Parshat Miketz One wonders, why? Why does Yaacov
embrace Yehudah's argument and not Reuven's? Another suggestion is in order: It can be posited that the greatest consequence of doing wrong is to be constantly wracked by the sin itself. And so, Yaacov rejects Reuven's argument as he offered a punishment if he fails. Yehudah on the other hand, is saying that his punishment will be his everpresent guilt in having sinned to Yaacov. In the words of Benamozegh (19th century, Italy) "sin itself is its own punishment." A final thought comes to mind. Reuven's answer displays the assurance of one absolutely certain of success-so certain he offers the precious lives of two of his sons for punishment. Yehudah, on the other hand, recognizes the precariousness of the mission. He understands that he may not succeed. Hence, he argues, "if I fail, I will forever have sinned to you." Yaacov accepts Yehudah's argument and not Reuven's, for often greatest success goes to one who understands the danger of the situation and realizes the very real possibility of not succeeding. Additionally, Yaacov assents to Yehudah precisely because he (Yehudah) was prepared to act even when unsure of success. The real test of commitment is to become involved even when the outcome is unknown. This impresses Yaacov. This idea relates to the Chanukah holiday. Unlike in the Bible, where God assures Moshe (Moses) of success in Egypt, the Hasmoneans received no such assurance. Still, against great odds, uncertain of victory, they fought and prevailed. Maybe that is why we use the dreidel on Chanukah. The dreidel spins without knowing where it will land. The Biblical Yehudah and Yehudah Ha Maccabee of the Chanukah story interface. Both were aware of the uncertainties of their mission. Notwithstanding, they went forward. May we all be so courageous, to do, even when unclear about the outcome. And like Yaacov, may we trust -- with the help of God -- that all will work out. SHABBAT SHALOM © 5759/1998. All rights reserved. |
