Posts so far for parshat Vayeshev

2012

1. Saving Yosef by casting him into a pit with scorpions? From Chiddushei HaGriz, a solution as to Reuven's intentions and thought-process.

2. YUTorah on parashat Vayeshev.

3. Who sold Yosef?  In parshat Vayigash, there is fairly straightforward evidence that the brothers sold Yosef. Not the Midianites. Namely, we see in Vayigash that Yosef explicitly says that his brothers sold him. And a simple peshat reading of the pesukim in question in Vayeshev would be that Yehuda suggested that they sell him to the coming Ishmaelites, and then, when the Ishmaelites, who were the same as the Midianite traders arrived, the brothers carried out their plan. Now the midrash / documentary hypothesis / Rashbam as pashtan / 'close reading' which is really neo-midrash but bills itself as peshat  --  declares that the brothers did not sell, but rather that Midianites came, pulled Yosef out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites, all without the brother's knowledge. I do not believe this to be a correct peshat in the pesukim in question.

4. And then, as a followup, where did Reuven go? Since in the prior post I was focused in that post only on the pesukim directly related to Yosef's sale, I did not address other issues indirectly related to whether the brothers sold Yosef. For example, Reuven disappears. Where did he go, and what does it mean that he returned?

5. As a further followup, How plausible is a Midianite / Ishmaelite switchoff? Pretty plausible. For instance, see Shofetim perek 8 pasuk 22 and 24, where Ishmaelites are exchanged for Midianites without second thought. But then, addressing many different facets of this question. Thus: Q: Why would the Torah refer to these traders sometimes as Midianites and sometimes as Ishmaelites? We should expect the Torah to choose a single term and stick with it! Q: OK, the Torah will sometimes switch off language. But here, it is extremely confusing! Why would the Torah deliberately confuse us so? We only know that Midianites can be referred to as Ishmaelites from one small segment in sefer Shofetim. Q: Ishmaelite is most often used in Tanach to mean Ishmaelite, and Midianite is most often used to mean Midianite. To seize upon the one rare usage and assert that this is what it means represents an incredible kvetch. Q: Is it too early to say Ishmaelite for Midianite? Q: What purpose does the switch-off between Midianite and Ishmaelite serve? If it serves no purpose, then the switch-off does not make any sense! Q: What about the Medanites who appear later? And I think I give pretty good answers to these.

6. As the final post in this series, Medanites, Midianites, and Ishmaelites. And how one defines peshat. Quickly, in Yosef's sale, Midianites == Medanites == Ishmaelites. Therefore, the brothers sold Yosef to the Midianites. There is good evidence for this. Within the story, a number of pesukim make it clear this is so. Outside the story, pesukim in Shofetim show that Midianites == Ishmaelites is possible. And while there are "difficulties" in that one needs to equate different words, I do not deem these to be peshat difficulties. And the alternative peshat interpretations have a number of more severe difficulties, which are true difficulties. It all comes down to how one defines peshat. I can put my definition in the most starkest terms: Do not make a big deal of minor differences.


2011

1. Abarbanel asks about yibum, Yehuda, and Boaz -- Abarbanel's 19th doubt in Ki Seitzei is about the incident with Yehudah and Tamar, and how that meshes (or does not) with the laws ofyibbum. Yehuda was a father to the deceased, not a brother! And how comehalacha does not recognize this as effective, patterned after Yehuda. Abarbenel's 20th doubt is about theyibbum described in sefer Rut. Was he a brother or a distant relative? Where was the spitting for Ploni Almoni? This all seems to contradict the laws ofyibbum and chalitza.
   .
2. Abarbanel on Yehuda and Tamar's "yibbum" -- As described in the above post, Don Yitzchak Abravanel asks some incisive questions about the nature of the apparent yibbum by Yehuda and Tamar. Here, he resolves those questions. It was certainly not a complete yibbum, for yibbum is for brothers, not fathers. (And he explains why.) Tamar took the steps necessary, but it was certainly not Yehuda's intent. And this particular joining does not form the pattern for subsequent yibbum.
   .
3. Yehuda and Tamar, and Boaz and Rus, as performing real yibbum -- My own thoughts about the points raised by Abarbanel. Could we find a way for the actions of Yehuda and Tamar, and of Boaz and Ruth, to be actual yibbum, rather than just 'customary' yibbum, or no yibbum at all?
   .
4. Targum Yonasan in support of a minhag taus --  Birkas Avraham debunks a support to a minhag taus from Targum Yonasan. The targum states 'and she called his name Onan, for ברם upon him his father would in the future mourn.' However, they should not interpret it as  'and she called his name Onan, for ברם [only] upon him [and not his older brother Er] his father would in the future mourn.' Rather, it should be understood as  'and she called his name Onan, for ברם [also] upon him [just as upon older brother Er] his father would in the future mourn.'
   .
5. Vayeshev sources -- further improved.
   .
6. YU Torah on parashat Vayeshev.
   .
7. Why did Yaakov only await fulfillment of the *second* dream?  Perhaps because only celestial bodies bowing goes out of the natural order; or maybe, the purpose is to stress that Yaakov's criticism of the second dream was a sham, to try to keep peace among the brothers.
   .
8. Ibn Caspi on the Zakef on כְּתֹנֶת בְּנִי --  How it is appropriate placement by the baalei hamesorah. I agree, and it is obvious. Yet, the comment is worth noting.
   .
9. Shadal on the trup on הִנֵּה בַּעַל הַחֲלֹמוֹת --  Shadal corrects the erroneous trup; and Wickes makes the same suggestion, finding two texts which have it. After all, should בַּעַל really be separated from הַחֲלֹמוֹת הַלָּזֶה? Then, Shadal differs with a different aspect of trup. And he also gives his thoughts on the etymology and meaning of הַלָּזֶה.
   .
10. Ibn Caspi and the trup on מַה פָּרַצְתָּ עָלֶיךָ פָּרֶץ -- The words מַה פָּרַצְתָּ עָלֶיךָ פָּרֶץ can mean "With what strength you have strengthened yourself!" Alternatively, as Ibn Ezra suggests, it can mean two statements of מַה פָּרַצְתָּ (how have you breached) and עָלֶיךָ פָּרֶץ (the guilt of the breach is upon you). Ibn Caspi and others find support for Ibn Ezea's parse in the tipcha on מַה פָּרַצְתָּ.
    .
11. What is the role of shalshelet? Should we darshen the psik of it? What about the shalsheles leads to these various interpretations?
    .
12. Rav Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev on the role of the shalsheles on וימאן -- In a recent post on Vayeshev, I cited Birkas Avraham, who gave several reasons for a shalsheles. I added some ideas, from others. But while he mentioned the Kedushas Levi, Rav Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev, he only listed the first of the reasons the Kedushas Levi gave. In fact, there are quite a number of other reasons offered there. Here, without added commentary, I present the various reasons offered.
    .
13. Kedushat Levi: how the סריס Potifar could have been informed בשעת תשמיש --  Harmonizing two contradictory Rashi's, that Hashem transformed Potifar into asaris when he bought Yosef for משכב זכר purposes, and that Potifar's wife falsely accused Yosef when she was בשעת תשמיש with her husband.
    .
14. Tamar's judgement as Torah Law, Noachide Law, Contemporary Law -- Which one is it, and when? Ibn Caspi says that the death penalty was Noachide law while freeing her from the same was contemporary law.

2010

1. Was Sarah buried in the Valley of Chevron? A variant text in the beginning of parashat Chayei Sarah, present in the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch. And why I believe the masoretic text to be better. This relates strongly to parashat Vayeishev as well.
   .
2. Vayeshev sources -- expanded. For example, a lot more meforshei Rashi.
   .
3. Is Vayikirah malei or chaser? An instance in which our Masoretic text is malei while the Samaritan text ischaser. This goes against the grain. Should we therefore lend credence to the Samaritan text?
   .
4. Why would the shivtei Kah try to kill their brother? After all, isn't this a violation of lo tirtzach? And didn't the avos and, by extension, the shevatim, keep all 613 mitzvos?
   .
5. How did Reuven save Yosef by casting him into a pit filled with Snakes and Scorpions? If there was no water, but instead snakes and scorpions, then how was Reuven saving him by casting him into the pit?
   .
6. Why Didn't The Brothers Try To Stone Yosef To Death? So asks Hillel, in a comment on my previous post. In that previous post, I suggested that they had determined that Yosef was a choleim chalomot, and thus a navi, sheker. And so they wished to put him to death as a false prophet. In this post, I explain how their actions were more precisely in line with the halacha of executing a navi sheker.
   .
7. According to Sporno, why does Yehudah reference 'monetary profit'? After all, the point is judgement, not revenge! The answer is that Yehudah doesn't really, literally. But this just goes to show how derash, introduced by Rashi, gets totally ingrained as peshat in our minds.

2009

1. Vayeshev sources -- links to an online Mikraos Gedolos, plus more than 100 meforshim on the parsha and haftorah. Thus, updated from last year.
   .
2. Is tzadeka mimeni one statement or two? Pashtanim arguing on midrash. Once again, midrashim vs. many pashtanim about how to explain a specific pasuk. In this instance, it is something that seems midrashic in the first place, whether tzadeka mimeni is one statement, or two separate statements. Onkelos, Targum Pseudo-Yontan, the gemara, Bereishit Rabba, and Rashi all treat it as two separate statements, either both by Yehuda, or the latter by Hashem. But many of the other meforshim explain it otherwise, as a single statement, that she is more righteous than I. And more interesting that pashtanim arguing on midrash is Ibn Caspi's point, that the derash is at odds with the trup, and that since trup is from Anshei Knesset HaGedolah and reflects Hashem's intent, we cannot argue on it..
   And further thoughts on tzadeka mimeni -- As discussed in a previous post, saying that tzadeka mimeni are two separate statements ("she is righteous; the pregnancy is from me"; or else "the situation is from Me") is at odds with the trup, which has no pause between them. Yet Rashi endorses this as bothpeshat and midrash. And it appears that so does Ibn Ezra. Here, I give further thought to what could influence this explanation -- the word yakir and the otherwise absence of an admission by Yehuda.
   .
3. The Aramaic translation of the bad word -- Shadal on the correct girsa in Onkelos; I think perhaps a good example of lectio difficilior. The proper Aramaic translation of dibatam -- is it dibbehon or tibbehon. But nothing exceptionally innovative here.
   .
4. Moral lessons from parashat Vayeishev -- Some straightforward lessons about interpersonal relationships, from Ralbag. Some of which are fairly obvious when you just stop and consider the story carefully. Some of it, of course, it a matter of how one parses the Biblical narrative and associated midrashim.

2008

1. Vayeshev sources -- online, by aliyah and perek in Mikraos Gedolos, and by meforshim, at JNUL. And in the comment section, a discussion of Zuleika, wife of Potifar, which will soon be its own post.
   .
2. Two noteworthy comments about the nature of peshat, and the one of Vayeshev is the famous comment of the Rashbam.
   .
3. Parallels between the incident of Tamar and Amnon, and parshat Vayeshev. I note a few of them, and there is a more developed discussion in the comment section.
   .
4. What in the world is kesonnes passim? And how only Yosef and Tamar were tznius. Or not tznius. And then it develops from there. What does it mean that it reached pas yadav?
   .
5. What sort of Petil did Yehuda give Tamar as surety? And how, after Ramban rejects the idea it was tzitzis, as sacrilegious, Baal HaTurim suggests it was his tefillin. And much more.
   .
6. Zuleika, the wife of Potiphar, in the Koran and in Sefer HaYashar. And how I think that this particular midrash might be no more than a borrowing from the Koran.
   .
7. Who was in the pit? A 4-year old take on parshat Vayeshev.

2007

1. The appropriately named Er and Onan, and Hevel, and Machlon and Kilyan. What a choice for names!
   .
2. Bar Kochva as the gilgul of Shela -- from Rav Chaim Vital.
   .
3. Which Daughters comforted Yaakov? Did he have more than one?
   .
4. What did the wife of Potifar ask Yosef to do? And the danger of euphemisms in obscuring the actual intent.
   .
5. Why Mention that Yosef Got Lost? Dramatic tension, no witnesses, plausibility of the story that he was attacked by wild animals.
   .
6. The Shevatim Keeping The Torah
   and expressing willingness to perform kisui hadam. humor.
   .
7. Midianites as a Generic Term
   and as it relates to the sale of Yosef.

2006

• Tamar's Scarf in the News
• whether Islamic style headscarves are what ancient harlots wore.

2005

• Reuven's Return
• As repentance. I analyze various aspects and textual cues of this midrash, and how Rashi reinterprets or correctly understands the midrash.
• The Chronology of Yehuda's Marriage
• Was Yehuda's marriage subsequent to, or co-occurring with the general timespan of Yosef's sale. This is predicated on the meaning of baEt hahi.

2004

1. Yaakov/Yosef Parallels While in a previous post I mentioned parallels between Yosef and Esav, a midrash highlights many parallels between the lives of Yaakov and Yosef.
   .
2. Shortsighted Foresight People who see the future via prophecy or astrology, but misapprehend what they see.
   .
3. Clothes "Make" The Man Twice, Yosef's clothing serves as a mark of identity
   .
4. Mistaken Identities -- How many times does the theme of mistaken identity come up in Tanach?
   .
5. Choice Garments and Goat Bits -- Parallels between two sibling rivalries.

2003

1. In Chutzpah! I note that the brothers are shepherding in Shechem, which they had destroyed in the previous parsha. Although Yaakov initially feared a reaction from the neighboring towns, the pasuk (Bereishit 35:5:) tells us that the fear of God was put into the inhabitants of the towns and the hostile reaction did not surface. Here they are, initially shepherding in Shechem, perhaps even the flocks taken as spoils from Shechem, and Yosef has no fear to go to Shechem alone to see how things fare. Also, Tg Yonatan has two points about the sale of Yosef: it being preordained, and being linked to the destruction of Shechem.
   .
2. In Dibatam Ra'ah I discuss the word נַעַר as a verb in the second pasuk of Vayeishev, in Bereishit 37:2. The midrash gives three bad things the brothers did, or appeared to do, that Yosef reported - eating 'ever min hachai, treating the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah as servants, and secual improprieties. I show how these might be derived from the pasuk. Finally, Tg Yonatan gives on sin - that he saw them eat the ears and tails separated from the live animals. I give Perush Yonatan's explanation for this, as well as a possible derivation from the text.
   .
3. In Where Does the First Pasuk Belong? I note the relationship between the first pasuk which says that Yaakov settled in the land of his forefathers, with a similar statement about Esav in the previous parsha. I suggest it logically belongs to the previous parsha. This may relate to the order of the narrative, such that the story of Yosef actually precedes the birth of Binyamin and thus Rachel's death. Some proofs that Binyamin is not yet born - Binyamin is not mentioned; Yosef is called the ben zekunim - son of old age; and Yaakov asks "will I and your mother bow down before you?" implying that Rachel, Yosef's mother, is still alive.
   .
4. In Brand Name Recognition? Or Lack Thereof? מהר"א אשכנזי, based on Islamic practice, explains Yehuda's command that Tamar be burnt is a command to brand her forhead to label her a harlot. The presence of the mark is the reason harlots would typically cover their faces, and the pasuk says that Tamar did this when pretending to be one.
   .
5. In A Baaaad Report I suggest that on a peshat level, rather than דִּבָּתָם רָעָה meaning an evil report, it actually means a report as to how the shepherding is going. Proofs to this effect - nowhere do we see explicitly what the bad things he reported were, nor that the brothers hated him for it. Further, it seems to set up the story such that we understand why Yaakov sends Yosef after his brothers to find out how the shepherding is going - this is his role.

To be continued...