I've probably made some of these points in the past.
1) וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, עַל-רֹאשׁ הַמִּטָּה in 47:31, which is the second half of a pasuk, is immediately followed by (next pasuk) וַיְהִי, אַחֲרֵי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, וַיֹּאמֶר לְיוֹסֵף, הִנֵּה אָבִיךָ חֹלֶה. Say this does not mean bowing to Yosef, but that it is a sign of weakness and sickness. Yaakov gathers strength when Yosef visits him. Thus, immediately after (next pasuk) וַיַּגֵּד לְיַעֲקֹב--וַיֹּאמֶר, הִנֵּה בִּנְךָ יוֹסֵף בָּא אֵלֶיךָ; וַיִּתְחַזֵּק, יִשְׂרָאֵל, וַיֵּשֶׁב, עַל-הַמִּטָּה. See how he gathers strength and is able to sit upon the bed.
And this all works together, despite the shift in Yaakov's name from Yisrael to Yaakov. Take that, Documentary Hypothesis!
2) וַיַּגֵּד לְיַעֲקֹב in Bereishit 48:2 prompts questions by meforshim as to who did the telling. HaMaggid, the one who told. The alternative is that this is the kal passive, a very rare form that some Biblical scholars think is not rare at all, just not often recognized. Instead of niphal, the pattern is that of kal. In the passive voice, it is "and it was related to Yaakov", not "and he related to Yaakov."
3) שִׂים-נָא יָדְךָ תַּחַת יְרֵכִי -- in 47:29. The famous fun fact is that one swore on one's testicles, and the penalty for perjury was losing them. Thus "testimony". It turns out that this is untrue:
4) In 50:15:
וַיִּרְאוּ אֲחֵי-יוֹסֵף, כִּי-מֵת אֲבִיהֶם, וַיֹּאמְרוּ, לוּ יִשְׂטְמֵנוּ יוֹסֵף; וְהָשֵׁב יָשִׁיב, לָנוּ, אֵת כָּל-הָרָעָה, אֲשֶׁר גָּמַלְנוּ אֹתוֹ.
Maybe the brothers understood HaOd Avi Chai as a threat. Is father still alive? Then you are lucky.
Compare with Esav's plan for doing away with Yaakov after Yitzchak's death.
5) In 50:19, we saw this statement before:
וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם יוֹסֵף, אַל-תִּירָאוּ: כִּי הֲתַחַת אֱלֹהִים, אָנִי.
We saw Yaakov say this to Rachel, when she complained that he was withholding sons from her.
What is the connecting line between the two instances? I would argue absolutely nothing. And this is an important lesson for those who would deduce deep "peshat" from repetition / concentration of words and phrases. Some words are simply necessary because of the story to be conveyed and the relatively small vocabulary of Hebrew. And even with no authorial intent, there will be some uneven distribution of vocabulary by mere chance. And the same for idiomatic expressions like the above. So don't start making your own gezeira shava and calling it peshat.
6) They embalmed Yaakov in 50:2:
ב וַיְצַו יוֹסֵף אֶת-עֲבָדָיו אֶת-הָרֹפְאִים, לַחֲנֹט אֶת-אָבִיו; וַיַּחַנְטוּ הָרֹפְאִים, אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל.
Since Yaakov Avinu lo mais, this was a pretty mean thing for Yosef to do to Yaakov. I would imagine that the process was somewhat unpleasant.
1) וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, עַל-רֹאשׁ הַמִּטָּה in 47:31, which is the second half of a pasuk, is immediately followed by (next pasuk) וַיְהִי, אַחֲרֵי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, וַיֹּאמֶר לְיוֹסֵף, הִנֵּה אָבִיךָ חֹלֶה. Say this does not mean bowing to Yosef, but that it is a sign of weakness and sickness. Yaakov gathers strength when Yosef visits him. Thus, immediately after (next pasuk) וַיַּגֵּד לְיַעֲקֹב--וַיֹּאמֶר, הִנֵּה בִּנְךָ יוֹסֵף בָּא אֵלֶיךָ; וַיִּתְחַזֵּק, יִשְׂרָאֵל, וַיֵּשֶׁב, עַל-הַמִּטָּה. See how he gathers strength and is able to sit upon the bed.
And this all works together, despite the shift in Yaakov's name from Yisrael to Yaakov. Take that, Documentary Hypothesis!
2) וַיַּגֵּד לְיַעֲקֹב in Bereishit 48:2 prompts questions by meforshim as to who did the telling. HaMaggid, the one who told. The alternative is that this is the kal passive, a very rare form that some Biblical scholars think is not rare at all, just not often recognized. Instead of niphal, the pattern is that of kal. In the passive voice, it is "and it was related to Yaakov", not "and he related to Yaakov."
3) שִׂים-נָא יָדְךָ תַּחַת יְרֵכִי -- in 47:29. The famous fun fact is that one swore on one's testicles, and the penalty for perjury was losing them. Thus "testimony". It turns out that this is untrue:
The Mavens' Word of the Day
4) In 50:15:
וַיִּרְאוּ אֲחֵי-יוֹסֵף, כִּי-מֵת אֲבִיהֶם, וַיֹּאמְרוּ, לוּ יִשְׂטְמֵנוּ יוֹסֵף; וְהָשֵׁב יָשִׁיב, לָנוּ, אֵת כָּל-הָרָעָה, אֲשֶׁר גָּמַלְנוּ אֹתוֹ.
Maybe the brothers understood HaOd Avi Chai as a threat. Is father still alive? Then you are lucky.
Compare with Esav's plan for doing away with Yaakov after Yitzchak's death.
5) In 50:19, we saw this statement before:
וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם יוֹסֵף, אַל-תִּירָאוּ: כִּי הֲתַחַת אֱלֹהִים, אָנִי.
We saw Yaakov say this to Rachel, when she complained that he was withholding sons from her.
What is the connecting line between the two instances? I would argue absolutely nothing. And this is an important lesson for those who would deduce deep "peshat" from repetition / concentration of words and phrases. Some words are simply necessary because of the story to be conveyed and the relatively small vocabulary of Hebrew. And even with no authorial intent, there will be some uneven distribution of vocabulary by mere chance. And the same for idiomatic expressions like the above. So don't start making your own gezeira shava and calling it peshat.
6) They embalmed Yaakov in 50:2:
ב וַיְצַו יוֹסֵף אֶת-עֲבָדָיו אֶת-הָרֹפְאִים, לַחֲנֹט אֶת-אָבִיו; וַיַּחַנְטוּ הָרֹפְאִים, אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל.
Since Yaakov Avinu lo mais, this was a pretty mean thing for Yosef to do to Yaakov. I would imagine that the process was somewhat unpleasant.
2 comments:
R' Waxman,
Re "hatachat elokim anochi", and your argument it's unrelated to Rachel/Yaakov's conversation:
I'm not sure how you can be confident it's unrelated, or that the relation isn't authorial intent. There were many ways of conveying that thought, or indeed, the phrase could have been omitted entirely without losing the sense of Yosef's response, which is made clear in the next verse. So it seems unlikely (to me) that there is no connection.
Plus, chapter 50 has a LOT of callbacks to earlier stories. Not just that, but Eisav (as you mentioned in point 4), and Shechem ("vaydaber al libam" in v. 21), and Ephron (asking Beit Paroh to speak his burial request to the ears Paroh echoes Avaraham negotiating before the ears of B'nei Chet to negotiate with Ephron over his burial request.)
Plus there's lots of foreshadowing (e.g., BNY leaving Egypt and leaving behind their children and cattle, while horse and chariot accompany them in honor vs. refusing to leave without children and cattle and horse and chariot pursuing them.)
In total, even absent a great explanation for why - and I agree that some vort-like shalishuddish drash connecting the two is not p'shat - it's still a little hard to believe that there is no connection intended and it's just coincidence based on the limited expressions available in Hebrew.
KT,
Hillel
Hillel:
Indeed, I can't be absolutely confident it is not related. However, on the opposite side, they can't be confident that it is related. It is an assumption, which is really a sort of gezeira shava presented as peshat.
I might in fact question some of these. How do you know that וַיְדַבֵּר עַל-לִבָּם is a call-back to Shechem? And why to Shechem? Yes, that is where Yosef went to first, but the parallel would be to Shechem prime, to the seizing of Dinah. With enough Biblical narrative, eventually idioms will be repeated.
In terms of Bet Pharaoh as an intermediary, it is an interesting to try to connect to the purchase of Sdei Ephron, especially as it is mentioned a bit later as Yaakov's burial plot. But here I think there is a stronger connection, to Bereshit 45:2, right before he revealed himself and asked HaOd avi Chai, where Yosef **cried** and just before he brought his brothers over.
Thus, 45:2:
וַיִּתֵּן אֶת-קֹלוֹ, בִּבְכִי; וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ מִצְרַיִם, וַיִּשְׁמַע בֵּית פַּרְעֹה
45:16:
וְהַקֹּל נִשְׁמַע, בֵּית פַּרְעֹה לֵאמֹר, בָּאוּ, אֲחֵי יוֹסֵף; וַיִּיטַב בְּעֵינֵי פַרְעֹה, וּבְעֵינֵי עֲבָדָיו.
and now here:
וַיַּעַבְרוּ, יְמֵי בְכִיתוֹ, וַיְדַבֵּר יוֹסֵף, אֶל-בֵּית פַּרְעֹה לֵאמֹר: אִם-נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן, בְּעֵינֵיכֶם--דַּבְּרוּ-נָא, בְּאָזְנֵי פַרְעֹה לֵאמֹר.
The function of לְעֵינֵי בְנֵי-חֵת and בְּאָזְנֵי בְנֵי-חֵת in Chayei Sarah seems to me more as witnessing this very first permanent land-purchase, more than intermediaries (though of course one can put forth a counterpoint of וּפִגְעוּ-לִי if one understands it as entreat).
I agree there is a lot of foreshadowing, and that this foreshadowing is likely peshat. Not just maaseh avot siman labanim, but there is an story arc set in place at the Bris Bein HaBesarim for the servitude and eventual emergence, with Yosef going to Egypt as the unrolling of this plan.
But maybe to reinforce my point, I have to be more annoying. :) That is, as I've done for certain other topics, keep pointing out examples of parallel language which I don't think is there to make a parallel. This would then be merely the first one.
Because one data point does not prove anything, and indeed can be readily argued against.
Post a Comment