Intimidatory tactics

This piece attempts to explain some seemingly odd details in the narrative of the returned money in miketz

Bereishis 42:27 

וַיִּפְתַּח הָאֶחָד אֶת שַׂקּוֹ לָתֵת מִסְפּוֹא לַחֲמֹרוֹ בַּמָּלוֹן וַיַּרְא אֶת כַּסְפּוֹ וְהִנֵּה הוּא בְּפִי אַמְתַּחְתּוֹ. 

Ibid:35 

וַיְהִי הֵם מְרִיקִים שַׂקֵּיהֶם וְהִנֵּה אִישׁ צְרוֹר כַּסְפּוֹ בְּשַׂקּוֹ וַיִּרְאוּ אֶת צְרֹרוֹת כַּסְפֵּיהֶם הֵמָּה וַאֲבִיהֶם וַיִּירָאוּ. 

The commentators grapple with why it is that initially only one brother saw that his money was returned whereas the others didnt notice until arriving back home, see Ramban and Hadar Zikeinim. 

Id like to suggest the following: 

Chazal (quoted by Rashi) identify the brother that found his money in the malon as Levi 

רש"י בראשית מ"ב:כ"ז
ויפתח האחד – הוא לוי, שנשאר יחיד משמעון בן זוגו. 

He was bereft of his partner.

(As opposed to ibn Kaspi who holds that his identity is unknown or ibn Ezra who ids him as the oldest—Reuven.) 

Shimon and Levi have a history of collaborating together to commit violence 

49:5 

שִׁמְעוֹן וְלֵוִי אַחִים כְּלֵי חָמָס מְכֵרֹתֵיהֶם. 

Rashi from Chazal 

שמעון ולוי אחים – בעצה אחת על שכם, על יוסף: ויאמרו איש אל אחיו ועתה לכו ונהרגהו (בראשית ל״ז:י״ט-כ׳). מי הם? אם תאמר ראובן או יהודה, הרי לא הסכימו בהריגתו. אם תאמר בני השפחות, הרי לא היתה שנאתם שלימה, שנאמר: והוא נער את בני בלהה וגו׳ (בראשית ל״ז:ב׳). יששכר וזבולן לא היו מדברים בפני אחיהם הגדולים מהם. על כרחיך, שמעון ולוי הם, שקראם אביהם: אחים.

Therefore Yosef specifically segregates them from each other and keeps Shimon back—the older of the pair and the one that has already taken a lead role in instigating and perpetrating violence against him: 42:24 with Rashi from Chazal
את שמעון
– הוא השליכו לבור, הוא שאמר ללוי: הנה בעל
החלומות הלזה בא (בראשית ל״ז:י״ט)

to avoid any potential threat 

נתכוון יוסף להפרידו מלוי, שמא יתייעצו בין שניהם להרוג אותו 

(Another reason al pi peshat may be Shimon being the second oldest and Reuven escaping detention having said within earshot of Yosef that he was the one that tried to save him.) 

That being the case, Yosef takes the further preventive measure of intimidating the remaining "lone" brother—Levi—so that he doesn't get any funny ideas about going after Yosef on his own or riling up the other brothers. 

He puts Levi's money—and only his—at the opening of his package (בְּפִי אַמְתַּחְתּוֹ) so that he would notice it first thing after stopping for the night when feeding his animal and get shaken up at the thought of being singled out from all the brothers with trumped up charges potentially hanging over his head and not be in a confident and defiant state of mind and therefore much less likely to plan something against Yosef. 

As opposed to by all the remaining brothers Yosef had the money packed deep into their sacks (מְרִיקִים שַׂקֵּיהֶם) so they were not discovered until returning back home as Yosef wasn't as concerned with them fighting back 

After writing this I noticed that Radak already picks up on the different places in their sacks that Yosef had the money placed (venturing his own theory as to why he only wanted one brother discovering the money before arriving back home); and the Yalkut (49:5)—after citing all the divrei Chazal previously quoted from Rashi—ends off with בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה תָּשַׁשׁ כֹּחוֹ שֶׁל לֵוִי (upon discovering the money in the hotel) lichorah articulating this same idea.

(Agav, see 43:21
וַיְהִי כִּי בָאנוּ אֶל הַמָּלוֹן וַנִּפְתְּחָה אֶת אַמְתְּחֹתֵינוּ וְהִנֵּה כֶסֶף אִישׁ בְּפִי אַמְתַּחְתּוֹ כַּסְפֵּנוּ בְּמִשְׁקָלוֹ וַנָּשֶׁב אֹתוֹ בְּיָדֵנוּ which has them all finding it at the opening of their satchels in the hotel already, see Seichel Tov and Abarbanel for explanations as to why they changed the story when saying it over to the fellow in charge of Yosef's house)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sukkos: Pesach in the fall

This piece attempts to uncover an entirely new way of looking at the significance of Sukkos in what essentially amounts to a paradigm shift about the chag Vayikra 23:42-43 בַּסֻּכֹּת תֵּשְׁבוּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים כׇּל הָאֶזְרָח בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל יֵשְׁבוּ בַּסֻּכֹּת. לְמַעַן יֵדְעוּ דֹרֹתֵיכֶם כִּי בַסֻּכּוֹת הוֹשַׁבְתִּי אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּהוֹצִיאִי אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲנִי י"י אֱלֹהֵיכֶם. There is no other biblical record of our forefathers ever having stayed in booths, certainly not immediately after the exodus. The rishonim (ad loc) quote a disagreement (bavli sukkah 11b) between R Eliezer and R Akiva as to the identity of the pasuk's obscure referent: כי בסכות הושבתי – איזו סכות היו, ר' אליעזר אומר ענני כבוד היו, ר' עקיבא אומר, סכות ממש then saying that it works out acc to R Eliezer but acc to R Akiva what exactly are we celebrating?; see there for various solutions. The rishonim have in common an understanding that the holiday is somehow related to hitherto un
Read more

Are Jews innately unique

This write up attempts to explain why Haman planned for genocide whereas the Greeks opted for religious suppression As reflected in the differing formulations of al hanissim for Purim and Chanuka respectively, Haman was out for Jewish blood whereas Antiochus was for eradicating Jewish rites and rituals.  Practically speaking, Judaism would have been a relic of the past had either of them had their way.  That different approaches were employed may have been a function of most Jews having been religiously observant during the Purim story as opposed to during the Chanukah story when most were already hellenized—easier to annihilate a people than to get them all to change their ways as opposed to by the Chanukah where only a minority were still practicing it made more sense to just stamp out what remaining observance there was than to exterminate an already mostly hellenized nation.   Perhaps a more philosophical approach can be suggested: There's a well known divide amongst Jewish thi
Read more

Zionism done right

This piece attempts to provide some color to a comment of Chazal regarding the Bnos Tzelafchad's חיבת הארץ as well as explain away an apparent inconsistency in a specific Amora's approach to it Bamidbar 27 opens with the daughters of Tzelafchad making their case to share in the distribution of EY by inheriting their sonless father Tzelafachad's portion instead of his brothers. Chazal posit a love for the land of Israel as their motivation, explaining that the reason this narrative is juxtaposed with the previous chapter owes to it being illustrative of an inferred contrast therein that only the men died out in the midbar as only they had cast aspersions on the land (to the extent of wanting to return to Egypt) as opposed to the women that were lovers of the land and wanted to proceed apace even after the report of the spies. Namely, ibid 26:64: וּבְאֵלֶּה לֹא הָיָה אִישׁ מִפְּקוּדֵי מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן אֲשֶׁר פָּקְדוּ אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמִדְבַּר סִינָי with Rash
Read more