibited to show in front of those who are fasting as though he is satiated. This would cause the people who are fasting to be distressed. Similarly in the Gemora Bava Kama (92b) we find it mentioned that people are often not inclined to show themselves as satiated in order not to arouse jealousy or the evil eye. All this is learned from this advice of Jacob, our father.  

Editor’s Note: In this note, the Torah Temimah is, I think, teaching a moral lesson that he wants to convey. He does, at the same time, display some points of view regarding Hebrew grammar that are not frequently found.