On Mr. Shoshani, Questions of Identity and… Studying Tanakh (Column 361)
With God’s help
Disclaimer: This post was translated from Hebrew using AI (ChatGPT 5 Thinking), so there may be inaccuracies or nuances lost. If something seems unclear, please refer to the Hebrew original or contact us for clarification.
The man known as “Mr. Shoshani” is a figure of mystery, a religious and general intellectual who wandered the world and taught many students, some of whom became renowned across the globe. His name passed from his disciples’ lips, by word of mouth, yet it is not entirely clear who and what he was, where he was born, whence he came and where he studied, and even his very name is disputed. You can read about him on Wikipedia, and hear about him in this podcast. In recent days I was directed to a thread on the Otzar HaChochma forum, beginning with a critical article by Prof. Dov Landau about a book published about him by Shlomo Malka in 1994 (it’s worth reading further down the thread for a great deal of information), where he complains about the lack of information regarding Shoshani’s teachings. Everyone is full of his praise, but almost no one brings even a grain of his Torah.
Now, at the end of the aforementioned podcast there appears a certain gematria witticism attributed to him, along with a brief explanation. This explanation connected in my mind with what I wrote in the previous column (and of course elsewhere) about the value of studying Aggadah and Tanakh. So I’m taking the opportunity to say something more about that—or rather to reinforce what I have already said.
An example of an interpretation
The verse in Parashat Shemot tells that Moses went out and saw an Egyptian man striking a Hebrew man, and then it says: “And he struck the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.” Shoshani said that “the Egyptian” (המצרי) has the same numerical value in gematria as “Moses” (משה). After that, a brief explanation of the matter was given, as follows.[1] There is a dispute among the commentators about the meaning of the verse “Moses grew up and went out to his brothers.” Who are “his brothers”? Ibn Ezra holds that “his brothers” refers to the Egyptians, meaning that Moses had an Egyptian identity by virtue of his upbringing. He grew up from infancy as Pharaoh’s son, and it is even possible that he would have sat on his throne one day. Ramban, by contrast, holds that “his brothers” refers to the Hebrews (“for they told him that he is a Jew”). Moses had a Hebrew identity by virtue of his origin, since he was the son of Amram, the leader of Israel.
Shoshani explains that Moses goes out to clarify which of his two identities is dominant and which he must choose. When he sees an Egyptian man striking a Hebrew man, he chooses his Hebrew identity, for so the verse says: “a Hebrew man from among his brothers,” meaning that “his brothers” are the Hebrews. Shoshani suggested that the meaning of the verse is that, by taking the step of striking the Egyptian, Moses nullified the Egyptian identity that had accompanied him throughout his life until then, and connected to his Jewish identity. Therefore, immediately afterward the verse says: “And he struck the Egyptian” (the Egyptian = Moses in gematria), meaning that he killed his Egyptian identity and became a Jew (recognizing the Hebrews as his brothers). The identity by birth overcame the identity of the environment in which he was raised.
A preliminary analysis
Shoshani is essentially combining different, even opposing, interpretations of two of the great early biblical commentators and synthesizing them into a single interpretation that describes a dynamic process of change and the formation of identity. The gematria is, of course, support in the homiletical vein, or perhaps merely a concise literary expression of the idea, but it certainly adds a certain aroma to this interpretation (embellishments to wisdom). Note that at least the end of his interpretation is also precise in the wording of the text. When the text says “a Hebrew man from among his brothers,” it is clear there that “his brothers” are the Hebrews. Therefore, Ibn Ezra’s interpretation that reads the word “his brothers” as Egyptians would seem to encounter a direct contradiction in the text itself. The move Shoshani proposes resolves this difficulty and presents a possibility of understanding all of Moses’ going out as an inner spiritual-psychological journey to clarify his identity. He exposes a struggle that certainly speaks to many Jews in many places and varied periods, and concludes with a decision—and implicitly also a call for all of us to decide in the Jewish direction.
It seems to me that the interpretation is indeed interesting and original. It succeeds in connecting two opposing interpretations, resolving one of them that runs into a serious difficulty from the wording of the text, and as a bonus even arouses a contemporary ethical dimension hidden between the lines of these verses and makes the passage relevant for us. Seemingly, it has everything one could hope for in a good interpretation. I certainly enjoyed reading it, and it even surprised me; yet my Litvak impulse led me to dig into it a bit. Is this really all one can expect from a good interpretation?
Some questions on a second look
As a Litvak, I asked myself how I should relate to this interpretation from several angles:
- Question of truth. Is this really the meaning of the verses? Have we been persuaded that this is indeed what the author of the Torah intended? The identification of “his brothers” with the Hebrews is well anchored in the text, but there is no hint there of the entire process he describes. It is certainly possible that such a process took place, and the circumstances of Moses’ upbringing even point in that direction (for from his biography alone one would expect an inherent tension between the identity acquired in his upbringing and the identity derived from his origin). And yet it is hard to see this process in the text itself, and I am far from convinced that this is indeed the interpretation of the verses. This may surprise some of you, but even after one hears a pleasant and interesting interpretation, and even if it resolves some difficulty, and even if it seems to follow from Moses’ biography, the question of truth remains. Did the text indeed intend this? In my view, what is required of a good interpretation also relates to the question of truth and exegetical persuasion.
One could perhaps begin from the premise that if there is a plausible and reasonable interpretation of the verses, then the author of the Torah likely intended that we learn it also in that direction. According to this proposal, any direction permitted by the text is a legitimate interpretation, and the meticulous will add that the Holy One, blessed be He, originally intended it as well (“seventy facets to the Torah”). Thus we exempt our interpretations from the need to persuade—that is, from the question of truth. We should focus on the possibility of the interpretation, not on its necessity. Yet it seems to me that such an approach almost empties interpretive effort of content and purpose altogether.
- Question of definition. Was the dilemma between emotional identification with Egyptians and Hebrews, or perhaps a choice between cultures, or maybe between different value systems? It seems to me that striking the Egyptian indicates national-emotional identification and not necessarily a value choice. And perhaps these are related?…
- Question of reasoning. What are the sides of the dilemma? Is it taking place on the psychological plane or on the ethical plane? Clearly, culturally Moses stands between two cultures (if at all). It is reasonable that his emotional identification could pull him in both directions. But must he necessarily decide between them? Could he not adopt Egyptian culture together with his Jewish ethnic identity? (The implications for our day are clear.) And in general, is the fact that someone identifies emotionally with a group or a particular person a matter of ethics? This is how he grew up and therefore this is what he feels. I see no necessity to give that up. On the contrary, some would see value in not surrendering our universal identity, together with halakhic commitment.
True, if we introduce the ethical dimension of the two sides (the Egyptians’ abuse of Israel, or their conduct per se—idolatry, the attitude toward Pharaoh, and the like), then it is indeed reasonable that there is an obligation to decide and choose one of them. But in that case I would describe Moses’ decision as an ethical decision, not an identity decision. He sees injustice and protests against it, even if he were to remain emotionally and nationally identified with the Egyptians. On the contrary, perhaps as one possessing an Egyptian identity I would expect him to correct them from within rather than join another group (certainly if “Egyptianness” was the universality of that time), even if it is a better one.
- Question of novelty. Can we really say that I learned something here? Would any of us not arrive at this conclusion on our own? If I posed the following question: Suppose you are born a Jew and raised in an Egyptian home, and suppose there is a struggle and Egyptians abuse Jews—should one choose one’s Jewish identity? I imagine that the vast majority would answer yes. So what, in fact, have we learned from Shoshani’s interpretation?
- Question of authority. This is the flip side of the previous question. Suppose there is a person who would answer my question above in the negative. He is a staunch universalist who opposes particular identities (yet is committed to Halakhah). Now he sees Shoshani’s interpretation. Would he be persuaded and change his position? I assume—and hope—we would all agree that he would not. Clearly not.
One could say that a learner’s attitude to such an interpretation, when he a priori disagrees with it, depends on whether he sees the Bible as a source of authority or a source of inspiration:
- If he is among those who accept the authority of Scripture, then of course he would choose a different interpretation that better fits his position (a universalist one). For example, Moses, as one with an Egyptian identity (as per Ibn Ezra), does not relinquish that identity. Yet he still protests injustice and therefore strikes the Egyptian. See how great his deeds are: Moses strikes his brothers in culture and identity upon the altar of justice and morality, and does not be taken captive by his Egyptian ethnocentrism and chauvinism. What is wrong with this interpretation? Is there anything inferior about it compared to Shoshani’s? The choice between them is, of course, a matter of ethical identification and not of exegetical persuasion.
- And if we are dealing with someone who does not accept the authority of Scripture (seeing it as a source of inspiration rather than authority), then he could accept Shoshani’s interpretation and still remain in his opposing stance—criticizing Scripture for its particularism and lack of universalism.
For my part, it is of greater importance to examine what such an interpretation does for one who accepts the authority of Scripture. Can such an interpretation change anything for him? I assume we would all agree that it cannot.
The educational value: what is learning?
I assume many would argue that such an interpretation may still have value, since it helps to instill more firmly in us the value of national identity (assuming there is such a value). That is, even if there is no novelty here, and even if we have always understood this value (?), still such an interpretation produces internalization, and therefore has educational value (or anti-educational value, in the eyes of universalists).
This I can certainly accept, but it is not learning. Learning means extracting new information or insight that I did not know before. Even repetition of what I learned is learning, since it helps me remember and retain that information or insight and not forget it. But here we are not dealing with new information or insight, nor even with repetition for the sake of memory. I both know and remember the value of national identification with my people. Here we are dealing with an educational instrument. To my understanding, education is not learning (though the converse is less clear-cut: learning generally has an educational dimension). Compare this with studying a history or physics book. There we are dealing with learning in every sense, whether I am learning something new or reviewing my studies, since there new items of information and insights about the world are being renewed for me.
Conclusions and generalizations
It seems to me that this interpretation certainly contains an interesting insight and reflects interpretive intelligence worthy of appreciation (though I do not know whether it is truly a stroke of brilliance). But it is important to note that its brilliance lies solely on the interpretive plane. It introduces into the verses a dimension that I had not initially thought resided in them. Yet the very insight learned (that we ought to choose our Jewish identity) contains nothing new. And if there is something new in it (i.e., if I think it is not correct that there is an obligation to choose this identity, since I espouse universalism), I will not accept it, because its derivation from the verses is never compelled.
But as I have written more than once, this is the nature of interpretations of verses and of Aggadot in general. Even those that include genuine flashes of brilliance—and there certainly are such—the flashes are always on the interpretive plane. I never find in them programmatic brilliance, or even substantive innovations. The content is always predictable (be humble, heroic, courageous, devoted, of good character, God-fearing, and the like), and the brilliance lies in the manner of inserting the content—predictable to the point of banality—into the verses. Moreover, if such an interpretation proposes content that is novel for me (i.e., content I do not agree with a priori), then I will never accept it, because its derivation from the verses is never necessary.
The sad conclusion is that the only value in engaging with such interpretations is simply the engagement with words of Torah. There is no learning there in the full sense. This engagement may have intrinsic value, or perhaps even educational value (connecting to well-known ideas, as in the well-known preface of Mesillat Yesharim), but not learning value. It is not Torah study (in my opinion, not even “Torah in the person”).
Epilogue
Last Friday evening I was sent another article by Attorney David Kurzweil, published in the Shabbat supplement of Makor Rishon (from yesterday). He hangs his thesis, how could he not?!, on the plague of frogs (see the previous column), and also on the connection between the second plague and the second commandment of the Ten Commandments (the prohibition of idolatry), and from this he draws far-reaching conclusions in various and diverse areas. And I, a small Litvak, wonder again: regardless of his words themselves and the insights that arise from them (which are certainly interesting and worth study and consideration), what added value is there in the very tenuous linkage made there to the plague of frogs and to the second commandment? In my eyes—not much. All the questions I asked above can be repeated regarding that article as well, and in fact regarding any interpretation offered to you about the Bible or the Aggadot of the Sages. It seems to me you will discover that the situation is very similar in almost all cases.
[1] I am relying on a message in a WhatsApp group, based on Rabbi Sherki in the name of Manitou. But Shoshani was apparently the original source of the idea.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What I learned from Shushan is that there is always a part of coming out of the closet at one moment. There is a long and ongoing process of forming an identity, but in the end there is a moment when you go through an identity, and this is the most difficult and most defining moment. Not a trivial fact for the world.
This is not learned from the verses, but it teaches us something non-trivial about life…
Did you learn it from Shushanni? From the verses? Or did you understand that it was true after he said it? Because if you didn't understand that it was true, I suggested other ways to read the verses. Therefore, I don't think you learned it from the verses or Shushanni. Either you thought so in the first place (and maybe you weren't aware of it) or you were convinced of the plausibility of the claim itself. By the way, it doesn't even appear in his words. There is a significant event here on the way to forming an identity, but it's hard to define a clear claim about a change in an instant.
Personally, I don't think it's true either.
Anomalies – inconsistencies, exceptions, or deviations of nature from the predictions of the dominant paradigm in standard science. The more science develops, and the more extensive and precise the paradigm becomes, the more anomalies are created. In response to anomalies, scientists try to fit the findings into the paradigm by broadly examining the area of abnormality. Things may end up by adding ad hoc explanations to the theory identified with the paradigm, or they may develop into a crisis.
Crisis – When there are too many inconsistencies (anomalies), and ad hoc solutions fail to resolve the contradiction, a crisis is created. The crisis stage is characterized as a transitional stage, with similar characteristics to the pre-paradigmatic stage. Scientists, seeking salvation for the paradigm, collect new data in a disorganized manner, standard ways of working are violated, and philosophical speculations appear. A crisis has a profound psychological effect on the scientific community, and there is usually enormous difficulty in giving up the dominant paradigm. The crisis may end in saving the paradigm, ignoring the problem (at least for a while) or in the collapse of the paradigm and the occurrence of a scientific revolution.
Changing the scientific paradigm is essentially a sociological process similar to converting to a religion.
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%94_%D7%A9%D7%9C_%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA
= “There is always a moment of coming out. There is a long and ongoing process of forming an identity, but in the end there is a moment when you go through an identity, and this is the most difficult and most formative moment.
In a certain way, the sermon process is a deductive process in that it links solid internal insights/beliefs that are given in advance in the findings on the ground (verses and events). That is, the movement is from top to bottom, from what is definitely known towards the meaning of occurrences and formulations. Therefore, this movement is called a sermon, a demand, the movement of the will that shapes the reality in which it appears and illuminates it in a new light. Indeed, these insights can be outlined in principle in pure philosophical language, or in a metaphorical spatial form as in the teachings of Kabbalah. What is the point of linking them to verses or noting the places where the verses evoke the memory of the insights? Because the ideas engraved in our will and known to us in principle are an inseparable part of all parts of our soul and body, our events and tradition. The findings that inspire induction ultimately also inspire the deductive insights and the latter from the soul-breathing in the former. It is really a matter of observing the same reality, but from different angles, and indeed, very different aspects of reality that seem foreign arise as a result of these observations. But this is not the truth. And if there is a place in human psychology for both of these movements, even more so when it comes to the word of God, which is addressed to humanity in prophecy, and from which the information engraved in the depths of our souls has flowed to us. There is a great space and many levels in the specularity of the human being who stands before the light of God. If only the person is not rigid, and is balanced in his physical and cognitive temperament, with qualities of a certain flexibility based on humor - the full word of God can illuminate his consciousness. The depressive is apparently much more realistic than the healthy person, since he perceives only the outlines of reality and his soul. The unrealistic optimism of the healthy person is correct, because it is realistic when the life of the soul and the will are taken into account. I am preparing for your sharp response in your own way. Despite the large gap every few months, I feel the need to try again to offer you my thoughts.
I feel accused of silence here. I don't remember any answers I gave you, so I don't know what you're talking about.
As for your words here, in my opinion they are themselves another example of a sermon, but beyond that the argument itself is also not clear to me (very vague). As far as I understand, you're just returning to the educational value I was talking about.
God forbid, when I was writing, the gap in positions was so large that I felt that the dialogue would not bear significant fruit. I argue for more of an educational approach, I argue that the sermon has a dimension of objective wisdom. The object is the speaker's will in the verses, and as long as there is a will, there is a depth dimension that allows for inductive and deductive inference in the ways I mentioned. Just as someone will respond in response to an embarrassing event, "Everything is fine," and I will know that everything is not fine from analyzing his facial expression (induction) and also from prior acquaintance with some of his inner self (an unsuccessful example of deduction in the sense I mean here), so too is the reading of the verses and their demands. Moreover, in truth, it is also the same in the ruling of halakhah, although in a much less noticeable way.
It's hard for me to comment because it's very vague. Do you have an example?
For example, where does the manna from the Torah come from? Manna is the tree. In God’s question to man whether he had indeed eaten from the tree, there is an appearance of God’s ignorance of man’s actions. This appearance is the reality on which Haman bases his worldview and conduct. The empty space, Amalek, etc., etc., many codes of an evolving inner language that revolves around insights that are within us and are passed down from generation to generation. The Bersalvars who speak about the silence of Moses in the face of the empty space are observing the same reality that Chazal alluded to in this sermon. What is added to us in the sermon? Why didn’t Chazal speak like the Ari about the abstract inner knowledge in itself? Because this inner reality was expressed in the history of their people, in the views and lives of flesh and blood. In Haman and in Adam the First. The connection between the verse and the events is not only educational, it is an exposure of the objective root from which the events, the events of our lives, unfolded. And we need to continue this line and show that the word "men" and the name "manna" are the same for a reason, but that is already more difficult. It is precisely the style of Hari's description that is diabolical, it is a description of the most basic infrastructure of our lives and the laws of our mind when this lawfulness is no longer evident in everyday life. The analysis of the word of God as living speech in a deductively manner, in light of the information we have in advance when we come to understand speech, is a very valuable part of understanding the word of God, as understanding any speech between one person and another. The fact that the science of psychology is common property and everyone sees themselves as experts in it and is comfortable lying about it does not mean that it is not a valuable science. All Israel is a prophet and a stage preacher. Precisely because it touches directly on the arena and the raw material of the discourse, it is much more ready for error and lack of clarity. The “matter itself” is simpler than sketching and calculating its outlines, but it is also more valuable and significant. As in halakhic rulings, the final decision of the posek is intuitive and influenced by his meta-analysis of the issue and even of the entire Torah, that is, it has the side of a decision with a deductive direction.
And this is supposed to be a concrete and clear example? The worts of the “manna of the tree”? You can also learn a lot about this path from the worts in the source of Torah, and from its beauty.
This is a great example of our issues. I have shown clearly that what you see in Wart, bordering on the mundane, is profound wisdom, an intergenerational discourse about objective and historical reality. Because the nature of the Shekel and the Fresh in this field is not empirical in nature, you disparage it, but I see this disparagement as a mental inclination of distrust and not a substantive response to my claims. I do not feel that you have succeeded in touching on the claims at all, you are indicating a lack of confidence in the ability to distinguish between sources and sermons that have weight and those that do not, and therefore you are throwing out the bathwater. I have already explained that these flaws do not allow me to question the importance and thoroughness of this research course of the sermon.
“In a certain way the sermon process is a deductive process…” ? The correct one is “retrospective” [and as such prone to anachronisms]
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%A0%D7%9B%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%96%D7%9D
Therefore this movement is called a sermon, a demand” – in the first occurrence in the Torah: And the sons ran near her, and he said, If so, why is this me? And she went to demand [!] the’ – And the judge pressed Bani in his heart, and said, If so, why should I judge, and did you remove the slanderer from before the Lord?
A kind of evil
https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%9E%22%D7%92_%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%94%D7%95_%D7%99%D7%91_%D7%92
It seems to me that ”knowledge” of some content is not a binary thing – before I didn't know and now I know. But knowledge also has a *dimension of depth* – to what extent the thing has penetrated me and become part of my worldview. It is not for nothing that it is said that knowledge is in the sense of connection and engagement with the thing (“and the man knew”), and connection and engagement obviously have many possible levels. If someone knows a certain principle theoretically, and an unknown person actually lives by it, the unknown person has an advantage not only in the ”educational” level but also in the knowledge itself. Therefore, when one studies, for example, the books of the prophets, even if there is nothing new in their words and they constantly repeat the same message, the very fact that one repeats the same message from different directions helps to assimilate it into the soul and strengthens the depth of one's "knowledge", and therefore it can certainly be called "study".
I would be happy for an example.
Example: Two people learned that there is reward and punishment for actions. For one, it is just another piece of knowledge among many other pieces of knowledge, while the other has observed it a lot and illustrated it to himself with all sorts of examples and parables (some of which do not even teach it in a necessary way, but rather he has assumed what is wanted), until this knowledge accompanies him all the time and influences all his actions. In my opinion, it is certainly possible to say that there is a difference between them at the level of knowledge itself and not just a psychological difference (or that the distinction between knowledge and psychology itself is not that sharp).
I disagree with that. Hayutha suggested that there are some nuances that are added, and I am willing to accept that as a lesson. But what you are describing is internalization and education.
In the month of Sabbath, 5th of Shvat,
Ramada,
Good morning,
Are you still learning the ‘internalization and education’ of the zither? The Torah justifies the existence of the position of Rabbi Sinai ‘so that his fear may be upon you, so that you may not sin’, and so the king commands: ‘And write for him this Mishnah of the Torah on a scroll… and it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep the words of this Torah and these statutes, to do them, so that his heart may not be exalted above his brother, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment to the right or to the left…’
However, according to the ‘manufacturer’ instructions; we are also commanded to observe and delve deeply into the language of the Torah, as instructed by the Giver of the Torah: ‘This book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth; but you shall meditate on it day and night, that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will become wise’.
We have learned that studying the Torah is not only a tool for guidance and education, but also ‘a pleasant tree for becoming wise’.
With blessings, Yaron Fish”Ordner
And as is known, Maimonides (in his introduction to the first part) learned the foundations of faith from the Holy Scriptures.
Regarding the sage Shoshani, it seems that research today focuses on his life story and attempts to decipher the secret of his identity.
To answer this question, we need to start by saying: “They left me and kept my Torah” and try to clarify his thought system. As it turns out, a lot of written material remains from him, probably notes he wrote for himself.
These notes (along with oral things written by his students) can be an excellent basis for someone who wants to write a dissertation on his thought system, in the hope of processing his interpretive brilliance into his thought system.
Of course, such a task requires someone who is proficient in both Torah and philosophical literature, who can read and decipher the writings and also be familiar with the schools of thought with which he “corresponded.” So that the words of the “sage Shoshani” will be clear.
Best regards, Yifau”r
In S”d ve’ Bishvat P”a
Shaul Meizlish and Menachem Michelson, in their book ‘One, One, and One’ about the rabbi of Jerusalem, Rabbi Eliyahu Pardes, describe the sage Shoshani as one who, wherever he set foot, left behind a trail of admirers amazed by the scope of Jewish and general knowledge, and by his ability to weave the various fields of knowledge into stunning innovations’ (p. 368).
The first meeting between Rabbi Pardes and Shoshani took place when Shoshani lectured at ’Meshuvat Yitzhak’, where Rabbi Peres was staying with his son. There, as everywhere else, Shoshani amazed all those gathered with a brilliant lecture, from which sparks of genius flew in all directions like fireworks.
Rabbi Pardes also listened to his lecture, and after it a conversation developed between the two. Rabbi Pardes revealed, among other things, that the man knew the Bible and the Talmud from cover to cover by heart, as well as a wide range of commentators, which with immense talent he knew how to combine into one great and wonderful synthesis (ibid.).
This means: not only phenomenal knowledge in all the areas and nuances of the Bible and the Talmud, but also the ability to combine in a surprising way the various fields of knowledge, thereby shedding new light on familiar things.
Best regards, Yaron Fishel Ordner
Another quality that Rabbi Pardes emphasized in Shoshani's character was the ability to admit a mistake, and this is not a trivial quality in a person aware of his genius. ‘During the conversation, an argument broke out between them on some subject, and Rabbi Pardes disagreed with him. Later, Shoshani sought out Rabbi Pardes to tell him: You were right. I was wrong’.
On the 1st of September 2017, Shoshani's statement about Moses who hesitates between his universal identity and his Jewish identity, and ultimately chooses to be with the beaten side rather than with the beaters – expresses what many of that generation went through, whose fascination with Western culture led them to leave the ‘old ghetto’ of Judaism and embrace the progressive and enlightened universal identity.
The Holocaust, which revealed how far Europe is from ’enlightenment’ and proved to the Jew how alienated Europe is from him – led many to return to their Jewish identity. Many immigrated to the land, to build it and be built in it, and many others returned to proudly bear their Jewishness and feel solidarity with their brothers.
This miraculous process of revival – Shoshani expressed his words about Moses.
With greetings, Amioz Yaron Schnitzel”r
Shoshani, with his complete mastery of both Torah literature and Western thought, opened a door to hope for those who hesitated, by showing in practice that it is possible to create a combination in which Judaism and universalism complement each other.
In the Book of Tanya, at the end of Chapter 3, Edda explains what “knowledge” is, and there he explains, (as Joseph wrote), that it is a language of attachment and connection to a certain thing, and I heard a beautiful parable that illustrates this, about a simple farmer who could not read or write, who hired a tutor for his son, and one bright day the farmer received a letter in the mail, and since he could not read, he asked the tutor to read it for him, and when the tutor finished reading, the farmer burst into tears, because he learned of his father’s passing, while the tutor did not bat an eyelid, and apparently both were exposed to the same information? But, the information also affected the farmer emotionally, and for the tutor the information was not in the form of knowledge, but only added new knowledge to him, and perhaps the effect on emotion can be a measure of how deep my knowledge is, and the “teaching” What you mentioned is about the quantity and quality of my knowledge on an intellectual level.
In the Book of the Sabbath of the Passover
It must be said that Moses does not completely separate himself from his Egyptian identity, which means: the universal one, but rather buries it in the sand. As is known, the nature of burying in the sand is to intensify what is there. If what is buried in hot sand – then burying in the sand will increase its heat; if what is buried in cold sand – then the sand will cool it more.
Moses understands that his universal values are not mature enough to influence humanity, and therefore he buries them in the sand in order to cultivate and strengthen them and bring out the potential hidden in them.
When the people of Israel will be able to develop their unique values, the abundance of holy values, in the form of a ‘sea similar to the sky’, together with ‘speakers buried in the sand’, the universal values, which have matured all their needs by being buried in the sand– then the people of Israel will be able to have a proper influence on humanity, and then ‘peoples will call the mountain, there they will offer sacrifices of righteousness’
With blessings, Simcha Halevi Fish”l-Plankton
Indeed, after the Egyptian – Moses goes to a foreign land, temporarily frees himself from the Hebrew-Egyptian entanglement and ’turns a new page in a new place’. Even in Midian, Moza is a place to define himself in the mission of rescuing the oppressed,
But there he also understands that he must learn how to create a fundamentally healthy society, a society in which there are no persecutors and the persecuted. He marries a wife and starts a family, marries and negotiates with his father-in-law, the greatest expert in ’religious studies’ of all the cultures of the world, and specializes in leadership as a shepherd to his flock. When he returns after decades to save his people – he will come with a rich cargo of insights that will build a healthy society, a good basis for receiving divine guidance.
Moses in Midian is the only Hebrew who lives a life of freedom, and can think, observe and plan. After decades of thinking and observing, Moses could be the Archimedean point that could first move his people and eventually all of humanity. Moses also needs to go through a powerful burying ground. To be rewarded so that he can complete his task.
Best regards, Pedatzur Fishel Peri-Gan
Paragraph 3, line 3
… Moshe also has to go through ‘burial …
And regarding studying the Bible –
The author of the post claims, as usual, that any logical insight that emerges from studying the text is trivial, and therefore studying the text is unnecessary. And it is not.
There are many things that a person has never thought about in his mind, and only studying the text while discerning its allusions and ’wrinkles’ led him to think in this direction, that after thinking lies the insight that is plausible and acceptable, but not everything that is found to be logical after studying is trivial.
In any case, this is how the Giver of the Torah instructed Joshua ‘This book of the Torah will not depart from your mouth, but you will meditate on it day and night, for then you will make your ways successful and then you will be wise’. This is the ‘manufacturer's instruction’ to study the text, again and again, in order to extract insights relevant to life's questions from it.
Regards, Yaron Fishel Ordner
The same goes for reading in Chipufo in Congo. There can be many sources of inspiration.
Without derogating from his gentleness, his words are sweet to the palate and constitute a birthstone for the foreigner, but it was to his people Israel that our Creator bestowed His Torah to contemplate.
With best wishes, Shimpan Zevi Levingang-utang
Line 1
… His words are as sweet as dates, and are a stone that gives birth to ideas…
And this is ‘easy and heavy’, if from a human creation one can reach important insights – how much more so in a creation that is a ‘letter from God’ or the fruit of the Holy Spirit of righteous prophets and followers – how much more so can one learn great things from it.
With greetings, Phila Kofa
In the margins.
The fourth wrote “And he went out to his brothers – the Egyptians, for he was in the king's palace”. That is, the addition “because he was in the king's palace” came to prove that his brothers were the Egyptians. But what is the connection with the palace? The fourth had to say his brothers the Egyptians because he grew up with them. The interpretation itself, his brothers the Egyptians, is also strange and conflicts with the continuation of the verse “Hebrews from his brothers” and the fourth has no reason to stick himself into a strange interpretation. It is also written and saw in their suffering an interpretation of their slavery and work, and so they are the enslaved Hebrews (as in “And you brought them back from their suffering”). Even the Ramban did not comment that he disagreed with the Rabbi on this.
Therefore, if you read Damasthena Amina, she is a Ts and Ch’el, and he went out to his brothers, the Hebrews, because he was in the king’s palace. And the addition, because he was in the king’s palace, comes to explain why he needed to go out to his brothers, the Hebrews, and not see their suffering every day. And he explains that he was in the king’s palace, far from the industrial areas, the occupation, and the oppression. And all this is according to the custom of the Rabbi, who writes simple and understandable things without strange inventions.
Here (end of the right column) I found an old typescript in which it does indeed say “And he went out to his brothers – the Hebrews, for he was in the king's palace”:
https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=42335&st=&pgnum=39
And it should be added that the fourth, in his own language, simply writes “Moses' brothers”, who are the Hebrews. He suggests that the Holy One intended that Moses would not grow up among “his brothers” the Hebrews because there is no prophet in his city. This is his language: “Perhaps the Lord intended that Moses grow up in the royal house, so that his soul would be at the top in the way of learning and practice, and there would be no ordinary humiliation of being in a house of slaves. Don't you see that He killed the Egyptian because he was making a mess. And he saved the daughters of Midian from the shepherds who would make a fuss about watering their flocks from the water they had stolen. And one more thing: if he had grown up among his brothers and had known him in his youth, they would not have feared him because they would have considered him one of them.
Two comments.
A. I am attaching a link to a nice article by Yael Levin about Shoshani, which contains authentic testimonies about the man – the first of which is taken from the words of my grandfather, the late Dr. Yehuda Muriel, who knew Shoshani personally and spoke much in his praise.
https://www.makorrishon.co.il/judaism/14611/
B. I think, and not for the first time, that you are making a reduction to the definition of learning. Learning is not only ‘new information’ but also new insight. A new interpretive reading, in which the contents fit into the text, the legend or the verse, a button and a flower, is learning. (I put it in my mind: like a physical law that you knew well, you learned it long ago but you have just received additional confirmation of it in an unexpected place. This confirmation makes you think about it again and see additional aspects of it). Evidence of this is the joy of the heart that comes with such innovation, accompanied by the feeling that the learner is guided to the truth of the Torah, to the truth of a legend. He not only received confirmation of his values, but saw them appear in a new reality, in a new way, and thus learned more about the nature of man, about the nature of the forces with which he clashes. This is not just a banal repetition of previous content (write on the board a hundred times that one must behave politely to the teacher), because there is a new application of it here, and each such new application adds a layer to the understanding that is being raised or deepened.
It is possible, and examples are still needed. To the best of my impression, there is not much benefit in these ”study”, except for internalizing and confirming what is known (Mesilat Yesharim version). And by the way, all of this can of course happen in any other text.
What a beautiful answer.
Your soldier in Oriyya
thanks.
I would like to make a fundamental comment about the problematic nature of all these stories of saints. I went to the link that she attached (I think I read it before) and read interviews about Shoshani with Shalom Rosenberg and others.
Even if we assume that Shoshani was as great a genius as the poetic descriptions of him. A kind of combination of Einstein, Kant and Leonardo da Vinci. Why is this so important?
The relevant question is what contribution he left behind, and from what I understand, the contribution is very meager.
Learning, education and ”legacy” are expressed first and foremost in charges that can be passed on. Where are Shoshani”s charges..?
To “strengthen” my argument, I will bring a short demagogic story. A few years ago I was talking about Shoshani on the sidelines of a lecture by Uri Sharki. My interlocutor was a guy who wasn't a researcher or scholar or anything like that, but from my superficial impression he was an intelligent person. When he spoke with admiration about Shoshani, I asked him the same question about the man's contribution. The guy wasn't confused or embarrassed and immediately waved that Shoshani had produced students like Shalom Rosenberg and Levinas.
Is there anyone who can be convinced by such an answer..?
Yes. Me.
Congratulations. I wonder if you also value the specific contributions of people in those indirect ways in your daily life. Let alone the appreciation of someone's intellectual contribution.
I doubt the importance of Levinas's thought (I'm not talking about the man himself). If Shoshani's contribution to this thought is real (how do you measure it? How do you even give her credit for it?) I'm not sure how much it is to his credit.
Why students are not burdens. If the student manages to transfer intellectual burdens to you and says that he has progressed and achieved thanks to his teacher, then the teacher has actually transferred intellectual burdens to you (through the student). If you have a bottle of water, you can either drink from it or pour it into the ground to water a tomato bush and then eat the tomato that grows. Both are benefits that come out of the water. The only problem is that there is “ink” and the assessment of the teacher is blocked from above by the unification of the assessments of the students (does Pepper Tuba have ‘unification’ or another function, since different talents violate each other).
Students are not “chargers” for exactly the same reason that cats are not bananas and tables are not planets. These are two different things. Of course, I do not deny the ability of a brilliant and charismatic person to greatly influence the soul and life of his student, and of course this indirectly influences the student's ideas. But this is also true to a large extent of the influence of parents, siblings, spouses, etc. on the personality and skills of a person (and thinker).
Ask yourself: If Shoshani had such brilliant ideas, why didn't he bring them out himself (unless he did and they were lost)? Did he count on the fact that his influence on his students would one day result in their “liberation” from the minds of his students?
A product, even if it is Gothic, is still a “product”: it has relatively distinct criteria. See for example Kant, Plato and even Levinas himself (whose particular contribution can be relatively easily pointed out, even if I do not appreciate his path).
If you are looking for indications that Shoshani was a great and special sage, then there are two of them. One is the quality of the students, the other is the testimonies of the students. If you are looking for a benefit that you and I can receive from Shoshani's thoughts, then there is no direct benefit from them, but there is an indirect benefit from them through the mediation of the students (although these are not the same thoughts, the teacher's thoughts had an impact, according to the students' claims and feelings. I leave it as an exercise for you to formulate the distinction between this and the influence of a spouse). He did not leave any writings, and his students did not release any concrete products, which is indeed very strange and a suspicious indication of quality. So what is the discussion here about - is it "justified" to evaluate someone only based on indirect indications? A frivolous discussion in my opinion.
1. I am not looking for any indications of Shoshani's wisdom or uniqueness. I was looking for an indication of his contribution.
2. The students' testimony is important, especially because they are respected people. On the other hand, the fact that they are "quality" (let's assume that is true) has almost no weight in my opinion. Many respected people admired other people and even admired their "contribution" even when the latter was poor or problematic. I am not very interested in the mental state (=assessments) of the students.
3. This trivial topic interests me enough and probably you too, which is why you bothered to respond to it twice. However, I think it is not only of interest to both of us but also important. It reveals a bias that we all fall victim to sometimes, and that is the very focus on the trivial.
4. In the meantime, until the secret and ingenious writings of the man - who was probably truly a genius at certain things - are revealed, I allow myself not to be moved by the story. When they are revealed, we will talk.
As they said before and before you - you and I don't have students who would tell such stories about us.
1-2. You are not looking for indications of his wisdom, but thank God there are some. The students' assessment is a factual finding that should influence your factual (historical) beliefs, just as someone would tell you, "To Trumpeldor Street, turn right at the roundabout." And you wouldn't say, "Oh, his mental state is that in his mind there is an experience in which Trumpeldor Street is to the right of the roundabout."
4. There is no direct contribution left. No one disagrees with that. So what exactly are you claiming? I can offer several versions: A. That without a direct contribution left, it is not "fair" to assess the man. B. That without a direct contribution left, it is "wrong" to "get excited." C. That without a direct contribution that remained, there is no direct contribution that remained.
Version D. Without a direct contribution, it is likely that he was not such a great sage – you yourself rejected when you made it clear that you are not concerned with indications of his wisdom.
The version that seems most accurate to me, even though you refuse to deal with indications of his wisdom, is E. Testimonies from students tend to be exaggerated and the mystery creates a false aura so that his wisdom and uniqueness are probably on a lesser level than the myth describes. I completely agree with this (phenomenal memory in itself is of course of no importance. It is only a means).
3. What interests me is to show you that the subject is abstract.
1. You insist on clinging to the title “irrational” for a subject that is both interesting and important. Probably not just me. Maybe you feel that something “irrational” cannot be interesting or important…? I don't understand you.
2. Yes, Shoshani was probably very smart. Congratulations.
3. You tried to offer more refined versions of my argument. One of them was that there is nothing to “get excited” about the man or the story too much. I certainly buy this version, but it is not the main thing in my opinion.
The main thing is that people tend, as I may be one of them, to give too much credit to wisdom and brilliance. These virtues are very important, of course, but much less important than rationality and the bringing of rational products to light and putting them to the test.
Myths are sometimes worth putting to the test. In many cases, they are even worth shattering. The importance of "wisdom" (or "genius") is sometimes such a myth.
When there is an opportunity to lick a successful cult piece, we don't avoid it. From You Must Be Joking Mr. Feynman
https://ibb.co/6sd5YxS
The meaning of the words from Manito (Rabbi Yehuda Leon Ashkenazi zt”l) and his student Rabbi Sherki Shalit”a, perceives a different context. It is not just a word but as part of a complete belief system that sees the development of human identity from the first Adam to the future to come - through the people.
This perception begins with a deep understanding of the meaning of the Ari's doctrine of reduction, the breaking and the fixing, and from it the meaning for the process of moral development (and the unity of virtues).
Indeed, the choice to connect to the eternal divine path of the people is the ethical and moral decision in the knowledge. (This is also how the midrash in Shemot Rabba should be understood: the baby Moses reaches for coal instead of gold and because he reached for it, his speech was marred by stuttering.)
And one should extend the Tova.
Such a reading of the Bible and the teachings of the sages teaches about the internal processes that humanity and its people have gone through and still need to go through until complete redemption.
I received corrections to the epilogue in the column regarding David Kurzweil's article.
1. The one who created the connection between the plague of frogs and the Second Commandment was Chidushei Rim, not the author.
2. The insights (or "far-reaching conclusions in various and diverse fields") that he claims in his article are not the result of the comparison made by Chidushei Rim, but stand on their own. By virtue of these insights, an explanation was also offered there for the connection that Chidushei Rim claims. The pointing out of the connection is the result of the thesis, not the cause of it.
And this is what I answered:
This link still seems unnecessary and forced to me. It is not a question of guilt (of the author or the authors). My point was to point out the lack of value in links such as this.
I will also add that the distinction between the directions (from the ideas you described to the authors' claim, or vice versa) is not sharp in itself, nor in the article itself. Thus, for example, a scientific theory explains the facts but is also confirmed by them. Therefore, when the author explains the authors' claim, in essence he is also claiming that the authors' claim strengthens/confirms his own words.
It should be noted that the article opens with the statement that there is an eternal meaning to the frog's blow, and the article is actually intended to explain what that meaning is. But I disagree with exactly this. This is not the meaning of the frog's blow, and its attachment to the claims in the article is necessary. In my opinion, it neither adds nor detracts from the ideas themselves. It would have been better to present the ideas in their own right, without regard to the frogs and the lez and the Hasidic links between them.
In the Book of Songs, Chapter 4, the Frog is a symbol of the hope that the whole world will be united in accepting the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven. This is indicated by the Song of the Frog (Chapter Shira, end of Chapter 4), which says: Blessed is the name of the glory of His kingdom forever and ever. This is the praise that Jacob uttered when he saw that all his sons were united in their faith in Him and in accepting the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven.
With greetings, Tsafradi from the Carpathians
The frogs being a symbol of the struggle against idols is also expressed in the work from which Hananiah Mishael and Azariah learned the duty of devotion of the soul and not to bow down to images.
And thanks to faith and devotion, humanity will be granted the ’Tzafar-De’, a new morning in which the land will be filled with knowledge of the ’!
Greetings, Tzafardi from the Carpathians
In the 6th of Shvat, the 1st of the 1st century
The 1st of the 1st century, in his commentary on the stories of Rabbah bar Hanna, says that the ’akrokta’, the frog, symbolizes the thinkers of the Torah, according to the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah) that the plague of frogs that croak day and night came to Egypt as punishment for preventing Israel from meditating on the Torah day and night.
Similarly, Rabbi Yehonatan Eybshitz (in ’Yaarot Dvash’) and Rabbi Shlomo Ephraim of Luntzitz) wrote that the ’akrokta symbolizes the thinkers of the Torah. Their words are cited in the collection titled ‘Raba bar Hanna, Story of the Fifth’ on the ‘Daat’ website.
Indeed, the image of the frog is appropriate for scholars who can connect the Torah, which is likened to water, with the world of action that stands on land.
Greetings, Frogs from the Carpathians
On the ‘frog of the streams’ and its interests in the literature of the Sages, see the article by Dr. Moshe Raanan, ‘Shmuel Bechara להוה אקרבא יתיבא אכרוקטה’, (‘Daf Yomi Portal’, Nedarim 11:1)
The desire to attribute meaning and symbolism to the ten plagues is an understandable human desire. And commentators occasionally address it. For the plague of the firstborn, for example, the scripture gives its own interpretation: “O my firstborn sons of Israel, behold, I will strike your son with your firstborn.” This is hardly symbolic, but very direct. The plague of blood is the most symbolic, understandable, and strongest in my opinion, as it has a clear visual expression of the blood of the babies that, as it were, floated and rose from the light into which they were thrown. The darkness can be interpreted as an expression of loss of direction and moral blindness, etc. One can argue whether Kurzweil’s suggestion regarding the frogs is appropriate or not, but it does not seem right to dismiss outright the experience itself, which has value and benefit. Man seeks meaning and significance. Because that is what he was created for.
Is there no difference between “measure for measure” (a type of justice) and symbols (conveying messages)?
The plague of the firstborn is measure for measure – The Egyptians harmed the firstborn son of God, and therefore God harms the firstborn of Egypt. This is indeed direct from Scripture.
But a plague of blood, even if there is truly a connection to babies, is not measure for measure but a symbolic matter. Similarly, darkness as representing a loss of moral path is a general symbol or message to the world. But the entire symbol is unnecessary. What does this message give and what is it intended for and for whom is it something new.
Life, the search for meaning is a subjective matter. Each person has their own meaning. It is not a study. Whether or not man was created for this, I can argue about that separately, but that is not the discussion here. I can search for meaning in the telephone pole next to me because that is what I was created for, and say that its integrity and uprightness are comparable to the integrity and uprightness of the stature required of me.
The comparison does not begin. The erection of the electric pole stems from practical reasons and does not require further explanation. The detail of the ten plagues, the choice of them specifically, their writing in the Torah, all of these have a reason that we must decipher, in order to learn from them Torah and a lesson.
I don't think it's from Mr. Shoshani. From what I understood from reading the Torah, the form of identities is an innovation by Manitou.
Regarding your five questions. 1-3: They are questions about this specific interpretation. It has nothing to do with the actual study of the Bible.
4: What does it matter if there is an innovation? Now we know that this idea has a basis in the Holy Scriptures.
5: This concerns question 1. If this is truly the true interpretation and you believe that the Torah is from heaven, then you won't accept it?
Manitou was one of Shoshani's students. According to his own testimony, part of his mishnah is from things Shoshani taught.
My impression is that Mr. Shoshani was a kind of Rabbi Moshe Shapira, an impressive man, with whom you get the feeling that he is greater than you, but when you try to detail and articulate what he innovated or what he changed, you find syllables and brilliance, and what is left for you is to tell your friends that you were in Rabbi Moshe's classes.
(And I heard him quite a lot)
I have no idea who R’ Moshe Shapira is.
I only know that Mr. Shoshani has writings and there is someone who is trying to publish them. They are simply very, very disorganized and the writing is both difficult to understand and the wording is difficult to understand and requires extensive knowledge. God willing, his writings will be published.
If anyone knows, I would love to hear:
What did Shoshani say/write regarding the confused teacher Maimonides?
What did he do during his time in the US?
Where can I get the books that were published about him?
Who is trying to publish his writings today?
Thank you!
How does this whole column fit in with what the Tosafot wrote in Tractate Pesachim on page 13, and burn impure, dependent, and pure offerings, even if it is said that it is forbidden to burn pure ones because it is written about the preservation of my offerings, just as it is forbidden to defile them, here, the Shari, despite the fact that from the Torah, it is in the Torah to be annulled and it does not need to be burned everywhere, since it is forbidden to be destroyed and lost, and it is permissible to burn it as it is to defile it, which Rabbi Meir permitted at the end of the chapter to burn impure with pure ones. It is very important to adapt our intellect to the intellect of the Torah, and not the Torah to our intellect, but I am getting away from this. The whole approach here is invalid, save me.
For example, in any subject, whether it is sacred or secular studies, the proportion of "study" compared to "memorization" is not particularly high. Are history lessons study or just internalization of names, dates and events? Are we going to innovate anything after a lecture by a zoologist? It should be said to the credit of Bible commentators that they are not content with providing an explanation of this or that expression; they provide food for thought.
I have often explained that new facts are learning. I received something I didn't know. And repeating them is also learning because it helps me retain them. But neither of these things happens in studying a legend or the Bible. There, at most, it is internalization and education. There is no fear that I will forget that there was King David or that Israel left Egypt.
In the S”d Ch’ B’vt P”a
To Ramd”a – Shalom Rav
Where did you get the claim that only something new is considered ’learning Torah’. After all, the whole point of the Talmud Torah mitzvot is to learn from ’shonatam to your children’ which is about ‘memorization’.
Naturally, when you memorize and repeat – ‘there is no Beit Midrash without innovation’ and new understandings are renewed, but how can I say that inventing innovations is the very essence of learning that is never-ending?
Such a perception can also cause distortion in the learner, who may constantly search for all kinds of strange explanations in order to fulfill the obligation of ‘innovation’. If I have reached a correct understanding, do I have to reverse it?
With the blessing of ‘old wine that the wisdom of the elderly is comfortable with’, Simcha Fish”l Halevi Plankton
A new fact for the learner, not necessarily a new fact in the world. Even hearing from my son that the washing machine has finished working is learning. Hearing from him that according to Halacha it is forbidden to desecrate Shabbat is not learning.
But there is a fear that you will forget what is written in Parashat Mishpatim, for example. And there is a fear that you will forget what Jeremiah said, and also that you will not notice that what he said would happen due to failure to keep the Torah, did happen. There is a fear that you will not know how to draw parallels between the history of the people of Israel and what is written in Parashat HaAzino, and so on and so forth.
I am being petty, but I really have a hard time understanding this argument of the rabbi.
Especially in a country where at least half of its Jews have long since forgotten what is written in the Torah.
All of this is beyond the profound insights that are gained through in-depth reading.
By all indications, it appears that Mr. Shoshani is no longer unknown and hidden and is certainly Hillel Perlman, a student of Rabbi Kook from his time as Rabbi of Jaffa.
The photo of “Mr. Shoshani” compared to the found photo of Hillel Perlman in his youth leaves no room for confusion
The question is how many percent of Judaism you have rejected with this criticism. You should have started with a definition, what do you expect a great man in Israel to be, and then see if he meets the criteria. Nothing will satisfy you anyway.
https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%98%D7%92%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%94:%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%91_%D7%99%D7%98
If only you were a millionaire”from your pretentiousness…
You would Knows
https://www.mgketer.org/tanach/2/2/19
https://www.mayim.org.il/?parasha=%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%A8%D7%99#gsc.tab=0
https://tora-forum.co.il/threads/%d7%90%d7%99%d7%a9-%d7%9e%d7%a6%d7 %a8%d7%99-%d7%94%d7%a6%d7%99%d7%9c%d7%a0%d7%95-%d7%9e%d7%99%d7%93-%d7%94%d7%a8%d7%95%d7%a2%d7%99%d7%9d-%d7%95%d7%9b%d7%99-%d7%9e%d7%a6%d7%a8%d7%99-%d7%94%d7%99%d7%94-%d7%9e%d7%a9%d7%94.26625/
Rabbi Levi said before him, Rabshal, Joseph's bones entered the land and I did not enter the land? The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "He who acknowledged his country is buried in his country, and he who did not acknowledge his country is not buried in his country." Where did Joseph acknowledge his country? His mistress says (Genesis 39): "Behold, he has brought us a Hebrew man and did not acknowledge, but said, 'I stole from the land of the Hebrews.' He was buried in his country, as it is said, 'And the bones of Joseph... they buried him in Shechem. You who did not acknowledge your country, you shall not be buried in your country! How? The daughters of Jethro say: We rescued an Egyptian from the hands of the shepherds, and he hears and is silent, therefore he was not buried in his country."
https://www.inn.co.il/news/521809