1. It is a good point, and is possibly what prompted Rash"i to equate
wife and bread.
2. Sorry, but I can not accept the poisoning argument (yet I admit
that it is a decision of the heart not of the head). I just can not
believe that the Hebrew bible would hint, even remotely, as to the
possibility that the noble Joseph (the son of Jacob and Rachel!)
harbored an intention to harm his master. It appears that the Master
had also an unlimited confidence in his Hebrew servant. He did not
even believe the fabricated accusations of his wife. Had he thought
his venomous wife speaking the truth he would have undone the boy
right there and then, but instead merely took him into protective
custody.
3. So,
ולא ידע אתו מאומה כי אם הלחם אשר הוא
אוכל
remains enigmatic. One may say that it refers to the master going
over with Joseph over the daily menu (a variation on the combination
of humus + tahini + pita + fish?), but even this, I feel, is tenuous.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Dec 10, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. wrote:
2) it would make no sense the minister inspecting JOSEPH's meal -
if he wanted to poisen joseph a simple
execution would do. so, "he" cannot be joseph.
observe that joseph's reply is of identical pattern, except that
THE MINISTER's meal is replaced
with THE MINISTER's wife. the didactical point of doing so is to
dissociate joseph (and his power of
authority) from the woman.
in the second phrase the wife is clearly THE MINISTER's. by
analogy, it makes sense to assume that
in the first phrase the meal is also THE MINISTER's.
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
