Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I ask because on the one hand he and some of Pharoh's other servants are described in the Hebrew as סריס, but the translations I've seen are usually in the vein of Lord Servant. For instance, my IDF Tanach lists in it's footnotes סריס as just a synonym for שר. Hirsh does mention in his commentary that this is one meaning of the word, but doesn't use this meaning in his translation.

Translating סריס as Eunuch would seem to explain allot of things. From what I've read it was common in many societies for royal Eunuchs to marry and adopt children. This would maybe explain why Potiphor's wife was so after Joseph. Also, I've heard that Osnat was Jewish. If Potiphor was a Eunuch and she was adopted this would make sense.

Anyways, why doesn't this translation seem to be used, especially as this is the word's literal meaning and it makes good sense in the context of the story.

Edit

I wanted to add one more thing which I think pushes in the direction of Potiphor being a eunuch. As far as I've noticed, all the servants of Pharoh mentioned in the parasha who would have served Pharoh in person such that they might have regular personal contact with him such as Potiphor, the cupbearer and the baker, are all described as both שר and סריס. However the lord of the jail, who would not have direct contact with Pharoh on a regular basis is described only as שר. This would seem to be in line with what we know about ancient practices.

share|improve this question
4  
You heard correctly about Osnat. She was the daughter of Dina and Shchem and was adopted by Potiphor. Midrash – Yalkut Shimoni 134 –  eramm Nov 24 '13 at 14:07

3 Answers 3

In Beraishis 41 (45) Osnat is mentioned as the daughter of Potifera. Rashi comments there on the change of name. He says:

Poti-phera: He is Potiphar, but he was called Poti-phera because he became emasculated since he desired Joseph for homosexual relations. — [from Sotah 13b].

So we see that he was not emasculated until he desired Joseph.

share|improve this answer
1  
Is there any further discussion or explanation there? –  Robert S. Barnes Nov 24 '13 at 14:49
1  
ויקנהו פוטיפר סריס פרעה אמר רב שקנאו לעצמו (בא גבריאל וסירסו) בא גבריאל ופירעו מעיקרא כתיב פוטיפר ולבסוף פוטיפרע: it seems from the gemara that potifar bought Yosef with this in mind. –  sam Nov 24 '13 at 16:16
2  
Related: judaism.stackexchange.com/q/26134/472 –  Monica Cellio Nov 24 '13 at 16:17
1  
@MonicaCellio Apparently Onkelos also translates סריס as רבה in addition to translating כהן as רבה. That seems a bit strange to me... –  Robert S. Barnes Nov 24 '13 at 22:21
1  
@sam Is that from Sotah 13b? –  Robert S. Barnes Nov 24 '13 at 22:22

It would seem that at the time of Yosef's employment Potiphor was NOT a eunich based on the pasuk and Rashi Breshit Chapter 39 Pasuk 19

:וַיְהִי כִשְׁמֹעַ אֲדֹנָיו אֶת דִּבְרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר דִּבְּרָה אֵלָיו לֵאמֹר כַּדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה עָשָׂה לִי עַבְדֶּךָ וַיִּחַר אַפּוֹ

Now it came about when his master heard his wife's report that she spoke to him, saying, "Your slave did such things to me," that his wrath burned.

Rashi on this Pasuk

ויהי כשמוע אדוניו וגו': בשעת תשמיש אמרה לו כן, וזהו שאמרה כדברים האלה עשה לי עבדך, עניני תשמיש כאלה

Now it came about when his master heard, etc.: During intercourse she told him this, and that is the meaning of“Your slave did such things to me,” [meaning] such acts of intimacy. [From Gen. Rabbah 87:9]

share|improve this answer

Let's put aside all the midrashim for a moment.

Pharaoh's officers are described as "sarisim." Ramban says that in fact, we don't know whether that always means "eunuch", or that because so many kings' officers were eunuchs in Biblical times that the Torah uses that word generically for a king's officers.

share|improve this answer
1  
Interesting, but that wouldn't explain why the lord of the prison isn't described this way when the butler, baker and cup bearer are. –  Robert S. Barnes Nov 24 '13 at 22:09
1  
@RobertS.Barnes perhaps the title was only used for royal officers who actually spent time in the palace? –  Shalom Nov 24 '13 at 23:07
1  
I was wondering about this exact question! In particular, I was wondering about Yeshayahu's prophesy about Chizkiyahu's sons in 2 Melachim 20:18, which has much more force if it's read "eunuchs" as opposed to "officers". The Ramban you're citing is to the appearance of the word in Bereishit? –  Shivaram Lingamneni Nov 25 '13 at 7:23

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.