Vayeshev: the cloak of betrayal 

This weeks parsha is dominated by betrayal and clothing.  In Hebrew, where the vowels are not (necessarily) explicitly written,  the word beged means clothing and bagad  betrayal, both are bgd, the second, third and fourth letters of the alphabet, in order. 

Overt  betrayals: the brothers plotting against Joseph, Judah failing Tamar, the mastser's wife falsely accusing Joseph of attempted rape  stand out.  In each instance, an article of clothing is prominent.  The tunic of pasim ( multicolored coat) is prominent in the first Joseph story; Tamar's veil allows for her seduction of Judah, and Joseph's robe is the false evidence of his advances.  There are additional, less notorious, betrayals, as well. 

In the second verse: 

אֵ֣לֶּה ׀ תֹּלְד֣וֹת יַעֲקֹ֗ב יוֹסֵ֞ף בֶּן־שְׁבַֽע־עֶשְׂרֵ֤ה שָׁנָה֙ הָיָ֨ה רֹעֶ֤ה אֶת־אֶחָיו֙ בַּצֹּ֔אן וְה֣וּא נַ֗עַר אֶת־בְּנֵ֥י בִלְהָ֛ה וְאֶת־בְּנֵ֥י זִלְפָּ֖ה נְשֵׁ֣י אָבִ֑יו וַיָּבֵ֥א יוֹסֵ֛ף אֶת־דִּבָּתָ֥ם רָעָ֖ה אֶל־אֲבִיהֶֽם׃

This, then, is the line of Jacob:
At seventeen years of age, Joseph tended the flocks with his brothers, as a helper to the sons of his father’s wives Bilhah and Zilpah. And Joseph brought bad reports of them to their father.

Adolescent Joseph trash talks his older half brothers to their father.  The text makes a point of the negative speech by unusual word  דִּבָּתָ֥ם . The usual word for "talk" or "matter" is דָּבָֽר, davar. This word is missing the רֹ r, ( a letter that translates as "head") and remains with two letters, both of which are in bagad, betrayal. Joseph was informing on his brothers, his speech was causing trouble for them.  He could have dressed his speech better.  Does this behavior justify a revenge of selling him into servitude? When Joseph is a slave, his word will not stand against his master's ( or his master's wife's). 

Within the sale of Joseph there are deceptions. Reuben wants to  secretly save Joseph to re-establish his relationship with Jacob, his father, after experimenting with Bilha. He will cross all the other brothers to become the hero. Alas, the brothers acted too quickly, perhaps like he had with Bilha. 

Judah sees the opportunity to profit from selling Joseph to the Ishmaelite - Midianites. Of course: sell the favored younger son of Jacob (himself the  son of the favored, younger Isaac)  to the descendants of the  spurned older son of Abraham, Ishmael. 

Judah then 

וַֽיְהִי֙ בָּעֵ֣ת הַהִ֔וא וַיֵּ֥רֶד יְהוּדָ֖ה מֵאֵ֣ת אֶחָ֑יו וַיֵּ֛ט עַד־אִ֥ישׁ עֲדֻלָּמִ֖י וּשְׁמ֥וֹ חִירָֽה׃ 

About that time Judah left his brothers and camped near a certain Adullamite whose name was Hirah.

He had enough of this treachery, including his own.  He settled down to have a family, but the sins of Er, his first son, and the selfishness of Onan, who had been designated to give Er's  widow a child, seemed to impede a destiny that would generate king David and his most impactful descendants. Judah's betrayal of Tamar, failing to provide her with the promised husband, brings her to heroically clothe herself in the vail and seduce Judah.  This  deception is nuanced, mostly positive. 

Judah's reaction to Tamar's unexpected pregnancy ( which he fathered) is a caricature of  male tyranny: burn her ( and the babies she is carrying) ! When confronted by the evidentiary personal items, he relents and accepts paternity.  Had he not soaked the distinctive tunic of Joseph in goat's  (גְּדִ֣י gedi, two letters from bgd, betray; he had wanted to cover his act of lust with the payment of a גְּדִ֣י, gedi,goat) blood? Being convinced is a an act of will. 

Joseph is sold to the Butcher (executioner) of  Egypt.  Somehow, he becomes a corporate entity.  His master is usually not singular, but pleural. Perhaps the Egyptian system was like the Chinese: everything is jointly owned with the Pharaoh; or perhaps the master sold shares. 

Joseph was a phenom. 

And when his master saw that the LORD was with him and that the LORD lent success to everything he undertook,

Joseph was the archetype of the superlative slave, the individual who succeeds despite assigned social status. This myth helps perpetuate oppression by arguing that the exceptional can rise despite the shackles and uniforms that they wear.  The rare truth adorns the ugly, overwhelming injustice. 

Although Joseph did not succumb to the overtures of his master's wife, he did consider them, reflected in the cantillation of his refusal: the long, ambivalent shalsheleth. Maybe he enjoyed the refusals. 

Joseph is betrayed by a false interpretation of how he came to leave his robe in the hands of his master's wife. But the interaction implicates Joseph's ambivalence.  How did he get so close to her that she could unravel his toga? Did he not understand the purpose of  giving all the other servants the day off? 

Clothing is the origin of deception.  The first thing Adam and Eve do after they eat from the forbidden fruit is make clothing from leaves. They have become enlightened to the fact that their bodies can betray their feelings, and they must cover up to let their  intellect dominate. Every communication will now be clothed, and thus have a potential  element of betrayal

Jacob's demonstration of special affection for Joseph was also a betrayal... of Joseph as well as his brothers.  Jacob's brother Esau had been their father's favorite.  Jacob and his family had just survived a potentially calamitous  confrontation with that favored brother. Jacob knew what (overt) favoritism wrought. Did he do it on purpose?  The story continues to be revealed.  

Vayishlach : Non-Violent Communication

Vayishlach : Non-Violent Communication    

At the urging of one of our children, my wife, Karen, is taking a course in non-violent communication.  That has motivated me to listen to an audiobook, one of the textbooks for the course, Non-Violent Communication by Marshal Rosenberg.  

The principles revolve around being honest with oneself so that one can be clear with others. Distinguishing needs from judgements, trusting other to be like  ( we imagine) ourselves: kind and helpful if possible... if the needs are clearly explained.   Some of these principles are useful in understanding myself and helpful in communicating with others. I like it. 

I wonder which Rosenbergs Marshal comes from.  As an American, he most likely comes from the Jewish Rosenbergs ( but it is very unlikely that he is related to Julius and Ethel).  It is not likely, but possible, he is related to Alfred Rosenberg, who advocated the murder of all Jews  in his Eastern Reich domain. I wonder which non-violent communication technique would work with him? 

Jacob expected a violent  reception when he returned to Canaan from his years with Lavan.  Esau had said that he would kill him. Jacob was coming to claim disputed land. Esau had formed alliances, some sealed by marriage, with the local inhabitants. He had army ready to confront Jacob, a family of 16. Jacob was terrified, and felt that he had exhausted the grace of Gd. 

Jacobs battles an angel.  This battle gives him a limp that presumably lasts for the rest of his life. Perhaps the limp helps to save him.  Now when he confronts Esau, in his lame state, he is less of a threat. He is pitiable, not a worthy opponent. Esau can leave such a rival to deteriorates  on his own.

The battle also gives Jacob a new grace. The angel gave him a name that restored his confidence: Israel, 'he that battles the great force(s)'.  The combat restored him, his Divine credit was intact.  He had enough confidence to carry out his plan for non-violent entry into the land... that chould have been Esau's. 

Jacob sends Esau gifts worth a large fortune.  He insists that Esau take the offerings.  How can Esau kill a brother that shows him such kindness and supplication?  It is not the right time. Isaac is still alive and the vow was to murder Jacob after Isaac's demise. 

Esau offers to have some of his allies accompany Jacob.  I think that the intention was not just to watch this family, but to marry them, integrate them into the local people and culture... as Esau had done with the Hivites, Hittites and Nabateans. Esau accepts Jacobs no. 

No appeasement was possible for Alfred Rosenberg.  He took all of the possession of the children of Israel, he had no need for gifts.  No level of disability could elicit empathy or pity. The mission to murder all of the Jews was beyond appeal and beyond reason.  Attempts to assimilate  into the surrounding society did not work either.  Three generations Judenrein was a required for passing and continued life. 

Non-violent communication works, up to a point.  It does not work if the listener has degraded the speaker to insignificance. It should be tool to prevent the degradation, and may not always be enough on its own. 

In The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, William Shirer traces Nazi antisemitism to the theories of Houston Stewart Chamberlain. He thought of Europe as a competition among three "races." The "mixed" peoples of Southern Europe ( no need for further mention) , the Teutonic peoples: Germans, Celts and Slavs; and the Jews. The Jews, he says, "realize the 'sacred duty' (quotes are Shirer's)  of man to  guard the purity of the races."  Presumably, the Teutonic people do likewise, without explicit statement. 

The marriages of Esau are a source of grief to Isaac and Rebecca. Marrying the local people was problematic.  But later we see Judah marrying an Adulamite, Joseph marries and Egyptian.  It was not "marrying out" that was the problem; it was marrying into the local tribe, as a way for the offspring to inherit the land. This was a ruse used by unscrupulous men of European descent to obtain the oil riches of the Osage indigenous people who had been relocated to the area we now call Oklahoma  ( Indian Territory)  The marriage was, at times, followed by murder to complete the acquisition. 

On a molecular basis, there are no races, it is a false concept. But people from different parts of the world do look  different. I am proud that Jews look like all of them . Jewish identity is not  genetic.  But it can be strong, and a source of immense pride. It should not be a source of conflict. 

Marshal Rosenberg was Jewish. 

Vayetzeh: going out into the world

 Jacob goes to Haran, the land that Abraham left; his father Terach and brother Nachor remained there.  This is the  place where the belief system branched.  This is the place that Gd referred to as "your land" when Abraham was instructed to leave and go ... to the place that Gd would show him. It is the old neighborhood, and the family business is still there. 

Vayetzeh, and he left, always feels like leaving the yeshiva. Jacob meets the world of economic reality.  He must make a living.Jacob leaves the supportive home, where he does not need to worry about scrounging his next meal, and enters the world.  He has a dream of angels, but as soon as he wakes he prays for 

לֶ֛חֶם לֶאֱכֹ֖ל וּבֶ֥גֶד לִלְבֹּֽשׁ׃

 bread to eat and clothing to wear,

Somehow, he needs to acquire the necessities. He turns to The Source for help, but he knows he will be required to work for it. He anoints a stone that served as his pillow. 

Soon he meets the next stone; one that covers the well used to water the sheep.  After ascertaining that he is in Lavan's neighborhood, his destination, he expresses his opinion about sheepherding: 

וַיֹּ֗אמֶר הֵ֥ן עוֹד֙ הַיּ֣וֹם גָּד֔וֹל לֹא־עֵ֖ת הֵאָסֵ֣ף הַמִּקְנֶ֑ה הַשְׁק֥וּ הַצֹּ֖אן וּלְכ֥וּ רְעֽוּ׃

He said, “It is still broad daylight, too early to round up the animals; water the flock and take them to pasture.”

Is he calling the shepherds lazy? 

The reply

וַיֹּאמְרוּ֮ לֹ֣א נוּכַל֒ עַ֣ד אֲשֶׁ֤ר יֵאָֽסְפוּ֙ כׇּל־הָ֣עֲדָרִ֔ים וְגָֽלְלוּ֙ אֶת־הָאֶ֔בֶן מֵעַ֖ל פִּ֣י הַבְּאֵ֑ר וְהִשְׁקִ֖ינוּ הַצֹּֽאן׃

But they said, “We cannot, until all the flocks are rounded up; then the stone is rolled off the mouth of the well and we water the sheep.”

implies  that they have a different economic system.   A more collective system.  The whole community must assemble before the water is distributed according to the rules of the soviet.  You are not in the wild west of Canaan anymore. 

When Rachel comes with Lavan's sheep, Jacob ignores the local custom, removes the covering stone, and waters the sheep. Score one for the liberation of collective land.

It appears that Jacob had to work for his room and board as soon s he arrived. 

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר לָבָן֙ לְיַעֲקֹ֔ב הֲכִי־אָחִ֣י אַ֔תָּה וַעֲבַדְתַּ֖נִי חִנָּ֑ם הַגִּ֥ידָה לִּ֖י מַה־מַּשְׂכֻּרְתֶּֽךָ׃ 

Laban said to Jacob, “Just because you are a kinsman, should you serve me for nothing? Tell me, what shall your wages be?”

Jacob will work to earn  Rachel as his bride.  He paid for the younger, and was tricked into marrying the elder.  Ironic: To get the bracha, he had presented himself as the elder to his father when he was, in fact, the younger. 

Lavan offers to employ Jacob.  Jacob can name his own salary.  Jacob accepts the offer.  He will be paid in all the non-white ( Lavan means white) sheep and goats. Jacob now manipulates the mating behavior of the flocks by setting peeled branches in front of the drinking (and mating) animals. The  scientific details of this animal husbandry psychological intervention  are not clear, but some of the words are charged: 

וַיִּֽקַּֽח־ל֣וֹ יַעֲקֹ֗ב מַקַּ֥ל לִבְנֶ֛ה לַ֖ח וְל֣וּז וְעַרְמ֑וֹן וַיְפַצֵּ֤ל בָּהֵן֙ פְּצָל֣וֹת לְבָנ֔וֹת מַחְשֹׂף֙ הַלָּבָ֔ן אֲשֶׁ֖ר עַל־הַמַּקְלֽוֹת׃ 

Jacob then got fresh shoots of poplar, and of almond and plane, and peeled white stripes in them, laying bare the white of the shoots.

Translation can not capture the impact of the words. Almond, וְל֣וּז, luz, came up at the beginning of the parsha as the name of the place where Jacob had his dream. The dream of Beith El, the house of Gd, was somehow invoked to maximize Jacob's income. 

The word that is translated as "lay bear", machshof, is a homonym of the word meaning magic.  The commentator ( Rashi, ibn Ezra) are careful to translate the word laid bare, lest one misinterpret the sound- alike. 

Was this cheating? Jacob was  manipulating the situation to his advantage.  Such behavior was not forbidden by the contract, but it was probably not anticipated by Lavan, whose cost would be affected by Jacob's cleverness. Once more, we have a story that could incite resentment to Jacob and his descendants. Although no one knows how well these stripped sticks in the watering trough worked, the resentment they sowed is certain. 

Jacob prospered under the agreement. Lavan's heirs were envious .  Their economic theory was:  all that spawned from capital belonged to the capitalist. 

וַיִּשְׁמַ֗ע אֶת־דִּבְרֵ֤י בְנֵֽי־לָבָן֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר לָקַ֣ח יַעֲקֹ֔ב אֵ֖ת כׇּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר לְאָבִ֑ינוּ וּמֵאֲשֶׁ֣ר לְאָבִ֔ינוּ עָשָׂ֕ה אֵ֥ת כׇּל־הַכָּבֹ֖ד הַזֶּֽה׃ 

Now he heard the things that Laban’s sons were saying: “Jacob has taken all that was our father’s, and from that which was our father’s he has built up all this wealth.”

Jacob's wealth belonged to Lavan.

Conveniently, Gd chooses this time to appear to Jacob and tell him to return to Canaan. Haran is getting dangerous.  Jacob and his family leave without saying goodbye. Incidentally, Rachel steals her father's terafim. household idols. 

Rachel took objects to which her father ascribed powers. These contrast with the sticks that helped Jacob acquire his wealth.  The sticks were science, the terafim idolatry. We do not know how either worked. 

Lavan searched for what was stolen from him.  Something was stolen, but he did not find it. Jacob, not knowing about the theft, berates Lavan for his abusive capitalist practices, the suffering he imposes onthe worker.  Lavan answers that 

וַיַּ֨עַן לָבָ֜ן וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֶֽל־יַעֲקֹ֗ב הַבָּנ֨וֹת בְּנֹתַ֜י וְהַבָּנִ֤ים בָּנַי֙ וְהַצֹּ֣אן צֹאנִ֔י וְכֹ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּ֥ה רֹאֶ֖ה לִי־ה֑וּא וְ 

Then Laban spoke up and said to Jacob, “The daughters are my daughters, the children are my children, and the flocks are my flocks; all that you see is mine.

It is all his. There is another theory of possession. The worker, who suffers to obtain the necessities confronts the capitalist who owns the means of production. Now, thousands of years later, we can see who is winning that battle. 

Jacob and Lavan seal their treaty with stones. 

Toldoth: Place in the World

 Toldoth: Place in the World

The crucial story in this week's parsha is the "blessing" imparted by Isaac. It is Isaac's stated intention to bless Esau.  Despite his suspicions, he gives it to Jacob and cannot ,or will not, revoke it.  Esau's sense of injustice in this matter brings him to contemplate the  murder of his brother. 

Isaac told Esau to prepare a feast so that his soul would bless him. This paradigm of meal followed by blessing echos the sacrifices of Abel and Cain, the first pair of brothers - whose competition in bringing an offering comes to murder. The meal, and perhaps the intoxication from the wine that accompanies it,  will permit the emergence of enchanted words of portent. 

Rebecca, the mother of the twins, overhears Isaac's charge to Esau.  She has known, since the twins were in her womb, that the descendants of one will serve the other.  When she asked about the excessive fetal activity, she was told

 שְׁנֵ֤י (גיים) [גוֹיִם֙] בְּבִטְנֵ֔ךְ וּשְׁנֵ֣י לְאֻמִּ֔ים מִמֵּעַ֖יִךְ יִפָּרֵ֑דוּ וּלְאֹם֙ מִלְאֹ֣ם יֶֽאֱמָ֔ץ וְרַ֖ב יַעֲבֹ֥ד צָעִֽיר׃ 

,
“Two nations are in your womb,
Two separate peoples shall issue from your body;
One people shall be mightier than the other,
And the older shall serve the younger.”

Now they are past 40 years old and she has judged it best that Jacob be the dominant.  Isaac seems to have favored Esau. 

This prophecy of "And the older shall serve the younger.”became confused. Jacob had bought the birthright. Had he bought a status that consigned him to servitude or does the physical reality prevail?  This sale of birthright seems not to have been a secret. The terms of sale:  מִכְרָ֥ה כַיּ֛וֹם אֶת־בְּכֹרָֽתְךָ֖ לִֽי, include the words "as day"  Rashi renders  it: 

כַּיּוֹם שֶׁהוּא בָרוּר, כָךְ מְכֹר לִי מְכִירָה בְרוּרָה:: just as the day is clear, let the sale be clear. 

 I understand this to mean that the sale was public, everyone  including the parents, Isaac and  Rebecca knew about the sale and thought... whatever they thought. 

Faced with the redirection of the blessing, Esau admits to his father that he had sold the birthright: 

וַיֹּ֡אמֶר הֲכִי֩ קָרָ֨א שְׁמ֜וֹ יַעֲקֹ֗ב וַֽיַּעְקְבֵ֙נִי֙ זֶ֣ה פַעֲמַ֔יִם אֶת־בְּכֹרָתִ֣י לָקָ֔ח וְהִנֵּ֥ה עַתָּ֖ה לָקַ֣ח בִּרְכָתִ֑י וַיֹּאמַ֕ר הֲלֹא־אָצַ֥לְתָּ לִּ֖י בְּרָכָֽה׃ 

[Esau] said, “Was he, then, named Jacob that he might supplant^aHeb. ‘aqab, connected with “Jacob.” me these two times? First he took away my birthright and now he has taken away my blessing!” And he added, “Have you not reserved a blessing for me?” (a better translation)

What did Jacob  buy? The brand? Presumably he bought the right to announce himself as the first born, which he does when it counts; perhaps it was a joke in the family...at first.  

The nature of the "blessing" is problematic. When Esau asks for some blessing that was held in reserve, Isaac tells him: 

 גְּבִ֞יר שַׂמְתִּ֥יו לָךְ֙ וְאֶת־כׇּל־אֶחָ֗יו נָתַ֤תִּי לוֹ֙ לַעֲבָדִ֔ים וְדָגָ֥ן וְתִירֹ֖שׁ סְמַכְתִּ֑יו וּלְכָ֣ה אֵפ֔וֹא מָ֥ה אֶֽעֱשֶׂ֖ה בְּנִֽי׃

“But I have made him master over you: I have given him all his brothers for servants, and sustained him with grain and wine. What, then, can I still do for you, my son?

Why does a father do this: Make one son dominant and the other subservient? There is a precedent in Noah's curse of Ham.  The more immediate precedent is Isaac's elevation over Ishmael ( in our version). These characters are progenitors of tribes and nations, they represent systems of values and have trajectories through time.  This bracha, translated as blessing, retains some of the agricultural meaning of the word, planting branches to make new trees. The bracha is a hierarchical placement. 

A few verses before Isaac's decision to confer the bracha, there is an interaction with Avimelach and his Philistine retinue. This Avimelech  wants to make an non-aggression treaty with Isaac, similar to the treaty between Avimelech and Abraham.  Isaac asks why; and Avumelech answers: 

We now see plainly that the LORD has been with you

Perhaps, only now does Isaac recognize that he inherited not only the worldly wealth of Abraham, but also his status and he must decide to whom this should be conveyed. The blessing was not intended for either individual, it was intended for the one who could get it. It was a prize up for grabs. 

The conolation blessing is very disturbing: 

וְעַל־חַרְבְּךָ֣ תִֽחְיֶ֔ה וְאֶת־אָחִ֖יךָ תַּעֲבֹ֑ד וְהָיָה֙ כַּאֲשֶׁ֣ר תָּרִ֔יד וּפָרַקְתָּ֥ עֻלּ֖וֹ מֵעַ֥ל צַוָּארֶֽךָ׃ 

Yet by your sword you shall live,
And you shall serve your brother;
But when you grow restive,
You shall break his yoke from your neck.”

Thus, the relationship between  children of Jacob (who will become Israel)  and Esau ( Rome?,Europe?) is established as violent antagonism, distantly echoing the relationship between the serpent and the offspring of woman. 

You have a place in the world.  Does it help to know where it is?