This week's Torah reading is the last in the book of Genesis, and describes Jacob's final blessing to his sons. It also includes Joseph's parting words to his brothers and descendants. Notably, he insists on being buried in Israel -- if not immediately, then one day. During the Exodus, Moses made it his personal responsibility to carry Joseph's bones our for eventual repatriation.
I had an insight last week while listening to my rabbi's sermon on the story of Judah confronting Joseph over the fate of Benjamin. It struck me that rather than thinking of Joseph testing his brothers to see whether they had repented, Joseph may have actually been trying to free his one remaining full brother (from the same mother) from a family he believed to be oppressive.
After all, the brothers had sold him into slavery, and had never tried to rescue him. Nor had his father, to whom Joseph had been particularly close, tried to find Joseph. Of course, Joseph could not have known that Jacob thought his beloved son was dead. But lacking further information, Joseph concluded that his family might simply have been evil. He had to rescue Benjamin from it.
Moreover, Joseph had concluded that perhaps assimilation into Egyptian culture wasn't too bad. It had been rough going, at first, but it had worked out all right in the end. Joseph had brought his faith with him, and while he knew that God had interpreted Pharaoh's dreams in a helpful way, he may have thought that faith can persist in isolation, without family or community.
Judah's protest was not just proof that he and his brothers had repented, and were now willing to give their own lives to save their brother, but also an impassioned argument on behalf of the Jewish faith. Judah appealed to Joseph on the basis of compassion: how could he (Judah) face his father if he did not bring Benjamin back as promised? In other words, faith is based on empathy.
That was an argument against Joseph's rationalist approach. And suddenly Joseph realized the truth -- both about his situation, and his faith. Judah had aroused his compassion for his father, and Joseph also understood that Jacob still missed him, thinking him dead. Hence Joseph's first question after revealing himself: "Is my father yet alive?" It is true? Because, if so, all is clear.
That is all in last week's portion; this week's focuses on the events that follow. The Haftarah -- the additional reading -- is from the Book of Kings, recalling King David's final blessing to his son, Solomon. He settles his accounts -- for good and for bad -- before parting with words of advice to the young king: Be a man. Become what you are, the best God intended you to be -- then a king.
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
An interesting weekend -- one of the last of Daylight Savings Time -- in which there is much to celebrate, much to contemplate, and a bit to worry about.
The Gaza peace deal is shaky, but holding, after the living hostages returned; the shutdown is still going on, with no end in sight; the China trade war is heating up; and the confrontation with Venezuela continues to escalate.
The "No Kings" protest was a dud, despite the media's attempt to inflate it. What I find fascinating is that the Democrats have basically stolen the rhetoric and the imagery of the Tea Party protests, circa 2009. They claim they are defending the Constitution -- just like the Tea Party did.
On the one hand, this is good. How wonderful to have a political system in which both sides, bitterly opposed though they are, articulate differences through the Constitution -- and not, as in so many other countries, outside it.
On the other, this is sheer hypocrisy for the Democrats. Not only did they malign the Tea Party as ...
