Bereshit chapter 40 - Yosef, the chief cupbearer and the chief baker in prison

Bereshit 40:1 records that a cupbearer (butler ?) and a baker who both worked for the king of Egypt sinned against the king of Egypt and then 40:2 records that Pharaoh (who was the king of Egypt) got angry at the chief cupbearer and at the chief baker. 40:2 seems repetitious after 40:1 already informed us that the cupbearer and the baker sinned. 

While many (see for example, Sarna, 1989, p. 276) understood that 40:1 and 40:2 are referring to the same people, more likely, 40:1 is referring to some subordinates who sinned against the king and most likely they were killed, as possibly Pharaoh thought they had tried to kill him. 40:2 is then referring to their superiors that they did not sin directly against the king but Pharaoh was angry at them because he blamed them for their subordinates who sinned. Thus, the chief cupbearer and the chief baker were not killed, but were sent to prison.  Eventually Pharaoh would decide that the chief cupbearer was not responsible for his subordinate’s action while the chief baker was responsible, and hence the chief cupbearer returned to his position, while the chief baker was killed, 40:21,22.

40:3 records that the chief cupbearer and chief baker happened to have been imprisoned in the same prison where Yosef was imprisoned, and 40:4 records that the warden of the prison put Yosef, his second in command, 39:22, in charge of attending his special prisoners, the chief cupbearer and the chief baker.

40:5,6 records that each of the special prisoners had a dream, but they were distraught. In the case of the chief baker, his dream was ominous since it included birds eating from the top of his head, 40:17, but what was ominous about the dream of the cupbearer? The answer is that the dream of the cupbearer included grapes being pressed, va-eschat, 40:11, which might have insinuated that the cupbearer was going to be killed.

40:7,8 records that Yosef asked the two men why they were upset, and when they said it was due to their dreams, Yosef, with his usual self-confidence, told him that he would be able to interpret their dreams.

40:9-11 records the dream of the chief cupbearer, and as occurs in the three sets of dreams in the story of Yosef, the first dream in each set of dreams has two distinct elements that are not in the second dream of the set. 

The first distinct element in the chief cupbearer's dream is that his dream is longer than the chief baker's dream and has apparently extraneous information to the interpretation of the dream. In this dream, the cupbearer saw a vine with three branches, the vine had shoots, then flowers and then the clusters ripened into grapes, 40:11. While the three branches are important to understanding the timing of the dream, the growth of the grapes (the shoots, the flowers and the clusters) is unnecessary for the interpretation of the dream that the chief cupbearer would return to his job. It would have been sufficient for the cupbearer to have dreamt that he took grapes from three branches and squeezed them into Pharaoh’s cup.

Instead, as by the other sets of dreams, this extra information was for Yosef. The three stages in the development of the grapes correspond to the three stages in the development of Yosef. First Yosef developed in his father’s house, then he developed working for Potiphar, and then he developed working in the prison. With these three experiences he was ready to become the leader of Egypt. It could be that Yosef understood this message and this is why he asked the chief cupbearer to remember him to Pharaoh, though of course, he might have asked him anyway.

The second distinct element of the chief cupbearer's dream is that his dream records the dreamer (the chief cupbearer) being active that the chief cupbearer took the grapes, pressed them, and put them in Pharaoh’s cup. (I thank Aaron Israel for pointing out this distinction to me.) The significance of this action is that the first dream is more essential than the second dream in the set of dreams, and in this case, it is essential that the chief cupbearer returns to his work, and recommends Yosef to Pharaoh.

40:12,13 then record that Yosef interpreted the chief cupbearer's dream that the chief cupbearer would return to his previous position with the king. Afterwards, 40:14,15 record that Yosef asked the chief cupbearer to speak on his behalf to Pharaoh.  Evidently, Yosef thought that the chief cupbearer would be able to help him get out prison. The Ralbag (seventh benefit at the end of parashat Va-yeshev), writes that from Yosef’s behavior we learn that a person should not rely on miracles, but must make every possible effort to help one’s self. Accordingly, the Ralbag views Yosef’s behavior very positively. (I thank Adam Klein for pointing out this source to me.) In fact, Yosef repeats this same action, when after interpreting Pharaoh’s dream, he added on that Pharaoh should appoint a person (i.e., himself) to save Egypt, 41:33-36,

However, Chazal view Yosef's request very negatively. The Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 89:2,3, also see 88:7, quoted in Rashi on 40:23) writes that Yosef had to spend an extra two years in prison because he twice asked the chief cupbearer for help instead of relying on G-d. This Midrash has led to a whole discussion about the proper amount of effort in this world, (see Nachshoni, 1987, pp. 160-164) but did Yosef really sin?

I doubt that Yosef sinned by asking the chief cupbearer for help since Yosef was eventually saved by the chief cupbearer. If Yosef acted inappropriately, then he should have been saved in a different manner. For example, Potifar could have mentioned Yosef to Pharaoh. Furthermore, in total, thirteen years passed from the time that Yosef was sold to Egypt to when he became head of Egypt (37:2, 41:36), is there any reason to think that just the jail time should have been shortened?

Presumably, according to the Midrash, Pharaoh was really supposed to have had his dreams immediately after the chief cupbearer returned to his position. Yet, if Pharaoh had his dreams immediately after the chief cupbearer left prison, maybe the cupbearer would not have mentioned Yosef at that time since telling Pharaoh of Yosef meant reminding Pharaoh of his sins and he would not have wanted to remind Pharaoh about his previous sins so quickly after he was released from prison. There needed to be some time to pass to give the chief cupbearer the gumption to mention Yosef's skills, and hence Pharaoh's dream had to occur after the chief cupbearer deemed it safe to recall his previous time in prison. Thus, while Yosef might have hoped that the chief cupbearer would immediately remember him to Pharaoh, more likely his real hope was that in the future, the chief cupbearer would recall his skills, which is what happened.

Robert Sacks (1990, p. 351) notes that when Yosef asked the chief cupbearer to remember him, Yosef said  “when it goes well with you,” 40:14.  This phrase does not refer to when the chief cupbearer would be restored to his position. Instead, Yosef requested the chief cupbearer to remember him when the right opportunity would arise (also see Siftei Chachamim on 40:14). According to this, Yosef was trusting in G-d that G-d would arrange for an opportunity for the chief cupbearer to remember Yosef, which is what occurred by the dreams of Pharaoh.

40:16,17 then records the dream of the chief baker and 40:18,19 records Yosef's interpretation of this dream. Is this second dream necessary to the story as the chief baker dies without telling anybody about Yosef?

The answer is that both the chief cupbearer and the chief baker had to have dreams in order that Yosef could have both a “good” interpretation that the dreamer went free from prison, and a “bad” interpretation that the dreamer died. The importance of Yosef’s interpretation of the dreams was that the person who went free would help Yosef get out of prison in recognition of Yosef’s help and/ or abilities. Accordingly, one person had to go free from prison. Yet, if there had been only one dream, Yosef would have had to give a “good” interpretation since a “bad” interpretation would have been useless even if correct because the person would have died without being able to tell people of Yosef’s abilities. One might answer that even with one dream, the timing of the dream, three days, showed Yosef’s abilities, but if it was well known that Pharaoh was going to have his celebration in three days, then this would have been an opportune time to either pardon or punish criminals. This means that one “good” interpretation would not have demonstrated Yosef’s abilities. Thus, there was a need for another dream with a "bad" outcome. With one “good” interpretation of the chief cupbearer's dream and one “bad” interpretation of the chief baker's dream, then the chief cupbearer would have known that Yosef could interpret dreams.

We see the need for the dream of the chief baker that when the chief cupbearer told Pharaoh of Yosef, he mentioned both that Yosef correctly interpreted his dream, and that Yosef correctly interpreted the dream of the chief baker, 41:9-13.

40:20-22 then records that Yosef's interpretations came true and 40:23 ends chapter 40 by recording that when the chief cupbearer was restored to his previous post, he forgot Yosef (lo zachar) and that he forgot him (va-yishchachehu). This verse repeats that the cupbearer forgot Yosef.  Sarna (1989, p. 280) writes that the double language "is purely idiomatic and means complete forgetfulness." Yet, from 41:9-13, we see that the chief cupbearer did not forget Yosef as he mentioned Yosef to Pharaoh.

I think the word zachor in the Torah should be understood to mean to act upon some memory, and then the first forgetting in 40:23 means that initially when the chief cupbearer left prison he did not mention Yosef to Pharaoh (see Rashi and the Rashbam on 40:23), which was to be expected since then he would have had to re-call his stay in prison and possible crime. The second forgetting was that he did not tell anybody, his wife, his family, about Yosef in order to help him forget Yosef, but he never really forgot about Yosef.  Accordingly, when he saw that it was to his advantage to mention Yosef to Pharaoh, 41:9 records that he remembered (zachor) his sins, which means that he decided to act upon his memory of Yosef.  This action by the chief cupbearer brought Yosef to Pharaoh's notice and chapter 40 is then crucial to explain the rise of Yosef.

Bibliography:

Nachshoni, Yehuda, 1987, Notes on the parshot of the Torah, Tel Aviv: Sifrati.

Sacks, Robert, 1990, A commentary on the book of Genesis, Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press.

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

Bereshit 5:3,4 – Longevity and the aging process in the Torah

Bereshit 5:3 records that Adam had a child when he was 130 years old, something that is not possible in the 21st century. 5:4 then records that Adam lived another 800 years afterwards. This also is not physically possible. The remainder of chapter 5 lists ten more individuals who also lived extremely long lives. Similarly, 11:10-32 lists nine more individuals who had extremely long lives. The people listed in chapter 11 lived less years than all the people listed in chapter five, except for Chanoch (5:23), but still eight of them lived more than 200 years, which again does not seem possible. Afterwards the lifespans continued to decrease, but still the Torah lists many people who lived longer than humanely possible in the 21st century, Sara, 127 years (23:1), Avraham, 175 years (25:7), Yishmael, 137 years (25:17), Yitzhak, 180 years (35:28), Yaakov, 147 years (47:9, 48:28), Levi and his descendants’, 137 years, 133 years and 137 years, (Shemot 6:16-20), Aharon, 123 years (Bemidbar 33:39) and Moshe lived 120 years (Devarim 31:2). Yosef also lived 110 years (Bereshit 50:26), which also seems incredible for the period of the Torah.

The Rambam (Moreh 11:47) writes, apparently in reference to all the people who had long lives in the Torah, that only these people lived so long, as the other people who are not named as having long lives, lived regular lives. The Rambam suggests that the long lives of these individuals could have been due to their diet and behavior or due to a miracle. The Ramban (on 5:4) rejects this approach and claims that the people listed in chapters five and eleven were not unique in their lifetime. He notes that if the Rambam’s suggestion of diet and behavior was correct, then many people should have followed their behavior. Also, he claims that not all of these people were worthy of G-d making them miracles. It seems to me that even the Ramban relies on miracles for the long lives of the patriarchs. The Ramban also seems to claim that until the period of the sin of the Tower of Bavel people would naturally live long lives, which again appears to be impossible.

A different approach is that the years listed in the Torah are not full solar years. Ha-Ketav Ve-haKabbalh (on 5:5) notes that some people claim that the years in chapter five are based on a one-month lunar cycle which he rejects. Beck (1967, pp. 25-29) suggests that a year in the Torah is a six-month period, and then the lives of the patriarchs would be half of what is recorded in the Torah.

My guess is that the years in the Torah are similar to our years, that the Rambam is correct that only those people who are listed as having had a long life, had a long life and that this was a miracle that G-d did for them. It is not clear why it was necessary for these people to have long lives, and my guess is that it is a literary way of marking a large passage of time with a relatively limited number of people.

In addition, with regard to the people who had long lives, it must be that their aging process was a much slower process than our aging in the 21st century. David Tzvi Hoffmann (1969, p. 383, introduction to chapter 25) follows this idea when discussing how old was Avraham when he had more children apparently after Sara had died, 25:2. He writes that even though Avraham was officially 140 then (if these children were born right after Yitzhak married Rivka), he was really 56 years ago. This calculation would be that 140/175, his present age divided by the age when he died, equals 0.8 and 0.8*70 = 56. Thus, he claims Avraham was able to father the children recorded in 25:2. While I think Avraham had the ability to father the children recorded in 25:2 due to a special blessing from G-d (see our discussion on 24:1, “To be virile again”), it must be that Hoffmann is correct that the aging process for the people who had very long lives in the Torah was at a proportional rate.

I think that even by the early years of the people who had long lives in the Torah that their development was at a slow pace, and then they reached puberty later than modern people. Thus, the youngest age that people in chapter five began to have children was 65. In chapter 11, the aging process had quickened to some extent compared to the people in chapter five, as the youngest age that people had children in chapter 11 was twenty-nine years (11:24), and their life span had shortened from between 400 years to 148 years, but still their aging was slower than people in modern times. Afterwards by the age of the patriarchs until, and including, Moshe, the development and aging of the people with long lives were proportional to a person who lived seventy/ eighty years.

Thus, Sara was considered beautiful when she came to Egypt (12:11,15), even though she was sixty-five years old, since she had not yet aged that much because she was going to live until 127, 23:1. Hence, she was around 35 years old based on a lifespan of seventy years. This slower proportional aging is also why the Torah had to tell us that Sara had stopped menstruating when she was 89/90, 18:11, which should have been obvious, but with proportional aging, one might have thought that at 89/90 (17:17), which was proportional to 49 years ((89/127)*70), that she was still menstruating, but she was not.

Avraham was equivalent physically to a 30-year-old ((75/175)*70) when he left Haran and fought with the four kings and not to a seventy-five year old (12:4), which in antiquity and today was/is possible, but it is very unlikely for a seventy five year old to have the strength to fight a war. In addition, Sara thought that there was a good possibility that Avraham would be able to have a child with Hagar even though he was 85 years old then, since if it was not possible, she would not have been willing for him to have another wife, 16:1-3. Also, Avraham agreed to her proposal and did not claim that he could not have a child when he was 85 since really he was physically around 34 years old (86/175)*70).

14 years later, when Avraham was officially 99 years old, both Avraham and Sara doubted whether Avraham could father another child, 17:17,24; 18:10,12; 21:1-7. 18:11 (also 21:2), which is information provided by the “narrator” records that Avraham and Sara were old when they were told that Sara was to have a child, but also adds the phrase “and advancing in years.” This phrase is qualifying the previous word, that they were old, that while they were getting older, they were not necessarily not “functioning” and then the verse continues to inform us that Sara was post-menopausal since, as mentioned above, this was not obvious. Yet, according to this theory of proportionate aging, Avraham was then equivalent to being 40 years old (99/175)*70), so why did Sara and Avraham doubt that he could have a child? Maybe Avram and Sara were considered old even in their 40s, since in those days, life expectancy was around 40, even for people who did not die at childhood. In addition, maybe Avraham’s and Sara’s doubt that Avraham could have a child just “six years” after fathering Yishmael was because they did not think that a person at Avraham’s age (physically equivalent to 40 years) would be able to recover sufficiently from the circumcision, which G-d had just commanded him to do, 17:10-14, and he had done, 17:23,24, to have a child. Maybe then, Avraham’s ability to have Yitzhak was due to a miracle. 

This idea of proportionate aging could also explain why Yishmael seems to have been small when he and Hagar had to leave Avraham’s house, even though he was 14-years-old, 21:14-20. Also, while Yishmael was officially 13 years old when he was circumcised this would have been equivalent to being six and a half (17:25; 25:17 (13/137)*70).

In addition, with this idea, Yitzhak was in modern terms around 15.5 years old when he married Rivka, (25:2, (40/180)*70)) and Yaakov was in modern terms around 40 years old when he married Lea and Rahel ((84/147)*70).

Also, with this understanding, Yosef was not mentally or physically 17 years old (37:2) when he tattled on his brothers, but around 12 years in modern terms, and he was equivalent to an 18-year-old ((28/110)*70) when Potifar’s wife tried to seduce him, 39:7-12. This might explain why Reuven also refers to him as the child, 37:30 and 42:20. This would also mean that when Yaakov sent Yosef to look for his brothers in Shekhem, 37:13, Yosef was equivalent to a ten-year old in modern times, which might be considered as being too young for such a mission. However, as we explain in our discussion on 37:3-14, “Yaakov's parenting,” Yaakov accepted that the dreams of Yosef were a prophecy, and hence he probably felt that Yosef would be protected.

This slow aging process might also help explain the conversation between Pharaoh and Yaakov when they met, 47:8,9. First, Pharaoh asked Yaakov how old he was since he knew that Yosef was not aging in the normal manner. Secondly, this proportional aging can explain why Yaakov knew that he would not reach the lives of his father and grandfather since he knew at 130 years that he was aging faster than they had been aging at the same age, 47:9. 

The net result is that since the long lifespans recorded in the Torah of various people was a miracle, the miracle was also that the development and the aging process of the different people were also a slower process than in modern times, and starting in the time of the patriarchs, the development and aging process of the people with long lives was proportional to the lifespan of each person.

Bibliography:

Beck, Samuel, 1967, From Sinai to Navo, Jerusalem: Raphael Chayyim Hacohen Publishing.

Hoffmann, David Tzvi (1843-1921), 1969, Commentary on Genesis, Bnei Brak: Nezach.

Bereshit 37:25-36, 39:1, 42:21 (Va-yeshev, Mikketz) – Who sold Yosef?

Bereshit 37:25 records that after Yosef's brothers threw Yosef into the pit, they sat down to eat. When they were eating they saw a caravan of Yishmaelites in the distance going to Egypt, and Yehuda proposed that they sell Yosef to the Yishmaelites, 37:25-27. The Torah informs us that the brothers listened to Yehuda’s proposal, 37:27, which means that they agreed. However, the Torah does not record any action by them, but rather the next verse, 37:28, records that passing Midyanite traders took Yosef out of the pit and sold him to the Yishmaelite traders. The presence of both Yishmaelite and Midyanite traders is not surprising since the brothers were in Dotan, which was on a main trade route crossing (east-west) through the land of Israel. Yet, who sold Yosef to the Yishmaelites: The brothers or the Midyanites? Yosef states that the brothers sold him, 45:4,5 but did Yosef know exactly what happened? In addition, 37:36 records that the Medanites sold Yosef to Potifar, while 39:1 records that the Yishmaelites sold Yosef to Potifar. When did the Medanites enter the picture and how could both the Medanites and the Yishmaleites sell Yosef to Potifar?

Numerous explanations have been suggested to explain the sequence of events in 37:25-36, but the simplest explanation is the Rashbam’s explanation (on 37:28) that the Midyanites took Yosef out of the pit without the brother’s knowledge and the Midyanites sold Yosef to the Yishmaelite traders, see the elaboration on the Rashbam's explanation by a Shmuel Chayyim son of David Lali quoted by Luzzatto in his comments on 37:28 and by N. Leibowitz, 1976, pp. 406,407. The Rashbam explains that the brothers were eating a little bit away from the pit, which means that they would not have seen the Midyanites come and take Yosef. A possible reason for eating away from the pit was because then they would not hear Yosef pleading for mercy, see 42:21. (Maybe, it was this pleading that alerted the Midyanites to Yosef’s presence in the pit.) In addition, the Rashbam explains that when Yosef said to the brothers that they sold him, this should be understood to mean that you (the brothers) caused me (Yosef) to be sold.

According to this explanation the brothers did not sell Yosef, and there are two proofs for this approach. One, 37:29,30 records that Reuven returned to the pit and was surprised that Yosef was not in the pit. Yet, if the brothers sold Yosef, why was Reuven surprised when Yosef was not in the pit? The answer based on the Rashbam's approach is that Reuven was surprised since the brothers did not sell Yosef, and then he could not understand what happened to Yosef. Two, after Yosef had incarcerated his brothers in Egypt, they talked freely amongst themselves, and they expressed remorse for not heeding to Yosef's pleas, 42:21. Why did they not express remorse for selling Yosef? The implication is that they did not sell Yosef, as argued by the Rashbam.

The Rashbam's approach has raised several questions. One, how could the brothers not have known that the Midyanites took Yosef out of the pit? Even if they were not sitting in view of the pit, still they would not have heard the noise and commotion of the Midyanites? Two, why were the brothers other than Reuven not surprised that Yosef was not in the pit? Three, if the brothers did not sell Yosef, why did the Torah record Yehuda’s proposal to sell him? Four, when Yosef said to his brothers that you sold me, can one really understand that Yosef is to be understood to mean that you caused me to be sold?

These questions on the Rashbam's explanation can be answered by realizing that the brothers attempted to actualize their plan to sell Yosef immediately after Yehuda proposed it. 37:27 does not record the brothers acting upon Yehuda's proposal, but they had to act quickly since the Yishmaelites were travelling and if they waited, then they would have missed their opportunity. This need for speed to talk to the Yishmaelites meant that they did not take the time to remove Yosef from the pit, but went immediately to the Yishmaelites to work out a deal.

When all the brothers left to speak to the Yishmaelites, the pit was not being watched, which means that nobody would have seen or heard when the Midyanites pulled Yosef out the pit. As the Rashbam notes, the word, va-yaavru, signals that they happened to be passing by and by chance they passed the pit where Yosef. They then picked up Yosef and met up with the Yishmaelites who were talking to the brothers. The brothers then saw Yosef and he saw them. He started to plead with them, 42:21, but they did not save him and the Midyanites sold him to the Yishmaelites.

When the brothers were negotiating with the Yishmaelites, Reuven realized that this was his chance to save Yosef, so he went back to the pit where Yosef was, 37:29, but during the time when brothers left the area near the pit to speak to the Yishmaelites until the time that Reuven returned, the Midyanites had already pulled Yosef out of the pit, 37:28. By the time that Reuven returned to his brothers, 37:30, Yosef was gone with the Yishmaelites traders.

The understanding answers all the questions on the Rashbam's approach. The brothers were not near the pit when the Midyanites took Yosef out of the pit (first question) since they had gone to make a deal with the Yishmaelites traders. The brothers were not surprised that Yosef was not in the pit (the second question) because they knew that the Midyanites had taken him out of the pit since they saw Yosef when he was sold by the Midyanites to the Yishmaelites traders. It is possible that they never told Reuven that they had seen Yosef being sold so he thought that Yosef had been killed, 42:22. The discussion between the brothers to sell Yosef (the third question) is significant to the story since the brothers acted upon this suggestion, which enabled the Midyanites to take Yosef out of the pit. In addition, when Yosef saw them when he was sold by the Midyanites to the Yishmaelites, he considered them to be accessories of the sale because from his point of view they were cooperating with the Midyanites by not stopping them from selling him to the Yishmaelite traders. Thus, (the fourth question) he stated that they sold him, 45:4,5, and he did not mean that you caused me to be sold. On the other hand, the brothers never thought that they sold him, and instead they believed that their sin was that they had not heeded Yosef's pleas to stop the Midyanites from selling him to the Yishmaelites, 42:21. In this case, both Yosef and the brothers viewed the same situation from different perspectives.

With regard to the Medanites, while many claim that they are Midyanites, this is unlikely. 25:2 records the children of Avraham and Ketura, and in this list, there is Midyan and Medan, which implies that they are different people. Also, 37:36 refers to the Medanites selling Yosef to Potifar in Egypt, while the Midyanites sold Yosef to the Yishmaelites in Israel.  What is the role of the Medanites in the sale of Yosef?

The answer is that Medanites were the brokers who arranged the sale for the Yishmaelites. 37:25 records that the Yishmaelite traders were spice merchants. Why was this information mentioned? The answer is that it teaches us that they were spice traders and not slave traders. They bought Yosef from the Midyanites and brought him to Egypt, but in Egypt they needed help to sell Yosef. The Medanites were the brokers who arranged the sale of Yosef from the Yishmaelite traders to Potifar. Thus, 39:1 records that Potifar bought Yosef from the hands of the Yishmaelite traders, and this signaled the change in ownership of Yosef. However, 37:36 records that Medanites sold Yosef to Potifar, since when brokers arrange for a sale, they say “I sold X,” meaning they were the cause of the sale but not that they were the actual sellers.

In conclusion, Yosef was sold twice, once by the Midyanites to the Yishmaelites, and then from the Yishmaelites to Potifar. With regard to the first transaction, the brothers were aware of the sale but were not actively involved in the sale. With regard to the second transaction, the Medanites were the brokers to the sale but they never owned Yosef.

Bibliography:

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, Studies in Bereshit, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization

Bereshit 37:2-14 (Va-yeshev) – Yaakov's parenting

Bereshit 37:2 records that Yosef was 17 years old and he would tattle on his brothers, Dan Naftali, Gad and Asher (the sons of Bilha and Zilpa) to his father. It is surprising that Yosef felt the need to tattle since usually this would be the behavior of little kids and not of a 17 year old. In any event, the tattling surely did not endear Yosef to his brothers, but nothing is recorded concerning the brother's re-action to Yosef's tattling.

37:3 then records that Yaakov loved Yosef more than his other children since he was a ben zekunim (see our discussion on 37:3, "The anticipated child") and Yaakov gave Yosef a fancy special coat. After this action, the Torah records that the brothers hated Yosef, 37:4.

Why would Yaakov reveal his greater love for Yosef? The Talmud (Shabbat 10b) quotes Raba ben Mehasia who said in the name of Rebi Hama ben Giora who said in the name of Rav that from this case we learn that a parent should not favor one child over another. Did Yaakov not know this rule that a parent should not favor one child? Why would Yaakov have thought that his other children would accept his favoritism?

One possibility is that Yaakov was acting as a parent from what he learned from his parents. 27:28 records that Yitzhak loved/ favored Esav, while Rivka loved/ favored Yaakov. According to this idea, Yaakov thought it was perfectly fine to favor one child over another. Yet, when Yosef told his dreams to his brothers and to Yaakov, Yaakov attempted to reprimand Yosef in order that the brothers would not hate the Yosef. Yaakov gave an interpretation of the dream which showed that the dream could not be true, even though Yaakov really thought that the dream was a sign of the future, see our discussion on 37:9,10 "Yosef's dreams of the stars, the moon and the sun" Thus, the question remains why would Yaakov show such overt favoritism to Yosef by giving him the special coat if it could cause the brothers to hate Yosef and himself?

My guess is that Yaakov was gambling when he gave Yosef the special coat. Most likely Yaakov had told Yosef to stop tattling but Yosef was not listening to him. Yaakov was unable to discipline his children and to assert his authority in the house, as for example in the case of Reuven and Bilha, 35:22. What was Yaakov to do to stop Yosef from tattling?

Yaakov strategy was that the coat would change Yosef's behavior that Yosef would no longer tattle, and then this would reduce some of the enmity in the household. The logic would depend on what the coat signified. If it signified greater authority (see Seforno on 37:3), then the idea was that with this added authority Yosef would not feel a need to tell Yaakov what the other brothers were doing. Or if the coat was just a sign of love, then Yaakov thought that Yosef was tattling to win points with him, and then the coat was to tell Yosef that since he was so loved there was no need to tattle. With this idea we see the connection between 37:2 and 37:3 and we understand why the Torah had to inform us about Yosef's tattling since it was the reason why Yaakov gave Yosef the special coat.

Yaakov knew that there was a chance that his other sons would resent his favoritism, but he thought they probably already knew that he loved Yosef more, and hence he was gambling that the added level of overt favoritism was worth the chance that the Yosef would stop tattling which would lead overall to greater family unity.

Alas, Yaakov's gamble did not work. The coat caused more resentment and while the Torah does not record that Yosef continued to tattle, Yosef still felt the need to reveal his dreams to his brothers. As mentioned above, Yaakov tried to stop this by giving an unrealistic interpretation to the second dream, but this also did not work as the brothers were still jealous of Yosef, 37:11. This led Yaakov to gamble even more.

37:13,14 records that Yaakov asked Yosef to go visit his brothers in Shekhem to see how they were doing. Why did Yaakov send Yosef?

Yaakov was not oblivious to the brother’s hatred of Yosef, but he realized that he was unable to close the rift between Yosef and his brothers. Furthermore, he knew that Yosef being alone with his brothers away from home would be unpleasant for Yosef, but he did not think that Yosef’s life would be in danger since he knew from the dreams that Yosef would succeed. His plan was that if all of his sons (except Binyamin) were together far away from home, then maybe they might be able to restore their relationship on their own. Thus, he took the risk of sending Yosef to his brothers in the hope of unifying the family, but alas it too failed.     

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.

The structure of the book of Bereshit

The key to understanding the structure of the book of Bereshit is the phrase elleh toledot, which appears ten times in the book of Bereshit, and forms ten units in the book of Bereshit. The phrase elleh toledot appears in:

A: 2:4- Elleh toledot ha-shamayim and the earth when G-d made them

B: 6:9 – Elleh toledot Noah

C: 10:1 - Elleh toledot the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham and Yefet

D: 11:10 – Elleh toledot Shem

E: 11:27 – Elleh toledot Terah

F: 25:12 – Elleh toledot Yishmael

G: 25:19 – Elleh toledot Yitzhak

H: 36:1 – Elleh toledot Esav

I: 36:9 – Elleh toledot Esav

J: 37:2 – Elleh toledot Yaakov

(A similar phrase occurs in 5:1, “This is the book of toledot of Adam.” The phrase also appears in Bemidbar 3:1, see our discussion on Bemidbar 3:1,2, "A true legacy" and in Ruth 4:18.)

In each unit, there is a genealogy, though with some differences. In units C, D, F, H and I, the genealogy is almost the entire unit as the units have very limited or no narrative, while units A, B, E, G, and J, have large narrative sections and the genealogy is a small portion of the unit. In addition, in units B and C the genealogy is recorded in the beginning of the unit, and in units A, E, G and J the genealogy is recorded toward the end of the unit.

A common denominator of the five large narrative units is that towards the end of each unit, the Torah records the death of the main figure of the narrative of the unit who descended from the person in the heading elleh toledot. The one exception is by unit B, elleh toledot Noah, which we explain below. By the sections that do end with a death, they are mostly genealogical sections and the end of the sections signal the end of an era.

What does the phrase "elleh toledot" mean? Many commentators discuss the meaning of this term in reference to 37:2, which records “Elleh toledot Yaakov, Yosef was 17 years old.” A question about this verse is, why does the verse only refer to Yosef and not to all of Yaakov’s children?

Rashi (on 37:2, also see Ibn Ezra, Radak and Seforno on 37:2) writes that elleh toledot means these are the accounts of the generations of Yaakov until they reached their permanent settlement (in the land of Israel) and the cause of their travels was the fight between the Yosef and his brothers.

Ramban (on 37:2) disagrees since he claims that the word toledot refers to descendants, which seems to be closer to the literal interpretation of the word, and he argues that while 37:2 just refers to Yosef the intention is to include all of the sons of Yaakov. Yet, why then were the other sons not mentioned?

Ramban offers a second possibility (also see Rashbam on 37:2) that the phrase elleh toledot in 37:1 refers to Yaakov's grandchildren which are mentioned in the genealogical list in 46:8-27. However, Yaakov’s grandchildren are not mentioned until chapter 46, and their births and lives are not related to the main story of the unit, the fight between Yosef and his brothers.

My view is that the phrase elleh toledot should be understood as a combination of both approaches that it refers to both the accounts of the person and the genealogy of the person. How can this be? The phrase should be understood as the legacy of X. According to Webster's dictionary legacy is "something transmitted by or received from an ancestor or predecessor from the past." In the book of Bereshit, the legacy of a person can be one's descendants, that one received life from an ancestor, or it could be that the ancestor's actions impacted on the future generations. This legacy for each unit can be discerned by examining each unit.

The first unit of the book of Bereshit is elleh toledot of the ha-shamayim and the earth (unit A), and this begins after the introduction to the book of Bereshit, 1:1-2:23.  One oddity about the heading of the first elleh toledot unit, 1:24, is that this is the only heading where no person is mentioned in the heading. Instead, the heading refers to physical entities, ha-shamayim and the earth. However, Adam, and hence humankind, was the descendant of ha-shamayim and the earth, as 2:8 records that G-d created Adam from the ground, and G-d blew into him air (ha-shamayim).

Unit A records the legacy of the creation of heavens and earth, humankind. Thus, the story of the Garden of Eden left a legacy, I think for good, for humankind, see our discussion on 2:7,8,21,22, “Two creations of humans.”  Also, chapter 4 records the accomplishments of ancient people, 4:20-22.  Furthermore, Noah can also be viewed as the legacy of humankind since he would continue humankind’s existence as his name states, 5:29. The unit ends, 6:7,8 with G-d declaring that He would kill all people except for Noah. This follows the typical pattern that the descendant of the person in the opening heading (here physical entities) dies at the end of the unit. In addition, this decision by G-d to have the flood marks the end of an era.

The second unit of the book of Bereshit is elleh toledot of Noah, 6:9, unit B. This section begins by referring to Noah in the heading, and the unit concludes with his death, 9:29. The unit does not conclude with the deaths of one of his children, as occurs in all the other long elleh toledot units, and this unit has the most minimal genealogy of all the units, just a brief reference to the sons of Noah, 6:10. This minimal genealogy also occurs by the elleh toledot unit of Moshe and Aharon in the book of Bemidbar,  Bemidbar 3:1,2. 

A reason why unit B does not end with the death of a descendant of Noah, is because the words after the phrase of elleh toledot, is not Noah’s children, which is the usual sequence after the phrase of elleh toledot X, but Noah’s righteousness, 6:9. Instead, Noah’s righteousness could be questioned due to the strange incident at the end of the unit when Noah gets drunk, 9:20-27.  Thus, it could be that the minimal genealogy in the section is because the deaths of Noah’s children do not end the unit. In any event, the death of Noah marks the end of the era of the flood, as afterwards his sons start to spread out throughout the world.

Unit B is the legacy of Noah, which is the survival of the world. This survival was not just Noah's survival in the flood but also the covenant after the flood, which meant that the world would not be destroyed again by a flood, 9:8-17. Even with this universal legacy, still the section ends with a brief narrative of his children, and Noah’s blessing to two of his children, 9:20-27, which maintains the literal idea of Noah’s genealogy being his legacy.

The third unit of the book of Bereshit is elleh toledot the children of Noah, Shem, Ham and Yefet 10:1, unit C, and the legacy of this unit is that the sons of Shem, Ham and Yefet spread throughout the world. This is recorded both in conjunction with the births of their children and through the story of the tower of Bavel, 10:32 and 11:9. Furthermore, this section ends with G-d dispersing the people by the tower of Bavel, 11:9, which signals the end of the era in the Torah where the Torah records G-d focus on the entire world.

The fourth unit of the book of Bereshit is elleh toledot Shem, 11:10, unit D. This unit is the legacy of Shem that his descendant was Avraham (Avram), and Avraham's birth is recorded in the last verse of the section, 10:26. The second to last verse of the unit records the death of Nachor, Terah’s father, 11:25, and this unit ends with the births of the three sons of Terah, 11:26. Their births signal the start of a new history, the Jewish people, as all three sons will be ancestors of the Jewish people. This section marks the end of the Torah’s record of the many families who descended from Shem, as the focus of the Torah will now be just of one family who descended from Shem.

The fifth unit of the book of Beheshti, is elleh toledot of Terah, 11:27, unit E. The main figure in this unit is Avraham the son of Terah (the person in the heading) and the unit ends with Avraham’s death, 25:8-11. His death marks the end of his era. The legacy of Terah is Avraham and Yitzhak. The main issue in this section is who would continue Avraham's covenant with G-d. Yitzhak is Avraham's successor and almost at the end of the section Yitzhak marries Rivka which shows the covenant would continue through Yitzhak and Rivka. Afterwards we are told some more genealogical information about Avraham, Avraham's death and the final verse of the section is that G-d blessed Yitzhak, Avraham’s son, 25:1-25:11. 

The sixth unit of the book of Bereshit, is elleh toledot of Yishmael, 25:12, unit F. Yishmael’s death is recorded in the second to last verse of this short section, 25:17, but the section ends with an enigmatic verse, 25:18. The last word of the verse is nafal, fall, which marks the end of the era of Yishmael’s children. 

The seventh unit of the book of Bereshit is elleh toledot of Yitzhak, 25:19, unit G, and in this unit, the main figure is Yaakov. In this case, the unit ends not with the death of Yaakov but with Yitzhak, 35:28,29, see our discussion on 25:19, “The elleh toledot unit of Yitzhak.” Yitzhak’s death marks the end of the era of Yitzhak. 

The legacy of Yitzhak is Yaakov and Yaakov's children, 35:22-27. The main issue in this section is which son, Yaakov or Esav, would be the successor to Yitzhak in continuing the covenant with G-d, and in the end of the unit Yaakov was blessed by G-d to be Yitzhak's successor, 35:10-15. Afterwards there is the genealogy of Yaakov and his children, that Yaakov lived with Yitzhak, which shows that he was Yitzhak's successor, 35:16-29.

The eighth unit of the book of Bereshit is the first elleh toledot of Esav, 36:1, unit H. This unit ends with Esav leaving the land of Israel, 36:8, which signals the end of an era, his claim to the land of Israel. One legacy of Esav is that he willingly left the land of Canaan and instead he and his descendants received the land of Seir, 36:6-8.

The ninth unit of the book of Bereshit is the second elleh toledot of Esav, 36:9, unit I. Esav’s second legacy is his numerous descendants that lived in the land of Seir. This section does not with a death, but the last verses refers to Esav’s descendants that they were chiefs as opposed to being kings, 36:40-43, which signals the fall of his descendants and the end of their era, see our discussion on Chapter 36, “The rise and fall of Esav.”

The tenth and last unit of the book of Bereshit is elleh toledot Yaakov, 37:2, unit J. There are three possible conclusions to this unit. One, 46:30 and 47:9, when Yaakov refers to his impending death, two, 49:33 when Yaakov actually dies and three, 50:26, the last verse of the book of Bereshit, when Yosef dies. The true end of the unit is the death of Yosef, which marks the end of his era. This ending follows the pattern that a unit ends with of the death of the person who descends from the person in the heading elleh toledot, and Yosef is mentioned immediately after the elleh toledot phrase in 37:2. Also, maybe, since Yosef’s death occurs a while after the genealogy of 46:8-27, there is a “mini-end” with Yaakov referring to his impending death in 46:30 and 47:9. In addition, the genealogy of Yaakov’s family marks the end of the era of Yaakov and his family living in the land of Israel for quite some time.

The legacy of Yaakov is that his whole family stayed together and would become a nation. The main (only?) issue of the unit is the fight between the brothers. The beginning of the fight is recorded immediately after the phrase of elleh toledot in 37:2, and almost led the family to separate. However, the family joined together in Egypt, as 46:8-27 records the list of Yaakov's family that both Yosef and his brothers were going to Egypt. The pattern of this list is followed in Bemidbar 26:1-51, which shows that the family did develop into a nation.

37:2 refers to Yosef after the phrase elleh toledot Yaakov and not the other children of Yaakov since of all of Yaakov’s sons, Yosef was the one to fulfill the prophecy that Avram’s fourth generation would return to the land of Israel (15:16) and the unit ends with Yosef’s brothers swearing that they would take Yosef’s bones back to the land of Israel to fulfill this prophecy, see our discussion on 15:16, "Who is the fourth generation?" Thus, Yosef was the most important son of Yaakov’s legacy.

Bereshit 34:1-35:7 (Va-yishlach) - How old was Dina when Shekhem wanted to marry her?

Bereshit chapter 34 records the rape of Dina and the subsequent massacre of the people of Shekhem by Shimon and Levi. When did this incident occur? If one follows the chronological order of the Torah, then it occurred when Yaakov was returning from Haran before he returned to his father in Hevron, 35:27. Yet, with this reckoning, Yaakov's children would have been very young at the time.

Yaakov spent twenty years in Haran, 31:38,41, and his children were born starting from his eighth year in Haran. Thus when Yaakov left Haran, Reuven, Yaakov's oldest son, would have been around 12. How long did it take for Yaakov to go from Haran to Shekhem? 33:17,18 record that after Yaakov's encounter with Esav on his return from Haran, he built a house in Sukkot, and then afterwards he went to Shekhem. This implies that he stayed some time in Sukkot. Rashi (on 33:17) based on the Talmud claims he stayed there 18 months, and in total, Rashi (on 28:9) records that it took Yaakov two years to return home. This could be, but it also could have been much less, a few months. Yet, even with Rashi's dating, still Shimon, who was approximately a year young younger than Reuven would have been around 13, and Levi who was approximately two years younger than Reuven would have been around 12 when the incident of Shekhem occurred, see Nazir 29b. Could such youths have killed an entire city? Would Hamor have negotiated with such young lads?

How old was Dina? We do not know when Dina was born. 30:21 records that she was born after Lea's sixth son, Zevulun, but how much afterwards? Ibn Ezra (on 30:21) notes that some claim that she was a twin with Zevulun which means she would have been around six when Yaakov left Haran. However, as we discuss on 30:23, "A bulging family," it is also possible that she was born after the seven years that Yaakov worked for Rahel, but her birth was recorded with the other births. Furthermore, 32:12,23, which do not refer to her, imply that she was born after Yaakov met Esav. In all of these scenarios, she would have been very young at the time when Shekhem the son of Hamor raped and desired to marry her, 34:2,3.

Ibn Ezra (on 33:20) notes the incongruity of the ages, and he explains that Yaakov must have spent a long time in Shekhem. With this understanding, the incident with Dina occurred at the end of this period. Yet, this also seems unlikely since Yaakov would have had to stay many years (maximum 11) in Shekhem. Yaakov was returning home from Haran. Would he have delayed so long to return home? Furthermore, 48:7 informs us that Rahel died when Yaakov was on his way back from Haran, but if he stayed many years in Shekhem, as Ibn Ezra suggests, then her death which is recorded after Yaakov left Shekhem, 35:17-19, could not be considered as being on the way back from Haran.

I think chapter 34 is not recorded in chronological order, and the question is when does the narrative re-start? One possibility is that 35:6 renews the description of Yaakov's return home from Lavan, and the second possibility is that 35:8 renews the journey. A difference between them is whether the building of the altar in 35:7 was on the way home (the first possibility) or after the events in Shekhem (the second possibility). Another related difference between the two possibilities is how many times did Yaakov go to Bet-El. According to the first possibility, three time, once when he ran away from Esav, once after he bought the land in Shekhem, and once after the massacre in Shekhem, while according to the second possibility, twice, once when he ran away from Esav, and once after the massacre in Shekhem

With either possibility, the chronology would be that after meeting Esav, Yaakov bought land in Shekhem, and built an altar, 33:19,20 and then he continued on his journey home, 35:6 or 35:8.

The incident with Shekhem occurred sometime during the twenty two years when Yosef was in Egypt, and all of Yaakov's children were grown-ups. The Torah did not record the incident in its chronological order in order not to interrupt the story of Yosef. (This would be similar to the mention of Yitzhak's death 35:28,29, which we know occurred 12 years after Yosef was sold into slavery, and Terah's death in 11:32 even though it happened 60 years after Avraham came to the land of Israel.) With this understanding, Yosef was not involved in this incident in Shekhem since he was in Egypt and maybe Yehuda was also not there since he had left the family for some period of time, 38:1.

This chronology explains four other anomalies in the text. One, Yaakov is very passive during the incident in Shekhem. 34:5 records that when he heard about the actions of Shekhem the son of Hamor he was silent, and he was not involved in the negotiations at all. Only in the end, when he realized what a disaster took place, did he criticize Shimon and Levi, and even then he let them have the last word. Why was Yaakov so passive? It is true that Yaakov had a passive personality (see our discussion on 25:27 "Yaakov's personality,") but one would have thought that when his daughter was raped this would have caused him to "break out" as he did when Lavan searched his possession. However, if chapter 34 occurred after the sale of Yosef, then Yaakov was depressed and even more passive than his usual self, and hence he was quiet when he heard about the rape. 

A second difficulty is that 37:12 records that the brothers went to graze their sheep in Shekhem and this is difficult if chapter 34 had already occurred since 35:5 records that the surrounding towns wanted to revenge the deaths of the people of Shekhem, see Rashbam on 37:13. Why would the brothers go there? The answer is that they were going to their land by Shekhem which Yaakov had bought and the massacre had not yet happened.

A third question is that 35:1 records that G-d told Yaakov to go to Bet El to build an altar. The usual understanding (see Rashi on 35:1) is that G-d was commanding Yaakov to fulfill his vow which he had made when he running away from Esav, 28:10-22. Why did Yaakov need G-d to prompt him to fulfill the vow? Why did Yaakov not fulfill the vow on his own after his successful encounter with Esav?

Many have criticized Yaakov for not fulfilling his vow. Bereshit Rabbah 81:2 records, “Yaakov’s ledger was examined because he delayed the fulfillment of his vow.” Rashi (on 35:1, also see Radak and Hizkuni on 35:1) writes more explicitly, “Because you have delayed to fulfill your vow to sacrifice to me at Bet-El, you have been punished by the troubles with Dina.” Yet, this punishment seems unrelated to the “sin,” since Yaakov sinned but Dina was also punished for Yaakov’s actions. Furthermore, once Yaakov went to Bet-El, G-d confirmed many blessings, 35:9-13, which is incompatible with the idea that Yaakov had sinned.

Abravanel suggests that Yaakov did not sin but that he had a different understanding of the vow. In the vow, Yaakov had stated that the condition of the vow was that he would return to his father’s house, 28:21. Hence, Yaakov thought that the conditions of the vow had not yet been fulfilled since Yaakov had still not returned to Yitzhak, as Yaakov was in Shekhem while Yitzhak was in Hevron, 35:27. Yaakov was intending to fulfill the vow, but only after he saw Yitzhak. G-d did not want Yaakov to wait, and thus G-d prompted Yaakov to fulfill the vow even before he came home. This approach is appealing, but one would have thought that the problem of coming home safely was Yaakov’s fear of Esav, and hence once Yaakov’s encounter with Esav ended safely, then there was no longer an appreciable danger that Yaakov would not return home safely.

With the suggested chronology above, Yaakov did not delay in fulfilling his vow. According to the first possibility, that the chronological narrative resumes in 35:6, then after Yaakov went to Shekhem, 33:18-20, he went to Bet-El, where he built an altar 35:6,7. G-d’s command in 35:1 to go to Bet-El was not for Yaakov to fulfill his vow since he had fulfilled the vow when he returned from Haran, but to pray to G-d after the massacre of the people of Shekhem, either for protection after the massacre or as a form of repentance. Note that in 35:1, G-d does not refer to the vow in chapter 28, but only to His appearance to Yaakov when he was running away from Esav. Just like G-d had protected Yaakov from Esav, so too Yaakov needed G-d’s protection from the people who lived around Shekhem, 35:5. With this understanding 35:5 is the end of the incident in Shekhem, and the Torah does not record Yaakov's (third) arrival in Bet-El after the incident in Shekhem.

With the second possibility, that the chronological narrative resumes in 35:8, Yaakov also did not delay fulfilling his vow, but he thought that the building of the altar in Shekhem, 33:20 was the fulfillment of his vow in 28:20-22, see our discussion above on 33:18-20, "A detour to Shekhem." The building of the altar in 35:7 was then in response to G-d's command in 35:1.

A fourth question is that 35:1 records that G-d not only told Yaakov to go to Bet-El, but also to live there. This has perplexed the commentators (see Ramban and Seforno on 35:1) since we see that Yaakov continues on from Bet-El to go to Yitzhak in Hevron, 35:8-27. Our chronology provides an answer because Yaakov could have stayed a long time in Bet-El since the travelling in the ensuing narrative from 35:8 onwards is when Yaakov was returning home and is not related to the period after the massacre in Shekhem.

35:1 also provides some hints as to where Yaakov lived when Yosef was in Egypt. Yaakov was living in Hevron when Yosef was sold to Egypt, 37:14. It is possible that afterwards the family stayed in Hevron, and would periodically return to Shekhem to the plot of land that Yaakov bought. With this possibility, it was during one of these visits years later that the incident recorded in chapter 34 occurred, and then in 35:1 G-d was telling Yaakov to go to Bet-El and stay there until he was ready to return to Hevron. A different possibility is that after Yosef disappeared, Yaakov moved to Shekhem either to look for Yosef or just because he needed to get away. After the incident with Shekhem, Yaakov realized that he was in great danger, 34:30, so G-d told him to go Bet-El and live there. With this understanding, it is possible that Yaakov lived in Bet-El until he went to Egypt.

To conclude, I believe that 34:1-35:5 or 34:1-35:7 are recorded out of chronological order, and the events recorded in the intervening section occurred when Yosef was in Egypt. Accordingly, when Yaakov returned from Haran, he went to Shekhem for a very short period, 33:18-20, and then he continued going south to Hevron to see his father.

Bereshit (Genesis) 37:3 – The meaning of term ben zekunim: The child who parents have been waiting years for

Bereshit (Genesis) 37:3 records that Yaakov loved Yosef more than his other sons because Yosef was a ben zekunim and he made Yosef a special garment, ketonet pasim. Why did the Torah need to explain why Yaakov loved Yosef? The Torah could have just said that Yaakov loved Yosef more than his other sons and made him a ketonet pasim. In addition, this reason for Yaakov’s special love for Yosef is unclear since the term ben zekunim means a child born when the father or both parents were old, but Yaakov had other sons who were born the same time as Yosef and Binyamin was born at least six years after Yosef.

With regard to the first question, the Torah records the reason for Yaakov’s favoritism of Yosef because the Torah did not want a person to think that Yaakov loved/ favored Yosef since Yosef was the firstborn son of Rahel. Instead, 37:3 records that Yaakov loved/ favored Yosef since he was a ben zekunim.

With regard to the second question, the commentators attempt the implication of the term ben zekunim since the literal definition of the term does not seem to be applicable in this case. One example is that Bereshit Rabbah (84:8, see Rashi on 37:3) quotes Rabbi R. Yehuda who said that the phrase ben zekunim means that Yosef's features were like Yaakov, based on the similarity of the word, zekunim, with the phrase ziv ikunim, which means his features. Yet, is this a reason to love one son more than others? Also, the term ziv ikunim is Aramaic and it is odd to explain a Hebrew term based on Aramaic. Finally, it is not clear if in those days, people knew what they looked like, as at best a person was only able to see a reflection of one’s self in water or on copper. If anything, one could have suggested that Yaakov loved Yosef since Yosef looked like Rahel.

Another example is that Bereshit Rabbah (again see Rashi on 37:3) quotes R. Nehemiah that the phrase ben zekunim means a son of wisdom, based on the association of old age and wisdom, see Talmud Kiddushin 32b. Kugel (1997, p. 248, also see Radak on 37:3) quotes other commentators, including Targum Onqelos, Philo and Josephus, who follow this approach and explain that Yaakov loved Yosef because Yosef was wise. (Note this association of old age with wisdom might have been true in ancient times, when people did not live that long, but I do not think it is true today.)

Ramban (on 37:3) suggests that there was a custom that when a person was old, one son was chosen to care for the father, and this was Yosef. According to this idea, the phrase ben zekunim means the son who served his father in his old age. Luzzatto argues that this cannot be correct since 37:2 records that Yosef was a shepherd with his brothers. In addition, the Ramban’s suggestion just changes the question to why did Yaakov choose Yosef to be the sons who cared for him?

The Kli Yakar (on 37:3) suggests that the term zekunim refers to Yosef’s behavior when he was by Yaakov, that when Yosef was by his brothers he acted in an immature manner, but when he was by Yaakov, he acted in a mature manner.

Sarna (1989, p. 368) notes that from 21:2,7, 24:36 and 44:20, we see that all these explanations cannot be correct since in all the other verses the phrase means a child of one's old age.

Other commentators attempt to explain how Yosef could be considered Yaakov's child of old age instead of Binyamin, who was younger tan Yosef. Rashbam (on 37:3) suggests that Yosef was considered Yaakov's son of his old age instead of Binyamin because before Binyamin was born Yaakov had already developed his favoritism to Yosef. Hizkuni (on 37:3) writes that Yosef could not fully love Binyamin since Rahel died when Binyamin was born, so Yaakov loved Yosef more than Binyamin.

The simplest reason why Yaakov loved Yosef more than his older brothers is, as noted by the Bekhor Shor (on 37:3), that Yosef was the son of Rahel who was born to him when he was old. Yet, Yaakov did not disown his other sons, as 37:10 records that he refers to his other sons as Yosef’s brothers. Thus, we need to explain how the fact that Yosef was Rahel’s son is related to the term ben zekunim.

My thought is that we must attempt to understand the significance of a child who is born to parents who are old. If a person has a child every year from when he is twenty until he is 100, would he love the younger children more than the older children? Most likely, no. Or, if a person has no children until he is 70, and then has one child a year for 20 years, would he love the youngest child more than the oldest? Again, most likely, no. If the parent would favor one child, it would be the oldest of the twenty children since the person waited for that child for many years while the other children did not involve any unusual anticipation. The significance of the age of the parents when a child is born, is not just based on the age of the parents, but as to how long the parent waited or longed to have the child. The idea or importance of a child of one's old age is a child that a person or couple have been waiting for a long time, and they have the child when they have almost given up hope of having a child since they are getting old.

Yosef was the child that Yosef had been waiting for ever since he met Rahel. They had fallen in love either at the first chance meeting or shortly afterwards, 29:11:18. Afterwards, they had been engaged for seven years and then it took another seven years after they were married until Yosef was born. In the meantime, Yaakov had several children with Lea, Rahel’s sister, and this increased the tension of the lack of a child, as Rahel said to Yaakov, “give me sons or I will die,” 30:1. Yaakov responded in an angry manner, 30:2, which he might have regretted afterwards. Thus, the birth of Yosef not only was the child (son) that Yaakov and Rahel had been waiting years for, but might have also given Yaakov some measure of solace for his inappropriate response to Rahel’s cry for a son. Yosef was then the ben zekunim of Yaakov and maybe Rahel. On the other hand, Binyamin was not considered the ben zekunim since after Yosef’s birth, Yaakov was no longer waiting for another son from Rahel, and, as noted by Hizkuni, Binyamin’s birth was associated with Rahel’s death. (It is true that Yehuda ostensibly referred to Binyamin as the yeled zekunim, 44:20, but as we discuss on 44:18-45:3: “Almost the end of the game between Yosef and his brothers: Yehuda’s great speech,” Yehuda was really referring to Yosef and not Binyamin.)

Bibliography:

Kugel, James L. 1997, The Bible As it Was, Cambridge, Mass: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

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

Bereshit 37:9,10 - Yosef’s dream of the stars, the moon and the sun

בראשית לז:ט,י - ויחלום חלום אחר ויספר אתו לאחיו, ויאמר הנה חלמתי חלום עוד והנה השמש והירח ואחד עשר כוכבים משתחוים לי. ויספר אל אביו ואל אחיו ויגער בו אביו ויאמר לו מה החלום הזה אשר חלמת הבוא נבוא אני ואמך ואחיך להשתחות לך ארצה?

Bereshit 37:9 records Yosef's dream of 11 stars, the moon and the sun. Dreams are very important in the story of Yosef and usually we rely on Yosef to interpret the dreams. However, by his dreams, he does not interpret them publicly. The brothers interpret the dream of the sheaves, 37:8, and Yaakov interprets the dream of the stars, moon and sun, 37:10. Is this because they were equally as talented as Yosef in understanding dreams or that the dreams of Yosef had a more obvious interpretation? One element that is missing in the interpretation of the dreams of the sheaves and stars that is important by the other dreams is the timing of the fulfillment of the dream, which might have made the interpretation easier.

Yaakov interpretation of the dream was that the sun referred to himself, the moon to Rahel, and the stars to the brothers, 37:10. As Rashi (on 37:10) points out this interpretation meant the dream could never come true since Rahel was dead. Also, this dream could not have occurred before Rahel died since there were 11 stars, which would include Binyamin. Thus, Yaakov was trying to show that the dreams could not come true, which would stop Yosef from bragging and the brothers from being upset, see Rashi and Radak on 37:10. Yet, if this was the basis for Yaakov’s interpretation and then his interpretation was not necessarily the real interpretation of the dream.

Rashi and Ibn Ezra (on 37:10) explain that really the moon refers to Bilha, who possibly raised Yosef after Rahel’s death. Ramban (on 37:10) disagrees since he claims that Bilha was dead by the time the family went down to Egypt which meant that she never could have bowed down to Yosef and also that Yosef would not have cared about Bilha bowing down to him. Ramban explains that the moon refers to the household of Yaakov. I think this is also difficult since the moon should symbolize just one person, and also the brothers would have been within the household of Yaakov.

I think that the dream had to be possible at the time it occurred or else there should not have been a moon in the dream. More likely, the sun referred to Yitzhak and the moon to Yaakov, as the bowing of Yitzhak to Yosef would have been highly significant. It is not recorded in the Torah that this dream came true, but at the time when it occurred it was possible since Yitzhak was alive then, approximately 168.