|
Ramban takes a different angle to resolve the favouritism issue. He focuses on the statement, “he was the child of his old age” (Genesis 37:3), trying to decipher why this would make Joseph the favourite, since many of his sons were born in his old age. Nachmanides notes that it was the custom of elders to take one of their younger sons to be with them and to attend them. He would constantly lean on his arm, never being separated from him, and he would be called, ben z’kunav, because he attended him in his old age. Now Jacob took Joseph for this purpose, and they were together constantly. Nachmanides, then, points out that the status of ben z’kunav is not just a function of the age of the father, but the title of a specific role for the son. Ramban then goes on to follow the understanding of Onkelos, the early translator of the Torah from Hebrew to Aramaic, who translated ben z’kunav as “wise son.” What is the connection between wisdom and being born to an elderly father? The child of old age has the benefit of learning from his father’s amassed wisdom. Ramban connects the two ideas and suggests that since Joseph, as his father’s attendant, spent a great deal of time with Jacob, and had the opportunity to learn from him and develop the wisdom of the elders. It was this wisdom that curried his father’s favour, and which served him well when he went on to become advisor to Pharaoh and leader of Egypt.
|
Despite the nature of the relationship with his own father, our tradition has always been somewhat uncomfortable with the obvious favouritism that Jacob displays towards his son Joseph. Yet, it is this favouritism that serves to establish the narrative tension that results in Joseph’s brothers attacking him, his being sold into slavery, and his eventual descent into Egypt, which sets the scene for Israel’s experiences for the next 340 years.
The symbol of Jacob’s favouritism is the ketonet passim, the tunic, or coat of many colours, which Jacob gives as a gift to Joseph. Peli notes that the Talmud understands this garment to be a “silk shirt” which is worth only about four shekels. This inexpensive little token of affection, however, had an unmeasured effect on the rest of the family, since, “when his brothers saw that their father loved him more that all his brothers, they hated him and could not speak to him in peace” (Genesis 37:4).
It is not the cost of the token that makes the difference, but rather, what it represents. As Peli states, “It is not the amount of money involved in the wrong or right dealings with our children that counts, but rather the motivation that goes with the money.”
When Joseph’s brothers strip him of his new shirt and throw him into the pit, they dip the shirt in goat’s blood and take it to their father. They said to Jacob, “We found this. Please examine it: is it your son’s tunic or not?” The insinuation in the statement is obvious. Through Joseph’s favouritism, symbolized in the tunic, the family is split apart. Joseph may be held closer to his father’s heart, but he is estranged from the rest of his family, so much so, as Peli notes, that he is even stripped of his name. Peli concludes: “This four-shekels worth of silk shirt was the initial cause of the exile of the children of Israel into Egypt. Four shekels thus became, as the Talmudic sages emphasize, a turning point in the history of Israel.
Lessons for Today
Obviously, from a modern perspective, the idea of a parent favouring one child over another is very disturbing. Yet, in the highly developed narrative flow of the Joseph stories that conclude the Book of Genesis, it is Jacob’s favouritism of Joseph over his other 12 children that drives the story. If Jacob had not made his favour known to all by gifting Joseph with a special garment, then the brother’s jealousy would not have been kindled, and Joseph would not have ended up is Egypt, and eventually come to occupy a position of power and prestige at a time when hardship forced his brothers to, unknowingly, seek out his help. In the end, as the Torah presents it, the favouritism and jealousy it motivated seemed to be part of the divine plan.
But, does this suggest that the end justifies the means? Is favouritism acceptable if it results in the favoured child enjoying great success? This is certainly not unknown today. Often children with special gifts and talents are highly encouraged and supported by their parents, who devote their time and energy to that child to help them make the most of their gifts. We run our kids to sports practises or arts rehearsals, arrange for special lessons and coaching, invest in all the best tools and equipment, and are there to emotionally support them when it all seems too hard. We know we don’t love this child any more then our other kids, but sometimes one child just needs more “special attention” then the others. But how do the others perceive this?
I think that Ramban’s comments fit into this paradigm. Jacob would never say that he loved his son Joseph more than his other children, but he did perceive that Joseph had some special gifts. Wanting to nurture these gifts, he kept him back home while the other sons went off to tend the flocks in the fields, and he tutored and studied with his young prodigy, helping his son to fulfil his potential and gain great wisdom. I can just imagine the elderly father and son, both known as great dreamers, sitting back in their tent, eagerly swapping their dreams and discussing their meaning with a kindred spirit. Innocent enough, perhaps, but just imagine how the other sons out in the hot sun doing the hard work would perceive this. Jealousy was inevitable.
Jacob, who was a product of favouritism himself, was probably acting out of the only model of parenting he knew. He would probably have been shocked at the suggestion that he loved any child less than another. Nonetheless, he could not help letting his enthusiasm for the time he spent with Joseph be seen by the others. An inexpensive silk shirt is not something that would have been useful or appropriate for men of the field, but for a young burgeoning scholar, it was a lovely gift. Too bad it turned out to be the symbol of everything that Joseph’s brothers hated about him, and probably wanted for themselves. And too bad that, torn and covered with blood, it became the catalyst for one of the darkest periods in Israel’s history.
|
