Notes from Rav Soloveitchik's Parsha Shiur on Toldot (1957): A Translation – by Rabbi Ben Zion Lazovsky

The Rav, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, delivered a lecture on the parsha each Saturday night in Boston. Rabbi Lamm, who was then a rabbi in Springfield, MA, attended the Parshat Toldot lecture in 1957. Rabbi Lamm’s Hebrew reconstruction of the shiur is available on the Lamm Legacy website. I have added citations in parentheses. Although the shiur was delivered on Parashat Toldot, its themes are deeply relevant to Parshat Vayechi, which we read this week.

In the shiur, the Rav described the distinctive leadership qualities of Yosef and Moshe as emerging from their humility, reflected in the Torah’s accounts of their involvement with burial. Such humility, he argued, flows from an honest recognition of human limitation: no person is ever fully independent, and there are moments when every human being is helpless and dependent on others. The Rav introduced this theme by contrasting Yaakov’s and Esav’s responses to the death of their grandfather Avraham. Although Rabbi Lamm’s reconstruction does not return to this comparison, its implication is clear. Yaakov responded to his grandfather’s death by preparing a meal for Yitzchak, recognizing that acts of chesed remind us of the limits of self-reliance. Esav, by contrast, remained absorbed in himself; his grandfather’s death stirred no impulse to act on behalf of others.

--

And on that day Yaakov was cooking lentils. Chazal teach that on that day Avraham died, and lentils are a food for mourners. At that moment the difference between Yaakov and Esav became visible in their respective responses to the death of their grandfather: Yaakov prepared food for the mourners, while Esav acted haughtily, according to the midrash.

A major principle in Judaism concerns how one relates to death. The Gemara states (Sotah 14a) that the Torah begins with chesed and ends with chesed. The chesed at the end of the Torah was the burial of Moshe by Hashem, because Moshe at that time had the status of a meis mitzvah, with no one else to bury him, and therefore Hashem Himself buried him.

This theme appears even more clearly in Moshe’s carrying of the bones of Yosef out of Egypt. Chazal teach: come and see how precious mitzvot were to Moshe our teacher. While all the Israelites were taking wealth from Egypt, Moshe was occupied with a mitzvah, as the verse states, “chacham lev yikach mitzvot.” This is cited in Yalkut Shimoni at the beginning of Beshalach, and in Lekach Tov (Pesikta Zutreta), Shemot, Parashat Beshalach, chapter 13, siman 19. In Yalkut Shimoni at the end of Zos HaBerachah, Hashem tells Moshe that if in his eyes performing chesed seemed like a small matter, in Hashem’s eyes it was great that he disregarded silver and gold, and therefore Hashem Himself would descend to perform chesed for Moshe at the time of his passing from this world.

Several questions arise. Why did Moshe himself gather the bones of Yosef, when Yosef had imposed an oath upon all the Israelites to bring his bones out of Egypt? How did Moshe locate Yosef’s casket specifically on the night of Pesach? Why did he not instruct someone else to retrieve it? And why did Moshe not participate at all in collecting the wealth of Egypt?

Tangentially, HaMidrash VeHaMa‘aseh explains that the Israelites were themselves engaged in the mitzvah of gathering the wealth, and Moshe could have exempted himself from involvement with Yosef’s remains had he chosen to collect wealth, based on the principle that one who is engaged in one mitzvah is exempt from another mitzvah. (This explanation appears to be from NL.)

In Pirkei Avot (4:4), Rabbi Levitas teaches, “be very, very humble.” The Rambam explains that this mishnah is the source for the idea that with respect to the trait of humility there is no “golden mean.” Unlike other character traits, where one should avoid extremes, humility is unique in that one should incline toward the extreme of humility. The essence of haughtiness, the opposite of humility, is the feeling that one needs no one else – neither other people nor Hashem. Haughtiness imagines total independence, the belief that one requires no one beyond oneself. This is the fundamental falsehood at the heart of arrogance. Even the household of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi required the maidservant of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s household to render halakhic decisions, as seen for example in Rosh Hashanah 26b. Rabbi Akiva stated that he learned more from his students than from his teachers and colleagues, as cited in Makkot 10a in the name of Rebbi and Ta‘anit 7a in the name of Rabbi Chanina. It is said in the name of the Maggid of Mezritch that one must learn five things from a thief and five things from a baby. In our own time, the scientific revolution in the United States has often been fueled by a form of haughtiness – the belief that through science and technology alone, one needs no one else, including allies.

With this background, Moshe’s behavior becomes understandable. Involvement with eulogizing and burying the dead, especially a meis mitzvah, confronts a person with the symbol of human lowliness, helplessness, and dependence. At the moment of burial, one requires a chesed shel emet from another person. Perhaps the correct understanding of chesed shel emet is not merely the common explanation, cited by Rashi (Bereishit 47:29), that it is a kindness that cannot be repaid. Rather, this final act of kindness conveys a deeper truth: that there is no fully independent human being who does not ultimately depend on others.

Accordingly, the respect we show at a funeral is not only honor for the deceased. It also teaches the living the trait of humility, uprooting feelings of haughtiness from the heart. This aligns with the Mechilta on Im Kesef Talveh, which teaches that all of nature, the entire world, and every human being exists in the category of a borrower in some sense. One who is presently a lender must recognize that he too is a borrower, or that at some point his role will be reversed.

When Yaakov died, his sons feared that Yosef would retaliate against them for having sold him. Yosef responded that their entire perspective was mistaken. He was not the wealthy lender and they were not the impoverished borrowers. “Am I in the place of God?” (Bereishit 50:19). Only God is always the lender. Immediately afterward, Yosef told his brothers, “I will die, and God will remember you… please bring up my bones from here” (ibid., 24). At the very moment when Yosef stood at the pinnacle of power, ruler over all of Egypt, and when his brothers trembled before him, Yosef reminded them that he too was a borrower, dependent on their kindness. In the end, everyone dies and depends on the chesed of others. The Midrash teaches that had the Israelites not taken Yosef’s bones with them, he would not have been included among the tribes engraved on the ephod (Sotah 36b).

This explains the connection between Moshe and the bones of Yosef. On the night of Pesach, it would have been easy for Moshe to feel haughty, to see himself as great, as the redeemer. Until that night, the Israelites were enslaved and unformed; now they were becoming a free nation. Moshe might have viewed himself as wealthy, as a lender, as independent. Instead, he occupied himself with Yosef’s casket as a symbol of humility at the height of personal achievement. Moshe learned this humility from Yosef. He remembered that although at this moment he resembled a wealthy lender, later he would depend on others like a borrower. Moshe understood that his success depended upon the Israelites, who would remember him and invoke his name: halakhah leMoshe miSinai, kedat Moshe beYisrael.

“Vayikach” – he took the lesson embodied in the bones of Yosef. Not merely the physical remains, but Yosef’s teachings and character traits. Our sages teach that for all forty years in the wilderness, Moshe kept Yosef’s remains in his own tent, in the camp of the Levites. For forty years, Moshe preserved this sacred reminder of humility. This occurred specifically in the camp of Levi – Levi, the maternal grandfather of Moshe; Levi, who had hated Yosef; Levi, who had played a role in Yosef’s sale, acting initially as a lender and later cowering before Yosef like a borrower. The lesson is that everyone needs others. There is no true independence in life. Haughtiness is false.

This, then, is the lesson of dignity expressed through burial. It is not primarily respect for the body of the deceased, but training for the living, reminding them that they too will reach such a lowly state, and that destructive haughtiness is of no use.

Two additions by Rabbi Lamm: with this we can understand the Rambam’s position, as explained by our teacher the Rav on Megillah 3b. When kohanim must become tamei for their relatives, it is not only to ensure physical involvement in burial, which could be done by others. Rather, the kohen is required to become impure, to remove the diadem from his head – a symbol of honor and potential haughtiness.

Only through this can he fully grasp his lowly human state and restrain arrogance.

And thus Kohelet teaches: it is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of feasting.

Notes

1. Seven lessons can be learned from a thief and three from a baby: (1) a thief works quietly without others knowing; (2) he is ready to place himself in danger; (3) the smallest detail is of great importance to him; (4) he labors with great toil; (5) he labors with enthusiasm; (6) he is confident and optimistic; and (7) if he does not succeed the first time, he tries again and again. From a baby we learn that (8) he is never idle; (9) when he needs something, he demands it vigorously; and (10) he is merry for no particular reason. Source: https://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/1338631/jewish/The-Child-and-the-Thief.htm 

2. Berachot 5a: "If your evil inclination tempts you, do several things, and if they don’t succeed, he should remind himself of the day of death."

3. This point, however, does not appear to be relevant here. The Gemara states that had Yosef sinned with Potiphar’s wife, he would not have been included among the tribes on the ephod. It does not refer to the bringing of Yosef’s bones up from Egypt.

4. With this, we can explain why Moshe’s name is not mentioned in the Haggadah – BZL.

--

Rabbi Lamm added two further insights. First, this helps explain the Rambam’s view, as taught by the Rav on Megillah 3b, that when kohanim become tamei for close relatives, the obligation is not merely to ensure burial, which others could perform. The kohen himself must become impure. He must remove the symbolic diadem from his head – a sign of honor and elevation – in order to confront his own vulnerability and uproot feelings of haughtiness. Only through this experience can he truly internalize humility. Second, this idea illuminates the verse in Kohelet: “It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of feasting.”

The Lamm Legacy Archives preserve notes from Rabbi Lamm’s address “Pride and Humility in the Jewish Tradition and in Jewish Life Today,” delivered at Maimonides School on November 18, 2000.

Rabbi Ben Zion Lazovsky graduated Yeshivas Brisk of Chicago. He is currently the Associate Rabbi of Congregation Kesser Maaiv in Skokie, IL, and the Safra DiDayna of the Beis Din of the  Merkaz HaRabbonim of Chicago. He has published two books by Rabbi Meyer Juzint, and has prepared hundreds of shiurim of Rabbi Ahron Soloveichik for publication. He also teaches math and economics.