GEN1466 J contains some rather elaborate deceptions which are not fully paralleled in [either] E and there is little or no mention of these events in P. In particular, the deception of Jacob by his sons concerning Joseph’s appearance contains the following language in Genesis 37:31 – 32: “And they took Joseph’s coat, and killed a he goat and dipped the coat in blood; and they sent the coat of many colors, and they brought it to their father; and they said: ‘This we have found. Discern please whether it is your son’s coat or not?’” There is no mention of this deception in E. Chapter 38 demonstrates the characteristic J style of countering deception with deception. Here again, one finds J showing that one deception is punishable by another deception using similar language. In this case, Judith fears that Tamar will cause the death of his only remaining son Shelah and tries to deceive Tamar by telling her (38:11): “Remain a widow in your father’s house, till Shelah my son grows up,” But then the text tells us it is a deception “… for he feared that he would die, like his brothers.” Tamar then deceives Judah into fathering a child for her and before she gets punished she turns to Judah and states (38:25): “Discern please who is these are, the signet and the cord and the staff.” The text then adds (38:26): “She is more righteous than I come inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah.” Clearly demonstrating again, that deceptions involving sexual promiscuity are not seen as inherently without merit and that deception is usually punishable by another deception.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1480 See [[GEN1466]] Genesis 37:32 examine FREUND 87-8

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1490 See [[GEN1466]] Genesis 37:32 examine FREUND 87-8

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1491 See [[GEN1466]] Genesis 37:32 examine FREUND 87-8

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD97 See [[GEN1418]] Genesis 34:13 guile FREUND 85

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD451 See [[GEN696]] Genesis 9:5 reckoning FREUND 70-2

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD583 Though the type of compensation is clear, the exact nature of the compensation is not. The question in this case is one of compensation, as in the rest of the compensation cases listed in chapter 21 of Exodus, for the principal injury to the woman, or, the lesser to the child. The question is whether this potential child has any inherent value or not. Rashi, again basing himself on Mechilta, states that the compensation is payment of the value of the fetus to the husband, by estimating the market value of a woman slave who was pregnant and of a woman slave who is not pregnant. The difference in the market value between them is the value of the fetus. It appears that in the evaluation of the compensation, at least, the fetus did have some inherent value – albeit not that of human life. Clearly, feticide is not linked with homicide at this level of argumentation. This point is confirmed by the rabbinic interpretation of the continuation of Exodus 21:23: "If any harm follows, they shall give life for life…". Here this compensation refers to the "harm" done to the woman. The death of the woman is then divided according to the formulation common in the capital punishment cases: "Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc.," a formulation usually understood as representing monetary compensation and not the actual taking of life for life. In the case of the death of the woman (i.e., life for life) there is a dispute among the rabbis as to whether the penalty for the perpetrator should actually be the death penalty or monetary compensation. Sanhedrin 79a.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD590 See [[EXOD583]] Exodus 21:22 fined FREUND 242

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD1067 See [[GEN1466]] Genesis 37:32 examine FREUND 87-8

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

EXOD1071 See [[GEN1466]] Genesis 37:32 examine FREUND 87-8

SHOW FULL EXCERPT