Vayeishev 5 - The Controversy of Judah and Joseph

A d'var torah that I wrote for this week's issue of the UPenn d'var torah newsletter. I also handed in a condensed version, in the event that space constraints are an issue, but this is the full version.
____

In this week’s sedra, the two parshiyos describing Judah’s family and Joseph in the house of Potiphar are treated as one unit, being separated from each other by a minor break and being separated from the preceding and following parshiyos by major breaks. A close examination reveals that the two stories are eerily similar to one another: In both stories, one of the brothers is separated from his family and becomes attached to a new family; meets with a measure of success; has his world turned upside down by a woman; attempts to resist the woman; and continues to be pursued by the woman. Ultimately, Joseph successfully resists the woman, while Judah acquiesces to her temptation. Given the stunning parallelisms between these two stories, why do they have different results? Why did Joseph pass his test with full marks, while Judah stumbled?

Rachel, Joseph’s mother, is described by her complete physical beauty, representing engagement with the world. Judah’s mother, Leah, was described by her beautiful eyes, emphasizing her focus on the hidden intellectual and spiritual realms. It was the active Rachel who watered her father’s sheep, who asserted herself in demanding that her husband pray for her and that her sister share her love-fruits with her, who struggled with God’s decrees, and who had the foresight to steal her father’s teraphim. The retiring Leah calmly accepted everything she received. When she left her tent to speak to Jacob, Midrash Tanchuma (7) finds it so shocking that it compares it to Dinah’s going forth that resulted in her being assaulted. Once Rachel bore Jacob a child, he was ready to confront Esau, as he now possessed physicality to fight physicality.

Judah is named after “Hoda’ah”, thanksgiving. The word hoda’ah in a more general sense means admission or concession. One who concedes a point reciprocates exactly what is set before him, no more and no less. Joseph is named after “Asifah”, after the reduction of Rachel’s shame, and “Hosafah”, after Rachel’s desire for an additional child. Judah is associated with repetition and stability, Joseph with addition and subtraction.

R’ Joseph B. Soloveitchik in his address “And Joseph Dreamt a Dream” (included in Chameish Derashot) notes that Joseph realized that the time of the prophecy that Abraham’s descendants would be strangers in a strange land was very near, and that his family would then be forced to adapt to a new environment. Hence, he told his brothers his dreams in preparation for the time when his skills of engagement and reaction to change would be needed. His brothers, though, did not accept his arguments that a change from their current lifestyle would be necessary. They viewed the future as a continuation of the present, and instead concluded that he was their generation’s Ishmael or Esau, who was not content with his role, but rather sought to overstep into the boundaries of others. To neutralize this threat, Judah recommended that they dismiss Joseph from the family heritage, just as Abraham expelled Ishmael and Esau removed himself to Mount Se’ir.

When Judah left his comfort zone, he was anchored by his friend Chirah and by his wife and children, who replaced the society that he had lost. Joseph similarly prospered in the house of Potiphar. At the time of crisis, though, when the two men were left alone with their inclinations, Joseph’s ability to adapt to this intensified challenge enabled him to overcome, while Judah, on the other hand, succumbed. Joseph, with his gift for adapting to new situations, ultimately became the Egyptian viceroy and used his foresight to save the region from famine; Judah utilized his skill in strengthening the status quo in organizing the transfer of the Jewish settlement to Goshen. Joseph is compared to an ox, which is intimately connected to physical needs. Judah is referred to as a lion, whose awe-inspiring roar is compared to the blast of prophecy. When Moses died, it was Joseph’s descendant, Joshua, who had the skills to lead the people into their new phase. Judah’s descendant, Osniel ben Kenaz, restored to the nation the laws that had been forgotten during the mourning for Moses.

When King Solomon’s son Rechav’am refused to acknowledge the paradigm shift resulting from his father’s death, the northern tribes broke away and coronated as king Yarav’am ben Nevat, a scion of Joseph. Yarav’am’s beginning was auspicious, as he was given license to reign by the prophet Achiyah HaShiloni. Things quickly went awry, though, as Yarav’am became distracted from his designated purpose, and replaced the Temple in Jerusalem with local temples. Sanhedrin 102b relates that after these events, God told Yarav’am, “If you recant, then you, I, and [David] the son of Jesse will stroll together in the Garden of Eden – but David shall walk in front.” Yarav’am refused to depart from his chosen path, and became one of the most disastrous kings in our history. Yarav’am had great potential, but made the mistake of overvaluing himself and losing sight of the fact that his Judaism was authenticated only by its subordination to that of Judah. Once he viewed himself as superior to the Judean king, all was lost.

The prophet Ezekiel describes the conclusion of this struggle between the descendants of Judah and of Joseph. The twin staffs shall ultimately become one, under the unification of a Davidic monarch. Although David was a descendant of Judah, he possessed both the beautiful eyes of his grandmother Leah and the ruddy physical beauty of Rachel. In the end of days, Judah shall again be regnant, but shall be revitalized by the beauty of Joseph.

P' Kedoshim: What is Kedusha?

The following is a dvar Torah that I gave on Friday night between mincha and maariv at the Penn Hillel. I didn't write it down beforehand, but I think that this version covers most of the points that I made:
____

Parshas Kedoshim is one of the most eclectic parshiyos in terms of the sheer scope of the mitzvos contained therein. However, the one command that overshadows the rest of the parsha can be found in 19:2: “Kedoshim tihyu, ki kadosh ani Hashem Elokeichem”. – Be holy, for I, Hashem, your God, am holy.

The Ramban quotes Toras Kohanim which explains this command as “perushim tihyu” – Be separate. He explains that following P’ Shmini, which dealt with the laws of kashrus in terms of what can and cannot be eaten, and P’ Acharei Mos, which dealt with various types of forbidden relationships, one might decide to overindulge in the eating of kosher food and in relations with one’s own wife, which were not proscribed by the preceding restrictions. For this reason, the Torah tells us to separate ourselves from even that which is permitted to us, by enjoying it only in moderation.

However, why did the Torah specifically choose to use the term “kedoshim” to express this idea, rather than, for example, “perushim” or “tehorim”? “Kadosh” is a very frequently used word within Tanach, that carries with it certain connotations. What additional lessons can be learned from the choice of this word?

In order to understand what properties make someone or something “holy”, we must look at other verses that describe something as “kadosh”. One case in which we find someone referred to as holy is in Melachim II 4:9, where a great woman of Shuneim notes regarding the prophet Elisha “Kadosh hu”, he is holy. On Brachos 10b, Rav and Shmuel argue over what quality the woman detected in him that led her to make this statement. One holds that she noticed that she never saw a fly over his table where he was eating, while the other holds that she never saw a stain from a seminal emission on his bedsheets. This passage also gives us a good example of someone who is not called holy, as the gemara there expounds on the use of the limiting word “hu” that she used to exclude Elisha’s student Geichazi as being distinctly not holy. The gemara mentions an incident (5:27) to support this contention, in which, following the death of her son, the Shunamite woman grabbed Elisha’s legs in beseeching him for mercy (Ralbag). According to the gemara, Geichazi reacted by grabbing her by “the glory of her beauty”, a place in which he clearly should not have grabbed her. Nonetheless, perhaps one can defend Geichazi’s actions. Geichazi saw his master being physically accosted, and, serving as a bodyguard, took immediate action to remove the offender. He did not have time to think things through and remove her gently, but rather grabbed her as quickly as possible, and ended up touching her in the wrong place. This being the case, what particular aspect of his actions defines him as being “unholy”?

One passuk in which Hashem is referred to as holy is the famous one in Yeshaya 6:3, “Kadosh, kadosh, kadosh Hashem Tzevakos, m’lo chol ha-aretz k’vodo” – Holy, holy, holy is Hashem; the entire world is filled with His glory. It is interesting that the prophet specifically expands on God’s holiness by noting the scope of His connection and involvement with the world, rather than through His characteristics which distinguish Him from the world that He created.

To provide a third data point, we can look at kodshim – korbonos – which by their very name are referred to as “holy”. There are numerous halachos that require that korbonos be treated with special care. This week’s parsha touches on the halachos of nosar and pigul. The first of these refers to a korbon that is not eaten within a certain period of time, while the latter refers to a korbon for which the kohen performing its avodah had, while doing its avodah, an intention to eat the korbon beyond its deadline. In both of these cases, the korbon becomes invalid and prohibited to eat. Even beyond that, they become “unholy” in a fashion, in that they transmit impurity to one who touches them and incur a penalty of kareis to one who eats them. Another interesting halacha is that kedusha can be transmitted from meat of a korbon to other food, a vessel, or a garment, much as tum’a can.
We therefore see that kedusha is not simply a passive status, defined by an absence of another quality (as is the case by taharah), but rather is an active, dynamic state, that can pass on its characteristics to other objects. Unlike a tahor object, that can remain tahor indefinitely in the absence of any direct stimulus that is m’tamei it, an object that has kedusha can easily have this status taken away due to a moment’s improper thought or lack of thought altogether. Even if all of a korbon’s requirements are satisfied, it still expires after a certain period of time, and becomes invalid for use in that way.

This dynamism is also emphasized by the pasuk quoted earlier from Yeshaya. Hashem’s holiness is not projected by His separation from the world, but rather by His involvement in the world. The Chasam Sofer on the parsha draws a contrast between the holiness sought by Jews and that sought by the holy men of the non-Jews. The priests and monks of many other religions theoretically strive towards complete asceticism, a total eschewing of all physical pleasures. This is antithetical to the Jewish idea of holiness. The Ramban quoted above defined holiness as sanctifying oneself through that which is permitted. Although one’s physical indulgences must be regulated, one is still allowed, and even encouraged, to enjoy the physical pleasures of this world in a proper manner. There is therefore a very thin line between properly utilizing the physical world and improperly using it. It is precisely through meeting the challenges that such temptations present us that we reach the level of holiness.

With these concepts in mind, we can return to Elisha and Geichazi. Elisha’s holiness was not evident to the Shunamite woman through how he davened or otherwise interacted with God, but rather in how he conducted himself in his mundane, physical activities. Even when he was at his table, he conducted himself in such a manner that his table obtained the same holy quality as the mizbei’ach in the Beis HaMikdash, for which a similar miracle was reported. When he was in bed, a place in which his watch could have been lowered, he still never experienced any seminal emission, as he was careful to always maintain his same level. This is in contrast to Geichazi. Geichazi’s unholiness was seen from how he acted under stress. Although his actions may usually have been proper, when he was faced with one moment of uncertainty, he reacted by performing a very improper act.

To summarize our findings, holiness is a dynamic state, that one must constantly strive to maintain at all times, and which can be lost through even a moment’s faltering or loss of focus. At the same time, it is not epitomized by a removal of oneself from the world, but rather by embracing the world around oneself, by using it properly and by influencing it for the better. It is characterized by the recognition that every moment is valuable and that all of one’s actions must be accomplished within a deadline. May we all be able to use these ideas in reaching our own personal potentials in holiness.