INSIGHT 5767 - #09 L'SHEM SHAMAYIM
Rashi, Bereishit 39:2 presents an
idea that can only be described as most bewildering. He
presents a connection between the story of Yehuda and
Tamar1 and this story of Yosef and Eishet
Potiphar, declaring that just as Tamar’s intent
was l’Shem Shamayim, for the sake of Heaven,
so was Eishet Potiphar ‘s intent l’Shem
Shamayim. It seems that the wife of Potiphar
consulted her astrologers and saw that in the future, it
was destined for children to emerge from her and Yosef.
While she was still not sure whether these children would
be from her or her daughter,2 her attempts to
mate with Yosef were not simply motivated by lust3
but rather arose from this vision of her astrologers.
But, still, how is this comparable to the actions of
Tamar? Furthermore, what makes this motivation, albeit
not for lust, l’Shem Shamayim?.
The concept of l’Shem Shamayim or l’sh’ma
has many variant definitions in Jewish Thought –
not just as a result of disagreement on its meaning but
also reflecting different understandings of this concept
dependant on the specific context. 4
Rashi’s comments, which are actually based on Bereishit
Rabbah 85:2, though, demand contemplation. Perhaps
Rashi is simply informing us that, just as Tamar was not
motivated by lust in her attempt to seduce Yehuda, Eishet
Potiphar, in her attempt to seduce Yosef, was also
not motivated by lust. Could l’Shem Shamayim,
in this context, simply mean not for lustful purposes?
Rashi, Bereishit Rabbah 85:2, in commenting on the
term l’Shem Shamayim, further describes
the intent of Eishet Potiphar as a desire to have
a son with Yosef. But, again, could this really be all
that is meant by the term l’Shem Shamayim?
Furthermore, how can this intent be compared to the
intent of Tamar whose motivation was to do the right
thing and fulfill the concept of yibum, of having
a child in the name of her deceased husband? 5
Interestingly, Rashi, in explaining the application of
the term l’Shem Shamayim to Tamar, describes
her desire as being for the Jewish monarchy to descend
from her. 5 Why the need for such an
explanation when the idealistic intent of Tamar is so
obvious in the text? Furthermore, it would seem that the
simple textual understanding of Tamar’s intent would
be even more l’Shem Shamayim than this
explanation of Rashi? This explanation does, though,
further a comparison between Tamar and Eishet Potiphar;
although the comparison still does remain somewhat
problematic. Tamar’s intent was to connect with the
Jewish monarchy, a highly noble idea; is the desire of Eishet
Potiphar for a son with Yosef truly comparable? Yafeh
To’ar, Bereishit Rabbah 85:2 explains that Eishet
Potiphar’s intent was to build a family from the
House of Yaakov, an explanation that indeed is comparable
to Tamar’s intent as described by Rashi. Given this
perspective, the term l’Shem Shamayim would
seem to indicate a desire by these two women to build
families connected to the nobility of the Jewish People.
Such a perspective would seem to indicate a more
idealistic motivation, yet there are still difficulties
with this explanation.
In referring to the vision of her astrologers, it would
actually seem that Rashi must be including in Eishet
Potiphar’s intent a desire to fulfill these
words. How could a desire to bring to fruition the
predictions of such idol worshippers be connected, in any
way, to l’Shem Shamayim? It could be that Eishet
Potiphar’s intent was to have a son with Yosef
and once she was told that it was actually destined for
her to share progeny with Yosef, she adopted her bold
path – but still there is this taint of idolatry? In
any event, even if we can compare her intent and
Tamar’s intent, how can we, in any way, compare
their behaviour? Indeed the midrash is only
comparing intent, but still Tamar did something that,
while outwardly able to be perceived as incorrect, was
inherently proper; Eishet Potiphar’s desired
action was fully immoral regardless of this noble
intention to build a family within the House of Yaakov.
In the end, it does seem that the simple teaching of
Rashi and this midrash is that in the same way
Tamar was not motivated by lust, Eishet Potiphar
was also not motivated by lust. But still, why would the
absence of lust be described as l’Shem Shamayim? In both these stories, we re-visit the
age-old question: does the end justify the means? In the
case of Tamar, the answer is yes. Tamar’s actions in
dressing as a prostitute and seducing Yaakov were
somewhat problematic; all things being equal, this would
not be proper behaviour. It was Tamar’s intent and
goal that transformed these actions into acts of
righteousness; the end justified the means. In the case
of Eishet Potiphar, however, the end did not
justify the means. Eishet Potiphar’s noble
desire to connect with the Jewish People could not
justify adultery. There are times when the end does
justify the means and there are times when it does not.
The demand, as such, is for thoughtful consideration of
an issue and the development of a Torah methodology by
which one can determine when the end does justify the
means and when it does not
To develop such a methodology, though, one must gain a
most important perspective on life. One can live in the
minute and make decisions pursuant to the emotions and
motivations of the moment. One can also live with a
recognition of past, present and future, and a
realization that what occurs in the minute can also
transcend time. The difficulty with lust is not that it
highlights the physical and lauds physical pleasure. The
spiritual lust for idolatry is seen within the world of
Torah in a similar vein as sexual lust. The problem with
lust is that it captures the moment, driving the human
being to miss the grander, full picture of reality but
rather to succumb to the world of the moment. The first
step to righteousness is to challenge this view, to see
reality in its greater sense and live beyond the moment
in a world that contemplates past, present and future and
the breadth of existence. This was the vision of Tamar
– and this vision is further enhanced by
Rashi’s words that Tamar considered the future and
her involvement in establishing the monarchy of There is no simple formula for righteousness. A first step is clearly that we do not succumb to drives and emotions in the moment; lust acting in a vacuum is the antithesis of Godliness. To act l’Shem Shamayim demands that one see the entire vision of reality and recognize that proper Torah behaviour must emerge from thought and an evaluation of all time beyond the moment. Is this not the very essence of a belief in One God? Still to escape the world of the moment, to consider one’s behaviour with thought and perceive a fuller picture does not necessarily mean that one’s decision is the correct one. Eishet Potiphar may have been motivated l’Shem Shamayim but her actions still fell tragically short. To act l’Shem Shamayim still demands that we make correct decisions – and sometimes that involves recognizing that the moment is still part of this fuller vision of reality.
Rabbi Benjamin Hecht e-mail Notes (1) Bereishit
38:6-30. Return to top |
© 2006 NISHMA