Rav Tzadok (Vayechi 47:28) Yakov lived in Egypt for 17 years, It says in the Zohar that these 17 years were the main ones of his life.He did not suffer and was not bothered by the yetzer harah.and it was like Olam HaBah.
I have two questions that bother me about these last parshiyos 1) When leaving for Canaan from Egypt at the end of Miketz, why didn't the brothers check their bags first just to make sure the "mistake" with the money didn't happen again? 2) Why didn't the brothers go home after Yaakov Avinu died? I get that he didn't leave after the famine ended because he wanted to be close to Yosef so they all stayed. But when he passed, why didn't Yosef tell Pharoah "Okay, crisis is over and you don't need me anymore so we're all going home and thank you for all you did for us"?
There is a book by a professor about determinism (as per my handle). He says everything we do is determined by biology and socio psychology. Had the brothers not sold yosef into slavery, would the exile in Egypt still have happened?
Yes, the only question is how. Chazal say that this way was the best - the first half of the exile was in comfort as guests. Otherwise Yaakov Avinu and the family would've been dragged down to Egypt in chains and the slavery would've been immediate.
Figures in the Torah had free will. If they had acted differently, the narrative text of the Torah would also be different. Eg had the brothers not attacked yosef, it wouldn't say that they did. Some mitzvot may also have been different, or had different details. Eg where they are linked to people's behaviour. But that is just speculation.
“Israel Spiritual life outside” Tractate Zevachim 114a Granted, with regard to an animal that actively copulated with a person or an animal that was the object of bestiality, you find circumstances in which the exemption for one who slaughters it outside the Temple courtyard cannot be based on the fact that it is not fit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, e.g., a case where one initially consecrated it, at which point it was fit to be brought to the Temple courtyard, and then engaged in bestiality with it. Since it was initially fit to be brought to the Temple courtyard, another verse is needed to exclude it. Beautiful, my theory. The Torah forbids, on penalty of karet, slaughtering an animal outside the Temple. Leviticus 17:8-9 And thou shalt say unto them: Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that offereth a burnt-offering or sacrifice, 9and bringeth it not unto the door of the tent of meeting, to sacrifice it unto the LORD, even that man shall be cut off from his people. Yes, no kareit, for offering (slaughtering) an animal outside the Temple that actively copulated with a person or an animal that was the object of bestiality. Wow, here a good Jewish man brings an animal that was perfectly fit for an offering to the Temple courtyard, yet, a depraved sicko (not the Jewish man) actively copulated with that animal. That animal forbidden to bring as an offering, as a matter of forbidden sexual intercourse, and not relevant to Leviticus 17:8-9 which discusses only suitable animals. Allow me my UPS letter to TIAA/Susan/NYScourts etc yesterday: 1.TIAA greatly exaggerates the amounts they paid me 01/01/2026 showing they (falsely) paid me 100% my TIAA pension $2,672.85 when in fact TIAA paid me only $1,202.79 45\% of my TIAA pension. 100% of my TIAA pension is rightfully mine unless I waive my rights to my pension which I never did. Susan Aranoff, not Gerald Aranoff, engineered the switch in my contract with TIAA that in effect removes Yemima as the beneficiary of my TIAA pension when I elected to received monthly payments from TIAA shortly after I married Yemima May 9, 1993. 2. I spoke with Sam at TIAA 1800842225 Friday. He acknowledged the “discrepancy” stated v actual payments to me in TIAA Income Summary. I received only 45% of my TIAA pension January 2, 2026. I hear nothing from Susan. I propose: let Susan keep the house, but Susan must acknowledge I owe her nothing on QDRO1997 and QDRO2007 and that I get 100% my pension from now on with Yemima as beneficiary. It's unlawful for TIAA to pay Susan 55% my TIAA pension on 01/01/2026.
I have two questions that bother me about these last parshiyos
ReplyDelete1) When leaving for Canaan from Egypt at the end of Miketz, why didn't the brothers check their bags first just to make sure the "mistake" with the money didn't happen again?
2) Why didn't the brothers go home after Yaakov Avinu died? I get that he didn't leave after the famine ended because he wanted to be close to Yosef so they all stayed. But when he passed, why didn't Yosef tell Pharoah "Okay, crisis is over and you don't need me anymore so we're all going home and thank you for all you did for us"?
Because Hashem didn't want either thing to happen
DeleteToo simplistic an answer. Did HaShem want the baby boys tossed into the Nile?
DeleteThere is a book by a professor about determinism (as per my handle). He says everything we do is determined by biology and socio psychology.
DeleteHad the brothers not sold yosef into slavery, would the exile in Egypt still have happened?
Yes, the only question is how. Chazal say that this way was the best - the first half of the exile was in comfort as guests. Otherwise Yaakov Avinu and the family would've been dragged down to Egypt in chains and the slavery would've been immediate.
DeleteFigures in the Torah had free will.
DeleteIf they had acted differently, the narrative text of the Torah would also be different. Eg had the brothers not attacked yosef, it wouldn't say that they did.
Some mitzvot may also have been different, or had different details.
Eg where they are linked to people's behaviour. But that is just speculation.
“Israel Spiritual life outside” Tractate Zevachim 114a
ReplyDeleteGranted, with regard to an animal that actively copulated with a person or an animal that was the object of bestiality, you find circumstances in which the exemption for one who slaughters it outside the Temple courtyard cannot be based on the fact that it is not fit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, e.g., a case where one initially consecrated it, at which point it was fit to be brought to the Temple courtyard, and then engaged in bestiality with it. Since it was initially fit to be brought to the Temple courtyard, another verse is needed to exclude it.
Beautiful, my theory. The Torah forbids, on penalty of karet, slaughtering an animal outside the Temple. Leviticus 17:8-9 And thou shalt say unto them: Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that offereth a burnt-offering or sacrifice, 9and bringeth it not unto the door of the tent of meeting, to sacrifice it unto the LORD, even that man shall be cut off from his people. Yes, no kareit, for offering (slaughtering) an animal outside the Temple that actively copulated with a person or an animal that was the object of bestiality. Wow, here a good Jewish man brings an animal that was perfectly fit for an offering to the Temple courtyard, yet, a depraved sicko (not the Jewish man) actively copulated with that animal. That animal forbidden to bring as an offering, as a matter of forbidden sexual intercourse, and not relevant to Leviticus 17:8-9 which discusses only suitable animals.
Allow me my UPS letter to TIAA/Susan/NYScourts etc yesterday:
1.TIAA greatly exaggerates the amounts they paid me 01/01/2026 showing they (falsely) paid me 100% my TIAA pension $2,672.85 when in fact TIAA paid me only $1,202.79 45\% of my TIAA pension. 100% of my TIAA pension is rightfully mine unless I waive my rights to my pension which I never did. Susan Aranoff, not Gerald Aranoff, engineered the switch in my contract with TIAA that in effect removes Yemima as the beneficiary of my TIAA pension when I elected to received monthly payments from TIAA shortly after I married Yemima May 9, 1993. 2. I spoke with Sam at TIAA 1800842225 Friday. He acknowledged the “discrepancy” stated v actual payments to me in TIAA Income Summary. I received only 45% of my TIAA pension January 2, 2026. I hear nothing from Susan. I propose: let Susan keep the house, but Susan must acknowledge I owe her nothing on QDRO1997 and QDRO2007 and that I get 100% my pension from now on with Yemima as beneficiary. It's unlawful for TIAA to pay Susan 55% my TIAA pension on 01/01/2026.