Parshat Miketz: Some Gems for Consideration

Miketz is one of the longest parshot in the book of Genesis and I remember my son Tzvi grumbling about it as he prepared to read the entire parsha for his bar mitzvah, even though it was our custom to follow the Eretz Yisraeli triennial tradition of reading the Torah. Speaking of “thirds” three things caught my eye in this week’s parsha. One had to do with Joseph’s marriage to Asnat, the daughter of an Egyptian high priest. The next had to do with Joseph’s reaction to seeing his brothers. The third had to do with the contrast of Judah’s response to his father with that of his elder brother Reuben.

JOSEPH’S MARRIAGE TO ASENATH

As a sign of Joseph’s new status, he is given a new name and also a wife from a high-status family. From this union come two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim:

Pharaoh then gave Joseph the name Zaphenath-paneah; and he gave him for a wife Asenath daughter of Potiphera, priest of On. Thus Joseph emerged in charge of the land of Egypt.—

Before the years of famine came, Joseph became the father of two sons, whom Asenath daughter of Potiphera, priest of On, bore to him. Joseph named the first-born Manasseh, meaning, “God has made me forget completely my hardship and my parental home.” And the second he named Ephraim, meaning, “God has made me fertile in the land of my affliction.”

In a midrash on chapter 41, it is related that the daughter of Potiphera was the daughter of Dinah. What follows is a convoluted story, in which Jacob wrote on a golden tablet the whole history of the rape and put it around Asnat’s neck after she was born. He dropped her off outside the walls of Egypt. That same day, Potiphera went out for a walk, and heard a baby crying. He told his servants to bring her into the house. He saw the tablet and said “she is the daughter of a great people.” He found her a nurse and raised her as his own child. This midrash serves two purposes: one is to give closure to the story of Dinah, who was Leah’s daughter. Was she banished? Was she hidden away? We do not know. But according to the midrash, not only did she have a daughter who survived, this daughter ended up being in a union with Joseph, the son of Jacob’s beloved wife, Rachel. Thus, the two important tribes in Israel, Menasseh and Ephraim are descended from both Leah and Rachel. The other purpose of course, is to solve the problem of Joseph intermarrying and even worse than that, by marrying the daughter of a high priest in Egypt. So now the marriage to Asenath is kosher.

THE NON-RECOGNITION OF JOSEPH TO HIS BROTHERS

The sons of Israel were among those who came to procure rations, for the famine extended to the land of Canaan. Now Joseph was the vizier of the land; it was he who dispensed rations to all the people of the land. And Joseph’s brothers came and bowed low to him, with their faces to the ground. When Joseph saw his brothers, he recognized them וַיַּכִּרֵ֑ם; but he acted like a stranger toward them וַיִּתְנַכֵּ֨ר אֲלֵיהֶ֜ם  and spoke harshly to them. He asked them, “Where do you come from?” And they said, “From the land of Canaan, to procure food.” For though Joseph recognized וַיַּכֵּ֥ר יוֹסֵ֖ף  his brothers, they did not recognize him לֹ֥א הִכִּרֻֽהו.

In a normal family, when brothers are reunited after a long time, there is usually a scene of kissing and making up. For instance, when Esau sees Jacob, he embraces him wholeheartedly and thus transforms a relationship that started out with the two of them as enemies. However, in the Joseph story, the trauma is too great. His brothers tried to kill him and he alienated himself from them. It is a play on words with a similar root, which means the opposite. Va-yakirem, turns into Va-yitnaker aleihem. The word to recognize (yakirem) reminds us of the story which preceded this whole episode, that of Judah’s being bested by Tamar in Chapter 38, when Tamar says, הַכֶּר-נָא examine/recognize these: whose signet, cords and staff are these? And then Judah recognizes וַיַּכֵּר יְהוּדָה and says she is more righteous than I צָֽדְקָ֣ה מִמֶּ֔נִּי.

It is chilling that this exact same expression appeared earlier when Jacob was forced to recognize that his beloved son Jacob was eaten by wild animals:

Then they took Joseph’s tunic, slaughtered a kid, and dipped the tunic in the blood. They had the ornamented tunic taken to their father, and they said, “We found this. Please examine/recognize it הַכֶּר־נָ֗א; is it your son’s tunic or not?” He recognized it וַיַּכִּירָהּ, and said, “My son’s tunic! A savage beast devoured him! Joseph was torn by a beast!”

This led me to ponder about how so many of us are forced to recognize truths about ourselves and to face reality, unpleasant as it may be, especially the death of loved ones. The irony in Jacob’s case, is that the “savage beasts” who tore apart his family are his own sons.

A CONTRAST BETWEEN REUBEN, THE ELDEST SON OF LEAH AND JUDAH, THE YOUNGEST

Leah had four sons, Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Judah. Simeon and Levi we know were the hot-headed sons who avenged their sister’s rape (Genesis 34: 25-31). Reuben, we learned, slept with Bilhah after Rachel’s death, perhaps to assert his right as the eldest son to be the eventual heir (Genesis 35:22). And Israel (Jacob) heard and did nothing about it. Although later on Jacob made it clear that he was not the heir: “when you mounted your father’s bed, you brought disgrace”. This might explain why when Reuben promised his father that he would be responsible for Benjamin’s safety, Jacob didn’t trust him. However, I find it interesting that Reuben’s words of assurance are very different from those of Judah’s:

As they were emptying their sacks, there, in each one’s sack, was his money-bag! When they and their father saw their money-bags, they were dismayed. Their father Jacob said to them, “It is always me that you bereave: Joseph is no more and Simeon is no more, and now you would take away Benjamin. These things always happen to me!” Then Reuben said to his father, “You may kill my two sons if I do not bring him back to you. Put him in my care, and I will return him to you.” But he said, “My son must not go down with you, for his brother is dead and he alone is left. If he meets with disaster on the journey you are taking, you will send my white head down to Sheol in grief.”

It is clear from this that Reuben is not trustworthy. Whereas after Judah’s speech, Jacob allows Benjamin to be taken:

But the famine in the land was severe. And when they had eaten up the rations which they had brought from Egypt, their father said to them, “Go again and procure some food for us.” But Judah said to him, “The man warned us, ‘Do not let me see your faces unless your brother is with you.’ If you will let our brother go with us, we will go down and procure food for you; but if you will not let him go, we will not go down, for that man said to us, ‘Do not let me see your faces unless your brother is with you.’” ….

 Then Judah said to his father Israel, “Send the boy in my care, and let us be on our way, that we may live and not die—you and we and our children. I myself will be surety for him; you may hold me responsible: if I do not bring him back to you and set him before you, I shall stand guilty before you forever. For we could have been there and back twice if we had not dawdled.”….

Jacob’s response to this:

“If it must be so, do this: take some of the choice products of the land in your baggage, and carry them down as a gift for the man—some balm and some honey, gum, ladanum, pistachio nuts, and almonds. And take with you double the money, carrying back with you the money that was replaced in the mouths of your bags; perhaps it was a mistake.

Take your brother too; and go back at once to the man. And may El Shaddai dispose the man to mercy toward you, that he may release to you your other brother, as well as Benjamin. As for me, if I am to be bereaved, I shall be bereaved.”

Jacob reluctantly gives in. It is true that the famine situation is dire here, but yet, they do have some produce to spare (balm and some honey, gum, ladanum, pistachio nuts, and almonds). They are not actually starving! So of course, the question is why does Jacob accept Judah’s assertion and not Reuben’s? Unlike Reuben who in cold blood offers killing his two sons if he does not bring Benjamin back to Jacob, Judah takes full responsibility and says he will be forever guilty, if he does not bring his brother back. And at the end of the parsha which ends on a cliffhanger, we see Judah speaking to Joseph taking full responsibility as the leader:

When Judah and his brothers reentered the house of Joseph, who was still there, they threw themselves on the ground before him. Joseph said to them, “What is this deed that you have done? Do you not know that a man like me practices divination?”

Judah replied, “What can we say to my lord? How can we plead; how can we prove our innocence מַה־נִּצְטַדָּ֑ק? God has uncovered the crime of your servants. Here we are, then, slaves of my lord, the rest of us as much as he in whose possession the goblet was found.” But he replied, “Far be it from me to act thus! Only the one in whose possession the goblet was found shall be my slave; the rest of you go back in peace to your father.”

Joseph is moved by the sincerity of Judah’s words, especially since Judah says mah nitztadak, which recalls Judah saying to Tamar that she was more righteous than me–  tzadkah mimeni. In next week’s parshat va-yigash we will understand why it is Judah who is the chosen one and not his older brothers.

SOME POLITICAL COMMENTARY: Ignoratia juris non excusat

It is difficult to avoid making comparisons with Judah’s acceptance of responsibility for his actions (or non-actions in the case of Tamar). He did not know that Tamar was his daughter in law when he slept with her. Not only does he say he is guilty, but he says that she is the righteous one. Would that our own leaders (some of whom are on trial) took responsibility for their actions, rather than denying, or pretending that they did not know. When I was a child, I learned that “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” Part of being a leader is to know the law and not to sign documents without reading them. Unlike Judah, our leader claimed he did not understand the effect of a decision he was approving.  Even if that is true, at least admit that what you did was wrong and not try to cast blame on others. Perhaps if our leaders would emulate Judah, rather than throw people who oppose them, under the bus, our world would be a better one, and the lights shining on Hanukah would be brighter.

Shabbat shalom and Hag Urim Sameach