Mikeitz: Examples of non-Censorship that seemed like Censorship

(1) In search of interesting Radaks on Miketz, I scroll through Sefaria, which has the Hebrew paired with Eliyahu Munk’s English translation. Any untranslated one is a “juicy” candidate which we can explore further.

However, sometimes technical issues can lead to false positives. For instance, consider Bereishit 41:27:

שֶׁ֧בַע פָּרֹ֣ת הַטֹּבֹ֗ת שֶׁ֤בַע שָׁנִים֙ הֵ֔נָּה וְשֶׁ֤בַע הַֽשִּׁבֳּלִים֙ הַטֹּבֹ֔ת שֶׁ֥בַע שָׁנִ֖ים הֵ֑נָּה חֲל֖וֹם אֶחָ֥ד הֽוּא׃

The seven healthy cows are seven years, and the seven healthy ears are seven years; it is the same dream.

Radak seemingly has a lengthy comment which is untranslated, beginning ויפתח, עתח את כל אוצרות שבהם תבואה. וישבור למצרים, תחלה מכר להם עד שנודע בארצות כי במצרים תבואה ומכר גם להם…

But careful reading of the comment shows it is not so. After all, the word ויפתח from the quoted portion does not even appear in the pasuk. What happened was, likely due to a scanning error, verse נו, which is 56, was recognized as verse כו, so the Hebrew was placed there.

Radak’s comment actually is translated in verse 56, where Sefaria also reproduced the commentary. Thus, pasuk 56:

וְהָרָעָ֣ב הָיָ֔ה עַ֖ל כׇּל־פְּנֵ֣י הָאָ֑רֶץ וַיִּפְתַּ֨ח יוֹסֵ֜ף אֶֽת־כׇּל־אֲשֶׁ֤ר בָּהֶם֙ וַיִּשְׁבֹּ֣ר לְמִצְרַ֔יִם וַיֶּחֱזַ֥ק הָֽרָעָ֖ב בְּאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃

Accordingly, when the famine became severe in the land of Egypt, Joseph laid open all that was within, and rationed out grain to the Egyptians. The famine, however, spread over the whole world.

and Radak with Eliyahu Munk’s translation:

ויפתח, עתח את כל אוצרות שבהם תבואה.

והרעב...ויפתח יוסף את כל אשר בהם, he now opened all the silos in which grain had been stored.

(with the English ellipses a rendering error which reverses the order of the two terms).

וישבור למצרים, תחלה מכר להם עד שנודע בארצות כי במצרים תבואה ומכר גם להם.

ולשון שבר מבנין הקל נופל על המוכר ועל הקונה, כי הפעולה בזה על שם התבואה שנקראת שבר לפי שהיא שוברת הרעב על דרך ישברו פראים צמאם (תהלים ק"ד)

והנה המוכר נותן השבר והקונה לוקח השבר, והפעולה על שניהם.

אבל בענין הפעול ממנו אינו נופל אלא על המוכר לפי שהפעולה יוצאת מאתו. ובנין הפעיל ברוב הוא יוצא.

וישבר למצרים,

first he sold grain only to the Egyptians until word had spread that there was food for sale in Egypt. Then he also sold to foreigners.

The expression וישבר, vayishbor, is from the conjugation kal, and is used both as applicable to the seller and the buyer.

Actually, the word shever means “breaking,” i.e. the grain, the harvest, is what “breaks” one’s hunger. Compare Psalms 104,11 ישברו פראים צמאם, “the wild asses slake their thirst, the word for “slaking,” being the word שבר.

When it comes to the transaction, i.e. trading in victuals, especially grain, the seller gives something which will still the buyer’s hunger, i.e. break it, whereas the buyer at the same time is receiving something which breaks his hunger. Hence it is understandable why the same root is used to describe either buying or selling food, seeing both parties are concerned in dealing with someone’s hunger, putting an end to it, as it were. One party hands over the price, the other party receives payment, thus both seller and buyer are active in the transaction.

The conjugation הפעיל however, is applicable only to the seller of food, not to the buyer, as in most instances this conjugation is used transitively. The word mashbir, or hamashbir, therefore refers to the seller, not to the buyer.

This was not a word-for-word translation, but hewed fairly closely. Still, what I italicized above was a lengthy expansion with no matching Hebrew text.

ויחזק הרעב, משבאו לקנות לפיכך אמר אחריו וכלה הארץ, כי לפי שרבו הקונים חזק הרעב במצרים, כי לא היה מוכרים להם אלא בצמצום מפני שהיה צריך גם כן למכור בשאר ארצות, ומפני זמן הרעב שיהיה ארוך:

ויחזק הרעב, as foreign buyers appeared and the quantities sold to each had to be rationed in order to ensure that the supply would last, the famine was felt more strongly also by the local population, seeing the famine had been predicted to last for many years.

---

(2)

Similarly, this is an alignment error, on 43:32, how they served Yosef separately and his brothers separately.

ולהם לבדם ולמצרים לבדם .

ולהם לבדם, ולמצרים לבדם, and the brothers separately, and the Egyptians separately again, כי לא יוכלון, for the Hebrews were eating meat, as we know from the instructions to slaughter meat which had been issued in verse 15. Egyptians did not eat sheep or goats, and the only reason they raised these animals was for their wool and their milk. [According to Rashi and evidence cited in Torah Shleymah 92,5, the reason why the Egyptians did not eat sheep was that they considered sheep a deity, and it was inconceivable for them to consume their deities.]

אמר הטעם כי לא יוכלון, כי העברים היו אוכלים בשר כמו שאמר וטבוח טבח, והמצרים לא היו אוכלים. ומה שהיו מגדלין הצאן, לחלב ולגזה. ואמרו שהיו עובדים מזל טלה לפיכך לא היו אוכלים שום בשר בהמה:

The Hebrew span at the bottom seems untranslated, but it was really translated immediately above.

There are several points here. First, we shouldn’t rush to judgement, even if we are opposed to actual acts of censorship. Second, we cannot just look for missing commentary on an item by item basis, whether doing this visually or programmatically, but need to compare with the statements immediately above and below. Third, sometimes he will be expansive, adding material that is not there to make things clearer.

One final think to note is that there was indeed censorship or motivated translation on this last translation. Square brackets, even without the signoff of “Ed.” for editor, indicates that Eliyahu Munk is weighing in. Can you spot it?

Fun task: Try to spot it before I explain it.

Radak says כי העברים היו אוכלים בשר כמו שאמר וטבוח טבח, והמצרים לא היו אוכלים. This should be translated as “or the Hebrews were eating meat, as we know from the instructions to slaughter meat which had been issued in verse 15. Egyptians did not meat”

He changed it to “sheep or goats”

It continued with ואמרו שהיו עובדים מזל טלה לפיכך לא היו אוכלים שום בשר בהמה, which is left entirely untranslated. It should be “and they said that they worshipped the Zodiac sign of sheep [Josh: perhaps Capricorn, goat?] and therefore they did not eat any meat of an animal.

Instead of translating any of this, Eliyahu Munk puts square brackets without an Ed. ending and supplements an idea from Rashi and Torah Shleymah about sheep as a deity. Maybe it is true historically, but it isn’t what Radak wrote.

---

(3) I couldn’t possibly give a full analysis of every Radak translation, and maybe I am being a bit mean. But Hanlon’s Razor also applies, namely “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” Or I’ve seen it sometimes as “adequately explained by incompetence.” I wouldn’t exactly say either here. More like “adequately explained by error.”

He translates quickly, thus covering a lot of ground. And there is what to learn from this, namely “Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.” Even where the translations aren’t entirely accurate, much of Radak’s writings are now accessible to an English speaking audience.

There’s a rabbinic term for this — אגב ריהטא לא דק — in his haste, he was not precise.

My point is that even where Eliyahu Munk deviates from Radak’s words, it could be because he misread it, rather than some desire to censor. And, trying to figure what motivated the deviation is not useful.

Here’s a fairly benign example. In Mikeitz, Yosef commanded his steward to overtake his brothers and confront them about the missing goblet. As part of the commanded speech, the steward was to say (44:5):

הֲל֣וֹא זֶ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִשְׁתֶּ֤ה אֲדֹנִי֙ בּ֔וֹ וְה֕וּא נַחֵ֥שׁ יְנַחֵ֖שׁ בּ֑וֹ הֲרֵעֹתֶ֖ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר עֲשִׂיתֶֽם׃

It is the very one from which my master drinks and which he uses for divination. It was a wicked thing for you to do!’”

Radak comments:

נחש ינחש, יש מפרשים ישאל למנחשים בעבורו מי לקחו,

או פירושו יחשב אבידת הגביע לנחש רע לעצמו שאבד ממנו הכלי שהיה שותה בו, והכל מבואר:

נחש ינחש, some commentators understand this expression to mean “is in the habit of consulting oracles, or people who are expert at doing this.”

It is also possible that the expression means that the loss of the goblet represents a bad omen for Joseph as it deprives him of the instrument by which he could foretell the future. The entire sequence from here to verse 10 is quite clear.

For the first explanation, I would have rendered it: “There are those who explain: ‘he consulted diviners on his behalf regarding who took it.” In other words, the bo is concerning it, he consulted diviners. Not that he used it to divine. We can see this explanation in Ibn Ezra, who is citing Rabbi Yona (Ibn Janach?) that bo means ba’avuro, regarding it. If so, Munk’s translation misses the mark. It follows more along the lines of Ramban’s explanation.

For the second explanation, I would have rendered it: “Or, its explanation is that he [Yosef] regarded the loss of his goblet as a bad omen for himself, for he lost the vessel from which he would drink, and all is clear.” Note that Radak clearly states שהיה שותה בו, that he drank from, not “that he could fortell the future” as Eliyahu Munk rendered it. Look earlier in the verse about drinking, namely הֲל֣וֹא זֶ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִשְׁתֶּ֤ה אֲדֹנִי֙ בּ֔וֹ. Radak was talking about a superstitious bad sign and that was the meaning of nichush, not an act of nichush divination. Munk was just not paying attention.

Still, maybe this misreading was prompted by general worldview about what Nichush it. Chizkuni also gives this as an explanation. While Eliyahu Munk doesn’t translate Chizkuni as part of the Chut Hameshulash translation, he does translate in a separate work, also available on Sefaria. Thus, Chizkuni:

והוא נחש ינחש בו הלא יש לכם לדעת שלכך הניחו על השלחן והעלים עיניו ממנו כדי לנסותכם לראות אם תגנבוהו.

וי״‎מ והוא נחש ינחש בו הלא יש לכם לדעת כי הוא ישאל למנחשים בעבורו כי איש כמוהו יש לו מנחשים ויודעים לגלות גנבות. ופי׳‎ בו בעבורו. ד״‎א הוא לשון אות ודוגמתו נחשתי ויברכני נראה לו בסימן רע כשאבד ממנו כלי חשוב כמותו. ואין לפרשו לשון קסם דגנאי הוא גבי גדול.

והוא נחש ינחש בו, “and he also uses it to divine by means of it;” this is why he left it on the table and acted as if he had forgotten it, in order to test you and find out if you would steal it. (Ibn Ezra) A different exegesis: the words: והוא נחש ינחש בו mean that you should have realised that Joseph would enquire from diviners what had happened to his goblet. A man of his stature has many diviners at his beck and call, and would find out quickly who had taken it.

Still another explanation for these words: the expression describes an omen. An example of it being used in that context is found in Genesis 30,27: נחשתי ויברכני, Lavan saying to Yaakov: “I have found out that I have been blessed through your presence, by having resorted to divination.” In this instance the reverse was true, i.e. Joseph claimed that it seemed as a bad omen for him to have lost such a precious goblet. The word should not be explained as Joseph having used magic, as this would not be fitting for a man of his stature.

I added a newline for “Still another explanation”. He starts on the right foot (heh), that it is an omen. So we see that he can read this correctly. But then he continues with pointing to Lavan in Bereishit 30:27, which he awkwardly translates as “by having resorted to divination”. You can see the Chizkuni and Munk’s translation there, where Chizkuni (purportedly?) has Lavan going to sorcerers. That seems more ambiguous to me. Here, the point of citing the Lavan verse is that Lavan, as well, considers Yaakov to be a good-luck charm, by which his fortunes changed for good.