"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 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 Aram Shechem
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 Yosef, 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 Valley
of Chevron
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
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.
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, 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 individuals, 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 sent him to seek them (37:13).
Yoseph was
brought to Egypt
But in the
meantime, the opening verse of chapter 39 reiterates his (temporary) decline:
“Now Joseph had been brought down to Egypt
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 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 (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.
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
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
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
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
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.
Hebrew
Tools for Everyday Use
This time we have something quite different.
Remember that in Chapter 37:15 it says that a man found Yoseph in the field,
while Yoseph was wandering around? We noted above that the man did not wait for
Yoseph to approach him, but rather he took the initiative by asking Yoseph what
he was seeking (notice, he didn’t refer to people, as he didn’t say “whom
are you seeking?”). Yoseph, for his part, responded (v. 16) by saying, “it is
my brothers whom I am seeking. Pray tell me where are they shephering?” (lit.
Hebrew translation). Yoseph took it for granted that the man would have
information about his brothers. Here is the transliteration of Yoseph’s
response, in verse 16, to the man:
Et achai anochi meva’kesh, hagida na lee
eyfo hem ro’eem.
And here is the order of the words as they
appear in Hebrew:
It is my brothers (which) I am seeking, tell
please to me where they (are) shephering.
Now that you have all of this information,
are you ready to learn to sing these words?
Aaron Razel is a known musician and singer
who often sings Biblical texts. In between the sung part of this particular
piece he ‘raps’ a text that is relevant to life in present day Israel, inspiring
and encouraging a focus on unity. For you Yoseph’s words may also have great
current relevance and significance.
