WHEN JOSEPH CAME UP TO HIS BROTHERS, THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH OF HIS TUNIC,

HIS ORNAMENTED TUNIC THAT HE WAS WEARING.

(Bereishit 37:23)

Come and see

men for his acts [alilah] (Psalms

66:5)…

and regarding Joseph it says his brothers saw that he was loved by his

father – by [seeing] the purple swath from which was made the ornamented

tunic [ketonet pasim].

Four wrongs were written upon it:

PaSIM: P – Potiphar; S – soharim

All the tribes went down to Egypt because of an

ornamented tunic!

And Rabbi Yodan said: The Holy One blessed be He wanted to fulfill

the decree of know well [that your offspring shall be strangers in a land

not theirs… ] (Bereishit

15:13),

so that Jacob would love Joseph, and his brothers would hate him and sell him

to the Ishmaelites, and they would take him down to

Egypt, and Jacob would hear that Joseph was alive in Egypt, and he would go

down to Egypt with the tribes, and they would be enslaved there. That is: [when

reading the verse] and Joseph was brought down [hurad]

to Egypt, do not read

it hurad, but rather horid

– [Joseph] brought down his father and the tribes to Egypt. Rabbi Tanhuma said: What is this similar to? To a cow on whose

neck they wish to place a yoke, but she refuses to let them. What did they do? They

took her calf from her [and used it] to pull her to the place they wanted her

to plough. She would hear her calf moo and she would move – against her own

interests – for her calf's sake. That is how the Holy One blessed be He wanted

to fulfill the decree of know well, setting all these things into motion

so that they went down to Egypt and paid their

debt. That is why it says and Joseph was brought down to Egypt – it is an

example of the verse held in awe by

men for his acts.

(Tanhuma Vayeshev 4)

Divine intentions and Faulty Human Action

Ariel Rathaus

When

a caravan of Ishmaelites suddenly appears before the

brothers, Judah utters the

sentence that will seal Joseph's fate: What do we gain by killing our

brother and covering up his blood? Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, but let us not do away with him ourselves (Bereishit 37:26-7).

How

are we to judge this suggestion? In contrast to Reuben, who (although he failed

in his mission) is explicitly described as intending to save Joseph and return

him to his father, Judah's intention remain ethically questionable. While

saving his brother from impending death, he also banishes him from his home and

into a life of servitude. Rashi, following Targum Onkelos, reads the words What do we gain by killing as expressing

arrogance and emotional callousness. He renders them as what monetary profit

do we gain – as if Judah had said: "We

will not make any money off of his murder; we are better off selling him to the

Ishmaelites." Rabbi Ovadiah

Seforno offers a more delicate interpretation of the

phrase, even praising the fraternal feelings that remained, after all, deep in

Judah's heart: "What do we gain – What advantage is there… repaying

those who do evil. If we kill our brother, we shall ourselves repay the evil,

for our hearts will ache over his death and over our cruelty to him… "

In

the Gemara we find Rabbi Meir

rejecting Judah's ambivalent

suggestion and offering a very stern opinion of his speech:

Rabbi Meir said: The term botze'a [a grasping man] refers particularly to

Judah, for it is said: And Judah spoke to his brothers: "What do we

gain [ma betza ]by killing our brother." Anyone

who blesses Judah is nothing but

a scorner, as it says: one who blesses a grasping man scorns the Lord (Psalms

10:3) (Sanhedrin 6b).

Rabbi

Meir's drasha is based upon

a verse from Psalms whose plain meaning refers to money-hungry thieves who take

pride in their deeds (see Ibn Ezra and Metzudat David ad loc). The word botze'a is understood by R. Meir

as a direct allusion to the one who uttered the words What do we gain [ma betza]by killing our brother, i.e., Judah. Thus he can

conclude that anyone who blesses Judah for having

saved Joseph by uttering that sentence is "nothing but a scorner." This

is an unambiguous religious and moral rejection of Judah's ploy. Not

only must we dissociate ourselves from Judah for not having "completed the

commandment" (as R. Elazar says in Sotah 13b, and vide Rashi ad

loc)

by doing more to save Joseph; even that which he did do does not stand to his

credit, not even partially. On the contrary, it is forbidden to praise Judah for having

saved Joseph; such praise is tantamount to scorning and blasphemy of God. Just

as one who immerses himself in the ritual bath while holding an unclean vermin

in his hand cannot become ritually pure, in the same way, someone who suggests

that his brother should "merely" be sold into slavery instead of

having him killed does not thus save his own soul. He cannot wash his hands of

the affair in this way.

R.

Meir's words are quite clear and straight forward,

but they do invite a question. He does not attack Judah himself, but rather "anyone

who blesses Judah." That is

to say, he attacks anyone who reads the story of Joseph's sale in a way that

casts Judah in a favorable

light. True, the darshan has chosen to build upon the

formulation from Psalms, one who blesses a grasping man, but would it

not have been more reasonable to say that criticism most be first directed

against Judah himself, to say that Judah was the first one to scorn God by

offering a partial escape for Joseph?

In

his Yafeh Mareh,

R. Shemuel Ashkenazi Yafeh

offers a deep and enlightening discussion of this difficulty:

Why was the one who blessed him called

a scorner, but not Judah himself? Furthermore, why a scorner, which refers to

angering [God] or blaspheming? It may be said that it is because this act

brought about positive consequences; that Joseph rose to greatness in Egypt and

saved the world from starvation, so that Judah's deed becomes [seemingly]

praiseworthy, having served as the means for the realization of divine intent,

as Joseph said, it was to save life that God sent me, etc. That

is why he [R. Meir] said that one who thinks this way

scorns God, since such a person thinks that God directed the events by

influencing Judah's mind to

behave as he did. God forbid that God would be wicked! Rather, the positive consequence came from God, and

Judah can never

glory in his deed. (Quoted by the MaHaRShA on

Sanhedrin b, on the passage keneged Yehudah)

R.

Shmuel Yafeh interprets R. Meir's words with the subtlety of a theologian and the

honesty of a moralist. I think that his argument can be summarized in these

words: Judah himself was not capable of knowing the consequences of selling

Joseph. He acted out of contrary motives – hatred for his brother on the one

hand, and desire not to directly cause his death on

the other. This is an understandable human weakness, and his action was

deplorable, but it does not involve scorning and desecrating the Divine Name. However,

the reader of the book of Bereishit knows that in the

end the sale of Joseph would be a blessing rather than a curse. Joseph himself

eventually tells his brothers, Now do not be distressed or reproach

ahead of you (Bereishit 45:5). Such a reader

might find Judah's deed

acceptable and even worthy, given its consequences. He might believe that Judah simply helped

God execute His plan. Hadn't God decreed that the Israelites would go down to Egypt? If so, there

would seem to be room to praise Judah and to glorify

his act, which "served as the means for the realization of divine intent."

R. Shmuel Yafeh claims that

R. Meir opposed such perverse thinking, and insisted

that an unacceptable act remains an unacceptable act, even if it appears to

have been justified by its final outcome. God in his great goodness managed to "bring

sweetness out of the strong," but there is no reason for the person who

erred and sinned to glory in his mistake, and of course there is no reason to

praise him for his mistake. The good result does not erase responsibility for

improper deeds.

This

line of thinking, with its uncompromising moral and spiritual purity, continues

down to the words of one of the greatest sages of Israel in recent

generations, Rabbi Meir Simkha

of Dvinsk, who authored the commentary Meshekh Hokhmah. When

discussing the verse, What do we gain by

killing our brother, R. Meir Simkhah

also cites the words of R. Meir from the tractate

Sanhedrin, and gives them an interpretation similar to that of Yafeh Mareh:

despite the positive outcome, which may blind our vision, Judah's deed was

evil, and he committed it with evil intentions. As such, it is improper to

praise it.

Furthermore,

Meshekh Hokhmah

sharpens and intensifies R. Meir's words, bringing

two further examples of "Anyone who blesses is nothing but a scorner."

One of these is Judah's deed with Tamar (while their coupling would eventually

be seen as giving rise to Israelite royalty, Judah did, in fact, merely intend

to have sex with a prostitute). The second example is Aaron's behavior during

the sin of the golden calf. He created the calf out of fear that the Israelites

might kill him, thus cutting off their path to repentance for ever (Sanhedrin

7a).

Unlike the sale of Joseph, here we have a bad deed that was performed with

absolutely good intentions. However, at the end of the day, there is no

difference between the two acts, and as the Meshekh

Hokhmah puts it, "they both require

atonement."

The

words of both R. Samuel Yafeh as well as those of R. Meir Simkhah of Dvinsk imply the same conclusion: unlike other areas of

life – and unlike politics in particular – the life of Torah and faith cannot

allow the ends to justify the means. No religious purpose can justify faulty

behavior that is aimed at "realization of the divine intention," and

to implement God's plans. Even if we could discern those plans with certainty,

our burning drive to implement them would not absolve us of our obligations to

decency and justice.

We

must take care and consider our path carefully lest the salvation we hope will

spring from it will appear flawed, and all of our blessings sound

like scornful words.

Dr. Ariel Rathaus is a literary

researcher and translator

Now Jacob was settled in the land where

his father had resided: Jacob also

had the patience to wait

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)

The Leader Must Not Have Delusions of Perfection: King David

and of Ruth the Moabite.

Rabbi Hama bar Hanina said: Why did

Joseph die before his brothers? Because he was domineering.

(Berakhot 55b)

R. Yehudah said in the name of Shemuel:

Why was the kingship of Saul's family discontinued? Because they were without

blemish, for Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi

Shimon ben Yehotzadak: One

is not appointed leader over the public unless he has a basket of impurities

hanging behind him, so that should he become self-satisfied, he can be told: "Look

behind you."

(Yoma 22b)

Amram took himself Yokheved, his aunt, for a wife – The Holy One

acquiesced that a great person such as Moses should descend from a relationship

which was destined to be prohibited, because one is not appointed leader over

the public unless he has a basket of impurities hanging from his neck, lest he

be arrogant towards the people, as we found in the case of David.

(Hizkuni, Shemot 6:20)

It is proper to

appoint as public official only one who is known to be modest, humble, and

patient. This is because he must deal with different people in different and

changing ways. He must love each according to his character. If such [leaders]

are not to found, but in any case brave and arrogant persons must be appointed,

they should be careful not to appoint people so authoritarian as to feel that

the appointment is theirs forever, that they are more deserving than their

neighbors because of their might; their realization that they are assisted by

their father's qualities causes their conceit and arrogance to increase.

someone should be found to tell them the truth and to recall the past. As is

said, in light and exaggerated vein, "One is not appointed leader over the

public unless there is a sack of impurities hanging behind him." This

means, that even though he himself is decent, should he become light-headed and

behave haughtily towards the public not for the sake of Heaven, we tell him,

"Return and judge yourself, and look behind you." Similarly, they

said: "Why was the kingship of Saul's family discontinued? Because it was without blemish." – meaning a family

blemish, and because of this they would behave toward the public arrogantly – not

necessarily for the sake of Heaven.

(From

Beit HaBehira

of Rabeinu Menahem Hameiri, (1249-1315), on Yoma

22b).

If you enjoy Shabbat

Shalom, please consider contributing towards its publication and

distribution.

• Hebrew edition distributed in Israel $700
• 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.

In Israel, checks made

out to Oz VeShalom may be sent to Oz VeShalom-P.O.B. 4433, Jerusalem 91043.

Unfortunately there is no Israeli tax-exemption for local donations.

US and British

tax exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made

through:

New Israel Fund, POB

91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA

New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD, Great Britain

PLEASE NOTE

THAT THE NEW ISRAEL FUND IS NO

LONGER ACCEPTING DONATIONS UNDER $100.

PEF will also

channel donations and provide a tax-exemption. Donations should be sent to P.E.F.

Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison

Ave., Suite 607, New York, New York 10017 USA

All

contributions should be marked as donor-advised to Oz ve'Shalom,

the Shabbat Shalom project.

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.

5,000 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.