Jewish appreciation of non-Jewish people’s spirit – the case of Joseph’s brothers’ guilty talk

In this post I reflect on Judaism’s teachings about how to relate to non-Jewish people with a new argument for appreciation.

I write this reflection in the Crown Heights area of Brooklyn, New York. I am here celebrating with all my siblings both my son’s wedding and my mother’s 80^th birthday. While walking around Crown Heights during my visit now, I have noticed an apparently pleasant and easy coexistence between Jewish people and blacks. This is different to what I remember.

When I grew up in Crown Heights, I heard a lot of historical stories about non-Jewish persecution of Jews, pogroms and blood libels. I also felt contempt, animosity toward and fear of our non-Jewish black and Hispanic neighbours. These feelings about people that we had little understanding of were also related to muggings, burglaries and even murder. A young Jewish man named Avrohom Eliezer Goldman was murdered mere meters away from my current temporary accommodation on Montgomery Street[i]. I attended his funeral in 1977 as a seven-year-old boy. I still remember the heart-rending recitation of psalms and the crowd. It was not easy for anyone then.

Putting aside judgement of our community at the time, it is a fact that with one exception[ii], as I grew up, I had a consistent sense of a generalised negative attitude to non-Jewish people. There was no basis for me to admire the virtues of non-Jewish people, their compassion or altruism or how faith might move them to such stances.

This week I learned something in relatively recent Jewish commentaries about the story of the Biblical Joseph’s brothers that supports a more respectful approach (for readers who want more details of the story, see [iii] below).

Years after Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery, they met again during a time of famine when they sought to purchase scarce food in Egypt. However, Joseph’s brothers did not recognise him in the Egyptian viceroy he had become, but Joseph recognised them. In this role, Joseph had them thrown into prison, on false charges of espionage, a parallel to their depriving him of his freedom all those years earlier. After three days, he offered to allow all of them, except one hostage, to go home.

It is at this point of the story that Joseph’s brothers finally express guilt over what they had done to Joseph. “They said … but we are guilty, on account of our brother, because we looked on, at the anguish of his soul, yet we did not listen, as he pleaded with us. That is why this distress has come upon us.”[iv]

What led them to this epiphany at this particular time and not before, even during the three days of their imprisonment?[v] It was their reflection on the Egyptian ruler’s statement: “Do this and you shall live, for I fear God. If you are being honest [and you are not spies], let one of your brothers be held in your place of detention, while the rest of you go and take home rations for your starving households.”

The brothers thought: “If this man who is not ‘from our faith’ is moved by faith in God to show mercy for our starving families, who are strangers to him, whose suffering he did not see, should we not feel regret for the way we treated our own brother, whose suffering we did see, as he pleaded with us?”[vi]

Of course, Joseph was not actually a person of another faith. Yet, the fact that the commentary has the brothers acknowledging the way an apparently non-Jewish person’s faith in God guided him to compassion is a source text for greater recognition of the ways that non-Jewish people are moved to altruism. I hope it helps encourage greater appreciation by Jewish people of non-Jewish people.

 

---

[i] https://www.nytimes.com/1977/06/14/archives/three-sought-in-killing-of-hasidic-rabbis-son.html

[ii] The case of Dama Ben Netina, a non-Jewish man who excels in honouring his father.

[iii] A summary of the story told in Genesis, Chapters 37-50.
Jacob had twelve sons but favoured his second youngest Joseph. He gave him a special coat. Joseph’s brothers were jealous of him and intended to kill him, but in the end sold him into slavery.

Joseph was taken to Egypt, where he was a slave. He was subsequently falsely accused of seducing his master’s wife and was thrown into prison. Directly, from prison he was surprisingly appointed to high office after interpreting troubling dreams for the Pharoah. As the second highest official in Egypt, Joseph – now with a new Egyptian name, Tzafnat Paneach - orchestrated a program of food storage to prepare for famine.

When all his brothers except for the youngest, Benjamin, travelled to Egypt to access some of the surplus food during the famine it was an opportunity for Joseph to meet his brothers. They did not recognise him, but he recognised them.

Joseph-Tzafnat - accused his brothers of being spies and told them that they would only prove their innocence if they brought their youngest brother Benjamin with them. After imprisoning them for three days, he released nine of them to return home with food to their hungry families but kept one, Simeon as a hostage to compel them to bring Benjamin.

When Benjamin arrived, Joseph contrived to have evidence of theft planted in Benjamin’s bag. This presented an opportunity for the brothers to demonstrate loyalty to Benjamin and complete their repentance for their betrayal of Joseph. When the brothers passed this test, Joseph reconciled with his brothers.    

[iv] Genesis 42:21

[v] Toldot Yitzchot and Maasei Hashem quoted in Tzeda Lederech by Yisocher Ben Eilenberg, in Chumash with 11 Meforshei Rashi

[vi] Be’er Hatorah and both in Chumash with 11 Meforshei Rashi

 

Embrace the pain

Embrace the pain

I felt quite uncomfortable as I observed a five-year-old girl erupt in frustration and rage when he was rejected by his peers as he tried to join them in an activity. At times, in the quest for scarce means of sustenance, status or companionship, there is plenty of pain to go around. 

One strategy is to escape into fantasy. In my late teens, as a somewhat insecure young man, I was chosen to be a ‘lieutenant general’ in a summer camp ’colour war’ activity.  As part of this role, I was carried on someone’s shoulders dressed in a camouflage army uniform. At the time I thought I looked glorious and once told a friend that I liked “that [inflated] Zalman” better than the real one.

That memory came to me while studying this week’s Torah reading about Pharaoh dreaming of standing on the water of the Nile River[i].  Pharoah dreamed of cows and grain, hinting at catastrophic famine for his nation and people in the region. But first, Pharaoh noticed his own position in the dream: ְbehold he was standing on the Nile River, like a god walking on water. His dream reflected the fact that he made himself into a god who controlled the Nile[ii]. “My Nile is my own; I made it myself[iii]”. While this delusion served Pharaoh’s political interests[iv], it might have also served an emotional need to overcompensate for any insecurities.

This blog post is an argument for not running away from pain, before or after it occurs. In the Torah reading, the Pharoah’s nightmare-induced funk was relieved when a prisoner with a talent for dream interpretation, Joseph, was brought before the king. Joseph had been imprisoned for two years (in the final phase of his jail time), yet it felt like a few days for him. This was because “afflictions are treasured by the righteous”, and these two years [of imprisonment] were [for Joseph] like two days[v]. He saw the problem as something to accept rather than resist.

Joseph’s father was not so accepting of the troubles in his life. He craved tranquility as he ‘settled’ in the land of Canaan[vi]. Not long after Jacob had ’settled’, a terrible event occurred. His favourite son Joseph disappeared. Joseph’s own brothers sold him into slavery then misled their father about what happened. While the loss of a son is a terrible tragedy, Jewish tradition suggests that Jacob’s suffering was related to his seeking to be ‘settled into tranquility’ in his life on earth, rather leaving such aspirations for the afterlife in heaven. We are encouraged to feel like foreigners passing through this life, to expect and accept hardships in this foreign place rather than resisting the inevitable disappointments with false hopes of a trouble-free life[vii]. 

One challenging form of pain many people seek to avoid is the shame and guilt that arises from causing harm. For Joseph’s brothers, many years passed and still they failed to confront the cruel robbing of their young brother’s freedom until they found themselves the victims of false imprisonment. This predicament caused the penny to drop. The brothers reflected on what they did to Joseph and proclaimed; “but we are guilty about our brother, that we saw the distress of his soul, when he pleaded with us but we did not listen”[viii].

Joseph’s brothers felt a mixture of shame and guilt about their sin. Yet, the eldest brother Reuben chose not to ease his brothers’ discomfort; instead, he seemed to rub it in. “Did I not tell you, do not sin with the boy, but you did not listen, and also his blood is now demanded of us[ix]”. Reuben gave his brothers a master class in repentance. It is not enough to say ‘sorry’ as a response to being punished. He invited his brothers to make a deep personal commitment to now take responsibility for the choice they made to commit an injustice and sin against an innocent child all those years ago. He urged them to put aside any excuses, and own up to their choice[x].

The rejected five-year-old girl got a ‘sorry’ from the other girls. It did little to change how she felt. Sitting with the harm caused to, and by us is a slow and painful but useful path to healing.

---

[i] Genesis 41:1

[ii] R. Bchaye, on Gensis 41:1

[iii] Ezekiel 29:3

[iv] Chemdas Yamim manuscript in Torah Shlaima, p. 1530, tell us more about this. Pharoah was constantly ruminating about the matter of the Nile. He would say to himself, “if the Nile will not rise this year then there will be a great famine, or if he add a lot of water then it might ruin the crops and I told the Egyptians that I made the Nile and now I will be [considered] a liar to them”. He saw his dream in a way that was similar to his ruminations… In the end he recognised that his dream will require him to tell the people that he in in fact not God, and he admitted this to Joseph when he said that after God made all this known to you, he acknowledged that there is a God other than himself. 

[v] Midrash Habiur, a manuscript, cited in Torah Shleima, p. 1529, 8. The midrash is based on the fact that the verse states it was two years – days. If it was two “years”, why does it say “days”?

[vi] Midrash Rabba on Genesis 37:1

[vii] Rabbi Yitzchak Ben Aramaa, in Akedat Yitzchak, Genesis Shaar 30, p. 257

[viii] Genesis 42:21

[ix] Genesis 42:22

[x] Rabbi MM Schneerson, The Lubavitcher Rebbe in Likutei Sichot, Vol 16, Miketz

 

The thwarted kiss between Joseph and Jacob – practical & conditional love Vayechi

The hearts of so many adults bear the scars of conditional parental love. Their parents were so fixated on what they wanted for or from their children that they failed to embrace their children as they were.  A related theme is the seemingly transactional and predominantly practical nature of relationships between some fathers and sons. I see these same dynamics in some of the commentary about the attitudes of our patriarch Jacob.

Around the time of Jacob’s death, as he prepared to bless Joseph’s children he asked “who are they?[i]” The question is interpreted as questioning their suitability for blessing. ‘Was their father’s and mother’s union validated by a religious marriage contract (Ketubah)[ii]?’  Another practical consideration that is suggested is that Jacob knew that they were to have wicked descendants[iii]! In contrast Joseph was more present in the emotional dimension of the moment. He “immediately prostrated himself on the ground before God, and begged for mercy that he not be humiliated[iv]”.  Tuning in to his practical oriented dad, Joseph also pleaded: “they are my sons, they are righteous like me[v]!” It is only after this reassurance that Jacob asked that they be brought to him. He kissed and hugged them before he proceeded to bless them[vi].  

Similar commentary suggests that Jacob focused on merit at the very moment of his reunion with his son Joseph, after twenty-two years of separation and grief. Joseph was only seventeen when he went missing, reportedly killed by a wild animal. When father and son reunited, Joseph fell on his father’s neck and cried[vii]. According to commentary Joseph sought to kiss his father and be kissed by him but his father would not allow it. The reason given for this is that Joseph had been aroused by the seduction of his master’s wife, despite the fact that in the end he did not commit adultery[viii].  I am troubled by the view that technicalities and judgements would be in play at a time one would expect intense parental love. I also think this interpretation is implausible in light of the next verse, in which Jacob exclaims “now I can die (happy) after seeing your face because you are still alive![ix]” 

The Torah does not tell us about another word being spoken between Jacob and Joseph for the next almost seventeen years. The next conversation was practical and short. Jacob requested that his son Joseph bury him in Canaan rather than Egypt and Joseph agreed to do so[xi].  Finally, in one of the last chapters on Jacob’s life did he talk to his son in a reflective way about how he had been blessed and about the death of his first love, Joseph’s mother, Rachel[xii]. According to commentary, Jacob told Joseph that he knew that Joseph felt resentful about his mother being buried on the side of the road, so he explained the decision [xiii]. 

As a son I feel challenged by all of this. I reflect about my own relationship with my father—how often do we talk about matters of the heart? It is easier to talk shop, getting advice about working in non-profit leadership, or to talk about Torah. Like Joseph, I am tuned in to the emotional side of life. Talking about feelings with my dad might be really useful., I suspect this  might be true for many fathers and sons. On the other hand a commitment to a relationship includes respect between both parties to allow both to determine the nature and content of the relationship.

[i] Genesis 48:8

[ii] Masechet Kalah, chapter 3, 15a, or Were they born out of a holy pregnancy? Manuscript Midrash Habiur, cited in Torah Shlaima p.1751 note 60

[iii] Pesikta Rabbati 3,

[iv] Midrash Tanchuma Vayechi 6, Manuscript Midrash Habiur, cited in Torah Shlaima p.1751 note 61

[v] Pesikta Rabbati 3

[vi] Genesis 46:29

[vii] Genesis 48:8

[viii] Masechet Kallah, 3, cited in Torah Shlaima, p 1697

[ix] Genesis 46:30, on the other hand even this expression of emotion is interpreted as being practical. Rashi suggests that Jacob was thinking that he “would die twice, once in this world and a second time in the world to come because God would demand your death from me (that is to hold me liable for your death), but now that you are alive I will only die once”  and I would die twice

[x] Unkelus

[xi] Genesis 47:29-31

[xii] Genesis 48:7

[xiii] Rashi

Judgement, Muslims and responses to terrorism (Miketz 2015)

Photo by Scott under https://www.flickr.com/photos/skippy/
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

The other day I discussed with a group of Muslim high school students the Islamic principle that one must make 70 excuses for a friend who appears to have done the wrong thing.[i]  It is an interesting variation of the Jewish principle of judging everyone favourably.[ii]  I wonder to what extent these ideals are applied in either community when it comes to judging people outside our own faith communities. Giving the benefit of the doubt can also inhibit fighting evil, if we offer excuses when it would be more useful to name the problem and address it.  These considerations are relevant to judgements regarding terrorism.

This issue of judging others plays out in the discussion of the description of Joseph by Pharaoh’s chief butler in Genesis. The Pharaoh was distressed about a dream that no one could interpret. The chief butler told him that in prison there was a ‚“youth, a Hebrew slave”, who can interpret dreams.^[iii]  This description has been interpreted as malicious – “Cursed are the wicked that even the good that they do, is done with evil intentions!” – because Joseph’s Hebrew ethnicity calls attention to his membership of a hated people, his youth to his foolishness and his status as a slave to a restriction on Joseph ever holding high office.^[iv] 

An alternative interpretation suggests that the description was motivated by fear rather than malice. Joseph had interpreted the chief butler’s own dream two years earlier, when they were both prisoners, and had requested that the chief butler mention his unjust imprisonment to the king. The chief butler had forgotten about Joseph. He was now worried that if Joseph succeeded in interpreting the king’s dream he would be appointed to high office and would then take revenge against the chief butler for letting him down.^[v] 

Considering these two interpretations together, I suggest that:

a. Fear is a big motivating factor in denigrating the other. We need to resist excessive fear.  

b. It is sometimes absolutely right to judge. The tradition calls out the prejudice and mean spiritedness of the chief butler.  Muslim leaders have publicly called out prejudice and injustice where they believed it was at play in the way the “war on terror” is being prosecuted and have suggested that this injustice can contribute to radicalisation. The latter opinion is widely held by counter terrorism experts.^[vi]  Equally, it is right for Muslim leaders and others to make crystal clear that there are no excuses for perpetrators of terrorism or for advocates of extremist ideology and generalised anti-Western, “conflict-of-civilisations” or other “us & them” narratives.

c. There is a temptation for religious people and members of in-groups to assume the most negative interpretation of the character and motives of the “other”. One of the Muslim teenagers made the observation in our session that misjudgement goes both ways. “Some non-Muslims judge Muslims in general based on the actions of a minority of extremists, while some Muslims judge non-Muslims in general based on a minority of people who are prejudiced against Muslims, but the truth is that most people are not prejudiced.” I think he is right.

d. One flaw of reasoning is the assumption that if I don’t know about it, then it did not happen. Muslims I know and trust assure me that their religious leaders have been very clear in their condemnation of terrorism as absolutely unjustified. Yet, people who don’t have first-hand knowledge of these efforts assume they are not happening.

I fell into that kind of trap in 2010 when I wrote^[vii] about Reuben in the story of Joseph and his brothers.  Reuben castigated his brothers for selling Joseph: “Did I not say to you, do not sin with the boy and you did not listen?! And now his blood is being demanded (we are being held accountable for it).”^[viii]  At the time I asserted that Reuben “might have wanted to say that, it seems clear that he certainly meant to say that^[ix], but he did not quite tell them that. Compare his record of what he told them with his actual words at the time, ’let us not kill his soul, do not spill his blood, (instead just) throw him into this pit in the desert (filled with snakes and scorpions^[x]) but do not send your hand against him’.”^[xi]

Two prominent commentators disagree with my judgement of Reuben. “There is no doubt…that all of these words [that Reuben claimed to have said, he in fact] spoke to them at the time, but the Torah abbreviated the story.”^[xii] 

Perhaps, rather than judging Muslim leaders for failing to condemn, when we don’t really know how much they do or don’t condemn, we can ask them about their efforts to ensure their followers are well educated about positive messages from within their own tradition about conflict and generosity.  For example, a prominent Muslim leader who attended the session with the Muslim teenagers where I raised the teaching about the 70 excuses expressed concern that not one of the boys knew of this teaching. Equally it would be worth asking: how well educated are Jewish teenagers, or adults for that matter, about positive messages in their own traditions that can contribute to peaceful relations between people who believe differently?

---

[i] “If a friend among your friends errs, make seventy excuses for them. If your hearts are unable to do this, then know that the shortcoming is in your own selves.” [Imam Bayhaqi, Shu`ab al-Iman, 7.522] cited on http://seekershub.org/blog/2010/02/making-70-excuses-for-others-in-islam-a-key-duty-of-brotherhood/

[ii] Pirkei Avot 1:6

[iii] Genesis 41:12

[iv] Midrash Tanchuma, Bereshit Rabba 89 cited in Rashi

[v] Chizkuni, alternatively the butler might also have been afraid of the King, who could be angry about why the chief butler never bothered to tell him until now about such a wise person as Joseph being in the land

[vi] Professor Boaz Ganor in a public lecture in Sydney on 27 July 2015 talked about the art of counter terrorism which involves the need to tackle capability and motivation, but the efforts to address the former through arrests etc. negatively impacts the attempt to win hearts and minds and decrease motivation for terrorism

[vii] http://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/shame-pride-striving-case-of-reuben.html

[viii] Genesis 42:22

[ix] Yefat Toar, cited in Torah Shlaima p 1584, note 79, suggests that the meaning of what Reuben said was not to sin with the boy. However, the tone of the words he later claims to have said with those he said a the time differ significantly, which led me to wonder whether there was a discrepancy between what he felt like saying and the weaker words he actually used, perhaps out of fear of fully confronting the wrongful mindset of his brothers.

[x] Rashi

[xi] Genesis 37:22

[xii] Abarbanel in agreement with Ramban on Genesis 42:22 

Responding to Violence - Joseph, Mandela, Muslims and Ukrainians Vayigash

I, wearing a black hat that marked me as Hasidic Jew, stood in middle of a large circle of Ukrainians this week. This image, if I thought of it a year ago, would have conjured in my mind associations of anti-Semitic violence, or Pogroms. Instead, it was a circle of solidarity that I had joined and was most warmly welcomed into. We stood together as freedom loving people of Ukrainian and Jewish heritage praying for an end to the violence being perpetrated against peaceful protestors in Ukraine. It was also a quiet step closer between two communities with a past that could keep us apart if we allow it to.

The death of Nelson Mandela today, a giant of forgiveness and reconciliation coincides with the Torah reading this week, Vayigash, about Joseph who like Mandela was locked away in prison and persecuted, like him triumphed and rose to power, and again like Mandela repaid his tormentors with kindness rather than revenge. 

A number of years after Joseph is thrown into a pit and sold into slavery by his own brothers, he meets them again. This time Joseph is not a lone defenceless teenager, instead he is a national ruler in Egypt. In a remarkable act of forgiveness Joseph tells his brothers; “do not be distressed and do not be angry with yourselves for selling me here, because it was to save lives that G d sent me ahead of you. For two years now there has been famine in the land... So then, it was not you who sent me here, but God” (1).

It is Joseph’s faith that leads him to see the cause of his being sold into slavery being God’s plan to save lives during the famine, rather than it being simply the result of his brothers’ cruel choice to sell him (2).  This is surprising, as surely people must be held responsible for their own actions and intentions, rather than being let of the hook because of a positive end result (3). One suggestion is that there are exceptionally important circumstances such as the case of Joseph which had far reaching historical consequences in which God over-rides free choice and directs people to carry out his plan (4). A Chasidic approach sees much broader application of Joseph’s approach. It affirms absolute freedom of choice while also embracing full divine providence over every single object and every single occurrence with every object (5). This being the case there is no point in being angry or holding a grudge against anyone because everything that happens is the will of God (6). My discussions with a Sheikh last night showed me that some discussions in Islam on this issue were quite similar to those in Judaism.

The dignified prayer Vigil for Ukraine began with a reading that included a prayer to be “the one who forgives”. Yet, the violence this prayer vigil was addressing is continuing with students being brutally beaten in Kiev as we heard directly from people who witnessed it. It is not the time to think much about forgiveness. The priority now is that the violence stop and the rights of the people to protest are upheld. For some at the prayer vigil, the murder of 10 million Ukrainians by Stalin’s Russian government was seen as relevant to questions of the relationship with Russia today.

Last night I was deeply moved by another story about violence and dignity. We heard from the very eloquent, Hijab wearing, Najah Zoabi, a survivor of domestic violence. She talked about the first slap of an open hand against the skin of her face. About being devalued as a human being, constantly being told she was not good or beautiful enough until she believed it. She told how of the change in herself, from being raised with kindness and respect by her parents to feeling degraded by her husband. Eventually she sought and received help and healing from the Muslim Women Association and their support centre. It amazed me that the confident articulate woman speaking last night was able to triumph over the violence and abuse to be the person she is now and reclaim the dignity she enjoyed in her parent’s home.

I told the Ukrainian group of an experience I had in 1992 in the city of Kharkov, Ukraine. I danced outside the KGB headquarters around midnight on the Festival "Simchat Torah" when we celebrate the end of the yearly cycle of the Torah reading for the year. At that time it seemed that oppression by the state that my grandfather and his parents experience in Ukraine, was a thing of the past was a thing of the past. Sadly, it seems that dance was premature. However as we celebrated Chanukah this week, we hope and pray that once again freedom and dignity will triumph over violence.

Faith and grace can help us respond to violence in a variety of positive ways.


1.    Genesis 45: 5-8
2.    The classic Jewish concept that things that happen are ultimately part of God’s plan but wicked people will choose and have the opportunity to be instruments for the harsh components of the plan and good people will play the pleasant roles.
3.    Abarbanel Genesis Chapter 45, Vayigash p 415
4.    Abarbanel ibid.
5.    The Baal Shem Tov as discussed by the Lubavitcher Rebbe in Likutei Sichos Vol 8
6.    Rabbi Schenur Zalman in Tanya, Iggeret HaKodesh, Epistle 25 

Chutzpah! "Inappropriate Talk"

"Tell the tall buildings in Mahattan, I am a Lubavitcher"
shouted Y at a late night "Farbrengen"/debate mocking the
idea that young idealists can tell the big world anything

This week began with the news of the terrible murder and loss of innocents in Connecticut. May their families find some measure of comfort and their souls find peace.

 

One confronting immediate response to these deaths on social media was to complain about the coverage of a western tragedy and calling attention to the violent or preventable deaths of children in other countries. Was it proper to use the opportunity to make that point at that time? Can there ever be a wrong time and can there ever be considerations of propriety that are more important than the life of a child?

On a far more trivial level, the other morning I had the slight discomfort of being in the same small room as a man I will call B., who won’t talk to me on principle.  He objects to my working together with Muslims or Arabs or Christians as a matter of religious principle. On one level is it hurtful, we have known each other a long time. I think there might also be some ego involved. B has not had the opportunity to study the Torah in depth yet he thinks it is his place to rule me, a Rabbi, out of order. I don’t see myself superior just because of a bit of extra knowledge, yet in this case I had a passing though of indignation. “Is it his place to issue Halachic rulings against what I do?!” It’s not serious but it ties into my topic, Chutzpa, which can be loosely translated as impudence.

As a rule, Chutzpah, which is modern slang is seen as kind of spunky and cute, is traditionally seen as a bad thing. Yet, the other side of the argument is that some notions of propriety and good manners may result in silence in the face of injustice.  Jewish law requires a student to reproach even a teacher if the teacher is doing something wrong ([i]). This past Sunday I was at a book launch about the protest against the Holocaust by Aboriginal leader William Cooper. I learned that the protest was completely ignored at the time, no record of it remains, it was never sent to Berlin, nor does it feature in the diary of the German Consul in Melbourne or his superior in Sydney ([ii]). The Nazis would have seen it as “inappropriate” that black Aborigines would dare tell them what is right. Yet his protest continues to inspire and challenge us today.

In our Torah reading this week we have a touching example of disregarding propriety when the wellbeing of a child is at stake.  Judah approaches ([iii]) the Egyptian viceroy who is threatening to enslave his younger half-brother Benjamin. The body language implied in the approach is, at least according to one commentator, to be one of “war ([iv])”. He disregards the normal conduct of the world which is to ask permission first and only then to enter, Judah approaches first and ask for permission later ([v]). Another commentator has Judah “break down the door and come before Joseph with his brothers ([vi])”.

Judah’ begins by saying “please my master, may your servant speak words in the ears of my master and let my master not be angry with your servant because you are like Pharaoh ([vii])”.  On one level we have the deferential language about servant and master, in fact in this one monologue Judah refers to himself, his father and brothers as Joseph’s slaves eleven times ([viii])! Yet commentators draw many inferences that paint a much more aggressive posture. Asking Joseph not to get angry is taken as proof that he plans to speak harshly ([ix]) that is likely to provoke the ruler. His comparison of Joseph to Pharaoh is interpreted by some, not as flattery but as a suggestion that just Pharaoh lusted after Sarah because of her beauty, Joseph’s interest in Benjamin was also based on desire for Benjamin’s beauty ([x]). Judah takes the view that when the wellbeing and safety of a child is a stake, restraint based on polite protocols must be disregarded.

The theme of disregarding protocol can also be seen earlier in Joseph’s story. After Joseph successfully interprets the king’s dream, he oversteps the boundaries and goes beyond his brief as dream interpreter. Rather than knowing his place and not “speaking before one who is greater than himself” ([xi]) as a slave and recently released prisoner in front of a king he proceeds to offer Pharaoh unsolicited advice about how to manage his economy and save his country. Even more audaciously, Joseph might have been angling for a senior government position as a prospective manager of the Egyptian economy ([xii]). “Now, Pharaoh should see (to find) a man, understanding and wise and put him in charge of the land of Egypt ([xiii])”.  Hint, hint… here Joseph broke with protocol and appropriate conduct, yet this breach saved the country from terrible starvation in a famine with the elevation of Joseph.

In the rich tapestry of views the same situations have alternative interpretations. Rather than Joseph seeking appointment to the position he suggested, he was merely doing his duty as a prophet who cannot keep back the prophecy ([xiv]). This experience of prophecy is described by Jeremiah as if “in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones and I weary myself to hold it but cannot ([xv])”.  We also find Pharaoh repeating his intention to appoint Joseph to the position as if Joseph did not believe it ([xvi]). First Pharaoh tell Joseph: “after God has made all this known to you, there is no one as understanding and wise as you (therefore) you will be (in a position of authority) over my house and according to your mouth will my nation be sustained, only in (occupying) the throne will I be greater than you ([xvii])”.  The story continues with Pharaoh speaking to Joseph again, “look, I have put you over all of the land of Egypt ([xviii])”. No Chutzpa here. Similarly, there are interpretations of Judah’s approach to Joseph that highlight his respect for the ruler and a more pleading and conciliatory stance ([xix]).

I think Chutzpa is a tool for exceptional circumstances. Perhaps the more typical stance is the one taken by Jacob when he blesses Pharaoh when he first meets him and when he leaves him ([xx]) to teach us proper conduct about how a person should enter to see the face of royalty ([xxi])”. So I defend the right of B, to ignore me if he thinks he is standing up for what is right and the “tweeters” to be insensitive to the time of mourning of some people in the sincere hope of saving others.  May we all have the wisdom to know when to be civil, proper and polite and when to scream and break down some doors with chutzpa!

---

[i] Talmud Bava Metzia 31a

[ii] Talk by Konrad Kweit and the book launch at the Sydney Jewish Museum 9/12/2012

[iii] Genesis 44:18

[iv] Bereshit Rabba 93 according to the view of Rabbi Judah

[v] Midrash Habiur, from a manuscript cited in Torah Shlaima p.1635

[vi] Sefer Hayashar

[vii] Genesis 44:18

[viii] Genesis 44:18-34

[ix] Rashi

[x] Daat Zkainim Mibaalei Hatosafot, and with variation in Bereshit Rabba 93 and other sources cited in Torah Shlaima p.1636

[xi] Pirkey Avot one of the seven definitions of the wise

[xii] Ramban to Genesis 41:33 

[xiii] Genesis 41:33 

[xiv] Abarbanel, cited in Leibovitz, N. New Studies in Bereshit p.448

[xv] Jeremiah 20:9

[xvi] Midrashei Torah by Anselm Astruc, cited in Leibovitz, N. New Studies in Bereshit p.447

[xvii] Genesis 41:39-40

[xviii] Genesis 41:41

[xix] Rashi, Bchor Shor, others

[xx] Gnesis 47:7 & 10

[xxi] Lekach Tov cited in Torah Shlaima p.1708