Rabbi Yitzchak Breitowitz: The Two Moshiachs and the Blessing of Flawed Leadership

So, we are of course in Hamish Brachot, the largest thematic story in Sefer Brachot is the story of Joseph and his brothers, which unfolds across several parshahs. I want to start off with the haftorah. The haftorah for parshat Vayechi Gash is in Sefer Yechezkel. Now, just to put it in historical perspective, Yechezkel is actually very, very unique. Yechezkel is a prophet whose prophecy occurs in Babylonia. If you recall, the Golus Bavel took place in two stages. 11 years before the Korban Beis Hamikdash, after Nevuchadnezzar had conquered Eretz Yisrael, there was the first wave of exiles, which were mainly the learned and the aristocratic elements. They were exiled to Bavel, and they are termed the Charash and the Masger, which literally means the carpenters and the locksmiths. But, Chazal understands that to mean the Talmidei Chachamim. And that was the Golus that occurred under King Yoshiyahu. Mordechai, of Purim fame, was in fact part of that first wave of exiles. That's why it says in the Megillah, Asher Hegolah MiYerushalayim, that Mordechai was exiled from Jerusalem im hagolah asher huglasa, with the exiles that were exiled in Yechanya, Melech Yehuda. Yechanya, Yechin Yechanya is the same name. This was 11 years before the Churban. Then 11 years later was the final end of the Jewish state. That was the Galus of Sidkiyahu and the Churban Beis Hamikdash. So essentially the Navi Yechezkel was of the first wave of exiles who was the Charash and the Maskir. Yirmeyahu on the other hand stayed in Eretz Yisrael until the bitter end. And Yirmeyahu himself was of course an eyewitness to the Churban Beis Hamikdash. So the Nevuos of Yechezkel are primarily in the 11 years from the Galus of Yehoyachin until the Galus of Sidkiyahu. And if you look at the dating in Yechezkel, you will see that. So Yechezkel and Yirmeyahu are mamash contemporaries. They are living exactly the same time, unlike Yeshayahu that is much earlier. Yeshayahu was a prophet before the exile of the 10 tribes. Which was more than 100 years before the Churban. But Yechezkel and Yirmeyahu are both the prophets at the time of the Churban Beis Hamikdash. But Yechezkel's prophecy is in Bavel. And Yirmeyahu's prophecy is in Eretz Yisrael. Now that makes Yechezkel quite quite unique because Chazal actually tell us that generally speaking Nevuah does not exist in Chutz La'aretz. Nevuah only exists in Eretz Yisrael. But in the aftermath of the Galus and the Churban, Hashem wanted to communicate his love for Am Yisrael and therefore Hashem as it were made an exception allowing a Nevuah to exist even in Chutz La'aretz. In fact, the most famous Nevuah of Yechezkel is the most enigmatic and the most mystical. And that is the Merkavah. Perek Aleph of Yekezkel is the vision of the divine chariot, the key say hakavod, the angels that surround the God's throne and those that carry God's throne. And the Ma'aseh Merkavah is said to be the most esoteric part of all of the Kitzvei Hakodesh. We actually read it the haftorah of the first morning of in Israel the only the morning of Shavuos, the Ma'aseh Merkavah and the Gemara says the gig has a whole bit of discussion that the Ma'aseh Merkavah should not be taught to anyone unless that person is very righteous and is able to understand from his own able to understand various hints and and like. And this was given to Yekezkel. This was given to Yekezkel. Yekezkel had the vision of the Ma'aseh Merkavah of the seraphim, the ofanim, the chayos hakodesh, all of these spiritual entities. In fact, there's even a reference there in one of the Gemara of the Ma'aseh Merkavah it actually mentions that on the key say was demus adam. There was something that had the image of a human. And Rashi comments on that pasuk ain li reshus lefaresh I don't have permission to describe what is actually going on. But somehow prophetically at least God was perceived in some type of human form with the understanding of course that that's not the reality but that is how the prophetic eye conceptualized its connection or his connection to the divine. Again, very very difficult. Now, Yekezkel's prophecies have many many sorts. Most of them are mussar and tochacha. Most of them are rebuke urging the Jewish people to do chuvah before the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash. There is a famous dramatic scene where Yechezkel has a nevu'ah of angels of destruction that were commanded by God to go through the city of Yerushalayim and wipe out man and woman, boy and girl children, wipe them out. But the angels were then told to inscribe a tav on the foreheads of the righteous and that would protect them from the other angels of destruction. And the Gemara explains in Maseches Shabbos that the tav was the symbol of the tzaddikim who kept the whole Torah from aleph to tav. Mhm. But the Aida Zei, but then the Gemara goes on and says there was a very interesting discussion. Hashem had an argument, so to speak with the Middas HaDin, the attribute of judgment. And that is the attribute of judgment asked Hakadosh Baruch Hu "Why are you sparing these righteous people?" And Hashem said because they're righteous. But the Middas HaDin says they could have been moche, they could have protested all the evil that was being done. And because they didn't protest that evil, they didn't try to stop it they are complicit. So the Middas HaDin argues that even if a person does not do anything directly bad if they could have stopped aveiros and they did not they are accountable. But the Middas HaRachamim said to Hakadosh Baruch Hu "Hakadosh Baruch Hu, galui veyadua, it is well known to you that if they would have tried to stop it, it would have been ineffectual." So that gave them a little bit of a chance but the Middas HaDin had the final word. And the Middas HaDin said "Hashem you know that it would have been unavailing. How did they know?" And because of this the Gemara says this was the only time in history when God had decreed a hot sala, a saving for a group of people, and Hashem was hozer, Hashem changed. Cuz normally we have a rule that a positive brachos are not withdrawn. Once Hashem decrees that somebody will be saved, they will be saved. This is the one exception that the midas hadin says chav, they should have been maracha. So that's one nevuah of Yechezkel. Another nevuah of Yechezkel is which he in which he is either miraculously or in his mind's eye transported from Babylon to Yerushalayim. And he is seen an image in the Beis Hamikdash of Kohanim, of supposed tzaddikim, right, the most righteous of Am Yisrael, that they are actually worshipping rats and rodents and spiders and insects. Worshipping them? Worshipping them. As if Hashem is saying, externally these look like righteous people. But in fact, they are corrupt and filled with filthy aveiros. Right? So Yechezkel has many of these graphic uh nevuahs. Uh in addition, uh Yechezkel himself had to suffer in his own body the pains of future galus. So for example, uh he lost his wife. He was told, "Your wife is going to die, and you will not even be given the opportunity to mourn her." In fact, many of the halachos of mourning we learn out of what Yechezkel was told not to do. Uh he was told, "Put on your tefillin when your wife dies." And that's the proof that an avel does not wear tefillin on the first day of shiva. "Wear your shoes." That's how we know that the avel does not wear shoes. From the fact that Yechezkel was told not to observe the laws of mourning, we actually infer what the laws of mourning were. And therefore, this kind of symbolized the idea that the Jewish people are going to suffer a devastation and will not have the psychological release of being able to mourn and to grieve and to find healing through that process of mourning. So, right. So, this is a safer Yechezkel. Again, a very, very beautiful, powerful, difficult safer. The end of safer Yechezkel is uh what you might call blueprints. It talks about the future Beit Hamikdash. The vivid description of the third temple is in the end of safer Yechezkel. And it's problematical. There actually is a discussion in the Gemara that the Chachamim wanted to uh ban safer Yechezkel from the Tanakh because there are many halakhic statements that don't correspond to the halakha as we know it. That at the end of Yechezkel, the korbanos that are going to be brought on the Yomim Tovim are not the same as the korbanos in the Torah. There are rules regarding Kohanim that seem to be bizarre. For example, it mentions a Kohen can only marry the widow of a Kohen. Now, what is that talking about? If you're talking about a regular Kohen, a regular Kohen can always marry a widow. The only person a Kohen cannot marry is a divorced woman. And if you're talking about a Kohen Gadol, a Kohen Gadol cannot marry any widow, even the widow of a Kohen. So, what type of rule would it be that a Kohen can only marry the widow of a Kohen? Uh similarly, it mentions Kohanim are not allowed to eat neveilah. They cannot eat meat that was not properly slaughtered. Why only a Kohen? This applies to we Israel as well. So, Hazal had many many problems and the before from the cloud have a lot of difficulty with the end of safer Yekezkel that seems to create a new world order when Mashiach comes and there's the Ula that does not track exactly the mitzvahs of the Torah and seems to be in violation of the principle that the Rambam articulated later that the Torah is eternal and will not be superseded or replaced. Again, I'm not here to answer all of those questions. The before from have different Malachim whether the mitzvahs will be exactly the same when Mashiach comes, whether they will be different, or perhaps Yekezkel is not talking about the days of Mashiach, perhaps he is talking about a later stage which is resurrection of the dead which is truly a new world. Again, many many opinions. This makes Yekezkel very very fascinating as I indicated there was even a position on Hazal that we should put it in Genizah, we should sign it to oblivion because it was a heretical safer, but it eventually got saved. A few biblical books were like that. Shira Shira, you'll recall. Some of the rabbis considered it to be semi-pornographic love poetry and they didn't want to put it into Tanakh until Rabbi Akiva saved the day by showing it was a metaphor for the love between God and the Jewish people. So, there were there were Sefarim that almost didn't make it. Other Sefarim didn't make it. The books of the Apocrypha. The book of the Maccabees, etc. This is called Sefarim Chitzonim. These are books that are not part of our Tanakh, but even the books that are part of Tanakh sometimes was not so clear what would be in, what would not be in, etc. By the way, in the Catholic Bible, I'm not sure if I mentioned this, the books of the Apocrypha, such as the books of the Maccabees, are actually part of the official Catholic version of the Old Testament. So, if you have a Catholic Bible, not that you should have one, uh you actually will have the Book of the Maccabees and these other books in the Bible itself. In our Masorah, of course, these are called Sefarim Chitzonim and they are excluded from the canon, although they are considered to be useful historical uh sources and the like. So, in one of Yechezkel's prophecies, this is the Haftorah of Parshas Vayeigash, he talks about he was commanded well, he was commanded by Hashem to take two sticks, two pieces of wood, and engrave on one piece of wood Yehudah, and engrave on the other piece of wood Yosef, and hold the sticks together, and combine them, and they will become one in his hand. And the symbolism of that prophecy, which he had to act out in a physical way, is that God is promising Remember that uh Yosef uh was considered to be the ruler of the 10 tribes because uh the the Malchus Yisrael of the north, which was 10 tribes, was ruled in Shomron by the Shevet of Efraim. Efraim were the royal line of Malchus Yisrael. So, so therefore, as a result, Malchus Yisrael, the northern kingdom of the 10 tribes, is often referred to as Yosef. The southern kingdom, which had Yerushalayim and the Beit Hamikdash, and the only tribes that were there were Yehudah, Binyamin, and most of the Kohanim and Levi'im, which were centered around the Beit Hamikdash, they are called Malchus Yehudah because the royal uh line was Malchus Beit David from Shevet Yehudah. Now, the 10 tribes had already been dispersed long before Yechezkel. This was the exile of the Assyrian king, Sennacherib, and the 10 tribes were never officially reunited with Am Israel, and thus we talk about the lost 10 tribes. And where they are to this very day, according to some opinions, is a bit of a mystery. In the 19th century, there was a common belief that the American Indian was descended from the 10 tribes. Right? There was actually a belief in the 19th century. Others connect them to the Vikings. The Ethiopian Jews, uh according to the Radvaz, are descended from Shevet Dan. Throughout the Middle Ages, there were people who came from far away countries. Many of them were impostors claiming to be from the miraculous kingdoms that the 10 tribes had set up in China and India and different parts of Asia. And again, if you look at the throughout the Middle Ages, you will find various people coming forth claiming to be representatives of the 10 tribes. So, by and large, the 10 tribes were lost, killed, destroyed, intermarried, assimilated. In truth, let me point out though, that many of the 10 tribes simply assimilated into Malchus Yehuda. So, for example, people often think, "Oh, well, if I'm a Jew, and I'm not from Gad or then I must either be from Yehuda or Binyamin or a Cohen or a Levi. I can't be from Yissachar or Reuven or Shimon, because they are of the 10 tribes, and the 10 tribes were lost." That's not quite true, because even when the 10 tribes were a separate autonomous kingdom, there were many individual people who immigrated to the south for parnassa or for any other reason. So, any given Jew, any one of us, could be from any one of the 12 tribes. We could be a Yissachar, we could be a Zevulun, but at least as a national entity, the 10 tribes were lost. The 10 tribes were destroyed. And Yehezkel's nevu'ah of the two sticks was designed to communicate to Am Yisrael that not only will this remnant be redeemed and be brought back to the land with the Beit Hamikdash, but there will eventually be the unification of Yosef and Yehudah. And this is even seen in the messianic process where before there is a Mashiach ben David, there will be the Mashiach ben Yosef who will pave the road for the Mashiach ben David. The Mashiach ben Yosef is quite an enigmatic figure because we are told he will appear, but he will be killed in the wars of Gog and Magog, which by the way are also in Yehezkel. The wars of Gog and Magog are in Yehezkel. And what is the war of Gog and Magog? Arab-Israeli conflict, the Cold War, World War II, uh Islamic fundamentalism, pick your choice. There are so many different people that try to relate the wars of Gog and Magog to various events uh that have already happened. We hope it already happened. Or some connected to events that haven't haven't happened yet. Uh there's an old mesorah from the Vilna Gaon that the war of Gog and Magog will be 10 minutes long. And for hundreds of years, nobody understood what the Vilna Gaon meant. How could a war, what type of war could be 10 minutes long? But today, unfortunately, we understand what types of conflicts could be over in 10 minutes. And that's a very, very scary thing. But be that as it may, Mashiach ben Yosef is somehow connected to the wars of Gog and Magog. And Mashiach ben Yosef paves the way to Mashiach ben David. And this is all implicit in Yechezkel's vision of the two sticks. And the connection to the parashah is very, very obvious. Because in the parashah, we also see the unification of Yehudah and Yosef, where Yehudah is the one that steps forward to initially confront Yosef, not knowing, of course, that he's Yosef, thinking that he's just the second-in-command to the king. And Yehudah is willing to give his life and freedom for Binyamin. And that, in turn, causes Yosef to break down and cry. And what do you ultimately have? You ultimately have the reunification of Yehudah and Yosef. And based on the teaching of Masa Avot Siman Banim, whatever happens to our forefathers is a sign of what will happen to us. That meeting, Vayigash Eilav Yehudah, is symbolic of Mashiach ben Yosef, Mashiach ben David, and Yechezkel's Nevuah of the ultimate reunification of Yosef, that represents the 10 tribes, and Yehudah that represents Yehudah and Binyamin, Kohanim and Levi'im, uh the smaller, maybe more significant religiously, element of Am Yisrael. So, the Haftarah is obviously thematically connected uh to the parashah in that uh in that sense. Interesting, just as a little aside about Mashiach ben Yosef for a moment. Uh one of the Vilna Gaon's talmidim wrote a sefer. It's largely Kabbalistic. It's called Kol HaTor. HaTor with a Tav, that means the sound of the uh turtledove. And Kol HaTor is a sefer uh based on Kabbalah about Mashiach, about Geulah, about building up Eretz Israel. It was written by a disciple of the Gra who actually made it to Eretz Israel. The Vilna Gaon wanted to come. The Vilna Gaon did not make it. But this talmid did make it as many talmidim of the Gra made it. And this is Rav Hillel of Shklov. And it's interesting, the safer is a bit controversial and some people argued it was a forgery. That's the new minag now whenever a safer says something that is not missing mainstream uh Torah world uh idea, people say, "Oh, it must be forged." But the Am Ha'aretz says it's not forged and uh it's it's veracity has been attested to. And here's what the Vilna Gaon is quoted as saying. The Vilna Gaon is quoted as saying that Mashiach ben Yosef as a person will be killed in the horrendous wars of Gog and Magog. But Mashiach ben Yosef can take another form. It doesn't have to take the form of a person. It could take the form of a movement and a philosophy. And the same way that Yosef in Mitzrayim prepared the physical infrastructure of the economy so that Yehuda could then create the spiritual community of the Jewish people that sustained them in Egypt. So too, the role of Mashiach ben Yosef as a movement is to prepare a physical structure in Eretz Israel. Zionist? That's correct. Uh which could then pave the way for the spiritual renaissance. Was he alluding Was the Gra alluding to Zionism? is what This is the This is the controversy. And therefore the Vilna Gaon saw Huh? I didn't hear What died? He says nothing. I said I mean he meaning there are alternative scenarios for Mashiach ben Yosef. Mashiach ben Yosef if we're not zocheh there will be wars and a person that die. If we are so hot, Mashiach ben Yosef will refer to the building up of Eretz Israel, which will then be a predicate for a spiritual rejuvenation. And therefore, the Vilna Gaon concludes that the physical building of Eretz Israel is an indispensable condition for the bringing of Mashiach. Contrary to those who might say, "We don't go back to Eretz Israel until Mashiach comes." The Vilna Gaon says the return to the land and the building of the land in terms of agriculture, in terms of industry, in terms of people living here, the Vilna Gaon says is the condition that will bring Mashiach ben David. Now, granted, the Vilna Gaon was not endorsing what you might call secular Zionism. The Vilna Gaon emphasizes over and over again uh in his writing that this should be done uh in the ruach of the Torah and mitzvahs. But, one should know that the Kol HaTor in Lithuania uh had not been printed, but it had been passed around in manuscript copies, was a very, very, very influential book in Lithuania. Uh it uh it deeply influenced people like the Netziv and Rav Kook and the like. This was kind of the common knowledge among the Gedolim, among the Rabbanim, that building up Eretz Israel in a physical sense was a necessary redemptive stage, and that was the precursor to Mashiach ben David. And in fact, the Arizal writes that when we have in the Shmoneh Esrei the bracha about Malchut Beit David, Malchut Beit David, we say "V'chisei David m'heira l'socha tachin." May you speedily prepare, set up, the throne for Dovid Hamelech, which is Mashiach. The Arizal says, that is a reference to Mashiach ben Yosef. Mashiach ben Yosef is the kisei for Mashiach ben Dovid. Now, the reason this was controversial is because, at least taken out of context, the Gra seems to be seeing a role for Zionism. Uh in as part of a redemptive process, as shalom to the Geulah, and we say shalom to the Geulah Tenai. So, if you were a non-Zionist or an anti-Zionist, you didn't like that particular reference. There's another thing they didn't like as well, which has nothing to do with this. Did you make the Gra originate that phrase? It was the kisei Dovid? No, it's smicha to No, no, no, no, he did not. No, that that was added by Rav Tzvi Hirsch Agnon in the uh in the prayer for the shalom Medina. But, what I'm saying is that the the Gra is seems to be invoking an idea that is that is very that is very similar. Another thing in the Kol HaTorah that was controversial, that is not really relevant uh for our discussion, is that the Gra is quoted as endorsing the great importance of secular studies. Uh chachmas chitzoniyos, and the Gra is quoted as saying, "For every measure of secular knowledge that you lack, you will be deficient in 10 measures of Torah knowledge. And therefore, it is absolutely essential that a talmid chacham be a master of science and mathematics and even music and the like, because that will be a mafteiach, that will be a key that will enable a person to understand the Torah. Now, there too, people don't like that. So, they say, "The whole thing is forge, not true." But, the Rav Chaim Friedlander says that. Oh, yeah, sure, people say people always say that. But, Rav Chaim Friedlander, who uh, really Chareidi Mashgiach of Ponevezh, very, you know, very, very well-respected and admired uh, mainstream Chareidi Gadol uh, investigated the matter and did conclude, indeed, that the Kol HaTor seems to be an authentic repository of the Vilna Gaon's teachings, and it was not the composition of Zionist Maskilim who wanted to incorporate both Zionism and secularism and attributed it to the Gaon. As I say, the Kol HaTor uh, was not well-known to the general public until uh, recently, but it was kind of the private uh, book of uh, many, many Gedolim in Lithuania in manuscript form, and it said it did it did have deep influence on the founders of religious uh, Zionism and on people like the Netziv and Rav Kook. Of course, Rav Kook was a Talmid of the Netziv, uh, who endorsed this idea of the physical building. And the truth of the matter is, you actually see this. The Vilna Gaon himself uh, wanted to come to Eretz Yisrael, and he did not merit to come. In fact, the Kol HaTor records a reason why. The Kol HaTor actually says that the Vilna Gaon was a reincarnation of the Neshama of Moshe Rabbenu. He knew, you know, the whole Torah. And the same way that Moshe Rabbenu was not allowed to enter Eretz Yisrael, the Vilna Gaon could not enter Eretz Yisrael, either, because it was decreed in heaven that Moshe could not enter Eretz Yisrael, but the Talmidim of the Vilna Gaon were like Yehoshua bin Nun, and they were permitted to enter. So, the Gaon himself, the Vilna Gaon, did not enter Eretz Yisrael, but his Talmidim did come, and many of the neighborhoods in Yerushalayim, the first neighborhoods outside of the Old City walls, whether it's Mea Shearim, Nachalat Shiva, uh, Yemin Moshe, and the Moshe is always Moses Montefiore, who uh, gave the money for all of these different neighborhoods. Um Mishkenot Sha'ananim, which originally was actually a neighborhood, kind of a dormitory, small neighborhood. All of those things. Uh they were physically built by the talmidim of the Gra. They were physically built, and they made a whole point that they wanted to be the bricklayers and the plumbers and and the artisans because they felt that if religious learned righteous people are involved in the physical of the land that will give it a spiritual enduring that it otherwise would not have. So, they were not they did not want to use Arab workers or workers who were not shomer Shabbos. They insisted that they physically be involved in the binyan ha'aretz because that would be the Mashiach ben Yosef foundation that would eventually bring the Mashiach ben David redemption. Right? This is the sefer called ha'Tur. It is available online in an English translation, but the English translation is well, it's nearly incomprehensible. English translation I mean uh as hard as the Hebrew is, it's easier to read than the uh than the English translation. So, uh whatever, you know, you could try looking at it and see. Again, it's largely kabbalistic. Um many many gematrias, like hundreds of different gematrias and the like. Uh so, you can get lost in the labyrinth of of detail. But the overall structure, the overall ideas are very powerful idea. And that is the idea essentially of of religious Zionism that the building of the land and the bringing of the Jews back to Eretz Israel is the precursor that brings the Mashiach ben David. The Mashiach ben Yosef can take the form of both the individual, but that's kind of the negative side or the movement of the Jewish people coming back to Eretz Israel. All right, so this is the Torah and the Torah comes right after the war of Gog and Magog and it's the after the prophecies of the wars of Gog and Magog and this is the Torah of the ultimate reunification of the Jewish people. And that's a very, very important part because that reminds us all that redemption is not simply an individual thing. Oh, Hashem all redeemed. But part of our redemptive vision is the unification of Israel. That all of the Jews that have been dispersed, that have been lost, whether through assimilation or whether simply intermarriage or being lost over the centuries should be reunited with us. That no Jew should be lost as the previous song goes, no Jew should be left left behind because redemption is not just about what's good for me. It's linking myself to Israel in all of its totality. And that's why the unification of Joseph and Yehuda is is is is very, very significant, very important in this way. But now I want to focus on on this idea and that is we know that Joseph and Yehuda represent different different models of leadership. In effect, we have two brothers who did have royal roles. Joseph was of course a virtual in the tribe. He was the mission of the tribe. And Yehuda was kind of the head of the brothers. Eventually from Yehuda came based of it and Messiah. And the fortune are all made on the idea given the fact that Joseph has the executive experience of running an empire, running a country. Why is Malchus given and Yaakov Avinu on his deathbed said, lo yasur shevet miYehuda. The scepter of royal authority belongs to Yehuda, not to Yosef. And of course, I think I mentioned before Hanukkah that the Ramban says that all of the kings of the 10 tribes were acting contrary to Halakha because they were not from Malchus Yehuda. And even the Hasmonean, whose rebellion against the Yevanim was totally l'shem Shamayim, and the Hasmonean were Hasidei Elyon, they were righteous and pious, but the Hasmonean line was eventually totally destroyed because they violated the commandment of lo yasur shevet miYehuda. So, the question becomes, why does Malchus belong to Yehuda more than to Yosef? You might think Yosef himself deserves the role of Malchus. So, here, let's go back to an another Navi, whose whose nevu'ah is not the Haftarah for this week. This is the Navi Amos. Amos also one of the 12 smaller prophets, not not smaller in stature, but smaller in the size of the book. That's why the uh statement the minor prophets is absolutely not not correct. They're all major prophets, but smaller. And Amos writes the following. When he describes the Messianic era, he says, hinei yamim ba'im, behold, days will come, venigash choresh bekotzer, that the plower will bump into the harvester. And the analogy that is being given here is that there'll be so much prosperity in the harvest that they'll still be harvesting last year's crop when it's time to plow for the new crop at the Horesh will bump into the Kotzer. Right, that's how magnificent the fertility of the land will be. That's Pshuto shel Mikra. But the Medrash says that there's an allegorical meaning to Horesh u'Kotzer. The Horesh the plower is Yehuda. And the Kotzer is Yosef. V'Nigash Horesh u'Kotzer is the ultimate reunification of Yehuda and Yosef. And this quotes the pasuk Vayigash eilav Yehuda. V'Nigash is the same word. V'Nigash Horesh u'Kotzer Horesh zeh Yehuda Kotzer zeh zeh Yosef. But isn't that the reverse? That Yosef is supposed to come first. So the plower comes first. So how can Yehuda be the plower? Well, the the pro- Well, no. No, no. But but in that pasuk it's going the other way around because the plower is the new plowing. Horesh u'Kotzer means that last year's harvest will still be going on Oh, I'm sorry. I understand. Right, so that's that. So Yosef is first. Yes, yes, yes. So the question becomes, based on this metaphoric understanding why is Yosef referred to as the plower and Yehuda referred to as the harvester? Oh, I'm sorry, the other way around. Why is Why is Yosef referred to as the harvester and Yehuda referred to as the plower? So here we have a thought from uh one of the great Hasidic Rebbes, the Avnei Nezer who actually wrote a book on Hilchos Shabbos. So he uses the halachic definition of the melachos to illustrate this. Right, one of the melachos of Shabbos, one of the 39 melachos of Shabbos, is called plowing. What is plowing? Softening the dirt to make it receptive to seed. Softening the dirt. Liyer puyeh areh. Softening the dirt. What is kotzer? What is harvesting? Oker davar migidulo. Uprooting something from its source of sustenance, right? So, halachically, this is the definition. Choreish is liyer puyeh areh, softening the land. Kotzer is oker davar migidulo. Now, we talk about dirt often as referring to a person's attachments to their baser instincts, right? We are a body and a soul. The body is connected to hedonism, laziness, ta'avah, lust. The godly soul wants to connect to God. So, Yehudah and Yosef represent two different models of righteousness. Yosef, let's take Yosef first. When Yosef is subjected to the temptations of Potiphar's wife, Yosef simply is the person that just, to quote Nancy Reagan, just says no. Yosef is like a kotzer. On one hand, the grain is connected to the dirt and the urges, he just is monatek. He separates himself. He just says no. Yosef represents the person who simply by superhuman will is able to disconnect himself from his chomeriyus, from his physicality, from his ta'avah, from his yetzer hara. Yosef is the role model that reminds us that by heroic superhuman effort a human being can just say no to all of the ta'avahs that can drag a person down. He runs. He was not even interested in pulling the garment back. That's right. He just gets just out of out of there. Yehudah is very different. When Yehudah is subjected to the temptation of being with a prostitute, of course it happens to be his daughter-in-law, but he didn't know that. Yehudah is niksha. He's what? Niksha. He stumbles. Yehudah gives in to his base his baser urges. Yehudah fails. Yehudah is flawed. Yehudah makes mistakes. But what he does is he takes his mistakes in the dirt. He softens it. He refines it. He teaches us teshuvah. So as a result, unlike Yosef who separates himself from the dirt, Yehudah takes even his physicality, which caused him to sin. But through teshuvah and honesty, he eventually comes back to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Now seen in this way, Hashem wanted leadership to come specifically from people who fail and then show us how to come back. Because the problem is this, a leader, a melech, is supposed to be a role model, a guide, a teacher, an inspiration. But when your role model is someone who doesn't fail, who makes no mistakes, who is perfect. That is not necessarily the role model that I can follow. Because I look at perfect people and I say, "I'm flawed and I fail." Dr. Futner used to remark about these but all the way back in the 1970s about the genre of Gedolim biographies. You know, stories of Gedolim. And he was critical of the genre of those books because those books typically described paragons of perfection from the time that they were born. So, I read about a 4-year-old who finished the Babylonian Talmud. And then when he was five, he did the Zohar and the Ari's writings. And was a super genius who would learn 18 or 20 hours a day. And you read these books and you're amazed at the miracle stories and the wonder stories. But what do those stories tell you and what do they tell you how to raise your children? You know, we're not going to be that way. We are not that way. And Reb Futner pointed out that maybe we're making a big mistake. That even the greatest Gedolim were not born Gedolim. They too had struggles. They too had obstacles. They too made mistakes. They too had misyonos. And maybe there were times that they did not emerge unscathed from those trials. And sometimes we learn more about greatness from how people deal with failure than to simply read about their unbroken successes. Now, granted, halachically there's a problem in writing those types of biographies. There are halachic issues of lashon hara. I don't want to minimize those issues. On the other hand, this is why the Torah itself always discusses these kind of failures and mistakes that people make, even very great people. Because we learn of how you recover from those obstacles. The greatness of Yehudah was not that he didn't sin, but that he owned up to his responsibility. Right? He uh you know, Tamar was about to be executed, uh be burned at the stake, and she would not reveal who the man was because as the Sages say, it is better to be thrown into a fiery furnace than it is to humiliate somebody publicly. She was willing to die. She just said, "The man I was with was the man that gave me this staff and money belt as a deposit." He came forward. She was not going to reveal him. He came forward. And therefore, when Hashem chooses leadership, Hashem chooses leaders who make mistakes but show us how to come back and be honest and take responsibility, rather than paragons of virtue who are not necessarily the ultimate inspiration. So, where does Yosef fit in? You you've been making a case for the last 10 minutes uh for going for Yehudah. No, that's what I'm answering. That's why permanent malchus belongs to Yehudah. That's what I'm saying. So, what do we give to Yosef then? So, Yosef prepares the way. In other words, I need Yosef to show me the potential of a person not to sin. But the ultimate permanent leadership, I need Yehudah. Uh-huh. That that's why I need Yehudah over Yosef. Now, if you think about this, if you look at the whole history of malchus beis David, you see all sorts of apparent improprieties in everything. Let's go back to Lot. Right? Lot in the aftermath of Sodom. Lot had incest with his two daughters. And from daughter number one, he had a child called Moab, from my from my father. Daughter number two, he had a child Ammon from my nation. Eventually from that incestuous relationship came a woman Ruth who converted to Judaism. And Ruth was the great-grandmother of David Hamelach. Hamelach had many, many wives that weren't too good. But the wife from whom the the rest of the Davidic line comes was a woman Na'amah who was an Ammonite convert. So, Mashiach actually comes from both Moab via Ruth and Na'amah who are Ammonites. Because as the Rambam says, Mashiach doesn't only come from David, Mashiach comes from David had other sons, but it comes from Hamelach. And then we look at Yehudah and Tamar. Yehudah and Tamar uh comes through apparent intercourse with a prostitute. And there are two sons, Peretz and Zerah. And Malchus base David comes from Peretz cuz Boaz is descended from Peretz. So, Boaz comes from Peretz which is the product of Yehudah and Tamar. And Ruth comes from And Ruth comes from the incest of Moab. prostitution So, it's the incest, it's a combination of incest and prostitution. And then big yichus Yeah. And then there's a story about David Hamelach himself. That's in a Medrash, a very, very strange Medrash. If you remember, when Shmuel is told to anoint a Melech from the sons of Yishai he tells Yishai, "Bring all of your children here." And Yishai brings seven sons. He does not bring David. David is with the sheep. And the sons look handsome and righteous and everything else. And Hashem says, "They're not the one." And And he asks Yishai, "Do you have another son?" And Yishai says, "Yeah, well, there's this kid who's watching the sheep and this is David." So, the question is, if Shmuel told Yishai, "Bring all of your children," why didn't he bring David to begin with? So, there's a midrash which is quite phenomenally difficult midrash. The midrash says Yishai did not even think David was his own son until that moment. Because Yishai came from Ruth the Moabitess and Yishai thought maybe it was sinful for him to be with his wife because Moabites are not supposed to marry into Klal Yisrael. So, he separated from his wife and he would cohabit with a maidservant. And it's a replication of Yehudah and Tamar. And his wife dressed up like a maidservant and he's with the maidservant and the woman gets pregnant and it turns out when he sees his wife pregnant, he doesn't know it's from him. He thinks his wife committed adultery. And David was a mamzer. That happened not to be true, but once again, it's kind of a replication of Yehudah and Tamar. So, we have all of this impropriety that's going on. We have the incest of of Lot and his daughters. We have the prostitution of Yehudah and Tamar. And of course, let me point out Ruth's meeting with Boaz in the middle of the night in the granary. Also, doesn't quite look like a regular shidduch chasanah and and the like. Yeah. Um was Yehudah and Tamar after it was revealed that you know, it was Yehudah and Tamar, were there any consequences to to Yehudah and Uh there were no consequences because although again, this is an actually actually halachically it's very problematical because l'maaseh uh for a man to have relations with his daughter-in-law uh is incest in the Torah. But the Ramban writes before matan Torah it was actually a proper Yibbum. In other words, even though after Matan Torah, Yibbum is only between brothers, but before Matan Torah, any relative could perpetuate the neshama. So, it actually became a mitzvah. It was not incestuous. It was considered to be the fulfillment of perpetuating the memory of Er and Onan, who had who had died died tragically. So, the Gemara in Yoma simply remarks have been an invalid one because Yehudah didn't know That's correct. But but but after that point, they were you know, it was considered to be a mitzvah in retrospect. Now, the Gemara comments in Maseches Yoma that no person deserves to be a melech unless he has kupah shel shratzim. Kupah shel shratzim means a a bag of rodents. We would call it skeletons in the closet. That we want malchus with skeletons in the closet. But again, part of the idea is there are many many mystical ideas here. One idea is that we need malachim that are flawed who show us how to rise above it. Another idea is this keeps a person humble and modest when he contemplates all of the aveiros. And since a king has so much power, he needs to be humble and modest. There is a third idea that Rav Kook talks about. And this idea deserves a lot more time than we can give it. Maybe we'll continue talking about it. And that is you know, we have the English expression a wolf coming in sheep's clothing. That means something bad that disguises itself in the guise of goodness. In Kabbalah, Rav Kook writes, and he doesn't use this exact expression, there is something that might be called a sheep that is described in wolf's clothing. And that is sometimes there is a powerful holy idea that must enter the world. But because it is so holy and so good, there are cohos of negativity and tuma that try to block it and stop it. So, sometimes, in order for a holy idea to enter the world, it must enter in the guise of looking bad. Mhm. It is only cuz it looks bad that somehow it gets under the radar. This was Rav Kook's take on a number of things. This is how he understood the phenomenon of secular Zionism. Secular Zionism at its worst was not only secular, but in some ways it was profoundly anti-religious and even anti-God, you know, in some ways. But, Rav Kook said, the idea of building Eretz Yisrael was so holy and so elevated, and so necessary for the Messianic process, that there were cohos of negativity that want to shoot it down. So, it only gains admission through an idea that is secular and even maybe anti-Torah. Because that's the the disguise of the wolf that allows the sheep to enter. He saw this in feminism. He says, I mean, feminism was not what it was today, but the idea of of women seeking certain roles that maybe were anti-halakhic. Yeah, not good, anti-halakhic. But, the idea of women having equal dignity was an important idea. It was a noble idea. And it was such an important idea that the cohos of tuma would shoot it down unless it looks like it's a bad thing. In fact, I don't want to get in trouble. I mean, a rabbi in London basically lost his job because of this. But, you know, I don't I don't know if you know the with the Rabbi Dweck story. Uh but, the truth of the matter is, I I will tell you Rabbi Dweck's point was powerful and valid and and quite beautiful, but it's So I don't want to be misunderstood the same way. But he made the point. Again, it's really rough cook. I mean he I mean he didn't connect it rough cook, but but essentially, if you're familiar with rough cook and rough sodo, this was just an an extension of this. He says, "Let's take something like gay rights." Now, we have to be unequivocally clear. The Torah is against homosexuality almost or at least the expression of homosexuality. Uh expressing through sexual activity homosexual acts is absolutely utter. Okay, no good. So God forbid that you I don't want to be quoted in any way as endorsing or supporting. But but once again, the idea that we have to have compassion and respect for people and to understand the difficulties they're going through and to also on another level understand that men too should have deep and loving friendships as opposed to looking at that as as inherently a bad thing is a good idea. But sometimes good ideals enter the world in a facade of apparent evil because that is the only way progress gets pushed through. In fact, if Cook saw in this things like the reform movement and and and and anti-halachic movement because he basically said, "Sometimes what happens is Orthodox religion gets petrified. It gets paralyzed." So sometimes you need some forces, even if they're negative, to get things moving. Okay, this is a very complicated idea. It's a very controversial idea. It's a very dangerous idea, frankly. So I'm a little reluctant to even elaborate on it. It is not, God forbid, an endorsement of evil. But it's through recognition cabalistically that even evil itself can exist in the world only because there's a spark of goodness within the evil. And you must try to extract that spark and incorporate it in a good way. Again, this is standard standard Lurianic Kabbalah. Gathering the sparks from the shattered vessels. So, as a result, the Rav Kook says, this is why the Messianic process comes through all of these apparent aveiros because there is such a powerful kedusha that it can only gain admittance in the world if you go under the radar of all of the forces of negativity that try to try to destroy it. Okay, so this is the fascinating idea of malchus based on it. But on the simple psychological level, as I say, Hashem wants us to have a leader who shows us how you grow from your defeats, from your disappointments, from your failures. That we learn more from how a great person fails and recovers than from the unbroken successes that people have without those challenges. And that is why the malchus was given to Yehudah and then to Yosef rather than to Yosef. Let me just end with with one a further further thought. You know, the the the the Rishonim already asked the kasha, Shaul HaMelech from Shavit Binyamin was given one job to eradicate Amalek. And he did 99% of the job, but he spared the king. One strike and you're out. He's out. No second chances. David sins with Batsheva. And although he suffered tremendously, he lost a son, his own son Avshalom rebelled against him, and Avshalom eventually died as well. So, David suffered tremendously, but the malchus continued. He did not lose the malchus because of the sin of Bathsheba. So, why does God cut David slack and doesn't cut Saul slack? Why is Saul not given any second chances? So, there are two answers that are given by Rabbi Yosef Albo in the Sefer HaIkkarim. One answer is very, very fascinating political answer. So, the first answer is political. Saul's sin was a failure to carry out the duties of his office. As a king, he was bidden to do a certain thing. He messed up his royal duty. As a result, he gets replaced. David's sin was not a sin in the duties of his office. David's sin was a personal lust. And therefore, Rabbi Yosef Albo writes that the personal sins of leaders are not necessarily grounds for their removal if they do teshuvah. Uh but uh misfeasance in the performance of their duties is grounds for removal. Now, this has some very fascinating political repercussions. Those of you that uh are Americans uh may remember uh Bill Clinton. This was exactly the issue where Bill Clinton uh did all sorts of uh immoral things on a personal level. Is that grounds for impeachment? Now, constitutional scholars made the argument that a president can only be impeached and removed from office for failures in the uh performance of his duties and not for personal sins. That actually has a resonance to Rabbi Yosef Albo's first uh tenants. Again, that's a little odd, especially when you're talking about a Torah monarchy. I mean, you would think in a Torah monarchy, of course, we're concerned with personal behavior. But, the second answer Rabbi Yosef Albo gives is even more relevant. And he says, "The difference between David and Shaul is not in the magnitude of their sin. Maybe David's sin was worse than Shaul's sin. But it's how they respond when they are confronted with their guilt. When Shmuel says to Shaul, "Why didn't you carry out God's command?" The first thing Shaul says was, "I did everything." And then when Shmuel says, "I hear the sheep, and what about a god?" So Shmuel So Shaul has to go to plan B. He can no longer deny, but he says, "The people made me do it." With Shaul, we see denial, equivocation, blaming others. With David, Shmuel is no longer alive. So the prophet that comes to Shmuel is Not I'm sorry, the prophet that comes to David is Nassan Hanavi. And Nassan Hanavi gives a famous mashal, "Your majesty, there's a rich man and a poor man, and the rich man has flocks of sheep, and the poor man has one little sheep, and the rich man takes that sheep and slaughters it for his own meal to make a party. What do you think of such a person?" And David says, "Such a person deserves to die. He is wretched and selfish." And Nassan Hanavi, speaking truth to power, says to David, "You are that man." And David said only two words, "Yes. Chatasi Lashem." Now, keep in mind, Chazal actually give David a gazillion excuses. Chazal say, "You know, Batsheva was technically divorced. So she wasn't a married woman. You know, Uriah HaChiti defied a royal order. So David had the right to have him executed. Technically, David had all the excuses in the world. But morally, he knew that his motives were not pure. We use excuses even when we don't have them. He didn't use the excuse even though he had them. All the excuses cuz I'll say that he had, he didn't use. So, if Joseph Albo says, the greatness of David's leadership was he accepted responsibility. And he admitted his wrongdoing. And he didn't deny it. He didn't try to blame others. And therefore, the quality of leadership is not that you don't fail, but that when you fail, you accept the responsibility. And David learned that, of course, from his ancestor Yehuda, who did the very same thing. With Yehuda and and and Tamar. And that's why, you know, certainly in politics, we always say that the cover-up is much worse than the crime. Right? You do the Yeah, you do something wrong. You say that you take responsibility, do teshuvah. No, that could be accepted. You deny it, you blame others, that's a much worse thing. And that's true in a spiritual sense as well. And above all, of course, we have to be honest with ourselves. Again, the point is not so much to confess to other people. We don't do that anyway. But to take responsibility for our lives is really the center center core of what spiritual leadership is. And each of us needs to be a spiritual leader over ourselves. Right? You may not rule over countries, but we have to try to rule over ourselves. As indeed the possuk says in Mishlei, u'moshel b'rucho mi'locheid ir. The person who rules over his spirit is greater than the conqueror of a city. So, may we take the inspiration from Yehuda and Malchus based on it. And in that way, may we be zocheh to the Moshiach and may we be able to bring him in.