Skip to content


Parashat Vayeshev 5782 — 11/27/2021

Parashat Vayeshev 5782 — 11/27/2021

Beginning with Bereishit 5781 (17 October 2020) we embarked on a new format. We will be considering Rambam’s (Maimonides’) great philosophical work Moreh Nevukim (Guide for the Perplexed) in the light of the knowledge of Vedic Science as expounded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. The individual essays will therefore not necessarily have anything to do with the weekly Torah portion, although certainly there will be plenty of references to the Torah, the rest of the Bible, and to the Rabbinic literature. For Bereishit we described the project. The next four parshiyyot, Noach through Chayei Sarah, laid out a foundational understanding of Vedic Science, to the degree I am capable of doing so. Beginning with Toledot we started examining Moreh Nevukim.

Bereshit 37:1-40:23
Rambam has warned us that we will find contradictions in his Guide – places where he will say one thing, and other places where he appears to say the exact opposite. He gives seven reasons for the existence of contradictions in works of philosophy in the Rabbinic literature. In fact, quite a bit of the Talmud is devoted to resolving contradictions between Scriptural verses, or between Rabbinic statements. We’ll go through these seven reasons and comment briefly on them. This concludes Rambam’s introduction to the Guide, and will conclude our analysis of the introduction.

1. “The author has collected the remarks of various people with differing opinions, but has omitted citing his authorities and has not attributed each remark to the one who said it.” As it is written in the Apocryphal Book of Clichés, “Two Jews, three opinions.” The contradiction is a real contradiction – the two people really had two different opinions. The Talmud sometimes tries to resolve the contradiction by showing that each side of the dispute follows his opinion on some fundamental principle in another area of consideration. Thus, the two statements are seen to be examples of a fundamental divergence of viewpoints.

2. “The author of a particular book has adopted a certain opinion that he later rejects; both his original and later statements are retained in the book.” Of course, it would be nice for the author to say, “I used to think like this, but now, for these reasons, I think the opposite is true.

3. “Not all the statements in question are to be taken in their external sense; some are to be taken in their external sense, while some others are parables and hence have an inner content. Alternatively, two apparently contradictory propositions may both be parables and when taken in their external sense may contradict, or may be contrary to, one another.” Everyone experiences the same reality of Pure Consciousness, but when they go to describe it, those descriptions are colored by the qualities of their individual nervous systems and their past history. Thus, just as in the world the one, unified underlying reality expresses itself in different forms and phenomena, so the descriptions of that reality may differ between individuals in different times and places.

4. “There is a proviso that, because of a certain necessity, has not been explicitly stated in its proper place; or the two subjects may differ, but one of them has not been explained in its proper place, so that a contradiction appears to have been said, whereas there is no contradiction.” We find this often in the Talmud, where one case under discussion deals with certain circumstances, and another case deals with somewhat different circumstances, and the contradiction disappears once the circumstances are clarified.

5. In the course of teaching “there may be a certain obscure matter that is difficult to conceive. One has to mention it or to take it as a premise in explaining something that is easy to conceive and that by rights ought to be taught before the former … The teacher … will try to make that first matter somehow understood. He will not undertake to state the matter as it truly is in exact terms, but rather will leave it so in accord with the listener’s imagination that the latter will understand only what he now wants him to understand. Afterwards, in the appropriate place, that obscure matter is stated in exact terms and explained as it truly is.” The apparent contradiction is just a rhetorical device within the overall scheme of the work.

6. Sometimes there will be two premises, each of which, if taken to its logical conclusion, leads to statements that are contradictory. Therefore, the premises must be contradictory. This kind of contradiction is hard to detect, and presumably indicates a lack of complete understanding on the part of the author. This is why journal articles are peer-reviewed.

7. “In speaking about very obscure matters it is necessary to conceal some parts and to disclose others. Sometimes in the case of certain dicta this necessity requires that the discussion proceed on the basis of a certain premise, whereas in another place necessity requires that the discussion proceed on the basis of another premise contradicting the first one. In such cases the vulgar must in no way be aware of the contradiction; the author accordingly uses some device to conceal it by all means.” Sometimes, a single approach will not capture the transcendent. Multiple approaches, from multiple angles are necessary. Even though the individual starting points are different, even contradictory, they all radiate inwards, like the spokes on a wheel, to the unified center.

I think what Rambam is telling us is that when our vision is dominated by differences, we find a world full of contradictions. His aim appears to be to get us to see the unity that pervades all differences, so we no longer must deal with doubt and uncertainty.

***************************************************************

Commentary by Steve Sufian

Parashat Vayeshev

All of Torah is a means to return our awareness to the reality of One without a Second, the One and only “I.”  Each parshah has its particular way of doing this.

What is the particular contribution Parshat Vayeshev makes to our awareness being restored to One?

“Vayeshev” means “and he lived”: This parshah begins with telling us that “Jacob lived in the land of his father’s sojourning, the land of Canaan.” “Canaan” seems to derive from the Hebrew “kana,” to be brought into synchronicity. Being brought into synchronicity with One in its details is certainly restoration of our awareness being restored to One.

“Living” is a stable experience, not just a momentary flash but an experience that continues day to day, year to year. It implies that the experience of conflict due to duality has been resolved and the difficulties that Jacob experienced with his uncle Laban and his brother Esau are now over and he is living peacefully in a land where he is synchronized and the land is synchronized: all works harmoniously.

And yet this peace and harmony are upset when Jacob gives preferential treatment to his son Joseph and more deeply when Joseph angers his brothers by telling them and his father two dreams that seem to indicate he will dominate over them.

Yet Gd’s hand is in this as Joseph tells his brothers when his ability to dream and to interpret dreams have led him to become de facto ruler of Egypt (Mitzraim: restrictions) and his brothers and father have left Canaan, the land of harmony, to obtain food from Egypt, the land of restrictions, after Joseph has arranged for Egypt to store up food during the seven full years that he predicts will be followed by seven years of famine.

One way to look at this is that when our land of harmony is of limited scope, its harmony can be easily broken by misbehavior, and then we find ourselves not living, but sojourning, struggling in a land of restrictions, a superficial world that nonetheless allows us to survive, even though not in the harmony we had previously enjoyed.

We learn from Joseph and this parshah that it is very important that we always act open-heartedly to extend the range of harmony we enjoy, and that we do not mind and fully forgive the seeming offenses of others.

Then we extend the range of Canaan, of harmony, to include the realm of Egypt/Mitzraim, restrictions, and harmony prevails, Jacob is Israel “one who prevails over Gd” (embraces Gd to reveal the Oneness of Gd that expressed as Jacob), We are also Israel when we embrace Gd as Jacob did and return to awareness of the Oneness that Is Always All There Is.

Then we live in the world of Synchronicity: we experience abundance spiritually, mentally, emotionally, physically, socially and environmentally. There is no famine and we raise restrictions to Expressions of Oneness.

Today! Let’s do this today and let us continue always!

Baruch HaShem