Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a 26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50
43:1 VE HA RA'AV KAVED BA ARETS
וְהָרָעָב כָּבֵד בָּאָרֶץ
KJ (King James translation): And the famine was sore in the land.
BN (BibleNet translation): And the famine was severe in the land.
43:2 VA YEHI KA ASHER KILU LE'ECHOL ET HA SHEVER ASHER HEVIY'U MI MITSRAYIM VA YOMER AL'EYHEM AVIYHEM SHUVU SHIVRU LANU ME'AT OCHEL
וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר כִּלּוּ לֶאֱכֹל אֶת הַשֶּׁבֶר אֲשֶׁר הֵבִיאוּ מִמִּצְרָיִם וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם אֲבִיהֶם שֻׁבוּ שִׁבְרוּ לָנוּ מְעַט אֹכֶל
KJ: And it came to pass, when they had eaten up the corn which they had brought out of Egypt, their father said unto them, Go again, buy us a little food.
BN: And it came to pass, when they had eaten up the corn which they had brought out of Mitsrayim, that their father said to them, "Go again, buy us a little food."
This is really quite shocking! How callous and uncaring! Shim'on is held hostage, in chains and in prison, but rather than hurrying back to rescue him, they wait until they have to go back anyway, having run out of food to eat; and even then it appears the food is the priority, not Shim'on. Presumably, if the famine had come to an end and food had become available, Shim'on would have been abandoned rather than risk Bin-Yamin.
ALEYHEM: Sometimes with a third-letter Yud, as here, but mostly without one (see verse 11 below); were the Masoretic editors simply inconsistent, or is there a grammatical point that I am missing?
43:3 VA YOMER ELAV YEHUDAH LEMOR HA ED HE'ID BANU HA ISH LEMOR LO TIR'U PHANAY BILTI ACHIYCHEM IT'CHEM
וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו יְהוּדָה לֵאמֹר הָעֵד הֵעִד בָּנוּ הָאִישׁ לֵאמֹר לֹא תִרְאוּ פָנַי בִּלְתִּי אֲחִיכֶם אִתְּכֶם
KJ: And Judah spake unto him, saying, The man did solemnly protest unto us, saying, Ye shall not see my face, except your brother be with you.
BN: And Yehudah spoke to him saying, "The man told us very explicitly, saying, 'You shall not see my face again, if your brother is not with you'...
HA'ED HA'ID (העד העד): explore the language here in more detail.
When did he say that? And why the authorial choice to put the words in Yehudah's mouth? What we are told that he actually said is in Genesis 42:18-20: "Do this, and live, for I fear Ha Elohim... If you are honest men, let one of your brothers be bound in your prison-house; the rest of you go, and carry corn for the famine in your houses... But bring your youngest brother back to me; that way your words will be verified, and you shall not die."
43:4 IM YESHCHA MESHAL'E'ACH ET ACHIYNU ITANU NERDAH VE NISHBERA LECHA OCHEL
אִם יֶשְׁךָ מְשַׁלֵּחַ אֶת אָחִינוּ אִתָּנוּ נֵרְדָה וְנִשְׁבְּרָה לְךָ אֹכֶל
KJ: If thou wilt send our brother with us, we will go down and buy thee food:
BN: "If you will send our brother with us, we will go down and buy you food...
And for themselves too, surely? The phrasing is somewhat odd.
43:5 VE IM EYNCHA MESHAL'E'ACH LO NERED KI HA ISH AMAR ELEYNU LO TIR'U PHANAY BILTI ACHIYCHEM IT'CHEM
וְאִם אֵינְךָ מְשַׁלֵּחַ לֹא נֵרֵד כִּי הָאִישׁ אָמַר אֵלֵינוּ לֹא תִרְאוּ פָנַי בִּלְתִּי אֲחִיכֶם אִתְּכֶם
KJ: But if thou wilt not send him, we will not go down: for the man said unto us, Ye shall not see my face, except your brother be with you.
BN: "But if you will not send him, we will not go down, for the man said to us, 'You shall not see my face, unless your brother is with you.'"
Why is it necessary to say this twice?
43:6 VA YOMER YISRA-EL LAMAH HARE'OTEM LI LEHAGID LA ISH HA OD LACHEM ACH?
וַיֹּאמֶר יִשְׂרָאֵל לָמָה הֲרֵעֹתֶם לִי לְהַגִּיד לָאִישׁ הַעוֹד לָכֶם אָח
KJ: And Israel said, Wherefore dealt ye so ill with me, as to tell the man whether ye had yet a brother?
BN: And Yisra-El said, "Why have you dealt so ill with me, telling the man that you had another brother?"
The question itself is entirely reasonable, and again à la Laurel and Hardy, picking up the foolishness of telling about the lost brother. Great psychological insight and great dramatic tension created by a simple technique of good story-telling.
43:7 VA YOMRU SHA'OL SHA'AL HA ISH LANU U LE MOLADETENU LEMOR HA OD AVIYCHEM CHAY HA YESH LACHEM ACH VA NAGED LO AL PI HA DEVARIM HA ELEH HA YADO'A NEDA KI YOMAR HORIYDU ET ACHIYCHEM
וַיֹּאמְרוּ שָׁאוֹל שָׁאַל הָאִישׁ לָנוּ וּלְמוֹלַדְתֵּנוּ לֵאמֹר הַעוֹד אֲבִיכֶם חַי הֲיֵשׁ לָכֶם אָח וַנַגֶּד לוֹ עַל פִּי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה הֲיָדוֹעַ נֵדַע כִּי יֹאמַר הוֹרִידוּ אֶת אֲחִיכֶם
KJ: And they said, The man asked us straitly of our state, and of our kindred, saying, Is your father yet alive? have ye another brother? and we told him according to the tenor of these words: could we certainly know that he would say, Bring your brother down?
BN: And they said, "The man questioned us directly about our birthplace, asking, 'Is your father still alive? Do you have any other brothers?' And we answered his questions accordingly. How could we possibly have known that he would say, 'Bring your brother down'?"
We were never told of him asking these questions, of course. Do we believe the brothers, or are they making it up because they need to placate Ya'akov? Again, great story-telling technique. And at the same time, it is entirely likely that Yoseph would have asked precisely these two questions.
SHA'OL SHA'AL: once again picks up the endless word-play which finds the tale simultaneously in a desert pit, an Egyptian dungeon-jail, and the Underworld itself, She'ol, ruled by Sha'ul.
43:8 VA YOMER YEHUDAH EL YISRA-EL AVIV SHILCHAH HA NA'AR ITI VE NAKUMAH VE NELECHAH VE NICHEYEH VE LO NAMUT GAM ANACHNU GAM ATAH GAM TAPENU
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוּדָה אֶל יִשְׂרָאֵל אָבִיו שִׁלְחָה הַנַּעַר אִתִּי וְנָקוּמָה וְנֵלֵכָה וְנִחְיֶה וְלֹא נָמוּת גַּם אֲנַחְנוּ גַם אַתָּה גַּם טַפֵּנוּ
KJ: And Judah said unto Israel his father, Send the lad with me, and we will arise and go; that we may live, and not die, both we, and thou, and also our little ones.
BN: Then Yehudah said to Yisra-El, "Send the lad with me, and we will get up and leave, that we may live, and not die, both we, and you, and also our little ones...
Yehudah the hero, again! - a necessity of the tale, which is being told for the only two surviving tribes after the defeat of the northern kingdom of Yisra-El by Sennacherib around 700 BCE: the surviving tribes being of course Yehudah and Bin-Yamin!
Within the narrative, rather than the historical context of the making of this version of the narrative, we note that Re'u-Ven had already made a similar offer. And perhaps there was once a Reubenite version of the legend which was different from the way they told the tale around the caravanserais of Yehudah? Wouldn't it be interesting if a version from Dan or Naphtali were suddenly discovered, with their eponymous ancestors turning out to be the respective heroes! And if so, would their father be referred to as Ya'akov or Yisra-El? And what would be the name of the god?
43:9 ANOCHI E'ERVENU MI YADI TEVAKSHENU IM LO HAVIY'OTIV ELEYCHA VE HITSAGTAVIV LEPHANEYCHA VE CHATA'TI LECHA KOL HA YAMIM
אָנֹכִי אֶעֶרְבֶנּוּ מִיָּדִי תְּבַקְשֶׁנּוּ אִם לֹא הֲבִיאֹתִיו אֵלֶיךָ וְהִצַּגְתִּיו לְפָנֶיךָ וְחָטָאתִי לְךָ כָּל הַיָּמִים
KJ: I will be surety for him; of my hand shalt thou require him: if I bring him not unto thee, and set him before thee, then let me bear the blame for ever:
BN: "I will stand surety for him. Of my hand you shall require him. If I do not bring him back to you, and set him before you, then let me bear the blame for ever...
But the repetition allows us to place the original story of Ya'akov in Re'u-Ven, which is to say the Le'ah/Ephrayimite tradition of Northern Yisra-El (the ten tribes); this version belonging to Yehudah, which is to say the Rachelite tradition of Yeru-Shala'im and the remnant. If this is correct, we can go back and see how it affects earlier passages. Look at a map of the tribes first though - Re'u-Ven, along with Gad and half of Menasheh, had their tribal territories on the east side of the Yarden; Re'u-Ven immediately north of Mo-Av, which was itself immediately north of Edom.
And as to the matter of standing surety, we are again in the realms of complex psychological insight. Yehudah offers to be held responsible if the worst fate should befall Bin-Yamin. What arrogance to think Ya'akov values his life more highly than Bin-Yamin's death, or indeed the continuing loss of Shim'on. How can a father make that choice between his sons? And what price will Yehudah pay - the forfeiture of his own life, or merely blame? Re'u-Ven offered his own two sons. Not much use to Ya'akov, either way. But on the other hand, the family needs to eat, and without sending Bin-Yamin they will not be able to refill their granaries.
HAVIY'OTIV...HITSAGTAVIV: Normally a Yud-Vav ending would be pronounced AV, even though it looks like it should be pronounced IV; here, the Masoretic editors have added a Yud to both words to ensure that IV is recognised on this occasion.
43:10 KI LUL'E HITMAHMAHNU KI ATA SHAVNU ZEH PHA'AMAYIM
כִּי לוּלֵא הִתְמַהְמָהְנוּ כִּי עַתָּה שַׁבְנוּ זֶה פַעֲמָיִם
KJ: For except we had lingered, surely now we had returned this second time.
BN: "And if we hadn't hung around having this pointless discussion, we would have been there and back twice by now".
Sorry, is my translation too colloquial?
And why hasn't that phrase entered modern slang? In Yehudit-Ivrit I mean, where it is beautifully poetic as well as emotionally powerful. Just a simple "lul'e", implying the rest of the verse. It is so perfectly poetical, there is no need to render this anachronistic translation into contemporary English. Lul'e. Lul'e! The precise opposite of mañana!
43:11 VA YOMER AL'EHEM YISRA-EL AVIYHEM IM KEN EPHO ZOT ASU KECHU MI ZIMRAT HA ARETS BICHLEYCHEM VE HORIYDU LA ISH MINCHAH ME'AT TSARI U ME'AT DEVASH NECH'OT VA LOT BATNIM U SHEK'EDIM
וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲבִיהֶם אִם כֵּן אֵפוֹא זֹאת עֲשׂוּ קְחוּ מִזִּמְרַת הָאָרֶץ בִּכְלֵיכֶם וְהוֹרִידוּ לָאִישׁ מִנְחָה מְעַט צֳרִי וּמְעַט דְּבַשׁ נְכֹאת וָלֹט בָּטְנִים וּשְׁקֵדִ
KJ: And their father Israel said unto them, If it must be so now, do this; take of the best fruits in the land in your vessels, and carry down the man a present, a little balm, and a little honey, spices, and myrrh, nuts, and almonds:
BN: And their father Yisra-El said to them, "If this is how it has to be, then do this; take of the choicest fruits of the land in your containers, and carry a present down for the man, a little balm and a little honey, some spices, and laudanum, and nuts - almonds...
We are in the midst of a seven year famine so severe there was nothing left to eat in all the land of Kena'an! Except, as it now transpires, balm, honey, spices, laudanum (laudanum? see my note to Genesis 37:25), nuts, almonds...
Mind you they would have liked date-honey, which is rare indeed in Egypt; the nuts would have been pistachios.
Is Ya'akov suggesting bribery, in the form of a sweetener? Chas ve Chalilah!
43:12 VE CHESEPH MISHNEH KECHU VE YEDCHEM VE ET HA KESEPH HA MUSHAV BE PHI AMTECHOTEYCHEM TASHIYVU VE YEDCHEM ULAI MISHGEH HU
וְכֶסֶף מִשְׁנֶה קְחוּ בְיֶדְכֶם וְאֶת הַכֶּסֶף הַמּוּשָׁב בְּפִי אַמְתְּחֹתֵיכֶם תָּשִׁיבוּ בְיֶדְכֶם אוּלַי מִשְׁגֶּה הוּא
KJ: And take double money in your hand; and the money that was brought again in the mouth of your sacks, carry it again in your hand; peradventure it was an oversight:
BN: "And take double money in your hand; and the money that was returned in the mouths of your sacks, carry that back in your hand; maybe it was an oversight...
Ya'akov of course is the expert in diplomatic gestures of this kind; Ya'akov who had Rachel hide the teraphim under her skirts while claiming she was menstrual; Ya'akov who practiced careful sheep husbandry; Ya'akov who knows how to make very good potage. We suddenly recognize where Yoseph learned his tricks!
43:13 VE ET ACHIYCHEM KACHU VE KUMU SHUVU EL HA ISH
וְאֶת אֲחִיכֶם קָחוּ וְקוּמוּ שׁוּבוּ אֶל הָאִישׁ
KJ: Take also your brother, and arise, go again unto the man:
BN: "Take your brother as well, and get up now, go back to the man...
43:14 VE EL SHADAI YITEN LACHEM RACHAMIM LIPHNEY HA ISH VE SHILACH LACHEM ET ACHIYCHEM ACHER VE ET BIN-YAMIN VA ANI KA ASHER SHACHOLTI SHACHALTI
וְאֵל שַׁדַּי יִתֵּן לָכֶם רַחֲמִים לִפְנֵי הָאִישׁ וְשִׁלַּח לָכֶם אֶת אֲחִיכֶם אַחֵר וְאֶת בִּנְיָמִין וַאֲנִי כַּאֲשֶׁר שָׁכֹלְתִּי שָׁכָלְתִּי
KJ: And God Almighty give you mercy before the man, that he may send away your other brother, and Benjamin. If I be bereaved of my children, I am bereaved.
BN: "And may El Shadai show you mercy before the man, that he may release your other brother to you, and Bin-Yamin. And as for me, if I am bereaved of my children, I am bereaved."
EL SHADAI (אל שדי)! This is a surprise. Ya'akov still worships the old mountain god of Av-Raham? We have never seen or heard this at any point of his story. I am inclined to suggest to the Documentary Hypothesists that we now need an ES alongside the HE (Ha Elohim) that I have already recommended adding to the list of J, E, P and D.
Or is there a link from Yisra-El to El Shadai, but Ya'akov to YHVH? Worth checking, but instinct tells me that no, there is none.
VA ANI KA ASHER SHACHOLTI SHACHALTI: An almost Yiddish ending to this phrase; the repeated "sh", I wonder if this isn't actually the source – I mean shmource.
43:15 VA YIKCHU HA ANASHIM ET HA MINCHAH HA ZOT U MISHNEH KESEPH LAKCHU VE YADAM VE ET BIN-YAMIN VA YAKUMU VA YERDU MITSRAYIM VA YA'AMDU LIPHNEY YOSEPH
KJ: And the men took that present, and they took double money in their hand, and Benjamin; and rose up, and went down to Egypt, and stood before Joseph.
BN: And the men took that gift, and they took double money in their hands, and Bin-Yamin, and rose up, and went down to Mitsrayim, and stood before Yoseph.
וַיִּקְחוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים אֶת הַמִּנְחָה הַזֹּאת וּמִשְׁנֶה כֶּסֶף לָקְחוּ בְיָדָם וְאֶת בִּנְיָמִן וַיָּקֻמוּ וַיֵּרְדוּ מִצְרַיִם וַיַּעַמְדוּ לִפְנֵי יוֹסֵף
KJ: And the men took that present, and they took double money in their hand, and Benjamin; and rose up, and went down to Egypt, and stood before Joseph.
BN: And the men took that gift, and they took double money in their hands, and Bin-Yamin, and rose up, and went down to Mitsrayim, and stood before Yoseph.
YADAM: Several different uses of the word YAD in this chapter. In verse 9 Yehudah took Bin-Yamin "in hand", making himself responsible for the boy's safe return. Here they are taking the money "with them", in their wallets rather than physically in their hands; the same in verses 21 and 22. Something similar in verse 26, when they bring in the gift; clearly this was not physically "in their hands", but rather "in their luggage", as they had to go outside to fetch it. So now, we could say, using the English idiom, we have this matter in hand.
BIN-YAMIN (בנימן): sometimes spelled with a second Yud (בנימין), though here not. See next verse.
BIN-YAMIN (בנימן): sometimes spelled with a second Yud (בנימין), though here not. See next verse.
MITSRAYIM (מצרים): Grammatical error, it should be MITSRAYIMAH, with a final Hey (ה) indicating "towards".
End of fifth fragment.
43:16 VA YAR YOSEPH ITAM ET BIN-YAMIN VA YOMER LA ASHER AL BEITO HAV'E ET HA ANASHIM HA BAYETAH U TEVO'ACH TEVACH VE HACHEN KI ITI YO'CHLU HA ANASHIM BA TSAHARAYIM
KJ: And when Joseph saw Benjamin with them, he said to the ruler of his house, Bring these men home, and slay, and make ready; for these men shall dine with me at noon.
BN: And when Yoseph saw Bin-Yamin with them, he said to the steward of the house, "Bring the men into the house, and sacrifice some meat, and prepare it, for the men shall dine with me at noon."
TEVO'ACH TEVACH: Note TABACH (טבח) in its various usages, then look back to SAR HA TABACHIM (שר הטבחים) as Poti-Phar's job. How do we get from this to "captain of the guard"?
Surprising that he recognised him, given the time he has been away, and how young Bin-Yamin was when he left? I guess he'd met the other ten, so number 11 had to be Benny.
43:17 VA YA'AS HA ISH KA ASHER AMAR YOSEPH VA YAV'E HA ISH ET HA ANASHIM BEITAH YOSEPH
KJ: And the man did as Joseph bade; and the man brought the men into Joseph's house.
BN: And the man did as Yoseph instructed; and the man brought the men into Yoseph's house.
43:18 VA YIYR'U HA ANASHIM KI HUV'U BEIT YOSEPH VA YOMRU AL DEVAR HA KESEPH HA SHAV BE AMTECHOTEYNU BA TECHILAH ANACHNU MUVA'IM LEHITGOLEL ALEYNU U LEHITNAPEL ALEYNU VE LAKACHAT OTANU LA AVADIM VE ET CHAMOREYNU
KJ: And the men were afraid, because they were brought into Joseph's house; and they said, Because of the money that was returned in our sacks at the first time are we brought in; that he may seek occasion against us, and fall upon us, and take us for bondmen, and our asses.
BN: And the men were afraid, because they were taken into Yoseph's house. And they said, "It must be because of the money that was returned in our sacks the first time that we are being brought in. No doubt he'll find some excuse to lambast us, and fall on us, and take us for bondsmen, and our asses."
CHAMOREYNU (וחמרינו): a lovely touch! No camels though. The Redactor is still in a state of confusion as to whether there were camels then or not. There weren't.
As if he couldn't just arrest them.
cf Exodus 22:2.
43:19 VA YIGSHU EL HA ISH ASHER AL BEIT YOSEPH VA YEDABRU ELAV PETACH HA BAYIT
KJ: And they came near to the steward of Joseph's house, and they communed with him at the door of the house,
BN: And they approached the man who was the steward of Yoseph's house, and they spoke to him at the door of the house.
Another of the high-points of psychological insight revealed throughout this tale; the scale of their anxiety which has them pleading their case... to the chamberlain! And why the Chamberlain specifically, and not the doorman, or the wine-waitress, which would have been just as psychologically plausible? Because that was the precise role tat Yoseph had in Poti-Phar's house when he was first in Egypt (Genesis 39:4)
43:20 VA YOMRU BI ADONI YAROD YARADNU BA TECHILAH LISHBOR OCHEL
KJ: And said, O sir, we came indeed down at the first time to buy food:
BN: And they said, "My lord, the first time we really did come down to buy food...
43:21 VA YEHI KI VA'NU EL HA MALON VA NIPHTECHAH ET AMTECHOTEYNU VE HINEH CHESEPH ISH BE PHI AMTACHOTO KASPENU BE MISHKALO VA NASHEV OTO BE YADENU
KJ: And it came to pass, when we came to the inn, that we opened our sacks, and, behold, everyman's money was in the mouth of his sack, our money in full weight: and we have brought it again in our hand.
BN: "And it came to pass, when we reached the caravanserai, that we opened our sacks, and behold, every man's money was in the mouth of his sack, our money in full weight; but we've brought it back in our hands...
The fact is, he's got them absolutely terrified, which is the best vengeance he can aspire to, given that he has no desire to kill them or see them physically harmed.
I love the KJ translation on this occasion: when we came to the inn! "The Dog and Bone", was it, or perhaps "The Spy and Donkey", in the middle of the Negev desert!
43:22 VE CHESEPH ACHER HORADNU VE YADENU LISHBOR OCHEL LO YADA'NU MI SAM KASPENU BE AMTECHOTEYNU
KJ: And other money have we brought down in our hands to buy food: we cannot tell who put our money in our sacks.
BN: "And we've brought other money down in our hands to buy food. We have no idea who put our money in our sacks."
But of course he was also testing their "honesty", as the BN translation phrased it, rather than their "uprightness". And so they have proven it.
43:23 VA YOMER SHALOM LACHEM AL TIYRA'U ELOHEYCHEM VE ELOHEY AVIYCHEM NATAN LACHEM MATMON BE AMTECHOTEYCHEM KASPECHEM BA ELAI VA YOTS'E AL'EHEM ET SHIM'ON
KJ: And he said, Peace be to you, fear not: your God, and the God of your father, hath given you treasure in your sacks: I had your money. And he brought Simeon out unto them.
BN: And he said, "Hush now, don't be so anxious. Your gods, and the gods of your fathers, put treasure in your sacks. I had your money." And he brought Shim'on out to them.
They spoke to the steward, not Yoseph; yet the answer sounds like something that needed to come from Yoseph, not the steward. However the next verse makes clear that this is the steward speaking, perhaps acting as interpreter.
Question: has he kept Shim'on in jail all this time, or let him in on the secret and kept him in his house? We have to assume, out of vengeance, the former.
SHALOM LACHEM: Not SHALOM AL'ECHEM as we might have expected. He is calming them, not welcoming them.
43:24 VA YAV'E HA ISH ET HA ANASHIM BEITAH YOSEPH VA YITEN MAYIM VA YIRCHATSU RAGLEYHEM VA YITEN MISPO LA CHAMOREYHEM
KJ: And the man brought the men into Joseph's house, and gave them water, and they washed their feet; and he gave their asses provender.
BN: And the man brought the men into Yoseph's house, and gave them water, and they washed their feet; and he gave their asses provender.
43:25 VA YACHIYNU ET HA MINCHAH AD BO YOSEPH BA TSAHARAYIM KI SHAM'U KI SHAM YOCHLU LACHEM
KJ: And they made ready the present against Joseph came at noon: for they heard that they should eat bread there.
BN: And they got tgheir gift ready for when Yoseph was due to arrive at noon; for they had heard that they would be breaking bread there.
MINCHAH (מנחה): we have had issues with this word before, needing to determine if it was a "gift" to a person or an "offering" to a god. It is used for sacrifice in the Kayin story and elsewhere; here it clearly means a gift, but the connection is not accidental. What they are giving is not a host-gift but a penance-offering/bribe; but that really should be a MATANAH (מתנה), not a MINCHAH - cf Genesis 25:6, but also see Ecclesiastes 7:7 where the gift, like the one here, has the connotation of a bribe. And then see Exodus 28:38, where MATANAH is indeed used for a gift to the deity - the unique example in the Tanach of this usage.
43:26 VA YAVO YOSEPH HA BAYETAH VA YAVIY'U LO ET HA MINCHAH ASHER BE YADAM HA BAYETAH VA YISHTACHAVU LO ARTSAH
KJ: And when Joseph came home, they brought him the present which was in their hand into the house, and bowed themselves to him to the earth.
BN: And when Yoseph came home, they brought the gift which was in their hands into the house, and prostrated themselves before him on the ground.
HABAYETAH: (הביתה): the second use of the same word in the same sentence seems redundant.
YISHTACHAVU (ישתחוו): the second fulfilment of the dream-prophecy. But ARTSAH here is the ground, not the Earth or earth.
YADAM: see my note to verse 15.
43:27 VA YISH'AL LAHEM LE SHALOM VA YOMER HA SHALOM AVIYCHEM HA ZAKEN ASHER AMARTEM HA ODENU CHAY
KJ: And he asked them of their welfare, and said, Is your father well, the old man of whom ye spake? Is he yet alive?
BN: And he asked after their well-being, and said, "Is your father well, the old man of whom you spoke? Is he still alive?"
43:28 VA YOMRU SHALOM LA AVDECHA LE AVIYNU ODENU CHAI VA YIKDU VA YISHTACHAVU
KJ: And they answered, Thy servant our father is in good health, he is yet alive. And they bowed down their heads, and made obeisance.
BN: And they said, "Your servant our father is well; he is still alive." And they bowed their heads, and prostrated themselves again.
The weepiest moment in the entire Bible!
VA YISHTACHAVU (ישתחו); the number of variant spellings in the book is noteworthy; but that there should be so many so close to each other in a single scroll is odd. This one is simply a missing Vav (ו); otherwise it might read VA YISHTACHU, which would work, but only just. My version here is copied from the American-Conservative Sar Shalom edition, which chooses to place a kubutz (three dots in a diagonal line rendering the pronunciation "oo") underneath the Vav. The Chabad-Orthodox Mechon-Mamre gives the Yehudit without pointing first (וישתחו), but then offers the much more logical (וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ) in brackets, restoring (or perhaps adding) the second Vav in order to place a shuruk (a single dot, also rendering the pronunciation "oo") inside it. This conforms to the standard methodology of Masoretic pointing.
43:29 VA YISA EYNAV VA YAR ET BIN-YAMIN ACHIV BEN IMO VA YOMER HA ZEH ACHIYCHEM HA KATAN ASHER AMARTEM ELAI VA YOMAR ELOHIM YACHNECHA BENI
KJ: And he lifted up his eyes, and saw his brother Benjamin, his mother's son, and said, Is this your younger brother, of whom ye spake unto me? And he said, God be gracious unto thee, my son.
BN: And he looked up and saw Bin-Yamin his brother, his mother's son, and said, "Is this your youngest brother, of whom you spoke to me?" And he said, "May the gods be gracious to you, my son."
Throughout this Yoseph is intending full revenge on his brothers; placing one in the MISHMAR, as he was; worrying them; working on their fears; and finally the coup de grace with Bin-Yamin that is about to follow.
Again the extra Yud (י) in Bin-Yamin's name.
The blessing is thoroughly priestly.
How old was Bin-Yamin at this time? And how old at the time that Yoseph was kidnapped? Would he have remembered the boy at all? We ought to be able to work this out from the text. (The answer is probably that he was about twelve when Yoseph was taken away, so around 35 now).
ACHIV BEN IMO: Note the mother reference. Bin-Yamin is much more significant to him than his other brothers because they share a mother. But there is also another clue to matrilineality here; we can almost go so far as to say, you take your mother's tribe and faith, precisely because men were allowed more than one wife, and so regularly fathered half-siblings.
End of sixth fragment.
43:30 VA YEMAHER YOSEPH KI NICHMERU RACHAMAV EL ACHIV VA YEVAKESH LIVCHOT VA YAVO HA CHADARAH VA YEVCH SHAMAH
KJ: And Joseph made haste; for his bowels did yearn upon his brother: and he sought where to weep; and he entered into his chamber, and wept there.
BN: And Yoseph made haste; for his heart yearned towards his brother, and he looked for somewhere that he could weep; and he went into his bedroom, and wept there.
43:31 VA YIRCHATS PANAV VA YETS'E VA YIT'APAK VA YOMER SIYMU LACHEM
KJ: And he washed his face, and went out, and refrained himself, and said, Set on bread.
BN: And he washed his face, and came out; and he composed himself, and said, "Bring bread".
43:32 VA YASIYMU LO LEVADO VE LAHEM LAVADAM VE LA MITSRIM HA OCHLIM ITO LEVADAM KI LO YUCHLUN HA MITSRIM LE'ECHOL ET HA IVRIM LECHEM KI TO'EVAH HI LE MITSRAYIM
KJ: And they set on for him by himself, and for them by themselves, and for the Egyptians, which did eat with him, by themselves: because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians.
BN: And they brought food out for him on his own, and for them on their own, and for the Mitsrim who were eating with him on their own; because the Egyptians were not permitted to eat bread with the Ivrim; for that is an abomination to the Egyptians.
How far does this impact on the Mosaic Code later; a fascinating piece of sociology revealed here. Spence in his book on Egyptian Mythology book has something on this law.
But even if the Egyptians couldn't eat with the Habiru, this doesn't fully explain why Yoseph was apart from both. Did the Egyptians still consider him a Habiru? In which case, why didn't he eat with them. Was he unwilling to show his brethren that he was a Habiru? Was it because, as priest, or lord, he was set apart anyway - a caste superiority rather than the racial one that separated the others? Had he assimilated that far, and was now regarded as Mitsri? Records suggest that the Hyksos adopted this Egyptian custom, so there is no clue here for dating.
43:33 VA YESHVU LEPHANAV HA BECHOR KI VECHORATO VE HA TSA'IR KI TSE'IRATO VA YITMEHU HA ANASHIM ISH EL RE'EHU
KJ: And they sat before him, the firstborn according to his birthright, and the youngest according to his youth: and the men marvelled one at another.
BN: And they sat before him, the first-born according to his birthright, and the youngest according to his youth; and the men marvelled one with another.
The order of sitting is not something that a story-teller would normally bother to mention, so doing so renders it significant. Based on a hundred previous notes, I don't believe I need to explain the significance yet again.
Marvelled at what? The fact that they were being fed and not hung! Probably the sheer splendour of the house, the room, the furnishings, the banquet.
The entire Yoseph story now needs to be visualised iconotropically, because that is how the Egyptians "wrote" their stories. Imagine a series of friezes: the dreamer in his coat of many colours; the dreamer in the pit (or the jail); the dreamer half-naked with the priestess; the dreamer becomes king; the king and the twelve visitors; the sacks full of corn; the golden cup. Each incident seen on the frieze, interpreted, becomes this story of Yoseph and his brothers; but just as easily it could have become the life-cycle of Tammuz the corn-god in his Egyptian Osher (Osiris) mask. So was it originally a story, or did the Habiru, or the Beney Yisra-El, along with their other Egyptian paraphernalia, interpret Judaically a set of iconic images?
43:34 VA YISA MAS'OT ME ET PANAV AL'EHEM VA TEREV MAS'AT BIN-YAMIN MI MAS'OT KULAM CHAMESH YADOT VA YISHTU VA YISHKERU IMO
KJ: And he took and sent messes unto them from before him: but Benjamin's mess was five times so much as any of theirs. And they drank, and were merry with him.
BN: And portions were taken to them from before him; but Bin-Yamin's portion was five times as much as any of theirs. And they drank, and were merry with them.
Again it is unclear who is eating what; it appears that Yoseph was not only eating the same food as his brothers, but that it was being placed before him first, and then portions taken to them: presumably so that he can taste it, and reassure them in doing so that they are not being poisoned.
VAYISHKERU (וישכרו): "they were merry with him" - a polite way of saying that much alcohol was consumed in a spirit of confraternity. But what would they have been drinking? The Yiddish work "shicker", meaning "tipsy", has its roots here.
Are they not suspicious? This is so far removed from what they feared and expected. "Why are we being banqueted?"
End of chapter 43.
43:16 VA YAR YOSEPH ITAM ET BIN-YAMIN VA YOMER LA ASHER AL BEITO HAV'E ET HA ANASHIM HA BAYETAH U TEVO'ACH TEVACH VE HACHEN KI ITI YO'CHLU HA ANASHIM BA TSAHARAYIM
וַיַּרְא יוֹסֵף אִתָּם אֶת בִּנְיָמִין וַיֹּאמֶר לַאֲשֶׁר עַל בֵּיתוֹ הָבֵא אֶת הָאֲנָשִׁים הַבָּיְתָה וּטְבֹחַ טֶבַח וְהָכֵן כִּי אִתִּי יֹאכְלוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים בַּצָּהֳרָיִם
KJ: And when Joseph saw Benjamin with them, he said to the ruler of his house, Bring these men home, and slay, and make ready; for these men shall dine with me at noon.
BN: And when Yoseph saw Bin-Yamin with them, he said to the steward of the house, "Bring the men into the house, and sacrifice some meat, and prepare it, for the men shall dine with me at noon."
TEVO'ACH TEVACH: Note TABACH (טבח) in its various usages, then look back to SAR HA TABACHIM (שר הטבחים) as Poti-Phar's job. How do we get from this to "captain of the guard"?
Surprising that he recognised him, given the time he has been away, and how young Bin-Yamin was when he left? I guess he'd met the other ten, so number 11 had to be Benny.
43:17 VA YA'AS HA ISH KA ASHER AMAR YOSEPH VA YAV'E HA ISH ET HA ANASHIM BEITAH YOSEPH
וַיַּעַשׂ הָאִישׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר אָמַר יוֹסֵף וַיָּבֵא הָאִישׁ אֶת הָאֲנָשִׁים בֵּיתָה יוֹסֵף
KJ: And the man did as Joseph bade; and the man brought the men into Joseph's house.
BN: And the man did as Yoseph instructed; and the man brought the men into Yoseph's house.
43:18 VA YIYR'U HA ANASHIM KI HUV'U BEIT YOSEPH VA YOMRU AL DEVAR HA KESEPH HA SHAV BE AMTECHOTEYNU BA TECHILAH ANACHNU MUVA'IM LEHITGOLEL ALEYNU U LEHITNAPEL ALEYNU VE LAKACHAT OTANU LA AVADIM VE ET CHAMOREYNU
וַיִּירְאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים כִּי הוּבְאוּ בֵּית יוֹסֵף וַיֹּאמְרוּ עַל דְּבַר הַכֶּסֶף הַשָּׁב בְּאַמְתְּחֹתֵינוּ בַּתְּחִלָּה אֲנַחְנוּ מוּבָאִים לְהִתְגֹּלֵל עָלֵינוּ וּלְהִתְנַפֵּל עָלֵינוּ וְלָקַחַת אֹתָנוּ לַעֲבָדִים וְאֶת חֲמֹרֵינוּ
KJ: And the men were afraid, because they were brought into Joseph's house; and they said, Because of the money that was returned in our sacks at the first time are we brought in; that he may seek occasion against us, and fall upon us, and take us for bondmen, and our asses.
BN: And the men were afraid, because they were taken into Yoseph's house. And they said, "It must be because of the money that was returned in our sacks the first time that we are being brought in. No doubt he'll find some excuse to lambast us, and fall on us, and take us for bondsmen, and our asses."
CHAMOREYNU (וחמרינו): a lovely touch! No camels though. The Redactor is still in a state of confusion as to whether there were camels then or not. There weren't.
As if he couldn't just arrest them.
cf Exodus 22:2.
43:19 VA YIGSHU EL HA ISH ASHER AL BEIT YOSEPH VA YEDABRU ELAV PETACH HA BAYIT
וַיִּגְּשׁוּ אֶל הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר עַל בֵּית יוֹסֵף וַיְדַבְּרוּ אֵלָיו פֶּתַח הַבָּיִת
KJ: And they came near to the steward of Joseph's house, and they communed with him at the door of the house,
BN: And they approached the man who was the steward of Yoseph's house, and they spoke to him at the door of the house.
Another of the high-points of psychological insight revealed throughout this tale; the scale of their anxiety which has them pleading their case... to the chamberlain! And why the Chamberlain specifically, and not the doorman, or the wine-waitress, which would have been just as psychologically plausible? Because that was the precise role tat Yoseph had in Poti-Phar's house when he was first in Egypt (Genesis 39:4)
43:20 VA YOMRU BI ADONI YAROD YARADNU BA TECHILAH LISHBOR OCHEL
וַיֹּאמְרוּ בִּי אֲדֹנִי יָרֹד יָרַדְנוּ בַּתְּחִלָּה לִשְׁבָּר אֹכֶל
KJ: And said, O sir, we came indeed down at the first time to buy food:
BN: And they said, "My lord, the first time we really did come down to buy food...
43:21 VA YEHI KI VA'NU EL HA MALON VA NIPHTECHAH ET AMTECHOTEYNU VE HINEH CHESEPH ISH BE PHI AMTACHOTO KASPENU BE MISHKALO VA NASHEV OTO BE YADENU
וַיְהִי כִּי בָאנוּ אֶל הַמָּלוֹן וַנִּפְתְּחָה אֶת אַמְתְּחֹתֵינוּ וְהִנֵּה כֶסֶף אִישׁ בְּפִי אַמְתַּחְתּוֹ כַּסְפֵּנוּ בְּמִשְׁקָלוֹ וַנָּשֶׁב אֹתוֹ בְּיָדֵנוּ
KJ: And it came to pass, when we came to the inn, that we opened our sacks, and, behold, everyman's money was in the mouth of his sack, our money in full weight: and we have brought it again in our hand.
BN: "And it came to pass, when we reached the caravanserai, that we opened our sacks, and behold, every man's money was in the mouth of his sack, our money in full weight; but we've brought it back in our hands...
The fact is, he's got them absolutely terrified, which is the best vengeance he can aspire to, given that he has no desire to kill them or see them physically harmed.
I love the KJ translation on this occasion: when we came to the inn! "The Dog and Bone", was it, or perhaps "The Spy and Donkey", in the middle of the Negev desert!
43:22 VE CHESEPH ACHER HORADNU VE YADENU LISHBOR OCHEL LO YADA'NU MI SAM KASPENU BE AMTECHOTEYNU
וְכֶסֶף אַחֵר הוֹרַדְנוּ בְיָדֵנוּ לִשְׁבָּר אֹכֶל לֹא יָדַעְנוּ מִי שָׂם כַּסְפֵּנוּ בְּאַמְתְּחֹתֵינוּ
KJ: And other money have we brought down in our hands to buy food: we cannot tell who put our money in our sacks.
BN: "And we've brought other money down in our hands to buy food. We have no idea who put our money in our sacks."
But of course he was also testing their "honesty", as the BN translation phrased it, rather than their "uprightness". And so they have proven it.
43:23 VA YOMER SHALOM LACHEM AL TIYRA'U ELOHEYCHEM VE ELOHEY AVIYCHEM NATAN LACHEM MATMON BE AMTECHOTEYCHEM KASPECHEM BA ELAI VA YOTS'E AL'EHEM ET SHIM'ON
וַיֹּאמֶר שָׁלוֹם לָכֶם אַל תִּירָאוּ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם וֵאלֹהֵי אֲבִיכֶם נָתַן לָכֶם מַטְמוֹן בְּאַמְתְּחֹתֵיכֶם כַּסְפְּכֶם בָּא אֵלָי וַיּוֹצֵא אֲלֵהֶם אֶת שִׁמְעוֹ
KJ: And he said, Peace be to you, fear not: your God, and the God of your father, hath given you treasure in your sacks: I had your money. And he brought Simeon out unto them.
BN: And he said, "Hush now, don't be so anxious. Your gods, and the gods of your fathers, put treasure in your sacks. I had your money." And he brought Shim'on out to them.
They spoke to the steward, not Yoseph; yet the answer sounds like something that needed to come from Yoseph, not the steward. However the next verse makes clear that this is the steward speaking, perhaps acting as interpreter.
Question: has he kept Shim'on in jail all this time, or let him in on the secret and kept him in his house? We have to assume, out of vengeance, the former.
SHALOM LACHEM: Not SHALOM AL'ECHEM as we might have expected. He is calming them, not welcoming them.
43:24 VA YAV'E HA ISH ET HA ANASHIM BEITAH YOSEPH VA YITEN MAYIM VA YIRCHATSU RAGLEYHEM VA YITEN MISPO LA CHAMOREYHEM
וַיָּבֵא הָאִישׁ אֶת הָאֲנָשִׁים בֵּיתָה יוֹסֵף וַיִּתֶּן מַיִם וַיִּרְחֲצוּ רַגְלֵיהֶם וַיִּתֵּן מִסְפּוֹא לַחֲמֹרֵיהֶם
KJ: And the man brought the men into Joseph's house, and gave them water, and they washed their feet; and he gave their asses provender.
BN: And the man brought the men into Yoseph's house, and gave them water, and they washed their feet; and he gave their asses provender.
43:25 VA YACHIYNU ET HA MINCHAH AD BO YOSEPH BA TSAHARAYIM KI SHAM'U KI SHAM YOCHLU LACHEM
וַיָּכִינוּ אֶת הַמִּנְחָה עַד בּוֹא יוֹסֵף בַּצָּהֳרָיִם כִּי שָׁמְעוּ כִּי שָׁם יֹאכְלוּ לָחֶם
KJ: And they made ready the present against Joseph came at noon: for they heard that they should eat bread there.
BN: And they got tgheir gift ready for when Yoseph was due to arrive at noon; for they had heard that they would be breaking bread there.
MINCHAH (מנחה): we have had issues with this word before, needing to determine if it was a "gift" to a person or an "offering" to a god. It is used for sacrifice in the Kayin story and elsewhere; here it clearly means a gift, but the connection is not accidental. What they are giving is not a host-gift but a penance-offering/bribe; but that really should be a MATANAH (מתנה), not a MINCHAH - cf Genesis 25:6, but also see Ecclesiastes 7:7 where the gift, like the one here, has the connotation of a bribe. And then see Exodus 28:38, where MATANAH is indeed used for a gift to the deity - the unique example in the Tanach of this usage.
43:26 VA YAVO YOSEPH HA BAYETAH VA YAVIY'U LO ET HA MINCHAH ASHER BE YADAM HA BAYETAH VA YISHTACHAVU LO ARTSAH
וַיָּבֹא יוֹסֵף הַבַּיְתָה וַיָּבִיאּוּ לוֹ אֶת הַמִּנְחָה אֲשֶׁר בְּיָדָם הַבָּיְתָה וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ לוֹ אָרְצָה
KJ: And when Joseph came home, they brought him the present which was in their hand into the house, and bowed themselves to him to the earth.
BN: And when Yoseph came home, they brought the gift which was in their hands into the house, and prostrated themselves before him on the ground.
HABAYETAH: (הביתה): the second use of the same word in the same sentence seems redundant.
YISHTACHAVU (ישתחוו): the second fulfilment of the dream-prophecy. But ARTSAH here is the ground, not the Earth or earth.
YADAM: see my note to verse 15.
43:27 VA YISH'AL LAHEM LE SHALOM VA YOMER HA SHALOM AVIYCHEM HA ZAKEN ASHER AMARTEM HA ODENU CHAY
וַיִּשְׁאַל לָהֶם לְשָׁלוֹם וַיֹּאמֶר הֲשָׁלוֹם אֲבִיכֶם הַזָּקֵן אֲשֶׁר אֲמַרְתֶּם הַעוֹדֶנּוּ חָי
KJ: And he asked them of their welfare, and said, Is your father well, the old man of whom ye spake? Is he yet alive?
BN: And he asked after their well-being, and said, "Is your father well, the old man of whom you spoke? Is he still alive?"
43:28 VA YOMRU SHALOM LA AVDECHA LE AVIYNU ODENU CHAI VA YIKDU VA YISHTACHAVU
וַיֹּאמְרוּ שָׁלוֹם לְעַבְדְּךָ לְאָבִינוּ עוֹדֶנּוּ חָי וַיִּקְּדוּ וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲוֻּ
KJ: And they answered, Thy servant our father is in good health, he is yet alive. And they bowed down their heads, and made obeisance.
BN: And they said, "Your servant our father is well; he is still alive." And they bowed their heads, and prostrated themselves again.
The weepiest moment in the entire Bible!
VA YISHTACHAVU (ישתחו); the number of variant spellings in the book is noteworthy; but that there should be so many so close to each other in a single scroll is odd. This one is simply a missing Vav (ו); otherwise it might read VA YISHTACHU, which would work, but only just. My version here is copied from the American-Conservative Sar Shalom edition, which chooses to place a kubutz (three dots in a diagonal line rendering the pronunciation "oo") underneath the Vav. The Chabad-Orthodox Mechon-Mamre gives the Yehudit without pointing first (וישתחו), but then offers the much more logical (וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ) in brackets, restoring (or perhaps adding) the second Vav in order to place a shuruk (a single dot, also rendering the pronunciation "oo") inside it. This conforms to the standard methodology of Masoretic pointing.
43:29 VA YISA EYNAV VA YAR ET BIN-YAMIN ACHIV BEN IMO VA YOMER HA ZEH ACHIYCHEM HA KATAN ASHER AMARTEM ELAI VA YOMAR ELOHIM YACHNECHA BENI
וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא אֶת בִּנְיָמִין אָחִיו בֶּן אִמּוֹ וַיֹּאמֶר הֲזֶה אֲחִיכֶם הַקָּטֹן אֲשֶׁר אֲמַרְתֶּם אֵלָי וַיֹּאמַר אֱלֹהִים יָחְנְךָ בְּנִי
BN: And he looked up and saw Bin-Yamin his brother, his mother's son, and said, "Is this your youngest brother, of whom you spoke to me?" And he said, "May the gods be gracious to you, my son."
Throughout this Yoseph is intending full revenge on his brothers; placing one in the MISHMAR, as he was; worrying them; working on their fears; and finally the coup de grace with Bin-Yamin that is about to follow.
Again the extra Yud (י) in Bin-Yamin's name.
The blessing is thoroughly priestly.
How old was Bin-Yamin at this time? And how old at the time that Yoseph was kidnapped? Would he have remembered the boy at all? We ought to be able to work this out from the text. (The answer is probably that he was about twelve when Yoseph was taken away, so around 35 now).
ACHIV BEN IMO: Note the mother reference. Bin-Yamin is much more significant to him than his other brothers because they share a mother. But there is also another clue to matrilineality here; we can almost go so far as to say, you take your mother's tribe and faith, precisely because men were allowed more than one wife, and so regularly fathered half-siblings.
End of sixth fragment.
43:30 VA YEMAHER YOSEPH KI NICHMERU RACHAMAV EL ACHIV VA YEVAKESH LIVCHOT VA YAVO HA CHADARAH VA YEVCH SHAMAH
וַיְמַהֵר יוֹסֵף כִּי נִכְמְרוּ רַחֲמָיו אֶל אָחִיו וַיְבַקֵּשׁ לִבְכּוֹת וַיָּבֹא הַחַדְרָה וַיֵּבְךְּ שָׁמָּה
KJ: And Joseph made haste; for his bowels did yearn upon his brother: and he sought where to weep; and he entered into his chamber, and wept there.
BN: And Yoseph made haste; for his heart yearned towards his brother, and he looked for somewhere that he could weep; and he went into his bedroom, and wept there.
43:31 VA YIRCHATS PANAV VA YETS'E VA YIT'APAK VA YOMER SIYMU LACHEM
וַיִּרְחַץ פָּנָיו וַיֵּצֵא וַיִּתְאַפַּק וַיֹּאמֶר שִׂימוּ לָחֶם
KJ: And he washed his face, and went out, and refrained himself, and said, Set on bread.
BN: And he washed his face, and came out; and he composed himself, and said, "Bring bread".
43:32 VA YASIYMU LO LEVADO VE LAHEM LAVADAM VE LA MITSRIM HA OCHLIM ITO LEVADAM KI LO YUCHLUN HA MITSRIM LE'ECHOL ET HA IVRIM LECHEM KI TO'EVAH HI LE MITSRAYIM
וַיָּשִׂימוּ לוֹ לְבַדּוֹ וְלָהֶם לְבַדָּם וְלַמִּצְרִים הָאֹכְלִים אִתּוֹ לְבַדָּם כִּי לֹא יוּכְלוּן הַמִּצְרִים לֶאֱכֹל אֶת הָעִבְרִים לֶחֶם כִּי תוֹעֵבָה הִוא לְמִצְרָיִם
KJ: And they set on for him by himself, and for them by themselves, and for the Egyptians, which did eat with him, by themselves: because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians.
BN: And they brought food out for him on his own, and for them on their own, and for the Mitsrim who were eating with him on their own; because the Egyptians were not permitted to eat bread with the Ivrim; for that is an abomination to the Egyptians.
How far does this impact on the Mosaic Code later; a fascinating piece of sociology revealed here. Spence in his book on Egyptian Mythology book has something on this law.
But even if the Egyptians couldn't eat with the Habiru, this doesn't fully explain why Yoseph was apart from both. Did the Egyptians still consider him a Habiru? In which case, why didn't he eat with them. Was he unwilling to show his brethren that he was a Habiru? Was it because, as priest, or lord, he was set apart anyway - a caste superiority rather than the racial one that separated the others? Had he assimilated that far, and was now regarded as Mitsri? Records suggest that the Hyksos adopted this Egyptian custom, so there is no clue here for dating.
43:33 VA YESHVU LEPHANAV HA BECHOR KI VECHORATO VE HA TSA'IR KI TSE'IRATO VA YITMEHU HA ANASHIM ISH EL RE'EHU
וַיֵּשְׁבוּ לְפָנָיו הַבְּכֹר כִּבְכֹרָתוֹ וְהַצָּעִיר כִּצְעִרָתוֹ וַיִּתְמְהוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ
KJ: And they sat before him, the firstborn according to his birthright, and the youngest according to his youth: and the men marvelled one at another.
BN: And they sat before him, the first-born according to his birthright, and the youngest according to his youth; and the men marvelled one with another.
The order of sitting is not something that a story-teller would normally bother to mention, so doing so renders it significant. Based on a hundred previous notes, I don't believe I need to explain the significance yet again.
Marvelled at what? The fact that they were being fed and not hung! Probably the sheer splendour of the house, the room, the furnishings, the banquet.
The entire Yoseph story now needs to be visualised iconotropically, because that is how the Egyptians "wrote" their stories. Imagine a series of friezes: the dreamer in his coat of many colours; the dreamer in the pit (or the jail); the dreamer half-naked with the priestess; the dreamer becomes king; the king and the twelve visitors; the sacks full of corn; the golden cup. Each incident seen on the frieze, interpreted, becomes this story of Yoseph and his brothers; but just as easily it could have become the life-cycle of Tammuz the corn-god in his Egyptian Osher (Osiris) mask. So was it originally a story, or did the Habiru, or the Beney Yisra-El, along with their other Egyptian paraphernalia, interpret Judaically a set of iconic images?
43:34 VA YISA MAS'OT ME ET PANAV AL'EHEM VA TEREV MAS'AT BIN-YAMIN MI MAS'OT KULAM CHAMESH YADOT VA YISHTU VA YISHKERU IMO
וַיִּשָּׂא מַשְׂאֹת מֵאֵת פָּנָיו אֲלֵהֶם וַתֵּרֶב מַשְׂאַת בִּנְיָמִן מִמַּשְׂאֹת כֻּלָּם חָמֵשׁ יָדוֹת וַיִּשְׁתּוּ וַיִּשְׁכְּרוּ עִמּוֹ
KJ: And he took and sent messes unto them from before him: but Benjamin's mess was five times so much as any of theirs. And they drank, and were merry with him.
BN: And portions were taken to them from before him; but Bin-Yamin's portion was five times as much as any of theirs. And they drank, and were merry with them.
Again it is unclear who is eating what; it appears that Yoseph was not only eating the same food as his brothers, but that it was being placed before him first, and then portions taken to them: presumably so that he can taste it, and reassure them in doing so that they are not being poisoned.
VAYISHKERU (וישכרו): "they were merry with him" - a polite way of saying that much alcohol was consumed in a spirit of confraternity. But what would they have been drinking? The Yiddish work "shicker", meaning "tipsy", has its roots here.
Are they not suspicious? This is so far removed from what they feared and expected. "Why are we being banqueted?"
End of chapter 43.
Surf The Site
Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a 26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50
Copyright © 2020 David Prashker
All rights reserved
The Argaman Press
No comments:
Post a Comment