There are two thematic elements that mark Yosef's career: dreams and clothing.
The first time he talks about dreams it irritates the spit out of his kin folk. The second time doesn't do him much good either - the wine-steward promptly forgets him, and the other beneficiary of his dreamspeaking gets whacked. But the third time it gets him out of the slammer and into the board-room.
His fancy duds made his brothers jealous, and they dip his robe into the blood of a lamb, erasing the differentiation of colours, and erasing Yosef's presence.
[By taking away the pattern and hues of his coat they have both symbollically as well as effectively taken away the details of his life, and the variety of his freedom - replacing it with a drab sameness of enslavement, a dullness of 'being not'. It now lacks detail, differentiation, discernability. His identity is no longer his own, and as far as his relatives are concerned, he is no more. He is not. The blood of the sacrifice seals the deal and is the sanctification of the change in status.]
The tunic which Potifar's wife seized hold of is the evidence that gets him locked up.
[When Judah relinguished evidence he got something for it, though it proved him guilty. Yosef's tunic negates the praesumption of his innocence, but apparently proves naught. He is destined to spend years in jail, neither found innocent nor proven guilty - occupying a shadow world, an in-between-ness.]
But the third time, clothing is part of the pay-off.
Psook 41:42 "Vayasar paro et-tabato meal yado vayiten ota al-yad yosef vayalbesh oto bigdei-shesh vayasem r'vid hazahav al-tsavaro" (And Pharaoh took off his signet ring from his hand, and put it upon Yosef's hand, and clothed him in garments of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck).
Significantly, when Yosef's brothers come down to Egypt to purchase grain, they do not recognize him. The last time they had seen him was after they had torn off his fabulous coat and dumped him in the bore. Now he is dressed in linen, and looks like an Egyptian nobleman. The clothes have made the man unrecognizable.
So utterly out of the realm of possibility is this manifestation of Yosef that despite much time in his presence, ten mature men, who are undoubtedly with their eyes drinking in everything about them (and so, as Yosef said, spying), do not recognize the brother they misplaced years ago.
Yet it is not that they have forgotten about him. Their father Yakov has never let them forget, and they themselves do not permit themselves that luxury.
Psook 42:21 "Vayomru ish el-achiv aval ashemim anachnu al-achinu asher rainu tsarat nafsho b'hitchanno eleinu v'lo shamanu al-ken baa eleinu hatsara hazot" (And they said to each other 'indeed we are guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the torment of his soul when he pleaded with us, and we would not hear, that is why this distress is upon us.').
The Shaman's Cloak
The fine linen garments which Yosef now wears function in a way like a cloak of invisibility. The brothers speak among themselves without fear of anyone listening in, and Yosef can hear their thoughts without any of them knowing that their brother is present.
There is no guile - the brothers are honest among themselves, and can not even suspect that they will be understood. Least of all by the one who has been 'not' for many years.
The presence of the brothers will eventually bring the first dreams, the dreams that ired them, come to fruition. And just like many years before, they do not look beyond the clothing, seeing not Yosef, but an Egyptian official. Yosef, the dreamchaser, seems destined to always be partially invisible, hidden behind half-drowse and coloured garments.
Yosef, who married the daughter of a priest, will become a potent totemic quantity that the children of Israel will carry with them when finally they leave Egypt centuries hence. Still dealing dream, still hidden by cloth. His inheritor will also marry the daughter of a priest, and will also lead a people out of one land and into another, also by interpreting and by speaking of the unearthly. And he too will have a face that is not seen.
Abraham left the land of his fathers.
Yakov leaves the land.
Yosef will leave Egypt.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
NOTES ON PARSHAS MIKEITZ
10th Parsha in Bereishis ( Genesis), psukim 41:1 - 44:17
Miketz = At the end of
First Aliya - 14 psukim
41:1-14
Yosef has been in prison for twelve years, when Pharaoh has two dreams which he wants interpreted. The wine steward remembers Yosef, and mentions his ability. Yosef is taken from prison and enters the presence of the king.
[Jozef is twaalf jaren lang een gevangene geweest, wanneer Pharaoh twee droomen heeft deswelke hij niet begrijpt. De Koninklijke wijnschenker herinnerd zich dat Jozef in het uitleggen van droomen talent heeft. Jozef word van de gevangenis naar de koning gebracht.]
Second Aliya - 24 psukim
41:15-38
Yosef explains the dreams and makes suggestions about the years of plenty and the years of famine.
[Jozef verklaart de betekenis van de droomen aan Pharaoh, en geeft voorstellen hoe de jaren van overvloed en de jaren van honger het beste behandeld kunnen worden.]
Third Aliya - 14 psukim
41:39-52
Yosef becomes viceroy over Egypt, second only to Pharaoh. He marries the daughter of Potiphera, priest of On, and has two sons, Menashe and Efraim.
[Jozef word onderkoning van Egypte, slechts aan de Pharaoh ondergeschikt. Hij trouwt met de dochter van Potifera de priester van On, en krijgt twee zonen, Menasje en Efraim.]
Fourth Aliya - 23 psukim
41:53-42:18
The seven years of famine have begun, and everywhere there is scarcity, save in Egypt. Yosef’s brothers arrive in Egypt to purchase food, but do not recognize their brother. He accuses them of being spies and has them locked up for three days.
[De zeven jaren hongersnood zijn begonnen, en overall is er een tekort aan voedsel, behalve in Egypte. De broeders van Jozef komen naar Egypte om etenswaren in te slaan, maar herkennen hun broer Jozef niet. Hij beschuldigt hun van spionage en laat hun drie dagen opsluiten.]
Fifth Aliya - 35 psukim
42:19-43:15
Yosef demands of his brothers that they bring their brother Benyamin, and holds Shimon as a hostage in the meantime. Back in the land, the brothers tell their father all that befell them, but Yakov refuses to permit Benyamin to go with them to Egypt. Only when the food is again scarce, and Yehudah guarantees the boy’s safety, does Yakov finally agree. The brothers, including Benyamin, again head to Egypt.
[Jozef eist van zijn broeders dat zij hun broeder Benjamin zullen brengen, en houd intussen Simon als gijzelaar. Terug gekomen in het land vertellen de broeders al wat hun gebeurt is aan hun vader, maar Jakov weigert hun Benjamin mee te geven. Wanneer er weer voedsel schaarste heerst garandeert Jehoedah de veiligheid van Benjamin, en gaat Jakov ereindelijk mede akkoord. Alle broeders, Benjamin nu inbegrepen, gaan naar Egypte.]
Sixth Aliya - 14 psukim
43:16-29
The brothers again come to Yosef, and are treated to a banquet. For the first time in 22 years Yosef sees his brother Benyamin – Yosef is deeply moved, but hides it, as he still does not wish to let on to them that he is their brother.
[De broeders komen weer bij Jozef aan, en worden een feestelijk maal voorgezet. Voor het eerst in 22 jaren ziet Jozef zijn jongste broer - Jozef is diep ontroert, maar houdt het verborgen, daar hij hun nog niet zal laten weten hun broeder te zijn.]
Seventh Aliya - 22 psukim
43:30-44:17
Yosef sends them back to Canaan, richly laden. Yosef has however ensured that his personal wine-beaker is hidden in Benyamin’s bags, as a pretext to have them brought back and questioned.
[Jozef stuurt hun terug naar Kenaan, rijkelijk beladen. Jozef heeft inmiddels zijn wijn-beker laten verbergen in de baggage van Benyamin als list om de broeders te laten terughalen zodat hij hun kan ondervragen.]
-------------------------------------
First Parsha
Psook 41:1
"Vayehi mikets sh'natayim yamim ufaro cholem v'hine omed al-hayeor"(And it happened that at the end of two years to the day, that Pharaoh dreamed - and behold, he stood by the river).
Why does it say two years to the day?
Because it was precisely two years since Pharaoh's birthday, as mentioned in the previous Parsha, when Pharaoh had pardoned the wine-steward and condemned the baker. So, again, it was Pharaoh's birthday. And this also indicates the dimension of the wine-stewards oversight, as in only a year or a portion thereof he well could have recalled Yosef's plea to be remembered - in two entire years certainly so. These two years, though the serve as a separation of the events, by their exact measure also connect them.
[Note: The Midrash also holds that this day is associated with Rosh Hashana - fitting, because of all the dense symbolism. Remembrance, teshuvah, judgement, and a new beginning.]
Psook 41:2 "Vahine min-hayeor olot sheva parot y'fot mare uveriot basar vatireina baachu" (And behold, out of the river came seven cows, of beautiful appearance and fat-fleshed; and they fed in the reeds).
Psook 41:3 "Vahine sheva parot acherot olot achareihen min-hayeor raot mare v'dakot basar vataamodna etsel haparot al-s'fat hayeor"(And behold, seven other cows came up after them out of the river,of poor appearance and lean-fleshed; and stood next to the other cows upon the bank of the river).
Here is the proximity of good and evil fortune, wich by itself is worth note - so close are the two. Disaster can be immediately adjacent.
But why seven?
Seven is a week, and seven are the clean that went up into the ark. Seven is the minimum of significant count, as a week is not complete without the Sabbath.
Why seven cows and seven ears of grain?
To indicate that both the prosperity of the land, as shown by the cows, and the revenue of the land, as shown by the grain, will be affected. And so also the high who can eat meat as well as the low who only eat bread - the entire larder, from top to bottom, for all classes of society. Not just the bread, not just the meat.
Psook 41:4 "Vatochalna haparot raot hamare v'dakot habasar et sheva haparot y'fot hamare v'habriot vayikats paro" (And the cows of poor appearance and lean-flesh ate the seven cows of beautiful appearance and fat-flesh - and so Pharaoh awoke).
Psook 41:5 "Vayishan vayachalom shenit v'hine sheva shibolim olot b'kane echad b'riot v'tovot" (And he slept and dreamed a second time - and, behold, seven ears of corn came up upon one stalk, healthy and good).
Psook 41:6 "Vahine sheva shibolim dakot ushedufot kadim tsomchot achareihen" (And, behold, seven ears, thin and blasted by the east wind, grew up after them).
Psook 41:7 "Vativlana hashibolim hadakot et sheva hashibolim haberiot v'hamleot vayikats paro v'hine chalo" (And the thin ears swallowed up the seven helathy and good ears. And Pharaoh awoke, and, behold - a dream).
Both dreams together are 'a dream', thus eumphasizing that the two were complete and one. But also, signifying that they were remarkable, both in their details and in their similarity, as we know from subsequent mention, they were indeed one dream. The pattern of the two parts to the dream show what will happen, the different symbols and images signify the reach and breadth of the seven years of scarcity.
But why does it say that Pharaoh awoke?
Had these dreams had no significance, none ofthis would be worth mentioning, nor would Pharaoh have woken but he would've continued sleeping - he awoke because the dreams were extraordinary, and thus he was able to remember them.
And behold - a dream: Despite the intensity, upon waking only the after-image remained in the darkness of the night and the silence of dawn.
Psook 41:8 "Vayehi vaboker vatipaem rucho vayishlach vayikra et-kol-chartumei mitsrayim v'et-kol-chachameiha vayesaper paro lahem et-chalomo v'ein-poter otam le faro" (And it was in the morning that his spirit was troubled; and he sent and called for all the necromancers of Egypt, and all the wise men. And Pharaoh told them his dream, but there was no one that could interpret them for Pharaoh).
And it was in the morning - Indicating a new scene. He woke during the night, because of the remarkability of the dreams, and then, in the morning, he was troubled by them, as the images still lingered before his mind's eyes.
Psook 41:9 "Vayedaber sar hamashkim et-paro lemor et-chataai ani mazkir hayom..." (Then spoke the wine-steward to Pharaoh, saying 'I make mention of my faults this day..').
Question: How had the baker and the wine-steward offended the king?
Answer: The baker produced, and thus by what he produced was he able to offend - a lack of attention to detail, a lack of oversight, an inclusion in the bread. If Pharaoh stands in for a god, then bad bread is the same as a sacrilege, an offering that does not suit.
Whereas the wine-steward, being often in the presence of Pharaoh, would inevitably have the mis-chance of offending if the king was in a mood.
One can be merciful to someone whose face one sees (the wine-steward), but a functionary who is never seen has no face, and is easily erased. If there had been a stone in the bread, as Rashi suggests, the offense was also tantamount to an assault on the king - or at least upon the king's teeth, in addition to a sacrilege.
Psook 41:12 " Ve sham itanu naar ivri eved l'sar hatabachim vanesaper-lo vayiftar-lanu et-chalomoteinu ish kachalomo patar" (And there was with us there a youth, a Hebrew, a servant to the captain of the guards; and we told him, and he interpreted to us our dreams; to each man according to his dream he interpreted).
In the wine-stewards words we may see a certain depreciation towards Yosef, whom he describes as a youth (naar), Hebrew (Ivri - not Egyptian but a foreigner), and a slave (eved).
But rather than reading this as an insulting reference, it shows that the wine-steward is no fool. The decision whether to consult such a prisoner is the king's - the wine-steward has reported truthfully what happened, and what kind of person Yosef is, without trying to gild the lily or obscure any details.
But the wine-steward also realizes the danger of even bringing up the matter - he knows that this might not be well taken, and might only remind the king of what he had done wrong ("I make mention of my faults...").
Why was Yosef in jail? Because proof of a crime does not lie in testimony alone, especially if it is word against word. The accusation stands, but there has been no resolution (we are never told of a judgement, and Yosef is still alive). And it might well be asked why Potifar trusted Yosef in the first place? Either judgement failed, or there was some other reason.
Psook 41:13 "Vayehi kaasher patar-lanu ken haya oti heshiv al-kani v'oto tala" (And it happened as he interpreted to us - I was restored to my post, and he (the baker) was hanged.'
Second parsha
Psook 41:25 "Vayomer yosef el-paro chalom paro echad hu et asher haelohim ose higid l'faro" (And Yosef said to Pharaoh 'Pharaoh's dream is one! What God is about to do He has told to Pharaoh).
Psook 41:26 "Sheva parot hatovot sheva shanim hena v'sheva hashibolim hatovot sheva shanim hena chalom echad hu" (The seven good kine are seven years, and the seven good ears are seven years - the dream is one!)
Psook 41:27 "Va sheva haparot harakot v'haraot haolot achareihen sheva shanim hena v'sheva hashibolim harekot sh'dufot hakadim yihyu sheva sh'nei raav" (And the seven lean and mangy kine that came up after them are seven years, and also the seven empty ears blasted by the east wind; these will be seven years of famine).
Psook 41:28 "Hu hadavar asher dibarti el-paro asher haelohim ose hera et-paro" (That is the thing which I say to Pharaoh - what God is about to do He has shown to Pharaoh).
Regarding the fat-fleshed kine and the full ears, Hashem has told Pharaoh; regarding the mangy beasts and runty ears, he has shown. That wich is good is easily accepted, hence told. But pending misfortune has to shown, so that it may be believed and prepared for.
The warning has been accompanied by frightening visuals that remain vivid in memory.
Psook 41:33 "Vaata yere faro ish navon v'chacham vishitehu al-erets mitsrayim" (Now therefore let Pharaoh seek out a man discerning and wise, and set him over the land of Egypt).
Who better than the interpreter who warns of the coming famine, who is guided by Hashem, and who is attested as a skillfull prognosticator?
A tactfull suggestion proves better than a bold statement.
Third Parsha
Psook 41:39 "Vayomer paro el-yosef acharei hodia elohim otcha et-kol-zot ein-navon v'chacham kamocha" (Then Pharaoh said to Yosef: 'seeing as God has shown you all this, there is no one so discerning and wise as you).
Psook 41:40 "Ata tihye al-beiti v'al-picha yishak kol-ami rak hakise egdal mimeka" (You shall be over my house, and according to your command shall all my people be sustained; only by throne will I be greater than you.).'
Psook 41:42 "Vayasar paro et-tabato meal yado vayiten ota al-yad yosef vayalbesh oto bigdei-shesh vayasem r'vid hazahav al-tsavaro" (And Pharaoh took off his signet ring from his hand, and put it on Yosef's hand, and arrayed him in garments of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck).
Why did Pharaoh appoint Yosef?
Doing otherwise would have meant that he did not take the warning seriously and discounted the explanation of the dreams. But we see that he did accept the truth of Yosef's ellucidation - and his necromancers had not been in any way convincing. And this testifies to Yosef's comportment and tact during the interview - he spoke convincingly, he behaved appropriately. Which also recommended Yosef for such position, as much as his suggestion to appoint a wise and discerning man - which, surely, was subtly self-serving. Thus, just as he had impressed Potifar, he impressed the king.
[Per the Midrash, the necromancers had analysed the seven cows as Pharaoh's daughters, married to men who were beastly. It says much that daughters are likened to cattle, and this may not have pleased Pharaoh. But Pharaoh surely knew the limits of those employed to say sooth, and had been so affected by the dream that he distrusted glib explanations.]
The signet ring and other signs of authority have a disturbing resonance - Yehuda gave his signet , gartel, and staff, and was subsequently shown to be in the wrong by the one who held them. Pharaoh strikes a better bargain.
Psook 41:45 "Vayikra faro shem-yosef tsafnat paneach vayiten-lo et-asnat bat-poti fera kohen on l'isha vayetse yosef al-erets mitsrayim " (And Pharaoh called Yosef's name Zafnath-paneach; and he gave him to wife Asnat the daughter of Potifera priest of On. And Yosef went out over the land of Egypt).
Asnat, the daughter of Potifera.....
The medrash tells us that Asnat was the daughter of Dina after she had been raped by Chamor. It is said that Yakov wrote an amulet which he hung around the infant's neck, telling who she was, and who she was related to, and imprecating protection upon her, before tossing her out of the tent and into the bushes (sneh, hence the name). An angel carried her to Egypt and placed her in the household of Potifera. It is further explained that Potifera is that Potifar whom we read about earlier, and that because he had purchased Yosef for homosexual purposes, he was made neuter and became Potifera.
I note that the Medrash has an obession with tying up loose ends, and here tries to tie up two of them. Potifar is a variant of the more correct Potifera, which means 'he whom Ra gave'. The On of which this Potifera is a priest is Anu, also called Para (house of Ra), which is Beis Shemesh as mentioned in Jeremiah, and Heliopolis in Greek accounts.
If indeed Potifar had purchased Yosef for a catamite, it is utterly surprising that we do not read of Yosef resisting Potifar with the same vehemence as he resisted Potifar's wife, or in fact any vehemence whatsoever - it just isn't mentioned at all. Nor is there any hint whatsoever of this motive in the text, but rather, much indication that it was Yosef's reliability and abilities that recommended him to Potifar.
It seems further odd that this would be the household into which Asnat, if indeed daughter to Dina, would be adopted - a slut stepmother and a paedophile-eunuch priest. While it speaks well of the intrinsic character of Dina's genes that her daughter became suitable as a wife to Yosef, we have already seen that her genetic stock includes some rather unsavoury characters - characters who would sell or slaughter their own brother, and would leave an old man bereft.
It is more likely that, rather than constantly marrying close kin, as the medrash wishes to suggest, the avos did indeed marry out, as Yehudah had done - there is much evidence in the narrative that indicates that only when there were multitudes of Hebrews outmarriage became considered a stronger taboo - and at this early stage in the tale of the tribe, outmarriage seems an inevitability. There is further a foreshadowing here of what Moses will do in the next book - marrying the daughter of a priest, suggesting a worthiness for a spiritual role, a quality of leadership and wisdom, and, it should also be said, an ambivalent relationship with land.
It will be remembered that the Levites do not receive a share in the land, much like Yosef is 'over' the land, but may himself have no conflict of interest in the land or because of land, and as Moses went out of the land that Yosef went into.
[The metaphor is that of a stranger in a strange land. And we will encounter that in the next seifer.]
Land is precisely what separates Yosef from his brothers - Yosef is an official over all of Egypt, his brothers and their families will settle in only part of Egypt (Goshen).
Psook 41:46 "Va yosef ben-sh'loshim shana b'amdo lifnei paro melech-mitsrayim vayetse yosef milifnei faro vayaavor b'chol-erets mitsrayim " (And Yosef was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh king of Egypt. Yosef left the presence of Pharaoh, and went throughout the entire land of Egypt).
By this we can see how long Yosef had stayed in prison: two years since the wine-steward regained his position, plus the age that Yosef was when he went down into Egypt, subtracted from his age, with an allowance for the time he spent in Potifar's household.
Fourth Parsha
Psook 42:1 "Vayar yaakov ki yesh-shever b'mitsrayim vayomer yaakov l'vanav lama titrau" (Yakov saw that there was corn in Egypt, so Yakov said unto his sons: 'Why do you look so, one upon the other?').
Psook 42:4 "V'et-binyamin achi yosef lo-shalach yaakov et-echav ki amar pen-yikraenu ason" (But Benyamin, Yosef's brother, Yakov did not send with his brothers, saying 'Lest disaster befall him.').
Yakov saw that there was corn in Egypt?
Rashi asks why is it said that he saw. He answers that Yakov had a prophetic vision of there being plenty in Egypt, but that it was not a clear vision, otherwise he would also have seen Yosef.
I doubt this.
Given how often the text uses the construction 'vahine!' (behold!), and under what non-image circumstances it is used, we can assume that beholding was a concept that they ran with.
Do you see?
The Gemoro, in the tractate 'fasts' (how appropriate!), mentions that Yakov and his family still had plenty, but that rather than giving neighbors cause for envy, he sent his sons to Egypt to purchase more. Likely also that Yakov foresaw (there's that 'seeing' again!) that his neighbors might seek to rely on him and his family - better then to ensure that that there will be enough if possible, and be seen to be making that attempt, than to be caught flatfooted if the famine continues.
Psook 42:8 "Vayaker yosef et-echav v'hem lo hikiruhu" (And Yosef recognized his brothers, but they failed to recognize him).
Because he was dressed as an Egyptian, and had hardened from a boy into a man. Nor were they expecting him here and under these circumstances - the time and the place conspired to make him unrecognizable.
Psook 42:9 "Vayizkor yosef et hachalomot asher chalam lahem vayomer alehem m'raglim atem lirot et-ervat haarets batem" (And Yosef remembered the dreams which he dreamed of them, and said to them: 'You are spies! To see the nakedness of the land have you come.').
Yosef remembered what they had done to him. One may forgive, but one musn't forget.
Psook 42:13 "Vayomru sh'neim asar avadeicha achim anachnu b'nei ish-echad b'erets k'naan v'hine hakaton et-avinu hayom v'haechad einenu" (And they said: 'We are twelve brothers, your servants, the sons of one man in the land of Canaan; the youngest is this day with our father, and one is not.').
We are twelve brothers - As, indeed they are. The 'we', unrealized by the speaker, includes also Yosef.
Fifth Parsha
If you are honest men let one of your brethren be bound in your jail; and go with corn for the hunger in your households; and bring your youngest brother to me so that your words will be verified, and you shall not die.
And they said one to another: 'We are indeed guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw his suffering when he pleaded with us, and we would listen, and that is why this suffering has come to us.'
And Reuben answered them, saying: 'Did I not speak to you, saying: Do not sin against the boy and did you not listen? Therefore, see, his blood is required.'
And they did not know that Yosef understood them, as the interpreter was between them.
And he turned himself away, and wept, then he turned again to them, and spoke to them, and took Simeon from among them, and bound him before their eyes.
Later, back in the land:
And the man, the lord of the land, said to us - By this I shall know that you are honest men: leave one of your brothers with me, and take corn for the hunger of your households, and go your way.
And bring your youngest brother to me - then shall I know that you aren't spies but that honest men. I wil free your brother, and you shall be free to travel in the land.'
And Yakov their father said to them: 'You have bereaved me of my children - Yosef is not, and Simeon is not, and now you would take Benyamin away. On me does it all come.'
And Reuben spoke to his father, saying: 'You can slay my two sons if I do not bring him back to you - deliver him into my hands, and I will return him to you.'
But he said: 'My son shall not go down with you; for his brother is dead, and only he is left. If harm should befall him on the road you travel, then you will bring down my gray hairs in sorrow to the grave.
And it happened that when they had eaten up the corn which they had brought out of Egypt, that their father said to them: 'Go again, buy us a little food.'
And Yehudah spoke to him, saying: 'The man did earnestly warn us, saying: You shall not see my face if your brother is not with you.
If you will send our brother with us, we will go down and buy food for you, but if you will not send him, we will not go down, for the man said to us: You shall not see my face, except if your brother is with you.'
And Israel said: 'why did you do such ill to me, as to tell the man that you had another brother?'
And they said: 'The man asked straitly concerning ourselves, and concerning our relatives, saying: Is your father still alive? Do you have another brother? and we told him accordingly - how could we have known that he would say: Bring your brother down?'
And Yehudah said to Israel his father: 'Send the lad with me, and we will arise and go, that we may live, and not die, both we, and you, and also our children.
I will be his surety, from my hand you can demand him. If I do not bring him to you, and stand him before you, then let me bear the blame for ever.
For if we had not delayed, surely we could already have returned a second time.'
Psook 43:11 "Vayomer alehem yisrael avihem im-ken efo zot asu k'chu mizimrat haarets bichleichem v'horidu laish mincha m'at tsori umeat devash nachot valot batnim ushekedim" (And their father Israel said to them: 'If it must be so, do this: take of the choice fruits of the land in your vessels and bring the man a gift - a little balm, a little honey, wax, lotus, nuts, and almonds).
Rashi says pistachios and almonds, and this seems right, as both these nuts are much favoured in the middle-east, where the term for nuts often means whatever nut is favoured. Regarding the lotus which is mentioned, I suspect that this is in fact Orris root - formerly much used in medicine and considered tonifying, especially for pregnant women. Nowadays it is still used for puddings, though often cornstarch may be substituted.
[Note: I'm including the following verses, because they are evocative, and it is well to read them of a piece with the rest of this text - it paints a clearer picture.]
Psook 43:12 "Vechesef mishne k'chu v'yedchem v'et-hakesef hamushav b'fi amt'choteichem tashivu v'yedchem ulai mishge hu" (And take double money in your hand; and the money that was returned in the mouth of your sacks carry back in your hands; maybe it was an oversight).
Psook 43:13 "V'et-achichem kachu v'kumu shuvu el-haish" (And take also your brother - Arise, go again to the man).
Psook 43:14 "V'el shadai yiten lachem rachamim lifnei haish v'shilach lachem et-achichem acher v'et-binyamin vaani kaasher shacholti shachalti" (And may El Shaddai grant you mercy before the man, that he may release to you your other brother and Benyamin. And as for me, if I am bereaved of my children, then I am bereaved.' ).
Sixth Parsha
Psook 43:27 "Vayishal lahem l'shalom vayomer hashalom avichem hazaken asher amartem haodenu chai" (And he asked them about their health, and said: 'Is your father well, the old man of whom you spoke? Does he still live?' ).
Psook 43:28 "Vayomru shalom l'avd'cha l'avinu odenu chai vayikdu vayishtachavu vayishtachauu" (And they said: 'your servant our father is well, he still lives.' And they bowed the head, and were humble).
Psook 43:29 "Vayisa einav vayar et-binyamin achiv ben-imo vayomer haze achichem hakaton asher amartem elai vayomar elohim yachn'cha b'ni " (And he raised up his eyes, and saw his brother Benyamin, his mother's son, and said: 'Is this your youngest brother of whom you spoke unto me?' And he said: 'God be gracious to you, my son.').
Question: Why does he address Benyamin as 'my son'?
Answer: How else should he address the lad? The custom of an older person refering to a younger as their son or daughter when speaking to them is kindly and appropriate.
Seventh Parsha
And Yosef hurried out for his heart yearned for his brother; and he wanted to weep; and he went into his room and wept there.
And he washed his face, and came out; and he restrained himself, and said: 'Set out the bread.'
And they set for him by himself, and for them by themselves, and for the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves, because the Egyptians could not eat bread with the Hebrews, that being an repulsive to Egyptians.
Psook 43:33 "Vayeshvu l'fanav habechor kivchorato v'hatsair kitsirato vayitm'hu haanashim ish el-reehu" (And they sat before him, the firstborn according to seniority, and the youngest according to his youth; and the men looked at each other in astonishment).
Why were they astonished?
Because they had been seated in correct age order, which is something that could not be expected from one who did not know their ages.
But the question may well be asked whether in his questioning of them that data had not been mentioned, as he asked them much about themselves and their family.
Psook 43:34 "Vayisa masot meet panav alehem vaterev masat binyamin mimasot kulam chamesh yadot vayishtu vayishk'ru imo" (And he passed portions to them before him, and Benyamin's portion was five times greater than any of theirs. And they drank, and were cheerful with him).
Why give Benyamin a five times greater portion?
Because Benyamin was his father's comfort and companion. By honouring the son one honours also the father, especially when the son stands in for the father. If that son, by his presence represents the father it is fitting that more attention be expended on his well-being, both to express good wishes for the father's well-being and to ensure that he return to his father in wellness.
Now note that the brotherly envy which had previously sabotaged the unity of the brethren is her conspicuously absent - they have indeed matured.
But another reason for favouring Benyamin is to draw attention to him in advance, because of what he was planning to do with the wine-beaker.
As soon as dawn broke, the men were sent away, they and their donkeys.
When they had left the city, and had not yet gone far, Yosef said to his steward: 'Get Up and follow after those men; and when you overtake them, say to them: why have you repaid evil for good?
Is not this that from which my master drinks, and with which he divines? You have done evil in what you did.'
And he overtook them, and he said to them those words.
And they said to him: 'Wy does my lord say so? Far be it from your servants that they should do such a thing.
Behold, the money, which we found in our sacks' mouths, we returned to you from the land of Canaan; how then should we steal out of your master's house any silver With whichever of your servants it is found, let him die, and we also will be my lord's slaves.'
And he said: 'As you say, so shall it be - he with whom it is found shall be a slave to me, and you shall be blameless.'
Then they hastened, and each man lowered his pack to the ground, and opened every man his pack.
And he searched, beginning with the eldest, and ending with the youngest; and the goblet was found in Benyamin's pack.
And they rent their garments, and each reloaded his donkey and returned to the city.
And Judah said: 'How can we speak to my lord? What shall we say? Or how shall we even justify ourselves? God has found out the crime of your servants; behold, we are my lord's slaves, both we and the one in whose hand the beaker was found.'
And he said: 'Far be it from me that I should do so; the man in whose hand the beaker was found, he shall be my slave, but as for you, go up in peace to your father.'.
And here Yosef is truly testing his brothers, because he has by his five-part favouring of Benyamin highlighted for the brothers that Benyamin is special to their father, and he is giving them an opportunity to rid themsleves of Benyamin as once they had rid themsleves of Yosef....
Oh my.
A cliff hanger.
Tune in next week for more.
Miketz = At the end of
First Aliya - 14 psukim
41:1-14
Yosef has been in prison for twelve years, when Pharaoh has two dreams which he wants interpreted. The wine steward remembers Yosef, and mentions his ability. Yosef is taken from prison and enters the presence of the king.
[Jozef is twaalf jaren lang een gevangene geweest, wanneer Pharaoh twee droomen heeft deswelke hij niet begrijpt. De Koninklijke wijnschenker herinnerd zich dat Jozef in het uitleggen van droomen talent heeft. Jozef word van de gevangenis naar de koning gebracht.]
Second Aliya - 24 psukim
41:15-38
Yosef explains the dreams and makes suggestions about the years of plenty and the years of famine.
[Jozef verklaart de betekenis van de droomen aan Pharaoh, en geeft voorstellen hoe de jaren van overvloed en de jaren van honger het beste behandeld kunnen worden.]
Third Aliya - 14 psukim
41:39-52
Yosef becomes viceroy over Egypt, second only to Pharaoh. He marries the daughter of Potiphera, priest of On, and has two sons, Menashe and Efraim.
[Jozef word onderkoning van Egypte, slechts aan de Pharaoh ondergeschikt. Hij trouwt met de dochter van Potifera de priester van On, en krijgt twee zonen, Menasje en Efraim.]
Fourth Aliya - 23 psukim
41:53-42:18
The seven years of famine have begun, and everywhere there is scarcity, save in Egypt. Yosef’s brothers arrive in Egypt to purchase food, but do not recognize their brother. He accuses them of being spies and has them locked up for three days.
[De zeven jaren hongersnood zijn begonnen, en overall is er een tekort aan voedsel, behalve in Egypte. De broeders van Jozef komen naar Egypte om etenswaren in te slaan, maar herkennen hun broer Jozef niet. Hij beschuldigt hun van spionage en laat hun drie dagen opsluiten.]
Fifth Aliya - 35 psukim
42:19-43:15
Yosef demands of his brothers that they bring their brother Benyamin, and holds Shimon as a hostage in the meantime. Back in the land, the brothers tell their father all that befell them, but Yakov refuses to permit Benyamin to go with them to Egypt. Only when the food is again scarce, and Yehudah guarantees the boy’s safety, does Yakov finally agree. The brothers, including Benyamin, again head to Egypt.
[Jozef eist van zijn broeders dat zij hun broeder Benjamin zullen brengen, en houd intussen Simon als gijzelaar. Terug gekomen in het land vertellen de broeders al wat hun gebeurt is aan hun vader, maar Jakov weigert hun Benjamin mee te geven. Wanneer er weer voedsel schaarste heerst garandeert Jehoedah de veiligheid van Benjamin, en gaat Jakov ereindelijk mede akkoord. Alle broeders, Benjamin nu inbegrepen, gaan naar Egypte.]
Sixth Aliya - 14 psukim
43:16-29
The brothers again come to Yosef, and are treated to a banquet. For the first time in 22 years Yosef sees his brother Benyamin – Yosef is deeply moved, but hides it, as he still does not wish to let on to them that he is their brother.
[De broeders komen weer bij Jozef aan, en worden een feestelijk maal voorgezet. Voor het eerst in 22 jaren ziet Jozef zijn jongste broer - Jozef is diep ontroert, maar houdt het verborgen, daar hij hun nog niet zal laten weten hun broeder te zijn.]
Seventh Aliya - 22 psukim
43:30-44:17
Yosef sends them back to Canaan, richly laden. Yosef has however ensured that his personal wine-beaker is hidden in Benyamin’s bags, as a pretext to have them brought back and questioned.
[Jozef stuurt hun terug naar Kenaan, rijkelijk beladen. Jozef heeft inmiddels zijn wijn-beker laten verbergen in de baggage van Benyamin als list om de broeders te laten terughalen zodat hij hun kan ondervragen.]
-------------------------------------
First Parsha
Psook 41:1
"Vayehi mikets sh'natayim yamim ufaro cholem v'hine omed al-hayeor"(And it happened that at the end of two years to the day, that Pharaoh dreamed - and behold, he stood by the river).
Why does it say two years to the day?
Because it was precisely two years since Pharaoh's birthday, as mentioned in the previous Parsha, when Pharaoh had pardoned the wine-steward and condemned the baker. So, again, it was Pharaoh's birthday. And this also indicates the dimension of the wine-stewards oversight, as in only a year or a portion thereof he well could have recalled Yosef's plea to be remembered - in two entire years certainly so. These two years, though the serve as a separation of the events, by their exact measure also connect them.
[Note: The Midrash also holds that this day is associated with Rosh Hashana - fitting, because of all the dense symbolism. Remembrance, teshuvah, judgement, and a new beginning.]
Psook 41:2 "Vahine min-hayeor olot sheva parot y'fot mare uveriot basar vatireina baachu" (And behold, out of the river came seven cows, of beautiful appearance and fat-fleshed; and they fed in the reeds).
Psook 41:3 "Vahine sheva parot acherot olot achareihen min-hayeor raot mare v'dakot basar vataamodna etsel haparot al-s'fat hayeor"(And behold, seven other cows came up after them out of the river,of poor appearance and lean-fleshed; and stood next to the other cows upon the bank of the river).
Here is the proximity of good and evil fortune, wich by itself is worth note - so close are the two. Disaster can be immediately adjacent.
But why seven?
Seven is a week, and seven are the clean that went up into the ark. Seven is the minimum of significant count, as a week is not complete without the Sabbath.
Why seven cows and seven ears of grain?
To indicate that both the prosperity of the land, as shown by the cows, and the revenue of the land, as shown by the grain, will be affected. And so also the high who can eat meat as well as the low who only eat bread - the entire larder, from top to bottom, for all classes of society. Not just the bread, not just the meat.
Psook 41:4 "Vatochalna haparot raot hamare v'dakot habasar et sheva haparot y'fot hamare v'habriot vayikats paro" (And the cows of poor appearance and lean-flesh ate the seven cows of beautiful appearance and fat-flesh - and so Pharaoh awoke).
Psook 41:5 "Vayishan vayachalom shenit v'hine sheva shibolim olot b'kane echad b'riot v'tovot" (And he slept and dreamed a second time - and, behold, seven ears of corn came up upon one stalk, healthy and good).
Psook 41:6 "Vahine sheva shibolim dakot ushedufot kadim tsomchot achareihen" (And, behold, seven ears, thin and blasted by the east wind, grew up after them).
Psook 41:7 "Vativlana hashibolim hadakot et sheva hashibolim haberiot v'hamleot vayikats paro v'hine chalo" (And the thin ears swallowed up the seven helathy and good ears. And Pharaoh awoke, and, behold - a dream).
Both dreams together are 'a dream', thus eumphasizing that the two were complete and one. But also, signifying that they were remarkable, both in their details and in their similarity, as we know from subsequent mention, they were indeed one dream. The pattern of the two parts to the dream show what will happen, the different symbols and images signify the reach and breadth of the seven years of scarcity.
But why does it say that Pharaoh awoke?
Had these dreams had no significance, none ofthis would be worth mentioning, nor would Pharaoh have woken but he would've continued sleeping - he awoke because the dreams were extraordinary, and thus he was able to remember them.
And behold - a dream: Despite the intensity, upon waking only the after-image remained in the darkness of the night and the silence of dawn.
Psook 41:8 "Vayehi vaboker vatipaem rucho vayishlach vayikra et-kol-chartumei mitsrayim v'et-kol-chachameiha vayesaper paro lahem et-chalomo v'ein-poter otam le faro" (And it was in the morning that his spirit was troubled; and he sent and called for all the necromancers of Egypt, and all the wise men. And Pharaoh told them his dream, but there was no one that could interpret them for Pharaoh).
And it was in the morning - Indicating a new scene. He woke during the night, because of the remarkability of the dreams, and then, in the morning, he was troubled by them, as the images still lingered before his mind's eyes.
Psook 41:9 "Vayedaber sar hamashkim et-paro lemor et-chataai ani mazkir hayom..." (Then spoke the wine-steward to Pharaoh, saying 'I make mention of my faults this day..').
Question: How had the baker and the wine-steward offended the king?
Answer: The baker produced, and thus by what he produced was he able to offend - a lack of attention to detail, a lack of oversight, an inclusion in the bread. If Pharaoh stands in for a god, then bad bread is the same as a sacrilege, an offering that does not suit.
Whereas the wine-steward, being often in the presence of Pharaoh, would inevitably have the mis-chance of offending if the king was in a mood.
One can be merciful to someone whose face one sees (the wine-steward), but a functionary who is never seen has no face, and is easily erased. If there had been a stone in the bread, as Rashi suggests, the offense was also tantamount to an assault on the king - or at least upon the king's teeth, in addition to a sacrilege.
Psook 41:12 " Ve sham itanu naar ivri eved l'sar hatabachim vanesaper-lo vayiftar-lanu et-chalomoteinu ish kachalomo patar" (And there was with us there a youth, a Hebrew, a servant to the captain of the guards; and we told him, and he interpreted to us our dreams; to each man according to his dream he interpreted).
In the wine-stewards words we may see a certain depreciation towards Yosef, whom he describes as a youth (naar), Hebrew (Ivri - not Egyptian but a foreigner), and a slave (eved).
But rather than reading this as an insulting reference, it shows that the wine-steward is no fool. The decision whether to consult such a prisoner is the king's - the wine-steward has reported truthfully what happened, and what kind of person Yosef is, without trying to gild the lily or obscure any details.
But the wine-steward also realizes the danger of even bringing up the matter - he knows that this might not be well taken, and might only remind the king of what he had done wrong ("I make mention of my faults...").
Why was Yosef in jail? Because proof of a crime does not lie in testimony alone, especially if it is word against word. The accusation stands, but there has been no resolution (we are never told of a judgement, and Yosef is still alive). And it might well be asked why Potifar trusted Yosef in the first place? Either judgement failed, or there was some other reason.
Psook 41:13 "Vayehi kaasher patar-lanu ken haya oti heshiv al-kani v'oto tala" (And it happened as he interpreted to us - I was restored to my post, and he (the baker) was hanged.'
Second parsha
Psook 41:25 "Vayomer yosef el-paro chalom paro echad hu et asher haelohim ose higid l'faro" (And Yosef said to Pharaoh 'Pharaoh's dream is one! What God is about to do He has told to Pharaoh).
Psook 41:26 "Sheva parot hatovot sheva shanim hena v'sheva hashibolim hatovot sheva shanim hena chalom echad hu" (The seven good kine are seven years, and the seven good ears are seven years - the dream is one!)
Psook 41:27 "Va sheva haparot harakot v'haraot haolot achareihen sheva shanim hena v'sheva hashibolim harekot sh'dufot hakadim yihyu sheva sh'nei raav" (And the seven lean and mangy kine that came up after them are seven years, and also the seven empty ears blasted by the east wind; these will be seven years of famine).
Psook 41:28 "Hu hadavar asher dibarti el-paro asher haelohim ose hera et-paro" (That is the thing which I say to Pharaoh - what God is about to do He has shown to Pharaoh).
Regarding the fat-fleshed kine and the full ears, Hashem has told Pharaoh; regarding the mangy beasts and runty ears, he has shown. That wich is good is easily accepted, hence told. But pending misfortune has to shown, so that it may be believed and prepared for.
The warning has been accompanied by frightening visuals that remain vivid in memory.
Psook 41:33 "Vaata yere faro ish navon v'chacham vishitehu al-erets mitsrayim" (Now therefore let Pharaoh seek out a man discerning and wise, and set him over the land of Egypt).
Who better than the interpreter who warns of the coming famine, who is guided by Hashem, and who is attested as a skillfull prognosticator?
A tactfull suggestion proves better than a bold statement.
Third Parsha
Psook 41:39 "Vayomer paro el-yosef acharei hodia elohim otcha et-kol-zot ein-navon v'chacham kamocha" (Then Pharaoh said to Yosef: 'seeing as God has shown you all this, there is no one so discerning and wise as you).
Psook 41:40 "Ata tihye al-beiti v'al-picha yishak kol-ami rak hakise egdal mimeka" (You shall be over my house, and according to your command shall all my people be sustained; only by throne will I be greater than you.).'
Psook 41:42 "Vayasar paro et-tabato meal yado vayiten ota al-yad yosef vayalbesh oto bigdei-shesh vayasem r'vid hazahav al-tsavaro" (And Pharaoh took off his signet ring from his hand, and put it on Yosef's hand, and arrayed him in garments of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck).
Why did Pharaoh appoint Yosef?
Doing otherwise would have meant that he did not take the warning seriously and discounted the explanation of the dreams. But we see that he did accept the truth of Yosef's ellucidation - and his necromancers had not been in any way convincing. And this testifies to Yosef's comportment and tact during the interview - he spoke convincingly, he behaved appropriately. Which also recommended Yosef for such position, as much as his suggestion to appoint a wise and discerning man - which, surely, was subtly self-serving. Thus, just as he had impressed Potifar, he impressed the king.
[Per the Midrash, the necromancers had analysed the seven cows as Pharaoh's daughters, married to men who were beastly. It says much that daughters are likened to cattle, and this may not have pleased Pharaoh. But Pharaoh surely knew the limits of those employed to say sooth, and had been so affected by the dream that he distrusted glib explanations.]
The signet ring and other signs of authority have a disturbing resonance - Yehuda gave his signet , gartel, and staff, and was subsequently shown to be in the wrong by the one who held them. Pharaoh strikes a better bargain.
Psook 41:45 "Vayikra faro shem-yosef tsafnat paneach vayiten-lo et-asnat bat-poti fera kohen on l'isha vayetse yosef al-erets mitsrayim " (And Pharaoh called Yosef's name Zafnath-paneach; and he gave him to wife Asnat the daughter of Potifera priest of On. And Yosef went out over the land of Egypt).
Asnat, the daughter of Potifera.....
The medrash tells us that Asnat was the daughter of Dina after she had been raped by Chamor. It is said that Yakov wrote an amulet which he hung around the infant's neck, telling who she was, and who she was related to, and imprecating protection upon her, before tossing her out of the tent and into the bushes (sneh, hence the name). An angel carried her to Egypt and placed her in the household of Potifera. It is further explained that Potifera is that Potifar whom we read about earlier, and that because he had purchased Yosef for homosexual purposes, he was made neuter and became Potifera.
I note that the Medrash has an obession with tying up loose ends, and here tries to tie up two of them. Potifar is a variant of the more correct Potifera, which means 'he whom Ra gave'. The On of which this Potifera is a priest is Anu, also called Para (house of Ra), which is Beis Shemesh as mentioned in Jeremiah, and Heliopolis in Greek accounts.
If indeed Potifar had purchased Yosef for a catamite, it is utterly surprising that we do not read of Yosef resisting Potifar with the same vehemence as he resisted Potifar's wife, or in fact any vehemence whatsoever - it just isn't mentioned at all. Nor is there any hint whatsoever of this motive in the text, but rather, much indication that it was Yosef's reliability and abilities that recommended him to Potifar.
It seems further odd that this would be the household into which Asnat, if indeed daughter to Dina, would be adopted - a slut stepmother and a paedophile-eunuch priest. While it speaks well of the intrinsic character of Dina's genes that her daughter became suitable as a wife to Yosef, we have already seen that her genetic stock includes some rather unsavoury characters - characters who would sell or slaughter their own brother, and would leave an old man bereft.
It is more likely that, rather than constantly marrying close kin, as the medrash wishes to suggest, the avos did indeed marry out, as Yehudah had done - there is much evidence in the narrative that indicates that only when there were multitudes of Hebrews outmarriage became considered a stronger taboo - and at this early stage in the tale of the tribe, outmarriage seems an inevitability. There is further a foreshadowing here of what Moses will do in the next book - marrying the daughter of a priest, suggesting a worthiness for a spiritual role, a quality of leadership and wisdom, and, it should also be said, an ambivalent relationship with land.
It will be remembered that the Levites do not receive a share in the land, much like Yosef is 'over' the land, but may himself have no conflict of interest in the land or because of land, and as Moses went out of the land that Yosef went into.
[The metaphor is that of a stranger in a strange land. And we will encounter that in the next seifer.]
Land is precisely what separates Yosef from his brothers - Yosef is an official over all of Egypt, his brothers and their families will settle in only part of Egypt (Goshen).
Psook 41:46 "Va yosef ben-sh'loshim shana b'amdo lifnei paro melech-mitsrayim vayetse yosef milifnei faro vayaavor b'chol-erets mitsrayim " (And Yosef was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh king of Egypt. Yosef left the presence of Pharaoh, and went throughout the entire land of Egypt).
By this we can see how long Yosef had stayed in prison: two years since the wine-steward regained his position, plus the age that Yosef was when he went down into Egypt, subtracted from his age, with an allowance for the time he spent in Potifar's household.
Fourth Parsha
Psook 42:1 "Vayar yaakov ki yesh-shever b'mitsrayim vayomer yaakov l'vanav lama titrau" (Yakov saw that there was corn in Egypt, so Yakov said unto his sons: 'Why do you look so, one upon the other?').
Psook 42:4 "V'et-binyamin achi yosef lo-shalach yaakov et-echav ki amar pen-yikraenu ason" (But Benyamin, Yosef's brother, Yakov did not send with his brothers, saying 'Lest disaster befall him.').
Yakov saw that there was corn in Egypt?
Rashi asks why is it said that he saw. He answers that Yakov had a prophetic vision of there being plenty in Egypt, but that it was not a clear vision, otherwise he would also have seen Yosef.
I doubt this.
Given how often the text uses the construction 'vahine!' (behold!), and under what non-image circumstances it is used, we can assume that beholding was a concept that they ran with.
Do you see?
The Gemoro, in the tractate 'fasts' (how appropriate!), mentions that Yakov and his family still had plenty, but that rather than giving neighbors cause for envy, he sent his sons to Egypt to purchase more. Likely also that Yakov foresaw (there's that 'seeing' again!) that his neighbors might seek to rely on him and his family - better then to ensure that that there will be enough if possible, and be seen to be making that attempt, than to be caught flatfooted if the famine continues.
Psook 42:8 "Vayaker yosef et-echav v'hem lo hikiruhu" (And Yosef recognized his brothers, but they failed to recognize him).
Because he was dressed as an Egyptian, and had hardened from a boy into a man. Nor were they expecting him here and under these circumstances - the time and the place conspired to make him unrecognizable.
Psook 42:9 "Vayizkor yosef et hachalomot asher chalam lahem vayomer alehem m'raglim atem lirot et-ervat haarets batem" (And Yosef remembered the dreams which he dreamed of them, and said to them: 'You are spies! To see the nakedness of the land have you come.').
Yosef remembered what they had done to him. One may forgive, but one musn't forget.
Psook 42:13 "Vayomru sh'neim asar avadeicha achim anachnu b'nei ish-echad b'erets k'naan v'hine hakaton et-avinu hayom v'haechad einenu" (And they said: 'We are twelve brothers, your servants, the sons of one man in the land of Canaan; the youngest is this day with our father, and one is not.').
We are twelve brothers - As, indeed they are. The 'we', unrealized by the speaker, includes also Yosef.
Fifth Parsha
If you are honest men let one of your brethren be bound in your jail; and go with corn for the hunger in your households; and bring your youngest brother to me so that your words will be verified, and you shall not die.
And they said one to another: 'We are indeed guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw his suffering when he pleaded with us, and we would listen, and that is why this suffering has come to us.'
And Reuben answered them, saying: 'Did I not speak to you, saying: Do not sin against the boy and did you not listen? Therefore, see, his blood is required.'
And they did not know that Yosef understood them, as the interpreter was between them.
And he turned himself away, and wept, then he turned again to them, and spoke to them, and took Simeon from among them, and bound him before their eyes.
Later, back in the land:
And the man, the lord of the land, said to us - By this I shall know that you are honest men: leave one of your brothers with me, and take corn for the hunger of your households, and go your way.
And bring your youngest brother to me - then shall I know that you aren't spies but that honest men. I wil free your brother, and you shall be free to travel in the land.'
And Yakov their father said to them: 'You have bereaved me of my children - Yosef is not, and Simeon is not, and now you would take Benyamin away. On me does it all come.'
And Reuben spoke to his father, saying: 'You can slay my two sons if I do not bring him back to you - deliver him into my hands, and I will return him to you.'
But he said: 'My son shall not go down with you; for his brother is dead, and only he is left. If harm should befall him on the road you travel, then you will bring down my gray hairs in sorrow to the grave.
And it happened that when they had eaten up the corn which they had brought out of Egypt, that their father said to them: 'Go again, buy us a little food.'
And Yehudah spoke to him, saying: 'The man did earnestly warn us, saying: You shall not see my face if your brother is not with you.
If you will send our brother with us, we will go down and buy food for you, but if you will not send him, we will not go down, for the man said to us: You shall not see my face, except if your brother is with you.'
And Israel said: 'why did you do such ill to me, as to tell the man that you had another brother?'
And they said: 'The man asked straitly concerning ourselves, and concerning our relatives, saying: Is your father still alive? Do you have another brother? and we told him accordingly - how could we have known that he would say: Bring your brother down?'
And Yehudah said to Israel his father: 'Send the lad with me, and we will arise and go, that we may live, and not die, both we, and you, and also our children.
I will be his surety, from my hand you can demand him. If I do not bring him to you, and stand him before you, then let me bear the blame for ever.
For if we had not delayed, surely we could already have returned a second time.'
Psook 43:11 "Vayomer alehem yisrael avihem im-ken efo zot asu k'chu mizimrat haarets bichleichem v'horidu laish mincha m'at tsori umeat devash nachot valot batnim ushekedim" (And their father Israel said to them: 'If it must be so, do this: take of the choice fruits of the land in your vessels and bring the man a gift - a little balm, a little honey, wax, lotus, nuts, and almonds).
Rashi says pistachios and almonds, and this seems right, as both these nuts are much favoured in the middle-east, where the term for nuts often means whatever nut is favoured. Regarding the lotus which is mentioned, I suspect that this is in fact Orris root - formerly much used in medicine and considered tonifying, especially for pregnant women. Nowadays it is still used for puddings, though often cornstarch may be substituted.
[Note: I'm including the following verses, because they are evocative, and it is well to read them of a piece with the rest of this text - it paints a clearer picture.]
Psook 43:12 "Vechesef mishne k'chu v'yedchem v'et-hakesef hamushav b'fi amt'choteichem tashivu v'yedchem ulai mishge hu" (And take double money in your hand; and the money that was returned in the mouth of your sacks carry back in your hands; maybe it was an oversight).
Psook 43:13 "V'et-achichem kachu v'kumu shuvu el-haish" (And take also your brother - Arise, go again to the man).
Psook 43:14 "V'el shadai yiten lachem rachamim lifnei haish v'shilach lachem et-achichem acher v'et-binyamin vaani kaasher shacholti shachalti" (And may El Shaddai grant you mercy before the man, that he may release to you your other brother and Benyamin. And as for me, if I am bereaved of my children, then I am bereaved.' ).
Sixth Parsha
Psook 43:27 "Vayishal lahem l'shalom vayomer hashalom avichem hazaken asher amartem haodenu chai" (And he asked them about their health, and said: 'Is your father well, the old man of whom you spoke? Does he still live?' ).
Psook 43:28 "Vayomru shalom l'avd'cha l'avinu odenu chai vayikdu vayishtachavu vayishtachauu" (And they said: 'your servant our father is well, he still lives.' And they bowed the head, and were humble).
Psook 43:29 "Vayisa einav vayar et-binyamin achiv ben-imo vayomer haze achichem hakaton asher amartem elai vayomar elohim yachn'cha b'ni " (And he raised up his eyes, and saw his brother Benyamin, his mother's son, and said: 'Is this your youngest brother of whom you spoke unto me?' And he said: 'God be gracious to you, my son.').
Question: Why does he address Benyamin as 'my son'?
Answer: How else should he address the lad? The custom of an older person refering to a younger as their son or daughter when speaking to them is kindly and appropriate.
Seventh Parsha
And Yosef hurried out for his heart yearned for his brother; and he wanted to weep; and he went into his room and wept there.
And he washed his face, and came out; and he restrained himself, and said: 'Set out the bread.'
And they set for him by himself, and for them by themselves, and for the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves, because the Egyptians could not eat bread with the Hebrews, that being an repulsive to Egyptians.
Psook 43:33 "Vayeshvu l'fanav habechor kivchorato v'hatsair kitsirato vayitm'hu haanashim ish el-reehu" (And they sat before him, the firstborn according to seniority, and the youngest according to his youth; and the men looked at each other in astonishment).
Why were they astonished?
Because they had been seated in correct age order, which is something that could not be expected from one who did not know their ages.
But the question may well be asked whether in his questioning of them that data had not been mentioned, as he asked them much about themselves and their family.
Psook 43:34 "Vayisa masot meet panav alehem vaterev masat binyamin mimasot kulam chamesh yadot vayishtu vayishk'ru imo" (And he passed portions to them before him, and Benyamin's portion was five times greater than any of theirs. And they drank, and were cheerful with him).
Why give Benyamin a five times greater portion?
Because Benyamin was his father's comfort and companion. By honouring the son one honours also the father, especially when the son stands in for the father. If that son, by his presence represents the father it is fitting that more attention be expended on his well-being, both to express good wishes for the father's well-being and to ensure that he return to his father in wellness.
Now note that the brotherly envy which had previously sabotaged the unity of the brethren is her conspicuously absent - they have indeed matured.
But another reason for favouring Benyamin is to draw attention to him in advance, because of what he was planning to do with the wine-beaker.
As soon as dawn broke, the men were sent away, they and their donkeys.
When they had left the city, and had not yet gone far, Yosef said to his steward: 'Get Up and follow after those men; and when you overtake them, say to them: why have you repaid evil for good?
Is not this that from which my master drinks, and with which he divines? You have done evil in what you did.'
And he overtook them, and he said to them those words.
And they said to him: 'Wy does my lord say so? Far be it from your servants that they should do such a thing.
Behold, the money, which we found in our sacks' mouths, we returned to you from the land of Canaan; how then should we steal out of your master's house any silver With whichever of your servants it is found, let him die, and we also will be my lord's slaves.'
And he said: 'As you say, so shall it be - he with whom it is found shall be a slave to me, and you shall be blameless.'
Then they hastened, and each man lowered his pack to the ground, and opened every man his pack.
And he searched, beginning with the eldest, and ending with the youngest; and the goblet was found in Benyamin's pack.
And they rent their garments, and each reloaded his donkey and returned to the city.
And Judah said: 'How can we speak to my lord? What shall we say? Or how shall we even justify ourselves? God has found out the crime of your servants; behold, we are my lord's slaves, both we and the one in whose hand the beaker was found.'
And he said: 'Far be it from me that I should do so; the man in whose hand the beaker was found, he shall be my slave, but as for you, go up in peace to your father.'.
And here Yosef is truly testing his brothers, because he has by his five-part favouring of Benyamin highlighted for the brothers that Benyamin is special to their father, and he is giving them an opportunity to rid themsleves of Benyamin as once they had rid themsleves of Yosef....
Oh my.
A cliff hanger.
Tune in next week for more.
THE DUTCH, THE EUROPEANS, AND VOMIT
Warning: Sometimes I just need to vent at Europeans. It's nothing personal. Now is one of those times.
SNEER
There is much about growing up in Holland that I remember with fondness.
There is also much that is not worth remembering - many Dutch are petty, vindictive, superior shits.
As I'm relatively sure Muslims living in the Netherlands will agree.
According to a poll a few years ago, most Dutch dislike the Turks and Moroccans nearly as much as they dislike Americans. The anti-Muslim venom I have read in Dutch over the past few years is mindboggling, frightening, nauseating - not as paranoid as the anti-Americanism from Dutch pens, but much much cruder and much more primitive. The difference is between mere sneering despicion and racist bigotry - sneering despicion is more civilized.
The fact is that the Dutch hate the Islamites resident in the Netherlands with a passion. Which is odd. Turks and Moroccans contribute mightily to the Netherlands
After all, the streets of Northern Europe don't sweep themselves, and the natives sure ain't gonna do it.
[Also, without the efforts of the growing number of Islamo-Dutch writers like Sevtap Baycili, Abdelkader Benali, and many other allochthonous authors, modern Dutch literature would be mighty anaemic - many autochthonous scribblers seem to have such a case of "gawd ain't we clevah", one might end up gagging after reading whole chapters of their decadent garbage. And it damages the mind.]
EUROPEANS AND AMERICANS
Many Europeans I meet in the US are such superior 'we are better than you dumb yanks' pustules that I avoid conversing with them - I've already heard all varieties of their patronizing guff, and have no need for a refresher.
Often overlooked, in the trans-Atlantic give-and-take, is that US dominance is in a large part fueled by Europeans. Without European investments in the American economy, and without the Europeans acting as smooth, polished, obsequious collaborators with us in the third world, that dominance could scarce exist.
[On the other hand, one of the key differences between them and us is that European colonialism wrecked more of the world than we've had a chance to do as yet (the Dutch, for instance, exterminated the natives of Banda, and killed one third of the population of Java building the great post-road - not even mentioning what they did in Africa). This is something that should be kept in mind.]
TRAVELLERS
In Europe, until I mention where I'm from, I have no problem. I just behave like I normally do, and get along fine with people.
But the moment I admit that I'm from the U.S., the average Dutchman changes into the most irritating blister this side of a venereal disease. That's still a lot better than lower-class Brits, who become abusive and often violent, or the French, who spit, or the Germans, who are aggressively, arrogantly rude.
[Why is it by the way that the French and many other Europeans refuse to accept that workers in the service industries in this country bloody well have to pay for food and rent from their tips? We ain't buggery France, where they distrust each other so freakin' much that the service bloody well is always compris! Folks, the next time you're in an American restaurant and the waiter studiously ignores you, it's probably because your fellow Europeans stiffed the waitstaff after taking up more time and effort than twenty Yanks.]
Similarly, when it comes to Europeans and natives of the Central Valley visiting the Bay Area, if they behave like regular folks we just assume they're locals.
People who act normal will pass unnoticed.
Otherwise we ask them sweetly where they're visiting from, and file that information on the mental blacklist along with other delightful tidbits such as Texans being overweight vulgarians, Southern Californians being vacuous morons, the French and the Germans being the stingiest bunch of tippers in the world (and they smell bad, dammit!), Hollanders being coarse, contentious, and argumentative, the Italians wanting to congress everything in sight, the British having bad personal habits, rotten teeth, and worse morals, and Europeans in general being snide, arrogant, patronizing pimples.
Yes, I read foreign newspapers on the internet - why do you ask?
SNEER
There is much about growing up in Holland that I remember with fondness.
There is also much that is not worth remembering - many Dutch are petty, vindictive, superior shits.
As I'm relatively sure Muslims living in the Netherlands will agree.
According to a poll a few years ago, most Dutch dislike the Turks and Moroccans nearly as much as they dislike Americans. The anti-Muslim venom I have read in Dutch over the past few years is mindboggling, frightening, nauseating - not as paranoid as the anti-Americanism from Dutch pens, but much much cruder and much more primitive. The difference is between mere sneering despicion and racist bigotry - sneering despicion is more civilized.
The fact is that the Dutch hate the Islamites resident in the Netherlands with a passion. Which is odd. Turks and Moroccans contribute mightily to the Netherlands
After all, the streets of Northern Europe don't sweep themselves, and the natives sure ain't gonna do it.
[Also, without the efforts of the growing number of Islamo-Dutch writers like Sevtap Baycili, Abdelkader Benali, and many other allochthonous authors, modern Dutch literature would be mighty anaemic - many autochthonous scribblers seem to have such a case of "gawd ain't we clevah", one might end up gagging after reading whole chapters of their decadent garbage. And it damages the mind.]
EUROPEANS AND AMERICANS
Many Europeans I meet in the US are such superior 'we are better than you dumb yanks' pustules that I avoid conversing with them - I've already heard all varieties of their patronizing guff, and have no need for a refresher.
Often overlooked, in the trans-Atlantic give-and-take, is that US dominance is in a large part fueled by Europeans. Without European investments in the American economy, and without the Europeans acting as smooth, polished, obsequious collaborators with us in the third world, that dominance could scarce exist.
[On the other hand, one of the key differences between them and us is that European colonialism wrecked more of the world than we've had a chance to do as yet (the Dutch, for instance, exterminated the natives of Banda, and killed one third of the population of Java building the great post-road - not even mentioning what they did in Africa). This is something that should be kept in mind.]
TRAVELLERS
In Europe, until I mention where I'm from, I have no problem. I just behave like I normally do, and get along fine with people.
But the moment I admit that I'm from the U.S., the average Dutchman changes into the most irritating blister this side of a venereal disease. That's still a lot better than lower-class Brits, who become abusive and often violent, or the French, who spit, or the Germans, who are aggressively, arrogantly rude.
[Why is it by the way that the French and many other Europeans refuse to accept that workers in the service industries in this country bloody well have to pay for food and rent from their tips? We ain't buggery France, where they distrust each other so freakin' much that the service bloody well is always compris! Folks, the next time you're in an American restaurant and the waiter studiously ignores you, it's probably because your fellow Europeans stiffed the waitstaff after taking up more time and effort than twenty Yanks.]
Similarly, when it comes to Europeans and natives of the Central Valley visiting the Bay Area, if they behave like regular folks we just assume they're locals.
People who act normal will pass unnoticed.
Otherwise we ask them sweetly where they're visiting from, and file that information on the mental blacklist along with other delightful tidbits such as Texans being overweight vulgarians, Southern Californians being vacuous morons, the French and the Germans being the stingiest bunch of tippers in the world (and they smell bad, dammit!), Hollanders being coarse, contentious, and argumentative, the Italians wanting to congress everything in sight, the British having bad personal habits, rotten teeth, and worse morals, and Europeans in general being snide, arrogant, patronizing pimples.
Yes, I read foreign newspapers on the internet - why do you ask?
OVERWEIGHT PERVERT IN A RED BEKESHE!
During the last winter my parents spent in the US (1961), they finally gave in to the pressure from the neighbors to troll up the outside of the house for the season.
The entire street, nay, the entire neighborhood, had for years done up their houses with lights, glowing santas, electronic fir-trees, fake snow (because real snow seldom falls in the Los Angeles area), nativity scenes of varying degrees of ghast, balls, candles, holly, and similar expressions of fervor and fanaticism.
Let us not talk about bad taste.
So, in honour of the season, my parents placed a giant egg on the crest of the roof. With three brontosaurii heading towards it from the east.
Which, along with the dessicated wreath from several years earlier, were left up till we left for Europe in summer.
I do not decorate for Christmas.
We have a 'holiday tree' in the lobby of the office. I decided, probably for the best, that my collection of voodoo dolls would probably be inappropriate ornaments - even though we were told that we could decorate it however we wanted.
See, I am diplomatic, despite what some people say.
I've been telling every fellow-wasp who wishes me a merry Christmas to have a happy kwanzaa. It throws them for a loop to hear that from someone so white that he glows in the dark. You can hear the mental gears whirring for several minutes after. Exercise is good for them, especially at this time of year.
Given that I work in a Christmas-thriving industry (so economically Christmas-oriented, but not ideologically xmas dependent), you will just have to forgive me a certain level of bah-humbugitty. I've been totally yuled under since September. I have nothing good to say about that overweight pervert in the red bekeshe.
The entire street, nay, the entire neighborhood, had for years done up their houses with lights, glowing santas, electronic fir-trees, fake snow (because real snow seldom falls in the Los Angeles area), nativity scenes of varying degrees of ghast, balls, candles, holly, and similar expressions of fervor and fanaticism.
Let us not talk about bad taste.
So, in honour of the season, my parents placed a giant egg on the crest of the roof. With three brontosaurii heading towards it from the east.
Which, along with the dessicated wreath from several years earlier, were left up till we left for Europe in summer.
I do not decorate for Christmas.
We have a 'holiday tree' in the lobby of the office. I decided, probably for the best, that my collection of voodoo dolls would probably be inappropriate ornaments - even though we were told that we could decorate it however we wanted.
See, I am diplomatic, despite what some people say.
I've been telling every fellow-wasp who wishes me a merry Christmas to have a happy kwanzaa. It throws them for a loop to hear that from someone so white that he glows in the dark. You can hear the mental gears whirring for several minutes after. Exercise is good for them, especially at this time of year.
Given that I work in a Christmas-thriving industry (so economically Christmas-oriented, but not ideologically xmas dependent), you will just have to forgive me a certain level of bah-humbugitty. I've been totally yuled under since September. I have nothing good to say about that overweight pervert in the red bekeshe.
ACTION ALERT - SUNDAY DECEMBER 24TH. 2006
Note: While I'm baffled at the holiday season being turned into a hate-Israel event (this isn't Czarist Russia, fercrepes'sakes, and this isn't the nineteenth century), I am overjoyed that the sonei-Yisroel are giving me this splendid opportunity to see some of my favourite people for Christmas. And counter-demonstrating an anti-Israel march is in many ways like playing chess. How utterly perfect for NITTEL! Will I be there? You betcha! I hope you will be there too.
ACTION ALERT – FORWARD WIDELY
Counter Anti-Israel March through Union Square
Sunday December 24th 4:15-6PM
Meet at Geary and Powel, downtown San Francisco.
BACKGROUND
Once again, a coalition of anti-Israel groups will use the Christmas holiday to demonize Israel. They will march through Union Square insisting that there will not be peace in Bethlehem so long as Israel has control over the West Bank. Of course, they will avoid any mention of the use of churches, including the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, as shields for terror against Israel. They will avoid any mention of the forcing of Christian merchants out of Manger Square in Bethlehem. 2006 was a particularly hard year for Palestinian Christians as anger over the Danish cartoons and the Pope’s comments inspired Islamist rioting. In both instances, the rioting and church arsons were most severe in the Palestinian Territories.
They will not mention that the oppression of the Palestinian Christians is perpetrated not by Israel, but by thugs, militias, and Islamists within the
Territories and permitted and facilitated by the Palestinian Authority. In the meantime, Israel is trying to facilitate the movement of Christians to Bethlehem for Christmas.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/802991.html <http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/802991.html>
EVENT DETAILS:
StandWithUs/SF Voice for Israel Will march through Union Square as well. We will be armed with our most potent weapon – the truth. As always, feel free to make your own signs but please no signs or graphics offensive to any racial or ethnic group including but not limited to Arabs, Islam, or Palestinians. Signs in violation of our policies will not be allowed.
Pray for Peace in Bethlehem
Pray for freedom of religion and the end of oppression throughout the Middle East
Demand the Palestinians choose peace so that their future can begin!
StandWithUs/San Francisco Voice for Israel
www.SFVoiceForIsrael.org
www.StandWithUs.com
------------------------------------------------------
Upcoming Events
Saturday, January 27th, Noon. Counter anti-Israel protest
San Francisco, Market and Powel
Sunday, March 18th, 2007 – Next Wrong, A.N.S.W.E.R. rally. Exact time and location to be announced. Note new date!
July 16th-25th – Stand With Us Mission to Israel
------------------------------------------------
Do you want to become more involved with organizing our activities?
Send a message to info@SFVoiceForIsrael.org <mailto:info%40SFVoiceForIsrael.org>
If you are interested in participating in our campaign to counter anti-Israel speakers, please send an e-mail to info@SFVoiceForIsrael.org <mailto:info%40SFVoiceForIsrael.org>
Join the discussion! Do you have ideas? Classes to announce? Events to announce or discuss? Join our discussion list by sending an e-mail to sfproisrael-subscribe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:sfproisrael-subscribe%40yahoogroups.com> .
San Francisco Voice for Israel is a non-partisan coalition that takes no position on the war in Iraq, the settlements, or Israel's final borders. Our members span the political spectrum and are united only by our commitment to preserving the State of Israel as a Jewish State within secure, defensible borders.
Please send your tax deductible donation to
Stand With Us
P.O. Box 341069
Los Angeles, CA 90034-1069
Write SFV4I in the memo line.
ACTION ALERT – FORWARD WIDELY
Counter Anti-Israel March through Union Square
Sunday December 24th 4:15-6PM
Meet at Geary and Powel, downtown San Francisco.
BACKGROUND
Once again, a coalition of anti-Israel groups will use the Christmas holiday to demonize Israel. They will march through Union Square insisting that there will not be peace in Bethlehem so long as Israel has control over the West Bank. Of course, they will avoid any mention of the use of churches, including the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, as shields for terror against Israel. They will avoid any mention of the forcing of Christian merchants out of Manger Square in Bethlehem. 2006 was a particularly hard year for Palestinian Christians as anger over the Danish cartoons and the Pope’s comments inspired Islamist rioting. In both instances, the rioting and church arsons were most severe in the Palestinian Territories.
They will not mention that the oppression of the Palestinian Christians is perpetrated not by Israel, but by thugs, militias, and Islamists within the
Territories and permitted and facilitated by the Palestinian Authority. In the meantime, Israel is trying to facilitate the movement of Christians to Bethlehem for Christmas.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/802991.html <http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/802991.html>
EVENT DETAILS:
StandWithUs/SF Voice for Israel Will march through Union Square as well. We will be armed with our most potent weapon – the truth. As always, feel free to make your own signs but please no signs or graphics offensive to any racial or ethnic group including but not limited to Arabs, Islam, or Palestinians. Signs in violation of our policies will not be allowed.
Pray for Peace in Bethlehem
Pray for freedom of religion and the end of oppression throughout the Middle East
Demand the Palestinians choose peace so that their future can begin!
StandWithUs/San Francisco Voice for Israel
www.SFVoiceForIsrael.org
www.StandWithUs.com
------------------------------------------------------
Upcoming Events
Saturday, January 27th, Noon. Counter anti-Israel protest
San Francisco, Market and Powel
Sunday, March 18th, 2007 – Next Wrong, A.N.S.W.E.R. rally. Exact time and location to be announced. Note new date!
July 16th-25th – Stand With Us Mission to Israel
------------------------------------------------
Do you want to become more involved with organizing our activities?
Send a message to info@SFVoiceForIsrael.org <mailto:info%40SFVoiceForIsrael.org>
If you are interested in participating in our campaign to counter anti-Israel speakers, please send an e-mail to info@SFVoiceForIsrael.org <mailto:info%40SFVoiceForIsrael.org>
Join the discussion! Do you have ideas? Classes to announce? Events to announce or discuss? Join our discussion list by sending an e-mail to sfproisrael-subscribe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:sfproisrael-subscribe%40yahoogroups.com> .
San Francisco Voice for Israel is a non-partisan coalition that takes no position on the war in Iraq, the settlements, or Israel's final borders. Our members span the political spectrum and are united only by our commitment to preserving the State of Israel as a Jewish State within secure, defensible borders.
Please send your tax deductible donation to
Stand With Us
P.O. Box 341069
Los Angeles, CA 90034-1069
Write SFV4I in the memo line.
Monday, December 18, 2006
QUANDARY
It is at this point that I realize that there is a quandary. Which I really should have noticed before, but sometimes parts of my humongous ego occlude my view.
[This type of self-depreciating 'vidui' is called fake humility - it is something I'm quite good at, very proud of, and even boast about - I'll pretend you're smiling appreciatively right now.]
The quandary davka is this: who the heck reads my postings on the parsha of the week?
The target audience (readers of more-or-less orthodox Jewish background), is probably the least likely to feel entirely comfortable reading such things - chochma ba Goyim ta'amin, Torah ba Goyim al ta'amin. And certainly they will feel restraint about commenting.
The other side of the coin are Gentiles. But would many Gentiles even have the appetite, far less the familiarity with the material, to know what the heck I'm talking about and be able to discuss?
[And if they did comment, most likely that lovely little quote above would have to kick in.... Torah ba Goyim al ta'amin and all that jazz.]
You can see, it's a bit of a twist. Those with whom I want to discuss have to restrain themselves, those most likely to discuss are probably ab initio disqualified.
Who or what does that leave?
Unobservant Jews? Reform? Renewal? New-Age? That Feminist Womyn's Empowerment Wicca Minyan over in the East-Bay? Rabbi Lerner's Tikkun Community? Kabalah dabblers? Whackheads?
Christians???!!!!!?
Do any of these alternatives even understand the concept of studying the text regularly and attentively rather than reading it occasionally for the narrative and glib quotes?
More to the point, would they be able to play according to the rules?
[Comments and interpretations must more-or-less veer towards the established approaches, instead of being reinterpretations that would substantiate heterodox schools of thought or their own 'tradition' - and you know precisely what I mean by that.]
And would I even want them here?
I guess my actual audience would probably be considered apikorsish by one side, or meshune by the other extreme.
Internetim, kofrim, apikorsim, and various similarly appelled who have in some way deviated from a more attentive and better travelled derech.
[Not that there is anything wrong with that.]
The real question is, am I giving them something worth reading? Is what I post about the parsha in any way stimulating?
It is however not so very shver.........
I presume that some people (J-Bloggers) are indeed reading the parsha postings and just discretely keeping quiet.
I believe that the odd Christian who stumbles into this blog stumbles right out again, having understood almost nothing.
I doubt that atheists even believe in computers, so they aren't really here.
And I'm primarily writing the parsha posts to clarify things for myself, which is why I call them 'notes'.
So I think I am actually reaching the right audience when delving into the weekly parsha - that being all of us.
Thank you for being here.
I just, sometimes, wish I that could hear you breathing.
Coming up: Parshas Miketz. Which is quite exciting. I'll write about it tomorrow evening.
[This type of self-depreciating 'vidui' is called fake humility - it is something I'm quite good at, very proud of, and even boast about - I'll pretend you're smiling appreciatively right now.]
The quandary davka is this: who the heck reads my postings on the parsha of the week?
The target audience (readers of more-or-less orthodox Jewish background), is probably the least likely to feel entirely comfortable reading such things - chochma ba Goyim ta'amin, Torah ba Goyim al ta'amin. And certainly they will feel restraint about commenting.
The other side of the coin are Gentiles. But would many Gentiles even have the appetite, far less the familiarity with the material, to know what the heck I'm talking about and be able to discuss?
[And if they did comment, most likely that lovely little quote above would have to kick in.... Torah ba Goyim al ta'amin and all that jazz.]
You can see, it's a bit of a twist. Those with whom I want to discuss have to restrain themselves, those most likely to discuss are probably ab initio disqualified.
Who or what does that leave?
Unobservant Jews? Reform? Renewal? New-Age? That Feminist Womyn's Empowerment Wicca Minyan over in the East-Bay? Rabbi Lerner's Tikkun Community? Kabalah dabblers? Whackheads?
Christians???!!!!!?
Do any of these alternatives even understand the concept of studying the text regularly and attentively rather than reading it occasionally for the narrative and glib quotes?
More to the point, would they be able to play according to the rules?
[Comments and interpretations must more-or-less veer towards the established approaches, instead of being reinterpretations that would substantiate heterodox schools of thought or their own 'tradition' - and you know precisely what I mean by that.]
And would I even want them here?
I guess my actual audience would probably be considered apikorsish by one side, or meshune by the other extreme.
Internetim, kofrim, apikorsim, and various similarly appelled who have in some way deviated from a more attentive and better travelled derech.
[Not that there is anything wrong with that.]
The real question is, am I giving them something worth reading? Is what I post about the parsha in any way stimulating?
It is however not so very shver.........
I presume that some people (J-Bloggers) are indeed reading the parsha postings and just discretely keeping quiet.
I believe that the odd Christian who stumbles into this blog stumbles right out again, having understood almost nothing.
I doubt that atheists even believe in computers, so they aren't really here.
And I'm primarily writing the parsha posts to clarify things for myself, which is why I call them 'notes'.
So I think I am actually reaching the right audience when delving into the weekly parsha - that being all of us.
Thank you for being here.
I just, sometimes, wish I that could hear you breathing.
Coming up: Parshas Miketz. Which is quite exciting. I'll write about it tomorrow evening.
Friday, December 15, 2006
JOHN BERGER BOYCOTT
Today, author, art-critic, some-time artist, and opinionated bloviant John Berger, who writes or blogs or diddly-scribbles in the Guardian, called for a boycott of Israel.
He writes:
"Today I am supporting a world-wide appeal to teachers, intellectuals and artists to join the cultural boycott of the state of Israel, as called for by over a hundred Palestinian academics and artists, and - very importantly - also by a number of Israeli public figures, who outspokenly oppose their country's illegal occupation of the Palestine territories of the West Bank and Gaza. Their call, printed in the Guardian today......etcetera."
[The rest of what he thought he had to say is here: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/john_berger/2006/12/john_berger.html]
It struck me that some people do not know who the divvil this pillock is.
So here is a Wikipedia link to help you remember stuff you tried to read but could not wade through: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Berger
The boycott details are here: http://www.bricup.org.uk/
I shall not bother arguing against a boycott. Those of you who believe as I do that a boycott of Israel is unjustified already know why it is unjustified, those of you who mistakenly believe that such a boycott is the right thing to do are not really worth conversing with and probably need psychiatric attention for the trauma you have suffered befouling your own sheets every night.
[Bulgar the boycott, bulgar the soft-in-the-heads who support the boycott, and bulgar their mothers and the mangy camels they rode in on. Metaphorically speaking. I actually wish them a more violent fate.]
Instead, I am stealing a comment from underneath Mr. Berger's blog-posting, and pasting it below.
Please read it. Please comment. Please impress what the writer says upon your hearts, because this is what we've come to, and this is the state of the world today.
sarar
Comment No. 338446
December 15 12:09
I don't usually post here but feel that this time I have to make my feelings known. I am a non practising, non believing British Jewish woman, who was actually disowned 33 years ago for marrying out of faith. Nevertheless, I am suddenly starting to feel, maybe mistakenly, that I have to keep my remaining Jewish identity secret. I never tell anyone that my parents were refugees from the Holocaust, and I would not dare to say that I believe that the Jewish nation needed somewhere safe to live after Hitler's "final solution" and the general apathy (and, frankly, opposition) that was shown by other nations.
The reason? I am, for the first time in my life, scared of other's reactions. I am not an Israeli but anti Israel sentiments are becoming thinly veiled anti semitic sentiments and I am acutely aware of being held somehow responsible. You may think I am being paranoid but recently, during a conversation, someone started a tirade against Israel using the words "your people." I am English not an Israeli Zionist.
I consider myself to be on the Left, but recently, the Left has looked to gain alliances with people who are overtly anti semitic adding to my fear. It should not be necessary, in the year 2006 in Britain, that I should be thankful that my children are in no way identifiably Jewish and therefore present no easy target for people who, like them, oppose the actions of Israel under its present leadership.
Sure, there have been many UN resolutions against Israel but these at the time that the UK and the US have been involved in a totally illegal war. This island was never under attaack. No-one wants to wipe the UK off the face of the earth.... I also hear no protest against the many other odious regimes in the world practicing human rights violations, massacres and atrocities. Yep - we Jews sure are a chosen race.....
John Berger is mistaken.Surely as a Marxist (as he presumably thinks himself to be) Mr. Berger is aware that many intellectuals do not share the stance of the state that purports to support them.British, and indeed US intellectuals, are a case in point.
In any case, the only way to reach other intellectuals is through dialogue.His solution would merely serve to isolate those forces in Israel who are opposed to the right wing policies of the current Israeli leadership. Does he think that ALL teachers,intellectuals and artists in this country and the US support the Iraq war just because the British government supports it? By this token,should there not now be an international boycott of British and US teachers intellectuals and artists?
He writes:
"Today I am supporting a world-wide appeal to teachers, intellectuals and artists to join the cultural boycott of the state of Israel, as called for by over a hundred Palestinian academics and artists, and - very importantly - also by a number of Israeli public figures, who outspokenly oppose their country's illegal occupation of the Palestine territories of the West Bank and Gaza. Their call, printed in the Guardian today......etcetera."
[The rest of what he thought he had to say is here: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/john_berger/2006/12/john_berger.html]
It struck me that some people do not know who the divvil this pillock is.
So here is a Wikipedia link to help you remember stuff you tried to read but could not wade through: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Berger
The boycott details are here: http://www.bricup.org.uk/
I shall not bother arguing against a boycott. Those of you who believe as I do that a boycott of Israel is unjustified already know why it is unjustified, those of you who mistakenly believe that such a boycott is the right thing to do are not really worth conversing with and probably need psychiatric attention for the trauma you have suffered befouling your own sheets every night.
[Bulgar the boycott, bulgar the soft-in-the-heads who support the boycott, and bulgar their mothers and the mangy camels they rode in on. Metaphorically speaking. I actually wish them a more violent fate.]
Instead, I am stealing a comment from underneath Mr. Berger's blog-posting, and pasting it below.
Please read it. Please comment. Please impress what the writer says upon your hearts, because this is what we've come to, and this is the state of the world today.
sarar
Comment No. 338446
December 15 12:09
I don't usually post here but feel that this time I have to make my feelings known. I am a non practising, non believing British Jewish woman, who was actually disowned 33 years ago for marrying out of faith. Nevertheless, I am suddenly starting to feel, maybe mistakenly, that I have to keep my remaining Jewish identity secret. I never tell anyone that my parents were refugees from the Holocaust, and I would not dare to say that I believe that the Jewish nation needed somewhere safe to live after Hitler's "final solution" and the general apathy (and, frankly, opposition) that was shown by other nations.
The reason? I am, for the first time in my life, scared of other's reactions. I am not an Israeli but anti Israel sentiments are becoming thinly veiled anti semitic sentiments and I am acutely aware of being held somehow responsible. You may think I am being paranoid but recently, during a conversation, someone started a tirade against Israel using the words "your people." I am English not an Israeli Zionist.
I consider myself to be on the Left, but recently, the Left has looked to gain alliances with people who are overtly anti semitic adding to my fear. It should not be necessary, in the year 2006 in Britain, that I should be thankful that my children are in no way identifiably Jewish and therefore present no easy target for people who, like them, oppose the actions of Israel under its present leadership.
Sure, there have been many UN resolutions against Israel but these at the time that the UK and the US have been involved in a totally illegal war. This island was never under attaack. No-one wants to wipe the UK off the face of the earth.... I also hear no protest against the many other odious regimes in the world practicing human rights violations, massacres and atrocities. Yep - we Jews sure are a chosen race.....
John Berger is mistaken.Surely as a Marxist (as he presumably thinks himself to be) Mr. Berger is aware that many intellectuals do not share the stance of the state that purports to support them.British, and indeed US intellectuals, are a case in point.
In any case, the only way to reach other intellectuals is through dialogue.His solution would merely serve to isolate those forces in Israel who are opposed to the right wing policies of the current Israeli leadership. Does he think that ALL teachers,intellectuals and artists in this country and the US support the Iraq war just because the British government supports it? By this token,should there not now be an international boycott of British and US teachers intellectuals and artists?
------------------
I consider myself fairly left-wing (liberal secular humanist at the very least), and therefore have some sympathy for many left-wing causes, tempered with what I flatter myself is a sense of realism.
When I was younger (I am now heading towards fifty) I often dealt with people who for ideological reasons spoke glowingly of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot's Kampuchea, Mengistu's Ethiopia, and several similar great revolutionary sacred cows. Even at that time, realists knew that things were not as publicized but far otherwise, and evidence was surfacing that these sacred cows were in fact unimaginable horrors. Much that the left-wing has espoused in the last three decades has been unalloyed tyranny and repression. Much that today gets the praise and support of the left-wing is still tyranny and repression. Reality is not strong on that side.
I consider myself, in a certain way, left-wing.
Evenso, I have never lost touch with reality.
I have not been on a different planet.
But I consider those who are usually considered left-wing to be mostly insane, and for a large part ignorant and willfully stupid.
Most of the left-wing are unmistakably mistaken, and most people who identify with left-wing causes do so merely because they enjoy the frisson, the delicious contrariness of irritating people who have found a better fit in society. Most of the left-wing are maladjusted.
Some are downright evil.
Author, art-critic, some-time artist, and opinionated bloviant John Berger is downright evil.
When I was younger (I am now heading towards fifty) I often dealt with people who for ideological reasons spoke glowingly of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot's Kampuchea, Mengistu's Ethiopia, and several similar great revolutionary sacred cows. Even at that time, realists knew that things were not as publicized but far otherwise, and evidence was surfacing that these sacred cows were in fact unimaginable horrors. Much that the left-wing has espoused in the last three decades has been unalloyed tyranny and repression. Much that today gets the praise and support of the left-wing is still tyranny and repression. Reality is not strong on that side.
I consider myself, in a certain way, left-wing.
Evenso, I have never lost touch with reality.
I have not been on a different planet.
But I consider those who are usually considered left-wing to be mostly insane, and for a large part ignorant and willfully stupid.
Most of the left-wing are unmistakably mistaken, and most people who identify with left-wing causes do so merely because they enjoy the frisson, the delicious contrariness of irritating people who have found a better fit in society. Most of the left-wing are maladjusted.
Some are downright evil.
Author, art-critic, some-time artist, and opinionated bloviant John Berger is downright evil.
IRAN'S HOLOCAUST CONFERENCE
So what did Ahmedinejad achieve with his holocaust conference this week?
Other than getting up the hackles of the civilized world?
Whatever publicity that travesty was given did little else than clarify, for whoever had any doubt left, that Iran is a rogue state, that those who listen to Iran in the Arab world are not interested in truth, and that many Muslims have a streak of revisionism and cloud-cuckoo-land fantasy so inordinately wide that it is pointless to talk with them.
The European nations seem to have grasped that permitting Iran to further any of its ambitions might be a mistake (and lordy, it's taken a while for them to comprehend that not all modern-day nation-states are rational players).
Bluntly put, this conference discredited the anti-Israel side. It did nothing else but discredit the anti-Israel side, even among the cotton-wool peace-loving idealist butterflies of Western Europe.
Even among the Arabs, there have been voices making a loud Bronx cheer, and commentators suggesting that Ahmedinejad has befouled his own side by associating with certain "scholars".
[No need to mention who those scholars are - they are such shameless egomaniacs that even those who have not yet been mentioned will undoubtedly out themselves by handing out press-releases, and trumpeting their having attended for years to come.]
Even worse, for Ahmedinejad and co., was the attendance of many whose only creditbility lies with the unutterables and untouchables of the world.
Such as David Duke.
And Neturei Karta.
Collectively the Ku Klux Klan and the Ku Klux Karta.
[As someone eloquently jibed on the Yeshiva World blog (http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/)]
Neturei Karta has a talent for showing up on the wrong side. They allegedly are a group of Ultra-Orthodox Jews who believe that the existence of the state of Israel before the coming of the Messaiah is anathematic, and are rabidly opposed to there even being a secular Jewish state.
Part of that worldview is based on Talmudic commentary that suggests that golus is the natural state for Jewry after the destruction of the Temple and the dispersal of the Jews by the Romans. Neturei Karta regards themselves as guardians of genuine Judaism, and everybody else as either regrettably and horribly wrong or utter heretics, Gentiles even.
Whatever they may think of actual Gentiles does not prevent them from supporting those very Gentiles who have consistently tried to kill Jews at every opportunity, so deep is their distaste for Jews who disagree with them.
What Neturei Karta fails to realize, like most others on the anti-Israel side, is that Israel already exists as a state, will continue to exist as a state, and no amount of agitation or moral-support for Jihadi and Harakati terrorism will change that. Were they tuned in to reality, even Neturei Karta would have to acknowledge the medina as an unchangeable fact, and deal with it.
But, like that fool Ahmedinejad, they prefer instead to whine and bellyache, and lend their support to murderers and sadists.
We were treated to the sight of Ahmedinejad, Neturei Karta, David Duke, Neo-Nazis, and assorted racists, incendiarists, and madmen, happily shaking hands, exchanging cooking tips, congratulating each other, and enjoying a good laugh in each others' company.
Had it not been so ludicrous, it might have been a little bit frightening.
As it was, it merely made clear who the enemy is, and why they are the enemy. And why one cannot truck with them.
Even the Europeans realize this.
But it remains to be seen whether they will do anything about it. If they don't, Ahmedinejad's little hate-fest will have served no purpose whatsoever.
Other than getting up the hackles of the civilized world?
Whatever publicity that travesty was given did little else than clarify, for whoever had any doubt left, that Iran is a rogue state, that those who listen to Iran in the Arab world are not interested in truth, and that many Muslims have a streak of revisionism and cloud-cuckoo-land fantasy so inordinately wide that it is pointless to talk with them.
The European nations seem to have grasped that permitting Iran to further any of its ambitions might be a mistake (and lordy, it's taken a while for them to comprehend that not all modern-day nation-states are rational players).
Bluntly put, this conference discredited the anti-Israel side. It did nothing else but discredit the anti-Israel side, even among the cotton-wool peace-loving idealist butterflies of Western Europe.
Even among the Arabs, there have been voices making a loud Bronx cheer, and commentators suggesting that Ahmedinejad has befouled his own side by associating with certain "scholars".
[No need to mention who those scholars are - they are such shameless egomaniacs that even those who have not yet been mentioned will undoubtedly out themselves by handing out press-releases, and trumpeting their having attended for years to come.]
Even worse, for Ahmedinejad and co., was the attendance of many whose only creditbility lies with the unutterables and untouchables of the world.
Such as David Duke.
And Neturei Karta.
Collectively the Ku Klux Klan and the Ku Klux Karta.
[As someone eloquently jibed on the Yeshiva World blog (http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/)]
Neturei Karta has a talent for showing up on the wrong side. They allegedly are a group of Ultra-Orthodox Jews who believe that the existence of the state of Israel before the coming of the Messaiah is anathematic, and are rabidly opposed to there even being a secular Jewish state.
Part of that worldview is based on Talmudic commentary that suggests that golus is the natural state for Jewry after the destruction of the Temple and the dispersal of the Jews by the Romans. Neturei Karta regards themselves as guardians of genuine Judaism, and everybody else as either regrettably and horribly wrong or utter heretics, Gentiles even.
Whatever they may think of actual Gentiles does not prevent them from supporting those very Gentiles who have consistently tried to kill Jews at every opportunity, so deep is their distaste for Jews who disagree with them.
What Neturei Karta fails to realize, like most others on the anti-Israel side, is that Israel already exists as a state, will continue to exist as a state, and no amount of agitation or moral-support for Jihadi and Harakati terrorism will change that. Were they tuned in to reality, even Neturei Karta would have to acknowledge the medina as an unchangeable fact, and deal with it.
But, like that fool Ahmedinejad, they prefer instead to whine and bellyache, and lend their support to murderers and sadists.
We were treated to the sight of Ahmedinejad, Neturei Karta, David Duke, Neo-Nazis, and assorted racists, incendiarists, and madmen, happily shaking hands, exchanging cooking tips, congratulating each other, and enjoying a good laugh in each others' company.
Had it not been so ludicrous, it might have been a little bit frightening.
As it was, it merely made clear who the enemy is, and why they are the enemy. And why one cannot truck with them.
Even the Europeans realize this.
But it remains to be seen whether they will do anything about it. If they don't, Ahmedinejad's little hate-fest will have served no purpose whatsoever.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
NOTES ON PARSHAS VAYESHEV
And He Settled (referring to Yakov).
Ninth Parsha in Bereishis.
Psukim 37:1 – 40:23
"Alas, I will go down to Sheol, to my son, grieving!"
And Yakov refused to be comforted.
1st Aliya: Yosef is seventeen years old. His father Yakov gifts him a marvelous coat, which causes his brothers no end of envy, the more so as they are forced to listen to his two dreams. The second dream also angers his father.
[Jozef is in deze aliya zeventien jaar oud. Zijn vader Jakov geeft hem een mooie overjas, tot jalousie zijner broeders, die bovendien nijdig zijn twee dromen moeten aanhoren. De tweede droom ergert ook zijn vader.]
2nd Aliya: The brothers are off in the countryside with the herds. When they see Yosef come to spy on them they wish to kill him, but Reuven suggests dumping him in a nearby pit (probably with the intent of saving him later).
[De broeders zijn met de kuddes op het platteland. Wanneer Jozef aankomt om hun te bespieden, in opdracht van Jakov, willen zijn broeders hem vermoorden, edoch Reuven raad aan hem in een nabije put te werpen (waarschijnlijk van plan zijnde hem daar later uit te bevrijden).]
3rd Aliya: While the brothers eat their meal at some distance from the pit, Yehudah proposes selling Yosef as a slave. However, when they come to the pit, Yosef is gone – he was pulled out by Midianites and sold to passing Ishmaelites. The brothers take his marvelous coat and drench it with the blood of a slaughtered kid, so as to show it to their father as indication that they bear no blame – a wild beast surely killed their brother. Yakov is deeply grieved, and weeps for his child.
[Terwijl de broeders op enige afstand hun maal nuttigen stelt Jehoedah voor Jozef als slaaf te verkopen. Maar als ze weer bij de put komen blijkt Jozef reeds verdwenen – hij is door Midianieten eruit gehaald en aan een passerende groep Isjmaelieten verkocht. De broers nemen zijn schone overjas en drenken het in het bloed van een hunner geiten, om het aan hun vader Jakob te tonen als aanduiding dat hun geen schuld zouden hebben – een wild beest heeft wellicht hun broer doen sneuvelen. Jakov is diep ongelukkig, en weent om zijn kind.]
4th Aliya: In this Aliya the scene shifts to the tale of Yehudah and Tamar. Yehudah’s eldest son, Er, dies, and because of Levirate law his widow marries his brother Onan. Onan has no intention of progenating with her, as he does not wish to give his brother descendants and does not conceive of any obligation towards Tamar. When Onan, because of his behaviour, also meets an untimely end, the only son left is Shelah, Yehudah’s youngest. Yehudah fears that Tamar will prove deadly to this one also, and avoids marrying her to Selah. Tamar disguises herself as a trollop, and gets herself pregnant by Yehudah. Three months later, when her pregnancy becomes apparent, she discretely proves who the father is. Yehudah realizes what she has done for his family, and later the twins Peretz and Zerah are born.
[In deze aliya veranderd het relaas van scene. Jehoedah’s eerste zoon, Er, sterft, en omwille Leviraatsrecht trouwt zijn weduwe Tamar met diens broer Onan. Onan wil absoluut geen kind in haar verwekken, daar hij zijn gestorven oudere broer geen nakomeling gunt, en zich niet in enigerwijze aan Tamar verschuldigt weet. Als Onan vanwege zijn gedrag ook tot sneuvelen komt resteert slechts Jehoedah’s kleinste zoon. Jehoedah vreest dat Tamar ook deze fatal zal wezen, en laat het achterwege haar met Selah te huwen. Tamar vermomt zich als ene vrouw van lichte zeden, en verleidt Jehoedah zo dat hij een kind bij haar verwekt. Wanneer na drie maanden haar zwangerschap niet meer te verschuilen blijkt, bewijst zij op diskrete wijze wie de vader is. Jehoedah realizeert wat zij voor zijn familie heeft gedaan, en later worden de tweeling Peretz en Zerah geboren.]
5th Aliya: The tale now turns again to Yosef, who is sold to Potiphar. He shows abilities and integrity, and is appointed as chief over the household.
[Het verhaal keert nu weer naar Jozef, die aan Potifar verkocht word. Hij geeft blijk van begaafdheid en deugdzaamheid, en word als hofmeester van het huishouden aangesteld.]
6th Aliya: Potiphar's wife, on the other hand, has entirely different plans for the young man. She tries to seduce him, but when he refuses her attentions she accuses him of attempted rape. Yosef is jailed in the royal prison.
[Potifar’s echtgenote, daarentegen, heeft geheel andere plannen voor de jongeman. Zij tracht hem te verleiden, maar wanneer hij daar niet op in gaat, beschuldigt zij hem van een poging haar te verkrachten. Jozef word opgesloten in de Koninklijke gevangenis.]
7th Aliya: Even in jail Yosef’s talents cannot be hidden. While there he explains the dreams of the royal wine steward and the royal baker. After three days the wine steward gets his former position back, but the baker will be condemned to death. Even though Yosef implored the wine steward not to forget him it will be years before Yosef gets to leave prison.
[Zelfs in de gevangenis kunnen de talenten van Jozef niet verscholen worden. Aldaar legt hij de droomen uit van de Koninklijke wijnschenker en de Koninklijke bakker. De wijnschenker krijgt na drie dagen zijn voormalige positie terug, de bakker zal ter dood worden gesteld. Hoewel Jozef aan de wijnschenker had gevraagd hem daarna niet te vergeten duurt het nog jaren eer Jozef de gevangenis uit komt.]
Note: It isn’t till twelve years later that Yosef leaves prison. He wil be appointed viceroy over Egypt, and he will start his own family. The Midrash states that he marries the daughter of Potiphar who is also the daughter of Dinah. Think about this please for a few moments before rejecting the idea as absurd.
He will have two sons, like Avraham, Like Yitzhok, like Yehudah. But unlike them, and you are meant to note well the contrast, his two sons will both have a share among the Bnei Israel – the tribes of Menashe and Efraim.
During seven years of a regional famine, Yosef’s brothers come to Egypt to purchase food, and since they do not recognize him, what can only be described as French comedy hijinks result. In the end the new maturity of Yehudah is shown, the genuine remorsefulness and improvement in character of his brothers is proven, and, revealing himself, their long lost brother, Yosef is reconciled tearfully with his kin.
YOSEF AND THE SHVATIM
Ovadiah Sforno shpers that when the brothers saw Yosef coming in his fancy coat, they assumed that he intended to find fault with them or cause them to sin.
This would mean Yakov cursing them or Hashem punishing them, both eventualities being to the advantage of Yosef. Either way they would be justified in considering him as intending them harm. By this logic Yosef is a rodef, and one is obligated to forestall a rodef, even kill, lest one is oneself killed.
Sforno argues that they thus constituted a beis din (judicial court), and rightly could decide to execute their brother if such proved necessary. He further offers, as substantiation of this assertion, that after tossing him into the pit they proved their righteousness, and the saintliness of their characters, by being able to calmly sit and dine.
While in many ways Sforno is a fascinating read, one should not lose sight of his tendency to provoke. And in this case he is deliberately trying to force us into argument. If Yosef is a tzadik, and if his brothers also are tzadikim, how is the situation he suggests even possible?
Either the brothers, OR Yosef, represent agrieved parties. Someone has to be wrong.
But we know that ALL the brothers are tzadikim – we must find a way to understand this situation. And here is where the passage of time becomes crucial. We saw in the previous parsha that Esav was reduced to tears on meeting the brother he had not seen in decades. Yakov himself had come to think differently of his brother, and was determined to face him and finally deal with his own earlier trickery.
If repentance, Teshuva, is that which turns mere human iron into fine steel, then that is what will be needed for these immature men to become the fathers of tribes. And that takes time.
In that light, we shall see Yehudah realizing his flaws, and Yosef polishing his abilities. Both, when this tale is finished, will have changed much from what they are now. And as these two, so all of them will be much matured, and much improved.
YEHUDA AND TAMAR
Yudah loses two sons as a parallel to Yakov losing one son, and loses his wife as a match to his wife losing a son and his daughter in law losing a husband. Yudah is now alone, except for a son whom he wants to protect until adulthood and a widowed daughter-in-law for whom fears will not be fortunate for him or his progeny.
Tamar may have been significantly older than Shelah, even if she had been younger than Er. But if she is not to have Shelah as a wife, what is to become of her? Even if she were free to remarry, would she be able to find another mate, being no longer prime marriage material and associated with two dead husbands besides? If she is to remain a widow, how will Shelah provide for her when he inherits from his father? She'll be mere bagage then, with none to speak for her. If Yudah will not do the honourable thing and marry her to Shelah now, why assume that Shelah will ever even take care of her in the future?
[Levirate marriage does not seem like a solution to the shidduch crisis, does it? Note how both Tamar and Shelah are effectively kept out of circulation, and the only free agent is Yehudah.]
Yudah seems unconcerned, and pursues his own life at his own speed - not a perfect father, nor a perfect father in law. And as we shall see, not exactly a perfect widower either.
But he does have his friend Hirah, his drinking buddy and homeboy for over a decade and a half.
It is while he is on the road with Hirah that Tamar, veiled as a cultic prostitute, engages with him, and accepts certain things as pledge that he will send payment. Though when Hirah goes to find her, in order to hand over the agreed upon payment, she is gone.
Three months later, like Molly Bloom, Tamar is big with seed.
[This might very well be when the phrase 'mah yomru ha Goyim?' was first uttered.]
In Bava Metzia (59a) it says “someone who shames another in public has no portion of the Olam HaBa” (the world to come). A comparison is drawn with the case of King David, descendant of a Moabite, and responsible for the death of BasSheva’s husband, who furthermore fathered Solomon by the widow. But pointing this out, like accusing Yehudah, would have been undiplomatic (and indiscrete – shaming those who hold power of life and death is often a form of suicide).
When Yehudah saw the evidence (staf, cords, signet), it caused a major shift in his thinking – he realized that not he but Tamar was the righteous one, whereas he himself was flawed on many counts, and had much to be ashamed about.
Psook 38:26 “it was because I did not give her my son Shelah”.
Note that the two sons which Tamar gave him effectively replace the two sons struck down for their evilness - Er and Onan. Who says you don't get a second chance?
----------------------------------------
I would suggest that you also this week read the next parsha (Miketz) immediately, because Vayeshev cannot be seen on its own – it really is the first part of a longer narrative, which is best understood as a complete unit.
In Miketz we shall see how the relationship of the sons to their father Yakov changes - no longer driven to rivalry as siblings, they instead become responsible men whose concern for the whole will make them worthy progenitors of a nation.
Ninth Parsha in Bereishis.
Psukim 37:1 – 40:23
"Alas, I will go down to Sheol, to my son, grieving!"
And Yakov refused to be comforted.
1st Aliya: Yosef is seventeen years old. His father Yakov gifts him a marvelous coat, which causes his brothers no end of envy, the more so as they are forced to listen to his two dreams. The second dream also angers his father.
[Jozef is in deze aliya zeventien jaar oud. Zijn vader Jakov geeft hem een mooie overjas, tot jalousie zijner broeders, die bovendien nijdig zijn twee dromen moeten aanhoren. De tweede droom ergert ook zijn vader.]
2nd Aliya: The brothers are off in the countryside with the herds. When they see Yosef come to spy on them they wish to kill him, but Reuven suggests dumping him in a nearby pit (probably with the intent of saving him later).
[De broeders zijn met de kuddes op het platteland. Wanneer Jozef aankomt om hun te bespieden, in opdracht van Jakov, willen zijn broeders hem vermoorden, edoch Reuven raad aan hem in een nabije put te werpen (waarschijnlijk van plan zijnde hem daar later uit te bevrijden).]
3rd Aliya: While the brothers eat their meal at some distance from the pit, Yehudah proposes selling Yosef as a slave. However, when they come to the pit, Yosef is gone – he was pulled out by Midianites and sold to passing Ishmaelites. The brothers take his marvelous coat and drench it with the blood of a slaughtered kid, so as to show it to their father as indication that they bear no blame – a wild beast surely killed their brother. Yakov is deeply grieved, and weeps for his child.
[Terwijl de broeders op enige afstand hun maal nuttigen stelt Jehoedah voor Jozef als slaaf te verkopen. Maar als ze weer bij de put komen blijkt Jozef reeds verdwenen – hij is door Midianieten eruit gehaald en aan een passerende groep Isjmaelieten verkocht. De broers nemen zijn schone overjas en drenken het in het bloed van een hunner geiten, om het aan hun vader Jakob te tonen als aanduiding dat hun geen schuld zouden hebben – een wild beest heeft wellicht hun broer doen sneuvelen. Jakov is diep ongelukkig, en weent om zijn kind.]
4th Aliya: In this Aliya the scene shifts to the tale of Yehudah and Tamar. Yehudah’s eldest son, Er, dies, and because of Levirate law his widow marries his brother Onan. Onan has no intention of progenating with her, as he does not wish to give his brother descendants and does not conceive of any obligation towards Tamar. When Onan, because of his behaviour, also meets an untimely end, the only son left is Shelah, Yehudah’s youngest. Yehudah fears that Tamar will prove deadly to this one also, and avoids marrying her to Selah. Tamar disguises herself as a trollop, and gets herself pregnant by Yehudah. Three months later, when her pregnancy becomes apparent, she discretely proves who the father is. Yehudah realizes what she has done for his family, and later the twins Peretz and Zerah are born.
[In deze aliya veranderd het relaas van scene. Jehoedah’s eerste zoon, Er, sterft, en omwille Leviraatsrecht trouwt zijn weduwe Tamar met diens broer Onan. Onan wil absoluut geen kind in haar verwekken, daar hij zijn gestorven oudere broer geen nakomeling gunt, en zich niet in enigerwijze aan Tamar verschuldigt weet. Als Onan vanwege zijn gedrag ook tot sneuvelen komt resteert slechts Jehoedah’s kleinste zoon. Jehoedah vreest dat Tamar ook deze fatal zal wezen, en laat het achterwege haar met Selah te huwen. Tamar vermomt zich als ene vrouw van lichte zeden, en verleidt Jehoedah zo dat hij een kind bij haar verwekt. Wanneer na drie maanden haar zwangerschap niet meer te verschuilen blijkt, bewijst zij op diskrete wijze wie de vader is. Jehoedah realizeert wat zij voor zijn familie heeft gedaan, en later worden de tweeling Peretz en Zerah geboren.]
5th Aliya: The tale now turns again to Yosef, who is sold to Potiphar. He shows abilities and integrity, and is appointed as chief over the household.
[Het verhaal keert nu weer naar Jozef, die aan Potifar verkocht word. Hij geeft blijk van begaafdheid en deugdzaamheid, en word als hofmeester van het huishouden aangesteld.]
6th Aliya: Potiphar's wife, on the other hand, has entirely different plans for the young man. She tries to seduce him, but when he refuses her attentions she accuses him of attempted rape. Yosef is jailed in the royal prison.
[Potifar’s echtgenote, daarentegen, heeft geheel andere plannen voor de jongeman. Zij tracht hem te verleiden, maar wanneer hij daar niet op in gaat, beschuldigt zij hem van een poging haar te verkrachten. Jozef word opgesloten in de Koninklijke gevangenis.]
7th Aliya: Even in jail Yosef’s talents cannot be hidden. While there he explains the dreams of the royal wine steward and the royal baker. After three days the wine steward gets his former position back, but the baker will be condemned to death. Even though Yosef implored the wine steward not to forget him it will be years before Yosef gets to leave prison.
[Zelfs in de gevangenis kunnen de talenten van Jozef niet verscholen worden. Aldaar legt hij de droomen uit van de Koninklijke wijnschenker en de Koninklijke bakker. De wijnschenker krijgt na drie dagen zijn voormalige positie terug, de bakker zal ter dood worden gesteld. Hoewel Jozef aan de wijnschenker had gevraagd hem daarna niet te vergeten duurt het nog jaren eer Jozef de gevangenis uit komt.]
Note: It isn’t till twelve years later that Yosef leaves prison. He wil be appointed viceroy over Egypt, and he will start his own family. The Midrash states that he marries the daughter of Potiphar who is also the daughter of Dinah. Think about this please for a few moments before rejecting the idea as absurd.
He will have two sons, like Avraham, Like Yitzhok, like Yehudah. But unlike them, and you are meant to note well the contrast, his two sons will both have a share among the Bnei Israel – the tribes of Menashe and Efraim.
During seven years of a regional famine, Yosef’s brothers come to Egypt to purchase food, and since they do not recognize him, what can only be described as French comedy hijinks result. In the end the new maturity of Yehudah is shown, the genuine remorsefulness and improvement in character of his brothers is proven, and, revealing himself, their long lost brother, Yosef is reconciled tearfully with his kin.
YOSEF AND THE SHVATIM
Ovadiah Sforno shpers that when the brothers saw Yosef coming in his fancy coat, they assumed that he intended to find fault with them or cause them to sin.
This would mean Yakov cursing them or Hashem punishing them, both eventualities being to the advantage of Yosef. Either way they would be justified in considering him as intending them harm. By this logic Yosef is a rodef, and one is obligated to forestall a rodef, even kill, lest one is oneself killed.
Sforno argues that they thus constituted a beis din (judicial court), and rightly could decide to execute their brother if such proved necessary. He further offers, as substantiation of this assertion, that after tossing him into the pit they proved their righteousness, and the saintliness of their characters, by being able to calmly sit and dine.
While in many ways Sforno is a fascinating read, one should not lose sight of his tendency to provoke. And in this case he is deliberately trying to force us into argument. If Yosef is a tzadik, and if his brothers also are tzadikim, how is the situation he suggests even possible?
Either the brothers, OR Yosef, represent agrieved parties. Someone has to be wrong.
But we know that ALL the brothers are tzadikim – we must find a way to understand this situation. And here is where the passage of time becomes crucial. We saw in the previous parsha that Esav was reduced to tears on meeting the brother he had not seen in decades. Yakov himself had come to think differently of his brother, and was determined to face him and finally deal with his own earlier trickery.
If repentance, Teshuva, is that which turns mere human iron into fine steel, then that is what will be needed for these immature men to become the fathers of tribes. And that takes time.
In that light, we shall see Yehudah realizing his flaws, and Yosef polishing his abilities. Both, when this tale is finished, will have changed much from what they are now. And as these two, so all of them will be much matured, and much improved.
YEHUDA AND TAMAR
Yudah loses two sons as a parallel to Yakov losing one son, and loses his wife as a match to his wife losing a son and his daughter in law losing a husband. Yudah is now alone, except for a son whom he wants to protect until adulthood and a widowed daughter-in-law for whom fears will not be fortunate for him or his progeny.
Tamar may have been significantly older than Shelah, even if she had been younger than Er. But if she is not to have Shelah as a wife, what is to become of her? Even if she were free to remarry, would she be able to find another mate, being no longer prime marriage material and associated with two dead husbands besides? If she is to remain a widow, how will Shelah provide for her when he inherits from his father? She'll be mere bagage then, with none to speak for her. If Yudah will not do the honourable thing and marry her to Shelah now, why assume that Shelah will ever even take care of her in the future?
[Levirate marriage does not seem like a solution to the shidduch crisis, does it? Note how both Tamar and Shelah are effectively kept out of circulation, and the only free agent is Yehudah.]
Yudah seems unconcerned, and pursues his own life at his own speed - not a perfect father, nor a perfect father in law. And as we shall see, not exactly a perfect widower either.
But he does have his friend Hirah, his drinking buddy and homeboy for over a decade and a half.
It is while he is on the road with Hirah that Tamar, veiled as a cultic prostitute, engages with him, and accepts certain things as pledge that he will send payment. Though when Hirah goes to find her, in order to hand over the agreed upon payment, she is gone.
Three months later, like Molly Bloom, Tamar is big with seed.
[This might very well be when the phrase 'mah yomru ha Goyim?' was first uttered.]
In Bava Metzia (59a) it says “someone who shames another in public has no portion of the Olam HaBa” (the world to come). A comparison is drawn with the case of King David, descendant of a Moabite, and responsible for the death of BasSheva’s husband, who furthermore fathered Solomon by the widow. But pointing this out, like accusing Yehudah, would have been undiplomatic (and indiscrete – shaming those who hold power of life and death is often a form of suicide).
When Yehudah saw the evidence (staf, cords, signet), it caused a major shift in his thinking – he realized that not he but Tamar was the righteous one, whereas he himself was flawed on many counts, and had much to be ashamed about.
Psook 38:26 “it was because I did not give her my son Shelah”.
Note that the two sons which Tamar gave him effectively replace the two sons struck down for their evilness - Er and Onan. Who says you don't get a second chance?
----------------------------------------
I would suggest that you also this week read the next parsha (Miketz) immediately, because Vayeshev cannot be seen on its own – it really is the first part of a longer narrative, which is best understood as a complete unit.
In Miketz we shall see how the relationship of the sons to their father Yakov changes - no longer driven to rivalry as siblings, they instead become responsible men whose concern for the whole will make them worthy progenitors of a nation.
DENOMINATIONAL COERCIVE BRISKET
I asked Robbie (blog: http://rjmedwed.blogspot.com/) for his recipe for brisket.
Which you will find ripped off below, because I just love it when my friends write my posts for me..... Did I ever mention that I have a strong opportunistic (sounds better than lazy plagiarist, doesn't it?) streak?
If you want to know how the subject came up, or why it is a Denominational Coercive Brisket, you'll just have to read his posting here: http://rjmedwed.blogspot.com/2006/12/foiled-again.html
In the meantime, enjoy imagining the recipe below.
Please note two (loosely-constructed) points:
1. Cooking with Coca-Cola is not unusual. Essentially it is like cooking with any liquid that is over one-sixteenth sugar (such as one cup of sherry or rice wine with approximately a quarter cup of Ketjap Manis). Some recipes use broth and apricot preserves. Which also can, why not. The end-result is what counts. Just remember that Savage Kitten will maul you if you speak ill of Coca-Cola. Never use Pepsi.
2. This is a braised dish. Braising tenderizes tough meats marvelously, but also concentrates flavours. Long and slow is the operative concept. Letting the meat rest after cooking is also an operative concept.
Incredibly Easy Brisket
By Robbie
12/13/06
This isn't my recipe but I'll swear by it that you'll love it. Use real Coca-Cola - the drink will carmelize a little and make for love in the form of gravy. This brisket also nearly made a 10-year vegetarian start eating meat again. It's just that good!
Start with a cut of meat that could pass for brisket. Don't go too cheap or it'll be too tough. Trim off some of the fat (that's the rubbery white lumps all around the meat) and put it into a pan (I like the 9 x 13 pyrex, but be sure to wrap it in tinfoil first to simplifiy cleanup of burned-on bits).
Add one very small-diced plain old baking potato (peeled or not, no difference), about 3 small-chopped carrots and 2 large onions, chunked. Garlic's also a good addition - use the real thing and throw in a handful of peeled cloves.
Then add a packet or two (or a few shakes, if you have the big jar) of powdered onion soup mix. Spread it all around the meat and rub it in good. Then, take a two cans of Coca Cola (use Pepsi and I'll never forgive you) and pour it in to the pan.
Roast it at 350 Degrees F (or level "4" for the non-Americans) for about 3 hours, basting the meat every so often. When the meat is good and firm (about the firmness of the odd webby space between your thumb and forefinger), take it out of the oven and LET IT SIT to cool.
After it's cooled, slice it into strips and put it back in the pan to sit in the gravy until it's ready to serve. If the meat isn't done enough for you, you can put it back in for a little while to finish. If it's over done, well, that's your fault.
------------------------
Robbie also includes a recipe for Pumpkin Brownies (again, see his posting here: http://rjmedwed.blogspot.com/2006/12/robbies-recipes-part-1-damn-good.html), among the ingredients for which are Cinnamon, Dry Ginger, Nutmeg, and Clove.
Which is very reminiscent of both the spice-mixture used in some very nice cakes, such as lekach for Rosh Hashana if you're Amsterdam-Portugese, Honingkoek or Peperkoek if you are Flemish or Brabantine, or Spekkoek if you are an Indo. Also Gemberkoek, which is one of those things that you either know, or you don't. And speaking of which, if you are going to ramp up the spice content, be careful about cloves - they tend to dominate and dull.
Note: Robbie started off by writing about not being angst-ridden and having Jew-dar.
He had already written before, but then he started his blog (http://rjmedwed.blogspot.com/) in August of 2005 (http://rjmedwed.blogspot.com/2005_08_28_rjmedwed_archive.html), which, if you want to know about screaming babies, chicken soup, covering yourself with flour (something about preparing for Shabbes..., yes, that's it - "preparing for Shabbes"), the appropriate blessing for happy pills, and people who should not be let anywhere near computers (in addition to 'not-being-angst-ridden and having ..... Jew... - ..... dar!!!) you should probably start reading right now!
Brownie points to the first person who discusses the brocho for happy pills.
Which you will find ripped off below, because I just love it when my friends write my posts for me..... Did I ever mention that I have a strong opportunistic (sounds better than lazy plagiarist, doesn't it?) streak?
If you want to know how the subject came up, or why it is a Denominational Coercive Brisket, you'll just have to read his posting here: http://rjmedwed.blogspot.com/2006/12/foiled-again.html
In the meantime, enjoy imagining the recipe below.
Please note two (loosely-constructed) points:
1. Cooking with Coca-Cola is not unusual. Essentially it is like cooking with any liquid that is over one-sixteenth sugar (such as one cup of sherry or rice wine with approximately a quarter cup of Ketjap Manis). Some recipes use broth and apricot preserves. Which also can, why not. The end-result is what counts. Just remember that Savage Kitten will maul you if you speak ill of Coca-Cola. Never use Pepsi.
2. This is a braised dish. Braising tenderizes tough meats marvelously, but also concentrates flavours. Long and slow is the operative concept. Letting the meat rest after cooking is also an operative concept.
Incredibly Easy Brisket
By Robbie
12/13/06
This isn't my recipe but I'll swear by it that you'll love it. Use real Coca-Cola - the drink will carmelize a little and make for love in the form of gravy. This brisket also nearly made a 10-year vegetarian start eating meat again. It's just that good!
Start with a cut of meat that could pass for brisket. Don't go too cheap or it'll be too tough. Trim off some of the fat (that's the rubbery white lumps all around the meat) and put it into a pan (I like the 9 x 13 pyrex, but be sure to wrap it in tinfoil first to simplifiy cleanup of burned-on bits).
Add one very small-diced plain old baking potato (peeled or not, no difference), about 3 small-chopped carrots and 2 large onions, chunked. Garlic's also a good addition - use the real thing and throw in a handful of peeled cloves.
Then add a packet or two (or a few shakes, if you have the big jar) of powdered onion soup mix. Spread it all around the meat and rub it in good. Then, take a two cans of Coca Cola (use Pepsi and I'll never forgive you) and pour it in to the pan.
Roast it at 350 Degrees F (or level "4" for the non-Americans) for about 3 hours, basting the meat every so often. When the meat is good and firm (about the firmness of the odd webby space between your thumb and forefinger), take it out of the oven and LET IT SIT to cool.
After it's cooled, slice it into strips and put it back in the pan to sit in the gravy until it's ready to serve. If the meat isn't done enough for you, you can put it back in for a little while to finish. If it's over done, well, that's your fault.
------------------------
Robbie also includes a recipe for Pumpkin Brownies (again, see his posting here: http://rjmedwed.blogspot.com/2006/12/robbies-recipes-part-1-damn-good.html), among the ingredients for which are Cinnamon, Dry Ginger, Nutmeg, and Clove.
Which is very reminiscent of both the spice-mixture used in some very nice cakes, such as lekach for Rosh Hashana if you're Amsterdam-Portugese, Honingkoek or Peperkoek if you are Flemish or Brabantine, or Spekkoek if you are an Indo. Also Gemberkoek, which is one of those things that you either know, or you don't. And speaking of which, if you are going to ramp up the spice content, be careful about cloves - they tend to dominate and dull.
Note: Robbie started off by writing about not being angst-ridden and having Jew-dar.
He had already written before, but then he started his blog (http://rjmedwed.blogspot.com/) in August of 2005 (http://rjmedwed.blogspot.com/2005_08_28_rjmedwed_archive.html), which, if you want to know about screaming babies, chicken soup, covering yourself with flour (something about preparing for Shabbes..., yes, that's it - "preparing for Shabbes"), the appropriate blessing for happy pills, and people who should not be let anywhere near computers (in addition to 'not-being-angst-ridden and having ..... Jew... - ..... dar!!!) you should probably start reading right now!
Brownie points to the first person who discusses the brocho for happy pills.
SULTANIC VERSES
In a comment underneath a guest-posting (here: http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2006/12/akiva-and-war-on-christmas.html) by Akiva of Mystical Paths (http://mysticalpaths.blogspot.com/) on Dovbear's blog (here: http://dovbear.blogspot.com/ ), Sultan Knish (http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/), whose recent posting about the Seattle Xmas tree controversy is referenced (http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2006/12/dateline-seattle-war-on-christmas.html) writes about anti-Semitism on both the liberal and conservative sides of the fence.
Sultan Knish's statement about anti-Semitism was clear and refreshing.
Usually I do not agree with Sulty, nor see eye to eye with him on many things, finding him far too strident even for my own disagreeable self.
But this time his comment was spot-on.
So I'm stealing it, and pasting it below.
I didn't even bother to ask his permission, because what he says is aza clear and well-written that it absolutely deserves to be said and needs to be read.
[But I ask that you do pay his blog a visit: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/]
ON ANTI-SEMITISM
By Sultan Knish
12/13/06
"Conservative Jews accuse the left of being Anti-semitic and Liberal Jews accuse the Religious Right of being Anti-semitic. They are both correct but in pointing the finger at the other side they ignore the simple fact that both the right and the left have little use for Jews as Jews.
Since the French Revolution, Jews have often been enlisted on the liberal side with the offer of equality in exchange for abandoning their 'backwards traditions' and jumping on the bandwagon of the new liberalized age. In turn when their religious values came under attack, the reactionary right would enlist the Jews in order to defend Christianity by proxy.
Most of the time liberalism continued to view the Jews as chauvinistic, backwards and untrustworthy; a view held by a vast array of liberal heroes from Thomas Jefferson to FDR and from Voltaire to Tolstoy to Sartre. Many of these figures would at times defend Jews, but only as a leverage for attacking the reactionary forces of the right, just as liberals today will defend Jews only when Jews are threatened by right wing Anti-semitism but not the far more numerous bigots of the left and its islamic allies.
The reactionary right saw the liberation of the Jews from the ghettos as a threat and a sign of the corruption of society. In Europe the right took the form of the Catholic Church which conducted an open war against the Jews with the Catholic press being the primary source of European Anti-semitism from the 19th century and up until and into the Holocaust. But at the same time Catholics would defend Judaism when it came under attack from liberal figures such as Voltaire as a proxy for attacking Christianity.
And that remains the simple reality of Jewish interaction with conservativism and liberalism. Both will defend Jews against their opponents as a proxy for attacking their opponents on the other side. Neither will defend or restrain the Anti-semitism rabidly prevalent in their own ranks. Both trade in bigoted stereotypes when needed and neither have any use for Jews as Jews.
The left wants Jews to assimilate and leave behind whatever parts of their Jewish identity are not compatible with liberal ideology. This of course includes being the chosen people, the land of Israel, any non-universal aspects of Judaism among much else that will leave Jewish identity a hollow shell until the Jews are finally eliminated through assimilation . This liberal Jews have done and yet still end up being resented for all the classic anti-semitic reasons.
The right wants Jews to be Christians who call themselves Jews. They do not want to see anything Jewish remain except for perhaps a shell of customs and rituals, much as Messianic Christian groups have done. A shell which itself will fall away as even those converted Jews assimilate into the broader Christian world. Any Jews who do not go along with their agenda are ultimately sneered at with the same rants about the insidious corruption of the Jews as was deployed by everyone from the Czars to the Church.
Once the left and the right wanted a clear eradication of the Jewish people through assimilation. A secular nationalistic assimilation for the left and an elimination of Judaism followed by the elimination of the Jews for the right. Today those goals have not changed, they now exist in gradations. The left and the right both want a dramatically weakened and gutted Jewish identity in which the Jews exist as subsets of them, e.g. Liberal Jews, Judeo-Christians; until the remains of these gutted identities blow away as these Jews come to identify more with liberalism and the religious right than they do with their fellow Jews.
When there is a position that is correct, we should hold to it. We should speak the truth and be involved in the political life of the nation but without subsuming our Jewish identity to any political party or ideology. Whether we vote Republican or Democrat, whether we support or oppose gun control or immigration and whatever we believe, should stem from being Jews true to the word of G-d, rather than subservience to any political party."
----sultan knish
----------------------------------------------------
Blogs referenced:
Akiva / Mystical Paths: http://mysticalpaths.blogspot.com/
Dovbear: http://dovbear.blogspot.com/
Sultan Knish: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/
----------------------------------------------------
As Mordechai said, "I do not bow, because my ancestor did not bow".
Sultan Knish's statement about anti-Semitism was clear and refreshing.
Usually I do not agree with Sulty, nor see eye to eye with him on many things, finding him far too strident even for my own disagreeable self.
But this time his comment was spot-on.
So I'm stealing it, and pasting it below.
I didn't even bother to ask his permission, because what he says is aza clear and well-written that it absolutely deserves to be said and needs to be read.
[But I ask that you do pay his blog a visit: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/]
ON ANTI-SEMITISM
By Sultan Knish
12/13/06
"Conservative Jews accuse the left of being Anti-semitic and Liberal Jews accuse the Religious Right of being Anti-semitic. They are both correct but in pointing the finger at the other side they ignore the simple fact that both the right and the left have little use for Jews as Jews.
Since the French Revolution, Jews have often been enlisted on the liberal side with the offer of equality in exchange for abandoning their 'backwards traditions' and jumping on the bandwagon of the new liberalized age. In turn when their religious values came under attack, the reactionary right would enlist the Jews in order to defend Christianity by proxy.
Most of the time liberalism continued to view the Jews as chauvinistic, backwards and untrustworthy; a view held by a vast array of liberal heroes from Thomas Jefferson to FDR and from Voltaire to Tolstoy to Sartre. Many of these figures would at times defend Jews, but only as a leverage for attacking the reactionary forces of the right, just as liberals today will defend Jews only when Jews are threatened by right wing Anti-semitism but not the far more numerous bigots of the left and its islamic allies.
The reactionary right saw the liberation of the Jews from the ghettos as a threat and a sign of the corruption of society. In Europe the right took the form of the Catholic Church which conducted an open war against the Jews with the Catholic press being the primary source of European Anti-semitism from the 19th century and up until and into the Holocaust. But at the same time Catholics would defend Judaism when it came under attack from liberal figures such as Voltaire as a proxy for attacking Christianity.
And that remains the simple reality of Jewish interaction with conservativism and liberalism. Both will defend Jews against their opponents as a proxy for attacking their opponents on the other side. Neither will defend or restrain the Anti-semitism rabidly prevalent in their own ranks. Both trade in bigoted stereotypes when needed and neither have any use for Jews as Jews.
The left wants Jews to assimilate and leave behind whatever parts of their Jewish identity are not compatible with liberal ideology. This of course includes being the chosen people, the land of Israel, any non-universal aspects of Judaism among much else that will leave Jewish identity a hollow shell until the Jews are finally eliminated through assimilation . This liberal Jews have done and yet still end up being resented for all the classic anti-semitic reasons.
The right wants Jews to be Christians who call themselves Jews. They do not want to see anything Jewish remain except for perhaps a shell of customs and rituals, much as Messianic Christian groups have done. A shell which itself will fall away as even those converted Jews assimilate into the broader Christian world. Any Jews who do not go along with their agenda are ultimately sneered at with the same rants about the insidious corruption of the Jews as was deployed by everyone from the Czars to the Church.
Once the left and the right wanted a clear eradication of the Jewish people through assimilation. A secular nationalistic assimilation for the left and an elimination of Judaism followed by the elimination of the Jews for the right. Today those goals have not changed, they now exist in gradations. The left and the right both want a dramatically weakened and gutted Jewish identity in which the Jews exist as subsets of them, e.g. Liberal Jews, Judeo-Christians; until the remains of these gutted identities blow away as these Jews come to identify more with liberalism and the religious right than they do with their fellow Jews.
When there is a position that is correct, we should hold to it. We should speak the truth and be involved in the political life of the nation but without subsuming our Jewish identity to any political party or ideology. Whether we vote Republican or Democrat, whether we support or oppose gun control or immigration and whatever we believe, should stem from being Jews true to the word of G-d, rather than subservience to any political party."
----sultan knish
----------------------------------------------------
Blogs referenced:
Akiva / Mystical Paths: http://mysticalpaths.blogspot.com/
Dovbear: http://dovbear.blogspot.com/
Sultan Knish: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/
----------------------------------------------------
As Mordechai said, "I do not bow, because my ancestor did not bow".
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
CHANUKA REFORMULATED
The celebration of chanuka represents a fourth rededication - if the first dedication was the Mishkan, then the first and second temples each were 'rededications', the rededication by the Hashmonaim was the third rededication.
The celebration of that event, when there is no more temple, is a rededication within each person who celebrates the miracle, and an expression of the hope that the Beis HaMikdash be rebuilt.
Or conversely, one can revalue the celebration as a progression from erasing old idolatries during the years in the wilderness, through both a unification of worship in the first Temple and a resurgent national ideological culture during the second temple, to a rejection of tyranny and polytheism with the victory of the Hashmoneans.
Either way, the end result is the same. If prayer stands in for sacrifice since the destruction, then celebrating Chanuka in the home is a defiant statement that Judaic beliefs and ideals still live, nearly two millennia since the victory of Rome.
Rome (the inheritors of the Greeks) may have been victorious. But they have not won.
The act of resistance embodied in lighting the candles is a gesture of defiance and principle that is within the reach of everybody, each year anew. A fourth rededication, a rededication that does not end, but resumes every year.
An act within the reach of the individual. And much more resonant, therefore, than the concept of Temple services, which are now an abstraction that we cannot fully enfold.
Regarding acts which are within the reach of all, it says in Sefer Devarim, Parshas Netzavim,
psook 30:11 "Ki hamitsva hazot asher Anochi metzavcha hayom lo-niflet hiv mimcha ve lo-rechoka hiv" (This mitzva which I command you this day, it is not too hard for you, nor is it far off).
Psook 30:12 "lo vashamayim hiv lemor mi ya'ale-lanu hashamaima veyikacheha lanu veyashmi'enu ota vena'asena" (It is not in heaven, that you could say: 'Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, and make us to hear it, that we might do it?').
Psook 30:13 "velo-me'ever layam hiv lemor mi ya'avar-lanu el-ever hayam veyikacheha lanu veyashmi'enu ota vena'asena" (and neither is it beyond the sea, that you could say: 'Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it uto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?').
Psook 30:14 "ki-karov eleicha hadavar meod beficha uvilvavcha la'ashoto" (but very close to you indeed is this word, on your mouth and in your heart, that you can fulfill it).
Chanuka is a triumph of remembering. Without the memory of the temple and what it meant, it is meaningless.
Chanuka is also a triumph of dissent. Hence the obligation to publicise the miracle (assuming that we can actually agree on what that miracle is...).
But, al kol panim, we can set fire to stuff. It's a good thing.
The celebration of that event, when there is no more temple, is a rededication within each person who celebrates the miracle, and an expression of the hope that the Beis HaMikdash be rebuilt.
Or conversely, one can revalue the celebration as a progression from erasing old idolatries during the years in the wilderness, through both a unification of worship in the first Temple and a resurgent national ideological culture during the second temple, to a rejection of tyranny and polytheism with the victory of the Hashmoneans.
Either way, the end result is the same. If prayer stands in for sacrifice since the destruction, then celebrating Chanuka in the home is a defiant statement that Judaic beliefs and ideals still live, nearly two millennia since the victory of Rome.
Rome (the inheritors of the Greeks) may have been victorious. But they have not won.
The act of resistance embodied in lighting the candles is a gesture of defiance and principle that is within the reach of everybody, each year anew. A fourth rededication, a rededication that does not end, but resumes every year.
An act within the reach of the individual. And much more resonant, therefore, than the concept of Temple services, which are now an abstraction that we cannot fully enfold.
Regarding acts which are within the reach of all, it says in Sefer Devarim, Parshas Netzavim,
psook 30:11 "Ki hamitsva hazot asher Anochi metzavcha hayom lo-niflet hiv mimcha ve lo-rechoka hiv" (This mitzva which I command you this day, it is not too hard for you, nor is it far off).
Psook 30:12 "lo vashamayim hiv lemor mi ya'ale-lanu hashamaima veyikacheha lanu veyashmi'enu ota vena'asena" (It is not in heaven, that you could say: 'Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, and make us to hear it, that we might do it?').
Psook 30:13 "velo-me'ever layam hiv lemor mi ya'avar-lanu el-ever hayam veyikacheha lanu veyashmi'enu ota vena'asena" (and neither is it beyond the sea, that you could say: 'Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it uto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?').
Psook 30:14 "ki-karov eleicha hadavar meod beficha uvilvavcha la'ashoto" (but very close to you indeed is this word, on your mouth and in your heart, that you can fulfill it).
Chanuka is a triumph of remembering. Without the memory of the temple and what it meant, it is meaningless.
Chanuka is also a triumph of dissent. Hence the obligation to publicise the miracle (assuming that we can actually agree on what that miracle is...).
But, al kol panim, we can set fire to stuff. It's a good thing.
PARSHAS VAYESHEV - SHORT VERSION
In the 1st Aliya, Yosef receives a stylish coat and tells his brothers about his dreams and aspirations. They think him a noodge. In the second Aliya they nearly kill him, but in the third he’s disappeared, and they fake his death and make their father unhappy.
In the fourth, you have a chance to step outside for a cigarette while the kinderlech are entertained with the heartwarming tale of Yehudah and Tamar.
We return to Yosef’s adventures in the fifth and sixth Aliya, which mix business and sex among the Egyptian upper-classes. In the last Aliya Yosef finds out about jails while having plenty of time to dream.
We first meet Yosef ben Yakov in Parshas Vayeitzei (seventh parsha of seifer Breishis, psookim 28:10 through 32:3 – ‘and he went out’; Yosef isn’t born until the fourth aliya), while his father is planning to rob Lavan. In Parshas Vayishlach (eighth parsha, psukim 32:4 through 36:43) he’s largely invisible, but the hiatus is over in Vayeishev, and from here all the way to the end of this seifer it seems to be pretty much all about him.
Yosef's main role in this parsha is to highlight the failings of everybody around him - his brothers, who want to kill him; his father, who should've learned from the family history that having favourites among the kinderlech brings nothing but trouble; and Potiphar, who discovers that his wife is a zona.
Yosef’s dream
Bereishis, psook 37:5 "vayachalom Yosef chalom vayaged leechav vayosifu od seno oto"(And Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it to his brothers and they hated him even more)
Psook 37:6 "vayomer aleihem shimu-na hachalom haze asher chalamti" (And he said to them 'listen to this dream which I have dreamed')
Psook 37:7 "vehine anachnu mealmim alumim betoch hasade vehine kama alumati vegam-nitzava vehine tesubeina alumoteichem vatishtachaveina laalumati" (behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and lo, my sheaf arose, and also stood upright, and behold, your sheaves came around it, and bowed down to my sheaf')
Psook 37:8 "vayomru lo echav hamaloch timloch aleinu im-mashol timshol banu vayosifu od seno oto al-chalomotav veal-devarav" (And his brothers said to him 'Shall you then rule over us? Or shall you then have control over us? And they hated even more because of his dreams, and because of his words)
Psook 37:9 "vayachalom od chalom acher vayesaper oto leechav vayomer hine chalamti chalom od vehine hashemesh vehayareach veachad asar kochavim mishtachavim li" (And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it to his brothers, and said, 'look, I have dreamed another dream; and see, the sun and the moon and eleven stars bowed down to me')
Psook 37:10 "vayesaper el-aviv veel-echav vayigar-bo aviv vayomer lo ma hachalom haze asher chalamta havo navo ani veimcha veacheicha lehishtachavot lecha artza" (And he told it to his father and to his brothers, and his father chastised him, and said to him 'What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall I and your mother and your brothers then come to bow down to the earth to you?')
Psook 37:11 "vayekanu-vo echav veaviv shamar et-hadavar" (And his brothers resented him but his father remembered what had been said)
After the brothers throw Yosef into a pit, and a passing bunch of Arabs take him to Egypt and sell him, the narrative gives us Yudah and Tamar. From whence the Davidic line came, and the Messiah will yet come.
Yudah the son of Yakov begets Peretz in Tamar, Peretz begets Ezram, Ezram begets Aram, Aram begets Aminadav, Aminadav begets Nashon, Nashon begets Zalman who begets Boaz who marries Ruth the Moabite.
Their son Obed begets Yishai (Jesse), whose son David seduces Batshua the daughter of Amiel or Eliam (the names are clearly variants of each other, pay it no mind), who was a married woman at the time, though soon to be widowed by the machinations of her king, to whom she bore Shlomo, who was wise.
And Shlomo HaMelech begets Rehoboam, who begets Aviyah who begets Asa who begets Yehosofas, whose son Yehoram begets Achaziyo….
As it says in Bereishis, psook 49:10: "lo-yasur shevet mi-Yehuda umechokek mibein raglav ad ki-yavo Shilo, ve lo yik'hat amim" (the sceptre shall not pass from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, as long as men come to Shiloh, and to him shall be the obedience of the people). Which is a foreshadowing, as kingship only came to the tribe of Judah when the Ark of the Covenant moved from Shilo to Jerusalem.
Yehuda’s second son, Onan, instead of doing his duty by his brother (in order that his brother’s name not die out) in a levirate marriage, spilled his seed, and displeased the Lord, resulting in his sudden death. Yehuda advised Tamar to wait until the third son, Shelah, should be grown up.
[Note: While the Talmud and much subsequent thinking has condemned Onan's proclivities, and recommended cold showers instead, it should above all be remembered that what offended the almighty was the irresposibility and sheer pettiness of Onan - he begrudged his brother a descendant to carry on his line.
And by acting accordingly, he also was cruel to Tamar, who thus could not fulfill her obligations and was stuck in a loveless and pointless marriage. It was not what he did with his seed that condemned him, but what he would not do for his wife and his deceased brother. ]
Time passes, and Tamar’s mechutenista dies. And Tamar is getting a little worried. When Shelah is not given her as a husband, she veils herself and pretends to be a trollop by the city gate, in order to get with seed from Yehuda. Yehuda gives her his signet and his cord as a pledge, so that he may ‘come in unto her’.
Her mechuten impregnates her, and when she is accused of harlotry, she proves herself a better man than him, having ensured that Er’s name survive by proxy.
After this lively interlude, we return to Yosef, who isn't doing too well in Egypt. It's a nasty place.
In the fourth, you have a chance to step outside for a cigarette while the kinderlech are entertained with the heartwarming tale of Yehudah and Tamar.
We return to Yosef’s adventures in the fifth and sixth Aliya, which mix business and sex among the Egyptian upper-classes. In the last Aliya Yosef finds out about jails while having plenty of time to dream.
We first meet Yosef ben Yakov in Parshas Vayeitzei (seventh parsha of seifer Breishis, psookim 28:10 through 32:3 – ‘and he went out’; Yosef isn’t born until the fourth aliya), while his father is planning to rob Lavan. In Parshas Vayishlach (eighth parsha, psukim 32:4 through 36:43) he’s largely invisible, but the hiatus is over in Vayeishev, and from here all the way to the end of this seifer it seems to be pretty much all about him.
Yosef's main role in this parsha is to highlight the failings of everybody around him - his brothers, who want to kill him; his father, who should've learned from the family history that having favourites among the kinderlech brings nothing but trouble; and Potiphar, who discovers that his wife is a zona.
Yosef’s dream
Bereishis, psook 37:5 "vayachalom Yosef chalom vayaged leechav vayosifu od seno oto"(And Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it to his brothers and they hated him even more)
Psook 37:6 "vayomer aleihem shimu-na hachalom haze asher chalamti" (And he said to them 'listen to this dream which I have dreamed')
Psook 37:7 "vehine anachnu mealmim alumim betoch hasade vehine kama alumati vegam-nitzava vehine tesubeina alumoteichem vatishtachaveina laalumati" (behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and lo, my sheaf arose, and also stood upright, and behold, your sheaves came around it, and bowed down to my sheaf')
Psook 37:8 "vayomru lo echav hamaloch timloch aleinu im-mashol timshol banu vayosifu od seno oto al-chalomotav veal-devarav" (And his brothers said to him 'Shall you then rule over us? Or shall you then have control over us? And they hated even more because of his dreams, and because of his words)
Psook 37:9 "vayachalom od chalom acher vayesaper oto leechav vayomer hine chalamti chalom od vehine hashemesh vehayareach veachad asar kochavim mishtachavim li" (And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it to his brothers, and said, 'look, I have dreamed another dream; and see, the sun and the moon and eleven stars bowed down to me')
Psook 37:10 "vayesaper el-aviv veel-echav vayigar-bo aviv vayomer lo ma hachalom haze asher chalamta havo navo ani veimcha veacheicha lehishtachavot lecha artza" (And he told it to his father and to his brothers, and his father chastised him, and said to him 'What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall I and your mother and your brothers then come to bow down to the earth to you?')
Psook 37:11 "vayekanu-vo echav veaviv shamar et-hadavar" (And his brothers resented him but his father remembered what had been said)
After the brothers throw Yosef into a pit, and a passing bunch of Arabs take him to Egypt and sell him, the narrative gives us Yudah and Tamar. From whence the Davidic line came, and the Messiah will yet come.
Yudah the son of Yakov begets Peretz in Tamar, Peretz begets Ezram, Ezram begets Aram, Aram begets Aminadav, Aminadav begets Nashon, Nashon begets Zalman who begets Boaz who marries Ruth the Moabite.
Their son Obed begets Yishai (Jesse), whose son David seduces Batshua the daughter of Amiel or Eliam (the names are clearly variants of each other, pay it no mind), who was a married woman at the time, though soon to be widowed by the machinations of her king, to whom she bore Shlomo, who was wise.
And Shlomo HaMelech begets Rehoboam, who begets Aviyah who begets Asa who begets Yehosofas, whose son Yehoram begets Achaziyo….
As it says in Bereishis, psook 49:10: "lo-yasur shevet mi-Yehuda umechokek mibein raglav ad ki-yavo Shilo, ve lo yik'hat amim" (the sceptre shall not pass from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, as long as men come to Shiloh, and to him shall be the obedience of the people). Which is a foreshadowing, as kingship only came to the tribe of Judah when the Ark of the Covenant moved from Shilo to Jerusalem.
Yehuda’s second son, Onan, instead of doing his duty by his brother (in order that his brother’s name not die out) in a levirate marriage, spilled his seed, and displeased the Lord, resulting in his sudden death. Yehuda advised Tamar to wait until the third son, Shelah, should be grown up.
[Note: While the Talmud and much subsequent thinking has condemned Onan's proclivities, and recommended cold showers instead, it should above all be remembered that what offended the almighty was the irresposibility and sheer pettiness of Onan - he begrudged his brother a descendant to carry on his line.
And by acting accordingly, he also was cruel to Tamar, who thus could not fulfill her obligations and was stuck in a loveless and pointless marriage. It was not what he did with his seed that condemned him, but what he would not do for his wife and his deceased brother. ]
Time passes, and Tamar’s mechutenista dies. And Tamar is getting a little worried. When Shelah is not given her as a husband, she veils herself and pretends to be a trollop by the city gate, in order to get with seed from Yehuda. Yehuda gives her his signet and his cord as a pledge, so that he may ‘come in unto her’.
Her mechuten impregnates her, and when she is accused of harlotry, she proves herself a better man than him, having ensured that Er’s name survive by proxy.
After this lively interlude, we return to Yosef, who isn't doing too well in Egypt. It's a nasty place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
GRITS AND TOFU
Like most Americans, I have a list of people who should be peacefully retired from public service and thereafter kept away from their desks,...
