Joseph and Haman Pass the Marshmallow Test

In 1972, psychologist  Walter Mischel of Standford ran his famous “marshmallow” experiment, a study on delayed gratification.

In this study, children were offered a choice between one small but immediate reward, or two small rewards if they waited. Each child was left alone in a room with a single marshmallow for about 15 minutes. If they could prevent themselves from eating it, they would receive an extra marshmallow (or pretzel stick). In follow-up studies, the researchers found that children who were able to wait longer for the preferred rewards tended to have better life outcomes overall, more successful careers etc.

This question, of being able to delay gratification, arises in the lives of two interrelated biblical characters. In Hebrew the verb להתאפק le-hitapek means to forcefully control oneself and to hold back from impulsive action. Its appearance in the Tanach is fairly rare.

The first time we find it is in the Joseph narrative. After so many years in Egypt, away from his family, Joseph is now faced with the situation that his brothers have come to find food. He is able to play his role as an Egyptian viceroy when his ten brothers first make their appearance, to put on a poker face and speak harshly to them; but when they come a second time bringing his brother Benjamin with them – his only brother from his mother Rachel, who he last saw when Benjamin was a child – we are told (Gen 43:30-31):

29. And he lifted up his eyes, and saw his brother Benjamin, his mother’s son, and said, Is this your younger brother, of whom you spoke to me? And he said, God be gracious to you, my son. 30. And Joseph made haste; for his bowels did yearn upon his brother; and he sought where to weep; and he entered into his chamber, and wept there.

31. And he washed his face, and went out, and controlled himself, and said, “Set on bread.”

Joseph holds back all that he is by feeling for another length of time, because he has to put in motion a plan to force the brothers into a place of repentance and growth. But finally, in Gen 45:1:

1. Then Joseph could not hold himself back before all those who stood by him; and he cried, Cause every man to go out from me. And there stood no man with him, while Joseph made himself known to his brothers. 2. And he wept aloud; and the Egyptians and the house of Pharaoh heard.

Who is the second figure? None other than Haman. We find in Esther 5:10 that Haman, full of ire against Mordechai who stubbornly refused to stand and bow to him, Haman “controlled himself” and only when he came home did he allow himself to give vent to his feelings before his wife and his advisors.

Haman is the enemy of all the Jews, but in particular, the line of Rachel’s sons, meaning Joseph and Benjamin, are in the frontline of the battle against Haman and his ancestor Amalek. We see this in the commandment of King Saul (from the tribe of Benajmin) to kill Agag, Haman’s ancestor. Then, in the scroll of Esther, Mordechai and Esther, likewise of the tribe of Benjamin, are given the opportunity to fix this mistake of their ancestor Saul, and to do away with the epitome of evil.

Joseph does not face an Amalekite, per se. But the book of Esther is strongly connected to the Joseph narrative, by means of various themes and textual phrases. This connection creates the bridge for us to place Joseph and Haman side by side. Thus we observe that both Joseph and Haman reign themselves in, and then, when the time is right, let their feelings out. But what different feelings! Joseph has had to hold back his love for his younger brother, his desire to know if his father is still alive, and the words of peace and forgiveness with which he wants to shower his brothers. Haman has had to hold back his rage, hatred, frustration and dissatisfaction.

Returning to the marshmallow test. We understand that both Joseph and Haman would have passed the test; and, just as the self-restraining children of 1972 did, they saw success in their careers – both rose to the position of second-in-command of a global superpower. But what the marshmallow test does not indicate is whether this ability to hold back will end up being used for uplifting and moral ends or for nefarious purposes. Both heroes and sociopaths can, it seems, bide their time.

------------------------

Postscript 1:

A third biblical character by whom the root להתאפק appears is none other than King Saul. This cannot be a coincidence (I Samuel 13): 

11. And Samuel said, What have you done? And Saul said, Because I saw that the people were scattering from me, and that you came not within the days appointed, and that the Philistines gathered themselves together at Michmash;

12. Therefore said I, The Philistines will come down now upon me to Gilgal, and I have not made supplication to the Lord; I forced myself therefore, and offered a burnt offering.

This error, of making an offering himself instead of waiting for Samuel, costs Saul his kingdom. The interesting thing is that though the word ויתאפק generally means holding back from action, here he does the opposite, he actually forces himself to take action at a time when he should have kept still. He does not delay gratification but rather the opposite, he forces himself into action. And this costs him his success.

It is so interesting to me that the very same word is used here, to mean practically the opposite thing, and that this story is about King Saul, who is connected to both Joseph and Mordechai/Haman. I feel as if there is more to explore here.

Postcript 2

Joseph’s holding back becomes even more admirable in light of the fact that the Joseph spiritual-psychological trait is also at times the opposite of delay –  they come first, before everyone else.

Sometimes this is for the good: Joseph is the first to go down to Egypt, setting in motion G-d’s plan; Messiah son of Joseph is the harbinger.

Other times, it is with dire consequences: see the midrash telling of the Ephraimites’ premature and fatal exit from Egypt, and the fact that the ma’apilim, the people pushing to go to the Promised Land, may have included Zelofchad of the tribe of Menashe… (and they were killed by Amalekites, by the way.) 

Orphans

Esther is orphaned of both her father and mother; that is why she is raised by her cousin Mordechai. Under the assumption that every detail of a person's biography shapes them in a certain way, what is the significance of her being an orphan?

It has been pointed out many times that the Esther and Joseph story share similarities - both in the storyline (dragged away from their homes, to make their way alone in a foreign context; becoming close to a powerful ruler and being able to help their families through their position of power etc.) and in actual intertextual connections, of similar words and phrases.

Joseph too was an orphan - his mother having died when he was a young child. Although his father Jacob is still alive, Joseph does not see him between the age of 17 and 39, until they are reunited. Conceivably, he feels abandoned by him, for allowing his brothers to sell him and not coming to look for him. Additionally, he cannot even know if Jacob is still living all this time. Thus, for all intents and purposes he is orphaned of both parents for most of his young adult life: in Potiphar's house, in the prison, and in the first part of his service as Pharaoh's viceroy.

There is a commandment to be kind to the orphan, because this person is vulnerable, lacking the basic parental care and nurturing needed for fundamental security in the world. It seems, looking through the prism of every detail carefully calibrated by the Divine, that Joseph and Esther being orphaned at a young age was part of what shaped these two for their important and historical destiny. How exactly it did so only God knows; but I imagine that it created a sensitivity, a reflectiveness, and a shyness that was part of their appeal, that meant that they both "found favour in the eyes of all" - which was an important part of their success. 

We also know that they were both described as beautiful. Rabbi Isaac Luria, the Arizal, points out that the word for orphan, YaTOM is the abbreviation for Yefeh Toar V'yefeh Mareh, meaning beautiful of form and countenance - a phrase used to describe Joseph (Gen. 39:6). We can see that Esther is similarly described (Esther 2:7) as Yefat Toar V'Tovat Mareh - again, spelling YaTOM. 

I think what we learn is that being orphaned at a young age is a traumatic experience, and can undoubtedly leave scars. At the same time, it can create a delicacy of feeling, an empathy to others, that may be the incubator for future leadership - provided the person can get past the psychological damage entailed.



 

From the Heights to the Depths

If you were Joseph sitting in prison, what would you be thinking? Might it be:
"I don't understand this. My life makes no sense. The dreams I had in childhood felt so real and true - and they are further than ever from being realised. What am I doing here?"

But what if, unbeknowst to him at the time. every element in Joseph's life was being carefully crafted by a Divine hand in order to shape him into becoming the man of God he must become?

It's interesting to note that Joseph was not thrown into just any prison, but specifically into Pharaoh's jail. There he would meet many ministers and offficials who had fallen out of favour. One day they were at the top of the power food chain, the next they had been toppled into the pits of prison. 

Perhaps Joseph was being shown this sight deliberately. He learned repeatedly that a person could, upon the king's whim, go from fame to incaraceration. He himself had gone from the heights of favour twice - the first time, a teen beloved by his father, he ended up in a pit by the hand of his cruel brothers; the second, the trusted manager of all of Potiphar's household, he was falsely accused of rape and thrown into prison. The King of Kings, just like the mortal king, could do precisely that - whiplash you  מאיגרא רמה לבירא עמיקתא. We are not in control.

This lesson was branded upon Joseph's mind. Finally released, he knew to his core that no interpretation can be made without divine aid, and was able to be the איש אלהים that could carry out God's plan properly and without hubris.

p.s. adding something I heard after writing this - that Rebbe Nachman sees precisely this kind of symbolism in the dreidel. Everything turns around, revolving and changing from one thing to the next, from top to bottom and from bottom to top again. Connecting the Joseph story to Chanukah, the time at when it is read every year.

Hear please! The limits of communication

Genesis 37:6

"And he said to them, Hear, please, this dream which I have dreamed"

This is the second dream Joseph is sharing with his brothers. The words "Hear please!" stand out in their emphasis. The commentary Hizkuni writes that in this Joseph is trying to convince his brothers that this second dream proves it is all coming from heaven.

Yet he fails to convince them - on the contrary, they hate him even more. 

We have all had, no doubt, the feeling of debating or arguing with someone, and thinking, "If I just say the right thing, or use the right words, s/he cannot help but see the truth of my position." Advocates of specific political positions, for example, continue to urgently share videos of posts on social media thnking, no one who sees this can remain unconvinced. And yet people do. Because when they are entrenched, or entirely committed to their viewpoint, or emotionally blocked, it basically does not matter what is said to them, it will not make a dent. And the brothers were entrenched. "Hear please!" begs Joseph, thinking logic or divinely-sent evidence will win the day; but it is a lost battle from the outset.

I'd like to make a connection between the above and a question that has been troubling me for years.

Jumping to an earlier section of Genesis: Rebecca and Isaac seem to have a good relationship. They pray together for children (vs. Rashi);  and Isaac, unlike Abraham or Jacob, never takes a second wife, even though the children are long in coming. So why did Rebecca, seeing that he was about to give the birthright blessings to Esau, not sit down to discuss with him this plan? After all, she has a very strong proof that the blessings should go to Jacob - the fact that God told her even before they were born, "And the older shall serve the younger?"

It seemed to me that the answer lay in Eve's curse:

To the woman he said, I will greatly multiply the pain of your child bearing; in sorrow you shall bring forth children; and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you (Gen 3 16.)

We can't help noticing the parallel with Gen 4:7:

If you do well, shall you not be accepted? and if you do not well, sin lies at the door. And to you shall be its desire and [yet] you shall rule over it.

The parallel set up by these two verses is: as woman is to man (her desire to him, yet he rules)

so evil inclination is to human (its desire to him/her, yet s/he rules)

Here, woman and evil inclination are drawn similarly. What is the resemblance? I felt that a woman stuck in a patriarchal system is not free to make her wishes known. Just as the evil inclination must work by subterfuge, whispering its seducations quietly in your ear and making you think it's a great idea to go do that evil thing, so too a woman must manipulate, whisper, and make the man think he is acting independently. This is truly a curse!

But just as Adam can free himself from the curse by harnessing nature and progressing, so too woman can free herself by changing herself and society. By becoming fully whole and balanced, she invites wholeness and balance in the man. And so we can head for equal relationship. Sarah Yehudit Schneider explains that this is the final destination: The Ari states in this place that the 7th and ultimate relationship between man and woman is when they meet “face to face and are completely equal.” (You Are What You Hate, p. 93)

* *

I still stand by the above idea, that the world must try to move towards equal and open relationship, of communication and respectful debate and listening. However, in the recognition that the world might not yet be quite there, I learned something from the Joseph story that sheds other light on Rebecca's action. Perhaps she was simply aware of Isaac's blind spot. He loved Esau and would not be able to listen to any argument under the sun. So she had to resort to this rather repugnant trick.

This is not ideal,  it also relates to an imperfect world, but at least it is not as gender-imbalanced or tainted by curse as the first situation. Both men and women have their blind spots. Communication is not always the solution to problems in relationship. People have all sorts of emotional blocks than can only be resolved in other ways than direct speech.  Had Joseph been wiser and more mature, he might have looked for other ways to convince the brothers than appealing to their reason.

Unrequited Love

A blog post at Times of Israel