Dvar Torah for Parshat Vayeshev

In this week’s parsha we learn about the abominable treatment afforded Yosef by his brothers. It’s interesting that Chazal did not offer an exoneration of this misdeed as they did for the sin of the Golden Calf or for David’s sin with Bat-Sheva (see Avodah Zara 4a and Shabbat 56a). Quite the contrary is true. There is a Midrash that states that this sin will be with us forever (Midrash Mishlei, quoted by the Meshech Chochma to Acharei Mot).

There are commentators who examine the brothers’ motives for selling Yosef into slavery. For these writers, the apparent scenario of sibling rivalry carried to a near-homicidal extreme is not enough.

Among the commentators who examine the motives of Yosef’s brothers are the Noam Elimelech and Sfat Emet. Both authors were great Chasidic leaders and it is not unlikely that their beliefs influenced their interpretations of the story. They saw in this passage a disagreement about the future of the Jewish people. The brothers were aware that were destined to be the founders of Hashem’s nation. A story about a young man with visions of greatness and his resentful brothers is clothed in mystical terms by these Chasidic masters.

When students of the Torah encounter these interpretations they are puzzled. The Torah with its clear direct language tells us stories about our ancestors and their flaws. When their behavior deserved condemnation it was treated accordingly by Hashem. Why then do the Rabbis, from the time of the earliest Midrashim down to the present see it as their duty to provide us with new perspectives on these stories, perspectives which are disparagingly called “apologetics?”

This question was taken up by the Maharal of Prague in his book Be’er Hagola. Be’er Hagola was written by the Maharal to refute certain arguments raised by the intellectuals of his time. They claimed that the Talmud , among other things, provided a perverted interpretation of Scripture. As proof they cited the Gemara in Shabbat which says that David never sinned with Bat- Sheva.

Maharal explains that the stories of our ancestors’ misadventures must be read with an awareness of how these figures are described by the Tanach itself. It is the Tanach itself and not later Rabbis which tells us that Hashem was with David (I Samuel, 18:14). Would Hashem stand by an adulterer and a murderer? To answer this question with a “yes” would be absurd. But the apparent contradiction needs resolution. This need to interpret the story of David and Bat-Sheva as being in accord with everything known about David’s closeness to Hashem motivated Chazal . This is why they explain the story of David in such a way that he was not truly guilty of either adultery or murder. The accusation leveled by these intellectuals that Chazal’s interpretations have no basis in the Scriptural text is wrong.

But Chazal cannot deny that David sinned . They say, “ he wanted to sin but didn’t.” Hashem knew what was in David’s heart. He also wanted David to be king over His people. So Hashem sent into motion events that allow David to continue as king, but he still punished him for his intention to sin.

What lesson can we learn from Chazal’s explanations of these stories? I think we can learn the pitfalls of rationalizations. If would limit our study of Tanach to the text alone I don’t know how much we would get from it. Most, if not all of us would say, “I would never kill my brother,” or “I would never commit adultery.” But how many of us rely on rationalizations? How many times do we say ,”well, it’s not really stealing” or “well, that really wasn’t a lie.” Truth be told, Bat-Sheva was really divorced when David took her, and Yosef’s brothers had good theological reasons to expel Yosef from the family. But Hashem knew that these excuses were rationalizations to excuse lust, envy and blind hatred.

Chazal with their interpretations teach us introspection. They show us the truth of the saying that “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”