Va`era #1: All's Well That Ends Well

(from last year, pre-parshablog, edited a bit):

In parashat Va`era, Moshe tells Pharaoh to release the Jews and, when Pharaoh refuses again and again, Moshe brings plague upon plague upon Egypt. The first of those plagues is that of blood. Aaron, at Moshe's command, stretches his staff over the waters, and the Nile turns to blood (7:20):
וַיַּעֲשׂוּ-כֵן מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה, וַיָּרֶם בַּמַּטֶּה וַיַּךְ אֶת-הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר בַּיְאֹר, לְעֵינֵי פַרְעֹה, וּלְעֵינֵי עֲבָדָיו; וַיֵּהָפְכוּ כָּל-הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר-בַּיְאֹר, לְדָם
"And Moses and Aaron did so, as the LORD commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood."

According to the description given in Hashem's commandment to Moshe (7:19), not just the Nile turned to blood, but also all existing pools of water, ponds and streams, as well as water in stone and wooden vessels would also turn to blood:
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, אֱמֹר אֶל-אַהֲרֹן קַח מַטְּךָ וּנְטֵה-יָדְךָ עַל-מֵימֵי מִצְרַיִם עַל-נַהֲרֹתָם עַל-יְאֹרֵיהֶם וְעַל-אַגְמֵיהֶם וְעַל כָּל-מִקְוֵה מֵימֵיהֶם--וְיִהְיוּ-דָם; וְהָיָה דָם בְּכָל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, וּבָעֵצִים וּבָאֲבָנִים.
"And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Say unto Aaron: Take thy rod, and stretch out thy hand over the waters of Egypt, over their rivers, over their streams, and over their pools, and over all their ponds of water, that they may become blood; and there shall be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood and in vessels of stone.'"

There is thus a slight disparity between Hashem's description of what will happen and the Torah's description of what happened. The most obvious answer is that the Torah shortened its language and just described what happened to the Nile, and the reader can surmise the rest. I would expect some midrash to pick up on this though, and I have not encountered any such midrash. It is possible that the way the Torah informs us of the rest of the water turning to blood is in (7:21):

וְהַדָּגָה אֲשֶׁר-בַּיְאֹר מֵתָה, וַיִּבְאַשׁ הַיְאֹר, וְלֹא-יָכְלוּ מִצְרַיִם, לִשְׁתּוֹת מַיִם מִן-הַיְאֹר; וַיְהִי הַדָּם, בְּכָל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.
And the fish that was in the river died; and the river stank, and the Egyptians could not drink of the water of the river; and there was blood throughout all the land of Egypt.

The last part, וַיְהִי הַדָּם, בְּכָל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם, may very well refer to other sources of water.

Now, the midrash expands upon this miracle. We are told that the Egyptians could find no other sources of water. They dug wells and they were also full of blood. The Jews, however, did have water. If an Egyptian and Jew were drinking from the same vessel, the Jew would get water while the Egyptian would get blood. It did not turn to blood if the Egyptian bought the water from the Jew, and thus the Jews became wealthy.

This midrash is clearly at least in part based on (7:19) cited above, which is Hashem's description of what will happen in the plague: ... Take thy rod, and stretch out thine hand upon the waters of Egypt, upon their streams, upon their rivers, and upon their ponds, and upon all their pools of water, that they may become blood; and that there may be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood, and in vessels of stone.

Thus, the midrash speaks about water in vessels turning to blood for the Egyptians, just as it does in the pasuk. Also, the stress over and over is *their* rivers, *their* ponds, *their* pools of water. That which is possessed by Egyptians turns to blood and that possessed by Jews does not.

One part of the midrashic claim, that they dug wells to try to get other sources of water and did not succeed, contradicts a pasuk! Pasuk 7:24 states:

וַיַּחְפְּרוּ כָל-מִצְרַיִם סְבִיבֹת הַיְאֹר, מַיִם לִשְׁתּוֹת: כִּי לֹא יָכְלוּ לִשְׁתֹּת, מִמֵּימֵי הַיְאֹר.
And all the Egyptians digged round about the river for water to drink; for they could not drink of the water of the river.

This pasuk seems to imply that the Egyptians dug wells as an alternative water source and succeeded - they found water. They dug the wells since the Nile could not provide water, for it had turned to blood. The midrash claims that these wells also produced blood. One could argue that the pasuk makes no mention of success or failure; however, the *implication* of the pasuk on a simple level is that the Egyptians succeeded. Besides, what is the basis of the midrash's claim that they failed?

One could question how they *could* have been successful. After all, they dug wells right next to the Nile. Presumably any water they would get would be connected to the Nile - an underground river stemming from the Nile. If the well would be connected to the Nile and the Nile is blood, that found in the wells should also be blood. If so, why would they dig near the Nile "for they could bit drink from the water of the Nile?!" One could answer that the wells were not connected to the Nile, and so did not give forth blood, and the reason they dug wells near the Nile is that that was where the water was needed.

However you can answer the question, the question can still be asked. The answer, at least midrashically, is to read pasuk 7:24 in a different way. We see this midrashic reading in Targum Yonatan's translation. He writes, And all the Egyptians digged round about the river for water to drink, {and they could not find clear water} for they could not drink of the water that was in the river. The stuff in {} represents Tg Yonatan's midrashic insertion. Thus, the Egyptians failed in their quest for water, because the wells were connected to the river. This in turn transforms the import of the latter part of the verse: "for they could not drink of the water that was in the river" no longer is the motivation of the Egyptians digging the well, but rather the explanation for the Egyptians' failure. All in all, a transformation almost as miraculous of that of a staff to a snake. Thus, we have our source for the midrash within the troublesome pasuk itself.

Ibn Ezra, we can already predict, will not be happy. Ibn Ezra does not like to use miracles to explain difficulties in the reading of the text of Tanach. The explicit miracles are fine, but implicit, hidden miracles where they are not necessary are not. Thus, he will have problems with Yocheved, Moshe's mother, being born on the way into Egypt, for she would have to be 130 when she gave birth to Moshe, a miracle so impressive it should be recorded in the chumash. Here as well, if such a miracle should be explicitly mentioned, and instead, it contradicts a pasuk! (He did not necessarily chance upon the explanation presented by Tg Yonatan) More so, the blood becoming red or clear depending on its owner is such a miracle that it certainly should be written in the Torah. Ibn Ezra indeed says something like this.

This is what Ibn Ezra has to say on 7:24 (some of the weird punctuation as I found it):

And they dug: Many say thay the water was in the hands of the Egyptian red like blood and it whitened (cleared) in the hands of the Israelite. If so, why was this sign (miracle) not written in the Torah? In my opinion, the plague of blood and frogs and lice encompassed both Egyptians and Hebrews. For we shall run after that which is written. And these three did little damage. Only the plague of wild animals which was harsh. Hashem divied between the Egyptians and Israel, and simialrly the plague of hail and pestilence because of their cattle. And not so by boils. And not by locusts since they were leaving from Egypt. And just as the Egyptians dug wells, so too the Hebrews dug wells.

Thus, the blood plague affected both Jews and Egyptians equally, and they both dug wells about the Nile, and they both got clear water from those wells.

Avi Ezer is a running commentary on Ibn Ezra, and he is very frum about this sort of thing. He does not like Ibn Ezra's suggestion that both Egyptian and Jew were effected, for it goes against Chazal. He does not mention explicitly the issue of the Egyptians managing to get water despite the Nile being blood. Here is what he says:

[And in my opinion the plague of blood {Josh: affected both Jews and Egyptians}]: And we, we only have the words of our Rabbis of blessed memory, that from the plague of blood the Jews became rich {Josh: by selling water}. And even a gentile and an Israelite drinking from the same cup would be half blood and half water. And in my opinion a mistaken student {of Ibn Ezra} and poor in thought wrote these words. And I already revealed this in the beginning of Beresishit that mistaken students (talmidim toim) put out pliliah.

I am fairly sure that Ibn Ezra did mean it, and did author it. It is an interesting trick by which he can denigrate the opinion but leave the man unscathed, and you kind of have to wonder if Avi Ezer truly meant it. I do not think Ibn Ezra would have appreciate it, though. Aside from all this, I am not convinced that Ibn Ezra is correct here as a matter of pshat. Hashem's command after all, mentions only Egyptians - perhaps no water was affected in Goshen, so the Jews had reserves of water. And only Egyptians dug, or that is all the pasuk informs us of, at least. I would agree with Ibn Ezra that the Egyptians did find clear water when they dug, though.

An interesting point I think I'd bring up is that the motivation of Tg Yonatan is similar to an explanation of Yitzchak's troubles when digging up wells. His servants dug up a well, and the people of the place said it was their water. An explanation given (I forget by who) is that the wells drew from a river which the residents of the place owned, so they indeed had claim to the water.

Any homiletic lessons from this? I'm sure I could conjure something up. Ain Mayim Ela Torah. Water represents Torah. Sometimes, you cannot get true pshat the direct way - ain lsihtot min hayeor. If so, you should dig deeper, perhaps to the underlying source, and get clear refreshing water. It is not for nought that באר means both "well" and "explain."

And, if the Egyptians were not successful? Oh "well," I tried. :)

Another perek!

הדרן עלך פירות חוצה לארץ!
(2nd perek yerushalmi challah)

Shemot #4: A Bunch of Chayos!

The midwives defend themselves to Pharoah. He commanded them to kill all male Hebrew children. They don't, on on questioning, say (Shemot 1:19):
וַתֹּאמַרְןָ הַמְיַלְּדֹת אֶל-פַּרְעֹה, כִּי לֹא כַנָּשִׁים הַמִּצְרִיֹּת הָעִבְרִיֹּת: כִּי-חָיוֹת הֵנָּה, בְּטֶרֶם תָּבוֹא אֲלֵהֶן הַמְיַלֶּדֶת וְיָלָדוּ.
"And the midwives said unto Pharaoh: 'Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwife come unto them.'"

What exactly are they calling the Hebrew women? Rashi, in his second explanation, cites Chazal that they are similar to animals and need no midwives.

However, Rashi's first explanation is that כִּי-חָיוֹת הֵנָּה means that they are experts [in childbirth] as midwives {and thus do not need midwives, or can take care of the birth before the midwife comes}. As proof of this reading, he offers that in Targum, חייתא means מְיַלְּדֹת. He is correct that this is what חייתא means in Onkelos. However, Onkelos does not use this term here; he rather uses חכימן, which most take to mean wise or skillful. Rashi did not have a different text of Onkelos, but uses Aramaic, as found elsewhere in Onkelos (for example in translating הַמְיַלְּדֹת in the beginning of the pasuk), that the Hebrew word חָיוֹת found in our pasuk equals the Aramaic cognate.

Further, Rashi probably does not think that Onkelos agrees with his novel chiddush, and takes חכימן as I translated earlier, "smart." If he thought that Onkelos was saying that חָיוֹת meant midwives, Rashi would have used a different term - כתרגומו, meaning as it is translated in Onkelos, and then proceed to cite Onkelos. Rashi does this elsewhere.

Why is this important. Because, unbeknowest to Rashi, Onkelos in fact agrees! In Hebrew, and more so in modern Hebrew, חכמה means midwife.

My Rebbe in Israel, Rabbi Prag, told me the following joke. Why is a midwife called a Chachama? Because it states in Pirkei Avot, Ezehu Chacham, HaRoeh Et HaNolad!

But seriously, the term חכמה occurs on occassion in the gemara, in Rabbinic Hebrew, as a term for midwife. חכימן is the Aramaic form of the plural.

If so, why does Onkelos use חייתא (this is definate article, meaning the midwives) in the beginning of the pasuk and not use חיין (absolute form of the same) to translate חָיוֹת?

I would answer that it was done to avoid ambiguity. Had Onkelos written חיין, or חייתא, it would be in the same form as חָיוֹת. The reader might think that Onkelos was taking this step and thereby avoiding translating the word. The word could then still mean "animals," or "lively." Onkelos wanted a specific word, a synonym, which would have the same meaning but without the same form.

Why not use חכמה earlier in the pasuk? Because חייתא is the common word for midwife and there was no potential there for confusion.

Tg Yonatan clearly does not take חכימן to mean this. He translates " כִּי-חָיוֹת הֵנָּה, בְּטֶרֶם תָּבוֹא אֲלֵהֶן הַמְיַלֶּדֶת וְיָלָדוּ" as :
ארום זריזין וחכימין בדעתיהון הינון, קדם עד דלא תיתי לוותהון חייתא הינון תליין עיניהן בצלוי מצלן ובעיין רחמין מן קדם אבוהן דבשמייא והוא שמע בקל צלותהון מן יד הינון מתעניין וילידן ופרקן בשלם
"for zealous and wise in their knowledge are they; before, until the midwife has not yet arrived, they raise their eyes in prayer and pray and plead for mercy from before their Father in Heaven, and He hears the voice of their prayer. Immediately they are answered and they give birth and they are saved in peace."

Here, Onkelos' חכימן has had a yud added to it, to make it חכימין. This transforms it from a noun (midwife) to an adjective. {What am I saying?? It makes it from the feminine plural to *masculine* plural, which does not make sense. The connatation changing to adjective is from the added זריזין.} In case you still don't get Tg Yonatan's meaning, he adds another adjective from nowhere to bolster חכימין - he adds זריזין. And in case you were still unsure, he appends בדעתיהון to show that it means in intellect, and is not a noun meaning, say, midwives.

I think Tg Yonatan is derivitive of an original Targum that had חכימן, midwife, like Onkelos. He was unsure what this means, and so Tg Yonatan added enough words so that it unamiguously meant what he figured it meant.

The fragmentary Tg Yerushalmi, which parallels in most places Tg Yonatan and has a close relationship to it. In fact Tg Yonatan is called by scholars Pseudo-Jonathan, since Yonatan only wrote a Targum on Neviim and Ketuvim, not on Torah. The naming of it Tg Yonatan is because the Sefer it was found in had ת"י on it, which was taken to be Targum Yonatan on the basis of the gemara's speaking of him writing a Targum. However, it probably stands for Targum Yerushalmi, and is just the full form of the fragmentary Targum Yerushalmi, with variants.

At any rate, Tg Yerushalmi writes:
ארום חיין אינון עד לא ייתי לותהון ילדתי אינון מצלן קדם אבוהון דבשמיא והוא עני יתהון ואינון ילדן
"For they are 'chayyan'; the midwives do not get to them and they pray before their Father in Heaven and He answers them and they give birth."

This is clearly a shorter, and thus probably earlier, version of the same Targum as found in Tg Yonatan. The same story of praying to Hashem occurs in both (and not in Onkelos). ילדתי is used to translate מילדות, but the word חיין occurs. As Rashi notes, this means midwife. However, just as elsewhere it is a different word that חייתא or ילדתי in the same pasuk in Targum.

I would suggest the following reconstruction. Originally, the Targum was חכימן, midwife, as with Onkelos. The rest of the verse, in Tg Yonatan and Tg Yerushalmi, meyaldot was translated in the common way (different in each variant). חכימן was chosen to be different to disambiguate. Tg Yerushalmi took it correctly as חיין and translated it as such (alternatively), since readers would be more familiar with that word. Still, this translation was not done in the initial translation step, but later, so the term does not match ילדתי from elsewhere. In Onkelos, it was retained. Tg Yonatan misinterpreted it and propped up the interpretation with a group of bolstering words that correspond to no word in the pasuk.

Shemot #3: Shifra & Puah == Yocheved & Miriam?

In the beginning of Shemot, we meet two מְיַלְּדֹת הָעִבְרִיֹּת, "Jewish midwives," or perhaps "midwives for the Jewesses." We are told their names are Shifra and Puah. To cite Shemot 1:15:
וַיֹּאמֶר מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם, לַמְיַלְּדֹת הָעִבְרִיֹּת, אֲשֶׁר שֵׁם הָאַחַת שִׁפְרָה, וְשֵׁם הַשֵּׁנִית פּוּעָה.
"And the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah;"

Now the name Shifra has been found in a list of Egyptian names (see W. F. Albright, “Northwest-Semitic Names in aList of Egyptian Slaves from the Eighteenth Century BC,” JAOS 74(1954): 229), which would imply that the midwives were Egyptians, who served (exclusively or among others) Jewish women. Alternatively, some Jews assumed Egyptian names (in addition to or instead of their Hebrew names), midrashim to the contrary. Alternatively, Hebrew names are on the Egyptian slave names - which would be understandable given that the Hebrews were *slaves*. Assuming they were Egyptian midwives for Jewesses, I would say they served non-Jews as well, because otherwise how would Pharoah believe them when they say that Jewish women give birth before the midwives get there - how would they make a living?

Now the midrash associates Shifra and Puah with Yocheved and Miriam (see Rashi). Why? One reason may be that Shemot 2 speaks of Moshe's mother and sister without giving their names, so Shifra and Puah and sucked into the vaccuum, to connote that they were the same folks. Alternatively, this is an example of the closed canon approach. That is, when we encounter a previously unencountered person who does not get much exposure, rather than saying that this is a person we do not know, we assume that it is someone from within the canon. This we say that Boaz, who is not mentioned anywhere in Shoftim, is identical with Ivtzan, who is mentioned in Shoftim. (see my discussion of closed canon here.

However, I had another thought. When Pharoah's daughter finds Moshe, she says, (Shemot 2:6) מִיַּלְדֵי הָעִבְרִים זֶה, "This is one of the Hebrews' children." However, the form of מִיַּלְדֵי הָעִבְרִים is similar to מְיַלְּדֹת הָעִבְרִיֹּת. Ignoring nikud, the consonants almost match. Further, if we could just double the mem, we would get מִמְּיַּלְדֵי הָעִבְרִים זֶה. This would be a pronouncement that Moshe is from the midwives of the Hebrews. This would be Yocheved, and once we know the identity of one of the midwives, it is not much of a stretch to identify Miriam as the other.

Can we just double the mem? It is not without precedent. The mishna in Horayot 3b relates the law that there is only a chiyuv korban when bet din is mekayem miktzat and oker miktzat, but if they say "Ain Avodah Zarah BaTorah," then there is no chiyuv korban. The gemara discusses sources for this din. On 4b, Ulah cites the pasuk in Vayikra 4:13:
וְאִם כָּל-עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל, יִשְׁגּוּ, וְנֶעְלַם דָּבָר, מֵעֵינֵי הַקָּהָל; וְעָשׂוּ אַחַת מִכָּל-מִצְו‍ֹת יְהוָה, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-תֵעָשֶׂינָה--וְאָשֵׁמוּ.
"And if the whole congregation of Israel shall err, the thing being hid from the eyes of the assembly, and do any of the things which the LORD hath commanded not to be done, and are guilty"

The pasuk says וְנֶעְלַם דָּבָר. Ulah says you should read in it "VeNeelam *Mi*Davar." Rashi explains that the final mem of וְנֶעְלַם we throw on דָּבָר. It is nidreshet both for the word before it and after it, so implies מִדָּבָר, of the matter, and not kol davar, the entire matter.

So a mem can be doubled and darshened. Perhaps something similar is at work here.

A perek, and mesechta! And perek!

הדרן עלך כרם רבעי וסליקא לה מסכת מעשר שני!
(5th perek yerushalmi maaser sheni)
הדרן עלך חמשה דברים!
(1st perek yerushalmi challah)

From the Wall Street Journal

You Don't Have to Be Jewish
To Want a Bar Mitzvah Party

More Kids on Cusp of 13
Get Faux Post-Rite Parties;
Picking Hawaiian Theme
By ELIZABETH BERNSTEIN
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL


After going to a dozen bar mitzvahs and bat mitzvahs last year, Laura Jean Stargardt told her parents she wanted one of her own. She said she found the singing inspiring and offered to learn Hebrew. She also said she wanted a big party.

Her parents thought the request was unusual since the family is Methodist. But they co-hosted a lavish party for her and two of her friends last month that looked like a bat mitzvah, without the religion. They booked a country club in
Dallas and a disk jockey, invited 125 friends, and hired a professional dancer that Laura had seen at her friends' bar mitzvah parties.

"I wanted to be Jewish so I could have a bat mitzvah," says Laura. "Having the party fulfilled that."

A number of kids about to turn 13 who aren't Jewish are bugging their parents for parties that resemble those held following bar mitzvah ceremonies. In some affluent communities, parents line up the same entertainment and book the same party places. If they don't dance the traditional Jewish hora, they at least manage a tarantella or an Irish jig.

"Parents will call us and say, 'My son's been to over 20 bar and bat mitzvahs, and I just want to do something nice for him,' " says Paul Noto, whose Carle Place, N.Y., party entertainment company recently staged one such 13th birthday party that cost $75,000 and included a tent with chandeliers, DJs and dancers.

The parties can be upsetting to Jews who say they mock an important spiritual rite of passage. Others call the trend a welcome example of Jewish traditions becoming part of popular culture. "It shows how much the Jewish people and
Jewish customs have become mainstream," says Rabbi Mark S. Diamond, executive vice president of the Board of Rabbis of Southern California.

A generation ago, when bar mitzvahs were simple affairs celebrated with a glass of Manischewitz, the idea of a copycat rite wouldn't have occurred to anybody. But, starting in the late 1960s, parties with themes became popular, and by the end of the '70s in some areas, competition was raging to make them ever more elaborate.

The bar mitzvah is actually an ancient, solemn event marking the coming of age of a Jewish male, undertaken after study of Jewish history, traditions and Hebrew. Bat mitzvahs, for girls, are a more recent phenomenon. Typically,
children start intense preparations about a year before the event, spending several hours each week learning to read from the Torah -- the scroll containing the Five Books of Moses -- and sometimes writing a speech and doing charity work.

After his daughter, Melissa, had attended a handful of bar mitzvahs a few years ago, Kevin Williams decided to spend $12,000 to throw her a faux bat mitzvah at a Manhattan hotel. About 150 people received invitations that read, "Welcome to Melissa's Black Mitzvah.... Don't get offended, it's just her 13th birthday party." There was a candle-lighting ceremony -- like those she had seen at some bar mitzvahs -- where the birthday girl's parents, friends, grandmother and uncle were called up to light the candles on her cake. "After that party, two more of her non-Jewish friends had them," says Mr. Williams.

At Hart to Hart, a party company in Woodland Hills, Calif., co-owner Marsha Bliss says she organized more than a dozen parties last year for non-Jewish 13-year-olds whose parents requested bar mitzvah lookalikes, up from three in 2001. Daniel Rose of Montville, N.J., says he did seven or eight of these parties last year, up from two in 2001. In Roslyn, N.Y., NY Rhythm Entertainment has booked about a dozen in the past two years and none before that.

Many rabbis are quick to point out that the parties have little in common with the real thing. "Bar and bat mitzvahs are about accepting adult responsibility in the community," says Rabbi Richard Block, senior rabbi of The Temple-Tifereth Israel, in Cleveland. "If non-Jews are going to emulate their Jewish neighbors, better they emulate the enduring values of Jewish tradition than the material excesses of contemporary life."

In Malibu, Calif., Danielle Davis, who is Catholic, asked her parents for a bat mitzvah after attending several of her friends'. They explained to her the true meaning of the ceremony as a Jewish coming-of-age rite. "She said, 'Some of
those things apply to me. I'm growing up and becoming a teenager. I should have a party to celebrate,' " recalls her mother, Rebecca Walls.

"Of course the kids who had great bar mitzvah parties were elevated socially. So we kind of felt a little bit of pressure to hold an event people would remember," Ms. Walls adds. In the end, Danielle had a party, in February 2002,
at a beachfront banquet hall with a Hawaiian surfing theme, a DJ and two professional dancers.

--Wall Street Journal (link for WSJ.com subscribers), Jan. 14, 2004

Shemot #2: Multivalence

Parshat Shemot contains an interesting pasuk which might exhibit multivalence. I am noting up front that this dvar torah is not my own invention, but is rather an example of multi-valence I heard, though I don't know who originated it.

Multivalent means "having various meanings or values: subtle, multivalent allegory." Generally when we look at a pasuk, or a specific word, we try to find out its single meaning. Different meforshim might take different approaches to the meaning of the word, phrase or sentence. We then have a machloket between several commentators, with each attributing a *single* meaning to the text. Elu VeElu Divrei Elokim Chaim, at least as it is typically understood (I take a slightly different tack in terms of the meaning and range of Elu VeElu), is that each of the conflicting opinions is correct; all were said by Hashem on Har Sinai, and so all are accurate. This is hard to say when we speak of a debate in what actually happened - only one thing historically happened (which is why I disagree with the common understanding - see my posting on bereishit, about the different paths to sin, where I take on Elu VeElu).

Multivalence is a modern scholarly approach to psukim which seems to owe much to this concept of Elu VeElu. (Dr. Bernstien is involved in multivalence, and may have originated the dvar from Shemot I'll eventually get to relating. Any mistakes are mine though.) If two readings of a pasuk are possible, then perhaps both readings were intended. This is true in modern literature, where authors might use double-entendres, or carefully craft a phrase such that it conveys more than a single message. Especially when one recognizes the Divine authorship of Torah the multivalent reading becomes more and more probable. For an Omniscient G-d would know what commentators would eventually read into His Words, and could craft His Words accordingly.

In Shemot we read how Moshe is placed in the Nile as an infant and is taken by Pharoah's daughter. While raised in Pharoah's house, he is still nursed by a Hebrew nursemaid, who happens to be his true mother. There is Hebrew in him, but he is Egyptian enough in that Pharoah's daughter adopts him as a son. In Shemot 2:10:

וַיִּגְדַּל הַיֶּלֶד, וַתְּבִאֵהוּ לְבַת-פַּרְעֹה, וַיְהִי-לָהּ, לְבֵן; וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ, מֹשֶׁה, וַתֹּאמֶר, כִּי מִן-הַמַּיִם מְשִׁיתִהוּ.
"And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses, and said: 'Because I drew him out of the water.'"

and in the next pasuk, 11:
וַיְהִי בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם, וַיִּגְדַּל מֹשֶׁה וַיֵּצֵא אֶל-אֶחָיו, וַיַּרְא, בְּסִבְלֹתָם; וַיַּרְא אִישׁ מִצְרִי, מַכֶּה אִישׁ-עִבְרִי מֵאֶחָיו.
"And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown up, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens; and he saw an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew, one of his brethren."

The question that can be asked is who is אֶחָיו in pasuk 11. The reading that appeals to me is that it refers to Moshe's fellow Hebrews. But one could suggest that it refers to the fellow Egyptians. The problem I have with the latter is וַיַּרְא בְּסִבְלֹתָם seems to clearly refer to the Jew's burdens, but on the other hand perhaps it means the burdens of the Egyptians placed on the Jews' shoulders. Compare with Shemot 1:11:
וַיָּשִׂימוּ עָלָיו שָׂרֵי מִסִּים, לְמַעַן עַנֹּתוֹ בְּסִבְלֹתָם; וַיִּבֶן עָרֵי מִסְכְּנוֹת, לְפַרְעֹה--אֶת-פִּתֹם, וְאֶת-רַעַמְסֵס.
"Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with *their burdens*. And they built for Pharaoh store-cities, Pithom and Raamses."

So we have two possible interpretations for the pasuk. The multivalent approach is to say that both meanings were intended, and that there is deliberate ambiguity at work here. Moshe was a man torn between two worlds, that of his Hebrew heritage which was also that of the slaves, and that of his adopted family where he lived a life of privilege. When he went out to see his brothers, אֶחָיו, Moshe himself was not sure which of the two, the Egyptians or the Hebrews, he considered his brothers. Seeing the Egyptian hit the Hebrew made him choose. At the end of the pasuk, we see וַיַּרְא אִישׁ מִצְרִי מַכֶּה אִישׁ-עִבְרִי מֵאֶחָיו, so we can say that now Moshe chooses the Ish Ivri to be of his bretheren. (Alternatively, one might wish to stretch the multivalence to refer to this מֵאֶחָיו as well, with Moshe choosing when he actually slays the Egyptian.)

This fits in with my post below, about Moshe rejecting one life but not necessarily being accepted immediately into the Hebrew life. Consider the next day when he chastises the Rasha who strikes his friend, the Rasha replies, מִי שָׂמְךָ לְאִישׁ שַׂר וְשֹׁפֵט עָלֵינוּ, that "Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us?"

Further the Rasha says "הַלְהָרְגֵנִי אַתָּה אֹמֵר, כַּאֲשֶׁר הָרַגְתָּ אֶת-הַמִּצְרִי" which shows that perhaps Moshe is not now regarded by them as a Mitzri.

Moshe does not immediately reject the mantle of being an Egyptian. When he saves Reuel's (Yitro's) daughters, they tell their father אִישׁ מִצְרִי הִצִּילָנוּ מִיַּד הָרֹעִים, "'An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds."

(My further extension:) I would add that in the pasuk preceding Moshe's going out to visit his "brothers," their is also ambiguity which could give rise to a multivalent interpretation. That pasuk again is:

וַיִּגְדַּל הַיֶּלֶד, וַתְּבִאֵהוּ לְבַת-פַּרְעֹה, וַיְהִי-לָהּ לְבֵן; וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ, מֹשֶׁה, וַתֹּאמֶר, כִּי מִן-הַמַּיִם מְשִׁיתִהוּ.
"And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses, and said: 'Because I drew him out of the water.'"

There are three actors in this pasuk: Pharoah's daughter, Moshe's mother, and Moshe. וַיִּגְדַּל הַיֶּלֶד is done by Moshe. וַתְּבִאֵהוּ לְבַת-פַּרְעֹה is done by Moshe's biological mother to Moshe, bringing him to Bat Paroah. וַיְהִי-לָהּ לְבֵן is done by Moshe, but to whom is he being a son? וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ, מֹשֶׁה, וַתֹּאמֶר, כִּי מִן-הַמַּיִם מְשִׁיתִהוּ seems most clearly to be Bat Pharoah who drew him out of the water. But "Lah" could refer to Bat Pharoah or Yocheved. The simplest reading is that is refers to Pharoah's daughter, but there is a slight ambiguity there, which might be deliberate multivalence to show how Moshe was torn between two mothers.

Perhaos I will post later on what I think are some of the weaknesses of multivalence.

Shemot #1: Moshe/Kayin parallels, and the midrashic vs. pshat narrative

This is from last year, pre-blog. Tomorrow be'ezrat Hashem a post on multi-valence.

In parashat Shemot, Moshe is born, put into the Nile, found by Pharaoh's daughter, and raised in Pharaoh's palace. In Shemot 2:11-12, we are told, "And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out to his brothers, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brothers. And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand." When this deed is discovered, he becomes a fugitive and flees to Midyan.

This is the second time the Torah gives us an up-close and personal account of murder. The first was, of course, Kayin's slaying of Hevel. That is in Bereishit 4. Kayin was jealous that Hashem has accepted Hevel's offering over his own. God warned him not to act, but we are told "And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him." Hashem asked Kayin where Hevel was, and Kayin replied, "Am I my brother's keeper?" Then, Hashem said, (4:10-12) "...What have you done? the voice of your brother's blood cries unto me from the ground. And now are you cursed from the earth, which has opened her mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. When you till the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto you her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shall you be in the earth. "

There are many similarities between the two accounts. Both Moshe and Kayin are relatively alone when the killing happens. Kayin and Hevel are alone, and Moshe and the Egyptian are alone, except for the Hebrew slave he is saving. Moshe looks this way and that to make sure he is alone, and is upset and must flee. So both were alone, and hoped the deed would not be discovered.

Both Kayin and Moshe go on with their lives, pretending that the murder did not happen. But Hashem confronts Kayin lets him know that He knows what happened. Similarly, Moshe intercedes in a fight between two Hebrews (midrash says Datan and Abiram), who ask if he intends to slay them as he slew the Egyptian, and so Moshe knows that the matter is known (2:14).

Both Kayin and Moshe must go into exile - Kayin as a fugitive, as a punishment from Hashem, and Moshe, to flee the sword of Pharaoh (2:15)

In both instances, the ground plays an active role in concealing the deed. By Kayin, the ground absorbs Hevel's blood, and Hashem curses the ground because of it. Similarly, Moshe buried the dead Egyptian in the sand. Indeed, the midrash highlights this very point by explaining that, in the Plague of Lice, Aaron and not Moshe hits the ground, because Moshe has a debt of gratitude to the sand which concealed the Egyptian.

Also, brothers play a role. In Kayin's case, he killed his brother in an act partially sparked by sibling rivalry. Moshe's act was in defence of his brother. The Torah informs us that he went out to see the burdens of his brothers, and saw an Egyptian hitting a Hebrew, one of his brothers. Thus, he acted to protect his brother, the reverse motivation of that of Kayin.

The parallels do not end there. Bereishit 4:10 has Hashem telling Kayin, "the voice of your brother's blood cries out to me." In Hebrew, that is "Kol Demei Achicha Zoakim Eilay." The word for blood is not Dam, but Demei, which is plural. It means bloods. Zoakim means cries, but if it a plural verb - many are crying, not just one. The midrash explains the plurality by saying not just Hevel's blood cried out to Hashem but all the blood of the descendants who would have been born were crying out as well. For someone so far back in time, when there was only one other (later another), he would probably have had as many descendants as his brothers, so we are talking about 1/2 or 1/3 of the world's population. (Of course, they were all wiped out in the flood save Noach and his family, but still that is a lot of people.) The blood of Hevel and the blood of his descendants until the end of time cried out to Hashe. This goes to show us that if you take one life, it is as if you have destroyed an entire world, and if you save one life, it is considered as if you saved the entire world.

Similarly, when Moshe slays the Egyptian, we are told (2:12) "Vayifen Ko VeCho Vayaar Ki Ein Ish." He looked this way and that, and saw that there was no man. The midrash, cited by Rashi on that pasuk, explains this not as Moshe looking around to make sure he would not be seen by someone, but rather as Moshe looking with Ruach Hakodosh into future generations and seeing that had this Egyptian lived, no descendant of his would have converted to Judaism. I think a similar idea is at play here as before. The midrash is noting that by taking a life, Moshe takes not just that life but the lives of all future descendants of that life. Thus, killing is a really big deal - a life is not to be taken lightly. The midrash excuses Moshe by explaining that he looked to the future and found no merit in any possible future descendant.

This does *not* mean to imply that Jewish blood is dear and non-Jewish blood is cheap. But, it *is* predicated on the idea that life is not valuable in and of itself, but rather life is valuable if spent in service of Hashem, and thus a descendant who would convert and thus serve Hashem, as well as all his descendants, would provide reason not to kill the Egyptian despite his cruelty. Thus, it is a modification and refinement of the idea
presented by the midrash about Kayin.

To reiterate, the idea of the midrash is that Moshe weighed all future generations that would come from the Egyptian which would be cut off by the slaying of the Egyptian before taking action.

Some people ask a question - Rashi right beforehand (on 2:11) cites another midrash that the man being beaten was the husband of Shlomit bat Dibri, and the Egyptian had fooled Shlomit into thinking he was her husband and she had conceived. Shlomit's husband suspected and the Egyptian sensed this, and for this reason he was beating Shlomit's husband. The Egyptian thus fathered Shlomit bat Divri's son, who we see later on is described as the son of Shlomit bat Dibri and an Egyptian man. Shlomit's son curses Hashem and is executed for his trouble.

If so, we see the Egyptian indeed did have a Jewish descendant, though he did not really last in terms of having other descendants, nor was he successful as a servant of Hashem.

Thus, some people ask a question of the contradiction these two midrashim present. One midrash says that the Egyptian did not have Jewish descendants, while another states that the Egyptian did have a Jewish son (one born of a Jewish mother).

I intentionally stated the contradiction above ambiguously. What the former midrash *actually* states is that the Egyptian would have no descendents who would *convert*, whereas his son was Jewish and did not convert. But, that answer is just semantics - why should conversion matter so much as being Jewish?

If this question seems weak, it is because I did my job in explaining the import of the midrash. The midrash is concerned with the depriving possible future descendants of life. The son of the Egyptian and Shlomit had already been conceived. Thus, the Egyptian's death did not impact Shlomit's son insofar as depriving him of life. The distinction of convert versus JFB is indeed semantics and is not pertinent to our discussion.

The message of this dvar torah, in case it wasn't obvious, is that human life is sacred, for man was created betzelem elokim, in the image of God. As such, killing, even in such circumstances as that which faced Moshe (his killing of the Egyptian is regarded as a positive thing) is quite a serious matter, and it was proper for Moshe to reflect on this seriousness and weigh the matter before acting.

Before I leave off, I would just like two point out that we are presented with two versions of the account of Moshe killing the Egyptian. One is the pashut pshat, without midrashic elaboration, and the other is the midrashic account. Both are valuable, but it is very easy to lose sight of the pshat account if one reads with Rashi.

In the pshat account, Moshe is of Hebrew descent, but is drawn from a life of slavery or death and lives a privelaged life as a member of Pharaoh's house. Yet, he yearns to be close to his brothers and visits them as they struggle in their burdens. Seeing an Egyptian taskmaster whip a slave, as no doubt happens often, he is enraged and, in an act of Hebrew Nationalism (he looks up to a higher authority), righteous indignation, and rage on behalf of his family, he strikes out at the oppressor and kills him. Afterwards, he realizes what he has done and tries to hide the deed by burying it under the sand. He still feels close to the Jews and visits them as they work. He injects himself in an internal dispute between two Jews and they reject him as an outsider, asking who he is to judge over them, as an outsider, a statement similar to that of the Sodomites in their complaint to Lot. The refer to his slaying of the Egyptian, acting if he will execute them as well. At that, Moshe's world comes crashing down upon him. He has been rejected by the Jews, and since his crime has been discovered, he loses his priveleged life as an Egyptian and must flee as a fugitive. He helps some girls in Midian, is referred to as an Egyptian rather than a Hebrew, and is accepted as a member of the family. He lives in Midian content, until Hashem sends him back. His complaints, naturally, is that Pharaoh will not listen to him, nor will the Jews listen to him. There is a lot of raw emotion in this narrative, and it is worthwhile to pay attention.

The midrashic account presents a far different picture of Moshe. What we must bear in mind is that midrash is not monolithic. It is the product of drash from multiple members of Chazal, and many might disagree with others. As a result, it is not trivial to construct a consistent picture. One midrash might contradict another, and two midrashim might derive from different readings of the same pasuk, and thus are surely not to be placed together. So, there are truly many many many different midrashic pictures of this, with perhaps much of the story as above with a few midrashic changes here and there.

Nonetheless, I speak of the picture most people get from the chumash, particularly from Rashi (who cites midrashim left and right).

In "the" drash account, Moshe does not act on impulse or from raw emotion. He is raised in Pharaoh's house, and goes out to see his brothers. A crime of adultery was committed by the Egyptian, and now the Egyptian intends to slay the slave = the husband of Shlomit, in order to cover up his own crime. Moshe already has Ruach HaKodesh and thus is able to determine the entire situation. He determines that the halacha is that he should kill the Egyptian. Thus, his brotherly rage and indignation give way to Divine Inspiration and Halachic, Deliberate, Rational Thought. Before slaying the Egyptian, he again uses his Ruach HaKodesh to see any possible descendants, and sees that none will convert. Since, in the cold, rational, spiritual equations, no one of note will be deprived his life, Moshe decides to take action. Rather that striking the Egyptian with a forceful blow with his staff, giving vent to his rage, he simply enunces the Ineffable Name of Hashem (Shem Hameforash), harnessing its power to slay the Egyptian (we know this since Dathan and Aviram say Halihargeni Ata Omer - do you *say* to kill us, as you killed the Egyptian). Moshe at this point in his life should not know the Shem Hameforash, nor should he have ruach hakodesh - he is not yet a prophet. However, these midrashim place him in his later, mature role, of prophet, miracle worker, and lawgiver. The next day he tries to prevent two Jews, who are Dathan and Aviram, from fighting, and their response lets him know that the matter of his killing the Egyptian is known. He is thus contending with Dathan and Aviram and trying to stop them from making conflict, just as he does in his mature, Leader of Israel role (the identification of the two Jews as Dathan and Aviram is midrashic). Moshe says "Achen, Nodah HaDavar." Indeed the matter is known. But the midrash transforms this from an anguished cry of a man who must turn fugitive and abandon his luxurious life, into a moralistic and reflective statement. You see, Moshe was wondering how come the Jews were punished to be slaves and were not redeemed. Now, the matter was known - not the dead Egyptian to Pharoah - but the solution of this puzzle to Moshe. Since they inform on their own people, they do not currently merit salvation. (By the way, from the pshat/emotional perspective, he considers himself one of them in terms of being informed upon.) He is thus placed in the role of pleader of Israel's case to Hashem, and reluctantly admits defeat when faced with the facts, a role he later assumes. Perhaps the goal is to show within the raw material the greatness that eventually emerges.

Both pictures are important ones, but the latter is the most commonly seen. I encourage you to read this parasha from the pshat perspective as well.

Vayechi #5: A final מעשה אבות סימן לבנים

A third example of מעשה אבות סימן לבנים in parshat Vayechi is in Yaakov's seemingly deliberate recreation of his theft of Yitzchak's blessing when he blesses Ephraim and Menashe. In Bereishit 48:8-14:

וַיַּרְא יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶת-בְּנֵי יוֹסֵף; וַיֹּאמֶר, מִי-אֵלֶּה.
וַיֹּאמֶר יוֹסֵף, אֶל-אָבִיו, בָּנַי הֵם, אֲשֶׁר-נָתַן-לִי אֱלֹהִים בָּזֶה; וַיֹּאמַר, קָחֶם-נָא אֵלַי וַאֲבָרְכֵם.
וְעֵינֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כָּבְדוּ מִזֹּקֶן, לֹא יוּכַל לִרְאוֹת; וַיַּגֵּשׁ אֹתָם אֵלָיו, וַיִּשַּׁק לָהֶם וַיְחַבֵּק לָהֶם.
וַיֹּאמֶר יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל-יוֹסֵף, רְאֹה פָנֶיךָ לֹא פִלָּלְתִּי; וְהִנֵּה הֶרְאָה אֹתִי אֱלֹהִים, גַּם אֶת-זַרְעֶךָ.
"And Israel beheld Joseph's sons, and said: 'Who are these?'
And Joseph said unto his father: 'They are my sons, whom God hath given me here.' And he said: 'Bring them, I pray thee, unto me, and I will bless them.'
Now the eyes of Israel were dim for age, so that he could not see. And he brought them near unto him; and he kissed them, and embraced them.
And Israel said unto Joseph: 'I had not thought to see thy face; and, lo, God hath let me see thy seed also.'"

There is a strange stress here on seeing, or lack thereof. Yaakov beheld Yosef's sons and asked מִי-אֵלֶּה (though see previous post on how this is part of a different parallelism). So he sees the sons but does not recognize them. Further, we are told that Yaakov's eyes were dim with age, and that he could not see. Even in his exclamation of joy and being able to meet Yosef again and even meet Yosef's sons, the language of seeing is used. That is, רְאֹה פָנֶיךָ לֹא פִלָּלְתִּי does not mean that Yaakov had doubted because of his failing eyesight that he would be able to process visual input to see Yosef but rather that he had not expected to encounter Yosef alive. Similarly וְהִנֵּה הֶרְאָה אֹתִי אֱלֹהִים, גַּם אֶת-זַרְעֶךָ is not expressing joy that Hashem has let his eyes process the sight of Yosef's sons but rather that he would meet them. The metaphor of "seeing" is a natural one in English as well as it must be in Biblical Hebrew, yet in the context of failing sight it resonated well.

Furthermore, there is a parallel to Yitzchak's blessing. Yitzchak too had failing sight. In Bereishit 27:1 we read:

וַיְהִי כִּי-זָקֵן יִצְחָק, וַתִּכְהֶיןָ עֵינָיו מֵרְאֹת; וַיִּקְרָא אֶת-עֵשָׂו בְּנוֹ הַגָּדֹל, וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו בְּנִי, וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, הִנֵּנִי.
"And it came to pass, that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim, so that he could not see, he called Esau his elder son, and said unto him: 'My son'; and he said unto him: 'Here am I.'"

Thus both Yitzchak and Yaakov, who were distributing blessings, had dim eyes because of age.

Yosef brings forth Ephraim and Menashe and aims to arrange it so that Yaakov will place his right hand on Menashe's head, but Yaakov crosses his hands to acheive the opposite effect. Further, Yaakov did this deliberately. In Beresihit 48:12-14;17-19:

וַיּוֹצֵא יוֹסֵף אֹתָם, מֵעִם בִּרְכָּיו; וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ לְאַפָּיו, אָרְצָה.
וַיִּקַּח יוֹסֵף, אֶת-שְׁנֵיהֶם--אֶת-אֶפְרַיִם בִּימִינוֹ מִשְּׂמֹאל יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאֶת-מְנַשֶּׁה בִשְׂמֹאלוֹ מִימִין יִשְׂרָאֵל; וַיַּגֵּשׁ, אֵלָיו.
וַיִּשְׁלַח יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת-יְמִינוֹ וַיָּשֶׁת עַל-רֹאשׁ אֶפְרַיִם, וְהוּא הַצָּעִיר, וְאֶת-שְׂמֹאלוֹ, עַל-רֹאשׁ מְנַשֶּׁה: שִׂכֵּל אֶת-יָדָיו כִּי מְנַשֶּׁה הַבְּכוֹר.
...
וַיַּרְא יוֹסֵף, כִּי-יָשִׁית אָבִיו יַד-יְמִינוֹ עַל-רֹאשׁ אֶפְרַיִם--וַיֵּרַע בְּעֵינָיו; וַיִּתְמֹךְ יַד-אָבִיו, לְהָסִיר אֹתָהּ מֵעַל רֹאשׁ-אֶפְרַיִם--עַל-רֹאשׁ מְנַשֶּׁה.
וַיֹּאמֶר יוֹסֵף אֶל-אָבִיו, לֹא-כֵן אָבִי: כִּי-זֶה הַבְּכֹר, שִׂים יְמִינְךָ עַל-רֹאשׁוֹ.
וַיְמָאֵן אָבִיו, וַיֹּאמֶר יָדַעְתִּי בְנִי יָדַעְתִּי--גַּם-הוּא יִהְיֶה-לְּעָם, וְגַם-הוּא יִגְדָּל; וְאוּלָם, אָחִיו הַקָּטֹן יִגְדַּל מִמֶּנּוּ, וְזַרְעוֹ, יִהְיֶה מְלֹא-הַגּוֹיִם.
"And Joseph brought them out from between his knees; and he fell down on his face to the earth.
And Joseph took them both, Ephraim in his right hand toward Israel's left hand, and Manasseh in his left hand toward Israel's right hand, and brought them near unto him.
And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraim's head, who was the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh's head, guiding his hands wittingly; for Manasseh was the first-born.

...

And when Joseph saw that his father was laying his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, it displeased him, and he held up his father's hand, to remove it from Ephraim's head unto Manasseh's head.
And Joseph said unto his father: 'Not so, my father, for this is the first-born; put thy right hand upon his head.'
And his father refused, and said: 'I know it, my son, I know it; he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great; howbeit his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.'"

Thus it appears to Yosef that Yaakov has confused the younger for the older son. This is what happens earlier when Yaakov took Esav's brother. He presented himself as Esav: 27:9:

וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב אֶל-אָבִיו, אָנֹכִי עֵשָׂו בְּכֹרֶךָ--עָשִׂיתִי, כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתָּ אֵלָי; קוּם-נָא שְׁבָה, וְאָכְלָה מִצֵּידִי--בַּעֲבוּר, תְּבָרְכַנִּי נַפְשֶׁךָ.
"And Jacob said unto his father: 'I am Esau thy first-born; I have done according as thou badest me. Arise, I pray thee, sit and eat of my venison, that thy soul may bless me.'"

However, in this case Yaakov knew who the older brother was and who the younger was. Chazal take the words שִׂכֵּל אֶת-יָדָיו to imply that he did so with sechel, or chochma, with deliberate intent. See Onkelos who says this and Rashi who refers to the Targum. Further, later Yaakov says יָדַעְתִּי בְנִי יָדַעְתִּי.

(I think it is possible to read it as without deliberate intent, with a very careful reading. שִׂכֵּל is an irregulate word and might just denote "divert" and יָדַעְתִּי בְנִי יָדַעְתִּי might be a response to Yosef's complaint that he now knows the other is the bechor and he still has blessings in reserve. In other words, "calm down, I've got this under control.")

Further, Esav presses Yitzchak to give him a blessing as well, saying (in 27:38) הַבְרָכָה אַחַת הִוא-לְךָ אָבִי--בָּרְכֵנִי גַם-אָנִי, אָבִי, and Yitchak responds by giving him a blessing. Similarly, Yosef seems to protest about precedence given to the younger, and Yaakov responds by saying that Menashe will also be great. 48:19

וַיְמָאֵן אָבִיו, וַיֹּאמֶר יָדַעְתִּי בְנִי יָדַעְתִּי--גַּם-הוּא יִהְיֶה-לְּעָם, וְגַם-הוּא יִגְדָּל; וְאוּלָם, אָחִיו הַקָּטֹן יִגְדַּל מִמֶּנּוּ, וְזַרְעוֹ, יִהְיֶה מְלֹא-הַגּוֹיִם
"And his father refused, and said: 'I know it, my son, I know it; he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great; howbeit his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.'"

Replacing the younger for the older in a blessing from a blind man, is parallelism, and the fact that Yaakov did it deliberately suggests somewhat that he was trying to recreate his father's deathbed blessing scene.

There are also some out there who suggest that Yizchak knew full well that it was really Yaakov and not Esav and was playing along. I am not sure that I would subscribe to this theory, but Yaakov's deliberate actions here might inform on Yitzchak's actions back then that they were intentional.

Another perek!

הדרן עלך המוליך פירות!
(4th perek yerushalmi מעשר שני)

Vayechi #4: Further מעשה אבות סימן לבנים

The second example of Biblical parallelism I found in Vayechi was between the meeting of Yaakov and family with Esav, when Yaakov returned from Charan and the presentation of Ephraim and Menashe to Yaakov. The similarity of language is striking.

In Vayechi, in Bereishit 48:2, Yaakov hears that Yosef is coming, is strengthened, and sits upon the bed (see my post below for a suggestion explaining this phenomenon:

וַיַּגֵּד לְיַעֲקֹב--וַיֹּאמֶר, הִנֵּה בִּנְךָ יוֹסֵף בָּא אֵלֶיךָ; וַיִּתְחַזֵּק, יִשְׂרָאֵל, וַיֵּשֶׁב, עַל-הַמִּטָּה.
"And one told Jacob, and said: 'Behold, thy son Joseph cometh unto thee.' And Israel strengthened himself, and sat upon the bed."

There is then a short interjection of a blessing that Yaakov gives Yosef, but it is not clear whether this happens before or after the following narrative in 48:7, for after this blessing Yaakov refers to Yosef's two sons and adopts them as his own.

After the interjection Yisrael sees Ephraim and Menashe and asks who they are. In 48:8-9:

וַיַּרְא יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶת-בְּנֵי יוֹסֵף; וַיֹּאמֶר, מִי-אֵלֶּה.
וַיֹּאמֶר יוֹסֵף, אֶל-אָבִיו, בָּנַי הֵם, אֲשֶׁר-נָתַן-לִי אֱלֹהִים בָּזֶה; וַיֹּאמַר, קָחֶם-נָא אֵלַי וַאֲבָרְכֵם.
"And Israel beheld Joseph's sons, and said: 'Who are these?'
And Joseph said unto his father: 'They are my sons, whom God hath given me here.' And he said: 'Bring them, I pray thee, unto me, and I will bless them.'"

The parallel account, of Yaakov's meeting with Esav, is in Bereishit 33:5-6:

וַיִּשָּׂא אֶת-עֵינָיו, וַיַּרְא אֶת-הַנָּשִׁים וְאֶת-הַיְלָדִים, וַיֹּאמֶר, מִי-אֵלֶּה לָּךְ; וַיֹּאמַר--הַיְלָדִים, אֲשֶׁר-חָנַן אֱלֹהִים אֶת-עַבְדֶּךָ.
"And he lifted up his eyes, and saw the women and the children; and said: 'Who are these with thee?' And he said: 'The children whom God hath graciously given thy servant.'"

Both accounts have someone actively look and see some party:
וַיַּרְא יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶת-בְּנֵי יוֹסֵף
וַיִּשָּׂא אֶת-עֵינָיו, וַיַּרְא אֶת-הַנָּשִׁים וְאֶת-הַיְלָדִים

have that person ask who they are, in remarkably similar language:
מִי-אֵלֶּה
מִי-אֵלֶּה לָּךְ

and the reply, in both cases about children (Yaakov omits mention of his wives even though they are in the query), is that these are the children Hashem has granted:
בָּנַי הֵם, אֲשֶׁר-נָתַן-לִי אֱלֹהִים בָּזֶה
הַיְלָדִים, אֲשֶׁר-חָנַן אֱלֹהִים אֶת-עַבְדֶּךָ

In both cases the party presenting the children bows to the person to whom the children are being presented.

Yaakov bows to Esav in 33:3

וְהוּא, עָבַר לִפְנֵיהֶם; וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ אַרְצָה שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים, עַד-גִּשְׁתּוֹ עַד-אָחִיו.
"And he himself passed over before them, and bowed himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother."

and Yosef bows to Yaakov in 48:12:

וַיּוֹצֵא יוֹסֵף אֹתָם, מֵעִם בִּרְכָּיו; וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ לְאַפָּיו, אָרְצָה.
"And Joseph brought them out from between his knees; and he fell down on his face to the earth."

In both instances the family members are brought forth to be received.
Yaakov's children to Esav, in Bereishit 33:6-7:
וַתִּגַּשְׁןָ הַשְּׁפָחוֹת הֵנָּה וְיַלְדֵיהֶן, וַתִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶיןָ.
וַתִּגַּשׁ גַּם-לֵאָה וִילָדֶיהָ, וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ; וְאַחַר, נִגַּשׁ יוֹסֵף וְרָחֵל--וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ.
"Then the handmaids came near, they and their children, and they bowed down.
And Leah also and her children came near, and bowed down; and after came Joseph near and Rachel, and they bowed down."

In both cases this happens immediately after the question of Mi Eleh followed by the response, and in both cases the word used to describe it is נִגַּשׁ.

Finally, and this is a bit of a stretch: in both cases Yaakov speaks of his enjoyment of finally seeing the other party.

With Esav, in 33:10:

וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב, אַל-נָא אִם-נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ, וְלָקַחְתָּ מִנְחָתִי, מִיָּדִי: כִּי עַל-כֵּן רָאִיתִי פָנֶיךָ, כִּרְאֹת פְּנֵי אֱלֹהִים--וַתִּרְצֵנִי.
"And Jacob said: 'Nay, I pray thee, if now I have found favour in thy sight, then receive my present at my hand; forasmuch as I have seen thy face, as one seeth the face of God, and thou wast pleased with me."

and with Yosef, in 48:11:

וַיֹּאמֶר יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל-יוֹסֵף, רְאֹה פָנֶיךָ לֹא פִלָּלְתִּי; וְהִנֵּה הֶרְאָה אֹתִי אֱלֹהִים, גַּם אֶת-זַרְעֶךָ
"And Israel said unto Joseph: 'I had not thought to see thy face; and, lo, God hath let me see thy seed also.'"

I've left the most striking, most blatant, and seemingly most deliberate (on Yaakov's part) parallel for last - that of the blessing of Ephraim and Menashe with the blessing of Yaakov and Esav. Hope to get to that tomorrow.

Vayechi #3: The ideal Egyptian lifespan of *110* years.

Oops! I misquoted Speiser. The ideal Egyptian lifetime was 110, not 130 as I wrote (and have since corrected) in an earlier post in Vayigash. So, Yaakov actually had already surpassed this ideal by 20 years. Speiser does not actually make reference to the ideal Egyptian lifespan in this context. Note though that Yosef lives the ideal lifespan. Speiser does note that fact, referring us to Vergote pp. 200f.

This might carry some meaning in terms of how much Yosef became Egyptianized.

Vayechi #2: Why did Yaakov bow? And did Yaakov bow?

(edited from last year)

In parashat Vayechi, Yaakov calls Yosef to him (47:29) and makes Yosef swear to him that he will bury Yaakov in Israel, in not in Egypt. Yosef so swears. Then, we are told, Yaakov prostrates himself on the head of the bed (47:31). Then, (48:1): אַחֲרֵי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, after these events, Yosef is told his father is sick, and he goes to visit his father, accompanied by his two sons, Ephraim and Menashe. Yaakov is told (48:2) that Yosef has come, he gathers his strength, and sits on the bed. He adopts Ephraim and Menashe as his own, asks who the kids are, is told they are Ephraim and Menashe, and blesses them.

There are many big issues here, but among them is the question why, in 47:31, Yaakov prostrates on the head of the bed.

This seems to be either a full prostration, or as some would have it, a mere nodding of the head. Assuming it is a full prostration, why? Let us examine the pasuk in more detail. Yaakov had just asked Yosef to bury him in Israel and Yosef agreed. The pasuk states:

וַיֹּאמֶר, הִשָּׁבְעָה לִי--וַיִּשָּׁבַע, לוֹ; וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, עַל-רֹאשׁ הַמִּטָּה
He said, swear to me, and he swore to him and Yisrael bowed down on the head of the bed. {My translation.}

The Va in וַיֹּאמֶר ,וַיִּשָּׁבַע and וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ is the vav hahipuch, and just serves to reverse imperfect (future to past). Yomer is future; VaYomer is past. It can also serve as an and in addition to reversing tense. That is why I translated "he said" rather than "and he said."

Why did Yaakov prostrate himself? The most obvious explanation would be gratitude at the favor being granted. This, of course, is problematic, since we would not expect a father to do that towards his son. This might be an anachronistic assumption, though.

Rashbam explains וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל as Yaakov bowing down to Yosef. Ibn Ezra at first concurs, saying he bowed down to Yosef, for he apportioned honor to kingship. (Yosef was the Vizier of Egypt.) Then, Ibn Ezra says, "VeHanachon BeAynay," what is correct in my view, is that he was giving praise to Hashem, and this is not like Avraham's bowing, for there is specifies "to the sons of Chet."
To explain Ibn Ezra, he is backtracking, saying that Yaakov did not bow down to Yosef, but rather to Hashem. Whenever bowing is stated without modification, Ibn Ezra would have it refer to bowing to Hashem. By Avraham, when he bought Mearat Hamachpela, he powed to the sons of Chet, but there the pasuk says explicitly to whom he bowed.

Note that even in Ibn Ezra's first explanation, where Yaakov bows to Yosef, he does so in honor of kingship, but not out of gratitude of favor.

My slight bone to pick with Ibn Ezra is that in 48:12, after Yaakov says he will bless Epharim and Menashe and praises Hashem for letting him see Yosef and Yosef's sons, Yosef bows (at leat it seems it is Yosef - see the pasuk). According to Ibn Ezra, this would be a bow to Hashem and not to Yaakov, but a bow to Yaakov feels more correct there. At any rate, Ibn Ezra makes no comment there about the target of the bow, so I know not what Ibn Ezra would say.

Even if the bow was for Yosef's malchut, Chazal do state that Yosef was punished for letting his father bow down to him and not objecting. However, Chazal are not monolithic in this regard. See Rashi on the pasuk, where he clearly reads the bow as directed towards Hashem.

I would like to propose an additional reading of the pasuk, and then will analyze some objections to that reading.

וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ means he lay prostrate and prone. Typically this happens on the ground. Here, the pasuk says it happened on the head of the bed. Why does prostration convey respect? I would say that on a basic level, it conveys powerlessness - lack of power to move, and total submission. Someone prostrate is vulnerable and powerless. Doing this to someone who has done you a favor shows the extent of your gratitude, and how you regard them in terms of having helped you.
Doing this to a king shows that he has power over you, and that you have no power comparative to him (kind of like submitting to the alpha male in a pack of wolves). Doing this towards Hashem conveys the same message - one of absolute subservience and lack of independent power.

But, prostration might indicate actual powerlessness. If someone really lacks power, because of illness, he might lie prostrate on a bed. I contend that this is what is happening to Yaakov. As a result, his prostrating on the "rosh hamita" has nothing to do with gratitude towards Yosef's oath, nor showing honor to kingship, nor thanking or honoring Hashem. Yaakov is ill, and has no power to move.

If so, how come there is a "va" connecting it? Yaakov asks Yosef to swear, Yosef swears, "Va" Yisrael prostrates himself on the rosh hamita. The answer is as I set it up beforehand. Va is the vav hahipuch - changing imperfect to perfect, but need not function also as a conjunctive "and."

The next pasuk states, (48:1)
וַיְהִי, אַחֲרֵי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, וַיֹּאמֶר לְיוֹסֵף, הִנֵּה אָבִיךָ חֹלֶה...
"It was after these matters, it was said to Yosef, Behold your father is ill."

I would contend that ""It was after these matters" serves to tell us that this next event happened after Yosef's oath, but does not serve to put Yaakov's prostration in the previous narrative. I would contend that Yaakov became ill and lay prostrate on his bed, so {after the previous events} Yosef was told that his father was ill, and so he went with Ephraim and Menashe to cisit his father.

Then, the next pasuk (48:2) tells us:
וַיַּגֵּד לְיַעֲקֹב--וַיֹּאמֶר, הִנֵּה בִּנְךָ יוֹסֵף בָּא אֵלֶיךָ; וַיִּתְחַזֵּק, יִשְׂרָאֵל, וַיֵּשֶׁב, עַל-הַמִּטָּה.
"It was told to Yaakov, saying, Behold your son Yosef comes to you. Yisrael gathered (gained) strength and sat on the bed."

So, he needs to envigorate himself to be able to sit on the bed. Or, perhaps, news that Yosef was coming gave him the strength he needed to be able to sit on the bed. For, he was sick, and was until now laying prostrate on the bed.

The three psukim, in order with no breaks, tell us Yaakov was prostrate al rosh hamita, yosef was told his father was sick and came to visit him, Yaakov is told Yosef is coming, gains strength, and sits al hamita.

I think this is fairly clear, based on the juxtoposition and based on the parallel language. This parallel is the עַל-הַמִּטָּה in both psukim, and fact that both psukim in referring to Yaakov's actions call him yisrael, even though the referent to the forefather in the first part of the pasuk calls him Yaakov.

What are the objections to this? Well, first off, we are not supposed to be posek a pasuk that Moshe Rabeinu did not set off as a pasuk. My reading breaks off logically the end of 47:31 about the prostrating, and that might be considered a separate pasuk.

Secondly, and this is not really a big deal, it breaks a perek boundary. Logically, the end of 47:31 should be the beginning of the next perek. Of course, the perakim we have were ordered by Christians, and so we are not bound theologically in any way to conform to their ordering, and in fact we often do not. Also, since we are talking about a break mid-pasuk, part of the pasuk does in fact belong to the previous perek so no perek can lay full claim.

More problematic is the petucha (the bold peh in the chumash, break to the end of the line in the Torah). The petucha marking is right by the perek breaking. And, my suggestion should have the end of the previous pasuk after the petucha. We do indeed, in some instances, have a petucha breaking in the middle of a pasuk. But here, it does not do it. Petuchot and Setumot are very ancient forms of commentary. Ezra was metaken them, and it presents a similar problem to cutting off a pasuk Moshe did not break off. Perhaps we could answer, as above, that we would not put a petucha mid-pasuk, and then the pasuk has as much right to be before the petucha as after it.

On the other hand, we already seemed to have had dispute with Ezra's division once. In general, we separate pashiyot where Ezra put spacing. But, parashat Vayechi has no spacing separating it from the previous parasha. In fact, the Midrash Rabba gives three explanations what the fact that the parsha is stuma= closed- is supposed to mean, of which Rashi cites two and the Kli Yakar gives explanation to all three and explains why Rashi only cited two. In general, those attempting to explain Rashi or the midrash (see Siftei Chachamim and Kli Yakar) understand that Ezra knew this parasha division and left it Stuma to convey a message, so the midrash is an attempt to find cause for Ezra's deliberate omission of a break. But, it could also be easily read as a dispute between Ezra, who ordered the breaks, and Chazal, who ordered the parshiyot. The midrash would be built upon this dispute.

Another problem is the "וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה" in 48:1, but I already dealt with that. Another problem would be that later, in regard to Yosef, Vayishtachu denotes bowing, so it is strange to give it another import here. I think the closer psukim would take precedence in determining meaning, but it does give one pause.

At any rate, Yaakov was heartened to hear of Yosef's arrival, and he gained strength, or felt obligated to gather strength. For the second reading, see Rashi. I am leaning towards the first explanation - that Yosef's arrival granted him strength, especially based on his delight at seeing Yosef and Yosef's sons (see pasuk 48:11).

The lesson this can teach us we can see in very bold, wide strokes. Yosef's visit gave his ailing father strength, by giving him nachas. We too, should visit our parents or grandparents, if they are feeling ill, or even if they are feeling healthy, thereby giving them nachas by our mere presence, and thus grant them strength.

Another two prakim!

הדרן עלך מעשר שני ניתן!
הדרן עלך לא יאמר אדם!

(2nd and third perek of yerushalmi maaser sheni)

Vayechi #1: Maaseh Avot Siman LaBanim

This week I was stuck by the various Biblical parallels in the parsha - allusions to previous events. They may be coincidence, examples of maaseh avot siman laBanim, or deliberate actions taken by participants to call to mind and mimic earlier events.

The first one I noticed was the oath Yaakov asks Yosef to swear, that he will bury Yaakov in Canaan. In Bereishit 47:29-31, we read:

וַיִּקְרְבוּ יְמֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, לָמוּת, וַיִּקְרָא לִבְנוֹ לְיוֹסֵף וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אִם-נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ, שִׂים-נָא יָדְךָ תַּחַת יְרֵכִי; וְעָשִׂיתָ עִמָּדִי חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת, אַל-נָא תִקְבְּרֵנִי בְּמִצְרָיִם.
וְשָׁכַבְתִּי, עִם-אֲבֹתַי, וּנְשָׂאתַנִי מִמִּצְרַיִם, וּקְבַרְתַּנִי בִּקְבֻרָתָם; וַיֹּאמַר, אָנֹכִי אֶעֱשֶׂה כִדְבָרֶךָ.
וַיֹּאמֶר, הִשָּׁבְעָה לִי--וַיִּשָּׁבַע, לוֹ; וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, עַל-רֹאשׁ הַמִּטָּה.
"And the time drew near that Israel must die; and he called his son Joseph, and said unto him: 'If now I have found favour in thy sight, put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh, and deal kindly and truly with me; bury me not, I pray thee, in Egypt.

But when I sleep with my fathers, thou shalt carry me out of Egypt, and bury me in their burying-place.' And he said: 'I will do as thou hast said.'

And he said: 'Swear unto me.' And he swore unto him. And Israel bowed down upon the bed's head."

The form and description of this oath are reminiscent of the oath Avraham asks his servant to swear to him in finding a wife for Yitzchak. In Bereishit 24:1-9:

וְאַבְרָהָם זָקֵן, בָּא בַּיָּמִים; וַה בֵּרַךְ אֶת-אַבְרָהָם, בַּכֹּל.
וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָהָם, אֶל-עַבְדּוֹ זְקַן בֵּיתוֹ, הַמֹּשֵׁל, בְּכָל-אֲשֶׁר-לוֹ: שִׂים-נָא יָדְךָ, תַּחַת יְרֵכִי
וְאַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ--בַּה אֱלֹקֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם, וֵאלֹקֵי הָאָרֶץ: אֲשֶׁר לֹא-תִקַּח אִשָּׁה, לִבְנִי, מִבְּנוֹת הַכְּנַעֲנִי, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי יוֹשֵׁב בְּקִרְבּוֹ.
כִּי אֶל-אַרְצִי וְאֶל-מוֹלַדְתִּי, תֵּלֵךְ; וְלָקַחְתָּ אִשָּׁה, לִבְנִי לְיִצְחָק.
וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, הָעֶבֶד, אוּלַי לֹא-תֹאבֶה הָאִשָּׁה, לָלֶכֶת אַחֲרַי אֶל-הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת; הֶהָשֵׁב אָשִׁיב אֶת-בִּנְךָ, אֶל-הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר-יָצָאתָ מִשָּׁם.
וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, אַבְרָהָם: הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ, פֶּן-תָּשִׁיב אֶת-בְּנִי שָׁמָּה.
ה אֱלֹקֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם, אֲשֶׁר לְקָחַנִי מִבֵּית אָבִי וּמֵאֶרֶץ מוֹלַדְתִּי, וַאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר-לִי וַאֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע-לִי לֵאמֹר, לְזַרְעֲךָ אֶתֵּן אֶת-הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת--הוּא, יִשְׁלַח מַלְאָכוֹ לְפָנֶיךָ, וְלָקַחְתָּ אִשָּׁה לִבְנִי, מִשָּׁם.
וְאִם-לֹא תֹאבֶה הָאִשָּׁה, לָלֶכֶת אַחֲרֶיךָ--וְנִקִּיתָ, מִשְּׁבֻעָתִי זֹאת; רַק אֶת-בְּנִי, לֹא תָשֵׁב שָׁמָּה.
וַיָּשֶׂם הָעֶבֶד אֶת-יָדוֹ, תַּחַת יֶרֶךְ אַבְרָהָם אֲדֹנָיו; וַיִּשָּׁבַע לוֹ, עַל-הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה.
"And Abraham was old, well stricken in age; and the LORD had blessed Abraham in all things.

And Abraham said unto his servant, the elder of his house, that ruled over all that he had: 'Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh.

And I will make thee swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife for my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell.

But thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife for my son, even for Isaac.'

And the servant said unto him: 'Peradventure the woman will not be willing to follow me unto this land; must I needs bring thy son back unto the land from whence thou camest?'

And Abraham said unto him: 'Beware thou that thou bring not my son back thither.

The LORD, the God of heaven, who took me from my father's house, and from the land of my nativity, and who spoke unto me, and who swore unto me, saying: Unto thy seed will I give this land; He will send His angel before thee, and thou shalt take a wife for my son from thence.

And if the woman be not willing to follow thee, then thou shalt be clear from this my oath; only thou shalt not bring my son back thither.'

And the servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his master, and swore to him concerning this matter."

The obvious parallel is in the words and the action of שִׂים-נָא יָדְךָ תַּחַת יְרֵכִי. As Chazal note, this was a serious oath and oaths are made benikitat chefetz. After matan Torah this chefetz could be a sefer torah, but now they swore by the mitzvah they had, which was brit milah.

Now, it could be mere coincidence. Both the marrying off of a child and ensuring one's own proper burial are serious matters that would require a serious oath. Also, perhaps an oath was needed for Yosef for other reasons, such as persuading Pharaoh to let him temporarily leave Egypt. In describing the standard way of administering the oath there must perforce be some overlap of language, and this does not need show a deliberate parallel or allusion.

However, there are more parallels in the situation. First, both *seem* to take place when the person asking for the oath are near the end of their life. By Yaakov, we are told "וַיִּקְרְבוּ יְמֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל לָמוּת." By Avraham we are told "וְאַבְרָהָם זָקֵן בָּא בַּיָּמִים."

Now, via calculations based on what we are told the length of Avraham's life was, and events in the course of Yitzchak's life where we are told his age, we deduce that Avraham actually lived well past this date. In fact the Midrash tells us that when Yaakov was cooking lentils (by the selling of the birthright) he was doing this as a meal for the avelut of Avraham who had just died.

Local pshat reading of the story seems to suggest otherwise however. Avraham we are told is old.

When Eliezer brings back Rivkah, we are told this comforts him for the death of his mother, in pasuk 24:67:
וַיְבִאֶהָ יִצְחָק, הָאֹהֱלָה שָׂרָה אִמּוֹ, וַיִּקַּח אֶת-רִבְקָה וַתְּהִי-לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה, וַיֶּאֱהָבֶהָ; וַיִּנָּחֵם יִצְחָק, אַחֲרֵי אִמּוֹ.
"And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her. And Isaac was comforted for his mother."

This somewhat suggests that Avraham was still around because we are not told this comforts him for his father. However, immediately afterwards we are told that Avraham took Keturah as a wife, had children, passed away and was buried in Mearat HaMachpela.

Some of this might have happened earlier and we are being informed of this so as to understand the distribution of inheritance. But this seems to conclude Avraham's life right here, at the end of the Eliezer story.

Further, Eliezer tells Lavan in 24:36:

וַתֵּלֶד שָׂרָה אֵשֶׁת אֲדֹנִי בֵן, לַאדֹנִי, אַחֲרֵי, זִקְנָתָהּ; וַיִּתֶּן-לוֹ, אֶת-כָּל-אֲשֶׁר-לוֹ.
"And Sarah my master's wife bore a son to my master when she was old; and unto him hath he given all that he hath."

and Yitzchak would presumably not get all of Avraham's possessions except in inheritance. In fact, in dividing his inheritance, after giving gifts to his other sons we see in 25:5:

וַיִּתֵּן אַבְרָהָם אֶת-כָּל-אֲשֶׁר-לוֹ, לְיִצְחָק
"And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac."

Besides the idea of oath to a dying man, there is the theme of staying rooted in Eretz Yisrael. By Yaakov that is the whole point - he does not wish to be buried in Egypt. For Avraham it is not the main point but an important one nonetheless - He does not want Yitzchak to marry a Canaanite girl. He will not send Yitzchak out of Eretz Yisrael to marry - that is the whole point of sending Eliezer. More important than that - he releases Eliezer of the oath if it would mean Yitzchak would have to leave Eretz Yisrael. Thus there is the shared theme of avoiding a stay in Galut and having permanant residence in Canaan.

Once we establish a parallel narrative, we can learn much from what they share in common but perhaps just as much from where they differ. I am thinking of the Targum Yonatan on the pasuk:

וְשָׁכַבְתִּי, עִם-אֲבֹתַי, וּנְשָׂאתַנִי מִמִּצְרַיִם, וּקְבַרְתַּנִי בִּקְבֻרָתָם; וַיֹּאמַר, אָנֹכִי אֶעֱשֶׂה כִדְבָרֶךָ.

Tg Yonatan translates וַיֹּאמַר אָנֹכִי אֶעֱשֶׂה כִדְבָרֶךָ as ומן בגלל דהוא בריה לא שוי ידיה אלהן אמר אנא אעביד כפתגמך. In English, "and because he was his son he did not place his hand {under Yaakov's thigh} but rather said 'I will do like you words.'"

Perush Yonatan explains this as an extension of the issur Chazal say of entering into a bathhouse with your father.

This refusal is interesting in terms of the extent of kibud av, and whether refusing a request from your father for the purpose of an oath for the purpose of kibud av really works. Also if it was assur one wonders why Yaakov requested it.

Perush Yonatan also tries to show how Tg Yonatan derives that this happens. He suggests it is a diyuk from the fact that it does not say "וַיָּשֶׂם אֶת-יָדוֹ" as it did by Eliezer but rather says he "said he would do like his words." Further, because Yaakov later insists that he swear, which implies that he did not swear immediately. Thus, one the link between the two narratives is established, the differences in the two accounts, slightly different phraseology, or the absence of a now expected statement can convey meaning.

That is all for now. Two more parallels later. The first is the introduction of Ephraim and Menashe with the meeting of Esav, and the second is Yaakov, with fading eyesight, deliberately switching of the younger for older son in his blessing though giving both blessings, in a seeming intentional recreation of Yaakov's theft of the bracha from Esav.

Vayigash #5: Treatment of הַבָּאָה מִצְרַיְמָה

I've referred to these psukim often enough, suggesting that perhaps they do not mean that the list of members of Yaakov's house were those who actually went down to Egypt but rather the count took place later. I should probably focus more on them and explain in detail my thoughts.

In Vayigash, the list of Yaakov's family begins in Bereshit 46:8

וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל הַבָּאִים מִצְרַיְמָה, יַעֲקֹב וּבָנָיו: בְּכֹר יַעֲקֹב, רְאוּבֵן.
"And these are the names of the children of Israel, who came into Egypt, Jacob and his sons: Reuben, Jacob's first-born."

and ends in 46:26-27:

כָּל-הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַבָּאָה לְיַעֲקֹב מִצְרַיְמָה, יֹצְאֵי יְרֵכוֹ, מִלְּבַד, נְשֵׁי בְנֵי-יַעֲקֹב--כָּל-נֶפֶשׁ, שִׁשִּׁים וָשֵׁשׁ.
וּבְנֵי יוֹסֵף אֲשֶׁר-יֻלַּד-לוֹ בְמִצְרַיִם, נֶפֶשׁ שְׁנָיִם: כָּל-הַנֶּפֶשׁ לְבֵית-יַעֲקֹב הַבָּאָה מִצְרַיְמָה, שִׁבְעִים.
"All the souls belonging to Jacob that came into Egypt, that came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls were threescore and six.

And the sons of Joseph, who were born to him in Egypt, were two souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob, that came into Egypt, were threescore and ten."

Before and after these psukim are stumot, indicating that this is a section in and of itself.

Preceding this section, in 46:6-7, we have the statement:

וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת-מִקְנֵיהֶם, וְאֶת-רְכוּשָׁם אֲשֶׁר רָכְשׁוּ בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן, וַיָּבֹאוּ, מִצְרָיְמָה: יַעֲקֹב, וְכָל-זַרְעוֹ אִתּוֹ.
בָּנָיו וּבְנֵי בָנָיו, אִתּוֹ, בְּנֹתָיו וּבְנוֹת בָּנָיו, וְכָל-זַרְעוֹ--הֵבִיא אִתּוֹ, מִצְרָיְמָה.
"And they took their cattle, and their goods, which they had gotten in the land of Canaan, and came into Egypt, Jacob, and all his seed with him;

his sons, and his sons' sons with him, his daughters, and his sons' daughters, and all his seed brought he with him into Egypt."

At issue for me is the meaning of the phrase הַבָּאָה מִצְרַיְמָה in all its forms.

The simplest meaning is that it means those who came down with Yaakov to Egypt. If so, then this is a list of those who came down when Yaakov was 130, and Yosef was (presumably though I have my doubts) 39, and we are forced into a series of absurdities in terms of ages of grandchildren when they were born, got married and had children. (See my posts below on these matters.)

My approach to this whole issue is that it is a constraint satsifaction problem. We have a series of psukim each of which independently or when combined with others impose a contraint, and we try to fit details such as ages of birth and bearing of children within those contraints. Too many constraints leave little wiggle room in which too work, and we are forced into a specific assignation of dates which are difficult to accept.

Now, miracles in general are counter-rational. Who would expect a 99 your old to give birth and nurse? But miracles supercede natural order. However, where the Torah does not mention a fact as a miracle and it violates sechel, one must think why the Torah does not mention such a great miracle. Ibn Ezra seems to have an approach like this, in terms of things like Yocheved's age of 130 when birthing Moshe.

Back to constraint satisfaction. If we can relax a constraint, then we can have more room to manuever in terms of when events happened. Relaxing constraints is a matter of looking at psukim and seeing if they really must say what we assumed at first they said. I may be wrong about relaxing this specific constraint - the pasuk might indeed mean that the count took place when they entered Egypt, but then I should look at other psukim and see if *they* really mean what we think they mean. For example, I referred in an earlier post to the onset of the years of plenty and of famine. Much calculation depends on the assumption that the years of plenty began immediately after Yosef interpreted Pharoah's dream. However, it may have been several years before the years of plenty began (which might eat up some of the missing 14 years of Yaakov's life). Or, the years of plenty may have already started.

My focus begins at the last pasuk, 46:27:

וּבְנֵי יוֹסֵף אֲשֶׁר-יֻלַּד-לוֹ בְמִצְרַיִם, נֶפֶשׁ שְׁנָיִם: כָּל-הַנֶּפֶשׁ לְבֵית-יַעֲקֹב הַבָּאָה מִצְרַיְמָה שִׁבְעִים.

What does הַבָּאָה מִצְרַיְמָה mean? Specifically, can it mean that 70 physically came down to Egypt with Yaakov, as I said above?

Certainly *not*! After all, to arrive at the figure of 70, we need to include Yosef and his sons Menashe and Ephraim, who were all in Egypt. True, Yosef at some point went down to Egpyt (he was sold there) but Ephraim and Menashe were born in Egypt and never left. So, הַבָּאָה מִצְרַיְמָה cannot mean that 70 people came to Egypt.

Now, I think there are two distinct possibilities of what הַבָּאָה מִצְרַיְמָה could mean.

First, the full phrase was כָּל-הַנֶּפֶשׁ לְבֵית-יַעֲקֹב הַבָּאָה מִצְרַיְמָה שִׁבְעִים. We can say that the pasuk is referring to בֵית-יַעֲקֹב which was הַבָּאָה מִצְרַיְמָה. In other words there was the Bet Yaakov as it entered Egypt, as opposed to the Bet Yisrael which left Egypt. Thus we have the family as an entity, which existed as said entity in the early days of the Jews' stay in Egypt. We have a count of them, just as we have a count in Bamidbar of the Jews who left Egypt. This count need not have taken when they were entering, for we are referring to that type of family as opposed to the physical act of Entering Egypt.

The slightly different alternative (which people I said this over to on Shabbos took it to mean) is that we are dealing in this pasuk with a specific act - that of entering Egypt. That was done by Bet Yaakov. So the verb goes to Bet Yaakov while the count goes to the people who are part of Bet Yaakov and that count could happen later.

There is a very fine distinction between the two alternatives, and that is that in the first I am not taking this as an action of entering so much as a description of the family - much as in the US there were families known as "First Families Of Virginia." This was the first generation - those who came to populate Goshen. In other words, it is verb vs. adjective. (The reason I'm spending so many words on this is that it is an important yet fine point of distinction and I am having difficulty conveying the difference.)

In either case, the constraint would be relaxed and we could claim the count of the first family, or else the members of the family which came to Egypt, happened later.

How about the first pasuk, though?
46:8 states:

וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל הַבָּאִים מִצְרַיְמָה, יַעֲקֹב וּבָנָיו: בְּכֹר יַעֲקֹב רְאוּבֵן.

I would like to say הַבָּאִים מִצְרַיְמָה means the same as הַבָּאָה מִצְרַיְמָה. In favor of this interpretation is that it is nearly the same phrase, so it should have the same meaning - consistency being a virtue. Also, this pasul opens the genealogy while the one I discussed before ends it. This framing of the genealogy by the same phrase presses somewhat for consistency of meaning.

Further, this leading pasuk purports to give the names of all the descendants. This could mean either those who specifically came down with Yaakov, in which case הַבָּאִים מִצְרַיְמָה would be specific and exclusive of the Yosef branch, or else it could be trying to present all the descendants of Yaakov, including the Yosef branch, with the distinction of the Egypt/Canaan branches being secondary. If the latter, then הַבָּאִים מִצְרַיְמָה should somehow encompass the Yosef branch just as it did in the last pasuk.

Judging from my own subjective stylistic sense, it seems that the listing of *all* of Yaakov's descendants is primary and the split into Egpyt/Canaan branches is secondary. This is based on the following observation.

We begin וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת. In the same pasuk we list the first son - בְּכֹר יַעֲקֹב רְאוּבֵן. We list each son and their current children and, if extant, grandchildren. We group each into sons born of each wife and give the count.

The section for Rachel is in the middle, preceding Bilhah's sons: 46:19-22:

בְּנֵי רָחֵל אֵשֶׁת יַעֲקֹב, יוֹסֵף וּבִנְיָמִן.
וַיִּוָּלֵד לְיוֹסֵף, בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, אֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה-לּוֹ אָסְנַת, בַּת-פּוֹטִי פֶרַע כֹּהֵן אֹן--אֶת-מְנַשֶּׁה, וְאֶת-אֶפְרָיִם.
וּבְנֵי בִנְיָמִן, בֶּלַע וָבֶכֶר וְאַשְׁבֵּל, גֵּרָא וְנַעֲמָן, אֵחִי וָרֹאשׁ; מֻפִּים וְחֻפִּים, וָאָרְדְּ.
אֵלֶּה בְּנֵי רָחֵל, אֲשֶׁר יֻלַּד לְיַעֲקֹב--כָּל-נֶפֶשׁ, אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר.

Here Binyamin and Yosef are listed in the same pasuk. And Yosef's branch is not a branch at all but it counted towards a subtotal of 14. The mention that Yosef's sons were born to him in Egypt is to give info needed ahead at the end when we calculate the Egypt/Canaan branch, but the primary counting is by mothers, and there Yosef and descendants figure.

The first pasuk is an introduction to this primary count. The secondary split is the subject of the last two psukim. So we really should split the count into two sections - from וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת until pasuk 25: אֵלֶּה בְּנֵי בִלְהָה, אֲשֶׁר-נָתַן לָבָן לְרָחֵל בִּתּוֹ; וַתֵּלֶד אֶת-אֵלֶּה לְיַעֲקֹב, כָּל-נֶפֶשׁ שִׁבְעָה, and secondly the secondary count splitting the Egyptian and Canaanite branches.

Note this partially undoes the argument I presented before about the first and last psukim framing the count, but it still does that, and both psukim mentioning הַבָּאָה מִצְרַיְמָה/הַבָּאִים מִצְרַיְמָה should refer to the entirety of Yaakov's family.

However, there is a problem with הַבָּאִים מִצְרַיְמָה meaning all of Yaakov's family including Yosef, Ephraim and Menashe. Firstly, הַבָּאִים is plural. Secondly, הַבָּאִים is present tense.

Why is this a problem? Well, if הַבָּאִים if plural then it refers to all individuals, which means (or so it was pointed out to me) that each of them went down to Egypt. Thus you cannot say that we are just listing members of the family (singular) which (that is the family did) went to Egypt.

I do not really find this to be an issue at all. This is more of an issue according to the second possibility within the fine distiction I made above. If it means approximately "early family" then that appelation could apply to individuals of the family even if they did not go down to Egypt. It means "of the generation first in Egypt." However, even if it it meant to be a verb, I have no problem with it. The question is, what does בני ישראל mean?

There is a pasuk in Shemot 19:3:
וּמֹשֶׁה עָלָה, אֶל-הָאֱלֹהִים; וַיִּקְרָא אֵלָיו יְהוָה, מִן-הָהָר לֵאמֹר, כֹּה תֹאמַר לְבֵית יַעֲקֹב, וְתַגֵּיד לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.
"And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying: 'Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel:"

Once again we have the distinction of Bet Yaakov vs. Benei Yisrael. Chazal on this pasuk say Bet Yaakov refers to the women. However, that is clearly not what it means in Bereishit (see above).

On a pshat level, what is happening in Shemot is we have a poetic pasuk, and a feature of Biblical poetry is repetition; the second half of a pasuk or phrase echoes the idea of the first half, in different language. We can see this feature in close proximity in the phrase וְאַתֶּם תִּהְיוּ-לִי מַמְלֶכֶת כֹּהֲנִים, וְגוֹי קָדוֹשׁ. A priestly kingdom is approximately equal to a holy nation. So, Bet Yaakov is a synonym for Benei Yisrael.

If so, reconsider the first pasuk, וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל הַבָּאִים מִצְרַיְמָה, יַעֲקֹב וּבָנָיו: בְּכֹר יַעֲקֹב, רְאוּבֵן. Note it does not say Benei Yaakov, but Benei Yisrael, parallel to Bet Yaakov in the last pasuk. Both the house of Jacob and the Sons of Israel are an appelation given to a group rather than a collection of individuals. However, the form of בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל is plural. This would demand a plural verb or adjective (see next discusssion) to accompany it, and thus we have הַבָּאִים מִצְרַיְמָה rather than הַבָּאָה מִצְרַיְמָה.

The second facet of the problem is that הַבָּאִים is present tense. Again, this is according to the second sense of my suggestion, that הַבָּאָה מִצְרַיְמָה was a verb which applies to the collection in the past and we are just enumerating the members of this group now. Why is the present tense a problem?

It is a problem because (at least in the second sense) the Bet Yaakov entered Egypt in the past, while in present tense we are conducting a count. But if in present tense they enter Egypt, then they enter Egypt at the time of the count!

I also do not consider this a significant problem, but that is because I am privy to a fact about Hebrew grammar many do not know: There is no present tense in Hebrew. There is imperfect which most often indicates future tense, and perfect which most often indicates past tense. What we call present tense is really just the noun form.

Consider: אני שומר.
"I watch."
"I {am} a watchman."

הוא אומר
"He says."
"He is a sayer."

אתם שומרים
"You are watching."
"You are watchers."

This noun form is a neutral tense, which often indicates present tense, but fairly frequently does not.

Consider the last pasuk of the second perek of Bereishit:
וַיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים, הָאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ; וְלֹא, יִתְבֹּשָׁשׁוּ.
"And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."

עֲרוּמִּים is this noun form. Had someone said הם עֲרוּמִּים, one would translate "they are naked." However, what happens here is that the past tense of וַיִּהְיוּ informs on עֲרוּמִּים that it is past tense. I would actually put it better, and more general. Noun-form verbs are neutral, and they assume the tense of whatever non-neutral verb is in close proximity. Here, וַיִּהְיוּ is actually a verb denoting the act of "being." This colors the noun-verb עֲרוּמִּים so we interpret it as past tense.

Ibn Ezra speaks about the absence of present-tense verbs in Hebrew in the context of Amos 7:14-15:

וַיַּעַן עָמוֹס, וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל-אֲמַצְיָה, לֹא-נָבִיא אָנֹכִי, וְלֹא בֶן-נָבִיא אָנֹכִי: כִּי-בוֹקֵר אָנֹכִי, וּבוֹלֵס שִׁקְמִים.
וַיִּקָּחֵנִי יְהוָה, מֵאַחֲרֵי הַצֹּאן; וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלַי יְהוָה, לֵךְ הִנָּבֵא אֶל-עַמִּי יִשְׂרָאֵל.
"Then answered Amos, and said to Amaziah: 'I am no prophet, neither am I a prophet's son; but I am a herdman, and a dresser of sycamore-trees;
and the LORD took me from following the flock, and the LORD said unto me: Go, prophesy unto My people Israel." {edited from King James to match the tense I want.}

The meforshim all must deal there with the question - how can Amos say he is no prophet if he is actually a prophet. In the next pasuk he says how Hashem appointed him. This might lead to issues of what is a navi, a ben navi. Perhaps those are negative appelations as opposed to, say, roeh, at that point in time.

Ibn Ezra notes that the noun-verbs are neutral. Further in the next pasuk וַיִּקָּחֵנִי is past tense, so he renders it "I WAS no prophet nor WAS I a prophets son, but I WAS a herdsman and a dresser of sycamore-trees WHEN Hashem took me from following the flock..."

Thus this is an example of a neutral verb taking its tense from the surrounding verb tenses.

Back to our pasuk, with the "present" verb tense:

וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל הַבָּאִים מִצְרַיְמָה, יַעֲקֹב וּבָנָיו: בְּכֹר יַעֲקֹב, רְאוּבֵן.

I would note that הַבָּאִים need not be a verb at all but rather a noun functioning as an adjective, describing the בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל. And even as a verb, it need not be present tense.

The final issue is the middle הַבָּאָה. Pasuk 26: כָּל-הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַבָּאָה לְיַעֲקֹב מִצְרַיְמָה, יֹצְאֵי יְרֵכוֹ, מִלְּבַד, נְשֵׁי בְנֵי-יַעֲקֹב--כָּל-נֶפֶשׁ, שִׁשִּׁים וָשֵׁשׁ. Here it clearly refers to those who came to Egpyt as opposed to those who were there, since the next pasuk is וּבְנֵי יוֹסֵף אֲשֶׁר-יֻלַּד-לוֹ בְמִצְרַיִם, נֶפֶשׁ שְׁנָיִם: כָּל-הַנֶּפֶשׁ לְבֵית-יַעֲקֹב הַבָּאָה מִצְרַיְמָה, שִׁבְעִים.

הַבָּאָה לְיַעֲקֹב מִצְרַיְמָה is not inclusive of the who family as the phrase clearly *is* in the first and the last pasuk. However, this does not necessarily mean we are counting here those who physically entered Egypt. Rather, among the larger all-inclusive mother-based count, we are distinguishing between two *branches* of the family - the Canaanite-based branch, which emigrated from Canaan with Yaakov, and the Egypt-based branch, which took root as a result of the brothers selling Yosef down to Egypt. We are given the number of people belonging to each of those branches, and כָּל-הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַבָּאָה לְיַעֲקֹב מִצְרַיְמָה is descriptive of that branch as opposed to the other.

Finally, we do have an account of Yaakov bringing people with him to Egypt in the section preceding the genealogy, but there is a stuma in between, plus those psukim are in a narrative section, which dictates action. We should necessarily use it for proof of the meaning in a genealogical section.

Handouts From Horayot I Up

Also one handout from "Rashi As An Exegete" from Prof. Maori.
At same web site as mentioned below.

Handouts from Horayot II Up

Cleaned house a bit - converted a bunch of handouts into pdfs, which are now at my web site:
ruban 1 + 2, shevet, and haavara
http://yucs.org/~waxman

Vayigash #4: Are Reuven's Children Tribbles?

My wife pointed out to me an interesting detail I overlooked. When Reuven tries to convince Yaakov to let them take Binyamin in Miketz, he mentions his two sons. Yet, in the counting in Vayigash, we are told of Reuven's *four* sons. It is possible but unlikely for him to have an additional two sons in the intervening period. The relevant psukim:

Bereishit 42:37:

וַיֹּאמֶר רְאוּבֵן, אֶל-אָבִיו לֵאמֹר, אֶת-שְׁנֵי בָנַי תָּמִית, אִם-לֹא אֲבִיאֶנּוּ אֵלֶיךָ; תְּנָה אֹתוֹ עַל-יָדִי, וַאֲנִי אֲשִׁיבֶנּוּ אֵלֶיךָ.
"And Reuben spoke unto his father, saying: 'Thou shalt slay my two sons, if I bring him not to thee; deliver him into my hand, and I will bring him back to thee.' "

And in the counting, in Bereishit 46:9

וּבְנֵי, רְאוּבֵן--חֲנוֹךְ וּפַלּוּא, וְחֶצְרֹן וְכַרְמִי.
"And the sons of Reuben: Hanoch, and Pallu, and Hezron, and Carmi."

Again, this may mean that וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל הַבָּאִים מִצְרַיְמָה might mean a count of the initial group of Benei Yisrael when they entered into Egypt, as compared with the count of Benei Yisrael when they left.

Vayigash #3: The trup of the first pasuk

(slightly reworked from last year, pre-blog)
From the Gra:
וַיִּגַּשׁ אֵלָיו יְהוּדָה, וַיֹּאמֶר בִּי אֲדֹנִי has the trup:

Kadmah VeAzlah Revii Zarkah Munach Segol

which, when translated roughly, means
Kadmah {got up}
VeAzlah {and went forth}
Revii {the fourth [son = Judah]}
Zarkah {who threw away}
Munach {rest}
Segol {eternal}.

I say roughly since, even at first glance, Kadmah, Azlah, and Zarkah are noun forms, not verbs. I know this since the kametz aleph ָא at the end of these three words is the definite article in Aramaic = "the."

The meaning of this is that Yehudah, who had put up his stake of eternal rest in the next world as surety for Binyamin's safe return, now went form to confront the vizier of Egypt.

Where did Yehuda promise this? We see in 43:8-9

וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוּדָה אֶל-יִשְׂרָאֵל אָבִיו, שִׁלְחָה הַנַּעַר אִתִּי--וְנָקוּמָה וְנֵלֵכָה; וְנִחְיֶה וְלֹא נָמוּת, גַּם-אֲנַחְנוּ גַם-אַתָּה גַּם-טַפֵּנוּ.
אָנֹכִי, אֶעֶרְבֶנּוּ--מִיָּדִי, תְּבַקְשֶׁנּוּ: אִם-לֹא הֲבִיאֹתִיו אֵלֶיךָ וְהִצַּגְתִּיו לְפָנֶיךָ, וְחָטָאתִי לְךָ כָּל-הַיָּמִים.
"I will be surety for him; of my hand shalt thou require him; if I bring him not unto thee, and set him before thee, then let me bear the blame for ever. "

כָּל-הַיָּמִים the Midrash takes to refer to Olam HaBa as well.

We see it again in Vayigash, in 44:32, in Yehuda's speech:

כִּי עַבְדְּךָ עָרַב אֶת-הַנַּעַר, מֵעִם אָבִי לֵאמֹר: אִם-לֹא אֲבִיאֶנּוּ אֵלֶיךָ, וְחָטָאתִי לְאָבִי כָּל-הַיָּמִים
"For thy servant became surety for the lad unto my father, saying: If I bring him not unto thee, then shall I bear the blame to my father for ever."

This is an incredibly clever dvar torah, for what it takes is realizing that the names of the cantillation symbols in this instance accord with and describe the content.

Does this mean in general the trup is telling a secret story, and only here the Vilna Goan exposed for us the story? Absolutely not. It is clever, and a cute correlation, but does not signify anything deeper.

How do I know this? Well, first let us analyze *why* the trup is what it is. First, the segol. A segol is not a magical symbol. There are three forms of zakef: zakef gadol, zakef katon, and segol. (Two dots, two dots with a vertical line, and three dots). When we split a clause which ends with etnachta or silluk (sof pasuk), if the division is one or two words before etnachta or silluk, we use a tipcha; if the division is two words or more before the etnachta or silluk, we use a zakef gadol or zakef katon; if the division is nine words or more before the etnachta or silluk, we use a segol.

This is what happened in our pasuk. The division is marked by a segol because it is exactly nine words before the etnachta. The Zarka always precedes the Segol. And the rest of the trup also follows mechanically.

Four Prakim and A Masechet! And a Perek!

הדרן עלך היה עובר בשוק!
הדרן עלך המעביר תאינים בחצירו!
הדרן עלך הכובש השולק!
הדרן עלך העוקר שתלים!
(2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th perek yerushalmi מעשרות)
וסליקא לה מסכת מעשרות!

And הדרן עלך מעשר שני!
(1st perek of yerushalmi מעשר שני)