Some commentators address this indirectly. Thus, Rashi cited Midrash Rabba, and says:
My lord asked his servants From the beginning, you came upon us with a pretext. Why did you have to ask all these [questions]? Were we looking to [marry] your daughter, or were you looking to [marry] our sister? Nonetheless, “we said to my lord” (verse 20). We did not conceal anything. [From Gen. Rabbah 93:8]By expanding on it, the assumption is that this exchange actually happened, even though the earlier Biblical text does not mention it.
I am not sure what to make of Rashbam. He writes:
which might be endorsing the narrative, or else recasting the "asking" after the brother and father as causing them to bring him here. I would favor the former. The other classic meforshim, Ibn Ezra and Ramban, have no comment on the matter.אדני שאל -
אתה גרמת לנו להביאו הנה וחולין הוא לך לעכבו.
Chizkuni is the first I saw to directly address this. He writes what is pictured to the right. Namely, that Yehudah would not lie straight to Yosef's face, like this, so it must have happened, though it was not directly mentioned in the narrative. And furthermore, in the previous perek (43), when detailing what happened to Yaakov, we see:
The Documentary Hypothesis, as least in the version linked here, gives no solution to this obvious difficulty. It assigns all the relevant verses to "J", IMHO. Perhaps one can come up with an alternative hypothesis, and perhaps some do.
Thus, to put words into their mouths -- there might well be something to say. For I seem to recall claims of two narratives, one with Reuven as the actor and the other with Yehuda as the main actor. (And thus they similarly resolve difficulties in Vayeshev, with the sale of Yosef.) And we do have (perek 42)
Yaakov, with Reuven responding, against perek 43, where we have Yisrael, with Yehuda responding. And so Yehuda in Vayigash is consistent with the inquiry he related to his father in Miketz. So for Yehudah, Yosef only spoke of family, and for Reuven, Yosef only spoke of spies. (Though perhaps one needs the spy accusation in order to bring them down? Or perhaps not.)
Shadal addresses this issue as well. He writes:
יט ] אדני שאל: באמת לא שאל אותם על כך, אך אמר להם מרגלים אתם והיה זה מה שהכריחם לומר לו שנים עשר עבדיך וגו', ויהודה לא רצה להזכיר מאומה ממה שדיבר איתם קשות, והחליף הסיפור מעט, בחכמה ובתבונה (אח"ם). ולדעת אוהב גר ז"ל באמת שאל אותם יוסף על כל זה והכתוב קיצר למעלה.
Thus claiming that Yosef did not ask them about this, but Yehuda changed the story a bit, with wisdom, so as not to bring the earlier anger to the fore. Perhaps. I am not sure who אח"ם is, BTW.
He then cites Ohev Ger, z"l. Shadal wrote a commentary on Onkelos called Ohev Ger, but this is not what he is referring to. Rather, he is quoting his son, whom he named Ohev Ger (Philoxenon) {Update: Rather, Filosseno}.
Philoxenon says that in truth, Yosef asked them about all this, but Scriptures shortened earlier. Indeed, this is basically what the earlier Chizkuni suggested.
5 comments:
Ohev Ger's Italian name was actually Filosseno; in his scholarly publications, Ohev Ger/ Filosseno used Philoxenus, the Latinized equivalent. (Philoxenus had also been the Latin title of Ohev Ger, the book.)
Speaking of Chizkuni, what gives. Is it Chizkuni or Chazakuni?
thanks.
and I don't know. but everyone nowadays calls him Chizkuni, so that's good enough for me, regardless. :)
"Alef het mem" is an abbreviation for Abraham Hai Mainster (1816-1882), a student of Shadal at the Collegio Rabbinico of Padua who subsequently served as rabbi in several small Italian communities. Shadal was fond of citing his students in his commentaries, and Mainster is one of the most frequently cited.
Perhaps using the wording that they did in 43:7 in answering Yaakov, it was to justify themselves to him, especially in the face of his scathing criticism in the previous pasuk of their having revealed the information to Yosef. The way Yaakov asked the question seems to have allowed this response, in that he didn't ask "why did you volunteer the information in the first place?", but he asked "why did you tell him?", perhaps having forgotten their original wording; this is supported by the fact that he seemed to accept their answer that it was in response to Yosef's question.
Perhaps once they had given that version of the events to Yaakov, they somehow convinced themselves that that's what had really happened, so that Yehuda was able to use exactly the same language to Yosef as he had to Yaakov.
Post a Comment