By Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel
CHULA VISTA, California — In this week’s parsha we conclude the trilogy of the Joseph narrative; the biblical narrator was especially skilled in creating a sense of drama and suspense.
To summarize, Joseph has created new circumstances to see whether his brothers’ attitude has really changed over the last 22 years. Joseph has successfully ascertained that the brothers did not harm Benjamin—but would they sacrifice their well-being for his? Joseph orchestrates the circumstances that will test the limits of their fraternal love. Benjamin has been accused of theft and has been arrested. What will the sons of Jacob do next?
Joseph himself was unsure how the scenario would play out.
After seeing what has evolved, Judah bold steps forward and makes his case: “What shall we say to my master? What can we say, and how can we justify ourselves?” Judah pleads with the Viceroy, knowing that he had previously shown a fondness toward Benjamin. Judah is worried about causing their father a premature death if Benjamin does not return. He proceeds to explain how he has given their aged father a personal guarantee that nothing would befall him.
According to the plain meaning of the biblical text, Judah is not angry, nor is he threatening—he is however, soothing, pleading with the ruler for their brother’s life. Their father was already heartbroken, he argues, since his favorite son prematurely died. How will he survive?
The Midrash, however, from which Rashi cites extensively in his commentary to this section, portrays Judah in a much different light, as assuming an aggressive, even hostile, posture in his appeal to Joseph. Judah is depicted in the Midrash Tanchuma as openly challenging Joseph, accusing him of making false charges, and Judah even threatens violence against Egypt if he should refuse freeing him. The Midrash also depicts Judah as engaging in charged deliberations with the Egyptian vizier, and alludes to the sale of Joseph:
Joseph said to him, “Judah! Why are you, out of all your brothers, the speaker? I see in my goblet that there those among them who are older than you!” Judah said to him, “All this that you see is because of the guarantee that I gave for him [Benjamin].” He said to him, “Why did you not guarantee your brother when you sold him to the Ishmaelites for twentysilver coins, and caused your elderly father grief and said to him, ‘Joseph was torn apart [by a wild beast]’, even though he never sinned? Regarding this one, who sinned and stole a goblet, tell your father, ‘The rope follows the bucket!’” When Judah heard this, he shouted and wept in a loud voice, saying, “For how can I go to my father if the boy is not with me!”
Later in this passage, the Tanchuma records a similar harsh exchange of words:
Judah said to Joseph, “What shall I say to my father?” Joseph said to him, “I already told you: Say to your father, ‘The rope follows the bucket.’” Judah said to him, “You are rendering a false judgment against us!” Joseph said to him, “Falsehood is for liars. There is no false judgment like the sale of your brother!” …Judah said to him, “I am now going to go and dye all the markets of Egypt with blood!” Joseph said to him, “You have always been dyers – like when you dyed your brother’s cloak with blood and said to your father, ‘He was torn apart’!”
The Midrash makes us wonder: How could the rabbis deliberately invert the meaning of the text?
Nechama Leibowitz offers an intriguing exposition in her Studies: that the Midrash is speaking about a psychological conversation Judah was having with his conscience, rather than an actual exchange between Judah and Joseph.
Judah knew full well that Benjamin was framed, and that the Egyptian vizier was bent on finding the brothers guilty from their very first meeting.
The real meaning of the Midrash is psychological: Judah is debating this matter mentally to himself. He cannot help but see God’s justice in what has unfolded.
As Nechama Leibowitz noted in explaining the Midrash, “The more Judah denounces the injustice of the regent’s conduct, the more his conscience reminds him of the injustice he inflicted on Joseph.”
The matter is resolved only when Judah makes the personal sacrifice to save Benjamin—only then does he demonstrate that he has truly changed. Only then does the possibility of reconciliation occur. The bottom line: The buck stops with him. Nobody else is to blame but himself—Judah cannot help but see God’s hand in the events that unfolded.
When I think about the moral of this story, I cannot help but relate it to the events that have occurred over seven days ago, when 20 beautiful children were butchered by a mentally ill young man.
There are many fingers pointing at the gun lobby—and this understandably so.
But part of our problem is with the mental health industry in our country; under Reagan, thousands of mentally ill people were kicked out of the institutions that protected them and society. We need to take a hard look at our society and see if we can improve this situation.
Of course, the politicians allowed the Brady ban on assault rifles to expire. The NRA is responsible for that as well. Some responsible leaders wanted to renew the ban for another ten years, but the NRA threatened a punitive response to any legislator who defied them.
Our Presidents—and I am not singling out Obama—George Bush did nothing to encourage that this bill be reinstated. Obama has a historical opportunity to do something about this problem—which is ironic considering the Fast and Furious scandal that occurred earlier in his administration.
On the other hand, the NRA is correct in arguing that the public schools ought to have a policeman present there at all times. We do, after all, have armed policemen at our football games, parks, and government offices—why not have them also at the schools.
Over the last decade and a half, more and more states are starting to require psychological testing as a condition of hiring any full time police officer. Given the immense stress of the job, this decision makes perfect sense. In fact, schools across the country now require psychological testing for their faculty members. Even Wal-Mart requires psychological testing for its workers—perhaps because they sell firearms at their stores.
Even assuming someone passes the psychological testing and proficiency, this test would have to be taken again every x amount of years, similar to a driver’s license renewal. If the individual looking to purchase a firearm—of any variety—has a history of psychosis, or violent encounters with the law, such a person should be excluded from purchasing fire arms. I am inclined to think even if someone in the home has a violent record, or is mentally ill—no weapon should be purchased by a responsible parent. From what I read and heard in the news, Adam Lanza’s mother purchased these weapons so he would entertain himself at the shooting range.
NPR had an interesting story where a similar incident occurred in Australia, and this led to a dramatic change on gun legislation. The last incident they had was over 16 years ago. Whatever they did seems to be working. Even the conservative party took measures to limit the ownership of guns. They actually banned the personal ownership of guns for anyone who did not have a compelling need for a gun, e.g., a farmer, who wishes to protect his herd from predators.
Will any of these approaches work by themselves? Doubtful, but a multipronged approach might succeed where others have failed.
Unfortunately, no matter what we do will probably not stop someone who is determined to cause harm unto others. We are still uncertain why certain people are prone to violence. Perhaps a lot has what to do with the videogame culture that celebrates human carnage. The fact is, we live in a violent society and we remain a violent an emotionally primitive species.
As in the Joseph story, the rope has followed the bucket. Our country needs to look at its soul, and like Judah—we need to take responsibility.
*
Rabbi Samuel is spiritual leader of Temple Beth Shalom in Chula Vista. He may be contacted at michael.samuel@sdjewishworld.com