rosends
Well-Known Member
Wow...what a strange parsha.
I developed two groups of questions, and I'll just put them out here. Admittedly, I have not yet gone through all the sources, so if anyone knows of any meforshim that deal with these, let me know so I can read up on answers. Otherwise, start opining!
1. I was reading up on the story of the cup bearer and the baker and how each got in trouble, had a dream, and had an end represented by the dream. The Artscroll chumash discusses the medrash and says that in order to shift focus away from the scandal created by the idea that Yosef could have been involved with a married Egyptian woman God causes the two official servants to fall from grace -- God set it up that the fly ended up in the wine and the pebble in the bread. So God set up that the baker would be killed.
This seems a bit cruel and even capricious. Who was this baker and what is his back story that, out of no where, he deserved to be set up (by circumstances heavenly set up, not even of his device) to die? Are there other examples of biblical characters introduced, given lines to say (as it were) and then killed with no explanation as to their guilt?
2. There is a famous Rashi (who is quoting from the talmud, Masechet Shabbat, 22a and Chaggigah 3a) about the verse in Bereisheet 37:24
וַיִּ֨קָּחֻ֔הוּ וַיַּשְׁלִ֥כוּ אֹת֖וֹ הַבֹּ֑רָה וְהַבּ֣וֹר רֵ֔ק אֵ֥ין בּ֖וֹ מָֽיִם׃ and took him and cast him into the pit. The pit was empty; there was no water in it.
The question dealt with in the gemara is in the supposedly superfluous description -- if the pit was empty, why say "no water"? And the answer is written up as (from Sefaria)
"Rav Kahana said that Rabbi Natan bar Manyumi taught in the name of Rabbi Tanḥum: What is the meaning of that which is written with regard to Joseph: “And they took him, and cast him into the pit; and the pit was empty, there was no water in it” (Genesis 37:24). By inference from that which is stated: “And the pit was empty,” don’t I know that there was no water in it? Rather, this teaches that there was no water in it, but there were snakes and scorpions in it."
Problems:
a. why is "there was no water" extra? I can say my house is empty when there are no people in it, but there is still a couch. The general concept of "empty" doesn't mean desolate necessarily, so one could see an empty pit that has water in it. We need to be told that there was no water because it would be natural for an otherwise empty pit to have a puddle of collected rain or groundwater. So I don't even see the need to ask the initial question.
b. if the answer is that there were snakes and scorpions in it, then it wasn't actually empty, so once it isn't empty, then saying it was specifically devoid of water makes even more sense!
c. of all things, why would R. Natan Bar Manyumi say (invent? imagine?) that there are specifically snakes and scorpions in it? Why both, and why these? Where does he get this list of species from? Not spiders? Why things with venom and not just small animals that swarm and bite?
d. there is a convoluted explanation which I read which says that the brothers, having decided not to kill Yosef threw him into a hole that looked empty, especially of water because they didn't want him to drown (but dying of thirst is ok?) but snakes and scorpions are small and would not be visible so they were OK throwing him in there because they didn't know the danger. Had they seen the danger and seen that God protected Yosef from these threats they would have known the overt miracle signaled that God favored Yosef and they shouldn't throw him in, and they would have saved him (therefore the entire descent to Egypt would not have happened etc).
That is the silliest and twistiest explanation I have ever heard. It flies in the face of other medrashim (they saw him as a threat and had the right to engage him as a rodef, so even if God had protected him, they would still have been justified) and ignores that God could have gotten everyone to Egypt in another way.
So I was thinking that maybe the words of R. Natan are metaphorical -- the brothers couldn't know that the pit would lead him to being surrounded by snakes and scorpions. Snakes, representing temptation of Potiphar's wife (like the snake and temptation in the Garden of Eden) and scorpions BUT I CAN'T FIND A GOOD AND TEXTUALLY PRECEDENTED SCORPION IMAGE.
Maybe the statement was that he pit had no mayim and mayim is Torah. But I don't know what that might mean.
All thoughts and references appreciated.
I developed two groups of questions, and I'll just put them out here. Admittedly, I have not yet gone through all the sources, so if anyone knows of any meforshim that deal with these, let me know so I can read up on answers. Otherwise, start opining!
1. I was reading up on the story of the cup bearer and the baker and how each got in trouble, had a dream, and had an end represented by the dream. The Artscroll chumash discusses the medrash and says that in order to shift focus away from the scandal created by the idea that Yosef could have been involved with a married Egyptian woman God causes the two official servants to fall from grace -- God set it up that the fly ended up in the wine and the pebble in the bread. So God set up that the baker would be killed.
This seems a bit cruel and even capricious. Who was this baker and what is his back story that, out of no where, he deserved to be set up (by circumstances heavenly set up, not even of his device) to die? Are there other examples of biblical characters introduced, given lines to say (as it were) and then killed with no explanation as to their guilt?
2. There is a famous Rashi (who is quoting from the talmud, Masechet Shabbat, 22a and Chaggigah 3a) about the verse in Bereisheet 37:24
וַיִּ֨קָּחֻ֔הוּ וַיַּשְׁלִ֥כוּ אֹת֖וֹ הַבֹּ֑רָה וְהַבּ֣וֹר רֵ֔ק אֵ֥ין בּ֖וֹ מָֽיִם׃ and took him and cast him into the pit. The pit was empty; there was no water in it.
The question dealt with in the gemara is in the supposedly superfluous description -- if the pit was empty, why say "no water"? And the answer is written up as (from Sefaria)
"Rav Kahana said that Rabbi Natan bar Manyumi taught in the name of Rabbi Tanḥum: What is the meaning of that which is written with regard to Joseph: “And they took him, and cast him into the pit; and the pit was empty, there was no water in it” (Genesis 37:24). By inference from that which is stated: “And the pit was empty,” don’t I know that there was no water in it? Rather, this teaches that there was no water in it, but there were snakes and scorpions in it."
Problems:
a. why is "there was no water" extra? I can say my house is empty when there are no people in it, but there is still a couch. The general concept of "empty" doesn't mean desolate necessarily, so one could see an empty pit that has water in it. We need to be told that there was no water because it would be natural for an otherwise empty pit to have a puddle of collected rain or groundwater. So I don't even see the need to ask the initial question.
b. if the answer is that there were snakes and scorpions in it, then it wasn't actually empty, so once it isn't empty, then saying it was specifically devoid of water makes even more sense!
c. of all things, why would R. Natan Bar Manyumi say (invent? imagine?) that there are specifically snakes and scorpions in it? Why both, and why these? Where does he get this list of species from? Not spiders? Why things with venom and not just small animals that swarm and bite?
d. there is a convoluted explanation which I read which says that the brothers, having decided not to kill Yosef threw him into a hole that looked empty, especially of water because they didn't want him to drown (but dying of thirst is ok?) but snakes and scorpions are small and would not be visible so they were OK throwing him in there because they didn't know the danger. Had they seen the danger and seen that God protected Yosef from these threats they would have known the overt miracle signaled that God favored Yosef and they shouldn't throw him in, and they would have saved him (therefore the entire descent to Egypt would not have happened etc).
That is the silliest and twistiest explanation I have ever heard. It flies in the face of other medrashim (they saw him as a threat and had the right to engage him as a rodef, so even if God had protected him, they would still have been justified) and ignores that God could have gotten everyone to Egypt in another way.
So I was thinking that maybe the words of R. Natan are metaphorical -- the brothers couldn't know that the pit would lead him to being surrounded by snakes and scorpions. Snakes, representing temptation of Potiphar's wife (like the snake and temptation in the Garden of Eden) and scorpions BUT I CAN'T FIND A GOOD AND TEXTUALLY PRECEDENTED SCORPION IMAGE.
Maybe the statement was that he pit had no mayim and mayim is Torah. But I don't know what that might mean.
All thoughts and references appreciated.
