And that many of them do prove impervious to it is a fact, from which, for traditionalism, there is no refuge. Not all puzzling concerns in the Pentateuch are beyond understanding. But against the significant number at least that are not even two theological dicta invoked, often, and almost formulaically, afford protection. The dictum that many plain meanings of a narrative fact may co-exist (shivim panim la’torah) must mean something metaphorically, as must the related dictum that interpretations that seem contradictory may be true (eilu ve’eilu divrei elokim chayim). But neither dictum can have literal meaning when a concern regarding historical fact is studied. For example, the ram’s horn that signals Mount Sinai may once again be approached cannot be sounded by God when the spoken Revelation ends and by Moses when he returns from the second, or third, of his forty-day stays on the mountain. (Nor, as will be shown, can either dictum have literal meaning when irreconcilable interpretations of the plain meaning of a law are studied.)
Whatever the metaphoric meaning of the two dicta, concerns related to sacred history (and, as will be shown, concerns related to law) that are impervious to understanding constitute a significant, perhaps even a pervasive, motif in the Pentateuch. And that inescapable fact mandates three tasks. The fact must be documented, as regards both sacred history and law. The response the fact compels must be underscored, and discussed effectively enough so that, as a theological and practical matter, traditionalists consider it seriously. And that a counter-response antithetical to traditionalism perforce produces nothing of value to it must be demonstrated.
The first of the three tasks, begun in the analysis above of the Nineteenth and Twentieth chapters of Exodus, continues below, in further discussions of sacred history. Then, in turn, that the motif in the sacred history in the Pentateuch is, at the minimum, significant, and perhaps even pervasive, also in the codex it mandates is demonstrated, the response the fact compels is underscored, and the futility of the counter-response is discussed.
The apparent clarity with which the history of Joseph is narrated masks a wide variety of concerns that make it to some significant degree, perhaps even typically, impossible to understand what happens in two episodes to be discussed, and why Joseph and his brothers act as they do.
The episodes are contained in Genesis 37:1-36, and in 42:1-38. The first recounts the sale of Joseph into slavery in Egypt; the second recounts the first of the journeys into Egypt of his brothers to purchase food, and its aftermath.
The verse that introduces Joseph, 37:2, is problematic for a number of reasons, one of them obscured by Kaplan’s legitimate translation:
These are the chronicles of Jacob: Joseph was 17 years old. As a lad, he would tend the sheep with his brothers, the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, his father’s wives. Joseph brought his father a bad report about them.
A more awkward, but more revealing, translation underscores that it is not possible to integrate into the second sentence the clause highlighted below:
These are the chronicles of Jacob: Joseph, at 17 years old, would tend the sheep with his brothers, and he was a lad with the sons of his father’s wives Bilhah and Zilpah. Joseph brought his father a bad report about them.
The highlighted clause may mean that Joseph usually keeps company with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, rather than with his other brothers, all of them except Benjamin and Joseph, the sons of their dead mother, Rachel, the sons of Leah. But if that is the case, the plain meaning of the verse is that Joseph tends the sheep with all of his brothers, and brings his father a bad report about all of them, rather than, as Kaplan’s translation seems to indicate, that he tends the sheep only with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, and brings the bad report only about them. However, if the Hebrew words “and he was a lad” are detached, as they can be, from the rest of the italicized clause, Kaplan’s translation conveys the plain meaning of the verse, because it is then legitimate to regard “the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, his father’s wives” as in apposition to “with his brothers.” But if the words are detached, they can be moved only to the vicinity of “Joseph was 17 years old,” where they seem (as in Kaplan’s translation)to be redundant, because a boy of seventeen is obviously “a lad.”
The opening words of 37:2, and the nature of the report Joseph brings to his father, are also problematic.
The opening words—“These are the chronicles of Jacob”—are puzzling, because they introduce the chronicles not of Jacob, but of Joseph; and especially puzzling when compared to the opening words of 36:1—“These are the chronicles of Esau, also known as Edom”—that introduce the long detailed chronicle of Jacob’s brother that immediately precedes 37:2.
What the “bad report” contains is not specified. And whether the brothers know it exists, or what it contains, is not clear.
Why 37:3 asserts that Jacob “loved Joseph more than any of his other sons, because he was the child of his old age” is not clear, because, as Meam Loez notes, the child of his old age is Benjamin, because Naftali, Gad, and Issachar are only about a year older than Joseph, because Zebulun and Joseph are almost the same age (or, as one tradition asserts, Zebulun is younger than Joseph), and because all of the brothers seem to have been born within six or seven years.
If the brothers know about the “bad report,” it is not clear why “they began to hate” Joseph in 37:4 only because Jacob loves him more than he loves them, rather than also because they resent the report. (Nor is it clear how many of them might be expected to resent the report, because, as noted, it is not clear how many of them the report censures.)
Because to 37:8 Joseph has related only one dream (chalom), it is not clear why 37:8 asserts that his brothers hated him “even more because of his dreams (chalomtav) and his words.” Nor is it clear what the phrase “his words” refers to, since he seems to have spoken to them only of his dream.
Because Joseph’s mother, Rachel, is dead, it is not clear why, having heard Joseph’s second dream, Jacob includes her in his question in 37:10, “Do you want me, your mother, and your brothers to come and prostrate ourselves on the ground to you?”
The two assertions that constitute 37:11—“His brothers became very jealous of him, but his father suspended judgment”—are problematic in several regards. Why the brothers become jealous of Joseph only in 37:11 is not clear. Why hatred, which they feel from 37:4, leads to jealousy, rather than the reverse, is not clear. And the relation between the two assertions in 37:11 is problematic; especially because Kaplan’s translations are cryptic, and because, as will be seen, more literal translations are vague. That being the case, the relation between the two assertions is unclear. Jacob seems worried about the consequence of the brothers’ jealousy. But what precisely he is worried about is not clear.
Jacob’s charge to Joseph in 37:12-14 seems to contain too many words:
[12] [Joseph’s] brothers left to tend their father’s sheep in Shechem. [13] Israel said to Joseph, “I believe your brothers are keeping the sheep in Shechem. I would like you to go to them.” “I’m ready,” replied Joseph. [14] “Then see how your brothers and the sheep are doing,” said [Israel]. “Bring me a report.” [Israel] thus sent him from the Hebron valley, and [Joseph] arrived in Shechem.
Recast more succinctly, the charge would read as follows:
[12] [Joseph’s] brothers left to tend their father’s sheep in Shechem. [13] Israel said to Joseph, “[Go] see how your brothers and the sheep are doing. [14] Bring me a report.” [Israel] thus sent him from Hebron valley, and [Joseph] arrived in Shechem.
Joseph’s journey, in 37:15-17, towards his brothers is problematic in several regards; indeed, it is essentially mysterious.
[15] A stranger found him blundering about in the fields. “What are you looking for?” asked the stranger. [16] “I’m looking for my brothers,”