This chapter concludes the Book of Beginnings.

A commentator noted how gloriously this book began with the Creator speaking “In the beginning . . . “ and how the book sadly ended with this final phrase:  “a coffin in Egypt.”  Thus ends the story of the patriarchal stage in the formation of a people ‘set apart’ for YHWH, to play a specific role in His ultimate plan for the whole world.

Reviewing the life of Yosef . . .a ‘savior’ of ‘start-up’ Israel . . . is he a sample study for predestination, the theory that some select individuals or people, no matter what they do or do not do, have a distinct destiny?  Was Yosef simply a victim of unfortunate circumstances one after another?  To some extent he was, even if he made right choices which positively influenced how he would spend his sojourn in Egypt.

When you think more deeply about his stay in Egypt—actually the rest of his lifetime—he was exposed to a culture that countered what he might have been taught by his father Yaakov, who like Abraham and Isaac, were divinely-picked beneficiaries of divine instructions regarding a way of life.

From where came his strength of character, his integrity?  This takes him from the bottom of Egypt’s society — an alien and a prisoner at that  —- right into the seat of power, in Pharaoh’s court.  In the end, he not only saves his family, he is also the ‘savior’ of Egypt!  Through his interpretation of Pharaoh’s dreams which positions him to prepare Egypt for the coming drought and its consequences, he becomes CEO of Pharaoh’s court, surely that is power in his hands which, because of his character, he chooses to use for good. Egypt benefits as much as Yaakov’s tribe of 70 who migrate there.

In a way, Yosef is savior of both Israel and Egypt, thanks to Divine Providence as well as his own will to do the right thing each step of the way, all the way to his forgiveness of the brothers.  As in Esau’s case, good fortune does much to influence one’s attitude in a positive way.  A confluence of unfortunate circumstances and fortunate personal decisions plus and above all, let us not forget the invisible Divine Hand orchestrating in the background—all knitted strangely and harmoniously together in the tapestry depicting Yosef’s life.

Below, we’ve chosen an Egyptian-looking handsome image of Yosef, the Hebrew/Yaakovite/Israelite.   Why? To serve as the final impression in our biblical memory that Egypt in Yosef’s time did have a good and benevolent Pharaoh . . . quite a contrast indeed to the situation of Israel after 400 years with a different kind of Pharaoh. Was Yosef still a Hebrew at heart, an heir of Yaakov/Israel’s upbringing with faith in his God —-beneath the trappings of Egyptian culture? And what does that really mean in terms of living through the realities of the life of a ‘stranger’ in Egypt?

Yaakov dies in Egypt but is buried in Canaan.  Yosef dies in Egypt . . . and the history of the chosen people continues, thanks to one good Pharaoh but no thanks to the last Pharaoh at the time the chosen people are delivered from bondage.

What happened between the arrival and the departure besides ‘go and multiply/?  Did Israelites remember or forget the God of their Patriarchs?  Did Egypt’s culture and religion and worship of multiple gods of nature rub off on them? Were they more ‘Egyptian’ than ‘Israelite’ in thinking, diet, and all other ways? Did they assimilate ‘Egypt’ despite the fact they were separated from the Egyptian population because they were slaves?

Was there a distinct Israelite identity at that time or does that develop after deliverance and wilderness wandering, in the promised land? Think and ponder . . . .

NSB@S6K

———————————-

[Unbracketed comments from Pentateuch and Haftorahs, ed. Dr. J.H. Hertz; additional commentary by RA/Robert Alter and from EF/Everett Fox, translator of The Five Books of Moses.—Admin1.]

Genesis/Bereshith 50

Interestingly, the Iliad also ends with an elaborate burial scene.  The contrast is instructive:  the Homeric epic celebrates the deeds and mourns the lost youth of a hero (Hector); Genesis reflects Yosef’s standing at court and the desire to bury Yaakov in the land of Canaan, in the family plot.  Note too that Genesis has two more scenes, tending to lessen the impact of this impressive funeral sequence.

The End of the Matter (50:15-26):  Drawing out the tension inherent in the Patriarch’s family relationships to the very end, the text repeats an earlier situation in Yaakov’s life—his brother’s feelings of “grudge” and threats to kill him—in the guise of his sons’ fears toward Yosef.  Here, however, there can be no question of personal vengeance, since Yosef sees the brothers’ betrayal of him as but part of a larger purpose.  In his words of v. 20, “God planned-it-over as good . . . to keep many people alive,” the text resolves two of the great hanging issues that have persisted throughout Genesis: sibling hatred and the threat to generational continuity.

Left hanging, of course, is the issue of the promised land, since the narrative concludes “in Egypt,” but these final chapters lead to the assurance that God will “take account” (vv.24-25) of the Sons of Israel, as they are soon to be termed.

and Joseph. This does not imply that the other children of Jacob did not do even as Joseph did.

[RA] And Joseph flung himself on his father’s face and wept over him and kissed him.  These three gestures by now are strongly associated with Joseph’s character.  In the great recognition scene in chapter 45, he flings himself on Benjamin’s neck, embraces and kisses him, and then does the same with his ten half brothers, and before this he has wept three times over the encounter with his brothers.  Joseph is at once the intellectual, dispassionate interpreter of dreams and central economic planner, and the man of powerful spontaneous feeling. At his father’s deathbed, he only weeps, he does not speak.

to embalm his father.  Not in imitation of the custom of the Egyptians, who took care to preserve the body after death and keep it ready for occupation by the soul.  Joseph’s purpose was merely to preserve it from dissolution before it reached the Cave of Machpelah.

[RA] his servants the physicians. Although the Hebrew term means “healer,” these are obviously experts in the intricate process of mummification, and the wording indicates that Joseph had such specialists on his personal staff.  Mummification would be dictated by Jacob’s status as father of the viceroy of Egypt and also by the practical necessity of carrying the body on the long trek to central Canaan.

the Egyptians wept for him.  Out of respect for Joseph.  Probably the forty days of embalming formed part of the seventy days (Rashi).

forty full days. A Hebrew formulaic number is used rather than the number of days prescribed by Egyptian practice.

seventy days. Evidently the Egyptian period of mourning for a royal personage, seventy-two days, has been rounded off to the Hebrew formulaic seventy.

unto the house of Pharaoh.  Joseph, as a mourner, would not approach in the king in person.

Joseph spoke to the household of Pharaoh. It is a little puzzling that Joseph, as Pharaoh’s right-hand man, is compelled to approach him through intermediaries.  Some commentators have explained this by invoking Joseph’s condition as mourner, which, it is claimed, would prohibit him from coming directly into Pharaoh’s presence.  A more reliable key to his recourse to go-betweens may be provided by the language of imploring deference with which he introduces his message to Pharaoh—“If, pray, I have found favor in your eyes, speak, pray . . .” Joseph is something extraordinary in asking permission to go up to Canaan with his entire clan, for Pharaoh might be apprehensive that the real aim was repatriation, which would cost him his indispensable viceroy and a whole guild of valued shepherds.  Joseph consequently decides to send his petition through the channel of Pharaoh’s trusted courtiers, to whom he turns in deferential court language.

which I have digged.  ‘Which I have prepared’ (Onkelos).  It is quite likely that Jacob had prepared the grave for his own interment, next tot he grave of Leah in the Cave of Machpelah.

and I will come back.  Joseph assures Pharaoh that he intends to return to Egypt.

In the grave I readied me. The usual meaning of the Hebrew verb karah is “to dig,” though it can also mean “to purchase.” The latter sense is unlikely here because it would be confusing to use karah for buying a grave, when it is so naturally applied to digging the grave.  But since the burial site in question is actually a cave, one must assume an extrapolation from the primary meaning of the verb to any preparation of a place for burial.

and come back.  This final verb is of course a crucial consideration for Pharaoh.

the elders.  The respect shown to Jacob is evidently due to the great position occupied by Joseph in Egypt.  Such processions as described in our text are frequently represented on Egyptian tombs.

[RA] and all Pharaoh’s servants, the elders of his household, and all the elders of the land of Egypt, went up with him.  This vast entourage of Egyptian dignitaries betokens Pharaoh’s desire to accord royal honors to Jacob.  the presence of chariots and horsemen (verse 9) might also serve as protection against hostile Canaanites, but the whole grand Egyptian procession is surely an effective means for ensuring that Joseph and his father’s clan will return to Egypt.

only their little ones . . . they left in the land of Goshen.  Because unable to endure the fatigue of travel to Canaan.

[RA] Only their little ones. The children and flocks are left behind as a guarantee of the adults’ return.

chariots and horsemen.  To protect the procession.

[EF] heavy: Three times through v.11.  The root k-b-d connotes “honor,” “importance,” “weight,” and is central here perhaps to emphasize the respect shown to Yaakov.

the threshing-floor of Atad.  The place Atad has not been identified.

beyond the Jordan.  This cannot mean east of the Jordan, as it is unthinkable that in going to the cave of Machpelah at Hebron the company would take the circuitous route round the Dead Sea.  All difficulties disappear when we remember that to Moses and the Israelites in the land of Moab, the words ‘beyond Jordan’ meant west of Jordan.  This phrase therefore is another incidental confirmation of the Mosaic authorship of Genesis (W.H. Green).

seven days. This is still the Jewish period of mourning for the dead.  The sacred institution of Shivah in its essence thus goes back to Patriarchal times.

[RA] Goren ha-Atad.  The place name means “threshing-floor of the bramble.”

across the Jordan.  The logical route from Egypt would be along the Mediterranean coast, which would necessitate construing this phrase from the perspective of someone standing to the eat of the Jordan.  That, however, is implausible because “across the Jordan” in biblical usage generally means just what we mean by trans-Jordan in modern usage—the territory east of the Jordan.  Perhaps a circuitous route through the Sinai to the east and then back across the Jordan is intended to prefigure the itinerary of the future exodus and return to Canaan.  Perhaps local traditions for the etiology of a place-name Abel-Mizraim in trans-Jordan led to the intimation of this unlikely route.

a grievous mourning. Or, ‘an honourable mourning.’

[RA[ Abel-Misraim.  This is construed in the folk etymology as “mourning of Egypt,” though ‘abel is actually a watercourse.  Mizraim means “Egypt.”

[EF]  the cave in the filed of Makhpelah: Despite God’s continual promise of the land throughout the book, this is practically all that the Patriarchs possess at the end of Genesis.

Joseph will hate us. A notable example of the never-to-be-silenced voice of the guilty conscience.

thy father did command.  An unrecorded message.

[RA] And they charged Joseph. The verb, which most commonly refers either to giving instructions or delivering the terms of a last will and testament, is a little peculiar.  If the received text is reliable here, the choice of verb would be influenced by the fact that the brothers are conveying to Joseph the terms of what they claim (perhaps dubiously) is their father’s “charge” before his death.  In any case, they send this message through an intermediary, for only in verse 18 are they represented as coming before Joseph—“And his brothers then [gam] came” —so perhaps the odd use of the verb indicates indirection here.

servants of the God of thy father. Though thy father is dead, the God of thy father liveth (Rashi).  They ask for his forgiveness, basing their plea on the claims of brotherhood of Faith.  A fine religious appeal.

Joseph wept.  Because of their want of confidence in him.

[RA] the servants of your father’s God.  In the imploring language of their plea for forgiveness, they conclude by calling themselves not his brothers but the faithful servants of the God of Jacob.  Rashi nicely observes, “if your father is dead, his God exists, and they are his servants.”

and his brethren also went.  Having originally sent others on their behalf, see v. 16, they now come in person to plead with Joseph.

behold, we are thy bondmen.  Again fulfilling the old dreams, see XXXVII,6f.

It is quite impossible for any man to counteract the Divine plan.

ye meant evil.  Man proposes, but God disposes. ‘To me it appears that the sale of Joseph was the work of Providence, not only for him who was to be advanced to an exalted station, but also in the benign care that resulted from it for the whole people of Israel.  Therefore, Joseph’s brethren were not deserving punishment; on the contrary, Joseph repeatedly declares that in whatever they had done, they were unwittingly carrying out the design of Providence’ (Abarbanel).

save much people alive.  Not only the Egyptians and the children of Israel, but other people who came to Egypt to buy corn in the time of famine.

[RA[ While you meant evil toward me, God meant it for good. This whole final scene between Joseph and his brothers is a recapitulation, after Jacob’s death, of the recognition scene in Egypt.  Once more the brothers feel guilt and fear.  Once more Joseph weeps because of them.  Once more they offer to become his slaves.  (The physical act of prostration, as the early-twentieth-century German scholar Herman Gunkel observes, carries us back full circle to Joseph’s two dreams at the beginning of the story.)  And once more Joseph assures them that it has been God’s purpose all along to turn evil into good, for the end of “keeping many people alive,” with Joseph continuing in his role as sustainer of the entire clan.

 spoke kindly unto them.  lit. ‘and he spoke to their heart’.

a hundred and ten years.  He survived his father fifty-four years.  In Egyptian writings the age of 110 years is spoken of as an ideal lifetime.

[EF]  a hundred and ten years:  The ideal Egyptian life span.

Machir.  The most powerful of the clans of Manasseh; see Judg. V,14.

born upon Joseph’s knees.  The symbolical act of adoption.

[EF] born on Yosef’s knees:  Considered his own, see 30:3.

[RA] were born on Joseph’s knees.  This gesture serves either as a ritual of adoption or of legitimation.

brethren.  Not necessarily brothers; near relatives is the meaning in our context.

which He swore.  See XXII,16; XXVI,3.

[EF] brothers: Presumably meant in the sense of “family.”

[RA] God will surely single you out and take you up from this land.  The ground is laid at the end of Genesis for the great movement out of Egypt in Exodus.

and ye shall carry up my bones from hence.  He has faith in the Divine promise to redeem His people.  Joseph’s bones are to participate in the return to Canaan, and to rest there.  The promise was fulfilled; see Exod. XIII,19, and Josh. XXIV,32.

[EF] Sons of Israel:  They are no longer merely the sons of one man but are now on their way to becoming a people.

[RA] take up my bones.  Although Joseph knows that Egyptian science will turn his body into a mummy, he still thinks of his remains in Hebrew terms as he invokes his eventual restoration to the land of the Hebrews.

coffin.  Heb. aron. The same Heb. word is used of the receptacle of the Tables of the Law.  This is significant.  Judaism preaches respect for human personality as a duty, because man has it in his power to become a living embodiment of the Moral Law.  The Rabbis tell:  The nations wondered why the Children of Israel, in their wanderings through the desert, carried with them the bones of Joseph in a similar ark and in the same reverential manner as they did the Tables of the Covenant.  ‘He whose remains are preserved in the one ark,’ they answered, ‘loyally obeyed the Divine commands enshrined in the other.’

in Egypt.  These last words prepare the mind for the new era that awaits Israel in Egypt, and for the eventful story of the Exodus.

According to Jewish custom, the completion of any of the Five Books of the Torah is marked in the Synagogue by the congregation exclaiming ‘Be strong, be strong, and let us strengthen one another—an echo of the words of the ancient warrior, ‘Be of good courage, and let us prove strong for our people, and for the cities of our God’ (II Sam. X,12).  Be strong. i.e. to carry out the teaching contained in the Book just completed.  

The Masoretic Note states the number of verses in Genesis to be 1,534; its Sedrahs (parshiyyoth) 12; its Sedarim, smaller divisions according to the Triennial Cycle, 43; and its Chapters 50.

[RA] a hundred and ten years.  This is a last Egyptian touch, since this is the ideal Egyptian life span, as against 120 in the Hebrew tradition.

and he was put in a coffin in Egypt.  The book that began with an image of God’s breath moving across the vast expanses of the primordial deep to bring the world and all life into being ends with this image of a body in a box, mummy in a coffin.  (The Hebrews in Canaan appear not to have used coffins, and the term occurs only here.) Out of the contraction of this moment of mortuary enclosure, a new expansion, and new births, will follow.  Exodus begins with a proliferation of births, a pointed repetition of the primeval blessing to be fruitful and multiply, and jsut as the survival of the Flood was represented as a second creation, the leader who is to forge the creation of the nation will be borne on the water in a little box—not the ‘aron, “the coffin,” of the end of Genesis but the tevah, “the ark,” that keeps Noah and his seed alive.

Image from freerepublic.com

Genesis/Bereshith 49

THE BLESSING OF JACOB

Image from www.lds.org

[EF]  Yaakov’s Testament and Death:  In this ancient piece of poetry, Yaakov addresses his sons, not as they are, but as they will be.  There is little resemblance, for instance, between the Binyamin as the beloved and protected youngest son of the Yosef story and the preying wolf of v.27, but the Benjaminites were later known for their military skills.  Scholars have therefore seen the entire poem as a retrojection of Israel as it came to be on the days of the Patriarchs.

As in the fuller Yosef narrative, the first three sons are quickly disqualified from active leadership, paving the way for the rise of Yehuda (the tribe from which sprang David and the royal house of Israel).  Despite this, Yosef still receives the richest blessing.

The chapter is textually among the most difficult in the Torah.  Many passages are simply obscure, leaving the translator to make at best educated guesses.

[RA]  AS WITH the life-stories of Moses and David, the extended narrative of Jacob and his sons (with the entire Patriarchal Tale behind it) is given literary closure by the introduction of a long poem.  Although the poem chiefly looks forward to the future tribal history of Jacob’s twelve sons, it begins by harking back to incidents in the preceding narrative and so preserves some sense of the sons as individual characters, not merely eponymous founders of the tribes.  There is debate among scholars as to whether the poem is a single composition or rather a kind of cento of poetic fragments about the fate of the various tribes that were in circulation in the early phase of Israelite history.  It is generally agreed, however, that this is one of the oldest extended texts in the Bible.  The representation of Levi as a tribe deprived of inheritance, with no hint of the sacerdotal function and concomitant privileges, suggests a very early date—conceivably even before the completion of the conquest and settlement, as Nahum Sarna has proposed.  The royal imagery on the other hand, associated with Judah seems to reflect a moment after David’s founding of his dynasty shortly before 1000 B.C.E.  In any case, the antiquity of the poem, as well as the fact that it may be a collage of fragments, means that there are words, phrases, and occasionally whole clauses that are not very well understood. Sometimes this is because of the use of a rare, presumably archaic, term, though there are also at least a few points where the received text looks defective.  Differences of interpretive opinion are such that in two instances there is no agreement about whether the language refers to animal, vegetable, or mineral!  At such junctures, a translator can do no more than an educated guess.  In any event, the poetic beauty and power of Jacob’s testament cannot be separated from its lofty antique style—its archaic grammatical forms and strange turns of syntax, its rare poetic terms, its animal and vegetal imagery, at some points recalling the old Ugaritic poems—and an English version should seek at least to intimate these qualities.

Image from levechad.blogspot.com

1 Now Yaakov called his sons and said: 

Gather round, that I may tell you 

what will befall you in the aftertime of days.

Jacob called unto his sons.  His other sons who were not present when Jacob blessed Ephraim and Manasseh.

shall befall you. Jacob’s words are prophetic anticipations of the future destinies of his children.  The counsel and benediction which Israel imparts to them are such that their descendants have remained ‘Children of Israel’ for all time.

in the end of days. i.e. in the distant future.  In the Prophets, this phrase is used to express the Messianic age.

2 Come together and hearken, sons of Yaakov, 

hearken to Yisrael your father.

The Blessing is in poetic form, and therefore marked by parallelism, or ‘thought rhythm’, which is a characteristic of all Hebrew poetry.  This verse forms an introduction to the main theme of the chapter.  Jacob demands their earnest attention because of the fateful message he has to convey to them.

[RA]  Assemble and hearken . . . hearken.  It is a common convention of biblical poetry to begin with a formal exhortation for those addressed to listen closely.  What is slightly odd about the opening line here is that “hearken” is repeated in the second half of the line instead of introducing a synonym like “give ear” (compare the beginning of Lamech’s poem, Genesis 4:23).

3 Re’uven,

my firstborn, you, 

my might, first-fruit of my vigor! 

Surpassing in loftiness, surpassing in force!

Image from www.israel-a-history-of.com

3-4.  REUBEN.  my first-born.  Reuben’s natural rights have been forfeited.  He has birth, dignity, opportunity; but no strength of character.  In the Scripture narrative, he appears as a man who begins good actions, but does not complete them.  Thus, he plans to save Joseph, and he actually prevents the murder, but Joseph is sold nevertheless.  Reuben’s descendants in Jewish history remain true to ancestral type.  When Deborah unfurled the banner of Israelitish independence in the days of the Judges, the tribes rallied round her.  In the camp of Reuben, however, there were great deliberations and mighty searchings of heart, but no action; see Judges v. 15.  Subsequently, the tribe of Reuben is rarely mentioned in Israel’s history.

my might. ‘As the first-born, Reuben is endowed with a superabundant vitality, which is the cause at once of his pre-eminence and his undoing’ (Skinner).

the excellency of dignity.  A Hebraism for ‘superior in dignity.’  Superiority in dignity and power belonged to the first-born.  Onkelos renders, ‘For thee it was provided to receive three portions, the right of first-born, the priesthood, and the kingdom.’  The first of these was given to Joseph, I Chron. V,1; the priesthood was given to Levi, Num. III,41; the kingly power or headship was allotted to Judah, see v. 8.

[RA] first yield of my manhood.  The word for “manhood,” ‘on, means “vigor,” but it is particularly associated with male potency.  “First yield,” rei’shit, is a word also used for crops.  The biological image of Reuben as the product of Jacob’s first inseminating seed sharpens the evocation in the next line of his violation of his father’s concubine.

4 Headlong like water-surpass no more!

For when you mounted your father’s bed,

then you defiled it-he mounted the couch!

 unstable as water.  Any breeze can ruffle its surface.  Or, ‘bubbling over like water,’ in uncontrolled vehemence of passion.  Reuben’s cardinal sin, says Jacob, was weakness of will, lack of self-control and firmness of purpose.

The Heb. word for ‘unstable’, pachaz,  means recklessness; the same root in Aramaic means ‘to be lascivious’.

have not thou the excellency.  i.e. ‘thou shalt forfeit thy privileges’ as the first-born.  None of the descendants of Reuben ever became Judge, Prophet, or leader.  Here Scripture stresses the idea that moral character is a more important factor than hereditary right.

he went up to my couch. The sudden change from the second tot he third person is due to Jacob’s loathing at the mere memory of Reuben’s offence; see on XXXV,22.

[EF] when you mounted . . .: Alluding to 35:21-22.

[RA] you’ll no more prevail! The verb here may rather mean “you’ll not remain” (or pun on that meaning)—a reference to the early disappearance of the tribe of Reuben, perhaps before the period of the monarchy.

the place where your father lay. The plural form used, mishkevei ‘avikha, has an explicitly sexual connotation, whereas the singualr mishkav can also mean simply a place where one sleeps.

you profaned my couch, you mounted!  The translation here emends ‘alah  (“he mounted”) to alita (“you mounted”), though there is some possibility that the archaic poetic style permitted this sort of abrupt switch in pronominal reference.

5 Shim’on and Levi, 

such brothers, 

wronging weapons are their ties-of-kinship!

Image from en.wikipedia.org

5-7. SIMEON AND LEVI

Simeon and Levi are brethren.  In violence.  See XXXIV,26f.  Moffatt translates:  ;Simeon and Levi are a pair.’

weapons of violence their kinship.  The phrase is also rendered, ‘instruments of cruelty are in their habitations’ (Onkelos, Kimchi, and AV).  The reference is evidently to their dealings in Shechem; see XXXIV.

[EF] ties-of-kinship: Hebrew obscure. Others use “weapons,” “swords” (B-R uses “mattocks”).

[RA]  their trade.  The meaning of mekheroteyhem is highly uncertain.  The translation here conjecturally links the term with the root m-kh-r, “to sell.”

6 To their council may my being never come,

in their assembly may my person never unite!

For in their anger they kill men,

in their self-will they maim bulls.

council. Or, ‘secret’l i.e. secret confederacy.

my glory. i.e. my soul; as in Psalm XVI,9. What lofty conception of both glory and soul, to make them synonymous as the Heb. language does!

men. The Heb. is in the singular, the word being used collectively.

they houghed oxen. A figure of vindictive destructiveness such as is recounted in XXXIV,28,29.  To ‘hough’ is to sever certain sinews and so render the animal helpless.  The mutilation of animals is not recorded in that chapter.  Many Versions therefore render, ‘they digged down a wall’ referring to the destrucgion of Shechem.  The Heb. words for ‘ox’ and ‘wall’ differ only in one dot.

[EF] in their anger they kill men: See 34:25-26.

[RA] let me never set foot.  Literally, “let my person not come.”

their assembly my presence shun. The Hebrew says literally, “in their assembly let my presence not join,” but this is clumsy as English, and in any case the point is that Jacob  is ostracizing the two brothers.’

they tore down ramparts. With many critics, the translation here reads shur, a poetic term for “wall,” instead of shor, “ox,” as the Masoretic Text has it.  The verb, if it refers to oxen, would mean “to maim” or “to hamstring.”  It was sometimes the ancient practice to hamstring the capture warhorses of an enemy, but it would have been foolish to hamstring captured oxen, which could be put to peaceful use.  Moreover, since Jacob is speaking of the massacre at Shechem, the narrative there explicitly noted that the cattle and other livestock were carried off, not maimed.

7 Damned be their anger, that it is so fierce!

Their fury, that it is so harsh!

I will split them up in Yaakov, 

I will scatter them in Yisrael.

cursed be their anger.  Jacob does not curse them but their sin, of which he could not have given a stronger condemnation.  It is characteristic of the untrustworthiness of the Samaritan text that instead of reading ‘Cursed be their anger, it has ‘How splendid is their anger!’

I will divide them in Jacob.  Fulfilled by the intermingling of the Simeonites in the inheritance of Judah (see Josh. XIX,1), and by the dispersion of the tribe of Levi among the other tribes of Israel.

8 Yehuda,

you-your brothers will praise you, 

your hand on the neck of your enemies! 

Your father’s sons will bow down to you.

8-12. JUDAH

Contrast the characterization of Reuben with Jacob’s jubilant praise of Judah.  Unlike Reuben, Judah has neither birthright nor the dignity or opportunity of the firstborn, but he has both strength and consistency of purpose. He knows his enemy, and—whether it be a person, an evil, or a cause—his hand is upon the enemy’s neck.  Capable indeed of falling into grievous error and sin, he is yet true at heart.  Judah’s character fits him to take the lead and rule.  He is the worthy ancestor of David, Isaiah and Nehemiah, the father of the royal tribe that led in the conquest of the Promised Land.

Judah, thee shall thy brethren praise.  Foretells Judah’s military glory in subduing the enemies of his brethren, the Philistines and Edomites, resulting in the acknowledgement of Judah as the national leader, or king.

[EF] Yehuda . . . enemies:  Heb. yehuda/atta yodukha ahikha/yadekha al oref oyevekha.

[RA]  Judah, you, shall your brothers acclaim. This line in the Hebrew is a fanfare of sound-play, including a pun on Judah’s name, Yehudah, ‘atah yodukha ‘aekha.  Up to this point, Jacob’s testament to his first three sons has actually been nothing but curses.  Rashi neatly catches the transitional force of “Judah, you . . .” when he notes, “Inasmuch as he had heaped condemnations on the previous ones, Judah began to back away and his father called to him with words of encouragement, ‘Judah, you are not like them.'”  Judah now displaces the three brothers born before him, and his claim to preeminence (“your brothers accalim”) is founded on his miltiary prowess (“your hand on your enemies nape”).  All this has a distinctly Davidic coloration.”Acclaim” is a more precise equivalent for the verb in context than the usual “praise” because what is involved is recognition of Judah’s royal status.

9 A lion’s whelp, Yehuda- 

from torn-prey, my son, you have gone up! 

He squats, he crouches, 

like the lion, like the king-of-beasts,

who dares rouse him up?

 lion’s whelp.  According to the Midrash, the emblem of the tribe of judah was a lion.  The metaphor suggests the vigour and nobility of Judah and his offspring; and the habitual swiftness and force of their military movements.

thou art gone up. The emblem of kingship.

from between his feet.  The figure is that of an Oriental king sitting, with the ruler’s staff between his knees; as can be seen on Assyrian and Persian monuments.

as long as men come to Shiloh.  Heb. ad ki yabo shiloh; ilit. ‘until Shiloh come”; or, ‘until that which is his shall come’; i.e. Judah’s rule shall continue till he comes to his own, and the obedience of all the tribes is his.  This translation may also mean that when the tribe of Judah has come into its own, the sceptre shall be taken out of its hands.

The explanation of this verse, especially of the Hebrew words is very difficult.  Some Jewish commentators have given it a Messianic meaning.  For the interpretation that it has been given in the Church, please read the subsequent post titled: 

Genesis/Bereshith 49:10 – ALLEGED CHRISTOLOGICAL REFERENCES IN SCRIPTURE.

the peoples. i.e. the tribes of Israel, as in Deut. XXXIII,3,19.

[EF] lion:  Eventually the symbol of the (Judahite) monarchy.

[RA] from the prey, O my son, you mount. Amos Funkenstein has astutely suggested to me that there is an ingenious double meaning here.  The Hebrew could also be construed as “from the prey of my son you mounted,” introducing a shadow reference to Judah’s leading part in the plan to pass off Joseph as dead.  When the bloodied tunic was brought to Jacob, he cried out, “Joseph is torn to shreds” (tarof toraf), and the term for “prey” here is teref.

you mount. This is the same verb that is used above for Reuben’s act of sexual violation, but here it refers to the lion springing up from the prey it has slain.  The proposal that the verb means “to grow” is forced, with little warrant elsewhere in the Bible.

the king of beasts.  this English kenning is necessary in the poetic parallelism because there are no English synonyms for “lion.” whereas biblical Hebrew has four different terms for the same beast.

10 The scepter shall not depart from Yehuda, 

nor the staff-of-command from between his legs,

until they bring him tribute, 

-the obedience of peoples is his.

[EF] until they bring . . .: Hebrew difficult; others use “until Shiloh comes.”  The phrase is an old and unsolved problem for interpreter and translator alike.

[RA] mace.  The Hebrew meoqeq refers to a ruler’s long staff, a clear parallel to “scepter.”  There is no reason to construe it, as some have done, as a euphemism for the phallus, though the image of the mace between the legs surely suggests virile power in political leadership.

that tribute to him may come. This is a notorious crux.  The Masoretic Text seems to read “until he comes to Shiloh,” a dark phrase that has inspired much messianic interpretation.  The present translation follows an exegetical tradition that goes back to the Middle Ages, which breaks up the word “Shiloh” and vocalizes it differently as shai lo.

11 He ties up his foal to a vine,

his young colt to a crimson tendril; 

he washes his raiment in wine, 

his mantle in the blood of grapes;

Instead of the translation, ‘Binding his foal unto the vine (also AV and RV), which would make Judah out to be a fool, render:

‘Harnessing his foal for (the produce of) one vine,

‘And his ass’s colt for (the produce of) one choice vine’–

which brings out in a striking figure the fruitfulness of Judah’s land: one ass is required to carry away the produce of one vine; and even one choice vine yields enough fruit for the load of an ass’s colt. This translation, founded on the interpretation of the Rabbis, is plainly indicated in Rashi and Rashbam; yet it has been overlooked by subsequent commentaries (Marcus Jastrow).

choice vine.  Heb. sorek, produced sweet grapes of superior quality. Grapes are to be abundant that the people of Judah might wash their garments in them.

[EF] colt: Of a donkey.

[RA] He binds to the vine his ass. The hyperbole has been explained most plausibly by Abraham ibn Ezra, “The yield of his vineyards will be so abundant that his ass can turn aside to the vine and he won’t care if it eats the grapes.”  this explanation jibes nicely with the next image of washing garments in wine—the wine will be so plentiful that it can be treated as water.

the blood of the grape.  This vivid poetic epithet for wine, with its intensifying effect, is reminiscent of the Ugaritic kenning for wine, “blood of the tree,” and hence a token of the stylistic antiquity of the poem.

12 his eyes, darker than wine,

his teeth, whiter than milk.

his eyes shall be red with wine.  This rendering is absurd.  According to it, Judah’s eyes are red from excessive drinking, and Jacob’s blessing is that judah should be a drunkard!  The word rendered ‘red’, however, means ‘sparkling’ (Septuagint, Gunkel, Gressman); and the correct translation of the verse is: ‘his eyes are more sparkling than wine.’

his teeth white with milk’  Does drinking milk produce white teeth?  The correct translation (Septuagint, Vulgate, Saadyah, Jastrow) is, ‘his teeth are whiter than milk’.

[RA] O eyes that are darker than wine.  The Hebrew, like this English version, gives no pronoun references for these striking images, though they presumably refer to Judah, whose descendants will flourish in beauty in the midst of their viticultural abundance.  The word for “darker,” akhlili, is still another rare poetic term, cognate with the Akkadian elelu “to be dark.”

13 Zevulun, 

on the shore of the sea he dwells;

he is a haven-shore for boats, 

his flank upon Tzidon.

13. ZEBULUN.  The favourable geographical position of Zebulun’s territory is described.

a shore for ships. To which they may come in safety.

Zidon.  The actual territory of Zebulum stretched from the Sea of Galilee to Mt. Carmel, close under Tyre and Zidon.

[EF] Tzidon:  Sidon, the important Phoenician city (north of Israel).

14 Yissakhar, 

a bone-strong donkey,

crouching among the fire-places.

14-15. ISSACHAR

large-boned ass. Indicating great physical power.

Image from www.marysrosaries.com

[RA] hearths.  The term occurs only here and in Judges 5:16.  Because of the pastoral setting of the latter text, it is frequently construed as “sheepfolds,” but the verbal stem from which it appears to derive means “to set a pot on the fire.”

15 When he saw how good the resting-place was, 

and how pleasant was the land, 

he bent his shoulder to bearing 

and so became a laboring serf.  

A resting-place.  As opposed to the wandering life of nomads (Ryle).

task work. Or, ‘tribute.’  Issachar, possessed of rich territory, preferred rather to submit to tribute than to leave his ploughshare and take up the sword.  See Deut. XXXIII,18.  Zunz translates ‘and yieldeth himself to the service of the labourer.’

 [EF]  laboring serf:  The Hebrew mas ‘oved denotes forced labor.

16 Dan,

his people will mete-out-judgment, 

(to all) of Israel’s branches together.

Image from mdiggs1234.hubpages.com

16-18.  DAN

shall judge.  Or, ‘shall defend,’ or, ‘avenge.’  Onkelos understood this to refer to the tribe of Dan in the days of Samson (Judg. XV,20).

his people. The tribe of Dan.

[EF] mete-out-judgment:  Others use “will endure.”

[RA] Dan, his folk will judge.  Dan has always been construed as the subject of the verb “judge” (or “govern”), not its object.  But Hebrew grammar makes it equally possible to read “Dan” as object of the verb, and that would explain the otherwise obscure second clause: in historical fact, the tribe of Dan, far from assuming a role of leadership, was obliged to migrate from south to north.  Despite its marginal existence, the Israelite people will judge or govern it as one of Israel’s tribes.

17 May Dan be a snake on the wayside, 

a horned-viper on the path, 

who bites the horse’s heels 

so that his rider tumbles backward.

a horned snake.  Is small, but highly venomous; it coils itself in the sand and, if disturbed, darts out upon any passing animal.  Dan will prove dangerous to his foes by ambuscades and guerilla warfare.

[RA] Let Dan be a snake on the road.  The sudden lethal attack from below on the roadside is an image of the tactic of ambush in guerilla warfare adopted against invaders by the Danite fighters.  Again, the image suggests that this tribe, unlike the others, did not enjoy the security of fortified settlement.

18 I wait-in-hope for your deliverance, O YHVH!

I wait for Thy salvation. Is probably intended as part of the blessing bestowed upon Dan, who was in the most exposed position among all the tribes of Israel.

Thy salvation. i.e. deliverance wrought by Thee.

[EF] I wait-in-hope . . .: Either a deathbed cry of possibly the cry of a falling rider (see the preceding line) (Ehrlich).

19 Gad, 

goading robber-band will goad him, 

yet he will goad at their heel.

19.  GAD

a troop shall troop. There is here, as in previous verses, a play upon the name.  Perhaps the translation should be ‘a raiding band raids him, but he will band himself against their heel’.

Gad succeeded in repelling the Ammonites, Moabites, and Arameans, who were constantly raiding his borders.  Jepththah was of this tribe.

[EF]  goad:  Lit. “attack”; a play on “Gad” (Heb. gad gedud yegudennu).

[RA] Gad shall be goaded by raiders. The sound-play in the Hebrew is gad gedud yegudenu.

yet he shall goad their heel. The phrase may be a reminiscence of “and you shall bite his heel,” which is addressed to the serpent in the Garden.  There would be a carryover, then, from the snake imagery of the preceding lines.  The snake, one should keep in mind, is not “demonic” but an image of darting, agile, lethal assault.

20 Asher, 

his nourishment is rich, 

he gives forth king’s dainties.

20.  ASHER

Asher.  The name Asher means ‘happy’ or ‘fortunate’ (see XXX,13); and this meaning is reflected in the blessing bestowed upon him.  The land of Asher was prosperous or happy; cf. Arabia Felix.

Image from ruthferraz.blogspot.com

royal dainties. Delicacies fit for the table of kings.  The allusion is probably to an export trade carried on by the men of Asher.

[RA]  Asher’s bread.  The Masoretic Text reads “from Asher, his bread,” but several ancient versions, quite plausibly, attach the initial consonant mem (“from”) to the end of the preceding word ‘aqev (“heel”), turning it into “their heel.”

21 Naftali, 

a hind let loose,

he who gives forth lovely fawns.

21.  NAPHTALI

hind let loose.  An image of swiftness and grace in movement.

he giveth goodly words. Refers to the tribe’s reputation for eloquence, and the great victory of Barak, a Naphtalite, which was followed by the glorious Song of Deborah (Kimchi).  Another translation is, “Napthtali is a slender terebinth, which putteth forth goodly branches.’ Joseph, too (next verse), is compared to a vine.

[RA] lovely fawns.  The Hebrew ‘imrei shafer is in doubt.  The translation follows one prevalent conjecture in deriving the first word from the Aramaic ‘imeir, which usually means “lamb.”

22 Young wild-ass, 

Yosef, 

young wild-ass along a spring,

donkeys along a wall.

22-26.  JOSEPH

Jacob reserves his softest and most loving accents for Joseph, who united whatever is best and noblest in both Reuben and Judah.  He is the man of vision, the man of dreams; but to this he joins moral and spiritual strength in all the vicissitudes of life.  He is the ideal son, the ideal brother, the ideal servant, the ideal administrator.  His character and story have from of old been held to be typical of the character and story of Israel.  Like Joseph, the Jew has been the dreamer of the ages, dreaming Israel’s dream of universal justice and peace and brotherhood. LIke Joseph, he has everywhere been the helpless victim of the hatred of his step-brethren, hatred that drove him from home and doomed him to Exile.  In that Exile, he has, like Joseph, times without number resisted the Great Temptation of disloyalty to the God of his fathers.  In the dreams of Joseph, the sun, the moon, the eleven stars bowed down to him.  It is the stars that bow to him, and not he to the stars. This is characteristic of both Joseph and Israel. Says Rabbi Yochanan . . . An Israelite should be ashamed to blame his star, his environment, or any outward circumstance for his moral downfall or his religious apostasy.  Man is captain of his own soul; and wherever there is a will to Judaism, there is a way to lead the Jewish life.

by a fountain. Cf. Psalm I,3; the proximity of water is a necessary condition, if the tree is to grow and bear fruit.

[RA] A fruitful son. The morphology of the reiterated noun in this line is so peculiar that some scholars have imagined a reference to branches, others to a wild ass.  There is little philological warrant for the former, and the connection between the term used here, porat, and pere’, “wild ass,” seems strained (The main argument for the wild ass is that it preserves the animal imagery, but there are several other tribes in the poem that have no animal icons.) A link between porat and the root p-r-h, “to be fruitful” is less of a grammatical stretch, and is encouraged by Joseph’s play on that same root in naming his son Ephraim.  Joseph and Judah, as the dominant tribes of the north and the south respectively, get far more elaborate attention in the poem than do any of their brothers.

daughters strode.  This is another crux because the verb “strode” appears to be in the feminine singular.  But there are good grounds to assume that the verbal suffix ah, which in normative grammar signals third-person feminine singular perfect tense, was also an archaic third-person plural feminine form.  There are a number of instances in which the consonantal texgt (ketiv) shows this form with a plural subject and the Masoretes correct it in the qeri (the indicated pronunciation) to normative grammar: e.g. Deuteronomy 21:7, “Our hands did not shed [ketiv:shafkhah] this blood.”  Without emendation, then, the text suggests that Joseph has the twin blessing of fruitfulness and military security.  The young women of the tribe can walk in safety alongside the rampart because they will be protected by Joseph’s valorous skill in battle (verses 23-24).

by a rampart.  This is the same word as the one at the end of verse 6.  There is scant warrant for extending it metonymically to “hillside,” as some translators have done.

23 Bitterly they shot at him,

the archers assailed him,

the archers.  His brethren.

dealt bitterly.  Harassed by hostile action.  In spite of attack, the strength of Joseph and his descendants is unimpaired, because the Almighty is with him.

24 yet firm remained his bow, 

and agile stayed his arms and hands- 

by means of the hands of Yaakov’s Champion, 

up there, 

the Shepherd, the Stone of Yisrael.

abode firm. i.e. continued strong.

made supple. Harassed by hostile action.  In spite of attack, the strength of Joseph and his descendants is unimpaired, because the Almighty is with him.

by the hands. Indicating the source of Joseph’s salvation.

the Mighty One of Jacob. A title of God.  see Is. I,24.

from thence. From the Mighty One of Jacob.

the Stone of Israel. A rare parallel to the better known ‘Rock of Israel’.

[EF]  arms and hands:  Lit. “arms of his hands.”

[RA] taut was his bow,/his arms ever-moving.  There is some doubt about “taut,” though the context makes this a reasonable educated guess.  There is also some dispute over the verb represented here as “ever-moving,” but its likely literal meaning is “to move about rapidly,” “to be nimble.”

through the hands. This picks up the previous phrase, referring to Joseph, which is literally, “the arms of his hands” (unless “of his hands” is a scribal slip, a dittography of the next word in the text).  In any case, the idea is that the hands of the human warrior are given strength by God’s hands.

through the name. Along with some of the ancient versions, the translation here reads mishem for the Masoretic misham, “from there,” which is obscure.

25 By your father’s God- 

may he help you, 

and Shaddai,

may he give-you-blessing: 

Blessings of the heavens,from above,

blessings of Ocean crouching below,

blessings of breasts and womb!

Three blessings are mentioned.

blessings of heaven. Rain and dew, sunshine and wind.

the deep. The subterranean reservoir of waters beneath, from which springs fertility to the soil.

the breasts. The fruitfulness of the familly.

[EF] Shaddai:  Once again connected to fertility (note the content of the following lines). give-you-blessing: Just as Yaakov had blessed Yosef’s sons, so Yosef is the only one of the twelve brothers to whom Yaakov applies the term.

[RA] blessings of breasts and womb.  The fertility of the female body is aligned with the fertility of creation, the heavens aboe and the deep below—a correspondence not lost on the bawdy fourteenth-century Hebrew poet Emanuel of Rome, who exploited this verse in an erotic poem.

26 May the blessings of your father transcend 

the blessings of mountains eternal, 

the bounds of hills without age. 

May they fall upon the head of Yosef, 

on the crown of the consecrated-one among his brothers.

are mighty beyond. The verse states that the blessings received by Jacob surpass the blessings vouchsafed to Jacob’s fathers.  Jacob now bestows these enhanced blessings upon Joseph, thereby making him the heir both of himself and of his ancestors.

unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills.  As high above the blessings bestowed on Jacob’s father as the hills are above the plains.

prince. lit. ‘that is separate from his brethren’, i.e. apart from eminent, among his brethren.

[EF]  mountains:  Reading hararet for the traditional Hebrew horei, “parents” on the basis of Hab. 3:6.

[RA] the blessings of timeless heights,/the bounty of hills everlasting.  The Masoretic Text is not really intelligible at this point, and this English version follows the Septuagint for the first part of the verse, which has the double virtue of coherence and of resembling several similar parallel locutions elsewhere in biblical poetry.  Instead of the Masoretic Text’s horai ‘ad (“my forebears” [?] “until” [?], the Septuagint has the equivalent in Greek of the idiomatic harerei ‘ad (“timeless heights”).  The noun ta’awat that immediately follows may also reflect a defective text but it could mean “that which is desired,” hence, “bounty” or “riches.”  The apparent sense of the whole line is: the blessings granted Joseph and his fathers will be even greater than the blessings manifested throughout time in the natural world, as seen in the verdant, fruit-bearing hillsides.

the brow. The Hebrew is actually a poetic synonym for “head” (something like “pate”), but “brow” is used here for the sake of the English idiom of blessings, or honors, resting on that part of the anatomy.

27 Binyamin, 

a wolf that tears-to-pieces! 

In the morning he devours prey, 

and then, in the evening, divides up the spoil.

27.  BENJAMIN

Image from www.marysrosaries.com

a wolf that raveneth.  Or, ‘that teareth,’ referring tot he warlike character of the tribe; see Judg. v, 15 and XX,16.  

[RA] Benjamin, ravening wolf.  The last brief vignette of the poem, for the youngest of the twelve sons, is one of its sharpest images of death-dealing animals, and later biblical accounts, especially in Judges, indicate that the tribe of Benjamin was renowned for its martial prowess.

the spoils. The rare noun ‘ad has been variously construed as “prey” (because of the wolf image) and “enemy,” and the compactness of the line even leaves doubt as to whether it is a noun and not an adverb (revocalizing ‘ad as ‘od,  “still”).  But both its sole other occurrence in the Bible (Isaiah 33:23) and the poetic parallelism argue for the sense of spoils.

28 All these are the tribes of Israel, twelve, 

and this is what their father spoke to them; 

he blessed them, 

according to what belonged to each as blessing, he blessed them.

twelve tribes. Joseph, and not his sons, receives the blessings.  Jacob in blessing his sons was at the same time blessing the future tribes.

every one. Received his appropriate blessing.  The future would prove the prophetic nature of their father’s benediction.

[EF] tribes:  Heb. shevatim, “staffs,” which symbolized the tribes.

29 And he commanded them, saying to them:

I am now about to be gathered to my kinspeople;

bury me by my fathers,

in the cave that is in the field of Efron the Hittite,

in the cave that is in the field of Ephron the Hittite. Jacob in his last words to his sons exhibits an elaborate consciousness of the legal transaction between his grandfather and Ephron the Hittite.  Like the account of the purchase in chapter 25, he emphasizes the previous owner, the exact location of the property, and the fact that it was acquired as a permanent holding.  Thus, at the end of Genesis, legal language is used to resume a great theme—that Abraham’s offspring are legitimately bound to the land God promised them, and that the descent into Egypt is no more than a sojourn.

30 at the cave that is in the field of Makhpela, that faces Mamre, in the land of Canaan. 

-Avraham had acquired that field from Efron the Hittite, as a burial holding.

31 There they buried Avraham and Sara his wife, 

there they buried Yitzhak and Rivka his wife, 

there I buried Lea-

[EF] Lea: Not called “my wife.”  Again the old feelings remain vivid.

32 an acquisition, the field and the cave that is in it, from the Sons of Het.

purchased from the children of Heth. With their knowledge and consent (Abarbanel).  Joseph, having been away from Canaan for so many years receives explicit directions as to the spot where his father is to be buried.  This verse implies a deed of purchase.

33 When Yaakov had finished commanding his sons,

he gathered up his feet onto the bed and expired, 

and was gathered to his kinspeople.

gathered up his feet.  He had been sitting; he now lay down in bed.

and was gathered unto his people. This passage shows that not burial of the body is meant but the soul’s departure to join the souls of those who had gone before.

• Here is yet another switching of the younger for the older son in the bestowal of blessing upon the firstborn.  
• As dim as the eyes of Jacob were and even with Joseph’s guidance on which grandson to place his right hand, still he knew which grandson would fulfill the tribal destiny for greatness and switches his hands upon the grandsons. 
• Then he claims these two sons of Joseph—that adds up to 14, with Joseph getting additional portions besides his own. 

— as his own, 

—with rights equal to the 12. 

We have to ask, what exactly is Jacob bequeathing to his progeny?   What is there to inherit at this point in their history?  

Are we allowed to speculate this much when we read these biblical narratives?  Isn’t this what the rabbis do?  As long as we don’t transmit it as ‘gospel truth,’ if it helps other readers to understand that even with different social and cultural and historical-time orientations, people share common sentiments when it comes to family relationships, inheritance rights, sibling rivalry and power play. The “I” part always gets in the way, as in “what’s in it for me?”

Joseph is one of the few biblical characters (like Joshua and Daniel) who have no blights on their record. Even his deception of his brothers was meant for good!  Of the 12, he personally experienced and understood divine providence and attributed his bad and good fortune, and all his giftings, talents, opportunities and blessings to the Elohiym of Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham.

Unbracketed commentary is from Pentateuch and Haftorahs, ed. Dr. J.H. Hertz;  additional commentary from RA/Robert Alter and  EF/Everett Fox, translator of The Five Books of Moses.]

Genesis/Bereshith 48

[Unbracketed commentary and chapter title are from Pentateuch and Haftorahs, ed. Dr. J.H. Hertz. An update about this particular commentary in case you, reader, have not read it in previous posts: P&H is a composite/collection of many commentators, and so many names are mentioned .  The editor, Dr. Hertz, makes clear that the best of Jewish scholars (Rabbinical) as well as a few gentile input, are included in his collection. We benefit much from this valuable resource and we share it with all in our posts but this does not mean we agree with the commentary all the time. 

Additional commentary come from RA/Robert Alter as well as EF/Everett Fox whose translation, The Five Books of Moses is featured here.—Admin1.]

———————————————————-

The stories of Genesis, and especially the story of Joseph, have at all times called forth the admiration of mankind.  Dealing with the profoundest thoughts in terms of everyday life, yet a child is thrilled by the story; and at the same time the greatest thinkers are continually finding in it fresh depths of unexpected meaning (Ryle).  Like summer and the starry skies, like joy and childhood, these stories touch and enthrall the human soul with their sublime simplicity, high seriousness and marvelous beauty.  And they are absolutely irreplaceable in the moral and religious training of children. The fact that, after having been repeated for three thousand years and longer, these stories still possess an eternal freshness to children of all races and climes, proves that there is in them something of imperishable worth.  There is no other literature in the world which offers that something.  This is recognized even in educational circles that are far removed not only from the Traditional attitude towards the Bible, but even from the religious outlook.  The uniqueness of these stories consists in the fact that there is in them a sense of overruling the Divine Providence realizing its purpose through the complex interaction of human motives.  They are saturated with the moral spirit. Duty, guilt and its punishment, the conflict of conscience with inclination, the triumph of moral and spiritual forces amidst the vicissitudes of human affairs—are the leading themes.  And what is pre-eminently true of Genesis applies to the whole of Bible history.  Not by means of abstract formulae does it bring God and duty to the soul of man, but by means of lives of human beings who feel and fail, who stumble and sin as we do; yet who, in their darkest groping, remain conscious of the one true way—and rise again.  Witness the conduct of the brothers of Joseph when they had fully grasped the enormity of their crime.

Asked the agnostic T.H. Huxley:

 ‘By the study of what other book, could children be so much humanized and made to feel that each figure in the vast procession of history fills, like themselves, but a momentary space in the interval between the eternities; and earns the blessings or the curses of all time according to its effort to do good and hate evil?’

Genesis/Bereshith 37

JOSEPH’S DREAMS

After a brief enumeration of Esau’s descendants, without giving their history, Scripture resumes the account of the fortunes of Jacob and his sons.

[RA] 1-2.  And Jacob dwelled in the land of . . . Canaan. This is the lineage of Jacob.  The aptness of these verses as a transition from the genealogy of Esau to the story of Joseph is nicely observed by Abraham ibn Ezra: “The text reports that the chieftains of Esau dwelled in the high country of Seir and Jacob dwelled in the Chosen Land.  And the meaning of ‘This is the lineage of Jacob’ is, ‘These are the events that happened to him and the incidents that befell him.”  Ibn Ezra’s remark demonstrates that there is no need to attach these two verses to the end of the preceding genealogy, as some modern scholars have argued.  The writer exploits the flexibility of the Hebrew toledot,  a term that can equally refer to genealogical list and to story, in order to line up the beginning of the Joseph story with the toledot passage that immediately precedes it.

the generations. Joseph alone is mentioned because he is the centre of the narrative which fills the remainder of Genesis, and forms its notable climax.

feeding. Or, ‘supervising.’ The picture of Joseph doing the same work as his brothers is out of accord with what is told in the next verse.  Erlich therefore translates:  ‘Joseph, being seventeen yiers old, used to supervise—although only a lad—his brethren, viz., the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah (when they were) with the sheep.’ <span  style=”color: #000000;”>Joseph would thus be placed in charge of only the sons of the handmaids.

evil report of them. Probably, their inattention to duty.

[EF] begettings: In the sense of “family history.”  As noted above, the Yosef story is a continuation of the Yaakov saga. seventeen: Together  with 47;28, this provides another example of numerical balance in these stories.  Yosef lives with Yaakov for the first seventeen years of his life and for the last seventeen of his father’s.  along with his brothers: A hint that he would one day “shepherd” (rule) his brothers?  The Hebrew is open to that interpretation (Redford).  brought a report: Or “gossip.”  Although the doting father’s love is crucial, it seems really to be Yosef’s own behavior (which precedes the information about his coat) that causes his abuse by the brothers.

[RA] assisting. The literal meaning of the Hebrew is “he was a lad with the sons of Bilhah.” But the Hebrew for “lad,” na’ar, has a secondary meaning, clearly salient here, of assistant or subaltern.  The adolescent Joseph is working as a kind of apprentice shepherd with his older brothers.

brought ill report. The first revelation of Joseph’s character suggests a spoiled younger child who is a tattletale.  The next revelation, in the dreams, intimates adolescent narcissism, even if the grandiosity eventually is justified by events.

he was the son of his old age. At this time Benjamin was but an infant, and the father’s affections were centered in Joseph.  However, when the latter was sold, Jacob’s whole life was bound up with Benjamin (XVIV,20,30).

coat of many colours.  This translation is based on the Septuagint, Targum Jonathan and Kimchi.  People have often wondered why a trifle liket his gaudy garment should have provoked the murderous hatred of all the brethren.  We now know from the painted Tombs of the Bene Hassein in Egypt that, in the Patriarchal age, Semitic chiefs wore coats of many colours as insignia of rulership.  Joseph had made himself disliked by his brothers for reporting on them; and Jacob, in giving him a coat of many colours, marked him for the chieftainship of the tribes at his father’s death.  Add to this the lad’s vanity in telling his dreams, and the rage of the brethren becomes intelligible.  This sign of rulership and royalty was still in use in the household of King David, as is seen from II Sam. XIII,18, though the chronicler must explain this strange fashion in dress. The fact that in the Joseph story no such explanatory gloss is given is proof of the antiquity of the narrative.  When it was first written its implications were perfectly intelligible (M.H.Kyle).

[EF] ornamented: Hebrew obscure. B-R uses “ankle-length.”

[RA] And Israel loved Joseph . . . for he was the child of his old age.  The explanation is a little odd, both because the fact that Joseph is the son of the beloved Rachel is unmentioned and because it is the last-born Benjamin who is the real child of Jacob’s old age.  It is noteworthy that Jacob’s favoritism toward Joseph is mentioned immediately after the report of questionable behavior on Joseph’s part.  One recalls that Jacob was the object of his mother’s unexplained favoritism.

an ornamented tunic. The only clue about the nature of the garment is offered by the one other mention of it in the Bible, in the story of the rape of Tamar (2 Samuel 13), in which, incidentally, tehre is a whole network of pointed allusions to the Joseph story.  There we are told that the ketonet pasim was worn by virgin princesses.  It is thus a unisex garment and a product of ancient haute couture. E.A. Speiser cites a cuneiform text with an apparently cognate phrase that seems to indicate a tunic with appliqué ornamentation.  Other scholars have pointed to a fourteenth-century B.C.E. Egyptian fresco showing captive Canaanite nobleman adorned with tunics made of longitudinal panels sewn together.

Image from Pinterest

[EF] hated: Such a violent emotion nevertheless has once before (with Lea in 29:31) led not to disaster but to the fulfillment of the divine plan (there, the hatred results in the competition to have chidlren). in peace: Or “civilly”—again the key Yaakov word, “peace.”

[RA] And Joseph dreamed.  As has often been noted, the dreams in the Joseph story reflect its most secular orientation in comparison with the preceding narratives in Genesis.  They are not direct messages from God, like His appearance in the dream-visions to Abimelech and to Jacob: they may be literally portentous, but they require human interpretation (here the meaning is obvious enough), and they may also express the hidden desires and self-perception of the dreamer.

[EF]  hear: Which can also mean “understand’ in biblical Hebrew.

[RA] Listen, pray, to this dream that I dreamed.  In keeping with the rule about the revelatory force of a character’s first words, this whole speech shows us a young Joseph who is self-absorbed, blithely assuming everyone will be fascinated by the details of his dreams.

[RA] And, look. It is standard technique for the dreamer reporting his dream to use the presentative hineh, “look,” to introduce what he has “seen” in the dream.  But Joseph repeats the term three times in a single sentence, betraying his own wide-eyed amazement, and perhaps his naïveté.  The same attitude is reflected in his exclamatory “arose and actually stood up.”

[EF] king, yes, king . . . rule, yes, rule: The doubling might reflect the brothers’ astonishment and bitterness.  See also v.10.

[RA] for his dreams and for his words.  It is misguided to construe this as a hendiadys (“for speaking about his dreams”) since the sharp point is that they hated him both for having such dreams and for insisting on talking about them.

[RA] And he dreamed yet another dream. Later (41:32) we shall learn that the doubling of the dream is a sign that what it portends will really happen, but it should also be observed that doublets are a recurrent principle of organization in the Joseph story, just as binary divisions are an organizing principle in the Jacob story.  Joseph and Pharaoh have double dreams; the chief butler and the chief baker dream their pair of seemingly parallel, actually antithetical dreams.  Joseph is first flung into a pit and later into the prison-house.  The brothers make two trips down to Egypt, with one of their number seemingly at risk on each occasion.  And their descent to Egypt with goods and silver mirrors the descent of the merchant caravan, bearing the same items, that first brought Joseph down to Egypt.

the sun and the moon and eleven stars. Both Hermann Gunkel and Gerhard von Rad have proposed that the eleven stars are actually the eleven constellations known in the ancient Near East, but these should then be twelve, not eleven, and at least in the biblical record, knowledge of definite constellations is reflected only in postexilic literature.  The two parallel dreams operate on different levels of intensity.  The agricultural setting of the first one reflects the actual setting—Freud’s “day residue”—in which Joseph does his dreaming, and so is attached to the first part of the story, even if the brothers detect in it aspirations to regal grandeur.  The second dream shifts the setting upward to the heavens and in this way is an apt adumbration of the brilliant sphere of the Egyptian imperial court over which Joseph will one day preside.  From a strict monotheistic view, the second dream teeters on the brink of blasphemy.

to his father. Joseph is at first the clever child of a large family, too untutored in life to veil his superiority (Moulton).

rebuked him. Because his words were deepening the ill-will against him among his brothers.

thy mother. Who was dead.

[EF] your mother: The fact that she had died in Chap. 35does not detract from the symbol of the dream.

[RA]  and your mother. This particular episode seems to assume, in flat contradiction of the preceding narrative, that Rachel is still alive, though Benjamin has already been born (there are eleven brothers in the dream bowing to Joseph).  Attempts to rescue consistency on the ground that dreams may contain incoherent elements are unconvincing, because it is a perfect lucid Jacob who assumes here that Rachel is still alive.

envied. The repetition of the dream was a sign to them that it was more than a dream.  They envied him his assured greatness.  And now that envy was added to hatred, they were in a mental state to do him violence.  One of the hardest things to learn is to recognize without envy the superiority of a younger brother.

kept the saying in mind. He noted with satisfaction that his designation of Joseph as the future ruler of the family seemed to have the Divine approval.

[EF] remembered: Or “kept in mind.”

12 His brothers went to tend their father’s sheep in Shekhem.

in Shechem.  Meaning in the region of Shechem, which was a fertile plain.  It would appear hazardous for Jacob’s sons to venture thither after what is narrated in Chap. XXXIV.  But we are expressly told in XXXV,5, that God inspired fear in the peoples, which caused Jacob to be unmolested.

[EF] Shekhem: In our text this city’s name (three times here) reminds the reader of the disastrous events of Chapter 34.

[RA] Shechem. As several medieval commentators note, Shechem has already been linked with disaster in these stories.

[EF] Come: Repeated in vv. 20 and 27; it is ironically Yaakov’s decision to send Yosef to his brothers that sets this part of the plot into action.

Hebron. The residence of Jacob, XXXV,27.  The city lies low down on the sloping sides of a narrow valley of its mountainous setting.

[EF] well-being: Heb. shalom, itranslated as “peace” in v. 4 and elsewhere.

[RA] the valley of Hebron.  The validity of this designation can be defended only through ingenious explanation because Hebron stands on a height.

[EF] a man: Possibly another divine messenger (like the “man” in 32:25).  See also the note to “roming” in 20:13.

[RA] And a man found him.  The specificity of this exchange with an unnamed stranger is enigmatic.  Efforts to see the “man” as an angel or messenger of fate have little textual warrant.  What is safe to say is that the question and answer in a field outside Shechem reinforce the sense that Joseph is being directed, unwitting, to a disastrous encounter.

Dothan. The modern name is Tel-Dothan. It has a rich pasturage.

[RA] that dream-master! Although time-honored tradition renders this in English simply as “dreamer,” the Hebrew term ba’al haalomot is stronger, and thus in context more sarcastic. The ba’al component suggests someone who has a special proprietary relation to, or mastery of, the noun that follows it.

dreamer.  lit. ‘master of dreams’; this is only the Heb. idiom for ‘dreamer’.  The brothers speak of him with a bitter derision which bodes ill for him.

pits. Or, ‘cisterns,’ where water was stored; these are still in common use in the East.  The opening is narrow, so that any one imprisoned in them could not get out unassisted.

and we shall see.  The Midrash regards these words as the comment of God upon the brother’s declaration, ‘let us slay him.’ The Divine reply is to the effect:  We shall see whose counsel will stand, Mine or theirs.  The Midrash furthermore states that it was Simeon who first made the fratricidal proposal. This explains Joseph’s procedure later in XLII,24.

[EF] ill-tempered: Others, “wild.”

[RA] let us kill him and fling him into one of the pits.  The flinging after the killing underscores the naked brutality of the brothers’ intentions. The denial of proper burial was among the Hebrews as among the Greeks deeply felt as an atrocity.

[EF]  take his life; Lit. “strike him mortally.”

[RA] 21-22.  We must not take his life . . . shed no blood! Reuben eschews the two verbs for killing used respectively by the narrator and the brothers and instead invokes language echoing the primal taboo against taking–literally, “striking down”–life and spilling human blood (compare the powerful prohibition in 9:6).  In the event, the substitute blood of the slaughtered kid will figure prominently in the brothers’ course of action.

Fling him into this pit.  At the same time, Reuben tries not to contradict the violence of his brothers’ feelings toward Joseph and uses the same phrase, to fling him into a pit, with the crucial difference that in his proposal it is a live Joseph who will be cast into the pit.  This is precisely the verb used for Hagar (21;15) when she flings Ishmael under a bush in the wilderness.

shed no blood. Reuben’s first appeal of ‘No murder” fell on deaf ears (see XLII,220; he then hopes to outwit them by a stratagem.  He appeals to them that at least they need not shed any blood, hoping later to rescue Joseph and bring him back to Jacob, against whom he had previously so grievously sinned (Nachmanides, Abarbanel).

stripped. Tore off with violence.  What Joseph’s words were in connection with this unnatural conduct of his brethren, we only indirectly know from XLII,21; just as we were left to gather Jacob’s feelings at the death of Rachel from the pathetic references in XLVIII,7.  The reserve of the Scripture narrative in this chapter, as in XXII, represents the acme of literary art (Steinthal).

[RA] his tunic, the ornamented tunic that he had on him. Only now do we learn that Joseph has the bad judgment to wear on his errand the garment that was the extravagant token of his father’s favoritism.  Thus he provokes the brothers’ anger, and they strip him—not part of their original plan—and thus take hold of what will be made into the false evidence of his death as their plan changes.

no water in it.  But it did contain serpents and scorpions (Rashi).

[RA] they…flung him into the pit.  Contrary to the original plan, they do not kill him straight away.  Perhaps they have decided instead to let him perish trapped in the pit.

the pit was empty, there was no water in it.  Deep cisterns of this sort—too deep to climb out of—were commonly used for water storage.

to eat bread. While the piercing cries of their doomed brother were still ringing in their ears.  Nothing can more forcibly paint the callousness to all human feeling which comes from slavery to hate.

caravan. Such a caravan would be in the clear air of Palestine be seen many miles away.  It might take two or three hours before it came up to the brothers.  Dothan lay in the trade-route from Gilead, the country east of the Jordan, across the Valley of Jezreel, along the Philistine coast to Egypt.

balm. For which Gilead was proverbially famous.

[EF] bread: Or “food.”

[RA] Ishmaelites.  This is a generic term for the seminomadic traders of Arab stock whose homeland was east of the Jordan, but it is also an anachronism, since at the time of the story, the eponymous Ishmael, the great-uncle of the twelve brothers, was still alive (though he would be near the end of his 127-year life span), and the only “Ishmaelites” would be their second cousins.

gum and balm and ladanum. The precise identity of these plant extracts used for medicinal purposes and as perfume is doubt, but it is clear that they are costly export items.

[RA]  What gain is there if we kill our brother and cover up his blood?  Judah’s argument for sparing Joseph’s life—which most scholars regard as the manifestation of an originally different version of the story from the one in which the firstborn Reuben tries to save Joseph—is based on the consideration of gain, not on the horror of the taboo against shedding blood that Reuben invokes.  To cover up blood means to conceal bloodguilt.

hearkened unto him. The horror of their contemplated murder by starvation dawns upon them; they agree to a less violent scheme. Reuben keeps his counsel.

[RA] for he is our brother, our own flesh.  It is, of course, a dubious expression of brotherhood to sell someone into the ignominy and perilously uncertain future of slavery.

Image from jw-archive.wikispaces.com

Midianites.  In the meantime, while the brethren were at the meal, some Midianite merchants, casually passing by and hearing human  cries from the pit near the roadside, carry off Joseph and sell him to the caravan going to Egypt.  The brothers did not thus actually sell Joseph.  He was ‘stolen away’ as he himself says in XL,15 (Rashbam, Luzzatto).

[RA] And Midianite merchantmen … pulled Joseph out of the pit and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites. This is the one single moment when the two literary strands out of which the story is woven seem awkwardly spliced.  Up to this point, no Midianites have been mentioned.  Elsewhere, Midianites and Ishmaelites appear to be terms from different periods designating the selfsame people (compare Judges 89:22 and 24), so the selling of Joseph to the Ishmaelites looks like a strained attempt to blend two versions that respectively used the two different terms.  And the Midianite intervention contradicts the just stated intention of the brothers to pull Joseph out of the pit themselves and sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites for profit.

Reuben, who, it seems, did not participate in the meal, v. 25, had intended to remove Joseph from the pit and bring him back to his father.  He finds the pit empty and no trace of Joseph.  Soem wild beast, he thinks, has carried him off.

[EF] rent his garments:  The tearing of clothing was a customary sign of mourning.

[RA] And Reuben came back to the pit. The contradiction between the two version continues, since one is driven to presume that Reuven was not present at the fraternal meal during which the selling of Joseph was discussed, though there is no textual indication of his absence.

whither shall I go? As the first-born, the father would hold him morally responsible. ‘Whither shall I flee from my father’s grief?’ (Rashi).

[EF]  And  . . . : Heb. va-ani, ana ani va. The sound expresses the emotions. where am I to go: I.e., what will become of me?

[RA] The boys is gone.  The Hebrew says literally, the boy is not.”  The phrase could be a euphemism for death or could merely indicate disappearance.  It is a crucial ambiguity the brothers themselves will exploit much later in the story.

they took. The brothers, however, were not displeased to be rid of Joseph.

[RA] slaughtered a kid and dipped the tunic in blood. Jacob had used both a slaughtered kid and a garment in the deception he perpetrated on his own father.

they sent.  Through others; i.e. they arranged taht people should bring the coat to Jacob (Rashbam).

they said. Those who brought the coat.

[EF] pray recognize: See 27:23, where Yitzhak did not “recognize” Yaakov.  Yaakov’s youth returns to haunt him, in a sense.

[RA] they sent…and had it brought. The brothers operate indirectly, through the agency of a messenger, letting the doctored evidence of the blood-soaked tunic speak for itself.

Recognize.  When the disguised Jacob deceived his father, we were told, “he did not recognize him.”

The lit. translation of the Heb. is ‘My son’s coat! a wild beast hath eaten him! torn, torn is Joseph!’—a reproduction of the father’s anguish that is as natural as nature.

[EF] My son’s coat: With the omission of “It is,” the shock is conveyed more dramatically.  Some ancient versions, however, include the phrase.  An ill-tempered beast …torn-to-pieces: The Hebrew breaks into verse structure, with three word-beats per line: haya va’a akhalat’hu/ tarof toraf Yosef (Alter 1981).

[RA] And he recognized it, and he said…”A vicious beast has devoured him.”  Jacob’s paternal anxiety turns him into the puppet of his sons’ plotting.  Not only does he at once draw the intended false conclusion, but he uses the very words of their original plan, “a vicious beast has devoured him.” It is noteworthy that his cry of grief takes the form of a line of formal verse, a kind of compact elegy that jibes with the mourning rituals which follow it.

Image from natmadesomething.com

rent his garments. The traditional mourning rite on the loss of a near relative, Keriah.

many days. A long time; two and twenty years.

daughters.  Includes granddaughters and daughters-in-law, as ‘sons’ may include grandsons.

grave. Heb. ‘Sheol’, the name of the abode of the dead.  Jacob’s words mean either that he will mourn his son all his life, or that even in the grave he will continue to mourn him.

[EF] Sheol: The biblical underworld: others (and B-R) use “the grave.”

[RA] 33-35. All this language of mourning and grieving suggests a certain extravagance, perhaps something histrionic.  As the next verse tersely indicates, at the very moment Jacob is bewailing his purportedly dead son, Joseph is sold into the household of a high Egyptian official.

into Egypt. Through the Ishmaelite caravan.

Potiphar. The name means, ‘The gift of Ra,’ the sun-god.

officer. The Heb. word came to have the general significance of ‘court official’.

Pharaoh. The title of the Egyptian Sovereign.

captain of the guard.  Or, ‘chief of the executioners’.

[EF] Midyanites: The Hebrew has “Medianites.” court-official: Lit. “eunuch,” a common ancient Near Eastern title for such a position.  Originally the term was applied literally, although alter on the person was not necessarily a eunuch.

[RA] Pharaoh’s courtier, the high chamberlain.  The word for “courtier” in other contexts can also mean “eunuch,” but the evidence suggests that the original use was as the title of a court official and that the sense of “eunuch” became associated with the term secondarily because of an occasional Mesopotamian practice of placing eunuchs in court positions.  (The Hebrew saris is a loanword from the Akkadian sa resi, “royal official.”) The second title attached to Potiphar is associated with a root involving slaughter and in consequence sometimes with cooking (hence the “chief steward” or, alternately, “chief executioner” of various English versions). The actual responsibilities of this high imperial post remain unclear.

Image from www.howgodprovides.com

[This was first posted September 2012; revised and updated for reposting. The first commentary is from S6K discussions of the chapter;  additionally we feature three commentaries which overlap sometimes, but complement each other most of the time.  Why three (which means more work for admin1)? There is much to learn from all of them even if the comments might be redundant and the wordings sometimes do not match the official translation we use. These comments are interspersed within the verses;  readers can easily connect the meaning even if phrasing and terms are different from the official translation.  Unbracketed commentary is from Pentateuch and Haftorahs, ed. Dr. J.H. Hertz;  additional commentary by RA/Robert Alter and EF/Everett Fox, whose translation  The First Five Books of Moses is featured here.–Admin1.]

——————————————————–

The Genesis narratives following the ups and downs of Jacob/Israel and his family places this poignant story about the violation of Jacob’s only daughter Dinah—

• immediately after a high point in this patriarch’s life—reconciliation with Esau;
• and before yet another significant encounter with the God of his forebears, Abraham and Isaac, Who has become his God as well.

In the book Torah for Dummies by Arthur Kurzweil, readers are reminded of this: 

The Torah isn’t a history book.  A fundamental principle regarding the Five Books of Moses is expressed in this well-known saying among Torah scholars.  ”There is no earlier or later in the Torah.”  It means that the Torah isn’t a historical narration and isn’t in chronological order.

That noted, in effect we should not place any significance to the placement of this incident in the journey of the Jacob family back to the homeland where he left Isaac and Rebecca some 20+ years ago.  In other words, treat it as another incident, albeit sad and tragic, in the saga of this Patriarch’s tribe; an incident that will have repercussions beyond their generation.

The focus should be on the one and only daughter of Jacob/Yaakov (still named Jacob in this text).  But unfortunately, the narrative does not elaborate on Dinah as a prized daughter/sister/beautiful young woman, only that she was from Jacob’s union with first and less-loved wife Leah, and how she innocently wandered off to see other young women in the land.  If the prince of the land who was enamored of her had wooed her instead of violating her, this story would read like a fairy tale and who knows, they might have lived happily ever after . . . then maybe not.  

As far as we’ve read, we have not yet encountered any prohibitions against intermarriage; that would come later as YHWH separates his chosen people from the nations, and the separation is intended to keep them identifiable as representing Him and His prescribe Way of living. Further, this Jacob’s family is still just a family with 4th generation 12 sons yet to develop into tribal lines into a nation, though the translation already uses “Ysrael.” We think, however, that even if Jacob has been renamed Israel, there is no nation yet in existence at this time.  That nation would officially be birthed on Sinai after the exodus from Egypt.  So let’s keep our timeline and thinking straight this far into the book of Genesis/Bereshith.

This chapter reads clearly and needs no interpretation, just a few observations: 

• Prince Shekem starts a crisis for the two people groups; like a spoiled brat, he takes what he sees and wants, then leaves it to his father to fix the problem;
• Shekem’s father Chamor has to do the difficult work of approaching another father to deliver the message that his son wishes to marry Dinah after violating her;
• Jacob who has learned patience in the 2 decades with Laban remains cool and self-controlled, his feelings as a father doesn’t have to be dramatized but just like every father, he must have had his own wishes for his one and only daughter but it is not for her to be disgraced; 
  

  Image from www.artvalue.com

• His sons, the blood brothers of Dinah from the same mother, Simeon and Levi,  are “livid”  and rightly so; but they manage to remain cool themselves plot and wait for a more opportune time to exact revenge; 
• Circumcision is the sign of the covenant with Abraham; his progeny including Ishmael and Esau who are not of the promised line observed the rite; 
• The lines drawn that separate Jacob/Israel’s family so far are about: Jacob and the brothers use circumcision as a requirement of any male marrying into their family; 
  • family or bloodline and outsiders; 
  • circumcised and uncircumcised;
• Shekem not only agrees for himself, but requires it of the men among his people;
• Trust and betrayal, themes that continue to run through the Jacob story.
• As a result, Jacob’s starter family does not get absorbed and disappear through intermarriage with the Hivvites.

NSB@S6K

————————————————-

This chapter is an exception to the series of peaceful scenes from Patriarchal life and character—a tale of dishonour, wild revenge, and indiscriminate slaughter.

Genesis/Bereshith 34 

to see.  ‘and be seen,’ is added in the Samaritan text.  The Heb. idiom ‘to see, to look upon’ means ‘to make friendship with’.  If was wrong of Jacob to suffer his daughter alone and unprotected to visit the daughters of the land (Adam Clarke).

[EF] to see: To visit.

[RA] to go seeing among the daughters of the land.  The infinitive in the Hebrew is literally “to see,” followed not by a direct object, as one might expect, but by a partitive (the particle b^{e_{), which suggests “among” or “some of.”  Although the sense of the verb in context may be something like “to make the acquaintance of” or “travel around among,” the decision of several modern translations to render it as “to visit” is misconceived.  Not only does that term convey anachronistic notions of calling cards and tea, but it obliterates an important repetition of terms.  This is one of those episodes in which the biblical practice of using the same word over and over with different subjects and objects and a high tension of semantic difference is especially crucial.  Two such terms are introduced in the first sentence of the story: “to see” and “daughter.”  Dinah, Jacob’s daughter, goes out among the daughters of the land, an identity of terms that might suggest a symmetry of position, but the fact that she is an immigrant’s daughter, not a daughter of the land, makes her a ready target for rape.  (In the Hebrew, moreover, “sons,” and “daughers,” banim and banot, are differently inflected versions of the same word, so Dinah’s filial relation to Jacob is immediately played against Shechem’s filial relation to Hamor, and that in turn will be pointedly juxtaposed with the relation between Jacob and his sons.) Shechem’s lustful “seeing” of Dinah is immediately superimposed on her “seeing” the daughters of the land.}}

humbled.  i.e. dishonoured; the Heb. implies by force.

[EF] Hamor: Heb. “donkey.”  Some take the name to prove that they were donkey-drivers, while others see it as an insult to the character.  forcing: Or “humbling.”

Image from en.wikipedia.org

[RA] saw…took…lay with…abused.  As elsewhere in Genesis, the chain of uninterrupted verbs conveys the precipitousness of the action.  Took” will become another thematically loaded reiterated term.  “Lay with” is more brutal in the Hebrew because instead of being followed by the preposition “with” (as, for example, in Rachel’s words to Leah in 30:15), it is followed by a direct object–if the Masoretic vocalization is authentic–and in this form may denote rape.

comfortingly. lit. ‘spoke to the heart’ of the damsel; Isaiah XL,2.  He tried to console her by his words of love, and his declared wish to make her his wife.

[RA]  his very self clung.  The Hebrew nefesh (life-breath) is used here as an intensifying synonym of the personal pronoun.  (“His very self” in verse 8 represents the same Hebrew usage.)  The psychology of this rapist is precisely the opposite of Amnon’s in 2 Samuel 13, who, after having consummated his lust for his sister by raping her, despises her.  Here, the fulfillment of the impulse of unrestrained desire is followed by love, which complicates the moral balance of the story.

 get me this damsel.  It was the parent’s duty to secure a wife for the son; cf. XXI,21.

[RA] Take this girl. “Take,” which indicated violent action in the narrator’s report of the rape, now recurs in a decorous social sense—the action initiated by the father of the groom in arranging a proper marriage for his son.  In verse 17, Jacob’s sons will threaten to “take” Dinah away if the townsmen refuse to be circumcised, and in the report of the massacre, they take first their swords and then the booty.  Shechem refers to Dinah as yaldah,  “girl” or “child,” a term that equally suggests her vulnerability and the tenderness he now feels for her.

vile deed.  Or, ‘folly’ (RV).  The Heb. word translated by ‘folly’ means senseless wickedness, total insensibility to moral distinctions.

in Israel. Since the word means ‘the people of Israel’, it is strictly an anachronism, because the nation was not yet in existence.  The latter part of this sentence must therefore be regarded not as spoken by Jacob’s sons, but as the reflection of Scripture on the incident, wherein it points out that in the homes of the Patriarchs high conceptions of morality were entertained, and the defilement of a daughter was looked upon as an outrage against family honour and morality that demanded stern retribution.

[EF] disgrace: A different Hebrew word from the one rendered “disgraced” in 15:2.

[RA] a scurrilous thing in Israel. This use of this idiom here is a kind of pun.  “A scurrilous thing in Israel” (nevalah beYisra’el) is in later tribal history any shocking act that the colelctive “Israel” deems reprehensible (most often a sexual act).  But at this narrative juncture, “Israel” is only the other name of the father of these twelve chidlren, and so the phrase also means “a scurrilous thing against Israel.”

for he had done a scurrilous thing in Israel by lying with Jacob’s daughter, such as ought not be done. This entire clause is a rare instance in biblical narrative of free indirect discourse, or narrated monologue.  That is, the narrator conveys the tenor of Jacob’s sons’ anger by reporting in the third person the kind of language they would have spoken silently, or to each other.  It is a technical means for strongly imprinting the rage of Jacob’s sons in the presence of their father who has kept silent and, even now, gives no voice to his feelings about the violation of his daughter.

[EF] his emotions are so attached:  Speiser uses “has his heart set on.” pray give: The repetition of “give” suggests a greediness on their part.

The cordiality of Hamor’s invitation is to be contrasted with what he told his townsmen in v. 23.  To induce them to adopt his suggestion, he promises that it would be profitable to them, and they would gradually absorb the rich possessions of Jacob’s household.

[EF] travel about: Or “trade.”

[RA] go about it. The Hebrew verb saar has the basic meaning of “to go around in a circle” and the extended meaning of “to trade.”  But at this early point of tribal history, Jacob and his sons are seminomadic herdsmen, not at all merchants, so the commercial denotation of the term seems unlikely in context.

[RA]  And Shechem said . . .” . . . what ever you say to me, I will give.” The father had begun the negotiations by asking for Dinah as wife for his son and then immediately opened up the larger issue of general marriage-alliances with Jacob’s clan and the acquisition of settlement rights by the newcomers.  Shechem now enters the discussion to speak more personally of the marriage and the bride-price.  (According to biblical law, a man who raped an unbetrothed girl had to pay a high fine to her father and was obliged to marry her.) After the two instances of “taking” earlier in the story, he insists here on “giving”: he will give whatever the brothers stipulate in the expectation that they will give him Dinah as wife.

dowry. The purchase price, mohar, given to the father and brothers of the bride.

gift. Personal presents to the bride.

[RA] give me the young woman. Addressing the brothers, Shechem does not refer to Dinah now as yaldah, “girl, but as “na’arah, the proper term for a nubile young woman.

with guile.  Knowing that they were outnumbered by the citizens of Shechem, Jacob’s sons resort to devious methods to carry out their determination to avenge their sister’s dishonour.  Their proposal would, if adopted, render the male population weak and helpless for a time; and this would give them the opportunity of making a successful attack.  But why should all the men of the city suffer for the misdeed of one of their number?  The sons of Jacob certainly acted in a treacherous and godless manner.  Jacob did not forgive them to his dying day; see XLIX,7.

[EF] with deceit: Another example of a key word in the Yaakov stories; see 27:35 and 29:35.

[RA] deceitfully. This is the same term, mirmah, that was first attached to Jacob’s action in stealing the blessing, then used by Jacob to upbraid Laban after the switching of the brides.

they spoke as they did because he had defiled Dinah their sister. “As they did because” is merely a syntactically ambiguous “that” in the Hebrew—quite possibly a means for introducing another small piece of free indirect discourse.

[RA] We cannot do this thing. They begin as though their response were a flat refusal.  Then they ignore the offer of generous payment and instead stipulate circumcision—to be sure, a physical sign of their collective identity, but also the infliction of pain on what is in this case the offending organ.

[RA] become one folk. This ultimate horizon of ethnic unification was perhaps implied but certainly not spelled out in Hamor’s speech.

[EF] desired:  Not the same Hebrew term as in 2:9. carried more weight: I.e. was more respected.

[RA] the lad. There was no previous indication of Shekhem’s age.  The term na’ar is the masculine counterpart of the term he used for Dinah in verse 12 and suggests that he, too, is probably an adolescent.

unto the gate.  The usual place of assembly

[EF] peaceably disposed: Or “friendly,” “honest.”

[RA] Their possessions in livestock and all their cattle. Although, in keeping with the biblical convention of near verbatim repetition, Hamor’s speech repeats the language used by the sons of Jacob, there had been no mention before of the Hivites becoming masters of the newcomers’ livestock.  This may reflect a tactic of persuasion on the part of Hamor; it may equally reflect the Hivites’ cupidity.

be ours.  This argument proves Hamor’s disingenuousness.

all that went out of the gate.  Cf. on XXIII, 10.  Probably the able-bodied men, to the exclusion of the old men and boys, who would not be affected by the proposal of intermarriage.

[EF] all who go out . . .: I.e., all able-bodied men.

[RA] all who sallied forth. In Abraham’s negotiations with the Hittites in chapter 23, the town elders or members of the city council are referred to as “all the assembled [or, those who come in] in the gate of [the] town.”  Here they are designated as “all who go out from the gate.”  There are good grounds to suppose that the latter idiom has a military connotation: troops came out of the gates of walled cities to attack besiegers or to set out on campaigns, and “to go out and come in” is an idiom that means “to maneuver in battle.”  The reference to the Hivites as fighting men makes sense in context because they are about to render themselves temporarily helpless against attack through the mass circumcision.

they came upon the city (feeling) secure, and killed all the males, 

Dinah’s brethren. These words are added to emphasize that Simeon, Levi and Dinah were children of the same mother, and therefore they felt the more acutely the insult and the desire for revenge.

[EF] Shim’on and Levi: They are condemned for this incident by Yaakov in 49:5-7.

[RA] by the edge of the sword.  The Hebrew idiom is literally “the mouth of the sword”—hence the sword is said to “consume” or “eat” in biblical language.

and they took Dinah from the house of Shechem.  Meir Sternberg (1985), who provides illuminating commentary on the interplay of opposing moral claims in this story, shrewdly notes that this is a shocking revelation just before the end of the story: we might have imagined that Shechem was petitioning in good faith for Dinah’s hand; now it emerges that he has been holding her captive in his house after having raped her.

[RA] for they had defiled their sister. This angry phrase becomes a kind of refrain in the story.  Again, it sounds like the free indirect discourse of Simeon and Levi, offered as a justification for the massacre they have perpetrated.  Precisely in this regard, the element of exaggeration in these words should be noted: only one man defiled Dinah, but here a plural is used, as though all the males of the town could in fact be held accountable for the rape.

Jacob has been criticized for merely rebuking his sons because their action might cause him personal danger, and not pointing out the heinous crime they had done in taking advantage of the helplessness of men with whom they had made a pact of friendship.  Scripture, however, often lets facts speak for themselves, and does not always append the moral or the warning to a tale.  Moreover, this chapter is supplemented by Jacob’s Blessing in XLIX,5 f.  In reference to Simeon and Levi, the dying Patriarch there exclaims:  ‘Simeon and Levi are brethren; weapons of violence their kinship… Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce, and their wrath, for it was cruel.’

[RA] stirred up trouble. The root meaning of the verb is “to muddy.”

Jacob’s sons reply that the dishonour of their sister had to be avenged, and there was only one course of action to follow.  High-spirited and martial men have among all nations and throughout history often yielded to blind cruelty when dealing with an outrage of this nature.

Image from blogs.christianpost.com

[RA] Like a whore should our sister be treated? The very last words of the story are still another expression—and the crudest one—of the brothers’ anger and their commitment to exact the most extravagant price in vindication of what they consider the family’s honor. (The Hebrew might also be rendered as “shall he treat our sister,” referring to Shechem, but the third-person singular does sometimes function in place of a passive.) It is surely significant that Jacob, who earlier “kept his peace” and was notable for his failure of response, has nothing to say, or is reported saying nothing, to these last angry words of his sons. (Only on his deathbed will he answer them.) This moment becomes the turning point in the story of Jacob.  In the next chapter, he will follow God’s injunction to return to Bethel and reconfirm the covenant, but henceforth he will lose much of his paternal power and will be seen repeatedly at the mercy of his sons, more the master of self-dramatizing sorrow than of his own family.  This same pattern will be invoked in the David story: the father who fails to take action after the rape of his daughter and then becomes victim of the fratricidal and rebellious impulses of his sons.