Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>]

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.