Genesis 39:13-18 - Principle of Jewish Biblical exegesis & Jew-hatred

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

This coming Saturday's Torah reading is Genesis 37:1-40:23.

After Joseph has resisted the seductive wiles of Potiphar's wife and runs out of Potiphar's house, Mrs. Potiphar summons the household slaves and relates to them her version of events, which she repeats to her husband (furthering altering the account of what actually happened). It is a principle of Jewish Biblical exegesis that there is no wasted or redundant ink in the scriptures & that we can learn much from seemingly trivial turns of phrase, subtle differences in the text and from the seeming repetitions of accounts. Genesis 39:12-13 tells us:

"...that she caught him by his garment, saying: 'Lie with me.' And he left his garment in her hand, and fled, and got him out. And it came to pass, when she saw that he had left his garment in her hand, and was fled forth..."

In Genesis 39:14-15, Mrs. Potiphar tells the other slaves:

"...that she called unto the men of her house, and spoke unto them, saying: 'See, he [her husband]has brought in a Hebrew unto us to mock us; he came in unto me to lie with me, and I cried with a loud voice. And it came to pass, when he heard that I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment by me, and fled, and got him out.'"

In Genesis 39:17-18, Mrs. Potiphar tells her husband:

'The Hebrew servant, whom you have brought unto us, came in unto me to mock me. And it came to pass, as I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment by me, and fled out.'"

.

Note the subtle differences in the three accounts. I quote from Studies in Genesis by the late Prof. Nehama Leibovitz:

We noted...how the slightest variation in phraseology, and addition or omission, may contain a world of significance. We may note how she reported that Joseph left his garment "by me" instead of "in her hand" as had actually happened. Otherwise the real truth would have become immediately self-evident to her hearers. She did not vary her account regarding Joseph's terrified flight in freeing himself from her whilst in her room and his resumption of his normal pace as he left it, for fear that her slaves had, perhaps, seen Joseph leave. But when she reported her story to her husband she stressed simply that "he fled out" in order to strengthen the impression of his guilt. She emphasizes both in the account to her slaves, who heard nothing, and to her husband that she cried out, in order to absolve herself of any suspicion of being an accessory to the deed.

Further light is thrown on Potiphar's wife's unscrupulous defaming of Joseph in another subtle differentiation between her phrasing of the account to her slaves and subsequently to her husband. She does not employ the term "slaves" when addressing the slaves themselves. Joseph is called simply a Hebrew (literally: "a Hebrew man"). To her husband however, she says "the Hebrew slave." In order to win over her slaves and gain their sympathies she is at pains not to create any feeling of solidarity among the slaves for Joseph, as one of them. After all, it was a common thing for masters to denounce their slaves. They would naturally side with their fellowsufferer. So she subtly changed her tone and stated that it was not one of them but a stranger, a Hebrew, the common enemy of all of them. To strengthen the impression and arouse their hostility for Joseph she does not say that the Hebrew slave came unto me but rather, "See, he brought in a Hebrew unto us to mock us." In short, the Hebrew has not only wronged me but all of us; he has dishonoured the whole Egyptian nation! How far, however, was that from the truth! In Egypt there were rather two nations, the free men, the Egyptian nobles, and the serfs, the slaves who had no rights at all. In spite of this, Potiphar's wife in her effort to gain sympathy lumps her slaves together with herself as part of one family. The common enemy is the Jew.

Thus, we see that Jew-hatred is a very old disease.

BTW, our Sages say that God Himself set Potiphar's wife on Joseph in order to punish Joseph & teach him a lesson. What did Joseph do to deserve this? Genesis 39:5-6 tells us:

And it came to pass from the time that he appointed him overseer in his house, and over all that he had, that the Lord blessed the Egyptian's house for Joseph's sake; and the blessing of the Lord was upon all that he had, in the house and in the field. And he left all that he had in Joseph's hand; and, having him, he knew not aught save the bread which he did eat. And Joseph was of beautiful form, and fair to look upon.

Of what possible relevance is the last, underlined, phrase? The text would not remark on such a thing just for the hell of it (so to speak)! Some have suggested that it is merely a lead-in to Potiphar's wife having lecherous designs on Joseph's person. I will quote the late Prof. Leibovitz again:

Our Sages, however, discovered another significance in it. They found in it an indication of Joseph's reactions to the dramatic changes in his fortunes and environment. Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Itzhaki, CE 1040-1105) cites a tradition that as soon as he [Joseph] saw himself as a ruler, he began to eat and drink and glory in his good looks. Said the Holy One Blessed be He: Your father is in mourning and you pride yourself on your looks! I will set Potiphar's wife on you!" According to this interpretation then Joseph was enamored of the new life of luxury that he was living in Egypt, the country of wealth and culture, and his eyes were blinded to the unreal nature of the power that had been placed in his hands. He forgot his slavery and that he was a stranger among them, he forgot the spiritual chasm separating him as a son of Abraham and follower of his way of life from Egypt and its abominations.

Different we are, separate we must be. It is precisely when Joseph began to forget this that he was reminded of his status, of his Hebrew-ness, in a rude fashion.

Be well!

ssv

[The Curtmudgeon]

12-17-2003 @ 09:15 AM stillsmallvoice:
...BTW, our Sages say that God Himself set Potiphar's wife on Joseph in order to punish Joseph & teach him a lesson. What did Joseph do to deserve this? Genesis 39:5-6 tells us:

And it came to pass from the time that he appointed him overseer in his house, and over all that he had, that the Lord blessed the Egyptian's house for Joseph's sake; and the blessing of the Lord was upon all that he had, in the house and in the field. And he left all that he had in Joseph's hand; and, having him, he knew not aught save the bread which he did eat. And Joseph was of beautiful form, and fair to look upon.

Of what possible relevance is the last, underlined, phrase? The text would not remark on such a thing just for the hell of it (so to speak)! Some have suggested that it is merely a lead-in to Potiphar's wife having lecherous designs on Joseph's person. I will quote the late Prof. Leibovitz again:

Our Sages, however, discovered another significance in it. They found in it an indication of Joseph's reactions to the dramatic changes in his fortunes and environment. Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Itzhaki, CE 1040-1105) cites a tradition that as soon as he [Joseph] saw himself as a ruler, he began to eat and drink and glory in his good looks. Said the Holy One Blessed be He: Your father is in mourning and you pride yourself on your looks! I will set Potiphar's wife on you!" According to this interpretation then Joseph was enamored of the new life of luxury that he was living in Egypt, the country of wealth and culture, and his eyes were blinded to the unreal nature of the power that had been placed in his hands. He forgot his slavery and that he was a stranger among them, he forgot the spiritual chasm separating him as a son of Abraham and follower of his way of life from Egypt and its abominations.

Different we are, separate we must be. It is precisely when Joseph began to forget this that he was reminded of his status, of his Hebrew-ness, in a rude fashion.

SSV, this is not at all to suggest that I disagree with your main point, "Thus, we see that Jew-hatred is a very old disease," (and, in fact, I agree with it) but isn't this postscript of yours evidence that blaming the victim is also a very old disease?

The (not meant to insult your Sages, either, but it's how I see it) Curtmudgeon

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

The Curtmudgeon posted:

but isn't this postscript of yours evidence that blaming the victim is also a very old disease?

How ya figger?

...(not meant to insult your Sages, either, but it's how I see it)...

No offense taken!

Be well!

ssv

[MuggleOrSquib]

Evidence suggests that Joseph was in Egypt during the time of the Hyksos. Yagub-El, one of the Hyksos pharaohs, was apparently of Semitic ancestry. The native Egyptians were an 'occupied' people at this time, so the attitude towards Joseph wouldn't be specifically Jew-hatred, but would rather parallel the Hindu attitude towards the British.
On the other hand, Haman's attitude would more resemble anti-Chicano prejudice among Anglo-Americans ("Them damn'd immigrants").

[The Curtmudgeon]

Today @ 09:27 AM stillsmallvoice:

How ya figger?

Umm, thought it would have been plain from the text. 'Blaming the victim' is a pernicious activity that seeks to make the victim of persecution into the actual cause of the persecution suffered. Contemporary examples would include a mother killing her daughter who was raped because obviously the girl had brought it upon herself, and thus dishonored the whole family (and thus completely exhonerating the brothers who had raped her in the first place from causing the dishonor).

In the case of your example, the Jewish Sages you mention take a plain statement from the Torah, that Joseph was physically attractive, and the equally plain inference that this was sufficient cause for Mrs. Potipher to try to get him into her bed, and from out of nowhere add the left curve that Joseph deliberately by his own actions caused poor Mrs. Potipher to fall into sin. One can hardly avoid the comment, "Why, that dirty Jew!" (And I trust that you realise I am making that statement to stress my point, and not because I hold that position in any form.)

In fact, I will put it to you bluntly that if the source of that story had been medieval Christian writings, the exact same story would be loudly branded anti-Semitic by all the Jewish Sages, who would rush to Joseph's defense for having been an innocent Jewish boy who was wrongly treated by malevolent Gentiles. They probably would even protest that by framing the story in those terms, the author(s) implicitly denied that a Jew could be good-looking on his own merits.

Another way to read it is, "Joseph would not have been accused of attempted adultery and imprisoned except for his own misdeeds." Isn't the obvious corrolary that Jews only get persecuted when they "step out of line"? Doesn't that come awfully close to mis-assigning the responsibility for Auschwitz? So why isn't it anti-Semitic regardless of its source?

The (and I'm telling you not to be anti-Semitic?!?!? ) Curtmudgeon

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi Curtmudgeon!

I see your point. I will emphasize that according to the way we understand the Tanakh & its text, no statement (or juxtaposition of statements) in scripture is either incidental or coincidental (or innocuous). If a given verse says A, and not B, C, or D, then it's for a reason. If the verse says A, B, C, and D, then the sequence in which it says A, B, C, & D is for a reason. If a verse looks out of place, if the grammar and/or syntax are irregular, if a verse seems to be stating/ignoring the obvious, etc. then it's for a reason. The "reason" is to teach us something or, more likely, many things. Our Sages certainly do not teach that, "Joseph deliberately by his own actions caused poor Mrs. Potiphar to fall into sin." They are merely attempting to draw moral/spiritual lessons from the juxtaposition of certain verses and in doing so, are drawing upon traditions, many of which go back to Moses at Mt. Sinai.

It was Balaam [Numbers 23:9] who pointed out that we Hebrews/Jews are, "a people that shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations." If we do not differentiate ourselves by our adherence to the Torah & its precepts, then we will be differentiated the hard way when we find that the nations we seek to imitate and be like, do not accept us (see Deuteronomy 28:64-65. Joseph is in no way culpable for Mrs. Potiphar's lewd & sinful behavior than the Jewish victims of the Holocaust are in any way culpable for the Nazis' barbarism. However, I do find it ironic that the most virulent strain of anti-Semitism known to man broke out, not in a country where Jews strove to be different, but where they most tried to be the same as everyone else and to assimilate into the national culture.

Be well!

ssv

[The Curtmudgeon]

12-23-2003 @ 02:50 PM stillsmallvoice:

Hi Curtmudgeon!

I see your point. I will emphasize that according to the way we understand the Tanakh & its text, no statement (or juxtaposition of statements) in scripture is either incidental or coincidental (or innocuous). If a given verse says A, and not B, C, or D, then it's for a reason. If the verse says A, B, C, and D, then the sequence in which it says A, B, C, & D is for a reason. If a verse looks out of place, if the grammar and/or syntax are irregular, if a verse seems to be stating/ignoring the obvious, etc. then it's for a reason. The "reason" is to teach us something or, more likely, many things.

I've no problem with this position, SSV. In fact, as an evangelical "fundie" Christian, I'm in much the same boat: I do not believe that any part of the Tanakh or the New Testament "just happens to be there". The Holy Spirit inspired it all, and He's not one to waste the effort on inconsequentials. Even those long genealogies or ennumerations of the Tribes serve a purpose.

My problem really lies in the particular reason that your Sages have posited for this passage. I do believe that while Spirit-inspired as to their presence in the text, some verses may be simply descriptive of historical happenings. In this passage, I would say that we should realise that Mrs. Potipher did act on her own to try to cause Joseph to sin with her, and that the description of his appearance explains why she chose him, but that he was innocent of any wrong-doing himself. Thus, his imprisonment is a lesson to us that though we, too, may be unjustly charged or treated, God can use the actions of the unjust to work His will in our lives. If Joseph had not been imprisoned, he would not have been in a position to hear the dreams of the cupbearer and baker, thus he never would have come to Pharaoh's attention as an interpreter of dreams, thus he never would have come to the position by which he saved the House of Israel during the famine.

Therefore, I see no need to postulate any hubris or self-glorification on Joe's part to explain the actions of Mrs. P: God needed to have Joe in prison, for His purpose of saving Israel at that time. Could He have done it another way? Of course; who of us can ever say that God never could have used different means than He did in any circumstance? But by this means at this time, He also was teaching Joe--and through him, us--that He can use unfair and unjust treatment by others for His purposes. To teach that lesson, it would seem to require that Joe be totally innocent, not just of acting to tempt Mrs. P, but of any actions that would see his imprisonment be a just punishment.

Our Sages certainly do not teach that, "Joseph deliberately by his own actions caused poor Mrs. Potiphar to fall into sin." They are merely attempting to draw moral/spiritual lessons from the juxtaposition of certain verses and in doing so, are drawing upon traditions, many of which go back to Moses at Mt. Sinai.

Really, I realise that; I admit that my description was a little more extreme than your original quote demanded, in order to emphasise my point. But this underlines a problem that we as evangelical Christians have with the Jewish concept of "Oral Tradition", and especially with the fact that such is accorded equal (or perhaps near-equal; you tell me) weight with the Tanakh itself (but I've heard some claim that the Oral Tradition counts for more than the Written Word). The traditions of men cannot weigh with the Word of God.

The (I do enjoy these discussions with you, btw) Curtmudgeon

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi Curt (may I call you that?)!

Thank you for your post!

Let me jump to the end first. You posted:

But this underlines a problem that we as evangelical Christians have with the Jewish concept of "Oral Tradition", and especially with the fact that such is accorded equal (or perhaps near-equal; you tell me) weight with the Tanakh itself (but I've heard some claim that the Oral Tradition counts for more than the Written Word). The traditions of men cannot weigh with the Word of God.

Many Christians (and many Jews, for that matter) have difficulty in grasping the Jewish concept of the Oral Torah, which is much more than mere "traditions of men." The following two articles are pretty good. Have a read & then feel free to ask me any questions that you might have!

http://www.torah.org/learning/basics...oraltorah.html

http://www.aish.com/shavuotsinai/sha...ral_torah$.asp.

Therefore, I see no need to postulate any hubris or self-glorification on Joe's part to explain the actions of Mrs. P: God needed to have Joe in prison, for His purpose of saving Israel at that time. Could He have done it another way? Of course; who of us can ever say that God never could have used different means than He did in any circumstance?

Yes, God wanted Joseph to be in a prison & certainly could have found other means of bringing about his imprisonment. But He didn't. He used means at hand (so to speak) an took advantage of Joseph's actions to teach him a lesson (in humility?) as well.

But by this means at this time, He also was teaching Joe--and through him, us--that He can use unfair and unjust treatment by others for His purposes. To teach that lesson, it would seem to require that Joe be totally innocent, not just of acting to tempt Mrs. P, but of any actions that would see his imprisonment be a just punishment.

I don't see how the underlined sentence necessarily follows the preceeding one. God could have brought about Joseph's imprisonment & sought to teach him/us many lessons at the same time. In fact, our Sages also fault Joseph for asking the butler to remember him. In noting that two years were to pass before Joseph was hauled out of the hoosegow, Rabbi Phil Chernofsky writes:

Commentaries say that Josef should not have relied on the wine steward because of the combination of who Joseph was, who the wine steward was, and the implications in that particular situation. Joseph should not have asked the W.S. for help, lest he say: His own God might help with dream decoding, but I was the one who got him out of jail. In other words - a Desecration of God's Name. Each situation must be evaluated on its own.

(...).

Two years have passed since the wine steward had promised to tell Phaoah about Joseph. Extra years of languishing in prison, for putting too much faith in a human at the expense of complete faith in God (and possibly creating a Desecration of God's Name in Joseph's case, because of who he was).

Let's take that point one step further. In "normal" circumstances, a person in Joseph's position should take steps to get himself out of prison by asking the wine steward (or whomever) to help. But in this case, we can see that the wine steward spoke condescendingly about Joseph, calling him a naar ivri. This probably means that he relished the idea that the "boy" relied on him to get out of jail. This, after giving God credit for the dream interpretation. We can imagine that in Joseph's particular situation, his asking the wine steward for help would not be the right way to go...

You posted:

The Holy Spirit inspired it all, and He's not one to waste the effort on inconsequentials. Even those long genealogies or ennumerations of the Tribes serve a purpose.

Couldn't have said it better meself! (Could...could it be that Christian Fundies and Jewish Fundies actually have alot in common??!! When you visit the Holy Land, we can talk about over beer #1, which will, of course, be on me! )

...but that he was innocent of any wrong-doing himself.

Our eminent 19th century Sage, Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/Hirsch.html) writes:

"The Torah is not an 'anthology of paragons.' It relates events not because they are worthy of emulation but simply because they took place.

The Torah does not attempt to hide from us the faults, errors and weaknesses of our great men and precisely thereby it places the stamp of credibility upon the happenings it relates. The fact that we are told about their faults and weaknesses does not detract from our great men; indeed, it adds to their stature and makes their life stories even more instructive. Had they all been portrayed to us as models of perfection, we would have believed that they had been endowed with a higher nature not given to us to attain. Had they been presented to us as free of human passions and inner conflicts, their nature would seem to us merely the result of a loftier predisposition, not a product of their personal merit, and certainly no model we could ever hope to emulate. Take, for instance, the humility of Moses. If we did not know that he was also capable of flying into a rage, this humility would seem to us an inborn trait not within our capacity to emulate. It is precisely his outburst (“Here now, you rebels!” Num. 20:10) that lends to his humility its true greatness, for it shows us his humility as the product of a mighty labor of self-control and self-refinement which we should all emulate because it is within our capacity to do so. Also, the Torah relates no sin or error without telling us also of its consequences, great or small...We must never attempt to whitewash the spiritual and moral heroes of our past. They are not in need of our apologies, nor would they tolerate such attempts on our part."

Be well!

ssv