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.) 

Another instance of topsy turvy

In this blog, I discussed the topsy-turviness behind two pieces of Talmud relating to Purim.

I think the same key can be used to unlock this puzzle.

The gemara in Megila 15a asks:

What did Mordecai say when he cried out his great and bitter cry (Chapter 3:2)?

It offers two possibilities:

Rav said: He said Haman has risen above Ahasuerus, for he saw that Haman had become even stronger than Ahasuerus himself, and that he controlled all affairs of the empire.

And Shmuel said: The upper King has prevailed over the lower king (saying this euphemistically and insinuating just the opposite). In other words: it would appear that Ahasuerus, the lower king, has prevailed over the higher King, God in Heaven, Who desires good for the Jewish people!

While we were discussing this gemara, Levi Newman asked me – why do both Rav and Shmuel have a similar theme of someone who is above someone else?
It's a good question. They could have suggested so many other things for Mordechai to cry out.

At first I made the connection with Esau – the great and bitter cry of Mordechai is couched in practically the the same language as Esau's cry when he discovers his brother has taken his birthright. Jacob has suddenly overtaken Esav to become the firstborn. It's all upside down.

But then I thought - the answer is more general and encompassing than that: Rav and Shmuel's answers were drawing directly on the "venahafoch hu" concept. "asher yishletu hayehudim", the Jews suddenly had the ascendance over their enemies, overturning the natural order. So too, the natural order is overturned in both Rav and Shmuel's statements. This is the essence of Purim.

For He Told Them He Was a Jew

Esther chapter 3: Haman has become mighty, and all the king's servants are bowing to him. All except Mordechai.

3. Then the king’s servants, who were in the king’s gate, said to Mordecai, Why do you transgress the king’s command? 4. Now it came to pass, when they spoke daily to him, and he did not listen to them, that they told Haman, to see whether Mordecai’s words would stand; for he had told them that he was a Jew.

So I asked my Bibliodrama participants to be Mordechai, and posed the following question to them:
"Mordechai, you told Esther to keep her Jewish identity a secret. And yet you yourself reveal that you are a Jew - and in a very dangerous context, that of not bowing to Haman, offending him, and breaking the King's decree, to boot.
- At what point did you tell them you were a Jew? From the start, or in the course of time?"

My participant, Viktoria, replied as Mordechai: 
"In the beginning I kept it hidden. I was afraid to reveal my identity. But as time went on, and I daily did not bow, that action strengthened me. And it was during that process that I found myself suddenly deciding 'Enough of hiding, it's time to speak my truth. The time has come for me and us as a nation to stand up and not hide anymore, suffering the consequences if necessary."

I find it fascinating that, according to this interpretation, it was this situation with Haman, something that was the antithesis of all that is godly, that brought out this courage in Mordechai and enabled him to declare "I am a Jew". It reminds me very much of another biblical person who stands up and declares "I am a Hebrew" only because he finds himself in a strange situation that is not, seemingly, the godly route - and that is Jonah (Jonah 1:9):

I am a Hebrew and I fear the God of Heaven, who has made the sea and the dry land.

As I explain in another blog post "The Jonah Epiphany", this entire set of events with the sailors was not meant to occur; it would not have happened at all had Jonah obeyed God. And yet it enabled him to come to this place of growth for him, like Mordechai. 

We can deduce from this that even situations that seem difficult and wrong (and maybe specifically these) can be marvelous opportunities to bring out of us inner strengths we did not know we possessed.

Angry at Esther - God's Defender

I was discussing Megillat Esther with someone who expressed strong negative feelings that surprised me.

This person, a religious Jew who grew up in a rather different environment, every year becomes upset when he listens to the book of Esther being read, because there is no mention of God's name. He feels indignant, offended by the fact that Esther and Mordechai did not pray or give thanks to God for the miracles vouchsafed to them.

"The Torah makes it clear that it is always about God. We are to praise God and worship God," he protested. "What on earth is this?!?" He even suggested that we were punished with (longer) exile due to this egregious omission on the part of Esther and Mordechai. 

I found his defense of God moving, but of course I had my explanations at the ready. It's impossible that Esther and Mordechai omitted mention of God by accident, or due to any beliefs that the miracle of Purim came about accidentally/through human agency only. And the fact that the rabbis include the megillah and made Purim into a significant festival obviously validates Esther and Mordechai as people of faith.

But my conversational partner remained unconvinced and angry. This was the first time I had ever had such a conversation, and I must confess it came as quite a surprise. What I appreciated about it though was the absolute incomprehension of how you could have a religious text without God in it - no matter what the reason. 

I think since I've grown up with Esther for my entire life, I've always accepted the explanation that the book represents God's working in hidden ways. I find meaning in that message. Yet why should we accept that so easily - why indeed should there be a scroll in which God's name does not appear at all?

Yes, let us question that, let us be indignant for God's honour. Perhaps every year God awaits our zealousness for the divine name, to return it to centre stage. And perhaps every year, God sighs and shrugs upon seeing how facilely we accept the hiding of the divine. All of us, that is, except for my friend, who saves the day. Hmm.

Megillat Esther - The Great Chess Game

Chess came to Persia very early in its history. 

To me the megillah feels like a chess game. 

Player A: King Achashverosh, queen Vashti, knight Haman.

Player B: King G-d, queen Esther, knight Mordechai.

  

Player A's queen is knocked out very early in the game (BAD move) and that player then tries to get a variety of pawns to become a new queen. Unsuccessfully though: in the end, player B gets her queen (Esther) in among A's pieces.

This queen (Esther) starts causing havoc, along with her knight (Mordechai). In the end, she massacres A's pawns (Haman's sons and allies). She also uses A's own knight (Haman) to create a close to checkmate situation (1st party), followed by true checkmate (2nd party and the overturning of the decree).

P.s. Checkmating G-d was never really on the table 😉
And of course G-d is not just the King, but is also the player.