Parshah Vayeishev

Well, and this week is Parshah Vayeishev Gen 37:1-40:23) and it’s about time to go ahead and do it.

By the way, for any Gentle Reader who wants just a summary, the Lubavitchers (of course) have a Parshah page from which it is only a single click to a one-pager with what I’ve so far found to be a very fair synopsis. I’m not endorsing the Chabad interpretations, mind you, but the synopsis seems (as I say, so far) to be as free from interpretations as one could reasonably expect a synopsis of Scripture to be. And from there, you can click through to read what Rashi has to say about verb tenses and so on.

Anyway, the first thing is just how badly Jacob’s boys get along. Jacob appears to have learned nothing from his father (or grandfather, but then he never met Abraham), and not only plays favorites with the wives and concubines but with the sons. Since Jacob was by now insanely rich, I’m not surprised that the inheritance caused strife. If one of the sons were to inherit the bulk of the estate, the others would in fact have to bow to him. Still, it wasn’t very polite of Jacob to say so.

So, what if Joseph were born with the sense the Lord gave a sheep? What if he kept his mouth shut about the dreams, didn’t flaunt the coat, and persuaded his old man to make a will dividing the estate more or less evenly (or at least assuring each of his brothers the expectation of affluence)? Joseph might not have been sold down to Egypt, but would have come with the rest later, during the famine. Of course, without Joseph’s administrative gifts in service of Pharoah, it’s possible there would have been no grain to buy.

By the way, when Jacob wails over the bloody shirt, what if Isaac happens to remember that things aren’t always what they seem? Or what if Reuben breaks down and tells the old man what they had been planning? Could Jacob have tracked the boy down, or would he have gone broke trying? It seems like there’s a good deal of, well, relaxed grief here that may be about trusting the Lord but seems very, I don’t know. Passive.

And by the way, what if Joseph weren’t quite so hot? I mean, yes, OK, bored housewife having fun with the houseboy, but isn’t it, um, interesting how quickly the lad “finds grace” in Potiphar’s eyes (39:4) and how Potiphar puts his all into Joseph’s hand? And then, isn’t Joseph awfully popular in prison? I mean, this stuff is like Queer Eye for the Scriptural Guy; I can’t help it. Take 39:6, which if you’ll allow me a couple of minor punctuation changes reads “And he [Potiphar] left all that he had in Joseph's hand; and he knew not ought he had, save the bread which he did eat, and [that] Joseph was goodly, and well-favoured.” Well-favored. And then the prison warder gives the same impression of a man walking around dazed by ... Joseph. On the other hand, the Pharoah’s cup-bearer doesn’t remember Joseph at all, the little minx.

Where was I? Oh, yes. What if. Oddly enough, one of the most surprising things about Joseph’s decisions in this reading is that he doesn’t sleep with Potiphar’s wife. What if he had done? Would Potiphar have become rich and influential, bringing Joseph to Pharoah’s attention anyway? Or would have all ended in tears?

And, of course, there’s Tamar (38). Having not talked about Dinah last week, I can’t really talk about Tamar this week. Plus, of course, the story just sits there in the middle, not really fitting in. If Tamar or Judah or Onan had acted differently, then yes, the story would be different and the lineage of Pethahiah would have been different and so what? The Tamar story isn’t, in any straightforward way, illustrative of anything; it’s a hopping good story, though.

Thank you,
-Vardibidian.

The above has been edited to try to ensure that when YHB says Jacob, he means Jacob, and Joseph, Joseph, and not the other way around. Let my ayes be ayes, and my nays, nays, and so on.
-V.