Joseph Goes to Jail - Genesis 39:1-40:23

Life Audio. On today's episode of Timeless Wisdom. In Hebrew, in the Torah, not only do you have in the traditional text the words, you also have from ancient times signs on every word of what we call cantillation or trope. How to sing the word. The Torah is traditionally sung in synagogue, not read. It's sung to certain notes. The notes are all there. One of the rarest notes, I think it appears like 5 times in the entire Torah, is called shalshellet. I will sing it for you. You'll have an idea of how awkward it is. It goes like this. Shall— it's the longest note, and it— in the— of all of the cantillation notes. Why did they put that note on the word 'he refused'? There are two separate reasons given by the rabbis. One is because he refused so many times. And he refused. That's how it would be sung. The other one is he didn't refuse so quickly, and he refused. And I'm dead serious, there is, there is no established answer Which one it is? Is it because he refused so often, or because he took so much time to figure out that he refused? That's coming up on Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager.

If you're eating less, staying disciplined, and the weight still isn't coming off, the problem may not be your effort. It may be your metabolism. After years of stress, dieting, and lack of sleep, the body adapts. It slows down and holds on to fat. That's why PhD Weight Loss focuses on your metabolism first, so your body stops working against you. Mention Prager today and receive 2 free weeks plus free free food, a $1,500 value. Call 864-644-1900. That's 864-644-1900.

Welcome to Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager. Hear thousands of hours of Dennis's lectures, courses, and classic radio programs. And to purchase Dennis Prager's Rational Bibles, go to DennisPrager.com. Uh, how many of you are not Jewish? Would you please go to that section? It's a very macabre sense of humor that I have. Jews have such a rare opportunity to do that that, you know, I wanted to have a chance. No, no, I'm always delighted actually when non-Jews come to the class. How many of you are Conservative Jews? Capital C. God forbid I should say— I don't mean politically. You can raise your hand. Reform? Orthodox? A Reconstructionist? Neurotic? I had a feeling that was the largest group. Okay, very good. How many of you listen to my radio show? How many of you are liars?

Very good.

Okay, wonderful. A couple of preliminary remarks since the, uh, the great majority of you are here for the first time. I'd like to explain to you why I'm doing this and what I'll be doing. The, the Talmud, the Jewish book of law and, uh, tradition and debate and philosophy and you name it, considered by traditional Jews to be on a virtually on a par with the Torah, the first 5 books of the, uh, Hebrew Bible, says that when a Jew dies, he or she will be asked 5 questions by God. And one of them is, did you set regular time for the study of Scripture? I, I know the 5 questions, and I have felt that I was pretty good on the other 4. Uh, do you talk publicly was one of them. No, no, they, uh, Uh, did you play high school basketball? Uh, actually, uh, if I recall them, it's, uh, one is, uh, you will be asked by God if you conducted your business affairs honestly. Now, did you, uh, work toward redemption of the world and, uh, and the bringing of a messianic age? Uh, did you raise a family? If you could. If you couldn't, you're not penalized, so single people don't feel that you don't get in. And, uh, oh, and my favorite, the one without question I have the greatest claims to answering positively, was, is, uh, did you, uh, did you fully partake of all permitted pleasures? And there, there's— I mean, it's not even a question. I, I've even taken of some non-permitted, unfortunately. I, but Uh, but the fifth was, did you set a regular time to study, uh, Torah? And when I learned this, I realized that was the one of the five I could not honestly say that I had, uh, fulfilled. Now, whether you take the, this Talmudic idea literally or not, it shows you how important study is in Judaism's eyes. In fact, in Judaism's eyes, study is more important than all the other law, or equal to all the other laws combined. It doesn't say that about almost anything else, certainly not about prayer. While prayer has a central place in Judaism, study is more important. This is, uh, this is where it is at. So that was one reason. It was a selfish reason. I knew that if I didn't force myself to teach, I wouldn't study regularly, which is a total, uh, flaw in my character, that I would not study the Torah regularly if I didn't have to teach it. It's, it's my flaw. But knowing my flaw I have used it in order to force myself to study. Secondly, I believe that I have something to say. I don't know if that's arrogant or just honest or a combination of both, but I believe that the Torah has a great deal to say to modern men and women, and I feel it when I learn it, and I like to offer its excitement to others. It is a holy work to me, the, the holy work to me, as a, as a believing and religious Jew. And so that is something— that is another reason my dream is to one day write a commentary on the Torah, uh, and, and hopefully finish Genesis this year, which would be a very nice thing to do. Finally, when I teach this, I regard this as many things, including a religious activity, for which reason I wear a kippah, a yarmulke, skullcap, when I teach the Torah. Uh, it adds a dimension of sanctity, uh, which a normal class doesn't have. So you'll— I always explain why I do this. And while I regard it as a holy text, I do not regard it though as, as unapproachably holy. I ask honest questions of the text. If there's a part that bothers me morally or linguistically or whatever, I, I confront that fact. So those are, uh, those are my preliminary opening remarks. If you've missed the first 38 chapters, God created the world and got very upset, then destroyed everybody but Mr. and Ms. Noah. And then revealed himself to one person, or one person discovered God, namely Abraham. The children of Abraham, the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob, lead us to the stories of Joseph, which conclude the book of Genesis. We are at chapter 39 in the book of Genesis, and Joseph has been sold, uh, into slavery, into, uh, to the Egyptians. And that's where we are. Joseph is now in Egypt. What happened to him? Chapter 39. When Joseph was taken down to Egypt, a certain Egyptian, Potiphar, a courtier of Pharaoh and his chief steward, brought him from— bought him from the Ishmaelites who had brought him there, right? He was sold. And if you— those of you who took it with me, it's very complex, the chapter. Who actually sold Joseph? And I won't get into it again, but it's worth looking into. It's not as obviously the brothers as we tend to think it was the brothers. What their role was is a very interesting one. At any rate, he is now working for a very big, uh, Egyptian. Egypt at this time is actually governed by the Hyksos, not Egyptians themselves. And it's part of the reason that he keeps being identified as Egyptian, just as an interesting thing for you to know. But it is also to tell you that he will play a major role with Egypt, and the Jews will end up as slaves in Egypt. Hence all the, the noting of it being Egyptian. God was with Joseph, and he was a successful man, and he stayed in the house of his Egyptian master. Uh, verse 3: And when his master saw that God was with him— by the way, the word for God here, there are two words overwhelmingly used in Genesis and elsewhere in the Torah, uh, they are Jehovah and Elohim. Elohim is the God of the world. Jehovah is more the personal God and the specific God who revealed himself through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as it were, a more, uh, more located within Judaism than utterly universal. It's not two gods, it's just two ways of knowing God. Uh, just as, uh, your, your, your father could be known as Daddy and, uh, and Jerry. I mean, they're, they're— to the— to you it's Daddy if you're the child, and to the rest of the world it's Jerry. It's not a different father, but it's knowing it differently. Elohim is Jerry, if you will. Uh, Dad is Jehovah. Uh, it's a, it's a simple way of putting it, but it's a pretty, it's a pretty accurate one. It uses Jehovah the whole time here except in one spot when Joseph tells Mrs. Potiphar why he can't do a certain favor that she requested, which we'll come to in a moment. Because he was speaking to an Egyptian, he used the larger name of God. Anyway, God, the personal God, is with him the whole time, and he prospers. The guy who was sold as a slave all of a sudden is the head of the household of a major Egyptian. The story of Joseph, uh, Joseph's success in Potiphar's home— that's the name of the Egyptian— is a paradigm, meaning large example, of the Jewish experience. Sold from slavery given an opportunity to succeed, immense success followed by slavery all over again. The Joseph story is Jewish history writ in one person. That is the way it is with Jews. Jews are enslaved. The moment they are liberated, they do well. Then they do too well, and then they get pushed back down again. Then somebody else comes and liberates them. They do well. They do too well and then get pushed down again. This is— I hope it doesn't follow this pattern forever, because if it does, American Jewry would be in for a terrible time. American Jewry has succeeded beyond any other ethnic group by, at least by professional success and affluence and many other areas. In certain ways, Jewish life has not been utterly successful, certainly not in keeping its young committed to Judaism, for example, and to God and religion. But that's a— that's not the issue I want to get into. The issue I want to get into, and only briefly, is to show how Joseph is this classic paradigm of the Jews. He's picked up from a pit, goes to an utterly foreign country, and in a moment he's very successful. The Jews of Germany, the Jews of Persia, the Jews of England— wherever it was, Jews rose. Why it is that Jews rise in any culture is a very fascinating question. And you can, you can, you know, the religious answer might be what the answer is here. God was with Joseph. Well, God is with the Jews. Doesn't mean that God is a Jew fan. Uh, uh, I, I have no such belief. I mean, it's, it's too parochial. God is a human fan, to the extent that God is a fan of anybody or anything. It's just that the Jews— I do believe, or I would not be here tonight wearing a kippah— the Jews are God's messenger, not necessarily God's only messenger. That Christians feel they have a divine message, that Muslims feel it, I bless them. I never deny other— others having a belief in their message. I only affirm my own. I do not deny others. It's for God to— God to ascertain. And in any event, it's really By my belief, I think that there could be multiple messages so long as they don't have contradictory goals. If somebody came and said, "Well, God told me it is important that we hate our neighbor as ourselves," I would have to say, "I think your message is wrong. I don't think God really gave it to you." This episode of Timeless Wisdom will continue right after this.

If you're eating less, staying disciplined, and the weight still isn't coming off, the problem may not be your effort. It may be your metabolism. After years of stress, dieting, and lack of sleep, the body adapts. It slows down and holds on to fat. That's why PhD Weight Loss focuses on your metabolism first so your body stops working against you. Mention Prager today and receive 2 free weeks plus free food, a $1,500 value. Call 864-644-1900. That's 864-644-1900.

Now back to more of Dennis Prager's Timeless Wisdom. At any rate, I certainly hold, as, uh, the greatest Jewish philosopher who ever lived, Maimonides, held, it was Christians who brought the Torah to the world far more than Jews did. That the world knows who Joseph is, who Jacob is, uh, about the Jews as slaves in Egypt is overwhelmingly due to the influence of Christians, not to the influence of Jews. Jews were too small and did not have nearly the sense for much of their history of a— of this universal message as Christians had. And it may very well be that they have a tandem role in history. That's— it's going on a tangent, but I, I just needed to make that clear. Back again, there is a second possible reason why Jews have, have this ability to so rapidly do well in the society which is utterly foreign to them, from Persia to, to South America to North America, in ancient Egypt or whatever. And that is that there are values that, that make people capable of success. It is not ethnicity, it is not race, it is values. There's a book that I strongly suggest to you in this regard. It's easy reading and it's quite brief. It's called Who Prospered. Is that right? If there's anybody— I always forget. Is that right? Who Prospered? Yeah. And it's, uh, does anybody remember the author's name? Lawrence Harrison. Thank you, Mark. Now, Lawrence Harrison, uh, who has spent a lot of time abroad, wrote why, for example, he asked, did North America prosper and South America not? South America is as rich as North America in, in its inherent, uh, in its, in its land and its resources. And he spoke about the, uh, the meritocracy and other beliefs in work that the Protestants had, uh, and it was, uh, it's important. At any rate, whatever it is that enables Jews to do it, Jews have done it. And here you have Joseph as the paradigm. A slave all of a sudden is the head of the household of a major officer of Pharaoh. Namely Potiphar. But he gets in trouble in a moment, you'll see. When his master saw that God was with him— that is, when Joseph's master saw— and that God lent success to everything Joseph undertook, he took a liking to Joseph. He made him his personal attendant and put him in charge of his household, placing in his hands all that he owned. That's remarkable. I mean, that's the, that's the amount of trust that this Potiphar has in Joseph, gives him complete control of his own household. And from the time that the Egyptian put him in charge of his household and of all that he owned, God blessed his house for Joseph's sake, so that the blessing of God was upon everything that he owned in the house and outside. He left all that he had in Joseph's hands, and with him there he paid attention to nothing save the food that he ate. Now Joseph was well-built and handsome. Before I get to well-built and handsome, he was in control, Joseph, of everything except the food. And I looked this up, that's an interesting statement. I mean, he had trusted him with all his money but not with his food. And it turns out, as in chapter, I believe, 43, uh, which is a few chapters hence, uh, there is a statement Egyptians would not eat with non-Egyptians. Would not eat their food and would not eat with them. And so that is probably the reason he could not have this non-Egyptian touching his food and preparing it. And so that, uh, that explains what, you know, you might have overlooked reading the sentence. Joseph's in charge of everything except that. Then comes a very interesting thing. Now, Joseph was well-built and handsome. It's the only time in the entire Hebrew Bible that a man is described that way. Uh, for better or for worse, women are described like that constantly. Uh, well, let's see, yefei to'ar and yefei mare actually means well, well described or well put together and, uh, good to look at. To be, to be literal from the Hebrew, uh, it's always done with good-looking women. Sarah is described that way. His mother Rachel, uh, was described that way. It's the one male who's described as good-looking, as, uh, in, in these, uh, in this term. Uh, the reason is pretty— I think is pretty obvious. It's necessary to understand what then happens, what, uh, which ensues. His good looks and his success and his youth and Mrs. Potiphar's boredom, as I will show you. That's a very important part of this. Uh, what happens next is in large measure Mr. Potiphar's fault. I, I, I have thought this through. Now it's, it's truly, uh, there's a really— there are truly contemporaneous, uh, lessons to be learned. At any rate, uh, he was a— he was obviously good-looking. Verse 7: After a time His master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph and said, "Lie with me." She was clearly not into foreplay and, uh, certainly felt that whispering sweet nothings into his ear was pointless. I mean, that is about as direct as you can get. It is really— you have here literally the classic turnabout of, of usual male-female relations. It is usually men who are that direct, that crass. You know, "Sleep with me, baby," is something you would expect from a male. And you have everything reversed here. He is the helper in the house. He's the good-looking one. She's the owner of the house, so she tells him, "Sleep with me." But he refused. Now let me tell you a cute story on "he refused." It's verse 8, first word, "vayima'aim." In Hebrew, in the Torah, not only do you have, uh, in the traditional text the words, you also have from ancient times signs on every word of what we call cantillation or trope, how to sing the word. The Torah is traditionally sung in synagogue, not read. It's sung to certain notes. The notes are all there. One of the rarest notes, I think it appears like 5 times in the entire Torah, is called Shalshellet. I will sing it for you. You'll have an idea of how awkward it is. It goes like this: Shalshellet. It's the longest note, and it— in the— of all of the cancellation notes, why did they put that note on the word he refused? There are two separate reasons given by the rabbis. One is because he refused so many times, and he refused That's how it would be sung. The other one is he didn't refuse so quickly, and he refused. And I'm dead serious, there is, there is no established answer which one it is. Is it because he refused so often or because he took so much time to figure out that he refused? But it is one of the funniest things Torah, the Torah trope not being known for its humor, it is one of the— in fact, it's the only funny trope idea in the history of Judaism. But it is a fascinating sign on over the word. The rabbis knew what they were doing, for whichever reason it was. This episode of Timeless Wisdom will continue right after this.

If you're eating less, staying disciplined, and the weight still isn't coming off, the problem may not be your effort. It may be your metabolism. After years of stress, dieting, and lack of sleep, the body adapts. It slows down and holds on to fat. That's why PhD Weight Loss focuses on your metabolism first so your body stops working against you. Mention Prager today and receive 2 free weeks plus free food, a $1,500 value. Call 864-644-1900. That's 864-644-1900.

Now back to more of Dennis Prager's Timeless Wisdom. Anyway, he refused her. She says, 'Lie with me,' and he refused. And, and he said to his master's wife, 'Look, look with me here. My master gives no thought to anything in this house, and all that he owns he has placed in my hands. He wields no more authority in this house than I do, and he has withheld nothing from me except you yourself, you, since you're his wife.' How then could I do the most wicked thing and sin before God? That was his response. So he responds on 3 levels, as Sarna puts it, 3 as 3 answers to Mrs. Potiphar, none of which are, I wouldn't want to do it. Uh, did you know he wanted to retain her dignity, or I assume, and what he says is, look, How can I do this to the man who's trusted me with everything in this thing? The only thing he hasn't given me, which is you, I can't take. And which is number 2, I can't take you because you belong to a man already. You belong to your husband. Number 3, which is the real, uh, the Torah's favorite presumably, is, and I'm sinning against God if I do it. And he uses Elohim, or Jerry, as we were saying earlier. You understand? Not— he's not using Jehovah, the personal God, the one related to by the Jews in particular, but uses the universal name for God. I'm sinning against the universal God if I sleep with you. So on whatever level you can understand my rejection, please do. I can't— I can't sleep with you because it would be so ungrateful because you belong to a man and because to do so is a sin against God. She, uh, is not impressed. And, uh, verse, uh, verse 10: And much as she coaxed Joseph day after day, he did not yield to her request to lie beside her, to be with her. My, uh, now my theory on why she asked him Uh, I, I, it was not really fully in jest. Mr. Potiphar leaves his wife every day. She's very rich, therefore doesn't have much to do. So she is in effect this bored affluent woman with a hunk of a man who turns everything into gold, as it were, in, in her home with her every day. I so understand what Mr. Potiphar had left her with every day. I mean, it's only in terms of trying to understand what animated her. And by the way, you know, and it was, it was "lie with me," which is an interesting thing unto itself. Does it mean "make love to me"? Usually it does. It doesn't necessarily. It could really literally mean "lie with me." Uh, it does not— there are a number of ways in biblical Hebrew to say 'and they had intercourse.' The usual one is, uh, 'and he knew his wife Eve.' To, to know— that's why you get the term 'do you know the person biblically?' But here, uh, it's 'lie with me,' and it certainly could— it probably means intercourse, but it could also mean 'I'm lonely.' Uh, now that it probably would have led further is, is, is probable too, but I just want to be as literal and, and as honest to the text as possible. Anyway, verse 11: One such day he came into the house to do his work. None of the household being there inside, she caught hold of him by his garment and said— again lie with me.' But he left his garment in her hand and got away and, and fled outside. When she saw that he had left in her hand— left it in her hand and had fled outside, she called out to her servants and said to them, 'Look, he had to bring us a Hebrew.' Now here it's very interesting. This one says, 'To dally with us.' I hate when they use verbs that nobody ever uses. What was the last time you used dally? Probably in a crossword puzzle. What else do you have there? Brought him here to what with us? Okay, some have mock. What else? Play games. What else? Anybody have another one? I'm curious. Bring insult. Which, which version is that? Revised English? Anybody have another one? Okay, sport. Make sport. Which one is that? Artscroll said make sport. Okay, the Hebrew is literally to play with us, but let's also— can mean make laughter and, and mock us. It also, though, as I showed in another time, can have sexual innuendo. It's to play, you know, if I— if a woman says to a man or a man says to one, play with me, it's usually not baseball. It usually has sexual overtones. So you have here, it's a combination of mock us, I think Dali isn't as good as, a combination of make fun of us, and mock us as some of you had, and with a sexual overtone to it. How is that, what does that mean? How does he mock us? He's just a Hebrew. He's just a Hebrew slave, basically. We bought him. And so him, he would mock us by thinking that he would sleep with me. That's how I read it. And I think I'm being again more or less literal to the, to the text. This is what she makes up for these, for her workers. She called out to the servants, said, look, he had bring us to mock us. This one came to lie with me. But I screamed loud, which she knows can't be verified because they were nowhere to be found, the workers. You know, she— you understand the reason for that, by the way, is you will— in Deuteronomy there is a law. The difference between a virgin who, uh, has, uh— the only way to claim being taken against your will is to have had to have screamed. Somebody must have heard you. If you— if nobody heard you, you probably assented. I, I don't want to get into that. I mean, you have to put your mindset in an ancient mindset, but that is the way it worked. That was the rough rule of thumb. If the woman did not scream, she wanted it. So that's why she said, 'I screamed.' See, again, you have to understand why these words are there. She knows that they couldn't in any way verify it, but if she didn't announce that she screamed they would have said, well, then you are culpable as, as he is. So I— she said, I screamed loud, and when he heard me screaming at the top of my voice, he left his garment with me and got away and fled outside. According to one, uh, explanation, he actually fled naked, that the garment was the only thing he wore, uh, which is possible. Another is that the rich had a garment that was easily removed just on top of the other garments. We don't know. I just want you to know the two possible things that I had read. She kept his garment beside her until the master came home. Then she told him the same story, saying— now it's interesting, why does the Torah then say what she said? It seems redundant, doesn't it? It should just say, and then she told her husband the same story, period. Well, obviously she didn't tell the same story. It says she told them the same story, saying, well, how does it differ? Listen, the Hebrew slave whom you brought into our house— once again accentuating his alien, alienness, right? The Hebrew slave you brought into our house came to me to play with me, but when I screamed at the top of my voice— she made it even now more powerful— not only did I scream, but at the top of my voice, "He left his garment with me and fled outside." All right, if any of you— I don't expect this, but you have to have a very almost Sherlock Holmesian capability. What detail did she tell the workers that she didn't tell her husband? That it was her husband who brought home the— It was his fault he went astray. Well, let me tell you. There is a— let me give you a hint. Had she said to her husband exactly what she said to the workers, this would have ended the Joseph story because he'd have been dead. That's right. Came to lie with me. She did not tell that to her husband. Said came to play with me to her husband. Said came to lie with me to the workers. And that's, uh, that's different. It was different enough for the husband to spare Joseph's life. Now, of course, he could have killed Joseph, and it's a very serious question as to why he didn't. A lot of commentators suspect it's because he didn't believe his wife. I mean, but, you know, to save everybody's face, he couldn't say, you know, I don't believe you, and, you know, and so on. Because if he didn't believe her then he would have to accuse her of adultery and have her killed, you see. So she actually did a very good thing by not making it the severest charge against Joseph to her husband. She saved her life too, possibly, because then he would have had to choose whom he believes. Joseph at that point would have definitely protested because the penalty was not all that awful. He was sent to prison in Potiphar's house, which is not the worst possible fate you can have, certainly. Uh, and, uh, it's an interesting thing that she didn't go the whole way. I want to talk to you though for a moment about adultery and, uh, the concept of sinning, uh, to God when you, uh, when you have adultery, because that is, uh, it is one of the critical elements of, uh, of the Torah. Adultery is in the Ten Commandments, and it's, it's also one of the seven forbidden things to the entire world. Judaism holds that non-Jews have seven basic laws to follow. One of them concerns sexual sin, and in, in that is adultery. Now, this will come as a a source of displeasure to some of you and pleasure to some others who will not admit that it's a source of any pleasure to them. But the ancient— the biblical definition of adultery is sex with a married woman. The, uh, the proof is obvious. Abraham took a concubine. He was not considered an adulterer. You had a number of cases like this in the Torah, and already, because men could take a second wife, a third wife, a concubine, and so on, but women could not do that. Now, the last thing I want to get into is the issue of sexism and so on. You can conclude what you like. I merely have to tell you what the case was. This does not mean that a man can fool around It just means that the, that the understanding then was because a man could in fact take another wife or a concubine, it was specifically addressed to a married woman. Which meant, if you want to reverse it, a single woman could not commit adultery, but a single man could commit adultery, right? And Joseph is a single man, but Joseph would be sleeping with Mrs.— excuse me— with Mrs. Potiphar. At any rate, whatever the strict definition is, why is it a sin against God? It is a fascinating notion. Why isn't adultery, the way most modern people see it, a sin against your spouse? Joseph says here, if I would sleep with you, I would be sinning against God. And that is a basic Jewish doctrine, that if you commit adultery, you have sinned against God first and foremost. The reason that it is first and foremost is, is— and again, you know, uh, this is, uh, it's to skate on thin ice emotionally— but the fact is, it is possible to sleep with a to have an extramarital relationship— not relationship, but extramarital affair— and not necessarily hurt your spouse. I say that because, A, it's a fact, and— but B, because one needs to understand what happens when God is dropped and all of morality is made humanistic. If all of morality is 'Did you hurt somebody else?' Which is the way we have developed it in America and in the West in the last generation. All morality is, if you ask somebody, 'Are you a good person?' they'll say yes. And you ask them why, and they'll answer, 'I don't hurt people.' Morality is defined today as, 'Do you— did you hurt anybody?' And it's not a bad definition, it's just not enough. Because it's possible to commit adultery and not hurt anybody. It is possible to have a meaningless one-night stand that no one knows about, and, and that it goes into the, the heap of history. I, I— this is not a vindication of the act. I can't vindicate it because I believe it's a sin against God. But if your entire outlook is based solely on the question, did it hurt somebody, Well, I'll give you another example. If you don't return your change to a large department store, you paid in cash and they gave you $5 more than on a $500 item that you paid for in cash, do you think that that store will miss that $5? Of course not. If all of morality is determined by did I hurt somebody, keep the bloody $5. Who's gonna be hurt? They're thrilled you showed up. They are thrilled you paid in cash. They don't have to pay American Express more than $5 that they would have had to pay. You could actually defend keeping the extra change on pure grounds of whether or not it hurt anybody. Now, so I ask the question: is it wrong to keep the change? Ah, but if you say yes, you can no longer hold that morality is defined by whether or not you hurt somebody. You see, if you keep the $5 extra change, you have cheated but hurt nobody. You have stolen and hurt no one. You have, as I said, you have in fact helped the store by having them avoid the surcharge that they would pay a credit card. It's a very, very risky proposition to hold that the entire world of morality is definable solely by whether or not somebody got hurt. Why then is it wrong to keep the $5 if nobody got hurt? Because stealing is wrong in God's eyes, is the religious answer. And because if you did it, you affected your own soul. You have hurt your own character, but you have certainly not hurt Saks Fifth Avenue. It's a very important consideration that is never raised today. It is all instrumental ethics. It's all pragmatic stuff. Did you hurt anybody? Didn't you hurt anybody? Ask kids today how they determine— if on the rare, rare instance of a kid actually caring about right or wrong. But if they actually do, it is entirely based on, did I hurt anybody? That is one of the many reasons God is necessary for morality. God holds that the marital bond is sacred. Whether or not the person that you, that you, uh, cheated on knows they were cheated and are hurt is secondary like the change with Saks Fifth Avenue, secondary to the question of its rightness. And that's why this line is so important. That is why he is the only, uh, he and Noah are the only people in the Torah called tzaddik. Joseph and Noah— Noah's not Jewish, he's the only Jew in the Torah who is called a righteous person. Sadiq is the highest appellation in, in Hebrew phraseology for a person. Jewish teaching holds that he got that appellation, he got that name, as a result of refusing Mrs. Potiphar. Who would have known who would have been hurt? She's bored, she's not having a very good relationship with her husband, he is a— he's a bachelor. They— she wants company. He wants company. Who's hurt? That he, at that moment of, of presumably great enticement, said no. This gives him the appellation of Joseph the Righteous. And it's just something to think about in general, the role of God and the role of not using, you know, instrumentalist ethics as your only criterion for what's right and wrong. So a word on adultery, because it is, uh, it's a big issue as a result of this portion, of this portion of the Torah. All right, we're up to, uh, what verse are we up to? 19. Yeah. When his master heard the story that his wife told him, namely, thus and so your slave did to me, he was furious. By the way, the Hebrew for furious show you how it's— you can't possibly translate things literally— is, 'And his nostrils widened.' That is how always in the Torah, uh, the word is for to get angry. Flared. And his nostrils flared. So Joseph's master had him put in prison where the king's prisoners were confined. Not a, not a terrible place. He could have had him killed, of course, but didn't. But even while he was there in prison, God was with Joseph. He extended kindness to him and disposed the chief jailer favorably toward him, toward Joseph. The chief jailer put in Joseph's charge all the prisoners who were in that prison. This is a pretty magical guy, you know. I mean, it's— if I were Joseph, I would really start getting a little cocky at this point, you know. Hey, it really doesn't matter where I am, things just just turn out great. It is really— it is, it's almost humorous. The chief jailer puts Joseph in charge of all the prisoners that were in prison, and he was the one to carry out everything that was done there. The chief jailer did not supervise anything that was in Joseph's charge. This is an absolute mirror image of what happened in Potiphar's house, because God was with him, and whatever he did, God made successful. This episode of Timeless Wisdom will continue right after this.

If you're eating less, staying disciplined, and the weight still isn't coming off, the problem may not be your effort. It may be your metabolism. After years of stress, dieting, and lack of sleep, the body adapts. It slows down and holds on to fat. That's why PhD Weight Loss focuses on your metabolism first so your body stops working against you. Mention Prager today and receive 2 free weeks plus free food, a $1,500 value. Call 864-644- -1900. That's 864-644-1900.

Now back to more of Dennis Prager's Timeless Wisdom. Oh yeah, just a couple of, uh, quick notations here. You notice that there is no dialogue recorded, at least between Joseph and Mr. Potiphar. Uh, you wonder, you know, why didn't Joseph protest? And you also wonder, why didn't Potiphar say, how could you do this to me? My suspicion is because Potiphar did not believe his wife, and, and that's the reason for the leniency of the, uh— oh man, why does that happen? There we go. Okay, chapter 40. Sometime later The cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt. These are very big, uh, roles, incidentally. You know, when I was a kid, I thought, big deal, a baker, you know. In, in Egypt, uh, one of them, one of them noted there were no less than, uh, where did I— God, I wish I'd have noted it for you. They have discovered in ancient Egypt approximately 47 types of bread. It was a very big deal to be the baker of Pharaoh. At any rate, sometime later, the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt gave offense to their lord, the king of Egypt. Pharaoh was angry. Though it does not actually say here, uh, his nostrils spread. So this is actually just got angry with his two courtiers, the chief cupbearer and the chief baker, and put them— by the way, what other term than cupbearer do you have? Butler. Yeah, that's right. A lot of— any other one? Yeah, wine steward. I, I— that's actually, uh, I think the— what, which one is that? I think that's the most accurate from Hebrew. It's really the officer in charge of drinks. That is the— that is the Hebrew, uh, the minister of drinks, which is a great position when you think about it. So the chief cupbearer and the chief baker and put them in custody in the house of the chief steward, in the same prison house where Joseph was confined. The chief steward assigned Joseph to them, and he attended them. When they had been in custody for some time, both of them, the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt who were confined in the prison, dreamed in the same night, each his own dream. And each dream with its own meaning. The fact that they both dreamt was— made the dream significant. Uh, again, you may recall Joseph had two dreams and, uh, or more, and it was only with the second that you really start taking it— that Jacob started. The Torah and Judaism— but we'll begin with the Torah. The Torah is passionately opposed to anything like divination, soothsaying, magic, witchcraft, dream interpretation to tell the future, and the like. In fact, people who do some of those things, it's a capital offense in the book of Deuteronomy. It was very— it wasn't put to use, but it was just to say how bad it was. Let me explain why. Judaism is radically monotheistic. Radically. God rules the universe. Nothing else does. The reason witchcraft is so unacceptable to Judaism, for example, is because it implies that there are other powers in the world. Voodoo is unacceptable— means that there are other powers that you can invoke. Witchcraft is unacceptable for that reason. Tarot card reading— I don't— I'm not telling you not to go to a tarot card reader. I'm telling you though that if you bank your life on it, Judaism opposes it. If you want to have a good time and enjoy it, uh, you know, I'm not— I'm not going to tell you not to. I just need you to understand why Judaism and the Torah had such a fierce opposition. Only God controls the world. That is why Joseph answers, 'I don't read.' Again, he gives a classically Jewish answer. 'Hey, I can't tell dreams at all. Only God can. Maybe God will enable me to do it.' Now do you understand his answer? I can't read a dream because dreams don't foretell anything. That is what he's answering. However, if God wills it, that he gave you the dream message, then fine, then I'll be able to tell you what it was. But you must understand the radical opposition of Judaism to any idea that suggests, that hints of a, of a force in the universe outside of God. That's it. And that's the reason for the opposition. And that is why I hold, on a broader sense, that Judaism made the development of the, of the modern world as obviously carried through, through Christianity, possible. The moment you believe that there are other forces, for example, science can't develop. The very fact that God rules the world, and not a god of thunder, a god of lightning, not a Zeus battling other gods for primacy in the universe— you understand the liberating aspect here? The world goes on, not capriciously, It goes on because you and I determine our fate, with the exception of God having a hand in it. But it is not in the hands of spirits. It's not in the hands of magical devices. Judaism is radically anti-superstition. I have always felt this so deeply. When I was in high school, I took number 13 on my basketball team just for that reason. It was very imbued in me, the anti-superstition idea. I have no problem with black cats, walking under ladders, sleeping on the 13th floor of a hotel, or anything like that, because any of those would say God doesn't govern the universe. If you believe a black cat walking in front of you will ruin your day, then God doesn't rule the world— black cats do. That is exactly the point here. And now you understand the importance of his answer, what Joseph answers, and again, why he is so regarded highly in Jewish tradition He embodies basic Jewish principles even before the Ten Commandments are given, and certainly before the Torah is written. Surely God can interpret. That's what he's saying. I won't tell you a thing. God can. Now tell me your dream. That's what his answer to these two, uh, of Pharaoh's courtiers, uh, in prison is. Then the chief cupbearer told his dream to Joseph. He said to him, in my dream there was a vine in front of me— which makes sense, this is the guy who's in charge of wines— there was a vine in front of me. On the vine were 3 branches. It had barely budded when out came its blossoms and its clusters ripened into grapes. Pharaoh's cup was in my hand, and I took the grapes press them into Pharaoh's cup and place the cup in Pharaoh's hand. Joseph said to him, this is its interpretation: the 3 branches are 3 days. In 3 days, Pharaoh will pardon you and restore you to your post. You will place Pharaoh's cup in his hand, as was your custom formerly when you were his cupbearer. But think of me when all is well, and all is well with you again, and do me the kindness of mentioning me to Pharaoh so as to free me from this place. For in truth, I was kidnapped from the land of the Hebrews, nor have I done anything here that they should have put me in the dungeon. Which, poor guy, is true. He keeps getting thrown into dungeons. By the way, the word that he uses for dungeon is actually pit. The Hebrew plays on exactly what happened to him the first time, uh, the well— actually, well or pit, bore. The, uh, so the exact word that he used where my brothers threw— had thrown him, now the Potiphar, the Egyptians had thrown him. And, uh, so, you know, do me a favor, when this takes place, remember me to Pharaoh. All right, that was the, uh, that was the answer to, uh, to the cupbearer. Now you notice the other guy did not ask him. Only the cupbearer believed that Joseph had any power to do this. But the, the chief baker hears this and goes, hey, hey, hey, this is terrific! What? I had a very similar dream. Same night. What a great thing! He's— this is going to really cheer me up, like he cheered up the cupbearer. Okay, Hebrew, now you tell me my— now I'll tell you my dream and you tell me my interpretation. When the chief baker saw, you see, how favorably he had interpreted— you get it? How good it was. You think, oh, he gives good interpretations, I'm going to do it too. This is the definition of not having expectations. He said to Joseph, in my dream, similarly, just like same positive interpretation, old buddy, there were 3 openwork baskets on my head. In the uppermost basket were all kinds of food for Pharaoh that a baker prepares. 'And the birds were eating it out of the basket above my head.' You'll contrast that to, he had given the grapes to Pharaoh, right? But now there's no Pharaoh here, it's birds. Joseph answered— it's one of those moments in history I would have liked to have been present, but, but invisible. Joseph answered, "This is its interpretation: the 3 baskets are 3 days." And of course you can imagine the smile on the baker's face. "In 3 days Pharaoh will lift off your head and impale you upon a pole, and the birds will pick off your flesh." It's one of those moments where you just wish you were there. In any A number of possible reactions would be logical, like, "Oh, you don't know anything," to, "I had to ask," "It was stupid of me to ask." But the amazing thing too is how Joseph has no emotion here. It almost makes you think Joseph was like in a séance. I mean, can you imagine telling that to somebody? Just like that. I'm not saying, gee, I, I feel terrible that I— you know, you don't want to know, you know. Well, I mean, wouldn't you? I don't know, it's too tough. It was almost as if, like in the first dream, he had no choice. God speaks through me, I can't shut my mouth, in effect, is what he's saying here. But it is a very— I mean, it's a very sobering sort of thing that, that he had this role. Well, sure enough, uh, by the way, as bad as the, uh, the having his head lifted off and then so on is the birds eating at his flesh. And because you know how the ancient Egyptians revered the dead body, so it was a double horror to report to him. Not only will you be killed in 3 days by Pharaoh, but your body will be pecked to, uh, to pieces by birds. It won't be wrapped up, it won't be mummified, it won't be buried, nothing. So it was a particularly awful, uh, piece of news. And, uh, on the third day, his birthday, Pharaoh made a banquet for all his officials, and he singled out his chief cupbearer and his chief baker from among his officials. He restored the chief cupbearer to his cupbearing, and he placed the cup in Pharaoh's hand, just as Joseph had predicted. But the chief baker he impaled, just as Joseph had interpreted to them. Before I get— go on, let me just tell you Uh, there is an interesting play on words on verse 13. Joseph says to, uh, to the baker— no, excuse me, he says to, uh, to the cupbearer in verse 13, in 3 days, how do you have it there? Pardon you and restore you to your post, right? Ah, good. Which one is that? Um, the old, the old one, 1917. Yeah. Okay. The Hebrew is fascinating here. Terrific play on words. He says to, uh, in verse 13, he says to the cupbearer, in 3 days I will now do— literal from Hebrew— Pharaoh will raise your head and restore you to your post. Okay, verse 19. You could only imagine the pain. I mean, the— it's really— it's actually— it's, it's hilariously painful. I truly feel for the baker. Remember, it says— it's exactly the same Hebrew— in 3 days the baker is smiling.

Yeah.

Pharaoh will lift your head. Yahoo! Just as he had said to the cupbearer, Pharaoh will raise your head. But then he adds, from you. You get it? I mean, that is rubbing it in. I mean, that is leading— talk about leading somebody on. This is the ultimate. But really, when you think of— isn't that remarkable how it works? In 3 days, they both got Pharaoh raise your head. They both got except for the baker, from you. Which is exactly, of course, what has, what has happened. Then it says, yet the chief cupbearer did not think of Joseph. He forgot him. This, ladies and gentlemen, I, I did a show a couple of months ago, about a couple of weeks ago, and I, I threw out the question to the listening audience. What trait, other than obvious evil, do you believe I think is the most disgusting trait a person could have? Ingratitude. Right. You heard it. Great. I'm delighted. That is exactly right. Ingratitude. I can handle jealousy, pettiness, a thousand miserable traits. Ingratitude me out of my mind. And here you have it in spades. I mean, here the guy is, Joseph has made his, his last days. And, and by the way, you must understand something. In Egyptian life, if you interpreted a dream correctly, they believed that you had in fact helped make it come, come about. It's not just that you were, you were this, uh, reader. You were the, you were the doer in some ways. Imagine how the baker felt toward Joseph as a result. I don't know where Joseph slept those last 3 nights, uh, but maybe not near the baker. And I know, I mean it, there was— that's not a comfortable thing to do. But he gets out, the cupbearer gets out, and, and it is very powerful because the Torah is, is really redundant here. Yet the chief cupbearer did not think of Joseph. He forgot him. Isn't that something? It's— yes, it is terrible. But I just want to show you that the English of the Hebrew is very interesting. Did not remember him is, is the same as forgetting. That's what forgetting is. But it added it twice. He, uh, this, this man engaged in the ugliest trait, or one of the ugliest traits, and that is ingratitude. That is what had happened. And by the way, there are— I suspect that almost everyone in this room could have a similar story in life of where you have done someone a favor and it has gone unnoticed or unrequited or what have you. And it's a very awful thing. And so it is, uh, it is another trait here that the Torah wishes to teach, I believe, about people. It's also human nature. Right? Assume when you're, when you're low and things are bad for you, you make all these promises, right? And then when things go well, you forget all the people you made the promises to, and you just assume that you deserve it. It's human nature, but human nature is not always very noble. Before I open up for questions, I want to read to you an Egyptian parallel story of the, of the same time that is just like the Potiphar, the Potiphar story. This is an ancient Egyptian tale. It's the story of two brothers who, uh, and it has the same almost opening as the story with Joseph and Potiphar. Then she stood up and took hold of him and said to him, come, let's spend an hour sleeping together. This will do you good because I shall make fine clothes for you. Then the lad became like a leopard with great rage at the wicked suggestion which she had made to him, and she was very, very much frightened. Then he argued with her, saying, see here, you are like a mother to me and your husband is like a father to me, because being older than I, he was the one who brought me up. What is this great crime which you have said to me? Don't say it to me again. All right, the brother, right, you get it, is refusing her, just like in, in Joseph's story. But the wife of the elder brother was afraid because of the suggestion which she had made. Then she took fat and grease, and she became like one who had been criminally beaten, wanting to tell her husband, it was your younger brother who did the beating. So her husband said to her, Who has been talking with you? Then she said to him, not one person has been talking with me except your younger brother. He said to me, come, let's spend an hour sleeping together. Put on your curls. Remember I mentioned to you curls in, in Egyptian life? So he spoke to me, but I wouldn't listen to him. Aren't I your mother? For your elder brother was like a father to you. In other words, exact arguments that he had used in refusing her, she now says she used in refusing him. So I spoke to him, but he was afraid and he beat me so as to not let me tell you. Then his elder brother became like a leopard, and he made his lance sharp and stood behind the door of his stable to kill his younger brother when he came back in the evening to put his cattle in the stable. That's the Egyptian story. There's a very important lesson in this. You have undoubtedly heard that there were many flood stories in virtually every culture. In the ancient culture on Earth, there was a major flood story. And people often say, so what is so, so what is so true or unique about the Bible? The Bible has a flood story. Everybody had a flood story. You must understand what the purpose of higher religion is. It reminds me of people who used to call my show, or still do, you know, who will say, oh, you know, Christmas is nonsense, it really comes from ancient Roman holidays, pagan, pagan festivals, and so on. And I, and I give them the answer from my own religion, but it is fully applicable to Christmas or Easter or anything else like this. There's very little in the world that's utterly unique. Of course people will take the stories or have stories in common. Judaism didn't grow up from Neptune, it grew up from Earth. It was influenced by people around it. Whether the flood story is literally true or is part of the, of the deepest storytelling of a civilization doesn't interest me and is not important for this. The odds are there was a flood at one time. Why would every culture have a flood story if there wasn't some great flood? But the point is not that the stories have similarities. If you look at— focus on that, you miss the point of religion. Certainly miss the point of Judaism and the Torah. The point is not that they have similarities. It's what are the differences? What's the difference here between the Egyptian story and the Torah story. You have a woman asking a man who has been taken into a home to sleep with her. He refuses. She makes up a lie that he tried to seduce her and then gets punished. The difference is the refusal, the reason for the refusal. Why did I spend my time on that line of Joseph? I will sin before God if I do it. They both said— they both had very similar responses. How can I cheat on someone who's treated me that well? Egyptians knew gratitude. Gratitude is not a Jewish invention. It's not a Torah— uniquely Torah idea. Being decent to people who've taken you into their home is not uniquely Jewish. What is uniquely Jewish is that if you cheat on somebody's spouse, you have sinned to God. That was uniquely Jewish. Hammurabi also said, do not murder. Judaism was the first religion to say that the creator of the universe says, do not murder. That's what we call ethical monotheism. That's the uniqueness of the Torah, that God is behind morality. Everybody, when I'm asked, as I always am, Doesn't reason suggest you don't murder? Doesn't reason suggest you be grateful? Doesn't reason suggest you don't rape? Doesn't reason suggest you don't steal? Yes, it does, but it's not enough. As I pointed out with the case of the $5, reason doesn't even suggest returning it. Reason is not enough. The creator of the universe has to want you to do good, not merely what you intuit through your faculty of reason. That's the difference between Judaism and the cultures around it. Nothing else. Everything else is the same. Similar stories, similar legends. The difference is God. The difference is God-based morality, a God-based universe. And that is the answer to the question. Now, people, um, you know, they learn a little and then they all of a sudden dismiss religion. Well, look at the, you know, the holiday of Sukkot in Judaism, the festival where you march around with the palm fronds and the citron fruit. Well, it's an ancient pagan festival praying for fertility. Sure it is. And not only— I'll go further— it's obviously a phallic symbol, the long lulav and the etrog. Of course it is. But what Judaism did with it is what matters. Made it into a holiday where you celebrate the— where you, you announce the transience of life, living in a, in a booth for 7 days, where you ascribe to God fertility and not, not to spirits. It's pouring, if you will, new wine into old bottles. But you must always use old bottles or people don't recognize it. If Judaism had used totally different stories, who would have understood anything? It had to use the stories that people knew. It just had to fill them with new things. I taught this very same thing. Why did God choose to save Noah? In the most famous flood story that we know of from the ancient Near East, the Epic of Gilgamesh, there is a hero saved by God, by the gods too. His name is Utnapishtim. And, uh, why does God— why do the gods save Utnapishtim? Because he's handsome. Why does God save Noah? Because he's righteous. That's all you need to know. If every other detail— raven going out of the ark, 40 days of flood— they're all the same, and you say, you see, there's nothing divine about this story. Everybody had floods and arks and, and rain and, and ravens. The whole divine point is the divine value. That's what makes it different. I am more impressed by the fact that it had the same story and Judaized it, or moralized it, God-ized it, than I would be with a totally different story. That's what makes the Torah the Torah. That's why in 1994, in southwestern United States of America, the last continent populated, Oh well, that's not true. Well, it might be. I think it is. Even if you— I'm talking about even ancient people, but certainly from last populated by Jews, by Westerners, you are studying the Torah and not the Epic of Gilgamesh. The poetry is just as good in the other one. That's why I'm never terribly moved by the Torah as literature. It is great literature, but so is Shakespeare. I don't know if the Torah is greater literature than Shakespeare. But somehow or other Shakespeare is not the Torah, even though literarily he might be superior. That's the story here. Sure, Egyptians had a story about the, about the wife who wanted the, the guy at the house. The story is almost identical except for one line where the guy refuses. If I do it, I sin against God. And that's why Egyptian culture of that time is dead. And Jewish culture is alive. That's the difference. That's the power of the stories, what the, what the new wine in the old bottles has become. Let me take questions, comments, uh, anything you'd like to raise. Yeah, um, in verse 16, and she laid up his garment by her until his master came home, she referred to him as his master, not her husband. Just wondering if there were any reason. Verse 16 in chapter 39. Okay, if you're asking, it says she kept his garment beside her until his master came home. Why doesn't it say until her husband came home? Well, you know, there's, there's always the, the cheap answer. If it would have said her husband, you would have asked why not his master? You know, that's, you know, it's, it's one of those things, even literarily, you have a choice, uh, which one could be used. Uh, it's emphasizing the role that he had. It's his master, and he can do anything he wants with Joseph. That's the relevant point here. More, uh, as for the story, I suspect that the mere fact emphasizing that it's her husband is an interesting thing about their marital relationship, but that it's Joseph's master— Joseph is the story, not Mrs. Potiphar. That's why I think It uses that term. Okay? Yes? With the end, where we finished, with the cupbearer not remembering, could it be more than just ingratitude, or perhaps he wasn't— like the thought was taken away from him so he wouldn't repeat it and talk about, you know, soothsaying and fortune-telling? No, because— yeah, you mean that God would have taken the memory from the cupbearer? I don't think so, because Joseph, again, as you'll see, see next week, uh, and that we meet again— it's 4 in a row, which is probably the best way to do it. Uh, at any rate, uh, you will see he again ascribes the entire power to God. If anything, uh, even on that alone, it would have been, it would have been better for the cupbearer to say, you know, there's this guy who believes in Jehovah, who says Jehovah talks through him. And who really knows dreams. So I don't think God would want that credit to be— to have been removed. It's, uh, it's just a statement about human nature. The other is— way I learned it as a child in yeshiva, because they always want to give a twist on, on these things— is, well, it serves Joseph right. Why did he rely on a human being when he should have only relied on God? That is the way I learned it in yeshiva. And it's the yeshiva twist on the issue. Uh, the reason I reject that, that view is because it's so, it's so different from the normative Jewish view, really, which is you do what you can to help yourself and you don't sit around waiting for God to help you. I think Joseph would have sinned Jewishly if he just said, hey, why should I ask him to try to get me out of the jail? God will do it. What kind of talk is that? So, uh, anyway, um, you know, you didn't raise that, but I'm just saying. Yeah, yes, sir. Uh, when you discussed Joseph's comment that to commit adultery was a sin against God, you suggested there was some formal code which already established that, which predated the Ten Commandments. And I wonder what kind of formalized code might have existed. Yeah, that was my question. You, you say, uh, he, he raises the question. I'm repeating it for everybody and for the tape. You know, what formalized code might have Joseph realized he was violating? Uh, the— my suspicion is that there was a— that there was a non-formalized, or at least non-written, legal or moral tradition that preceded the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments did not come to the— to the Hebrews out of nowhere. It— that's my suspicion, and I think it makes sense. That there is already a sense there is a God and God has certain desires. Remember what the way Jacob reacted when Dinah was raped? This is not the sort of thing that is done in Israel. That was his reaction. In other words, we don't live like this. This is not our behavior. Instead, all we do is kill everybody who then was living in the town. That we, that we do do in Israel. This is just bad humor, uh, but I, uh No, uh, so that's what I believe. I believe there was an informal oral, oral moral tradition, and one of it was that God, God is behind the belief that you don't have to commit adultery. Yep. Now, do you believe that the events that you recognize are historically true? And if so, who was the eyewitness who recorded all these things? Yeah, right. I'm sorry I called on you, but I, uh, but I did. And, uh, do I believe that the events Did this that I described tonight actually happen as written? And if so, who was the eyewitness? I am agnostic as to the answer. I have— you might— it's a good excuse for me to tell you, you might want to take a look at my tapes and then writings that are outside available. I, what I taught, in fact, at the University of Judaism, the 13 principles of the Jewish faith of Maimonides. One of them is that God wrote the Torah, and I— it was the toughest lecture of my lifetime of giving lectures. And in a nutshell, I will, I will just tell you, my attitude is I live as if this is true, whereas my brain retains its intellectual honesty and just doesn't know. I live as if the Torah is the accurate— is, is the accurate representation of events as written. I treat it as holy, which is why I spoke about wearing a kippah before I taught it. I am not teaching Hebrew literature, I am teaching Torah. On the other hand, I cannot remove my brain in order to make room for faith. I live with this duality which is not contradictory but is not, on the other hand, entirely complementary either. I don't know the answer to that scientifically. Was there a Mrs. Potiphar who told the man Joseph these things? I, I don't know, but I have a more important answer than that. It doesn't matter if it really happened or it's the story as recorded, what difference does it make? And I mean that totally sincerely. Name me one possible difference, because even if it did happen exactly as written, its only importance is what we learn from it. Who cares about Mrs. Potiphar? She's irrelevant to the world. What— whether she existed or didn't exist, she's irrelevant. The only thing relevant is what you learn, what the story has to teach, of what the story has to teach. That's why I made a big deal about Joseph's answer. That's a big deal. Why is Joseph so important? Because he's the sort of man who did that. Because he's the sort of man, uh, who, uh, who, uh, what was this other, uh, yeah, well, it was another positive trait that I just mentioned about him. What? Yeah, I know he was righteous, but there was another thing that I, I— oh, oh. That he attributed all of his abilities to God, took none of the credit to himself. That— am I— is this— listen, did George Washington say, 'I cannot tell a lie, I chopped down a cherry tree'? Okay, okay. I don't know if it happened, and I don't care. What I care is that a civilization be based upon the belief that its first president couldn't tell a lie, because that helps. And the last— the first and the last. That is right. That's right. Well, so long as one couldn't, what the hell, you know? That, that's— I really have given you the most honest answer. It doesn't matter. What matters is Torah. I, I could reinforce it with one point. I really am glad you asked it. Torah means teacher. Most people don't know that. They think it means law, or they— or, or, or I don't know what else they might think it means. It means teacher. It certainly doesn't mean history. This is not a history book. It's not a geology book. Those who wish to learn about the formation of the universe geologically from this are reading the wrong book. For that, you go to geologists. Geologists don't tell you why the world was created, and the Torah doesn't tell you exactly how it was created. Okay, that's the reason the stories are important. Yes. Yeah, you talk about Joseph's life as a paradigm or analogous of Jewishness. You talk about Joseph's life as a paradigm or analogous to the trials of Jews historically. Yes. You say he's a tzaddi and he does all these righteous things. Can you address the parallel? Because I, I question whether Jews historically at this point in time are in fact analogous to Joseph. Yeah, uh, she asks— I had made an analogy of Joseph to the Jewish condition of, of slavery, success, immense success in different countries, different civilizations, then back to slavery. Does it hold, you're asking, to also his being a righteous person, since you have a problem with thinking of the Jews as all righteous? Uh, I— it never even occurred to me that that would be the parallel. However, however, uh, and I wrote a book of took 7 years to write, documenting a hypothesis that ultimately anti-Semitism, or more appropriately, Jew hatred, is in fact hatred of the standards embodied in this book and in the Ten Commandments, even though Jews so often violated it. I do believe that Jews historically, half the time unwittingly, did embody values that the bad hated. If the— one of the interesting things about antisemitism is ask who the antisemites— see, if antisemites turn out to be nice guys, I, you know, I have a real problem. But when you look at the, you know, when you, when you realize that it's, it's a Hitler, it's a Stalin, uh, you start to realize wherever Jews are, the truly bad tend to find the Jews particularly despicable. We're the only group that communists and fascists hated. Now, that's an interesting thing. Why is that? Communists called Jews fascists, and fascists called Jews communists. And I have a whole list of it that I remember writing in the book we co-authored. If I remember writing that paragraph, how, you know, when Jews are— when Jews live together, they're called tribal. When they live among others, they're called rootless cosmopolites. You know, it's, it's like, uh, it's like it's a no-win situation. If they, if they live in Israel, uh, you see, they are, uh, they're— it's this big tribal thing, uh, that, you know, just gathering and racist thing that Jews are living together. They live around the world, how come they don't assimilate? You know, it's, uh, or they do assimilate and then you see they're, uh, they're, they're rootless and so on. Uh, I do believe that, uh, Jews The, the, that Jews are infinite. The sum of Jews is infinitely larger than its, than its, uh, individual pieces. The average Jew is unimpressive, impressive, just like the average anybody is impressive or unimpressive. I truly believe there are only two races, the decent and the indecent, and there are plenty of indecent Jews. But the sum total of Jewish historical life has been much larger than its indecent product, than its indecent members. And that's, uh, that's the best way I could answer it. And that is why it gave birth to, uh, world-changing ideas like Christianity and Islam. And, uh, Christians acknowledge that. Muslims still don't. Uh, no, no, I, I think the day will come when they will. And, uh, it takes nothing from the greatness of a religion any more than, uh, it doesn't take from Judaism to— as I said to the, uh, the, the old bottles that Judaism poured into it. Uh, so that's my, my answer to that. But I certainly don't see that parallel when I said Joseph and the Jews, that, oh, the Jews are righteous. Nah. Yes, could you yell? It's hard to hear you.

Yell.

We take into consideration that the Torah is mainly a tool for teaching, and that learning is important. Further taking into consideration that it's not necessarily important that some of the things related to the Torah happened or didn't happen. And going further, covering the whole premise of right and wrong, considering we live in a world where there are so many people who do and do not believe in God, it doesn't seem to weaken the premise that the Jewish people can believe in God and we don't want to hurt God, but there's also nothing wrong with believing that acts are inherently wrong because they're wrong, and there are far more acts now in today's complex society than there ever were or was contemplated many years ago. Stealing $5 is inherently wrong. You can't justify it because because it was only $5. There was no bargain in the agreement. Adultery, taking into consideration the state, we cannot foresee the future. It's not fair to say it won't hurt my spouse or my girlfriend or my lover tomorrow or next week. We can't foresee the future. All we can say is it didn't hurt today. So it would seem that's inherently wrong in addition. Yeah, whether— all right, well, this will have to be the thing for tonight. The question is, we don't— I assume it is that we really don't need the God basis. There are just things that are inherently wrong. Is that what you're saying? Yeah, okay. Since the world won't accept this one universal God, it's better that societies have beliefs that things are inherently wrong. Okay, I have waged a lifetime battle against that notion, uh, on purely pragmatic grounds, not on faith grounds, on pragmatic grounds. I— my first agenda is that people not hurt each other. If they do— if they don't hurt each other because they believe the world rests on the back of a turtle that will bite them if they hurt people, I am thrilled. I couldn't care less why people do good as long as they don't hurt people. And do good. However, my passion for God-based ethics comes from the belief that until people believe in that, it won't work. Your idea that there are things inherently wrong, that people will just come to realize that, to me has no basis in reality, or little basis. Uh, the Germans argued— the Nazi regime argued to Germans, uh, very rationally. I saw the films. I can't believe it. I watch TV maybe 4 times a year, and I saw on the Discovery Channel something that made my entire cable bill worth it. And that is, they showed the actual films that the Nazi regime showed the German people, with of course English subtitles, uh, uh, in order to convince the German people about the wisdom and rightness of killing the, uh, severely mentally handicapped and severely physically handicapped fellow Germans. The arguments were unassailable. On rational grounds, the Nazi regime was 100% right. These people did not enjoy life themselves. They did not contribute to others' lives. They were banes on the economy. They could be killed in a painless manner. Why, why do this? Why have the problem? And you are revolted. But the only reason you're revolted is because originally Judaism, and then other God-based religions, said God says it's wrong. I will do an unwise thing and end by challenging you on an issue of our time which we think is inherently right. The sophisticated and the God-based think is inherently wrong: abortion on demand. It's only the God-based crowd that says, wait a minute, 'Wait a minute, that's wrong.' It's the non-God-based, highly intellectual crowd that says, 'Wait a minute, it's absolutely fine.' Now, the fact of the matter is there, there is no religious tradition that says it's absolutely fine, not even liberal Christianity or liberal Judaism. I'm not saying it shouldn't be legal. I'm saying there's no argument that it's perfectly fine. It's a— the people who were left to thinking whether it's inherently right or wrong came to one decision on abortion. The people who invoke God came to another one. Right now, in our time, without even taking a position— though my position is well known— without taking a position, at least you have to acknowledge the inherent believers and the God believers came to totally opposite conclusions. One of them is right and one of them is wrong. And if in fact the God-based crowd was more right— I think they're wrong in calling it murder, but I think they're right in challenging its morality in the vast majority of cases outside of incest, rape, and so on, where it really is purely convenience. And that's a fact. It's a very unfortunate or difficult one to utter, in our age where certain things are not utterable. But the fact is, that's the case. And it was the God-based that came to a different conclusion. Now I got to tell you, that's had a real impact on this guy. It really did. Because every single force in our society— you are not welcome at cocktail parties. You are— you might as well have body odor of 2 weeks duration. To be pro-life in sophisticated company in the United States of America. The only people willing to take that were the God-based ones, not the inherent right or inherent wrong ones. So too Judaism, alone in the world, said to the Greeks, you're wrong. The Greeks exposed sick babies and ugly babies on mountaintops to die. And you know what Greek philosophers said? Jews are barbarians. Because they keep every one of their children alive, even the ugly and the deformed. On tomorrow's Sunday Fireside Chat, Jill is the head of PREP, that is the Prager University Resources for Educators and Parents. And you need to know about this because children, children's ability to think clearly, their intellectual development, and their moral consciences are often being destroyed, or at least badly influenced, badly touched at our schools, tragically, in the United States of America. Join us tomorrow to hear more on Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager. Visit DennisPrager.com for thousands of hours of Dennis's lectures, courses, and classic radio programs, and to purchase Dennis Prager's Rational Bibles. We want to take just a second to thank the team at Life Audio for their partnership with us on the podcast. Go to lifeaudio.com to find dozens of other faith-centered podcasts in their network, including shows about prayer, Bible study, parenting, and more.

If you're eating less, staying disciplined, and the weight still isn't coming off, the problem may not be your effort. It may be your metabolism. After years of stress, dieting, and lack of sleep, the body adapts. It slows down and holds on to fat. That's why PhD Dennis Prager weight loss focuses on your metabolism first, so your body stops working against you. Mention Prager today and receive 2 free weeks plus free food, a $1,500 value. Call 864-644-1900. That's 864-644-1900.