Seventy souls

In Vayigash (Bereishis 46), we are told that Yaakov went down to Egypt with seventy souls, and they are enumerated. The count equals 69, and there are various answers, such as that we are counting Yosef, who also came to Egypt earlier and came from Yaakov's loins; or that we are counting Yaakov himself; or that we are counting Hashem; or that Yocheved was born between the walls; or that 69 is essentially the same as 70, and that is the way Scripture speaks. There is also the irregularity that we have only Dinah bat Yaakov and Serach bat Asher listed for the women; is it really plausible that these were the only daughters, especially when elsewhere (Bereishis 37:35) we have reference to Yaakov's daughters, in the plural?

We can answer, perhaps, by considering the purpose of mentioning the seventy souls. In Torah, it serves two purposes. First, to show how far Yaakov has become. They start out as a small family, in the time of Avraham and Yitzchak, and now, when coming down to Egypt, they are an entire clan. That is the point in Vayigash as well as in parshas Shemos (perek 1) when, again, the figure of seventy souls is mentioned. The second purpose, to provide contrast of small clan to a nation. In Devarim 10:22, Moshe says that with (merely) seventy souls you have come down to Egypt and now Hashem has made you multitudinous like the stars of the heavens.

If we consider this seventy souls canonical and the main point, then the specifics of who the seventy souls are is not so important. And it can be idiomatic, or even excluding all the daughters and sisters. But in the thread of the Torah in which genealogy is important (call it P if you want), especially to set the stage for the next stage of Jewish history, then we want to spell out those seventy. And so, by pulling from genealogical lists found elsewhere in Torah, the Author puts together a list of mentioned personalities who can make up those 70. And we know of Dinah because of the incident with Shechem, and we know of Serach from Bemidbar 26. We *apparently* don't want to include Er and Onan, because even though they came from Yaakov's loins, they did not descend to Egypt. But maybe they should be included instead of the two exceptional daughters.

Shemot: the placement of the etnachta in Shemot 1:1

The first pasuk in sefer Shemot is:

Note the placement of the etnachta, on the word mitzrayma. Rabbi Yehuda Leib Spira, in Harechasim Levik’a:

writes the following, referencing the placement of the etnachta:

(Shemot 1:1) “Each man and his household came”: with Yaakov came each man and his household. Therefore the etnachta is on the word mitzrayma.

The idea here appears to be that there were two possible parsings of the pasuk:

Had the etnachta been on the word Yaakov, then the pasuk would read:

(A) “And these are the names of the children of Israel who came to Egypt with Yaakov: each man came with his household.”

However, since the etnachta is on mitzrayma, the words et-Yaakov bind to the second part of the pasuk, and so the pasuk reads:

(B) “And these are the names of the children of Israel who came to Egypt: with Yaakov, each man came with his household.”

From Rabbi Spira’s choice of language, I think he is saying that the correct parsing comes first. And the trup follows the correct parsing. This is somewhat different from saying that the trup is X, and therefore the correct parsing follows from it. Maybe I am reading too much into this. Regardless, let us consider the two parsings and see which one is more appealing.

Weighing the alternatives in my head, (B) feels right, while (A) feels more awkward. It is hard to pin down exactly what. It is a feeling, in (B), that the first segment is fine and complete in stating that these are the ones who came down to Egypt, and the second segment delineates nicely that they came down with Yaakov. Meanwhile, in (A), adding et Yaakov to the first segment seems unnecessary, and having the second segment a bare ish uveito ba’u seems too brief, not to mention abrupt.

We can also look to the end of Vayigash, in Bereishit 46:8, which this opening pasuk is appearing to echo:

Up to the etnachta in pasuk 8 is the parallel to the entirety of Shemot 1:1. And that pasuk reads:

“And these are the names of the children of Israel who came to Egypt | Yaakov and his sons. The firstborn of Yaakov, Reuven.”

Thus, eliminating the segment of “the firstborn of Yaakov, Reuven”, there are two ideas left, and “Yaakov and his sons” belongs in the second segment.

Thus, both an internal weighing of the feel of the pasuk and a comparison to the Biblical parallel / source pasuk in Vayigash corroborates the parsing given by the trup.

In favor of Serach bat Asher, harpist

Over at Fink Or Swim, Rabbi Eliyahu Fink has a post analyzing the "famous" midrash of Serach bat Asher, as told by The Little Midrash Says, and his conclusion is:

Barring the discovery of serious egregious errors, I think we have to question whether the legend of Serach and her harp should be a basic part of the way we teach and learn Vayigash.

His reasons amount to:

1. It is from Sefer HaYashar, a late (early 16th century) "discovered" source that claimed to be very early
2. The earlier midrashic version (Midrash Hagadol) doesn't have the harp as part of it
3. The earlier midrashic versions is also late (from 14th century) and obscure
4. "[W]e do not usually accept aggadic interpretations invented by Medieval commentators in the same way we accept Talmudic aggadic interpretations"

I disagree with his conclusions here. It is a trend in some circles to criticize the widespread and uncritical adoption of "famous" midrashim. Especially where the adoption of the midrash is as a literal, historical event with the full weight of the masorah behind it. And there is merit to such a critique.

But that doesn't mean that one mustn't teach and learn the midrash.

Here are a few points, in no particular order, in favor of teaching this and other obscure sources.

1) As I noted earlier and elsewhere, the midrash also appears in Targum Yonatan on Torah. This Targum is really Targum Pseudo-Yonatan, not written by Yonasan ben Uziel. Some scholars think it was written early, in the 8th century. Others think it was written later, in the 14th century. The earliest date possible date comes from things like using the names of Mohammed's wife (Aisha) and daughter (Fatima) as wives of Yishmael, and referring to Constantinople as Constantinople. Later dates come from the fact that, e.g., Rashi does not seem to know about its existence. Scholars argue.

It was easy to miss this midrash in Targum Yonasan, since it does not appear where Yaakov is told, but later when Serach is mentioned.

The Targum does not mention a harp, but does mention that she told him and was rewarded with not dying. However, this is not as simple as that. Realize that the Targum, which incorporating midrash, is not a midrashic work of its own accord. By which I mean that its primary purpose is translation, not the creation of midrash. If it refers briefly to a midrashic fact, it is likely (to me, at least) that it was extant in some other work available to the author of Tg Yonatan. And so, if he brings in the midrash briefly where relevant (Serach's being listed in the count), that does not mean that this is (a) the earliest source for it, or (b) a comprehensive account of the midrash.

Further, given its prominence in Mikraos Gedolos, and in the minds of traditional Jews who assume that it was from Yonasan ben Uziel, it is far from an obscure source.

BTW, Ginzberg also included this midrash in his Legends of the Jews.

2) Regarding whether to avoid teaching midrashim like this: I grew up on The Midrash Says, by Rabbi Moshe Weissman. Not The Little Midrash Says, by the same author, which is a simplified version of The Midrash Says, for younger readers, with a simpler presentation, vocabulary, and without as much analysis and drawing of lessons. I read The Midrash Says, on Chumash Bereishis to Devarim, several times in my youth.

I don't think it is perfect, and there is of course what to critique. (Such as a bug / feature, the blending of details from several midrashim to make a cohesive story, which the reader might not realize is happening.) But it familiarized me with many different midrashim, from a variety of sources, "obscure" to more mainstream.

And I believe that this strong background in midrashim served me well. When I got older, I learned to distinguish between what the pesukim say and what the midrash says. I learned the difference between peshat and derash. And I learned some dikduk. And I studied the midrashim inside. And then, with a broad knowledge in midrashim, I could appreciate what Chazal were doing, how they reinterpreted pesukim to bring out various themes or ideas already in the text, and how they appreciated fine nuances in phrasing, etcetera. Had I only begun studying midrashim when I was mature and could fully appreciate their message, I would have nowhere near the same level of background, and would suffer for it.

It is a pity if people at age 30 read the chumash and midrash the same way they did when they were 8. But that doesn't mean that one should not give the foundations to the 5 or 8 year old, on his or her own level.

3) It is misguided to focus on The Little Midrash Says as opposed to The Midrash Says. Not just that The Midrash Says is more sophisticated. Much of R' Fink's research tracking down the origins of the midrash, and the component parts which were in some midrashim but not others (such as the harp as a means of delivery) are already made explicit in The Midrash Says. Here is an image of the relevant page, 426, in The Midrash Says on Bereishis.

Note the footnotes.



We see footnote 64 after the close of the statement that they noticed Serach coming out to greet them. And this is a reference to Sefer Hayashar. So he makes it explicit that he is taking it from Sefer Hayashar. The next half sentence, as we see from footnote 65, he takes from the Rokeach. Then, he returns to Sefer Hayashar until the 66. Then, up to 67 is taken from Targum Yonasan to Bereishit 46:17. And finally, up to the 68, he takes something from Derech Eretz Zuta, perek 1 (which you will find at the very close of the perek).

Elsewhere, for instance when he takes certain things from Midrash Rabba and others from Zohar, he will make that clear as well.

This admittedly does not make it entirely obvious that these items are found in Sefer Hayashar and in no other source. He does not mention Midrash Aggadah, for example, which doesn't mention the harp.

Regardless, it is not like he is passing off "obscure" midrashim without letting us know of their provenance. He lets us know exactly where he gets them from.

4) By the way, on the next page, 427, he discusses how this reward is a middah kenegged middah. "Serach's reward was midda - kineged - midda. Since she had revived Yaakov's soul and caused the ruach hakodesh to return to him, she was given eternal life."

In the foreword to the book, Rabbi Weissman discusses his goals and methodology. And in the introduction, he introduces certain "basic key concepts", the first of which is midda - kineged - midda. As such, we might begin to understand why Rabbi Weissman decided to include the Serach midrash in the book.

If one is going to critique Rabbi Weissman's approach and his inclusion of this midrash and not that one, then it would pay to first read through the forward. That doesn't mean that ultimately we might not disagree with his methodology, philosophy, or his specific choices. But first we should know what they are.

Here is a page from the end of his foreword. Note that he believes that "[n]o midrash was recorded to tell us a simple story -- each conveys a profound message." Earlier, he wrote about how the midrashim were written in code (though that doesn't necessarily preclude many of them being historical). And he also writes about how one should ideally be reading the midrashim inside, rather than in an English popularization.



Finally, focus on his penultimate paragraph, where he discusses his selection process.

"This collection does not claim to include all or even a majority of the Midrashim available on each parsha (Torah-reading). In truth, it represents but a minute fraction, a drop in the ocean of Midrashic material found in our Sacred Writings. The Midrashim selected were those which would, hopefully, be meaningful to the reader. Often the view quoted ina Midrash is not the only valid one on the subject. It was technically impossible to point out in every instance all the views which exist. In many cases, Midashim from different sources were interwoven in order to make the work as readable as possible."

posts so far for parashat Vayigash

2013

1. ACH in אַךְ טָרֹף טֹרָף -- an expression of certainty, doubt, or reduction? Famously, אך and רק midrashically come only to exclude, to be memaet. And this isinteresting because according to Biblical scholars, this usage of אך is only in Rabbinic Hebrew, while in Biblical Hebrew it means "surely", or "indeed". If so, this is an anachronistic sort ofderasha, and so one reads in alternate meanings to what would have been intended by the Biblical author. You could argue and say that the meaning in Rabbinic Hebrew is also the meaning in Biblical Hebrew. This would require analysis of how it is used across Tanach. There is an אך in Vayigash that caught my eye...

2. As a followup, Connecting אַךְ טָרֹף טֹרָף and וְלֹא רְאִיתִיו עַד הֵנָּה with a vav -- I saw a nice idea in HaKsav VeHakabbalah, by R. Ya'akov Zvi Mecklenburg (1785-1865). See my previous post about the word אך in אַךְ טָרֹף טֹרָף, and whether the expression is one of certainty or doubt. Part of the calculation there is how one should relate this statement in the reisha to the statement in the seifa, of וְלֹא רְאִיתִיו עַד הֵנָּה. Is the seifa meant as an elaboration and proof to the reisha (see e.g. Ibn Ezra)? Or does the presence of seifa serve to demonstrate to us a lack of certainly in the reisha (see e.g. Ibn Janach)? In this context, here is an explanation of the vav in וְלֹא רְאִיתִיו by Rav Mecklenberg...

3. How could Yosef ask "Is my father still alive?" Yehuda had made it clear that Yaakov was alive! The Torah Temimah presents two ways of understand Yosef's question, "I am Yosef. Is my father still alive?" I like the first one as peshat and not just midrash. And at the end of the post, I give a novel interpretation of the utterance which looks forwards rather than backwards.

4. YUTorah on parashat Vayigash

2012

1. How many daughters did Yaakov have? Ibn Ezra grapples with the plural mention of Yaakov's daughters and granddaughters, in light of the reference to only one of each in the ensuing genealogy. It can be plural banot to mean a single bat, or a reference to maidservants. I analyze what might be guiding Ibn Ezra in this, explain his reference to Michal bat Shaul, and have some suggestions of my own -- that there were indeed other daughters.

2. YUTorah on Vayigash

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. Why no 'famous' derasha on Isha Ki Tazria?  Maybe there is. Regardless, what about the law of conservation of derashot? Update: The Rashi ktav yad I cited often brings in many other sources, so I would not attribute it to Rashi. The rest of the analysis still stands.
   .
2. Vayigash sources -- 2011 edition
   .
3. Proximate vs. ultimate cause in the sending of Yosef --  How Ibn Caspi understands Moreh Nevuchim. I think...
   .
4. How was Yosef's milah different from that of the Egyptians? A seeming, or very real, contradiction between two Rashis. If Yosef compelled the Egyptians to circumcise themselves, how could he present his own circumcision to his brothers as proof of his Hebrew identity? Rav Chaim Kanievsky suggests priyah or that the brothers were previously unaware of Yosef's decree. I suggest, based on another midrash Tanchuma, that Yosef's aposthia would be different than any sort of milah, since there would be no scar. And finally, I consider what midrash contradicts what other midrash, whether contradictions in Rashi are troubling, and establish for myself that I like the question but will dislike any answer.
   .
5. YU Torah on parashat Vayigash

2010

1. Vayigash sources -- expanded. For example, many more meforshei Rashi.
   .
2. How did Yehuda want to speak in Yosef's ear? Three possibilities. If so, where Rashi takes the middle road, is he choosing apeshat or a derash route?
   .
3. In answer to a ponderous parasha point
   .
4. Parsha questions --  From Junior's school parsha sheet, questions on the parsha for Shabbos table discussion. And my answers.

2009

1. The Gra's famous peshat on Vayigash -- The Vilna Gaon has a famous devar Torah interpreting the opening trup on Vayigash. Considering the idea of it, and whether it is compelling..
2. Vayigash sources -- more than 100 meforshim on the parsha and haftorah, clustered into categories such as masorah and supercommentators of Rashi. Plus links to an online Mikraos Gedolos, by perek and aliyah.
   .
3. How many are the days of your life, as question or exclamation? There is a dispute whether kama is a question or exclamation. Ibn Caspi has a nice exchange with an elderly man about this, and also tries to claim that this is what the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah meant when they placed a gaaya {=zakef gadol} on the word. I investigate.
   .
4. Is the trup on veEt Achecha dispositive? Ibn Caspi and Chizkuni each read a pasuk in Vayish differently, Ibn Caspi with the division indicated by trup and Chizkuni against. Except that Chizkuni explains why the trup isn't really against him.
   .
5. Ralbag on Yocheved's birth -- All about Ralbag asserting that on a peshat level, the 70 includes Yaakov, and that of course Yocheved wasn't actually born just as they entered, though there is a deep meaning to that midrash. This can help us understand the approach of this and other Rishonim towards midrash, "arguing" withmidrash, and whether miracles must be explicit.
   .
6. A patach in la`ish, according to Chizkuni -- A brief discussion of a troubling Chizkuni, about the nikkud under a certain letter. And the inclination to emend Chizkuni to make everything all right, which we should reject. This might relate to the idea of lectio difficilior, the "rule" that the more difficult word is more likely original.
   .
7. The deeper meaning of Yocheved's birth between the walls -- In an earlier post, I discussed Ralbag's position -- the midrash that Yocheved was the 70th, and was born between the walls, was al derech derash, but was not intended historically or literally. I would like to explore what deep meaning this midrash might contain, in terms of Yocheved as the 70th, orChushim ben Dan, or Serach bat Asher, or Yaakov himself, or Hakadosh Baruch Hu.
   .
8. The Torah of Rabbi Meir -- What are we to make of the midrashic reference to the variants found in the Torah of Rabbi Meir? In Vayigash, it is uven Dan Chushim. Are these commentaries in a separate book? Explanations written on the side of the sefer Torah? A variant reading? Deliberate variants to accord with midrash, or with what seems to be good peshat. It is unclear. But it is still something to consider. In the end, I side with the idea that it was a variant text to our accepted Masoretic text, and that our Masoretic text is preferable.

2008

1. Did Yosef actually ask about their father and brother, as Yehuda claimed? Just as it interested me last year, it interested me this year. (And I forgot I addressed it last year.) Here, with some new sources addressing it (e.g. Chizkuni), and an expansion on some of the ideas.
   .
2. Some great Chizkunis on Vayigash. Such as why Yosef had the brothers sent off to Goshen; a reparsing of the pasuk as to where Yaakov and the brothers went; and whether one can argue on an etnachta, and so on. Check it out, and the comment section.
   .
3. Anshei Chayil: Warriors or Capable Men? And a contradiction in Rashi, says me.
   .
4. The trup on "rav", and why Shadal correctly changes the tevir to a zakef gadol.
   .
5. 70 souls? But there are only 69?! It could be Yaakov; it could be Yocheved; or else it could be that it really was only 69, but the Torah keeps the nice round number.
   .
6. Ramses vs. Raamses -- the same place? different?
   .
7. Vayigash sources -- links to a Mikraos Gedolos, and many meforshim on the parsha and haftara. Very useful for preparing the sidra.
   .
8. From Jan 2009, with a Miketz crossover - Why in the world did Yosef compel the Egyptians to circumcise themselves? I try to figure it out based on the context and meaning of the original midrash, which Rashi has seen. To quote myself, "The idea behind it, at least as spoken out here, is that Yosef's intention was somehow to be mekarev the Egyptians to his religion."

2007

1. Have you a father or a brother? But where did Yosef ask this question? In 2008, I address this as well, from other sources, and some of the same, but from a slightly different perspective.
   .
2. The trup and nikkud on bevechi -- and how one appears at odds with the other, and Shadal's suggestion.
   .
3. From Vayechi: How big a gap between Vayigash and Vayechi (see pt i, ii, iii).

2006

1. When Was Yosef Sold? We consider the possibility that it was before Rachel's death, and attempt to harness evidence in that direction. There is some evidence the other way (the account of, and the place of Rachel's death), but this is perhaps resolvable.
   .
2. The Ambiguity of וְעָזַב אֶת-אָבִיו וָמֵת -- Ibn Ezra wonders why this is not one of Issi ben Yehuda's five ambiguously parsed pesukim. Vamet can either corefer with Yaakov or with Binyamin. We compare with Issi ben Yehuda's five, and show how they are ambiguities of parsing rather than coindexation. Avi Ezer, a supercommentary on Ibn Ezra, wonders (and resolves) how Ibn Ezra could be so chutzpadik to challenge Chazal in this way. And I give my answer as well.
   .
   Finally, Rashi decides in favor of a coreference to Binyamin. We give several reasons for this, as well as several reasons for a coreference with Yaakov.
   .
3. Issi Ben Yehuda's Five (And Rav Chisda's One) As Disambiguated by Trup -- As a followup to the aforementioned post. Issi ben Yehuda gives five examples of ambiguous parsings of pesukim. Rav Chisda has an additional one. As we know, trup serves as syntactic markup and may well disambiguate each of these examples. In each case, what does the trup tell us? How does Rashi disambiguate in each case? Also, from a certain Rashi, it would seem that if we decide in the end that a narrative happened in a specific way, or that halacha is a certain way, we should emend the trup we read in shul to accord with that reading!

Dec 2004

1. Jewish Might  -- Rather than polite, humble and supplicative, some midrashim cast Yehuda's response (and that of his brothers) as a display of Jewish might. Yehuda's speech is understood in three different strains: appeasement, prayer, and threat of war, much as is Yaakov's approach to Esav. I go into a bit of detail on this.
   .
2. The Three Approaches -- Continuing the idea mentioned above, Chazal show how each of these three approaches are meanings of the word "vayigash" throughout Tanach.
   .
3. Yehuda's Threat -- of leprosy and death. And the specific textual prompts. "Speak a word in my lord's ear" implies a hidden message. Leprosy is derived from "you are as Pharaoh." The parallels drawn to Yaakov's curse and Shimon and Levi's destruction of Shechem might find purchase in אֲדֹנִי שָׁאַל, אֶת-עֲבָדָיו לֵאמֹר: הֲיֵשׁ-לָכֶם אָב, אוֹ-אָח.

Dec 2003 - Jan 2004

1. Pesukim That Imply That Binyamin Is Young -- Some neutral. He is called hakaton, but this might mean youngest as opposed to young. But then, the supposedly 22 year old Binyamin is called the naar, or lad. He is also called yeled zekunim katon, which I think is the strongest that he is fairly young.
   .
2. The trup of the first pasuk -- Contrary to the Vilna Gaon, does not mean that, even on the level of simple translation. Revii does not mean fourth but rather "lie down." And this is not coming to convey some secret message, but is mechanically produced by syntactic rules of division.
   .
   
3. Are Reuven's Children Tribbles? -- Accounting for their sudden doubling from 2 to 4, in such a short time span. I suggest the census in Egypt was taken at a later date.
   .
4. Treatment of הַבָּאָה מִצְרַיְמָה a -- And in order to maintain that this census was taken at a later date, in Egypt, I have to explain habbaah mitzrayma as of the generation that came down to Egypt, as opposed to those who left. I show this needs be so, compelled by the fact that Yosef did not physically move to Egypt together with his father, yet is counted there. Rather, it is the census of the generation which moved into Egypt, opposed to the census when the Israelites leave, and indeed is there to show this contrast and the fulfillment of Divine promise.
   
   As a side benefit, a lot of chronology can work out, since there is time for Reuven to have more sons, for Binyamin to grow up and have ten sons, etcetera.

Connecting אַךְ טָרֹף טֹרָף and וְלֹא רְאִיתִיו עַד הֵנָּה with a vav

haKsav vehaKabbalah

I saw a nice idea in HaKsav VeHakabbalah, by R. Ya'akov Zvi Mecklenburg (1785-1865). See my previous post about the word אך in אַךְ טָרֹף טֹרָף, and whether the expression is one of certainty or doubt. Part of the calculation there is how one should relate this statement in the reisha to the statement in the seifa, of וְלֹא רְאִיתִיו עַד הֵנָּה. Is the seifa meant as an elaboration and proof to the reisha (see e.g. Ibn Ezra)? Or does the presence of seifa serve to demonstrate to us a lack of certainly in the reisha (see e.g. Ibn Janach)?

In this context, here is an explanation of the vav in וְלֹא רְאִיתִיו by Rav Mecklenberg:

"וְלֹא רְאִיתִיו -- this vav serves like the word 'because' for it is for the purpose of giving a reason. Just as in (Mishpatim 23:9)

ט  וְגֵר, לֹא תִלְחָץ; וְאַתֶּם, יְדַעְתֶּם אֶת-נֶפֶשׁ הַגֵּר--כִּי-גֵרִים הֱיִיתֶם, בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.

9 And a stranger shalt thou not oppress; for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

וְאַתֶּם יְדַעְתֶּם אֶת-נֶפֶשׁ הַגֵּר which is a giving of a reason to that which preceded it, namely וְגֵר לֹא תִלְחָץ. "For you know..." And his meaning here is that I agreed [with my sons' suggestion] to say that he was torn, for until now I have not seen him, and had he been alive, he would not have refrained from endeavoring to appear before me. (Da ich nicht -- "because I do not".)

How could Yosef ask "Is my father still alive?" Yehuda had made it clear that Yaakov was alive!

The Torah Temimah presents two ways of understand Yosef's question, "I am Yosef. Is my father still alive?" I like the first one as peshat and not just midrash. And at the end of the post, I give a novel interpretation of the utterance which looks forwards rather than backwards.

The first is based on the midrashic take, I think a famous one:

He wants to know what the connection is between "I am Yosef" and "Is my father still alive?" And further, they had pretty explicitly said that Yaakov was alive, so why is he asking?

The first approach is that this was said כמתמיה. The midrash understands Yosef's words as a Tochacha, a rebuke, to which the brothers are unable to answer.

Thus, Yehuda had said (Bereishit 44:31):

לא  וְהָיָה, כִּרְאוֹתוֹ כִּי-אֵין הַנַּעַר--וָמֵת; וְהוֹרִידוּ עֲבָדֶיךָ אֶת-שֵׂיבַת עַבְדְּךָ אָבִינוּ, בְּיָגוֹן--שְׁאֹלָה.

31 it will come to pass, when he seeth that the lad is not with us, that he will die; and thy servants will bring down the gray hairs of thy servant our father with sorrow to the grave.

and in this way saying that a report of Binyamin's death would kill Yaakov. And Yosef was very affected by this (Bereishit 45:1-2) and sent everyone out, and then proclaimed to them (45:3):

ג  וַיֹּאמֶר יוֹסֵף אֶל-אֶחָיו אֲנִי יוֹסֵף, הַעוֹד אָבִי חָי; וְלֹא-יָכְלוּ אֶחָיו לַעֲנוֹת אֹתוֹ, כִּי נִבְהֲלוּ מִפָּנָיו.

3 And Joseph said unto his brethren: 'I am Joseph; doth my father yet live?' And his brethren could not answer him; for they were affrighted at his presence.

His brothers being unable to answer him כִּי נִבְהֲלוּ מִפָּנָיו would mean that they had no answer to his rebuke.

The Torah Temimah puts it as follows, as a rhetorical question (a):

"Is there still in him strength to bear a burden after his suffering {?} and pain from my loss, such that he is still alive?"

And with this was the implicit accusation, and the calling to their mind all that Yosef's brothers had done to him. This also explains how it connects to "I am Yosef". All this is an accusation.

Another way I might cast the tochacha is: (b) "Why are you thinking of my father's suffering at the loss now? You were callous about his suffering back then!" Another way: (c) "How can you present to me that he cannot bear the loss of a child? He was able to bear it back then when you caused me to be lost to him."

I like this rhetorical approach. And though it is recorded in a midrash, that midrash is tapping in to a deep and plausible peshat reading of the text.

Perhaps one can find fault with some of the ways of spinning this tochacha. After all, the brothers in the past (e.g. Bereishit 45:27-29) had stressed the loss of Yosef, and that it was the loss of both sons of Rachel which would cumulatively add up to Yaakov's death in sorrow. But this would only be a rejection of (c), not (a) or (b).

But then he presents another explanation al derech hapeshat:

"And as peshat, one can interpret the intent of the question 'Is my father still alive?' is that after he saw that they lied to him regarding his existence, for they said that he died, and as Rashi said in the beginning of this parashah (pasuk 20) that they had a reason for doing so, he was no longer certain about what they said to him until now that their father was still alive. For perhaps they also had a reason [for lying] about this, perhaps in order to stir up mercy in Yosef regarding his old age, or some other reason. And therefore, now, when he made himself known, he asked about him [Yaakov] that they should tell him the truth."

Here is a my own explanation. Stop looking backwards, to Yehuda's mention of Yaakov saying X or Y, or of Yehuda's fear of Yaakov dying. You are supposed to look forwards, to Yaakov's reaction to the good news. Bereishit 45:28:

כח  וַיֹּאמֶר, יִשְׂרָאֵל, רַב עוֹד-יוֹסֵף בְּנִי, חָי; אֵלְכָה וְאֶרְאֶנּוּ, בְּטֶרֶם אָמוּת.

28 And Israel said: 'It is enough; Joseph my son is yet alive; I will go and see him before I die

Even if Yosef did not say it (pretend for a moment, for my rhetorical point), it would be fitting to have put these words in Yosef's mouth, HaOd Avi Chai. Because the literary point is the mutual excitement regarding the reunion. And so it matches Yaakov's statement of Rav, Od Yosef Chai.

Now know that Yosef did say it. And it has some meaning that presumably can be resolved with Yehuda's earlier statements which make clear that Yaakov was alive. But first, the resolution to that apparent conflict is irrelevant, and beside the point. And stress to much on this, and you will end up missing the point. And second, perhaps say that it was an excited rhetorical utterance to himself.

YUTorah on parashat Vayigash

Download the YUTorah Parsha Reader for Vayigash 5774  Audio Shiurim on Vayigash Rabbi Elchanan Adler: Ochzin - Being Active or Passive Rabbi Hanan Balk: Yosef Hatzaddik and the Power to Forgive Rabbi Eli Belizon: Can my Rabbi paskin based on kabbala? Rabbi Reuven Brand: Wagons and Walking Rabbi Asher Brander: Yehuda and Yosef : A Collision that Changed History Rabbi Chaim Brovender: Yehuda, King of Israel Rabbi Aryeh Cohen: Three Weapons in Defeating the Yetzer Hora Rabbi Avishai David: Hypocrisy! Rabbi Dovid Ebner: What Was Yaacov Afraid of? Rabbi Ally Ehrman: Discussing Torah On The Way Rabbi Chaim Eisenstein: The Best Mussar Shmooze--Yours! Rabbi Gil Elmaleh: Sensitivity Rabbi Joel Finkelstein: Joseph and Modern Zionism Rabbi David Fohrman: The Epic Confrontation Between Judah and Joseph Rabbi Efrem Goldberg: Yosef's Catharsis Rabbi Yehuda Goldschmidt: Two Ways to Survive Galus Rabbi Ephraim Greene: Putting G-d First Rabbi Shmuel Hain: Yosef and the Brothers: Halakhic and Philosophical Reflections on Teshuvah Rabbi Shalom Hammer: A Perfect World Rabbi Aryeh Hendler: Jews of Lechatchila Rabbi Jesse Horn: Looking at Yosef and his religious message Rabbi Shimon Isaacson: Ki Hem Chayeinu Veorech Yameinu Rabbi Yisroel Kaminetsky: Yosef's Revelation Rabbi Eliakim Koenigsberg: A Clear Vision Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz: Constant Crying Rabbi Eliezer Lerner: The Leadership of Yehuda Rabbi Ben Leybovich: Passionate Superheroes Rabbi Meir Lipschitz: Yehuda's Monologue Rabbi Shmuel Marcus: Seeing God's Hand Rabbi Dovid Miller: Haroeh es Hanolad Mrs. Zemirah Ozarowski: Yosef and his Plot What were his goals Dr. David Pelcovitz: Yosef and his Brothers: Insights on Forgiveness from Positive Psychology Rabbi Yosef Zvi Rimon: Is it the thought that counts? Mrs Ilana Saks: When is a wagon more than a wagon? Rabbi Hershel Schachter: Yaacov's Fear of Going to Mitzrayim Rabbi Avi Schneider: The Sound of Silence Rabbi Avraham Shulman: Miracles and Emunah Rabbi Baruch Simon: Balancing the Traits of Yosef and Yehudah Mrs. Shira Smiles: Royal Revelation Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik: The Value of Life Rabbi Elly Storch: Patience, Donkey, Patience Rabbi Moshe Taragin: Reeling in the Years Rabbi Michael Taubes: Three Steps Before and After Shemoneh Esrei Rabbi Ya'akov Trump: Chanukah and the Sons of Yaakov Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Weinberg: Endless Striving Rabbi Andi Yudin: One Family United! Rabbi Ari Zahtz: Yosef's Teshuva Rabbi Eliezer Zwickler: Levayah For The Living Articles on Vayigash Rabbi Etan Moshe Berman: The Jewish Attitude to the Challenges of Life Rabbi Shlomo Einhorn: Stealing a Memory Rabbi Ozer Glickman: Yaakov Avinu and the Tragic Sense of Life Rabbi Shmuel Goldin: A Disappointing Encounter? Rabbi Meir Goldwicht: Why did Yosef cry over the Churban? Rabbi Avraham Gordimer: Lessons from Beer Sheva Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb: Learning the Lesson Before It’s Too late Rabbi Maury Grebenau: Ordinary Miracles Rabbi Mordechai Greenberg: נולדה בין החומות Rabbi David Horwitz: The Magnificent Transformation of Yehudah Rabbi Avigdor Nebenzahl: Yosef Prevents Assimilation Dr. Charles Snow: וישכון יעקב בטח בדד עין יעקב Rabbi Reuven Spolter: Showing the Good Parsha Sheets on Vayigash HALB: D'Varim HaYotzim Min HaLev Student Organization of Yeshiva (YU): Einayim L'Torah YU-Torah miTzion Toronto Beit Midrash: Toronto Torah YULA Boys High School: Likutei Ohr Shiurim on the Haftorah of Vayigash Rabbi Ari Kahn: The merger of Yehudah and Yosef Rabbi Avraham Rivlin: עץ יוסף ... ואת עץ יהודה Rabbi Zvi Romm: The Role of Yosef Rabbi Jeremy Wieder: Laining for Parshat Vayigash See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Vayigash

New This Week Bugs and Chanukah Rabbi Eli Belizon Do I Need to Wash?  Defining Mezonot Rabbi Reuven Brand Using Chanuka to  Understand Chinuch  and Find the Chein in  our Children and Ourselves Rabbi Efrem Goldberg Weddings on Chanukah Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz Lighting Candles in  Apartments, Hotels,  Parties, Dorms & Tanks Rabbi Uri Orlian Chanuka and Tehillim  Perek 30 Rabbi Zvi Romm Observing Chumros in our Lives Rabbi Hershel Schachter Should We Observe  NINE Days of Chanukah?!? Rabbi Shay Schachter The Tapestry of the  Tanach and Chanukah Rabbi Allen Schwartz Mesiras Nefesh for  Limud Torah: The  Secret of Chanukah Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky Torah min Hashamayim: What We Believe Rabbi Reuven Taragin Medical Halachah:  Medical Malpractice Rabbi Mordechai Torczyner Cases where one  must give up their  life other than the "big three" Rabbi Netanel Wiederblank Chanukkah: The  Moment of Truth for  the תורה שבעל פה Rabbi Dr. Jeffrey Woolf The Pach Shemen  in Each One and Every One of Us Rabbi Andi Yudin