Questions — Parshah Vayeshev
Chapter 37
What is the function of verse one? Either verse one or the first part of verse two, “This then is the line of Jacob,” appear to the second clause of verse two be superfluous. If verse one is there to push the plot forward then it is doing the same work. If the first part of the second verse was the opening of the chapter it would be a more apt match to the preceding paragraph that ended the last parshah. That paragraph which detailed the line of Esau would logically be followed by a similar paragraph about Jacob’s progeny. Verse two opens the parshah in the same way that Chaye Sarah opens. Rather than answer the question that it raises it moves on past the question that it raises.
Why does verse one use the circumlocutious word, “Megure?” “Magur” is a noun formed from the hifil of the shoresh “Gur.” You might translate it as “Jacob settled in the land which was the place of his father’s sojourning, the land of Canaan.” The sentence contains a parallelism between “Erets Megure Aviv,” and “Eretz Canaan/” Is this a poetic concern? Why does the sentence need to carry both ideas?
:”As a helper to the sons of his father’s wives Bilhah and Zilpah.” Are these sons his brothers or not? Why is this verse phrased in the peculiar way that it is phrased? Why is he a helper? What is the difference between tending sheep and being a helper? Is he an equal with the brother from Leah and Rachel and a helper with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah? Why is Bilhah’s name before Zilpah’s? Why are they called wives and not maid-servants?
Jacobs' preference for Joseph is the source of the brother’s hate towards Joseph. Why doesn’t the Torah see any fault in Joseph for his actions?
The brother’s hate for Joseph is intensified by actions that Jacob himself takes. God sends him dreams. He insists on sharing them with his brothers, aware or clueless to their interpretation. Couldn’t Joseph have just kept them to himself. He uses the formal phrase, “Shimu-Na,” to get their attention. This is a kind of a command. Doesn’t he sense at all that he is stepping over a line? Or does the favoritism of his father give him the confidence to expect that they will submit to his lording things over him?
What is the significance of the part of the dream where his sheaf suddenly stands up?
The brothers react poorly to Joseph’s first dream and they let him know. Why doesn’t he respond? How did he react to their anger? Why doesn’t the Torah tell us anything?
Why did Joseph only share the second dream with his father in addition to his brothers? Again, those he tells the dream to find the interpretation obvious. Do they believe that Joseph is actually truthful that these are his dreams or do they think that he is just being arrogant? Was Jacob angry at Joseph or just upset by what he said? What does it mean that “he kept the matter in mind?” Did he start to think better of the preferential treatment that he had been giving Joseph?
When Jacob calls Joseph to send him off to find his brothers so that he can report back to him about them Joseph replies “Hineni.” This is the phrase that Abraham uses when God calls on him to go and sacrifice Isaac. How are we to read this resonance? Is Jacob setting Joseph up? Is this a test? A trap to give Joseph a comeuppance? Is Joseph clueless? Joseph is travelling alone in the fields near Shechem? Is this meant to bring to mind the trape of Dinah?
Who is the man that Joseph speaks to and what is he doing in the unnamed place where Joseph finds him?
The brothers see Joseph from afar. Does he see them? Do they disguise their bloodthirstyness through deceit or are they pulled back from their violent urges by the intervention of Reuven? What is Reuven’s motivation? Is he just a decent person, more reflective and empathetic than his brothers? Is his idea a mercenary's desire to receive a reward from his father or his father’s love as a reward?
The brothers cast Joseph into the pit and then sit and eat. Is there a resonance here with the way Esauy eats the red red stuff after trading away his birthright? This is a gruesome detail. There have been death penalty cases where the murderer has eaten in the presence of the body of the person that they killed or immediately after killing someone. This detail is extremely prejudicial for juries. The punishment that they mete out is much harsher when the prosecutor brings out this detail.
The pit was empty, there was no water. Water = Torah? What would it mean to be cast into a place without Torah?
Has Reuven fooled the brothers about his intentions sufficiently that Judah has to have his own plan? Is Judah trying to save Joseph or just get the traders to carry away the evidence, so to speak? Would Joseph’s body be too easily found in the pit that Joseph might have found out about the discovery of Joseph by others who might have found it by chance? Does he want to sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites so that they will not be motivated to act as witnesses to what the brothers had done to Joseph? Why do they only sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites when a caravan of Midianites comes through?
Joseph is taken down to Egypt by the Ishmaelites along with their regular trade goods, gum balm and ladanum. Everything that they are trading has medicinal purposes or is useful in the manufacture of perfumes. Is this quality being attributed to Joseph?
What do the brothers do with the money that they got from selling Joseph? Do they share it or offer to share it with Reuven? What is the importance of twenty pieces of silver? Usually in a sale we get a reference to the weight of the units, but not here.
Reuven’s response to the fact that Joseph is gone is "What am I to do?” Can the brothers understand from this that Reuven had his own plan separate from theirs or do they just hear the older brother being frustrated that he will have to take responsibility for the actions of his younger brothers? After this the brothers act together/ What are to make of this quick transition from Reuven’s self-focused respond and the immediate follow-up of the brothers acting together?
Jacob’s grief is over the top, but the brothers don’t resent him for it. How does this event change the relationship that they have with their father? Joseph does not express regret for any of his actions nor remark on the way that Joseph's dreams now will go unfulfilled. Does this loss change the way that he feels about the brother at all?
In the end it is the Midianites who trade Joseph to the Egyptians. We can see the whole Midianite/ Ishmaelite business as the combination of two sources in the text (the easy out), or we can wonder at the presence of these two tribe that are off-shoots of the Abrahamic core. Somehow, their presence can be seen as a hint that God is attentive still to Joseph even in this lowest moment for him. Is it better to interpret the received text or try to correct it?
