Sometimes, when I am trying to convince someone of something, I find myself getting incredibly frustrated when that person “just doesn’t get it,” which is a fancy way of saying that I am frustrated that what is obvious to me is not obvious to them (and I suspect I’m not the only one). Every day, I try, with mixed success, to remember that the essence of influence comes not from the ability to make a persuasive argument, but from the capacity to hear what another person needs, a lesson that we learn from Joseph in this week’s parasha.
Parashat Miketz introduces us to a sleepless Pharaoh, who struggled over dreams he could not understand, and whose advisors “could not interpret the dreams for Pharaoh” (Bereishit 41:9). Generally speaking, we assume that no one could interpret Pharaoh’s dream because none of his advisors had the ability to interpret dreams, yet our commentators paint a more complex picture, one that will reveal something about what it means to hear what another person tells us. Nehama Leibowitz argues that Pharaoh’s dreams compel us to ask “What is the criterion of truth” and “How is it [the truth] to be recognized and detected by the hearers?” (Nehama Leibowitz, Studies in Bereishit, 451). In particular, Leibowitz notes that our commentaries ask whether Pharaoh's advisors could not interpret his dream because they did not understand the dream’s meaning, or because Pharaoh did not like what he heard.
In a midrash from Bereishit Rabbah, our rabbis argue that Pharaoh’s advisors attempted to interpret the dreams, but could not find a meaning that convinced Pharaoh. The midrash states:
“R. Yehoshua in the name of R. Levi: They interpreted it for him, but their interpretation failed to convince him. For example, the seven goodly cows signify seven daughters that you will father; the seven evil looking ones, that you will bury seven daughters; the seven goodly ears-seven provinces you will conquer; the seven withered ears, that seven provinces will rebel against you” (Bereishit Rabbah 89:6).
Paralleling the structure of our parasha, Pharaoh’s advisors offered interpretations that saw the seven figures in the dreams as denoting both future strength and weakness. However, Pharaoh did not feel that any of those interpretations were accurate, and it was only when Joseph offered an interpretation with a similar structure, but a different message, that led Pharaoh to accept Joseph's alternative explanation.
Offering a modern commentary, Leibowitz brings the interpretation of Rabbi Samuel David Luzzatto, also known as the Shadal, who argues that Pharaoh viewed his dreams opportunistically, wanting to find an interpretation that could place him at a strategic advantage. Shadal writes:
“...None could interpret them”- no one provided Pharaoh with a satisfying interpretation. He wished them to detect in his dream a message regarding the future of his people, and which it would profit him to know beforehand. He believed that God had not vouchsafed him the dreams for nothing, particularly as they came to him on his birthday. Otherwise what prevented them from offering any interpretation they could think up? According to this, we can appreciate why Joseph offered advice to the king. The latter did not want to know the future but to know what was in store so that he could take preventative steps” (Shadal on Bereishit 41:9).
Taking a different approach from the midrash, Pharaoh wanted to hear an interpretation that would lead to a strategy he could use for his advantage. Since Joseph offered an interpretation that benefited Pharaoh and all of Egypt, Pharaoh viewed the substance of Joseph’s interpretation favorably.
In the previous commentaries, Pharaoh’s dream is seen as uninterpretable because of something lacking in the interpretations of Pharaoh’s advisors. However, Nahum Sarna writes in his modern commentary that the interpretations were lacking because they reflected a deeper flaw about the interpreters (emphasis mine):
“It is inconceivable that the professional dream interpreters are unable to provide “interpretations.” The key phrase, therefore, is “for Pharaoh,” that is, their solutions do not satisfy him. The fact is that there is nothing in the dreams that relates in a personal way to Pharaoh himself. This, incidentally, is in contrast to all previous dreams in Genesis in which the dreamer plays a central role. It is therefore clear to Pharaoh that his dream experience has a wider, national significance. The customary fawning and flattering expositions of the magicians were therefore unconvincing” (Nahum Sarna, JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, 282).
Combining the interpretations of the midrash and the Shadal, Sarna points out that Pharaoh’s dream could not be interpreted because his advisors only offered what they thought Pharaoh wanted to hear, instead of what Pharaoh needed to hear. Only when Joseph enters Pharaoh’s court, and says to Pharaoh that, “God will give Pharaoh an answer of peace” (Bereishit 41:16) does Pharaoh hear a message that resonates with him. Of course, Joseph’s interpretation proves completely correct, yet had Joseph ineffectively delivered the message, his message would likely have been ignored.
At every stage of their lives, our children will need to persuade someone to do something, and it is highly unlikely that every person our children will need to persuade will be automatically amenable to whatever our children have to say. As a result, it is essential for us to learn from Joseph’s example, first understanding the needs of the listener, and only then delivering a message that will acknowledge the vantage-point of both people in the conversation. May we educate our children to be thoughtful communicators, so that they might reap the benefits that come when a person knows how to deliver a message that needs to be heard.
Shabbat Shalom!
No comments:
Post a Comment