VaYeshev 5725 “Casting Yosef into the Pit”
בראשית לז
יח וַיִּרְאוּ אֹתוֹ, מֵרָחֹק; וּבְטֶרֶם יִקְרַב אֲלֵיהֶם, וַיִּתְנַכְּלוּ אֹתוֹ לַהֲמִיתוֹ. יט וַיֹּאמְרוּ, אִישׁ אֶל-אָחִיו: הִנֵּה, בַּעַל הַחֲלֹמוֹת הַלָּזֶה--בָּא. כ וְעַתָּה לְכוּ וְנַהַרְגֵהוּ, וְנַשְׁלִכֵהוּ בְּאַחַד הַבֹּרוֹת, וְאָמַרְנוּ, חַיָּה רָעָה אֲכָלָתְהוּ; וְנִרְאֶה, מַה-יִּהְיוּ חֲלֹמֹתָיו. כאוַיִּשְׁמַע רְאוּבֵן, וַיַּצִּלֵהוּ מִיָּדָם; וַיֹּאמֶר, לֹא נַכֶּנּוּ נָפֶשׁ. כב וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם רְאוּבֵן, אַל-תִּשְׁפְּכוּ-דָם--הַשְׁלִ
Alef.
1. From the end of 37:22,1 as well as Ibid. 29-30,2 it seems that Reuven was expecting to find Yosef still in the pit, probably to try to return him to his father. Furthermore, in 42:22,3 Reuven recalls how he tried to save Yosef completely from his brothers. This leads to RaMBaN interpreting 37:21-224 as the second part of a two-step process, i.e., at first Reuven says not to do anything to Yosef as reflected in 42:22, and when he sees that the brothers were not interested in entertaining that possibility, he retrenched and said that at least they should not be guilty of fratricide, which is the sense of 37:21-22. RaMBaN points out the nuance in v. 22, where Reuven did not use the term “Damo” (his blood) which would have been very personal, reflecting concern over Yosef’s blood, but rather “Dam” (blood in the generic sense), i.e., this is not about saving Yosef per se, but rather not allowing the other brothers to be guilty of murder.
2+3. והכתוב סיפר מה שאמר להם ראובן ושמעו אליו—What Reuven actually said initially is what is attributed to him in 42:22. However they ignored this suggestion. Consequently, in the actual story of what happened, the original plea is omitted, and we only read about Reuven’s recommendation that Yosef not be killed by the brothers.
4. Ben Amozeg5 parses 21 and 22 as reflecting (v. 21) what Reuven thought to himself, and (v. 22) what he actually said to the brothers.
RaMBaN sees both v. 21 and 22 as said out loud by Reuven. Initially he said in general that they shouldn’t kill Reuven, and then he clarifies that this is not because he is sympathetic to Yosef, but rather because they should not be murderers.
Ben Amozeg’s interpretation is made difficult by the usage of the verb “VaYomer” in v. 21. This word is not generally used when describing internal rather than verbalized thoughts.
5. RaLBaG’s concept that when you wish to dissuade someone from doing something terrible, you have to broach alternatives gradually,6 would differ from those, like RaMBaN and MaLBIM, who say that Reuven articulated at first not to do anything, followed by not killing Yosef, followed by allowing Yosef to die by leaving him in a pit rather than actively doing anything to him. According to RaLBaG, their view would risk causing the brothers not to listen to anything that Reuven would say. Perhaps the closest to RaLBaG is the Bei’ur who suggests that Reuven from the outset told the brothers that if they intend to kill Yosef, they should do so indirectly.
6. According to MaLBIM, Reuven at first suggested not to kill Yosef at all, and only once the brothers indicated that they were not interested in such a suggestion, he modified it and said that at least they should not kill Yosef directly.
Bei’ur implies that Reuven never said to the rest of the brothers not to kill Yosef, just not to kill him directly, which he clarifies with v. 22.
Beit.
1. Perhaps if they were taking Reuven’s advice, i.e., not to kill Yosef directly, but to do so indirectly, the brothers probably did not want to have to wait a great deal of time, and therefore sought out a pit that had poisonous elements within it to speed up the process as much as possible.
2. The construction “Ein Bo Mayim” opens up the possibility that even if there was no water in the pit, there was something else in there. If the text would have said, “Reik MiMayim”, one would not be led to consider what might have been in the pit, but simply understand that they weren’t trying to drown Yosef, but simply leave him in a place from which he couldn’t emerge.
3. Even if the laws of Kashrut were not yet in effect in Sefer Beraishit, if it was assumed that the snakes and scorpions were poisonous, how would they be edible? Must we assume that they knew how to extract the toxins?
דברים פרק ח
(טו) הַמּוֹלִיכֲךָ בַּמִּדְבָּר הַגָּדֹל וְהַנּוֹרָא נָחָשׁ שָׂרָף וְעַקְרָב וְצִמָּאוֹן אֲשֶׁר אֵין־מָיִם הַמּוֹצִיא לְךָ מַיִם מִצּוּר הַחַלָּמִישׁ:
“Who Ld thee through the great and dreadful wilderness, wherein were serpents, fiery serpents, and scorpions, and thirsty ground where was no water; Who Brought thee forth water out of the rock of flint.”
In this verse, the absence of water is balanced by the presence of snakes and scorpions. So a similar construct could be applied to Beraishit 37:24.
Gimel.
1. If the brothers knew that there were scorpions and snakes in the pit, how could they be fulfilling the expectation that their casting Yosef into the pit would not result in his death? Essentially it’s like using an attack dog to harm someone or placing a person in the path of a vicious animal. Consequently it has to be assumed that they were unaware of what actually did dwell in the pit.
2. RaMBaN therefore says you have to assume that either the creatures were hiding in cracks in the walls of the pit, or the pit was so deep that they couldn’t see the bottom where the snakes and scorpions resided.
3.
שמות פרק כב
(כ) וְגֵר לֹא־תוֹנֶה וְלֹא תִלְחָצֶנּוּ כִּי־גֵרִים הֱיִיתֶם בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם:
(כא) כָּל־אַלְמָנָה וְיָתוֹם לֹא תְעַנּוּן:
(כב) אִם־עַנֵּה תְעַנֶּה אֹתוֹ כִּי אִם־צָעֹק יִצְעַק אֵלַי שָׁמֹעַ אֶשְׁמַע צַעֲקָתוֹ:
(כג) וְחָרָה אַפִּי וְהָרַגְתִּי אֶתְכֶם בֶּחָרֶב וְהָיוּ נְשֵׁיכֶם אַלְמָנוֹת וּבְנֵיכֶם יְתֹמִים: פ
רש"י שמות פרק כב פסוק כג
(כג) והיו נשיכם אלמנות - ממשמע שנאמר והרגתי אתכם, איני יודע שנשיכם אלמנות ובניכם יתומים, אלא הרי זו קללה אחרת, שיהיו הנשים צרורות כאלמנות חיות, שלא יהיו עדים למיתת בעליהן ותהיינה אסורותלהנשא והבנים יהיו יתומים, שלא יניחום בית דין לירד לנכסי אביהם לפי שאין יודעים אם מתו אם נשבו:
רמב"ן שמות פרק כב פסוק כא
(כא) וטעם כל אלמנה - אפילו עשירה בעלת נכסים, כי דמעתה מצויה ונפשה שפלה. ואמר אם ענה תענה אותו, כל יחיד מהם, על כן כתיב אחריו והיו נשיכם אלמנות, בעונש האלמנה וצעקתה, ובניכם יתומים,בצעקת היתום. והעונש הזה לא מנו אותו רבותינו בכלל חייבי מיתה בידי שמים בברייתא דואלו הן שבמיתה השנויה בסנהדרין (פג א). והטעם, שאין זה מיתה כמיתת בני אדם בידי שמים שנאמר בהם ומתו בו כייחללוהו (ויקרא כב ט) ולא תמותו (במדבר יח לב), אבל ענש בכאן שיהרג אותם בחרב אויב או במלחמה ירד ונספה בלא הודע והיו נשיהם אלמנות לעולם ובניהם יתומים לעולם:
א. RaShI derives something extra from the redundancy in Beraishit 37:24 as well as Shemot 22:23 (the redundancy here is if the men will be killed, of course their wives will be widowed and their children orphaned). In the former case, he posits that there were snakes and scorpions in the pit, while in the latter, the women will be Agunot because no one will witness the deaths of their husbands in order that they be allowed to remarry, and their children will not be able to benefit from their fathers’ estates since it is unclear whether their fathers are dead or merely captured.
ב. While RaMBaN offers a “Peshat” interpretation for Beraishit 37:24, he does not do so for Shemot 22:23. Perhaps this is because in the latter case, the punishments are to serve as deterrents against someone afflicting sojourners, widows and orphans. Consequently, the more dire the consequences that are described, the less likely will someone transgress the prohibition. Furthermore, if what is threatened is the death of the perpetrator, how much more “Chizuk” can be given to such a consequence? In the former case, there is simply a description of the situation into which Yosef was placed. It was bad enough that he was in a pit; whether or not there were dangerous creatures within it did not make the situation that much worse. Either Yosef would die slowly because he was in a place devoid of food, or quickly by being bitten and/or stung by poisonous creatures.
Daled.
1. RaMBaN assumed that the brothers, including Reuven, could not see whether or not there were snakes and scorpions in the pit.
The Zohar attributes to Reuven a calculation: However dangerous the creatures in the pit may be, leaving Yosef at the mercy of his brothers was an even greater danger.
2. The principle would maintain that a dangerous “Vadai” (a certain thing) is to be avoided more than a dangerous “Shema” (a possible thing).
Perhaps an example that illustrates the principle is the story of the lepers who found themselves starving outside of Jerusalem. They figured that by remaining in place they would starve to death. So they might as well take a chance and go to the Aramean encampment. In the end it turned out well for them:
II Melachim 7:3-7
Now there were four leprous men at the entrance of the gate; and they said one to another: 'Why sit we here until we die? If we say: We will enter into the city, then the famine is in the city, and we shall die there; and if we sit still here, we die also. Now therefore come, and let us fall unto the host of the Arameans; if they save us alive, we shall live; and if they kill us, we shall but die.' And they rose up in the twilight, to go unto the camp of the Arameans; and when they were come to the outermost part of the camp of the Arameans, behold, there was no man there. For the Lord had made the host of the Arameans to hear a noise of chariots, and a noise of horses, even the noise of a great host; and they said one to another: 'Lo, the king of Israel hath hired against us the kings of the Hittites, and the kings of the Egyptians, to come upon us.' Wherefore they arose and fled in the twilight, and left their tents, and their horses, and their asses, even the camp as it was, and fled for their life.
3. Perhaps the Zohar gives a variant reading on the end of v. 22 : לְמַעַן, הַצִּיל אֹתוֹ מִיָּדָם, לַהֲשִׁיבוֹ, אֶל-אָבִיו Instead of assuming that the saving of Yosef would take place by means of Reuven’s eventual intervention, perhaps Yosef could be saved by simply removing him from the brothers’ control by having him cast into the pit.
2 And Reuven returned unto the pit; and, behold, Yosef was not in the pit; and he rent his clothes. And he returned unto his brethren, and said: 'The child is not; and as for me, whither shall I go?'
3 And Reuven answered them, saying: 'Spoke I not unto you, saying: Do not sin against the child; and ye would not hear? therefore also, behold, his blood is required.'
4 And Reuven heard it, and delivered him out of their hand; and said: 'Let us not take his life.' And Reuven said unto them: 'Shed no blood; cast him into this pit that is in the wilderness, but lay no hand upon him'--that he might deliver him out of their hand, to restore him to his father.
5 ר' אליהו בן-אמוזג (אם למקרא), איטליה (1822-1900)
רב ופילוסוף, כתב פירוש למקרא.
בן למשפחה ששורשיה בפאס שבמרוקו. למרות שגדל ללא הורים (נפטרו בהיותו בן 4), הצליח לרכוש השכלה רחבה וכבר בגיל 18 הוסמך לרבנות, ושימש כרב העיר ליוורנו במשך כחמישים שנה.
בהגותו ביקש להדגיש את היסוד האוניברסליסטי שלטענתו משתקף מהדת היהודית (למשל בספרו "ישראל והאנושות"). ניתן לזהות בכתביו נסיונות להתמודד עם רעיונותיהם של קאנט, הגל, פיכטה, ופילוסופים אחרים.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment