Showing posts with label vayeshev. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vayeshev. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

Of Course the Brothers Sold Yosef

The correct interpretation, as peshat, is that the brothers sold Yosef. Yosef says so explicitly in parashas Vayigash (Bereishis 45:4):

וַיֹּאמֶר, אֲנִי יוֹסֵף אֲחִיכֶם, אֲשֶׁר-מְכַרְתֶּם אֹתִי, מִצְרָיְמָה
And he said: 'I am Joseph your brother, whom ye sold into Egypt.

Yet all sorts of explanations abound, that the brothers didn't actually sell him.

It is all Rashi's fault. Rashi gives the correct peshat explanation local to our parasha, Vayeshev. But he includes just enough midrash, and people then take that midrash as peshat, and use the facts thereby established to make trouble.

Here are the pesukim (Bereishis 37:25-28):
וַיֵּשְׁבוּ, לֶאֱכָל-לֶחֶם, וַיִּשְׂאוּ עֵינֵיהֶם וַיִּרְאוּ, וְהִנֵּה אֹרְחַת יִשְׁמְעֵאלִים בָּאָה מִגִּלְעָד; וּגְמַלֵּיהֶם נֹשְׂאִים, נְכֹאת וּצְרִי וָלֹט--הוֹלְכִים, לְהוֹרִיד מִצְרָיְמָה.
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוּדָה, אֶל-אֶחָיו:  מַה-בֶּצַע, כִּי נַהֲרֹג אֶת-אָחִינוּ, וְכִסִּינוּ, אֶת-דָּמוֹ.
לְכוּ וְנִמְכְּרֶנּוּ לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים, וְיָדֵנוּ אַל-תְּהִי-בוֹ, כִּי-אָחִינוּ בְשָׂרֵנוּ, הוּא; וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ, אֶחָיו.
וַיַּעַבְרוּ אֲנָשִׁים מִדְיָנִים סֹחֲרִים, וַיִּמְשְׁכוּ וַיַּעֲלוּ אֶת-יוֹסֵף מִן-הַבּוֹר, וַיִּמְכְּרוּ אֶת-יוֹסֵף לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים, בְּעֶשְׂרִים כָּסֶף; וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶת-יוֹסֵף, מִצְרָיְמָה.
"And they sat down to eat bread; and they lifted up their eyes and looked, and, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites came from Gilead, with their camels bearing spicery and balm and ladanum, going to carry it down to Egypt.
And Judah said unto his brethren: 'What profit is it if we slay our brother and conceal his blood?
Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him; for he is our brother, our flesh.' And his brethren hearkened unto him.
And there passed by Midianites, merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. And they brought Joseph into Egypt."

In the first pasuk, the Ishmaelite caravan passes by. In the second and third, Yehudah suggests selling Yosef to the Ishmaelites rather than killing him. In the fourth, those Ishmaelite traders -- now called Midianite merchantmen -- pass by, and THEY, that is, the brothers, draw him out and sell him to the very same Ishmaelite caraven / Midianite merchantman. And those traders bring Yosef to Egypt.

That is the simple peshat. Rashi says the first part**, that it was the brothers who drew him out. This is not midrash. It is peshat. What makes it non-obvious is that it is a grammatical point, namely an "ambiguous antecedent". In English, consider this sentence: "Although the pizza was cold, it tasted good." It, as a pronoun, clearly refers to the pizza, so the pronoun "it" unambiguously refers to the antecedent "pizza". But consider the English sentence "Tim told his brother he was working too hard." The pronoun "he" can refer to either the antecedent "Tim" or to the antecedent "brother". So too, in the Hebrew:
וַיִּמְשְׁכוּ וַיַּעֲלוּ אֶת-יוֹסֵף מִן-הַבּוֹר
the "they" who pulled Yosef out of the pit could refer to the Midianites earlier in the pasuk or to the brothers who hearkened to Yehuda's words at the close of the previous pasuk.

This grammatical point and ambiguity is one that isn't obvious to the casual reader, and they are then persuaded by the assertion that the pasuk in Vayeshev **literally** says that the Midianites pulled Yosef out. The pasuk says no such thing. It says "they" pulled him out, and alas, "they" is an ambiguous antecedent.

Then, Rashi messes us up by incorporating midrash. He writes***, based on Midrash Tanchuma, that the Midianites were a different caravan than the Ishmaelites. (See also the full text of the earlier Rashi.) Others make the Midanim of pasuk 31 into another group, such that the progression is brothers to Midianites to Ishmaelites to Midanites to Egypt.

By putting this forth, Rashi established in people's mind two ideas. (1) That the Midianites and the Ishmaelites are different groups. (2) They they, that is the Midianites, sold Yosef to the Ishmaelites. And then people say that if the Midianites sold him to the separate group the Ishmaelites, then they were also the ones who drew him from the pit. The same pronoun to the same antecedent.

But peshat involves being dismissive of irrelevant distinctions. It is midrash that makes a big deal of minor differences in wording. In truth, the Midiates are the same as the Ishmaelites. And the brothers drew Yosef from the pit and sold him to the Midianites, who were the Ishmaelites. That is, the brothers hearkened to Yehudah's plan (as the pasuk takes great pains to tell us), and so (in the next pasuk), they carry out Yehudah's plan. Ishmaelite is used (say, at the time of matan Torah) to refer to Arab traders who frequent the desert, while Midianite is national origin.

Why does the Torah switch between these two descriptors? I don't care why. You can work it out. It is trying to teach us some deep lesson about these characters. To give us more information about them. To keep the text from being repetitive. Because E and J have different traditions as to their identity. I don't care about the why, just about the what.

The other point people raise is why Reuven is so shocked and runs to tell his brothers, if the brothers including Reuven has sold him. Though it isn't explicit in the pesukim that Reuven had gone away after they hearkened to HIS idea, that is why pasuk 25 takes pains to say that sat to eat bread, וַיֵּשְׁבוּ לֶאֱכָל לֶחֶם

Some of the brothers stayed, while some went on to take care of the sheep. And so they were conveniently there to come up with this other plan, when the Ishmaelites passed.

There are other, peshat-oriented ways of reinterpreting the pesukim. This, to my mind, is the best peshat interpretation. It doesn't require a dismissal of an explicit pasuk in Vayigash. It doesn't work with a misunderstanding of the nature of peshat, in making much ado about irrelevant distinctions.

Footnotes:
_______
* See Rashi here:
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8232#showrashi=true
וימשכו: בני יעקב את יוסף מן הבור וימכרוהו לישמעאלים, והישמעאלים למדינים, והמדינים למצרים:
"and they pulled: The sons of Jacob [pulled] Joseph out the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites, and the Ishmaelites to the Midianites, and the Midianites to Egypt. [From Midrash Asarah Harugei Malchuth]"

** See here for ambiguous antecedent:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/uofc/eduweb/grammar/course/speech/1_2b.htm

*** See Rashi in same pasuk:
ויעברו אנשים מדינים: זו היא שיירא אחרת, והודיעך הכתוב שנמכר פעמים הרבה:
Then Midianite men, merchants, passed by: This is another caravan, and Scripture informs you that he was sold many times. [From Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 13]

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

YUTorah on parashat Vayeshev

parsha banner

Download the YUTorah Parsha Reader for Vayeishev 5774 

Audio Shiurim on Vayeishev
Articles on Vayeishev
Parsha Sheets on Vayeishev
Shiurim on the Haftorah of Vayeishev
Rabbi Jeremy WiederLaining for Parshat Vayeishev
See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Vayeishev
New This Week

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Posts so far for parshat Vayeshev

2012

1. Saving Yosef by casting him into a pit with scorpionsFrom 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 kvetchQ: 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 peshatQuickly, 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 shalsheletShould 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 ChevronA 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 chaserAn instance in which our Masoretic text is malei while the Samaritan text ischaserThis goes against the grain. Should we therefore lend credence to the Samaritan text?
    .
  4. Why would the shivtei Kah try to kill their brotherAfter 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 ScorpionsIf 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 midrashOnce 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
        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 BelongI 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...

            Thursday, December 27, 2012

            Medanites, Midianites, and Ishmaelites

            Please read parts one, two, and three first.

            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.

            Ibn Ezra advances this idea when discussing the differences between the first and second luchot. See part onetwothree, and four. He writes (in part three):


            אמר אברהם המחבר:
            משפט אנשי לה"ק פעם יבארו דבורם באר היטב ופעם יאמרו הצורך במלות קצרות שיוכל השומע להבין טעמם. ודע כי המלות הם כגופות והטעמים הם כנשמות והגוף לנשמה כמו כלי. ע"כ משפט כל החכמים בכל לשון שישמרו הטעמים ואינם חוששים משנוי המלות אחר שהם שוות בטעמן
            Avraham {Ibn Ezra} the author says: The rules of the men {speakers} of the holy tongue, sometimes they explain their words extremely clearly and sometimes they say only what is necessary, in shorthand, such that the hearer can understand their meaning. And know that the words {lexical items} are like bodies and the meanings are like souls, and the body is as a vessel to the soul. Therefore, the rule of all the scholars of every language is to guard to meanings and not pay particular heed to changes in the words, since they are identical in their meaning.
            He gives a number of examples. Hagme'ina Na is what Eliezer says to Rivkah, when requesting water, and Hashkini Na is what he reports to her family. Moshe talks of the firstborn of the captive dying, or of the firstborn of the maidservant dying. But don't make a big deal about these changes in language.

            I understand that this is a shocking notion. Not just because we are conditioned, via midrash, to grant the most significance to minor changes in language. But such attention to detail is what Rashi (seemingly a pashtan who channels a majority of midrash) does. And so do many of the meforshim, following in these footsteps. How are we to understand the slight nuances in language from one pasuk to another, for surely every bit is significant.

            And so, when someone asserts, as Ibn Ezra does, that Midianites == Ishmaelites, and even cites a prooftext as an example of this happening, it seems forced. It seems like a difficulty.

            But it isn't a difficulty. And it certainly is not a new difficulty. It is the same assertion, and the same approach, applied thousands of times across Tanach. And when one asserts this, this is engaging in peshat analysis, and it is indeed a strength of the explanation, not a weakness, that one is not worrying about minor variations in language.

            I'll give my own example, and you tell me what is most like peshat:

             In Bemidbar 1:14, we have:
            יד לְגָד, אֶלְיָסָף בֶּן-דְּעוּאֵל.14 Of Gad, Eliasaph the son of Deuel.
            while in Bemidbar 2:14 we have:
            יד וּמַטֵּה, גָּד; וְנָשִׂיא לִבְנֵי גָד, אֶלְיָסָף בֶּן-רְעוּאֵל.14 and the tribe of Gad; the prince of the children of Gad being Eliasaph the son of Reuel,

            Which should we say is more like peshat?

            a) Reuel is the same as Deuel. And come up perhaps for a reason for the change.
            b) Reuel and Deuel are two different people. It must be that in the interim, from perek 1 to perek 2, Elyasaf son of Deuel retired, and was replaced by someone else.

            Which is more like peshat, considering these two selections from different pesukim:
            וְשֵׁם שַׂר-צְבָאוֹ אֲבִינֵר, בֶּן-נֵר דּוֹד שָׁאוּל.
            אָמַר אֶל-אַבְנֵר שַׂר הַצָּבָא

            Is Aviner ben Ner the general the same as Avner ben Ner?

            Another. Moshe warns Pharaoh of Makat Bechorot, saying it will occur כַּחֲצֹת הַלַּיְלָה. Is this the same, more or less, as וַיְהִי בַּחֲצִי הַלַּיְלָה in the fulfillment, or does peshat require that Moshe is giving an approximate time so that Pharaoh cannot claim that the prediction has been fulfilled? Which is peshat, and which is derash?

            In parshat Vayigash, we are told of Yosef being drawn out of the pit and being sold. Involved are possibly the brothers, Ishmaelites, and Midianites. No Medanites (without a yud) are mentioned. Then we are told of the cover-up, how the brothers will conceal the sale / taking of Yosef from their father.

            And then there is a concluding statement of the perek. The purpose of the concluding statement is to situate Yosef in Egypt, at the conclusion of this tale. After all, we are about to have a perek's digression of Yehuda and Tamar. So, we should first situate Yosef in Egypt. At the end of perek 37:
            לו  וְהַמְּדָנִים--מָכְרוּ אֹתוֹ, אֶל-מִצְרָיִם:  לְפוֹטִיפַר סְרִיס פַּרְעֹה, שַׂר הַטַּבָּחִים.  {פ}36 And the Midianites sold him into Egypt unto Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh's, the captain of the guard. {P}


            It is the ultimate in kvetches to say that the Medanites, וְהַמְּדָנִים, are a new entity in this story.

            • For one, there is the definite article, the heh hayedia, indicating (as it often does midrashically) some entity we already know. 
            • For another, this is extremely confusing, introducing a new nationality / group as if the reader should know them. The focus is the sale into Egypt, to Potiphar.
            • Finally, if there were some sale to Medanites from Ishmaelites, there was no earlier explicit mention of this exchange. And the purpose of the pasuk, situated where it is in the pasuk, is to place Yosef in Egypt, so that we can resume in one perek.
            Further, immediately after the story of Yehuda and Tamar, we resume the Yosef narrative. In perek 39:

            א  וְיוֹסֵף, הוּרַד מִצְרָיְמָה; וַיִּקְנֵהוּ פּוֹטִיפַר סְרִיס פַּרְעֹה שַׂר הַטַּבָּחִים, אִישׁ מִצְרִי, מִיַּד הַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים, אֲשֶׁר הוֹרִדֻהוּ שָׁמָּה.1 And Joseph was brought down to Egypt; and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh's, the captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him of the hand of the Ishmaelites, that had brought him down thither.
            The function of this pasuk is the reverse and the parallel of the earlier pasuk. We are resuming the narrative. But how did the Medanites become Ishmaelites?!

            Isn't it interesting that the very same "resolution" (which is really just straightforward reading) we had earlier in the parasha during the actual sale is the exact same one we can utilize now? That Medanites == Ishmaelites? And indeed, it is not a "resolution". Parallel pesukim describing the same action (sale to Potiphar) use parallel names, and these are names that we know can be equated, based on sefer Shofetim.

            The spelling with a yud and without a yud of מִדְיָנִים vs. וְהַמְּדָנִים is just the sort of slight difference that we should not be concerned with, because we are learning peshat. Just as Reuel == Deuel. And if you think otherwise, it is because we have a fundamental disagreement as to the nature of peshat.

            It is true that Midyan had a brother named Medan:
            פסוק ל"ב: וּבְנֵי קְטוּרָה פִּילֶגֶשׁ אַבְרָהָם, יָלְדָה אֶת-זִמְרָן וְיָקְשָׁן וּמְדָן וּמִדְיָן--וְיִשְׁבָּק וְשׁוּחַ; וּבְנֵי יָקְשָׁן, שְׁבָא וּדְדָן.

            Are we told anywhere that Medan had Medanites as descendants, such that Medanites are a separate entity?

            Meanwhile, saying that Medanites, Midyanites, and Ishmaelites are different groups creates difficulties which I consider to be true difficulties, on a peshat level. For example, where in the world did the Medanites come from? Why does the pasuk say that the Midyanites brought him down to Egypt when it was the Ishmaelites who did so, while the Midyanites were only the initial sellers? If the brothers did not sell Yosef, why does Yosef explicitly say twice that they did?

            LinkWithin

            Blog Widget by LinkWithin