Showing posts with label Tanach: Yosef. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tanach: Yosef. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

A Tale of Two Tunics

I have a feeling I'm going to get in trouble for the following piece, but I like it too much to keep it to myself...


Bereishit is filled with haberdashery, from Eden chic to Esav's treasured garb, to Tamar's costume, to Yosef's palace ensemble. The clothing of Bereishit protects, conceals, deceives and honours. Perhaps the best-known clothing in this book, though, is Yosef's Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, a.k.a. his ketonet pasim.

Yosef's tunic is not the only biblical ketonet, though; another ketonet is a critical part of the kohen's uniform. (Shemot 28:39-40) Indeed, the Talmud connects these two ketonet garments explicitly, saying: "The kohen's ketonet atones for bloodshed, as Bereishit 37:31 says, 'And they slaughtered a goat, and they dipped [Yosef's] ketonet in the blood.'" (Zevachim 88b)

The talmudic logic seems to be that Yosef's brothers dipped his ketonet in blood to provide "evidence" of his death, and so the kohen's ketonet atones for bloodshed. This formula is odd on many levels, but here is a basic challenge: We are taught (Rosh haShanah 26a) that an entity which represents a person's criminality cannot also defend him. For example, the Kohen Gadol does not wear gold when he enters the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur; gold is reminiscent of the Golden Calf. So how can the kohen's ketonet simultaneously recall the bloody deception surrounding the sale of Yosef, and yet atone for bloodshed?

Let us look more closely at the sale of Yosef. The sons of Leah may have shunned Yosef because of Rachel. (Bereishit 37:2) They may have been turned off by Yosef's reports on their bad behaviour. (ibid.) Certainly, they were antagonized by Yosef's dreams. (ibid. 37:5-11) However, a passage in the Talmud (Shabbat 10b) contends that the sale of Yosef was actually triggered by two sela of wool, which marked his ketonet as unique.

As depicted in that talmudic passage and in Rashi's commentary there, Yosef's ketonet was not luxurious, and the brothers would not have envied such a small difference. Rather, the brothers were outraged by the fact that there was any difference, that Yaakov had marked this son as holding a unique role that they could not share. In their eyes, setting Yosef apart was an unjust attack on their legitimate membership in the family.

Long before the Enlightenment taught humanity to question received tradition regarding class and gender identities, Korach (Bamidbar 16) and King Uziahu (Divrei haYamim II 26) challenged the law that one must descend from Aharon in order to act as a kohen. Today, it is nearly universally axiomatic that "separate but equal" is unjust; as Justice Earl Warren wrote, separate is "inherently unequal." Our sense of fair play demands that human beings choose their destinations. Thus it is no surprise that Yosef's brothers would resent Yaakov's act of segregation, and that the Talmud would criticize it.

On the other hand, separation is fundamental to Judaism. At the genesis of Creation, G-d separates light and darkness, land and sea, and He stresses that life forms are to exist "according to their species". G-d separates Avraham and Sarah from their family. G-d says of the Jews, "I have separated you from the nations" (Vayikra 20:26), and then He separates the Levites from the rest of us. (Bamidbar 8:14) How can we expect a humanity which resists segregation to respect a religion which sanctifies it? How can the same ketonet represent the flawed separation of Yosef, and the sanctified separation of the kohen?

Perhaps a meaningful difference between flawed separation and acceptable separation is the identity of the Separator. As the Talmud Yerushalmi (Berachot 5:2) notes, establishing distinctions requires intelligence – and establishing distinctions which shape the lives of human beings requires the Supreme Intelligence of Hashem. Hashem is the One who distinguishes between sacred and mundane, between light and dark, between the Jews and the nations, and between the seventh day and the six days of creative activity.

The kohen's ketonet highlights Divine separation. True, the ketonet represents the bloodshed which resulted from separating Yosef. However, in donning this tunic the kohen restores the power of separation to G-d, righting an ancient wrong. Further, the nation that accepts the kohen demonstrates its acceptance of legitimate, Divine separation. [And see Talmud Yerushalmi Yoma 7:3, which adds that the ketonet also atones for kilayim – a mixing of species which G-d has deemed separate.]

Realistically, life requires that we assign roles, defining confidants, spouses, political leaders, religious authorities, and so on. We need to define eligibility. But to the extent possible, we must respect the impact of distinctions, and practice humility, minimizing our meddling. G-d has assigned different roles to different nations, to different families of Israel, and to different genders; may we refrain from arrogating the power of segregation and creating novel restrictions and boundaries. May we channel our efforts into accepting our Divinely assigned roles, and fulfilling the tasks vouchsafed to us.


Sunday, February 21, 2010

Rabbi Motti Elon, Rabbi Leib Tropper, and our Yosef Mistake

[This week’s Haveil Havalim is here]

The more I think about the scandals of Rabbi Elon this past week, and Rabbi Tropper a short while ago, the more I believe that the Jewish world makes two mistakes:

1. We have a very low bar for entering leadership

Many people have desires which go unfulfilled because they lack opportunity. Admired leaders, whether overseers of conversion processes or heads of yeshivot and seminaries, have that opportunity on a daily basis. We should be doing more to vet people before putting them in those positions of opportunity.

I’ve actually believed this for a long time, ever since I was put in charge of various things at a pretty young age. A leader, a Gadol, someone we will trust with our institutions as well as our hopes, cannot be a work in progress other than in his own humble mind.

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that we hunger for leaders. We look at generations past and see their great figures, we look at the recent ones, like Rav Moshe Feinstein, and we long for their kind. And so we look to people who have yet to prove themselves, and we make them leaders. But Rav Moshe, to use him as an example, was a long time in the making, decades before he was recognized as a leader.

A leader should spend decades proving himself before the nation turns to him with that level of respect and trust. In learning, in chesed, in publishing, in apprenticing, a potential leader must prove himself before we place the Jewish world, and our trust, in his hands a la וגם בך יאמינו לעולם (Shemot 19:9).


2. On adultery, we overstate Yosef’s greatness

The Torah portrays Yosef passing the test of Potiphar’s wife (Bereishit 39) with little hyperbole. Yosef went to work, she approached him, Yosef ran away. Gittin 57a also notes that Yosef's deed was a one-time event; righteous, certainly, but not truly heroic.

We, on the other hand, play it up as an incredible deed, this refusal to commit adultery with the wife of his employer.

I wonder whether this hyperbole doesn’t provide a subtle heter (permission) for adulterers: “Well, Yosef was a great tzaddik, and that’s why he didn’t stumble; I’m not Yosef, it’s not the greatest problem if I stumble once or twice.”

I know you could (and perhaps should) argue the point, but I’m just wondering about it.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Happy Birthday! A Jewish view on loss

[Haveil Havalim is here!]

Yes, it’s my birthday. That means I am now – shudder – 37.

Why is 37 a number to cause shuddering?

You can watch the "Holy Grail" video here (the big line is actually at the 37-second mark. Coincidence?), or read the dialogue (which is not really funny without the video):

King Arthur: Old woman!
Dennis: Man.
King Arthur: Man, sorry. What knight lives in that castle over there?
Dennis: I'm 37.
King Arthur: What?
Dennis: I'm 37. I'm not old!
King Arthur: Well I can't just call you man.
Dennis: Well you could say Dennis.
King Arthur: I didn't know you were called Dennis.
Dennis: Well, you didn't bother to find out, did you?

You go, Dennis!

So I celebrated my birthday by teaching a class this morning on a Jewish View of Loss – rather appropriate, as I watch my youth fade in the rear-view mirror.

My thesis for the class was simple:
1) Tanach and Talmud argue that everything we possess, all of our circumstances and the various elements of our lives, are given to us by Gd, whether through explicit Divine directive or through the backdoor of Divinely-ordained mazal.

2) Any transition involves the loss of an old set of circumstances.

3) It is axiomatic - and see Niddah 16b for an example of this - that Gd’s goal in arranging these sets of circumstances is to present me with a set of opportunities. So with every transition, I need to examine my new circumstances and decide how best to function in this new world.


I see three steps for achieving that successful transition:
First) I need to ascertain that there has been a loss. Other than in the case of death, many circumstances of loss - deterioration of a relationship, for example - are less clear in their finality.

Second) I need to endure a period of grief for what I have lost; as Pirkei Avos reminds us, we don't appease angry people in their moment of greatest rage and we don't comfort a mourner before a funeral. There must be an opportunity to mourn for the lost circumstance.

Third) Then, I am capable of accepting this change, and studying and meeting the new challenge.


Yosef and Esther are my main models for this – each suffers multi-level losses, but each comes to a stage of acceptance and then meets the new challenges.

Yosef loses his mother, the love of his brothers, his father, his homeland, his freedom, his place in Potifar's house, and his dignity - and, every step of the way, succeeds in his new situation.

Esther loses her parents, her Jewish environment, her safety and the safety of her nation - and yet, she succeeds repeatedly.

Both Esther and Yosef accept the loss of their old circumstances and figure out how to succeed in their new lives.


And beyond Esther and Yosef, Tanach gives us many models for negatively and positively dealing with transition/loss:

Control
Paroh loses control of his situation, but struggles to reverse it.
Shlomo (in קהלת) recognizes his own loss of control of success and the future, and humbly accepts his lack of control.

Power
King Shaul loses his power, but struggles to preserve it.
King David loses his power, and develops new strategies for survival.

Relationship with Gd
Kayin loses his relationship with Gd, but seeks to force Gd to accept his offering.
Iyyov (Job) loses his relationship with Gd, and (Chapter 42) apologies and starts from scratch.

Economic security
Elimelech loses economic security, but seeks to preserve that wealth by moving to Moav.
Yosef loses economic security, and seeks to help others (the butler and baker) in prison.


For me, the passing of an age milestone, a simple number, brings home the finality of aging. I need to resign myself to the passing of 36, and ask myself how my circumstances have changed, and how to move ahead productively.

BUT: Not yet!
Technically, I have until my "real" birthday - 7 Adar - to accustom myself to this loss. So 36 it is, for a little while longer...

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Daf: Sotah 12-14

Sorry to take so long before posting another installment. There is so much to say on these pages, and so little time to type it up. As always, you'll really need a gemara in front of you to see what I am discussing.

12a
See Tosafot Acheirim

Tosafot cheimar suggests that Moshe's boat was camoflagued in the reeds because the tar and pitch linings were on the inside. This is interesting, b/c it magnifies the miracle that Bat Paroh saw the boat at all!

12b
How can Moshe say that the Jewish babies were saved because he was cast into the water – the whole decree to throw the kids in the water was because of him! See Tosafot and Maharsha, who both address the issue.

The question of “How could Moshe get hurt on the water if he will sing to Gd on the water one day” is odd; what is the connection? Especially as this may not be yam suf! (It is reminiscent of a gemara in Taanit, though, regarding a ditch-digger whose daughter fell in a ditch and was protected by his merit.)

How could you have had a 'leap month' in those days? They haven't even learned HaChodesh haZeh Lachem! Reminiscent of Seder Olam that the sod haibbur was passed down from Adam and Chavah.

The issue of nursing from an eater of treif is interesting - see Rav Schachter's noteworthy comment in this issue, cited in my post here.

13a
The gemara here, per Rashi on the 36 crowns, assumes that the two Korachs mentioned in the lineage of Esav in Bereishit 36 are different people – but see Rashi to Bereishit 36:5, where he says that they are the same person.

Did the children of Keturah come for Yaakov’s funeral? Rashi does not think so, but Tosafot Shantz does.

See the Maharsha on the mourning of the horses and donkeys (which, of course, is reminiscent of the city of Nineveh).

I have difficulty understanding why the Gemara here seems to criticize the Jews for being involved in taking the spoils of Egypt, when Berachot 9a, based on דבר נא in Shmot 11, indicates that HaShem had to plead with them to take spoils! (Unless the plea is from before the actual departure, and then they “got into it” afterward, while Moshe was getting Yosef’s body?)

13b
Note that the line קיים זה כל מה שכתוב בזה is the source for burying a Torah scroll with a righteous person.

Interesting transition in the line about Yosef being returned to Shechem. Yosef is “stolen” from Shechem, and returned to Shechem as a “lost object” – removing the human agency and blame from the picture. And is he Yaakov’s lost object?

Of course, the Torah seems to indicate that Yosef was removed from Dotan, not Shechem, but see Rashi here.

The gemara here seems to pin the death of Er and Onan on Yehudah, instead of on their own famous sins. Perhaps it’s that Yehudah’s problem made them vulnerable to punishment?

Interesting: Yaakov’s degradation comes from others (who call him Yosef’s servant), but Yosef’s degradation, which is a punishment of sorts for him, comes from himself (when he calls himself ‘bones’). Recall the gemara in Taanit regarding placing ash on the heads of the sages on a public fast – degradation is worse when it comes from others.

Note that although Moshe dies at 120, that is not a source for saying that 120 is a maximum on people’s lives. I hope to post on this issue soon, but for now see Tosafot Bava Batra 113a ומטו.

14a
Rashi renders גסטרא here as a ruler, but note the usual translation of a split or broken receptacle.

Regarding the Bach’s note א, recall that there is a midrash in which Moshe does attempt to bring the Jews back to Israel after their exile.

We see here the idea of a grave being a significant place for prayer.

Here our patriarchs are called עצומים, mighty ones; this is parallel to the term איתנים used for them in the gemara toward the beginning of Rosh HaShanah on ירח האיתנים.

Tosafot כדי on “דורשין טעמא דקרא” makes the important distinction between analyzing the deeper meaning of pesukim for ethical lessons and analyzing the deeper meaning of pesukim for lessons which may affect the way we fulfill a mitzvah. See also Hirsch’s introduction to Horeb.

14b
Regarding the “face of the altar” see Tosafot Shantz as well as Rashi Zevachim 62a.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Daf: Nazir 64-66

This concludes our Nazir comments. Some interesting material in here, but - as always - it will be more intelligible with a Gemara in your hands.

64a
Pseudo-Rashi, at the bottom of the page, says that water containing the ashes of the פרה אדומה would be dense, and therefore would float atop regular water. I’m not sure of the science here, but that seems a bit odd. Rashi was an experimenter, as noted in his commentary to the chumash (such as in his comments to Shemot 16:14 on the evaporation of dew from inside an eggshell), so I’m not sure he would have written this at all.
Perhaps the ashes would have some grease from the פרה אדומה, and would therefore have a floating film?

64b
The words ותיפטר משתיהן seem very odd here.

Also, we should probably have ואמר רב כהנא just below that, since it’s mid-sentence.

65a
See Tosafos אחד on why we would, or would not, identify an area as a cemetery based on one known body and two newly discovered bodies.

The description of Yosef’s removal from Egypt is cited as a source, or perhaps אסמכתא, for taking out more than just the body itself, but some area around it as well. This is problematic for two reasons:
1) Yosef was embalmed, and therefore he would not have decayed.
2) As the Tosafos Yom Tov (cited in the inside margin) notes, the midrash says that Yosef was not buried in earth at all, but in a box in the Nile.

The verb of פירש associated with R’ Elazar reminds me of פריך ר' אחאי and Tosafos’s comment (Ketuvot 2b) about specific verbs being associated with specific sages.

Note the debate between Tosafos and pseudo-Rashi as to the definition of קססות. The Rosh has a view that these are spices placed with the body; this was done in Talmudic times in order to dispel the aroma of decay.

65b
Note the debate between pseudo-Rashi and the Rosh about the definition of the word עילא. The "cause" definition takes it as עילה.

On the list of 7 things which may cause זיבה, one of them is called מראה. Pseudo-Rashi and Rosh (printed on 66a) disagree as to the nature of מראה.

66a
It seems that Chanah prays for Shemuel to not fear other people; this seems to indicate that many traits of character are Gd-given, or at least Gd-influenced. This fits the idea that HaShem creates us with traits, and our job is to balance those traits. Our Free Will is in the balancing act we perform.

Note that in translating מורה as fear, we equate it with מורא, a very different root.

66b
The Rosh says that the rule here for grabbing the “cup of blessing” applies not just here, but to all blessings.

The issue here of whether it is better to recite a blessing or to listen and respond Amen is particularly interesting in light of the view of Aruch haShulchan and Mishneh Berurah that when many families dine together, only one should recite Kiddush and the rest should answer Amen.

On to Sotah!

Friday, April 25, 2008

Daf: Nazir 44-47

More notes, some of which may actually be interesting for non-daffies to read. At any rate, writing these up is good chazarah for me.

44a
An interesting note on exhuming a body – per Tosafos ובאו, R’ Yitzchak wanted to exhume his father’s body in order to bury it with the bodies of the rest of his family. This is, indeed, one of the few justifications for exhuming a body: to unite a family.

The name R’ Yehoshua ben Elisha is unfamiliar; note that the Rosh had it as the much more common R’ Yishmael ben Elisha. (Per Tosafos toward the beginning of Yevamos, there were at least three figures named R’ Yishmael ben Elisha.)

45a
Towards the top of the page, where Abayye says a טבול יום is like a זב, the Rosh has a significant change: A טבול יום is not like a זב.

Here we are told that Moshe carried Yosef’s body with him in the camp of the leviyyim. Note, though, that Yosef was actually transported through the midbar by others, per Succah 25, and that this triggered the need for Pesach Sheni! However, our gemara could be within the view that Pesach Sheni was actually triggered by the kohanim who had carried Nadav and Avihu from the mishkan.

The Zav is called a מחוסר כפרה, but the Nazir is not. Perhaps this is because the nazir’s korbanos are to re-start his nezirus, and not to conclude his tumah. (Although I’m not sure how R’ Eliezer would react to this; he said the Nazir already starts his new count after completing the 7 days of taharah…)

We seem to be conflicted here as to whether shaving at the entrance to the mishkan/mikdash is considered degrading to the sanctity of the place, or not. According to the view that it is degrading, when the Torah said the nazir should shave פתח אהל מועד, it didn’t mean that he must do that. But I don’t really understand that position; if shaving there were degrading, why would it be permitted at all?

45b
The mishnah at the bottom of the page mentions שילוק, a type of cooking which is in a liquid medium but is not the same as normal boiling, which is called בישול. Pseudo-Rashi here renders it as “not well-cooked,” but everyone else, including pseudo-Rashi in Nedarim 49a, renders it as “overdone.” The Bach here comments that perhaps this note of “not well-cooked” means “not cooked well, but rather overdone.”

46b
As the Rosh notes (printed on 46a), the mishnah here does not need to mention the case of one who shaved on the chatas שלא לשמה; it’s brought only to complete the set of chatas, olah and shelamim.

47b
How do you end up with two simultaneous Kohanim Gedolim?!
The Rosh brings one explanation that it is where the first became unable to serve for a limited, defined period of time (such as one day for קרי), and then the second was appointed, and then the first returned to eligibility – but he rejects this view, because in such a case the temporary replacement is no longer eligible to serve once the first returns to eligibility, and so the priority question in the gemara is easy to answer.
The Rosh then brings a second view, from Rabbeinu Moshe, that this is where the first kohen gadol was out for an indefinite period because of illness or exile to a city of refuge. In such a case the replacement would not lose his kohen gadol status when the first returne; they would both be able to serve.

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Derashah: Vayyichi 5768: Yosef and the Jewish-American Citizen

The chamber is beautifully appointed, a fittingly luxurious bedroom for the viceroy’s father… but illness burdens its sole occupant. Yaakov, knowing he is near the end of his storied life, calls for his son.
This son rarely visits, as evidenced by the fact that a special courier must inform him that Yaakov is ill… but, at last, the son enters. The viceroy of Egypt, Tzafnat Paneach to his Egyptian court, Yosef ben Rachel to his father, enters the room.
Yaakov speaks. He pleads with his son, “Please, grant me this one request: When I die, return my body to Canaan, to the cemetery of my ancestors.” What son could refuse such a plea from his father? And yet, Yaakov feels the need to twice demand an oath from Tzafnat Paneach, viceroy of Egypt: “Swear to me. Swear you will fulfill my last wish." And then the bedridden Yaakov bows in gratitude to his son.

What happened?! In a Torah filled with dysfunctional family relationships, Yaakov and Yosef were an island of love, a model for their descendants!
Yaakov gave Yosef a ktonet pasim, a special tunic, to mark Yosef’s favor!
Yaakov sent his other children to herd sheep, but sheltered Yosef at home!
Yaakov mourned Yosef’s absence every day for 22 years; contrast that with his utter non-reaction when Shimon was imprisoned in Egypt!
When Yaakov and Yosef met at last, Yaakov declared, “Now I can die, for I have seen your face!”
How did this loving father and son lose their closeness such that now they never met, such that Yaakov felt the need to bow to Yosef, such that Yaakov felt compelled to twice demand an oath of him for the most basic request?

This problem has bothered many classic commentators, who have offered a range of solutions. Based on a terse note in the Siftei Chachamim on ויפג לבו, we might add our own suggestion:
The Siftei Chachamim commentary to Rashi on last week’s parshah suggested that Yaakov didn’t believe that Yosef was alive because he couldn’t conceive of a situation in which Yosef, his loyal Jewish son, could be permitted to reign in Egypt. What kind of job is Egyptian viceroy for a nice Jewish boy?
Now, though, Yaakov sees his son indeed reigning in Egypt - and he fears that Yosef is no longer a “nice Jewish boy,” that Yosef has, in fact, been Egyptianized. Just as Yishmael and Esav had rejected the path of Avraham and Sarah to adopt Canaanite ways, Yosef has now left the fold, becoming an Egyptian citizen.

In fact, Yosef does appear to have become an Egyptian, based on the Torah’s definition of citizenship.
Mordechai Zer-Kavod suggested in an essay entitled הנכרי והגר במקרא, “The Foreigner and the Stranger in Tanach,” that the Torah recognizes four categories of citizen: Ezrach, Ger Toshav, Ger and Nochri.
An Ezrach, a full citizen, is entitled to political rights and social support, and shoulders communal obligations. A Ger Toshav has fewer rights and responsibilities. The Ger, the sojourner, possesses still fewer rights and responsibilities, and the Nochri, the stranger, has no claims upon, or responsibility toward, the community.

The first three generations of Jewish history see Jews in the three sub-citizen roles of Ger Toshav, Ger and Nochri; neither Avraham nor Yitzchak nor Yaakov become true אזרחים, true citizens, anywhere they live.
Avraham and Sarah are everybody’s best friends; they are close with Aner, Eshkol and Mamre; Avraham befriends Malki Tzedek of Shalem; Avraham and Sarah welcome outsiders into their home. Despite this extroversion, though, Avraham identified himself only as a Ger Toshav; he had the right to purchase land and to live among the Canaanites in peace, but he was not an Ezrach, he was not of them.
Yitzchak and Rivkah were less engaged in society; they interacted only with the Philistines of Grar, and that was quite a debacle. In fact, the midrash (cited in Rashi on Shmos 12:40 and elsewhere) notes that the prediction of גר יהיה זרעך, that Avraham’s descendants would be Gerim, sojourners in a land not their own, was first fulfilled with Yitzchak.
And then it gets worse - Yaakov’s family can’t seem to get along with anybody! Their contacts are with Esav, Lavan and Shechem, each one a bigger disaster than the last. Yaakov is a Yosheiv Ohalim, a tent-dweller, and that seems to be where he fares best; the world, for him, is a series of dangers. Yaakov is practically a Nochri in his own land. The disastrous foray to Egypt for food, viewed from the perspective of Yaakov’s sons, must have seemed like more of the same.

But then Yosef reverses the trend of social estrangement; he fulfills every biblical criterion of Ezrach, of citizen, as an Egyptian.
An Ezrach is a permanent resident, while a Ger intends to stay temporarily, לגור שם. Yosef intends to remain in Egypt until his death, as evidenced by his request for burial in Canaan.
An Ezrach owns land; Gerim live בארץ לא להם, in a land not their own. Yosef claims land in Goshen.
And, as Zer-Kavod notes, only an Ezrach has true political power, while a Ger survives on the mercy of the law. Yosef is the law, Yosef is political power incarnate. Remember what he told his brothers? “Go tell Dad, שמני אלקים לאדון לכל מצרים, Gd has made me the master of all of Egypt.”
And so Yaakov wonders if his son, Yosef, has gone the way of Yishmael and Esav, abandoning his Jewish heritage and identifying as an Ezrach, a citizen of Egypt, instead.

But while Yaakov sees Yosef walk like an Egyptian, but Yosef yet thinks like a Jew. Yosef has acquired Egyptian citizenship without abandoning his Jewish identity.
First, Yosef never forgets that he is in exile. When naming Ephraim, he labels Egypt ארץ עניי, the land of my suffering, even though he is now the Egyptian viceroy. He asks that his bones be returned to Israel, another sign that even if he will not leave Egypt alive, this is still not home for him.
Second, every step of the way, Yosef identifies himself as an Ivri. Like Avraham before him, Yosef emphasizes that he comes from a different place and tribe. Yosef even tells Paroh that his success is Jewish, credited to only one source, the Jewish Gd; הלא לאלקים פתרונים.
Yosef is a new breed of Jew, a break from the model of his ancestors, a Jew who can not only survive among the nations, but who can even lead, using his Jewish identity as the basis for his leadership.

This should not be viewed as a quirk of Yosef; Yosef’s participation in the whole of the human community is the model prescribed by R’ Shimshon Raphael Hirsch for the MenschYisroel, the complete Jew.
In an essay entitled “Religion Allied to Progress,” Hirsch wrote of a Judaism that “extends its declared mission to the salvation of the whole of mankind.” As he put it, “The more the Jew is a Jew, the more universalist will be his views and aspirations.”
This is Yosef - Concerned with the salvation of the whole of mankind and taking a leadership role within society… as a Jew.

Yosef’s path has never been the path of every Jew. For every cosmopolitan Rambam, for every political Shemuel haNagid and Abarbanel, for every influential Rabbi Yehudah haNasi, dozens if not hundreds of Torah giants have stood back from society, considering the influence of the greater world a poison without antidote - and the world has been quite content with that separation.
Today, though, in America and beyond, the Jew is summoned to lead secular society. Socially, politically, scientifically, morally, philanthropically, the body politic turns to the Jew and asks, “What can you provide?” Congressional hearings on medical ethics routinely solicit Jewish opinion, victims of international disasters seek Israeli aid, non-profit organizations appeal to Jewish philanthropies, newspapers and television pundits ask the Jewish community for comment, Jews are accepted as professors and authors and politicians and producers and members of every level of the workforce. Every opportunity of which the ghetto-bound Jew was deprived is available to her descendant.
Given this opportunity to seek what Hirsch termed “the salvation of the whole of mankind,” and given this opportunity for Kiddush HaShem, we would ill-serve the purposes of Torah were we to back away into our Ohalim. Certainly, we must tread carefully, as Yosef did - informing the world of our Ivri status and retaining an awareness that secular society is not truly home. But we can do this; Yosef is given to us as a model.
Yosef leads as a Jew - and we can do the same.

This past December 10th, the 7th night of Chanukah, Caren and I were privileged to be invited to the Chanukah party held by the President and First Lady at the White House. The event was remarkable on many levels, but one particularly relevant point is the way we were honored as Jewish leaders in America. The food was all kosher - with two certifications, of course - a kosher menorah was lit, a maariv minyan was held, every possible halachic concern was satisfied. This was a celebration for us as Jews, because we are Jewish, because we visibly retain our identity, even as we are active members of American society.
We are the heirs of Avraham the Ger Toshav, and the heirs of Yosef the Ezrach. The models of Yitzchak and Yaakov remain very much a crucial part of Torah - we need to have people sitting and studying Torah in the Ohel - but in this land of opportunity we have been given the greatest opportunity, the chance, as Hirsch said, to work for the salvation of the whole of mankind. Like Yosef, we can shoulder this responsibility - and, with Gd’s help, like Yosef, we will succeed.


Additional thoughts:
1. The affection seems to go from Yosef to Yaakov as well - from the moment Yosef meets his brothers in Egypt, he can’t stop asking them how his father Yaakov is doing. And when Yosef reveals his identity and then speaks of Yaakov, he refers to his father four times - and he doesn’t say אבינו, our father, but rather, all four times he says אבי, my father.

2. In terms of Yaakov's suspicions: Although Yaakov gives Yosef a double portion in Israel, he eliminates Yosef’s name; the double portion will instead be given to Yosef’s sons, Ephraim and Menasheh!

3. On this reading of the Yaakov/Yosef suspicion, see also Avraham Ahuviah in http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/betmikra/mealilot.htm

4. A side note: Yaakov demands an oath from Yosef. Yaakov’s first speaking part in the Torah, his purchase of the bechorah, ends with him demanding the same thing, saying השבעה לי כיום.

5. Note that there were also Jews who fulfilled this Yosef "citizen" role in the days of the Gemara; cf the discussion of Jews who travel among the aristocracy wearing the קומי haircut, such as Sotah 49b.