Pensée juive sur Les Proverbes 28:14

(6) Reuben complained to the brothers that his intention had been to prevent them from committing any wrong altogether, not merely to prevent his brothers from killing Joseph outright. They had not treated him in accordance with his intention then, only in accordance with what he had dared to say at that time. (7) The conversation during which the brothers accused each other concerning their erstwhile treatment of Joseph did not take place in Joseph's presence. After having used the services of an interpreter, Joseph presumably left the room. The interpreter may have stayed behind on his own to offer some words of comfort to the brothers. While he was engaged in conversation with some of the brothers, others paying him no heed, they may have berated each other, unaware that the interpreter was straining to overhear the gist of their conversation also. The return of their money had never been intended to frighten them, but to encourage them into thinking that they had found sympathy in Joseph's eyes. Jacob chose to interpret it differently, along the lines of Proverbs 28,14, "Hail to the man who is constantly afraid." The words "sacks" and "bags" respectively, may be understood as follows. The large sacks were intended to hold grain, the smaller bags, fitted with pockets, were meant to carry various necessities for the journey, such as ropes etc., as well as their money supply. The bags were normally carried inside the larger sacks for added protection. Joseph may have instructed his servant to have the money placed inside their sacks, whereas the servant in charge of Joseph's household placed it in the bags containing the balance of their money and loading equipment, under part of the grain supply. Apparently, one bag was placed near the top of the sack so that when it was time to feed the animals, it would be found. This would keep the other brothers guessing if it had been an oversight or whether all of them had been framed. No doubt, they each looked inside their sacks, but not finding the money near the top, they did not want to waste any more time by unloading their entire grain supply. When they arrived back home, Jacob at first saw no particular danger, since the brothers had refrained from telling him about Joseph's threat that they would die if they did not bring Benjamin with them. Only after it had become clear that each one of them had had his money replaced in his sack, and that there could be no doubt that they had been carefully framed, did Jacob start to worry. His outburst "You have bereaved me" is perfectly natural then. When Joseph had their bags filled again, during their second trip, sacks are not mentioned at all. The emphasis is on their receiving so much in the way of food supplies, that even the bags normally used as containers for their own food, were put in service, and were presumably carried outside their sacks. When it eventually came to searching for the goblet, we only read that they quickly lowered their bags, opened them, an action that did not consume much time since the bags were not inside their sacks, as usual. When the brothers loaded their donkeys the first time (42,26), we read that "they lifted their (respective) grain purchases on their donkeys," implying that they helped each other adjust their respective heavy loads. The second time, after the search which resulted in the goblet being found in Benjamin's bag, it only says (44,13) "each one loaded his donkey," implying that the load could easily have been handled by each brother without assistance. The conclusion that "travelbags" are smaller than "sacks" is inescapable. (8) Reuben's offer to guarantee Benjamin's life with that of his own two sons, needs to be understood as follows. "I am prepared to accept Heavenly judgment concerning the life or death of my own two sons, if I fail to bring Benjamin back to you." Jacob understood this to mean that Reuben obviously did not consider the journey very dangerous. He refused the guarantee, pointing out that his own fears were based on the fact that he had already lost one son, and that since the Egyptian ruler had not made Benjamin's appearance a matter of life and death, it was not justifiable to expose Benjamin to such danger. However, once their food supply had run low, and Yehudah had to reveal the extent of Joseph's threat, which did make Benjamin's appearance a matter of life and death for all of them, Jacob could not risk all their lives in order to save the life of Benjamin from danger. He therefore reluctantly agreed to let Benjamin accompany the brothers. (2) At that point Yehudah had misrepresented the inquiries Joseph had made about their families in order to counter Jacob's question "Why did you do such an evil thing to me to tell the man about your family status etc?" Basically, Yehudah used the argument, "If you are faced with a certainty on one hand and a possibility on the other hand, you have to give prior consideration to the certainty." "Our collective death is a certainty if we stay here, whereas if we go down to Egypt, there is a chance that we will all return safely." The same argument is used by the king (Kings II 7,13) when it is a question of risking the last remaining five horses to investigate the condition of the army of Aram. (8) Yehudah's guarantee is different from Reuben's in that he himself offers to be the guarantor, not merely his sons. Having reconciled himself to the inevitable, Jacob resorts to prayer and gifts, just as he did at the time he faced Esau over twenty years previously. The comment that the money which had been returned in the brothers' sacks might have been the result of an error, is to be understood as follows: "Surely they must have noticed the error in the meantime, and are already waiting for you to bring back the money." Therefore, Jacob commanded the brothers to take a double supply of money to enable them to pay both for the last purchase for which they still owed, as well as for the grain to be purchased on this trip. Jacob's parting remark, "If I am to be bereaved, I shall be bereaved," is in line with our commentary on the words "for I will go down to my son mourning to the grave." This meant that by refusing to be consoled over his loss, Jacob wanted to make sure he would not expose himself to further grievous losses as punishment for his sins. Here, too, Jacob says that since he has been bereaved once, and still feels crushed by that bereavement, he is confident that he would not have to face another bereavement, such as harm befalling any one of the brothers. The correct translation of the verse then is: "as for me, since I have already been bereaved once, I shall remain thus bereaved" (not another). When the brothers arrived in Egypt, and Joseph noted that they had indeed brought Benjamin with them, he immediately hatched the plan of the trumped up charge that the goblet had been stolen. However, he had to engineer both the opportunity for the theft, as well as to find out if his father was still alive. The latter piece of information had not yet emerged from anything that the brothers had said. (9) A luncheon invitation at which the goblet would be used and would be shown as possessing magic qualities, would provide the motive for its theft. For that purpose, the brothers are led to Joseph's residence. Not being aware of that purpose, the brothers misinterpreted this turn of events, assuming they had been led there to be enslaved together with their animals, for the theft of the money. In order not to wait for an awkward interrogation, the brothers explain to the chamberlain in charge of Joseph's house what has happened. They changed the true sequence of events somewhat, claiming that all of them had found their money already during their return journey. In this manner they hoped to forestall the question why the brother who had found his money had not returned forthwith to return it. Since it would have been an unnecessary hardship on their families to have all returned once more, they had waited until their next trip to return this money. When Shimon was led out to them, and they had been reassured that Joseph's treasury had indeed received their original purchase money, so that the money they had found in their sacks must have been a treasure given to them by G-d, they felt more at ease and prepared the gifts they had brought along for Joseph, having heard that they would be his guests for lunch. When Joseph met them, he inquired about their father, having made sure that he used the brothers' own statement as the cue for this kindly interest. For that reason, he said, "Is your old father, of whom you have spoken still alive?" The brothers, distinguishing between "old" and "father," inform him that whereas their grandfather had passed on, their father was still alive and well (Pessachim 4). The reason Joseph did not share a table with his attendants was that the Egyptians who do not eat certain foods would feel outraged seeing Joseph eat such foods. The ruler, moreover, never shared a table with his subordinates, so that three separate tables were necessary, since the brothers also ate a diet abhorrent to the Egyptians. The brothers, according to their habit, seated themselves according to their ages. The servants of Joseph, eating with them wondered why these travellers should be so honored as to be entertained by their ruler. (10) When their bags were filled with grain, including those bags not normally filled with grain, their money was returned to them, presumably to compensate them for the distress of having been accused as spies. However, hiding the goblet in Benjamin's bag was accomplished without anyone becoming aware of it, and the ensuing drama was meant to test the brothers' feelings toward Benjamin as a son of Rachel. The emphasis in the words "my goblet, the silver goblet," stresses that although the goblet is only made of silver, not gold, like most of Joseph's other utensils, it possessed additional qualities which had prompted Joseph to pursue the brothers and conduct a search, despite the fact that as a trinket the goblet was inexpensive. (11) The brothers' argument that they had already proved their honesty by having returned the money they had found in their sacks after their first trip, was accepted conditionally. However, if perchance one of them should be found to have the goblet in his possession, the trustworthiness of that individual would have been destroyed. An accused person can conduct his defense based on any or all of three premises. He can compile a list of all his meritorious deeds which are unknown to the judge and which have a bearing on the matter he is accused of. Secondly, the accused can use logic to convince the judge to deal with him in an understanding manner; thirdly, he can deny having committed the offense he is being accused of, claiming he had become the victim of violence or a frame up. (12+13) Yehudah made reference to all three arguments. Concerning the excellence of Benjamin's character, he said "What can we say to my lord?" He meant that since Joseph knew the true facts, and was aware of the trumped up nature of the charges, any defense would be futile. Concerning argument number two "What could we state?", this means, "We have no merits to offer in our defense;" concerning argument number three, Yehudah said, "What can we say to justify ourselves," seeing the stolen object has been found in our possession. Since the brothers had first said that if one of them would be found with the goblet, he would have to die, Yehudah now said, "The judge has found your servants guilty," servants in the plural, i.e. take us all as servants, since it would be on account of our comment that the one would be guilty of death. At least comfort us by accepting us all as your slaves. Alternately, the word elokim is a reference to G-d having punished us now for sins we have committed independently of this affair with the goblet. Yehudah hinted that they had once sold their brother as a slave; now they wanted to atone for this by becoming slaves as well as their youngest brother who had become enmeshed in that whole affair because of the wrongdoing of his older brothers. This in spite of the fact that the goblet had been found in his bag, Joseph's reply was that though the thief was indeed guilty of being put to death, it was his privilege to reduce the penalty, seeing that no one else had been hurt by the accused's crime. He would certainly not punish those who had not committed a crime.

The Ramban's approach that, having refused to repent during the first five plagues, Pharaoh was no longer entitled to repentance, is also not considered satisfactory, even though it is based on Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in Shemot Rabbah 17. The proof for that view, namely the changes in grammar describing Pharaoh's obstinacy during the first five plagues as being self-induced, and that during subsequent plagues as being induced by G-d, (distinctions such as vayechezak versus vayachazek- 7,15, 9,12) would force us to believe that Moses was told in advance that at some stage Pharaoh would no longer be a free agent, that because he only mouthed thoughts of repentance without meaning them, G-d would force him to act in accordance with his true feelings. This is also what Rashi meant in his commentary on Exodus 7,3. The problem with this approach is that if G-d knows that the sinner does not plan to repent, why interfere with his decisions? His actions would automatically expose him to further punitive action by G-d. Surely it would be viewed as a greater success for G-d if His creatures are forced by circumstances to comply with His wishes! If this is indeed what happened after the tenth plague, what reason do we have to assume that Pharaoh's last pronouncement was any more sincere than his earlier ones? In fact, G-d would have delayed the deliverance of the Israelites by having interfered with Pharaoh's free will! For this and other reasons, the author prefers an approach supported by many Midrashim which state clearly that there had been no interference with Pharaoh's free will. Any person guilty of a variety of crimes, deserves a number of penalties to square the account. Even a single act can be a multiple offense, punishable by several penalties, such as the consumption of a hornet (Makkot 16). Pharaoh, having committed a variety of crimes against the Jewish people, had to endure a string of chastisements. Intervals between administering these various punishments were needed, so that he did not escape the impact by being unconscious at the time some of the punishments were inflicted. When each stage of the punishment is not as severe as it could be, namely resulting in probable death, the victim is far less likely to really repent. The major incentive for repentance is fear and terror. When this incentive is absent, the psychological climate for remorse has not been created. When the Torah in Deut 13,12 says, "All of Israel shall listen and be afraid, and will not continue to do such in your midst," the objective is twofold: a) destruction of evil by destroying the perpetrator; b) to frighten the population out of imitating the wrongdoer. Were the wrongdoer to be welcomed as a repentant sinner, all the onlookers would lose all their restraint and proceed to sin and expect to escape the consequences. This is the reason Moses’ss and Aaron's repentance did not help when they had publicly desecrated G-d’s name by striking the rock instead of talking to it (Numbers 20,12). Our sages (Yuma 86) tell us that when a sin includes chilul hashem, public desecration of the holy name of G-d, all the conventional ways of repentance do not help without the addition of the sinner's death. Only in this manner can atonement become complete. In Pharaoh's case, a period of respite between the plagues was mandatory, as otherwise he would not have received all the chastisements due him. The crimes of maltreating a people whose founder had been the savior of Egypt and whose only crime against Egypt had been their high birthrate, is unforgivable. The progressively harsher measures enacted against this people called for strong punitive action by G-d. The "great judgments" of which G-d speaks to Moses at the burning bush are these acts of multiple retribution. The Egyptians had been aware that the Jewish people were loyal to their G-d. Their whole behavior then was a rebellion against G-d, and as such it was not likely to lead to repentance. Since it was G-d’s stated purpose to convince the Egyptians that He was (1) a deity, (2) a power controlling the earth, and (3) a deity the like of which did not exist on the whole earth, the torture visited upon Egypt had to be staggered in such a way as to allow the Egyptians to recover from blow after blow and to absorb their lesson in the end. All the references made in the Torah to G-d hardening the heart of Pharaoh etc. have to be understood as the recovery Pharaoh was allowed to make between the plagues, so he could be made to feel the full impact of the next instalment. The Talmud in Makkot 10 produces proof from all parts of the Bible that the path in life a person wishes to take he is allowed to travel, i.e. freedom of choice is absolute. An example is the prophet Bileam who was first told by G-d not to accompany the messengers of Balak, but who, once it had become clear that he had made up his mind to go with them, was permitted to proceed (Numbers 22,12-20). The reference of Avshalom preferring the advice of Chushai, (Samuel II 17,14) is another such example. The classic example would be the deliberate turnabout by the Jewish people in the desert when facing Baal Tzefon (Exodus 14,1-3). All these examples illustrate that G-d does indeed provide opportunities for sinners to err, to draw false conclusions which will enmesh them in further difficulties. At the sea of reeds also the Egyptians chose to interpret that a twelve hour wind that had dried out the bed of the sea was a natural phenomenon and that the bottom of the sea was as safe for them as it had proved to be for the Israelites. It was in this indirect manner that G-d encouraged the Egyptians to fall into the trap He had set for them.

The story of Creation teaches that belief in fatalism is wrong. Since the Creator was free to create at that time, He will forever remain free to change His world and its laws whenever it pleases Him. (compare chapter 1 and chapter 15) Fear then is predicated on the assumption that what is dreaded need not necessarily happen, or need not necessarily fail to happen, since the ultimate decision is within the province of G'ds will and Power. We are therefore asked by the Torah not to relate to anything from a fatalistic point of view. We are asked to fear Him, just because He is able to either halt or precipitate the very events which we dread. Fear is the opposite of resignation then. If one were to assume that misconduct by man would inevitably result in retribution by G'd, then fear, which is the catalyst of repentance, would be replaced by resignation, and repentance would become almost impossible. (Chagigah 15, telling about the apostate Elisha ben Avuyah is a prime example of this approach). The latter had heard that the gates of repentance would be closed to him, and had therefore lost his incentive to do penitence, and to re-acquire the yir-ah expected of us. In his prayer, during the inauguration ceremonies of the temple, king Solomon used this very argument, lema-an yira-ucha, in order that they may fear You as long as they live on this earth." (Kings I 8.37-40) Concerning this "fear,"- which is identical with faith,- Rabbi Chaninah proclaims that whereas all is within the power of Heaven, imbuing someone with this faith is not within the power of Heaven, but is solely up to the believer himself. For this reason, Abraham was given credit for having believed in the promise that he would sire children. "He believed G'd, and He considered it an act of righteousness on Abraham's part." (Genesis 15,6) This faith could not have been supplied by G'd, but had to be an act of willpower on the part of Abraham himself. He was the first philosopher who found his way to this yir-ah/emunah, as is recorded of him after the akeydah, the binding of Isaac. (Genesis 22,12) "For now I know that you are G'd fearing." After all, this is the goal of all our striving, as Solomon proclaims at the end of his book Kohelet: "In conlusison, after all is said and done, fear the Lord, observe His commandments because this is the sum total of being a human being " There is a third variety of fear that is composed of an intelligent awareness of the fact that if one does not take adequate precautions against known dangers, disastrous consequences may result. This fear, while recognising the dangers of inaction or lack of preparedness, is nevertheless not due to a fatalistic outlook. It is therefore fear, not resignation. The intelligence involved stems from the recognition of a free G'd as the ultimate cause of events, events which He can control, but that man can influence directly. If a king threatens a subject with jail unless said subject carries out certain orders, such conduct is autocratic and deprives the subject of any meaningful choice. If, on the other hand, the king points out that strike action by the subject would result in his losing income, his family going hungry etc., this would not really be called putting the subject under duress. A person doing the right thing under such circumstances falls into the category of "who is clever? he who can foresee the consequences." (Tamid 32) The fear experienced by such individuals is based on an intelligent appraisal of the options open to them in the long run. When Moses realised that his killing of the Egyptian had been witnessed, (Exodus 2,14) he became afraid, not resigned, and took action to escape the consequences. When our sages in Avot 3,21, say "where there is no wisdom, there is no fear, and where there is no fear, there cannot be any wisdom," this is what they had in mind. He who is intellectually unaware of what the future may hold, cannot relate to it with fear. On the other hand, he who is insensitive to what the future may hold, is obviously devoid of wisdom. Fear of the type described, is fear of becoming the architect of one's own misfortune, seeing that the Torah tells us that we will be punished for our sins. Since no one is completely free from sin, no one should be completely free from this fear. Just as an invalid whose doctor prescribes abstention from certain foods to avoid harming his condition, will not consider himself under compulsion, so a Jew whose Torah forbids matters which would endanger his physical and spiritual survival cannot consider himself as observing Torah under duress. In this way we understand Moses' address to the people at the time of matan Torah, the giving of the Torah, (Exodus chapter twenty) when he said "do not be afraid; in order to test you did the Lord come; and in order that the fear of Him shall be upon you so that you will not sin." (verse 17). Although, at first glance these lines seem self contradictory, the fact is that they are exhortations not to relate to G'd with the wrong kind of fear. The result of the revelation was that Israel realised that it was possible to witness the glory of G'd and yet to remain physically alive. We were elevated from the purely instinctive, animalistic dread. Our concepts were raised to a level that afforded us an inkling of His grandeur, not like the beasts around us. This kind of fear fills one with a degree of joy, as David expresses it in Psalm 2,11, "serve the Lord in fear, rejoice even while trembling." With this thought one can also resolve the contradiction in Psalm 76,9 "from the Heavens you have heard judgment, the earth was afraid and calm." How can calmness be a product of fear or vice versa? As long as the earth had not heard that Israel had accepted the Torah, she had been concerned about her own future. Once she heard that Israel had spoken the words "We shall do and we shall listen," the earth became calm, knowing her own future was assured. In other words, joy is the product of the right kind of fear at the right place at the right time. Going back to our opening Midrash, we can appreciate now how the attainment for the kind of fear we have described was truly a minor accomplishment for Moses. The Torah has taught us this concept meanwhile in so many ways, that we can no longer claim that the attainment of such "fear" as Moses achieved without the help of the Torah, is really such an unattainable goal for the Jewish masses who enjoy the benefit of Torah and its teachings.