Tag: Potiphar’s wife

אפשר לתקן

There are opinions among Hazal that Yosef nearly sinned with Potiphar’s wife before ultimately resisting the temptation:

אמר רב חנא בר ביזנא א”ר שמעון חסידא יוסף שקידש שם שמים בסתר הוסיפו עליו אות אחת משמו של הקב”ה …

Rav Ḥana bar Bizna says that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida says: Joseph, who sanctified the name of Heaven in private, had one letter of the name of the Holy One, Blessed be He, the letter heh, added to his name. …

יוסף מאי היא דכתיב (בראשית לט, יא) ויהי כהיום הזה ויבא הביתה לעשות מלאכתו א”ר יוחנן מלמד ששניהם לדבר עבירה נתכוונו

The Gemara explains: What is the situation where Joseph sanctified G-d’s name in private? As it is written: “And it came to pass on a certain day, when he went into the house to do his work” (Genesis 39:11). Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This teaches that both Joseph and Potiphar’s wife stayed in the house, as they intended to perform a matter of sin.

ויבא הביתה לעשות מלאכתו רב ושמואל חד אמר לעשות מלאכתו ממש וחד אמר לעשות צרכיו נכנס

With regard to the phrase “when he went into the house to do his work,” Rav and Shmuel engage in a dispute with regard to its meaning. One says: It means that he went into the house to do his work, literally. And one says: He entered the house in order to fulfill his sexual needs with her.1

Rav Levi ibn Habib (Maharalbah) and Rav Zvi Hirsch Hajes explain that Hazal were not denigrating Yosef by acknowledging the strength of his temptation, but on the contrary, praising him for having ultimately triumphed over it:

מהרלב”ח

עוד אני אומר שדרשה כזאת איננה כנגד מעלת הצדיק כיון שהוא דבר במחשבה ולא יצא לפועל אף על פי שתהיה לאיזו סבה שתהיה. ויש לנו דמחשבה רעה אינו הקדוש ברוך הוא מצרפה למעשה בישראל זולתי בעבודה זרה. ולכן אין זה חסרון בצדיק. דכל הגדול מחבירו יצרו גדול ממנו. אדרבה הוא לו מעלה כיון שלבסוף ניצול מהעבירה. ואין כוונת הפסוק להודיענו מחשבת אלו הצדיקים. אבל הכונה להודיענו שנצולו ושהקב”ה הרחיק מהם העבירה ההיא.2

מהר”ץ חיות

והנה הרב הרלב”ח כתב … וכן ביוסף כבר היתה מחשבתו לרעה, ובא לעשות מלאכתו ממש3 ובכל זאת כבש את יצרו, ולא חטא וזה מעלה יותר עצומה, דאם לא התעורר אצלו היצר מפני שינוי מצבם, ועבד שפל אינו נותן עיניו באשת אדוניו, אזי לא היתה פעולתו של יוסף ראוי להתפארות כל כך, אבל עתה דכבר התגבר עליו היצר, ובכל זאת היה אדון ושליט על מעשיו, וזה דבר גדול אשר בחרו חז”ל לשבח מעשה יוסף הצדיק, כי כבר היה הכל מוכן לרעה, וכמה גדול כחו על ידי יגיעותיו אשר טרח לכבוש את יצרו, דהרי כבר היה כאן מחשבה רעה, רק אצל ישראל אין מצטרפין מחשבה רעה למעשה, … והיא ספור נפלא להגדיל מעלתן של צדיקים, כי לא יאונה להם כל עון, …4

In a famous and provocative passage in his autobiography, Rav Yaakov Emden relates that he personally experienced “a miracle similar to that of Joseph the righteous and (even) slightly more so”:

A miracle also occurred to me, especially relevant to matters spiritual. (It was) a miracle similar to that of Joseph the righteous and (even) slightly more so. I was a young man, tender in years, in the full strength of my passion. I had been separated from my wife for a long time and greatly desired a woman. A very pretty unmarried young girl who was my cousin happened to meet me there and was alone with me. She brazenly demonstrated great love to me, came close to me and almost kissed me. Even when I was lying in my bed, she came to cover me well on the couch, in a close loving manner. Truthfully, had I hearkened to the advice of my instinct she would not have denied my desire at all. Several times it (indeed) almost happened, as a fire (consumes) the chaff. Frequently there was no one in the house with me but her. They (i.e. the members of her family) were also not accustomed to come for they stayed in the store on the marketplace, occupied with their livelihood all day. Had G-d not given me great strength, the excellency of dignity and the excellency of power (Gen. 49:3), to overcome my fiery instinct which once almost forced me to do its bidding, (and) were it not for the grace of G-d which was great upon me, (I would have been unable) to withstand this very powerful temptation, greater than all temptations. I was a man at the prime of my strength and passion. There was a very pleasant beautiful woman before me who demonstrated for me all manner of love and closeness many times. She was related to me, unmarried, a tender child and recently widowed. She may have been ritually pure or would have ritually purified herself had I requested it. If I had wanted to fulfill my passionate desire for her, I was absolutely certain that she would not reveal my secret. I controlled my instinct, conquered my passion and determined to kill it. My heart was hollow and I did not … Blessed be the L-rd who gives strength to the weary for I was saved from this flaming fire.5

It is difficult to understand R. Emden’s apparent utter flouting of the laws of יחוד – which exist precisely to forestall the sin that he acknowledges “almost happened”. Indeed, Yosef as well seems to have engaged in יחוד, a problem raised by Rav Moshe Sofer (Hasam Sofer), who suggests that it was indeed this infraction that led Potiphar to believe his wife’s calumniation of the man whom he had erstwhile believed to be of impeccable character:

תמיה רבה על אותו הצדיק איך נכנס ביחוד עם אשה בשעה שאין אנשי הבית שם וכמדומה לי שאלולי כן לא האמין פוטיפר לאשתו על יוסף המוחזק בעיניו לצדיק, אלא שראה מבגדו שבידה שעל כל פנים נתיחד עמה שלא כדת, ועל כן האמין עליו גם הכל, ומכל מקום צ”ע עליו.6

I discussed these sources in a talk I gave several days ago on repentance and the struggle against temptation, and previously in my parashah lectures for this past פרשת וישב, on the topic of יחוד. The cognate column:

In parashas Vayeishev, the Torah relates: “Then there was an opportune day when he [Joseph] entered the house to do his work – no man of the household staff being there in the house – that she [Potiphar’s wife] caught hold of him by his garment, saying, “Lie with me!” Some of our Sages maintain that Joseph actually came dangerously close to sinning, and only vanquished his evil inclination at the very last moment. (Sotah 36b, Bereishis Rabah 87:7) The Biblical text seems to emphasize that the confrontation was triggered by the fact that they were completely alone, and the halachah indeed prohibits such seclusion (yichud), for precisely this reason. The Chasam Sofer actually raises the question of how the righteous Joseph could have violated the prohibition of yichud, and he goes so far as to suggest that this apparent infraction was what allowed Potiphar to believe his wife’s accusation of Joseph, whose reputation had been heretofore impeccable. Potiphar saw that Joseph had at the very least improperly secluded himself with his wife, and he therefore believed the full accusation against him. (Drashos Chasam Sofer, Chanukah [5]564. His justification of Joseph’s conduct is beyond the scope of this column.)

Since the prohibition of yichud is motivated by a concern for improper interaction between the secluded individuals, there are a variety of leniencies in circumstances where they are unlikely to act improperly, particularly where they are afraid of being interrupted and discovered. A comprehensive discussion of these exceptions and their precise scope and details is beyond the scope of this column, but a couple of basic examples follow:

  • A married woman whose husband is in the same city as her is beyond suspicion, since she is presumptively afraid of her husband. Many authorities understand this to mean that she is afraid of his discovery of her infidelity. (Shulchan Aruch EH 22:8; Pischei Teshuvah ibid. s.k. 7; Shut. Igros Moshe EH 4:65:7; Shut. Tzitz Eliezer 6:40:4-6)
  • Yichud does not apply in a house whose door is open to a public domain. (SA ibid. 9, PT ibid. 8, TE ibid. 11-12, IM ibid. 2,4-5,9)

In my talk on resisting temptation, I also discussed the tale of the portrait of Moshe Rabbeinu (which I have previously discussed in a lecture for פרשת בהעלותך, on the character of the master of all prophets):

[A] delightful account that I once saw in writing. When Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, the nations heard, they trembled, etc. (Exodus 15:14). They were particularly curious about Moses, the man through whom all these marvelous deeds had transpired. So much so, that an Arabian king sent a gifted artist to the Israelite encampment with orders to paint a portrait of the Israelite leader, and to return with it to Arabia. The artist went, painted the portrait, and brought it to the king. The king then sent to his physiognomists, and ordered them to prepare an analysis of Moses’ character, virtues, and strengths based upon his facial features as reflected in the portrait. The physiognomists complied with the king’s order and reported as follows: “If we are to render judgment solely on the basis of the facial features in the portrait, we must report, O King, that, – despite his distinguished reputation – he is entirely wicked, arrogant, greedy, capricious, indeed suffused with every known vice. Upon hearing the analysis, the king was livid. “You are sporting with me,” he cried out. “From every corner of the globe I have heard just the opposite regarding this great man.” The physiognomists and the artist were seized with fright; they responded to the king pusillanimously, each accusing the other of incompetence. The artist claimed that the portrait was executed with precision; it was the physiognomists who had erred in their interpretation of the portrait. The physiognomists, in turn, blamed the artist, claiming that the portrait of Moses was obviously inaccurate. The king, determined to resolve the matter, set out in his chariot on a state visit – accompanied by his troops – to the Israelite camp. Upon sighting Moses, the man of G-d, from the distance, he took out the portrait, gazed at it and Moses, and knew at once that the artist’s depiction had been executed with precision. The king was astounded. He entered the tent of Moses, bowed down before him, and related the entire story to him. He concluded his remarks as follows: “Before I gazed upon your face, O man of G-d, I suspected that the artist had been incompetent, for my physiognomists are without peer. Now that I have established that the portrait is accurate, I can only conclude that the physiognomists are at fault; they have deceived me. Their wisdom comes to naught. I have been supporting them even as they misled me with their nonsense.”

Moses, the man of G-d, replied: “Not so. Indeed, the artist and the physiognomists are exceedingly competent and wise. Know that if I were naturally virtuous, I would be no more deserving of praise than is a block of wood. For it too has no human faults. I am not ashamed to admit, however, that I am naturally inclined to all the vices listed by the physiognomists, and then some. With great effort and determination, I overcame my inclinations until their very opposites became second nature to me. This is how I earned the glory that I now enjoy in heaven above and on earth below.”7

  1. סוטה לו:‏ [↩]
  2. שו”ת מהרלב”ח סימן קכ”ו ד”ה עוד אני אומר [↩]
  3. רש”י בסוטה פירש ד “מלאכ[תו] ממש” היינו מלאכתו, ולא תשמיש. אולם בבראשית רבה אמר ר”ש בר נחמן “לעשות מלאכתו ודאי”, ומבואר שכוונתו לתשמיש.‏ [↩]
  4. מבוא התלמוד, פרק כ’ ד”ה והנה הרב רלב”ח [↩]
  5. Megilas Sefer, translation of R. Dr. Jacob J. Schacter, cited by Dr. Marc B. Shapiro, R. Yair Hayyim Bachrach as a Writer of Romance?, A Non-Jewish Song Made Holy, Love (and More) Before and After Marriage, and Memoirs that Maybe Tell Too Much, the Seforim blog, Fri., May 27, 2016. The original Hebrew text (along with a censored version) are available there as well, as well as here. [↩]
  6. דרשות חת”ם סופר [כרך א’] חנוכה תקס”ד. ועיין שם מה שתירץ, ועיין שו”ת ציץ אליעזר חלק ח’ סימן י”ד אות ז’ וחלק י”ב סימן ס”ז אות ב’. ובעצם קושית החת”ם סופר, עיין ר’ מנשה ישראל רייזמן, שיעורים בפרשת השבוע, יום ו’ פרשת וישב כ’ כסלו תשע”ה, עמודים יב-יג.‏ [↩]
  7. תפארת ישראל סוף מסכת קידושין, תורגם ב Shnayer Z. Leiman, R. Israel Lipschutz: The Portrait of Moses, in Tradition, 24(4), Summer 1989. [↩]

He Said, She Said

I am fascinated by the unfolding Brett Kavanaugh – Christine Blasey Ford drama – this is quintessential “he said – she said”, in its almost purest form. In my lecture(s) for this past year’s parashas Vayeshev,1 with its archetypal narrative of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife, I broached a highly speculative argument for granting some credibility to such allegations despite the absence of duly qualified witnesses against the accused, based on a long-standing Ashkenazic tradition. As Justice Holmes famously said: “The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience”, and this applies to some extent to halachah as well, where we find venerable enactments and customs that in situations such as assault, which occur suddenly, rendering arrangements for the presence of qualified witnesses generally impractical or impossible, and in other contexts where the presence of qualified witnesses is generally implausible, such as disputes over seats in the womens’ section of the synagogue, we relax the standard formal requirement of two adult male witnesses:

מהר”ם מירזבורק

דין אשה יחידה או קרוב יחיד, וכן קטן נאמן [להעיד על הכאה] שאין פנאי להזמין עדים כשרים פתאום לזה2

מהרי”ק

… אז קרא ראובן לשמעון “מלשין מסור” לפני לוי ולאה. והנה שמעון תלמיד חכם הוא …
ואף על גב שלא היו שני עדים בדבר הלא כתב בתקנת קדמוניות מר”ת שאפילו אשה יחידה או קרוב נאמנים להעיד שראו שהכהו כו’. וכן קטן כדאיתא התם ומפרש שם הטעם לפי שאין פנאי להזמין כשרים פתאום לזה והוא הדין נמי בדין מבזה תלמיד חכם וקל וחומר הוא לפי הנראה לעניית דעתי.

ועוד שהרי מצאתי כתוב במקום אחר בשם רבינו תם וז”ל

ואשה או קרוב נאמנים על זה וכן בכל דבר קטטה שאין עדים רגילים להיות בדבר מזומנים וכן למוסר מאומד נאמנים עליו לפי שכשהלשין לא היו שם עדים עכ”ל

הרי לך בהדיא דלכל דבר קטטה אשה או קרוב נאמנים.

עוד נמצא בתשובת שאלה סביב המרדכי בפרק החובל וז”ל

נשאל נשאלנו על דבר הריבות והמחלוקת והחרופים אם הנשים והקרובים יכולין להעיד ודאי הוא דנאמנת אפילו בדבר שיש בו ממון כדאמרינן התם (קידושין עג:) החיה נאמנת לומר זה בכור אפילו יש בו הוצאות ממון ה’ סלעים לכהן עכ”ל

הרי לנו כמה עדים נאמנים דבכהאי גוונא נאמנים הנשים והקרובים …3

תרומת הדשן

שאלה לאה ורחל חולקין בשביל מקומות בבית הכנסת של נשים. והביאה לאה שתי נשים שהמקומות שלה הן, ורחל הביאה איש אחד מעיד שהמקומות שלה הן. איזה עדות עדיפא טפי דשתי נשים או של איש אחד.

תשובה – יראה דהאי דינא, בחזקת המקומות תליא מילתא, כמו שאבאר. אם מוחזקת לאה בהני מקומות, ורחל אתיא לאפוקי מינה, אין לאה צריכה אפילו שבועה להכחיש העד של רחל. ואע”ג דרוב גאונים פסקו דנשבעים שבועה דרבנן אפילו על הקרקעות, הכא הואיל ואית לה ללאה שתי נשים מעידות כדבריה, פטורה. ואע”ג דבעלמא אין עדות אשה כלום, בנדון זה דאינהו רגילי למידק טפי מאנשים, מהימנינן להו שפיר. וכן מצאתי הועתק מפסקי גדול, דנאמנות הנשים להעיד לאלמנה ‘אלו הבגדים לבשה בהן בחיי הבעל’, משום דאין האנשים רגילין להסתכל בבגדי הנשים. והביא ראיה מהא דאמרינן ג’ נאמנים על הבכור חיה לאלתר. הא קמן דבמילי דלא רגילי האנשים למידע מהמנינן לנשים, אפילו לאפוקי ממונא כי התם בבגדי אלמנה. ונראה דבמקומות בית הכנסת של הנשים, נמי אין האנשים רגילים לידע איזה מקומה של אשה זו ואיזו של זו. …4

For an excellent and comprehensive discussion of this doctrine, see ר’ שניאור זלמן פרדס, קבלת עדות מפסולי עדות.

I proposed that situations of sexual assault might be considered textbook cases for the application of the above doctrine: they certainly occur “suddenly”, and the presence of any actual eyewitnesses to the incident, let alone properly qualified ones, is fairly unlikely.

The obvious objection to my proposal is that none of the sources ever contemplates the extension of this doctrine to grant credibility to the ostensible victim of the assault himself (or herself)! I am not sure, however, that this really is a significant extension of the doctrine: I can see two objections to the extension, but neither seems compelling, at least not to the doctrine’s application to cases such as the Kavanaugh one.

First, the ostensible victim who accuses someone of sexual assault likely harbors great antipathy toward her ostensible assailant, and many authorities maintain that our doctrine does not grant credibility to an “enemy” of the accused (see R. Pardes’s article for a detailed discussion of this point). But this seems a fallacious argument, due to its circularity. An enemy is not considered credible since we suspect that his enmity may motivate him to lie. In our case, the assumption of enmity follows from the truth of the allegation, so it seems illogical to discount the accusation as motivated by enmity since insofar as the assault did not occur there is no basis for an assumption of enmity! [There may, of course, be some antipathy between the accuser and accused of which we are unaware that has motivated the accusation – but this is always a possibility, even in the classic cases of third party accusations discussed by the authorities.]

Second, an ostensible victim often stands to gain from her accusation (e.g., civil damages), and would therefore have the status of an “interested party”. In many cases, however (such as the Kavanaugh one), there seems to be nothing that the accuser stands to gain from the accusation. [Again, it may be suggested that the accuser desires notoriety, is politically motivated, or has some sort of hidden agenda – but these types of considerations, absent any evidence for them in the circumstances of a particular case, do not generally carry weight insofar as the witness does not fall into one of the standard categories of “enemy” or “interested party”.]

For general discussion of the related question of the standards of evidence required in cases of child abuse, see the articles by Rav Zalman Nechemia Goldberg, Rav Asher Weiss, and Rav Yehuda Silman cited in the notes.5

  1. I cannot currently locate any recordings. [↩]
  2. נימוקי מהר”ם מירזבורק, ריש עמוד קעג ד”ה דין אשה יחידה [↩]
  3. שו”ת מהרי”ק (מהדורת אורייתא) שורש קע”ט עמודים שצד-צה מהדורת ירושלים תשל”ג. [↩]
  4. שו”ת תרומת הדשן סימן שנ”ג [↩]
  5. ישורון, כרך ט”ו מעמוד תרנב והלאה [↩]