vayigash: thought-seeds
sholem aleichem,
Yehuda speaks Yaakov’s words to Yosef:
וַיֵּצֵ֤א הָֽאֶחָד֙ מֵֽאִתִּ֔י וָאֹמַ֕ר אַ֖ךְ טָרֹ֣ף טֹרָ֑ף וְלֹ֥א רְאִיתִ֖יו עַד־הֵֽנָּה
[Yaakov said]: one went out from me, and I said “He is torn, torn in pieces!” And I have not seen him since.
Why does Yaakov say “I have not seen him since” instead of “and I never saw him again”?
Everett Fox suggests that this is a “tiny expression of hope” (new band name).
The Chasam Sofer agrees:
נראה שיעקב אבינו לא חשש שיוסף מת
It appears that Yaakov our ancestor did not worry that Yosef was dead
How could the Chasam Sofer say such a thing? Yaakov has seen Yosef’s bloody tunic. He has mourned Yosef and protected Binyamin as the only child left from Rachel.
He has even stated directly that Yosef is dead (h/t to user “Alaychem goes to codidact” on Mi Yodeya):
וַיֹּ֕אמֶר לֹֽא־יֵרֵ֥ד בְּנִ֖י עִמָּכֶ֑ם כִּֽי־אָחִ֨יו מֵ֜ת
[Yaakov] said: my son [Binyamin] shall not go down with you because his brother [Yosef] is dead.
Even so, the Chasam Sofer and Fox are on to something: Yaakov cannot be certain that Yosef has died.
Let’s remember what actually happens:
וַיִּקְח֖וּ אֶת־כְּתֹ֣נֶת יוֹסֵ֑ף וַֽיִּשְׁחֲטוּ֙ שְׂעִ֣יר עִזִּ֔ים וַיִּטְבְּל֥וּ אֶת־הַכֻּתֹּ֖נֶת בַּדָּֽם וַֽיְשַׁלְּח֞וּ אֶת־כְּתֹ֣נֶת הַפַּסִּ֗ים וַיָּבִ֙יאוּ֙ אֶל־אֲבִיהֶ֔ם וַיֹּאמְר֖וּ זֹ֣את מָצָ֑אנוּ הַכֶּר־נָ֗א הַכְּתֹ֧נֶת בִּנְךָ֛ הִ֖וא אִם־לֹֽא וַיַּכִּירָ֤הּ וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ כְּתֹ֣נֶת בְּנִ֔י חַיָּ֥ה רָעָ֖ה אֲכָלָ֑תְהוּ טָרֹ֥ף טֹרַ֖ף יוֹסֵֽף
[Yosef’s brothers] took Yosef’s tunic, slaughtered a hairy goat, and dipped the tunic in the blood. They sent the tunic out and had it brought to their father. They [the messengers bringing the tunic] said: “We found this. Please examine — is it your son’s or not?”
Yaakov recognizes the tunic, and declares
כְּתֹ֣נֶת בְּנִ֔י חַיָּ֥ה רָעָ֖ה אֲכָלָ֑תְהוּ טָרֹ֥ף טֹרַ֖ף יוֹסֵֽף
My son’s tunic — an evil beast has eaten him! Yosef is torn, torn in pieces!
But Yaakov doesn’t truly know this. Here is what he actually knows:
messengers have arrived from his sons
they are carrying Yosef’s tunic
Yosef’s tunic has blood on it
In the moment of discovery, Yaakov develops these facts into a compelling (and even reasonable) narrative: Yosef has been torn to pieces by an evil beast.
But Yaakov is himself a trickster. He, also, used a hairy animal skin to fool his father. I wonder if, in time, he begins to suspect that something else is going on.
Remember the verse we started with?
וַיֵּצֵ֤א הָֽאֶחָד֙ מֵֽאִתִּ֔י וָאֹמַ֕ר אַ֖ךְ טָרֹ֣ף טֹרָ֑ף וְלֹ֥א רְאִיתִ֖יו עַד־הֵֽנָּה
One went out from me, and I said “He is torn, torn in pieces!” And I have not seen him since.
Yaakov doesn’t say: One went out from me, and was torn in pieces.
He says: One went out from me, and I said “He is torn, torn in pieces.”
Yaakov has begun to be very precise in his thoughts about this, and in his analysis of what he truly knows.
The Alter Rebbe of Chabad teaches three aspects of thought. There’s the initial spark of an idea (chochmah), there’s the development of the idea (binah), and there’s the intimate knowledge of the idea (daas).
I’m very much a beginner in Chabad chasidus, so my understanding here is likely a distortion of the Alter Rebbe’s thoughts. But I’ve still found my limited understanding of this to be a useful framework.
Yaakov being presented with the tunic is (metaphorically) chochmah: a spark entering his experience outside of his control. Then comes binah, the development of the spark into a complex narrative: that’s Yosef’s tunic, it is ripped and bloody — Yosef was ripped to pieces by an evil beast!
Yaakov has sped through these first two aspects of thought. But the third, daas, is not just knowledge. Chavie Bruck describes daas as intimate knowledge: knowledge that you have made a part of yourself, a part of your identity, a part of how you see the world.
We don’t have control over chochmah, over these thought-seeds that spark into our brain from some ineffable source.
But with practice, we can have some control over binah, over whether and how we develop a narrative from that seed. And we can also control daas, whether a developed narrative becomes part of us, part of our world.
Yaakov has held back from daas. He has held back from intimately knowing that Yosef is dead. He had the thought, he developed it, but he hasn’t taken it into himself. Yaakov’s daas, in the moment of this verse, is “maybe Yosef is dead, maybe he isn’t, here’s what I actually do know.”
This is easier said than done, of course.
But I’ve found this framework useful in trying to observe my own thoughts. When I’m stuck inside a narrative, it’s been helpful to identify the original seed, the original spark of experience that was outside of my control. It’s been helpful to observe the way I grew that seed through my own rumination and analysis.
And it’s been helpful to ask what I actually know. What parts of this narrative do I need or want to be daas, to be an intimate part of me?
Above all, it’s been helpful to try to live with an intimate knowledge of not-knowing, of “maybe, maybe not.”
good shabbos,
ada
p.s. This is not chas v’sholem to propose a Torah of inaction. We can act even from a place of “maybe” — as Yaakov certainly does.
p.p.s. Thanks to my Tanya chavrusa, Marisa!
p.p.p.s. We’re reaching the time of year where I have to pay for this newsletter service. There are free services out there, but free stuff on the internet means showing ads or collecting data, and I don’t want to do that to you. I’m thinking about trying to raise some of the cost ($90 for another year). If you would consider helping out, what format would you prefer? A paid subscription option through this newsletter platform? One-off donations? Buying a nicely-edited collection of this year’s Genesis divrei? Lmk!