In parshat Balak and Pinchas, there is some fluidity between Moav and Midian. Balak deals with princes of both, and is himself king of Moav. (Some teirutzim place him as initially a prince of Midian, appointed over Moav.) He sends both Midianite and Moabite princes to Bilaam. But then, midway through the story, these become "the princes of Balak" and finally "the princes of Moav" arise with Bilaam, and no mention is made of the princes of Midian. (One midrash explains that they left already.)At the end of Balak, it is the daughters of Moav with whom the Israelites commit harlotry:
| א וַיֵּשֶׁב יִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּשִּׁטִּים; וַיָּחֶל הָעָם, לִזְנוֹת אֶל-בְּנוֹת מוֹאָב. | 1 And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit harlotry with the daughters of Moab. |
Midianites in general because of what they did:
Midianite women, in parshat Mattot, Moshe yells at them because it was the Midianite women (plural) -- rather than Moabite women -- who caused Israel to sin.
Indeed, people have a bunch of hangups about a similar issue in parshat Vayeshev. Who bought Yosef? Was it Midanites? Midianites? Ishmaelite merchants? There seems to be a switch, which is compelling evidence in favor of the Documentary Hypothesis.
But what if Ishmaelite is used for Arab, or for a specific type of merchant (it is used together with socharim), much as Canaani is used in other contexts to mean a specific type of merchant. And Midianite itself can be fluid, as we have seen. While it is still possible to divide the narrative on Documentary Hypothesis grounds, it is also possible to simply say that:Reuven convinced them not to kill directly but to place him in the pit. He leaves (to, say, take care of his sheep).
While he is gone, a bunch of merchants pass, who can be described accurately as Ishmaelites, Midianites, or (a variant) Midanites.
Yehuda convinces his brothers that rather than letting Yosef starve to death in the pit, they should profit. They (meaning Yehuda and the brothers) draw him from the pit and sell him to the Midianites.
Reuven returns and is shocked to see that Yosef is no longer in the pit.
PS: Baruch Shekivanti. I appear to have made many of the same points two years ago, though without e.g. the tie in to the sale of Yosef.
1 comment:
1. Perhaps (a la Rashbam) the Midianites found Yosef alone in the pit, kidnapped him, and sold him to the Yishmaelites.
This would seem to be the only simple reading of 37:28.
It is reconcilable with 37:36; when we speak of "selling a slave down the river" we don't mean that the seller went down the river, rather that the slave dealer did.
It fits with 39:1 which says, in contrast to 37:36, specifies that the Yishmaelites physically "brought" Yosef to Egypt, unlike the Midianites who simply "sold" him.
It agrees with Yosef's later claim (to the Egyptian cupbearer) that he was "stolen" from his homeland.
It fits 42:22-23, where the brothers express regret not for selling Yosef but for ignoring his cries, and Reuven's reply "gam damo hineh nidrash" - what blood? But for all they knew Yosef had been killed.
It explains the brothers' failure to guess who Yosef is (even after such hints as his seating them by birth order, favoring Binyamin, imprisoning Shimon, mentioning their father, and his overall weird behavior), and their utter bewilderment when Yosef reveals himself.
------------
2. Perhaps, about the time the Midianites were kidnapping Yosef, Reuven tried to convince the brothers to spare him. Whether successful or not in convincing them, he went back to the pit, only to find Yosef gone.
This would explain why when Reuven notices that Yosef is not in the pit, the first thing he does is go tell his brothers that Yosef is gone! Otherwise this is very strange.
It's the only way to understand Reuven's statement that "halo amarti lachem al techetu bayeled velo shamatem", which is not a reasonable interpretation of his original suggestion to throw Yosef in a pit, yet was not contested by the brothers.
(I saw this theory in an article by Yehuda Kraut in "Le'ela", Spring/Summer '02)
Post a Comment