Irony of the Torah: A Tool for Moral Education and Self-Reflection

 

Hershey H. Friedman & Linda Weiser Friedman

     Some scholars, such as Alfred North Whitehead, have argued that the Hebrew Bible lacks humor.^[1] However, a counter-argument has emerged, highlighting the presence of irony, satire, and other comedic elements within the text. Humor in the Torah serves a very serious goal: to teach people how to be good and avoid sin. For instance: idolatry was the cause of many wicked practices in ancient society, such as human sacrifice. As a result, much of the humor in the Torah is there to mock idolatry. Knox (1969) extensively explored the use of irony in the Hebrew Bible,^[2] while Jemielity focused on satire in Hebrew prophecy.^[3] Jonsson, Friedman, and Friedman & Friedman have challenged the notion of a humorless Bible, citing stories like the reciprocal deceptions of Jacob and Laban as examples of biblical humor.^[4] Furthermore, the Hebrew Bible’s linguistic richness, with over 500 wordplays and puns, further supports this view.^[5]

     This paper will focus on one specific type of humor used in the Torah: irony.

About Irony

     The word “irony” comes from the Latin ironia, which means “pretending to be ignorant” or “something different from what was expected.” Irony is a literary device that shows a gap, incongruity, or mismatch between what is expected to happen and that which actually occurs.

     There are several kinds of irony. Verbal irony is a figure of speech that occurs when a person says or writes something different from—and often the opposite of—the literal meaning. In a nutshell, the literal, surface meaning of what is said differs from the intended or underlying meaning. For example, when someone says, “What a beautiful morning!” during a ferocious thunderstorm, a comic declares, “It’s too crowded here” when walking into an empty club, or a teacher tells a quiet class, “Don’t speak all at once,” they are using verbal irony. Verbal irony can be utilized for humor, criticism, or suspense. Different types of verbal irony exist, such as understatement, overstatement or hyperbole, and sarcasm. People often confuse verbal irony and sarcasm, but they are not the same. Sarcasm is a form of verbal irony that specifically uses words to hurt or mock someone.^[6] An example of sarcasm in the Torah is (Exodus 14:11), “Was there a lack of graves in Egypt, that you took us away to die in the wilderness?” In his commentary on Exodus, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808–1888) remarks that the reason the Torah includes this sharp statement made by the Israelites to Moses at a time of great fear and desperation was to show that wit and a sense of humor are characteristic features of the Jewish people.

     Dramatic irony is a literary device in which the audience or reader knows something that the characters do not.^[7] It can be used for humor, suspense, or tragedy. For instance, in Romeo and Juliet, the audience knows that Juliet is alive, but Romeo thinks she is dead and kills himself out of grief; hence, tragic dramatic irony. As discussed later, when Jacob’s sons visit the Egyptian viceroy, we know something they do not – that the viceroy is really their long-lost brother, Joseph.

     Situational irony is a literary technique or situation in which an expected outcome does not happen or, perhaps, its opposite happens instead. Thus, there is a discrepancy between what is expected and what occurs; one’s expectations are thwarted. The outcome can be tragic or humorous, but it is always unexpected. For example, O. Henry’s “The Gift of the Magi” is the story of a poor, young couple, each of whom sells their most prized possession to buy the other a holiday gift. The wife sells her hair to buy a chain for her husband’s watch, while the husband sells his watch to buy combs for his wife’s hair. However, their gifts become functionally useless as a result of their sacrifices. The story is a poignant example of situational irony, where the outcome contradicts what is expected.

     A fire station burning down, a psychiatrist being committed to a mental institution, and a police station being robbed would also be examples of situational irony. Purchasing an English teacher a mug that states (using incorrect grammar), “Your the best English teacher ever,” would be an example of situational irony.^[8] For an example from the Torah, we cannot do better than the story of Joseph. His brothers conspired to sell him as a slave to put an end to his dreams of ruling over them; Joseph ultimately became an Egyptian viceroy because of their actions.

     Socratic irony occurs when a person pretends to be ignorant in order to entice others to admit to knowing or doing something, or to guide them in a specific direction. It is sometimes referred to as “playing dumb” and was used by Socrates to elicit information from his students. This technique is still popular among parents and teachers, and it is also employed as an interrogation technique by investigators and lawyers to expose inconsistencies in a suspect’s version of events.^[9] Abraham’s conversation with God (Genesis 18:23-32), in which he attempts to negotiate to save Sodom, can be considered an example of Socratic irony. There, Abraham was asking the questions, but God was actually leading him to the only possible conclusion.

     In the following sections, we examine specific examples of irony in the Torah. Some are well-known and have been much-discussed, although, perhaps, without characterizing them as ironic humor. These include measure for measure, unintentional prophecy, the meanings of names, and birth order reversals.

Ironic Reversals

     The Torah (Genesis 2:23) describes the creation of Eve, the first woman, stating: “And the man said: ‘This time it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because out of man she was taken.’“ The irony of Genesis 2:23, as Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir (Rashbam) noted, lies in its exceptional nature—the only time a woman would be formed from a man. This singular act set the stage for a permanent shift in the natural order, with all subsequent men being born of women. This reversal establishes a beautiful mutuality between the sexes: the initial creation saw a woman emerge from a man. In contrast, all future generations would see man emerge from woman in childbirth, a poetic balance deepening the creation account and emphasizing their reliance on each other.

     Good also notes an ironic reversal in Genesis: the initial blessing of Adam and Eve as “rulers of all” (Genesis 1:28) becomes a curse of hard labor, toil, and eating bread “by the sweat of your brow” (Genesis 3:17-19), after their sin of eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, fundamentally transforming their relationship with creation. Humankind is now the servant of the soil.^[10]

Rhetorical Questions

     Wenger observes that God was being ironic, given that He is omniscient, when He called to Adam in the Garden of Eden, asking (Genesis 3:9), “Where are you?”^[11] This is obviously a rhetorical question. God knew where Adam was but wanted to provide him with an opening so that he could confess that he had eaten from the forbidden Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. God asked Adam another two rhetorical questions (3:11): “Who told you that you are naked? Have you eaten of the tree from which I commanded you not to eat?” Unfortunately, Adam did not show remorse and instead blamed his transgression on “the woman whom You gave to be with me.” Being an ingrate was not the way to ask forgiveness.

     The irony is stark: despite partaking of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam displays no discernible increase in wisdom. Instead of offering an intelligent response to God, he foolishly attempts to conceal himself and then compounds his error by shifting the blame to Eve. Such responses hardly suggest the enlightenment one would anticipate from someone who has consumed the fruit of moral awareness. It seems Adam might have mistakenly eaten from, say, a Tree of Folly.

     After Cain killed Abel, God asked him (Genesis 4:9), “Where is Abel your brother?” God knows the answer, and the reader understands that this is a rhetorical question. God asked this to engage Cain, get him to confess his sin, and repent. The answer given by Cain was also rhetorical, as well as disrespectful: “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?”

     It is verbally ironic whenever God asks a rhetorical question because God never needs the information.^[12] The Midrash (Genesis Rabbah 19:11), noting that there are four rhetorical questions in Scripture whose addressees should have responded more appropriately, says, “God banged on their barrels and found them to be full of urine,” that is, urine rather than wine. This is an idiomatic way of saying that God tested these four individuals and found them wanting, as they did not know how to properly reply to God’s rhetorical question. They are Adam, Cain, Balaam, and Hezekiah (who responded inappropriately to a prophet of God).

Mocking Idols

     As noted, biblical humor is often used to mock idolatry. One example is in the story of the matriarch Rachel and the teraphim (household gods; small statues used for private idolatrous worship and rites of divination). Rachel’s husband, Jacob, took his family and fled from his father-in-law, Laban, in Haran after noticing that Laban was not treating him as he had in the past. Unbeknownst to Jacob, Rachel had stolen her father’s teraphim. When Laban caught up with them, he asked (Genesis 31:30), “Why have you stolen my gods?” The reader undoubtedly realizes that a god that can be stolen cannot be much of a god. Even worse, Rachel hid her father’s deities by sitting on them. This seems very disrespectful and is a way of further mocking the idols. The reader knows exactly where Laban’s beloved deities are – underneath Rachel. The reader also understands the foolishness of worshipping deities that can be sat on without complaining about their abuse.

Ironic Wordplay

     In the Torah, we see that not only do actions have consequences, but words do as well. Much of the irony in the Torah instructs people to watch what they say, as they may regret it later. This shows that God has a plan where evil does not escape justice, and we repeatedly see that “what goes around comes around.”

     When Joseph’s brothers came to Egypt and met with the viceroy (who was actually Joseph), they were accused of being spies. Their response (Genesis 42:11): “We are all one man’s sons; we are honest men; your servants are not spies.” They were telling the truth. They were all sons of Jacob, including the viceroy. There is a great deal of dramatic irony in this story. The reader knows the viceroy is Joseph; the brothers think he is Egyptian.

     The viceroy accused the brothers of being spies and imprisoned them for three days. Because the brothers thought the viceroy was an Egyptian, they mistakenly assumed he did not understand Hebrew. They said to one another that this is a punishment from God for selling Joseph (Genesis 42:21), “Surely we are guilty [and being punished] concerning our brother. We saw his heartfelt anguish when he pleaded with us, yet we did not listen; that is why this distress has come upon us.” Reuben rebuked his brothers, declaring (Genesis 42:22), “Did I not tell you, saying, ‘Do not sin against the boy’? And you would not listen! Now, we must give an accounting for his blood.”

     The narrative continues (verse 23), “They did not know that Joseph understood (shomeah), for the interpreter was between them.” The word shomeah generally means to hear or listen. In verse 23, it means understood. The Torah uses shomeah rather than maivin, which unambiguously means understood. Alter states, “The verb for understanding [shomeah], which also means “to hear” or “to listen,” plays ironically against its use in the immediately preceding verse, “and you would not listen.” Even more ironic may be that Joseph took Shimon, whose name is itself derived from the same root, shomeah, and imprisoned him before the brothers’ eyes. When Shimon was born, Leah gave the reason for his name (Genesis 29:33), “because the Lord heard that I was unloved.”^[13]

Unintentional Prophesy

     Pharaoh’s words to Joseph regarding his family are filled with irony. Pharaoh said (Genesis 45:18), “And take your father and your households and come to me, and I will give you the best of the land of Egypt.” The commentators note that Pharaoh unknowingly alluded to what would happen centuries later when the Israelites left Egypt and emptied it after the final plague. The Egyptians gave the Israelites vessels of silver and gold and clothing, and the Israelites “despoiled the Egyptians” (Exodus 12:36). Rashi (1040-1105), a medieval French commentator on the Torah, writes here that Pharaoh “prophesied but did not know what he prophesied.”

     The expression “He prophesied but did not know what he prophesied” (Nibah v’lo yodah mah nibah) is often used to describe a situation where an individual says something without realizing that it also has another meaning. These moments of unintended prophecy are examples of dramatic irony.

     The expression “will lift up your head” (yisah et roshekha) is used several times to describe Joseph’s interpretation of the dreams of the butler and the baker (see Genesis 40:13, 19, 20). The lifting of the head when referring to the Pharaoh’s butler means that he will be restored to his original position and be counted again among the Pharaoh’s servants. However, “lifting up your head” when referring to the baker means that the baker will be hanged. This is a clever play on the idiom “will lift up your head.” Dreams, often taken as prophecy, are, as we know, subject to interpretation.

     Judah pleaded with Joseph to allow Benjamin to go home and kept referring to “my father” (Genesis 44). However, in Genesis 44:31, Judah said to the Viceroy of Egypt (who happened to be Joseph): “And when he sees that the youth is not with us, he will die, and your servants shall bring down the gray hairs of your servant our father in sorrow to the grave.” Judah did not realize what the reader does, that Jacob was indeed the father of both Judah and the Viceroy.

     Ironically, dreams had gotten Joseph into trouble. His brothers resented being told of his dreams of ruling over them (Genesis 37:6–11). Later on, his ability to interpret dreams resulted in him becoming the viceroy of Egypt. Joseph made a mistake as a 17-year-old boy by arrogantly telling his dreams to his brothers (“Behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me,” Genesis 37:9). This was not a wise move, given that his siblings already did not like him.

     Pharaoh commanded his people to throw every newborn Hebrew boy into the Nile. The baby Moses was placed in a papyrus basket smeared with tar and pitch and covered up among the reeds near the bank of the Nile (Exodus 2). Pharaoh’s daughter found him and gave him to a Hebrew woman – who happened to be the baby’s mother – to be a wet nurse for the infant. The verse states (Exodus 2:9), “Pharaoh’s daughter said to her [Jochebed, Moses’ true mother], Take [heilikhi] this boy and nurse him for me, and I will give you your wages.” The Talmud  (BT Sotah 12b) asserts that Pharaoh’s daughter “prophesied but did not know what she prophesied,” as the word heilikhi means “this is yours” [ha shellikhi].

     There is irony in the words of the Song at the Red Sea sung by Moses and the Israelites, which describes the miracles wrought by God on behalf of the Israelites. One verse in the song declares (Exodus 15:17): “You shall bring them in and plant them on the mountain of Your inheritance.” The Talmud (BT Bava Batra 119b) points out that Moses and the Israelites “prophesied without knowing what they were prophesying” by saying “them” rather than “us.” At the time, Moses and his generation were unaware of their impending sins and subsequent exclusion from the Promised Land.

Unintentional Curse

     The Torah (Genesis 35:19) states: “And Rachel died and was buried on the road to (b’derech) Ephrat, which is Bethlehem.” Because Jacob did not know that Rachel stole her father Laban’s teraphim, he inadvertently cursed her, his beloved wife whom he worked for 14 years to marry, when he said (Genesis 31:32), “With whomever you find your gods, that person shall not live.” Tragically, the man who most loved Rachel caused her death by cursing her. This may be the Torah warning us to be careful with our speech. The Babylonian Talmud (Berakhot 19a, Moed Katan 18a, Ketubot 8b) emphasizes that one should avoid saying something unpleasant that might happen in the future. This might explain why many say “Heaven forbid” (or the Hebrew equivalents, chas v’shalom or chalila v’chas) when discussing something undesirable that might occur. Moreover, cursing others is not wise since curses may boomerang back to the curser (Friedman, 2018).^[14]

     Sykes , delving further into Biblical wordplay, points out a connection between the verse dealing with Rachel’s death on the road (derech) to Ephrath and the teraphim incident.^[15] Rachel used derech when telling her father she could not stand up (she was sitting on the teraphim). Her words (Genesis 31:35) were derech nashim li (for the way of women is upon me). Sykes cites several sources that say Rachel died in childbirth as a punishment for causing her father much anguish by stealing the teraphim. At the very least, perhaps she should have discussed it with Jacob first.

Names

     The Torah frequently uses names as a kind of verbal irony. They often foreshadow what will happen in the future, and so may be considered alongside unintended prophesy.

     Concerning Judah’s wife, the Torah states (Genesis 38:5): “And she yet again bore a son and called his name Shelah, and it was at Kezib that she gave birth to him.” Kezib means lie and deceit. The word “Shelah” may also mean false (see II Kings 4:28). The verse hints that Judah was not honest with his daughter-in-law Tamar and only pretended that he would allow Shelah to fulfill the precept of a levirate marriage with her. Kezib, when connected with water, means “the water or stream has dried up” (see Jeremiah 15:18). This also hints that Tamar was afraid that her “stream” would dry up and she would never have children.^[16]

     Incidentally, the names of Judah’s first two sons, Er and Onan, are midrashically also said to have double meanings. Er is similar to the postbiblical Hebrew word hu’ar, meaning ejected. He died prematurely as a divine punishment because “he was wicked in the eyes of the Lord” (Genesis 38:7). Er is also similar to the Hebrew word that means childless (ariri). The name Onan has another meaning in Hebrew: grief (see Genesis Rabbah 85:4 and the commentary of Nachmanides). Onan also died prematurely as a punishment for engaging in coitus interruptus so that Tamar would not have children (Genesis 38:9).

     Later on, in a moment of unintentional verbal irony, Joseph called his firstborn Manasseh (Genesis 41:51) “because God has made me forget (nasheh) all my troubles and all my father’s house.” Joseph did actually forget about his father’s house since he did not communicate with his father or brother Benjamin. As ruler of Egypt, he must have had ample opportunity to send a messenger to his father and brother to inform them that he was not dead. They did not find out that Joseph was alive for nine more years. Several commentaries, including Pa’aneach Raza, Moshav Zekenim, and Nachamanides, ponder why Joseph, upon becoming Viceroy, did not immediately contact his father. They suggest that Joseph’s reluctance stemmed from a desire to protect his family from potential harm. He believed that a premature revelation could have triggered a panicked response from his brothers, who might have fled, fearing their father’s wrath (Nachamanides focuses on Joseph’s dreams, which he used as a guide).

The Birth-Order Reversals and Associated Wordplay

     The Torah repeatedly teaches us that birth order is not prophecy. Just because someone is born first does not mean that the eldest brother will lead. This is classic situational irony in which expectations are thwarted. Scripture (Genesis 48:14) states, “But Israel [Jacob] extended his right hand and placed it on Ephraim’s head, though he was the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh’s head, guiding his hands knowingly, although Manasseh was the firstborn.” Joseph thought his father had made a mistake because of his poor vision and told him (verse 18). “And Joseph said to his father, ‘Not so, my father, for this one is the firstborn; put your right hand on his head.” It is not a random occurrence in the Torah when a firstborn does not receive the customary privileges. This is a recurrent theme in the Book of Genesis, and we see it with Cain and Abel, Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, Reuben and Joseph, and Manasseh and Ephraim. We find a hint of it in the story of Peretz and Zerach. Additionally, Moses was Aaron’s younger brother. The message is clear: birth order is not what matters to God but who will be the better person.

     The spotlight was on Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn, as the heir apparent. But as Jacob’s final moments approached, a twist unfolded. His blessing begins (Genesis 49:3): “Reuben, you are my firstborn, my strength, and the first of my vigor, excelling in honor and excelling in power.” For a moment, the reader believes that Jacob will bestow the firstborn privileges on Reuben. However, in the next verse, Jacob reveals why he is taking it away from him. Reuben disrespected his father by sleeping with Bilhah, Jacob’s concubine. In another surprise, the reader expects Joseph, the favorite son, to become the family leader after Jacob’s death. This benefit is given to Judah. The double portion due to the firstborn is given to Joseph, who is promised that he will become two tribes, Manasseh and Ephraim.

     Jacob’s deathbed blessing to his son Judah contains an interesting wordplay (Genesis 49:9): “A young lion is Judah; from prey, my son, you ascended… The scepter shall not depart from Judah nor the ruler’s staff from between his legs.” The overt meaning is that Judah is like a youthful lion: he takes his prey with none daring to challenge him. The “my son” was a term of address aimed at Judah. However, if the words teref (prey) and beni (my son) are said together without any punctuation between them, then the meaning of the verse becomes that Judah ascended from the prey of Jacob’s son (Joseph). Indeed, it was Judah who said, “What profit will there be if we kill our brother?” Years earlier, when Jacob was shown Joseph’s coat covered with blood, he said (Genesis 37:33): “An evil beast has torn apart (tarof toraf) Joseph.” The word tarof is from the same root as teref. The major commentaries on the Bible argue whether the “my son” referred to in Jacob’s blessing is Judah or Joseph.

     The ruler’s staff not departing from “between his legs” could very well be a double entendre and hint at the incident of Tamar, where Judah gave his staff to a “prostitute” as collateral for sleeping with her. The enigmatic phrase “Shiloh” (Genesis 49:10) reminds the reader of Judah’s son Shela, who was promised to Tamar, but Judah had no intention of keeping this promise.^[17]

     Jacob blessed Judah (Genesis 49:11) with a land rich in vineyards: “He will bind his donkey to a vine, his donkey’s colt to the choicest vine branch; he will launder his garments in wine and his robes in the blood of grapes.” Sykes^[18] believes that this verse hints at what Judah and his brothers did when they took Joseph’s varicolored robe and dipped it in the blood of a goat to convince Jacob that Joseph was devoured by a wild beast (Genesis 37:32–33).^[19]

     Sykes also believes that there is a double meaning in verse 12: “His eyes (enayim) will be red from wine, and his teeth white (u’l’ven shinnayim) from milk.” The word for eyes is enayim. This is the term used for the crossroads where Tamar seduced Judah (Genesis 38:14), when she sat be-fetah enayim, “at the entrance to Enayim.” The term u’l’ven shinnayim is similar to the words meaning two sons (ben means son, and shnayim means two); as we know, Tamar gave birth to twin boys.^[20]

Measure for Measure

     The Torah teaches that our actions have consequences, but these are not always what we expect. In fact, we see that the expected is often turned on its head.

     In the Torah, God often punishes wrongdoers in a way that matches their sins – midah k’neged midah, which translates to “measure for measure.” This ironic punishment ridicules the wrongdoers and shows how they get what they deserve. The reader immediately notes that the divine punishment fits the crime.

     One of the main lessons of Genesis is that the one who deceives is ultimately, in turn, deceived. Jacob deceived his nearly blind father, Isaac, by pretending to be his older brother, Esau. The younger brother pretended to be the older brother. Several years later, Laban fooled Jacob and substituted Leah, his elder daughter, for Rachel, his younger daughter. Laban told Jacob (Genesis 29:26): “Such is not done in our place, to give the younger before the elder.” Laban, the deceiver, outsmarted Jacob and hinted that a younger brother may pretend to be the older one where you are from, but this is not done here. Basically, Laban said that Jacob got his just rewards. The Midrash Genesis Rabbah (70:19) has Jacob calling Leah “a deceiver, daughter of a deceiver” because on his wedding night, he called her Rachel, and she replied, pretending to be her younger sister. Her response to Jacob was that she learned this from him. After all, his father called him Esau, and he also responded, pretending he was the eldest son.

     Later, Jacob’s children deceived him into believing that his favorite son, Joseph, was devoured by a wild animal. They took Joseph’s robe of many colors, dipped it in goat blood, sent it to their father Jacob, and asked if he recognized it (Genesis 37:31–32). Years later, as Viceroy of Egypt, Joseph deceived his brothers, who did not recognize him. One of the most ironic statements in the Torah is the statement made when Joseph’s brothers see him from afar (Genesis 37:19–20): “They said to one another, ‘Here comes the dreamer! Come now, let’s kill him, throw him into one of these pits, and say that a ferocious beast devoured him. Then let’s see what will become of his dreams.’” The Midrash (Genesis Rabbah 84:14) has God responding to this statement with, “We will see whose word will stand, mine or yours.”

     The entire story of Joseph is ironic in this vein. The brothers conspired to sell him as a slave, believing that this would be the end of his dream of ruling over them. What they accomplished was that sending him to Egypt enabled him to become the Viceroy and fulfill his destiny. Instead of harming Joseph, they helped him become a great success. Moreover, they provided him with the opportunity to enslave them if he so wished. Instead, the boy they thought would be an insignificant slave for the rest of his life becomes the individual who saves all of his brothers from starvation. Joseph himself hints at this reversal: “Do not be distressed or reproach yourselves because you sold me hither…. God sent me ahead of you to ensure your survival… and to save your lives…. So, it was not you who sent me here, but God” (Genesis 45:5-8).

     Genesis 38 tells the story of Judah’s daughter-in-law, Tamar. Tamar discovered that Judah was lying to her and had no intention of allowing her to marry his youngest son, Shelah. The custom was that if a widow was childless, the brother was obliged to marry her to ensure the continuation of the family line (known as a levirate marriage). Judah was afraid to allow Tamar to marry Shelah because he thought that Tamar was somehow responsible for the deaths of his two older sons, Er and Onan. Er and Onan had married Tamar, but they both died of God’s wrath for doing something wicked. Onan, who married Tamar after Er died, did not want to have children with Tamar, so he practiced coitus interruptus. Judah suspected that Tamar was a “deadly woman” who would also cause Shelah to die. Tamar decided to fool Judah into having relations with her by disguising herself as a prostitute so she would not remain childless.

     We read how Tamar deceived Judah with a goat. The Torah states that (Genesis 38:20): “Judah sent the young goat” to the prostitute (Tamar disguised as a prostitute). The brothers dipped Joseph’s coat in goat blood (Genesis 37:31). The phrase haker nah (do you recognize?) is used twice. It was used by Tamar when she sent a message to her father-in-law, Judah, asking whether he recognized the seal, wrap, and staff he left with her as collateral to ensure that he paid her for her services as a prostitute. Her words were (Genesis 38:25):  “I am pregnant by the man to whom these items belong.” And she added, “See if you recognize  (haker nah) whose seal, wrap, and staff are these?” The Babylonian Talmud (Sotah 10b) notes that this very phrase was used when Joseph’s brothers deceived their father and asked whether he recognized Joseph’s bloody coat, “See if you recognize (haker nah) if it is your son’s coat or not?” (Genesis 37:32).

     Similarly, using Divine irony, the Egyptians drowned Hebrew children in the river, so God drowned them in the sea. Sacks sees the irony that chariots, the military asset that made Egypt so powerful, became an enormous deficit once God sent a strong east wind that drove the sea back and transformed it into dry land.^[21] The wheels of the chariots came off in the mud, and the stuck Egyptian army could not turn around. That which had made them powerful was, in the end, the source of their destruction.

Providing Power to the Powerless

     In the Torah, not only is the deceiver deceived and birth order repeatedly upended, but nowhere do we learn that “might makes right” – quite the opposite. Sharp examines the biblical stories of Tamar, Rahab, and Gomer—prostitutes (Tamar pretended to be one) who, though social outcasts, are pivotal figures in salvation history.^[22] Using situational irony, these narratives subvert societal biases and reveal God’s practice of using the marginalized and unexpected as agents of redemption, thereby underscoring the biblical imperative to welcome and value the stranger. Ruth, a Moabite woman traditionally marginalized, became a pivotal figure in biblical history by becoming the great-grandmother of King David, thereby transcending ethnic and social boundaries through her remarkable story. Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, heroically delivered Israel from Canaanite oppression by killing Sisera, a Canaanite general, who had sought shelter in her tent (Judges 4).

     The two stories of Tamar and Potiphar are contiguous in the Torah to demonstrate the difference between Judah and Joseph. The reader determines that one succumbed to sexual temptation and one did not. Potiphar’s wife tried to seduce Joseph, but she was unsuccessful. One day, when they were alone together, she grabbed his garment and told him (Genesis 39:12): “Lie with me.” He ran away, leaving the garment in her hand. She decided to teach him a lesson for spurning her advances and said after summoning the men of the house (Genesis 39:14): “See, he has brought in a Hebrew man l’tzachek (to mock) us; he came in to me to lie with me, and I cried out with a loud voice.” Alter^[23] observes the double meaning of the term “came in to me.” She was actually saying Joseph came into the house, but she phrased it in a way that had a strong sexual connotation. The word l’tzachek, meaning to mock or play, also has a sexual implication (see Genesis 26:8). It is also surprising how she referred to her husband, Potiphar, as “he” without a title or name; she seems to have contempt for him. The Torah hints at how she truly felt about Potiphar, which may explain why she was attracted to Joseph.

     After Jacob died, the brothers were afraid that Joseph would get even with them for having sold him as a slave. Joseph reassured them (Genesis 50:19): “Do not be afraid, for am I in the place of God?” Those words “for am I in the place of God” (ha-tachat Elohim ani) were almost the exact words Jacob used when Rachel said to her husband that if he did not give her children, she would be as if dead (Genesis 30:2). The Torah uses this ironic wordplay to show that Jacob was wrong in not comforting his wife. He should have shown more compassion and told Rachel he would pray for her.

Conclusion

     We can see that biblical irony is far from being only a Divine jest. By focusing on the ironic elements within the Torah, mainly in Genesis, this paper offers a specific contribution to the understanding of biblical narrative.

     When one’s words come back to haunt one, when transgressions are punished in kind, when one can unintentionally curse or prophesy, when God clearly wants us to promote “right” not “might” – how can you not see the Torah as a resource for moral education? In fact, the above stories demonstrate how the hand of God constantly plays a role in history. Why humor? Humor shortens the distance between the speaker and the listener. Perhaps couching a profound message in humor presents God in a warm and loving light. The goal is not to punish but to get mortals to change their behaviors. The Torah encourages self-reflection such as, for example, that of Joseph’s brothers, especially Judah.   

     Readers wishing to extend this analysis to the entirety of the Torah will find more in Friedman & Friedman (2025).^[24]

---

[1] Dialogues of Alfred North Whitehead. Lucien Price, ed. Little, Brown and Co., 1954.

[2] Israel Knox. “The traditional roots of Jewish humor,” In M. Conrad Hyers (ed.) Holy Laughter. The Seabury Press, 1969, 150–65.

[3] Thomas J. Jemielity. Satire and the Hebrew Prophets. Westminster / John Knox Press, 1992.

[4] Jakob Jonsson. Humor and Irony in the New Testament. E. J. Brill, 1985.

Hershey H. Friedman. “Humor in the Hebrew Bible.” Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 13.3, 257-85.

Hershey H. Friedman  & Linda Weiser Friedman. God Laughed: Sources of Jewish Humor. Transaction Publishers, 2014.

[5] Gheorghe Girbea. “Irony and humor in the biblical canon.” Limba și literatura – repere identitare în context european, 2019, 154-164.

[6] Millie Dinsdale. “20 irony examples: In literature and real life.” 2022. Online at https://prowritingaid.com/irony-examples

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Edwin M. Good. Irony in the Old Testament. The Westminster Press, 1965, 84.

[11] Mark Wenger. “Irony in Scripture,” 2014. https://www.academia.edu/7114303/Irony_in_the_Bible.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Robert Alter. “The Five Books of Moses.” W. W. Norton & Company, 2004. 243, n. 23.

[14] Hershey H. Friedman. “Heaven forbid: The Talmudic attitude towards the spoken word.” SSRN, 2018. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3172274 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3172274

[15] David Sykes. Patterns in Genesis and Beyond. Patterns Publications, 2014, 360.

[16] Sukes, 2014, 270-271.

[17] Good, 1965, 111.

[18] 2014, 485.

[19] Good, 1965, 111. Note that the word used for “vine” in verse 11 is soreqah. Timnah (Genesis 38:12), the town where Judah went to shear his sheep and had an encounter with Tamar, was in the Valley of Soreq. Timnah, where Samson would fall in love with Delilah, was located in the Valley of Soreq, and was on the future border of Judah and Philistia.

[20] Sykes, 2014, 486-487.

[21] Jonathan Sacks. Covenant & conversation: A weekly reading of the Jewish Bible. Exodus: The book of redemption. OU Press/Maggid Books, 2010, 104-105.

[22] Carolyn J. Sharp. Irony and meaning in the Hebrew Bible. Indiana University Press, 2008, 84-103.

[23] 2005, 223.

[24] Hershey H. Friedman & Linda Weiser Friedman “Irony of the Torah: A tool for moral education and self-reflection.” SSRN, 2025. https://ssrn.com/abstract=5014600 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5014600