Vayeshev Parsha Thoughts #1

On [Second to Nun]'s bar mitzvah

[First draft. Obviously needs editing and a few more passes, to turn it into a vort.]

A few thoughts, [Second to Nun], on your bar mitzvah this Shabbos.

You leined from parashat Vayeshev. And, as part of leining, we saw the importance of the disjunctive (pausal) and conjunctive (joining) trup symbols. I saw an interesting idea in Shadal (who looks like this),

which he cites from Rabbi Avraham Chai of Cologna (who looked like this):

When Yosef’s brothers present Yaakov with the bloodstained clothing, he recognizes it and exclaims that a wild beast has consumed Yosef.

Thus (Bereshit 37:33):

וַיַּכִּירָ֤הּ וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ כְּתֹ֣נֶת בְּנִ֔י חַיָּ֥ה רָעָ֖ה אֲכָלָ֑תְהוּ טָרֹ֥ף טֹרַ֖ף יוֹסֵֽף׃

There is a mahpach pashta, where the mahpach is an eved / mesharet / conjunctive accent. In contrast, later on, when Tamar is accused, she sends Yehuda the tokens she had given him. He recognizes them, then justifies Tamar. That verse reads (next perek, Bereishit 38:26):

וַיַּכֵּ֣ר יְהוּדָ֗ה וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ צָֽדְקָ֣ה מִמֶּ֔נִּי כִּֽי־עַל־כֵּ֥ן לֹא־נְתַתִּ֖יהָ לְשֵׁלָ֣ה בְנִ֑י וְלֹֽא־יָסַ֥ף ע֖וֹד לְדַעְתָּֽהּ׃

The revii is a pausal accent, so there is separation between his recognition and his speaking. Why the distinction?

Rabbi Avraham Chai explains that when Yaakov saw / recognized it, he immediately exclaimed “my son’s tunic!” However, Yehuda hesitated a bit, and mulled over what to do, prior to admitting his sin.

(As an interjection, from a purely mechanical perspective.

Actually, in both instances there is a pashta, a pausal accent, on the וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ prior to the actual words he said. Also, based on William Wickes explication of cantillation, except on occasion of exceptionally long verses, if a phrase or subphrase has three or more words in it, it must be subdivided by a pausal accent as part of the continuous dichotomy. The first verse doesn’t have an explicit noun subject, but just uses the pronoun “he”. The latter verse has Yehuda inserted between וַיַּכֵּ֣ר and וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙, so there would need to be a pause either on the first or second word. What determines that is syntax. “And did recognize Yehuda || and he said” is obviously the right place to divide it.

Here are the trup trees for the first verse:

and the second:

Shadal, by the way, proffers an alternative explanation on the latter verse. He says that the nature of what Yehuda said, that she was right, is different from the action of recognizing it. Had he said “those are the tokens I gave her”, parallel to Yaakov’s “this is my son’s tunic”, part of the recognition, then perhaps a conjunctive accent would work. )

Another way of looking at it is that Yaakov reacted immediately and jumped to the wrong conclusions. Yehuda, meanwhile, took time to reflect, to engage in introspection, and was able to say tzadeka mimeni, that Tamar was right, and specifically what he had done wrong — holding back Sheilah from marrying her.

I think that the lesson we can draw from this is to not leap to conclusions, even when we feel emotionally driven to do so. The end result of self-reflection shouldn’t necessarily be to engage in self-recrimination, even though that was what Yehuda did. That, too often for us, is what we leap to. Bar mitzvah it a time of accepting more personal responsibility to do what’s right and avoid doing what’s wrong. This approach is already present in you, as you are a thoughtful person who often engages in introspection. But may we all take this lesson to heart, and go from strength to strength.