Did Reuben Lie with Bilhah? Yes, No, We Don’t Talk About It!

[1] Here and elsewhere the translation of the verses are from New JPS with some adaptations.

[2] Alternatively, “let his men be in the counting,” i.e., the tribe of Reuben will still be considered a part of the nation of Israel. Cf. Rashi, Ramban. A common feature among Jewish exegetes who view this verse positively is to explain the duplication of “live” and “not die” by ascribing the former to this world, and the second to the world to come.

[3] The verse contains syntactic ambiguity alongside the lexical ambiguity of mispar. Even if this word is translated as “few,” it is possible to read the negative particle “and not” to apply to the latter part of the verse, as well as to the word “die”; i.e., “let Reuben live, and let him not die (nor) his men be few.” Cf. Ibn Ezra.

[4] The Torah forbids a man to have intercourse with the wife of his father (Lev 18:7; Deut 32:1). One who thus “uncovers his father’s nakedness” is punished by death (Lev 20:11), as is the woman, and he is accursed (Deut 27:20).

[5] The Pseudepigrapha is a collection of works ascribed to Jewish authors in the Second Temple era or soon thereafter. Many of them feature midrash-like embellishments and interpretations of the biblical texts. Copies of Jubilees found in the Qumran Caves confirm its authorship by the first century CE (most scholars date Jubilees to mid 2^nd century BCE); the current form of the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, including the Testament of Reuben, dates to a somewhat later period, but it makes use of earlier sources.

[6] Transl. of R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. See also the classic two volume set edited by James Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Yale University Press) and the brand new Outside the Bible volumes: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture, edited by Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel and Lawrence H. Schiffman.

[7] For an exceptionally insightful analysis of the treatment of Reuben’s sin in the Testament of Reuben, which downplays the exegetical and theological aspects of the portrayal, and highlights the socio-religious and ideological significance, see: Ishay Rosen-Zvi “Bilhah the Temptress: The Testament of Reuben and ‘The Birth of Sexuality,'” Jewish Quarterly Review 96.1, pp. 65-94, available here. A seminal study of Reuben’s sin, and its treatment in the Testament of Reuben, is Avigdor Shinan and Yair Zakovitch, The Story of Reuben and Bilhah (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 1983).

[8] Michael Segal, The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology. Leiden: Brill, 2007, ch. 3, “Reuben and Bilhah: Jubilees 33,” pp. 73-82.

[9] James L. Kugel, “Reuben’s Sin with Bilhah in the Testament of Reuben” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells:Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom [ed. David Pearson Wright, David Noel Freedman, Avi Hurvitz; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 525-554, at 553. Kugel actually uses the term with respect to Jubilees‘ treatment of the words “and Jacob heard,” but it applies to the treatment of Bilhah as well. Segal offers a different explanation for the inconsistencies raised by the multiplicity of excuses. Since he views Jubilees as a composite work, he distinguishes between the “legal” and “narrative” sections in this chapter.