This week’s parasha, VaYeshev, opens with a description of Yosef’s relationship with his brothers – one fraught with contention. The Torah attributes this broken relationship most directly to the close bond that Yaakov had with Yosef – a closer bond than he shared with his other sons. The Torah tells us, “And (Yosef’s) brothers saw that their father loved (Yosef) most of all his brothers and they hated him; and they could not speak to him peaceably.”
The Targum Onkelos – an Aramaic translation of the Torah written by the great sage, Onkelos the Convert – gives a unique translation for the phrase “they could not speak to him”. Rabbi Dr. Rafael Posen a"h, in his incredible work, Parshegen, explains that Onkelos normally translates the phrase “could not” in one of two ways – physically/emotionally unable or legally unable. However, on the verse above, Onkelos provides a translation for the phrase “they could not” in a manner unique to our parasha. In no other place in the Chumash does Onkelos translate this phrase in a similar manner. Onkelos translates the phrase “they could not” as “they did not want to” – the brothers decided not to speak to him peaceably. In other words, certain things cannot be done because we are physically or emotionally limited – most people cannot run a four-minute mile and most people are afraid of and cannot approach grizzly bears. Some things we cannot do because they are forbidden – we cannot steal. The brothers could not speak to Yosef peaceably for a third reason – they made a conscious decision that they could not to speak to him peaceably.
In line with Onkelos’s translation, Rashi explains that, although it was disgraceful that the brothers could not speak to him, their inability to his peaceably with Yosef was, in fact, praiseworthy. The brothers had three choices in front of them – to speak to Yosef poorly, to speak to Yosef nicely while feeling enmity in their heart or to not speak to him at all. They chose the third option. Although it was disgraceful, it was the least disgraceful of the three choices in front of them. Their choice was in line with the maxim, “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all”.
On the surface, it seems that the brothers had a better choice than not speaking to Yosef – speak nicely, despite what they felt inside! Would it not be better to say something nice than not say anything at all? Rashi explains that the Torah teaches a greater ideal than just speaking nicely without the feelings to back it up. The ideal is to act consistently with one’s feelings. One should not feel malice towards his fellow and one certainly may not act with malice or with meanness. However, if one does feels malice, acting with integrity by remaining silent is superior to acting nicely, but inconsistently, with one’s feelings.
This lesson is of great importance to adults and students, alike. We encourage our children and students to be nice to others. We should continue to do so! However, we also must teach those within our purview us to act with integrity by not duping those around us by acting one way while feeling differently.
The Targum Onkelos – an Aramaic translation of the Torah written by the great sage, Onkelos the Convert – gives a unique translation for the phrase “they could not speak to him”. Rabbi Dr. Rafael Posen a"h, in his incredible work, Parshegen, explains that Onkelos normally translates the phrase “could not” in one of two ways – physically/emotionally unable or legally unable. However, on the verse above, Onkelos provides a translation for the phrase “they could not” in a manner unique to our parasha. In no other place in the Chumash does Onkelos translate this phrase in a similar manner. Onkelos translates the phrase “they could not” as “they did not want to” – the brothers decided not to speak to him peaceably. In other words, certain things cannot be done because we are physically or emotionally limited – most people cannot run a four-minute mile and most people are afraid of and cannot approach grizzly bears. Some things we cannot do because they are forbidden – we cannot steal. The brothers could not speak to Yosef peaceably for a third reason – they made a conscious decision that they could not to speak to him peaceably.
In line with Onkelos’s translation, Rashi explains that, although it was disgraceful that the brothers could not speak to him, their inability to his peaceably with Yosef was, in fact, praiseworthy. The brothers had three choices in front of them – to speak to Yosef poorly, to speak to Yosef nicely while feeling enmity in their heart or to not speak to him at all. They chose the third option. Although it was disgraceful, it was the least disgraceful of the three choices in front of them. Their choice was in line with the maxim, “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all”.
On the surface, it seems that the brothers had a better choice than not speaking to Yosef – speak nicely, despite what they felt inside! Would it not be better to say something nice than not say anything at all? Rashi explains that the Torah teaches a greater ideal than just speaking nicely without the feelings to back it up. The ideal is to act consistently with one’s feelings. One should not feel malice towards his fellow and one certainly may not act with malice or with meanness. However, if one does feels malice, acting with integrity by remaining silent is superior to acting nicely, but inconsistently, with one’s feelings.
This lesson is of great importance to adults and students, alike. We encourage our children and students to be nice to others. We should continue to do so! However, we also must teach those within our purview us to act with integrity by not duping those around us by acting one way while feeling differently.
Comments
Post a Comment