"

Parashat Mikeitz-Chanukah

28Kislev 5775

Small but Clear

By Rabbi Steven Finkelstein

We can all accept that there is a need for difficulty and
challenges in life. Lefum Tzaara Agra, No painno gain
(Avot 5:23). It is only through the trying circumstances in our
lives that we learn about ourselves, grow, and achieve new
heights. Yosefs life is a prime example of this. Being thrown into
the pit and then sold into slavery provides him with the
opportunity to deepen his faith and reliance on Hashem. The
struggle with Potiphars wife gives him a chance to actualize his
commitment to the holy values of his father and Hashem by
overcoming the luring temptations of this world. Serving as the
viceroy provides Yosef with the opportunity to contain his
arrogance and to understand that his great success only comes
about because Hashem wants it to be so. Even as we approach the
end of his separation with his family, Yosef has the chance to
demonstrate his ability to overcome anger and to resist the
temptation to take revenge against his brothers.
In order to further understand why Hashem arranged for
Yosef to experience so many challenges, we must ask a number of
questions. Why was it necessary for Yosef to remain in prison for
an additional two years? What would have been lost had the
butler remembered Yosef, and secured his release? How does this
one small detail add clarity to the narrative? Rav Dovid
Hoffstadter suggests that the reason the butler forgot Yosef was
to illustrate the fact that all of these events were solely
orchestrated by Hashem. Had the butler gone to Paroh right
away, it might be possible to suggest that it was his action that
was responsible for Yosefs freedom, and not Gods subtle
intervention. After forgetting Yosef for two years, and then
suddenly remembering at the split second that Paroh needed
Yosefs services, the Torah makes it clear that it could only be the
work divine providence. This point is highlighted by the speed in
which things take place. It seems a mere matter of minutes
between Yosef being freed, being asked to interpret the dream,
and ultimately being appointed viceroy of Egypt. This miraculous
ascent from the dungeon to the palace calls our attention to the
fact that every single twist and turn in this story is being directed
by Hashem. They are all part of the divine plan.
In a similar vein, although the miracle of the oil burning for
eight days is small in comparison to the miracle of the military
victory over the Greeks, when it comes to military victories, it is
easier for people to explain them without recognizing the hand of
God. There is, however, no way to deny the fact that the oil
burning for eight days both defies the laws of nature and is
inherently miraculous. In both Parashat Miketz and regarding
Chanukah, it is through the small but clear miracles that our eyes
are opened to the hand of God in each and every aspect of our
lives.

December 20, 2014

Vol. 24 No. 13

Dont Judge, Dont Hate

by Alex Kalb (15)

In Parashat Mikeitz, Yosefs meeting with his brothers is

recounted. The Pasuk (BeReishit 44:12) states, VaYechapeis
BaGadol Heicheil UVaKaton Kilah VaYimatzei HaGavia BeAmtachat
Binyamin, And he searched; he began with the oldest and ended
with the youngest. And the goblet was found in the sack of
Binyamin. Rashi (ad loc. BaGadol Heicheil) explains that
although Yosef obviously knew that the goblet was in Binyamins
sack, he purposely started with the sack of the oldest, so they
would not realize that he knew where it would be found.
However, the Midrash states that he began with the oldest
refers to Shimon. The question is therefore obvious: Reuven was
the oldest, not Shimon! Why does the Midrash single out Shimon
as the one whose sack was searched first?
When Yosef first approached the brothers to accuse them of
theft, they countered with the argument, Hein Kesef Asher
Matzanu BeFi Amtechoteinu Heshivonu Eilecha MeiEretz Kenaan
VeEich Nignov MiBeit Adonecha Kesef Oh Zahav, The money we
found in the mouths of our sacks we brought back to you from
the land of Canaan. How then could we steal from your house
silver and gold (44:8)? Rashi (ad loc. s.v. Hein Kesef Asher
Matzanu) quotes a Midrash (BeReishit Rabbah 92:7) which states
that this argument is one of several examples of Kal VaChomer
found in the Torah. Maharil Diskin questions Rashis comment,
wondering why the Midrash would cite their argument as an
example of a Kal VaChomer, when, in this case, the Kal
VaChomer was not effective? After all, Yosef did not accept their
argument and he went ahead and searched their bags anyway.
The Maharil Diskin explains that Yosef, in fact, did accept
their argument and did not search the sacks of those who had
returned with money found on the earlier trip. However, not all
of the brothers had returned money. Binyamin had not been with
the brothers on the first trip, and Shimon had not returned any
money either because he stayed in Egypt the entire time. Yosef
therefore replied to the brothers that he accepts their argument,
but there are still two sacks that must be searched. He began with
the oldest, Shimons, and ended with Binyamins.
The Midrash (BeReishit Rabbah 92:8 s.v. VaYimatzei
HaGavia BeAmtachat Binyamin) recounts that when the goblet
was found in Binyamins sack, the brothers pounced on Binyamin
and taunting him by saying, Thief, the son of a woman who was
also a thief! You have brought disgrace upon us by stealing, just
as your mother disgraced our father by stealing the Terafim from
Lavan (See BeReishit 31:19). According to another Midrash, the
brothers actually began beating Binyamin, until he swore to them
by the life of his father that he has committed no crime.

K
O
L
T
O
R
A
H
P
A
R
A
S
H
A
T
M
I
K
E
I
T
Z

C
H
A
N
U
K
A
H

We are able to learn two powerful lessons from these

Midrashim. One lesson is that even the holy brothers were
ready to instantly accept that their brother Binyamin was a
thief. The Gemara (Bava Batra 17a) states that Binyamin was
one of only four supremely righteous people who never
sinned and died only because it had been commanded as a
result of the sin of Adam HaRishon. Surely, then, he had
never been guilty of thievery! However, when the brothers
looked at Binyamin, they didnt see a Tzaddik, but their
brother Yosef. As the Midrash relates, the brothers accused
Binyamin of thievery by mentioned his mother, who also
stole. The brothers were focused on Binyamins family,
rather than Binyamin as a person. Their hatred for Yosef
blinded them to the fact that Binyamin surely had not stolen
the goblet. If the brothers fell to such a low level by falsely
accusing Binyamin as a result of their hatred, we must
ensure that we are even more careful regarding this matter.
Yet a second lesson can be learned from the end of the
Midrash which states the reward Binyamin received for the
undeserved suffering that he had experienced. In return for
the misery that the brothers rained upon Binyamins
shoulders, Hashem decreed that the Shechinah would rest
between *Binyamins+ shoulders (Devarim 33:12) by
having the Beit HaMikdash built in his portion of Eretz
Yisrael. It appears that due to their false accusation of
Binyamin, the brothers lost the opportunity to be the hosts of
the Shechinah. This, too, should serve to warn a person never
to quickly judge another, because the cost of making
incorrect accusations may be very severe. If we change our
ways and are more positive in our outlook to one another
with more Ahavat Yisrael, than we will be Zocheh to a bright
future and the rebuilding of the Beit HaMikdash.

Parashat Mikeitz, Chanukah, and Basketball

by Solo Shulman (15)

the Chanukah candles, and although there are many factors

which contribute to the determining the location of the
Chanukiyah, the overriding concern of the Gemara is that the
Menorah should be lit in a place where it will be seen, so that it
will publicize the miracles of Chanukah. From the concept of
publicizing a miracle, we should learn that miracles of Chanukah
are for everybody. Hashem did not save one person on
Chanukah, but rather, He saved the entire Jewish people.
Therefore, all of us Jews should feel an obligation to celebrate
together as a unit.
Another message that can be learned from Chanukah is the
importance of hope. This message is not only conveyed in the
story of Chanukah, but also in the Parashiyot surrounding the
holiday. Parashat VaYeishev and Parashat Mikeitz are read
around the time of Chanuka. These Parashiyot focus on all of the
trials and challenges that Yosef faced in Egypt. Through all of his
the terrible deeds that are done to Yosef, and through all of the
terrible events that Yosef was forced to experience, he was always
able to connect the events of his life with the hand of God. His
hope is what ultimately led to the Jewish redemption from Egypt.
To highlight this, Yosef makes the Jewish nation promise him that
when the Jews leave Egypt, they will carry his bones away to be
buried (BeReishit 50:25). This shows his incredible hope and faith
in Hashem. He knew, without a doubt, that the Jewish people
would eventually be redeemed from Egypt.
On Chanukah, we celebrate the miracle of a jug of oil lasting
for eight days. Perhaps, in addition to celebrating this miracle, we
should celebrate the fact that somebody had enough hope and
presence of mind to hide a jug of oil to use when we won the war.
That unknown Tzaddik had so much hope and faith in Hashem
that his vial of oil would be found, and that the Beit HaMikdash
would survive, that he merited a holiday of Chanukah,
celebrating and commemorating the hope that he was able to
maintain, even in the face of death and destruction.
Hope is also necessary for a basketball team. For a team to
travel for hours to a game, be down by ten points, and then win
with a buzzer beater can happen only if the team has hope that it
can come back from its deficit.
The importance of hope can be demonstrated from the
following story: One Chanukah, in a concentration camp, a father
and a son were together, and they had been given a ration of
margarine to use on their bread. The father took the miniscule
portion of margarine that was meant for the bread, and he used it
to light a Chanukah candle. The son thought that his father was
crazy for wasting rare and valuable sustenance, but the father
told him that the hope that one is instilled with through the
Chanukah candles is more important than all of the food in the
world. To quote Hal Lindsey, Man can live about forty days
without food, about three days without water, about eight
minutes without air< but only for one second without hope.

Symbolism plays a major role in Judaism. Chanukah is a

holiday ripe with symbolism, as many activities such as
lighting the Menorah, eating Latkes, and spinning the
Dreidel are performed in many households. If one were to
ask what a Menorah or Chanukiyah symbolizes, the answer
would fill volumes of books. As with many things in life, in
order to better understand the true message of the Menorah,
we can bring a connection to the basketball court.
Among the candles which are lit each night of Chanukah
is the Shamash, whose main purpose is to ignite all the other
candles. In some ways, the Shamash can be compared to the
point guard in a basketball game: he is the one who directs
the other teammates where to go and what to do, and he is
the one who is in charge of controlling each play. However,
the Shamash of the basketball game does not always have
to be the point guard, but, in reality, it could be any player in
any game that acts like the Shamash. This person assumes
more responsibilities than the other players and ignites his
by Rabbi Chaim Jachter
teammates by inspiring them to excel.
The Chanukiyah also teaches the concept of Pirsumei
Nisa, publicizing the miracles of Chanukah. The Gemara Introduction
Recently I was approached by traditional but not fully
(Shabbat 21b) discusses the location where one should light
observant couples who respectively conceived children through

Ger Katan for a Child Conceived by In Vitro

Fertilization Part One

in vitro fertilization. In one case, a non-Jewish woman donated

the ovum and the wife gave birth to the child, and in another
case, the wife donated the ovum and a non-Jewish woman gave
birth to the child. These situations raise two critically important
and highly sensitive Halachic issueswhether the children
conceived in this manner require conversion and whether a Beit
Din may convert a child if it will be raised by not fully observant
parents.
We will, with Hashems help, analyze both of these
important issues and present an approach to these situations. We
will begin by addressing the issue of converting a child that will
be raised by not fully observant parents.
Background
The Gemara (Ketubot 11a) presents the rule that a minor can
be converted by a Beit Din even though the child does not consent
1
to the conversion. Rashi (ad. loc. s.v. Al Daat) explains that The
Beit Din becomes like a father to the child, and the child converts
by means of them. Just as a parent acts in the best interest of his
child, the Beit Din is obligated to act as a parent toward the child
and determine the best interest of the child and act accordingly.
The Gemara explains that the Beit Din is empowered to convert
the child since it is conferring a benefit to the child. Halachah
recognizes such procedures due to the principle of, Zachin
LeAdam Shelo Befanav, one may bestow a benefit upon another
in the latters absence (and even without receiving his explicit
consent). Thus, by converting the child, the Beit Din acts in his
best interest.
The Gemara limits Beit Dins authority to convert someone
in this manner to a minor. An adult cannot be converted against
his will, as it is not considered a benefit (Zechut) to him. The
Gemara explains that it is a hardship for an adult to convert and
become accustomed to a life of Torah observance since he has
been accustomed to non-observance. A child is not disadvantaged
in this regard, and thus conferring Jewish status upon him is
considered a benefit.
The Gemara notes that when the child reaches adulthood, he
has the opportunity to renounce his Jewish identity. The Ritva (ad
loc.) explains that that if the child does not renounce, he clarifies
that in reality a benefit was conferred upon him (and vice versa).
The Gemara concludes, though, that once the child reaches the
age of adulthood and does not immediately renounce his
2
conversion, he no longer enjoys the right to do so.
1 Even if a child expresses his or her consent, the consent is not meaningful
duetothechildsimmaturity;see,forexample,MishnahMachshirin6:1.
2 For details on how this is implemented in practice, see the Geirut
Policies and Standards (GPS) issued by the Rabbinical Council of
America together with its affiliated Beit Din of America (available at the
RCAswebsite,www.rabbis.org).Inshort,theRCAdocumentassertsthat
a formal acceptance of Mitzvot before a Beit Din is not required when the
childreachesbar/batmitzvahage,inaccordancewithtimehonored
practice.Rather,aslongasthechildknowsthathewasconvertedand
that he has the right to renounce his conversion, his continued
observance of Jewish law suffices. For further discussion and alternate
opinions, see Encyclopedia Talmudit (6:448-449) and Rav Gedalia
FeldersNachalatTzvi(1:25-28). All agree, however, that the child must
be informed he was converted as a baby and has an option to renounce.
Nonetheless, informing a child of his right to renounce at Bar/Bat Mitzvah
is particularly challenging for a child converted due to the donor or host
mother in the IVF process not being Jewish. Learning of the
circumstances of his or her conception can be very difficult for a child of

Tosafots Question
Tosafot (ad. loc. s.v. Matbilin) pose a very basic question
on the entire concept of converting a minor. Assuming that
the principle of Zachin operates based on viewing the one
conferring the benefit as the presumptive Sheliach (agent) of
3
the beneficiary, how can Beit Din confer a Zechut on a child
if the institution of Shelichut (agency) does not apply to a
minor (Bava Metzia 71b)?
Tosafots final answer (also see Tosafot Sanhedrin 68b
s.v. Katan for further discussion) is that the exclusion of a
minor from Shelichut applies only where it is somewhat
questionable as to whether one is truly conferring a benefit.
However, bestowing Jewish identity is a pure and
unadulterated benefit (Zechut Gamur).
Adoption by Non-Observant Parents The Strict View
A major debate emerged in the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries as to whether Halachah authorizes a Beit Din to
convert a child that is adopted by a non-observant couple.
The question is whether Beit Din is considered to be
conferring a benefit to a child in such a situation, since the
child will be raised in an environment where Jewish law is
not honored. Therefore, the child most likely will emerge as
an adult who will routinely violate Jewish law.
Rav Itzeleh Ponivizher (Teshuvot Zeicher Yitzchak 2)
rules that conversion of a minor in such circumstances is
invalid. He writes, Since we know that he certainly will
violate all of the Torahs laws when he will be raised in such
a home, it is not a benefit. Teshuvot Chavetzelet HaSharon
1:75) similarly rules that Since it is clear that he will violate
all of the Torah based on the way his adoptive parents will
raise him, it is not a benefit. Rav Avraham Yitzchak Kook
(Teshuvot Daat Kohen 147) adopts the strictest stand and
argues that Beit Din is considered to be conferring a benefit,
only if we know that the child will observe the Torah as an
adult.
Indeed, a non-Jew who observes the seven Noahide
4
Mitzvot is rewarded with a share in the World to Come, but
if a non-Jew converts and fails to observe the Torah, Hashem
will hold him accountable for his failing to observe the 613
Mitzvot (Rambam Hilchot Issurei Biah 14:2 and Hilchot
Melachim 8:11).
We should note that there seems to be a significant
difference between Rav Kooks approach and that of the
Zeicher Yitzchak and Chavatzelet HaSharon. The latter seem
to disqualify a conversion only if it seems clear that the child
will most likely violate all of the Torahs laws, whereas Rav
Kook requires that it be clear that the child will most likely

twelve or thirteen to digest. Competent rabbinic and psychological

guidance must be sought in such situations. The Beit Din and therapist
might suggest waiting until the individual has emerged from his teenage
years.
3 TheRan(Kiddushin16bintheRifspages)discussesatlengthhowthe
principle of Zachin relates to Shelichut, whether it operates through the
principle of Shelichut or constitutes a principle separate from Shelichut
which follows its own particular set of regulations. See also Tosafot
Nedarim 36b s.v. Mi, Tosafot Gittin 64b s.v. Shani, and Ketzot
HaChoshen 105:1.
4 The list of and discussion of these Mitzvot can be found in Masechet
Sanhedrin 56a-59b.

observe Torah law. The Teshuvot Chavatzelet Hasharon (Y.D.

1:75) presents a compromise between these two approaches,
teaching that it is a Zechut Gamur (as per Tosafots insight) if Beit
Din determines that it is more likely than not that the child will be
observant.

appears to accept this approach, since in such circumstances it is

not clear that the child will grow up to violate all of the Torah.
Rav Kook, however, seemingly would not accept this
compromise, as he requires that it be clear that the child will
fulfill all of the Mitzvot when he reaches adulthood.

Adoption by Non-Observant Parents the Lenient View

On the other hand, other Poskim believe that it is preferable
to be even a non-observant Jew than to be a Nochri. The Teshuvot
Beit Yitzchak (Yoreh Deah 2:100:11; see also Even HaEzer 69)
writes, Nonetheless, it is preferable to join the Jewish people
even though he will be punished [for violating Torah law], since
all Jews have a share in the world to come and it is a great zechut
for him even though he will violate a few Torah laws. Rav
Chaim Ozer Grodzinsky (Teshuvot Achiezer 3:28) subscribes to
this view as well.
We should note, however, that there does not seem to be
such a wide gap between the Zeicher Yitzchak on one hand and
the Beit Yitzchak on the other, as the former disqualify a
conversion in a case where it is clear that the child will violate all
of the Torahs rules and Teshuvot Beit Yitzchak seems to be
lenient only when it appears that the child will violate a few of
the Torahs laws.

Conclusion
In 2007, the RCA in conjunction with the Israeli Chief
Rabbinate established a set of guidelines for converting a child,
set forth in the aforementioned GPS document. The standard is
that the child must be raised in circumstances where it is likely
that he will observe Mitzvot when he reaches adulthood. The
requirements include that the child receive twelve years of
Orthodox Jewish education, that the adoptive parents fully
observe Kashrut, have a positive attitude to full observance of
Mitzvot and that, at minimum, there be, significant observance
of Shabbat. The RCA and Beit Din of America consider the wide
variety of opinions that exist among the Poskim and seek to
insure that Geirut of a child can be conducted at a standard that
can be accepted by all.
While the RCAs threshold is much higher than Rav
Moshes, there is no fundamental dispute since the RCA accepts
Rav Moshes (and the Chavatzelet HaSharons) standard of the
likelihood that the child will emerge observant. Rav Moshe
believes that providing a Jewish education makes it more likely
than not that the child will be observant while the RCA approach
believes that only parental role modeling combined with
Orthodox Jewish education makes it likely that the child will
affirm his Judaism and live a Torah lifestyle as an adult.
Experience teaches that the RCAs standards better conform to
the current reality.
Thus, when a traditional, but not yet fully observant, couple
peti tions a Beit Din to convert their adopted child, the Beit Din
must, acting in its role as the childs parent, assess whether the
Geirut constitutes a Zechut Gamur, that it is more likely than not
that a child raised in that home will live an observant lifestyle.
What about if the Beit Din is unsure regarding the likelihood
of the childs continued observance, such as when parents are
traditional but not fully observant? In ordinary circumstances,
it is appropriate to be strict since Safeik MiDeOraita LeChumra,
we must rule strictly regarding matters of Torah law, certainly in
regard to something as basic as Jewish identity. However, what if
it is questionable if the conversion is altogether necessary, such as
might be the case regarding a situation of IVF that we described?
We will, IYH and BN, address this question next week.

Rav Moshe Feinstein A Compromise View

Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igerot Moshe E.H. 4:26)
adopts a compromise approach to this issue. He is inclined to the
lenient view since, *Even+ wicked Jews have Kedushat Yisrael,
and the Mitzvot they perform are considered Mitzvot and the sins
they perform are for them like Shogeig (done as a result of
5
negligence). Elsewhere, though, Rav Moshe clarifies that in
practice this question is unresolved (Dibrot Moshe Shabbat 84
comment 11). Thus, Rav Moshe regards such a child as a
questionable Jew, possibly Jewish and possibly non-Jewish. Rav
Yona Reiss, former director of the Beit Din of America, reported
at the 2007 convention of the RCA that the Israeli Chief Rabbinate
adopts this approach as well.
Rav Moshe does allow a conversion in a situation where it is
Matzui (likely) that the child will emerge as an observant adult.
He specifically permits converting a child if the child will receive
a Torah education from fully observant teachers even if the
adoptive parents are non-observant. He reasons that because in
such circumstances it is likely that the child will grow up to be a
Torah observant adult, It is certainly a Zechut to be brought
into such a situation.
Rav Yosef Adler (as well as many others) reports that Rav
Yosef Dov Soloveitchik also considered it a Zechut if the nonobservant parents commit to providing the child with a Yeshivah
education. Rav Yisrael Rozen (Techumin 20:249-250) suggests this
compromise as well, but he insists that Jewish education does not
suffice if the child will be raised by a non-Jewish parent. We
should note that the aforementioned Zeicher Yitzchak also

Editors-in-Chief: Moshe Pahmer, Matthew Wexler

Executive Editor: Gavriel Epstein
Publication Editors: Binyamin Jachter, Yosef Kagedan, Hillel
Koslowe, Yehuda Koslowe, Simcha Wagner, Noam Wieder

Business Manager: Azi Fine

Publishing Managers: Yehuda Feman, Amitai Glicksman

5 They are simply following in the path in which they were raised; see
Rambam Hilchot Mamrim 3:3 and Ramban BeMidbar 15:22. It is remarkable
that Rav Moshe regards one raised by non-observant parents as a Shogeig
even if he received many years of Torah education in an Orthodox Day
School. Also see Kovetz Teshuvot1:103forRavYosefShalomEliashivs
critiqueofRavMoshesapproach.RavEliashivcitesTeshuvotSerideiEish
2:96 who firmly rejects Beit Din converting a child if the parents are not
observant, as precedent.

Staff: Moshe Davis, Ari Fineberg, Avi Finkelstein, Ezra

Finkelstein, Zack Greenberg, Michael Krantz, Alex Kalb,
Shlomo Kroopnick, Zack Lent, Jonathan Meiner, Binyamin
Radensky, Tzvi Dovid Rotblat, David Rothchild, Yehoshua
Segal, Adam Zomick

Rabbinic Advisor: Rabbi Chaim Jachter