The same question appears by duplicate language by Shechem and Dinah, but the question is greater here, based on the way the pasuk reads.
I would suggest several possibilities. First, perhaps it is poetic duplication but just means one thing.
Second, perhaps the duplication of לִשְׁכַּב אֶצְלָהּ, לִהְיוֹת עִמָּהּ is a deliberate repetition, because she repeatedly solicited him -- כְּדַבְּרָהּ אֶל-יוֹסֵף יוֹם יוֹם.
But it could also be two separate actions. The problem is that Hebrew is a clean language, and uses euphemisms, so it is can be unclear where the euphemism is meant and where the actual actions on a literal level described by the euphemism are meant. Thus לִשְׁכַּב can mean to actually sleep or lie prostrate, or it can mean to have intercourse with. In the classic case of Reuven with Bilhah, Chazal (perhaps) claim that it is not a euphemism but that he actually caused her to lie and sleep (by moving Yaakov's bed from her tent to the tent of Leah), though the language used is parallel to the one of the euphemism, in order to teach (him/us) a lesson.
Here, perhaps לִשְׁכַּב אֶצְלָהּ is not the euphemism, but rather to literally lie next to her. The next stage would be to "be with her," לִהְיוֹת עִמָּהּ, though that would be the euphemism. And that way there would be a natural development from one to the other. Furthermore, we can then explain the lack of the vav. She wanted him to lie next to her in order that he might "be" with her.
Or perhaps she was entreating him for X, and if not X, then at least Y. Thus, לִשְׁכַּב אֶצְלָהּ is the euphemism, thus intercourse. And if not that, at least to be with him, לִהְיוֹת עִמָּהּ, not the euphemism but literally -- perhaps foreplay.
Or perhaps she was entreating him for X, and in addition Y. That is, לִשְׁכַּב אֶצְלָהּ would be intercourse, and לִהְיוֹת עִמָּהּ would be cuddling after the fact. I don't really see this as being something she would be entreating before anything happened at all. But this is what Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite suggests, in the picture accompanying this paragraph. Note that this is a Karaite suggesting that one of the phrases might not be the euphemism. He follows it up with the obvious suggestion that it is poetic repetition. {Update: Someone suggested privately that he may mean, by begomer hamaaseh, that there would not be coitus interruptus. This is plausible, and perhaps a better reading of him than I gave above. I am unsure, in part because it is not explicit enough.}This ties in, perhaps, with the issue of how to deal with the phrase yamim o asor -- does it mean stay a few days, and if not ten days? When trying to cajole someone, you don't say "if you don't agree to X, then at least agree to X + Y!" That is why some pashtanim, and Chazal, say it means a year, and if not, a set of 10 months. So too here, if she is trying to persuade him of something, would we go from less to more? It depends on how you cast it.
Shadal has a fascinating suggesting, in which neither is the euphemism. My guess is that he is of the opinion that once we remove one from its role of euphemism, the other one also cannot be a euphemism, on a peshat level.
י] לשכב אצלה : אפילו בלא תשמיש ( רש"י ). להיות עמה : להתעכב אצלה אפי' בלא שכיבה ומה שמצאנו האמינון אחיך היה עמך ( ש"ב י"ג כ' ), אע"פ שהכוונה על המשגל, פשט המילות איננו אלא נתעכב עמך. ואולי לא היה בוטח בכוחו ובגבורת לבו, אם יתחיל להתקרב אליה
Thus, the first one is just lying next to her, with no intercourse. (I'm not sure what he imagines was intended in this lying next to one another phase.) The second one is just to hang out in her proximity. Perhaps, says Shadal, Yosef did not trust himself even so far as the second entreaty, because he was unsure of himself. And this reading fits in well with how the narrative takes pains, in the next pesukim, to explain how Yosef came to be in her proximity.
Note that Shadal takes his cue for לשכב אצלה from Rashi, but does not cite him for the second part. That is well and good -- he takes the part of Rashi which is peshat, but not that which is derash.
The Rashi itself is fascinating. Rashi states:
In Bereishit Rabba, the actual opposition is to lie beside her -- in this world, and to be with her -- in the World to Come (or rather, the actual words is that he refused to be with her in Gehinnom in the world to come). And this has its own midrashic sense, in explaining the repetition. See inside. But then, there is a davar acher, in which only "did not listen to her" is explained as even "even lying beside her without intercourse."
The way I would interpret this davar acher is that the midrash recognizes the duplication, of course, and explains "to lie beside her -- even without intercourse" but anticipates that you will of course understand that to be with her means actually with intercourse. Or perhaps, that it follows Shadal, that both phrases mean without intercourse. A further plausible explanation along these lines is that this midrash is not bothered by the repetition of "sleep with" and "be with." Rather, it is bothered by the repetition of Yosef's "not hearkening to her" in this verse compared with his explicit refusal in previous verses. This verse must be adding something, and so the intent of the verse in general is a relaxation of the terms of her entreaty, and even to this he refused.
Rashi takes the Midrash Rabba and moves things about. He applies a statement officially on וְלֹא-שָׁמַע אֵלֶיהָ to the next phrase, לִשְׁכַּב אֶצְלָהּ. And he combines two midrashim from the same source. The end result is that nowhere in his commentary on this verse is the suggestion that she asked him from more -- although that is implicit in the word "even."
Does Rashi intend all this as peshat, or as midrash? What is Rashi attempting to accomplish? We could not even begin to approach this question, IMHO, before looking at Rashi's sources and seeing what he saw and how he changed them. But though I have my own thoughts on the matter (the former as peshat, intended to explain the duplication of phrase, and the latter as derash), I will leave the question open.
It is also important to stress, so I will stress it again here, that how Rashi takes the midrash is not necessarily how the author of the midrash took the midrash. And it is quite interesting how Rashi harnesses and directs his sources.
Note that Shadal takes his cue for לשכב אצלה from Rashi, but does not cite him for the second part. That is well and good -- he takes the part of Rashi which is peshat, but not that which is derash.
The Rashi itself is fascinating. Rashi states:
to lie beside her even without intercourse. [From Gen. Rabbah 87:6]Both of these are from the same siman and seif in Bereishit Rabba, but you have to see it inside to really appreciate it. (Or you can rely on my summary here.) These actually come from two different positions, separated by a davar acher, in Bereishit Rabba. This might be obvious when you compare the meaning and nature of Rashi's two citations.
to be with her in the World to Come. [From Gen. Rabbah 87:6]
In Bereishit Rabba, the actual opposition is to lie beside her -- in this world, and to be with her -- in the World to Come (or rather, the actual words is that he refused to be with her in Gehinnom in the world to come). And this has its own midrashic sense, in explaining the repetition. See inside. But then, there is a davar acher, in which only "did not listen to her" is explained as even "even lying beside her without intercourse."
The way I would interpret this davar acher is that the midrash recognizes the duplication, of course, and explains "to lie beside her -- even without intercourse" but anticipates that you will of course understand that to be with her means actually with intercourse. Or perhaps, that it follows Shadal, that both phrases mean without intercourse. A further plausible explanation along these lines is that this midrash is not bothered by the repetition of "sleep with" and "be with." Rather, it is bothered by the repetition of Yosef's "not hearkening to her" in this verse compared with his explicit refusal in previous verses. This verse must be adding something, and so the intent of the verse in general is a relaxation of the terms of her entreaty, and even to this he refused.
Rashi takes the Midrash Rabba and moves things about. He applies a statement officially on וְלֹא-שָׁמַע אֵלֶיהָ to the next phrase, לִשְׁכַּב אֶצְלָהּ. And he combines two midrashim from the same source. The end result is that nowhere in his commentary on this verse is the suggestion that she asked him from more -- although that is implicit in the word "even."
Does Rashi intend all this as peshat, or as midrash? What is Rashi attempting to accomplish? We could not even begin to approach this question, IMHO, before looking at Rashi's sources and seeing what he saw and how he changed them. But though I have my own thoughts on the matter (the former as peshat, intended to explain the duplication of phrase, and the latter as derash), I will leave the question open.
It is also important to stress, so I will stress it again here, that how Rashi takes the midrash is not necessarily how the author of the midrash took the midrash. And it is quite interesting how Rashi harnesses and directs his sources.
No comments:
Post a Comment