In parshat Pinchas, we read of Yocheved's birth {Bemidbar 26:59}:
There is a slight awkwardness in אֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה אֹתָהּ לְלֵוִי. The translation above seems to take it as the passive. Is this possible? We would expect yudela. But this is just nikkud, vocalization, and perhaps
it can even be an instance of the elusive kal passive. However, would a passive have אֹתָהּ, her, after it?
Rashi - perhaps, depending on the girsa - says the actor here was Levi's unnamed wife. Ibn Ezra says that Yocheved was mentioned as a point in her honor but her mother's name was omitted as a way of writing briefly. Shadal agrees, giving a Biblical parallel of ילדה, of a woman giving birth to someone, where the actor's name is not mentioned:
However, we can suggest that the reason the pasuk does not tell us Yocheved's mother's name is this: the post-Mosaic author of the pasuk did not know her name, or did not dare to insert information into the Torah that he could not draw from another pasuk,
That is, just like the last 12 pesukim of the Torah and other scattered pesukim (as per Ibn Ezra), this is an editorial insertion. Either as an interjection in Yocheved's honor, or the entire assembled genealogical section. And since no other pasuk standing before the editor mentions Levi's wife, the editor was not going to insert this information.
Looking at this as an editorial insertion clarifies some other matters. Foremost is the claim in this pasuk that Yocheved was the daughter of Levi. This is very hard to make work with chronology. Assuming 210 years in Egypt rather than 400, she would have to be very old when she gave birth to Moshe. The Rishonim grapple with this. Rashi has her born just as they enter Egypt (which also resolved questions of the count of the 70 souls entering Egypt, assuming one takes that number as precise). But then, with 210 years in Egypt and Moshe leading the Israelites out at age 80, Yocheved must be 210 - 80 = 130 years old when she gives birth to Moshe. This is an even greater miracle than what happened to Sarah and yet the Torah does not mention it explicitly! On this basis, Ibn Ezra rejects this. Ramban responds to Ibn Ezra as to why the Torah would not mention the miracle. But one should realize that it is a tug of war. Any years taken off of Yocheved needs to be added to Levi when he fathered her, though it is easier for a man to father children in old age than for a woman to birth children in old age. You can work out the chronology yourself -- I dislike chronological calculations as means of discovering peshat.
However, this all assumes that Yocheved was Levi's daughter. And the pasuk here could not be clearer on this point. She was "Yocheved bat Levi". So too another pasuk is rather clear on this point -- in parashat Va'era, in Shemot 16:
She is the aunt of Amram, and Amram was grandson of Levi, so Yocheved is the literal daughter of Levi. Though see how the Septuagint and Rav Saadia Gaon deal with that.
But if these two pesukim -- in Vaera and in Pinchas -- are the work of an editor who is interpreting other pesukim, then the source of this assertion can be understood. From Shemot 2:
The true peshat in that pasuk is that just as אִישׁ מִבֵּית לֵוִי refers to a Levite, in this case Amram, so does בַּת-לֵוִי refer to a female Levite, in this case Yocheved. But all it means is an unnamed female Levite. Indeed, the very purpose and theme of the narrative there has these as anonymous people. Moshe is not named, Yocheved is not named. Moshe is only named at the end, but until then, he is מִיַּלְדֵי הָעִבְרִים זֶה. From this, he rose to prominence. But the editor took בַּת-לֵוִי to refer to the actual direct-line daughter of Levi. And in this way, an assumption and interpretation was encoded in the Biblical text.
We should perhaps then keep this idea in mind when considering other pesukim in this genealogical section. For example, in parshat Korach, there is ambiguity as to just how Korach died -- by fire, by being swallowed up, or in both manners. It depends on how one interprets the pesukim there. And there are pesukim in Tehillim that can be brought to bear as evidence. But those pesukim in Tehillim reflect that (inspired) Biblical author's interpretation of the pesukim in Korach. And if my discussion above it correct, then the same might be said about the discussion in parashat Pinchas of Korach's death -- important to mention because Korach's lineage continued, as his sons did not die:
See my analysis of how to parse pasuk 10, and how trup factors in. And see how the Samaritans resolve it. Perhaps this is deliberate obscurity as to Korach's death. But if we say that the pasuk in Pinchas is asserting that Korach is swallowed, then this does not compel us to (a) interpret the pasuk in Korach likewise, or (b) assert that the author in Pinchas was "unaware" of the text in Korach, should we choose a different interpretation. Rather, "all" we need to do is recognize that this editor, like the Biblical author of the pesukim in Tehillim, was engaging in interpretation.
| נט וְשֵׁם אֵשֶׁת עַמְרָם, יוֹכֶבֶד בַּת-לֵוִי, אֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה אֹתָהּ לְלֵוִי, בְּמִצְרָיִם; וַתֵּלֶד לְעַמְרָם, אֶת-אַהֲרֹן וְאֶת-מֹשֶׁה, וְאֵת, מִרְיָם אֲחֹתָם. | 59 And the name of Amram's wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, who was born to Levi in Egypt; and she bore unto Amram Aaron and Moses, and Miriam their sister. |
There is a slight awkwardness in אֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה אֹתָהּ לְלֵוִי. The translation above seems to take it as the passive. Is this possible? We would expect yudela. But this is just nikkud, vocalization, and perhaps
it can even be an instance of the elusive kal passive. However, would a passive have אֹתָהּ, her, after it?
Rashi - perhaps, depending on the girsa - says the actor here was Levi's unnamed wife. Ibn Ezra says that Yocheved was mentioned as a point in her honor but her mother's name was omitted as a way of writing briefly. Shadal agrees, giving a Biblical parallel of ילדה, of a woman giving birth to someone, where the actor's name is not mentioned:
לא חש להזכיר שם אמה של יוכבד, כמו ואותו ילדה אחרי אבשלום ( מ"א א' ו').אOthers suggest we are told her mother's name in this pasuk -- it is Otah. Meanwhile, the book of Jubilees mentions that her name is Milkah.
However, we can suggest that the reason the pasuk does not tell us Yocheved's mother's name is this: the post-Mosaic author of the pasuk did not know her name, or did not dare to insert information into the Torah that he could not draw from another pasuk,
That is, just like the last 12 pesukim of the Torah and other scattered pesukim (as per Ibn Ezra), this is an editorial insertion. Either as an interjection in Yocheved's honor, or the entire assembled genealogical section. And since no other pasuk standing before the editor mentions Levi's wife, the editor was not going to insert this information.
Looking at this as an editorial insertion clarifies some other matters. Foremost is the claim in this pasuk that Yocheved was the daughter of Levi. This is very hard to make work with chronology. Assuming 210 years in Egypt rather than 400, she would have to be very old when she gave birth to Moshe. The Rishonim grapple with this. Rashi has her born just as they enter Egypt (which also resolved questions of the count of the 70 souls entering Egypt, assuming one takes that number as precise). But then, with 210 years in Egypt and Moshe leading the Israelites out at age 80, Yocheved must be 210 - 80 = 130 years old when she gives birth to Moshe. This is an even greater miracle than what happened to Sarah and yet the Torah does not mention it explicitly! On this basis, Ibn Ezra rejects this. Ramban responds to Ibn Ezra as to why the Torah would not mention the miracle. But one should realize that it is a tug of war. Any years taken off of Yocheved needs to be added to Levi when he fathered her, though it is easier for a man to father children in old age than for a woman to birth children in old age. You can work out the chronology yourself -- I dislike chronological calculations as means of discovering peshat.
However, this all assumes that Yocheved was Levi's daughter. And the pasuk here could not be clearer on this point. She was "Yocheved bat Levi". So too another pasuk is rather clear on this point -- in parashat Va'era, in Shemot 16:
| 20. Amram took Jochebed, his aunt, as his wife, and she bore him Aaron and Moses, and the years of Amram's life were one hundred thirty seven years. | כ. וַיִּקַּח עַמְרָם אֶת יוֹכֶבֶד דֹּדָתוֹ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה וַתֵּלֶד לוֹ אֶת אַהֲרֹן וְאֶת מֹשֶׁה וּשְׁנֵי חַיֵּי עַמְרָם שֶׁבַע וּשְׁלֹשִׁים וּמְאַת שָׁנָה: |
She is the aunt of Amram, and Amram was grandson of Levi, so Yocheved is the literal daughter of Levi. Though see how the Septuagint and Rav Saadia Gaon deal with that.
But if these two pesukim -- in Vaera and in Pinchas -- are the work of an editor who is interpreting other pesukim, then the source of this assertion can be understood. From Shemot 2:
| א וַיֵּלֶךְ אִישׁ, מִבֵּית לֵוִי; וַיִּקַּח, אֶת-בַּת-לֵוִי. | 1 And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi. |
The true peshat in that pasuk is that just as אִישׁ מִבֵּית לֵוִי refers to a Levite, in this case Amram, so does בַּת-לֵוִי refer to a female Levite, in this case Yocheved. But all it means is an unnamed female Levite. Indeed, the very purpose and theme of the narrative there has these as anonymous people. Moshe is not named, Yocheved is not named. Moshe is only named at the end, but until then, he is מִיַּלְדֵי הָעִבְרִים זֶה. From this, he rose to prominence. But the editor took בַּת-לֵוִי to refer to the actual direct-line daughter of Levi. And in this way, an assumption and interpretation was encoded in the Biblical text.
We should perhaps then keep this idea in mind when considering other pesukim in this genealogical section. For example, in parshat Korach, there is ambiguity as to just how Korach died -- by fire, by being swallowed up, or in both manners. It depends on how one interprets the pesukim there. And there are pesukim in Tehillim that can be brought to bear as evidence. But those pesukim in Tehillim reflect that (inspired) Biblical author's interpretation of the pesukim in Korach. And if my discussion above it correct, then the same might be said about the discussion in parashat Pinchas of Korach's death -- important to mention because Korach's lineage continued, as his sons did not die:
See my analysis of how to parse pasuk 10, and how trup factors in. And see how the Samaritans resolve it. Perhaps this is deliberate obscurity as to Korach's death. But if we say that the pasuk in Pinchas is asserting that Korach is swallowed, then this does not compel us to (a) interpret the pasuk in Korach likewise, or (b) assert that the author in Pinchas was "unaware" of the text in Korach, should we choose a different interpretation. Rather, "all" we need to do is recognize that this editor, like the Biblical author of the pesukim in Tehillim, was engaging in interpretation.
