Date: January 6th 2023

At the end of his life, Yaakov gathered his sons to him and gave each one an individual blessing that was prophetically tied to their unique nature. Naftali was blessed for his swift footedness, ‘Naftali is a hind let loose’. Rashi quotes the Talmud in Sotah (13B) that this blessing was a reference to a future incident that occurred at the time of Yaakov’s burial.

When the funeral procession which left out from Egypt finally reached the cave of Machpela, they were met by Eisav who contested Yaakov’s right to be buried there. Eisav falsely claimed that, as the older brother, he had the burial rights to the cave even though he had sold it to Yaakov many years earlier. Eisav refused to relinquish his claim without proof of the sale and the brothers decided to send someone to Egypt to retrieve the bill of sale for the cave. Naftali was chosen for this task because he was the fastest of all the people in the camp, hence Yaakov’s blessing to Naftali.

However, the story does not end there. Chushim the son of Dan was hard of hearing and was not able to hear the conversation. After seeing the commotion, he asked someone what all the fuss was about. When he heard the entire story he exclaimed “Until Naftali returns from the land of Egypt my grandfather will lay in shame?!” Whereupon he took a lance and fatally struck Eisav in the head.

The commentary of the Maharal on this gemarah asks, why was it only Chushim who took action? Why didn’t any of Yaakov’s sons step up and kill Eisav?* The Maharal answers that when the dispute with Eisav began, the brothers did not know at that time where it would end up and they gradually got to the point where Naftali had to be sent back to Egypt. Because the events unfolded step by step they were never shocked at any point into a state of full arousal. Chushim however, did not find out about the details until the end of the dispute. When he heard that they had to send Naftali all the way back to Egypt and Yaakov’s remains were to be in a state of desecration until his return, he became so emotionally aroused that he had the wherewithal to take decisive action.

Yaakov’s sons were faced with a difficult challenge. They were attempting to bury their beloved father who was one of the greatest men to ever walk the earth. They were opposed by Eisav and to resolve the conflict they were contemplating an extended delay during which time Yaakov’s body would remain unburied which is considered very disrespectful to the dead. There was an intellectual question of how to respond to Eisav’s opposition and it seems from the Marahal that the right answer would have been to kill Eisav for his actions. However, Yaakov’s twelve sons were unable to take this decisive action and instead they opted to take a course which would lead to the desecration of Yaakov’s remains. Had Chushim not been there or perhaps if he was able to hear, that is how the matter would have been resolved. The difference between Chushim and Yaakov’s sons was only in the manner in which he became aware of the situation. Unlike the brothers who were eased into the situation, Chush
im was told all at once. This difference in how the situation was made aware to them led to a very different emotional reaction and a completely different conclusion as to how to handle the matter.
On the surface, we see from here that a person is able to get used to something wrong or very unpleasant if the change is a slow and step by step progression. This is true even regarding an extremely important, personal, and emotionally charged matter such as burying a very beloved parent. On a deeper level, we can learn a profound lesson about human nature. The brothers are not criticized for the action that they took. In fact, it seems from the Marahal that they did not have the wherewithal to behave differently. For them, their response was proper and correct. It was only Chushim who was capable of doing what he did. What was the difference between Chushim and the brothers? Did he love Yaakov more than Yaakov’s sons? Was he wiser, more powerful, or more righteous? Certainly not. The difference was in his emotional arousal and outrage over the situation. We can learn from here the great impact that human emotions have on the clarity, courage, and strength that a person is a
ble to access. The depth of a person’s emotions is a highly significant component of their personality. The very same person can be absolutely incapable of a given task and yet if they develop a deeper emotional commitment to the goal the absolute outer limit of their capacity can be expanded, and the task can suddenly become attainable.

One of the themes of the mussar movement is Man’s ability to utilize his rational capacity to mold, develop, and foster his inner self. Through study of mussar, especially with hispailus, where a person purposefully arouses his emotions, a person can cultivate his own emotional state and character. We see from this chazal how important and impactful our emotional state is on our understanding of our circumstances and our capacity to take the steps that are needed to meet the challenges we face in life. Developing and deepening our emotional commitment to our ideals is in itself an extremely valuable and relevant goal in self-development.

Another lesson we can learn is in the area of interpersonal relationships. The dynamics of close friendships and family relationships tend to change over long periods of time. In situations where things deteriorate over time people often come to terms with things that would not have been acceptable to them in the past. While in some situations this process can be helpful for a person to be able to come to grips with something they need to accept, it can also have a negative impact. When the change happens gradually, the process can deprive a person of the emotional clarity and strength to address the issue in an effective manner. If a person has an understanding of this process, they are better able to counteract the natural acclimation process that occurs and arouse themselves to be able to better meet the needs of their situation.

Have a wonderful Shabbos,

*It is evident from the Maharal that it was not considered a sin to kill Eisav at this point. In fact, it was a praiseworthy act because he questions why the other didn’t do it. One possible explanation for this is that chazal say that Eisav was attempting to cause a dispute that would lead to a battle and would give him the opportunity to wipe out the family of Yaakov. As such he was considered a rodef, someone attempting to commit murder, and he was allowed to be killed in self-defense.


--
You are subscribed to Jewish Heritage Initiative using example@example.com

You may automatically unsubscribe from this list or change your subscription
by visiting http://www.jhicambridge.com/mail/mail.cgi/list/parsha

For more information, visit http://www.jhicambridge.com or send mail to jhi@jhicambridge.com
__________________________________

Mailing List Powered by Dada Mail
http://www.jhicambridge.com/mail/mail.cgi/what_is_dada_mail/