The Incomplete Good
We are first introduced to the Sar HaMashkim, or chief cupbearer for Pharaoh, at the end of the weekly portion of Vayeishev. The chief baker was in prison along with the chief cupbearer due to “sins” against Pharaoh; ostensibly, some type of negligence on the job. They both had troubling dreams, to which Yosef, who was in prison with them, was able to accurately interpret. Whereas the cupbearer would be returned to his job, the chief baker received a death sentence. Yosef implores that the cupbearer recalls his assistance. The portion ends with an ominous message regarding Yosef’s fate in prison (Bereishit 40:23):
“But the chief cupbearer did not remember Joseph, and he forgot him”
There is a Midrash that explains how an angel intervened to ensure this forgetfulness would persevere (a punishment due to Yosef’s placement of faith in the chief cupbearer). The chief cupbearer wanted to remember Yosef, and sets up various prompts. However, the angel sabotaged each one.
The message is that there was some imperative for the cupbearer to “forget” Yosef.
A similar dream dilemma is found at the beginning of the portion of Mikeitz, with Pharaoh struggling how to interpret his visions. He turns to his advisors, but they provide no solace. Our forgetful chief cupbearer re-enters the scene one final time (41:9-14):
“Now the chief cupbearer spoke with Pharaoh, saying, "I call to mind my sins today. Pharaoh was angry with his servants, and he put me in prison, in the house of the chief slaughterer, me and the chief baker. And we dreamed a dream on the same night, I and he; each one according to the interpretation of his dream, we dreamed. And there with us was a Hebrew lad, a slave of the chief slaughterer, and we told him, and he interpreted our dreams for us; [for] each [of us], he interpreted according to his dream. And it came to pass that just as he had interpreted, so it was; me he restored to my position, and him he hanged."”
Pharaoh immediately calls for Yosef, and the rest is Jewish history.
The chief cupbearer seems like a decent fellow. Sure, he forgot Yosef? Yes, but as the Midrash indicates, it was not entirely his fault. Yet, as is often the case, the Sages see this individual much differently. The Midrash discusses the chief cupbearer’s return to the big stage. He noted that Pharaoh’s life might be in danger due to the strain of interpreting these dreams. If so, who knows if the new king would retain him in his esteemed position. Thus, it was in his best interest to hold onto his current employment. His initial statement is an acknowledgment of his “sins”, meaning multiple transgressions. The first was his forgetting Yosef and the good done to him. The second was that he did not reveal sooner he knew someone who could assist Pharaoh.
If the Midrash stopped here, we would salute the chief cupbearer for stepping forward, regardless of what happened in the past. Yet the Sages note what might appear to be a mere detail in his account. The chief cupbearer describes Yosef as a “young Hebrew slave”. While technically this was an accurate description of Yosef, the terms here were being used to reflect poorly on Yosef. The chief cupbearer was being condescending. Being young meant Yosef was lacking intelligence. He was an Ivri and a slave. In using these descriptions, the Sages explain that he was a rasha, an evil person.
Why? Since the “good” he was offering in freeing Yosef from prison was incomplete.
This harsh condemnation is certainly not commensurate with the manner that the story is being told by the Torah. What idea is the Midrash attempting to convey? Why did the chief cupbearer preface his essential information regarding Yosef with an admission of mistake? Why is someone considered evil if he does not offer a “complete good”?
Let’s first understand the idea behind the first Midrash concerning the Divine involvement. One can only imagine the drama and tension in the chief cupbearer’s life regarding his demise and ultimate redemption at the hands of Yosef. Furthermore, the fact that he was saved while his fellow “employee” was killed must have been traumatic as well. Without question, a part of him wanted to reward Yosef for his insights. He recognized the good Yosef had done for him. However, there was a part of him that needed to repress Yosef’s involvement in the entire episode. He had to set up reminders for himself, as if naturally he could not recall what Yosef had done. Ultimately, though, he would have remembered had it not been for some type of subtle causal manipulation (the Divine aspect to this). The critical point here is that the chief cupbearer was in conflict. Why?
The chief cupbearer’s intervention is what saves Yosef. Yet, as per the Midrash, his rationale for bringing up Yosef to Pharaoh was attached more towards job security than anything noble. He knew how important it was to remain in the good graces of Pharaoh. This could be the reason why he begins his presentation acknowledging his errors. If Yosef was indeed the savior, Pharaoh will want to know why Yosef wasn’t by his side sooner. If he investigated the circumstances, it would become evident that the chief cupbearer withheld this information from Pharaoh, putting his job and life in jeopardy. However, on a deeper level, he was conveying to Pharaoh how troubling having someone like Yosef be responsible for his redemption.
Again, why is this the case?
The derogatory language used in describing Yosef to Pharaoh is the opening to understanding the thinking of the chief cupbearer. Why did he choose to present Yosef in such a manner? Yosef was responsible for his return to Pharaoh’s good graces. But who was Yosef? He was a young lad, inexperienced, lacking in knowledge, someone who could not possibly have the insights required to be so wise. He was an Ivri, an inferior and perverse ideology relative to the Egyptian outlook. He was a slave, occupying the lowest rung of social strata. To acknowledge that such an individual was the solution to his problems was a supreme challenge to the chief cupbearer. How could he be dependent on someone like Yosef? In his mind, these descriptions of Yosef were defining Yosef’s essence as a person. Thus, admitting it was Yosef was a shock to his ego and sense of self-importance. The conflict concerning remembering Yosef was tied to this very problem.
On the one hand, he felt gratitude to Yosef. On the other hand, just thinking about his dependence on that “young Jewish slave” was incomprehensible. As well, in acknowledging his forgetting of Yosef, he was communicating to Pharaoh, in a subtle manner, how challenging it would be for any person in position of power and importance to deal with such a “lowly” individual. Dependence on others can be a serious challenge to an individual overconfident in their self-worth. Such a person, then, will have an even more difficult time acknowledging an idea of dependence on God. The “evil” moniker applied to the chief cupbearer reflects this inner problem. A person who see himself as a purely independent existence can have little room for God.
The Sages are directing our attention to a common flaw. In the case of the chief cupbearer, the notion that an “inferior” person could engender an idea of dependence was a challenge to his sense of self-importance. In a more general sense, the disbelief that one is a dependent existence is the core problem, and it is simple to fall into that trap. When we allow our egos to define us, it becomes impossible to have a true assessment of ourselves. In such a case, we can never internalize and properly assess our relationship with God.