.

Printable PDF available here.

Rav Kook (Ein Ayah, Gemara Shabbat 49b) – As adapted by Rabbi Chanan Morrison

The Mishnah (Shabbat 7:2) enumerates 39 categories of melachah, activities which are forbidden on the Sabbath, such as planting, cooking, and building. What is the source for these categories of melachah? The Talmud in Shabbat 49b presents two possibilities. The first opinion is that 39 types of work were performed when constructing the Mishkan (Tabernacle) in the desert. The second opinion is that the word melachah appears 39 times in the Torah.

In fact, the word melachah appears 65 times, but the Sages were only counting verses that are connected to the Sabbath or the Tabernacle. As a result, the Sages sometimes disagreed which verses should be included in this count. One of the verses in question, from the reading of VaYeishev, speaks of Joseph’s labor for his Egyptian master, Potiphar: “And he came to the house to do his work (melachto)” (Gen. 39:11). But why should this verse be counted? Surely it has no connection to the Sabbath! To answer this question, we must first analyze the two views presented in the Talmud, connecting the 39 categories of activity either to building the Mishkan or to the word melachah in the Torah.

The Sabbath rest is in complete contrast to the weekdays filled with activity and work. The Sabbath belongs to the final goal of the universe, a time when all activity is finished. Work, by definition, indicates a state of incompleteness. Shabbat, on the other hand, is “mei’ein olam haba,” a taste of the future world, perfected and complete.

We live in an unfinished world of preparations and labor, a time of development and progress. The Tabernacle was a center of holiness within a spatial framework, subject to the limitations of our incomplete world. The Divine command to build the Tabernacle required that all the various categories of human activity be utilized in constructing it. The Jewish people needed to overcome and master the obstacles of mundane activity which hinder elevated life; then they could attain their ultimate objectives, living a life of holiness and closeness to G-d.

The second opinion quoted in the Talmud is based on a loftier perspective. The distinction between kodesh and chol, between the holy and the profane, only exists within our incomplete and divided reality. But when all of the forces and actions in the world are gathered together towards one elevated center, when all of life is directed to fulfill its true purpose, then the distinction between holy and profane disappears, and all aspects of life are bound together in the elevated union of kodesh kodashim, the Holy of Holies.

When we view the world through this higher prospective, adding the dimension of kodesh kodashim, then all activities become connected to the Sabbath ideal. All of life is bound to the sublime aim of absolute rest, without toil and preparations, only lofty joy and eternal truth. The view that sees in every mention of melachah in the Torah as relating to the Sabbath is not satisfied with ascribing meaning and significance only to that which is kodesh, only to those activities utilized to build the Mishkan. This is an inclusive vision that encompasses the holy and the profane, the natural and technological. Bound together, all activities are elevated with the holiness of the Sabbath day and the future realm of complete Sabbath. Not only is the holy center raised up, but also the branches — all forms of activity and melachah as recorded in the Torah.

In short, these two opinions deliberate our original question. The Talmudic discussion of what may be counted as the source for the melachot is, in fact, our question of how much of life truly ‘counts.’ Are only holy activities truly meaningful? Or is there eternal significance even in other aspects of life? According to the second, more inclusive view, the Sabbath encompasses all activities of Israel, both past and future, personal and national. However, the Jewish people in their long history have expended much time and energy in dispersed directions. Many Jews invested their talents to serve alien agendas. This is the essence of the Talmud’s doubt regarding Joseph’s labors in Egypt. Can individual activities performed in foreign lands for foreign goals still be counted as part of the accumulated service of the Jewish people over the millennia? Do they have eternal value?

On the one hand, it cannot be that the labors of a Jewish soul will not carry some residual imprint of the Jewish nation. Even if it was ‘planted’ on foreign soil, that which is suitable can be added, after removing the dregs, to the treasury of elevated Sabbath rest that Israel will bequest to itself and all of humanity. On the other hand, labor that was performed under foreign subjugation and enslavement is perhaps so far removed from the spirit of the Jewish people that it cannot be added to the national treasure of Israel.

Joseph, the Midrash states, represents the entire Jewish people (Tanchuma VaYigash 10). Even when laboring in Egypt, even as a slave under Potiphar and a prisoner in Pharaoh’s dungeon, his actions carried the mark of blessing and Divine success: “His master realized that G-d was with him and that G-d granted him success in all that he did…. G-d blessed the Egyptian because of Joseph” (39:3 and 5).

Nonetheless, we should not forget Potiphar’s position: Pharaoh’s chief executioner! The activities that Joseph performed under Potiphar’s direction were certainly alien to the spirit of Israel. Could the inner blessing of Joseph’s labors under such conditions be added to the treasury of activities connected to the perfected realm of Shabbat? This was the unresolved doubt of the Sages, whether to include the verse describing Joseph’s labors in a foreign land.

Food for Thought

Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen (Contemporary, Aish.com): Joseph did not hesitate to attribute all of his talents to G-d. This is a remarkable lesson in how to act in an alien environment, a test that all the generations of Galut (exile) had to face. One could try to hide his Judaism from the non-Jews, in an effort to hide the differences between them. Sadly, history has proven that this approach generally resulted in assimilation. By removing the barriers between Jews and non-Jews, one opens the way for the loss of his Jewish identity. However, Joseph’s confidence in asserting his beliefs proved to be one of the reasons why he and many in the future generations, were also able to withstand assimilation throughout the long Galut….

[Joseph] infused the Jewish people with the ability to follow in his footsteps and reject assimilation throughout the long exile. It is no coincidence that Parshat Mikeitz always falls on Chanukah – the lessons of the Portion relate to Chanukah. In this instance, the connection is clear; the Greek exile was the first in which the disease of assimilation posed a major threat to Jewish continuity. Throughout the previous exiles and suffering, the Jews maintained their sense of identity. However, the Greeks were the first nation to offer a genuinely enticing ideology. Sadly, a significant number of Jews failed to learn from Joseph, and gladly tried to remove all vestiges of their Judaism…However, the Hasmoneans and many Jews with them, resisted the attraction of the Greek way of life, and risked their lives to maintain their Jewish identity. Like Joseph’s strength in Egypt, the spiritual victory over the Greeks and the Egyptians can continue to give us guidance and inspiration to withstand the challenges of exile to this day.

Professor Aaron Koller (Esther in Ancient Jewish Thought, pg. 126): Indeed, perhaps Genesis meant to set up Joseph not as a hero, but as a warning, an example not to be followed. He may be the foil for the true history of the story of Israel in Egypt: Moses, who, although also a child of the system, does not work from within: but breaks free. Joseph left his home behind, naming his son Manasseh, it will be recalled, to thank G-d for helping him forget his ancestry. Moses has no need to leave anything behind in order to be fully Egyptian, and only when he leaves Egypt does he name his son “Gershom,” a reflection of his that he has been “a stranger in a strange land” (Exodus 2:22). While Joseph opted to embrace his new Egyptian identity wholeheartedly, finding rootedness in the culture in which he finds himself, Moses retains his sense of foreignness, never assimilating, but remaining a perennial outsider. Thus Joseph and Moses present two models of Jews in the court of the king of Egypt. A diaspora Jew can go the route of Joseph and rise to great heights within the system, but this may come at a great cost: the individual’s very identity may be lost in the process. Alternatively, he can go the way of Moses and reject the court, leaving the foreign land and taking the people along. Perhaps, the story of Joseph and Moses argues, while Joseph can save people’s lives, only Moses can bring redemption to the world.

Devarim Rabbah (2:8): When Moshe Rabbenu was refused entry the Land of Israel, he complained to G-d… [G-d] replied: “He who proudly admitted that this was his land shall be buried in it, but he who did not admit that this was his land shall not. Yosef didn’t deny his Hebrew origin when Potifar’s wife derided him as a “Hebrew brought here to make sport of us.” He even went further in describing himself to the chief butler as being “stolen from the land of the Hebrews.” As a result he was buried in his land… You, who did not acknowledge your land, cannot be buried there.” For the daughters of Yitro told their father that “an Egyptian man rescued us from the shepherds,” yet Moshe was silent [and made no effort to correct this misimpression and stress his Hebrew origins.]

Questions for Discussion

1. What other biblical characters face challenges similar to Yosef – i.e. rising to a position of prominence of power in a non-Jewish empire, confronting struggles of identity, etc.?
2. Do you agree or disagree with Rav Kook’s analysis? Why or why not?
3. The State of Israel is currently home to millions of Jews, but a majority of the Jewish people still live in chutz l’aretz. Is that good, bad, or neutral? How and why?
4. What has Torah Judaism has accomplished in America that it hasn’t done (or been able to done) in other countries/periods of history during galut?
5. Rav Kook asks if there is “eternal value” to “individual activities performed in foreign lands for foreign goals.” Do recent anti-Semitic terror attacks in America affect how we should think about this issue? Why or why not?
6. How do you think Yosef felt about working for Potifar and on behalf of the Egyptian empire?

Translation (Ein Ayah – Berachot):

It is preferable for a person to throw himself into a fiery furnace rather than embarrass his fellow in public. We learn this from Tamar [who did not directly accuse Yehuda of impregnating her while she was being taken to be executed, as this would have embarassed him. Rather, she sent him his garment and staff, in the hope that he would admit of his own accord.] (Gemara Berachot 43b)

Pursuit of illusory honor, based on external acquisitions such as wealth and fame, is one of the worst character traits. [1] There is, however, a nobler form of honor. The understanding of one’s true worth as a Divinely created being and the forceful rejection of anything that would deprive one of this noble stature – this awareness is the foundation of all moral and spiritual development. Without it, man cannot value the nobility of a life based on higher ideals and knowledge of the Divine, or comprehend the true honor incurred in pursuing them.

In this regard, one should live with the awareness that human life only has value when it is accompanied with recognition of one’s inner worth and dignity. Someone who lacks this recognition is alive in the biological sense, but is not truly living as a human being. [2]

For this reason, our Sages teach that it would be preferable to forfeit one’s life in this world rather than publicly shame another preson. They speak about public embarassment in particular, for while all embarassment is harmful, it is specifically public embarassment that causes irreparable and long lasting damage, to the extent that the worth of victim’s life is completely undermined.

We should note that our Sages do not state that a person is obligatedto sacrifice his life rather than embarrass his fellow in public, only that it would be preferableto do so. In other words, this is not a teaching that was meant to be implemented in practice, but rather an attitude towards the value of human dignity that one should strive to cultivate as part of leading an upstanding and ethically refined life.[3]

[1] Chazal (Avot 4:21) says that it “removes a person from the world.”

[2] Our tradition has many stories about pious people who joyously accepted shame and embarrassment. Rav Kook contends that they did so only to distance themselves from pursuing lower and illusory forms of honor, but not because they considered man’s dignity and sense of worth unimportant.

[3] Rav Kook briefly notes that certain halachic authorities actually do take this statement as halachically binding. See below.

Commentary/Sources for Further Research

Astonishingly, there are Rishonim who appear to take this statement in Gemara Berachot literally, as normative halachic practice. Further details are available here, in a brief shiur by R. Jonathan Ziring, and here, in a comprehensive set of sources and commentary from Olamot.net.

According to Rav Kook, public embarassment undermines the very root and value of one’s existence. This seems like an overly strong statement to make, but did you know that dozens of young people have committed suicide after being publicly shamed on social media? See hereand here.

Questions for Reflection and Discussion

1. How can we use social media in a way that is consistent with Torah values and acknowledges the grave danger of public embarassment?

2. According to Rav Kook, this teaching of the Sages articulates an ethical principle, but isn’t meant to be followed in practice. Is it strange or paradoxical that the Torah articulates ethical principles that aren’t meant to be acted upon?

3. Rav Kook focuses on the negative ramifications of being deprived of one’s honor by public embarassment. However, he also talks about the positive side of honor – i.e. how one’s awareness of their self-worth can motivate them to live a Divine and upright life. In a practical sense, how might this awareness express itself?

4. Do you know anyone who excels at demonstrating a positive sense of honor and self-worth?

About This Piece

Ein Ayah is a commentary on the aggadic portions of the Talmud, specificallyBerachot,ShabbatandSeder Zeraim. Rav Kook began writing Ein Ayah when he was a young rav in Lithuania, and continued adding material until the end of his life. Ein Ayahseeks to extract profound and fundamental principles of Torahhashkafafrom the world of Aggadah. It is an excellent introduction to Rav Kook’s thought, inasmuch as the pieces tend to be more shorter and self contained and less esoteric than many of Rav Kook’s other worlds. While Ein Ayah has never been translated in its entirety into English, selected excerpts have been published by Betzalel Naor in Of Societies Perfect and Imperfect. An online course covering Ein Ayahon Masechet Shabbat is available from WebYeshiva.