The Divine works through dark deeds too

While we don’t love the idea, divine providence seems to be able to work through foul deeds just as well as fair ones. We would prefer for the vessel for providence to be the righteous and saintly – and they surely are – but we also see clearly in the Tanach that G-d chooses to enact the divine plan through much less wholesome individuals.

In the story of Joseph, his brothers choose to strip their brother of his coat and throw him in a pit, then sell him to merchants and deceive their father with a blood-covered coat into thinking his beloved son was dead.

Though some try to give these deeds a higher motivation, on the face of it they are pretty heinous. And yet they are a crucial link in the divine plan to bring the Jacob family down to Egypt, while positioning Joseph as the viceroy. Along the way there is much suffering.

If we were to ask G-d why it had to be this way, why the family could not have come to Egypt under gentler circumstances, and why the divine needed to work through so many unsavory deeds (not only of the brothers, but also of Potiphar’s wife, the butler, and more) perhaps the answer might look like this:

I work through evil too, it leads to a form of rectification and refinement of souls that is not necessarily achievable through kind and pleasant ways.

(Or perhaps kabbalistically speaking: "There are sparks that need elevating even in the darkest places.")

It’s not a nice thought. Many years ago I learned that the evil Hitler survived no less than 42 assassination attempts. For me, if that is not divine providence, then I don’t know what is. Due to this, I do not accept theologies that suggest that G-d was not involved in the Holocaust and it was somehow all human doing. G-d worked through Pharaoh, and G-d worked through Hitler. No, it’s not pleasant on the ears or heart, and the last thing I mean to do is desecrate the memory of any who died in the Holocaust. I’m not pretending to know what exactly was the divine plan. I’m just looking at a fact.

Proof that G-d works directly through evil people arrives in a book very closely connected to the Joseph story. The book of Esther contains texts that mirror phrases from the Joseph story. Apart from the intertextuality, the two main characters share that they had to leave home, go into a foreign environment, live in a palace and be close to the ruler, and use that ruler to save the Jewish people. They also both found favour in the eyes of all who saw them.

In the Esther story, wicked deeds are turned precisely on their head:

1) In Esther 6:6, Haman wants the honour for himself, but by his own hand it is then Mordechai, whom he hates, who is placed on the horse with the king’s crown atop his head, while Haman has to call out before him, “Thus shall be done to the man whom the king wishes to honour.”

2) In Esther 7:10, Haman is hanged on the very gallows he built for Mordechai

3) In Esther 9:1, “on the day that the enemies of the Jews had hoped to overpower them, the opposite occurred, in that the Jews themselves overpowered those who hated them.”

Because the one major difference between the two stories is that the Joseph story is full of G-d’s name, while in the Esther story G-d’s name is hidden, I feel that this exact reversal is the Divine saying, “I am right here, behind the scenes, and yes, I work through wicked people too.”

Today’s world is full of evil and lies. For some, this is the work of Satan or the evil inclination, and is the place most devoid of G-d.

I do not deny evil must be fought wherever it is. Hitler needed to be defeated and the final solution stopped. Yet having studied these Tanach stories, I wonder if G-d is not somehow working the divine plan through them too. Why, we can only guess.

Joseph and Haman Pass the Marshmallow Test

In 1972, psychologist  Walter Mischel of Standford ran his famous “marshmallow” experiment, a study on delayed gratification.

In this study, children were offered a choice between one small but immediate reward, or two small rewards if they waited. Each child was left alone in a room with a single marshmallow for about 15 minutes. If they could prevent themselves from eating it, they would receive an extra marshmallow (or pretzel stick). In follow-up studies, the researchers found that children who were able to wait longer for the preferred rewards tended to have better life outcomes overall, more successful careers etc.

This question, of being able to delay gratification, arises in the lives of two interrelated biblical characters. In Hebrew the verb להתאפק le-hitapek means to forcefully control oneself and to hold back from impulsive action. Its appearance in the Tanach is fairly rare.

The first time we find it is in the Joseph narrative. After so many years in Egypt, away from his family, Joseph is now faced with the situation that his brothers have come to find food. He is able to play his role as an Egyptian viceroy when his ten brothers first make their appearance, to put on a poker face and speak harshly to them; but when they come a second time bringing his brother Benjamin with them – his only brother from his mother Rachel, who he last saw when Benjamin was a child – we are told (Gen 43:30-31):

29. And he lifted up his eyes, and saw his brother Benjamin, his mother’s son, and said, Is this your younger brother, of whom you spoke to me? And he said, God be gracious to you, my son. 30. And Joseph made haste; for his bowels did yearn upon his brother; and he sought where to weep; and he entered into his chamber, and wept there.

31. And he washed his face, and went out, and controlled himself, and said, “Set on bread.”

Joseph holds back all that he is by feeling for another length of time, because he has to put in motion a plan to force the brothers into a place of repentance and growth. But finally, in Gen 45:1:

1. Then Joseph could not hold himself back before all those who stood by him; and he cried, Cause every man to go out from me. And there stood no man with him, while Joseph made himself known to his brothers. 2. And he wept aloud; and the Egyptians and the house of Pharaoh heard.

Who is the second figure? None other than Haman. We find in Esther 5:10 that Haman, full of ire against Mordechai who stubbornly refused to stand and bow to him, Haman “controlled himself” and only when he came home did he allow himself to give vent to his feelings before his wife and his advisors.

Haman is the enemy of all the Jews, but in particular, the line of Rachel’s sons, meaning Joseph and Benjamin, are in the frontline of the battle against Haman and his ancestor Amalek. We see this in the commandment of King Saul (from the tribe of Benajmin) to kill Agag, Haman’s ancestor. Then, in the scroll of Esther, Mordechai and Esther, likewise of the tribe of Benjamin, are given the opportunity to fix this mistake of their ancestor Saul, and to do away with the epitome of evil.

Joseph does not face an Amalekite, per se. But the book of Esther is strongly connected to the Joseph narrative, by means of various themes and textual phrases. This connection creates the bridge for us to place Joseph and Haman side by side. Thus we observe that both Joseph and Haman reign themselves in, and then, when the time is right, let their feelings out. But what different feelings! Joseph has had to hold back his love for his younger brother, his desire to know if his father is still alive, and the words of peace and forgiveness with which he wants to shower his brothers. Haman has had to hold back his rage, hatred, frustration and dissatisfaction.

Returning to the marshmallow test. We understand that both Joseph and Haman would have passed the test; and, just as the self-restraining children of 1972 did, they saw success in their careers – both rose to the position of second-in-command of a global superpower. But what the marshmallow test does not indicate is whether this ability to hold back will end up being used for uplifting and moral ends or for nefarious purposes. Both heroes and sociopaths can, it seems, bide their time.

------------------------

Postscript 1:

A third biblical character by whom the root להתאפק appears is none other than King Saul. This cannot be a coincidence (I Samuel 13): 

11. And Samuel said, What have you done? And Saul said, Because I saw that the people were scattering from me, and that you came not within the days appointed, and that the Philistines gathered themselves together at Michmash;

12. Therefore said I, The Philistines will come down now upon me to Gilgal, and I have not made supplication to the Lord; I forced myself therefore, and offered a burnt offering.

This error, of making an offering himself instead of waiting for Samuel, costs Saul his kingdom. The interesting thing is that though the word ויתאפק generally means holding back from action, here he does the opposite, he actually forces himself to take action at a time when he should have kept still. He does not delay gratification but rather the opposite, he forces himself into action. And this costs him his success.

It is so interesting to me that the very same word is used here, to mean practically the opposite thing, and that this story is about King Saul, who is connected to both Joseph and Mordechai/Haman. I feel as if there is more to explore here.

Postcript 2

Joseph’s holding back becomes even more admirable in light of the fact that the Joseph spiritual-psychological trait is also at times the opposite of delay –  they come first, before everyone else.

Sometimes this is for the good: Joseph is the first to go down to Egypt, setting in motion G-d’s plan; Messiah son of Joseph is the harbinger.

Other times, it is with dire consequences: see the midrash telling of the Ephraimites’ premature and fatal exit from Egypt, and the fact that the ma’apilim, the people pushing to go to the Promised Land, may have included Zelofchad of the tribe of Menashe… (and they were killed by Amalekites, by the way.) 

Two Radical Pieces of Talmud (Purim)

Two radical pieces of Talmud are both connected to Purim. Oddly enough one is from tractate Shabbat 88a and the other from Sanhedrin 99b.

The Talmud in Shabbat 88a famously says that God held Mount Sinai over the heads of the Israelites and forced them to accept the Torah. Since this is not a very promising way to view our acceptance of the Torah - we could argue it is not legally binding - the Talmud then adds, "But they reaccepted it willingly in the days of Achashverosh." 

The Talmud in 99b tell us: 

And Lotan's sister was Timna... Timna was a royal princess... Desiring to become a proselyte, she went to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but they did not accept her. So she went and became a concubine to Eliphaz the son of Esau, saying, 'I had rather be a servant to this people than a mistress of another nation.' From her Amalek was descended who afflicted Israel. Why so? — Because they should not have rejected her.

In both cases, the Talmud is saying something completely unexpected, something that presents fundamentals of Jewish thought in an unflattering light that you would never in a million years have imagined the rabbis of the Talmud would wish to adopt.

In the first case, it tells us that the Israelites had to be coerced into receiving the Torah. What kind of statement is this, after the Exodus and all the miracles? It takes the entire experience and deflates it like a flat tire. In the second case, that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob acted wrongly and that all the trouble we have had with our archenemy Amalek is, in essence, our own fault.

I think it is not a coincidence that both are related to Purim. Purim is the turnaround, the topsy turvy, the unexpected.... leading to these radical pieces of Talmud.
And it is also the resolution of that upside-downness. In the days of Esther, the people accept the Torah of their own free will. And in the days of Esther, the Amalekite Haman is finally defeated and shown that it's God's will that counts. (One might also stretch things a little and, connecting Esther with Ruth as two women after whom megillahs are named, say that in Ruth the Jewish people accepted a convert despite her Moabite background, and thus rectify the previous rejection of Timna).

Esther, Descendant of Sarah

When we experience challenges, we can remember that our ancestors went through similar and probably worse. We can draw on their strengths, that have come down to us as a legacy. This point is one that can be drawn out of the following:

In the midrash (Esther Rabbah 1:8), Rabbi Akiva connects Sarah with Esther via the number 127:

Rabbi Akiva was sitting and teaching, and the students were dozing off. He sought to arouse them. He said: What was Esther's merit to rule over 127 provinces? Such said the Holy One, blessed be He: Let Esther, the descendant of Sarah, who lived for 127 years, and rule over 127 countries.

The connection via this number is not the end of the conversation, it is just the beginning. They are indeed highly connected. Each of these attractive women had to spend time in the palace of a mighty non-Jewish King who desired her. And each had to keep a major identity component secret, because a man close to her had requested it.
In the case of Sarah, she concealed that she was actually Abraham's wife; in Esther's case, she obeyed Mordechai's instructions that she tell no one she was a Jew.

That takes fortitude, self-discipline, and courage.

Perhaps it was in the merit of the earlier story, of Sarah's dedication in doing this dangerous thing for the sake of her husband, that Esther, this sheltered young girl, was given the strength for her tremendously challenging mission.
Or perhaps it was a kind of spiritual DNA that came down from ancestress to descendant.
And conceivably, Esther also knew the story of Sarah her foremother, and drew inspiration from her strength.[1]
All three are likely true.

Today we too can draw strength from knowing that those who came before us faced many terrible situations. Sometimes their courage failed. But many times they also won. And we are their children.


[1] Although their ending was different. Sarah was freed, while Esther remained forever in the palace. Thanks Tobie Harris for pointing that out.

Orphans

Esther is orphaned of both her father and mother; that is why she is raised by her cousin Mordechai. Under the assumption that every detail of a person's biography shapes them in a certain way, what is the significance of her being an orphan?

It has been pointed out many times that the Esther and Joseph story share similarities - both in the storyline (dragged away from their homes, to make their way alone in a foreign context; becoming close to a powerful ruler and being able to help their families through their position of power etc.) and in actual intertextual connections, of similar words and phrases.

Joseph too was an orphan - his mother having died when he was a young child. Although his father Jacob is still alive, Joseph does not see him between the age of 17 and 39, until they are reunited. Conceivably, he feels abandoned by him, for allowing his brothers to sell him and not coming to look for him. Additionally, he cannot even know if Jacob is still living all this time. Thus, for all intents and purposes he is orphaned of both parents for most of his young adult life: in Potiphar's house, in the prison, and in the first part of his service as Pharaoh's viceroy.

There is a commandment to be kind to the orphan, because this person is vulnerable, lacking the basic parental care and nurturing needed for fundamental security in the world. It seems, looking through the prism of every detail carefully calibrated by the Divine, that Joseph and Esther being orphaned at a young age was part of what shaped these two for their important and historical destiny. How exactly it did so only God knows; but I imagine that it created a sensitivity, a reflectiveness, and a shyness that was part of their appeal, that meant that they both "found favour in the eyes of all" - which was an important part of their success. 

We also know that they were both described as beautiful. Rabbi Isaac Luria, the Arizal, points out that the word for orphan, YaTOM is the abbreviation for Yefeh Toar V'yefeh Mareh, meaning beautiful of form and countenance - a phrase used to describe Joseph (Gen. 39:6). We can see that Esther is similarly described (Esther 2:7) as Yefat Toar V'Tovat Mareh - again, spelling YaTOM. 

I think what we learn is that being orphaned at a young age is a traumatic experience, and can undoubtedly leave scars. At the same time, it can create a delicacy of feeling, an empathy to others, that may be the incubator for future leadership - provided the person can get past the psychological damage entailed.