Shemot (Part 3) - Exodus 1:1-6:1

(For an overview of this week's parashah, you can read part-1 here.)

Slavery in the Torah

I have gone into extensive detail about Biblical Slaver in another post. Be that as it may, here is a short breakdown of the types of slavery:

1. Non-Hebrew female for breeding
2. Non-Hebrew female for work
3. Hebrew female thief
4. Non-Hebrew male
5. Mamzer thief (a Hebrew offspring from a forbidden relationship)
6. Hebrew male thief.
7. Bondsmen (Hebrews who volunteer to be slaves due to destitution) 
8. Hebrew male redeemed from non-Hebrew
9. Hebrew Female redeemed from non-Hebrew
10. Hebrew female daughter (a servant for several years before being accepted as a concubine)

There are others, of course. A slave is one who has a lord, a master, an owner who can decide how to use his property. In that sense, an "eved-YHVH" and an "eved-Elohim" are those who have YHVH and Elohim as their master. If He wishes to dispose of them or reward them, He may do so.

Eved vs Oved

There is a Christian apologetic that there is no slavery in the Torah.

That is untrue.

Where the word "eved" (אבד) appears, it is a male slave. Where the word "oved" appears (אובד), is is a male servant. The difference between an ABD and an AOBD ("eved" and "oved" shown, using the alphabet to represent Hebrew letters), is the difference of a single letter. And most of the time, a grammatical indicator is used in place of the letter in the Masoretic text, making it difficult for some people to spot.

When pluralized, servants go from "oved" to "ahvdim" (אבדים), which, again, would be spelled the same as "slaves", but is pronounced differently to distinguish them from one another.

Where are the commandments about slavery?

I'll omit the few verses in Genesis that talks about slaves, since they aren't commandments.

All of the commandments about slavery can be found in the Book of Leviticus, and the Book of Deuteronomy.

That's it.

Oh, and there is no slavery in the Book of Exodus.

The status of the Egyptian Hebrews

Repeatedly, we are told that the Jews served the Empire. They had no lord, or masters. The Egyptians were racist, and we read that they were "disgusted" by the Hebrews, who were breeding like rabbits and not contributing to society. So they decided to force them to work.

It should be noted that, according to historians, much of the Egyptian populace volunteered their time to work on government projects, such as building the pyramids, which were done by the locals, and not by slaves. Slaves typically were those captured in war, with the males being castrated and their right hand cut off, and relegated to whatever minor tasks that they could be assigned.

Granted, the story in Exodus doesn't have to match reality. I just wanted to bring that up!

We read that the Hebrews had property, flocks, homes, neighbors from whom they could "borrow" things.

And when they were forced to work harder than everyone else, they cried out. Not to God,, but they just cried out. And YHVH heard and remembered.

Yes, the Egyptians were bigots and racists and mistreated these immigrants, but the text doesn't say "slave". Not only that, but the Aramaic Targum, Onkelos, doesn't say it either.

The idea that the Book of Exodus was about slavery came much later.

The Haggadah

The author(s) of the Haggadah tweak a number of stories from the Book of Exodus. As noted, it says that the Hebrews cried out to God (the text doesn't say that). The Haggadah also speaks extensively about the slavery of the Hebrews, over and over.

I could make a long list of the things that the Haggadah gets wrong (maybe I'll do that around Pesach time), but let's just say that the text, which traditionally is recited year after year to the children and family and friends, causes one to believe that what one is reciting, is what is in the Biblical text.

It isn't.

Memes

In closing, here's a couple of memes to show what I have been expressing in this post.

Shemot (Part 2) - Exodus 1:1-6:1

(For an overview of this week's parashah, you can read part-1 here.)

Bar Fight!

Here's the setup:

At the middle of the parashah, Moses talks with God at the burning bush. They have a bit of an argument, but they compromise and work things out. Moses, is marred and has a son. At no point does YHVH tell him, "I hate foreskins, remember that!"

Granted, circumcision was also an Egyptian thing, but Moses was out of there, living a rural life in Midian, herding sheep. So cutting off the tip of the foreskin (the method of circumcision today is more extreme than it was described in the Tanach) was of no concern to him.

So Moses get his orders, and he takes and wife and kid to Egypt with him.

On the way, they stop a a place to rest and get some food and drink, a מלון in Hebrew. Some translate this word as an "inn". I prefer to use the colloquial term, "pub", since it's a more informal place than, say, a hotel, which also shares that same meaning. Remember, this is 3,500 years ago!

And interesting verb used is פגש (pagash) which means a meeting, having a face-to-face with another person. And in verse 4:24, we read that YHVH met Moses in the pub! While this wasn't a problem with the early readers, those who hold a more sophisticated and modern view of what a God is might have a problem with that verb.

Or maybe not.

Now YHVH notices that the Moses' son isn't circumcised and wants to kill Moses. The text doesn't say how Tzipporah (the wife) knew that her husband was in danger, but she takes quick action. She takes a sharp piece of flint that she either had with her or found it nearby, and snipped off the tip of her son's foreskin, causing some bleeding and, probably, a bit of screaming.

Now, the text doesn't say how she knew to do that either. Perhaps there is a missing bit of dialogue, such as:

YHVH: "What?! That kid isn't circumcised?! That's it Moses, you're a dead man. I am going to..."

But as soon as that's over. Moses is probably shaking, the kid is crying, the wife is holding a bloody stone, and the other people in the pub are just minding their own business, YHVH then tells him to go meet Aaron (I assume that Moses had a photo with him or something, since he had no memory of his older brother) And Moses met Aaron.

And, again, the verb form for this face-to-face meeting was פגש, "pagash".

It's certainly worth noting!

The Aramaic Targum Onkelos, an interpretation of the text, changes it from "YHVH met him" to "an angel of YHVH met him", because meeting God in a pub is weird, while meeting His angel, is not!

Shemot - Exodus 1:1-6:1

In Genesis 46:27 it tells us that 70 people went down to Egypt (although if you take the time to add the names, you don't quite get to 70). Jacob went to Egypt to see Joseph.

Then it tells us that Jacob spent 17 years in Egypt before dying.

In this week's parashah it lists the names of the 11 sons of Jacob and tells us that Joseph was in Egypt, but to total who went down there was 70, without listing the specifics.

It should be obvious that this week's version takes place 17 years prior, and is a repeat of the story of Genesis 46:27, but it skips the death of Jacob and all of the rest of Genesis and gets right to the meat of the story: that the sons of Israel were making a lot of babies, prospering, and making the locals jealous.

Some interesting sights to see in the story.

As I noted before, the story in Exodus 1:1-1:18 repeatedly speak about the King of Egypt. while verses 1:19-22 make a transition to speak of the Pharaoh. It has been suggested that these might be two competing characters (Avraham Korman). It's an interesting take, but not necessarily accurate.

There is a Midrash that says that Shifrah and Puah are the mother and sister of Moses. Chronologically, having these two being the chief birth assistants would be a problem, since Miriam would have been too young to assist with anything.

"Every son that will be born, you will throw into the river" - Several takes on this phrase by the Pharaoh. On, in the Talmud, declares that this killing took place only for one day, to prove a point. Another, which holds that there was competition between the King and Pharaoh says that it was for all males, Jewish or Egyptian, to prove a point.

Baby Moses in a basket: It should be noted that, unlike the "Prince of Egypt" cartoon, the basket was never in the water, but sitting on the shore.

Pharaoh's daughter: some hold that she was called "daughter of Pharaoh" because she was as bad as he was. Others hold that she converted to Judaism (how?!) with the parents of Moses. Some say that she called him the Egyptian name "Moses" because she was from the family of Thutmose (The "Thut" prefix being "of the God Thoth"), which makes better sense than saying it was a Hebrew name of "pulled".

In verse 2:8, we find the word "almah", meaning "she who was not seen, but came into view", which Christians translate to "virgin", but only for Isaiah 7:14. For the rest of the time, they don't bother!

At that point, Moses is taken to the palace, and his birth mother became his wet nurse. There are those who want to say that he stayed with his birth mother for 3 years before being given away, but the text doesn't say that. Moses was raised in a place of idolatry, with his grandfather being seen as a living God (Pharaoh).

In 2:11, Moses kills a guy. The sages make a big deal about this, claiming that he used his gift of prophecy (which he didn't get yet) to see if this guy made any difference, and since he didn't, Moses killed him. In another Midrash, it says that this man will be the father of the Jew who will curse God's name in the wilderness and be stoned to death. Apparently, the Egyptian was sleeping with the wife of one of the slaves. Or so the Midrash goes.

Oddly enough, Moses' grandfather (Pharaoh) wants Moses dead for killing a guard.

In 2:17, Moses flees to Midian. Interestingly enough, they see him as Egyptian. He has no identity of being Jewish. The priest of Midian, Jethro, was a polytheist and Moses marries into that family.

In the Haggadh, we recite that "we cried to YHVH-Elohim of our ancestors". But we read in 2:23 that the Hebrews cried out because of hard work, and the Elohim heard them. Not that  the Hebrews cried to YHVH, since they had no connection by that point. As we will read later, they didn't circumcise or have much of a connection with God.

At the beginning of chapter 3, we start the burning bush story.

Verse 3:12 is a classic Illeism, God telling Moses that "when you take the people out of Egypt, you will worship Elohim on this mountain". God speaking of Himself in the third person.

Verse 3:14 is a tough one for Christians. In Hebrew it says, "I will be what I will be" (or "I will be as Aheyeh"). Because of John 8:57, they need it to be "I AM". I explain that problem more in this post. But despite all of these names, it won't be until the next parashah that we will get a mention of El Shaddai. It's omission here is glaring.

Verse 3:18 is YHVH being a schemer. There is no "Let my people God" statement to be delivered to Pharaoh, but "We were walking along and YHVH, the ELohim of the Hebrew, happened upon us, so please let my people go for a few days to worship our God on His special spot".

God "happened" upon us? The word נרקה is a fascinating one to use as a "chance encounter"!

But God then says, "But he won't let you go anyhow. I plan to screw with him! And when I'm done, the Egyptians will loan you so much stuff!" Well, borrowing without the intent to return it is actually called something else!

In chapter 4, we have the first of the miracles that YHVH teaches Moses - the withered hand and the staff that turns into a snake. He tells Moses to do the first trick, and if that doesn't work, do the second trick, and if that doesn't work, the third trick is to turn a cupful of river water into blood. Of course, Moses being Moses doesn't appear to have followed those directions exactly, as he rarely did (in 4:30) he does all the miracles. Either he needed to do all three, or he decided to just do them all at once.

Verse 4:22 - YHVH calls the children of Israel "my son" - which is an expression of a chosen one. The Christians use this term in a rather bizarre way, having YHVH father Jesus.

And in his first dick move with Moses, in 4:24, YHVH again happens by chance (נקרה) upon Moses at an inn, and decides to kill him until his wife acts quickly and slices off his foreskin. I mean, YHVH really should have mentioned that tidbit when they were together with the burning bush!

Moses finally sees Pharaoh, who says, "YHVH? Who is YHVH?" and tells Moses and Aaron to get lost, and makes things tough for the Hebrews, making bricks with no straw. Actually, that's not 100% correct. They could use straw, but they had to gather their own. The government wasn't going to hand out straw to them for use anymore.

But let's pause about this brick thing for a moment.

Straw as a binding agent is important when making mud huts, stables, and so forth. Unlike the movies, they weren't building great statues or pyramids. They were likely building personal structures, not ones for the Empire, although 5:8 seems to indicate that they had a quota of bricks. So what a king would use mud bricks for is uncertain.

When we get to 5:15 we see an interesting use of "servants". They called themselves servants, not slaves. And you will see that a lot! It is only after they leave Egypt and Moses recalls their time there that "house of slaves" is created, which is used in the Haggadah.

And the parashah ends with YHVH gleefully telling Moses, "Now watch what I'm going to do to Pharaoh!"

Lots of fun stuff!

Vayechi (Part 2) - Genesis 47:28-50:26

There is an interesting thing that happens in this week's parashah: the blessings of Jacob.

First, let's look at the names of the children of Jacob, and because they are an important component, I will include Joseph's sons as well:

1. Reuben
2. Simon
3. Levi
4. Judah
5. Dan
6. Naphtali
7. Gad
8. Asher
9. Issachar
10. Zebulun
11. Joseph
12. Benjamin
13. Manasseh
14. Ephraim

As you can see, only five (in black) of the twelve (or fourteen if you add the adopted sons of Joseph into the mix) play any active role in the stories and have any dialogue. The majority of the characters are but props, representing tribes that will emerge centuries later. The ones in orange have some role in the story, no dialogue. Their roles also don't appear to do anything to move the story forward. The ones in red are but mentioned, and play no real roles at all.

Take Benjamin for example: He says nothing, he lets people fawn all over him, he accepts presents, but in most of the story, he is barely even there. Because of this, the Sages said that he was one of the few people in the world who never sinned. After all, he said and did nothing. One could, of course, make the same argument for Manasseh and Ephraim, but they don't.

I am taking the position that at some point in the future, Israel existed with some sort of tribal division, and the people of those specific tribes performed certain functions,, and that this scene with Jacob giving blessings is not him making predictions of the future, but is of the future explaining the way things were, and giving the reason as being rooted in the distant past. In one case, however, this blessing failed, which would indicate that this scene was written before the narrator(s) would be aware of that failure.

So let's look at these characters for a moment, based on how they were blessed, because that action speaks a lot about why the characters are in there in the first place.

Reuben

Reuben was the first born, and because of that, he should have the "lion's share" of the inheritance, but he doesn't. That will be taken by Judah. Many people teach that Reuben lost his "bechorah" because of what he did.

What was it that he did?

In Genesis 35:22, we read that "...Reuben went and lay with Bilha" who was his aunt (Bilha and Leah had the same father, but different mothers according to tradition). The Hebrew word שכב, rather than "ידע" (knew), indicates a forbidden relationship. It is also used to express rape (see Deut. 22:22, 22:25, 22:28, etc.). But notice the Rashi on this which basically says, "Reuben didn't have sex with her, he simply moved his father's bed so Jacob would have relations with Leah."

Yes, Jews apparently invented apologetics.

OK, so raping Bilha was certainly not nice. But did Jacob ever condemn him for it?

In this week's parashah, Jacob says about Reuben: "Do not take more, for you mounted your father's bed and desecrated it, [you] who ascended upon it".

OK, at the end of his life, he apparently did condemn him. But did he give the "bechorah" to Judah?

No.

In Genesis 35:22,. is doesn't say that Jacob took away the status as the first born. And later, in Numbers 1:20, Moses still refers to Reuben as the eldest, and the bechor. And in this week's blessing, Reuben is still referred to as the "first born", as Israel's bechor.

So no, Reuben still had the status as the oldest and the one who should inherit the largest portion, but who apparently didn't. And "do not take more" is to explain away why the tribe of Reuben did not get a double-portion of the land.

Simon and Levi

While Jacob doesn't condemn their actions directly, he does say that they will not have their own territories, but will be dispersed throughout the tribes. Again, this is a later explanation applied to explain the status of the Shimonites and the Leviim during the later times.

Judah

This is a tough one for apologists, because it was obviously composed during a time when the the Judean tribe was ascendent, and not during a later period when it was superseded by Benjamin.   Remember, the Book of Samuel claims that the first king, selected by God, was from the tribe of Benjamin. And after the end of the exile, Hillel, from the tribe of Benjamin would lead the Jews. 

Claiming that "the scepter will not leave" is not a failed prophecy as much as something unexpected by the author(s) of that time. 

It should be noted that there is no Messianic prophecy here either. That is a later force of application by those who need the Torah to have one...somewhere! "Shilo" is one of those rare words in Scripture that only appears one time, and gives no idea as to its meaning. If it was to be messianic, then that would indicate that this verse was inserted much, much, later, when such an idea was even conceived.

But given the context, it is likely a a term to be applied to someone or some nation that will take away Judah's leadership, not to a redeemer.

Zebulon

This character does nothing throughout the Torah, and has no dialogue. The tribe of his name were fishermen. The blessing that they will "dwell by the seashore" is not a prophecy as much as a statement of the future applied to the past.

Issachar

Again, this is background character of which nothing is known. This describes his descendants as hard working indentured servants.

Dan

Another background character. The name "Dan" comes from "to judge", and not only does his mother speak of judgement when she names him, bur Jacob now repeats that, saying that from this tribe will come the greatest of judges. Interestingly enough, the story of Samson, who was from Dan (there is a reference to snakes in both images), would be a leader who would judge those who would attack Israel.

And later in the Torah, a man from the tribe of Dan would be judged and stoned to death for profaning the name of God.

Gad

And another background character who did nothing and whose future is barely referred to, except in the blessing, which tells us that the Gaddites will be good trackers during wartime. 

Asher

And another background character. Asher is an interesting name in that it is based on the word ashrei, which is only used twice in the Torah, and is never really defined consistently in Tanach. In the context of the blessing, we see it referring to one "whose bread is rich and will provide kingly delicacies". Perhaps this tribe provided food for the king, a king who would not exist for many, many centuries long after Jacob dies.

Naphtali

Of this background character, Jacob says that Naphtali would be a poet, a singer of songs, and then recites one of them, which tells the story of the brother's plot against Joseph and how God prevailed. So this tribe was a tribe of entertainers.

Benjamin

This character passively interacted with Joseph at the end of his story, but was mostly in the background. He speaks of him being a fighter, like a wolf, ready to do battle early, and who would  share in the spoils. It should be noted that the tribe of Benjamin nearly perished, and to survive, it was was absorbed into Judah, protected by him, and fought with him.

Joseph did not get a blessing with his brothers, and there would be no tribal area but his name. His sons received a blessing earlier, and the result of their future was that their tribes would fall into idolatry and rebellion against Judah. It appears that this also was written before those events took place.

Summary

The blessing of Jacob is not a historical event of a prophet telling of the future of his sons, but is of a later writing telling of the status of the tribes that had these men as their ancestors, and retroactively assigning attributes of the tribes to the ancestors, possibly to explain why things were the way they were.

The failed blessing of Judah, the mentioning of a future monarchy, and saying that one son would end up living by the sea (he never did) indicates that these are tribal attributes, not personal ones. And so, this is but a metaphor to be assigned to the future, by the future.

Vayechi- Genesis 47:28-50:26

One thing that I like to do after rereading a section of the parashah is to make a checklist of topics, if not on paper, at least to put them aside in my memory. The reason is that, without fail, someone within the next week will bring up some traditional points, parroting the classic commentators, and will treat such regurgitation as having studied the text, and will then look to me for confirmation, and perhaps using his words as a segue into my own talk.

I will often begin such a response with "That was a very well organized explanation", or some sort of positive acknowledgement (after all, I do appreciate that someone is attempting to say something that people will accept), and, depending on the group, I will either quickly rattle off a number of points that are ignored, or will focus on a single one.

So here's a quick list of 10 items for this final parashah of the book of Genesis:

1. Testify. In verse 47:29, Jacob asks Joseph to put his hand "under his thigh" and make a vow. This is reminiscent of Genesis 24:2 when Abraham tells his servant to do the same. As Rashi points out there, "under the thigh" is a euphemism for the testicles. And the etymology of "testify" comes from the tradition of the person swearing holding the penis of the person that they are swearing to.
2. Favoritism. Jacob called for Joseph as he was dying. He claims the sons of Joseph as his own, giving them a portion, and being called the "sons of Israel". This is something he does with no other grandchild. Jacob never learned that favoritism can cause jealousy. 
3. Burial. Both Jacob and, at the end, Joseph, would be embalmed according to Egyptian custom. This includes removing portions of the body and placing them in separate Canopic jars. The mourning period of 40 days (50:3) was the length of time that it took to prepare the body. Jacob wants his body to end up with his parent's grave after he is dead. Joseph predicts that one day, the sons of Israel will leave Egypt, and will do the same with his body. (More about that at the end).
4. El Shaddai. This name in the Torah is predominantly used whenever YHVH needs to be a God of fertility. This is also true here in 48:3.
5. Rachel. Jacob admits that he wasn't very far from his family's grave spot, but chose to bury Rachael when they were but a barah of land away from their plots. (According to Rashi, it was about 2,000 amos, or less than a mile away!) Jacob didn't want to end up like her. Was this guilt? Why no mention of moving her body? Did anyone know where the body was?)
6. Cross Blessings. When given the two grandsons, Jacob deliberately did the blessing-swap ("with intelligence"). Even though Manasseh was the 1st born Jacob took that blessing away from him (reminiscent of Esau), and gave it to Ephraim, whose name would be a associated with the greater collection of tribes of the north of Israel (See Jeremiah 31). It's possible that this segment of the story was added to explain why the northern tribes were called Ephraim when tradition held that there were only 12 tribes, and the tradition to say, "May God make you like Ephraim and Manasseh", which still is said today (48:20). Few people ponder what that even means.
7. Shechem. In 48:22, Jacob gives Shechem, which Simon and Levi had conquered (through deception), and made as their home base with the other brothers (remember when a young Joseph was sent to find his brothers there, which started the whole saga?). He has taken that away from them and given it to his favorite son. As noted, Jacob never learned about the cost of favoritism. He also claims that "I took from the hand of the Amorite with my sword and my bow". But if you read the actual story, Jacob was aghast that Simon and Levi had attacked and taken the town. The apologetics on this are astounding. Rashi claims that Jacob gave a sword and bow to Simon and Levi to use, except that contradicts the actual text. One explanation: two different storytellers had different traditions, or like many older people, Jacob was confused.
8. Blessings. Chapter 49 is Jacob giving blessings to each of his sons. Many commentators see this as an expression of prophecy, but in reality, it is likely a later storyteller, looking back, and inserting something that would speak of the present (from the storyteller's point of view). For example, why was the tribe of Simon dispersed throughout the land. According to this chapter, because Jacob made that blessing.. And yet Levi was part of that, but no mention of Levi being a priestly caste as a reason for not having a portion of the land. Many of the blessings are forced.
9. Judah. The blessing of Judah is the most interesting, because it appears to have been written when the tribe of Judah was ascendant, but before the first king, chosen by God (Saul, from the tribe of Benjamin) was installed upon the throne.Or when other leaders, such as Hillel, would rise up and lead the people (also from the tribe of Benjamin). The name "Shiloh" is interesting in that verse 49:10 is the only place in all of Scripture where it appears. Because nobody knows what it means, many interpret it to be "the Messiah!", but it could also be an usurper, given that Judah will give up his position. It should be noted that "Messiah" appears nowhere in the Torah, and that such a concept contradicts many of the passages, while later books would demand it.
10. Leaving Egypt. Verses 50:24-26 are the last passages of the book of Genesis. It has an old Joseph telling his brothers that "God will remember you and bring you out of this land...". Keep in mind that at this point, the sons of Jacob have a pretty nice place. They have their own land, in Goshen, are prosperous, and all seems to be going well. These last 3 verses seem to be a setup for the next book, Exodus. Because, if you think about it, Joseph didn't say, "Things are about to get really bad. You better get back home to the land promised to you by God!" No, it's, "Don't fret, one day, God will remember you...". It's a strange way to leave a single Book of Genesis, unless it's a setup for the next book.

Vaigash (Part 2) - Genesis 44:18-47:27

There are a couple of math problems in this weeks parasha, as well as some interesting ideas about leadership.

First the math.

As I stated before, Joseph was captured, enslaved, put into prison, freed, ruled, and was reunited with his family in the course of 22 years. One of the people involved in this was Judah, who went to Canaan, married, had kids, they marry, die, his wife dies, and he fathers two more children (twins), and as we learn in this parasha, they get married and have children, and they are all living with Jacob.

No other part of Genesis ever mentions that Judah left, or was living elsewhere. And in this parasha, only Simon is said to have had a Canaanite wife! It is almost as if two different storytellers didn't know what the other one was writing. There are those who try to have Judah leave home as a younger age, say while Jacob is still trying to figure out if he needs to leave Laban's employ or not.

It's an attempt to reconcile this problem with numbers.

There is also another problem, in that the text tells us that 70 people went down to Egypt to visit the pharaoh, but it only lists 68. This same problem will occur at the beginning of the book of Exodus where it will, again, tell us that 70 people went down to Egypt, but it will list 69.

There are a lot of apologetics on this as well. Some say that one person was pregnant with Jochebed, but that does not sit well since a fetus is not counted as a person anywhere in the Tanach. Others say that Scripture is just rounding upward, as it does in most of the counts that have a zero suffix (such as 600,000 people is likely not an exact number), and the narrative actually does list the people, so it must have known that there was a problem.

So let's jump to Joseph becoming a king. The Hebrew word is a ruler, one one which is often assigned to a king with absolute power. The narrator only refers to Joseph by his name (even though he is given an Egyptian name), and the people only refer to Joseph as "lord" (adon). So while he has all of the power of a king, and the ruling authority, here's a question rarely asked:

Why did Joseph get this position?

I mean, sure, he was a decent dream interpreter, but was that any reason for the pharaoh to make Joseph anything other than an adviser? Why a king? And what was the deal with the cup-bearer and the baker, where they both get out of prison, but one is killed?

There is a wonderful hypothesis by the later Rabbi Abraham Korman, whose books were well received by most yeshivas until he wrote against the Chareidi opinion about what constitutes a Jew (an observant offspring of two Jewish parents) when the state of Israel was wrestling with this idea. His book, "Who and what is a Jew" earned his writings to be banned.

In any case, his idea was this:

In the Book of Exodus, you will read about Pharaoh and the King of Egypt. Traditionally, we are told to read this as being the same person. But often, they are at odds with one another. And at one point in the narrative, the Ling of Egypt is no longer mention, but simply the name "Pharaoh".

What if, as Rav Korman suggested, the post of "king of Egypt" was a post, as being second in command only to the Pharaoh? And what if the king was always plotting to take over the #1 position? So the idea is that Pharaoh caught wind of a plot to kill him, and threw the cup bearer and the baker into the prison until he could figure out what the actual plot was. When he did, he had the king executed, and restored the cup bearer to his position, and had the baker executed with his master.

And after that, there was a job opening for a new king, and Joseph was in the right place at the right time.

Granted, none of this is in the narrative, but it is an interesting view to have while reading the texts, giving it more intrigue.

One idea that Rab Korman would never have considered, but I have, is what if the Exodus narratives spoke of a king and of a Pharaoh because they were different authors during different periods? Think back to the story of Abraham, where in one version, he has his wife tell the king, there she is really his sister, while in the other, he has her tell the pharaoh that she is his sister.

Two view of the same event, from two different writers.

This only is needed if one holds that view that the pharaoh needed a reason to put Joseph into power rather than it just being a plot device.

And that is the most likely answer.

It's not a perfect story. It has holes and problems. So you can either ignore the problems, or fill in the holes yourself.

Vaigash - Genesis 44:18-47:27

The Power of Myth

In the previous portion, we read of Pharaoh wanting his dreams interpreted, and they summon Joseph. The commentaries typically point out that the Pharaoh didn't have just one dream, nor two sequential dreams, but it was a dream within a dream. And it was because of Joseph's understanding, which none of his advisers had, that Pharaoh appointed Joseph as his right-hand man.

Dreams within dreams.

In this week we read of Judah confronting Joseph. Judah's mission was to release Simon from bondage, and present, while protecting his little brother, Benjamin.  Judah was to present a show of force, plead as well as threaten, for the sake of the unity of his brethren. In the end, Joseph removes his mask, as it were, and tells his brothers how a foreign power put him into his position, and that the family was to follow him, to descend to the kingdom where he was in charge, and all would be provided for, omitting that the Pharaoh was really the power behind it all, and that, in the end, they would all be in exile.

The Torah is a collection of myths for the nationalistic vision of the Jews, to justify, explain, and unify a people who have just returned from a long exile. Homeless, they tell of stories of their earlier days of glory, where they were the best of the best, where a special God chose them over all others, and that He would cause them to lose their status, but would return them to their former glory.

Long before they had a flag, the Jews had a Torah that they held aloft and waved for all to see. And it was from their mythos that they were able to unite, survive, and, most important, get agreement from the other nations of the world who included such myths among their own texts (especially Christianity and Islam), while ignoring the solely Jewish nationalistic message contained within the text.

Myths within Myths

If you read some of the later myths, it tells us of the tribe of Benjamin, the "little one", which was protected by, and later absorbed by the tribe of Judah. We read of the tribe of Simon, who is taken away from its position, treated as an outcast, and becomes part of Judah. The actions of these characters in the myths follow the other stories of the tribes themselves.

The sons of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, when united, rival the kingdom of Judah. These are the sons of Joseph, and all but those under Judah's protection, bowed to them. When the prophets speak of idolatry, it speaks of Ephraim or his brother, and the promise that one day, Judah would return as the principal leadership.

As I mentioned before, the imagery of the story of Judah and Tamar, of Judah giving over his staff and signet ring over to a harlot, and eventually having them returned to him, and never associating with the harlot again, is the story of the loss of Judah's leadership as a tribe, and of Joseph's gain of power (through the legacy of his sons' tribes).

In short, the story of Joseph's rise to power, his subjugation of his brethren, and Judah's resistance to that, but his willingness to submit for the sake of the others is really the myths in the other books that tell us of the rise and fall of the each tribes and of their alliances.

It is hard to ignore that the story of Joseph and his rise and the fall of the children of Israel matches so perfectly to the later myths of the tribes themselves.

Because of that, I am suggesting that the entire Joseph story, from his birth, to his meeting with Esau (Edom), to the acquiring of Shechem (which would be part of Manasseh's territory, taken from Simon and Levi who acquired it in the Genesis story), is part of the overall nationalistic mythology.

And like most mythologies, it is unlikely that the story of Joseph ever took place, but was simply a vehicle (Genesis) used to explain to the later generations the myths within the Book of Kings and Chronicles and other myth texts.

Myths within myths.

Mikeitz (Part 3) - Genesis 41:1-44:17

Who Died?

At the beginning if this week's parashah, somebody who is considered quite important in the Bible had already died, and yet the Torah makes no mention of that...as least, not this week.

Six chapters previous, we read that Isaac died (35:29). But the author of that portion wrote it as a complete story, not as part of an ongoing narrative, which happens a lot in the Torah. As I mentioned earlier, the story of Judah and Tamar cannot have taken place in the 22 years period that Joseph was sold by his brothers and reunited with them. There wasn't enough time.

The Torah has a lot of these types of timeline jumps where it becomes exceedingly difficult to put them together in a linear way when the surrounding texts have problematic points with that piece.

So let's recall a few things.

First, as I pointed out, Jacob was 91 years old when Joseph was born. Joseph was sold into slavery when he was 17, and was a slave and in prison for a total of 13 years, since he was introduced to Pharaoh when Joseph was 30 years old. This means that Jacob was 108 when Joseph was taken by his brothers, and 121 when Joseph meets Pharaoh.

Isaac died when he was 180 years old (35:28). His son, Jacob was born to him when he was 60 when Jacob was born to him (25:26). This means that when Jacob was 108 (Joseph sold into slavery), that Isaac was 168 and had 12 more years left to his life.

I am using the first 14 verses of this week's parashah as the buffer period between Joseph sitting in jail, and when he is finally cleaned up and standing before Pharaoh.

At no point in the previous parashah or in this one is Isaac even mentioned.

Honoring one's parents

One of the problems that the Sages had with Joseph was that he let his father suffer for years, mourning the death of his son, while Joseph was in power, and could have sent for his father at any time. Even if he had thought that his father was in on the abduction (one opinion), that still doesn't preclude him from honoring his father, for which, later, the Torah tells us will give one long life.

But if you look as Jacob's relationship with his father, it was pretty much the same. Once he left the house, he had no interest in returning home. He left Esau to take care of their parents, while he was busy getting wives and material possessions. When God tells him to go to his father's home, Jacob goes in the other direction. When Esau find Jacob and tells him to come with him, Jacob, again, goes in the other direction. He lied to one person after another. It was only after Dinah is raped, that Jacob returns home. (There are some commentaries who assign this rape to one or more things that Jacob did, as a punishment).

And while the verses in chapter 25 has Jacob and Esau both burying their father, in the past two portions, there is no mention of any of that going on. In fact, this story of Jacob and Joseph takes place away from where Isaac lived. So, again, it is hard to reconcile these differences.

As for the relationship between Isaac and Abraham, let's just say that after the Akeida, Isaac was never quite the same. Furthermore, many of the stories assigned to him afterward appear to be stories of Abraham with name changes, such as the wandering around, the digging of wells, the arguments about ownership, and even the "don't tell King Avimelech that you are my wife" story.

Isaac was but an echo of his father, and Jacob, who had a history of lying to his father, and deceiving him, becomes the father to sons who lie and deceive him as well.

And perhaps, because of that, the idea of "karma" might apply here.

Mikeitz (Part 2) - Genesis 41:1-44:17

Along with reading a portion of the Torah, each Shabbat service also includes the reading of the haftora, a section of one of the Book of Prophets that has some connection, albeit tenuous at times, to the actual parasha. It also seems seems to be that part of the service where the men in shul start talking to one another!

This week, The Prophet Zacheriah will be read, and in that segment, he mentions a vision of a golden menorah, and since this portion is read on Shabbat Chanukah, it was considered an appropriate link by many, ignoring that the current yearly cycle of Torah reading goes back less than 200 years.

But let's talk about the Menorah for a moment.

There is an organization in Israel called the "Temple Institute". It's goal is to get ready for the coming of the Messiah and the building of the Third Temple. It has garments already sewn for the High Priest, vessels, but what it really wanted to do was to make a menorah, one that was exactly as it was described in the Torah.

Of course, the Torah doesn't give a lot of details on design, just on materials. There are some general design information, such as how many arms, and that type of thing. But even the keepers of the Oral Tradition were not quite sure if the shamesh, the place where the initial lighting is held, was in the middle, or at the ends. There was even the question as to how the holders of the flame should be designed. Should they be shaped like flowers?

But with a pure heart and Godly purpose, the administrators of the Temple Institute petitioned for donations, because the one thing that they needed was what the Torah called a kikar of pure gold, which has been determined to be 1,530 ounces.

And they got it!

Their next step was to get designers to produce a form that was consistent with the traditional view of the Menorah. And while they tried several, they all failed for the same reason.

Pure gold collapses when very little weigh is applied.

So they contacted engineers who analyzed the problem, and they came up with a solution: create a form that is not-gold to support the gold that will be on top of it.

The result was a menorah of 100% pure gold, but was really only 30% gold overall.

This menorah was completed just before Chanukah in 2007.

But everyone was happy. The Temple Institute announced that it had a menorah for the Third Temple ready for use, and put it in a giant display case. It is rather tall and imposing. I am uncertain if they made it 70% bigger to still use up all of the gold, or if they just kept the residual gold for other projects.

But everyone seems to be happy with the menorah. And nobody is asking, "But, if you failed to make the one in the Torah, what does it say about the authenticity of the text?"

As with the story of Joseph, if your dream won't come true, manipulate the circumstances so that it appears to mostly come true.

Here's a meme that reflects this:

And here is a video by the Temple Institute talking about the construction and moving of the menorah:

Mikeitz - Genesis 41:1-44:17

Joseph the Tzaddik?!

The Hebrew word "tzaddik" is often translated as "righteous one", and by some "saintly" (although the latter carries with it some interesting baggage).

But if you read the stories, what really caused Joseph to have this label applied?

Was it because Biblical Hebrew doesn't have air-quotes, and so Joseph "the Tzaddik" isn't seen for what it was, as sarcasm?

Or maybe it was like the commentary on Noah who was fully righteous in his generation, "Compared to the others of that generation, he was a Tzaddik!, in other generations, not so much!"

Keep in mind that the three cardinal sins that Judaism teaches are to be avoided at all costs, even if it means letting yourself get killed for not doing them, is adultery, murder, and idolatry.

And we read that Joseph refused to have relations with Mrs. Potiphar (many of the important women in the Bible don't have names, like Mrs. Lot, Mrs. Noah, etc.). And that later on, he decided no to have his brothers killed, even after their father dies. And there is no mention of idolatry, just the occasional reference to YHVH.

OK, so Joseph refrained from the 3 cardinal sins.

So do most Jews on the planet, even the assimilated ones, or the secular ones.

Of course, when compared to his brothers, Reuben (adultery), Simon and Levi (murder), and many of the others (wanted to kill him, then sold him off into slavery and lied to their father), Joseph was certainly a tzaddik.

Although, there is a better example.

According to the Talmud (Tractate Shabbat), Benjamin is listed of one of the 5 people in the world who never sinned. It gets this from the point that nothing is written about him negatively. Although, this is also akin to the Abarbanel who hated royalty (for good reason, since he worked for Queen Isabella), and wrote that "all of the kings of Israel were sinful people, except for Yotam ben Uzziayhu". Only because Yotam is only mentioned in one verse, and it simply lists his name, but nothing he did. While this may be a tongue-in-cheek comment, it does bring up a good point.

Joseph worked in a house of idolatry. He worked for the High Priest of idol worship of all of Egypt. He would also end up marrying the daughter of that same high priest, and most of the raising and educating of the two sons of Joseph would be in that environment.

The Sages had a big problem with that. They try to get around the problem by saying that the girl that Joseph married was really his niece, the daughter of Dinah who was raped in Shechem. Although that makes more problems than solutions. For one, Jacob getting rid of his granddaughter, offering her to the High Priest of idols, is quite problematic. The other thing is that idolatry is not a genetic trait, but a learned one. So the baby, raised in that environment would have no "spiritual connection" to Jacob and his family.

But there is one bigger problem that several commentators have with Joseph being given this title:

For nine years, during the seven years of plenty followed by the two years of famine, Joseph was the #2 man in Egypt. What he declared was law, and all of the people obeyed him. And not once, during that time, did he send a messenger to tell his father that he was alive. Not once did he send forth a cart of food, during the the beginning of the famine to his family, to feed them and to say, "I live!"

Joseph did not think of his family, but of himself.

Which brings me to a "Moshiach ben Yosef" - why a "ben Yosef"?

This expression is one of a deceiver, one who will present himself to the Jewish people as though he is the anointed king, whom they will follow into captivity and despair, and when he dies, the people will cry out, not because he is dead, but because they will realize what he was and where they have gone. And only an anointed one (which will be Moses) can get them out of this predicament, and bring them to the promised land.

And while the Messiah-pairing is only briefly mentioned in the Talmud (just a couple of lines), it has become such a part of Jewish theological philosophical thought that we often ignore that "Joseph" is called a "tzaddik", but his story also has a lot of non-tzaddik baggage as well.

Vayeishev (Part 4) - Genesis 37:1-40:22

Intermission: The Story of Judah and Tamar

As I have written in other blog posts, the Torah is an anthology, a collection of short stories written by a number of anonymous authors, stitched together with large seams left exposed. Many of these stories are completely unrelated, and the ones that are, they have elements within them that result in creating contradictions or problems with many of the others.

Let's take the interlude of Chapter 38 - The Story of Judah and Tamar.

It's an odd story with an odd placement. It begins with "And it happened at that time, that Judah went down from his brothers...". Because of the final placement of the story, after Joseph is kidnapped and sold into slavery by his brothers, it is assumed that this takes place right after that.

The problem with that view (or any view, as we will see later), is that Judah was with his brothers when they did this (37:26), and his contribution to that event was telling them that there's no profit in killing Joseph, so Judah recommended that they sell him.

In a later story, Judah meets Joseph (43:3), and his father is told of Joseph's good fortune and goes to meet him with all of his children and grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.

The Years Problem

The total number of years between when Judah and his brothers sell Joseph, and when Jacob and his descendants go to be with Joseph, is 22 years. (13 years in prison/slavery, 7 prosperous years, and 2 lean years).

Within those 22 years, Judah needs to:

1. Arrive into a different town and establish himself.
2. Fall in love and get married.
3. Have 2 sons, a gap, and then another.
4. One of the sons gets married, and later dies.
5. The other son marries his brother's widow, and he dies.
6. The 3rd son isn't old enough to marry.
7. As time passes, Judah's wife dies.
8. After a time, Judah goes on a business trip.
9. His 3rd son is finally old enough to marry, but Judah won't give Tamar to him.
10. Judah is tricked and impregnates Tamar.
11. She gives birth to twins.

Oh, and according to verse 46:12, when Jacob and his descendants were together in reuniting with Joseph and his sons, it tells us the names of the sons of the twins of Judah and Tamar.

Yes, sometimes between the selling of Joseph and their reunion after 22 years of separation, Judah gets married, has 3 children, and 2 grandchildren.

Is it possible that young children got married and they had children of their own all within 22 years?

Only if you need the intermission story to fit with the rest of the other narratives!

The Non-Contiguous Storyline

At no point outside of Chapter 38 (the intermission) is Judah ever mentioned as having left, or married a Canaanite woman. In fact, in chapter 46, it singles out Simon who married a Canaanite woman (perhaps one of the women he took possession from when he and Levi sacked Shechem). It seems unaware that Judah did the same thing, but only mentions that the two sons of Judah died in the land of Canaan.

Nowhere in Chapter 38 does it mention Judah's father or brothers. It is as if it is unconnected with any specific part of a different narrative.

Perhaps Judah went back and forth between his new home and his father's place, but the narrative doesn't tell us that either. In fact, according to the narrative, chapter 38 stands alone. 

It's a completely different and unrelated story.

A Possible Reason for its Insertion

Later (49:9), Jacob will declare that Judah will be the tribe from which all leadership will come (he didn't foresee King Saul as the first king, chosen by God, who was from the tribe of Benjamin).

So we need to justify Judah's leadership role.

Reuven loses the position of the first born by having sex with his step mother. Simon and Levy, after their hot headedness with Shechem lost their positions. So that leaves Judah as the next in line, with a focus on his staff, which he temporarily gives away, but then it is returned to him.

There is a lot of great metaphorical imagery in the story if one focuses on such things.

So perhaps this story was a way to work around the later stories of the kings, as a metaphor for the return of the staff of Judah, and of such a kingship.

Of course, that would mean that this is a much later story, inserted to explain such things.

And that's not a problem, is it?

Vayeishev (Part 3) - Genesis 37:1-40:22

A Quick Review

As we have already seen, getting to the story of Jacob going into slavery has a number of other fragmented stories getting in the way. We have yet another unrelated story in the telling of Judah's travels, making a family, a career, and a home away from his brothers, with events that would have to finish within 22 years, which is unlikely. (22 years is the period of time between when Joseph was taken and sold, and when the family reunites).

I'll get to that, hopefully, at another post. But in this post, I want to focus on yibum and chalitzah, the former action is told in the story of Tamar wanting to get pregnant by her father in-law. The fact that this process is codified much later (in Deuteronomy, followed by the Book of Ruth), seems to indicate that this story of Judah is much later, unless someone can find any evidence that yibbum was a tradition by the Canaanites.

The Status of Women

It should be noted that, in the Torah, women are property to be bought and sold. They have no property of their own and their tribal affiliation is tenuous. If a man from the tribe of Dan acquires a woman as his wife from the tribe of Judah, then the woman is no longer considered part of the tribe of Judah when it comes to passing tribal property rights. If her husband dies, but she has sons, then she can remain within the tribe of Judah by virtue of her sons' status. If she has no sons, then her status reverts back to her birth tribe.

Prior to the Book of Ezra, the Tanach tells us that the patriarchal lineage was all-important. After all, if you wanted some land, and "You shall count them according to the tribes of their fathers" was the rule, then one's birth father needed to be from a specific tribe for the offspring to also be from that tribe. If the child did not have a birth father from one of the tribes, then he was, in effect, "tribeless", and while he could rent land or be someone's guest, he could not take part in the sharing of the land owned by a specific tribe.

So while the men needed to be Jews and part of a specific tribe for the child to be a Jew and part of that same tribe, the mother became Jewish (if she was not already) and part of that tribe by virtue of her ba'al (lord, master, owner, husband). When Ezra took charge, he declared that for a child to be Jewish, both parents had to be Jewish, and was against "conversions" (which did not exist in the early days). 

Some people will cite the "Daughters of Zelophehad" as exceptions to the rule. They weren't. Read the two different versions of the story. The Deuteronomy held that the could not marry outside of their tribe, and some held that to have any property, they could not marry at all. And given that they had no brothers and that their father was dead, it is only then that they could participate in the tribal cooperative.

Yibbum

Yibbum is part of the cultural belief in the male-lineage tribal affiliation. This is strongly repeated in the Torah but, as I stated before, I cannot find any reference that this was the normalized view of Canaan and its neighbors 4,000 years ago.

The way it works is this:

If a woman becomes a widow, and never had any children, then in order to continue her husband's legacy, she is required to be impregnated by her deceased husband's brother. (This can result in a polygamous marriage, which is permitted in the Torah). Based on the nuances of the text, the order of which brother is determined, and she becomes his inheritance.

In the story of Judah, he has three sons. One of them dies childless, so he gives Tamar to his second son who, while willing to bed her, is unwilling to impregnate her, so God kills him. Judah's youngest was too young, and he sent Tamar away. Time passes, the younger son gets older, Judah's wife dies, he mourns, and he goes away on a business trip.

Tamar decides to trick Judah into a Yibbum arrangement, dressing like a prostitute (the description is very odd), and getting pregnant right away.

And the result was twins. 

It is important to note that a woman who does not participate in Yibbum cannot have a relationship with any other man but that of her brother's representative. Otherwise, it is considered adultery, and the offspring will be treated as mamzer, forbidden to marry within any tribe.

Chalitzah

The work-around for this problem is something known as chalitzah. This is the case where the man refuses to take the woman (not the other way around). This is generally the expected response to a possible Yibbum, especially if the man is already married and my live in a country that frowns on polygamy. And as with any Rabbinical OCD, the ceremony for this is pretty bizarre.

A special sandal, owned by the religious court, is used. It have very specific materials, design, and so forth. It has a tied strap to keep it on. It is inspected for perfect cleanliness, as well as the one foot of the man who will be denying the Yibbum. Once both are clean, he stands, walks 4 amos (cubits), in front of the judges, says some words that are part of the ritual. The woman then goes on her knees and unties the sandal and takes it off of the man. She then spits at him (typically on the ground, between his feet), and recites her response, that he has rejected her.

Judah and Yibbum

In this case, Tamar took it upon herself to be impregnated by Judah, rather than do Yibbum with Judah's last son. Most authorities would say that doing Yibbum with the father in-law is not learned from this story and is to be rejected.

It is, however, worth noting that the laws of Yibbum and Chalitzah are still in effect for Jews, to this very day.

And the fact that Yibbum is in the story at all may tell us when this fragment was inserted into the Genesis text.

Vayeishev (Part 2) - Genesis 37:1-40:22

When and Where are we?!

If you had been paying attention, there should be a bit of confusion at this point as to the location and timeline.

Why?

Let's review:

In Genesis 31, God tells Jacob (verse 13) to get up and "Go to Beth EL". And Jacob takes his family and leaves. He has some adventures, the least of which is getting a new name, which is rarely used. It isn't even used after God tells Jacob, "You will no longer be known as Jacob".

In Genesis 35, God tells Jacob (verse 1) to get up and "Go to Beth EL". And Jacob takes his family and leaves. He has some adventures, the least of which is getting a new name, which is rarely used. It isn't even used after God tells Jacob, "You will no longer be known as Jacob".

Hopefully you noticed that this is the same story repeated, but with some changes in details and adventures.

The Genesis 35 version is especially confusing, because it has Jacob fulfilling his vow, which he didn't do with the first version (well, he did go to Beth EL) by returning to his father's home. In this one, he does. And it appears that he stayed there, and his father died at the age of  180. And Jacob and Esau buried their father together.

But, based on reverse math (see below), when Jacob will meet the Pharaoh near the end of his life, he tells us how old he was, and we know how old Joseph was when he was sent into slavery, how long he was a slave and in prison, and how long he ruled. And based on that, Jacob was 91 years old when Joseph was born.

And Isaac dies 89 years later!

So that entire chapter 35 can be confusing to those who are paying attention to such things.

So the parashah begins with a bit of background on how Joseph and his brothers don't get along. The brothers have established their home base in Shechem, a place that, in chapter 34, we are told that the brothers wiped out all of the men and took all of the possessions, including the women and children.

It is there that they are hanging out when Jacob sends Joseph to find his brothers who are there grazing their flock.

So where was Jacob and Joseph during this conversation? They are back in the location when they left Esau and had decided to dwell away from Shechem (Gen 33:19). Not too close, but close enough to walk to. In the previous version, Dinah had walked there. In this version, Joseph is walking there.

This is something to really give some consideration when reading the text: it was composed by a number of authors where were not concerned with continuity.

The Math

First, let's get the year that Jacob was born:

Abraham: Born in 1948 (I've covered this before. Just accept it for now).
Isaac born in 2048 when Abraham was 100 (Gen 21:5)
Jacob born in 2108 when Isaac was 60 (Gen 25:26)

So Jacob was born in 2108.

Jacob meets Pharaoh at age 130 (Gen 47:9) in 2238

So now we have a range to work from. What about Joseph?

Joseph abducted at age 17 (Gen. 37:2) in 2216
Joseph was 30 when he visited Pharaoh (Gen. 41:46)

So he was a slave and in prison for a combined total of 13 years.

And Joseph was reunited with his father when Jacob was 130, after Egypt had 7 years of plenty (Gen. 41:53) and 2 years of famine (Gen. 45:6). Or 9 years.

So Joseph was 39 when he was reunited with his father, who was 130 years old. This means that Joseph was born when Jacob was 91 years old. And since Jacob was born when Isaac was 60, Isaac was 151 years old when Joseph was born, and in this story, Isaac was 168 years old, and would live another 12 years.

Conclusion

The Torah is an anthology of stories written by a number of anonymous authors. Many times, it has duplicate stories at odd locations, which are merely retellings of different stories.

It is for this reason that Jewish tradition says, "there is no order to the Torah" (no before and after), because, if you are paying attention, a lot of the narratives are out of sync.

This is but one of several cases that I have already mentioned.

There are many others.

Vayeishev - Genesis 37:1-40:22

Doublespeak

In Biblical Hebrew the doubling of a verb-form indicates an extreme use of that form. 

In Genesis 37:33, then the sons of Jacob show him a bloody tunic of Joseph, Jacob cries out "he has been torn-apart in a tearing-apart!" (טרף טרף).

I will often simplify the language and use "fucking" in place of the first verb form as "he has been fucking torn to pieces!"

We find this same verbiage in Genesis 2:17 when YHVH-Elohim warns Adam that if he eats from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, he will "dead you will be dead" (מות תמות), or better yet, "You will be fucking dead!".

In that case, there is a warning of something horrible that will happen, while in the former case, a horrible thing had happened.

Interestingly enough, apologists have a problem with the latter form, because Adam was not killed, and did not die a horrible death. The claim that Adam was "built to last forever", but ignore that (1) there was a tree of eternal living in the garden, (2) he never ate from that fruit, and (3) God sent him out because He didn't want him to eat that fruit.

No, Adam wasn't built to live forever, and God promised to fucking kill him.

Badly.

Why He didn't, well, he either changed His mind, or two (or more) different writers didn't care about continuity.

Either way, it's an interesting point in this portion of the story: as far as Jacob was concerned, Joseph was "fucking ripped to shreds".