Bereshit 48:8 (Va-yehi) – Yaakov and his grandchildren: Who are you?

Bereshit 48:1 records that when Yaakov was dying, Yosef and his grandchildren, Efrayim and Menashe, went to visit Yaakov, but when Yaakov saw his grandchildren, 48:8, he asked, "who are they?" This question is surprising. While Yaakov had not been told that Efrayim and Menashe had accompanied Yosef, still how come he did not recognize his grandchildren after having presumably seen them many times during the 17 years he was in Egypt? Could it be that they had very rarely visited their grandfather, and hence Yaakov did not recognize them?  While this is definitely possible, we will review other possibilities to explain why Yaakov did not recognize his grandchildren.

One approach to understanding Yaakov's question is that Yaakov did not recognize Efrayim and Menashe since he had poor vision, as recorded in 48:10. Ibn Ezra and Rashbam (on 48:8) suggest that due to his poor vision he saw their figures but not clearly enough to identify them. Yet, later on when Yaakov placed his hands on their heads he was able to identify them, 48:19. Radak (on 48:8) suggests that Yaakov could not identify Efrayim and Menashe since they were initially standing far away from him (nearsightedness?), while later they were close to him and then he could recognize them. However, this approach is difficult since the Torah tells us that Yaakov had poor vision after Yaakov asked his question, “who are they?” which implies that Yaakov’s lack of recognition of his grandchildren was not due to his poor eyesight. 

A second approach is that Yaakov knew who they were but the question was part of a formal process of establishing their identity. Yehuda Keel (2003, on 48:8) quotes R. Samuel ben Hophni Gaon (d. 1013) that maybe the question was an opening to a conversation or a confirmation, though it is not clear what was the need for an opening to a conversation or a confirmation. 

Sarna (1989, p. 326) follows this approach and the idea that Yaakov was adopting Efrayim and Menashe. He suggests that the question "who are they" was “the second stage of the legal adoptive process, namely the establishment of the true identity of the candidates for adoption by formal interrogation of the natural father.” Sarna refers to this act as the second stage since Yaakov had already began the “adoption” process (48:5,6) before he asked the question “who are they?” Yet, one would have thought that if the question was to establish the identity of the people being adopted, then this question would have been asked at the beginning of the process and not in the second stage. However, maybe one can argue that the official adoption did not begin until 48:10. Another problem with Sarna’s approach is that Yaakov began the “adoption” process without knowing that Efrayim and Menashe were present in the room since he did not call for Efrayim and Menashe to come to him. It appears that Yaakov did not think they had to be present when they were being adopted. This suggests that there was no need to establish their identity through this question, but rather Yaakov was able to adopt them without them being present and it was sufficient for Yaakov to refer to them as Yosef’s sons, as he did in 48:5. 

Samuel Dresner (1994, p. 140) suggests a third approach that Yaakov did not recognize his grandchildren since he had just mentioned Rahel, which caused him to focus on his memories for her and be unaware of the people around him. This makes sense since Yaakov’s question concerning his grandchildren, 48:8, occurs immediately after Yaakov referred to Rahel, 48:7. Yet, why did he not notice Menashe and Efrayim before he spoke about Rahel? One must explain not only why Yaakov did not recognize them but also why he did not ask who they were immediately when they entered the room.

Following the Radak, it appears that Yaakov could only see at very short distances, and then Yaakov did not immediately see Efrayim and Menashe, even as vague forms, when they entered his room because they were standing at a distance beyond his field of vision and only Yosef had approached Yaakov when all three entered the room. 

Afterwards, when they heard that Yaakov was treating them as his natural sons Reuven and Shimon and that they would be included in the inheritance with their uncles, 48:5,6, they moved closer to Yaakov. At this point, he was not able to identify them not because of his poor vision, but because when they moved closer to him, most likely they bowed down to him to show their appreciation for equating them to their uncles, and hence Yaakov only saw the back of their heads. Following Dresner, Yaakov did not see their faces when they bowed since he was not concentrating on what was going on around him because at that moment he was thinking about Rahel. Furthermore, he had no reason to think that they were in the room since he had not been told that they had come with Yosef and he had not called for them. Yaakov saw two people bowing down to him, but he could not identify his grandchildren by just seeing the back of their heads, and hence he asked Yosef who are these people?

Bibliography:

Dresner, Samuel, 1994, Rachel, Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Keel, Yehuda, 1997, 2000 and 2003, Commentary on Bereshit: Da'at Mikra, Three volumes, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Bereshit 46:8-27 (Va-yiggash) – The seventy descendants of Yaakov: Who is to be counted?

Bereshit 46:8-27 records a list of people in Yaakov’s family, which shows us the growth of Yaakov’s family. However, the genealogical list raises several questions.

One, 46:15 records that Lea had 33 descendants, and while there are 33 men listed as children or grandchildren of Lea, two of them, Er and Onan are dead, 46:12, which brings the list to 31. 46:15 refers to the daughters of Yaakov as well, which means that Dina could be included in the list, but adding Dina only brings the list to 32, who are the 33?

There are two standard answers to this difficulty. Rashi and Radak (on 46:15) quote the Talmud (Baba Batra 123b) that Yokheved, Moshe’s mother, was born upon the entry of the family to Egypt, and her birth would give 33 descendants to Lea. The problem with this approach is that the number of descendants is based on the list of names, and she is not mentioned in the list.

Ibn Ezra (on 46:27) strongly doubts that Yokheved was born during the trip, and he argues that Yaakov should be counted as the 33rd member of Lea’s group. However, this is also problematic since 46:15 refers to the 33 descendants of Lea as the Yaakov’s sons and daughters which excludes Yaakov from being part of the list.

A second question in the list of Lea’s descendants is that by two of Yehuda's grandchildren, Hetzron and Hamul, 46:12 records that “they will be” instead of stating their names as occurs for all the other people in the list.

A third question is that there is a chronological problem with the listing of Hetzron and Hamul. Their father was Peretz, and his parents were Yehuda and Tamar. The story of Yehuda and Tamar is recorded in chapter 38, which is recorded after Yosef was sold to Egypt. We know that 22 years elapsed from the sale of Yosef until the family went to Egypt: Yosef was at least 17 (37:2) when he was sold to Egypt, he was 30 when he became the effective ruler of Egypt (41:46), and there were seven good years and two bad years until the family were reunited, 45:6. This means that all the events of chapter 38, the births of Er, Onan, their marriages to Tamar, the birth of Peretz, and the births of Hetzron and Hamul had to occur in those 22 years.

It seems impossible for there to have been enough time within the 22 years for Hetzron and Hamul to have been born. Ibn Ezra (on 38:1) argues that the story of Yehuda and Tamar occurred before the sale of Yosef, and the Torah does not follow the chronological order of events. This is a common approach of Ibn Ezra, but then one must explain why the story of Yehuda and Tamar was inserted in the midst of the story of Yosef. Cassuto (1973, p. 33) points out that Ibn Ezra cannot be correct since 38:1 records that the events of chapter 38 occurred at the time of the sale of Yosef.

Cassuto (1973, pp. 34-40) argues that the wording of 46:15, “they will be” means that Hetzron and Hamul were not born before the descent into Egypt. Cassuto argues that Hetzron and Hamul were born many years later after the family came to Egypt. Yet if they were not alive at the time of the descent into Egypt why are they mentioned in the list of chapter 46? Cassuto notes that a theme of the story of Yehuda and Tamar is that of yibbum, that a dead brother’s name will not be forgotten, Devarim 25:6, and thus the two sons of Yehuda, Er and Onan died, who died had to be replaced. They were not replaced by the births of Peretz and his brother Zeveh, 38:27-30, since they were also sons of Yehuda. Instead Hetzron and Hamul, Yehuda’s grandchildren were considered as “the replacements” for Er and Onan. Thus, Cassuto argues that even though Hetzron and Hamul were not alive during the family’s descent into Egypt, they are included in the list since they were destined to be born once Er and Onan died. Thus, 46:15 records that “they will be,” since they had yet been born. (Note this is similar to Binyamin being considered as having been born in Paddan Aram, when he really was born in Israel, 35:26.) Similarly, if the idea of yibbum is to remember the dead brothers, then Er and Onan are also mentioned to keep their memory alive, and they are to be counted in the list of 33. However, if one counts Dinah, as implied by 46:15, then there seems to be 34 descendants of Lea and not 33. We have gone from the problem of missing one descendent for Lea to having one “extra” descendant of Lea.

A fourth question concerning the list is that within the sons of Shimon, 46:10 records that Shaul was the son of a Canaanite woman. Why only for Shaul are we told of his mother? Rashi (based on Bereshit Rabbah 80:11) explains that Shaul was the daughter of Dina and Shekhem, and Shimon married her and raised Shaul as his son. Yet, this is difficult not only since Shimon would have married his sister, but also 46:10 records that Shaul was the son of a Canaanite woman and Dina was not a Canaanite. Thus Bereshit Rabbah 80:11 quotes opinions that Dina was considered as a Canaanite woman since she acted in their manner or because she was buried in Canaan. These answers are difficult.

Ibn Ezra (on 46:10) explains that only Shimon took a Canaanite wife as the other sons of Yaakov married women from Egypt, Aram, and other surrounding areas. However, 38:2 records that Yehuda also married a Canaanite woman.

The Talmud (Pesachim 50a) argues that after Avraham did not allow Yitzhak to marry a Canaanite and similarly Yitzhak for Yaakov, then Yehuda would not have married a Canaanite wife. Thus, the Talmud explains that Canaan in 38:2 refers to a trader. However, R. Nehemiah (Bereshit Rabbah 84:21) states that the sons of Yaakov did marry Canaanite women and this is the simple explanation of the 38:2 and 46:10 (see Ramban and Ibn Ezra on 38:2).

I understand that the treaty between Yaakov and Lavan, 51:44-54, broke the bonds between the two sides of Terah’s family, and then there would have been no reason why Canaanite women were any worse than women from other nationalities. Yet, if the sons of Yaakov married Canaanite women, why is Shaul signaled out as being the son of a Canaanite woman?

My guess is that Shaul was adopted by Shimon, as implied in Rashi’s explanation. Maybe, Shimon married Shaul’s mother, and Shaul was a son from a previous marriage. Shaul grew up in Shimon’s household, but he was not a biological descendent of Yaakov. If this is true, then he was also not a descendant of Lea, and he should be removed from the list of her descendants. This leaves us with 33 descendants for Lea counting Er, Onan, Hetzron and Hamul, and Dina, but not Shaul.

46:27 records that there were 70 people in the house of Yaakov when the family went to Egypt. This 70 is derived from 33 descendants of Lea (46:15) plus 16 descendants from Zilpa (46:18) plus 14 descendants from Rahel (46:22) plus 7 descendants from Bilha (46:25). Yet, according to my reckoning, the 70 cannot simply be the addition of the four groups since I counted Er and Onan within the descendants of Lea, but they were dead when the family went to Egypt. The answer is that 46:27 refers to the house of Yaakov and not to his progeny. Thus, I would add Yaakov and Shaul as they were both part of Yaakov’s household, but they were not descendants of Yaakov. Note, Efrayim and Menashe, Yosef’ sons, are included in the list of 70 even though they lived their whole lives in Egypt since they were associated with the family. 46:27 presents the number of people associated with the family when the family went into Egypt while 46:26 lists how many members of the family actually made the trip to Egypt.

46:26 records that there were 66 descendants of Yaakov who came to Egypt with him. If one starts from 70 then one has to exclude four people from the list. Rashi explains that the 66 excludes Yosef, Menashe and Efrayim, who were already in Egypt and Yokheved who was born upon their entry into Egypt. It seems clear from 46:27 that Menashe and Efrayim should be excluded from the 66, but I think Yosef is part of the 66 since he also went down to Egypt. Yosef went to Egypt before the rest of the family, but their traveling to Egypt was due to him, and thus he was part of the family’s descent into Egypt. Also, as mentioned above, I do not think that Yokheved was ever part of my original list. I would subtract Yaakov and Shaul from the list of 70 since they were not descendants of Yaakov and 46:26 refers to Yaakov’s descendants. Thus, my list of 66 is 31 from Lea, excluding Er, Onan, and Shaul but including Dina, 16 from Zilpa, 12 from Rahel excluding Menashe and Efrayim and 7 from Bilha.

The list of 70 is referred to twice again in the Torah. Shemot 1:5 refers to the progeny of Yaakov as being 70. This 70 is not the same 70 in Bereshit 26:47 since Bereshit 26:47 refers to the house of Yaakov and not necessarily to his descendants. The reference to Yaakov’s progeny in Shemot 1:5 means that Er and Onan must be counted since they were his progeny even if they died before the family came to Egypt. Thus, Shemot 1:5 is not referring to the people who came to Egypt since this criterion is not mentioned in the verse. (Shemot 1:1, which refers to the descent into Egypt, only refers to the sons of Yaakov, as indicated in verses 1:2-4.) I would count the 70 of Shemot 1:5 as consisting of 33 from Lea, including Er, Onan, Hetzron, Hamul and Dina but not Shaul, 16 from Zilpa, 14 from Rahel and 7 from Bilha.

The second reference to the 70 people is in Devarim 10:22, which records that Moshe told the generation of the desert that with 70 people their forefathers went to Egypt. This verse refers to the descent into Egypt but not to the progeny of Yaakov. I would understand this verse as similar to 46:27, that there were 70 people associated with the family or forefathers, when the family or forefathers went down into Egypt. This excludes Er and Onan, but includes Yaakov, Shaul, Efrayim and Menashe.

Bibliography:

Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1973, Biblical and Oriental Studies, vol. 1, Jerusalem: Magnes Press.

Bereshit 44:1-12 (Mikketz) – The middle of the game between Yosef and his brothers: The Trap

Bereshit 44:1 records that Yosef told his steward to fill the amtahot, packs, of the brothers with food and silver when they were leaving him a second time to go back to the land of Israel. Yosef also told the steward that he should put in a silver goblet in addition to the silver in the amtahat of Binyamin, 44:2. After the brothers left the city where Yosef was situated, the steward chased down the brothers, and accused them of stealing the goblet, 44:4-12. Why did the steward not accuse them of stealing the silver that he also planted in their packs? Why did he put the silver in their packs if it was not part of the set-up? Surely, the silver was discovered when they opened their packs to search for the goblet, but the Torah makes no mention of the silver, why?

The Ramban and Seforno (on 44:1) suggest that the silver was placed in the packs with the knowledge of the brothers to compensate them for their previous troubles. The Ramban adds that even if it was not placed in the packs with the brother's knowledge, still the brothers could have claimed it was a "treasure" that they got from G-d just as the steward had explained the previous appearance of money in their packs, 43:22. However, the brothers could not have been able to make this claim by the silver goblet, and hence they were only accused of stealing the goblet.

Alter (2004, p. 253) suggests that the placing of the silver was "to make the brothers feel they were trapped in a network of uncanny circumstances they could neither control nor explain… The steward, however, was exclusively focused on the retrieval of the silver goblet, and so did not even deign to mention the weights of silver in the bags, as though their appearance there were a matter of course, whatever consternation it might have caused the brothers." With this idea, the steward also found the "stolen silver" but the Torah did not mention this finding.

Maybe there were two other reasons for the silver. One, had they returned home without Binyamin as Yosef intended, 44:10,17, then Yosef wanted them to return to Yaakov with the silver since this would again be re-creating the sale, that they were returning home short one brother but with money, see our discussion on 42:25,27,35, “A double dose of fear." This might have been Yosef's test of Yaakov to see if he would come to Egypt to try to free Binyamin, see our discussion on 42:9, "The beginning of the game between Yosef and his brothers." Thus, the silver was found, but the steward did not mention it since it was desired for the brothers to have the silver.

A second possibility is that the steward put the silver in the amtahot as plan B. Yosef was trying to trap the brothers, but the plan could have gone awry if Binyamin and the brothers realized the goblet was in their amtahot, and either attempted to return it or to dispose of it. Thus, when the steward filled the amtahot of the brothers with grain, he also put silver in their amtahot, as a back-up plan. The steward did not need to use plan B, the silver, since when he opened the amtahat of Binyamin he found the goblet, and hence the silver is not mentioned in 44:12.

Bibliography:

Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Bereshit Chapter 38 (Va-yeshev) – Tamar: A heroine

Bereshit chapter 38 records the relations between Tamar and Yehuda. As pointed out by Cassuto (1973, pp. 30,31), Alter (1981, pp. 3-11) and Wildavsky (1993, pp.32-41), the language in 38:25,26 (ha-ker) is identical with the language in 37:32,33 and this shows the link between chapters 37 and 38.

Tamer acts as a prostitute to have sexual relations with Yehuda, 38:15-18, but she is the heroine of episode. While usually it is not heroic to be a prostitute, in this case, Tamar had been wronged by Yehuda. Yehuda had lied to her when he told her to wait until Shela was older, 38:11, and the Torah specifically records that she only acted as a prostitute when it was self-evident that Yehuda had no intention of keeping his word. To correct Yehuda’s injustice to her, she risked her life, and in the end he admitted that she was righteous, 38:26. A person who risks his or her life to correct an injustice is a hero, and thus Tamar was a heroine. One might argue that while Yehuda did condemn her to die, maybe she did not know that she was risking her life when she acted. I admit that while she might not have known for sure that she would be condemned to die, there is no way that she could have excluded the possibility that she would die from her actions.

Tamar did not act impetuously but deliberately. When she bargained with Yehuda over the payment, she insisted on the particular items that could prove her innocence, 38:17. When she was sentenced to die, it appears that she calmly showed the items that proved her innocence. She must have known that Yehuda would have seized this opportunity to remove her from being a possible wife to Shela. Thus, she must have known when she acted that there was a risk that she would be killed. Yet, was being a prostitute the only way that Tamar could have rectified Yehuda’s injustice towards her? To answer this question, we have to understand what was the injustice Tamar was fighting. Was it just that Yehuda lied to her?

Why did Tamar act as a prostitute? 38:14 records that she acted since Shela did not marry her, and this implies that she acted as a prostitute to get married. The logic is that due to yibbum she was destined for Shela, which meant that she could not marry anybody else, but Yehuda was refusing to give her to Shela. Accordingly, the injustice of Yehuda was that he was forcing her to be an “old maid.” In fact, Rashi (based on Sotah 10b) explains that 38:26 which records that “Yehuda did not know her again” means that in the end Yehuda and Tamar married. However, Tamar could not have known that this would happen, and Rashi quotes a second opinion, which accords better with the text, that he never married her.

The chapter ends with the birth of her children and this is the conclusion of the story. G. W. Coats (1972) argues that this ending suggests that the reason Tamar acted as a prostitute was to have a child. According to this idea the injustice of Yehuda was that he was denying her the opportunity to have children. Once she had children the yibbum was fulfilled. Usually, marriage is needed to fulfill the law, but here due to Tamar’s actions the law was fulfilled without marriage. Thus, the desire to marry Shela was to have children, but once she had children she did not have to marry.

Why would Tamar be so desperate to have a child? Rashi (on 38:14) writes that she specifically wanted to have children with Yehuda apparently because she knew that Yehuda’s children were destined for greatness (Bereshit Rabbah 85:10). While this did occur, it is unclear how she could have known about Yehuda’s future descendants.

A second possibility is that she wanted to fulfill the law of yibbum, which seems to have existed prior to the Torah. However, this is unlikely since why should Tamar be so concerned about fulfilling this law, especially as it was not her fault that yibbum had not occurred.

A third possibility is that emotionally she needed to have a child. This appears to have occurred to Rahel when she told Yaakov “give me children or else I will die,” 30:1.

A fourth possibility is that children were important for economic reasons. Niditch (1979) argues that in those days a widow could not inherit her husband’s property, and being without children left her in a limbo. Once she was married she did not belong to her father’s home, and yet without children she did not belong to her dead husband’s home. According to this, the law of yibbum was to enable the widow to be part of the dead husband’s family. Thus, the injustice of Yehuda was that by not allowing Shela to marry Tamar, he put Tamar in a hopeless situation and her legal right to join the family was disregarded. When Tamar had children, she became part of Yehuda’s family entitled to financial support.

While all this makes sense, how could Tamer have known that she was going to conceive from this onetime event? I cannot believe that she intended to repeat this exercise until she got pregnant. I think there is another possibility. Yehuda did not want Shela to marry Tamar since he was worried that she was the cause of the other brothers’ deaths (Rashi on 38:11). (Is this called a black widow? See Shulchan Arukh, Even Ha-Ezer 9.) The reader knows Yehuda’s sons died because of their sins unrelated to Tamar but Yehuda did not know this. In essence he was accusing her of murder and this was the injustice to Tamar. Not only must this have been offensive but she also was being penalized by not being able to marry, to do yibbum or have children with all the resulting consequences discussed above. Yet, how did Yehuda think that Tamar had killed his sons? This we cannot know for sure, but we know that there was no evidence against Tamar. Maybe it is possible that he thought that his sons died because they had sexual relations with her. Did Tamar protest against his accusation? The text records nothing, but maybe her protests were left out. Even if she was silent maybe she thought it was hopeless to argue. How could Tamar disprove Yehuda? The only way was what she did, and Yehuda’s survival would be her proof. With this idea she did not have to become pregnant, but she was waiting until enough time elapsed that Yehuda could not refute her innocence. According to this idea, her intention would have been to prove her innocence which would have enabled her to marry Shela to fulfill the law of yibbum. In the end, Yehuda admitted that she was righteous, which meant that she was not a murderer. Also, as she became pregnant the yibbum was effectively accomplished, and it was not necessary to marry Shela.

What is the significance of this episode? In the beginning of the story of Yosef, Yehuda attempted to convince the brothers to sell Yosef, 37:26. (As we discuss on 37:25-30, "Who sold Yosef" the brothers did not sell Yosef.) However, in the end, Yehuda offered to go to jail instead of Binyamin, and his great speech caused Yosef to reveal himself to the brothers, 44:18-34. What caused this transformation of Yehuda?

James Ackerman (1982) points out some parallels between Yehuda’s offer and his episode with Tamar, chapter 38. The simplest parallel is that Yehuda left a personal pledge with Tamar, 38:17 while here Yehuda gave Yaakov a personal pledge to return Binyamin to Yaakov, 43:9. This correspondence suggests that it was Tamar’s actions that transformed Yehuda.

When Tamer challenged Yehuda to identify his personal items that he had left with her, 38:25, she taught Yehuda that one must act responsibly. Yehuda demonstrated his newfound sense of responsibility when he offered take responsibility for Binyamin when going to Egypt, 43:2-10, and when he offered to go to prison instead of Binyamin, 44:16-34.

Bibliography:

Ackerman, James, 1982, Joseph, Judah, and Jacob, in Literary Interpretations of the Bible, vol. 2, edited by Kenneth R.R. Gros Louis with James Ackerman, Nashville: Abingdon Press, pp. 85-111.

Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1973, Biblical and Oriental Studies, vol. 1, Jerusalem: Magnes Press.

Coats, George. W. 1972, "Widow's rights: A crux in the structure of Genesis 38," Catholic Bible Quarterly, 34, pp. 461-466.

Niditch, Susan, 1979, The wronged woman righted: An analysis of Genesis 38, Harvard Theological Review, 72(1), pp.143-149.

Wildavsky, Aaron, 1993, Assimilation versus separation: Joseph the administrator and the politics of religion in biblical Israel, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.