In his new book, “Pursuing Peshat (Kodesh Press, 2024),” Dr. Moshe Sokolow includes a chapter in which he discusses many verses in Tanach where the actor doing the action is unclear. Much of the following is based on this chapter.
We have one such verse near the beginning of the Torah, at Genesis 2:23-24. Verse 23 reads: “The man said: ‘This time it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This shall be called woman, for this was taken from man.’” Verse 24 continues: “Therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother, cleave to his woman, and become one flesh.” Who is talking in verse 24? Is it God/Moshe/the unnamed biblical narrator? These are standard views. But, perhaps, it is the man (Adam) as the verse is a continuation of “the man said” at verse 23. This is suggested as a possibility by Radak. But it is hard to believe that the man knew enough at this very early stage of his life to make such a statement.
Now, let us look at Exodus: 1:21: “Because the midwives feared God, He made for them houses—vayaas lahem batim.”) Is ויעש referring to God, and God is rewarding the midwives in some way? This is the view we are all familiar with and that is why I have written “He” with a capital letter. But, perhaps, the meaning is that the king of Egypt is putting the midwives under house arrest for refusing to comply with his order of infanticide. In this view, I should have written “he.” (Please remember that, unlike English, Hebrew does not have capital letters.) The “house arrest” interpretation is the view of Rashbam and Hizzekuni.
As to what is really going on in verse 1:21, I will discuss the verse extensively in a future column. But I will summarize it briefly here. God is doing the “vayaas” in verse 21, since God was the one acting in verse 20. “Vayaas” seems to be an explanation of the good things that God did to the midwives in the previous verse which were left unspecified there. The meaning of verse 21 is that, as a reward for their actions, God rewarded the midwives—measure for measure—with families and many children. (My good friend, Sam Borodach, zt”l, reminded me that the root בית is used with a meaning like “family” at both Exodus 1:1 and Exodus 2:1.) Samuel David Luzzatto suggests that, perhaps, it was precisely single women, or married women without children, who were the ones who were the midwives. This would explain very simply why a home with family was their reward.
Returning to the main subject of this column, a very important ambiguous verse is Genesis 44:22. Judah is speaking to Joseph: “We said to my lord: ‘The young man cannot leave his father; were he to leave his father, he would die.’ ” There is a major ambiguity here: Who is going to die?
Dr. Sokolow explains: “Since the subject of ‘were he to leave his father’ is implicitly Benjamin, he must also be the subject of “he would die.”” Having previously told the Egyptian viceroy that the young man’s brother had already died (verse 20), Judah was now intimating that separation from kith and kin was potentially fatal to this sibling too. Moreover, this was precisely the fear expressed earlier by Jacob over Benjamin: “lest an accident befall him on the way,” (42:38).
According to the context, however, the likeliest candidate for premature death is not Benjamin—approximately 30 years old and the virile father of 10—but Jacob, presently 130 years old, and never completely recovered from the earlier death of his favorite wife, Rachel, and the presumed death of his favorite son, Joseph. Judah is trying to “guilt” the Egyptian viceroy into releasing Benjamin by implying that to do otherwise would effectively seal the elderly patriarch’s death warrant.”
Dr. Sokolow explains that, in general, there are two ways to look at this type of ambiguity: “The textual approach, governed by the rules of syntax, requires us to relate the ambiguous pronoun to the nearest noun with which it agrees in number and gender. The contextual approach requires us to sift through the content and determine which the likeliest referent is.” Here the textual approach points to Benjamin, but the contextual approach points to Jacob.
Our commentators are divided as to who “he would die” is referring to. Rashbam, Bechor Shor and Shadal view it as Jacob. But Rashi and Ramban view it as Benjamin. Of course, this verse is unusual, as Judah’s ambiguity was probably deliberate. It was probably an attempt to generate sympathy from Joseph regarding both Benjamin and Jacob.
Here is another one: At Genesis 46:29, we have: “Joseph hitched up his chariot and ascended to greet his father, Israel, in Goshen. He appeared to him, fell on his neck and cried exceedingly on his neck.”
Dr. Sokolow writes: “The textual approach identifies the subject of (appeared, fell and cried) with the subject of the preceding verbs (hitched up and ascended). Just as the former refer to Joseph, so do the latter. After making an exceptional effort to greet his father (by hitching up his own chariot), Joseph succumbed to the emotions of the moment, fell on Jacob’s neck and cried. (Readers may recall Joseph ‘tearing up’ at earlier junctures in the story, such as 42:24, 43:30, 45:2, 14.) The contextual approach asks who—in this situation—was more likely to ‘break down’ and cry. The 130-year-old patriarch from Canaan—who is being reunited with the son he gave up for dead 22 years earlier—is, surely, a more likely candidate than the dynamic 39-year-old viceroy of Egypt.” Here, we have Rashi, Radak and Hizzekuni identifying Joseph as the one who cried and Ramban and Ralbag identifying Jacob as the one who cried.
We will do one more. At Samuel 1, 15:27, we have: “Samuel turned (from Saul) to go; he gripped the corner of his cloak, and it tore.” (“It tore” is in the passive: “vayikara.”) Who tore whose cloak? The textual approach would say that Samuel—turning to leave—tore the cloak.
But Dr. Sokolow explains that the contextual approach explains everything well here. “The contextual approach … starts by stipulating that Saul, at this juncture, had been desperately imploring Samuel to stay by his side as he returned to face the people. When Samuel turned away, Saul grabbed him to prevent his departure, tearing his cloak in the process. Indeed, the appearance in the verse of the passive form ‘vayikara—implying an accidental tear,’ reinforces this approach … ” Dr. Sokolow explains further that Samuel then capitalized on the incident to turn the torn coat into a symbol of the imminent tearing away of Saul’s kingdom.
Mitchell First can be reached at [email protected]. I mentioned earlier that Hebrew does not have capital letters. This is what enabled a major compromise in connection with the establishment of the State of Israel, in 1948. The Orthodox wanted a reference to God in the declaration. The secularists were opposed. Someone came up with a compromise: Reference would be made to “Tzur Yisrael” (Rock of Israel). The secularists could live with this and the Orthodox could interpret it as a reference to God!
