Parashat Miketz: Life with an Egyptian Mummy

During Hanukkah, we remember our freedom from the Seleucid Empire, but on the Shabbat that falls during the holiday, we remember another story that contrasts with this revolt against forced assimilation. The Torah invites us to think about Joseph with his wife and two sons, the only Israelites surrounded by Egyptians, and yet they are maintaining their Jewish identity and are thriving. Joseph, with the help of his wife Asenat, teaches us about the mental state for working with people who are different from us. Together, they try to teach us about the Sefirah of Yesod, most commonly understood as foundation.

An ancient Jewish novel known as “Joseph and Aseneth,” written sometime between 200 BCE and 200 CE, expands on the brief mentions of Asenat, suggesting that she went through a conversion or some form of holistic repentance/transformation to be closer to Gd before marriage. If this was the case, let’s consider how hard that must have been, given that her family was not just Egyptian, but her father was a priest, and they lived in an Egyptian society. There are various midrashim about Asenat, but fundamentally whether Asenat was originally the daughter of Dinah and adopted by Potiphera or his actual daughter doesn’t matter because her identity is defined by the choices she makes.

Perhaps the most significant choices we read from the Torah that Joseph makes in his life are to interpret people’s dreams for them, especially in prison, where he already had the highest status he could have there. The practice of doing mitzvot and good deeds in general is also to remind us that every choice matters, especially in the present moment, because spiritually there is only the present. It is possible that Joseph’s ominous dream interpretation for the baker contributed to his delay in being able to leave the prison because it didn’t exactly bring good things into the world. A dream is as powerful as its interpretation, so perhaps his family members’ interpretations of his initial dreams brought them to fruition even if they weren’t correct or the same as Joseph’s interpretations. Joseph could have helped the baker more with his own destiny (Zohar 194b). The Zohar goes as far as to suggest that because of this, it’s like Joseph killed him. Maybe Joseph somewhat rectifies this mistake by saving many more lives when he interprets Pharaoh’s dream, helping Egypt avoid a famine. In fact, it’s right after this interpretation that he is finally officially freed.

Communication is often more about how something is said than what is being said. Perhaps his brothers sensed that he saw himself as superior to them. Because of this, Joseph learned to avoid this same mistake that he very easily could have repeated with Pharaoh. In fact, Pharaoh seemed to actually like him and not see him as a threat for his abilities. To the contrary, Pharaoh even admitted Joseph’s abilities were greater than his. Both in 41:16 and  41:25, Joseph acts humbly by repeatedly stating that the interpretations are from Gd, so he is showing that this power is not about him directly. Instead, he gives the impression that his abilities are something he received through building a relationship with Gd, which might also imply to Pharaoh that he too can become better through association with Gd. Unlike the Pharaoh of the Exodus, this Pharaoh doesn’t question who this god of his is and maybe because it is more convenient to believe Joseph. The way that Pharaoh acknowledges how Joseph’s powers are from Gd 41:39-40, suggests that Pharaoh is focused on this idea that Joseph has seeded. This ties in well with Joseph’s connection to Yesod since this provides the “foundation” for Pharaoh and Joseph’s further collaboration for the good of Egypt and surrounding lands. Additionally, Yesod, among its different attributes, represents non-verbal communication and is a sefirah that connects to Malkhut (royalty) to represent another level of communication, more associated with learning that is solidified.

Returning to Asenat, she must have had a difficult and sensitive role in maintaining an Israelite home and raising two Israelite children in Egyptian society. The Torah barely mentions her at all, but perhaps this is to tell us how well she played her role and fused with Joseph (also the only authority on Israelite practices she had) to support his responsibilities and complement everything he did. Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 92:5 suggests that when Benjamin is their guest in Egypt and is given five times the food of his brothers (43:34), it’s actually  that Joseph, Asenat, Ephraim and Manasseh gave him their portions. So did Joseph confide his secret that Benjamin was his full brother to Asenat? He had built trust so that there was unity and peace in his family. When there is unity in the home, there is also harmony with the outside world. 

It seems obvious to me that the names Joseph gives to his sons are representative of not only his own background, but hers as well. I surprisingly didn’t see any of the classic commentaries addressing this – maybe because they couldn’t see Asenat being portrayed as an equal to Joseph. According to the Torah, Joseph gives his son the the name Manasseh (מְנַשֶּׁה) to mean that  “Gd has made me forget all my trouble and all my father’s household” (Genesis 41:51). It seems obvious that this name also reflects Asenat’s life: she wants to forget the hardship of her father’s household. Not only where Egyptian polytheistic religion was practiced and the difficulties of being a monotheist whose family not only has diametrically opposite beliefs, but her father is a priest in that religion. 

The second son’s name, Ephraim (אֶפְרָיִם) is taken to mean “Gd has made me fruitful in the land of my suffering” (Genesis 41:52). It doesn’t say “in a foreign land,” which would perhaps be more intuitive, but rather “in the land of my suffering” which could apply for both Joseph and Asenat. They have a good life considering that Joseph is the second most powerful man in all of Egypt. But Joseph did suffer when he first came to Egypt and was enslaved and imprisoned. Perhaps Asenat too felt imprisoned in her previous life with a religion that did not correspond to her inner feelings, all alone – until she met Joseph and with each other’s support, their suffering ended. And this would apply all the more so if she was indeed Dinah’s daughter given over to Egyptian parents, as some midrashim suggest. It therefore makes sense that they would jointly give a name that reminds them both to acknowledge Gd as the reason for their success. (And we have seen previously in the Torah, that both mothers and fathers can be involved in the naming process.)

Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch’s commentary on Genesis 41:50 highlights the unique way the Torah describes the birth of Manasseh and Ephraim. He notes that normally, the phrase ותלד לו (she bore to him) suffices, the two pronouns, male and female, indicating the child grows under the influence of both parents. However, in this case, the Torah emphasizes יֻלד לו (was born to him) only references the father, highlighting that maybe their mother’s Israelite knowledge comes through Joseph. He also suggests that the use of the passive יֻלָד (was born), which refers to the one being born/begat without any reference to the parent(s) signifies an unusual circumstance and a special relationship with Gd of divine protection and blessing, despite all the factors in Egypt and their Egyptian family members. This connection then ensured that Asenat and their children were completely connected to their Israelite heritage and worthy of being tribes of Israel (and a double-portion of those tribes for Joseph). 

On the other hand, when Pharaoh gives Joseph an Egyptian name, some commentaries suggest that it wasn’t to assimilate him into Egyptian culture, but that it was normal for someone appointed to an important position to be given a new name. The fact that Joseph and Asenath could give their children only Hebrew names in Egypt (so far as we know) is significant (as opposed to Esther and Mordekhai in Persia), and this indicates that they were not hiding their Jewish identity and acknowledged where they came from. (This is also noticeable when we learn that Joseph, even with his position of power, is not permitted to eat with Egyptians in 43:32.) The boys’ names reflect the unspoken truths they need to remember, especially because their lives were likely so smooth. Sometimes when things are good you might take Gd for granted. Thus, the two foundational things for them to remember and transmit these values to others were: 1) Acknowledging the powerful gifts given to them by Gd and to use them for other people and 2) Staying humble and compassionate with others by remembering where they came from (by “forgetting”, as with the name of Amalek). In the face of today’s tendencies for Jews to assimilate into foreign cultures or assimilate foreign practices and ideas into our own, there is much for us to learn from Joseph, Asenat and their family.

For all Israel and world peace

On a different topic, but always related to relationships,

check out my book Better Than You Wished for