When is Authoritarianism Acceptable?

 Mikketz

Gen. 41:1-44:17

Précis: At the end (mikketz) of two years of Joseph’s imprisonment, Pharaoh dreams of cows and ears of corn. The butler who had shared Joseph’s cell now remembers him and calls him from prison. Joseph predicts seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine. Pharaoh is so impressed that he appoints Joseph as his chief vizier and Joseph goes about storing grain during the times of plenty.

            Joseph married Asenath and they have two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh. When the famine comes, Jacob sends his sons to Egypt to purchase food. Joseph has them brought in while he remains in cognito. He accuses the brothers of spying, and sends them home after they leave one brother hostage and promise to return with their youngest brother, Benjamin. Upon their return, the brothers (including Benjamin) meet the still-unrevealed Joseph. Joseph has their bags filled not only with grain but also with the money used to purchase the grain and has a gold cup hidden in Benjamin’s belongings. When they are “caught” by Joseph’s men, they learn that whoever stole the cup would become Joseph’s slave, while the others would return to their homeland. On this cliffhanger, the parasha ends.

 

Gen. 41:15-27 – “Pharaoh said to Joseph, I dreamt a dream and there is no one to interpret it… Joseph said to Pharaoh, “Pharaoh's dream is what God has revealed…Let Pharaoh select a man who is discerning and wise…”

 

Rabbi Justin David discusses the theory that Joseph was not a savior of Egypt, but rather a despot. (MyJewishLearning.com, 12/16/14). When we view Joseph this way, we see the potential threat of totalitarianism.

            Joseph’s interpretation of Pharaoh’s dreams leads to his appointment as supreme ruler. He seizes the produce during the years of plenty and stores them.

But when the famine does indeed occur, he does not freely distribute the previously taken stores, but instead sells them to the Egyptians. First it is by money, then livestock, then the land that they own themselves. Pharaoh has become, through Joseph’s machinations, the “owner” of all of Egypt. Having been dispossessed of their land, the Egyptians declare themselves to be the “slaves” of Pharaoh, becoming sharecroppers on the land they had previously owned.

            This action presages the warning of Samuel against the appointment of a king (I Samuel 7:15-17) who warns “He will take a tithe of your seed and your vineyards, which he will give to his courtiers and servants…He will take a tithe of your flocks and render you his slaves.”

            Indeed, Rashbam (grandson of Rashi) compares Joseph’s behavior to that of Achashverosh, the Persian king of the Book of Esther. It appears that we are not the first to question Joseph’s role. Of course, our text specifically states that it is all part of God’s plan, for without the famine, the family would not reunite, and the Jewish People would not have been created out of Jacob’s sons.

            This leaves us with a very pressing problem today: can authoritarianism be justified?  Joseph is called a “tzaddik” (righteous) but the word implies a balance. Perhaps, as Rabbi David suggests, Joseph was “the kind of extraordinary leader who could create a sense of common good and purpose that allowed people to embrace the sacrifices he mandated.”

In fact, Joseph may be the exception that proves the rule. He achieved a delicate balance, but such a balance is rare. Samuel’s warning should never be forgotten. And we must be on the guard against the abuses of power. 

Violence Defiles Us

Vayishlach

Gen. 32:4 - 36:43

 

Précis: As he nears his return to his homeland, Jacob sent (vayishlach) messengers to Esau to ascertain Esau’s state of mind after their 20-year separation. While he awaits a reply, Jacob encounters an “adversary” (most assume an angel) with whom Jacob wrestles through the night. As dawn breaks, the adversary announces that Jacob’s name is to be changed to Israel: “He who wrestles with God.” On the following day, Esau approaches, and despite Jacob’s fears, there is a happy reunion.

            We then read the story of how a local prince rapes Dinah, Jacob’s daughter, and then asks to marry her. Jacob agrees on condition that all of the men of the city are circumcised. While the men are recovering, Jacob’s sons Simon and Levi attack the city and kill all of the inhabitants in revenge for the insult to their sister. Jacob soon travels to Beth-el (the site of his ladder dream), and on the way, Rachel gives birth to Benjamin and dies in childbirth. Thereafter, Isaac’s death is noted, as is his burial by Esau and Jacob. The parasha ends with a genealogy of Esau and his descendants.

         

Gen. 34:33 “And it happened on the third day, while they were recovering, that Jacob’s two sons, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brother, each took his sword, and came upon the city unopposed, and they killed every male.”

 

As Rabbi Jonathan Sacks has noted, Dinah is the only Jewish daughter named in the patriarchal narrative (Covenant and Conversation, 11/17/21), and the story here is terrifying.

            Jacob learns of the rape, but does nothing until his sons Shimon and Levi return to him.  The sons come up with a plan to overcome the hostage-taker/rapist: all the male members of the town must all be circumcised. They agree, are of course weakened, and the two sons wreak vengeance on all of the men of the city. Shimon and Levi rescue their sister.

Jacob is horrified. “You have made me odious to the people of the land” (Gen. 34:30). Jacob’s outrage lasts his entire life, when he utters a curse against the two sons: “Simeon and Levi are brothers - their swords are weapons of violence…. Cursed be their anger, so fierce, and their fury, so cruel! " (Gen. 49:5-6)

            This story seems to have no moral message at all. The prince is a rapist, his father fails to discipline him, Shimon and Levi kill everyone, and Jacob seems to remain passive.

            Whether Jacob’s curse against Shimon and Levi was merited became a source of great disagreement among the sages. Maimonides felt that they were justified in their actions, since the other men of the city failed to act and were therefore accomplices. Nachmanides disagrees, suggesting that the principle of collective responsibility does not apply. The debate continues today.

            Sacks notes that text “deliberately deepens the moral ambiguity by refusing to portray even the apparent villains in an unduly negative light”.

            The text refers to the “deceit” of Shimon and Levi, the same word as used to describe Jacob’s taking of the blessing in lieu of Esau. If the story has no moral purpose, why is it told, especially in such detail? Torah means “teaching” or “instruction.” As Sacks reminds us, it is not a history book. He suggests that the true lesson is that “Shechem’s single act of violence against Dinah forced two of Jacob’s sons into violent reprisal, and in the end, everyone was either contaminated or dead. It is indicative of the moral depth of the Torah that it does not hide this terrible truth from us by depicting one side as guilty, the other as innocent. Violence defiles us all. It did then. It does now.”