SO JOSEPH'S MASTER TOOK HIM AND PUT HIM INTO PRISON, THE PLACE WHERE THE KING'S PRISONERS WERE IMPRISONED, AND HE WAS THERE IN THE PRISON.

(Bereishit 39:20)

 

 

Beit Hasohar [Prison]

Linguists [ReDaK in his Sefer HaShorashim, Shoresh "SHR"] explain sohar as an arched chamber, similar in expression to agan hasohar [a round goblet] (Song of Songs 7:3). In my opinion it is an underground house having a small opening above ground, through which the prisoners are lowered and from which they have light. The word sohar is thus derived from the word sihara [light] in Aramaic, just as in Hebrew, Scripture says: A transparency [tzohar] shall you make for the ark (Bereishit 6:16), the word tzohar being derived from tzaharayim [mid-day - when the sun reaches its zenith]. The difference between tzohar and sohar is that tzohar connotes an abundance of light, while sohar connotes minimal light.

(RaMBaN Bereishit 39:20, Chavel translation)

 

Beit Hasohar This [expression] is only found in these parashiyot, and it seems, as Ibn Ezra suggests, that it is an Egyptian word, since it is immediately followed by an explanation, the place where, etc., as is found in the verse pur is the lot (Esther 9:24). This is also a proof of the Torah's antiquity, for Moses uses an Egyptian word that was well known to his generation but unknown to the generations that followed him, for we often find the term beit hakele [another term for "prison"] in the Prophets, but never once the expression beit hasohar. Ibn Ezra thought that Potiphar did not have Joseph killed because he was uncertain about the case, and HaKorem contends that he knew that Joseph was innocent but sent him to prison to cover for his wife - for a similar idea, see Bereishit Rabbah (7:17).

(ShaDaL ad loc)

 

"She is more in the right than I"

Yaakov Deutsch

Chapter 38 of Bereishit, which contains the story of Judah and Tamar, seems to be disconnected from the continuous narrative of our parasha, which deals with Jacob's sons and the struggles between them. In addition, the final verse of chapter 37, And the Medianites sold him to Egypt, to Potiphar, Pharaoh's chamberlain, chief of the slaughterers, and the opening verse of chapter 39, Now Joseph had been brought down to Egypt, and Potiphar, Pharaoh's chamberlain, chief of the slaughterers, purchased him are very similar to each other. This phenomenon, known as a connective repetition, points to the link between the end of chapter 37 and the beginning of chapter 39 and marks them as belonging to the primary plot. This further strengthens the question why the continuous narrative was broken and the story of Judah and Tamar inserted precisely where it was inserted.

Several commentators treat this question. Rashi, for instance, bases his comments on a midrash and claims that the first verse of chapter 38, Now it came about at that time that Judah went down from his brothers, and he turned away until [he came] to an Adullamite man, named Hirah, teaches us that the brothers had lowered Judah from his greatness and that was why he had to go down to Adullam. According to Rashi's interpretation, this section is found adjacent to the story of the sale of Joseph in order to teach us that Judah lost his status because when the brothers saw their father's sorrow over the loss of Joseph they became angry with Judah and said that if only Judah had told them to bring Joseph back instead of selling him, they would have listened to Judah. R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, in contrast, stated that the reason why Judah went down to Adullam was that he could not bear seeing his father suffer. Both explanations find a causal connection between chapter 37 and chapter 38. Both claim that chapter 38 is placed here because Judah's descent was a direct consequence of the events described in chapter 37. Despite these explanations, I will suggest an alternative explanation for chapter 38's presence in this particular location, an explanation that will attempt to find parallels between the story of Judah and Tamar and the story of Jacob's sons.

The story of Jacob's sons and their conflict with Joseph tells of a struggle taking place within a family. From its very beginning, we hear about the brothers' harsh reaction to Joseph's dreams about how they and their parents will bow down before him. After treating the matter of the dreams Scripture tells us, And they continued further to hate him on account of his dreams and on account of his words (37:8). However, this is not enough for the brothers and they decide to solve their problems with Joseph in a more extreme fashion. And so, when they go down to Dotan and see Joseph coming towards them they plan to kill him. In the end, they are satisfied by selling him to the Ishmaelites, thus effectively riding themselves of Joseph and his dreams (So now, let us kill him, and we will cast him into one of the pits, and we will say, "A wild beast devoured him," and we will see what will become of his dreams - 37:20).

The story of Judah and Tamar also depicts a family conflict. Judah's two sons, Er and Onan, have died and now he fears that Shelah will share the fate of his older brothers. As a result, Judah pushes off Tamar and asks her to wait for Shelah to grow up. Later, after Shelah has reached adulthood, Judah still refuses to let Tamar marry him. Tamar has sitting at home waiting, but when she understands what has happened she chooses to take action in a way that will not require a direct confrontation with Judah. She dresses up as a prostitute, and when Judah meets her he cannot recognize her. She does not rebuke him directly for having broken his promise. Judah discovers that she has become pregnant and assumes that she has played the harlot, so he gives the order, "Bring her out, and let her be burned" (38:24). Even then she remains true to her manner of conduct and avoids a direct attack upon Judah. Instead, she chooses to send him the seal and fringes that he had left with her as collateral. Eventually, Judah himself comes to the realization that he had erred and he even admits as much: She is more in the right than I, because I did not give her to my son Shelah (38:26).

Both of these stories deal with conflicts within the family, but each depicts a very different way to solve a crisis. The brothers are angry with Joseph and develop feelings of hatred towards him. These feelings eventually cause them to seek his death. In contrast, Tamar takes an almost opposite route. She consistently avoids direct conflict with Judah, but at the end of the day - and in complete contrast to Joseph's brothers - she achieves her goal. Not only does Judah recognize his error, she even manages to become pregnant and one of her descendants is none other than King David.

The story of Judah and Tamar teaches us that there is a different way to solve conflicts besides the way of hatred and violence; there is a way that brings the other side to understand and recognize its error. I humbly submit that the story of Judah and Tamar is inserted between chapters 36 and 37, which deal with the struggle between the brothers, precisely in order to teach us this lesson. It does so by presenting us with a parallel story in which violent confrontation is avoided, a story that ends instead with one of the sides admitting his error, while the other achieves her goal.

Dr. Yaakov Deutsch teaches in the Jewish History Department of Tel-Aviv University and in the School of History at Hebrew University.

 

 

Now Jacob Was Settled in the Land Where His Father Had Resided: Jacob Also had Patience to Wait

Since the previous parasha already proclaimed that his brother Esau had inherited Mount Seir by his father's merit, Scripture had to proclaim 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, etc. 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)

 

Reuben - Coward or Tzaddik?

But Reuben heard, and he saved him from their hand[s], and he said, "Let us not deal him a deadly blow." And Reuben said to them, "Do not shed blood! Cast him into this pit, which is in the desert, but do not lay a hand upon him," in order to save him from their hand[s], to return him to his father.

in order to save him from their hand[s] - The Holy Spirit testifies that Reuben said this in order to save him, so that he could return and pull him out. He said: I am the firstborn and the oldest of them all, I alone will be blamed."

(Rashi, Bereishit 37:22)

 

...this is difficult to understand: What is the basis for Rashi's assumption that this was the reason for his wanting to save him? Perhaps he was a great tzaddik, and did not want to kill?

It may be explained thus: Further on, in Parashat Vayehi, in his blessings to his sons, Jacob blesses Judah who had said: What gain is there if we kill our brother... Let us sell him...? Why did he not bless Reuben who wanted to save Joseph completely, i.e., intending to return him to his father? In contrast, Judah's advice was to sell him! We must conclude that Reuben's intent was not entirely l'shem Shamayim - for the sake of heaven. It was to prevent him from being blamed: "You are the firstborn..."

(Siftei Hakhamim, Ibid., ibid.)

 

But do not lay a hand upon him - to treat him cruelly, as is written, Wicked deeds come from wicked men - let my hand not participate in this.

(Seforno Ibid., ibid.)

 

Discrimination Creates Jealousy, Hatred, and Violence

And he made him a coat of many colors - Resh Lakish said in the name of R. Elazar ben Azaryah: A person should not discriminate between his children, since the coat of many colors which our father Jacob made for Joseph resulted in [he situation of] they hated him, etc. (Bereishit 37:4)

R. Simon ben Lakish said in the name of R. Elazar ben Azaryah: [It is written:] Go and see God's works (Psalms 66:5), and later it is written, He changed sea into dry land (verse 6). Why was it that they hated him? So that [as a result of the historical process set of by their hatred, they would enslaved be in Egypt and would eventually be redeemed and] the sea would be torn asunder for them into passim [strips].

(Bereishit Rabbah 84:8)

 

That all this was not judicious or wise, that Jacob should not have listened to his tattle, that altogether to show favoritism to one child had only evil effects in the history of our forefathers, as indeed it has in any home, is stressed bitterly enough in the pernicious results which are shown in this story. They are weaknesses which occur only too frequently in people's lives, but are none the less weaknesses.

(Rabbi S.R. Hirsch on Bereishit 37:3, Levy translation)

 

And when his brothers saw that their father loved him (Bereishit 37:4) - Otherwise, they would have thought it was because he was the son of the beloved Rachel, that he loved her sons more than the rest. But when they saw that he was best loved of all the brothers, including Benjamin, they were sure that it was because of the ill reports that he would bring about them, their disrepute gaining him honor and prestige from their father. That is why they hated him - this is plain to see.

(Meshekh Hokhmah ad. loc.)

 

Good Deeds Should be Performed Discretely

There we were binding sheaves in the field, when suddenly my sheaf stood up and remained upright; then your sheaves gathered around and bowed low to my sheaf.

(Bereishit 37:7)

 

It would appear that words in the field are superfluous. However, it could be that their point is in line with that which is found in Tractate Sukkah 49b: "What do we learn from the verse, the curve of your thighs (Song of Songs 7:2)? Just as the thigh is hidden, so too things of Torah should be hidden. This is [in line with] that which is written: What does the Lord ask from you... to walk modestly with the Lord your God (Micah 6:8). Even things that are usually done in public should be performed discretely. The reason is that one who performs [a commandment] in public cannot be sure that unwanted thoughts will not come to his mind, that is, he may become conceited and boastful out of pride [when everyone sees him perform a commandment], and then it [the commandment] will not have been performed for its own sake.

(Rav Tov 65a)

 

Everyone performs commandments openly and sins secretly, while our rabbi sins openly and performs commandments discretely.

(A saying of the Kotzker Hassidim about their rabbi, R. Menahem Mendel MiKotzk, ztz"l)

 

His master's wife lifted up her eyes to Joseph, and she said, "Lie with me."

But he refused

...take note that Scripture does not say, "Joseph did not want to listen to hear," but rather vayima'en [but he refused]. There is a vast difference between these two expressions. One who refuses wants to do the act in question and is not repelled by it. Rather, he does not do it for a different reason. "Did not want" means that he does not desire to do it and is repelled by it. This can be demonstrated throughout Scripture. Here Joseph was not repelled by his master's wife - he did not find her ugly and nasty, since in that case Scripture would have said "Joseph did not want." Instead, he did find her attractive but even so he refused to do as she wished because he set the fear of God before him, and the righteous man shall rule in the fear of God (II Samuel 23:3).

(R. Shemuel Reggio on Berishit 39:8)

 

The philosophers said: One who rules over his soul - even though he performs good and important acts - he does so while inwardly desiring and longing for the forbidden acts, yet he conquers his desires; his actions contradict his desires, he does the proper thing. He suffers from the stormy conflict between his two inclinations.

The righteous person, however, is one whose actions follow from his desire and his attributes; he does good - his desire is to do good, and for that he longs. The philosophers all agree that the righteous man (who is free of the battle between his inclinations) is a spiritually more perfect man than one who subdues his inclination. - because the latter's very desire to do evil is a defective trait of the soul. King Solomon, may he rest in peace, said similarly: The desire of the wicked is set upon evil (Proverbs 21:10). And he spoke of the joy of the righteous in the good deed, and was saddened by the person who is not righteous in his actions: Justice done is a joy to the righteous; to the evildoers, ruination (ibid., ibid., 15). This which is seen in the words of the prophet [David and Saul] is consonant with the views of the philosophers.

But upon examination of the words of our Sages on this subject, we find the following: One who desires sin and longs for it [yet does not sin] - he is more important and perfect than he who has no longing for sin, and suffers none by avoiding it. Our Sages said: the more important and perfect a person is– the greater will be his longing for sin, and the more acute his suffering at not satisfying his desire. They cited sources: "The more a person is greater than his companion, so is his inclination greater". They were not satisfied with this, and they added: The reward given one who conquers his inclination is proportionate to his pain in ruling over his inclination. They said "In proportion to the pain - the reward." Yet more, they encouraged man to desire sin; Let him not say: By nature I have no desire for this sin - even had the Torah not forbidden it to me. "Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: Let man not say: ‘I have no desire to eat meat with milk; I have no desire to wear shaatnez; I have no desire to have an illicit sexual relationship' - rather let him say: ‘I desire, but what can I do? - my Father in heaven decreed!"

Cursory comparison of the words of the philosophers and of our Sages would seem to indicate contradiction - but such is not the case. Both are true, and there is no contradiction at all. The evils of which the philosophers spoke when they said that one who has no inclination for evil is more important than the one who has the inclination but conquers it - these are those matters universally considered to be "evils," such as bloodshed, theft, plunder, cheating, damaging someone without just cause, repaying a benefactor with wickedness, disrespecting parents, etc. These are the commandments of which the Sages said, "Even were they not written, they would have been worthy of being written (mitvot ha'sichliyot, rational commandments). Without doubt a soul that longs for these evils has a defective soul... But those matters of which the Sages thought when saying that one who conquers his inclination is more important - and receives greater reward - are the torot shim'iyot, those prohibitions that, had the Torah not proscribed them, would not have been considered bad at all.

(RaMBaM, Eight Chapters, Chap. 6)

 

 

 

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 that 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.

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.