A Thought About Parshas Miketz

"...Pharaoh...Poti Phera...Yosef hu ha'Shalit..." "...Pharaoh...Poti Phera...Yosef was the Sultan over Egypt..." This week ibn Shu'aib takes a stealthy approach in commenting on the parsha. He begins this process by examining the name or title Pharaoh. Varying people in the parsha refer to this Egyptian ruler as "Pharaoh" which, writes ibn Shu'aib, must mean that this was his formal title and not his name, for who would refer to their leader by his first name? We must infer, therefore, that Pharaoh was a title, such as "king" or "president". ibn Shu'aib adds that the name "Hiram", king of Tzur (Tyre), also was not a name at all. Rather, the word for king or ruler in those times in that region was "Hiram" (In Hebrew, it is actually Chirram and means "exalted" or distinguished, just as a "harem" means the women made distinguished as property of the ruler, and a cherem is a writ of excommunication which makes a person off limits, thus negatively distinguished). The name "Avimelech" who was a king of the Pelishtim (Philistines) is also not a name, but a title. ibn Shu'aib points out that all of the rulers who lived in that region were entitled "Avimelech." So, in Egypt there was the Pharaoh, in Tzur there was the Hiram and in Philistia there was the Avimelech. But now ibn Shu'aib becomes cryptic, at least in my interpretation of his words. Let's remember: ibn Shu'aib lived in Spain in the early 1300s. At that time, the Christians had accelerated their conquest of the provinces of Iberia, and were increasingly successful in vanquishing the Moors, or Moslems, who had ruled that area for hundreds of years. In fact, during much of that earlier time, Jewish scholarship had flourished in that the Moors were somewhat tolerant of us. As the centuries passed, however, the tide turned in Spain and the Christian rulers began killing off both Jews and Moslems. The Moors lost most of their territory and retreated to the south. The fate of Jewish communities depended on who was in power at a given time. Ultimately, the Inquisition forbade all people to practice any faith other than that of the ruling Catholics, which led to the virtual end of both Jewish and Moslem life in Spain for centuries to come. In the days of ibn Shu'aib, relationships with the Church were tenuous and fractious. Dealings with Moors were limited, in that most of them had fled to southern Spain, whereas the Jews were in the northern and central provinces. By early 1300, the frame of reference for ibn Shu'aib would have been the Christian governance of Spain. How curious, then, are the words he writes now: Pharaoh, Hiram, Avimelech are all titles, just as the Moslems say "al Khalifa" (the Caliph), and the {Christians} say "Sultan" or "Emir al Mul'minim." If we know our history, we are aware that Emir al Mul'minim is an Arabic title meaning "leader of the faithful." We can see in those words the cognate Hebrew words Amir which means a spokesman and emun which means faithfulness. Sultan is Arabic and means "ruler" or "powerful one." We can see in that word the cognate Hebrew word shalit which means to rule or have power (this is what our verse (42:6) calls Yosef!). Khalif or Caliph has become familiar to us these days because of world events; in Arabic, it means successor to, or replacement for, Mohammed. In Hebrew the cognate word is chalif which is a replacement or equal. Now that we have a grasp of the words used by ibn Shu'aib, however, we must pose a question: since he lived in Christian Spain, where the Moslem presence was minimal, why does he cite as examples of enduring royalty the titles used by the Moors, rather than refer to the Spanish titles used to identify kings and leaders? If a contemporary American writer would be describing political parties in this country, he would hardly use "Whigs" and "Tories" as examples. Moreover, after telling us that the Moslems say al Kalifa, why does he say that the Christians say "Sultan" and "Emir."? The Medieval Spanish word for king was rey; a ruler was gobernador. Why would the local Spaniards use the Arabic titles? Later on in the parsha, ibn Shu'aib references a verse in Tehillim (81:6) which calls the miracles linked to our exodus from Egypt as eidus - testimonies. He asks why Dovid HaMelech refers to the miracles of Pesach as "testimony." To what are the events of Pesach testifying? He suggests that we commemorate Pesach every year because HaShem does not always perform miracles for us. HaShem does not always alter reality for the Jewish people the way that He did in Egypt. It is therefore up to us to commemorate those miraculous events every year, so as to remind ourselves that there have been miracles, and will be miracles in the future. Our commemorations testify to the reality that there were once miracles. With that, ibn Shu'aib addresses Chanukah. He reminds us that there too, HaShem brought about miracles, both evident and subtle. We commemorate those miracles every year by symbolizing some of the events through lighting a menorah. This helps remind us that just as there have been miraculous interventions in ages past, so will there by wondrous changes in our future. I suspect that this explains ibn Shu'aib's hidden message. It is well known that the Golden Age of Spain was coming to a treacherous and violent end during the years leading up to the Inquisition. There was little that ibn Shu'aib could write to protest this or to complain of this. However, in his narrative about the enduring monarchies mentioned in the Bible, such as the Pharaohs, the Avimelechs and the Hirams, he studiously avoids mention of the Spanish Kings. He does not offer them or their leaders his tacit support by implying that their entitled kings will reign for a long period. Rather, his example of rulers who endure are... the sultans, the caliphs and the emirs. Somehow, ibn Shu'aib felt that in centuries to come, those rulers would endure, using the same royal titles and brandishing the same power that they had in earlier centuries in his native Spain. Yishmael will rise as Esav retreats. And it looks like he might have been right. HaShem Yirachem al Amo b'eis ha'zos. Good Shabbos. D Fox