Comments on: Vayeshev (Genesis 37:1 - 40:23)

By: jim

jim — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 02:49:42 +0000

Hi Carly.

You are absolutely right. They certainly come from slightly different lines of the family. And I’m not an expert in this. It is interesting to note that in the story of Gideon’s victory over the Midianites, they seem to be referred to, alternatively as Ishmaelites. (See Judges 8:24).

- jim

By: Carly קצירה

Carly קצירה — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 01:32:08 +0000

Jim,

Hello there! So let me say, it was clear to me in that moment — but I might see something different next time I read that passage.

In general, I would say that the Torah differentiates between Ishmaelites and Midianites, which is why I thought they were two different groups.

Thanks for your thoughts!

By: jim

jim — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 23:57:54 +0000

Hello Carly.

I came across this post because Alex left a comment on the blog I oversee that had the same link to a post that he’s also left here. I enjoyed very much your reading of this text. I don’t think it’s at all clear, however, that the Midianites found Joseph and sold him before Joseph’s brothers could. It’s a possibility, but the referrent of “they” in the phrase “they sold …” seems pretty ambiguous. Taking all the elements of the story into account would seem to indicate Midianites and Ishmaelites are synonymous. Or that, depending on your theological viewpoint, two threads of the story have been woven together.

By: Carly קצירה

Carly קצירה — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:21:19 +0000

Sibyl,

I’m unfamiliar with the Midrash you are mentioning — but really intrigued. I’ll have to look it up and learn more!

Chris,
I found that a later passage really reinforced this connection to the goddess imagery. Potiphar is later identified as the “priest of on,” and Joseph marries his daughter. I haven’t gone back to double check the Hebrew to be sure it’s the same spelling as the earlier Potiphar, but it’s damn interesting.

By: Carly קצירה

Carly קצירה — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:17:17 +0000

Okay — I’ve had a minute to look at his interpretation. I disagree. I think most of the brothers intended to kill him. I also think, from what I saw in the text that the brothers didn’t sell him either. I didn’t find his argument persuasive enough to change my interpretation.

But, the great thing about Torah is that there are many interpretations. As I’ve learned a lot lately, our interpretations often say a lot more about who we are than what the writers intended, too!

By: Carly קצירה

Carly קצירה — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:54:21 +0000

Alex — I haven’t had a chance to read this yet — but I will and definitely let you know what I think. Thanks for passing this on!

By: Alex

Alex — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:46:37 +0000

What do you think, please, of Obadiah Shoher’s interpretation of the story? (here: samsonblinded.org/blog/genesis-37.htm ) He takes the text literally to prove that the brothers played a practical joke on Yosef rather than intended to murder him or sell him into slavery. His argument seems fairly strong to me, but I’d like to hear other opinions.

By: chris

chris — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:11:42 +0000

Great reveal! I love your exegesis of the vayashev. It’s interesting the way you brought the descent of Innana (whom I refer to as Ishtar) in the frame. In the Descent, she is kind of a sympathetic character, but in Gilgamesh, she is Potiphar’s wife to the core. I never really looked at the goddess connection as far as she was concerned. Leave it to the Western scholar to get locked up only in the sexual aspect instead of allowing the sexual to be but a part of her motivation. There is a similar scene in Gilgamesh where he spurns Ishtar and she unleashes the “bull of heaven” upon the world. This bull brings drought to the land. This, too, is a story of rebirth, skirting death, and restoring the fraternal bond — as good as those Akkadians could get it.

Interesting stuff. I just studied the plague - god connections. That’s pretty interesting as well. The Yam (Yamim) saga throughout Hebrew scripture is another great look at the way the Hebrew writers captured the power of Hashem in the subduing of the powers of the earth.

Peace out!

By: Sibyl

Sibyl — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:36:59 +0000

Carly, this is awesome! Many disconnected thoughts arise from your reflections on these passages (at least for me lol). I first was pondering on the nameless and it reminded me of how in ancient Egypt, the knowing of a name was of primary import; and the absence of name was (in practice) an indication of obliteration. This has nothing to do with Hebrew study obviously but as said, just one of many disconnected thoughts. And on the passage about “And it came to pass, as she spoke to Joseph day by day, that he hearkened not unto her, to lie by her, or to be with her. (Gen 39:10)…. In mythos about Joseph and the wife of Potiphar (where she seems to be named as Zuleika which is not in the Torah as you brought up); the stories speak about how the less ranking women could not understand her (Zuleika’s) passions. So she orchestrated a gathering (banquet) where she instructed fruit (cited as citron or orange) with knives for peeling. Thus Joseph had to serve the party and upon seeing him, the other women too became enamoured; to the point that in peeling the fruit they “cut their own hands drawing blood”. I don’t know much about the pseudepigrapha of the Ya Hasher nor of the mentionings in Quran, but I do know about Egypt and one thing that I suspect is that the proper translation for the fruit (if such event did occur in Egypt) would have been as POMEGRANATE (and not citron nor orange); I also believe that the drawing of blood is suggestive also of pomegranate in these stories. PS: You are so awesome, I love how your process inspires tapestries of thought.