פרשה: ויחי · עלייה: רביעי (נצח)

ראובן בכרי אתה, "Reuben, you are my firstborn, etc.," What news did Jacob convey to us with this statement? What did Jacob mean when he described Reuben as "my strength and the first of my vigor?" Although Bereshit Rabbah 98,4 mentions that Jacob meant to say that whereas he had not emitted a drop of semen until he married at 84 years of age, Reuben had not been able to contain himself, we still need to know why Jacob mentioned this at this time. Furthermore, why did he appear to repeat himself by describing Reuben as 1) "my strength," and 2) "the first of my vigor?" Another difficulty in this verse is the expression יתר שאת ויתר עז. Whereas the Midrash we have just referred to understands the word שאת as a reference to the Priesthood whereas the word עז is a reference to Royalty, we need to know why Jacob did not mention that as a firstborn Reuben was entitled to two portions in the inheritance seeing that he did dwell on details of the birthright. Onkelos does refer to this by saying that Jacob meant that Reuben should have been entitled to three shares of the inheritance. Another enigmatic statement in this verse (4) is the expression פחז כמים אל־תותר, "unstable as water, you have lost your advantage;" Rashi comments that Reuben lost his advantage as a firstborn because of his instability, the instability being that he defiled Jacob's bed in the incident with Bilhah (35,22). This still does not tell us why Jacob could not have merely said אל תותר, without describing Reuben as פחז כמים. After all, Reuben's instability was only an additional way of describing his sin. All we needed to know to justify that Reuben was deprived of his privileges as the firstborn was the fact that he had committed a sin against his father. Why did Jacob phrase Reuben's sin in the plural, i.e. "your father's beds?" Why did Jacob create the impression that Reuben had committed two wrongs when he said: אז חללת, "at that time you defiled," as if Reuben had also defiled his bed at a different time? It gives the impression that the defilement Jacob speaks about did not occur at the time Reuben mounted his father's bed. If that is so we are entitled to know what precisely Jacob is talking about. On the other hand, if mounting his father's bed was defiling it he should have said so in unmistakable terms.

Before commencing to explain these verses we need to understand why Jacob did not honour the Torah's commandment of not showing preference (in terms of inheritance) to the firstborn son of the wife he loved when the true firstborn was the son of the wife he hated (Deut. 21,16)? Jacob treated Joseph the firstborn son of his beloved wife Rachel, as entitled to the privileges that are accorded to the son of the wife he hated when the latter had been born earlier. The question also arises whether the patriarchs were obligated to accept the norms of the Torah, seeing that the Torah did not become the law of Israel until the revelation at Mount Sinai. After all, we find that Jacob married two sisters while both were alive, something that contravenes Torah law. Abraham too did not perform circumcision on himself until he was advanced in years whereas Torah law stipulates circumcision on the eighth day or as soon as possible thereafter. We can find numerous other instances of the patriarchs not acting in accordance with Torah law. In view of the two examples we have quoted about the patriarchs not complying with what became Torah law thereafter, the whole question of why Jacob treated Joseph as his firstborn seems irrelevant. I have found that Nachmanides (Genesis 26,5) explains that the reason Jacob did marry two sisters while both were alive was that he was not in the Holy Land at the time. His words do not sound convincing. Who told Jacob that Torah legislation applied only within the boundaries of ארץ ישראל? The fact is that the commandments which the patriarchs did not observe apply equally in ארץ ישראל and outside it.

I believe that the patriarchs received the Torah from Shem who in turn had received it from Noach; Noach had received it from Chanoch who had received it from Adam himself. Adam, of course, had received the Torah from G'd. This is based on Job 28,27: "Then He saw and told, etc.,…and He said to Adam." Zohar 1,199 attributes the revelation of Torah laws to Adam as the basis of G'd instructing him how to work and preserve the גן עדן. I have explained this in connection with Genesis 2,15. At that time Adam (and the patriarchs subsequently) were only commanded seven laws on pain of death. These laws are the ones commonly known as the Noachide laws, those applicable to mankind as a whole. All the other commandments which G'd revealed to Adam had only one purpose, namely to enable man to accumulate reward if he observed them. If he failed to observe those laws he was not liable to punishment. This situation continued until G'd revealed Himself to the Jewish people at Mount Sinai.

The patriarchs made a point of observing all these commandments as an expression of their love for G'd. This is what G'd had told Isaac in Genesis 26,5. Yuma 28 states that Abraham not only observed all the commandments of the Torah but even such Rabbinic ordinances as Eyruv Tavshilim. No doubt Abraham instructed his children in these matters as he wanted them to qualify for the reward in store for those who observed all these commandments. Whenever the patriarchs observed that by not observing one of these commandments they would achieve something important immediately, they decided to opt for the immediate benefit. This is what happened when Jacob decided to marry Rachel in addition to Leah. He wanted to have children by Rachel, i.e. that at least some of the tribes should be her offspring. Jacob was especially entitled to do so since he was a prophet and acted in accordance with instructions received from G'd directly. We can understand this better when comparing what Maimonides wrote in chapter 9 of his Hilchot Yesodey Torah. He states that if a properly accredited prophet instructs the Jewish people to violate one of the Torah's commandments on a temporary basis, he is to be obeyed. Maimonides quotes the incident when Elijah rebuilt a private altar and sacrificed on it on Mount Carmel as a case in point. The same applied to Jacob's having married two sisters. According to Bereshit Rabbah 85,8, an angel exploited Yehudah's desire to have sexual intercourse by guiding him to Tamar, thereby ensuring that the kings who would come out of him had a matriarch who was both of suitable ancestry and of high moral calibre. At any rate, there are instances when it was obviously preferable not to apply the strictures that would become anchored in law at a later time in Jewish history.

According to what we have said so far we must assume that the fact that Jacob used Reuben's misdeameanour to deprive him of the privileges which come with the birthright was quite legal, halachically speaking. Alternatively, Jacob had received instructions from G'd directly concerning this. We have all of this spelled out in Chronicles I 5,1 where the fact that Reuben was deprived of his birthright because he had mounted his father's bed is stated clearly, although it also states that though Ephrayim and Menashe became the new firstborns, they did not replace Reuben as the titular first-born.

It is still not clear why the birthright was not given to Yehudah instead of to Joseph or any of the other older brothers. The Zohar on Vayishlach page 176 explains this. "At the time when Jacob slept with Leah (the first night of his marriage), he thought only about Rachel all the time since he was under the impression that he was sleeping with and impregnating Rachel. Restoring the birthright to Joseph was no more than an example of Jacob's original intention being fulfilled."

Whereas this explained why Jacob gave the birthright to Joseph once he took it away from Reuben, why did the Torah have to mention that Reuben had defiled Jacob's bed? The birthright would have belonged to Joseph anyways. [I confess I have great difficulty with this Zohar because Leah was not impregnated on the first night of her marriage; when Reuben was conceived, eventually, Jacob was well aware that he was sleeping with Leah. If he had pined after Rachel knowing that he was sleeping with Leah this would have been most inappropriate. Ed.] In order to answer our problem we must remember that all the manifestations of spirituality in the world are divided into three categories. One category of spirituality is sacred, holy. A second category is secular; the third category of spirituality is evil. Each one of these categories produces "offsprings" corresponding to its nature. The category of holy spirituality produces offspring which is good, provides eternal bliss, and it strives for abstract intelligence, etc. The category of secular spirituality is characterised by its interest in the consumption of that which is aestethically pleasing, and that which provides enjoyment for the senses. The third category of spirituality is characterised by its interest in idolising every abomination. Its adherents commit every sin in the book. They steal, cheat, deceive, and consume mostly forbidden foods. They engage in illicit sex and indulge only in gratifying their lust, etc. These three categories between them comprise every human being, the good ones, the secular oriented ones, and the evil ones.

Inasmuch as the Jewish people belong to the holy category of spirituality, G'd has commanded them not to taste i.e. absorb things which characterise evil, be it in the form of food or drink, speech or thought, or even perceptions that are of a visual, aural or of an olfactory nature. Prohibited foods (i.e. the sense of taste) comprise such things as eating living tissue, eating unclean animals, eating reptiles and insects or diseased animals, or even animals which died a natural death. Forbidden drink includes the consumption of wine designated for idolatrous purposes, wine made from grapes of vines which are less than four years old, etc. Forbidden speech includes lying, slander, coarse language, character assassination, etc. Forbidden thoughts include the study of idolatry with a view to practicing it, fantasies of an erotic nature, considering oneself superior to others, pride, etc. Forbidden use of one's vision include examining a woman's physical beauty, as elaborated on in the Zohar Kedoshim page 83. Forbidden sounds include listening to women sing, etc. Forbidden smells and fragrances include forbidden smells such as the incense offered in pagan rites. In all these matters there are secular as well as sacred elements. G'd decreed that it was mandatory to observe the sacred elements whereas it was permitted to take advantage of the secular elements. Whenever a person associates himself with one of either of these elements by making use of them, his soul forms some kind of attachment with the root underlying such element be it positive or negative.

Seeing that this is so even a pure soul is subject to some degree of contamination when its owner gets involved in one of the secular elements. As a result, such a person (body as well as soul) will experience a process of afflictions either in this world or by the soul alone in the Hereafter to cleanse him of that contamination. This is the mystical dimension of the "laundry" mentioned in Shabbat 152 where the soiled souls are described as being handed over to the "washer" after death before they can take their seat at the king's table. During the period the "clothes" are being washed their owners are incarcerated. You should appreciate that once a forbidden category of spirituality has made contact with a person, that person's soul in turn develops a yearning for that particular category of the forbidden. The attraction between them is mutual. When a soul (personality) has become infected with the impurity represented by adultery, such a soul will begin to develop a yearning for this kind of impurity. The same holds true of all other categories of the forbidden. A person's desire to partake of evil increases in direct proportion to the quantity of evil he has absorbed and the frequency with which he has done so. On the other hand, a person's path to saintliness is similarly accelerated in proportion to the efforts he makes to distance himself from evil and to embrace only what is sacred and holy. The rule one must remember is that there is nothing in this world which does not contain elements of either negative or positive spirituality. Our only yardstick for knowing what contains negative spirituality is that which is forbidden by the Torah. In his volume Sefer Hayashar chapter 9, Rabbeynu Tam writes that when examining a number of personalities (נפש) as to their inherent tendencies, one will find that some people have absolutely no inclinations to commit adultery whereas others have. The difference is accounted for by the owners of these respective personalities having absorbed negative spirituality. Once a sufficient amount of such evil has been absorbed it is almost impossible for that personality to hate evil sufficiently for that hatred to be of assistance in combating evil tendencies. This is the mystical dimension of what we are taught in Sukkah 52 that man possesses a relatively small organ (male organ) whose demands grow in proportion to the freedom one grants it to satisfy its desire and which becomes progressively more satiated in proportion to the frequency with which it is denied its desire.

There are people who display a strong tendency towards evil, a tendency which intensifies as they grow up, whereas others can control their evil urges with ease and are able to repent and find their way back to innocence with relative ease. Such tendencies are the result of the composition of their respective life-force at the time of conception. The holy thoughts and aspirations of the parents at the time of marital intercourse determine to a large degree the natural tendencies which we will observe in their offspring. If a parent concentrated on physical gratification at the time he engaged in procreation, he cannot be surprised if he transmitted tendencies of the desire to fulfil himself sexually to his offspring. If at the time the father indulged in marital relations with his wife he fantasized about some other woman's body, he cannot be surprised if his offspring develops adulterous or promiscuous tendencies. [This concept is not dissimilar to present-day theories about the genetic material injected into the sperm determining the quality of the body. In this case we speak about "moral" genetical material. Ed.] We have an interesting story about this in the Eyn Yaakov on Berachot 10. King Chiskiyah had failed to marry having seen with his mental eye that his offspring would not be worthy. He fell sick, and Isaiah told him to make his last will and testament as he was going to die. When he challenged the prophet why death at such an early age had been decreed upon him the prophet accused him of failing to fulfil the first commandment of the Torah, to procreate. He did not accept Chiskiyah's reason for not marrying and told him that the worthiness of his children was G'd's concern, whereas his only concern should have been to keep G'd's commandment. In the course of the conversation Chiskiyah suggested to Isaiah that he should give him his daughter in marriage and that perhaps their combined merits would suffice to produce worthy children. After refusing initially, Isaiah agreed in the end. The result was that Chiskiyah produced two idol-worshipping sons Menashe and Ravshakeh. Menashe and Ravshakeh may have been born with idolatrous tendencies due to thoughts which their father had entertained at the time he begat them. If one observes a person who has always conducted himself in the most pious manner commit an obvious sin, one must assume that he was not aware that he committed such a sin. Our argument that the various manifestations of spirituality we encounter contain both positive and negative elements is best proven by the tree of knowledge. The fact that G'd planted that tree within גן עדן is proof that it contained positive elements. G'd's garden is certainly not a place in which He had planted evil incarnate. Bereshit Rabbah 21, claims that if only Adam had waited till nightfall before eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge he could have used the juice to proclaim the sanctification of the Sabbath with it. [I have not found this in the section of the Midrash quoted. I presume this is based on the prohibition applying only "on the day you eat from it," as opposed to "the night you eat from it," etc. Ed.] This is in accordance with the view expressed in Sanhedrin 70 that the tree of knowledge was the grapevine.

In view of all the above you are bound to ask how it was possible that sainted patriarchs such as Abraham and Isaac could have fathered such sons as Ishmael and Esau respectively? The answer is that they carried within themselves residual evil bequeathed to them by their forefather Terach who was an idol worshiper. When Abraham was born he contained elements of such tendencies. Abraham was able to suppress and isolate such tendencies by dint of his character; the residue of such suppressed tendencies resurfaced in Ishmael, however. Nonetheless Abraham was not yet totally free from the residual evil tendencies bequeathed to him by his father so that even Isaac was born with them. Isaac, in turn, suppressed them and isolated them by means of his enthusiastic pursuit of holiness. He was so successful in this regard that our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 63,8 state that Esau had to be born first so that by absorbing the residue of negative spiritual input remaining from earlier ancestors, Jacob could emerge free from such taint.

Let us now examine what happened when Jacob married. Since he was born without negative spiritual residue, why did he produce a Reuben who demonstrated some negative traits? This could only have been due to Jacob's thoughts at the time he conceived Reuben not having been perfect. Jacob's purity of thought and his deed were not perfectly matched at that moment. Our sages in Nedarim 20 list nine categories of children who are spiritually defective from the time of their conception; one of these categories is the child of a man who has two wives and who at the time of marital relations believed that he was in bed with his other wife. Although Jacob's situation was different in that he had every reason to believe that he was in bed with Rachel, the objective fact was that he did not have the correct thoughts at the time. This is proven by the fact that Reuben later became guilty of a misdemeanour involving his father's bed, something that not one of the other eleven sons of Jacob ever became guilty of. Even Joseph who was exposed to sexual harassment of a very intense nature did not succumb. While it is true that the Talmud in Shabbat 55 states that if someone accuses Reuben of having committed a transgression such a person is in error, this referred merely to the legal aspect of the matter, not to its moral implications.

As to Yehudah sleeping with Tamar- something which suggests something less than 100% chaste behaviour by a son of Jacob- there are two answers. 1) First of all, he had no idea that she was his daughter-in-law; 2) the fact that an angel arranged things in such a way that he was actually acting under some kind of duress as explained by our sages in Makkot 23 on Genesis 38,26. The word ממני in that verse is understood by our sages as referring to a heavenly voice which claimed that the whole incident had been engineered by heaven. Since we do not have an allusion to such heavenly intervention in the case of Reuben, we are entitled to blame him for his act.

I have seen a comment by the outstanding scholar Rabbi Yehudah Rosenis in his volume Parshat D'rachim in which he comes to the defence of Reuben claiming that the status of Bilhah was that of a woman who had been seduced by his father Jacob, something he derives from her description as "his father's concubine." This means that Bilhah had never been betrothed to Jacob; l cannot agree with this. I am convinced that Jacob acquired Bilhah by betrothing her to him in the traditional manner as l have explained at the appropriate place (Genesis 30,3). As to the term "concubine" used by the Torah in 35,22, perhaps that was what Reuben thought. He was in error, however, and that may have accounted for his conduct. Alternatively, the Torah hinted at the reason that Reuben disturbed his father's bed. He argued that not only had Jacob down-graded his mother Leah during Rachel's lifetime, the fact that he slept primarily in Bilhah's tent now that Rachel was dead was an even greater insult to his mother. Her place had now been usurped by a mere concubine. The facts of the matter are that Bilhah had always been a proper wife of Jacob; this is why the Torah describes Reuben's action as equivalent to having slept with one of Jacob's wives.

Having said all this we understand the words of the Zohar according to which the cause of the problem was that Jacob had thought of fathering his firstborn son Joseph at the time he was sleeping with Leah. This is precisely what Ezra had in mind when he described Reuben's losing his birthright in the Book of Chronicles I 5,1. Had Jacob been thinking of Leah at the time he slept with her, Reuben would never have been capable of the deed ascribed to him.

We are now able to explain the various verses beautifully. When Jacob was about to deprive Reuben of his birthright he was poignantly aware that if one of his sons had displayed such a moral weakness he had to look for the source of that weakness in something he himself had been guilty of. The cause was, as we explained, that the father had bequeathed to his son some spiritual values be they positive or negative. Inasmuch as Reuben's sin consisted of a sexual aberration, Jacob was anxious to distance himself from the accusation that he was a contributory cause to Reuben's behaviour. He was afraid that in his heart Reuben would accuse his father of being the cause that he was capable of such a mistake. This is why he said first: "Reuben you are my firstborn." People who are guilty of adulterous behaviour fall into 3 categories. 1) They commit adultery and as a result father children who are morally inferior. 2) They commit adultery but do not cause their partner to become pregnant. Such intercourse can again be subdivided into several categories such as intercourse with a married woman which fortuitously does not result in that woman becoming pregnant. Alternatively, the adulterous male engages in intercourse with another male, or he ejaculates outside his female partner. Finally, he might commit the "act" only in an erotic dream at night, accidentally. 3) A person arouses himself by means of erotic thoughts. All of the afore-mentioned are degrees of actions which are abhorrent to G'd. Jacob referred to all three alternatives by saying to Reuben: "my firstborn," "my strength," "my vigor." When he said בכודי אתה, "you are my firstborn," he meant that he had not fathered any child prior to Reuben. Neither had he slept with a woman without benefit of betrothal and marriage certificate as this also would not have been appropriate. He then continued to say כחי, "my strength," meaning that he had not emitted sperm previous to that occasion. When he continued: ראשית אוני, "the first of my strength," he meant that he had never done anything that could be subsumed under any of the headings of adulterous behaviour we have listed.

When Jacob said כחי וראשית אוני, he also hinted that Reuben was the result of the first drop of semen he had ever ejaculated. This is an indication that Jacob had not slept with a virgin, as a virgin could not have become pregnant from her first intercourse. Instead, Jacob had removed the hymen with his finger in order not to let a single drop of his semen go to waste deliberately. This was a further indication that his physical passion did not dominate him and that he did what he did as a sacred duty only. As a result, Reuben had absolutely no reason to blame Jacob's past conduct for any of his own shortcomings. Jacob told Reuben all this not in order to boast about his piety and self-control but in order to be sure that Reuben did not suspect him of being implicated in any way in his having defiled his father's bed.

Jacob added the words יתר שאת ויתר עז as an allusion to the double portion of his father's inheritance that the firstborn is entitled to. Jacob had referred to this when he said: "you are my firstborn." On the other hand, there are other distinctions such as the priesthood and royalty which are not necessarily tied to being the firstborn. There are occasions when such honours are bestowed on people who are not firstborn. Reuben had also forfeited the chance to receive such honours.

Jacob may also have been telling Reuben that the honours of priesthood and Royalty which he would have been entitled to more than any other firstborn and which far outweighed other hereditary advantages of the firstborn he had also forfeited by his behaviour.

Up until this point Jacob dealt with the fact that he himself had not been at fault in the matter. From this point on Jacob proceeds to list the reasons that Reuben forfeited the privileges which come with being a firstborn. He deals with the distinctions Reuben has forfeited as well as with the roots of the mistake he committed.

פחז במים, "Hasty, like water, etc." Jacob accused Reuben of acting with haste, not trying to control his emotions and urges, failing to vanquish the spark of evil which was rooted within him. As a result of that failure he would be deprived of the three distinctions we have described i.e. birthright, priesthood and royalty.

When Jacob added אל תותר, he hinted that although Reuben had displayed haste in doing something which held no advantage for him, he had not displayed the same haste when it came to doing something useful, i.e. repenting his mistake. Our sages in Baba Kama 92 say that it was Yehudah who triggered Reuben's eventual repentance. Although Bereshit Rabbah 84,19 states that G'd complimented Reuben on being the first human being who had repented [without having been accused by anyone as yet, Ed.], Reuben had not uttered a confession of his sin until he had heard about Yehudah doing this during Tamar's trial. Perhaps Reuben's tardiness in confessing his mistake was the reason that royalty was conferred on the descendants of Yehudah instead. It was Yehudah's reward for being the cause that triggered the final stage in Reuben's repentance. Reuben may have lost the priesthood to the descendants of Levi as a result of later developments as mentioned in Deut. 33,8 לאיש חסידך אשר נסיתו במסה, "Be with Your faithful one whom You tested at Massah" (when that tribe did not complain). Regardless of when Levi qualified for the priesthood, Reuben forfeited his claim to it already during Jacob's time. The words אל תותר mean that Reuben was deprived of all his erstwhile advantages over his brothers. Jacob transferred one of his former distinctions to Joseph, a second one to Yehudah, and he left the third one pending until G'd eventually accorded it to part of the tribe of Levi.

Jacob said כי עלית to explain how it was possible that a son of his could commit such an act. He hinted that at the time (the wedding night) his thoughts had been confused as he had been under the impression that he had married and was sleeping with Rachel. In other words, he had actually slept in two beds, physically he had shared Leah's bed, whereas mentally he had considered himself in bed with Rachel. This is the reason Jacob spoke about Reuben having mounted משכבי אביך, the beds (pl) of your father. This was the original cause of Reuben eventually becoming guilty of his misdemeanour. When Jacob added the word אז, then, he indicated that the true defilement took place then; the first time Reuben desecrated his father's bed was at the time he was conceived in the wrong womb, Leah's instead of Rachel's. Jacob's משכבים were desecrated at that time, whereas Reuben personally had defiled Jacob's יצוע when he mounted the bed in Bilhah's tent.

שמעון ולוי אחים, Shimon and Levi are brothers, etc. Jacob stressed the fact that Shimon and Levi were brothers as their similarity was natural, they shared many attitudes, something that is not always the case between brothers. It is also possible that Jacob referred to their joint action in Shechem as well as their plan to dispose of Joseph at the time, when he described their brotherliness. Jacob may have meant that these two between them shared the element of fire in an exaggerated manner. Our sages in Yuma 22 describe that Saul committed one sin which cost him the kingdom whereas David committed two serious sins without forfeiting his kingdom. The reason for this was that Saul was even-tempered by nature whereas David was impetuous by nature as we know from Samuel I 16,12 where the prophet describes David as אדמוני, red cheeked, i.e. hot-blooded. When G'd judges people He makes allowances for their natural tendencies, their genetic mix. Although someone who contains a greater than average share of the element of fire will be most enthusiastic in his service of G'd as a result (as we know from the tribe of Levi), this enthusiasm does not act as a barrier against his committing errors on occasion. Such errors also reflect his genetic composition. The fact that a person such as Saul was of an even temperament usually acted as a barrier against his falling victim to the lures of the evil urge. When Jacob described Shimon and Levi as אחים the word is derived from חם, heat. Jacob cursed their anger because when it erupted it was apt to prove unusually destructive. Anger is rooted in the element fire.

Once such anger is kindled it results in excess heat and that is why Jacob compared their anger to כלי חמס מכרותיהם, the use of weapons to commit violence. By stressing the word מכרותיהם, (from the root הכר, something one is conscious of), Jacob indicated that Shimon and Levi's tendencies to commit acts of violence were not something they had inherited from their father, something deeply rooted in their subconscious, but when such sentiments surfaced they became very conscious of them as such. The cause of their excesses was the extra amount of fire in the basic composition of their respective bodies.This genetic imbalance was responsible for such deeds as their act of violence against Joseph.

The word מכרותיהם also contains the root מכר, sale. Jacob referred to the sale of Joseph as an act of violence perpetrated by these two brothers, seeing that Joseph had not been guilty. Although all the brothers had participated in that sale, closer examination of what happened will show you that these two brothers were the instigators of all that violence. They were the ones who said to each other in 37,19: "let us see what will become of his dreams when we will set out to kill him, etc." (compare Bereshit Rabbah 99,6).

בסודם אל תבא נפשי, "My soul, do not come to their counsel." We need to understand what precisely Jacob had in mind. Our sages in Sanhedrin 109 say that Jacob referred to the affair with Zimri in which the tribe of Shimon disgraced itself, and to the uprising of Korach which was a taint on the tribe of Levi. They also state that the words באפם הרגו איש "in their anger they slew a man," refer to Chamor and the men of Shechem, whereas the words וברצונם עקרו שור, "and it was their wish to uproot an ox," refer to their violence against Joseph (compare Targum Yerushalmi). These comments are all homiletical. One of the difficulties with this explanation is why Jacob would list events that were far in the future ahead of events which had already taken place, such as the violence against Joseph and Chamor? How could the word כי be used in this verse when it does not relate to anything which preceded it? Besides, why would Jacob also associate Levi with the affair in which Zimri would disgrace himself by sleeping with a Midianite princess? Why did Jacob choose the expression ברצונם, "when it pleased them," to describe Shimon and Levi's planned violence against Joseph?

The plain meaning of the verse is that the entire verse speaks about the incident with Joseph. When Jacob refers to בסודם, "their secret," he meant that he did not want to be associated with these two brothers from the moment they began to hate Joseph, although they concealed their hatred for a while. When Jacob spoke about אל תבא נפשי, this was his way of disassociating himself from any guilt concerning the behaviour of Shimon and Levi. Just as he had not transmitted spiritually corrupt genes to Reuben, so he had not burdened Shimon and Levi with spiritually defective genes when he fathered either one of them. Any evil concocted by these two brothers did not originate with him.

Jacob also wanted to state that he would not be punished for anything these two brothers had done because of his preferential treatment of Joseph being an underlying cause of the brothers' jealousy and hatred of him.

When Jacob added: ובקהלם אל תחד כבודי, "my honour do not join their congregation," he referred to the moment when Shimon and Levi hatched the plot to kill Joseph (37,20). He did not want these two sons to be known as "the sons of Jacob" as of that moment. Jacob considered such a designation of these two as an affront to his honour. Tanchuma in Parshat Vayeshev understands the word כבוד as a reference to the presence of the שכינה which had departed from Jacob the moment Joseph had become lost. The word כי in בי באפם הרגו איש, is the justification for Jacob not wanting his name associated with these two brothers. He referred to their having killed a man although we know in retrospect that this did not happen. Jacob considered the brothers' willingness to kill Joseph and to throw him into a pit full of reptiles as equivalent to exposing Joseph to many kinds of deaths.

וברצונם עקרו שור, "and they uprooted an ox at their pleasure." Jacob added that even after their anger had already evaporated, after they had thrown Joseph into the pit and Yehudah spoke words of appeasement to them, they continued to act evilly. The Talmud Sotah 36 states that Joseph should have been the progenitor of 12 tribes. His encounter with the wife of Potiphar whose temptations he withstood only with the greatest amount of willpower caused him to forfeit the privilege of founding the other ten tribes. Had it not been for Shimon and Levi who had wanted to uproot Joseph's future, none of this would have happened.

ארור אפם כי עז, "cursed be their anger for it is very strong, etc." Jacob only cursed their excess anger. This is why he added: כי עז. Every person needs to harbour a certain amount of hatred otherwise he could not receive a reward in the Hereafter for having controlled his anger and made it subservient to his duty to serve the Lord. Jacob realised that he had to find a way to "cool" this anger which was liable to flare up from time to time. Inasmuch as both brothers suffered from an excess amount of fire in their genetic mix, Jacob hoped that by separating them from one another he could forestall future outbursts or at least make such outbursts of anger less harmful. This is why he added: "I will separate them within Yaakov, etc."

יהודה אתה יודוך אחיך, "Yehudah- as to you, your brothers will praise you, etc." Why did Jacob have to add the word אתה when he addressed Yehudah? Apparently the word was meant to exclude someone else. Besides, why did Jacob not say: וידך, "and your hand, etc," instead of simply: ידך, "your hand?" The same applies to the missing conjunctive letter ו in front of ישתחוו לך.

It appears that Jacob's intention was to assure Yehudah that contrary to the blessings for the other brothers which were predictions for the distant future after Israel would take possession of the land of Canaan, Yehudah himself would already experience the esteem of his brothers. We have confirmation of this in Chronicles I 5,2 where we read: "for Yehudah became more powerful than his brothers and a leader came from him." At the appropriate time, Yehudah's hand would be at the neck of his enemies. At that time his brothers would prostrate themselves before him and he would become their king. This prophecy was fulfilled during the reign of Saul when David won great victories and the Jewish people crowned him king.

גור אריה יהודה, "Yehudah is a lioncub." The Zohar section 1, page 237 explains that initially Yehudah would be like a cub, גור, whereas later on he would be a fully grown lion, אריה. If this was so, why did Jacob have to tell us that there was a time when Yehudah was still only a cub? Besides, what did Jacob mean when he said: מטרף בני עלית "you removed yourself from my son, from the kill?" According to our sages the word בני may be read both as belonging to what was mentioned before as well as to what follows, i.e. "you my son have arisen." Accordingly, Yehudah had distanced himself from what the brothers had done when Jacob had exclaimed: "my son has been torn to shreds." It is difficult to reconcile this with the facts. Why would Jacob have assumed suddenly that Yehudah had no share in the brothers' plot to deceive him and to make him believe that Joseph had become the victim of wild animals? On the contrary, is it not more likely to believe that Jacob had never suspected any of his sons to have laid a hand on Joseph? We must view the statement of our sages as דברי קבלה, as reflecting insights to which we are not privy. The words כרע רבץ מי יקימנו, also present a difficulty. Not only do these words not make sense as part of the blessing, but why did Jacob suddenly switch to indirect speech when up until now he had addressed Yehudah directly?

In order to understand these verses a short introduction will enable us to gain a deeper insight into the ways of the Torah. We perceive Adam as a tree from which all the holy souls that would ever enter the world were suspended. When Adam sinned, evil assumed a limited rule in our world and captured many of these holy souls. According to our Kabbalists it has been the task of the Jewish people to rescue as many of these holy souls who are kept prisoners within the קליפה (forces of negative spirituality), using the holy Torah and G'd's commandments all of which G'd has implanted in our midst as our weaponry. On occasion, even a close personal attachment such as the rape of a person containing a holy Jewish soul and the impure soul of a Gentile may result in a new life of a positive kind. Shechem's deep-seated attachment to Dinah, the daughter of Jacob whom he had raped may be an example of such a phenomenon (Genesis 34,33). According to Kohelet Yaakov, Dinah infused Shechem with part of her holy soul, something which eventually resulted in the emergence and liberation of the soul of Rabbi Chanina ben Tradyon. This is alluded to in the word רחבת in רחבת ידים (Genesis 34,21) the letters of which are an acronym of the respective first letters in the name דבי חנינה בן תרדיון.

On other occasions a soul which was taken captive at the time Adam sinned may emerge of its own accord at the time when the forces in charge of the קליפה decide to swamp earth with many new lives (souls). Such formerly captive holy souls who have initiated their own conversion to Judaism will often make every effort to pursue the path of goodness. This explains the phenomenon that converts very often become more meticulous in their observance of Jewish law than natural-born Jews. Ruth the Moabite and Naamah the Ammonite are part of the phenomenon we have just described. Their souls had become captive due to the acts of incest committed by their ancestor when Lot's daughters slept with their father. When their "captor" i.e. the force or angel in charge of releasing impure souls into the world, released a quantity of such souls, hoping to contaminate the earth with still more negative spirituality, two of the souls originally held captive escaped and turned out to become Ruth and Naamah. The fact that Ruth became the ancestor of David whereas Naamah became the wife Rechavam indicate the sins of their ancestor who slept with his daughters. Lot's older daughter who had the effrontery to call the name of her son i.e. מואב, i.e. "from my father," had committed a greater offence than her younger sister who called the child of that union בן עמי. The fact that Ruth was descended from Moab whereas Naamah was descended from Ammon reflects the phenomenon that the greater the spiritual morass that one has emerged from the greater the effort at one's spiritual rehabilitation. This is why David and a whole dynasty of kings is descended from Ruth, whereas Naamah the offspring of Lot's younger daughter is comparativeley less illustrious (compare Baba Kama 38 where the Talmud even attributes G'd's command to treat Ammon more mildly than Moab to the minor difference between the acts committed by Lot's two daughters). It is important to remember that if a person of lesser stature than Lot had perpetrated these acts he would not have had the good fortune that in the cause of centuries at least two good people came out of him. [I have some problem with the whole premise; according to the seven Noachidic laws it was perfectly permissible for a father to sleep with his daughter, all the more so since Lot was not even aware of it. Ed.] Just as there are different levels of righteousness amongst the observant Jews, i.e. goodness is a relative term, so there are different degrees amongst the people whose souls originate in the pool at the disposal of the forces of the קליפה. Amongst the many kings and leaders of Gentile society, all of whose souls originate in the pool of souls provided by the forces of the קליפה, some are models of virtue whereas others are models of debauchery, perfidy, and cruelty. This is the mystical dimension of what we are taught in Sotah 49 that בעקבות משיחה חוצפה יסגא, that "in the days preceding the arrival of the Messiah, effrontery will become prevalent." The sages meant that as the number of holy souls amongst the pool of souls controlled by the forces of the קליפה becomes more and more depleted, the tempering influence exercised on the whole pool of spiritually negative souls by the holy souls held captive will cease. This accounts for the fact that in days of old the souls that found their way back to the realm of holy souls produced spiritual giants such as Abraham, Sarah, Ruth and the like. Even in later generations converts such as Shemayah and Avtalyon are examples of souls who became spiritual giants amongst our people. Onkelos is another such example. Present day converts, however, are the souls who had already been greatly impoverished during their prolonged stay as captives amongst the pool of spiritually deficient souls, a pool which had been more and more depleted of such souls as the one of Abraham, Sarah, etc. The Talmud describes the period preceding the arrival of the Messiah by using the term עקבות, heels. This is an allusion to the pool of the impure souls which by that time will contain only relatively insignificant souls from the pool of holy souls that the forces of the קליפה had captured when Adam sinned. These souls are described as no more than "heels," the lower extremity of the human body, i.e. a relatively derogatory term. We can find confirmation of that thought in the Zohar 1, page 258.

With the help of this introduction we can begin to understand the advice given by G'd to Yehudah when He sent His angel and almost forced him to have intercourse with the woman whom he considered a harlot (as described in Bereshit Rabbah 85,8). On the one hand, according to Torah law, it was not appropriate for Yehudah to have sexual relations with his daughter-in-law. [I have chosen this expression because Noachide law, which Yehudah was subject to, permits relations between a father-in-law and daughter-in-law. Ed.] Inasmuch as Yehudah was unaware of that woman's identity at the time, he did not know that he committed a forbidden act. Moreover, he acted under heavenly compulsion. The combination of all these factors enabled him to release the souls of Peretz and Zerach who were part of the souls captured by the forces of evil at the time Adam ate from the tree of knowledge. We know that these two souls contained within them great spiritual potential since great people are descended from them. The "captor" of such souls, i.e. the forces of the קליפה, can be presumed to have guarded them especially carefully so that they should not escape from his clutches. No wonder then that a great individual of the calibre of royalty such as Yehudah was needed to become the instrument of their release from that captivity. Unless such a soul had been accused of the morally depraved sin of incest (the appearance of it) it might never have been able to escape its original environment amongst the spiritually inferior pool of souls.

This is what the Torah had in mind when it states, using indirect speech, i.e. G'd is speaking: גור אריה יהודה. This means that prior to Yehudah's union with Tamar he had only been a cub. This was also hinted at when his father had said to him previously: אתה יודוך אחיך, up until now you only merited that your brothers deferred to you by dint of some personal stature you possessed; this stature did not yet have historic significance. Yehudah acquired significance as a historic personality only as a result of his divinely induced union with Tamar. If you want proof of this, just search our records and see which great personalities other than Peretz and Zerach are descended from him. Once Yehudah had united with Tamar he qualified for the title אריה, a fully grown lion. Jacob then went on to explain the underlying cause of Yehudah's spiritual rise. It was מטרף בני עלית, "you my son were able to tear yourself away from the prey" i.e. from the pool of captive holy souls that had been snatched by the forces of the קליפה as the result of Adam's sin. Your divinely induced union with Tamar enabled some of these souls to become free once more and join the pool of holy souls. The sons you have acquired for yourself as a result of this union enable you to establish an everlasting dynasty.

When the Torah continued with כרע רבץ, this is a reference to the prey which proved to be the source of Yehudah's spiritual ascent, something G'd had referred to when He told Cain in Genesis 4,7: "sin crouches at its door;" Yehudah had not had a prior opportunity to rescue the precious souls of Peretz and Zerach.

When the Torah continues calling Yehudah both אריה and לביא, this is a hint that these souls were guarded within the קליפה by a power comparable to a לביא, so that only an אריה, a fully grown lion, had the power to rescue them. Yehudah was that "lion" of a holy soul who could perform such a deed successfully. As of that time the sceptre would not depart from Yehudah, i.e. he had laid the foundation for an enduring dynasty. We are still looking forward daily to the resumption of the monarchy by a descendant of Yehudah (the Messiah).

אסרי לגפן עירה, "He ties his ass to a vine, etc." There are numerous explanations of this verse; their common denominator is that they are all of a homiletical nature. Perhaps the verse is again speaking about the arrival of the Messiah who has been mentioned at the end of the last verse, i.e. עד כי יבא שילה. Jacob had described that period as one when all the nations of the world will seek out the Messiah. This verse would then describe the Messiah as tying his donkey to the vine, i.e. Israel. Israel has been compared to the vine in Psalms 80,9: "You plucked up a vine from Egypt, You expelled nations and planted it." The "donkey" in this verse refers to the Gentile nations. We have several instances in the Bible in which the Gentile nations are compared to donkeys. The first such instance is in Genesis 22,5 where Abraham compares the Gentiles to the donkey (according to Kidushin 68). We also have a very clear such comparison in Ezekiel 23,20 where the prophet compares Israel's promiscuity with Gentiles as a lust for the flesh of donkeys. When Jacob proceeds to speak of the שרקה an especially long vine, as a branch to which the Messiah will tie his she-ass's colt, he makes a fine distinction between the male and female souls that originate in the domain of the קליפה. He calls the male, עיר, whereas he calls the female אתון. When speaking of Israel as a whole, i.e. גפן he describes the Messiah as tying the male Gentiles to the whole vine, whereas when speaking of the female Gentiles he speaks of the Messiah tying them to a single branch of that vine. Not that much restraining power is needed to control the females.

Alternatively, our verse speaks of two different periods of well known redemptions. The first is the redemption from Egypt, whereas the second refers to the ultimate redemption in the days of the Messiah who is descended from David. Concerning he first redemption, Jacob said: אסרי לגפן עירה, he ties his donkey to a vine, similar to the verse in Psalms 80,9 a period when G'd humbled a single nation before the Jews, i.e. the Egyptians. Concerning the redemption in the future, Jacob speaks of the שרקה, the whistle, in the sense that the prophet Zachariah did in Zachariah 10,8: אשרקה להם ואקבצם כי פדית, "I will whistle to them and gather them, for I will redeem them." Jacob speaks of בני אתונו, i.e. the plural, since at that time Israel will be redeemed from many different nations. At the time of the Exodus, the redemption comprised the defeat of Egypt and the Canaanites, i.e. seven of the Canaanite nations. The remainder of the seventy nations were not humbled before Israel at that time. When the final redemption will occur all the other nations too will be humbled before Israel. These are the בני אתונו, the offspring of the original עירה.

Perhaps Jacob referred to a concept which we know from the Zohar Pinchas page 231, that in the domain of the סטרא אחרא, the realm of the spiritually negative manifestations of the ten emanations, the power of female is actually stronger than that of the male. The male just takes the "left-overs" of the female and is therefore known as the יותרת הכבד. [We find two expressions involving the כבד in Leviticus 9,10 where the Torah speaks of: ואת היותרת מן הכבד, "the addition coming out of the כבד," and in Leviticus 3,15 where same is described as: ואת היותרת על הכבד, "the addition which is on the כבד." According to the Zohar the word כבד does not merely mean liver but is a hyperbole for the male with whom Lilith consorts. The spiritually negative forces in this world are sometimes referred to as Samael sometimes as the serpent. Samael is the male part of that team, Lilith, is the female. When adultery is committed, the female partner is released from the כבד, i.e. מן הכבד. Having once been released it assumes a dominance over its former partner so that it will qualify for the description על הכבד, "on top of the כבד." It follows that in the scheme of the powers of evil described by the Zohar, the female is viewed as stronger than the male. Ed.] Jacob described that in his dreams he found it relatively easy to battle the male forces i.e. Samael, whereas he found it much more exhausting to battle the female forces i.e. Lilith. Even when he finally won a victory against those forces, such a victory was not absolute and his dominance could not be compared to his dominance over the parallel male forces of Satan. In view of Jacob's personal experiences in battling the forces of Satan he referred to the שרקה as the female of these forces and said: At the time when G'd will whistle, i.e. announce the coming of the final redemption and will gather in the children of the she-ass, i.e. the forces which emanate from the female of the קליפה, He will also "tie them up," i.e. subdue them, before Israel.

Do not be concerned at the fact that we divide this verse by applying part to the time of Moses and part to the time of the redemption at the time of the Messiah; you, my reader, are surely familiar with the words of the Zohar section 2, page 120, that Moses is viewed as the redeemer who redeemed our forefathers and as the redeemer who will lead their children back to the land of their ancestors as is written in Kohelet 1,9: "מה שהיה הוא שיהיה. The first letters of the first three words of that line form the acronym משה. Solomon alludes to the fact that he who has been a redeemer in the past will again be a redeemer in the future. Do not counter by saying that the redeemer of the future will be from the tribe of Yehudah and will either be descended from king David or will be king David himself reincarnate (compare Sanhedrin 98 based on Ezekiel 37,24: "and My servant David will be king over them"). In view of all these prophecies how could we say that the redeemer of the future will come from the tribe of Levi?

You must realise that the soul of Moses was composed of all twelve tribes of Israel, all the 600.000 being "branches" of it. David's soul therefore was also a branch of Moses' soul. This is also why you find that while in the desert Moses performed the duties of both king, priest, Levite, prophet, scholar and military hero. He was only able to perform all these functions because his soul comprised all branches of holiness. When the redeemer will appear in the future, it will be revealed that Moses was the root of all monarchy in Israel and that David will be perceived as שילה (numerical value of =345משה).

כבס ביין לבושו, "he will launder his garments in wine, etc." In order to understand these words we must recall a statement in the Zohar Chadash on Parshat Bereshit that in order to be redeemed from the fourth of the four exiles Israel experiences we must possess the redeeming merit of Torah study and Torah knowledge. In the absence of such merit the redemption may be long delayed. Jacob alluded to this when he said כבס ביין לבושו. The specific strength of the king who will be the Messiah is his preoccupation with Torah. The Torah knowledge is symbolised by his wearing purple robes (colour of wine).

If at the appointed time, G'd forbid, the Jewish people will not be able to provide such a purple mantle for their redeemer because they are devoid of Torah knowledge, then the redemption will be characterised by the advent of a cruel king, someone like Haman, and the "blood of grapes," i.e. real Jewish blood, instead of blood commuted into the wine of Torah learning, will flow in order that G'd will be able to keep to His schedule for the redemption (compare Sanhedrin 97). The "sparks" of sanctity remaining amongst the Jews may then be released only through very painful afflictions. In other words, Jacob warns that redemption can come about by means of a dignified mode of life, one that includes Torah study, or, G'd forbid, by means of a demeaning way of life and the resultant loss of dignity. The reason Jacob chose the simile of grapes is that in order to produce wine from grapes they have to be pressed, i.e. they have to be "tortured" to release the best that is within them.

The reason that Jacob speaks only about דם ענבים, blood from the grapes, and not from a branch of the vine or a whole cluster of grapes for instance, is to console us that even if the redemption will become possible only by means of additional afflictions it will not cause a major dismemberment of the Jewish people.

Just as the grapes are a minor part of the whole vine, so the garment of the Messiah described here is not כסות, something large enough to serve as a total garment, but a diminutive סותה, a mini-garment. There would not ever be sufficient blood from the grapes to enable a whole garment to be drenched in it, as opposed to a redemption which occurs as a result of the people's Torah's study, the merit of which would suffice to dye the whole mantle of the Messiah purple.

חכלילי עינים מיין, "He will be red-eyed from wine, etc." This is best understood as similar to Psalms 68,7: "He sets the prisoners free, safe and sound," as explained in Bamidbar Rabbah 4 that the Israelites were redeemed by G'd בכושרות, the word being divided into בכי, weeping and שירות, songs. The Egyptians did the crying, the Israelites the singing. חכלילי עינים, "red-eyed;" the colour red is reminiscent of judgments, everything connected with redness is an allusion to the power of judgment which involves the blood of one party versus the blood of his adversary. The reason Jacob said: מיין, from wine, is a reminder that judgment originates in wine, [had Adam not eaten from the tree of knowledge, i.e. the vine, judgment in the sense of retribution would have had no place on earth. Ed.]

יששכר חמור גרם, "Issachar is a bony donkey, etc." We learn in Nidah 31 that the meaning of the verse is that G'd had a hand in the conception of Issachar having guided Jacob's donkey to the tent of Leah on that night (Genesis 30,16). Just as Jacob had not remained in his regular abode that night, so Issachar, the son who had been conceived during that night, would be "crouching between boundaries." Inasmuch as Issachar is the model of a person who devotes his life to Torah study, Jacob alluded to the phenomenon that Yeshivah students have a habit of moving from place to place. Every action which is not proper produces consequences which reflect that impropriety. Leah's action appeared too forward for the conduct associated with the traditional way of life of Jewish women, even though her intention was wholly honourable. In spite of the discomfort associated with the lifestyle of the Yeshivah student, he does not let this diminish the effort he lovingly devotes to Torah study.

וירא מנוחה כי טוב, "He observed that repose is good, etc." The reference is to the repose experienced in the Hereafter. The words כי טוב, refer to what happens after a person considers that all the pleasures available for the body in this world, such as eating fine food and drinking good wine, are all sensations which are devoid of an inherent value. They are meaningful only because the body, an empty vessel, needs to be filled up with food and drink as the Creator has decreed that it is incapable of existing without input of food and drink. As a result, once the body has absorbed enough food an drink, the very food and drink which provided these pleasurable sensations become revolting. This fact demonstrates that food and drink are not in themselves something desirable. Solomon makes that point in Proverbs 23,8 when he said: "once you have eaten your bread, you will vomit it;" he meant that when you have consumed all the bread of this world, the time will come when you vomit it as it will become repugnant for you to fill your mouth with it. The same applies to all the other pleasures this world has to offer, things which man is attracted to by his eyes. Once he examines these phenomena more thoroughly he will realise that they are only make believe, that they lack substance, and eventually he will develop a distaste for everything connected with the human body and its attractions. He will conclude that the real good can be found only in the Hereafter, the world which is all spirit. Jacob blessed Issachar by saying that he has realised that true repose is only in those regions. Issachar correctly evaluates the repose in the Hereafter as well as the relative pleasantness on earth, i.e. והארץ כי נעמה.

When Jacob added ויט שכמו לסבול, "he bent his shoulder to bear (a burden)", this is a reference to the pain which is part of our earthly existence; ויהי למס עובד, "he turned himself into someone who serves the Lord as a form of paying tribute."

Another meaning of these last words may be that in return for becoming a willing servant of the Lord, the rest of the population is obligated to pay מס some kind of tax to assure the Torah scholar of his livelihood. In the case of Issachar that would be Zevulun who was a seafarer putting much of his wealth at the disposal of Issachar. (compare previous verse).

דן ידין עמו, "Dan will judge his people, etc.". Jacob may have wanted to exonerate Samson who had disgraced himself as a leader by consorting with Delilah. Perhaps Jacob considered Samson's end when he asked G'd to die together with the Philistines (Judges 16,30) he was about to kill as a redeeming conclusion of his life; this is why he compared him כאחד שבטי ישראל, like the unique personalities each of the tribes produced at one time or another.