"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 to
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 than 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 affection, 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, or p.s.h, pey, samech, hey) 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 responded to
each dream’s account by hating “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 - y.s.ph (yod, samech, pey/fey)
- to the name of the one who was the object of this hatred (i.e. Yoseph).
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, there is a semblance of peace! The all-time guarantee for the
ultimate “shalom” in the world is made up of gratifying sexual appetites, material
covetousness, and egoistic ambitions. But 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 field”
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 of
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, albeit 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 that
Ya'acov sends his son on, but underlying this mission lies the hidden (deep)
workings of Providence which 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 “Valley” may
also be a hint as to what was Yoseph’s first ‘station’ on his way to the awaiting
“valley of the shadow of death”. 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 sent Yoseph from Chevron, which is in
Yehuda, to Sh'chem which is in Shomron (Samaria) and from there 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 they 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. The
reference to the “man” – ish – whom Yoseph runs into takes us back to last
week’s Parasha, where his father had a dramatic encounter with an “ish” (Gen.
32:24). (Here is a link to a song, It is my brothers whom I am seeking, https://youtu.be/7FqZJN9w1EY).
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 of his tunic 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
to the wickedness manifested by Yoseph's brothers. Shlomo Ostrovski comments here that Yoseph’s
brothers had no idea that someday 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 are echoed in Yirmiyahu
31:15, where Rachel is described as "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 syntactical 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" will be 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 on the "one" - Yoseph (with past, present, and future
implications), while the "no more", "eyne'nu", is about to
be replaced by "hineni" - “here I am” (by those who come to recognize
their ‘Yosephite’ identity) –- just as Yoseph responded to his father when the
latter dispatched him to his brothers (37:13).
Yoseph was brought down 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 the downward spiral that Yoseph was in: “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 backsliding, 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 is said to
have “gone down” (ref. 38:1) and 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 and resisted 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 with “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 vigor. 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). Thus, 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). By admitting his wrongdoing and taking
responsibility, Yehuda was true to one of the meanings of his name, that is to
"confess" or "admit" (e.g. "He who conceals his transgressions will not
prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will find
compassion" Prov. 28:13, emphasis added).
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 burned at the stake (ref. vs. 24, 25). When approached by her incensed father-in-law,
Tamar presented 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, but 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 ensuring the
continuity of what was to become the tribe of Yehuda. This narrative presents the
principle of death as a guarantee of resurrection, as it is
written: "Now if we died with Messiah, we believe that we shall also live
with Him" (Romans 6:8; 2nd Tim. 2;11).
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
subjects of this description are those who will be gathered out of Ya'acov, and
who are the remnant of Yisrael who 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, but 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.ph continues to
show up. And so we read in 38:5: “And she conceived yet again - va’toseph - and bore a son,
and called his name Shelah”. “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 yasaph” (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 to her husband and take revenge at the same time,
tried to implicate Yoseph, who ran away from her “leaving” his garment in her
hand (39:12). “Leaving” is mentioned earlier, when we are told that her
husband, Potiphar, “left all that he had in Joseph’s hand” (v. 6). In verses 15
and 18, in
recounting the story, Potiphar’s wife keeps emphasizing that Yoseph “left” his
garment behind. It seems that “leaving”, “letting go” or “forsaking” – azov –
plays no small part in this epoch of Yoseph’s life. From the time that his
brothers forsook him, and stripped him of his royal robe (37:23) all the way through
to this episode, in which he lost his garment, he had to give up and submit his
lot into the hands of others. Yet, Yoseph knew that it was YHVH who was in
control of his life and that He would never “leave” or “forsake” him.
Potiphar’s wife, 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 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, and 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 for the sake 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.
