Yehuda and Rhetoric in Vayigash

While looking through Daniel Klein’s translation of Shadal on Genesis the other day, I saw Shadal’s very first comment. The pasuk reads:

וַיִּגַּ֨שׁ אֵלָ֜יו יְהוּדָ֗ה וַיֹּ֘אמֶר֮ בִּ֣י אֲדֹנִי֒ יְדַבֶּר־נָ֨א עַבְדְּךָ֤ דָבָר֙ בְּאׇזְנֵ֣י אֲדֹנִ֔י וְאַל־יִ֥חַר אַפְּךָ֖ בְּעַבְדֶּ֑ךָ כִּ֥י כָמ֖וֹךָ כְּפַרְעֹֽה׃

Then Judah went up to him and said, “Please, my lord, let your servant appeal to my lord, and do not be impatient with your servant, you who are the equal of Pharaoh.

Shadal writes:

ויגש אליו יהודה: אחר שאמר להם דרך חבה ואתם עלו לשלום אל אביכם הרהיב בנפשו עוז לבקש ממנו דבר לפניו משורת הדין מצר החמלה והחנינה, ור' יהודה המכונה מיסיר ליאון בספרו נפת צופים האריך לבאר יקר תפארת המאמר הזה כלו.

My own translation: After he [Yosef] spoke to them in a friendly way — “and you, ascend in peace to your father” — he gained courage to request from him a matter beyond the strict letter of the law, by virtue [is this מצד with a daled] mercy and graciousness. And Rabbi Yehuda, who was nicknamed Messer Leon, in his book Nofet Tzufim (The Honeycomb’s Flow) expounded at length to explain the beauty of this entire speech.”

In a footnote, Daniel Klein expands upon the idea of Nofet Tzufim, where (IIRC) the author believes the art of rhetoric is best illustrated through Biblical examples. He also points to Issac Rabinowitz’s English translation, “The Book of the Honeycomb’s Flow”.

It turns out that they have it available on archive.org — you can check it out for an hour (and it stays checked out while you are reading it). I also found it in Hebrew on Hebrewbooks.org.

I like the translation of this work. It uses Hebrew and English on facing pages, so you can always see the Hebrew original to get the full sense of the words in context, or read the Hebrew and consult the English where you get stuck.

Generally, I like to look up Shadal’s sources and those in his beit midrash / scholastic social network, as it gives a sense of what people were thinking. So, let’s look up the reference.

In Chapter 5, מחלקי ההמצאה, Of the Parts of Invention, Judah Messer Leon discusses the divisions of discourse set forth by Aristotle in Book III of the Rhetoric, and expanded and expounded in other works.

Thus, skipping footnotes, here are six parts of discourse. I won’t repeat the entirety of it, but we have the following parts. Ellipses do take out some meaningful information, so read it inside.

The Introduction, indeed, is the statement by which the mind of the hearer is prepared to heed and to comprehend what is going to be said-when, by virtue of our words, we make him attentive, well disposed, and receptive… in the Introduction it is especially necessary so sweetly to win the heart of the hearer that we make him long for the next section of the discourse.

The Statement of Facts is the telling of the true, or the quasi-true, facts, those, that is, with an appearance of plausibility…

The Partition is a means of making clear wherein one agrees with one's opponent and what remains in dispute; or is a means of setting out what one intends to say later…

It is the Proof when both our evidence and the fact that it substantiates our hypothesis are simultaneously made clear…

The Refutation is a statement by means of which it will be clear that the evidence contrary, and the doubts incidental, to the view we hold have been overthrown, whether in whole or in part.

The Conclusion is the setting of an artistic limit and end to all that has been said… "artistic", because the Conclusion ought to be prepared in such manner as to arouse the hearer to pity, or to heartlessness and anger; or it should recapitulate in a brief statement all that has previously been said.

He goes on to point to Yehuda’s address to Yosef in Vayigash. Thus:

1. Introduction (44:18)

וַיִּגַּ֨שׁ אֵלָ֜יו יְהוּדָ֗ה וַיֹּ֘אמֶר֮ בִּ֣י אֲדֹנִי֒ יְדַבֶּר־נָ֨א עַבְדְּךָ֤ דָבָר֙ בְּאׇזְנֵ֣י אֲדֹנִ֔י וְאַל־יִ֥חַר אַפְּךָ֖ בְּעַבְדֶּ֑ךָ כִּ֥י כָמ֖וֹךָ כְּפַרְעֹֽה׃

Then Judah went up to him and said, “Please, my lord, let your servant appeal to my lord, and do not be impatient with your servant, you who are the equal of Pharaoh.

As he explains:

As we see, the three conditions of the Introduction are met in it: first, to render the hearer well disposed-this is achieved partly by Judah's submissiveness before Joseph, and his entreaty: "Oh my lord," and "let not thine anger burn against thy servant," and partly by his words: "for thou art even as Pharaoh,'' words in which he has so highly praised Joseph as to make him of equal degree with the king. Secondly and thirdly, Judah makes Joseph attentive and receptive by saying ' 'let thy servant, I pray thee, speak a word, '' for the Statement of Facts here requires that the hearer be simultaneously attentive and receptive, as will be clear.

2. Statement of Facts (44:19 - 44:29)

אֲדֹנִ֣י שָׁאַ֔ל אֶת־עֲבָדָ֖יו לֵאמֹ֑ר הֲיֵשׁ־לָכֶ֥ם אָ֖ב אוֹ־אָֽח׃

My lord asked his servants, ‘Have you a father or another brother?’

וַנֹּ֙אמֶר֙ אֶל־אֲדֹנִ֔י יֶשׁ־לָ֙נוּ֙ אָ֣ב זָקֵ֔ן וְיֶ֥לֶד זְקֻנִ֖ים קָטָ֑ן וְאָחִ֣יו מֵ֔ת וַיִּוָּתֵ֨ר ה֧וּא לְבַדּ֛וֹ לְאִמּ֖וֹ וְאָבִ֥יו אֲהֵבֽוֹ׃

We told my lord, ‘We have an old father, and there is a child of his old age, the youngest; his full brother is dead, so that he alone is left of his mother, and his father dotes on him.’

וַתֹּ֙אמֶר֙ אֶל־עֲבָדֶ֔יךָ הוֹרִדֻ֖הוּ אֵלָ֑י וְאָשִׂ֥ימָה עֵינִ֖י עָלָֽיו׃

Then you said to your servants, ‘Bring him down to me, that I may set eyes on him.’

וַנֹּ֙אמֶר֙ אֶל־אֲדֹנִ֔י לֹא־יוּכַ֥ל הַנַּ֖עַר לַעֲזֹ֣ב אֶת־אָבִ֑יו וְעָזַ֥ב אֶת־אָבִ֖יו וָמֵֽת׃

We said to my lord, ‘The boy cannot leave his father; if he were to leave him, his father would die.’

וַתֹּ֙אמֶר֙ אֶל־עֲבָדֶ֔יךָ אִם־לֹ֥א יֵרֵ֛ד אֲחִיכֶ֥ם הַקָּטֹ֖ן אִתְּכֶ֑ם לֹ֥א תֹסִפ֖וּן לִרְא֥וֹת פָּנָֽי׃

But you said to your servants, ‘Unless your youngest brother comes down with you, do not let me see your faces.’

וַיְהִי֙ כִּ֣י עָלִ֔ינוּ אֶֽל־עַבְדְּךָ֖ אָבִ֑י וַנַּ֨גֶּד־ל֔וֹ אֵ֖ת דִּבְרֵ֥י אֲדֹנִֽי׃

When we came back to your servant my father, we reported my lord’s words to him.

וַיֹּ֖אמֶר אָבִ֑ינוּ שֻׁ֖בוּ שִׁבְרוּ־לָ֥נוּ מְעַט־אֹֽכֶל׃

“Later our father said, ‘Go back and procure some food for us.’

וַנֹּ֕אמֶר לֹ֥א נוּכַ֖ל לָרֶ֑דֶת אִם־יֵשׁ֩ אָחִ֨ינוּ הַקָּטֹ֤ן אִתָּ֙נוּ֙ וְיָרַ֔דְנוּ כִּי־לֹ֣א נוּכַ֗ל לִרְאוֹת֙ פְּנֵ֣י הָאִ֔ישׁ וְאָחִ֥ינוּ הַקָּטֹ֖ן אֵינֶ֥נּוּ אִתָּֽנוּ׃

We answered, ‘We cannot go down; only if our youngest brother is with us can we go down, for we may not show our faces to the man unless our youngest brother is with us.’

וַיֹּ֛אמֶר עַבְדְּךָ֥ אָבִ֖י אֵלֵ֑ינוּ אַתֶּ֣ם יְדַעְתֶּ֔ם כִּ֥י שְׁנַ֖יִם יָֽלְדָה־לִּ֥י אִשְׁתִּֽי׃

Your servant my father said to us, ‘As you know, my wife bore me two sons.

וַיֵּצֵ֤א הָֽאֶחָד֙ מֵֽאִתִּ֔י וָאֹמַ֕ר אַ֖ךְ טָרֹ֣ף טֹרָ֑ף וְלֹ֥א רְאִיתִ֖יו עַד־הֵֽנָּה׃

But one is gone from me, and I said: Alas, he was torn by a beast! And I have not seen him since.

וּלְקַחְתֶּ֧ם גַּם־אֶת־זֶ֛ה מֵעִ֥ם פָּנַ֖י וְקָרָ֣הוּ אָס֑וֹן וְהֽוֹרַדְתֶּ֧ם אֶת־שֵׂיבָתִ֛י בְּרָעָ֖ה שְׁאֹֽלָה׃

If you take this one from me, too, and he meets with disaster, you will send my white head down to Sheol in sorrow.’

After all, Yehuda is relating the facts of the case.

3. Partition (44:30-31)

וְעַתָּ֗ה כְּבֹאִי֙ אֶל־עַבְדְּךָ֣ אָבִ֔י וְהַנַּ֖עַר אֵינֶ֣נּוּ אִתָּ֑נוּ וְנַפְשׁ֖וֹ קְשׁוּרָ֥ה בְנַפְשֽׁוֹ׃

“Now, if I come to your servant my father and the boy is not with us—since his own life is so bound up with his—

וְהָיָ֗ה כִּרְאוֹת֛וֹ כִּי־אֵ֥ין הַנַּ֖עַר וָמֵ֑ת

when he sees that the boy is not with us, he will die,

He cuts the pasuk at this point, leaving the ending to the next purpose.

How is this a partition, which is supposed to show where they differ? Well,

for in this the point of their disagreement is clearly brought out-the disagreement, that is, on the point of leaving Benjamin behind . It was as though Judah had said: ' 'It is obvious to us that Jacob will die if he should not see the lad; hence to leave him behind is something which we must not do''; but he did not say this openly because he was speaking with humility and tact, like a servant before a king . From these verses, also, may be understood the point wherein the brothers agreed with Joseph-the coming of Benjamin thither; it was as though Judah had said: ' 'We have agreed to part of what you wish, the coming of Benjamin into Egypt; what remains in dispute is the question of leaving him behind, for to this, indeed, we will not agree." This was the actual Partition, but it is only hinted at here for the reason already explained

4. Proof (end of 44:31)

וְהוֹרִ֨ידוּ עֲבָדֶ֜יךָ אֶת־שֵׂיבַ֨ת עַבְדְּךָ֥ אָבִ֛ינוּ בְּיָג֖וֹן שְׁאֹֽלָה׃

and your servants will send the white head of your servant our father down to Sheol in grief.

How so?

It was as though he had said: ' 'What proves that we ought not agree with you in this is, that if we should so act, great punishment would overtake us [2 Kings 7:9], for we would thereby have brought about the death of our father 'in sorrow to the grave '-a criminal deed " [Job 31:28]

5. Refutation (44:32)

כִּ֤י עַבְדְּךָ֙ עָרַ֣ב אֶת־הַנַּ֔עַר מֵעִ֥ם אָבִ֖י לֵאמֹ֑ר אִם־לֹ֤א אֲבִיאֶ֙נּוּ֙ אֵלֶ֔יךָ וְחָטָ֥אתִי לְאָבִ֖י כׇּל־הַיָּמִֽים׃

Now your servant has pledged himself for the boy to my father, saying, ‘If I do not bring him back to you, I shall stand guilty before my father forever.’

How so?

For it was possible that Joseph would say, “Why do you alone multiply exceeding proud talk [1 Sam. 2:3], while your brothers refrain?” but Judah refuted this by saying that he had become surety for Benjamin and that it was quite proper for him to make a greater effort than his brothers to restore the lad to his father. The statement “For thy servant became surety” would not make good sense alongside what had previously been stated unless we say that, as explained, it had previously been hinted that they would neither leave nor abandon Benjamin.

6. Conclusion (44:33-34)

וְעַתָּ֗ה יֵֽשֶׁב־נָ֤א עַבְדְּךָ֙ תַּ֣חַת הַנַּ֔עַר עֶ֖בֶד לַֽאדֹנִ֑י וְהַנַּ֖עַר יַ֥עַל עִם־אֶחָֽיו׃

Therefore, please let your servant remain as a slave to my lord instead of the boy, and let the boy go back with his brothers.

כִּי־אֵיךְ֙ אֶֽעֱלֶ֣ה אֶל־אָבִ֔י וְהַנַּ֖עַר אֵינֶ֣נּוּ אִתִּ֑י פֶּ֚ן אֶרְאֶ֣ה בָרָ֔ע אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִמְצָ֖א אֶת־אָבִֽי׃

For how can I go back to my father unless the boy is with me? Let me not be witness to the woe that would overtake my father!”

How so?

in a short statement, Judah summed up what he had previously said .

An interesting analysis. I agree that Yehuda’s discourse plausibly has a structure to it. I’m not so sure that it has to match the rhetorical structure of Aristotle for putting forth a persuasive argument. Some of the assignments of phrases to parts seem a bit forced.

Does Shadal agree with all of it, as a matter of peshat, or just thought it was an interesting and beautiful analysis? Elsewhere, he does not like what he called philosophical derash, in which Jewish philosophers kvetch Jewish texts to match ideas from Greek philosophy.