Parashat Vayeshev

THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH, AND HE WAS A SUCCESSFUL MAN. HE REMAINED IN THE HOUSE OF HIS EGYPTIAN MASTER; AND WHEN HIS MASTER SAW THAT THE LORD WAS WITH HIM AND THAT THE LORD LENT SUCCESS TO EVERYTHING HE UNDERTOOK... AND FROM THE TIME THAT THE EGYPTIAN PUT HIM IN CHARGE OF HIS HOUSEHOLD AND OF ALL THAT HE OWNED, THE LORD BLESSED HIS HOUSE FOR JACOB'S SAKE, SO THAT THE BLESSING OF THE LORD WAS UPON EVERYTHING THAT HE OWNED, IN THE HOUSE AND OUTSIDE... SO JOSEPH'S MASTER HAD HIM PUT IN PRISON, WHERE THE KING'S PRISONERS WERE CONFINED. ...THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH: HE EXTENDED KINDNESS TO HIM AND DISPOSED THE CHIEF JAILER FAVORABLY TO HIM.

(Bereishit 39)

 

 

The Lord was with Him vs. the Lord Lent him Success

Unconditional Faith vs. Profitable Faith

Could Potiphar, who was an evil man, have seen that God was with him? What does the Lord was with him mean? That the Name of God never left his mouth: He would enter to serve him and whisper, "Sovereign of the world, you are my security, you are my patron, let me find favor, kindness and mercy in your eyes and in the eyes of all who see me, and in the eyes of my master Potiphar." Then Potiphar would say to him, "What are you whispering? Are you casting a spell on me?" And he would answer, "No, rather I am praying that I should find favor in your eyes." Therefore, it is written, his master saw that the Lord was with him.

And what is the Lord lent success to everything he undertook?

He would pour spiced wine for his master and he would say to him, "What did you pour me?" He would say "spiced wine". He would say to him, "I want absinthe", and it would become absinthe. He would say "I want wine", and it became wine. He would say, "I want cooked wine", and it became cooked wine, and so with water, and so with every different thing, for it says the Lord lent success to everything he undertook. Having seen this, his master handed all of the keys over to him and did not keep track of him at all, for he said with me here, my master gives no thought to anything in this house. When Joseph found himself in this situation, he began to eat and drink and curl his hair and say, "Thank God for who caused me to forget my father's house". The Holy One Blessed be He said to him, "Your father mourns for you in sackcloth and ashes and you eat and drink and curl your hair?? Behold, your mistress will have sex with you and cause trouble!" Therefore it is written: his master's wife caste her eyes.

(Tanhuma YaYeishev 8)

 

 

She is More in the Right - Than I

Daniel Rohrlich

 

In memory of Yoel Yosef Fine, may peace be upon him.

 

There is a story about a criminal who stands before a judge and pleads, "It's true I have broken the law, your Honor, but please take my personal circumstances into account, my exploited childhood and all of the events of my life that have influenced me. If you take these into consideration, you will understand that I had no alternative but to commit this crime."

The judge responds, "Indeed, I do take your personal circumstances into account, but you must also take my circumstances into account, the education that I received and the influences that affect me. Then you will understand that I have no alternative but to find you guilty."

The attempt to turn the philosophical issue of determinism into a legal argument may bring a smile to our lips. However, it is impossible to ignore the importance of this problem for our everyday lives, both inside and outside the courtroom. Jurists puzzle over the degree of a person's responsibility for his actions in different situations. Clinical psychologists come up against the problem of determinism and free will in their work. One noted clinical psychologist even presented her own solution to this complicated question: So long as the patient wants to overcome his difficulties and grapples with the need for change, she views him as a free agent. On the other hand, if he fails to change and also breaks his connection with the therapist, she views him, retroactively, as someone unable to change.

The Sages dealt with the issue of determinism and free will, and came up with a marvelous formulation: "All is foreseen, yet the license to decide is granted" (Avot 3: 15). True, the Sages did not develop a systematic philosophical view of this issue, but the Jewish medieval philosophers, and Maimonides in particular, expounded upon the issue and suggested solutions to it.

I would like to investigate this problem by way of he story of Judah and Tamar, which appears in our parasha.

In the biblical story, Judah refuses to have his third son, Shelah, marry Tamar, even though he is next in line for levirate marriage to her after the death of his two brothers, Er and Onan. Judah's thinking was that he too might die like his brothers.

According to Rashi, Judah never intended for Tamar to marry Shelah, since she seemed to him to be a woman "whose husbands would die". So, the root of Judah's sin against Tamar was his finding fault with Tamar, but not with his own sons who did evil in God's eyes. From this stemmed his decision to doom Tamar to unending widowhood in her father's house. This decision destined them to a future confrontation. Determinism took hold until Tamar went out to ambush him at the entrance to Einayim which is on the road to Timnah... So he [Judah] turned aside to her by the road.

Judah's deception causes Tamar's deception. Similarly, his incrimination of Tamar involved a loss of moral compass that eventually brought him to accept the advances of a prostitute whom he happens upon. The world progresses as usual until Tamar's pregnancy. Judah's pronouncement, bring her out and let her be burned, is also a part of that determinism.

Only with the words, she is more in the right than I, does Judah achieve moral consciousness and take responsibility for the unfolding of events. Consider Rashi's penetrating comment on these words: Judah plainly proclaimed that she is in the right, and not merely that she is more in the right than I.

In that case, what exactly is the difference between she is in the right, and she is more in the right than I?

She is more in the right than I makes a comparison in a way typical for someone who is unwilling to take responsibility for his own actions and who chooses to divide the responsibility between the parties. In contrast, she is in the right is an absolute admission. The continuation of Judah's words prove that he confesses and recognizes his full responsibility inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah. With that the circle begun with Judah's incrimination of Tamar is closed. Despite determinism, Judah admits to his freely-willed sin, thus closing the circle.

Did Judah's sin really arise from a free decision? Or did it result from his inability to find fault with his own sons due to his lack of ability to recognize his own faults? The circle brought to a close with his proclamation she is in the right is situated in a larger circle, just as the story of Judah and Tamar is found within a larger narrative. The circle begins with the sale, upon Judah's suggestion, of Joseph by his brothers. It closes when Judah asks that he personally replace Benjamin as Tzafnat Paneiyah's (i.e. Joseph the viceroy of Egypt) slave. If we suppose that Judah's offense against Tamar originated from the early sin of Joseph's sale, there will never be an end to the matter. Human will is not absolutely free of all influences. But that does not absolve us from assigning responsibility and taking responsibility for our own deeds.

What can this story teach us about the problem of determinism and free will?

In order to answer this question, we must examine the expression mimeni [more than I] added to she is in the right.

Rashi explains the phrase in its literal sense; she is pregnant mimeni [from me]. That is to say, Judah admitted that he had impregnated Tamar. Rashi brings an additional interpretation based on a midrash which says that at the moment Judah said she is in the right, a bat kol [heavenly voice] announced, "these things are from me" - that is, the whole thing came from God, rather than from Judah and Tamar.

This midrash alludes to something beyond human justice. God was responsible for the unfolding of events in the story of Judah and Tamar, and the bat kol testifies to it. In that sense, the midrash confirms that "all is foreseen," implying a kind of pardon.

However, the midrash also implies that we cannot depend on this truth. Paradoxically, only when we take full responsibility for our actions upon ourselves can we come to recognize that all is indeed foreseen, and the forgiveness thereby implied.

Dr. Rohrlich is a physicist

 

 

Now Jacob Was Settled in the Land Where His Father Had Resided

Since the previous parasha already announced that his brother Esau had inherited Mount Seir by his father's merit, scripture had to announce Jacob's inheritance, and said, Now Jacob was settled in the land where his father had resided [eretz megurei aviv, alternatively- the land of his father's sojourning]. This intends to demonstrate his virtuousness, in that he behaved towards the land as a sojourner. As I explained in the previous parasha regarding the verse I give to you (Bereishit 35: 12) - even so, it [the Divine promise] did not affect him, and he sojourned as a stranger as did his father, in the land of Canaan. That is, he behaved in it as in a land not his, rather the land of Canaan. Or one might say: although the land of Canaan was given him as an inheritance, even so he sojourned in it until events were unfolded by Joseph's life-story, and it says, this is the line [toldot - alternatively: life story] of Jacob, Joseph...And he was sold to Egypt, and our fathers went down to Egypt, and He who promised to keep his promise brought them up to the Land, and they inherited their legacy.

(R. Haim ben Atar's Or HaHaim, Bereishit 37: 1)

 

What Do We Gain? Pragmatic Considerations vs. Ethical Considerations

Rabbi Meir said: The word botzeiya (grasping) was used only in reference to Judah, for it says: Then Judah said to his brothers, "What do we gain (ma betza) by killing our brother?" Anyone who blesses Judah reviles and scorns [God], and regarding this it is said, The grasping man reviles and scorns the Lord (Psalms 10: 3).

(B. Sanhedrin 6b)

 

"In reference to Judah": For he should have said, "let us return him to our father", since his brothers hearkened to his words.

(Rashi loc cit)

 

What do we gain: Anyone who blesses Judah reviles and scorns, for he saved Joseph with the words what do we gain, which imply that if there is something to be gained, we will kill him, and regarding this it says The grasping man reviles and scorns the Lord.

(Hizkuni - Bereishit 37: 26)

 

The grasping man reviles and scorns: An Act of Worship Becomes a Curse and a Desecration of the Divine Name.

When Joseph was sent by his father to visit his brothers, they thought about killing him, for it says They said to one another...let us kill him (Bereishit 37: 19) and they stood and threw him into the pit and said "let us eat and drink, and afterwards we'll pull him out and kill him." They ate and drank, and time came to say the grace after meals. Judah said to them: "We are about to kill, and we are blessing God? We are nothing but scorners!"

What does What do we gain by killing our brother mean? Judah told them: The grasping man reviles and scorns the Lord rather, come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites (Bereishit 37: 27).

(Pesikta Rabbati 10)

 

Readers Respond (To Pinchas Leiser's article in the sheet from Hayye Sarah 5764)

In the end of his article, HAGAR/KETURAH FROM "BE'EIR L'CHAI RO'I", Pinchas Leiser asks, "Will we succeed...to listen to the suffering and crying around us and repair that which requires repair?"

The article itself brings up the crying of Sisera's mother, and it would have also been possible to mention the crying of the Egyptians after their army drowned in the Reed Sea (it also would have been possible to mention the sufferings of German mothers caused by the American and British air force bombings in World War II) - But how does the article's author suggest to "repair that which requires repair" in those cases?

Asher Adar

 

Pinchas Leiser responds:

I thank Dr. Adar for his letter and comments.

As for my suggestions:

1) In Shabbat Shalom, my intention was, first and foremost, to raise the question, without any reference to any particular political solution, in order to promote the development of a "non-tribal" moral sensibility.

2) Indeed, it seems to me that the first step towards the redressing of injustice is the development of sensitivity towards the sufferer as a human being, and the assumption of responsibility for our part in the creation of that injustice, even if it was unavoidable.

3) The methods for achievement of this are varied: Establishment of dialogue revolving around textual sources from the religion and culture of each group involved is clearly an important step. Any dialogue between different groups that maintains a readiness for mutual listening is certainly relevant. Beyond that, I think that determined movement towards ending the conflict and control over another people is a necessary stage of repair.

 

 

 

Editorial Board: Pinchas Leiser (Editor), Miriam Fine (Coordinator), Itzhak Frankenthal and Dr. Menachem Klein

Translation: Kadish Goldberg

This weekly publication was made possible by private donors

 

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew edition distributed in Israel $1000
• English edition distributed via email $ 100

Issues may be dedicated in honor of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear in the English email.

Tax exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made through the New Israel Fund or PEF.

Contributions should be marked as donor-advised to OzVeShalom/Netivot Shalom, Shabbat Shalom project.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE NEW ISRAEL FUND IS NO LONGER ACCEPTING DONATIONS UNDER $50. FOR DONATIONS BETWEEN $50 AND $999 THEY ARE CHARGING A $50 SERVICE CHARGE. DONATIONS ABOVE $1000 ARE CHARGED A 5% FEE.

New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA

New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD, Great Britain

PEF will also channel donations and provide a tax-exemptions. Donations should be sent to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite 607, New York, New York 10017 USA

 

About us:

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts which have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom's programs include both educational and protest activities. Seminars, lectures, workshops, conferences and weekend programs are held for students, educators and families, as well as joint seminars for Jews, Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. Protest activities focus on issues of human rights, co-existence between Jews and Arabs, and responses to issues of particular religious relevance.

9,000 copies of a 4 page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email. Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom's educational forums draw people of different backgrounds, secular and religious, who are keen to deepen their Jewish knowledge and to hear an alternative religious standpoint on the subjects of peace and social issues.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom fills an ideological vacuum in Israel's society. Committed both to Jewish tradition and observance, and to the furthering of peace and coexistence, the movement is in a unique position to engage in dialogue with the secular left and the religious right, with Israeli Arabs and with Palestinians.