THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH, AND HE

WAS A SUCCESSFUL MAN. HE REMAINED IN THE

HOUSE OF HIS EGYPTIAN MASTER; AND WHEN HIS MASTER SAW THAT THE LORD WAS WITH HIM AND THAT THE LORD

LENT SUCCESS TO EVERYTHING HE UNDERTOOK…

AND FROM THE TIME THAT THE EGYPTIAN PUT HIM IN CHARGE OF HIS HOUSEHOLD AND OF

ALL THAT HE OWNED, THE LORD

EVERYTHING THAT HE OWNED, IN THE HOUSE AND OUTSIDE… SO JOSEPH'S MASTER HAD HIM PUT IN PRISON, WHERE THE

KING'S PRISONERS WERE CONFINED. …THE

LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH: HE EXTENDED KINDNESS

TO HIM AND DISPOSED THE CHIEF JAILER FAVORABLY TO HIM.

(Bereishit 39)

The Lord was with Him vs. the Lord Lent him Success

Unconditional Faith vs. Profitable Faith

Could Potiphar, who was an evil

man, have seen that God was with him? What does the Lord was with him

mean? That the Name of God never left his mouth: He would enter to serve him

and whisper, "Sovereign of the world, you are my security, you are my

patron, let me find favor, kindness and mercy in your eyes and in the eyes of

all who see me, and in the eyes of my master Potiphar." Then Potiphar

would say to him, "What are you whispering? Are you casting a spell on

me?" And he would answer, "No, rather I am praying that I should find

favor in your eyes." Therefore, it is written, his master saw that the

Lord was with him.

And what is the Lord lent

success to everything he undertook?

He would pour spiced wine for

his master and he would say to him, "What did you pour me?" He would

say "spiced wine". He would say to him, "I want absinthe",

and it would become absinthe. He would say "I want wine", and it

became wine. He would say, "I want cooked wine", and it became cooked

wine, and so with water, and so with every different thing, for it says the

Lord lent success to everything he undertook. Having seen this, his master

handed all of the keys over to him and did not keep track of him at all, for he

said with me here, my master gives no thought to anything in this house.

When Joseph found himself in this situation, he began to eat and drink and curl

his hair and say, "Thank God for who caused me to forget my father's

house". The Holy One Blessed be He said to him, "Your father mourns

for you in sackcloth and ashes and you eat and drink and curl your hair??

Behold, your mistress will have sex with you and cause trouble!" Therefore

it is written: his master's wife caste her eyes.

(Tanhuma YaYeishev 8)

She Is In The Right – It Comes From Me!

Daniel Rohrlich

In memory of Yoel Yosef Fine, may he rest in

peace.

A criminal stands before a judge and pleads, "It's true I have

broken the law, Your Honor, but please take my personal circumstances into

account, my abused childhood and all of the events in my wretched life that

have influenced me. If you take these into consideration, you will understand

that I had no choice but to commit this crime."

The judge responds, "I do take your personal circumstances into account,

but you must also take my personal circumstances into account, the education

that I received and all the events that have crucially affected me. Then you

will understand that I have no choice but to find you guilty."

The attempt to turn the philosophical question of determinism into a

legal defense may bring a smile to our lips. However, it is impossible to ignore

the importance of this question in our everyday lives, both in and out of the

courtroom. Jurists debate the extent of a person's freedom to choose in various

situations. Clinical psychologists come up against the question of determinism

and free will in their work. One noted clinical psychologist presented her own

solution to this complicated issue: So long as a patient wants to overcome his

difficulties and grapples with the need to change, she views him as a free

agent. But if he fails to change and ultimately breaks off contact with the

therapist, she views him, retroactively, as someone who was never capable of

changing.

The Sages dealt with the question of determinism and free will, and

came up with a marvelous formulation: "All is foreseen, yet choice is

granted." (Avot 3: 15) True, the Sages did not

develop a systematic philosophical answer to the question, but the Jewish

medieval philosophers, and Maimonides in particular, addressed the issue of

free will systematically.

Let us investigate this issue in the context of the biblical story of

Judah and Tamar. In this story, Judah

postpones the wedding of his third son, Shelah, to

Tamar, even though Shelah is next in line for

levirate marriage to her after the death of his two brothers, Er and Onan. Judah thought, "He, too, might

die, like his brothers."

The medieval commentator Rashi explained that

Judah

never intended for Tamar to marry Shelah, since she

seemed to him to be a woman whose husbands all die on her. If so, the root of Judah's

sin against Tamar was his finding fault with her, rather than with his own sons

whose behavior was "displeasing to the Lord". This attribution of

blame motivated his decision to doom Tamar to live out her life as a widow in

her father's house – a decision that destined them to a future confrontation. Determinism

took over until Tamar went out to ambush him "at the entrance to Enayim, which is on the road to Timna."

There, Judah

"turned aside to her by the road".

Judah's deception motivated Tamar's deception. Likewise,

his incrimination of Tamar entailed a loss of moral compass that prepared him

to accept the advances of a prostitute. The world turned as it usually does

until Tamar's pregnancy. Judah's

pronouncement, "Bring her out and let her be burned", was also a part

of that determinism.

Only with the words "She is in the right more than I" does Judah

achieve moral consciousness and take responsibility for the unfolding of

events. Rashi made a penetrating comment on these

words: The Hebrew words tsadka mimeni, translated above as "She is in the right more

than I", can also be translated "She is in the right! It comes from

me!" (That is, mimeni can have either a

comparative or an active sense.) Judah plainly proclaimed, "She

is in the right!" and not merely, "She is in the right more than I."

What is the difference between "She is in the right" and "She

is in the right more than I"?

"She is in the right more than I" makes the sort of

comparison typical of someone who is unwilling to take full responsibility for

his own actions, and instead divides the blame among parties. In contrast, "She

is in the right" is an absolute admission. Judah's next words, "inasmuch

as I did not give her to my son Shelah", prove

that he confesses and recognizes his overall responsibility. In that admission,

the circle that opened with Judah's

incrimination of Tamar closes. Rising above determinism, Judah admits to

his freely-willed sin, and closes the circle.

Did Judah's

sin really arise from free will? Or did it result from his inability to find

fault with his own sons, which arose from his inability to recognize his own

faults? The circle that closes with his proclamation "She is in the right"

is situated in a larger circle, just as the story of Judah and Tamar is found

within a larger narrative. The larger circle opens with the sale of Joseph into

slavery, by his brothers, at Judah's

suggestion. It closes when Judah

asks to take the place of Benjamin as the slave of Tzafnat

Paneya (i.e. of Joseph, the viceroy of Egypt).

Yet if we suppose that Judah's

earlier sin against Joseph led him inexorably to sin against Tamar, we cannot

hold Judah

morally responsible for the latter sin. True, human will is not absolutely free

of all influences; but we still have to take responsibility for our own actions

and hold others responsible for theirs.

If so, what can this story teach us about the problem of determinism

and free will?

In order to answer this question, we must examine the word mimeni ["more than I" or "It comes from

me"] that follows tsadka ["She is in

the right"].

Rashi explains the phrase in its literal sense; she is pregnant mimeni [from me]. That is to say, Judah admitted that he had

impregnated Tamar. Rashi also cites a midrashic interpretation according to which, at the moment when

Judah

said "She is in the right", a heavenly voice announced, "It

comes from Me!" That is, the whole chain of

events was determined by God, rather than by Judah and Tamar.

This interpretation points to something beyond human justice. The

heavenly voice testifies that God alone was responsible for the events in the

story of Judah and Tamar. Thus the midrashic

interpretation implies that "all is foreseen" and offers some kind of

absolution. At the same time, it also implies that such absolution is not

something we can take for granted. Paradoxically, it is only when we take full

responsibility for our actions that we begin to recognize that, indeed, all is foreseen,

and begin to accept ourselves.

Dr. Rohrlich is

a physicist

Now Jacob Was Settled in the Land Where His Father Had Resided

Since the previous parasha already

announced that his brother Esau had inherited Mount Seir by his father's merit,

scripture had to announce 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…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)

What Do We Gain? Pragmatic Considerations vs. Ethical

Considerations

Rabbi Meir said: The word botzeiya

(grasping) was used only in reference to Judah, for it says: Then Judah said

to his brothers, "What do we gain (ma betza) by killing our

brother?" Anyone who blesses Judah reviles and scorns [God], and

regarding this it is said, The grasping man reviles and scorns the Lord (Psalms 10: 3).

(B. Sanhedrin 6b)

"In reference to

Judah": For he should have said, "let us return him to our

father", since his brothers hearkened to his words.

(Rashi loc cit)

What do we gain: Anyone who blesses Judah reviles and

scorns, for he saved Joseph with the words what do we gain, which imply

that if there is something to be gained, we will kill him, and regarding this

it says The grasping man reviles and scorns the Lord.

(Hizkuni – Bereishit 37: 26)

The grasping man reviles and scorns: An Act of Worship Becomes a Curse

and a Desecration of the Divine Name.

When Joseph was sent by his

father to visit his brothers, they thought about killing him, for it says They

said to one another…let us kill him (Bereishit

37: 19) and they stood and threw

him into the pit and said "let us eat and drink, and afterwards we'll pull

him out and kill him." They ate and drank, and time came to say the grace

after meals. Judah said to them: "We are about to kill, and we are

blessing God? We are nothing but scorners!"

What does What do we gain by

killing our brother mean? Judah told them: The grasping man reviles and

scorns the Lord rather, come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites (Bereishit 37: 27).

(Pesikta Rabbati 10)

Readers Respond (To Pinchas Leiser's article in the sheet from Hayye

Sarah 5764)

In the end of his article, HAGAR/KETURAH

FROM "BE'EIR L'CHAI RO'I", Pinchas Leiser asks, "Will we succeed…to listen to the suffering

and crying around us and repair that which requires repair?"

The article itself brings up the

crying of Sisera's mother, and it would have also been possible to mention the

crying of the Egyptians after their army drowned in the Reed Sea (it also would

have been possible to mention the sufferings of German mothers caused by the

American and British air force bombings in World War II) – But how does the

article's author suggest to "repair that which requires repair" in

those cases?

Asher Adar

Pinchas Leiser responds:

I thank Dr. Adar for his letter

and comments.

As for my suggestions:

1) In Shabbat Shalom, my intention

was, first and foremost, to raise the question, without any reference to any

particular political solution, in order to promote the development of a

"non-tribal" moral sensibility.

2) Indeed, it seems to me that

the first step towards the redressing of injustice is the development of

sensitivity towards the sufferer as a human being, and the assumption of

responsibility for our part in the creation of that injustice, even if it was

unavoidable.

3) The methods for achievement

of this are varied: Establishment of dialogue revolving around textual sources

from the religion and culture of each group involved is clearly an important

step. Any dialogue between different groups that maintains a readiness for

mutual listening is certainly relevant. Beyond that, I think that determined

movement towards ending the conflict and control over another people is a

necessary stage of repair.

Editorial Board: Pinchas Leiser

(Editor), Miriam Fine (Coordinator), Itzhak Frankenthal and Dr. Menachem Klein

Translation: Kadish Goldberg

This weekly publication was made possible by

private donors

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing

towards its publication and distribution.

·       

Hebrew

edition distributed in Israel $1000

·       

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.

Tax exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made

through the New Israel Fund or PEF.

Contributions should be marked as donor-advised to

OzVeShalom/Netivot Shalom, Shabbat Shalom project.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE NEW ISRAEL FUND IS NO LONGER

ACCEPTING DONATIONS UNDER $50. FOR DONATIONS BETWEEN $50 AND $999 THEY ARE

CHARGING A $50 SERVICE CHARGE. DONATIONS ABOVE $1000 ARE CHARGED A 5% FEE.

New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588,

USA

New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street,

London W1H 2DD, Great Britain

PEF will also channel donations and provide a

tax-exemptions. Donations should be sent to P.E.F. Israel Endowment

Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite 607, New York, New York 10017 USA

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 which 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.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom's programs include both

educational and protest activities. Seminars, lectures, workshops, conferences

and weekend programs are held for students, educators and families, as well as

joint seminars for Jews, Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. Protest activities

focus on issues of human rights, co-existence between Jews and Arabs, and

responses to issues of particular religious relevance.

9,000 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

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom's educational forums

draw people of different backgrounds, secular and religious, who are keen to

deepen their Jewish knowledge and to hear an alternative religious standpoint

on the subjects of peace and social issues.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom fills an ideological

vacuum in Israel's society. Committed both to Jewish tradition and observance,

and to the furthering of peace and coexistence, the movement is in a unique

position to engage in dialogue with the secular left and the religious right,

with Israeli Arabs and with Palestinians.