Parshat Vayeshev

WHEN JOSEPH CAME UP TO HIS BROTHERS, THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH OF HIS TUNIC, HIS ORNAMENTED TUNIC THAT HE WAS WEARING.

(Bereishit 37:23)

 

Come and see the work of God, who is held in awe by men for his acts [alilah] (Psalms 66:5)... and regarding Joseph it says his brothers saw that he was loved by his father - by [seeing] the purple swath from which was made the ornamented tunic [ketonet pasim]. Four wrongs were written upon it:

PaSIM: P - Potiphar; S - soharim [traders]; I - Ishmaelites; M - Midianites. All the tribes went down to Egypt because of an ornamented tunic!

And Rabbi Yodan said: The Holy One blessed be He wanted to fulfill the decree of know well [that your offspring shall be strangers in a land not theirs... ] (Bereishit 15:13), [so] he brought about all these acts [alilah] so that Jacob would love Joseph, and his brothers would hate him and sell him to the Ishmaelites, and they would take him down to Egypt, and Jacob would hear that Joseph was alive in Egypt, and he would go down to Egypt with the tribes, and they would be enslaved there. That is: [when reading the verse] and Joseph was brought down [hurad] to Egypt, do not read it hurad, but rather horid - [Joseph] brought down his father and the tribes to Egypt. Rabbi Tanhuma said: What is this similar to? To a cow on whose neck they wish to place a yoke, but she refuses to let them. What did they do? They took her calf from her [and used it] to pull her to the place they wanted her to plough. She would hear her calf moo and she would move - against her own interests - for her calf's sake. That is how the Holy One blessed be He wanted to fulfill the decree of know well, setting all these things into motion [hevi alilah] so that they went down to Egypt and paid their debt. That is why it says and Joseph was brought down to Egypt - it is an example of the verse held in awe by men for his acts.

(Tanhuma Vayeshev 4)

 

 

Divine intentions and Faulty Human Action

Ariel Rathaus

When a caravan of Ishmaelites suddenly appears before the brothers, Judah utters the sentence that will seal Joseph's fate: What do we gain by killing our brother and covering up his blood? Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, but let us not do away with him ourselves (Bereishit 37:26-7).

How are we to judge this suggestion? In contrast to Reuben, who (although he failed in his mission) is explicitly described as intending to save Joseph and return him to his father, Judah's intention remain ethically questionable. While saving his brother from impending death, he also banishes him from his home and into a life of servitude. Rashi, following Targum Onkelos, reads the words What do we gain by killing as expressing arrogance and emotional callousness. He renders them as what monetary profit do we gain - as if Judah had said: "We will not make any money off of his murder; we are better off selling him to the Ishmaelites." Rabbi Ovadiah Seforno offers a more delicate interpretation of the phrase, even praising the fraternal feelings that remained, after all, deep in Judah's heart: "What do we gain - What advantage is there... repaying those who do evil. If we kill our brother, we shall ourselves repay the evil, for our hearts will ache over his death and over our cruelty to him... "

In the Gemara we find Rabbi Meir rejecting Judah's ambivalent suggestion and offering a very stern opinion of his speech:

Rabbi Meir said: The term botze'a [a grasping man] refers particularly to Judah, for it is said: And Judah spoke to his brothers: "What do we gain [ma betza ]by killing our brother." Anyone who blesses Judah is nothing but a scorner, as it says: one who blesses a grasping man scorns the Lord (Psalms 10:3) (Sanhedrin 6b).

Rabbi Meir's drasha is based upon a verse from Psalms whose plain meaning refers to money-hungry thieves who take pride in their deeds (see Ibn Ezra and Metzudat David ad loc). The word botze'a is understood by R. Meir as a direct allusion to the one who uttered the words What do we gain [ma betza]by killing our brother, i.e., Judah. Thus he can conclude that anyone who blesses Judah for having saved Joseph by uttering that sentence is "nothing but a scorner." This is an unambiguous religious and moral rejection of Judah's ploy. Not only must we dissociate ourselves from Judah for not having "completed the commandment" (as R. Elazar says in Sotah 13b, and vide Rashi ad loc) by doing more to save Joseph; even that which he did do does not stand to his credit, not even partially. On the contrary, it is forbidden to praise Judah for having saved Joseph; such praise is tantamount to scorning and blasphemy of God. Just as one who immerses himself in the ritual bath while holding an unclean vermin in his hand cannot become ritually pure, in the same way, someone who suggests that his brother should "merely" be sold into slavery instead of having him killed does not thus save his own soul. He cannot wash his hands of the affair in this way.

R. Meir's words are quite clear and straight forward, but they do invite a question. He does not attack Judah himself, but rather "anyone who blesses Judah." That is to say, he attacks anyone who reads the story of Joseph's sale in a way that casts Judah in a favorable light. True, the darshan has chosen to build upon the formulation from Psalms, one who blesses a grasping man, but would it not have been more reasonable to say that criticism most be first directed against Judah himself, to say that Judah was the first one to scorn God by offering a partial escape for Joseph?

In his Yafeh Mareh, R. Shemuel Ashkenazi Yafeh offers a deep and enlightening discussion of this difficulty:

Why was the one who blessed him called a scorner, but not Judah himself? Furthermore, why a scorner, which refers to angering [God] or blaspheming? It may be said that it is because this act brought about positive consequences; that Joseph rose to greatness in Egypt and saved the world from starvation, so that Judah's deed becomes [seemingly] praiseworthy, having served as the means for the realization of divine intent, as Joseph said, it was to save life that God sent me, etc. That is why he [R. Meir] said that one who thinks this way scorns God, since such a person thinks that God directed the events by influencing Judah's mind to behave as he did. God forbid that God would be wicked! Rather, the positive consequence came from God, and Judah can never glory in his deed. (Quoted by the MaHaRShA on Sanhedrin b, on the passage keneged Yehudah)

R. Shmuel Yafeh interprets R. Meir's words with the subtlety of a theologian and the honesty of a moralist. I think that his argument can be summarized in these words: Judah himself was not capable of knowing the consequences of selling Joseph. He acted out of contrary motives - hatred for his brother on the one hand, and desire not to directly cause his death on the other. This is an understandable human weakness, and his action was deplorable, but it does not involve scorning and desecrating the Divine Name. However, the reader of the book of Bereishit knows that in the end the sale of Joseph would be a blessing rather than a curse. Joseph himself eventually tells his brothers, Now do not be distressed or reproach yourselves because you sold me hither; it was to save life that God sent me ahead of you (Bereishit 45:5). Such a reader might find Judah's deed acceptable and even worthy, given its consequences. He might believe that Judah simply helped God execute His plan. Hadn't God decreed that the Israelites would go down to Egypt? If so, there would seem to be room to praise Judah and to glorify his act, which "served as the means for the realization of divine intent." R. Shmuel Yafeh claims that R. Meir opposed such perverse thinking, and insisted that an unacceptable act remains an unacceptable act, even if it appears to have been justified by its final outcome. God in his great goodness managed to "bring sweetness out of the strong," but there is no reason for the person who erred and sinned to glory in his mistake, and of course there is no reason to praise him for his mistake. The good result does not erase responsibility for improper deeds.

This line of thinking, with its uncompromising moral and spiritual purity, continues down to the words of one of the greatest sages of Israel in recent generations, Rabbi Meir Simkha of Dvinsk, who authored the commentary Meshekh Hokhmah. When discussing the verse, What do we gain by killing our brother, R. Meir Simkhah also cites the words of R. Meir from the tractate Sanhedrin, and gives them an interpretation similar to that of Yafeh Mareh: despite the positive outcome, which may blind our vision, Judah's deed was evil, and he committed it with evil intentions. As such, it is improper to praise it.

Furthermore, Meshekh Hokhmah sharpens and intensifies R. Meir's words, bringing two further examples of "Anyone who blesses is nothing but a scorner." One of these is Judah's deed with Tamar (while their coupling would eventually be seen as giving rise to Israelite royalty, Judah did, in fact, merely intend to have sex with a prostitute). The second example is Aaron's behavior during the sin of the golden calf. He created the calf out of fear that the Israelites might kill him, thus cutting off their path to repentance for ever (Sanhedrin 7a). Unlike the sale of Joseph, here we have a bad deed that was performed with absolutely good intentions. However, at the end of the day, there is no difference between the two acts, and as the Meshekh Hokhmah puts it, "they both require atonement."

The words of both R. Samuel Yafeh as well as those of R. Meir Simkhah of Dvinsk imply the same conclusion: unlike other areas of life - and unlike politics in particular - the life of Torah and faith cannot allow the ends to justify the means. No religious purpose can justify faulty behavior that is aimed at "realization of the divine intention," and to implement God's plans. Even if we could discern those plans with certainty, our burning drive to implement them would not absolve us of our obligations to decency and justice.

We must take care and consider our path carefully lest the salvation we hope will spring from it will appear flawed, and all of our blessings sound like scornful words.

Dr. Ariel Rathaus is a literary researcher and translator

 

 

Now Jacob was settled in the land where his father had resided: Jacob also had the patience to wait

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)

 

The Leader Must Not Have Delusions of Perfection: King David (and, subsequently, the Messiah), Descendent of Peretz and of Ruth the Moabite.

Rabbi Hama bar Hanina said: Why did Joseph die before his brothers? Because he was domineering.

(Berakhot 55b)

 

R. Yehudah said in the name of Shemuel: Why was the kingship of Saul's family discontinued? Because they were without blemish, for Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: One is not appointed leader over the public unless he has a basket of impurities hanging behind him, so that should he become self-satisfied, he can be told: "Look behind you."

(Yoma 22b)

 

Amram took himself Yokheved, his aunt, for a wife - The Holy One acquiesced that a great person such as Moses should descend from a relationship which was destined to be prohibited, because one is not appointed leader over the public unless he has a basket of impurities hanging from his neck, lest he be arrogant towards the people, as we found in the case of David.

(Hizkuni, Shemot 6:20)

 

It is proper to appoint as public official only one who is known to be modest, humble, and patient. This is because he must deal with different people in different and changing ways. He must love each according to his character. If such [leaders] are not to found, but in any case brave and arrogant persons must be appointed, they should be careful not to appoint people so authoritarian as to feel that the appointment is theirs forever, that they are more deserving than their neighbors because of their might; their realization that they are assisted by their father's qualities causes their conceit and arrogance to increase. [Rather, chose] people who know that there are persons more deserving [to be leaders] in their society. If they deny this, someone should be found to tell them the truth and to recall the past. As is said, in light and exaggerated vein, "One is not appointed leader over the public unless there is a sack of impurities hanging behind him." This means, that even though he himself is decent, should he become light-headed and behave haughtily towards the public not for the sake of Heaven, we tell him, "Return and judge yourself, and look behind you." Similarly, they said: "Why was the kingship of Saul's family discontinued? Because it was without blemish." - meaning a family blemish, and because of this they would behave toward the public arrogantly - not necessarily for the sake of Heaven.

(From Beit HaBehira of Rabeinu Menahem Hameiri, (1249-1315), on Yoma 22b).

 

 

 

 

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

• Hebrew edition distributed in Israel $700
• 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.

In Israel, checks made out to Oz VeShalom may be sent to Oz VeShalom-P.O.B. 4433, Jerusalem 91043. Unfortunately there is no Israeli tax-exemption for local donations.

US and British tax exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made through:

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

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

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE NEW ISRAEL FUND IS NO LONGER ACCEPTING DONATIONS UNDER $100.

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

All contributions should be marked as donor-advised to Oz ve'Shalom, the Shabbat Shalom project.

 

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.

5,000 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.