"Now Jacob dwelt ("va’ye'shev") in the land where his father had sojourned, in the land of Canaan. These are the generations of Jacob: Joseph was seventeen years of age…." (Gen. 37:1, 2). The root for the verb "to dwell" is y.sh.v. (yod, shin, bet/vet) and means to “dwell, reside, sit, remain”. According to the scripture just quoted, Ya'acov lived in his father's land, but the “account of his generations” ("toldot") is related through the life of his son - Yoseph. Incidentally, Esav's chronicles (in chapter 36), as well as Yishma'el's (25:12-18), are simply lists of names, whereas the Patriarchs' chronicles are narratives presenting increasing revelations of Elohim and His involvement in the lives of those who bear His name.1 Additionally, identifying Ya'acov's dwelling place with "the land where his father had sojourned", and tying up his annals with the name of his son (Yoseph) serve to illustrate the typical Hebraic approach to the linkage of the generations. Those living in the present do not identify solely with their contemporaries; they are no less connected to their ancestors as well as to their progeny.
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 made up of multi-colored stripes, the
word "passim" actually indicates that the robe was extra long
- covering the feet and especially the flat of the hands. The verb
p.s.s (pey, samech, samech) means to “disappear”
or “pass on” (e.g. Psalms 12:1), which
means that the hand would ‘disappear’ because of the ampleness of the cloth. 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 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 that Ya'acov's favored son incurred
the wrath of his brothers, even before he shared his dreams with them. When
Ya'acov (or Yisrael, as he is called when interacting with this son) 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 awaiting the son.
Yoseph’s brothers’ response to
each dream’s account was that they “hated him even more” (37:5, 8). “Even more”
is not a direct translation of the original, which is “va-yosiphu” – “and
they added”. In other words, more hatred was added to the negative emotions
that the brothers were already harboring toward their sibling. What makes the
usage of this verb here quite intriguing is its root connection - a.s.ph (alef,
samech, pey/fey) - to the name of the one who was the object of this hatred.
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 said to Joseph, ‘Are not
your brothers feeding the flock in Shechem? Come, I will send you to them.’ So
he said to him, ‘Here I am.’ Then he
said to him, ‘Please go and see if it is well with your brothers [‘see the peace
of…’] and well with the flocks [again ‘see the peace of…’], and bring
back word to me’" (37:13-14 emphases added). Yisrael sought information as to the “peace”
of his sons who were, supposedly, doing their work in Shechem. Some years
earlier, when he returned to the Land after his sojourn in Aram, Shechem was
the first location where he found himself. Last week we noted that, “Jacob came
safely to the city of Shechem” (33:18). That “safely”, as we know, is actually “shalem”
– which is whole, unharmed (and perhaps ‘in one piece’). However, this condition of “shalem” did not lead
to “shalom”. The fallacy of “shalom in Shechem” (or Sh’chem, in Hebrew) was
perpetuated when Hamor and Shechem his son, the “lords of the land”, who were
also involved in the rape of Dina, presented to their compatriots the so-called
peaceable offer of Yaacov’s sons (34:21) . Sure, if flesh and greed are
gratified, we can all be happy and at peace! The all-time guarantee for the
ultimate “shalom” in the world is made up of gratifying sexual appetites, material
covetousness, and egoistic ambitions. And when those are not to be had, the
spirits of lust, greed and jealousy prevail, as is so well demonstrated in our Parasha.
Another quick note on the parallel of the Sh’chem episode
to our current one: There it says that “Dina went out to see the daughters of
the land” (34:1), while here her uncle is “wandering in the filed” on his way
to find his brothers. Both “field trips”, in the very same area of the country,
ended in harmful and violent circumstances perpetrated upon these two walkers.
Yet the one obvious difference is that Dina, unlike Yoseph, went on her own
volition.
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 will
be declared by Yoseph to his brothers who, in parallel with his present
situation, would also be sent, but this time 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". It is this connection to Avraham which brings the
"Valley of Chevron" (see 37:14) into the picture, even though Chevron
was on a mountain and not in the valley. The commentator continues: "Emek
("valley of") 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 sends his son to seek
"the remainder of his brethren [who will return]…" (Micha 5:3), also
forms an equivalent 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).
Interestingly, the shepherds did not lead their flocks to
the green and serene pastures of Sh’chem (or at least did not stay there), but
continued on their way. As for Yoseph, he was directed by “a man” to follow
them northward, to Dotan. 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 ears to hear and a heart to obey. The reference
to the “man” – ish – who Yoseph runs into takes us back, to last week’s Parasha
where his father had a dramatic encounter with the “ish” (Ge. 32:24).
But what awaited 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 was naked, having
been stripped off by his brothers, and no doubt thirsty and hungry, his
brothers sat 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 ate their bread - lechem - while
in their hearts there was 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", 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.
And so, even when the various
episodes involve other protagonists, named and unnamed, the Word points to Yoseph’s
central role all the way. His present circumstances being echoed in Yirmiyahu
31:15, where Rachel is described "weeping for her children, refusing to be
comforted because they are no more". However, in
Hebrew it says "because he is no more". Since this does not
make syntaxical sense, we have to ask, 'what does this mean'? Well, back in our
Parasha the bewildered Reuven, upon realizing that Yoseph was no longer in the
pit, cried out: "the lad is no more" (37:30). "He is no
more" is repeated twice in next week's Parasha, this time by Yehuda while
addressing Yoseph (42:13, 32). Thus, the emphasis regarding Rachel's lost children
is in usage of "one" - Yoseph (with past, present and future
implications), while this "no more", "eyne'nu", is about to
be replaced by "hineni" - here I am - just as Yoseph responded to his
father when the latter dispatched him to his brothers (37:13).
Yoseph was brought to 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 (in Genesis 24:21), 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 exclaimed, "How then could I do this great evil and
sin against Elohim?" In 40:8, when asked to interpret dreams while in
prison, he responded: "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 his (temporary) decline: “Now Joseph had
been brought down to Egypt” (emphasis added). This event seems to have taken place
simultaneously with Yehuda’s departure from his country, from his family and
from his father’s house (cf. Gen. 12:1). 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 was moving from bad to worse,
without looking for a redemptive opportunity, whereas the other, who was
subject to others’ decisions, made good of every opportunity that came his way.
However, in each of those cases there exists the overriding sovereignty of
YHVH, in spite of what may be ‘natural’ inclinations (see Proverbs
16:9). When Yehuda left his family, he followed his heart’s leaning –
va-yet (meaning “incline”, or “lean” 38:1) and went over to his
Adulamite friend Hirah upon whom he was leaning/relying for help.
Later, when he saw 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 was
accompanied by many mishaps, although every now and then there was 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 as 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” (and not “sorrow” as commonly thought) as his birth had
depleted all of her strength. 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 (and his mother), or was it the 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 could
possibly mean “hers”, reinforcing the possibility that the boy may have not
been Yehuda’s biological son.
When Yehuda’s degeneration reached its peak, he turned (as we saw above) to a prostitute (after his wife’s death), with whom he left 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. In verses 21 and 22 of chapter 38 this word appears 3 times. 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 intervened by using that which appeared to be the very symbol of lowliness and humiliation (i.e. Tamar’s impersonation of a prostitute).
Tamar insisted to "raise up the name of the deceased" (to borrow words from Ruth 4:5). Tamar's real identity and motive were only discovered when she produced 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 was "era'von", of the root a.r.v, which we observed in “erev” - “evening” (in Parashat B’resheet in Genesis 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). When approached by her incensed father in law, Tamar presents the pledge with the words: “By the man to whom these belong, I am with child. And she said, please determine whose these are” (38:25). “Please determine” – ha’ker na, in Hebrew. How did Tamar know that those were the very words that Yehuda and his brothers used many years before, when presenting their father with the bloody tunic of Yoseph: please examine – haker na - it to see whether it is your son's tunic or not" (38:32)? Next week we will encounter the same verb with some variation. And so, not only was the life of Tamar spared, her action guaranteed that YHVH's principle of redemption was implemented; that is, the bringing forth of life from death (Yehuda having suffered the loss of two sons gained now another two), while also insuring the continuity of what was to become the tribe of Yehuda.
When it was her time to give
birth, Tamar, like Rivka, had twins who, like the former pair, had an innate
'knowledge' of the importance of the birthright. Again, a competition over who
would be born first took place. Ultimately, the “breaker", the
"portetz", gained the upper hand and was therefore named
Peretz (v. 29). Many years later, the prophet Micah will declare, "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 will be gathered out of Ya'acov, and who are the remnant of Yisrael which
will be "put together like sheep in the fold, like a flock in the midst of
its pasture they will be noisy with men".
Thus, not only will the proverbial “Poretz” – Breaker-Leader – be a
descendent of Peretz, so will some of those who are destined to follow Him.
That Yoseph is the protagonist of our story is not
difficult to determine, and Scripture continues to underscore this fact, not
only overtly but also by using subtler means. In chapter 37, as we observed
above, and also in 38 the verb y.s.f –
to add, to repeat – which is the root of Yoseph’s name (the second meaning that
Ra’chel gave for naming him thus, 30:24), appears four times. And so we read in
37:5, 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 her again – “velo yasaf” (38:26 ).
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 will apply one
more time when many years later he will meet the ‘mighty Egyptian ruler.’
Now back in Egypt, Potiphar's wife, in her attempt to
cover up her own disloyalty and take revenge at the same time, 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 her slaves over 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 did not say that the Hebrew slave came to “me”, but
rather: "see, a Hebrew was brought to us, to mock us"
(39:14 italics added). 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 was 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 was 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.
