tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post113675625200927860..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: parshat Vayigash: The Ambiguity of וְעָזַב אֶת-אָבִיו וָמֵתjoshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-65018889694771790612006-12-29T11:37:00.000-05:002006-12-29T11:37:00.000-05:00Fascinatingly (Rishonim generally try to disambigu...Fascinatingly (Rishonim generally try to disambiguate syntax, by lexical or contextual argument), Rabbeinu Bachyei here suggests BOTH possibilities as . . . deliberate multivalence or ambiguity on the part of Yehudah: Yehudah is here trying to reinforce and play on both senses of “VeNafsho Keshurah BeNafsho” by saying “VaMeis” that could refer to EITHER Binyamin or Yaakov. (Note also the double sense of “Naar” as “Yeled” or “slave”.<br /><br />Nachman LevineAbbahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07391623051340939164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1137091973216692182006-01-12T13:52:00.000-05:002006-01-12T13:52:00.000-05:00In general, nowadays I only try to mention meforsh...In general, nowadays I only try to mention <I>meforshim</I> where they add something that hasn't been added already by others. Rashi was cited because he is the standard. Ibn Ezra was cited because he feels it is ambiguous, and brought up the entire issue of Issi ben Yehuda's five. The others may agree or disagree, but a comprehensive list of how different <I>meforshim</I> take sides in this dispute was not what I wished to address.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06958375916391742462noreply@blogger.com