Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Parshat Vayigash

When Joseph Feudalized Egypt (Genesis 47) - Questions by Joel Cohen

Joseph created an ingenious plan to store crops during the seven years of abundance. He did so by accepting the crops from the landowners and farmers in Egypt and then storing them in the warehouses that he set aside for the purpose.
But then the years of famine arrived, and Egypt cried out in starvation (“Give us bread; why should we die in your presence?”) So, Joseph demanded that the Egyptians bring to him, for that year, all their livestock and cattle, and in return he would provide them with bread. When the year ended and they began to hunger again in the next year, they once again begged Joseph for provisions, lest they die of starvation. Their livestock having been given over to Joseph previously they had none to give, and so they offered their land to Pharaoh and, furthermore, offered to become his serfs. Thusly, Joseph obtained all of the land that belonged to the people for Pharaoh (aside from the land that belonged to the priests). True, he did give them seed, but retained one-fifth of the harvests for Pharaoh, allowing the people to keep only four-fifths of the harvests. And most important here, the land remained Pharaoh’s.
• Joseph’s conduct seems questionable and despotic indeed. He did create an ingenious plan to save the populace in anticipating years of famine; but, in so doing, he took the landowners’ and farmers’ crops for Pharaoh’s storehouses. When the landowners and farmers, however, needed the benefits of his brilliance during the “famine years” it seems that he extorted all of their livestock, and then their land also. Are these the actions of a “righteous” man?
• If a 21st Century despot were to do to his populace what Joseph did to Egypt, we would sorely condemn him. Why do the rabbis not condemn Joseph for this conduct? Is it simply because the “victims” of Joseph’s scheme were Egyptian?

Rabbi Adam Mintz


There are many tools that have been used to help us understand the difficult sections of the Torah. While we most often turn to our traditional commentaries, it is sometimes helpful to explore the practice of the Ancient World in order to gain insight into practices described by the Torah. In answering Joel’s questions and looking at Joseph’s actions as viceroy of Egypt, I would like to examine the Egyptian culture of the time.

The Torah seems to describe a two step process as Joel mentioned. First, the people give Joseph their livestock in exchange for food and then they give Joseph their land in exchange for food. The Torah tells us that the food from the first exchange was used up “at the end of the first year”. However, we have no reference point to “the first year” of what? Was it the first year of the famine so that they still had six years of famine to deal with or maybe this passuk picks up the story in the middle and the end of the first year represents the beginning of the final year of the famine. This would mean the people made the deal to exchange land for food since they knew that this last step would see them to the end of the famine.

While both these readings are plausible, the most important aspect of this story is the understanding that Egyptian records claim that in Ancient Egypt, from about the 16th century BCE, which roughly corresponds to the period of Joseph, while people were permitted to own their own land, most of the land was the property of the king. If this is so, Joseph’s deal to acquire the rest of the property in exchange for food was not the action of an unsympathetic despot but someone who was working within the ancient system of laws and customs. Whether there is a system of ethics that transcends time and place is an important philosophical and religious issue. However, in judging the figures of the past, we must base our judgment on the traditions and practices of the culture in which they lived.

Eli Popack

There is possibly an added lesson that can be derived from this discussion. In this weeks Parsha we read about the beginning of the process that leads to the Slavery in Egypt, the arrival of Jacob and his family in Egypt. One of the curious things about the Egyptian exile is the importance attached to the material wealth that the Jewish people carried out of Egypt. In the covenant G-d made with Abraham, the Egyptian Slavery is described as follows: “Know thee that your children shall be strangers in a foreign land, [where] they will be enslaved and tortured ... and afterwards they will go out with great wealth.”

Again when G-d first approaches Moshe at the burning bush this promise is reiterated, “when you go, you will not go empty-handed. Every woman shall ask from her neighbor, and from her that dwells in her house, vessels of gold and vessels of silver and garments ... and you shall drain Egypt [of its wealth].” Prior to the Exodus, G-d again says to Moshe: “Please, speak into the ears of the people, that each man ask his [Egyptian] fellow, and each woman her fellow, for vessels of silver and gold.” What is this obsession that G-d seems to have with the wealth of Egypt?

According to Chassidic Thought Every Physical item has a spark of G-dliness that can be uplifted by using that item for a positive action or in the service of G-d. This is also what differentiates people from angels. People have the ability to uplift a physical object, episode or interaction by sanctifying that moment, by doing a mitzvah, while Angels are “relegated” to a spiritual world.

Each of us as the ability to make a marked difference in this world, a difference that even an Angel cannot accomplish and it is specifically through uplifting our physical environs. Specifically through using the "Gold and Silver of Egypt", seemingly negative items from an impure source, for good, through positive actions and deeds of Goodness and Kindness.

2 comments:

JUST A GUY said...

Joseph the Provider:
In the latter part of this parshah, we turn from the family drama to larger issues: of economy, social welfare, of the role of state. In Chapter 47 we read how, with Joseph’s help and planning, the free peasant population of Egypt gradually lose all they own: first their money, then their livestock, and finally their land and even their very bodies. They are then moved to the cities, and become serfs of Pharaoh. Perhaps this chapter may be read as an etiology of feudalism: describing how a presumably once-free people became subservient to a powerful, centralized, well-organized government that turns a tragedy to its own advantage. It is interesting to read this chapter in light of Leviticus 25, which presents a radically egalitarian vision of society, in which it is clear, through the institutions of shmitah and yovel (sabbatical and jubilee years), that money, property, and private ownership are not absolute values.
Two mitigating points. First: that the ancient world can’t really be judged by the standards of the 20th century: it wasn’t Joseph’s or Pharaoh s fault that neither of them were FDR. Second: that Yosef nevertheless found a way to assure that the population wouldn’t die.

The second test of Yosef's mature years involved the setting up of the agrarian administration in Egypt. He saved the people from starvation, but concentrated wealth in Pharaoh’s hands. Was he an Egyptian FDR, as Thomas Mann portrays him, or the founder of a cruel, autocratic feudal system? What can be said with certainty is that once again we encounter the ambivalent nature of Joseph’s leadership, the admixture of power and egotism with genuine kindness, concern, and the attempt to do good.

A final word about the concept of Yosef ha-Tzaddik, “Joseph the Righteous.” One way of understanding this is after the Kabbalistic definition of tzaddik: not as a “perfect,” sinless person, but as a source of blessing, plentitude, etc. Joseph, and the Tzaddik generally, is a father figure, caring for his extended family and progeny. This is also the connection to the sefirah of Yesod, and to the symbolism of the phallus: Tzaddik as a conduit of life-giving power, the ”channel” through which Divine energy flows down into the world, and the human counterpart thereof. In this reading, it is not the individual’s moral perfection that is important, but that he is the life-giver. Joseph’s role in helping the Egyptian people to survive the great famine, as well as his help to his own family, dovetail perfectly with this conception. The leit-motif here is, hu hamashbir lekol am haaretz; he is the sustainer of all the people of the land” (42:6)

Levi said...

Joel,
Joseph was essentially bailing out the agricultural infrastructure, and in order to insure further efficient management he instituted the government as majority holder, and on the contrary he was righteous indeed by only demanding 20% of the gross profit despite his share majority. It was Nationalization with more than appropriate compensation.
You also suggest that “If a 21st Century despot were to do to his populace what Joseph did to Egypt, we would sorely condemn him”
Well congress is debating that.

Rabbi Mintz,
You make a good point, however the Torah is eternal, the morals and ethics exceed particular periods in time.
Yet, while we do face similar difficulties with many of the commandments, your approach does shed light on the story.

Reb’ Eli,
It would be interesting to know if there is any mention somewhere in da”ch of Joseph’s intention to gather “the spark”.

Just a guy,
Thanks for the lesson on Josephean economics and political science.
I guess Joseph was a bit a head of FDR he foresaw the credit collapse and consequently bartered his commodities for real estate.
And for your second point, why the certainty? Joseph was possibly a mere trustee, despite the ingenious idea being his own.