Mystery Man

This week was the anniversary of the release of the Alter Rebbe from prison in Russia and was celebrated worldwide, including hundreds of places in Russia itself.  One of the questions asked to the Alter Rebbe by one of the officials while he was in prison, was what is the meaning of Hashem's question to Adam (Berashis 3:9), "where are you", איכה, Hashem knew where he was?  The Alter Rebbe told him the explanation of Rashi, but the official persisted that he wanted the Alter Rebbe's own explanation.  The Alter Rebbe told him that Hashem was asking Adam, where are you holding in life, where are you going?  This is a lesson for every individual, there are times where Hashem asks where are you going, are you on the right path?  Of course many of us don't have God appearing to us directly but there are many messengers of God.  My sister was once asked on a Shabbos morning by someone "where are you going?"  She responded "from the kiddush to lunch."  My father said that this man (of unidentified character) may have been no other than Elijah himself asking this very question "where are you going."  Obviously this might be a stretch, but you get the point.
In this week's parsha, Yosef is met by the mysterious man who asks him "what do you want?"  The mysterious man is in essence asking the same question, what are you searching for, what is occupying your mind, are you searching for riches or Godliness.  This question I believe, goes hand in hand with the question posed to Adam.  Where one is going is defined by what they are searching for.  If one is searching for the right thing, s/he may stumble along the way, but they are traveling along the right road.  If however, one isn't looking for what they should be, then they are obviously not headed in the right direction.

Talk To The Yetzer Harah

Two week's ago the Torah tells us about Yaakov's exit from Lavan's household.  Ultimately, the reason why Yaakov decided to leave was because he received a prophecy from Hashem that it was time to leave.  However, when Yaakov is relaying the message to  his wives he gives a whole justification as to why they should leave.  He explains how he has worked so hard for their father and all Lavan has done is trick him and then finally at the end of his speech he adds that God has told him to leave (Vayetzeh 31:5-13.)  Why the need for a whole explanation, just cut to the chase, Hashem said to leave?  Rav Neeman (Darchei Mussar) explains that we see from here that one of the tactics to fight against the temptation of the yetzer harah not to fulfill the word of Hashem is to give logical reasons for the commandments.  He extends this principal to our parsha as well.  When Yosef refuses to listen to the wife of Potiphar, he tells her "how can I do this treacherous deed against my master who has done so much for me (39:8-9)."  Why didn't Yosef just say simply "I can't sin against God?"  Because a rational explanation is something that speaks to the yetzer harah, it is an argument which  must be considered and therefore is an important weapon to use against the yetzer harah.   
This approach seems to be contrary to the approach of the Shem M'Shmuel.  He points out that the first response of Yosef is וימאן.  The first thing he does is to stop himself, he stops in his tracks and refuses to do the averah.  The explanation comes only afterward, it is a mere afterthought in order to give an explanation to the wife of Potiphar as to why he won't listen to her.  However, there are no reasons necessary to be given to fulfill the word of God, it should be kept because of the command alone.
 Are these two approaches a major schism in the worldview of the baal mussar vs. the chassid, or are they just arguing as to what's the respond to the yetzer harah, with the talk to the hand approach or through the power of reason?         

The Straight And Crooked Path

One of the most difficult parshios to understand in the Chumash is the episode of Yehuda and Tamar.  As my sister likes to say, when we learnt it in school they didn’t teach us the real story, they made it a G-rated movie.  Obviously, what Yehuda was doing with a strange woman needs to be explained.  Furthermore, how can it be that such a relationship, which is strange to comprehend in the first place would foster Moshiach?  And how great is the contrast between Yehuda and Yosef, who has a tremendous battle and fights against his yetzer harah to not succumb to the temptation of arious, yet Moshiach descends from Yehuda, not from Yosef, why?  We will try to explain a little bit based upon the teachings of the Shla, Maharal, Rav Yosef Engel, Rav Tzadok and Rav Tzvi Einfeld.  If I am in error, may Hashem forgive me.

The נחש is synonymous with all evil that exists in the world, especially those that are students of the Kabbalah know that it is the snake that is always raising its head again wherever evil is to be found. The נחש is known as "the crooked one."  In order to fix up this spirit of crookedness in the world it is necessary to use this power for good.  That means ultimately the rules of right and wrong have to be bent in order to accomplish this.  The Gemorah says that a king can break through a fence and no-one can stop him.  This isn't just a legal ruling, it is a summation of the power of a king.  The king is not bound by the normal rules, he has the power to violate the rules.  A regular person that breaks through the fence, violates the rules is subject to be being bitten by a snake (Koheles 7:14,) he is open to the powers of evil.  However, the king is different.  Why?  The sefirah of malchus is completely nullified, it functions as a tunnel to allow the "Godly light" to shine through.  The Kings of Israel are supposed to be a reflection of the sefirah of malchus and are completely nullified before Hashem.  They have no sense of self, there whole existence is only to bring out the true "I", Hashem.  Therefore, the King's actions aren't bound by the normal rules, for his actions are spurred on by the desire to glorify the name of Hashem and instead of being bitten by the snake, he transforms it.  How does the King know it’s not his own temptation convincing himself to bend the rules?  The midrash says that Yehuda was steering away from Tamar but a maalach pushed him forward against his will.  It is when he has no desire to do the action that isn't in line with the rules, yet he is pushed to do it anyway that shows it is a directive from Hashem to fix the evil.  Specifically, because the King is disgusted and repulsed by evil, that he is given the opportunity to fix it.  This is the mode of the "crooked tzaddik."   

Then there is the role of the straight tzaddik, the one who follows every rule to the nth degree.   This tzaddik has a strong sense of self.  His sense of “haughtiness” allows him to rise above the powers of evil.  Such a tzaddik isn’t involved in fixing evil, he rises above evil. The Gemorah says in Yoma (35b) that the wife of Potephar threatened Yosef in numerous ways in order to force him to live with her.  One of the threats was that she would bend his spine and he responded Hashem straitens the bent (Tehillim 146:8.)  Why was this the threat that she chose to say?  Rav Yosef Engel explains based upon the works of the Kabbilists that say naturally a person should walk on all fours and face downward like an animal.  What keeps a person up is because s/he has a holy spirit, a neshama which faces up, it faces its source above.  The wife of Potiphar was trying to bend Yosef, to get him to sin and detach his connection to above.  However, Yosef refused and said Hashem, meaning the Godliness within me, straitens the bent, meaning won't allow me to sin, is attached to its source above.  Yosef refuses to be bent, he is the straight tzaddik that goes on the straight path and rises above all the temptations of the evil side.  This is the underpinnings of the clash between Yosef and Yehuda, of the two reigns in Klal Yisroel, which is the rout to be followed.   

It is ultimately through Yehuda that Moshiach will emerge for it is only through the ability to use crookedness for good that will lead to the ultimate tikkun, to straighten out all the evil in the world.  However, there is the concept of the Mashiach ben Yosef who blazes the trail for the Moshiach that descends from Yehuda.  There first must be a complete nullification of the forces of evil before it can be eradicated.  In in the meantime, there is a need for both roles, those that wear the hat of the straight tzaddik and those that wear the (possibly furry) hat of the crooked tzaddik.

Renewal

What happened right after the sale of Yosef?  The midrash says Yosef was brought down to Egypt, Reuven was doing teshuvah, the brothers were still discussing the sale, Yehudah was getting married and Hashem was preparing mashiach.  What is the point of this midrash and what lesson is it teaching us, is it just giving us a historical record of what was happening?  Rav Simcha Bunim (and the teaching is explained by the Gerrer Rebbeim) explains that the lesson is that when all seems lost one must not give up but rebuild.  Yosef was lost, Yaakov was upset, it seems things were going for a downward spin.  However, Yehuda (whether knowingly or not) was starting anew.  Even if all seemed lost, he was prepared to fulfill the first mitzvah, peru u’rvu and continue giving over the mesorah of the Avos to his children.  He was picking up the broken pieces and trying to start again.  It is this rebuilding of Yehuda that leads to the light of Moshiach being formed as the midrash says Hashem was preparing the light of Moshiach.  The lesson is that one must not bemoan his/her faith but be willing to move forward.  This idea is found as well in Likutay Moharan #261 in a general sense, but he adds that the whole reason why one was distanced from Hashem in the first place is in order to have the opportunity to restart a fresh, stronger and more vibrant connection to Hashem.   

This theme of course is one of the lessons in the fast approaching holiday of Chanukah.  Most would think of spring as the time of renewal, when plants and trees come to life again, hibernation is over etc. And of course, that is true.  However, Chanukah teaches us that even in the cold, dark, bleak days of the winter there can be of feelings of energy and renewed fervor.  The Sfas Emes explains that haragil be’nar means one who lights up his regilus with hischadshus.  עד שתכלה רגל מן השוק, Chanukah is the time to remove the regilus that so often overtakes us.   

Seeing Is Not Believing

I recently have been reading the book 9 1/2 Mystics by Rabbi Herbert Weiner.  On pg. 16 he shares an insight that the Nazir, Rav Dovid Kohen told him.  The Nazir explained that the Western world holds truth to be what can be seen and perceived.  The word theory or theoria in Greek, he said, comes from the Greek word, theatria which means which means to look at, view and see (see here.)  On the other hand, we proclaim the ultimate truth in Shma Yisroel, through listening, the identification of truth with what can be seen is the beginning of idolatry.  This goes hand in hand with the insight he quotes from Rav Avrohom Chein on pg. 276 "the phrase 'saw the voice' [by Mattan Torah] isn't an accident nor does it speak of a miracle.  It points to a deep and great Torah...what humans usually only hear about- out of books and through faith-it was this that they saw clearly."  Mattan Torah was a one-time event where everything was crystal clear-the unity of God, Israel and the Torah was apparent to the entirety of existence.  However, in Judaism such a level of clarity is not the norm, it is the exception.  We are supposed to live with a deeper sense of clarity, that which isn't sitting obvious is front of our eyes, rather that which must be given attention to, that which must be searched for.  What keeps us going is the listening, the focus and attention to what "the voices of the soul" say.  Chazal are filled with references various forms of voices-bas kol making announcements into the world.  What is the point of all these unheard messages?  The answer is that the attentive ear will hear the "voices."  It is the voice speaking to the soul willing to listen.
Rashi cites the Chazal that what held Yosef back from slipping was the image of his father appearing to him.  How did this image appear, was there some form of a magical connection?  I don't believe Yosef was saved by a magical image of his father appearing in the nick of time.  Yosef's soul was torn as to what is the proper conduct in this situation.  As he was about to make the wrong decision, he was able to tap into the "voices" of the depths of his soul, he could hear and see his father's directives as to the proper conduct in such a situation.  The midrash connects when Yosef says שמעו נא to the admonishing of the prophets using the language of שמעו.  Is it possible that Yosef's soul was echoing these same warnings in his life?  וישמע ראובן, Chazal give different interpretations as to what does it mean Reuvain heard, he was standing right there, obviously he heard what was being said?  According to this approach it could mean that Reuvain heard the "voices", he had the clarity to recognize that the decision to kill Yosef was a wrong, reckless and damaging decision. 
I believe the idea sheds 'light' on the holiday of Chanukah.  The Greeks were men of theory, they only understood what could be seen.  They were the antithesis of Judaism which believes that which can't be seen is greater that that which is not seen.  Chanukah is the battle of the eyes vs. the ears. 
I don't like books that "prove" the existence of God or Judaism.  Yes, such books may be great and necessary for some but for one who has been privileged to study for many years in yeshiva, to see the radiant faces of great Torah scholars such books aren't speaking the right language.  The books are speaking the language of "see, it must be so".  Anyone who has breathed the holiness of the great study halls, has bonded with minds attempting to understand a Tosfos, a Rashba, a Rebbi Akiva Eger, a Ketzos  etc. should be hearing the "voices" of Judaism pouring forth from his soul.  To a soul with such a clarity it is repulsive to see these books that just give intellectual proves but to not speak the language of the soul.  As the quote attributed to Hellen Keller beautifully puts it, "The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched - they must be felt with the heart."

Yosef, The Dreamer

Why are dreams so essential to the story of Yosef?  His whole life seems to revolve around dreams, from being the cause of his sale into slavery, to his ticket to freedom and greatness.  And the obvious question, why did the brothers want to kill Yosef, were these holy men willing to kill their brother because they were jealous?

The Sfas Emes writes in many maamarem that Yosef is connected to tosefes - additional.  Yosef is the embodiment of tosefes Shabbos, which is the ability to bring kedusha into the chol.  That’s why Yosef is called the offspring of Yaakov,  for he had the ability to bring out the kochos of Yaakov into the world.  Yaakov was complete kedusha, his face carved onto the merchava.  Yosef has the ability to bring this kedusha of Yaakov into the world.  With this idea, the Sfas Emes explains why the dream of Yosef is about gathering sheaves from a field. The bundles of wheat follow only after a lot of work was put into the field.  When one sees the bundle of wheat, he understands the point of all the work.  Shabbos is the point of all the work of the week, when one sees Shabbos he understands the what all the days of the work led to.  Yosef is the Shabbos of the week, he was able to bring out the kedusha that exists in the mundane.  He was able to bring out the point of all the work.  That’s why it’s specifically Yosef that’s able to go down to Egypt, for he wasn't affected by his surroundings, even in the most corrupt land he was able to bring the kedusha of Yaakov .

 As discussed here, Yaakov felt it was necessary to set up boundaries between Klal Yisroel and the other nations.  There was an effort made to stop outside influences from penetrating into Klal Yisroel.  The brothers saw Yosef's willingness to go out into the world, to step over the boundaries as putting the sanctity of Klal Yisroel in jeopardy.   See Hoshea 7:8 where it says "Efraim (Yosef) mingles with the nations."  This presents a great challenge, how will this mingling not lead to sin?   Specifically, Shimon and Levi, who were so concerned about the sanctity of Klal Yisroel that they were willing to wipe out an entire city for it, were very worried about the message of Yosef.  They believed that the existence of Klal Yisroel was at stake and therefore deemed Yosef worthy of being killed.  Yehuda was not far off from their view, but elected to spare Yosef's life.  

These two opinions are reflected by the method of temple worship of both Yosef and Yehuda.  Yosef is the mishkan man, the mishkan Shilo was built in his portion of Eretz Yisroel.  The mishkan is the temple of spreading kedusha, it’s portable, it can be moved to spread kedusha to other places.  It's kedusha is not limited by walls, as long as the mishkan could be seen, kodshim could be eaten.  Yehuda on the other hand, is the mikdash man.  He is the champion of contained kedusha, the mikdash is built in his portion of Eretz Yisroel.  The mikdash is a walled, permanent structure.  It is built to contain the kedusha within and as a result kodshim may only be eaten within its walls (Harav Kook.) 

I would suggest that that’s why Yosef’s life revolves around dreams.  A dream is where opposites are able to coexist.  (See Torah Or on this week’s parsha.)  Yosef had the ability to bridge what seemed opposites together.   The tumah of Egypt, seemingly the opposite end of the spectrum in comparison to his upbringing in the house of Yaakov, was not a contradiction.  Not only was Yosef not influenced by Egypt, he ruled over it.  He was able to bring Yaakov down to Egypt and infuse the land with kedusha.   

Rav Kook connects his idea to the story of Chanukah.  The Greeks told Klal Yisroel to write on a horn of an ox that they have no connection to Hashem.  The ox represents Yosef (beracha in V'zos Haberacha.)  The Greeks said follow in the ways of Yosef and intermingle with us, become like us.  Of course, they missed the boat.  Yosef teaches us not how to be like the gentiles, rather how to live amongst them but infuse them with kedusha.  It is a oneway street, we give to them but don't receive.  

Yosef and Rav Yosef

See here for where my father wrote about the first of the "5 derashos" of Rav Soloveitchik, where Rav Soloveitchik  reads into this week's parsha what would seem to be his own hashkafa.  Obviously, Rav Yosef Dov, cast aside by all the other Roshei Yeshiva in America was viewing himself in the place of Yosef, cast aside by his brothers.  The main thrust of the derasha seems to be that although the position of his zeideh, Rav Chaim was legitimate and possibly even correct in his stance against the Zionists, Hashem has ruled otherwise.  History has proven that it was the State of Israel that fueled the rebuild after the Holocaust, and gave Jews in America a cause to stand for and a reason to be proud.  Of course, the derasha raises the question of at what point do we say, "obviously this isn't working out.  Clearly, what we believed in is wrong."  We sometimes build towers of Torah to explain how what we believe in or want to believe in must be true, the only צ"ע is that reality seems to contradict it.  At what point must a person acknowledge the facts, see that his tune doesn't fit with the music and admit he was wrong?  Or should a person continue to insist that the facts are just an illusion, a test to your true faith, a מעשה שטן or whatever דוחק answer you can come up with to get the facts to jive with the Torah?  I leave that for you to decide.

What Not To Teach

The Baal Haturim says that Yaakov gave over to Yosef 5 out of the 6 sidrei mishna.  He derives this from the word זקנים, which has the ראשי תיבות of all of the sedarim besides taharos.  The obvious question is why did taharos get a tough bargain, why didn't Yaakov give that over to Yosef?  We understand that when Yaakov learnt the mishnaios with Yosef, he wasn't just explaining the simple meaning of the text.  If Rav Zusha would interpret every line of a mishna as a lesson in the service of God, obviously Yaakov was able to do the same thing.  To study taharos would be to life a life on the level of tahara.  The adage is you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.  Yaakov could teach Yosef all the way up to the waters of tahara, but he couldn't make him drink the waters.  The holy Gerrer Rebbe, the Beis Yisroel explains that a person must acquire taharah by themselves.  Yaakov could give Yosef all the preparations to be able to obtain the level of tahara, but at the end of the day it was up to Yosef himself to determine if was willing to take the plunge into the waters of tahara.
See more about this from my father, here.

Yosef: Breslov Or Litvok And A Personal Chanukah

The verse says (39:3) וירא אדניו כי ה' אתו.  How did Potiphar know that Hashem was with him?  Rashi says that Yosef was constantly mentioning the name of Hashem.  The source of Rashi is a midrash Tanchuma which says that Potiphar saw Yosef whispering and assumed Yosef was using witchcraft until Yosef explained he was praying to Hashem.  The Ramban challenges the explanation of Rashi (but he doesn’t explain what’s bothering him.)  He interprets that Potiphar realized the success of Yosef must be from G-d.

The midrash Rabba seems to have a different interpretation from that of the Tanchuma.  The two midrashim have the same story line but the Rabba adds that Yosef ended up forgetting (doesn’t say what) and brings a support from the verse (41:51) of why Yosef called his son Menasha because he forgot all his amal.  What does this part of the midrash mean, what did he forget and what does it have to do with how Potiphar knew Hashem was with Yosef?  The meforshim explain based upon a previous midrash in Vayishlach which explains the verse (33:18) ויעקב בא שלם to mean he was complete in his Torah.  The midrash contrasts between Yosef who forgot his learning in Egypt and Yaakov who didn’t forget his learning in the house of Lavan.  The midrash there cites the same verse about Menashe as proof.  It’s apparent in the light of this midrash that the midrash in our parsha understands amal to mean the work of Torah.  Clearly the midrash Rabba understands that Yosef wasn’t praying to Hashem but rather reviewing his learning.  It seems that the two midrashim have a different understanding as to what Yosef did in the house of Potiphar.  According to the Tanchuma, Yosef was praying to Hashem as he was doing his work (see Rav Shimshon Pinkus,) which is the Breslov approach but according to the Rabba he was learning even as he was working like the Nefesh Hachaim delineates, the Litvish approach.

Two questions come to mind when reading the midrash.  1.  Why is it that Yosef forgot his learning, especially if he was reviewing?  How does this fit with Rashi in Vayigash (45:27) that Yosef sent wagons as a sign that he remembered they had been learning eglah arufah?  2.  Why would Yosef name his son after the fact that he forgot his learning?  The Chosom Sofer (Shabbos 21b) explains that because Yosef was subject to such oppression, he forgot the learning that he was taught by his father.  Despite all his hardships, in jail Yosef started to learn again anew.  Yosef named his son after his forgetting to demonstrate that even though he forgot his learning still he was able to rebuild and continue learning.  It’s the Torah that’s learnt under hardship that sticks with the person, not the Torah that one learns when its easy.  The midrash says in the beginning of parshas Mikatz says  קץ שם לחושך Hashem makes an end to the darkness, there is light at the end of the tunnel.  The Pittsburger Rebbe points out thatחשך  has the same letters as שכח .  The midrash is indicating that at the time of Yosef’s exit from prison, not only was he free of his physical bondages, he was free of his spiritual bondages as well.  In jail, Yosef’s time of forgetting stopped and now he received the Torah of difficulty.  The Torah that he acquired in his time of difficulties is the Torah that stuck with him.  (See the Netziv on parshas Mikatz for a different approach.)

Chazal say about the story of creation that חשך corresponds to the golus of Yavan.  Yavan tried to get Klal Yisroel to forget the Torah.  What saved Klal Yisroel was to learn and stand up for Torah with mesiros nefesh.  We learn from Chanukah that even if the Torah of our youth- the Torah learnt in times of ease doesn’t hold up, a person must have his own, individual Chanukah to learn when times are hard.  It is the Torah that’s learnt when times are difficult, and the pressures of life are at their highest that a person will end up remembering.  It is that Torah that proves one is a true עבד השם

The Ramban also brings the end of the Rabba which says that the Shechinah came to prove to Potiphar that Yosef wasn’t using witchcraft, rather Hashem was helping him.  As opposed to the Tanchuma which understands that Potiphar figured it out for himself, the Rabba says that the Shechinah came to prove the righteousness of Yosef.  This seems to be other debate between the Rabba and the Tanchuma will the Shecinah appear to a rasha to prove the righteousness of a tzaddik.  The Tanchuma seems to hold it is not fitting for the Shechinah to appear to a rasha even for the sake of the tzaddik.  Therefore, it concludes that Potiphar understood on his own accord that Hashem was helping Yosef.  Rav Ozban (Rosh Yeshiva of Telz, Riverdale) points out that if even a rasha like Potiphar realized the success of Yosef came from Hashem for sure we should realize that our success comes from Hashem and not from our own endeavors.

Chassidishe prayer

The Tzemech Tzedek in a letter about the printing of Torah Or (maamarim of the Alter Rebbe on Berashis and Shemos) writes that the maamamarim explain the avodah of tefillah (it’s also hinted by what he writes on the first page that the maamarim explain avodas Hashem which means tefillah).  This means that the point of the maamari chassidus is to explain davening.  I would suggest the emphasis on tefillah is since it is a time where one is מבטל- negates himself before Hashem.  The point of Chassidus is to demonstrate how the world is batal to Hashem.  The mishna in Sanhedrin(37a) says a person is called a world.  The great emphasis placed on prayer in the world of Chassidus is in order to accomplish  bittul of the world in a miniature form.  It may be that the point of bittul in the world is truly just to lead to bittul of the self (see maamer of the Rebbe 19 Kislev 5784.)  May we be inspired to try to understand a little bit of the depths of davening.

19 Kislev

On the שער בלעט of the Tanya it says that the book is based upon the verse of כי קרוב אליך מאד בפיך ובלבבך לעשותו.  Maybe a person can come close to Hashem in terms of בפיך ולעשותו but how can a person control their emotions to feel that closeness to Hashem and His Torah?  There ware two basic approaches given in the book.  The second is that naturally a Jew has an attachment and love for Hashem.  One doesn't have to create these emotions, one must merely awaken that which is naturally in him/her.  This is one of the major highlights of Chassidus to teach how Hashem is close to every Jew no matter what s/he does.  The chiddush of the Tanya is that there shouldn't be just an awakening of one's feelings but that these feelings should be conveyed to one's brain.  The feelings of a person should be so clear to him/her self that it is understood in a clear manner as well.
When Rav Levi Yitzchak came back from Mezeritch his father -in-law was quite upset as to why he was associating with the "new cult".  But he gave him a chance and asked "what did you learn."  Rav Levi Yitzchak responded that he learnt there is a god.  His father-in-law said even the non-jewish maid knows there is a God, מאי קמ"ל?  Rav Levi Yitzchak said she says there is a God, I know there is a God.  Chassidis teaches there isn't just a God sitting up in the heavens laughing at us, we live with God! We are connected to God and our actions must reflect this.

Thanksgiving special

Tying it all together, 19 Kislev, Chanukah and Thanksgiving.

Yaakov Vs. Yisroel

Avrohom had a name change and went from Avrom to Avrohom.  Yaakov on the other hand, had his name switched to Yisroel but he retains his original name of Yaakov.  Why the double name?  What is the meaning behind the two names?  Yaakov is the name for when there is a fight against Esav, it is the name of being active in the world, grabbing onto the heel of Esav.  It is the name that represents the fight one must have to be successful against the yetzer harah.   Yisroel is the name when things are going smoothly, when there isn't a fight and ruchnious comes easy.  There are times when a person in a Yaakov mood and sometimes when a person is in a Yisroel mood, primarily it is the difference between the week and Shabbos.  However, both are messages in a person's life, we life with both the times when it’s hard to be holy and the times when it’s easy, we must wear two different garments to make it through life (based upon Likutay Sichos volume 3.)

On a national level, a Yaakov nation is a nation like all others, enlightened but still a regular nation.  It is a nation that struggles with internal issues like all others.  Yisroel is a holy nation, a nation that is like no other. It is a majestic, pure and righteous nation.  Rav Yeruchim Olshin points out that the Greeks told Klal Yisroel to write that they have no connection to the god of Yisroel.  In Al Hanissim in the bima portion when it comes to Purim, we say כשעמד עליהם, in Chanukah we say כשעמדה וכו' על עמך ישראל, the focus is on Yisroel.  Why the focus here on Yisroel?  It is the aforementioned idea, the Greeks didn't mind an enlightened nation, they were out to destroy a spiritual nation.  They said you can be Yaakov, not Yisroel.  The victory of Chanukah is the victory of Yisroel, the celebration of being an עם קדוש.     

Chitas

This week's parsha (35:5) says ויהי חתת אלקים, the Tzemech Tzedek said he saw in a dream this is a hint to learn daily Chumash=ח, Tehillim=ת, and Tanya=ת.  Of course its always great to start keeping this practice.  Chumash is to be learnt an aliyah a day. Tehillim to finish monthly and Tanyeh according to the divisions allocated by the Freidiker Rebbe.  All you do is add it to your daily learning of Bavli, Yerushalmi, Tosefta, Mechilta, Midrash, Rambam and whatever else you have a daily shiur in.  The new cycle of Tanya will start on 19 Kislev.  If you want shiurim from non-Chabadnik's see here.  From Chabadnik's in Hebrew and Yiddish see here.  In English see here or here. 

The Techum Of Yaakov

The midrash on the possuk (33:18) וַיִּ֖חַן אֶת־פְּנֵ֥י הָעִֽיר  says that Yaakov came to the city right before Shabbos and set up his location so that he wouldn't have a problem of leaving the techum on Shabbos.  Rav Yosef Engel (בית האוצר ח"א כלל כ') discusses why is it Yaakov who sets up the techum of Shabbos and not Avrohom.  However, in derush we understood that techum represents boundaries (see Meshech Chachma.)  The other Avos weren't challenged to separate themselves from the rest of the world, their actions made them unique and separate from everyone.  Yaakov on the other hand was challenged by his brother, Esav.  Esav wasn't unceremoniously thrown out of the family like Yishmoel, he remained the brother of Yaakov.  Specifically because of this, it was imperative for Yaakov to set up boundaries.  His family had to know that we aren't in any way related (in terms of outlook in life) with Esav.  It is well known the idea of the Beis Halevi that Yaakov prayed "save me from my brother, Esav" it is sometimes that brotherly feeling that is the greatest harm.  The Gemorah in Chullin 91a has an opinion that the angel of Esav came to Yaakov in the form of a talmud chacham.  The Avnei Nezer explains that sometimes the yetzer harah tries to convince us to do something through an entire shiur klali about why it’s right.  The only way to protect against that is to have fixed boundaries so that it is intuitive that those lines won't be crossed.  The midrash derives from the language of the possuk (34:26) ויקחו את דינה, not ויצא דינה that the brothers had to drag Dina out of Shechem.  How could it be that Dina who was coerced by Shechem wouldn't want to leave?  We see the dangers of coming too close to those that are antithetical to Jewish beliefs.  They are very incising and when one gets sucked in it's hard to come out.  That is why it's of utmost importance to not become attached and accepting of evil outside views and influences (see Rav Yeruchem.)
I never understood while in yeshiva the importance of adopting the distinct look of a penguin.  Why must we emulate those birds of the Southern hemisphere?  But I subsequently understood that it is when one who (c"v) isn't found within the walls of the Beis midrash, when he is wondering around the many Esav's of the world, that it is important to have those boundaries as a reminder that Esav may be a kin brother, but not a brother in heart.

The Return Of The Yaakov

In last week's parsha we learnt that Yaakov called Luz Bais Kel (28:19) so I don't understand why in this week's parsha (35:6) the Torah remindes us that Luz = Beis Kel and furthermore, the Torah says in verse 7 that Yaakov called it Kel Beis Kel and he erected a mizbaoch there.  Why did he erect a mizbaoch if in last week's parsha he already erected a matzevah?  And why the new renaming ceremony?  The Rashbam says last week's parsha was dealing with the city itself and Yaakov called it Beis Kel.  Here he is outside the city and is calling it Kel Beis Kel.  The Or Hachaim understands its the same place but now Yaakov decided to call it Kel Beis Kel for Hashem indicating Hashem didn't just appear to him there but shall constantly rest His Presence there.  Based upon the Or Hachaim we can understand that the Torah repeats the name was Luz for yes, Yaakov had transformed it to Beis Kel, but it didn't make a permanent impression.  When Yaakov left Eretz Yisroel he called it Beis Kel so that Hashem should protect him on his journey.  It marked his point of departure from kedusha into another world but after his short stay the kedusha vanished.  As he is returning, he will make it a permanent place of kedusha, hence the new name, Kel Beis Kel.  It is the return of Yaakov, not as a single man, but as Yisroel, a nation that will bring kedusha to the land they tread upon.  As to why the mizbaoch instead of matzevah,  I would suggest that we know from Rashi (Shoftim 16:22) that a matzevah is one stone as opposed to a mizbaoch which is many.  Only after Yaakov has given birth to the shevatim, Klal Yisroel, is there a merging of numerous talents together.  Previously each Av found his niche in one path of the service of God, it only with the formation of tribes with unique traits and qualities that there is a merger represented by the many stones coming together.

Different Realms

The midrash in this week's parsha is critical of Yaakov for waking up the sleeping bear, Esav and sending him gifts etc.  On the other hand the Zohar has an opposite spin and explains how the actions of Yaakov worked to break the power of Esav.  The Chidushai Harim (Sefer Hazechus) says that its not a contradiction.  The Gemorah says Yaakov didn't die and it learns it out from a possuk.  What does the Gemorah  mean, Yaakov is no longer with us?  The Rim says that on the physical plane he isn't here but his existence in the higher realms is still intact.  Similarly here, in the realm of how things seem here the midrash is right for admonishing Yaakov.  However, in the higher realms the actions of Yaakov accomplished great things.  I don't understand the application of the Rim in our parsha, how can it be that an action in this realm isn't a reflection of the upper realms.  The Kabbalah in many places understands this world is a reflection of the upper worlds, there not working in different directions?  Can this idea be used to explain the activities of some?  To put it bluntly, possibly the actions of some Hassidic masters, thought to be out of line by their opponents, were justified because they were doing things that were on a different plain?  I confess ignorance, וצריך לעשות רב בדבר     
Update: Check here where my uncle elaborates on this theme of the Rim.

The Phantom Yetzer Harah

Yaakov asked the maalach for his name and the maalach responded why are you asking for my name.  Why was Yaakov interested in knowing the name of the maalach and how was the maalach’s response an answer, was he Jewish and answering a question with a question?  The maalach continued that he had to say shirah and therefore had to leave.  Why at this moment did he have to say shirah?

We know from Chazal that this battle of Yaakov was against the yetzer harah.  Therefore, Yaakov wanted to find out the name of the yetzer harah in order to identify its essence so that he would know how to combat against it.  Its response was that its nameless for it has no essence, it’s a figment of one’s imagination.  The yetzer harah doesn’t offer anything real, it tempts a person with a phantom settlement.  The only real power of the yetzer harah is to be used for kedusha through being conquered.  (Rav Leev Chasmon.)  The Kochnetzer Maggid explains that a maalach says shirah when it fulfills a task.  The task of the maalach of Esav is to tempt Yaakov to sin and to be overcome.  Since Yaakov had just beaten him it was time to say shirah.  This wasn’t a separate statement of the maalach, rather it was part of the maalach’s answer as to what his essence is.  His essence is non existent, he is only there as a temptation.  The midrash draws a parallel between Yaakov remaining alone and the possuk which says vinisgav Hashem levado.  Just like in the future it will be revealed that the entire world is just a reflection of Hashem so too Yaakov was able to defeat the maalach.  By focusing on the knowledge that what the yetzer offers is such a concealment over the reality but that at its core the yetzer harah is nothing was how Yaakov defeated the maalach.  

This same process was used when meeting with Esav.  The Zohar says that when Yaakov bowed to Esav he really was bowing to Hashem.  By focusing on his connection to Hashem there wasn’t any true existence to the evil of Esav left and therefore he kissed Yaakov.    

The Rambamה"א   הל' שאר אבות הטומאה פ"וsays that we see in this week’s parsha when Yaakov says (35:2) “remove all the avodah zarah in your hands” a hint to the tumah of avodah zarah.  Why does the Rambam cites this hint when the Gemorah (Shabbas 82) gives other sources and the Rambam himself brings them in the ensuing laws?  The Rebbe (Likutay Sichos volume 30 sicha 2 in this week’s parsha) explains that the Rambam brings this hint to tell us the nature of the law.  Does the tumah of avodah zarah eminate from the cheftzah or is it merely a din in the gavrah that s/he should be distanced from avodah zarah?  The Rambam brings this verse which stresses removing the avodah zarah as a means of distancing from it to show that it’s the second way.  The reason of the Rambam for assuming this way is since that avodah zarah isn’t a reality, it is a mere rock or piece of wood that an individual decides to worship, it is of no significance as a cheftzah.  This a lesson for all of us as the Tanyah writes (chapter 20) that every averah is a small act of avodah zarah.  The root of existence of forbidden things isn’t an existence of their own accord, merely as a means to allow us to rule over them, to conquer them.    

[We see that the Rambam understand the verse like Rashi and Or Hachaim that it’s referring to literal avodah zarah.  However, the Ramban understands that it’s referring to avodah zarah that was already nullified, and he told them to remove it so that they will have pure thoughts.  A similar vein in the Sforno who says that if they retained the avodah zarah they might have had thoughts of serving it.  We see from these Rishonim that even for people on the great spiritual level of that of the family of Yaakov it still would be poison to keep around idolatrous objects.  We see from these Rishonim as well the importance of distancing completely from things that may poison the holy thought process a Jew must have (see Chidushay Halev.)  It is also interesting to note the language of the verse, בתוככם when it would seem to be more appropriate to say בקרבכם?  The verse is alluding to the fact that the removing that Yaakov was demanding wasn’t the mere physical actions of removing the idols and clothing, rather he was demanding the taharah of one’s actions and thought.  He was commanding taharah of their innards, not just their external garb (see Malbim, Kli Yakar.)]

God Or Money

Yaakov said וכי יש לי כל as opposed to Esav who said יש לי רב.  What is the difference between the two expressions?  The Or Hachaim (as elaborated on by the Sfas Emes) explains that kol means to recognize the Godliness that exists within everything.  Yaakov understood his wealth was not just a gathering of riches, rather it was a kli to be used for the service of Hashem.  Esav on the other hand, viewed all that he had a number, another trophy to add to his collection.  This is reflecteve of the difference in the berachos that they received as discussed here.  The Baal Haturim says the three statements in krias shma of בכל לבבך בכל נפשך ובכל מאודך correspond to the three Avos.  Yaakov corresponds to meodecha which means that he used his money for Hashem’s sake.  However, based upon this idea it is a deeper idea, that he recognized the Godliness in all his possessions.

On a simple evel this means that Yaakov was able to realize how everything can be used for the service of Hashem.  The Meshech Chochma explains how all the things that Yaakov sent are relevant to kedusha.  Regarding oxen, sheep and donkeys the first born is kodesh, and slaves are obligated in many of the mitzvot.  Yaakov was telling Esav that I’m able to use all my possessions for kedusha.  The Rebbe explains that the taryag mitzvos shamarti while being a gar in the house of Lavan means that he viewed the fulfilling of the mitzvot as permanent but the wealth he amassed (the Lavan of the world) as temporary for it doesn’t exist for its own sake but rather to serve Hashem.

 The midrash says that Yaakov was trying to encourage Esav to do teshuva.  Possibly Yaakov was trying to hint to Esav that you also have Godliness within you that you can bring out.  The verse (33:1) says “Yaakov raised his eyes and he saw that Esav was coming”.  Why doesn’t it just say in short that he saw Esav?  The Sifsai Tzaddik explains that Yaakov was trying to bring the kedusha out of Esav through gazing at him, as the midrash says that tzaddikim can raise things up with their eyes.  (It means that the eyes of the tzaddik have the power to bring to the front the kedusha that exists within.)  This did have a temporary effect, as demonstrated by Esav showing love to Yaakov at their meeting.  Rashi (33:9) says that Esav agreed to the sale of the bechorah after his meeting of Yaakov.  What inspired him to admit after this encounter?  The Bad Kodesh explains that once Esav realized that the properties of Yaakov weren’t plain gashmious but rather were ruchnious he had no interest in them.

Extending Holiness

Rashi at the beginning of the parsha (28:12) says that the angels of Eretz Yisroel don’t leave Eretz Yisroel and therefore, they took leave of Yaakov before he exited the border.  However, as Yaakov is coming back, Rashi says (32:2) that the angels of Eretz Yisroel came to escort him.  Why were the angels allowed to exit the holy land to accompany Yaakov?   The Rebbe explains (Likutay Sichos volume 25) that when Yaakov came back, he was bringing Eretz Yisroel with him.   When a chassid asked the Tzemach Tzedek about moving to Eretz Yisroel, he said “make this land Eretz Yisroel.”  When one serves Hashem in a manner in which he is מברר בירורים, where he elevates the place that s/he lives in, it becomes a holy land.  Yaakov was able to extend the kedusha of Eretz Yisroel and thus the angels weren’t leaving Eretz Yisroel when they came to escort him. In Likutay Sichos volume 3 the Rebbe points out that we find that Yaakov’s meeting of the angles coming back was a greater experience than that the experience he had when leaving.  When leaving, Yaakov had to travel back to the place of the mikdash to see the angles and he only saw them in a dream.  Upon his return, the angles came to greet him and he saw them in an awaken state. We see from here that it was the avodas haberurim that led to the greater spiritual experience of Yaakov.

Luz

The verse says (28:19) that when Yaakov awoke “he called the place Beis Kel, but Luz was the original name.”  Of what significance is it to know the place was originally named Luz?  In halacha it’s brought that it’s the Luz bone that gets its sustenance from the food of melavah malkah.  That means Luz is that bridge between kedusha and chol.  It’s the capability to raise up the mundane to be holy.  To take what seems far from kedusha and bring out its light.  That is what Yaakov experienced overnight in Luz.  The Rambam based upon the midrash (Yesodah Hatorah 7:3) says that Yaakov saw the four stages of golus.  However, Yaakov was able to see the light within the darkness of the golus, the kedusha behind the kelipa and that’s now he transferred Luz into Beis Kal.  This theme can be used to explain what the  Gemorah mentions about Luz in Sotah (46b) that Luz was where the techelas was spun.  Techelas also represents this idea of bringing kedusha even into the chol as discussed here.

This is the theme behind the entire service of Yaakov.  The Rebbe points out that the learning of Yaakov in Shem V'Ever is derived from a scriptural nuance.  The bulk of the description of Yaakov the Torah informs us about is his great struggles dealing with Laven, Esav and other problems.  Yaakov is the Av that teaches us the ability to bring kedusha into one's worldly dealings.

The midrash says that the ladder Yaakov saw refers to the ramp of the mizbaoch, standing upward is the mizbaoch, the head reaching the heavens is the korbanot etc. עיי"ש.  Why was the message of korbanot shown to Yaakov?  The Sidduro Shel Shabbos explains that Yaakov in the past 14 years learnt Torah 24/7.  Through these years Yaakov transformed into a being of complete ruchnious.  Since Yaakov was now perfected, Hashem was showing him a new path in His service, that of being mekadesh the chomer.  That is why He caused Yaakov to sleep in a holy place, to illustrate that even a physical need like sleeping can become holy.  The message of the korban is that just as an animal can be offered to Hashem, so too all of gashmious can become ruchni.     

2 Sheep, 2 Souls

This Shabbos, 9 Kislev is the birthday and hilulah of the Mittler Rebbe and this Shabbos, and therefore, it is fitting to cite some of his words.The possuk says (31:42) in the whole episode of the sheep that the one's born late went to Lavan and the one's born early went to Yaakov.  The Torah uses a strange terminology to describe early and late, עטופים וקשורים. What is the significance of this and why the interesting terminology used?  (See Rav Hirsch  that translates differently than Targum and Rashi because of the irregular language of the possuk.)  The Mittler Rebbe explains(berech derush v'chassidus) that the עטופים sheep, the later one's that went to Lavan refers to souls that are עטוף, they are wrapped with Torah and mitzvot, but it doesn't permeate to the essence of their neshama.  The earlier sheep are those that are נקוד, the good deeds that these neshamos go to their core and transform them into better people.  These are Yaakov sheep, this is a soul that has been transformed by his avodah.  This idea reflects a life-philosophy.  A lot of the works of the Mittler Rebbe put a focus on hissbononus, thinking about God and prayer so that one's service of Hashem isn't מן השפה ולחוץ, rather affects one's inner being.

Interesting fact- The Jacob is a British breed of domestic sheep. It combines two characteristics unusual in sheep: it is piebald—dark-coloured with areas of white wool—and it is often polycerate or multi-horned. It most commonly has four horns. The origin of the breed is not known; broken-coloured polycerate sheep were present in England by the middle of the seventeenth century, and were widespread a century later. A breed society was formed in 1969, and a flock book was published from 1972. (from Wikipedia.)

Timey Wimey And Marriage

One of the favorite topics of the Rogatchover is that of time.  One of his major themes in time is that of פעולה נמשכת, he defines certain events not as onetime events, rather as that of a constant occurrence.  One example of this theme is found in this week's parsha.  The Gemorah (Chullin 91b) cited in Rashi (28:3) says that Hashem folded all of Eretz Yisroel under Yaakov's body.  Obviously, this is a great miracle, but what was the necessity of it?  And why was Yaakov told the promise of inheriting Eretz Yisroel now, in his sleep?  The Rogatchover explains that by laying on top of Eretz Yisroel he was doing a kinyan chazaka. The Gemorah in Babba Bathrah says that one who lays out mats and sleeps on them in a hefker pierce of land it is considered a chazakeh and s/he acquires the land.  Stones aren’t usually used as bedding, so in was the act of lying upon them that turns them into sheets, i.e. a פעולה נמשכת of using them is required to make the chazaka.  Therefore, as long as Yaakov was lying on the stones it was categorized as a chazaka.  Hence, at this time Hashem folded all of Eretz Yisroel under him so that his kinyan would extend on the entirety of Eretz Yisroel. 

Another area where the Rogatchover has this same idea is in regard to נישואין.  He explains many issues based upon his principle that the chalos of נישואין isn’t a onetime event, rather it is a chalos every second.  There is a story where Rav Chaim expressed his disdain for this chiddush by responding mazal tov, if it’s a constant chalos you should need a constant mazal tov and the Rogatchover responded the mazal tov is also a פעולה נמשכת.  

It seems from The Rogatchover that a פעולה נמשכת is required when the chalos or event is something that is unique and doesn’t fit in the regular rubric of live.  It is something superimposed upon the regular order and therefore require a constant “push” to keep it going.    

The Rishonim ask if the Avos fulfilled the entire Torah, how did Yaakov marry two sisters which is an ervah?  The Ramban (Yevamos 98a) answers that arious that come via marriage don’t exist by a ben noach for they don’t have eishus.  A relationship did exist between Jacob and his spouses, but it was significantly different from a matrimonial relationship for such relationships became acknowledged only at Sinai.  There is no concept of a cheftah of eishus without kiddushin v’chupa and such a chalos is a chiddush haTorah that wasn’t in play yet.  Based upon this Ramban, the Briskor Rav answers a question of the Rosh.  The Rosh asks if the blessings on kiddushin is a blessing on the mitzvah of kiddushin, why do we say אשר אסור לנו הארוסות which seems to be an unnecessary intro. unrelated to the mitzvah, do we mention in the bracho of shechita that it permits aver min hachai? The Brisker Rav explains that the blessing is referring to in-law relationships which are forbidden only via the marriage about to be performed. The issur on in-laws makes up the cheftza of kiddushin just as much as the designation to the spouse.  It is the issur caused by kiddushin that reflects the sanctity of Klal Yisroel conferred upon our ancestors at Sinai, it is indeed noteworthy in the beracha of the kiddushin. 

Of course, this Ramban is taking a different approach than that he writes in his commentary to Toldos (26:5) that Yaakov married sisters because the Avos only kept the Torah in Eretz Yisroel, not outside, וצ"ע.

Based upon the Briskor Rav we understand that the concept of marriage is not a natural maaseh kinyan, it is unique and therefore we can understand why it  requires a constant chalos to keep it going.  However, I am aware that I'm conflating kiddushin and nissuin as apposed to the Rogatchover who differentiates between the two.  Though, if my understanding of peulah hanimsheches is correct, in light of the Briskor Rov, this would seem to be the conclusion.  I think the way out would be that true kiddushin isn't a regular kinyan and only has an effect because of a chiddush haTorah, but after the chiddush it becomes part of the regular laws of kinyanim.  On the other hand, nissuin isn't a kinyan, rather it is a means of creating a bond between husband and wife. 

Of course, the world in totality requires a constant pumping of life source from Hashem and is at best a פעולה נמשכת so in that case everything should have to be a פעולה נמשכת to keep going, but clearly that is not the assumption here.  As to why that is, I don't know, and thinking about it makes my head explode. 

The derush that emerges from the Rogatchover is that a marriage is not a one time event of creating a bond between husband and wife, it is something that requires constant strengthening and renewal. 

The Maariv Man

Rashi (28:21) brings from Chazal that Yaakov was mesakan maariv.  The meforshim say that the prayer of maariv shows us that even in the greatest darkness Hashem is still guiding us.  This seems to parallel the live of Yaakov which was spent in golus in the house of Lavan and then in Mitzraim. However, if that is the case why is it Yaakov that calls the Beis Hamikdash a permanent house (Pesachim 88a) which corresponds to the third Beis Hamikdash (see Maharsha ad loc. and Alshich on our parsha) if he is the symbol of the golus life?  

Chassidus explains the idea of maariv being a resush is not that it’s a lower quality than the other prayers but rather that it’s of too great of a power to become an obligatory act.  The darkness that exists at the time of the prayer isn’t a darkness of lack of sight but rather it’s a light which is so great to see.   The time of maariv is the time to contemplate that there is a great light behind this darkness which we are striving to reach.  That great light is the third Beis Hamikdash.  The prayer of maariv corresponds to the fats of the korban which burned throughout the night completely consuming the korban (Berochos 26b) which represents the complete eradication of all evil in the times of Moshiach.  (See Emunos Etechah that elaborates further on this idea.)

This can be the explanation of the debate in the mishna at the end of the first perek of Berochos if we mention yetzios metzriam at night.  Originally the thought process was that the night is the time of the golus.  True, eventually it will be recognized as a time that will bring forth great light through our service of Hashem in the golus but that hasn’t happened yet.  In the time of golus we can’t have an appreciation for the geulah.  Then Rabbi Elezar ben Azaryah was appointed nasi and he invited even those who’s inside wasn’t as pure as their outside into the beis midrash (see Berochos 28a.)  He had the ability to see even in those who weren’t perfect that they too can help bring the geulah.  Rabbi Elazar focused on the ability of the person to bring the geulah even into the imperfection of his personal golus.  That is why on the day he was appointed nasi it was accepted that we mention the exodus from Egypt even at night.  We focus on the light that exists behind the cloak of the dark golus and don’t wait until that light is revealed. (Based off Sicha of the Rebbe on Shemos 1992 see there for more elucidation.)

Lavan: The Yiddishe Mamma

At the end of the parsha when Lavan finally lets Yaakov depart, the Torah describes the goodbye of Lavan.  וינשק לבניו ולבנותיו ויברך אתהם.  Why do we need to know the goodbye blessings of Lavan?  The Sforno explains that a beracha given with full intent and feeling has more chance of being fulfilled than just a random beracho.  The father of Rachel and Leah, Lavan wholeheartedly wanted his children to be prosperous and successful and was giving them a blessing with all his heart.  The Torah records his beracha in order to teach us this lesson.  It is a beracho given with great feeling that stands the chance of being fulfilled.  It is well known the story of the mother of the Teferes Shmuel on the Rosh that his mother was illiterate but poured her heart out when she lit candles in Russian that her son should be a talmid chacham (the story is cited in Daas Moshe in Teruma.)
Many people travel all over for berachos but maybe we should be maintaining a healthy relationship with those that truly care for out goodness i.e. our parents and obtain blessings from them as well.  

Toras Hagalus V'Geulah

Rashi says before trekking to Charan, Yaakov spent 14 years learning in Yeshivos Shem V'Ever.  Why did Yaakov take time off before fulfilling his parent's command to leave?  Yaakov already spent his whole life learning from his father and grandfather, it wasn't like his was insisting to first spend some years in yeshiva before going to college?  It is well known the idea of Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky that the Avos knew that the years of golus would start from Yaakov and he had to be prepared for it.  The Torah of the Avos was Torah of Eretz Yisroel, Torah when conditions of world Jewry are proper.  Shem V'Ever lived through the Mabul and Dor Haplageh, they knew the Toras hagalus, how to live when the world is anti-God.  Yaakov's learning by Shem V'Ever wasn't a delay in fulfilling the command of his parents, it was part of it.  Without being prepared for golus, Yaakov couldn't embark on his journey.   There is a Rabbi with some interesting views that believes now that we have the State of Israel we must stop with the Torah of golus and start learning the Torah of Geulah.  Of course the question is, what is the Torah of geulah?

The Chosen Nation

As I wasn't paying attention to this morning's laining, I noticed that the possuk gives a reason for why Yitzchak loved Esav, כי ציד בפיו, but the Torah doesn't say why Rivka loved Yaakov.  Why is there no reason mentioned?  The miforshim give different interpretations why Rivka loved Yaakov most going along the lines that she realized his tzidkus or other's saying as opposed to Esav, who went out hunting, Yaakov remained near his mother.  However, why the omission in the Torah?  I like the Kli Yakar that says that the love of Yitzchak was dependent on כי ציד בפיו and therefore, didn't last but the love of Rivka wasn't dependent on anything and therefore lasted forever.  This reminded me of the haftorah in which we read ואהב את יעקב ואת עשו שנאתי.  The hatred of Esav and love of Yaakov is ontological, it isn't dependent on anything.  The love Rivka had for Yaakov is a משל for the love that Hashem has for us, it is above reason.  Some people don't understand this, see here https://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2016/05/es-eisav-saneisi.html.
The Ramban asks why are we introduced to Avrohom through a commandment of God for him to leave his land, where is the intro. to explain why God is speaking to Avrohom?  Where is the description like we find by Noach,'איש צדיק וכו?  The Maharal in Netzach Yisroel chapter 11(in Mercaz Harav it is known as the Maharal הידוע and Rav Tzvi Yehudah said if one learns Lech Lecha but doesn't know the Maharal, he hasn't learnt Lech Lecha,) explains that the reason Avrohom is chosen isn't bound by his actions.  Even if the later generations don't have the good actions of Avrohom, they are still chosen.  I was thinking about this on Thursday when my coworker, Ahn wished me a good Shabbos as I was leaving.  He asked "you're not going to tell me good Shabbos?"  I said "Shabbos was only given to the Jews, I am a member of the chosen nation, not you."  It hit me at that point that I will always remain a member of the Chosen Nation no matter what I do, but he won't. 
Nice derush of the Ben Eish Chai on 'ותלך לדרוש את ה, that Rivka went to darshen the es, which es would win out, that of the es Yaakov or the es Eisev.
Completely unrelated, I was wondering why Rashi in Acherei Mos (18:4) gives three examples of chukim; shatnez, eating pig and the red heifer but in this week's parsha, 26:5 he omits the example of the red heifer and only says the other two?   

The Pleasant Smell Of Rebellion

The Baal Haturim in parshas Noach points out that there are only two times the word וירח is used in the Torah.  One is the possuk (Noach 8:21) וירח ה' את ריח הניחוח and the second time is in this week's parsha וירח את ריח בגדיו.  The Baal Haturim says that is how Chazal (misrash rabbeh) derive that  Yitzchak must have smelled a pleasant smell (even though one mould think a field doesn't smell good.)  The midrash says the pleasant smell was from those  that rebel against Hashem, בגדיו related to the word בוגדיו and then repented.  The midrash brings stories of those that were great sinners and then repented.  The question is Yaakov was a great tzaddik, why is it the merit of the sinners that Yitzchak smells?  And what is the connection between the words בוגדיו and בגדים?  Rav Levi Yitzchak (Noach) brings from his father that the pleasant smell comes from those that have a tremendous yetzer harah but overcome it.  He then cites the Maggid on the verse ישראל אשר בך אתפאר (Yishiayeh 49:3) that אתפאר is related to wearing a garment like in the verse the ויתפרו עלה תאנה.  Therefore, the garments that 'Hashem wears' are from those that have a battle to fight against the yetzer harah (and possibly even lost many battles) but still come out on the side of Hashem.  That is why the midrash relates the garments of Yaakov to those that rebel against Hashem.
What does it mean those that have a struggle with the yetzer harah are the garments of Hashem?  Possibly (at least on a very basic level,) the intent is that garments are what give honor to a person, they are called machbeduseh.  Those that give the most glory and honor to Hashem are those that have a struggle to follow the will of Hashem but are successful at the end.
We could understand the midrash the opposite way.  The point is to say that even those that are sinners still deserve a blessing.  Esav's sins are part of his very essence, he is defined as a sinner.  On the other hand, the sins of Yisroel don't take away from his pure essence.  The sins of Yisroel are compared to a garment that one can put on and shed at ease.  See the Maharal in derush for Shabbos Shuva that elaborates on this point.  This isn't just a little derash on the words but Chazal are highlighting the essence of the difference between Yaakov and Esav.     

To Bring Out The Potential

It is quite interesting that all the Torah records in great detail all the events regarding Yitzchak's digging of wells.  Why is this the hallmark of Yitzchak?  Why is it that only in regard to Yitzchak that he has a special blessing that his field produced extra crops?  The first time we find Yitzchak praying (in last week's parsha) the Torah uses the terminology of שיחה.  Why is that language used to describe his prayer?
The power of Yitzchak was in the middah of gevurah.  The ability of gevurah is to bring out the potential that exists within the person.  The language of שיחה, explains Rav Kook (in his commentary to Berochos 26b) is related to the word שיחים, grass and vegetation.  The growth of vegetation is the outgrowth of the potential put into the ground.  Similarly, the prayer service of mincha instituted by Yitzchak, comes at the end of the day when generally the daily troubles are coming to an end and the bottled up holy emotions within a person can come to the surface.
It is this ability to bring out potential that is represented by Yitzchak's digging of the wells.  When one digs a well they bring out the water stream that exists underground to come above ground.  Besides the physical digging of the wells the Torah is describing the entire avodah of Yitzchak which was to bring to fruition all the abilities that a person already has within himself.
That's why it is specifically Yitzchak who we are told about that he had a special bracha in the growth of his field for it is Yitzchak who had this ability to bring out the potential of the field to fruition (based upon intro. to Otzar Mifarsha Hatalmud on Challah by Rav Yonason David.)     

The Blessings

The meforshim ask why did Yitzchak use the name of Elokim, which is the name of din when giving the berachos, the blessings are chesed, not din? Yitzchak says about Yaakov, ראה ריח בני כריח השדה אשר ברכו ה'  and then continues ויתן לך, which seem to mean that the discription of Yaakov is part of the blessing, what is the blessing, that he should have a good scent?  Why in the blessings of Yaakov does it mention dew before the growth of the fields but in the berocha to Esav it’s said in reverse order?

The Shem Me’Shmuel explains the verse ויתן לך אלקים to mean that you shall find G-d in all matters.  The name Elokim is used to describe the Godliness that is hidden in everything (Elokim has the numerical value of Teva-nature.)  This was the essence of the berochos given to Yaakov, that he should recognize that everything contains Godliness within it.  The Chofetz Chaim explains the different in the language of the berocha is that for Yaakov the dew is mentioned first because Yaakov understands parnasa comes from the heavens foremost as opposed to Esav who appreciates what comes from this world.  Yaakov was looking for Hashem to be recognized within the parnosa that he received.

 The Sforno comments the beracha isn't for Yaakov to be able to purchase good cologne, rather the berocha is that Yaakov should appreciate that Hashem not only gives the basic necessities of food that every animal has but He also gives you a pleasant smell which is a pleasure for both the body and the soul.  This is the first of the berochos because it sums up the point that the berochos are meant to recognize that the berochos aren’t meant to receive physical pleasures, its to bring out the ruchnious that exists in everything (see Bad Kodesh.)   

The meforshim wonder why is there no apparent spiritual blessing given to Yaakov?  Based upon what we said it’s understood that the berocha is to recognize how the physical berochos can be used to further enhance one’s service of Hashem.  That is the explanation of the midrashim that explain the berochos as referring to the learning of Torah for that is the outgrowth of the berocha.

Lacking In Brains or Lacking In Heart

This Shabbos is the yartzheit of Rav Aharon Kotler, so it is only fitting to share some of his words.
The midrash says on the words  למה זה לי בכרה that the word זה refers to Hashem as it says זה קלי ואנוהו.  From here the midrrash says that Esav denied the existence of Hashem.  This Chazal is very difficult for if Esav didn't believe in Hashem then why did he care about the בכורה at all,  why the need to sell it and why was he upset that Yaakov took it?  Furthermore, Rav Kotler asks how could it be someone who saw Yitzchak Avenu could deny Hashem?  Even one who saw the Gra couldn't remain in denial of God (this is what Rav Kotler claims).  [I also found the following line in B'ekvos Hayerah pg. 15 at the end of the page, מספרים עליו על הגרא ז"ל שכל מי ששמעהו אומר בשעת קבלת שבת יום אם בקולו תשמעו מיד היה נעשה לבעל תשובה]  for sure if one saw Yitzchak all the time like Esav, he would know there is a God?

Rav Aharon Kotler explains that Chazal don't mean that Esav didn't acknowledge the existence of Hashem, he knew there was a God but he chose to ignore Him if he felt it interfered with his desires.  The word זה means something you can point to.  Esav was fully cognizant of Hashem to the point that he could point to Him, however he said למה זה לי, I don't want Hashem for I don't want ruchnious, I want only gashmious.

Quite too often in life we know what's right and wrong, that's not the issue.  It is the lack of desire for ruchnious that drives our (my) decisions.  The lesson is that one must have the desire for the proper thing in order to do what's right.  

My great-grandfather explains in a different manner.  He cites many statements of Chazal in various places that call a kofer such as Tosefta Shveis (3:5) that one does an averah only because of denial of God.  Does this mean everyone who commits a sin denies God?  He explains based upon the Tanya in letter 25 that explains the Chazal that one who gets angry is as if he served avodah zarah.  Why is getting angry tantamount to avodah zarah?  The Tanya says if a person had complete faith that everything Hashem does is for the best, he would not have gotten angry.  Similarly, in all the statements of Chazal, they are pointing out that the misdeed stems from a certain lack of faith in Hashem.  Chazal are pointing out the source of averaos and in our case, Esav stemmed from a measurement of denial in God.  It is indeed an intellectual lack of faith in Hashem that Chazal are highlighting in Esav.

We see from here that it is indeed a lack of faith in Hashem to be able to forgo ruchnious, to have the gall to not to the desire of Hashem is indeed a denial of Hashem.