Shemoth: Names

We have names for each of the chapters of the Torah. A few are named for rituals or holidays. Most of the names are derived from the first unusual word in the chapter. Often, the relationship between the title word and the content of the chapter is ambiguous, it is not clear whether the title word captures the essence of the chapter or not. Perhaps the title word captures the essence, perhaps it is incidental. I think that Shemoth is not an accidental name.  I think that Shemoth is about the meanings of names and reputations and memorials (these are the definitions of Shemoth given in the Sefaria open source dictionary). 

The parsha opens by listing the names of the 12 tribal chiefs, the twelve sons of Israel. In the context of subsequent history, the union of these tribes into a single nation is the most significant development. The Egyptian experience of shared oppression (although the oppression may not have been equally distributed) fostered that unity and made all the children of Israel siblings, it gave them a common name. 

Soon, a new character appears, מֶ֣לֶךְ מִצְרַ֔יִם, [the] king of Egypt. Is this Pharoah? Is the Pharoah a person with two or more titles? Perhaps this is not Pharaoh, it is the equivalent of the Prime Minister. This role could be an outgrowth of the (positive) experience that Egypt enjoyed when Joseph ruled Egypt as viceroy. Politics may have dictated that new King of Egypt negate the memory of his (distant) predecessor to consolidate power. The phrase that King Egypt uses to deny Joseph 

 לֹֽא־יָדַ֖ע אֶת־יוֹסֵֽף

did not know Joseph (E1;8)

is the same as Pharoah's subsequent denial of recognition for Gd

לֹ֤א יָדַ֙עְתִּי֙ אֶת־יְ

I do not know (this) [entity]

Pharaoh's denial can be understood rationally. This (ineffable) name had very recently been revealed to Moshe as part of the instructions to liberate the Israelites from their bondage. The lack of recognition can also be seen as a denial of an entity that sees the situation, recognizes the suffering and injustice and therefore demands remediation (I will be what I will be), Pharaoh is denying the need to answer to a power greater than himself; the need to answer to history. 

Pharaoh's lack of Gd recognition contrasts with the midwives who were ordered to kill the newborn Hebrew boys. 

וַתִּירֶ֤אןָ הַֽמְיַלְּדֹת֙ אֶת־הָ֣

But the midwives feared THE Gd, and did not as the king of Miżrayim commanded them, but saved the men children alive.

This HaElokim was the entity to which Joseph attributed the power of dream interpretation to the Pharoah who elevated Joseph. The Use of the definite article, הָ֣, hay, conveys an aspect of monotheism.

In the context of my own background, I find this passage about righteous midwives very interesting. Historian Manfred Oldenburg  (quoted by Fritzsche), noted few drastic consequences for soldiers refusing to execute Jews. That is not to deny that many families were killed for attempting to rescue Jews, and certainly not to take away from the honor of the families that courageously helped my parents survive.  The families that helped often feared HaElokim, the One Gd. The price of heroism is unpredictable.

Significance is overtly attached to many of the names. Moshe (Moses) carries the name given to him by his foster mother, the daughter of Pharaoh. His biological mother (and wet nurse) does not name him. Moshe is the one who is drawn up, the one who is rescued, the man who is tied to salvation. He is recognized as a Hebrew who has been raised in the Egyptian court. When he kills the cruel Egyptian taskmaster, establishing his revolutionary outlaw status, everyone is struggling with his identity: Moshe, the Hebrews and the Egyptians. 

Moshe becomes a stranger in Midian where he marries and names his son Gershom: "I was a stranger in a foreign land." Moshe was an Egyptian in Midian; He had been a Hebrew in Egypt.  Which does he mean? Both are true. 

When Moshe returns to Egypt on his mission of liberation, the story turns pitiful. It is not surprising that Pharaoh and the King of Egypt doble down on the Israelites. Their initial oppression worked extremely well. Looking good to the (Egyptian) administration has become their highest value. Their slavery  is mostly self-imposed.

This situation is reminiscent of the Nazi organized ghetto where a document that claimed employment would rescue a person from deportation … for a while. The rules became ever harsher, the documents fewer. The documents became more precious. When the government is the oppressor, compliance and confusion are the easy answers. But when compliance means deportation to the unknown, the law yields to survival. Building sympathy for the minimally less fortunate is hard. When you are a slave, when you have almost nothing, sympathy is too expensive.

That is what we see when Moshe approaches the Pharaoh and King of Egypt to give the Hebrews some time off. When he is rebuffed by the doubling down, the denial of raw material without a reduction in the demanded quota of bricks, the Hebrew elders and the Israelites are upset by  Moshe, no by Pharaoh’s edict. The arbitrary, persecutorial dictates of the Authorities are assumed justified, while the reasonable and beneficial request of Moses is dismissed as a grounds for increased persecution.

These chapters of the Torah, describing the enslavement and persecution of the (working class) Hebrews, the difficulty in enlightening  the persecuted to their plight, and the ultimate success of revolution feel  like a guidebook for Marx and Lenin.

Liberation begins with recognition of the situation and realizing that there are options. Sometimes sympathy is expensive; it can be worth the price.

 

 

 

 

 Vayechi: Zionism

Jacob is the last of the patriarchs. The patriarchal families are the anchors to the Promised Land, Canaan. Abraham obeyed the Divine instruction to move there. He liberated  the land from the five Babylonian/Persian kings who had invaded and subjugated the land, establishing  the right of conquest. He was crowned by the local priest ( Melchizedek).  He bought the burial plot from Ephron the Hittite, obtaining the rights of a purchaser. Abraham and Sarah were buried in the Promised Land, establishing that place as a pilgrimage destination for his descendants. 

Isaac never left the land, regardless of conditions including famine and the enmity of his neighbors. He was a birthright citizen. 

Jacob risked his life to obtain the blessing that granted him Isaac's legacy claim. Jacob  spent a fortune and risked his life when he confronted Esau to establish his claim to the land. Jacob's sons conquered Shechem with a combination of guile and military might. Jacob  buried his wives in the Land, Rachel in her own shrine and Leah in the family cemetery in Hebron.  

Jacob and his clan went to Egypt with Gd's blessing, because of famine in the region. This week's chapter opens with: 

וַיְחִ֤י יַעֲקֹב֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם שְׁבַ֥ע עֶשְׂרֵ֖ה שָׁנָ֑ה וַיְהִ֤י יְמֵֽי־יַעֲקֹב֙ שְׁנֵ֣י חַיָּ֔יו שֶׁ֣בַע שָׁנִ֔ים וְאַרְבָּעִ֥ים וּמְאַ֖ת שָׁנָֽה׃ 

Jacob lived seventeen years in the land of Egypt, so that the span of Jacob’s life came to one hundred and forty-seven years.

The first phrase, arguably the main message, is that Jacob lived in Egypt for 17 years. The fact that underlies this statement is that Jacob and his clan did not leave Egypt. The famine had ended no more than five years from Jacob's arrival in Egypt, at least 12 years ago. Why didn't Jacob and his clan return to the Promised Land? 

One thought is that they were fulfilling Abraham's prophecy: 

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר לְאַבְרָ֗ם יָדֹ֨עַ תֵּדַ֜ע כִּי־גֵ֣ר ׀ יִהְיֶ֣ה זַרְעֲךָ֗ בְּאֶ֙רֶץ֙ לֹ֣א לָהֶ֔ם וַעֲבָד֖וּם וְעִנּ֣וּ אֹתָ֑ם אַרְבַּ֥ע מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָֽה׃ 

And [God] said to Abram, “Know well that your offspring shall be strangers in a land not theirs, and they shall be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years;  (Gen 15;13). 

I do not believe that (normal)  people try to fulfill prophecies. Prophecies are declarations of the Almighty.  If the Almighty wills an event ( and does not have a  change of heart) , the events will occur regardless of  puny human actions. Working to fulfill a prophecy is an empty endeavor. 

Language is imprecise, all words are vague, with shades of meaning differing between  the speaker and the listener.  Words evolve.  We are in a constant game of "telephone." Imagine what "texting" someone meant in the 12th Century.

Zionism is an evolving word. Zionism was (and is?) associated with a prophecy. Early (pre 1903 [Kishinev Pogrom]  immigrants were motivated by the prophecy of return to the Holy Land. But the prophecy fulfillment motivation was distorted by legalisms. Migration to the Holy Land had become obligatory according to some (Nachmanides) although it remained outside of the 613 commandments listed by Maimonides.  Although the religious obligation may be related to the prophecy, the mitzvah  is a clear call to action, the prophecy is not. There is a high level disagreement about the mitzvah status of moving to the Holy Land. 

Zionism is tied to the ultimate  prophecy: Messianism. The attempt to bring the Messiah, taking action to fulfill the prophecy of ultimate salvation, has a  very checkered ( almost entirely negative) past. It has been the source of splinter sects, debauchery, murder, etc. The Messianist believes that she is saving the world. No sacrifice is too great. It is a very dangerous position!

I am a Zionist. I think that Zionism follows in the tradition of patriarch Jacob. The State of Israel was (and is) needed as a refuge  and protector for the Jews of the world. That is not the most beautiful fairy tale, but it is how it played out. 

Jacob and his clan went to Egypt to survive the famine.  They stayed because they were doing well economically, they were supported by the state and/or patron Joseph. They did not want to confront enemies and the possibility of another famine. The prophecy was in the background. They did not volunteer to become slaves because of Abraham's dream. Subjectively, they went about their normal lives with their normal motivations. The dream of the Promised land moved to the background.

The children of Israel traded their "freedom" for the slavery of the nourished. The bondage in Egypt began not with whips, but with the subjugation of dreams  to economic security. They became enslaved to sustenance. The dead need no bread.  They are a memory marked by the location of their remains. 

I plan to spend more time in Israel now that I am no longer tied to my practice. I feel more comfortable there.   I will be near the graves of my parents... and my own burial plot. 

May all the beautiful prophecies be fulfilled. I will not stand in their way. I will try to do what I believe is right. That is complex and fluid; Gd's will will prevail. 

 Vayigash: Assimilation

Vayigash is the origin story of the Israelite/Jewish exile.

Exile, Galuth, is an important character in Jewish history. The land promised to Abraham, the reward for his obedience, is a prize that is, almost always, out of reach. The land is offered as  the reward for a renewal of that obedience. 

The formal promise of the land to Abraham , the covenant between the parts, contains a long, bitter period of exile.

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר לְאַבְרָ֗ם יָדֹ֨עַ תֵּדַ֜ע כִּי־גֵ֣ר ׀ יִהְיֶ֣ה זַרְעֲךָ֗ בְּאֶ֙רֶץ֙ לֹ֣א לָהֶ֔ם וַעֲבָד֖וּם וְעִנּ֣וּ אֹתָ֑ם אַרְבַּ֥ע מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָֽה׃ 

And [God] said to Abram, “Know well that your offspring shall be strangers in a land not theirs, and they shall be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years;

(Gen 15;13)

Exile is woven into the Promise of the land. Although the period of exile is terribly long, several lifespans, it is  finite. The bad times will end and there will a return. There is  a Promised Exile. This is the covenent that sets up  most of  the action in the five books.  It is a prophecy that predicts an outcome, and thus, it  might generate its own fulfillment. The Joseph story, which culminates in this week's parsha, with the descent of the 70 person Jacob family to Egypt, is the prequel to the main event: Moses leading the people out of Egypt and to the edge of the Promised Land. . 

Most of Jewish history has been spent in exile  dreaming  of redemption. Recent history has added complexity to the dream covenant.  A Jewish state in (part of) the Promised land of the bible is not enough.  The Orthodox continue to pray a return to Zion. What are they praying for? Nothing less than Heaven on earth will satisfy the vision of the promise.

 Egypt is an escape from famine, not a permanent home.  The impermanence of the Egyptian sojourn is clearly expressed by the Israelites  when the come down to Egypt.

וַיֹּאמְר֣וּ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֗ה לָג֣וּר בָּאָ֘רֶץ֮ בָּ֒אנוּ֒

They said moreover to Par῾o, To sojourn in the land are we come;

Pharaoh and Joseph do more, They provide a land grant, a potentially permanent new home: 

וַיּוֹשֵׁ֣ב יוֹסֵף֮ אֶת־אָבִ֣יו וְאֶת־אֶחָיו֒ וַיִּתֵּ֨ן לָהֶ֤ם אֲחֻזָּה֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם

And Yosef provided abodes for his father and his brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Miżrayim

When the Israelites came to Egypt, the dream of the covenant was strong. They are deeded land and things change.  It is not clear when their motivation for returning to Canaan faded. Perhaps they were reluctant to "return" to a land subject to occasional famines; a place where the local tribes are probably conspiring against the devious destroyers of Shechem; that land where Esau is lurking.  Meanwhile, they became quite comfortable in  Egypt. The Babylonian exile, a millennium later, was similar. Only a small fraction of the Jews "returned"  to the Promised Land from Babylon ( or Persia)  when they had the opportunity.  The Babylonian (majority)  "remnant" came to dominate Jewish thought. 

The Egyptian experience could have turned out differently. The Israelites could have stayed permanently. They could have remained in Goshen.  They could have reacted to their persecution with rebellion and, possibly, local conquest.  Perhaps it was not a  coincidence that the final, definitive victory, that destroyed the Egyptian military also  put the (impassable) Sea of Reeds between the Israelites and any plan of return to Egypt.  Perhaps, later, when the rebels in the dessert threatened  to return to Egypt, they imagined themselves as masters in a land of plenty, not slaves.

The identification of Egypt as exile reflects the Torah's vision of world order. Nations are assigned territories by Gd. They cannot march into places that were not designated for them and claim sovereignty. Famine can dictate migration; considerable economic gain might justify ( temporary) emigration from the assigned land. But people do not have the right to conquer foreign lands . Colonial empires are not for Jews; more often, the Jews are exploited as foreigners, even in the Promised Land. 

The story  of migration to Egypt  reveals the  tension between assimilation and identity. Joseph instructs his brothers to present themselves as cattle-breeders rather than shepherds when meeting Pharaoh, knowing that shepherds are considered abhorrent to Egyptians.  However, the brothers ignnore this advice, proudly  (or ignorantly) declaring themselves shepherds like their ancestors. This tension between assimilation and tradition would play out countless times as Jews migrated to new lands.

I saw the  conflict between the newcomers and the assimilated play out in my family . When my parents came to America, the more assimilated American cousins tried to teach them how to be American: the right phrases and gestures. My parents were lost. The world of their childhood was a dreamlike legend both  to them and their American host-peers. The Yiddish language was now reserved for witticisms; otherwise, it was to be forgotten along with the traditions it recalled.

Settled immigrants and newer immigrants are in a  dance. Those who came earlier sacrificed their pasts and endured the hardships of pioneers. They were forced to adapt and found appealing aspects in the new ways. Those who prospered were  in a position to rescue their kin. Along with the welcome came a mixture of advice and dominance.   The acclimatized, now naturalized citizens, want to keep the wealth and power they have acquired through assimilation. The newcomers dredge up the old resentments and stereotypes. They remind the assimilated of things they  have lost. 

My parents tried to become American, but there were limits to how much they could change .  American non-kosher food was too foreign; they never lost their accents.  It is only now that I see how intelligently they selected from the menu of possible Americanisms, along with the clever rejections. Those choices are most of what I am. 

I married an Amerikainer, a woman whose roots were in the uppermost corner of the West coast, the most American place in America. Her American forebearers  stretch back to  the  colonization of Puget Sound by Europeans, five generations. Her parents spoke perfect English, no Yiddish. Her grandmother made Rice Krispy cookies. But the spark of the dormant  traditions was in her. She was sent to Jewish school, exposed to our history in a favorable light. She grew to love it.  Now our children have it, in their own, hybrid, ways. I am very hopeful for the next generation as I see them sing our songs. 

Chanuka celebrates the victory of Jewish tradition over the temptations of assimilation. A new tradition, the lighting of the menorah, comes to preserve the old portfolio of beliefs and practices. The Jews rejected becoming Greek, but they became proficient in many of the arts the Greeks developed. Chanuka is the paradigm of selective assimilation, a trick that is modeled in  Vayigash. 

 

The tension between assimilation and tradition, the complex dynamics between established immigrants and newcomers, and the challenge of maintaining identity while adapting to new surroundings all echo the patterns first seen in Vayigash. The  choices made for immediate survival can have long-lasting consequences for identity. 

Make your choices carefully. 

 Miketz: 

וַיְהִ֕י מִקֵּ֖ץ שְׁנָתַ֣יִם יָמִ֑ים וּפַרְעֹ֣ה חֹלֵ֔ם

It was at the end of two full years, that Pharaoh had a dream

This word, miketz,  is  frightening to me.  It has these long, complex letters.  It ends in a harsh  tz sound. It means the end. At the end, things will be as they are; there is no appeal. We all all know the name of our end. When Gd brings the great flood, Gd says to Noah: 

קֵ֤ץ כׇּל־בָּשָׂר֙ בָּ֣א לְפָנַ֔י

The end of all flesh is come before Me;

There is no later, no appeal. 

The same word signifies the end of Pharaohs dream: 

וַיִּיקַ֖ץ פַּרְעֹֽה׃

Pharaoh awoke

There is a  psycho-emotional connection between ending and awakening. While the dream goes on, the possibilities are endless. Everything  is possible  - as long as we are alive. [The Vilna Gaon fingering his tzitzith on his deathbed].  Life is but a dream. 

The story of this parsha  is the realization of dreams. It starts with Pharoah awakening from the dream that will bring Joseph out of yet another prison/pit. Joseph had been thrown into the pit by his brothers who feared his dominance. He was sold into the abyss of slavery. Joseph ascended based his talents (Divine gifts) and upon the grace that Gd bestowed upon him. Excess grace resulted in another renunciation: he was imprisoned to protect his temptress/tormentor.   He was victimized by his inferior social status.

Joseph's interpretation of Pharaoh's dreams lifted him to the  position of viceroy of Egypt, second in command. Actually, he was completely in command, as Pharoah says: 

אַתָּה֙ תִּהְיֶ֣ה עַל־בֵּיתִ֔י וְעַל־פִּ֖יךָ יִשַּׁ֣ק כׇּל־עַמִּ֑י רַ֥ק הַכִּסֵּ֖א אֶגְדַּ֥ל מִמֶּֽךָּ׃ 

You shall be in charge of my court, and by your command shall all my people be directed; only with respect to the throne shall I be superior to you.”

but his status was limited. 

Despite his power and wealth, Joseph remained a second class citizen because he was a Hebrew. When Joseph arranges a feast for his brothers, neither Joseph nor his brother can sit with the Egyptians : 

וַיָּשִׂ֥ימוּ ל֛וֹ לְבַדּ֖וֹ וְלָהֶ֣ם לְבַדָּ֑ם וְלַמִּצְרִ֞ים הָאֹכְלִ֤ים אִתּוֹ֙ לְבַדָּ֔ם כִּי֩ לֹ֨א יוּכְל֜וּן הַמִּצְרִ֗ים לֶאֱכֹ֤ל אֶת־הָֽעִבְרִים֙ לֶ֔חֶם כִּי־תוֹעֵבָ֥ה הִ֖וא לְמִצְרָֽיִם׃ 

They served him by himself, and them by themselves, and the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves; for the Egyptians could not dine with the Hebrews, since that would be abhorrent to the Egyptians.

No matter how powerful the Jew becomes, the Jew remains abominable. 

Parshath Miketz is read on Chanukah. The Joseph story contrasts with the Chanukah story.  Joseph, the Hebrew,  ascends to the most powerful position in the world. Although he never becomes Egyptian, he accepts his alienation from his past. When he names his  first born Menashe: 

יִּקְרָ֥א יוֹסֵ֛ף אֶת־שֵׁ֥ם הַבְּכ֖וֹר מְנַשֶּׁ֑ה כִּֽי־נַשַּׁ֤נִי אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶת־כׇּל־עֲמָלִ֔י וְאֵ֖ת כׇּל־בֵּ֥ית אָבִֽי׃

Joseph named the first-born Manasseh, meaning, “God has made me forget completely my hardship and my parental home.”

Perhaps Joseph was forgetting only the hardships. When tumors are excised, healthy tissue always accompanies the disease. It is very likely that Joseph adopted some Egyptian customs to carry out his work. Assimilation was needed for his great success. 

The Joseph story is closely related to the Purim story. Mordechai competes for the position of Grand Vizier (viceroy) of the Persian Empire.  The Jews are dispersed, and to various degrees, assimilated through that Empire. Mordechai's refusal to adopt some of the (newly decreed) Persian practices causes the Grand Vizier to launch a genocidal  campaign against the Jews. This time, the hidden Jewish temptress, the antithesis of the mater's wife in the Joseph story, saves the Jews from destruction, and Mordechai ascend to viceroy. The Jews re-assert their faith

קִיְּמ֣וּ (וקבל) [וְקִבְּל֣וּ] הַיְּהוּדִים֩ ׀ עֲלֵיהֶ֨ם ׀ וְעַל־זַרְעָ֜ם וְעַ֨ל כׇּל־הַנִּלְוִ֤ים עֲלֵיהֶם֙

the Jews undertook and irrevocably obligated themselves and their descendants, and all who might join them,

The Jews were unified. 

The Joseph story has an important thread on the issue of unity. There are hints that the bond among the brothers was fraying. 

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

Now it was at about that time 

 that Yehuda went down, away from his brothers 

 and turned aside to an Adullamite man

Joseph's insistence on  seeing his full brother, Benjamin, as a condition for the freedom and survival of the Israel family,  assured that the sons of Rachel were not alienated ( or worse) as Joseph had been.  The end of the story (the ketz) is the Egyptian slavery -  which unified the Israelites into a single nation.

Chanukah is another reassertion of unity. The issue that underlies Chanukah is assimilation into the post- Alexandrian Hellenism.  The trickle of voluntary assimilation  was  now promoted by laws forcing the violation of Jewish practice and custom.  The Hashmonoim, Kohanim ( temple priests) who had assumed the mantle of secular, military leadership recaptured the Temple: the symbol of Jewish unity; they rededicated ( chanukah-ed) it and thus reunified the Jewish people. The salvation brought by the  assumption of power by this select group is reminiscent of Joseph saving the Israelites; their anti-assimilation is a contrast to Joseph. 

All of these stories reinforce a perspective of the Jew living in a world dominated by other tribes and cultures. None of these ascents - Joseph, Mordechai, the Maccabees,  are complete. They are bubbles in a hostile world. 

Adam Sandler 's  1994  Chanukah song identified  entertainment celebrities who have Jewish roots .. or don't. The song is a celebration of Jewish success in the the  arts. It  identifies successful Jews so that the listener can feel connected to them. These outstanding Hebrews are lightning rods for antisemitism... and the antisemitism reinforces the Jewish identification.

In previous years I have talked about the self fulfilling aspect of Joseph's interpretation ( By predicting a famine in seven years, the land was worked mercilessly - until it was depleted, generating the famine). This year, I wonder whether Pharoah was aware of this potential manipulation of the grain market, and decided to participate in the scheme to consolidate his power and change the nature of the state from a force of intimidation to a (feudal) source of sustenance

 I have previously  mentioned how Joseph is analogous  to Fritz Haber [A Jew that was relieved of his Jewishness by Hitler, personally]  The Haber process combines carbon with nitrogen from the air  (70% Nitrogen). With that synthesis , Haber rescued the world from starvation when naturally occurring organic nitrogen [the essence of fertilizer] had been depleted.  [The Haber  process was also central to the production of explosives for the German Wehrmacht in both world wars, and underpins the production of Zyklon B]

Joseph is the original prominent Jew. He is the model for Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, Fritz Haber, etc....The pleasure of  the association with these (and many more celebrities) is a unifying force among Jews, regardless of what they consider Judaism to be. It is a thin, sycophantic Judaism, often the last remnant. 

Chanukah is the answer to Miketz. When an era ends, whether in defeat or victory,  the (re)dedication of the Temple, the institution, and most importantly the people, generates the new hope, the new dreams. May the exile come to an end (ketz Bavel) and may the best  dreams be realized.

Happy Chanukah

Vayeshev: Who is Joseph

Who is Joseph?  The second verse of the parsha tells us several things;

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׃

These are the generations of Ya῾aqov. Yosef being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brethren; and the lad was with the sons of Bilha, and with the sons of Zilpa, his father’s wives: and Yosef brought to his father their evil report.

Joseph is Jacob's legacy child. Jacob had 12 sons and one daughter by 4 wives. Rachel was the desired wife, the woman Jacob met at the well; she was the reason that Jacob toiled for Laban.. The birth of Joseph, Rachel's long awaited son, was the impetus for Jacob to return to  Canaan.

Jacob placed Joseph in a supervisory role. The Hebrew construction: רֹעֶ֤ה אֶת־אֶחָיו֙, translated as feeding the flock with his brethren, does not capture the implication that Joseph was shepherding his brothers.  This alternative makes his adolescent age, 17, relevant. He was learning his trade: supervisor.  It is consistent with the end of the sentence: and Yosef brought to his father their evil report.  Joseph was doing middle manager work. 

and the lad was with the sons of Bilha, and with the sons of Zilpa, his father’s wives.  Bilha and Zilpa, were slaves to Rachel and Leah. Leah and Rachel were Laban's daughters.  They had been raised as daughters, so they married into the status of wives. Bilha  and Zilpa were slaves, gifted to the daughters at their weddings. The daughters had used these slaves to produce offspring, similar to Sarah giving Hagar to Abraham.  The verse promotes these mothers to wives, and implies that their offspring are sons, not slaves. ( The offspring of a master and a slave is a slave) 

The association between Joseph and these (potentially) lower status sons is double edged. The sons of former slave women are a good training ground for Joseph's managerial skills.  Joseph  learned how to be a shepherd  to the extent that it helped him learn  how to supervise shepherds. If Jacob had sent Joseph to supervise the sons of Leah, the project would likely have failed. Although  the sons of Bilha and Zilpa may have resented Joseph as much, or more than, the sons of Leah, their lower status kept the situation in check. 

Joseph's being with the sons of Bilha and Zilpa is also a reminder that his mother, Rachel is dead. Joseph is motherless. He grows up without his best protector. He is  forced to borrow a mother. It is not the same. Joseph needs to be more independent. His orphaned status also justifies some of the favoritism that is shown to him by Jacob, the father.  and the lad was with the sons of Bilha, and with the sons of Zilpa, his father’s wives is an ancient equivalent if the Hemmingway story in six words: "For sale: baby shoes, never worn." 

Joseph is with the sons of Bilha and Zilpa, not with the sons of Leah, Leah was Rachel's true rival. Leah's sons were her validation  and their names relate to her competition with Rachel. To the sons of Leah, Joseph is a threat. Leah's clan feared Joseph's dominance from the moment of his birth. The sibling rivalry must have been intense. Joseph was certainly not with the sons of Leah.

וְיִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל אָהַ֤ב אֶת־יוֹסֵף֙ מִכׇּל־בָּנָ֔יו כִּֽי־בֶן־זְקֻנִ֥ים ה֖וּא ל֑וֹ וְעָ֥שָׂה ל֖וֹ כְּתֹ֥נֶת פַּסִּֽים׃ 

Now Israel loved Joseph best of all his sons—he was his “child of old age”; and he had made him an ornamented tunic. *ornamented tunic Or “a coat of many colors”; meaning of Heb. uncertain.

Israel loved Joseph. We are no longer dealing with Jacob, now he is the glorified, acquired persona: Israel. The name Israel implies a triumph. Did Jacob struggle with his favoring Joseph?  Israel contains the word שְׂרָ, sar, meaning prince or ruler. That root is also in the name Sarah. Sarah was the mother of the winning lineage, the grandmother of Israel.

 Israel loved Joseph best of all his sons. Isaac, Jacob's father loved his brother Esau and Isaac wanted to give Esau the patrimony. Part of Jacob's ruse to obtain the blessing intended for his brother Esau, involved wearing Esau's clothing, so that Jacob would be identified as Esau. Israel had a bespoke suit made for Joseph. When Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery, they used Joseph's unique clothing to fool Jacob into believing  that Joseph was dead... no longer available for the blessing of patrimony. 

Calling Joseph  Israel's child of old age echoes the story of Abraham and Isaac.  Isaac, born to  Sarah in their old age, was appointed (by Gd) to be the true heir. Gd had reassured Abraham that  Ishmael, Sarah's handmaiden's son, would also be a great nation.  The children of Keturah ( a later wife) were given gifts and sent away. That is not how it turned out for the children of Jacob and this section of the Torah tells us why it turned out differently. 

A unified confederation of Israel is a historical dream. It never lasted.  Domination of one tribe over another always contains an element of exploitation and resentment. Many historical heroes are people(s) that employed violence to overthrow "the oppressor." I want to be very careful in justifying violence for a "cause." There are times when the violence is justified: the Warsaw ghetto uprising, the Treblinka uprising. When violence is wielded out of frustration, that is questionable, at best. When the motivation for violence is envy, it is not justified. 

The sin of selling  Joseph  into slavery is never forgotten.  I want to understand its message. 

VaYishlach: Geopolitics

Why is there a Vayishlach? Why was this set of stories and historical details chosen for preservation through centuries?  For millennia it was hand written on parchment, before the invention of paper, before printing. Preserving this chapter, like all chapters of the Torah, was very difficult and expensive. Do we understand what it is saying?

The parsha could be seen as model for confronting fears. It opens with Jacob preparing for his confrontation with Esau.  Esau, his rival brother from birth, said that he would kill Jacob when Isaac died. Jacob fears that Esau may not wait for Isaac to die, rather Esau may treat Jacob and his family as  invaders into his territory  and destroy them when they enter the land.  Jacob prays: 

הַצִּילֵ֥נִי נָ֛א מִיַּ֥ד אָחִ֖י מִיַּ֣ד עֵשָׂ֑ו כִּֽי־יָרֵ֤א אָנֹכִי֙ אֹת֔וֹ פֶּן־יָב֣וֹא וְהִכַּ֔נִי אֵ֖ם עַל־בָּנִֽים׃ 

Deliver me, I pray, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau; else, I fear, he may come and strike me down, mothers and children alike.

Jacob fears for his life and his legacy. 

Jacob also recognizes that his claim to the land, obtained through an appropriation of Esau's identity, a process that Esau does not recognize as valid, may be challenged, or worse: The claim to the land will be seen as the basis for an invasion to take possession, and Jacob's party will be destroyed in battle. Jacob teaches the generations that follow to prepare in several ways. As Ramban summarizes: 

שֶׁנַּזְמִין עַצְמֵנוּ לִשְׁלֹשֶׁת הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁהִזְמִין הוּא אֶת עַצְמוֹ, לִתְפִלָּה וּלְדוֹרוֹן וּלְהַצָּלָה בְּדֶרֶךְ מִלְחָמָה לִבְרֹחַ וּלְהִנָּצֵל.

 preparing ourselves in the three things for which he prepared himself: for prayer, for giving him a present, and for rescue by methods of warfare, to flee and to be saved. 

The chapter preserves this wisdom: treat dread with preparation and that preparation includes the self-examination of prayer, the generosity of gifting and the practicality of battle ... and an escape plan.

Jacob's prayer includes attributing to Gd Jacob's claim to the land.  Jacob states that Gd had instructed him to return to Canaan:

הָאֹמֵ֣ר אֵלַ֗י שׁ֧וּב לְאַרְצְךָ֛ וּלְמוֹלַדְתְּךָ֖ וְאֵיטִ֥יבָה עִמָּֽךְ׃

who said to me, ‘Return to your native land and I will deal bountifully with you’!

The force of will behind undertaking this confrontation with Esau is ambiguous: is it Gd or Jacob? In his prayer, Jacob is framing it as Gd's decision, and obedient  Jacob is carrying it out. 

To some extent, this is a continuation of the "joint decision" [Jacob and Gd] to flee from Laban at the end of the last chapter. The practical circumstances indicated that Jacob was now in danger if he stayed with Laban, so he decided to leave. In a dream, Gd told Jacob to leave. The interplay between these is left to the reader. 

Invoking Gd ties the claim to the land to the confrontation with Esau. We do not know how Esau saw the connection between the (cheating) brother and the (claim for the) land. The prayer is among the signals that tie Jacob's claim for the land to Esau's enmity. 

Jacob, by means of his words (and perhaps the gifts [tribute]) manages to escape from Esau. Esau seems to want to "accompany" Jacob's tribe.  There is ambiguity about the destination. But it is clear that Jacob did not want his tribe to be with Esau or his allies; and Jacob  managed to separate from them and go his own way. 

Jacob buys some land near Shechem. Shechem is a significant and recognizable place in Samaria, also called Nablus. When Jacob's daughter Dina is kidnapped and raped, her brothers launch a plot: the local males are convinced to undergo circumcision, ostensibly so that the local people and the Israelites can join into one people. When they are at the low point after the operation, Dina's brothers slaughter all the men, retrieve their sister,  and pillage the city. Thus  they establish a local reputation for Israelites... and, in Jacob's mind, a causus belli, a reason for war, among all the other local inhabitants. The war does not happen. 

Benjamin becomes the first Israelite born in the Promised land.  But his mother Rachel dies in childbirth. Rachel's burial and lasting monument has some similarity to Abraham burying Sarah, in terms of establishing a stake hold in the land. 

 Isaac dies at the end of the chapter. Esau and Jacob  bury Isaac together; like Isaac and Ishmael buried Abraham together. Esau's death threat is not carried out. 

Finally Esau's genealogy and administrative organization,  and the pre-Joshua royal history of Seir/Edom are outlined. These are messages about the provenance of land and the historical bases of claims of possession. The references are obscure, as such things tend to be. 

The parsha conveys several  messages. There is a place for fear. There are ways to deal with it.  The worst outcome need not happen and you may not know why. All hereditary claims are not well understood, regardless of how emphatically they are made. 

Deal with it.  

Vayetzeh: Economic systems

This week's parsha has Jacob  confront economic realities. Soon after running away from Canaan  (because of the murderous pronouncements of his brother), he makes a deal with Gd. 

וַיִּדַּ֥ר יַעֲקֹ֖ב נֶ֣דֶר לֵאמֹ֑ר אִם־יִהְיֶ֨ה אֱ

עִמָּדִ֗י וּשְׁמָרַ֙נִי֙ בַּדֶּ֤רֶךְ הַזֶּה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אָנֹכִ֣י הוֹלֵ֔ךְ וְנָֽתַן־לִ֥י לֶ֛חֶם לֶאֱכֹ֖ל וּבֶ֥גֶד לִלְבֹּֽשׁ׃ 

Jacob then made a vow, saying, “If God remains with me, protecting me on this journey that I am making, and giving me bread to eat and clothing to wear,

....

הָאֶ֣בֶן הַזֹּ֗את אֲשֶׁר־שַׂ֙מְתִּי֙ מַצֵּבָ֔ה יִהְיֶ֖ה בֵּ֣ית אֱ

 וְכֹל֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר תִּתֶּן־לִ֔י עַשֵּׂ֖ר אֲעַשְּׂרֶ֥נּוּ לָֽךְ׃ 

And this stone, which I have set up as a pillar, shall be God’s abode; and of all that You give me, I will set aside a tithe for You.”

Jacob recognizes his basic human needs. His worldview ( at this point) recognizes Gd as the source of sustenance; the tenth that he offers is much more a recognition  of Gd's grace than a payment.  But the transactional  nature of the offer anticipates the rest of the parsha that becomes increasingly business oriented. 

Immediately following this scene, Yaakov confronts the local custom, what has become common sense in Haran: the well is opened when all the flocks have arrived, not before.  To me, this looks like a type of proto-soviet communism. "Fairness": equal access to water?  Timed breaks in the workday? These ideas take priority over efficiency and productivity. It is an example of human values taking priority over business values. Perhaps the custom started that way, or maybe there was a time when water needed to be rationed. The custom, with its inefficiency, had endure past its purpose. 

When Rachel arrives, Yaakov the foreigner, ignores  the local ordinance and removes the rock to help Rachel water her father's sheep. We know that Yaakov eventually becomes a rich, successful shepherd. Is this disregard for local custom part of the success? Does Yaakov's alternative belief system ( Gd as the source) support these transgressions?

Rachel brings (penniless) Yaakov back home to Laban.  In a compressed sentence, we see that Yaakov has begun to work for his upkeep. Laban recognizes that Yaakov's work has value beyond the cost of his food an shelter:

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?”

Laban recognizes that he must pay more than left-over food scraps and a loft in the barn for sleeping to keep the value of  Jacob's labor. He must offer a reward. This sentence sets the tone of Laban's focus on gain through business. The obligation to care for his nephew is thin; his greed is much stronger. 

This sentence can reflect back to the story of  Rivka and the Abraham's slave. When she did all that work: drawing water for the men and the camels, she, Bithuel's daughter, the Arami, expected some kind of payment. She received it on the spot. 

The substitution of the older sister, Leah, for the more desirable younger sister, Rachel, plays off Jacob's devious taking of the blessing of the firstborn from Esau. This is suggested by the text: 

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר לָבָ֔ן לֹא־יֵעָשֶׂ֥ה כֵ֖ן בִּמְקוֹמֵ֑נוּ לָתֵ֥ת הַצְּעִירָ֖ה לִפְנֵ֥י הַבְּכִירָֽה׃

Laban said, “It is not the practice in our place to marry off the younger before the older.

Laban says: "In our place, we do not do things like you do in your place."

Laban may also have been suggesting that passing over Ishmael was the kind of thing "you people" do, not us.  Laban is distinguishing his people's "superior" customs from the ad hoc mess the descendants of Abraham have created.  To Laban, Nahor, his grandfather who stayed in Haran took the right pat

Laban's economic theory is in the tradition of Feudalism (and its derivative, Capitalism).  When Yaakov explains his leaving, he recounts the hardships of his labor as part of the justification for his reward. Laban argues:

וַיַּ֨עַן לָבָ֜ן וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֶֽל־יַעֲקֹ֗ב הַבָּנ֨וֹת בְּנֹתַ֜י וְהַבָּנִ֤ים בָּנַי֙ וְהַצֹּ֣אן צֹאנִ֔י וְכֹ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּ֥ה רֹאֶ֖ה לִי־ה֑וּא וְלִבְנֹתַ֞י מָֽה־אֶעֱשֶׂ֤ה לָאֵ֙לֶּה֙ הַיּ֔וֹם א֥וֹ לִבְנֵיהֶ֖ן אֲשֶׁ֥ר יָלָֽדוּ׃

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. Yet what can I do now about my daughters or the children they have borne?

Laban argues: The owner of the capital keeps the produce. 

The relative value of labor and capital and the appropriate rewards for each  in the eye ( and sword) of the force that prevails. 

The argument between Jacob and Laban that ends the chapter is deeply tainted by the fact the Rachel did, indeed, steal Laban's idols! Jacob's indignant statement would not stand up to a better search.  We now that Rachel has the teraphim : 

כִּֽי־מִשַּׁ֣שְׁתָּ אֶת־כׇּל־כֵּלַ֗י מַה־מָּצָ֙אתָ֙ מִכֹּ֣ל כְּלֵי־בֵיתֶ֔ךָ שִׂ֣ים כֹּ֔ה נֶ֥גֶד אַחַ֖י וְאַחֶ֑יךָ וְיוֹכִ֖יחוּ בֵּ֥ין שְׁנֵֽינוּ׃ 

You rummaged through all my things; what have you found of all your household objects? Set it here, before my kin and yours, and let them decide between us two.

The argument, often flawed, is the ultimate consequence of an economic system. Someone always feels cheated, often everyone.  Can recognizing Gd as the true source of sustenance and wealth  calm the anger? Whose god, Abraham or Nahor?