You Are With Whom You Eat1: Commensality, Conflict, and Commentary on Egyptian Eating Practices in Genesis Final

Paper for NEJS 123b Noam Sienna

The legendary anthropologist Claude Lvi-Strauss famously said of foodstuffs that they are bonnes penser [good to think with] (1962, pg. 128), which is to say: food, eating practices, and dietary habits form an essential part of the theoretical structures that divide, organize, and underlie a cultures conception of the world around them. Throughout the story of the biblical character Joseph, told in the last 13 chapters of the book of Genesis, there are indications of a variety of opportunities for social contacts and barriers between cultures (Egyptian and Israelite): language, clothing, names, and food. This last issue, specifically, becomes an especially important and explicit locus for these tensions, in the description of the eating practices of the Israelites and the Egyptians. This paper will analyze the commentary of medieval Jewish exegetes on this episode in the Joseph story; we will explore how foodways bring cultural and social issues to the forefront of the imagination, and examine the relationship between context and commentary. In Genesis 43:32, we read that Joseph eats by himself, his Israelite brothers at a separate table by themselves, and his Egyptian courtiers at a third table by themselves. Not only that, but
1

!Garnsey 1999, pg. 128

the text specifically indicates that it is a toeva for Egyptians to eat with Hebrews. This is a strong word, normally reserved for taboo, non-Israelite, cultic practices (Michaelson 2010). This is its first occurrence in the Bible; it only reappears once more in the book of Genesis (46:34), saying that all shepherds are toeva to Egyptians: ki toavat misrayim kol roei son ! ! . Why such a strong reaction from the text? Why cant Israelites and Egyptians eat together? After all, Joseph seems so far to have had a fairly easy time assimilating into Egyptian society, with an Egyptian name2, an Egyptian job3, and even an Egyptian wife4. Food, as we know, is a primary site for issues of boundaries and identity. And indeed, the only other cultural barrier between Joseph/ Israelites and Egyptians immediately visible in the Joseph story is that Potiphar gives Joseph control over everything in his household except the food which he would eat (Gen. 39:6), thus confirming the Egyptian taboo against eating Hebrew food, either with Hebrews or prepared by Hebrews5. As David Freidenreich writes, regulations governing other peoples food relate directly to the border lines demarcating religious communities (2011, pg. 4). Just as today, it was common in the ancient world for communities to use food and eating practices both as a means of drawing boundaries between groups as well as unifying the feeling
Rendered in the Hebrew text as Saphenat-paneah .! Its exact etymology is unclear, but is probably a corruption of ! something like *d[e]d-p[a]n[e]t[e]riw.f[a]nh ! the god has said: he will live!. See Koehler and Baumgartner (HALOT) 1994, s.v. Saphenat-paneah ;! Ranke 1935, pg. 227; Hoffmeier 1999, pp. 85-87. !
2

In Genesis 45:8, Joseph declares that Pharaoh has made him father to Pharaoh, lord of all his household, and ruler of all Egypt, phrases which may have some correspondence to titles of royal officials in the Egyptian court (see e.g. Ward 1960).
3

Asenath, daughter of Potiphera the priest of On. Early rabbinic and midrashic commentary recasts Asenath as the abandoned daughter of Dinah, adopted by Potiphar/Potiphera, and thus an acceptable Israelite wife for Joseph. This is developed most fully in the Hellenistic romance Joseph and Aseneth, most likely written in the Egyptian Jewish community of the 1st century BCE (see West 1974 and Cook 1984, pg. 470).
4

The connection between this verse and our passage in Genesis is explicitly pointed out by Radak and ibn Ezra; other commentators see it as a euphemism for Potiphars wife (e.g. Rashi) or an expression indicating Potiphars complete trust in Joseph (e.g. Rashbam).
5

of group solidarity. Garnsey writes regarding classical antiquity: In Graeco-Roman society, food was a marker of ethnic and cultural difference. In the literature from antiquity, that is, in the perceptions of the literary spokesmen of the elite, Greeks were differentiated from barbarians, urban-dwellers from rustics, farmers from nomads, and so on, in terms of the food they ate... On the other hand, food involves commensality, that is, sharing a table, with companions, that is, sharers of bread. Food assembles and binds together those linked by blood (family), class (the symposiasts of archaic and later Greece), religion (the Passover Seder, the Eucharist), and citizenship (the civic banquet). Food, then, stands as a pointer to distinctions of status, power, and wealth, of group-separateness and -belonging, and of cultural differences in general (1999, pp. 6-7, and cf. pp. 62-99). In a fascinating and relevant passage, the Greek historian and storyteller Herodotus actually corroborates the biblical account, recording that the ancient Egyptians practiced the type of food segregation described in Genesis: All the Egyptians sacrifice unblemished male bulls and calves, but it is not permitted for them to sacrifice female cows: these are sacred to Isis... On account of this, no Egyptian man or woman will kiss a Greek man, nor will they use the knife of a Greek man, or a spit, or a cauldron, nor will they even taste the meat of an unblemished bull if it has been cut up with a Greek knife... All those who have an established temple of Theban Zeus [Amun-Ra], or who are from the district of Thebes, will keep away from sheep, sacrificing only

goats (Histories 2:41-42)6. Interestingly, David Freidenreich argues convincingly that the Bible, and certainly the Pentateuch, never indicates any reciprocal aversion, or Israelite barrier to eating with nonIsraelites (2011, pp. 17-20). As he notes, nowhere in the Bible is commensality with nonIsraelites forbidden, and he cites numerous examples where it is described with no qualms. Most contemporary scholarship on food and eating in the Bible has focused on the issues of the dietary laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. While the symbolic force of these laws is highly ambiguous, it appears to be clear that at some level these laws deal with creating taxonomies of food differentiation, parallel to Israels differentiation as a people7 (see the various interpretations offered by Douglas 1975, pp. 249-275; Soler 1979; Harris 1998, pp. 67-81; Macdonald 2008, pp. 17-99; Freidenreich 2011, pp. 1-26). There has been less attention paid in scholarship to the other places in the Bible where food is used as a social symbol, especially this section of Genesis. However, as we shall see, it was an important locus for classical commentators to grapple with the questions of ethnic and religious boundaries, taboos, and the relationship between Jewish ritual and non-Jewish culture. The Joseph story is fascinating, not only in the context of biblical narrative (it is the longest and most detailed story in the Torah to focus on one character, and is often considered a

Elsewhere, Herodotus speaks of other Egyptian districts where the opposite is practiced (goats are worshipped and so only sheep are sacrificed). According to Herodotus, the sheep was revered as the manifestation of Amun-Ra, the patron god of Thebes. Elsewhere he records that nothing woollen was brought into temples or buried with the dead, because it was ou hosion [forbidden by divine law] (Histories, 2:81).
6

!This is illustrated most strongly by Lev. 20:24-25: I am the L!RD your G!d, who has set you apart from other peoples. Therefore you shall set apart the pure animals from the impure, the impure bird from the pure.
7

semi-independent novella within the Book of Genesis), but also for the discussion that it has engendered in Jewish, Muslim, and Christian exegesis over the centuries. As Michael McGaha observes, the great themes it embodies sibling rivalry resulting in betrayal, revenge, and ultimate reconciliation; the triumph of honor and chastity over sexual temptation; the Cinderellalike rise of a member of a despised minority to a position of almost unimaginable power and influence in one of the mightiest empires the world has ever know have never ceased to inspire the imagination of later writers (McGaha 1997, pg. ix). The Joseph story occupies an important place in Christian thought, especially during the Middle Ages (McGaha 1997, pg. xvii); as Francis Gigot wrote for The Catholic Encyclopedia: A character so beautiful made Joseph a most worthy type of Christ, the model of all perfection, and it is comparatively easy to point out some of the traits of resemblance between Jacob's beloved son and the dearly beloved Son of God8 (1910, pg. 508). The story of Yusuf in the Quran is similarly a prominent and commonly-discussed narrative; the Quran itself calls it ahsan ! al-qasas ! ! [the best of stories] (12:3; see Bernstein 2006, pp. 32-40). As Marc Bernstein observes, the prominence of the Joseph story in its respective religious traditions gives rise to its position as a locus of significant cross-cultural exchange (Bernstein 2006, pg. 1). Moreover, the tensions throughout the Joseph story between assimilation, isolation, conflict and coThose traits of resemblance, according to Gigot, are: Like Jesus, Joseph was hated and cast out by his brethren, and yet wrought out their salvation through the sufferings they had brought upon him. Like Jesus, Joseph obtained his exaltation only after passing through the deepest and most undeserved humiliations; and, in the kingdom over which he ruled, he invited his brethren to join those whom heretofore they had looked upon as strangers, in order that they also might enjoy the blessings which he had stored up for them. Like the Saviour of the world, Joseph had but words of forgiveness and blessing for all who, recognizing their misery, had recourse to his supreme power. It was to Joseph of old, as to Jesus, that all had to appeal for relief, offer homages of the deepest respect, and yield ready obedience in all things. Finally, to the Patriarch Joseph, as to Jesus, it was given to inaugurate a new order of things for the greater power and glory of the monarch to whom he owed his exaltation (1910, pg. 508)
8

existence must have had deep resonance for Jewish commentators living as religious minorities (whether in Christian or Muslim surroundings). Jewish exegesis on this passage, therefore, struggles with these issues: why would Egyptians refuse to eat with Israelites? And in a larger sense, then, what is the purpose of dietary prohibitions? It is interesting to note that early midrashic and aggadic understandings of the story recast it as reflecting Jewish dietary practices and the restrictions of kashrut surrounding eating with non-Jews, which only arose in the later rabbinic period (see Freidenreich 2011, pp. 29-84). The apocryphal romance of Joseph and Aseneth9, for example, portrays Joseph as refusing to eat with the Egyptians because of his own dietary restrictions: And Joseph came into Pentephres' house and sat down on a seat; and he washed his feet, and he placed a table in front of him separately, because he would not eat with the Egyptians, for this was an abomination10 to him (Cook 1984, pg. 479; my emphasis). Here the anonymous author has transformed the Biblical language of Egyptian prejudice to the familiar Jewish self-segregation in eating, just as the general purpose of the text is to transform Josephs seeming intermarriage by asserting Aseneths Hebrew heritage. Similarly, the homiletic collection of Midrash Tan"uma relates that Josephs brothers ate by themselves because they did not trust that the food was acceptable to eat, as recompense for a rumour that Joseph spread in his youth suspecting the brothers of transgressing the dietary laws: [Joseph in his youth] told his father: My brothers eat the limbs of living animals. The Holy
9

See above, footnote 4. bdelygma, the same word used in the Septuagint to translate toeva in Genesis 43:32.

10

One, blessed be He, declared: Be assured, you will be suspected of committing the very act you accused them of committing [as described in Gen. 43:32, when the brothers eat separately] (Berman 1996, pg. 223; cf. Buber 1989, pg. 234). Rather than the brothers being the objects of dietary discrimination, the midrashist imagines them as actually requesting to eat separately to preserve their own dietary restrictions. That is, the taboo here is Israelite, not Egyptian. The classical Biblical commentaries of the Middle Ages, however, took a different route, attempting to understand the Egyptian taboo on its own terms. Many commentators related this to traditions of sheep worship in ancient Egypt11. One of the chief issues is centred around the precise referent of the toeva: is it the animals themselves, or the practice of eating them? Various commentators disagree over whether the Egyptians abhorred sheep or revered them, and the degree to which eating meat was discouraged. Often, three different passages are all linked, through the use of the word toeva: the description of eating with Hebrews as a toeva for Egyptians (Genesis 43:32); Josephs assertion that shepherds are a toeva for Egyptians (Genesis 46:34); and Moses description of Israelite offerings as toavat misrayim (Exodus 8:22). ! In his comment on the first verse under examination, Genesis 43:32, the great 11thcentury French commentator, Rabbi Shlomo Yish ! (Rashi), succinctly directs the reader to the ! aqi Aramaic translation of Onkelos, who has paraphrased toeva l"misrayim as the animal which ! the Egyptians worship, the Hebrews eat. Later on, Rashi explicitly comments that shepherds are
As noted above, it appears (at least according to Herodotus) that cows rather than sheep were the primary dietary taboo; however, some Egyptian divinities (particularly Amun and Khnum; see Pinch 2004, pp. 63 and 101) were portrayed with sheep iconography, and Herodotus records that some Egyptians (notably in the Thebes area) were particularly reverent towards sheep, and so it is possible that there was some historical basis for this assertion.
11

a toeva to the Egyptians because they [i.e. sheep] are gods to them (46:34, s.v. ki toavat misrayim kol roei son ! ! ). That is, sheep are sacred to the Egyptians, and thus people who eat them (and raise them to eat) are abominable. He further expands on this in his comment to Exodus 8:22, where Moses tells Pharaoh that since the Israelites sacrifice toavat misrayim , they ! need to go out into the wilderness to perform offerings. Here, Rashi offers two explanations; one, that the Biblical texts is using toeva to refer to a non-Israelite deity, and two, that toeva refers to the disgust the Egyptians would feel with regard to the sacrifice of their deity: Toavat misrayim : [this means] the deity of the Egyptians, as in [II Kings 23:13], And to Milkom, the ! toeva of the children of Ammon, and in [speaking to] Israel [the Bible] calls it a toeva. But it could also be explained in another way, that toavat misrayim [means] that it would be a hateful ! thing for the Egyptians [to see] us performing this sacrifice, since we are sacrificing their deity (8:22, s.v. toavat misrayim ). ! Rashi is presenting two fundamentally different understandings, in accordance with his method of dual exegesis or the partnership between peshat and derash which Gelles calls an ! important feature of Rashis hermeneutical approach to the Bible (Gelles 1997, pg. 101): the first, informed by Onkelos, understands the use of toeva simply to refer to the Egyptians improper and misdirected idol worship as the plain sense of the Biblical text: toeva refers to idolatry. But the second implies that just as there are things which are morally repugnant and taboo to the Israelite about the cultural practices of non-Israelite nations, similarly there are things about Israelite practice that are morally repugnant and taboo to other nations. Might this

suggest, therefore, that the Egyptians sitting separately in Genesis 43 were justified in doing so? It is unclear; nonetheless, the Egyptians do not come off looking particularly good either way, since they remain foolish idolators, worshipping dumb animals rather than the G!d that created them and commands their sacrifice. Could this be, perhaps, part of Rashis methodology of strengthening Jewish identity in the face of increased Christian religious vitality (Touitou 1990, pp. 162-164) a warning that despite the temptations to eat with Gentiles, their food is actually false idolatry, and furthermore, they wouldnt want to eat with you anyway? We may never know. Interestingly, Rashis grandson, the Tosafist Shmuel ben Meir (Rashbam), takes a totally different approach, arguing that the Egyptians hated sheep, and that shepherds were despised by them because sheep were repulsive in their eyes (43:32 s.v. ki toeva). In this case, the sheep and shepherds themselves are what is toeva, and so the Egyptian avoidance of eating with Israelites is still justified, but this time even without any idolatry; this is just a simple example of a cultural taboo which reinforces ethnic boundaries through avoidance of a particular animal (cf. the many case studies presented in Simoons 1994). Returning to the idea of sheep worship, the 12th-century Provenal exegete David Qimhi (Radak), argues that the Hebrews ate meat, but the Egyptians did not, and they only would raise sheep for milk and wool... [the reason being] that they worshipped the constellation Aries12, and
As he writes, &$% $#". It is unclear whether he meant that they literally worshipped the astrological sign of Aries, or simply that they worshipped a sheep divinity. See above, and note 11, on Herodotus and Egyptian practices. As a side-note, it is interesting to observe that in Jewish astrology Aries is associated with the month of Nisan, the month of the Exodus from Egypt and the celebration of Passover. As noted, the Biblical celebration of the Passover involves the sacrifice of a lamb, explicitly called toavat misrayim in Exodus 8:22. But it is certainly beyond the !
12

so therefore would not eat any animals meat (43:32 s.v. ki lo yukhlun). However, Radak had also commented on the beginning of the verse, saying that Joseph ate by himself not because of any dietary restrictions of his own, but because it was the custom for high officials to dine separately (s.v. wayyasimu lo levaddo). There are therefore two acts of segregation in this verse, but neither one is due to Jewish kashrut: Joseph eats on his own because of his elevated status, while Josephs brothers are separated from the Egyptians because of the Egyptian prejudice against eating with Hebrews. Another French exegete, Yosef ben Yish ! of Orlans (the Bekhor Shor) has no comment ! aq on the eating practices of Genesis 43:32, merely agreeing with Radak that the separate seating in this case was because of social hierarchies rather than eating taboos: [Joseph dined separately separate] because of his high status, since it was not customary for someone to eat at the kings table unless they were among his high officials and close acquaintances (s.v. wayyasimu lo levaddo). On Genesis 46:34, however, he reads toeva, as Rashi does, as expressing the Biblical narrators distaste for the idolatrous practice described (and not an expression of Egyptian disgust). He therefore dismisses the explanations that sheep or shepherds were hateful to Egyptians, and rereads the passage as a cunning move on Josephs part to secure the best land for his brothers: To me it seems that [the phrase of toavat misrayim ] is a way of saying that all ! shepherds were important in the eyes of the Egyptians, since [the shepherds] raise their gods [sheep]; and because their intention is for idol worship, [the verse] calls it a toeva. [So Joseph was saying to his brothers], According to their love for you [upon hearing that you are
scope of this essay to expand further on this connection.

10

shepherds], they will settle you in the land of Goshen, which is the best land. For it is not logical that he would cause loathing for his brothers in the eyes [of the Egyptians] (46:34, s.v. ki toavat misrayim kol roei son ! ! ). In this case, Joseph is in fact manipulating Egyptian reverence for sheep to ensure that his brothers received the best treatment. The problem with this reading, which is left unsolved, is why Egyptians would refrain from eating with Hebrews! That is, if, in 46:34, toavat misrayim refers to the importance that shepherds have in the eyes of the ! Egyptians, what does it mean in 43:32? That the Egyptians respect the Israelites too much to eat with them? This would appear to go against the plain sense of the verse. The incomparably erudite and endlessly-wandering exegete Abraham ibn Ezra (cf. Sarna 2000, pg. 139) takes the idea of Israelite practice being taboo to Egyptians and goes a step further, explaining that the Egyptians not only refrained from eating meat but would not allow in their land someone who would sacrifice sheep, just as the people of India do today; whoever is a shepherd is a toeva because they then drink milk; the people of India do not eat or drink anything which comes from a living creature, to this day (46:34, s.v. ki toavat misrayim kol ! roei son ! ). Here, in this remarkable excursus on comparative religion (Goldman 1995, pg. 73), ibn Ezra recognizes that one nations taboos are as socially constructed and culturally relative as another: everyone has social barriers, and so one could argue that the Egyptians were justified (or at least understandable) in their desire to eat only with those who ate like they did, just as in ibn Ezras day people in India13 maintained a vegetarian diet.
Most likely Jains or [Brahmin] Hindus. See, e.g., Findly 1997, pp. 300-312, for Jain vegetarianism and its reception by early European travellers, and Rosen 2006, pp. 181-190 for an overview of Hindu vegetarianism and the theological and ritual principles behind Hindu eating practices.
13

11

This is an example of how the worldly and well-travelled ibn Ezra uses the image of India which was current in medieval Jewish thought: a fascinating and mythic land of marvels, which was an admired source of ancient wisdom but ultimately held back by its pagan and barbarous roots (Melamed 2006); Richard Marks notes that ibn Ezra makes ten references to Indian customs, beliefs, and science in his famous commentary on the Bible... Five entries in ibn Ezras commentary attempt to explain ancient Egyptian customs and beliefs, as well as strange biblical customs, by pointing to parallel practices found in the Indian culture of his day (Marks 2007, pg. 60; cf. Weinstein 2007). He expands on Egyptian/Indian eating practices in his comment on Exodus 8:22, rejecting another commentators opinion14 that the Egyptians refrained from eating sheep simply because they were worshippers of sheep:
For if this was the case, why would they not eat the meat of cattle or the meat of goats15? In my opinion, the people of Egypt at the time of Moses had the same belief of the people of India, who are more than half the world [in population] and are all descendants of Ham; they do not eat meat to this day, nor [do they eat] blood or milk or eggs or anything else that comes from a living creature, and they abhor [metavim, from toeva] whoever eats them [animals]. They consider shepherding a repulsive profession, as it is written [Gen. 46:43], and to this day they do not allow anyone to eat meat in their land. And if one of them travels to a foreign land, he will stay away from any place where people eat meat, and he will not eat anything touched by a meat-eater, and their utensils are considered impure, as it is written [Gen. 43:32]... And there is no point in asking why then they kept herd animals, since the people of India today have [herd animals] as well: horses and donkeys and camels for transport and travel, and cattle for ploughing, and sheep for wool (s.v. toavat misrayim ). !

Do the Egyptians worship sheep, or do they hate them? Do they care about eating meat or not? And why wont Egyptians eat with Israelites? The responses of medieval Jewish exegetes to these questions revealed a diverse set of explanations, which included references to social hierarchies, cultural taboos, conventions of idol worship, and the relationship between food and
!A classic exegetical move by ibn Ezra, known for his irreverent detachment from from the post-Talmudic exegetes and caustic comments about those with whom he disagrees (Sarna 2000, pp. 150-151).
14

!Apparently ibn Ezra is assuming that the Egyptians were complete vegetarians. It is unclear where he nds textual support for this.
15

12

ethnic boundaries. Some commentators understood these texts as referring to an Egyptian abhorrence of sheep/shepherds/Hebrews (Rashbam and ibn Ezra), while others saw them as describing Egyptian worship of sheep and respect for shepherds/Hebrews (Radak and Bekhor Shor). One could attempt to ascertain whether this division is reflective of some historical realities in the development of Jewish-Christian relations, either temporally or geographically; is the reading of toeva as referring to the universal immorality of sheep worship perhaps related to an entrenched anti-Christian perspective, while a more culturally-relative reading of toeva as an Egyptian taboo could be indicative of a more open attitude towards cross-cultural understanding? It is difficult to say. But ultimately it is clear that the issue of eating, or not eating, with the Other is fraught with challenges and opportunities for negotiation. If it is the case, as Garnsey asserts (1999, pg. 128), that you are with whom you eat, it is perhaps equally true that you are not with whom you do not eat as well.

13

Bibliography Berman, Samuel. Midrash Tanhuma-Yelammedenu: an English translation of Genesis and Exodus from the printed version of Tanhuma-Yelammedenu with an introduction, notes, and indexes. Ktav Publishing House: 1996. Bernstein, Marc Steven. Stories of Joseph: narrative migrations between Judaism and Islam. Wayne State University Press: 2006. Cook, David. Joseph and Aseneth: translation and commentary. In The Apocryphal Old Testament (ed. Hedley Frederick Davis Sparks), pp. 465-504. Oxford University Press: 1984. Douglas, Mary. Implicit Meanings: essays in Anthropology. Routledge: 1975. Findly, Ellison Banks. Jaina Ideology and Early Mughal Trade with Europeans. International Journal of Hindu Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 288-313. 1997. Freidenreich, David. Foreigners and Their Food: constructing Otherness in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic law. University of California Press, 2011. Garnsey, Peter. Food and Society in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge University Press: 1999. Gelles, Benjamin. Partnership of Peshat and Derash in Rashis Exegesis. In Rashi et la culture juive en France du Nord au moyen ge [Rashi and the Jewish culture in Northern France in the Middle Ages] (Gilbert Dahan, Grard Nahon, and Elie Nicolas eds.), pp. 97-102. Collection de la Revue des Etudes juives: 1997. Gigot, Francis. Joseph. In The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 8. Robert Appleton Company: 1910. Goldman, Shalom. The Wiles of Women, The Wiles of Men: Joseph and Potiphar's wife in ancient Near Eastern, Jewish, and Islamic folklore. SUNY Press: 1995. Harris, Marvin. Good to Eat: riddles of food and culture. Waveland Press: 1998. Hoffmeier, James. Israel in Egypt: the evidence for the authenticity of the Exodus tradition. Oxford University Press: 1999. Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), trans. M. E. J. Richardson. Brill:1994. Lvi-Strauss. Claude. Le Totmisme Aujourdhui [Totemism Today]. Paris, Presses Universitaires de France: 1962. Macdonald, Nathan. Not Bread Alone: the uses of food in the Old Testament. Oxford University Press: 2008. Marks, Richard. Hindus and Hinduism in Medieval Jewish Literature. In Indo-Judaic Studies in the Twenty-First Century: a view from the margin (ed. Nathan Katz), pp. 57-76. 14

Macmillan: 2007. McGaha, Michael. Coat of Many Cultures: the story of Joseph in Spanish literature, 1200-1492. JPS: 1997. Melamed, Abraham. The Image of India in Medieval Jewish Culture: between adoration and rejection. Jewish History, Vol. 20, No. 3/4, pp. 299-314. 2006. Michaelson, Jay. Does the Bible Really Call Homosexuality an Abomination? Religion Dispatches Magazine, July 1, 2010. Available online: http://www.religiondispatches.org/ archive/sexandgender/2826/ does_the_bible_really_call_homosexuality_an_abomination Pinch, Geraldine. Egyptian Mythology: a guide to the gods, goddesses, and traditions of ancient Egypt. Oxford University Press: 2004. Ranke, Hermann. Die gyptischen Personennamen [Egyptian Personal Names], Vol 2. Augustin: 1935. Rosen, Steven. Essential Hinduism. Greenwood Publishing: 2007. Sarna, Nahum. Abraham ibn Ezra as an Exegete. In Studies in Biblical Interpretation, pp. 139-160. JPS: 2000. Simoons, Frederick. Eat Not This Flesh: food avoidances from prehistory to the present, second edition. University of Wisconsin Press: 1994. Soler, Jean. The Semiotics of Food in the Bible. In Food and Drink in History (ed. Robert Forster and Orest Ranum), pp. 126-138. John Hopkins University Press: 1979. Touitou, Elazar. Rashis Commentary on Genesis 1-6 in the Context of Judeo-Christian Controversy. Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. 61. Cincinnati: 1990. Townsend, John. Midrash Tan"uma Translated into English with Introduction, Indices and Brief Notes. Ktav Publishing House: 1989. Ward, William. The Egyptian Office of Joseph. Journal of Semitic Studies, Vol. 5, pp. 144-150. 1960. Weinstein, Brian. Traders and Ideas: Indians and Jews. In Indo-Judaic Studies in the TwentyFirst Century: a view from the margin (ed. Nathan Katz), pp. 44-56. Macmillan: 2007. West, Stephanie. Joseph and Asenath: a neglected Greek romance. The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 70-81. Cambridge University Press: May 1974.

15