A Quick Torah Thought

Rabbi Shmulevitz Z"L, of blessed memory, taught an interesting message about this week's parsha; Yaakov lost a year of his life for every negative word he uttered when Pharaoh asked him how old he was. Yaakov, who was supposed to live 180 years like his father Yitzhak, summarily lost 33 years of his life for depicting a negative narrative of his life. And thus, he lived 147 years, and not the 180 years he was supposed to. As Rav Shmulevitz teaches, the numbers, though, don't add up - the words related to Yaakov amount to only 25, whereas Pharaoh himself uttered 8 words. With that in mind, Rav Shmulevitz teaches that the righteous are held accountable for even the negative impressions they invoke others; Yaakov, melancholy and possibly downcast upon being taken away from his home, unintentionally and unwittingly caused Pharaoh to wonder as to the source of Yaakov's sadness.  If I may, though, I would like to focus on a different message I see here, a message that I thin...

 Some people, on the face of it, seem to have a knack for saying the wrong thing. That would seem to be the case with Reuven.  Yaakov, still in mourning over Joseph, faced with the horrible ultimatum of risking Binyamin's life for that of his whole family, is paralyzed by indecision. The stakes are simply too high. And then, Reuven says, "If I don't bring Binyamin back, you can kill my two sons," to which Yaakov responds, "My son is not going down with you." The accentuation placed on the words, "my son," is clear. The question is, "What was Yaakov's message?" Was Yaakov saying, "Treat your sons however you want, my son is not going to be treated as such. With my son you won't be playing Russian roulette." I humbly don't think that Yaakov saw Reuven's mode of expression as callous. Reuven in fact was trying to express his seriousness; ostensibly, when the famine gets more grave, it is Yehuda who more elegantly vo...

 I remember when Miriam and I first got married, we saw a couples communication seminar advertised at a local hotel, the Crowne Plaza. I convinced Miriam to go, thinking that it would yield some benefit, and certainly couldn't hurt. The one thing I remember from the event was a breakout session. The two moderators, elderly bubby-like ladies who sponsored the event in memory of a deceased relative, asked each group member to think about the most important thing to remember when in the midst of an argument with your spouse.  I had the good fortune to be in a group with another very young, cool and chill couple and when the moderators asked them, "So what did you decide is of utmost importance when arguing with your spouse?" the guy, totally nonplussed said, "Declaring a winner!" The hundred-some people there couldn't help but smirking, and laughing, and the older of the two moderators stared down the man - at first confused, and then smitten with annoyance at ...

 It's become a truism that understanding the Tanach requires understanding the historical norms of the time. While some see the Torah as archaic, and out of touch with modernity, it's important to understand that the Torah's conception of morality made it revolutionary, and as all concur, the first of the great religions. I personally take umbrage at the fact that Judaism is seen as the forbearer of Christianity, and thereafter Islam, but it cannot be denied that so many of the practices, customs and philosophical underpinnings in the Torah were thereafter usurped or at minimum, transplanted by other universal faiths.  In the light of the above, I would like to address one of the most complex episodes in the Torah, the rape of Dinah. Interestingly - and shockingly - the Code of Hammurabi states that a woman who has been raped is to be put to death, not the perpetrator but rather the victim. The Torah states that a woman who is raped in a field is always free of guilt, for...