Translation (Ma’amarei ha’Reiah, pg. 94-99): [1]
God created in man a body and a soul, and corresponding to them, forces that strengthen and develop the body, as well as forces that strengthen and cultivate the soul. Ultimate wholeness is achieved when the body is strong and well developed, and the soul, vital and cultivated, leads all the faculties of the body in the service of the intellect. Such is God’s will in His world.
The same applies on the collective level of Israel. God ordained two faculties, one corresponding to the physical side, which aspires to material improvement of the nation, and a second devoted to the cultivation of spirituality. By virtue of the first aspect, Israel is comparable to all the nations of the world. It is only through the second Israel realizes its uniqueness. As it says: “The Lord leads it (Israel) alone”; “Among the nations it (Israel) shall not be reckoned.”[2] It is the Torah and unique sanctity of Israel that distinguish it from the nations.
Originally, these two faculties were assigned to the two tribes destined to rule Israel, Ephraim and Yehuda, which is another way of saying Yosef and Yehudah…. Just as in the beginning, Yosef was the provider sent by God to save many from starvation, who sustained Jacob and his sons materially when they came to Egypt looking for grain [so in future generations, the descendants of Yosef would develop the material side of Jewish national existence]. Yosef is paradigmatic in other ways as well. According to our sages, Yosef was “swallowed up by the nations”[3] and was also fluent in seventy languages.[4] This symbolizes commonality between Israel and all the nations of the world…. Yehudah on the other hand, symbolizes that which is distinctive about the Jewish People. The Psalmist says that “Yehudah became His sanctified one,”[5] but of Yosef he says, “Shiloh, a tent pitched among men.”[6]
… G-d’s intent was that David’s kingdom would be the collection of the material powers necessary for a great and mighty kingdom, coupled with spiritual excellence. Unfortunately, sins brought about that Israel rejected the Davidic dynasty, and the nation was divided in two. The ten tribes subsumed under Ephraim (which is in reality Yosef), and the two tribes subsumed under Yehudah. Were it not for this split, all would have been united under the auspices of Yehudah.
… By gathering together these two powers, both would benefit: The material would be rarefied and sanctified by its exposure to the unique sanctity of Israel, and the spiritual would be invigorated to enhance Israel. Eventually, the rays would light up the entire world… But it came about that throughout the Exile there is a see-saw effect of these two opposing forces. At times, there is exhibited a drive toward material, worldly success that flows primarily from the foundation of Yosef and Ephraim; other times there is a stirring of the spiritual drive for observance of Torah and spiritual development, for awe and love of God.
Since it is impossible for our nation to attain its lofty destiny other than by actualizing these two components—the universal symbolized by Yosef, and the distinctive symbolized by Yehudah — there arise in the nation proponents of each aspect. Those who would enhance spirituality prepare the way for Messiah son of David, whose focus is the final destiny. Truly the focus of life is spiritual attainment, except that the spiritual can only develop properly if it is accompanied by all the material acquisitions of which a full-bodied nation is in need. Those who redress the material, general aspects of life prepare the way for Messiah son of Yosef.
[1] This is an excerpt of Bezalel Naor’s annotated translation, available at https://www.machonso.org/uploads/images/13-D-10-lamentation.pdf
[2] Devarim 32:12
[3] See Gemara Sotah 36b
[4] Ibid.
[5] Tehillim 114:2
[6] Tehillim 78:60. This verse is referring to the Mishkan’s encampment in Shilo, which was located in the territory of Yosef.
Questions for Reflection and Discussion:
- Rav Kook understand that Yehuda and Yosef represent different faculties within the nation, one of which focuses on the spiritual distinctiveness of the Jewish people and the other which builds up its material side. Are there any other differences that you can discern from the parshiot that we have been reading? See footnote for a hint. [7]
- What could you do differently in your own life to better implement a partnership between the physical and spiritual?
- According to Rav Kook, the Jewish nation only achieves true vitality when the proponents of the spiritual and material work together with a united vision. What happens when there is an unhealthy and uncalibrated emphasis on the physical to the exclusion of the spiritual, or vice versa?
- Do you know anyone who epitomizes the talents and faculties that Rav Kook associates with Yehuda? With Yosef?
- Rav Kook notes two primary characteristics of the ‘Yosef’ tendency within the Jewish people – it is oriented towards the physical and it is also more universal. What do you think this means? How exactly do our physical activities or endeavors lend a universal dimension to our relationship with the non-Jewish world?
About This Piece:
The excerpt above is from a speech that Rav Kook gave in Jaffa in 1904, at a memorial service for Theodore Herzl. The speech is famous for outlining his conception of secular Zionism’s role in the redemptive process. It is probably more famous for the controversy that it caused. Rav Kook was accused of asserting that Theodore Herzl was mashiach ben Yosef. It should be noted that he never makes this argument explicitly, and that we have writings from Rav Kook in which he laments that his speech was misunderstood.
[7] Two hints – (a) compare Yehuda’s encounter with Tamar to Yosef’s encounter with Potiphar’s wife, and (ii) compare the consequences in Sefer Shmuel for Shaul’s failures with the consequences for those of David.
With all do respect, I think this approach is a little too simplified. It makes Yosef out to be representing the physical because of the situation around him and not for his own decisions and outlooks. Also, I think it paints Yehuda as too much of a saint when he clearly wasn’t. That being said I really appreciate the focus on both Yehuda and Yosef. I think Yehuda is left out of the focus when we read these parshiot and its too bad because the Torah is making him very central and giving a strong comparison and contrast of these two great men.
To me a big message here is the different developments that two types of people go through in life, the Tzaddik and the Bal Teshuva.
Yosef is a Tzaddik through and through in that he is innocent, he has not really done any huge sins. Despite this, he must endure many hard situations including being sold into slavery by his brothers, being a slave, being falsely accused, being imprisoned and being forgotten by those he helped. It is worth noting that due to his innocence, Hashem always gives him the best of these bad situations: his brothers hate him but they refrain from speaking instead of speaking ill, when he is sold the spices the merchants have mean it wont smell bad, he is a slave but he is the top slave, he is a prisoner but he is the top prisoner. The Rabbis’ comments on Yosef’s behavior of tattling on his brothers, highlight that despite his innocence he was very haughty in his early years. Even his justification to the wife of Potiphar for why he wont lie with her involves a long speech about how great he his and only mentions that it would be a sin to Hashem as a last small comment. In prison he is extremely confident about himself that he will be able to interpret the baker and the cupbearer’s dream and relies on them repaying his greatness for his salvation. We start to see a change when he talks to Pharaoh in that he says that he will only be able to answer Pharaoh as a messenger of Hashem, and we see him admitting the situations of his life our in Hashem’s hands, not his. This humility is what leads to things finally going well for Yosef. Perhaps he doesn’t quite deserve all the bad situations he faced; after all, he is an innocent Tzaddik. But these situations sure helped him to reach the humility needed for his life to take a better turn. In the end he realizes how the way Hashem shapes the world can be for the best outcome, which we see in his statements about how Hashem has made all this work so that he can help his family survive.
Yehuda is more of a Bal teshuva who hits rock bottom and moves forward from there. He does a lot of wrong: suggests and goes ahead with selling his brother, leaves his family, sends away Tamar making promises to her without real intentions of bringing her back, and lays with someone he at least thinks is a prostitute and then tries to cover it up or failing that brush it under the rug thinking it wont haunt him in the end. What is great about him is that when he finally reaches this low place and Tamar’s message forces him to face himself, he admits his faults and begins to show acceptance of his actions, consequences and responsibilities. We see this acceptance play out through the rest of the story. When the brothers explain their trip to Yakkov, he shows Yaakov that they need to accept that they simply have a hard choice: send Binyamin and get food , or don’t and starve. Unlike Rebuen who put the consequences of his possible failure to protect Binyamin on his own children, Yehdua accepts the responsibility of consequences of his possible failure on himself saying he will have sinned to his father if he fails. (this is no small consequence as Yehuda is the oldest brother from Leah to have not faced a form of serious rejection from Yaakov). We see Yehuda accepting that he and the brothers are facing slavery for Binyamin having the cup. Lastly, we see Yehuda offer himself in Binyamin’s place as a way to keep his promise to his father. This is a long way to have come for someone who at one point had been willing to sell a brother for a profit. He is now willing to be a slave for the rest of his life for the sake of a brother he promised to protect, even though that brother is in trouble for not fault of Yehuda’s.
It would be interesting to think about how the types of personalities of Yehudah and Yosef might lend themselves to the distinctions Rav Kook is making here ,though I don’t have a clear picture of that at the moment. I do think there are connections between these personalities and the issues dealt with in book of Samuel and Kings. David and Solomon both deal with sexual temptation as Yehuda did, with David being the best example of facing himself and accepting himself and his situation as Yehuda did. Yeravaum ben Nevat certainly dealt with his issues of haughtiness, choosing to force his people to worship an idol rather than risk them making pilgrimage to Jerusalem and threaten his kingship.
The last thing I will point out is that both of these two great sons of Jacob show development of character through their life’s struggles. I think this is done to more than an extent than we have seen before in Breishiet, except with Yaakov whom they learned it from. Avraham and Yitzchak were great men who were tested, but it seems they were always great and were able to remain great. Yakkov starts out his life with some deceitful acts to his brother and father, even if the ends justified these means. But Yaakov shows progression by his honest dealings despite lavaan’s constant lies. Prehaps the development despite faults that Yakkov shows, and that two of his very different sons show is why the process of choosing between children to carry forth Hashem’s yolk we saw by the first two patriarchs stopped at Yakkov. If the family is willing to show development despite faults, than Hashem is ready for the treasured nation to start.
With all do respect, I think this approach is a little too simplified. It makes Yosef out to be representing the physical because of the situation around him and not for his own decisions and outlooks. Also, I think it paints Yehuda as too much of a saint when he clearly wasn’t. That being said I really appreciate the focus on both Yehuda and Yosef. I think Yehuda is left out of the focus when we read these parshiot and its too bad because the Torah is making him very central and giving a strong comparison and contrast of these two great men.
To me a big message here is the different developments that two types of people go through in life, the Tzaddik and the Bal Teshuva.
Yosef is a Tzaddik through and through in that he is innocent, he has not really done any huge sins. Despite this, he must endure many hard situations including being sold into slavery by his brothers, being a slave, being falsely accused, being imprisoned and being forgotten by those he helped. It is worth noting that due to his innocence, Hashem always gives him the best of these bad situations: his brothers hate him but they refrain from speaking instead of speaking ill, when he is sold the spices the merchants have mean it wont smell bad, he is a slave but he is the top slave, he is a prisoner but he is the top prisoner. The Rabbis comments on Yosef’s behavior of tattling on his brothers, highlight that despite his innocence he was very haughty in his early years. Even his justification to the wife of Potiphar for why he wont lie with her involves a long speech about how great he his and only mentions that it would be a sin to Hashem as a last small comment. In prison he is extremely confident about himself that he will be able to interpret the baker and the cupbearer’s dream and relies on them repaying his greatness for his salvation. We start to see a change when he talks to Pharaoh in that he says that he will only be able to answer Pharaoh as a messenger of Hashem, and we see him admitting the situations of his life our in Hashem’s hands, not his. This humility is what leads to things finally going well for Yosef. Perhaps he doesn’t quite deserve all the bad situations he faced; after all, he is an innocent Tzaddik. But these situations sure helped him to reach the humility needed for his life to take a better turn. In the end he realizes how the way Hashem shapes the world can be for the best outcome, which we see in his statements about how Hashem has made all this work so that he can help his family survive.
Yehuda is more of a Bal teshuva who hits rock bottom and moves forward from there. He does a lot of wrong: suggest and goes ahead with selling his brother, leaves his family, sends away Tamar making promises to her without real intentions of bringing her back, and lays with someone he at least thinks is a prostitute and then tries to cover it up or failing that brush it under the rug thinking it wont haunt him in the end. What is great about him is that when he finally reaches this low place and Tamar’s message forces him to face himself, he admits his faults and begins to show acceptance of his actions, consequences and responsibilities. We see this acceptance play out through the rest of the story. When the brothers explain their trip to Yakkov, he shows Yaakov that they need to accept that they simply have a hard choice: send Binyamin and get food , or don’t and starve. Unlike Rebuen who put the consequences of his possible failure to protect Binyamin on his own children, Yehdua accepts the responsibility of consequences of his possible failure on himself saying he will have sinned to his father if he fails. (this is no small consequence as Yehuda is the oldest brother from Leah to have not faced a form of serious rejection from Yaakov). We see Yehuda accepting that he and the brothers are facing slavery for Binyamin having the cup. Lastly, we see Yehuda offer himself in Binyamin’s place as a way to keep his promise to his father. This is a long way to have come for someone who at one point had been willing to sell a brother for a profit. He is now willing to be a slave for the rest of his life for the sake of a brother he promised to protect, even though that brother is in trouble for not fault of Yehuda’s.
It would be interesting to think about how the types of personalities of Yehudah and Yosef might lend themselves to the distinctions Rav Kook is making here ,though I don’t have a clear picture of that at the moment. I do think there are connections between these personalities and the issues dealt with in Samuel and Kings. David and Solomon both deal with sexual temptation as Yehuda did, with David being the best example of facing himself and accepting himself and his situation as Yehuda did. Yeravaum ben Nevat certainly dealt with his issues of haughtiness, choosing to force his people to worship an idol rather than risk them making pilgrimage to Jerusalem and threaten his kingship.
The last thing I will point out is that both of these two great sons of Jacob show development of character through their life’s struggles. I think this is done to more than an extent than we have seen before in Breishiet, except with Yaakov whom they learned it from. Avraham and Yitzchak were great men who were tested, but it seems they were always great and stayed great. Yakkov starts out his life with some deceitful acts to his brother and father, even if the ends justified these means. But Yaakov shows progression by his honest dealings despite lavaan’s constant lies. Prehaps the development despite faults that Yakkov shows, and that two of his very different sons show is why the process of choosing between children to carry forth Hashem’s yolk we saw by the first two patriarchs stopped at Yakkov. If the family is willing to show development despite faults, than Hashem is ready for the treasured nation to start.