Parsha Insights Vayeishev 2006
I will have limited internet access this week, so I’ve decided to put up this week’s parsha insights up early.
וַיֵּלֶךְ יוֹסֵף אַחַר אֶחָיו, וַיִּמְצָאֵם בְּדֹתָן. יח וַיִּרְאוּ אֹתוֹ, מֵרָחֹק; וּבְטֶרֶם יִקְרַב אֲלֵיהֶם, וַיִּתְנַכְּלוּ אֹתוֹ לַהֲמִיתוֹ. יט וַיֹּאמְרוּ, אִישׁ אֶל-אָחִיו: הִנֵּה, בַּעַל הַחֲלֹמוֹת הַלָּזֶה--בָּא. כ וְעַתָּה לְכוּ וְנַהַרְגֵהוּ, וְנַשְׁלִכֵהוּ בְּאַחַד הַבֹּרוֹת, וְאָמַרְנוּ, חַיָּה רָעָה אֲכָלָתְהוּ; וְנִרְאֶה, מַה-יִּהְיוּ חֲלֹמֹתָיו. כא וַיִּשְׁמַע רְאוּבֵן, וַיַּצִּלֵהוּ מִיָּדָם; וַיֹּאמֶר, לֹא נַכֶּנּוּ נָפֶשׁ. כב וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם רְאוּבֵן, אַל-תִּשְׁפְּכוּ-דָם--הַשְׁלִיכוּ אֹתוֹ אֶל-הַבּוֹר הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר בַּמִּדְבָּר, וְיָד אַל-תִּשְׁלְחוּ-בוֹ: לְמַעַן, הַצִּיל אֹתוֹ מִיָּדָם, לַהֲשִׁיבוֹ, אֶל-אָבִיו. כג וַיְהִי, כַּאֲשֶׁר-בָּא יוֹסֵף אֶל-אֶחָיו; וַיַּפְשִׁיטוּ אֶת-יוֹסֵף אֶת-כֻּתָּנְתּוֹ, אֶת-כְּתֹנֶת הַפַּסִּים אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו. כד וַיִּקָּחֻהוּ--וַיַּשְׁלִכוּ אֹתוֹ, הַבֹּרָה; וְהַבּוֹר רֵק, אֵין בּוֹ מָיִם. כה וַיֵּשְׁבוּ, לֶאֱכָל-לֶחֶם, וַיִּשְׂאוּ עֵינֵיהֶם וַיִּרְאוּ, וְהִנֵּה אֹרְחַת יִשְׁמְעֵאלִים בָּאָה מִגִּלְעָד; וּגְמַלֵּיהֶם נֹשְׂאִים, נְכֹאת וּצְרִי וָלֹט--הוֹלְכִים, לְהוֹרִיד מִצְרָיְמָה. כו וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוּדָה, אֶל-אֶחָיו: מַה-בֶּצַע, כִּי נַהֲרֹג אֶת-אָחִינוּ, וְכִסִּינוּ, אֶת-דָּמוֹ. כז לְכוּ וְנִמְכְּרֶנּוּ לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים, וְיָדֵנוּ אַל-תְּהִי-בוֹ, כִּי-אָחִינוּ בְשָׂרֵנוּ, הוּא; וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ, אֶחָיו. כח וַיַּעַבְרוּ אֲנָשִׁים מִדְיָנִים סֹחֲרִים, וַיִּמְשְׁכוּ וַיַּעֲלוּ אֶת-יוֹסֵף מִן-הַבּוֹר, וַיִּמְכְּרוּ אֶת-יוֹסֵף לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים, בְּעֶשְׂרִים כָּסֶף; וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶת-יוֹסֵף, מִצְרָיְמָה. כט וַיָּשָׁב רְאוּבֵן אֶל-הַבּוֹר, וְהִנֵּה אֵין-יוֹסֵף בַּבּוֹר; וַיִּקְרַע, אֶת-בְּגָדָיו. ל וַיָּשָׁב אֶל-אֶחָיו, וַיֹּאמַר: הַיֶּלֶד אֵינֶנּוּ, וַאֲנִי אָנָה אֲנִי-בָא.
…………………..
לו וְהַמְּדָנִים--מָכְרוּ אֹתוֹ, אֶל-מִצְרָיִם: לְפוֹטִיפַר סְרִיס פַּרְעֹה, שַׂר הַטַּבָּחִים. {פ}
Almost all who read the above story note that it actually makes no sense at all. There are a number of problems with it, ranging from the slightly problematic to the completely unanswerable. Here’s a list of the questions:
1. Pasuk 28, “וַיַּעַבְרוּ אֲנָשִׁים מִדְיָנִים סֹחֲרִים. This seems like a total non sequitur. What does it have to do with the story of the brothers selling Yosef to the Yishmaelim?
2. Pasuk 28. “וַיִּמְשְׁכוּ וַיַּעֲלוּ אֶת-יוֹסֵף מִן-הַבּוֹר, וַיִּמְכְּרוּ אֶת-יוֹסֵף לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים, בְּעֶשְׂרִים כָּסֶף" Who, exactly, is doing this? There are two possibilities, neither of which makes any sense.
a. it’s the brothers, but in that case the sentence is grammatically flawed, if it starts talking about the midyanim, then all of a sudden shifts to the brothers. And, on top of that, question (1) would then be strengthened. What, then, do the Midyanim have to do with anything and why are they in the pasuk?
b. The second possibility is that it is the midyanim, but, in that case the question is, where did they brothers go? Weren’t they going to sell yosef to the Yishmaelim? Also, if it was the Midyanim, then we are contradicting Gen (45:4) and similar p’sukim, which say it was the brothers.
3. Pasuk 29. Why is Reuven surprised that Yosef is not in the pit? He just sold him to the Yishmaelim!! Rashi says Reuven had left, but that’s an odd reading because it seems like this is one story. There’s also no textual basis for it.
4. Why did the brothers not answer Reuven that they had sold Yosef to the Yishmaelim?
5. In pasuk 36, how did the Midyanim bring Yosef to Mitzrayim, didn’t the Yishmaelim have him at this point of the story?
6. In 40:15, Yosef says “כִּי-גֻנֹּב גֻּנַּבְתִּי, מֵאֶרֶץ הָעִבְרִים; וְגַם-פֹּה לֹא-עָשִׂיתִי מְאוּמָה, כִּי-שָׂמוּ אֹתִי בַּבּוֹר,” but is it not true that he was sold, not stolen?
7. In 42:13, the brothers say, וַיֹּאמְרוּ, שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר עֲבָדֶיךָ אַחִים אֲנַחְנוּ בְּנֵי אִישׁ-אֶחָד--בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן; וְהִנֵּה הַקָּטֹן אֶת-אָבִינוּ הַיּוֹם, וְהָאֶחָד אֵינֶנּוּ. In other words, Yosef is missing. Why is Yosef missing? They know what happened to him. He was sold as a slave.
These questions are at varying level of difficulty. Some have balabatesh answers, but I’ve never really heard a solution that satisfactory deals with all of the problems well. In one fell swoop, the DH answers all these questions quite beautifully. According to DH, there are, in reality two stories here combined together. The J one reads as follows:
וַיֵּלֶךְ יוֹסֵף אַחַר אֶחָיו, וַיִּמְצָאֵם בְּדֹתָן. יח וַיִּרְאוּ אֹתוֹ, מֵרָחֹק; וּבְטֶרֶם יִקְרַב אֲלֵיהֶם, וַיִּתְנַכְּלוּ אֹתוֹ לַהֲמִיתוֹ.
כא וַיִּשְׁמַע רְאוּבֵן, וַיַּצִּלֵהוּ מִיָּדָם; וַיֹּאמֶר, לֹא נַכֶּנּוּ נָפֶשׁ
כה וַיֵּשְׁבוּ, לֶאֱכָל-לֶחֶם, וַיִּשְׂאוּ עֵינֵיהֶם וַיִּרְאוּ, וְהִנֵּה אֹרְחַת יִשְׁמְעֵאלִים בָּאָה מִגִּלְעָד; וּגְמַלֵּיהֶם נֹשְׂאִים, נְכֹאת וּצְרִי וָלֹט--הוֹלְכִים, לְהוֹרִיד מִצְרָיְמָה. כו וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוּדָה, אֶל-אֶחָיו: מַה-בֶּצַע, כִּי נַהֲרֹג אֶת-אָחִינוּ, וְכִסִּינוּ, אֶת-דָּמוֹ. כז לְכוּ וְנִמְכְּרֶנּוּ לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים, וְיָדֵנוּ אַל-תְּהִי-בוֹ, כִּי-אָחִינוּ בְשָׂרֵנוּ, הוּא; וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ, אֶחָיו
כח וַיִּמְכְּרוּ אֶת-יוֹסֵף לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים, בְּעֶשְׂרִים כָּסֶף;
The E version reads as follows:
כב וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם רְאוּבֵן, אַל-תִּשְׁפְּכוּ-דָם--הַשְׁלִיכוּ אֹתוֹ אֶל-הַבּוֹר הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר בַּמִּדְבָּר, וְיָד אַל-תִּשְׁלְחוּ-בוֹ: לְמַעַן, הַצִּיל אֹתוֹ מִיָּדָם, לַהֲשִׁיבוֹ, אֶל-אָבִיו. כג וַיְהִי, כַּאֲשֶׁר-בָּא יוֹסֵף אֶל-אֶחָיו; וַיַּפְשִׁיטוּ אֶת-יוֹסֵף אֶת-כֻּתָּנְתּוֹ, אֶת-כְּתֹנֶת הַפַּסִּים אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו. כד וַיִּקָּחֻהוּ--וַיַּשְׁלִכוּ אֹתוֹ, הַבֹּרָה; וְהַבּוֹר רֵק, אֵין בּוֹ מָיִם
כח וַיַּעַבְרוּ אֲנָשִׁים מִדְיָנִים סֹחֲרִים, וַיִּמְשְׁכוּ וַיַּעֲלוּ אֶת-יוֹסֵף מִן-הַבּוֹר,; וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶת-יוֹסֵף, מִצְרָיְמָה.
כט וַיָּשָׁב רְאוּבֵן אֶל-הַבּוֹר, וְהִנֵּה אֵין-יוֹסֵף בַּבּוֹר; וַיִּקְרַע, אֶת-בְּגָדָיו. ל וַיָּשָׁב אֶל-אֶחָיו, וַיֹּאמַר: הַיֶּלֶד
אֵינֶנּוּ, וַאֲנִי אָנָה אֲנִי-בָא.
...........................
לו וְהַמְּדָנִים--מָכְרוּ אֹתוֹ, אֶל-מִצְרָיִם: לְפוֹטִיפַר סְרִיס פַּרְעֹה, שַׂר הַטַּבָּחִים. {פ}
Thus, in the J version, the brothers intended to kill Yosef. Yehudah convinces them to sell Yosef to the Yishmaelim. To J belongs also 45:4 and the similar p’sukim.
In the E version, the brothers throw Yosef in a pit and leave. Reuven secretly intends to rescue Yosef from the pit, but before he gets to do that, some midyanim take Yosef out of the pit and bring Yosef to Mitzrayim. Reuven is dumbfounded at why Yosef is not there and the brothers can not explain it to him. To E belongs also 40:15 and 42:13. Yosef was stolen and the brothers don’t know about it.
Different scholars have different approaches here in terms of the details, but the crux of the issue is Gen 37:28, which when you look at it, really sounds like there are two stories going on at once.
A good shabbos to all
posted by littlefoxlings at 7:09 PM
6 Comments:
menachem liebtag, iirc, hits this one out of the park. ayen sham.
12/12/2006 10:52 AM
Could you provide a link or url? I'd love to read any response to this question. To me, it is one of the most difficult passages in Torah.
12/12/2006 1:11 PM
http://tanach.org/breishit/vayesh/vayeshs1.htm
make sure that you click on his internal links. it's like no internet learning experience you've ever had.
btw (by the way), iirc = if i recall correctly.
12/12/2006 1:21 PM
Thanks for the link. I was unaware of the Rashbam’s opinion about this. However, I fail to see how this helps matters.
Essentially, he is saying that the machlokes between J & E is a Machlokes between Rashi and Rashbam. He brings the J verses as a question on Rashbam and the E verses as a question on Rashi, but does a bad job of showing how either would respond to the other’s questions. Moreover, there’s a 3rd category of questions that actually don’t make sense according to anyone. The fact that there is a machlokes rishonim on the matter only underscores that there is evidence in both directions.
Here’s a list of the 3 groups of questions.
I. J verses that contradict Rashbam
1. Gen (45:4) states explicitly it was the brothers who sold Yosef. In my view, his answers to this question are very weak.
E verses that contradict Rashi.
1. end of pasuk 28. Who is the actors here? (my question 2).
2. why is Revuen surprised that Yosef is sold (my question 3)?
3. My question 7. This issue not discussed by ML.
Verses that make no sense according to either point of view.
1. The beginning of verse 28 is a total non sequitur (my question 1). According to Rashi, the Midyanim are irrelevant here. According to Rashbam ( E account) they are relevant, but they have nothing to do with the previous pasuk. We are involved in a huge jump. ML does not address either problem. DH, however, does not have this problem since the previous pasuk is not in E.
2. My question 5. Again, this makes no sense according to either view. Even according to Rashbam that it was the Midyaim, not the brothers, who sold him to the Yishmaelim, that sale happened in pasuk 28 and it was to the Yishmaelim, not to the Egyptians. In DH this is no problem because the two sales are in two different documents.
Most of what ML says is dancing around the questions and not answering them. The answers he suggests are weak and apologetic. The only part of ML that I see as really addressing the issues are the following two things he says:
1. The Midyanim were middlemen. This has many problems:
First, this assumes Midyanim sold him to Yishmaelim but verse 36 says they sold him to Mitzraim.
Second, why did the midyanim take Yosef out of the pit? Shouldn’t the brothers have doen that? Why don’t we hear about the sale from brothers to midyanim? Why are the mysteriously absent from pasuk 28?
Third, why is Reuven confused about what happened to Yosef?
2. Midyanim = Yishmaelim. (Radak)
This has its own problems:
First, it’s just weird. Why have two names for same group?
Second, still, why have the sale to Egypt twice?
Third, pasuk 28 still starts out weird. It is saying Midyanim are passing by but we were just told that in passuk 25.
I could continue here, but this comment is long enough. I guess what I am trying to say is that I see him as having a lot of discussion about the problems, but I don’t see any (good) solutions to them. I think the fact that you have so many bad answers to the question just shows how desperate the situation is. Well, from your comment, I assume you have a kinder view of ML’s approach. I guess I am just obstinate in my kefirah. It must be my yetzer hurah clouding my vision.
12/12/2006 6:15 PM
i thought he nailed each one. here goes:
1)the brothers didn't sell joseph. they conspired to, but the midianites got there first and sold him to the ishmaelites, without the brothers' knowledge. (key point is geographical; from where the brothers were stationed, they could see down into the valley, and had plenty of time to head off the ishmaelites still.)
2)it was the midianites. the brothers went away to eat, where they hatched the plan to sell him, and hand't yet returned to the pit. 45:4 is written from joseph's perspective. from the details at his disposal, it's easy to see why he'd think that the brothers sold him.
3) reuven was with the brothers eating, and volunteered to get joseph from the pit in order to sell him. he was shocked when joseph was already gone.
4) they didn't.
5) good question, but relatively minor. it's about the preposition 'el'. does it mean that the midianites (actually, here the 'medanites') sold him directly to egypt, that they initiated the process, or that they sold him 'egyptward'. like when yaakov goes 'charanah' - charan-ward - and in the next scene is still at beit el. that said, this question is still 'shver', but i honestly don't find it too bothersome.
6)in yosef's mind, he was first kidnapped by his brothers, then sold by them, through the midianites, to egypt. again, joseph, as a character, doesn't have all of the details. his statements reflect his view of things, which don't always reflect the omniscient perspective that we tend to take. the same can be said for the prespectives of reuven and the brothers.
7) the brothers didn't know what happened to joseph. the midianites took him and when they went back to the pit (i.e., reuven, their messenger), he was gone. they had no idea what happened to him after they went to go eat lunch.
this is a complete version of the story motivated by a straight reading of the text. it's not individual 'tirutzim' - it's a completely different premise (i.e., that the brothers didn't actually sell joseph).
12/14/2006 5:46 PM
I agree with you that Menachem helps a lot. Perhaps I was too harsh in my earlier response, I just meant that I still find DH reading to be more compelling than his. Before I give my point by point response, I would say that my general reaction to his reading is quite similar to my usual reaction to the likes of Rav Breuer etc. You have the text. When you distill the text, strip it of any preconceived notions, imagined subtexts, or contrived readings, you are left with what the text itself, at the most basic, simple level, is saying. For example, in the case of 45:4, the text itself, without any complex maneuvers, refers to the sale of the Yosef on the hands of the brothers. Now, it is always possible to reinterpret any verse by complex analysis and through building complex subtexts etc., it is usually possible to do it well, and the likes of Rav Breuer and Menachem often do do it well, and this case is a great example of such. But, personally, I am always skeptical of these points of view. Just by nature I am a huge pashtan (maybe that’s the wrong word here, but you know what I mean) and am not generally a fan of reading things into texts. This is especially true given the fact that once you start down the road of complex subtexts, you have the ability to make anything say anything you want so the fact that you can make a specific verse say a specific thing is not too surprising. This is perhaps a shortage of my emunah and may be the cause of my religious doubt in these matters, but I can not do much more than see things they way I see them.
Anyway, here’s the point by point.
1. OK, I agree he helps here, but there’s still a huge problem. According to him, it’s Passuk 27 that’s difficult. If it was the Midyanim that sold him down to Egypt, why would the Torah make this whole to do about the fact that the brothers saw the Yishmaelim and the brothers decided to make the sale. You are set up in passuk 27 with this whole thing about how the brothers are going to make the sale, and then bam! It’s the Midyanim. Where did that come from? I understand what Menachem is saying about the geographical point etc. here, I just think that when you read passuk 27 independently, striping it of complex arguments, the simple impression is that it is the brothers, not the midyanim, that are going to succesfuly execute the sale. Menachem’s point of view posits a huge complex subtext that has basically no basis in the text. Point is – you’ve got passuk 27 saying let’s sell him to the yishmaelim and passuk 28 they do sell him. Any view that separates these two items is reading into the text things that are not there. Moreover, why do we care about passuk 27, their intentions, if they did not come to fruition?
2. 45:4 is written from Joseph’s perspective. To me that’s apologetics. Again, you have a passuk stating he was sold down. We are reinterpreting to answer a question, but you can not deny that the reading that is closest to the text is that he was sold.
3. Agreed. This is not a question on Rashbam, but only on Rashi.
4. Agreed. This is not a question on Rashbam, but only on Rashi.
5. Relatively minor? To me, that’s the hardest question in the pack. The problem is not just with the word “el.” The problem is not just if the sale took place to the Egyptians or the Yishmaelim. The problem is that the sale not only already took place in passuk 28, but Yosef was already brought to Egypt in passuk 28. You could say that this is a repetition, but why repeat it! Of course, the last point I made is a question on the E account in my post as well. DH could solve these problems by moving the line וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶת-יוֹסֵף מִצְרָיְמָה to the J account. Honestly, I do not see why one would want to put that in E, but I was just following what the scholars say. Moreover, the DH is not claiming that the remnants of the J & E accounts that are preserved are preserved in perfection. There is a recognition that there has been editing and corruption. The reliance on this point of view is a general weakness with the DH, though more often than not, that weakness only applies to the union of J & E and not the relationship of JE, P, D. Personally, I see the overall case for the J vs. E distinction to be much weaker than the JE, P, D distinction, and I would concede it is very weak.
6. Personally, I would have viewed this as a question on Rashi, not Rashbam, but in light of your response to my question 2, this becomes a question on Rashbam as well. I would concede that it much weaker than the first 5, by far, and would not be worthy of mentioning of its own right but only as supplementary evidence to the other points. Your answer is very plausible
7. Agreed. This is not a question on Rashbam, but only on Rashi, and like question 6, it is a very weak question and is only included as ancillary evidence.
12/14/2006 6:48 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home