"Now Jacob
dwelt ("va’ye'shev") in the land where his father had
sojourned, in the land
of Canaan
In telling
the story of Ya'acov, the narrative highlights the story of Yoseph who was
favored by his father. As a mark of his affections, Ya'acov made his son a
special tunic: "k'tonet passim," a tunic of "passim."
Unlike the commonly held view that this robe, or tunic, was multi-colored, the
word "passim" actually indicates that the robe was extra long
- covering the feet and especially the flat of the hands. (“Pas” is the
palm of the hand or sole, while the verb p.s.s – pey, samech, samech – means to
“disappear” or “pass on,” e.g. Ps. 12;1, which means that the hand would
‘disappear’ because of the ampleness of the cloth). Another source interprets “pas”as a stripe.
It was of a style "such as the daughters of the king dressed
themselves" (in 2nd Sam. 13:18, David's daughter, Tamar, is
recorded as wearing such a robe). By clothing Yoseph in a princely garb,
Ya'acov communicated to the rest of his sons that he had ordained him to
inherit the birthright. It is no wonder then that Ya'acov's favored son incurred
the wrath of his brothers, even before he shared his dreams with them. When Ya'acov
heard Yoseph's second dream, he too became somewhat exasperated with this
spoiled brat. However, the text goes on to tell us that, "his father kept
the saying in his heart" (37:11). Another parent, who on one occasion
"treasured all these things, pondering them in her heart," and who at
another time "hid [the words] in her heart" was Miriam, Yeshua's
mother (Luke 2:19, 51). In her case,
as well as in Ya’acov’s, these “things” were prophetic and had to do with a
grand destiny of a son.
The
Parasha’s account of the conflict between Yoseph and his brothers, in
particular the sons of Bilha and Zilpa (ref. 37:2), is marked by an absence of
“shalom”: “And his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his
brothers, they hated him and could not speak peaceably to him”
(v. 4, emphasis added). But even
though the situation was not resolved, when the brothers went to Shechem to
shepherd their father’s flocks, “Israel Aram Shechem
Ya'acov may have been concerned for his
sons' safety in Sh'chem, as that town's residents most likely remembered them only
too well.2 Much latter, in B’resheet (Genesis) 45:8, the following
words are said by the latter to his brothers who, like him, had been sent (after
him) to Egypt: "So now it was not you
that sent me hither, but Elohim…".3
The commentator goes on to say that "this verse supplies the key to
the understanding of the whole story, which unfolds a dual level of the
mission. There is the obvious mission which Ya'acov sends his son on, but
underlying this mission lies the hidden (deep) workings of Providence Who is
sending the descendants of Avraham to Egypt Valley
of Chevron
Our commentator continues: "Emek
("valley") Chevron is referring to God's mysterious and deep prophecy
to Avraham, and is a play on the word "emek," literally "deep
place".4 To that we would add, that
the episode of the father (Ya'acov) who is sending his son to seek "the
remainder of his brethren [who will return]…" (Micha 5:3), also forms a
parallel picture of the heavenly Father sending His Son to bring back to
Himself His children (the sons of Yisrael/Ya'acov). Let us also take note of
Yoseph’s response to being sent, “here am I” – “hineh’ni,” being
a condensed form of “hineh ani” – “behold here I am.” Although a common idiom,
which we have encountered even up to this point (e.g. Gen. 27:18), what comes
to mind is another ‘send off.’ In Yisha’ayahu (Isaiah) 6:8 we read the
following: “And I heard the voice of YHVH, saying, whom shall I send, and who
will go for us? Then I said, here am I [hineh’ni]; send me!“
(Italics added).
Ya'acov sends
Yoseph from Chevron, which is in Yehuda, to Sh'chem which is in Shomron
(Samaria), from where Yoseph goes on to Dotan (Dothan), also in Shomron, and is
then taken to Egypt ("the world"). This route becomes a geographical
prototype foreshadowing the journey of the Gospel and its witnesses, from
Yehuda to Shomron and to the uttermost parts of the world (ref. Acts 1:8).
Since the
desired “peace in Shechem” did not materialize, it is no wonder that the
shepherds, aka the soon to be criminals, did not lead their flocks to the green
and serene pastures of these environs, but continued on their way. As for
Yoseph, he was directed by “a man” to follow them northward, to Dothan. Notice
that Yoseph’s informant did not require much information; he already knew who
the “brothers” were, and neither was he ignorant as to their whereabouts. Even so today, if we earnestly seek for our
brothers, the Man will not withhold any information from us. He will lead us
directly to them (even if there is a cost involved). It is just a matter of
having the ears to hear and the heart to obey.
What
met Yoseph in Dotan was far from a hearty reunion. His brothers sought to kill
him, and only by Reuven’s intervention was his life spared, and he was cast
into a pit. While Yoseph is naked, and no doubt thirsty and hungry, his
brothers sit down to eat bread (37:24-25). “Bread” is "le’chem,"
of the root l.ch.m (lamed, chet, mem) which is also the root for the verb
"to fight," and for the noun "war" ("milchama").
The men eat their bread - lechem - while in their hearts there is a war-like
attitude - milchama - toward their brother. Proverbs 4:17 says of the wicked:
"they eat the bread of wickedness." The verb for "eat"
there is "la'cha'mu" (of the root we just looked at), which normally
would be understood as "fight," making this verse applicable
therefore to the wickedness manifested by Yoseph's brothers. Shlomo Ostrovski comments here that Yoseph’s
brothers had no idea that some day they would seek out their victim for the
very substance with which they were now satisfying their hunger 5, while
denying him of it.
That Yoseph is the protagonist
of our story is not difficult to determine. Scripture, however, continues to
stress that fact, not only overtly but also by using subtler means. In chapters
37 and 38 the verb y.s.f, – to add, to
repeat – which is the root of Yoseph’s name, appears four times:
“Now Joseph had a dream, and he told it
to his brothers; and they hated him even more – va’yosifu” (37:5).
“And his brothers said to him, ‘Shall
you indeed reign over us? Or shall you indeed have dominion over us?’ So they
hated him even more - va’yosifu - for his dreams and for his words” (37:8).
“And she conceived yet again - va’tosef - and bore a son, and
called his name Shelah” (38:5a).
“So Judah came to the realization and
said, ‘She has been more righteous than I, because I did not give her to Shelah
my son.’ And he never knew – ve’lo yasaf - her again” (38:26 ).
And so, even when the various episodes
involve other individuals, named and unnamed, the Word wants to make sure that
the reader is aware of the central role of Yoseph in all of them.
After sometime in Dothan, a caravan of
merchants passed by and Yehuda, using his pragmatism to suppress his guilt,
suggested selling Yoseph to them (ref. 37:25-28). Later, in the family home, a
great turmoil was caused by Yoseph's (supposed) death, particularly so since
Ya'acov could not be comforted. Yehuda, therefore, 'ups and leaves,' or in the
words of the text he, "departs from his brothers and descends"
("va'yered" - "and he went down")
to Adulam (38:1). While in that state of separation and descent, which led to a
great decline in his life, Yehuda married a Canaantie woman who bore him three
sons. The narrative is plainly in a hurry to make a point, as straight away
after these sons' birth we are told of the firstborn's marriage to Tamar. That
two of Yehuda's sons were displeasing to YHVH, who took their lives (ref. 38:7-10),
is stated as a matter of fact. Without wasting time and words, the narrative
goes on to tell us the story of Tamar and her insistence to "raise up the
name of the deceased" (Ruth 4:5). Tamar's real identity and motive are
only discovered when she produces a pledge in the form of a seal, cord and
staff left to her by her father-in-law, upon her demand to be paid for the
“services” she provided him when she masqueraded as a harlot. The pledge
given to Tamar is "era'von," of the root a.r.v, which we
observed in “erev” - “evening” (in Parashat B’resheet, Gen. in chapter 1). This
pledge is a guarantee for that which is to come. Indeed, without it Tamar would
have been burnt at the stake (ref. vs. 24, 25). But more than just saving the
life of Tamar, it also guaranteed that YHVH's principle of redemption was implemented;
that is, that life was brought forth from the dead, while also insuring the
continuity of what was to become the tribe of Yehuda.
When it is
her time to give birth, Tamar, like Rivka, has twins who, like the former pair,
have an innate 'knowledge' of the importance of the birthright. Again, a competition
over who is to be born first is at hand. Ultimately, the “breaker,"
the "portetz," gains the upper hand and is therefore named
Peretz (v. 29). Many years later, the prophet Micah says, "the breaker
goes up before them. They break out, pass through the gate and go out by it. So
their king goes on before them and YHVH at their head" (2:13). The
preceding verse informs us that the subjects of this description are those who
are being gathered out of Ya'acov and are the remnant of Yisrael who are to be
"put together like sheep in the fold, like a flock in the midst of its
pasture they will be noisy with men." "Noisy" in this reference
is "tehemena," which is of the root "hamon" that we had
encountered in Parashat Lech Lecha (Gen. 12-17). It is this "hamon"
(multitude – in reference to the Patriarch being a “father of a multitude of
nations”), which was symbolized by the letter “h” (hey) that was added to
Avram's name, making it Avraham.
Yoseph’s immediate destiny is marked by down spiraling,
first into a pit and then by being sold to merchants who were “on their way… down
to Egypt” (37:25 emphasis added). However, in the process he was also pulled
up (from the pit), being indicative of the fact that each of his downfalls
will also be marked by a ‘lifting up.’
Yoseph is now
in Egypt - "mitzrayim" - the narrow place of adversity
- but "YHVH was with Joseph, so he became a successful man…" (39:2).
"Successful" takes us back to the word "matzli'ach"
that we studied in Parashat Cha’yey Sarah (Gen. 23-25:18), which is where we noted
that it means to “cause to advance." It is quite evident who
caused Yoseph to advance, so much so that even his pagan master, Potiphar,
recognized it (v. 3). According to Studies in B’resheet, Yoseph's "master
saw and heard Yoseph make mention of the name of his God and attribute his
success and abilities not to his powers but to the Almighty."6 This
conclusion by the Sages is not unfounded. In fact, it is borne out by what
Yoseph says on various other occasions. In 39:9, when warding off the advances
of Potiphar's wife, he exclaims, "How then could I do this great evil and
sin against Elohim?" In 40:8, when asked to interpret dreams while in
prison, he responds: "Do not interpretation belong to Elohim?" Yoseph
will continue to mention the name of his Elohim even when brought before Par'oh
(Pharaoh), in the next Parasha.
But in the meantime, the opening verse
of chapter 39 reiterates the direction: “Now Joseph had been brought down
to Egypt” (emphasis added). This
event took place simultaneously with Yehuda’s departure from his country, from
his family. and from his father’s house (cf. Gen. 12:1): “It came to pass at
that time that Judah departed [literally, went down] from his
brothers” (38:1 emphases added). What is the difference between each of those
descends? Yehuda’s guilt and self-condemnation caused him to choose a way out,
which led to his spiritual back sliding, whereas Yoseph was brought
down not of his own volition. There is a very clear distinction in the
respective responses of these two men. The one is moving from bad to worse,
without looking for a redemptive opportunity, whereas the other, who was
subject to others’ decisions, makes good of every opportunity that comes his
way. However, in each of those cases there exists the overriding sovereignty of
YHVH, in spite of what may be ‘natural’ inclinations (e.g. Proverbs
16:9). When Yehuda left his family, he followed his heart’s leaning –
va-yet (meaning “incline” or ‘lean”) and went over to his Adulamite
friend Hirah upon whom he was relying for help. Later, when he sees the
“harlot,” it says that “he turned – va-yet - to her” (38:16),
once again following his inclinations and desires. On the other hand, after
Yoseph was subject to someone else’s lust, it says of him that YHVH “was with
Yoseph and [literally] –va-yet - inclined/turned his
mercy/loving kindness/grace [chesed] toward him” (39:21
emphasis added).
Yehuda’s downward journey is
accompanied by many mishaps, although every now and then there is evidence of
an attempt on his part to do the “right thing.” How typical of guilt, shame,
and self-condemnation to lead us to try and cover them up by “good works”! Thus,
his sons’ names provide a clue to these feeble attempts. Yehuda named his
firstborn “Er,” meaning “awake.” He was hoping that his depression and
spiritual slumber could be redeemed by having this firstborn. His second son
was called “Onan” – “on” being strength. Rachel named Binyamin, Ben- Oni, “son
of my strength” as his birth had depleted all of her strength and brought about
her death. As to Yehuda’s third son, the latter was born under strange
circumstances: “He was at Chezib when she bore him” (38:5). Who was at Chezib?
Was it the newborn, or was it his father? What is Chezib? Is it truly a place,
or is it a description of a condition? Chezib means “lie, deception,
falsehood.” Is it possible that Shelah was a product of lying and deception,
and was therefore the son of another man, rather than Yehuda’s? Or was Yehuda away while he was born, causing
his wife great grief? One-way or another, Shelah’s birth was not a cause of
great joy, otherwise why would Scripture take the trouble to record the fact
that “he was in chezib” at the birth? The name Shelah possibly means “hers,” reinforcing
the fact that boy may have not been Yehuda’s biological son.
When Yehuda’s degeneration reaches its
peak, he turns (as we saw above) to a prostitute, with whom he leaves
his most precious possessions: signet, cord and staff. Like Easv, who for
momentary satisfaction was willing to give up his birthright, Yehuda had given
the ‘markers’ of his identity and authority to the one whom he perceived to be
a prostitute. Interestingly, later, when he went looking for her to retrieve
his treasures and to cover up his embarrassment and pride (and said, "Let
her take them – the objects - for herself, lest we be shamed;
38:23 emphasis added), he used the term “k’desha,” which is a “temple
prostitute.” However, that word shares its root with “kadosh” – set apart and
holy. That word is repeated 3 times in verses 21 and 22 of chapter 38. Again, a
hint as to the true nature of this woman, who turned out to be “kdosha,” holy
and “righteous,” as Yehuda himself came to realize (v. 26). Interestingly, at
Yehuda’s lowest point of spiritual and moral collapse, YHVH intervenes by using
that which appears to be the very symbol of lowliness and humiliation.
Among the many lessons that Yehuda was
taught by Tamar, his daughter in law, he also had to realize that things are
not always what they seem to be, a lesson that he had to apply one more time
when many years later he met the ‘mighty Egyptian ruler.’
Now back in
Egypt, Potiphar's wife, in her attempt to cover up her own disloyalty and
dishonesty, tried to implicate Yoseph. She, like so many others in the course
of history, subtly enlisted the various members of her household to join her in
an all out attack on her servant. In the process of her "unscrupulous
defaming of Yoseph she makes subtle differentiation between her phrasing of the
account to her slaves and subsequently to her husband. She does not employ the
term "slaves" when addressing the slaves themselves. Yoseph is simply
a Hebrew. To her husband, however, she says, "the Hebrew slave." In
order to win over her slaves and gain their sympathies she is at pains not to
create any feeling of solidarity among the slaves for Yoseph, as one of them. After
all, it was a common thing for masters to denounce their slaves. They would
naturally side with their fellow sufferer. Therefore, she subtly changed her
tone and stated that he is was not one of them, but a stranger, a Hebrew, the
common enemy of all of them. To strengthen the impression and arouse their
hostility for Yoseph she does not say that the Hebrew slave came unto me, but
rather: "see, a Hebrew was brought unto us, to mock us" (39:14). In
short, the Hebrew man has not only wronged me but all of us; he has dishonored
the whole Egyptian nation… Potiphar's
wife in her effort to gain sympathy lumps her slaves together with herself, as
part of one family. The common enemy is the Hebrew. The immense gap is
forgotten, the enormous class distinction between slave and master is
overlooked in the cause of temporary self-interest."7
This Parasha’s
two women, whose stories are told side by side, are both involved in sexual
promiscuity. However, in spite of the fact that it was Tamar who actually ‘exercised’
her heart’s intent, while the second, Potiphar’s unnamed wife did not, it is
the first who is declared righteous (38:26) for having pursued, at all costs,
the righteousness of Elohim, i.e. life from the dead in the form of redemption.
After the
episode in his master’s house, Yoseph is put in prison and just like an echo
from his previous experience, we read the words: "YHVH was with him, and
whatever he did YHVH made to prosper ("matzli'ach")"
(39:23 italics added). Although our Parasha ends with Yoseph seemingly being
forgotten and once again being repaid evil for the good he had done (see
40:9-15, 21), this is just the beginning of what is to become a glorious
career.
The nation of
Yisrael-in-the-making is seen learning the principles of redemption, as each of
its figureheads (Yehuda and Yoseph) is exposed to powerful personal experiences
pertaining to YHVH's kingdom principles.
1.
Moses on the Witness Stand, Shlomo Ostrovski, Keren
Ahava Meshichit, Jerusalem 1976, 1999.
2.
Ibid
3.
Studies in Bereshit, Toldot 1, Nechama Leibowitz,
trans. Aryeh Newman. Eliner Library, Department for Torah Education and Culture
in the Diaspora. Hemed
Books Inc., Brooklyn ,
N.Y.
4.
Ibid
5.
Moses on the Witness Stand, Shlomo Ostrovski, Keren
Ahava Meshichit, Jerusalem 1976, 1999.
6.
Studies in Bereshit, Toldot 1, Nechama Leibowitz,
trans. Aryeh Newman. Eliner
Library, Department for Torah Education and Culture in the Diaspora.
Hemed
Books Inc., Brooklyn ,
N.Y.
7.
Ibid.
No comments:
Post a Comment