tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post7235921065837288273..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: How plausible is a Midianite / Ishmaelite switchoff?joshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-56846697402317903732012-12-24T21:26:20.565-05:002012-12-24T21:26:20.565-05:00Skipped generations on the paternal side too, obvi...Skipped generations on the paternal side too, obviously - between Levi and Moshe.<br /><br />Just curious re your opinion, and in which circumstances you feel comfortable advocating a different reading to chazal. I wouldn't countenance anything of that kind myself - after all, a 430-year Egypt would make all our calculations wrong and this year would have to be ~5993 instead of 5773. We couldn't have that now, could we?<br /><br />:)Shmuelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-5785522785728585342012-12-24T19:56:02.791-05:002012-12-24T19:56:02.791-05:00Shmuel:
i'm not sure. Shadal gives an extende...Shmuel:<br /><br />i'm not sure. Shadal gives an extended argument for it. but yes, 430. (though bris bein habesarim uses the estimation of 400.) to say this, Yocheved is a daughter of the tribe of Levi, rather than the literal daughter of Levi, and there are skipped generations.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-56681409554695797652012-12-24T11:25:31.600-05:002012-12-24T11:25:31.600-05:00"Add to all the above that they stayed 400 ye..."Add to all the above that they stayed 400 years in Egypt, rather than Chazal's 210."<br /><br />Interesting. Do you really believe this, and if so shouldn't it be 430?Shmuelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-84542381087875647722012-12-24T11:13:45.826-05:002012-12-24T11:13:45.826-05:00R' Waxman,
I appreciate the significant amount...R' Waxman,<br />I appreciate the significant amount of thought that has gone into your positing on this issue and the clarity of your writing. What I still don't understand is why you feel it's needed to jump through so many hoops when a much simpler answer is there!<br /><br />Sure you can make a LOT of assumptions to make it all work out: (1) Ishmaelite means Midianite, even though this only appears only once in Tanach, in a text written hundreds of years after the Torah. After all, it is possible this was a common term for Midianite in the time of Moshe. (2) Medanite also means Midianite, even though that variance never appears anywhere else, and Medanites are an independent people in their own right. (3) The Torah switches between Midianite, Medanite and Ishamelite for no real reason (at least none known to us), but no need to worry about why. Again, this cultural distinction may have been appreciated thousands of years ago and is now lost; it's possible. (4) Reuven left, even though the Torah doesn't say so. And, Reuven doesn't go straight to rescue his brother but instead hangs out for a while, even though the brothers are a great distance from the pit, during which time Yosef is sold without his knowledge. (5) After Reuven is told Yosef was sold, Reuven makes no attempt to rescue Yosef - even though he knows where he is and where he's going - and instead joins his brothers in fabricating evidence and claiming he was torn by a wild animal. For that matter, NONE of the brothers, who have all done teshuva, make any recorded attempt to rescue Yosef.<br /><br />Yes, all these assumptions are possible. But why would you make them? All because of 45:4?<br /><br />I'm just more comfortable saying the Torah means what it says and deal with 45:4 as Yosef's interpretation, rather than engage in numerous speculations about Reuven's actions or ancient linguistics with no support from the time.<br /><br />It is certainly possible you are correct; I'd even say it's a p'shat approach. It just seems unnecessary and certainly the weaker of the two. <br /><br />KT,<br />Hillel<br />Hillelhttp://frozentorah.comnoreply@blogger.com