A Quick Torah Thought

 Joseph tells Pharaoh that the fact that his dream was repeated twice signified its veracity and the immediacy with which it would transpire. Is that true of every dream we find in the bible? The dreams of the butler and baker duo were not repeated yet both unfolded immediately, and proved as true as life and death.  A second question, if I may. The Midrash, which I have begun to enjoy immensely, relates that Yaakov Avinu saw in divine inspiration that his son Joseph was still alive, prior to having received that news from his sons. Why is it that the Midrash takes that tack? Usually, if not always, the Midrash seeks to illuminate a point/complexity that arises from the written tradition; something requires clarification, elucidation to hone the educational or textual point being conveyed.  But, in this case, it is so clear that the simple meaning of the Torah's verses - his very spirit became restored when he heard that Joseph was still alive - that it is hard to underst...

 Reuven is a cryptic figure in his own right. It's hard to really put your finger on who exactly he was. What was his temperament? His strengths? Did he ever bring his strengths to fruition? It seems like everything he did, he botched up. I can't think of any character in the Torah who is given so much space to describe his repeated failures over time.  Firstly, after Rachel's death, he totally misread the situation, either sleeping with his father's concubine, Bilhah (Ramban) or playing musical chairs with his father and mother's beds in a way that was more fitting with his worldview.  Then, with Joseph's sale, it was apparent from the get-go that he wasn't a leader, that he wasn't given the credence or respect he seemingly deserved. A leader needs somebody to listen to him. The brothers said, "We're going to kill him." Reuven's entreaties fell on deaf ears; the only concession that he got out of Yehudah was that Joseph would be thrown...

 An interesting question can be asked about the interchange between Yaakov, and his sons, Shimon and Levi, after they smote the people of Shechem. Who was right? Was Yaakov right that the brothers had acted in an impetuous way, or were Shimon and Levi right for having ignored the practical ramifications of their deeds? Yaakov, when he first responds to the episode strikes a very pragmatic, and even utilitarian note. "You have besmirched me, belittling me in the people of the land, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, and the peoples will gather against me, and eradicate me, and my entire household." Shimon and Levi do not flinch, responding in kind: "Shall our sister be made into a harlot?!" Yaakov's consideration, here at least, was strictly pragmatic, Shimon and Levi, seeking – what they viewed, at least now – as the higher moral ground. "Whatever the cost may be," they argued, "if we are in the right, then it is Hashem's job to protec...

Yaakov asks the shepherds at the outskirts of Haran a very interesting question: “My friends, where are you from?”  What was the purpose of the question? It's clear that he was trying to spark a conversation to find out about the whereabouts of Lavan, and glean information about him.  The shepherds then offer information about Lavan's daughter, Rachel. The question is whether this was typical of that time. Would someone, given the codes of modesty at that time, offer up information of a young maiden to a total stranger? There certainly were standards of propriety then that don't exist now, and are alien to the fabric of our lives. For example, Eliezer sought a divine sign as to Yitzhak's intended because he himself could not approach the well because it was the time designated for the women, eit ha'shoavot in Hebrew. Furthermore, as another indication of the mores of the time, the Torah states that Dinah was the first woman to have ever been raped; it was considered...