tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post1039449360215478579..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Who sold Yosef?joshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-88105368135318033822012-12-23T00:04:27.170-05:002012-12-23T00:04:27.170-05:00Shmuel:
Ibn Ezra says it.
kol tuv,
joshShmuel:<br />Ibn Ezra says it.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-62452554258245766982012-12-19T21:59:08.644-05:002012-12-19T21:59:08.644-05:00Shmuel:
no, I've seen others saying it. i don...Shmuel:<br /><br />no, I've seen others saying it. i don't recall who, though...joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-84303038725492177682012-12-19T13:34:21.503-05:002012-12-19T13:34:21.503-05:00The pasuk in Shoftim is a nice catch. Did you find...The pasuk in Shoftim is a nice catch. Did you find that yourself?Shmuelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-19364469113013749352012-12-19T12:22:42.428-05:002012-12-19T12:22:42.428-05:00R' Waxman,
Looking forward to your follow-up p...R' Waxman,<br />Looking forward to your follow-up post, but I think the basic Midianite = Ishmaelite equation is a problem, for several issues. (I hope you will address them in the follow-up post).<br /><br />1) The vast majority of times the word Midianite is used it means someone descended from Midian. The majority of times Ishmaelite is used (which, admittedly, is not so often)it means someone descended from Ishmael. We know this because Midianite is generally used as a member of the nation of Midian (such as Yitro and his family), and the term Ishmaelite is generally used in contradistinction to other nations. (e.g., psalms 83:6, Divrei Hayamim 27:30).<br />I believe Gidon is the only example of the two being used interchangeably. Accordingly, if you want to call using the rare meaning instead of the common meaning a p'shat approach, you would need a good reason for doing so, and I don't see one here, where the common usage makes perfect sense. (Local traders sold a commodity to a caravan headed for foreign shores).<br /><br />2) It's not clear what "Ishamelite" means in Shoftim exactly (a culture or ethnicity, perhaps?) but it would make sense that the descendants of the 'other' children of Avraham would be all lumped together culturally 800 years after their birth. It's no so convincing that would be true two generations later. Even assuming we're talking the time of Moshe, that's still perhaps three or four centuries later, so a term of art from the time of Gidon may not have applied.<br /><br />3) If the Ishamelites and Midianites are the same people, then 37:36 needs to be addressed. If Midianites are different from Ishamelites, then we're simply dealing with a manufacturer-wholesaler-retailer-consumer relationship. If they're the same, then the Torah seems to be tossing around different nationalities with no real rhyme or reason.<br /><br />Just a few of the issues that I hope you'll consider addressing in you upcoming post.<br /><br />KT,<br />Hillle Hillelhttp://frozentorah.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-73529385341408033072012-12-19T06:35:37.748-05:002012-12-19T06:35:37.748-05:00btw, i agree it is charitable to call it an ambigu...btw, i agree it is charitable to call it an ambiguity. but charitable in the **other** direction. again, i'll explain in the follow-up post, bli neder.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-72901266734938852362012-12-19T06:32:02.991-05:002012-12-19T06:32:02.991-05:00Hillel, Jonathan:
thanks. you are right, that the...Hillel, Jonathan:<br /><br />thanks. you are right, that these are additional inputs into the midrash / DH / close reading.<br /><br />i left out these points because they weren't directly related to understanding the pesukim in question about Yosef's sale. but they indeed also need to be resolved. personally, i think that once we assert that Midianites = Ishmaelites, with the backup from Sefer Shoftim, everything else falls into place. Bli neder, I'll explain in a follow-up post.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-51587430739223906642012-12-18T17:02:32.712-05:002012-12-18T17:02:32.712-05:00One other issue. In Parshat Miketz, the brothers s...One other issue. In Parshat Miketz, the brothers say to each other (explaining their troubles in Eqgypt), that they were guilty, for having seen and heard his troubles but didn't help him. If they, in fact, sold him, shouldn't they have said that was the reason for their troubles?Jonathan Kahanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12892758590850664592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-17884486260679901192012-12-18T13:42:55.422-05:002012-12-18T13:42:55.422-05:00Rabbi Waxman,
Your post leaves out one of the cent...Rabbi Waxman,<br />Your post leaves out one of the central points of the 'Brothers-did-not-sell-Yosef' argument: Reuven. <br /><br />We're told he 'returned' to the pit, rends his garments on seeing Yosef wasn't there, then 'returned' to the brothers and freaks out. Returned from where? Why is he surprised Yosef is not in the pit? While this works perfectly if the brothers were back in Dotan and merely planning to sell Yosef, there is no p'shat way of dealing with this if the brothers actually sold him. One needs to turn to medrashim about Reuven repenting for ma'aseh Bilha or returning to tend to Yaakov to explain the text. Overall, Rashbam's approach definitely needs to deal with the 45:4 issue, but it still seems to me it's closer to p'shat then Rashi's approach, no?<br /><br />Additionally, it's fairly charitable to call 37:28 an 'ambiguity.' If I was writing about the Yankees, then wrote "the Mets came to town, they played the Reds, and they won 3-1", technically, "they" COULD mean the Yankees, but that's not an ambiguity, that's a tortured reading. The most 'straightforward' meaning of 37:28 is that it's talking about the Midianites the entire time. Theoretically, you could put a period in front of the word 'socharim', and make the first four words an independent clause, but that's a more difficult readong, and, FWIW, it's not borne out by the trop.<br /><br />KT,<br />HillelHillelhttp://frozentorah.comnoreply@blogger.com