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".