Readings for Saturday, December 21, 2024
Va-yayshev
(“And he dwelt” or “settled”)
37:1-40:23 Bereshit (Genesis)
Va-yayshev is the ninth sedrah in
Bereshit or Genesis. The
sedrah takes its name from the first Hebrew word in the first sentence of the
reading. “And Jacob dwelt (Va-yayshev)
in the land of his father’s sojournings, in the
The Events Surrounding
the
Since the story is pretty straightforward and most texts offer ample notes, I will limit my commentaries to a few salient points. The opening statement “And now Jacob was settled in the land where his father sojourned” would indicate that Jacob thought his years of wandering were done and that he could settle down to enjoy the good life of a clan leader. However, Jacob’s life will never be settled and he will never know the comfort that Abraham and Isaac enjoyed. Some commentators contend that this is part of the price Jacob must pay for the way in which he supplanted Esau. Others say that the work of the righteous is never done when it comes to carrying out the divine plan for the world. Regardless, one of the more obvious reasons for this lack of rest is found in Jacob’s treatment of Joseph and his other sons. We immediately find out that Joseph is a snitch, that he is his father’s favorite and that the older brothers hate Joseph for these reasons.
The second verse in Chapter 37 states, “And Joseph brought bad reports of them (his brothers) to their father.” This is a prime example of the sin of forbidden speech, which is commonly called “lashon hara.” Our sages have condemned this practice throughout the centuries. That Joseph engages in such vile behavior is one thing. That Jacob encourages such behavior is even worse. If one ever one wonders where speaking evil of another can lead, just remember that Joseph’s bad reports about his brother were the first in a chain of events that helped bring us to bondage in Egypt. The tale that ends up with Joseph being sold into slavery is quite repetitive. It is another example of one child being favored over another with resulting negative consequences. It is also another example of Jacob being deceived by his children. Just as Jacob deceived his father and brother so is he fated to be deceived over and over again. And finally, it demonstrates, once again, that our ancestors were quite capable of some rather vile behavior. First, the brothers wanted to murder Joseph. Then they were willing to let him die of thirst and starvation while they enjoyed their own meal. And finally they contented themselves with selling their brother into slavery. This latter offense is considered kidnapping, which is a capital crime under Jewish law. It is worth noting that Rueben tried saving his younger brother. But, in this case, the act of trickery failed. The ultimate act of trickery has to be the brothers’ daily deception of their father over the “death” of Joseph. How they could watch their father mourn for Joseph day in and day out, year in and year out, boggles the modern mind. Whom did they hate more, Joseph or Jacob?
Joseph has two dreams in the opening verses of the sedrah. The dreams are important for several reasons. First, the content helps to fuel his brothers’ resentment, which will later result in his being sold into slavery. Second, the dreams are important because they do in fact prove to be a portent of Joseph’s future relationship with his family. And finally they are the first of three pairs of dreams that have a major impact on Joseph’s life. As Joseph matures, he will learn that it is not enough to understand a dream. One must also understand the people to whom one explains the dream as well.
Judah and Tamar (38:1-30)
Briefly,
this chapter recounts the story of a woman named Tamar and Jacob’s son
Judah. Tamar marries
Joseph’s Early Years in
These
chapters could have been called the
Potiphar’s wife invites Joseph into her bed and Joseph turns her down. His rejection is based on moral grounds. Apparently Joseph has matured since he left home because he had to know that there was grave risk in spurning the advances of his mistress. After further rejection, Potiphar’s wife accuses Joseph of attempted rape and he falls from a position of power into the royal prison. Clothing plays a prominent role in the life of Joseph. It is his “cloak of many colors” that earns his brothers’ enmity and is used as evidence of his death. It is a cloak in the hands of Potiphar’s wife that provides the evidence of his alleged rape.
Once in prison, Joseph repeats what seems to be his destined lot in life - the very successful chief administrator for the Egyptians. Just as he managed Potiphar’s household, now Joseph manages the prison for the chief jailer. Once again he is successful “because the Lord was with him.” This role of successful administrator will culminate later when Joseph meets the Pharaoh. While in jail, Joseph interprets the dreams of two Egyptian officials - the chief cupbearer and the chief baker. This is the second pair of dreams that have an impact on Joseph’s life. It should be noted that Joseph’s willingness to interpret these dreams is an act of kindness. He only offers to interpret them because he sees that they are “downcast” over their dreams and because “there is no one to interpret them.” This sensitivity to the feelings of others is a far from cry from the swaggering seventeen-year-old we met at the start of Va-yayshev. Also, it should be noted that Joseph does not claim to be the interpreter. Instead he gives all of the credit to the Lord. “Surely God can interpret (your dreams)!” As every Sunday School child knows, Joseph’s interpretations prove to be true. The baker ends up being killed and the cupbearer ends up being restored to his high office. The sedrah ends on a seemingly negative note. All that Joseph had asked as payment for interpreting the dreams was to be remembered so that he might be freed from his unjust imprisonment. But the cupbearer forgot Joseph and left our forefather to languish in prison.
Themes:
Names: There are no name changes this time. However, it is worth noting that the term Hebrews or Ivrim is used several times in the sedrah both by Potiphar’s wife and by Joseph himself to identify Joseph’s lineage. The question of who were our ancestors and to whom in the ancient world are we related continues to puzzle archeologists and biblical scholars to this day.
Names II: Joseph tells his fellow prisoners who were Egyptians that he “was kidnapped from the land of the Hebrews.” Note, he does not say Canaan. If you read the Bible literally, this would indicate that ancient Egyptians knew who the Hebrews were and where their lands were. If you read the text as an explanation of later events in the manner of Rabbi Kugel, it still means that in antiquity the Promised Land was known as the land of the Hebrews. Interestingly enough, in the 19th century and the early 20th century, the secular press referred to the Jews as “Hebrews.”
Dreams: This topic will be more fully developed after we read about Pharaoh’s dreams in the next sedrah. Suffice it to say that the Jewish view of the importance of dreams was not the same as that of the Egyptians or ancient people. You might want to consider what the difference is between dreams and prophecy.
Family: The Torah continues to present us with families that demonstrate high levels of dysfunctionality. Ever since Cain and Abel, the Torah has demonstrated the negative consequences of favoritism. And the behavior of Jacob’s sons shows that they are worthy successors (if that is the right term) to both Laban and Jacob.
Memory: Judaism puts a premium on memory. We are reminded over and over again that we
were slaves in
The Blood Not Shed Might Be Your Own: When the brothers are debating Joseph’s fate, Reuben calls out,”Shed no blood! Throw him into this pit in the wilderness, but lay no hand on him” (37:22). From this utterance comes the following instructive tale. In a town beyond the Carpathian Mountains, a penniless gentile stopped at the home of poor Jew who was known for feeding others, even with his own limited means. The beggar said he hadn’t eaten for days and pleaded for a slice of bread. It was Erev of Shabbat and the only bread in the house was the uncut loaves of Challah that would not be sliced until the evening meal. When the Jew saw that his wife was reluctant to break into one of her specially prepared loaves, he called out to her, “Slice up a loaf; no blood will be lost because of it.” The wife complied. The beggar was fed and the incident was quickly forgotten. Years later, this same Jew was traveling late at night. A band of brigands attacked him, stripped him of possessions and brought him back to the camp where their leader would decide his fate. Lo and behold, the chief of the thieves was the same starving gentile. He looked at the Jew and remembered his kindness. He told his comrades to give the Jew back his belongings and escort him safely home. When the Jew entered his home he told his waiting wife, “Do you remember that I told you to slice up the loaf, and no blood would be lost because of it? Well, because of it the blood that wasn’t lost was mine.”
Shame: When the pregnant Tamar was accused of being a harlot, her father-in-law Judah said, “‘Take her out and let her be burned.’ As she was taken out, she sent word to her father-in-law saying, ‘By the man to whom these belong I am with…’” (38:24, 25). Tamar’s merit is that chose not to expose Judah in public. She sent him the evidence in private so as not to shame him in front of the community. From this episode the sages deduced the precept that a man should be willing to jump into a fiery furnace before embarrassing or shaming another person in public. A corollary of this is that being right is important; being right in the right way may be even more important.
Never
Words Without A Reason: The sedrah ends
with “And the chief of the cupbearers did not remember Joseph, but forgot him”
(40:23). Why doesn’t the text end with
the phrase “did not remember Joseph” and instead tack on what appears to be the
redundant “but forgot him.” According to
one Midrash, Joseph was ashamed of himself for having asked the cupbearer’s aid
in getting out of prison (40:14). He
prayed to God to forgive him for what appeared to be a momentary lapse when he
asked for human intervention instead of trusting in Divine Justice. The restatement at the end of the sedrah
shows that God had heard Joseph’s prayer and had answered it. Another explanation is that the restatement
is an example of the arrogance of the newly affluent. The cupbearer is an example of those people
who, having risen from humble origins, choose to forget from whence they came
and the less fortunate whom they left behind. By repeating the description of the
cupbearer’s behavior, the author is reminding us of the great effort the
cupbearer went to to “forget” the lowly state from which he had risen. Once upon a time, there was an actor who was a
liberal Democrat, a supporter of the New Deal.
Later in his career he started earning a lot of money. He was upset about the taxes he had to
pay. One of his thespian colleagues told
him he should become a Republican. That
was the party that let the wealthy keep their money and not pay taxes. Forgetting how those vary taxes had provided
his own father with a New Deal job during the Great Depression; the actor
switched his political persuasion and changed his political philosophy to one
befitting his newly acquired wealth.
Eventually he would follow a peanut farmer from
Onan: Why was Onan punished? The conventional wisdom centers its answer on the mechanics of his behavior. There are those who would say that he was punished for the why of his behavior not the mechanics of it. Onan spilled his seed because the product of the conception would have been considered to be his brother’s child. In spilling his seed he was attempting to blot out his brother’s line, to make it as if he had never existed. It would be like blowing out a yahrzeit candle or destroying somebody’s tombstone. Jews put a premium on memory and remembering. Over and over again we are commanded “Zachor” - Remember. In modern times the Holocaust was not just an attempt to kill all of the Jews; it was an attempt to wipe out even the memory of the Jews’ existence. When the Arabs held Jerusalem for twenty years, they desecrated the synagogues and used tombstones for paving stones for the same reason - to wipe out the memory of the Jews’ existence. In our daily lives, how many of us behave like Onan, wiping out the memory of others? Whenever we forget to thank those who have helped us accomplish a task we are in effect wiping out their memory. Why are footnotes so important in the world of academia? It is acknowledgement of the help a researcher was provided and that footnote may be some other writer’s only moment of immortality.
Sex in the Scripture: The stories about Tamar and Potiphar’s wife are not the first stories involving sex in the Bible. Nor will they be the last. There are numerous possibilities for including these two tales in the same weekly reading. The story of Judah and Tamar portrays sex as a means of procreation and/or recreation. The story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife shows sexual relations evolving to a higher level. Unlike the pseudo-soft core porn portrayed in today’s media, Joseph, the young, handsome hunk does not surrender to the lustful entreaties of the “older, sexy, married woman.” Instead he enunciates a view that sexual relations are sacred; that marriage is a special relationship that, if violated, is an affront to God. Is this a case that a sympathetic Northerner inserted a story that made the progenitor of the Joseph Tribes look superior to the founder of the Southern (Judah dominated) Kingdom? Is it case that the “Redactor” or redactors were trying to show that Jewish views of the relationship between men and women were constantly evolving, hopefully to a higher level? Or is there a third explanation for placing these two apparently conflicting views of sexual relations in the same weekly reading? Yes, another question for a long, languid Kiddush discussion.
Change in Status: “…Joseph tended the flocks with his brothers, as a helper to the sons of his father’s wives Bilhah and Zilpah.” (37:2) Previously Zilpah was described as the handmaiden of Leah and Bilhah was the handmaiden of Rachel. The wives of Jacob gave these two women to him as concubines. Without any warning the status of the two women is changed to that of “wives.” How did this happen? Was the change in status a result of the deaths of their mistresses, Leah and Rachel? The text does not say. But if the status of these women was upgraded from concubines to wives it makes one wonder why those who re-wrote the Amidah did not include them in the changed prayer.
Co-Workers: In the opening of the sedrah, the text tells us that Joseph worked with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah - Dan, Naphtali, Gad and Asher. This means that he did not work with the sons of Leah. Is there a reason for this separation? Is this another portent of the future division of the Leah tribes (Judah and Levi) from the Joseph tribes or as it comes to be known the Southern Kingdom and the Northern Kingdom.
Forbidden Relationships: In this week’s reading we are reminded that world before Sinai (the giving of the law) and after Sinai were different places. The Book of Leviticus contains a long list of forbidden relationships. But here Judah has a child by the woman who is his daughter-in-law twice over.
Twins Again: As we have said, the “author” or “authors” seem to have a penchant for repeating literary themes. In the case of the Tamar Story, the theme is twins, just as we saw with Esau and Jacob. But in this case, the first child through the birth canal, Perez, is the one who will get the leadership role as can be seen by the fact that he is the progenitor of King David. Also, we see a repetition of the theme of red. Esau is described as being Red, while Zerah, the twin brother of Perez, came out with the crimson (or red) thread tied to his hand. Unlike in the case of Esau, in this case “the red twin” came out second.
Just The Facts: In the Torah, the rationale for Judah supplanting Rueben begins with this week’s portion and continues intermittently over the next few weeks. However, Chronicles, the last book in the TaNaCh which provides what might be called a “spare or lean” version of these same events. What takes chapters in Bereishit is covered in just two verses in chapter 5 of Chronicles. It can be instructive to read the parallel versions of events described in the first two sections of the TaNaCh with what appears in Chronicles which is, chronologically, “the last word.”
Haftarah
2:6-3:8 Amos
The Man: Amos is too big a topic for a brief weekly summary like this. He is a worthy subject for more than one book and/or a multiplicity of academic treatments. For now we will try to say enough to cover the subject without being too overwhelming. Fortunately, Amos will provide the text for another haftarah so we can spend more time on this moral giant and innovator.
Amos
was probably the first of the literary prophets, even though his book has been
placed third among the so-called Twelve Minor Prophets. Unlike other prophets we have studied, we
know a fair amount about him from the text itself. He was from Tekoa, a small town near
Bethlehem in Judah, the Southern Kingdom. He was “a herdsman and a dresser of sycamore
trees” and not a professional seer. He
only assumed the role of prophet because God said, “Go prophesy unto My people
The Message: As we can see from statements above in which Amos describes himself, he represented a new dimension in the world of prophets. He was not a seer, a professional prophet or part of the retinue at court. He would be the first in a series of divinely inspired critics who preached a message of social justice. His preachings on this are consistent with the laws found in the Torah, especially in Devarim. Ritual in a society without justice was meaningless. “Take away from Me the noise of your songs; To the melody of your harps I will not listen. But let justice well up as waters, And righteousness as a mighty stream.” It would be this lack of social justice that would lead to the exile of the Israelites from their home.
Amos
was not opposed to ritual. He was
opposed to sham. In the end, the need
for making this a just society was a way to fulfill God’s plan for the world. As to the issue of ritual and justice, we need
them both. As Plaut writes, “we
constantly remember God’s presence with ritual and prayer and at the same time
order our relationships with others in accordance with ethical principles. Religion without ethics is not
religion.” But God is the source of
truly ethical behavior. As we can see
from this haftarah another aspect of Amos’ message is his belief in the unique
relationship between God and His Chosen People.
“You alone have I known of all the families of the earth…”(3:2). But because of this unique relationship, much
was expected of the Israelites.
“Therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.”(3:2). In other words, Jews are judged by a higher a
moral standard. God has given us more -
the Exodus and the Torah - and therefore He expects more from us and punishes us
more harshly. You might not like the
explanation for our suffering, but at least Amos provides one. Amos also preaches a message of ultimate
redemption. In the end of the book, God,
speaking through Amos, offers these words of hope to the Children of
Israel. “And I will plant them upon
their land, and they shall no more be plucked out of their land, which I have
given them, saith the Lord thy God.” (
Theme-Link: There are at least three possible links between the sedrah and the haftarah. In the sedrah, we read about Joseph’s brothers selling him for twenty pieces of silver. In the haftarah, Amos cries out against those who “sell the righteous for silver” (2:6). Amos uses the Hebrew word tzaddik when speaking of the righteous sold for silver. Rabbinic commentaries refer to our young hero as Yosef ha-Tzaddik (Joseph the Righteous) or simply as Ha-Tzaddik. So there is a double link between the sedrah and the reference found in the haftarah. In the sedrah we read the story of Judah and Tamar, a story about a father and his son sharing the same woman. In the haftarah, Amos declares, “Father and son go to the same girl, and thereby profane My holy name.” (2:7). Last but not least is the issue of the “garment” or, in Hebrew, “beged.” In the sedrah we read about Potiphar’s wife grabbing hold of Joseph’s garment or “beged” as he escapes from her clutches. She waves this garment as her proof of his villainy. In fact, the garment is proof of his virtue, of his righteousness and his moral dignity. He has left it behind rather than compromise his beliefs. In the haftarah, Amos condemns the rich because “They recline by every altar on garments (begadim, pl. form of beged) taken in pledge” (2:8). At first glance he is condemning the wealthy for violating the commands found in Devarim 24 :( 10-13) concerning taking the garment of the poor as a pledge. However, there is a deeper meaning. The garment is not just a piece of clothing. Based on the episode in the sedrah, taking the garment of the poor is akin to stripping of them their dignity for financial gain; something that is morally reprehensible.
Amos & Tzedakah: The sedrah is about Yosef Ha-Tzaddik (Joseph, the Tzaddik or Righteous Person). Amos calls for righteousness to “well up as a mighty stream.” The giving of extra measures of Tzedakah is equated by some with the vision of the mighty stream.
“Amos On Times Square”: This was the name of a famous poem written at the outbreak of World War II by Jacob J. Weinstein. The poet uses the motif of Amos’ prophecies. But he substitutes the combatants in World War II for the ancient nations mentioned in the writings of Amos. While the poem may be somewhat dated, it is interesting to note that the work of Amos was so well known that this literary device proved quite effective in communicating with the general population.
Personal Note: I have a special relationship with this reading. This first time I saw it was for my Bar Mitzvah which was a long, long time ago. Imagine being thirteen and the sweat is pouring down the back of your brand new Bar Mitzvah suit as they motion for you to come up and read from the scroll. Imagine hearing your father (who is an educated man) reciting the Torah blessings and then gazing intently at the open scroll as you start chanting in your quavering adolescent voice. Imagine the intensity of my prayer that God get me through this without screwing up. From that day forward, there was a special bond between Amos and me. We had gotten through that morning in one piece and I would not forget him for that. To this day, I can still hear those first three words of the prophet, “Koa ahmar adnoai” and to this day the sweat still runs down the back of my suit whenever I have to get up in front of a group of Jews on a Saturday morning.
Irregular Reading: This week’s prophetic portion is frequently not read because often as not Parsha Va-yayshev is read during Chanukah which means the haftarah chanted is the special one chosen for Shabbat Chanukah. This year the calendar gives us the luxury having a little extra time to devote to the study of the upcoming minor festival. It might be useful if we take that time to look beyond the child-like version of Chanukah that captivates us complete with candles, fried food and presents. A deeper study of the events might show how the victory of the Hasmoneans paved the way for the events that ultimately led to the destruction of the Second Temple. A deeper study might show that Judah Maccabee’s victory was distorted by his descendants who actually took on the trappings of the Hellenistic world that he had found so objectionable. One place to begin would be with a reading of the Anchor Bible version of I Maccabees that comes with an introduction and commentary by Dr. Jonathan Goldstein, Z"L, a noted scholar who for decades taught at the University of Iowa and who was a pillar of the Iowa City Jewish community. You might find that a study of this period in our history encompassing the last two centuries before the Common Era and the first century of the Common Era provides a cautionary tale the is eerily applicable to our own times.
Copyright,
December, 2024, Mitchell A. Levin