Weekend Torah Teaching | Jacob's Final Blessings - Genesis 48:1-49:12

Life Audio. Dennis, Dennis, Dennis Prager.

Do you have a question you've always wanted to ask Dennis Prager? Well, now's your opportunity. For upcoming Ask Me Anything episodes of Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager, we're inviting you to leave Dennis a voicemail. He'll personally answer selected questions, and your question could be featured on a future episode. Whether it's about faith, morality, politics, history, relationships, happiness, or simply navigating life, Dennis would love to hear from you. Just call 877-243-7776 and leave your question. Oh, and be sure to include your first name and where you're calling from. That's 877-243-7776. While we can't feature every question, Dennis will listen to every voicemail. So call today. You may hear Dennis Prager answering your question on an upcoming episode of Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager.. And thanks for listening and supporting Dennis Prager. On today's episode of Timeless Wisdom.

So he took hold of his father's hand to move it from Ephraim's head to Manasseh's. Not so, Father, Joseph said to his father, for the other is the firstborn. Place your right hand on his head. But his father objected, saying, I know my son. I know he too shall become a people. And he too shall be great, yet his younger brother shall be greater than he. You always wonder if the kid is hearing this. You know, it is a little disconcerting. I mean, I am certainly not into the self-esteem movement, but this is ridiculous. You don't want to exactly shatter your kid's ego. I mean, it is one thing to have kids all get up at the school auditorium and go, "I am wonderful, I love myself," and it's quite another to say in front of them, "Well, the reason I'm switching hands is because This one's greater than the other one. They spoke Yiddish so the kid wouldn't understand. Excellent. That is excellent. That's for posterity. That is absolutely right.

That's coming up on Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager.

Hey, I'm Willie Robertson.

And I'm Corey Robertson.

We partnered with Ekkle. It's a new platform, not just streaming movies and series that are safe for your family. I love a podcast. Plus Ekkle daily devotionals.

Ekkle.

Hey, Willie, what is Ekkle? Ekkal is my pet squirrel. Ekkal is not just faith-friendly, it is faith-driven. Be a part of something better.

Ekkal.

Ekkal is where I want to be. That's E-K-K-L dot C-O-L. Subscribe now.

Welcome to Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager. Hear thousands of hours of Dennis's lectures, courses, and classic radio programs. And to purchase Dennis Prager's Rational Bibles, go to DennisPrager.com.

.com. Uh, chapter 48. I have a number of themes and a lot of different, uh, readings for you today. It's, uh, okay. Sometime afterward, Joseph was told, your father is ill. So he took with him his two sons— that is, Joseph took his two sons, Menashe and Ephraim. When Jacob was told Your son Joseph has come to see you. Israel, that's Jacob of course, summoned his strength and sat up in bed. And Jacob said to Joseph, El Shaddai, one of the names, oh, a few times we've encountered this now in the Torah, of God is El Shaddai. There are a number of names for God in the, uh, in the Torah. This is one of them. The absolute origins are not known. Though it is interesting, I've mentioned this but once before, so I feel free to mention it again. Shaddai might very well be a feminine aspect to God, given that shaddayim in Hebrew means breasts. And, uh, it's not— I don't like far-fetched.

I have—

I am a literalist, not in the sense that In other words, I, I don't like to read in things that aren't there. I think that that is a legitimate— it almost is almost like God of breasts, uh, the, uh, because the word— another description of God is El Rahum, a God of mercy. And Rahum, which is mercy in Hebrew, comes or is related to the Hebrew Rechem, which is womb. So that there is this aspect in Judaism. God in Judaism is gender-free, which leads me actually to one of my many excursus or sidebars. Have I talked to you— because if I have, I don't want to repeat it. Alan, you would know. I have not talked about the masculine, God the masculine, not in this class. Okay, very briefly, God is portrayed in the Torah in the masculine, generally speaking, except for little hints like this. God is portrayed as masculine, and in the Jewish tradition as well, Avinu Malkeinu, our Father, our King. This disturbs many in the modern world, the contemporary world, who are absolutely egalitarian in their understanding and their desire to depict life. The Jewish view, as enunciated by Maimonides, is that one of the characteristics of God is— I'll use the fancy theological term then explain it— incorporeality. God cannot have a physical body. That, that is why, incidentally, for Christians here, if indeed Jesus did claim to be God, you will understand how, how jolting it would be to a Jew at the time. It's just— it would— it's impossible. Jew— from the, from the Jewish theological standpoint, it's not possible. This is not to argue the divinity of Jesus. That's not my point here, obviously, to get into trans-religious debates. It's merely to try to explain why it would have jolted a Jew. God is incorporeal. God is invisible and always to be invisible. Uh, Moses, who had the most communication with God, could only see God's back. The Torah says. No one could see— anyone who would see God's face, the Torah says, would die. It's, it's all metaphoric. God does not have a face, but if you should ever glance directly upon whatever God would be, you would die. But you can't see God anyway. This is, this is the Jewish and Torah tradition. Why then is God depicted in the masculine? Well, one obvious answer is uh, it's a patriarchal society and, uh, men ruled. So if God is the King of Kings, clearly that is higher than being the Queen of Queens. It would have been absurd, obviously, to depict God in, in feminine form because it would not have meant that God was the ruler of the universe. Women didn't rule. Obviously you'd have a princess here, a queen there, but In the world until Berkeley of 1967, this was the way in which society was created. To therefore criticize the Torah for being sexist is virtually like criticizing people of the 17th century for not driving. It's a non sequitur. It's meaningless. Okay, it will be as if, as I've often said, if 200 years from now everybody's vegetarian, they will say, ah, there's nothing that we can take from the wisdom of people of the 20th century, they all ate meat. You have to judge things in the context of their time and not engage in timeism, discrimination on the basis of time, okay, to coin a new a newism, because we need newisms. We don't— we just don't have enough in America. But, but it really is, it is, it is a discrimination on the basis of time, and, and it is just, it's, it's pointless. Aside from being wrong, it's just pointless. But I think there's another reason why God— and this is very new to me, I have mentioned it, uh, on, but not in this class, uh, why I believe that God is depicted in the masculine and and more important, why it might be important to retain that. Let me explain for a moment before, before I do give that explanation. Remember this: what are your choices? Your choices are he, she, or it. We have no other third-person pronoun, correct? Now let's, let's dispense with it. To refer to God as it is to depersonalize God. But one of the great innovations of Judaism is that God is not depersonalized. Aristotle's God is. Aristotle's God is the unmoved mover of the universe. But I have often argued that if God is the unmoved mover, then there is no difference— bottom line, there's no difference between atheism and the Aristotelian God. If God doesn't know me or give a damn about my fate or your fate or humanity's fate, what's the difference from our perspective over whether there is a God or not? Is that, is that not clear? If it makes no difference to our lives, who cares? It's an interesting philosophical question whether there is a God who made the world and doesn't care about us, or chance made the world and doesn't care about us. Who cares? If you're not cared about, you're not cared about. It might as well be a tree that created the world then. Maybe God is a tree. Indeed, with the movement toward nature worship in America, there would be people who would resonate to that. It therefore is disqualified. We, we, we dispense with it. So our next possible possibility is she or he. The advantage, one advantage of he is that he is much more neuter than she. That's the way I think that we think. Men can be more neuterized in our mind than she. She immediately conjures up the female. He doesn't immediately conjure up the male. It could change in a different society. I'm not saying that this is ironclad, but in the way in which it is spoken of, uh, you know, uh, God he invented the world, uh, is, is different from God she invented the world, because the she is jolting. Now you'll say the she is jolting because we're not used to it. Agreed, that may very, very well be. But until now, neuter has— and personal, in other words, neuter and a personalized being would be "he." That's the closest you can get. Ideally, perhaps, we would have a neuter, a neuter and personalized pronoun, but it doesn't exist in English. Yes?

Would you suggest that if you call it "it" that depersonalizes? Yes. And "he" or "she" makes it anthropomorphic?

Yes, but "he" or "she" makes it anthropomorphic. You're absolutely right, but language is by definition limited. So if we have 3 choices— he, she, or it— we only have those choices. Or the best choice might be in fact silence. Indeed, that is an argument that the only true understanding of God will come through silence. But the human being has to communicate with other human beings and with God.— and language is our one vehicle. So you're still stuck. There are terrible limitations to he and she, you're right. That's why Judaism— it's one of the reasons Judaism is so strict about not anthropomorphizing God further. We already do it through our Father, our King, etc., etc. But I wanted to get now to the argument that I would offer Until I thought of this argument, I was quite happy to have an egalitarian God. In other words, a God who is truly, truly neuter. Now, when I argue now for a masculine depiction of God, please understand I don't for a moment think that God possesses male sexual organs or anything so silly. We're only talking about depiction, not reality. We have to depict God with some human words. I would argue in favor of the traditional masculine, uh, uh, connotation, or depiction, I should say, on the following grounds. Uh, one, and most important, is that Judaism's preoccupation is that people still live good lives, morally good lives, not hurt one another, live by basic ethical law.

This episode of Timeless Wisdom will continue right after this.

For nearly 3,000 years, Homer's The Odyssey has shaped Western imagination. It tells the story of Odysseus as he faces monsters, shipwrecks, false comforts, and impossible choices on his long journey home. As one of the foundational works of Western literature, Homer's epic is more than mythology. It explores permanent questions about courage, duty, loyalty, family, leadership, temptation, and the search for home. In one of the epic's defining moments, Odysseus rejects the offer of immortality from the goddess Calypso, choosing instead the long and difficult journey home. His decision reveals one of the central themes of The Odyssey: that a life of duty, family, and home is greater than a life devoted to comfort or glory. Achilles chose glory. Odysseus chose home. That's why Hillsdale College has released its newest free online course, The Odyssey. Taught by Professor Benedict Whalen, the course reveals why Homer's masterpiece remains one of the one of the greatest works of Western literature. Find this free course at hillsdale.edu/startnow. The Odyssey from Hillsdale College. Go to hillsdale.edu/startnow.

Now back to more of Dennis Prager's Timeless Wisdom.

I don't think that today one needs to be an advanced anthropologist or sociologist to want to recognize And by the way, it is exactly America today that has made me aware of this, that when you don't have a male lawgiver in the life of boys, you get anarchy. You get moral anarchy à la gang warfare, à la Rwanda, à la Bosnia, à la whatever it might be. Boys will take orders much more from a male authority than a female authority. Women who have boys generally acknowledge this. I don't mean at 5 years old, but at 15, when it's the age when they start doing their most trouble. Boys don't want to hear from mom. I mean, you hear it all the time with boys who get in trouble. The mother saying, I couldn't control him, I couldn't control him. She didn't want him to go out and kill or, or steal. No mother teaches a son to, to murder. It's that she couldn't control him. Then the absence of a father as the controlling force in that boy's life is very important. God in Judaism is the moral lawgiver. We are answerable to God as a child A boy is answerable to his father. You may wish this to be otherwise, but I don't wish away reality. I, I think we have to confront it for all of its messiness, and this is one of those messy realities. The, the, the boy— and the boy in, in the human species is the troublemaker. We don't have— men are not worried about being murdered stolen from, or raped by women. It's vice versa. Men and women are worried about men being physically cruel. Boys without male lawgivers are a problem. This isn't to say, please understand, that every boy growing up without a father present is going to be a murderer. Obviously not. And by the way, for many of the boys who are not, there is another male present. Could be a grandfather, an uncle, a big brother. I mean, there are many possibilities. There is yet one other possibility. If there are no— and this is the second reason I offer— if there are no human males who are lawgivers that the child, that the boy bonds to and feels need to obey, there is ultimately one other father available, and that is God. Because the fact of the matter is, the boys who who grow up and cause all these terrible problems neither have a father on earth or a father in heaven. These are not religious boys who are going out and murdering. They don't have a father here, and they don't have a father up there. Because the fact is that, that bonding with a— the Father in Heaven, as it were, can in fact morally— I don't believe fully emotionally but can morally replace the father who is absent in this world. There is nothing more powerful than having God in heaven and father— and a father in the flesh to give a boy moral principles. Then you really have a better— you have a better chance of making a law-abiding male. I, uh, if I'd have said this 20 years ago, I would have been hooted out of this room, which some of you may wish do even now. I appreciate that fact and I'm aware of it. But the reason that you're not is partially because it's less the heyday of radical ideologies, but more so, we are chastened today as not 20 years ago by the fact that male violence is a profoundly serious issue that we have at terrible cost to ourselves, ignored. The channeling of the male aggressive instinct toward positive things is the single most important thing society can do for its self-preservation. Now, if I'd have said this 20 years ago, 30 years ago, not 50, but 20 or 30, that would have been, "How do you know? Show me the data. Where's your study?" Today you just walk down the street and you have the data and the study. It is not girls who are shooting up people. It is not women who are in prisons for mass murder. There are, there are, I mean, there are serial— there's a woman serial killer, Aye. But overwhelmingly, from Rwanda to Los Angeles, violence is in fact perpetrated by males. If you channel males' aggressiveness into positive directions, you have a very beautiful human being, because then you preserve male, male aggression, which is desirable to both sexes. A man who has no innate aggression instinct is, is not masculine to women. But, but if he does it violently, he is repulsive. If he knows how to channel it creatively, from the arts to the sciences to business to, to whatever it might be, to raising children for that matter. That's great. And that's the task. And that is why I would argue— and then I'll take a couple of questions because I don't want by any means the whole session to be on this— for the preservation of, of the male, there is one third reason, a third reason, and then I'll take your, your comments and questions. And that is Judaism did make war upon the pagan societies around it, many of which had goddesses. There is in fact in Judaism a concern with goddesses. The pagan religions which had child sacrifice, massive human sacrifice in general, and just lived morally horrendously primitive and violent lives, and often in the name of religion and cult prostitution and so on, had goddesses. Humanity has worked with goddesses before. This is— it is not brand new when, when some people at some seminaries of the left are, are working out goddess worship. It has been tried, and it has not, for whatever reason, probably partially because the male is identified with rules and the female with feelings. This too is not unique to my observation. Carol Gilligan, the famous feminist scholar at Harvard who wrote the famous work In a Different Voice, is the one who has pointed that out. But we all know that. I mean, when you think about it, rules— men are to rules what women are to feelings. Not that women don't believe in rules and men don't believe in feelings.— it's what the instinct is. Just as in raising a child, a child looks to the mother for unconditional love but not to the father. It looks to please the father through earning, uh, earning the pride or the— even in some ways the love of the father. It looks to the father for setting the boundaries and saying yes, no, good, bad, The mother is much more the unconditional love giver. When a mother has to play both roles, it is sad for her and it is sad for the child. Clearly sometimes she has to. But that would be— that is the argument for the more traditional. I know the argument against it. The argument against it, and if I have not stated it effectively, please do so for me, is that women, or some women, may feel left out. I want— I, a woman, would want an egalitarian approach to God, an egalitarian depiction of God. I feel left out. I feel second-class. I am not a woman. I cannot know how I would feel under these circumstances. So I— it It ill behooves me to tell a woman how she should feel. I cannot know. I only know that there are at least as many women involved in religion who do not feel second-rated, etc., etc., with the masculine depiction of God in Judaism or Christianity, uh, as there are those who might. And thank God we live in a very open society where people who wish to have different depictions of God are certainly free to do so. But those would be my— the kernels of my arguments, uh, for the masculine depiction.

Yes.

Well, you know, we don't even get off the first chapter of Genesis when it says God created man in his image. Genesis 27, chapter 1. And it's just so there's no confusion, he created him male. That is correct. So there's no question that God is male and female. That is right. You're absolutely right. He has pointed out, in case you didn't hear him, in the very beginning of Genesis Genesis. God created man in his image, created Adam in his image, male and female he created. God created the human in his image, best way to— as I translated it then, male and female he created them. Well, clearly then we are both in God's image, obviously, and equally so. Of course though, my— the only counter to that is that image does not truly mean physical, because if, as I explained then, if it meant physical, then animals are also in God's image, especially gorillas. And yet it does not say the animals are in God's image. Well, no. Well, no, no, that's only in the implication that it's a physical meaning, you know. Yeah, okay, all right. Anyway, that's why I got to go back to chapter 1 to explain God's image.

Yes.

Is male and female. There is no he. The room, the room is he and the road is he. Is that male or female? Yes. God is called Elohim in plural, and when you speak in the Hebrew in plural, it's a group of 5 females and 1 male, it will be addressed in the male form. So I think it's just much more inclusive in Hebrew. I think it's very easy For someone who hears Hebrew, it's not at all offensive.

Yeah, the problem with that explanation is that the Hebrew uses the singular verb, not the plural verb, with Elohim, and then it is clearly masculine.

Yes, it is Elohim, right?

Not Baru. If it was Baru, then it would be inclusive.

But the use of male and female for the number, if there is anything that is both, like as the other gentleman said, or this is the intent, like you say, that's what it is, I think. It's more inclusive in the male, it doesn't mean it's male only.

Yeah, oh no, clearly, yes, absolutely. Not male only is certainly clear. Yeah, well, let me just take it, yeah.

I can't speak for other countries, but in America, would you think there's any relationship between the fact that 40 or 50 years ago there was a draft or there were wars and there was patriotism where men's energies were challenged that way, and now that conscription is not a requirement, that violence is just out of proportion.

You know, I think there's a relationship to the fact that there was conscription, a draft of males in the past, and therefore their energies could be channeled productive directions, and there were wars. And today, where there's not conscription, that there is much more violence. I happen to be for a universal draft, but— and it is partially in order to channel male energy into positive directions. But I don't believe there's a relationship. If we need to put men in the army in order to prevent a lot of murder in the streets, We have done a terrible failing in our society in raising our kids. I was never in the Army and I haven't shot anybody.

Yeah?

I actually think there's one other issue, and that is that I think that people often turn to God in moments of weakness, and I think the male ego is such that it would be difficult to turn to anything but a masculine figure in a moment of weakness. That's an excellent, excellent point. I will incorporate it, and I thank you.

Uh, did you—

should I just restate it, or do you want to add more? Yeah, I, I think it's an excellent point, and I'd like to develop it for a moment. He said, after all, people turn to God when— at moments of great vulnerability, if I may use that term— and it would be much tougher for a man to do so, uh, with— if it were a goddess, if it were a female. And he's right. And the reason— you said male ego— you are right, but not in the popular sense of the term ego. In order for a boy to become a man, to grow up in other words, in the best sense, he must disengage, he must separate from his mother. Raising a boy, a baby boy at my age is very, very instructive. You're much more aware of things at 45 than at 25. And my son, Dennis Prager, my second son who is a year and a half old, is, we call him mommified. He is, mommy is part of him, as it would be if it were a she. But there is not a woman in this room who would want to date, let alone marry, a mommy's boy. A part of what makes a male male is his ability to separate from the female. Who gave him everything. A girl doesn't have to do that. A girl does not have to assert a different gender. The gender that she would bonded with is fine for her to remain. He must define himself to become a man, and that is very, very right. So you would almost be asking him to go back to what he spent his life separating from in order— if you were to say to him, now go back and cry and express all your vulnerabilities to a female above you. That's what he did when he was 2. We don't want him to do that at 32. I think it's an excellent point, which— see, you see, what's happened in society is, as a corrective to the past, we have become preoccupied with, with the problems and needs of women. And I say as a corrective to the past. But given that people are not by nature moderate, we have gone overboard. Not that women's needs and wants are not important, but so are men's. And I say that even from the perspective of a woman. Unless you wish to go to the island of Lesbos house, you are going to have to interact with men. And therefore, it is in the— it is in women's self-interest, even if— even if not— if I can't appeal to your idealism, it is in women's self-interest, selfish interest, to figure out what— how do we make better men? Because if we don't, we'll all get hurt. As that great philosopher Rodney King once said, We're all in it together. And if he said it, then I rest my case. Okay, let me continue. Didn't expect this excursus on El Shaddai. Yes, alright, go ahead, yeah. Okay, yeah.

From Freud's standpoint, the tripartite system— the id, the ego, the superego— it's very critical what you're saying. And here I am, a feminist, paying homage to Freud.

Yeah.

Because it's essential that all children integrate and introject the superego, which does come from the father in the society. And if the father is in incestuous— and the mother has to duality about her internal role than what you end up getting.

Yeah.

Oh yeah, it was classical psychoanalytic theory I was espousing. Yes, I, I think you're right. It's not— I've said frequently, it's no coincidence Freud was a Jew. Yes. Let me take that one later, please hold on to it. I just want to try to get, uh, as much as I can in the Torah itself.

This episode of Timeless Wisdom will continue right after this.

Hey y'all, I'm Willie Robertson and I'm Kori Robertson. We partnered with EKKL. It's a new platform, not just streaming movies and series that are safe for your family. I love a podcast. Plus EKKL daily devotionals.

EKKL.

Hey Willie, what is EKKL? EKKL is my pet squirrel.

Okay, done.

EKKL is not just faith-friendly, it is faith-driven. Be a part of something better.

Ekkol.

Ekkol. That's where I want to be. That's ekkol.com. Subscribe now.

Now back to more of Dennis Prager's timeless wisdom.

Back to verse 3. Jacob said to Joseph, El Shaddai appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and he blessed me and said to me, I will make you fertile and numerous, making of you a community of peoples. And I will assign this land to your offspring to come for an everlasting possession. Okay, this is Jacob talking to Joseph, and he's talking about God's appearance to him. This Luz is the original name, as Sarna points out, of Bethel. Uh, I need to talk to you. I need another excursus. I was going to do this last week. We didn't get to it. This is a very difficult one. Notice he says, "I will assign this land to your offspring to come for an everlasting possession." It is not possible to read Genesis and not to be aware of the centrality of land in the Torah.

You—

whatever one's feelings are you are, as a Jew, for example, toward living in the Diaspora, or as a Christian toward the universality of God everywhere and land, and there being no specific place where things have to be enacted, whatever your own particular opposition even might be, A reading of the text makes it clear. Land, the land is critical to the Torah. There is no way around it. The land is critical to later Judaism as well. Why is the land critical? Okay, I'd like to offer you two reasons. Number one, Judaism is a profoundly this-world-oriented religion. I would argue, and have, it is the most this-world-oriented religion in the world. I discussed this in some detail when discussing the hereafter or afterlife in Judaism. It exists, but it is not at all talked about in the Torah because if you talk about the afterlife, you end up very likely concentrating on it. Judaism is profoundly physical. This is, uh, in fact, classical Christian thinkers would often draw a powerful pro-Christian distinction. Ah, the Jews, they're so carnal. Indeed, there is a book called The Carnal Jew. Jews are so carnal, so physical, so this world. We our Jerusalem is in heaven. We Christians— and I'm talking about classical Christian distinctions, uh, or commentaries— uh, we are spiritual, the Jews are physical. There is a lot of truth to that, and I'm not arguing better or worse. I merely want to be honest to the text. Judaism is physical. Jewish law is physical. It is not conceptual. If you want to, uh, if you want to remember to separate life and death, well then don't eat milk and meat. Don't— there is nothing in Judaism you just remember. Uh, let me give you a great example. Having been raised an Orthodox Jew and having gone to yeshiva till I was 18, I was rather steeped in Judaism. And I remember when I was doing for 10 years the show Religion on the Line, where I moderated among a priest, minister, rabbi, I on occasion would ask the priest and minister the following question: If I visited you on Sunday afternoon after church, how would I know, watching you, that it was the Sabbath, that it wasn't Monday? And I got the following answer from every priest and every minister: You wouldn't. It's in my heart. Knowing it was the Lord's Day or the Sabbath, I knew it in my heart. There would be no way that you could tell. I might be having a barbecue, I might be shopping, I might be at a ballgame, I might be watching TV, might be reading a book. There was no way. And I was jolted. The yeshiva boy inside that moderator was jolted. What do you mean? Well, you mean it's in your heart?

What do you—

heart smart. What did you do about it? That the Jewish— the Jewish response is heart smart, you know, like Oedipus Schmetopus, as long as he loves his mother. Same, same lingo. Heart smart. What did you do? Same. And this is a— this is a truly— this is, is a difference between classical Judaism and classical Christianity. So many of what people think are differences are just in order to be self-serving. This is an honest-to-goodness difference. The, the moment that the, the, the founders of Christianity following Jesus said that Jewish law was not important, that it was now the law of the heart, the, the new covenant was of the heart, citing Jeremiah. The, the physicality of Judaism was removed. Now indeed it was in your heart. By the way, it goes in both directions. Jesus could therefore say in Matthew, if a man who lusts after another woman has committed adultery with his heart. You cannot in Judaism commit adultery with your heart. There is an organ you can do it with, and it is not the heart. No, it's a fascinating difference. You cannot— the lingo is not possible in Judaism. "Ah, he committed adultery with his heart." "What?" That's what a Jew would say. "What? What are you talking about? I don't understand." They would not understand, as I didn't understand. He kept the Sabbath, the minister, with his heart. I understood the Christian runner in Chariots of Fire. He wouldn't run on Sunday. That was his way of saying, wait a minute, it's not just in my heart, it's in my behavior. I won't run even though I'll get a gold medal. This yeshiva boy saw a halachic Christian. Here is a Christian keeping, keeping law. Ah, this I understand. Otherwise, you see, today most ministers and priests would say to that guy, get the gold medal, you'll have the Sabbath in your heart as you run. Not to me, not to me, the Jew. I don't deny that the priest or minister had the Sabbath in his heart. I'm just saying that is not language that I understand. Just as very few Christians can appreciate the power of Jewish law in religiosity. They— there is a sense in most Christians that there is a certain vulgarity, that you actually have to do this. Doesn't Jesus say what comes out of your mouth is more important than what goes in your mouth? So what's the big deal if you eat shrimp? But to a Jew steeped in Judaism, it's a very big deal what goes in your mouth. You can diet for looks, but you can't diet for spirituality? How do you, how do you say that you care about all animals not being killed if you, if you're prepared to kill all of them and eat all of them, which you cannot do in Judaism? All of that is part of the preoccupation of the Torah with land. Land is part of earth. It's part of the physical world. You will enact this Judaism, these laws, in a certain physical place. Not in heaven, not in your heart. In this spot that I will show you, Abraham. You will go forth to the land that I show you. And that is where it is to be enacted. Now, why one spot? Why not just have it, you know, anywhere? The reason is because God is saying, I want one spot to be a particularly holy place in this world. There will— there's got to be a place where my presence is particularly felt. In order for it to work out, in order for the ideals for which I have chosen you, Hebrews, Jews, to be played out. That is why later on God constantly— this is actually repeated— if you act like the Canaanites act, the land will vomit you out like it's vomiting them out. It's the Canaanites' bad luck to have been stuck in the one spot God wanted holy. If they'd have acted like Canaanites in, you know, in Chile, God wouldn't have bugged them. Really, it was their miserable luck when you think about it. You know, I could see a Canaanite going, 'Of all the places in the world, he had to pick this one, couldn't he? You think the ancient Japanese were doing better?' That's the way it is. For whatever reason, as a dear friend of mine, a former Catholic priest, put it very well, he said, "God is not a democrat." Small d. It was not a political statement. God does not take a vote. "What spot should I choose?" God is an authoritarian. And so there will be a place where you will live by the laws that I give you, And this will be the beacon to the world. That is the way it works, and that is the way Judaism and the Torah originally foresaw it. Hence the centrality of land, because of the physicality of Judaism and this idea of the one holy spot. Okay? So when you keep seeing about the land, the land, the land— no, the land is important. The land is holy, though if you don't act holy on the holy land, you get— you, you suffer a great deal. That is why the rabbis explained the expulsion, the two expulsions from Israel, as, uh, as divine. And it's the first time in history that I know of that a people suffered horrible tragedy and try to blame themselves for it having happened. I know of no parallel in the history of the world, not until modern history, where the Jews of the Holy Land had horrible suffering, slaughtered en masse, exiled from their country, and said, "It was our fault." Certainly could have blamed it on those who did it. The Greeks, the Romans, and they didn't. They said, for example, the most famous explanation is that the Jews were expelled because of sinat chinam. They hated each other for no reason. That's an important statement. It doesn't say for hatred. Hatred for a reason is okay in Judaism. Hatred for no reason is not okay in Judaism. And if you think about it, most of the hatred in the world is hatred for no reason. Okay, number 5. Now your two sons who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt shall be mine. Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine, no less than Reuben and Shimon. He is now, as it were, as Sarna puts it, adopting them into the clan of Israel. The children of Joseph. Okay, they are— they will be my children. You get it? Not my grandchildren, but my children, just like Reuven and Shimon. That is what Jacob is saying to Joseph: your children. And progeny born to you after them shall be yours. They shall be recorded. I don't like this instead of— does anybody have another word after that? What translations do you have? Yeah, under the name. I know they say instead here. It didn't make any sense. That's right, called after. Exactly. On the name of, in Hebrew, al-shem. I don't understand why it says instead here. It's the opposite. Of their brothers and their inheritance. Then he, then he throws in what seems to be a, uh, What seems to be a non sequitur, uh, I, when I was returning from Padan, Rachel died to my sorrow while I was journeying in the land of Canaan, when still some distance short of Ephrat, and I buried her there on the road to Ephrat, now Bethlehem. He is now speaking about his, his embarrassment of two things: not burying his beloved Rachel in the family plot, the, uh, the Machpelah, the cave of Machpelah where Leah is buried, and Abraham of course, and, uh, and Sarah. And, uh, and also he wants to be buried back there. So he's saying, look, I know what I'm requesting from you, Joseph, is very difficult to get me back there to be buried back in Canaan. And I wouldn't even go a half-day trip to do it for my beloved Rachel. So I look like I have chutzpah asking you to go from Egypt back there, and I wouldn't even do it on the road to Efrat. I would just— I just buried her. And that is why to this day, of course, you have Rachel's tomb is separate, uh, on, on what we call today the West Bank. In this regard, let me read to you. Uh, okay. At first sight, this is from the Chumra Libowitz, this great woman scholar in Israel. At first sight, this reminiscing of Jacob regarding the burial of Rachel seems to have no connection with the context. Why did Jacob find it necessary to remind Joseph that he had not buried his mother in the patriarchal tomb at Machpelah while he was requesting him to bury his remains there. Our commentators put forward various explanations. Most of them consider that Jacob was here excusing himself before his son, who may have thought that he had not paid the full honor due to his mother. That's his mother, after all, in not bringing her remains to Machpelah. Ramban, that's Nachmanides, great medieval Jewish scholar, explains the implication of Jacob's remarks as follows: The plain explanation is that Jacob spoke in an apologetic tone, pleading with Joseph not to be angry with him for this last request to bury him in the cave of Machpelah, on the grounds that he had not buried his mother there, though he had buried Leah there. For this reason, he said to him that she had died in the land of Canaan and that she had not been buried outside the Holy Land. Yet, yet point. He's emphasizing, listen, she was buried in the Holy Land and I want to be buried there too. Remember, they're talking in Egypt. Rachel, he explained, had died on the journey suddenly and he had not been able to bury her in the family tomb. For how could he have left his children and cattle on the way and have gone quickly to the cave of Machpelah? Where were the embalmers and medicaments to embalm her? This is the implication of the word alai, unto me or upon me.

Through—

though the cave of Machpelah was not more than a half day's journey from where Rachel died, Jacob was heavily burdened with cattle and members of his household and would only have been able to reach there in a number of days. Indeed, it took him many days until he reached his father's home. Okay, so I know all of you were just thinking, God, why is this sentence there? And there you have ancient explanations for it. Uh, we are at the verse— what verse?

8.

Thank you. Noticing Joseph's sons Israel asked, 'Who are these?' Now folks, he is now in Egypt, I think, 14, 15, 16, or 17 years. 17 years. So, uh, well, I'll read you Sarna. Jacob's question seems to suggest that he doesn't know his grandsons 17 years after arriving in Egypt. I mean, as dysfunctional as that family may have been, that would be absurd. Traditional commentators have attempted to By connecting this verse with verse 10, which records the patriarch's poor vision, they suggest that he could dimly discern the presence of two human forms but could not recognize them. Okay, now that's very possible, obviously very possible. He was quite old. But also, what— his whole life has been what What goes around comes around. Remember who couldn't recognize him when he was getting a blessing? Okay, his father, who didn't know who was Esau and who was Jacob. Jacob dies, he's giving the blessing, and he doesn't know who's who. I have no doubt that this is another of the numerous examples of it being played out again and could And why did he ask, "Who are these?" Who did he think he brought him? Two Egyptians? It almost seems to me like he's saying, "No, please don't play tricks on me like I did on my father. I've had enough of life's revenge already." Right? I mean, 'cause after all, that's what his father asked. "Who is this?" He said, "Oh, I'm Jacob, your son." "Really?" "Well, the voice is the voice of Jacob, but the arms are not." the arms of Esau. Remember that? So here he is, he's dying, giving a blessing, goes, who's here? It's, uh, may not be cracking you up as it is me, but, uh, hey, I thought it was really cute. Anyway, there is, uh, that's, that's, that's what's the poetic justice of it is what, uh, is what amused me in the deepest sense of the word amuse. Uh, let's continue now, uh, with verse, uh, verse 9. And Joseph Joseph said to his father, "They are my sons whom God has given me here." That is, here in Egypt. "Bring them up to me," he said, "that I may bless them." Now Israel's eyes were dim with age. He could not see. So Joseph brought them close to him and he kissed them and embraced them. And Israel said to Joseph, "I never expected to see you again." And here God has let me see your children as well. He's a grateful man for obvious reasons. Joseph then removed them from his knees and bowed low with his face to the ground. Joseph took the two of them, Ephraim with his right hand— and it's really, uh, very precise here— to Israel's left, and Menasheh with his left hand to Israel's right, just to really let you you know, so you can picture it perfectly. And brought them close to him. But Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on Ephraim's head, though he was the younger. The right hand should go on the older child for the blessing, right being more important than left. Well, Jacob never finishes with throwing out difficulties. It's like here he is dying and he pulls witch. Isn't it right? I mean, is that not clear what is happening here? I'm not saying he's wrong, I'm just saying it is like par for the course. Oh, anyway, though he was the younger, and his left hand on Menashe's head—

let me—

why am I getting all this yucky noise? Okay, uh, and he's brought them close, but us to Israel's right, and brought them close to him. But Israel stretched stretched out his right hand and laid it on Ephraim's head, though he was the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh's head, thus crossing his hands, although Manasseh was the firstborn. You get what he did? This is what he did. He crossed his hands like this. Instead of the older one here, Manasseh, and Ephraim over here, he did it like this. Okay, or actually Manasseh over here and did it like this. Okay, over here And he did it like this.

That's right.

He's even fooling me 4,216 years later. Okay, uh, Joseph Telushkin, my, my good friend, had a thought that he said when he, when he has read this, he's always go, he never learned. That Jacob never learned. Even now he's showing favoritism to the younger, right? Does, does it with, uh, I'm sorry, Jacob never learned. So he, he did it with Joseph, and, and he got paid badly for it. Did it with Benjamin after Joseph, and now he's doing it with his grandchildren. However, I think that while that may be an element, I do believe that the Torah, with all of its preference of the younger younger over the older is sending a message, and that is it is trying to undo the powerful traditional blood determines everything ideas of traditional societies. I mean, whatever you could say about dysfunction or favoritism, it still is pretty dramatic that in a, in the utterly traditional world of the ancient Near East, the Torah would so go out of its way to favor youngers over elders in so many cases. That, I mean, because that is, that is where it was at. The older one gets more blessings, gets more money, gets more rights. And the Torah undid it, as if to say it is who you are, not how you were born, that most matters. And I, and that I think is, is a message that we need to hear today too, because, uh, we are reverting ironically in the late 20th century. We are reverting to how you were born determining so much, not first or last, but black or white, and, uh, and so on. We are now celebrating blood in America more than almost ever ever in American history. And it is a, it's a very remarkable and I think reactionary movement. Whereas the Judaism certainly opposes that. The very idea of who you, what you were born is not that important. It's who you are. That's why it allowed from the outset conversion to the Jewish people. We don't care what you're born. That is why it picked so many non-Jews in the Torah as heroes and so many Jews as villains. The only Bible to do that, generally speaking. In every Bible in the world, the people of the Bible's religion are wonderful, the others are not. And not in the Hebrew Bible. The Jews are big sinners, non-Jews are often wonderful. Moses is saved by non-Jews. Moses saved by a genocidal non-Jew's daughter. That's incredible. And the rebellion against, uh, against him, against Moses, is formed by Korach, a Jew. This is one of the great legacies of the Torah, which incidentally was somewhat undone in the Middle Ages by Jews. Jews became very bloodthirsty God-oriented. Jews became, "What's your yichus?" Any of you Jews know the word yichus? I've always felt it's the sort of word that sounds like it is, or is like it sounds. Roots, background. Ah, what kind of family does he come from? Now there is some relevance. If both your parents are in San Quentin, it is not a good sign. I think that's a fair statement. Okay, I, I would, I would certainly acknowledge that. But it went, it went crazy in traditional life, not only among Jews, among every, every group. The original Jewish thing though was it wasn't yichus, it wasn't blood, it, and any of that. It was who you are, firstborn, schmurstborn. Who's the doer? Who's the, who's the, who's the powerful one. This is very strong stuff. So, uh, while I— obviously Jacob could have definitely used a parenting course, uh, there was, there was deeper stuff involved here than merely dysfunctional family relations.

This episode of Timeless Wisdom will continue right after this.

Hey y'all, I'm Willie Robertson and I'm Kori Robertson. We partnered with EKKL. It's a new platform, not just streaming movies and series that are safe for your family. I love a podcast. Plus EKKL daily devotionals.

EKKL.

Hey, Willie, what is EKKL? EKKL is my pet squirrel.

Okay, done.

EKKL is not just faith-friendly, it is faith-driven. Be a part of something better.

EKKL.

EKKL. That's where I wanna be. That's EKKL.com. Subscribe now.

Now back to more of Dennis Prager's Timeless Wisdom.

Verse 15. Is it partially self-deception? Oh, you mean, well, why do you call it self-deceiving?

Because in the short run you may—

What you might mean is we don't learn learn from our past mistakes. Is that what you mean?

Well, that his ends might justify his means, but only in the short term, right?

Yeah. Well, and again, or as I say, learning from the past. That's why I said Joseph Telushkin said, here's the classic example of a man who didn't learn from the past. Even as he's dying, favors the younger one. Okay, uh, number, uh, number—

he thinks he's right.

Of course he thinks he's right. Who in the world ever did anything thinking they were wrong? I know, no, I, I know that. That's true. Verse 15: And he blessed Joseph, saying— now, by the way, you might find this of interest. I thought he's blessing the, uh, he's blessing the sons. Well, of course, the traditional Jewish explanation is that if you bless your kids' sons, that's the ultimate blessing to a father or to any parent. If the kids are blessed, the parent is blessed. And there's a lot of truth to that, so I could live with that. "The God in whose ways my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd from my birth to this day," and boy does he know that to be true as he sits in Egypt with the most powerful man in Egypt being his Jewish son, or his Hebrew son. "The angel who has redeemed me from all harm," and it's very complex here. Does it really mean an angel or is it another term for God being an angel here. You take it as you wish. Generally speaking, angelology as such is not developed in the Torah or in the Tanakh, in the Hebrew Bible. Bless the lads. Okay, in other words, O God, O God, O angel God, bless the lads. In them may my name be recalled and the names of my fathers Abraham and Isaac And may they be teeming multitudes upon the earth. When Joseph saw that his father was placing his right hand on Ephraim's head, he thought it wrong. So he— if anybody would think it's wrong, it's Joseph, who paid a rather big price, uh, in his family for getting favoritism and knows how the brothers feel now. This shows the growth of Joseph. Do you see that? This is very touching. Hey, wait a minute, wait a minute, Dad. You did that with me. Do not do it with my kids. Sound familiar to any of you talking to your parents? Okay. So he took, uh, so he took hold of his father's hand to move it from Ephraim's head to Manasseh's. Not so, Father, Joseph said to his father, for the other is the firstborn. 'Place your right hand on his head.' But his father objected, saying, 'I know my son, I know. He too shall become a people, and he too shall be great. Yet his younger brother shall be greater than he.' You always wonder if the kid is hearing this. No, it is a little disconcerting. I mean, I am certainly not into the self-esteem movement, but this is ridiculous. This is— you don't want to exactly shatter your kid's ego. I mean, it is one thing to have kids all get up at the school auditorium, go, "I am wonderful, I love myself," and it's quite another to say in front of them, "Well, the reason I'm switching hands is because this one's greater than the other one." They spoke Yiddish so the kid wouldn't understand. Excellent. That is excellent. That's for posterity. That is absolutely right. Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody actually believed that. And you know, because they so Yiddishized, you know, so East Europeanized the figures of the Torah at times in Jewish history. That's right, the yinger is a greise yid. That's right, that's what he said exactly. To which Joseph said, what? Okay, because he didn't know Yiddish. That's an old joke. Alright, anyway, before we get carried away with a— who's the rabbi comedian? Jackie Mason version of Genesis will continue. Okay, so, "Yet his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his offspring shall be plentiful enough for nations. So he blessed them that day, saying—" You see, this, by the way, this is "shall be greater." It's not "is greater." I want to— he was not insulting the child. What we have here— exactly, he's prophesying, and this is a prophecy for later Jewish history, not for this moment. And then, yeah, okay. Now of course you get into the problem, which I'll probably discuss next week, of when was this written. Obviously to the Orthodox Jew and to most Jews historically, historically, Moses wrote all this and it really was a prophecy. How did they know which of the tribes would develop in what way, as you'll see in the blessings? But because Jacob knew the future, he could do this. To non-Orthodox scholars, the argument can be offered— they offer the argument, well, this was written in later times during the monarchy when they knew what would happen and then placed the reality of the present in the words of Jacob. You with me? So I'm just telling you the two ways to do it. If you're not, don't worry about it. So he blessed them that day, saying, "By you shall Israel invoke blessings." That is Ephraim. "God make you like Ephraim and Menasheh." Thus he put Ephraim before Menasheh. Let me read to you. This is the prayer, by the By the way, that to this day many Jewish fathers will say to their son, they say to their daughter, "May you be as the four matriarchs," and they say this blessing, "May you be like Ephraim and Menashe," to their sons. Hertz, the Orthodox, excellent Orthodox commentary on the Torah, has an interesting thought here. To this day, every pious Jewish father on Sabbath Eve places his hand on the head of his son and blesses him in the words, "God make you as Ephraim and Menashe." Ephraim and Menashe, and how he explains from a traditional Jewish perspective Why? Why, after all, do you bless a Jewish child to be like Ephraim and Menashe, Joseph's sons? Why, why not have the equivalent to the daughter? Why don't you be like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, right? Interesting question. I've always wondered it too. And he answers: Ephraim and Menashe would not barter away their Jewishness for the most exalted social position or the most enviable political career in the Egyptian state. They voluntarily gave up their place in the higher Egyptian aristocracy and openly identified themselves with their alien, quote-unquote, kinsmen, the despised shepherd immigrants. You get what he's saying? They could have been incredibly high-ranking Egyptians, and instead they said, no, we are with these lowly shepherds. Remember how shepherds were considered revolting to the Egyptians. So, all right, every Jewish parent may well pray that his children show the same loyalty to their father and their father's God as did Ephraim and Menashe. That's a traditional Jewish explanation as to why that benediction is said on Friday night from a father to a son. The one that you just saw given by, uh, Jacob to Joseph's children. Uh, da da da da. 21. Then Israel said to Joseph, I am about to die, but God will be with you and bring you back to the land of your fathers. See, again, the land, the land, the land, the land. And now I assign you one portion more than to your brothers, which I wrested from the Amorites with my sword and Bo. In Genesis 34, writes Sarna, the inhabitants are described as Hivites, not Amorites. As in many other passages, Amorite is used as a generic term for the pre-Israelite peoples of Canaan. In other words, I conquered the territory, I fought for it, and that's what I'm giving you, Joseph. Uh, I would like to go to the next chapter. Is that all right with you? Because it's not— I hope I can do it in the time. It's the blessings to the various sons, and I will not dwell much on the— it's poetry, which any of you who know my statements about my radio show know I often state I will talk about anything except poetry and architecture. So I, as soon as I see poetry in Hebrew or English, my eyes glaze over. So you will not get, for a number of reasons aside from my own predilection, massive analyses of these blessings. The truth is that even among the scholars, a lot of it is extremely difficult to decipher. They are clearly things that ancient Jews understood a lot more with regard to the different tribes. And also the Hebrew is, uh, in some cases they— the word appears only then in the entire Bible, and there's no way therefore to know its definition. You can only guess at it from context. So, uh, let me, uh, go through it though. There are some certainly interesting things. This is now time for Jacob to bless his sons. Chapter 49. Jacob called his sons and said Come together that I may tell you what is to befall you in days to come. Okay, this is what he's doing. This is not so much blessings as prophecy. This is what will happen to you. This obviously resonated with ancient Jews tremendously when there was still the tribes. For example, you still had a tribal identity. Here is the description of you from the patriarch himself, Israel. You get what I'm saying? That's why we won't resonate I mean, does any Jew here know if you're from Dan or from Naphtali or Issachar? I mean, you don't know. We don't even know where they went. So it's— that's why this was powerful stuff to an ancient Jew, I think more so than to a modern Jew. So I may tell you what is to befall you in days to come. Assemble and listen, O sons of Jacob. Hearken to Israel your father. Okay, we start. Reuben, you are my firstborn, my might and first fruit of my vigor. That of course means he's the first fruit of his vigor. Get it? You're the firstborn. It's just a nice way of saying it. Okay, I like the terminology. I have to remember that one. The— I'm gonna go to my kids next week and go, fruits of my vigor. Come Come over here. They'll think Dad flipped out again. Exceeding in rank and exceeding in honor, unstable as water, you shall excel no longer. This was not a happy occasion for most of the children, I might add. Unstable as water, you shall excel no longer. For when you mounted your father's bed, you brought disgrace. My couch he mounted. This— there's a way you might want to title chapter 49: Jacob's Revenge. It really is. I mean, all the stuff that he was fairly silent about earlier, he now lets loose. You know, there's nothing like old age, as we all know, to loosen the tongue, right? I mean, if there's anything that we generally associate with getting much older, it's— what does the very old person say? Or not even very old: One of the great things about getting old, you just say exactly what you think and let the chips fall where they may. That's exactly what he is doing in this case. If you recall, uh, in, uh, in chapter 35, verse 22, While Israel stayed in that land, Jacob was away from the home. Reuben went and lay with Bilhah, his father's concubine, and Israel found out. But you hear nothing. You'll have to get tape 35 to get read the whole thing about that. That's the reason I don't want to repeat, because it's already there. But he did— this was to protect his mother and a lot of other reasons he had. But that's a pretty bad thing, to sleep with your father's wife or your father's concubine. Now he pays for it. Reuben the eldest did this, and that's what he remembers. You shall excel no longer, for when you mounted your father's bed, you brought disgrace. My couch he Number 5, to Simeon and Levi. Shimon and Levi are a pair. Actually, in the Hebrew, it's their brothers. Now, they're all brothers, so why did he say it this way? I blame both of you for what you did to the Shechemites. Now, for those of you who don't know, I have good news. I will actually be giving that chapter because of horrendous things that happened to that tape. That will be in two sessions. It's a fascinating chapter with the rape of Dina and what these guys did. These guys, uh, slaughtered a town of, of of, well, when we review it, we'll see how innocent, because it's an interesting debate how innocent they were. But they were vile, and they were violently vile in the way they behaved. And it's always a question, why didn't Jacob condemn them then? The, and now you see what he really thought of it. Their weapons are tools of lawlessness. Let not my person be included in their counsel. I mean, this is very angry talk. I don't want to be included in your— in the way you guys talk to each other. I'm not part of your— of the way you do things. Let not my being be counted in their assembly, for when angry they slay men. And when pleased, they maim oxen. I want to read you something in this. Oh yes, Jacob's testament here reflects a very early tradition. This conclusion is reinforced by the further striking contrast between Levi here as a tribe in disfavor, and the consistent concept of the other Torah sources that the Levites were God's elect who enjoyed a privileged status. I don't know if you followed that, but this is important. If this stuff were not ancient, if this were written later on, as many people will say, ah, couldn't be that old, it was probably written when Israel was settled and had the monarchy they never would have had such a condemnation of Levi. The Levites are the most important tribe in that that's where you get your leadership class from. This is a very interesting thing that Levi, the tribe of Levi, would be so condemned by Jacob. If this stuff is later text, it makes no sense. Would the leading tribe make up a history of being condemned as lawless, as vile? You get what I'm saying? This is a very powerful argument for the antiquity, the contemporaneousness, if there is such a word, of the text with the events described. So, and by the way, of course I could get into to us with great gusto, but I won't, about the statement, "When angry they slay men." It has become a passion of my life to combat all the anger in our society. The defense of evil, giving the rage defense in the United States of the late 20th century is awesome. And it is, he doesn't hold that for a minute. He, if anything, he attacks them for being lawless when they were angry. It was my— it was depressing to me during the riots in Los Angeles how often you just hear rage, rage, rage, rage, rage, as if it's some way excused. As I wrote in an essay at the time, the difference between good men and bad men is how they act when they're enraged. Everybody's nice when they're not angry. What's the big trick? Oh yeah, he wasn't angry at all, he just shot up a village. People generally do it when they're angry or drunk. That is why there is a great, uh, a great, uh, saying in Hebrew. You can judge a person even if you don't know Hebrew. You will, you will hear how similar the words are. Be'kiso Kiso, Picasso, Bicoso. Right? Sounds similar? Kiso means in his pocket, by his pocket. Picasso, by his anger. Bicoso, by his cup. The three ways to judge a person's character are how they act in monetary matters, how they act when they're angry, and how they act when they drink. You pass those three tests, You're okay. Most people flunk all three. And so that is a very powerful thing that he condemned them, and here comes a word which is inexplicable in English but is great in Hebrew, "dafkah," "dafkah," during their anger. He does not allow anger to be an excuse. He doubles Tells the condemnation. Look how they act when they're angry. That's good. Bravo to Jacob. Verse 7: Cursed be their anger. You hee see? Cursed be their anger so fierce and their wrath so relentless. Boy, I'll tell you, that should have been quoted, uh, should be consistently quoted in the United States. Cursed be their anger. I will divide them in Jacob, scatter them in Israel. Now this I need to read to you. This is from A, uh, a later Jewish commentator, the Akedat Yitzchak: Jacob here utters a truth which Aristotle has publicized in his Ethics. Anger and temper, though undesirable qualities, may sometimes prove useful in arousing the heroic in man. Soldiers in battle are spurred to bravery and courage by anger and indignation. This idea is also expressed in the text Isaiah 63:5. My own arm brought salvation unto me, and my fury, it upheld me. In other words, anger in extremes is detrimental, but in moderation can be useful. I mean, if you don't get at all angry over Rwanda, there's something morally wrong with you. Anger is not wrong, it is what is done with it. Jacob had the same idea in mind. It was advisable that the qualities of anger and passion that had been concentrated in Shimon Shimon and Levi should be dispersed among all the tribes of Israel. So you see what he says? I will divide them in Jacob, that's Israel, and scatter them in Israel. Get it? I will scatter your trait. And like, there's an X amount of rage among the tribes, but too much of it got into Shimon and Levi. On the other hand, some of the others are a little milk toasty, so we will give them some of your anger. All of them would share some of it. Isn't this an interesting theory? A little spread everywhere would prove useful, but if concentrated in one place would be dangerous. And this is what Simson Raphael Hirsch, the German modern orthodox thinker, wrote: The dangers of extremism are particularly great at the height of a nation's power, when a united and strong public can easily be influenced by the headstrong strong policies of two mighty tribes into an excessive display of zeal. But this is not the case when the nation is scattered and divided in exile, suffering from persecution and reviled by others. Then, in other words, if you're a united nation in your own land and powerful, anger is a problem. But if you're dispersed and weak, well, as he writes, then the Jew peddling his wares from house to house, stands in need of that ingredient of zeal and passion to be able to cherish his national self-respect and look down on his tormentors. The Holy One, blessed be He, did His people a kindness by scattering the tribes of Shimon and Levi among the rest of the House of Israel so that all its members should share some of that badly needed courage and zeal and Jewish pride even after the destruction of its state. Written by a modern Orthodox, the founder of what is called Modern Orthodoxy. Uh, what are we up to? Thank you, always depend on you. You, O Judah, your brothers shall praise. Your hand shall be on the nape of your foes. Judah gets the best, uh, the best one except for Joseph. Your hand, your father's sons shall bow low to you. Judah is a lion's whelp. We all use whelp every day, so I didn't even think it was necessary to translate. What word do you have? Cub. Young lion. Okay, it's a young lion. Oh, pray my— oh, pray my son, have you grown? He crouches like down like a lion. By the way, so you get Lion of Judah, like the king of beasts. Who dare rouse him? The scepter shall not depart from Judah. Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, so that tribute shall come to him and the homage of peoples be his. He tethers his ass to a vine, his ass is foaled to a choice vine. He gets really carried away now, Jacob. He washes his garment in wine, his robe in blood of grapes. His eyes are darker than wine, his teeth are whiter than milk. He liked Judah, in case you missed the point. The, uh, yeah, I think you can tell that is correct. On Judah, well, you know what, I may have— I could break. We have 5 minutes. Okay, uh, on Judah, why does he like Judah? Let's look at 37:26, please, for a moment. Why did Judah earn these accolades?

Blades.

37:26, when the brothers are deciding what to do with Joseph, he says, then Judah said to his brothers, what do we gain by killing our brother and covering up his blood? Come, let's sell him to the Ishmaelites, but let us not do away with him ourselves. After all, he is our brother, our own flesh. He talked them out of killing him. Okay, you see how everybody gets his comeuppance at the end in these things? 43:8, please. How does Jacob know? Well, there is no source in the Torah for how he knows. The suspicion is that over the course of 17 years with them, somebody snitched. Maybe Judah told them. We don't know. We just don't know. Uh, 43:8-9, please. Then Judah said to his father Israel, send the boy in my care. Remember when they came back to convince Jacob to send Benjamin back because the ruler wanted him? Who was it that became the spokesman for the brothers? Judah. Okay, so he is clearly getting a big role. And now I will read to you from Plaut, The Reform. Joseph had always had the deep affection of his father, whose great words pronounce praise and blessing and form a fitting summary of the life of his great son. The ultimate focus, however, is on Judah. It is through him that God's mysterious designs will be carried on. When the poem turns to Judah, it turns resolutely to the future. It may not, in its enigmatic Shiloh passage— it's— I didn't speak of that to you— speak of the end of time, but it does reach into days to come. At whatever period these stanzas were composed— in other words, either at the time or later— they looked forward in the sense of prophecy. And in the light of history, the prophecy turned out to be remarkably accurate. It was Judah's tribe— that's why we're called Jews— that survived destruction and deportation by the Babylonians in 586 BCE. And that provided continuity for the children of Israel. It was from Judah that the Jew took his name. So the prophecy turns out to have been accurate. Let me just see, we have 2 minutes. I can't finish the chapter in 2 minutes, even if I did it in a davening manner. You probably could. No, I— The lack of his brothers. So we will continue next week. Thank you all very much for coming.

On tomorrow's Sunday Fireside Chat, Alan Estrin, who was my friend for 30 years, very dear close friend, uh, is the one and producer of my radio show for many years, is the, uh, person who came up with the idea Alan is known to many of you who know my radio show as the Living Martyr. It's a funny nickname that he actually developed on his own, but it was so fitting, it's really— it stayed. And how many years ago— it was on a listener cruise. I've been taking cruises with my listeners for now about 25 years, and from Antarctica to the North Sea. I mean, I mean, literally all over the world, every continent. On one of those cruises, what happened?

Join us tomorrow to hear more on Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager. Visit DennisPrager.com for thousands of hours of Dennis's lectures, courses, and classic radio programs, and to purchase Dennis Prager's Rational Bibles. We want to take just a second to thank the team at Life Audio for their partnership with us on the podcast. Go to lifeaudio.com to find dozens of other faith-centered podcasts in their network, including shows about prayer, Bible study, parenting, and more.

Precious metals dealers come and go. This is Nick Grovich, president of Amped Coin and Bullion. We've stood the test of time since 1983. With the flurry of coin and bullion dealers coming and going, how do you know who to trust and what to buy. At Ampfed Coin and Bullion, we value educated consumers. We want to alert you to good bullion buys in the market and help you steer clear of the tricks and bad deals. Call Ampfed Coin and Bullion for a free coin performance review. 800-221-7694 or americanfederal.com.