Comentario sobre Génesis 37:46

וישב יעקב AND JACOB ABODE — After it (Scripture) has described to you the settlements of Esau and his descendants in a brief manner — since they were not distinguished and important enough that it should be related in detail how they settled down and that there should be given an account of their wars and how they drove out the Horites (see Deuteronomy 2:12) — it explains clearly and at length the settlements made by Jacob and his descendants and all the events which brought these about, because these are regarded by the Omnipresent as of sufficient importance to speak of them at length. Thus, too, you will find that in the case of the ten generations from Adam to Noah it states “So-and-so begat so-and-so”, but when it reaches Noah it deals with him at length. Similarly, of the ten generations from Noah to Abraham it gives but a brief account, but when it comes to Abraham it speaks of him more fully. It may be compared to the case of a jewel that falls into the sand: a man searches in the sand, sifts it in a sieve until he finds the jewel. When he has found it he throws away the pebbles and keeps the jewel (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 1). Another explanation of וישב יעקב AND JACOB ABODE: The camels of a flax dealer once came into a city laden with flax. A blacksmith asked in wonder where all that flax could be stored, and a clever fellow answered him, “A single spark caused by your bellows can burn up all of it.” “So, too, when Jacob saw (heard of) all these chiefs whose names are written above he said wonderingly, “Who can conquer all these?” What is written after the names of these chieftains? — and in this may be found the reply to Jacob’s question: These are the generations of Jacob — Joseph. For it is written (Obadiah 1:18) “And the house of Jacob shall be a fire and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau, for stubble: one spark issuing from Joseph will burn up all of these (descendants of Esau) (Genesis Rabbah 84:5). The passage beginning “Another explanation” is found in an old Rashi text.

AND JACOB DWELT IN THE LAND OF HIS FATHERS. The meaning of the verse is that since Scripture had said that the chiefs of Esau dwelt in the land of their possessions¹Above, 36:43, the concluding verse in the previous Sedra. — that is to say, the land which they took to themselves as a possession forever — it now says that Jacob, however, dwelt as his father had, as a stranger in a land which was not their own but which belonged to the Canaanites. The purport is to relate that they²Isaac and Jacob. elected to dwell in the Chosen Land,³A term denoting the Land of Israel. See Ramban above, 19:5. and that G-d’s words to Abraham, That thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs,⁴Above, 15:13. were fulfilled in them but not in Esau, for Jacob alone shall be called their progeny.⁵“Their”: Abraham and Isaac.

וישב יעקב, whereas Esau had moved to another country on account of his brother Yaakov, Yaakov settled near his father in the land in which both he, his father, and his grandfather had only sojourned up until now. He claimed this right as the result of having purchased the birthright from his older brother.

וישב יעקב בארץ מגורי אביו בארץ כנען. In the same region of the land of Canaan in which his father had sojourned. Compare a similar verse in 35,27 אשר גר שם אברהם ויצחק, “where Avraham and Yitzchok had sojourned.”

וישב יעקב בארץ מגורי אביו בארץ כנען. Jacob settled down in the land where his father sojourned, the land of Canaan. At first glance the entire verse seems superfluous seeing we have read in 35,27 that Jacob returned to Kiryat Arba the town where his father and grandfather had lived. As long as Jacob did not leave that town again, why did the fact that Jacob had settled there have to be repeated? Besides, why did the Torah have to say both: a) in the land his father sojourned, and b) the land of Canaan? If the Torah only wanted to pinpoint the place all that was necessary was the word "in Chevron." We already know that both Abraham and Isaac had lived there.

וישב יעקב בארץ מגורי אביו בארץ כנען. We have already commented on the meaning of this on 35,27.

וישב יעקב, “Yaakov settled, etc.” [the author addresses the strange line “in a land in which his father had been a stranger, the land of Canaan.” Ed.] Seeing that the Torah previously had reported that Esau had settled in the mountains of Seir, whereas Yaakov and family had dwelled like strangers in a land in which their fathers had dwelled only as strangers, in a land which was not theirs, and the prediction to Avraham their founder that his descendants would remain strangers for 400 years in a land not theirs had been in effect for a long time already, the Torah reminds us that this prediction had been meant for Yaakov’s descendants specifically, seeing that Yaakov’s father Yitzchok had never left the Holy Land since birth. The Torah had to remind us that the land of Canaan was not yet considered a “homeland” for Yitzchok’s or Yaakov’s descendants.

... And that which he says, "and discards the pebbles," has no relation to the comparison; but it is rather only the end of the parable (a tangential detail). 

After it has written for you concerning the settlements of Eisov and his descendants... Re’m explains that Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture not write first ואלה תולדות יעקב..., and then וישב יעקב..., which is the same format that it writes about Eisov. First Eisov’s descendants are enumerated (36:1) and then it tells where they had settled. Rashi answers: “After it has written for you concerning the settlements of Eisov and his descendants...” In other words, Scripture’s purpose is not to enumerate Yaakov’s descendants [as it did with Eisov], but only to explain the settlements of Yaakov and his descendants; and how they settled. [Thus, this section connects to the previous one as regards to settling,] as also the section about Eisov explained his settlement and that of his descendants. For it is written (36:8), “Eisov settled in Mount Seir,” explaining his settlement. Then it describes his descendants, “These are the descendants of Eisov...” and the descendants of his wives. Then it explains the settling of his sons (vs. 40-43), “These are the names of the chiefs of Eisov, each with their families, according to their places... These are the chiefs of Edom according to their places of residence.” Thus for Yaakov, too, Scripture tells about his settlements and that of his descendants, as it is written וישב יעקב..., which means, “Yaakov settled...” Then it is written אלה תולדות יעקב..., meaning: these are the settlements of the descendants of Yaakov, too, like [Scripture explained regarding] the descendants of Eisov. For at this point the Torah begins to recount what happened to them until they came there [to settle the Land]. It begins with “Yoseif at the age of 17,” then his being sold to Egypt and their enslavement there, then the Exodus — this and that happened to them until they came to settle the Land.

(1-2) ישב und גור sind gewissermaßen Gegensätze. ישב verwandt mit יצב .יצב: feststehen, und zwar, dem צ-Laut gemäß, mit einer Hindernisse überwindenden Energie. ישב, dem ש-Laut gemäß: ein natürliches, ruhiges, hindernisloses Weilen: Sitzen. גור hingegen ist das Weilen an einem Orte, wo man nicht hingehört, keinen Boden hat. (Daher auch, auf Seelenzustände übertragen: Halt verlieren, "sich ent-setzen" fürchten). Da, wo seine Väter nur die flüchtige Wanderstätte gefunden, hoffte Jakob nun, nach so vielen Wanderungen, sich ruhig niederlassen zu können; war es ja das Land Kanaan, das eigentlich für seine ruhige Entfaltung verheißene Land. Allein die Zeit war im Gottesrate noch nicht da. Vielmehr stehen wir hier erst an: תלדות יעקב. Bis hierher, wo er sich als selbständiger Familienvater niederließ, gehörte er selbst noch zumeist zu תולדות יצחק, war mehr passiv, bedingt durch Jizchaks Familiengeschichte. Jetzt erst beginnt der weitere Fortschritt der jüdischen Geschichte durch ihn und sein Haus. —

וישב יעקב, “Yaakov settled down;” this is recorded as something parallel to Esau’ settling down having been reported in Mount Seir in Genesis 36,8. After Esau having settled on what is now ancestral land for him. ( ואתן לעשו את הר שעיר, “I have given to Esau Mount Seir.) (Joshua 24,3) Yaakov is now described as having done something similar on the land promised by G-d to Avraham and his descendants commencing with Yitzchok and Yaakov. G-d had renewed this promise to Yaakov during his first vision in which he saw a ladder to heaven. Both Avraham and Yitzchok had only lived on that soil as sojourners, מגורי אביו; Yaakov’s claim was based on the law of the birthright, something he had purchased from Esau. At this time, when Esau went to the land of Seir, he went as an alien.

However, since the Torah told us in the preceding paragraph that Jacob's brother Esau inherited the land of Se-ir thanks to the merit of his fathers, the Torah also had to tell us what Jacob's heritage was. The entire verse is an acknowledgment of Jacob's goodness. Although he had noted that his brother had inherited the land of Har Se-ir (see my commentary on 35,12), he, Jacob did not do so but was content to continue on the basis of his fathers who had merely considered themselves as sojourning on that land, i.e. he still viewed it as ארץ כנען.

בן שבע עשרה שנה, wir sind alle Söhne unserer zurückgelegten Lebensjahre. Sie sind, bewusst und unbewusst, unsere bildenden Mütter und Erzieher. — בצאן ist nicht Objekt von רעה, sondern Ortsbestimmung: als Hirte befand er sich mit seinen Brüdern bei den Schafen. Nur die Tagesarbeit des "Berufes" führte ihn mit den Brüdern, den Söhnen Leas, zusammen. Aber "Jüngling" war er, sein Jugendleben und Jugendstreben entfaltete er mit den Söhnen der שפחות, die nicht seine "Brüder"; sondern die Söhne "der Frauen seines Vaters" genannt werden. Wir haben also einen mutter- und geschwisterlosen Jüngling vor uns. Alle anderen wuchsen im Verein mit Geschwistern, unter dem Fittig und dem Einflusse mütterlicher Liebe heran. Josef stand allein. Die Mutter war ihm früh dahingegangen und hatte nur ihn zurückgelassen. Benjamin war noch Kind, kein Genosse für den Jüngling. Bei den Stiefbrüdern fühlte er sich nicht recht heimisch, und sich mehr zu den Söhnen der שפחות hingezogen, zu denen — vielleicht — auch Eitelkeit ihn führte. Wir haben schon oben bei dem Entgegentreten zu dem gefürchteten Onkel den Unterschied zwischen den גבירות und שפחות gesehen; wir glaubten wenigstens annehmen zu dürfen, dass bei diesen, wie emporgehoben sie auch als Gattinnen Jakobs waren, sich doch ein Gefühl der Unterordnung nicht ganz verlor. Das mag sich auch auf die Söhne übertragen haben. In Josef steckte der künftige Herrscher. Er war ein bißchen eitel und ein bißchen anmaßend. Natürlich hielt er sich lieber zu den Söhnen der שפחות, die sich ihm vielleicht etwas unterordneten, ihm vielleicht etwas schmeichelten.

בארץ מגורי אביו בארץ כנען, “in the land in which his father sojourned, in the land of Canaan.” The Torah had to write both these details, even though it is common knowledge that Yitzchok never set foot on soil outside the land of Canaan. If the Torah had only mentioned the words מגורי אביו, “where his father had sojourned,” we would not know to which land it referred. In fact I might have thought that the Torah speaks about Ur Casdim where Avraham had sojourned for many years. If the Torah had only written: בארץ כנען, “in the land of Canaan,” I would not have known near which city Yaakov settled.

Another possibility is that it is called here the land of Canaan which had been given to Jacob by G'd as an inheritance although he personally conducted himself there as if he were only an alien until the trouble with Joseph happened. This is one of the meanings of: "These are the developments of Jacob, Joseph." It means that effectively, the history of the development of the Jews as a people began with the sale of Joseph, the subsequent descent into Egypt, how G'd redeemed them from there and kept His promise and how they eventually inherited the land of Caanan.

Es sollten freilich alle diese Gegensätze in einem jüdischen Hause nicht sein, es sollte das Pflichtgefühl und die gemeinsame Unterordnung unter ein göttliches Lebensziel und die gemeinsame Arbeit an der Lösung dieser einen Lebensaufgabe alle Unterschiede ausgleichen. Allein das Ideal eines jüdischen Hauses ist erst Produkt der Erziehung durch das göttliche Gesetz und das jüdische Geschick. Wenn das, seiner Anlage nach עז שבאומות, keineswegs das gefügigste Volk, in dessen Anlage sehr wohl auch das נוקם ונוטר lag, das wir in seinen Uranfängen sogar aus קנאה und שנאה Verbrechen üben sehen, wenn dieses Volk durch die ihm durch Geschick und Lehre gewordene Erziehung so gehoben worden, dass solche grobe Verbrechen wie ש"ד und ג"ע Jahrhunderte herab in seinem Kreise nicht gekannt waren; wenn es das humanste, bruderliebendste Volk geworden; wenn die Vorsehung es wagen konnte, es — wie das die kaum entschwundenen Zeiten erlebt — den Misshandlungen von Gesetzgebungen in die Arme zu werfen, die Jahrhunderte lang ganz geeignet waren, den heftigsten Zwiespalt, die trostloseste קנאה und שנאה in den Schoß des jüdischen Familienlebens zu säen, indem sie Söhne auf den Tod des Vaters, jüngere Brüder auf den Tod der älteren hinwiesen, Kinder zu nichts kommen konnten, so lange die Väter, jüngere Brüder zu nichts, so lange die älteren lebten, und so die natürlichsten Bande in Fluch und Hindernis verkehrten — und doch das jüdische Familienleben mit Eltern-, Kinder- und Geschwisterliebe glänzend wie der Diamant und rein wie die Perle aus solchen heißesten Versuchungen hervorgehen, und die jüdische עזות sich zur Felsentreue und Standhaftigkeit gegen alle Versuchungen und Verlockungen verklären konnte —: so ist das eben ein Triumph der תורה, ein Triumph des göttlichen Gesetzes, das nicht aus uns, sondern an uns gekommen und seinen ersten glorreichsten Sieg in Eroberung unserer selbst feiern sollte. —

וישב יעקב בארץ מגורי אביו. “Yaakov settled in the land his fathers had sojourned in.” The entire line was written in order to show that G-d had kept his promise to both Avraham and Yitzchok, and that one of their descendants had already not only sojourned in this land but had settled in it, and had acquired land in it through purchase. (33,19) In fact the expression ישיבה, referring to being settled did appear in connection with both Avraham and Yitzchok, as we know from 26,12, and 13,18.

דבה .דבתם von דבב, verwandt mit טפף: das Trippeln, das schwankende Gehen des Kindes, verstärkt תפף: die einzelnen, in sich nicht zusammenhängenden Töne des Paukenschlages. Auf Worte übertragen, ist es Gegensatz zu der zusammenhängenden und inhaltsvollen Rede, die תפר ,תור ,טור ,דור) ,דבר) und חמר ,עמר) אמר ausdrücken. Also mehr: Geschwätz, Gerede. Daher auch דובב שפתי ישנים: die schwankende Lippenbewegung der Rede eines aus dem Schlafe Erwachenden. Im engeren Sinne heißt es dann: die Bösrede, der nicht sowohl der innere als biel- mehr der äußere Zusammenhang mit der Wirklichkeit der Thatsachen fehlt. Es ist zweifelhaft, wie hier das דבתם zu verstehen sei. Entweder: Gerede über sie, was er von ihnen sah, hinterbrachte er dem Vater, und zwar nicht in entschuldigender Weise, sondern רעה, ohne sie דן לכף זכות zu sein. Oder: es bezieht sich das Suffix auf die unmittelbar vorhergehenden Söhne Bilhas und Silpas. Deren Geschwätz über die anderen Brüder hinterbrachte er in unfreundlicher Weise dem Vater.

אלה תלדות יעקב THESE ARE THE PROGENY OF JACOB — And these are an account of the generations of Jacob: these are their settlements and the events that happened to them until they formed a permanent settlement. The first cause is found in the narrative, “Joseph being seventeen years old, etc. etc.” — it was through this incident that it came about that they went down to Egypt. This is the real explanation of the text and in it each statement finds its proper setting. The Midrash, however, explains that by the words, “These are the progeny of Jacob — Joseph”, Scripture regards all Jacob’s sons as secondary to Joseph for several reasons: first, the whole purpose of Jacob in working for Laban was only for Rachel, Joseph’s mother, (and all his children were born only in consequence of this); then, again, Joseph’s facial features bore a striking resemblance to those of Jacob. Further, whatever happened to Jacob happened to Joseph: the one was hated, the other was hated; in the case of the one his brother wished to kill him so, too, in the case of the other, his brethren wished to kill him. Many such similarities are pointed out in (Genesis Rabbah 84:5-6; Genesis Rabbah 84:8). Another comment on this verse is: וישב AND HE ABODE — Jacob wished to live at ease, but this trouble in connection with Joseph suddenly came upon him. When the righteous wish to live at ease, the Holy one, blessed be He), says to them: “Are not the righteous satisfied with what is stored up for them in the world to come that they wish to live at ease in this world too! (Genesis Rabbah 84:3)

אלה תולדות יעקב, intelligent people must remember that our sages taught us that in spite of all different methods of exegesis of the text of the written Torah, no verse may legitimately be explained in a manner which contradicts the plain meaning of the text. While it is true that the Torah, by means of allusions, grammatical anomalies, tone-signs, etc., teaches us far more than meets the eye when we look at the bald text, there are strict limitations even to these methods of exegesis such as the thirteen principles of Rabbi Yishmael and the 32 principles of Rabbi Yossi Haglili. Exegetes of former times, thanks to their piety, relied exclusively on the drashot i.e. allegorical and ethical interpretations of anomalies in the text of the Torah, thereby neglecting a thorough study of the text as it presents itself to the average, though not scholarly, reader. Seeing that our sages stated אל תרבו בניכם בהגיון, “do not burden your children overly with interpretation based on logic, on common sense,” and they also saidהעוסק במקרא מדה ואינו מדה, העוסק בתלמוד אין לך מדה גדולה מזו, “he who studies the written text of the Torah has accomplished something positive but has also failed to accomplish something positive, but on the other hand, he who has studied Talmud has chosen by far the best path in Torah study,” (freely translated), the result of such statements has been that students have not become used to studying the plain meaning of the text without immediately looking at exegesis. (Baba Metzia 33 and a source supposedly in Berachot 28, the correct text being מנעו בניכם מן ההגיון, prevent your children from indulging in speculative reason,” but this does not seem to have any connection with Torah exegesis in the context where the statement is made. Ed.] This principle has been illustrated in Shabbat 63; we read there in the name of Rav Kahane “I was already eighteen years old and had studied the entire Talmud, but had not ever been taught of the principle that אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו, “that the text in the written Torah must not be interpreted in a manner which completely nullifies its plain meaning.” Also Rabbi Shlomoh, my mother’s father of blessed memory (Rashi) the brilliant exegete, who wrote commentaries on the entire Bible, was careful not to ignore the plain meaning of the text. I, Shmuel, son of Rabbi Meir, Rashi’s son-in-law, have argued with him, and he admitted to me that if he had the opportunity, he would compose an additional commentary in which he would concentrate on the plain meaning as it became clearer to him with each passing day. [I believe that the wording here means that Rashi meant that just as his published commentaries consisted mostly of anthologies, i.e. his quoting existing interpretations, so he would search out more commentaries based on the plain meaning to present to the reader when publishing another commentary. Ed.] I am now presenting to the reader what earlier exegetes had to say on our verse.

THESE ARE THE ‘TOLDOTH’ (GENERATIONS) OF JACOB. And this is an account of the generations of Jacob. These are their settlements and the events which occurred to them until they attained settlement status. The first cause was Joseph, being seventeen years old, etc. It was through this incident that it happened that they descended to Egypt. This is the literal explanation of the text, which permits each detail to fall into its place. These are the words of Rashi. But the word toldoth cannot apply to a settlement.⁶Ramban thus understood the above text of Rashi as interpreting the word toldoth as having reference to Jacob’s settlement. Mizrachi, however, points out that Rashi’s intent is that the word Eileh (these are) refers to the settlements, while the word toldoth is to be understood in its usual sense as meaning “children.” The sense of the verse thus becomes: “These are the settlements of the children of Jacob.”
And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said [that the verse should be interpreted thus]: “These are the events which happened to him, and the occurrences which befell him. This is similar in meaning to the usage in the verse, For thou knowest not what a day may bring forth.⁷Proverbs 27:1. The Hebrew is yolad yom (a day may bring forth). Similarly, according to Ibn Ezra, the word toldoth, which has the same roots as yolad, here means the events which evolved. But a person is not said to bring forth his events; it is only to days that events can be ascribed.⁸Ramban makes the point that toldoth can mean events when it modifies a period of time. However, when referring to a person, as in the present verse, it cannot have this meaning. Ramban thus takes issue with Ibn Ezra’s interpretation. Now perhaps the verse, according to Ibn Ezra, is saying, “These are the events which the days of Jacob brought forth.”
The correct interpretation in my opinion is as follows: “These are the generations of Jacob: Joseph and his brothers, whom Scripture will mention further on.” Scripture here adopts a concise approach to their names since it already mentioned them above.⁹Above, 35:23-26. But the intent of the verse is to say that these are the generations of Joseph and his brothers to whom the following happened. It is also possible that the word Eileh (these are) alludes to all those mentioned in this book: Thy fathers went down into Egypt with threescore and ten persons.¹⁰Deuteronomy 10:22. The listing of the names of sixty-nine of these seventy people is found further on “in this book,” 46:8-27. Jochebed, who was born as they entered Egypt, is the seventieth. Just as in the chapter, These are the generations of Esau,¹¹Above, Chapter 36. Scripture mentioned sons and sons’ sons, kings and chiefs, including all that there had been among them up to the time the Torah was given,¹²See Ramban above, 36:40. so will Scripture count the generations of Jacob, his sons and grandsons, and all his seed, mentioning only the outstanding details in their generations.

אלה תולדות יעקב, what happened to him, as a result of his “settling,” i.e. “retiring” there. (matters which he had not planned). Things described in Proverbs 27,1 as ילדי יום, brought on by the passage of time. Ever since Yaakov had left his father’s home what happened to him had the appearance of something not planned by him, not the result of his design. It is similar to the history of the Jewish people during the era of the first Temple. At any rate, the words וישב יעקב, Yaakov setlled down, remind us of the Jewish people in the land of Israel until the first expulsion. The words בארץ מגורי אביו, in the land where his father had been a stranger, remind us of the era of second Temple. This was followed by the destruction of Jewish statehood, and the loss of even the status of a satellite power, and our entering a long period of exile which will terminate only with the final redemption.

אלה תולדות, These are the developments, etc. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 12,3 say that wherever a paragraph commences with the word אלה this represents a contrast to and criticism of what has been reported previously. On the other hand, when a paragraph commences with the word ואלה, it suggests a continuation of what preceded it. Here the word אלה is intended to criticise or disqualify what Esau had done. If that was indeed the intent of the Torah it is unnecessary seeing that Esau himself was unfit; anything he did would be improper anyway.

אלה תולדות יעקב, the meaning of the word תולדות in our context here is “happenings, developments.” It includes all kinds of traumas Yaakov would experience. Genesis 6,9 similarly introduced what happened to Noach with these words. The philological bridge to the word תולדות when it refers to biological progeny is Proverbs 27,1 כי לא תדע מה ילד היום, “for you do not know what the day will give birth to.”

אלה תולדות יעקב, “These are the developments of Yaakov;” Rashi interprets these words as introducing the background to the many places Yaakov’s descendants lived and emigrated to, before they finally settled in the Land of Israel, previously the land of Canaan. The first cause for these wanderings is to be found in the story of Joseph and his brothers. Ibn Ezra’s commentary follows the same general approach as that of Rashi. Nachmanides claims that the expression תולדות cannot be applied to successive residences of a person or a people, but only to days, years, etc., i.e. generations, births, etc. A well known example is Proverbs 27,1 מה ילד יום, “what the day will bring” (give birth to). I believe that the correct interpretation of our verse is: “these are developments of Yaakov, Joseph and his brothers and what has been happening to them.” Possibly, just as the Torah listed the developments of Esau down to the giving of the Torah to the Jewish people, it lists what had happened to the descendants of Yaakov and all his descendants until they moved to Egypt, 70 in number.

This is the history of the children of Yaakov... This comment of Rashi relates to what he said before, that our verse is explaining the settlements of Yaakov and his descendants. Here, Rashi is answering the question: Where does Scripture explain the settlements of Yaakov’s descendants? It is written אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף בן שבע עשרה שנה..., [seemingly a different topic]! Thus Rashi explains that אלה תולדות... is about the chain of events leading to the eventual settlement of Yaakov’s descendants, who are the Tribes: Yoseif was seventeen, etc, and because of Yoseif they came to Egypt, after which they left and came to Eretz Yisrael. [Question:] אלה תולדות יצחק... (25:19) is similar, in that it begins with אלה תולדות and then tells the events before their births. Why did Rashi not ask the same question there? The answer is: Rashi’s question here is mainly because it begins with the settlements of Yaakov and then Scripture writes אלה תולדות יעקב, but the order should have been reversed!

אלה תולדות יעקב, “these are the descendants of Yaakov;” wherever a paragraph commences with the word: אלה, this means that this a paragraph that is not the continuation of the subject which had been discussed immediately before it. In this instance, the word is used to remind the reader that the personalities referred to immediately before this paragraph, were all wicked people, i.e. bastards, born of parents guilty of practicing incest. The personalities who are the subject of our chapter were all righteous, born from parents who had formed legitimate unions. They are the descendants of Yehudah and Joseph.

והוא נער AND HE, BEING A LAD — His actions were childish: he dressed his hair, he touched up his eyes so that he should appear good-looking (Genesis Rabbah 84:7).

אלה תולדות יעקב, “the following describes events and problems which Yaakov encountered in his life.” [by the way, Seforno, who lived hundreds of years later than Rash’bam, also accepts the interpretation described as nonsensical by Rash’bam. Ed.] This exegesis is nonsense. Whenever the expression תולדות occurs in the Bible, sometimes this word introduces the names of the grandsons of the party referred to, such as in Genesis 6,9 where the Torah after describing the righteousness of Noach tells us that Noach had three sons and proceeds to give us their names. The names of the sons could not be the purpose of the story there, as we had been told earlier in 5,32 that Noach at the age of 500 sired three sons and we were already told their names. The Torah then continues to describe mankind’s ongoing corruption and that Noach was the only one with whom G’d was pleased. When the Torah commences a second time with the line אלה תולדות נח in 6,9, clearly the Torah does not mean to repeat itself, but it leads to the Torah telling us of Noach’s grandchildren, something that is reported in greater detail in 10,1 under the heading of “and these are the generations of the sons of Noach.” [Perhaps the reason for the repetition of אלה תולדות בני נח in chapter 10, is that if, as the author says, the grandchildren were meant already in chapter 6, now after the deluge, the task of these children to generate a new mankind began in earnest, whereas up to that point they were charged with merely surviving the deluge. Ed.] Just as the Torah reported the growth and development of mankind after the deluge until we have a total of 70 such descendants of Noach being named, so in chapter 36,6 we have been told of the descendants of Esau who have been born in the land of Canaan, i.e. the land in which his father lived. After that, the Torah reported Esau’s further development in Mount Seir, commencing with verse 9 of that chapter. The Torah reports the development of Yaakov’s family in a parallel manner, 35,23 extending through verses 26-27 and listing all his children who had been born in exile, while he was in Padan Aram with Lavan. Now the Torah continues with the words אלה תולדות יעקב, concentrating forthwith on the grandchildren who combine to make up a total of 70 prior to the descent of the family to Egypt. Details of the birth of these various grandchildren are being provided, beginning with the chronicle of what happened to Joseph, who at 17 years of age experienced traumatic events, as a result of which his older brother Yehudah separated from the other brothers and started his own family in Keziv and Adulam, siring three sons, and grandsons respectively, i.e. Shelah, Peretz and Zerach. The history of Yaakov’s family became complicated further with Joseph having been brought to Egypt as a slave where Menashe and Ephrayim were born for him. Having attained high office, Joseph invited his father and family to join him in Egypt so that ultimately 70 members of Yaakov’s family wound up in Egypt. Moses had to record all this in order to substantiate his claim in Deuteronomy 10,22 that “your fathers descended to Egypt when they numbered only 70 persons.”

היה רועה את אחיו בצאן, he was giving guidance to them and instructed them in the finer points of being successful shepherds.

יוסף בן שבע עשרה שנה, when he was still only 17 years old.

והוא נער את בני בלהה. “and he was a lad keeping company with the sons of Bilhah.” Rashi interprets this as Joseph’s immaturity, acting childishly. Onkelos interprets this to mean that already from his earliest youth, Joseph preferred the company of the sons of Bilhah who looked up to him and flattered him. Nachmanides writes that the words והוא נער, refer to what has been written previously, so that we have to understand the sequence of the verse as follows: “these are the developments in the house of Yaakov; Joseph, who was a lad of 17 years used to tend the sheep together with his brothers.” Ibn Ezra interprets the verse to mean that because Joseph was still immature at 17, the sons of Bilhah made him their personal valet. The Torah suggests that if Joseph had acted as valet to the sons of Yaakov’s real wives no problems would have arisen at all. This is the meaning of the דבתם רע, the evil reports Joseph brought to his father concerning the conduct of the sons of Leah. Joseph resented being assigned to being a valet to the sons of the handmaids. It is also possible that due to his youth, the Torah refers to him as נער, even though physically speaking he was fully grown. We encounter something similar with Avshalom, son of David, who was also referred to as נער, not because he was so young in years at that time, but because he was younger than his brothers. (Samuel II 19,33)

These are their settlements, and occurrences... Re’m explains that Rashi adds, “And occurrences,” because the Torah recounts the actual settlements of only two and a half tribes among Yaakov’s descendants.

We also need to analyse the meaning of תלדת יעקב יוסף. What happened to the other tribes? Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 84,6 claim that Joseph was the principal descendant of Jacob. Others say that it reflects the similarities Jacob and Joseph experienced in their respective fates. Both were already born without a foreskin, etc. Of course, this is all homiletics.

AND THE LAD WAS WITH THE SONS OF BILHAH. His actions were those of youth: he would touch up his eyes and dress his hair. With the sons of Bilhah, that is to say, he associated with the sons of Bilhah because his brothers slighted them as being the sons of handmaids, and he therefore befriended them. Their evil report — he told his father about every wrong which he discerned in his brothers, the sons of Leah. This is the language of Rashi.
But if this be so, why did the children of the handmaids not save him later on, inasmuch as he loved and befriended them, and told his father about his brothers’ slighting them. And if we say that they feared their brothers, they were four,¹³Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. and Reuben was with them,¹⁴As expressly stated further on in Verses 21-22. and, with Joseph himself, [they made a total of six]. Surely they would have prevailed against them especially when considering that the remaining five sons of Leah would not wage war against them. Moreover, it appears from Scripture that all¹⁵“All,” except Reuben, the eldest, and Benjamin, the youngest, (Rabbeinu Bachya, p. 306, in my edition.) of the brothers concurred in the sale of Joseph. However, according to our Rabbis in Bereshith Rabbah,¹⁶84:7. he uttered slander against all of them.¹⁷And not, as Rashi has it, that the evil report concerned only the sons of Leah.
In my opinion the correct interpretation is that this verse returns to explain that which it mentioned above, and its purport [is as if the phrases in the verse were transposed as follows]: Joseph being a lad of seventeen years, was feeding the flock together with his brothers, the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives. A similar case requiring transposition of phrases is found in this Seder:¹⁸Sedrah or Parsha (section). And they dreamed a dream both of them in one night, each man according to the interpretation of his dream, the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were bound in the prison.¹⁹40:5. The verse returns to explain the word shneihem (both of them) which it had mentioned at the outset. Its purport, [after the phrases have been suitably transposed, is as follows]: And both of them dreamed a dream, the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were bound in the prison, each man according to the interpretation of his dream. There are many similar verses. It may be that the word v’hu (and he was) requires another similar word, as if it were written: “and he was a lad, and he was with the sons of Bilhah and with the sons of Zilpah, who were his father’s wives.” The verse thus states that because he was a lad he was constantly with the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives, never being separated from them on account of his youth, for their father had commanded them to watch over him and serve him, not the sons of the mistresses, and he brought an evil report concerning them²⁰The sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. to their father. It was for this reason that these four brothers¹³Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. hated Joseph. Following that, the verse says that his father loved him. Now when the other brothers²¹The sons of Leah. saw that their father loved him more than all, they became jealous of him and they hated him. Thus Joseph is found to be hated by all: the sons of the mistresses were jealous of him because Jacob loved him more than them although they were also sons of a mistress as he was, and the sons of the handmaids, who would otherwise not have been jealous of his superior position over them, hated him because he brought their evil report to their father.
The purpose of the redundant expression, dibatham ra’ah (their evil report), is to magnify,²²I.e., to indicate that the report was of an exceedingly evil nature. for dibah itself connotes evil.²³Otherwise, why does Scripture add the word ra’ah (evil)? It does so in order to magnify the evil nature of the report. Now according to the opinion of Rashi it is possible for dibah to be a good report. Thus when Scripture uses the expression, “he brings dibah“, it means that he tells what he sees,²⁴He reports the truth. but when it uses the term, he bringeth forth ‘dibah,’ it refers to the fool who speaks falsehood.²⁵This opinion that dibah connotes evil only when used in conjunction with the word motzi (bring forth) is borne out by Numbers 13:32.
In line with the literal meaning of Scripture, the fact that it calls one a na’ar (lad) when he was seventeen years of age²⁶Ramban’s intent is to disagree with Rashi’s interpretation of na’ar, which is that his actions were those of a youth. presents no difficulty for since he was the youngest among them, it calls him by that name, indicating that he was not as sturdy as his brothers and therefore needed to be with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah on account of his youth. Now of Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, it is written, And Rehoboam was young and faint-hearted and could not withstand them,²⁷II Chronicles 13:7. yet he was forty-one years old when he began to reign.²⁸Ibid., 12:13. Similarly the verse: Is it well with the lad Absalom?²⁹II Samuel 18:32. Now although Scripture does not state how old Absalom was at the time of his death, it would appear certain that he was about thirty years old since he was born to David in Hebron (ibid., 3:3-5), and David ruled thirty-three years in Jerusalem. The rebellion of Absalom occurred three years before David’s death (see Seder Hadoroth, year 2921). Hence Absalom, at his death, was at least thirty years old, yet David calls him na’ar. And Benjamin, upon going down to Egypt, was older than Joseph was now,³⁰For Joseph was separated from his father for twenty-two years. Therefore Benjamin must have been at least thirty years old at the time he went down to Egypt. and yet Scripture frequently refers to him as na’ar.³¹Further, 44:31 and 33.
Now Onkelos translated v’hu na’ar as “he grew up with the sons of Bilhah.” Thus the verse states that from the time he was a lad he was in their company. They raised him as a father would, and they served him. This interpretation is also correct according to the literal interpretation of Scripture, which I offered as an explanation, namely that Scripture relates that he brought evil report concerning [the sons of the handmaids, who, according to Onkelos, raised him. This is why they hated him, whereas] the sons of the mistresses hated him because of their jealousy, as explained above.³²Ramban thus indicates that the authoritative interpretation of Onkelos is here consistent with his own.
The meaning of the expression, His father’s wives, is that they were his “wives” for he took them as such. Scripture calls them “handmaids” only when they are mentioned together with Rachel and Leah, who were their mistresses. Similarly, And he put the handmaids and their children foremost,³³Above, 33:2. as if to say that because they were handmaids of Rachel and Leah, Jacob placed them before them in a more exposed position. Similarly, And he lay with Bilhah, his father’s concubine.³⁴Above, 35:22. [The word “concubine” is used to indicate] that if she were a mistress it would not have occurred. It is possible that during the lifetime of Rachel and Leah, Scripture calls them “handmaids” and “concubines,” but now that they had died [Jacob] took them as wives.

אלה תולדות יעקב, יוסף, “these were the descendants of Yaakov: Joseph;” the reason why this has been repeated here is because the Torah had interrupted reporting about Yaakov’s children who had been sired and born while he was with Lavan, Joseph having been the last of those. We find that the Torah employed a similar manner when describing Noach (Genesis 5,8) as siring three sons, interrupting with a description of the sins which led to the deluge, before returning to the subject in Genesis 6,9 with the words: אלה תולדות נח, although we had already known who his children were.

את בני בלהה WITH THE SONS OF BILHAH — meaning that he made it his custom to associate with the sons of Bilhah because his brothers slighted them as being sons of a hand-maid; therefore he fraternised with them.

בן שבע עשרה שנה, this was necessary so that we realise that the separation of Joseph from his father –during which time Yaakov had considered his as dead- lasted for 22 years. The Torah testified in 41,26 that Joseph was 30 years old when presented to Pharaoh, after which time 7 good years and 2 years of famine occurred before Yaakov and family descended to settle in Egypt, making a total of 22 years of separation.

והוא נער, if, in spite of this, he badmouthed his brothers, this was due to his being still an adolescent, not as mature as he should have been or as his intellect made him appear to be. He was not experienced enough to realise what the ultimate effect of his badmouthing his brothers would turn out to be. While it is true that as a relative youngster at 30 he became the mentor of the wisest men in Egypt, the foremost political power, at the tender age of 17 he still had a lot to learn. (compare his wisdom as expressed in Psalms 105,22 where aged people are described as wise, whereas in Shabbat 89 we are taught that mature wisdom cannot be expected to be found amongst the physically young.

רועה את אחיו בצאן, mark the fact that the Torah wrote בצאן “with the flocks,” instead of הצאן, “the flocks,” for being relatively young he was only allowed to work together with his brothers instead of being allowed to tends flocks all by himself. He was still a trainee.

את בני בלהה, “the sons of Bilhah, etc.” According to Rashi Joseph befriended them because the sons of Leah shunned them.

The Midrash however explains: Scripture identifies Yaakov’s children as Yoseif... Rashi is saying that [according to the Midrash,] the Torah is indeed explaining the descendants of Yaakov, not their settlements. It is written אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף to convey that all Yaakov’s descendants are called after Yoseif. This is because Yaakov worked the first seven years due to his love for Rochel, to beget a son from her. But then Lavan deceived him and gave him Leah, from whom he begat sons. When Rochel saw that she had no sons, she gave him her maidservant Bilhah as a wife, from whom he begat more sons. Then Leah gave him her maidservant Zilpah as a wife, from whom he begat more sons. And then Rochel gave birth to Yoseif. As soon as Yoseif was born, Yaakov told Lavan that he wished to return to the place of his fathers. Thus we see that all Yaakov’s descendants were due to Yoseif who was born from Rochel.

I believe that the plain meaning of the verse is what the other sages say, namely that Jacob wanted to enjoy peace and quiet in this world; as a result he suffered the upsetting experience with Joseph, literally, קפץ עליו רוגזו של יוסף. Joseph's sale, etc, is all blamed on Jacob's desire to enjoy peace and serenity on this earth. We therefore must understand the verse thus: "Jacob wanted to settle down; the consequence of Jacob's settling down was Joseph (his sale, etc)." The Torah teaches us the basic lesson that man brings upon himself whatever befalls him. Harm does not originate with G'd who is the source of all that is good by definition; Jacob was no exception to this rule.

היה רועה את אחיו בצאן, “who was tending flocks with his brothers;” The Torah calls the sons of Leah Joseph’s ”brothers,” as they were the sons of their father’s principal wives; it did not refer to the sons of Zilpah and Bilhah by the same term. [although both Leah’s sons as well as those of the maids were half brothers. Ed.] An alternate exegesis of why the word אחיו was used here:והוא נער, “he was only tending flocks as long as he was still very young;” at that point it was not considered as below the dignity of the sons of Yaakov’s secondary wives to be tending flocks with them. The verse is actually truncated, and the complete text should have been: והוא נער היה רועה בצאן את אחיו בני בלהה ובני זלפה, “as long as he was a young boy he had been tending flocks with his brothers, the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah.” It is not surprising that he reported on what he considered misconduct by these “brothers,” seeing that he was still very immature, i.e. merely a .נער

את דבתם רעה THEIR EVIL REPORT — Whatever he saw wrong in his brothers, the sons of Leah, he reported to his father: that they used to eat flesh cut off from a living animal, that they treated the sons of the handmaids with contempt, calling them slaves, and that they were suspected of living in an immoral manner. With three such similar matters he was therefore punished. In consequence of his having stated that they used to eat flesh cut off from a living animal Scripture states, (Genesis 37:31) “And they slew a he-goat" after they had sold him and they did not eat its flesh whilst the animal was still living. And because of the slander which he related about them that they called their brothers slaves — (Psalms 105:17) “Joseph was sold for a slave.” And because he charged them with immorality (Genesis 39:7) “his master’s wife cast her eyes upon him etc.” (Genesis Rabbah 84:7).

היה רועה את אחיו בצאן, the sons of Leah, are referred to as his brothers, seeing that they were the sons of a major wife, as opposed to the sons of Zilpah and Bilhah who ranked lower on the social scale, though also half-brothers of Joseph. They are therefore referred to here only as the sons for their respective mothers.

ויבא יוסף את דבתם רעה, he told his father that his brothers, because of unintentional errors, i.e. lack of professional competence, caused him financial losses in his flocks, seeing that at the time they were preoccupied primarily with increasing their material wealth.

והוא נער, he was always going with them when they were engaged in tending the flocks.

נשי אביו, “his father’s wives.” The Torah emphasizes that these ladies were Yaakov’s legal wives in the fullest meaning of the term. They were described as maidservants only in their status compared to Rachel and Leah, seeing that the latter were their seniors. This is why when Yaakov presented his wives to his brother Esau, and he first presented Zilpah and Bilhah, these are described as שפחות, maidservants, (33,6) seeing that in the event Esau would molest them, this would be a warning for Leah and Rachel to hide, or something. After all, Zilpah and Bilhah continued as maidservants in the employ of Leah and Rahel also after Yaakov married them. When Reuven was described as “sleeping” with Bilhah, she is also described as פלגש, a concubine, but this is only vis-à-vis her deceased mistress Rachel. It is quite possible that while Rachel and Leah were alive, Yaakov referred to them both as שפחות and as פילגשים, “maidservants and concubines.”

ויבא יוסף, “Joseph conveyed, etc.” Whenever we encounter the expression מביא דבה, “conveying information reflecting negatively on someone,” the Bible speaks about factual information not about slander. It means that he who conveyed the information backed it up with proof. When the Bible uses the expression הוציא דבה, however, this indicates that the information conveyed was slanderous, was untrue. A classic example of this is found when the Torah speaks of the information conveyed by the spies whom Moses had sent to the land of Canaan (Numbers 13,32. The Torah writes ויוציאו דבת הארץ. “They brought forth an (evil) report of the land.” We have a similar example in Proverbs 10,18 מוציא דבה הוא כסיל, “if someone spreads slander he is a fool.” It is clear that Solomon means untruths. We also have a verse in Job 8,10 ומלבם יוציאו מילים, “and they invent words (of a character-assassinating nature) which originate only in their hearts.”

Yaakov’s entire purpose in working for Lavan was only for the sake of Rochel. You might ask: Binyomin also came from Rochel, so why is [only] Yoseif mentioned? The answer is as I explained before: Yaakov worked mainly for Yoseif, as it says (30:25), “When Rochel had given birth to Yoseif, Yaakov said to Lavan, ‘Send me on my way...’”

Our verse also wants to inform us that in spite of all the various trials such as the life and death struggle with Esau, his oppression by Laban, etc., which Jacob had experienced up until that point in his life, these were all as nothing compared to what he would still have to endure through the sale of Joseph, etc. This is why the Torah commences the paragraph with the word אלה. This word is meant to put his previous problems into a new perspective.

בצאן, we would have expected the Torah to have written either “את צאן, or הצאן.” The reason why the Torah used the prefix ב, is to draw our attention to the fact that his major occupation was to watch if he could find fault with the manner in which these “brothers” fulfilled their tasks. He was also concerned that his “brothers” would not do something that would harm his father’s sheep, as he was extremely loyal to his father.

דבתם THEIR REPORT — The word דבה always means in old French parleriz; English, gossip: whatever he could speak bad about them he told to his father.

והוא נער את בני בלהה ואת בני זלפה, he spent most of his time in the company of those four children who were far closer to him in age. The fact that Joseph preferred the company of the sons of the servant-maids may have been the beginning of the sons of Leah resenting him.

נשי אביו, the term “wives of,“ emphasises that they were full fledged wives, as had been stated when each of these women became married to Yaakov, i.e. “לאשה.” (compare 30,9; 30,4) Joseph’s keeping company with the sons of these women was in no way something disparaging for him, as he was not only their half brother just as he was a half brother to the sons of Leah, but they were his social equals.

את דבתם רעה, ”evil reports about them.” Anything wrong that the sons of Leah did, Joseph reported to his father. Nachmanides queries that if that were indeed so, the sons of the maidservants should have loved him, and if so, why did they not save him at the time when the sons of Leah were about to kill him and eventually sold him? After all, there were four of them, and if you add Reuven who, as we know, tried to save Joseph, they would have been equal in number to the other five sons of Leah? Furthermore, from the text it appears as if all the brothers, including the sons of the maidservants agreed to sell him! According to our sages in Bereshit Rabbah, Joseph reported evil deeds both of the sons of Leah and the sons of the maidservants. Accordingly, the meaning of the words את בני בלהה ואת את בני זלפה, is simply that Joseph spent most of his time in the company of these sons of the maidservants as they were so much closer to him in age. In fact, their father had commanded these sons of the maidservants to keep a constant eye on Joseph, to insure that no mishap would befall hum. They were to attend to his needs. He did not instruct the sons of Leah to tend to Joseph’s needs. Joseph brought tales of misconduct of the sons of the maidservants to his father, seeing that he had so much opportunity to observe their conduct. This is why they learned to hate him.. We hear only later, that as a result of his dreams and his telling the sons of Leah about them, the sons of Leah grew to be jealous of him and to hate him, especially when they could not help noticing how his father preferred him over them. Everyone of the brothers had his own reason for hating Joseph.

את דבתם רעה, “evil reports of them.” Although we know that the expression דבה by itself refers to something of a negative nature, the Torah added the word רעה, “evil,” to underline the exaggerated nature of such evil. Rashi understands the word to teach that Joseph reported every single misdemeanour which he saw the sons of Leah commit. He reported that they were eating flesh from live animals, that they related to the sons of Zilpah and Bilhah with disdain as inferiors, and suspected them of possibly engaging in illicit sexual relations. As a result, he was punished in three ways. Nachmanides writes that if indeed Joseph had stood up for the rights of his half-brothers the sons of Zilpah and Bilhah we would have expected these four brothers to have tried to rescue Joseph from his attackers. Should you argue that they might have been afraid of the sons of Leah, this is hardly likely considering there were four of them and that Reuven would most likely side with them in any quarrel, and, so of course, would Joseph himself. So there would be six against six. Nachmanides therefore concludes that Joseph badmouthed the sons of Zilpah and Bilhah and that explains why they were hostile towards him. The hostility of the sons of Leah is described in the Torah as the result of the sons of Leah (“the brothers” in verse four) observing that their father loved Joseph the most. As a result of these two factors Joseph was thoroughly hated by all his brothers except Binyamin.
The sequence of the first four verses then is best understood as follows: “These are the descendants of Yaakov; Joseph was seventeen years of age at the time these events occurred and he was engaged in tending the sheep with his half-brothers, the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, wives of his father. He badmouthed them to their father. When the brothers (sons of Leah) noted that their father loved Joseph best, they hated him and could not speak peacefully about him.” This explains why all the brothers present at the sale of Joseph to the Ishmaelites were in full agreement.

Yoseif’s זיו איקונין resembled his. Why did Rashi not use the term קלסתר פנים, as he did on 25:19, regarding Yitzchok [who resembled Avraham? The answer is:] Rashi learns Yoseif’s resemblance to Yaakov from the word זְקֻנִים, as Rashi explains on 37:3. And זְקֻנִים is an abbreviation for זיו אקונין.

Another meaning of these words is explained in Sotah 36 where we are told that Joseph was actually meant to become the father of twelve tribes; he lost that opportunity on account of his involvement with the wife of Potiphar, when, according to the Midrash, he was able to resist the lures of that lady only by ejaculating semen through his ten fingertips instead of through the regular channel for such an acitivity. As a result he became the founder of only two tribes, Ephrayim and Menashe. The defective spelling of the word תלדת, minimum plural two, hints at the above mentioned aggadah. The word אלה "cancelled" the previous intention to make Joseph founder of twelve tribes.

ויבא יוסף את דבתם רעה, “Joseph reported negative reports about them;” (no wonder that they all began to hate him as a tale bearer). The sons of Bilhah and Zilpah hated him as talebearer, and his other brothers hated him because he was a favorite of their father. They were therefore afraid that in due course their father would appoint him as his firstborn. When the Torah writes (in verse four: וישנאו אותו, “they hated him,”) it refers to all of the brothers except Binyamin who was only 10 years old. Each group of brothers had a different reason for hating him. They were afraid that their father would treat Joseph as their grandfather Yitzchok had treated his son Esau, because of emotional attachment, not based on objective considerations.

דבה has the same meaning as the verb of the same root in (Song 7:10) “(דובב) making speak the lips of those that are asleep”.

את אחיו, he was tending the sheep with his brothers, but, seeing that he still enjoyed his carefree childhood he spent most of his time with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, instead of in the company of the sons of Leah. As a 17 year old he should have acted like a נער, an adolescent lad approaching manhood. This is the meaning of the word נער in Hoseah 11,1 Samuel II 2,14. The Torah now enumerates a number of other causes which contributed to the brothers hating Joseph. [this was how Leah’s sons viewed his behaviour, not how Joseph explained it. Ed.]

ויבא יוסף את דבתם רעה, he told his father that his brothers hated him, i.e. both the sons of the former servant maids with whom he was being raised, as well as the sons of Leah to whom he felt superior because he enjoyed preferential treatment by his father. As a result, the brothers sought pretexts to treat him meanly. Yaakov was angry at the brothers on behalf of Joseph, interpreting the brothers’ hatred of Joseph as jealousy due to his loving Joseph excessively. (verses 3 and 4). In Bereshit Rabbah 84,7 we are told that according to Rabbi Meir Joseph told his fathers that the brothers were suspect of violating the commandment not to eat flesh from a still living animal, whereas Rabbi Yehudah is supposed to have said that Joseph accused them of treating the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah with disdain, referring to them as “slaves.” Rabbi Shimon is reported as saying that Joseph accused the brothers of casting lustful glances at the local Canaanite girls. Rabbi Yehudah bar Seymon claims that G’d repaid Joseph for all three accusations as we derive from Proverbs 16,11 פלס ומאזני משפט לה', “Honest scales and weights are the Lord’s.” G’d said to him: “you accused your brothers of violating the law of אבר מן החי, you will be a witness that even when they were engaged in a sinful enterprise such as dipping your cloak in blood before presenting it to your father, they first slaughtered the male goat ritually, as is required when they would eat it. You accused them of calling the sons of Zilpah and Bilhah slaves, that is why you yourself were sold into slavery (Psalms 105, 17) You accused your brothers of looking lecherously at the local girls, I will cause you to be tempted by this very phenomenon.” This is why the Torah described the wife of Potiphar attempting to seduce Joseph (39,7)

דבתם רעה, “reports of their wrong doing.” According to Nachmanides the word דבה always implies something exaggerated. It is therefore evil by definition. Rashi explains that Joseph told his father that the sons of Leah were belittling the sons of the maidservants, that they were suspect of eating flesh from animals not yet slaughtered or dead, and that they indulged in incestuous sexual relationships. It is difficult to understand that if Joseph’s accusations were true, why he himself in the course of his life, was exposed to precisely these three potential sins. On the other hand, if Joseph’s accusations were unjustified, how could a person who is regarded throughout our history as an outstandingly righteous individual, a model of uprightness, have been guilty of defaming his brothers in such a manner? The answer usually given to this question is that even if his accusations had been true, he was wrong to act as a sole witness whose evidence was not supported by a second disinterested witness. The whole matter is reminiscent of a story in the Talmud Makkot 11A, where someone called Tuviah, had become guilty of a sin, and a single witness named Zigud testified against him and was punished for slandering him by unsupported testimony, whereas the alleged sinner went free.

Also, everything that happened to Yaakov happened to Yoseif... [According to the above Midrash,] the verse is saying, so to speak: “These descendants” about which everyone can testify that they are “of Yaakov,” they are [none other than] “Yoseif,” [for only Yoseif’s facial features resembled Yaakov’s.] This is similar to Rashi’s explanation on (25:19) ואלה תולדות יצחק בן אברהם, [where everyone testified that Yitzchok looked like Avraham]. Alternatively, the reason why everyone knew Yoseif was Yaakov’s son was that the events which happened to Yaakov happened only to Yoseif, [and a son’s fate generally resembles that of his father].

Still another meaning that we can find in this verse is based on Psalms 77,16 בני יעקב ויוסף סלה. "The sons of Jacob and Joseph, selah." Sanhedrin 19 explains that the reason that the sons of Jacob and Joseph are lumped together here is that Joseph provided the brothers and their families with food during the famine. Whenever someone assumes the burden of feeding someone else he is entitled to be called by that someone's name. This is alluded to in the sequence of the words תלדת יעקב יוסף, "the descendants of Jacob were possible only by the grace of Joseph." These words could also be translated as "the descendants of Jacob and Joseph." We have several examples of this in the Bible, such as in Exodus 1,2 ראובן שמעון. The meaning is ראובן ושמעון. Here too we must mentally add a conjunctive letter ו before the name יוסף. The Torah provides the rationale why the whole family is included in the name Joseph, i.e. he was the whole family's provider.

ויבא יוסף את דבתם רעה, the language is somewhat inverted and means the same as את דבתם של אחיו רעה, “reports of his brothers‘ wrongdoing.” This is in line with the interpretation of Bereshit Rabbah, as quoted by Rashi that Joseph told his father that the sons of Leah treated the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah with disdain. He contrasted this with his own behaviour towards these half brothers of his, whom he professed to honour and spend extra time with them as proof of his considering them equal. Other commentators have not related to the principal meaning of our verse. [the brothers would not have known about Joseph badmouthing them as Yaakov would not have told them. Hence they never reacted to this. Ed.]

Another Midrashic exposition: “[Yaakov] settled.” Yaakov was seeking to be settled in tranquility... Rashi is answering the question: Why is it not written ויחי יעקב בארץ..., [rather than וישב יעקב בארץ...]?

בן שבע עשרה שנה. seventeen years old. The reason the Torah had to tell us Joseph's age was because we know from Berachot 55 that if a person had a good dream he should wait up to twenty two years for it to become true. Had we not been informed here that Joseph was seventeen at the time he had these dreams we would not have known that rule.

The righteous seek to be settled in tranquility, God says... In all places where Rashi explains that [ישב implies there was a lacking,] it is because it is written lacking [the vav of יושב]. Such as והוא ישב פתח האהל (18:1), and ולוט ישב (19:1). But here there is no reason to interpret it as, “Seek to be settled in tranquility,” [since וַיֵשֶב is not a lacking form of יוֹשֵב]. Thus, it should literally mean “settled.” [If so, why does Rashi interpret as he does?] The answer is: [This interpretation is needed] because it is written afterwards, אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף, which has no connection with וישב יעקב. Alternatively, because it should have said אלה תולדות יעקב ראובן.... This forced Rashi to explain that אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף is the cause which prevented the fulfillment of Yaakov’s intention [to be settled in tranquility]. And קפץ עליו רגזו means the controversy and fighting [surrounding Yoseif]. The meaning of רגזו is similar to אל תרגזו בדרך (45:24), which Onkelos translates as אל תתנצון (do not quarrel). (Nachalas Yaakov)

The Torah also alludes to another lesson mentioned in Kidushin 29. Rabbi Chisdah there describes himself as superior to his friends because he married at sixteen. The evil urge is not as strong in a person who is sixteen as it is in a person who is seventeen years of age. By telling us Joseph's age when the sale occurred we know that his evil urge was very active within him at that time. This may have accounted for his provocative conduct towards his brothers and the fact that he engaged in tale-bearing.

He did things that were childish... Otherwise, why does it say, “And the lad”?

היה דעה את אחיו בצאן, he used to tend the flocks with his brothers. The wording seems unusual. We would have expected: היה רעה הצאן את אחיו. Besides, why did the Torah add the words: "he was a lad," when we are told his age in the same breath? Bereshit Rabbah 84,7 explains this by saying that Joseph indulged in childish activities. If that were true why would he do so only with the children of Bilhah? Rashi explains that he felt at home in the environment of Bilhah who had been the handmaid of his mother. This is even more far-fetched; why did the Torah mention נשי אביו, "his father's wives? We must also know what precisely the רבתם רעה, the evil reports about the brothers which Joseph brought to his father consisted of? The Torah is not intended to complicate an issue by speaking in riddles but to help us understand it! We believe therefore that the Torah wanted us to know that this is what happened.

Meaning that he associated with the sons of Bilhah... “With the sons of Bilhah” cannot be [a continuation of] the same point, that he did childish things with the sons of Bilhah. Would he not act the same way when he was not with them? Perforce, [it means, and in addition, he associated with them]. (Nachalas Yaakov)

The words היה רעה את אחיו בצאן refer to the sheep the brothers were accused of eating. The words והוא נער refer to Joseph's earlier childhood during which he had spent much time with the sons of Bilhah. The reason the Torah mentions נשי אביו is to tell us that Joseph did not discriminate against the sons of the handmaidens but related to their mothers as "his father's wives." This is especially mentioned as only Joseph treated Bilhah and Zilpah as wives of Jacob in the full sense of the word. According to the Midrash there Joseph suspected his brothers of eating parts of the sheep while the animal was still alive. The Torah disproved this suspicion later when it reported that the brothers even slaughtered an animal, which they were presumably not going to eat, before they dipped Joseph's tunic in its blood. [I suppose the author feels that the word רעה, tending, could also be read as רעה, evil, to account for this allusion to Joseph's suspicions of his brothers. Ed.] Joseph's suspecting his brothers of immoral behaviour may have stemmed from their viewing the handmaidens as merely slaves and their belittling the sons of the handmaidens. When Joseph observed how the brothers belittled their half-brothers this may have caused him to begin to belittle the sons of Leah instead. The author discusses the halachic aspects of the issue of someone who sleeps with a handmaid, concluding that at any rate someone of the stature of Jacob would certainly do so only in order to raise the woman in question to a higher status, and the children would automatically be free men.

Any wrong that he would see in his brothers, the sons of Leah. Rashi deduces this because it is not written ויוצא יוסף דבתם, as it is written about the Spies (Bamidbar 13:32), ויוציאו דבת הארץ. Perforce, the reason it is written here ויבא יוסף את דבתם is because Yoseif said what was true. I.e., he reported the events to his father according to how he saw and heard them, and he did not say things he did not see. However, with regard to the Spies it is written ויוציאו, “they brought out,” meaning they brought out [i.e., fabricated] falsehoods from within themselves.

The problem with all the above speculations in the Midrash is why, if four of the brothers were treated as inferior, all of them voted against Joseph and agreed to sell him? Perhaps it was because Joseph had included them in the suspicions about their eating habits which he had related to his father. Alternatively, these four brothers exploited that opportunity to gain favour with the sons of Leah although they themselves harboured no ill feelings against Joseph.

In his brothers, the sons of Leah. [Question:] In the verse it is written just, “With his brothers.” [How does Rashi know it means the sons of Leah?] The answer is: Yoseif was close with the sons of the handmaidens. If he considered them evil, how could he be close with them? Furthermore, since he was their friend, the evil that he reported surely was not about them.

And that they are suspect in illicit relationships ... Question: How could the sons of Yaakov have been suspect of doing these things? And if they were suspect, why then was Yoseif punished on account of this? The answer is: They surely were not suspect of doing these things; Yoseif erred. And he was punished because he should have looked further into the matter before suspecting them. He thought they ate limbs of living animals because they ate from a properly slaughtered animal that was still convulsing. But the meat was permitted since it was after shechitah. Or, he saw them eating a ben pekoa [an animal found alive in the womb of its mother that had been properly slaughtered]. It is permitted [to eat it,] due to the shechitah of its mother. And even if it [develops into] a big bull it does not require to be ritually slaughtered. [It only needs to be slaughtered] because it appears to be forbidden. Yoseif however, considered it as being the limb of a living animal because it nonetheless requires to be ritually slaughtered, due to appearance. They demeaned the sons of the handmaidens by calling the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah “sons of handmaidens.” Although this was true, and even Scripture refers to them so, Yoseif thought it implied that their sons were non-Jewish slaves. But he erred, because their sons were not non-Jewish slaves, for Bilhah and Zilpah were freed women who assisted Rochel and Leah. Regarding illicit relationships: a man may not use another man’s wife to serve him (Kiddushin 70a), and Yoseif saw them using the services or doing business with a married woman, so he suspected them. But he erred, because a man is forbidden to use the services of a married for intimate purpose only, such as washing his face, hands and feet, or making his bed. But, non-intimate matters or doing business with her are permitted. You might ask: How does Rashi know that Yoseif suspected them of all three things? The answer is: Rashi himself answers this by saying, “Yoseif was, in, turn, smitten by these three...” Another answer: There is a connection between דבתם רעה written here, and v. 33 חיה רעה אכלתהו (“A wild beast devoured him”). Just like there it involved a limb from a living creature, since a wild beast devours its prey alive, so too here it involved a limb from a living creature. [The matter regarding non-Jewish] slaves is derived from what it is written about a handmaiden in Shemos 21:8: אם רעה בעיני אדוניה. Just like רעה there involves slavery, so too here it involves slavery. [The matter regarding] illicit relationships is derived from what it is written in 39:9 regarding Yoseif: ואיך אעשה הרעה הגדולה הזאת (“How can I do such a great evil”). Just like רעה there refers to illicit relationships, so too here it refers to illicit relationships.

“They slaughtered a goat” when he was sold, and they did not eat it while it was alive. I.e., the Torah had no need to write that they slaughtered it, since they did not eat it. Perforce, it comes to tell us that even though they did not intend to eat it, they nonetheless slaughtered it [because they were meticulous about shechitah].

בן זקנים THE SON OF HIS OLD AGE — because he was a wise son to him” — all that he had learnt from Shem and Eber he taught him (Genesis Rabbah 84:8). Another explanation of בן זקנים— his facial features were similar to his (Jacob’s) (Genesis Rabbah 84:8).

BECAUSE HE WAS THE SON OF HIS OLD AGE. That is, he was born to him during his old age. Onkelos translated: “he was a wise son to him,” for all that he had learned from Shem and Eber³⁵The traditional masters who taught Torah to Jacob during the fourteen years he hid from Esau (Megillah 17 a). This source, however, mentions only Eber. See Bereshith Rabbah 84:8, where Shem is also mentioned. he transmitted to him. Another interpretation is that the facial features of Joseph were similar to those of Jacob. This is Rashi’s language. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra also explains it in this way: “Because he was the son of old age — for he begot him in his old age when he was ninety-one³⁶For when Jacob stood before Pharaoh at the end of two of the lean years he was one hundred and thirty years old (47:9). Now when Joseph stood before Pharaoh he was thirty years old. Therefore after the seven years of plenty, and the two lean years he was thirty-nine. Subtract his age from Jacob’s age and there remain ninety-one years. This was Jacob’s age when Joseph was born. (Ohel Yoseph.) years old. They likewise called his brother Benjamin a little child of his old age. “³⁷Further, 44:20.
But in my opinion this is not correct for the verse states that Jacob loved Joseph more than all his children because he was the son of his old age, whereas all his children were born to him during his old age! Issachar and Zebulun were not more than a year or two³⁸See Seder Olam Rabbah, 2. older than Joseph.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that it was the custom of the elders to take one of their younger sons to be with them to attend them. He would constantly lean on his arm, never being separated from him, and he would be called ben z’kunav because he attended him in his old age. Now Jacob took Joseph for this purpose, and he was with him constantly. He therefore did not accompany the flock when they went to pasture in distant places. And Onkelos who translated, “he was a wise son,” intended to say that in his father’s eyes, Joseph was a knowledgeable and wise son, and his understanding was as that of elders.³⁹See the interpretation of Ramban on Leviticus 19:32. However in the case of Benjamin, who is called yeled z’kunim (a little child of his old age), Onkelos translated: bar savtin⁴⁰Rather than bar chakim, as in the case of Joseph. (a son of old age). [The explanation of Onkelos in the case of Joseph becomes clear] because the verse here does not state, “Joseph hayah (was) a son of old age;” instead, it says, hu lo (he was unto him), meaning that in his eyes he appeared to be [a ben z’kunim, and consequently it must mean bar chakim, a wise son].⁴¹For if the sense of the verse is to be understood literally as meaning that “he was a son of his old age,” why specify “to Jacob?” Hence Onkelos correctly translated it as bar chakim, which means that Joseph was a wise son in his father’s estimate. This is the intent of the Sages when they said:⁴²In the Rashi quoted above. The original source is Bereshith Rabbah 84:8. “Whatever Jacob had learned from Shem and Eber³⁵The traditional masters who taught Torah to Jacob during the fourteen years he hid from Esau (Megillah 17 a). This source, however, mentions only Eber. See Bereshith Rabbah 84:8, where Shem is also mentioned. he transmitted to him,” meaning that he passed on to him wisdoms and the secrets of the Torah, and that the father found the son to be intelligent and profound in these areas as if he were an elder and a man of many years.

וישראל אהב, all of the aforementioned details caused the brothers to become jealous of Joseph.

ועשה לו כתונת פסים, as a visible sign that Joseph was intended by him to become the leader of all the brothers both at home and in the field. The use of such distinctive clothing to symbolise someone’s elevated stature is found also in Isaiah 22,21 והלבשתיו כתנתך, “I will dress him (Chilkiyah) in your tunic,” where it signals that authority is transferred to the one wearing the appropriate garments. (uniform). The Talmud Baba Kama 11 also confirms that authority is signalled by the attire worn by people possessing it. [there the brothers who had paid extra for their leader to represent them and to appear well dressed are quite content seeing that their representative while attired in costly garments will indirectly confer benefits upon them through their brother being listened to in the councils of the city. Ed.]

וישראל אהב את יוסף, Israel loved Joseph, etc. The Torah reported this here in order to provide the rationale for the brothers' hatred of their younger, i.e. their "little" brother Joseph. The reason the verse begins with the conjunctive letter ו in front of ישראל is to inform us that if the tale-bearing would have been the only problem, the brothers could have coped with that; they would have argued with Joseph and convinced him that his suspicions were unfounded. It was the additional element of their father displaying distinct favoritism which poisoned the atmosphere between Joseph and his brothers. Not only did Jacob love Joseph better than all his other sons combined, but he even made a public display of this. Once this hatred of Joseph had become a factor in their mutual relations nothing could correct the situation. There was no longer any point in the brothers speaking peacefully, i.e. trying to make peace with the tale-bearer, seeing he was so clearly their father's favorite.

כי בן זקונים, what was so special about Joseph’s age, seeing all the eleven brothers had been born in the space of 7 years? How much older was Yaakov at the time Joseph was born than, say, at the time Yehudah was born? We conclude therefore, that the meaning of the word זקונים has nothing to do with physical age, but that Joseph appeared to him as especially intelligent, wise, wise well beyond his years. The words of wisdom spoken by Joseph would normally be expected only from the mouth of men who had acquired such wisdom through having lived for many years. This is also the way Onkelos understood the term when he translates it as בר חכים, “a wise son.” Seeing that he considered him so wise he dressed him in especially attractive garments. In this way he gave tangible expression to his special love for him.

כי בן זקונים הוא לו, “for he was born to him when he was advanced in years;” according to Rashi. Nachmanides questions Rashi’s interpretation of the term בן זקונים, reminding us that all of Yaakov’s children were born to him when he was advanced in years, seeing that he only married when he was already 84 years old. Issachar and Zevulun were no more than a year or two older than Joseph. Moreover, Binyamin was much younger (seven years), than Joseph, and the term בן זקונים should have been applied to him, instead. Nachmanides therefore concludes that the Torah refers to an ancient custom of fathers who were already aged selecting one of their sons to attend to their needs on a regular basis. That son then becomes known as בן זקונים. Seeing that Joseph had been selected to perform these filial duties, he no longer went with his brothers to tend the flocks when they went far away from Chevron. We may also understand Onkelos in this sense, when he translates בן זקונים as ארי בר חכים, as extraordinarily intelligent. It is interesting that the Torah applies the term בן זקונים for Joseph only in his relationship to his father, i.e. בן זקונים הוא לו, for him,” not when compared to the world around him.

וישראל אהב את יוסף, “and Israel loved Joseph, etc.” You will observe that the Torah uses the names Yaakov and Israel interchangeably. In the first verse it calls him Yaakov; in the verse at the end of this passage where Yaakov rends his garments having concluded that Joseph had become the victim of a ferocious beast, it again calls him Yaakov, whereas in our verse here he is called Israel. This proves that the name Israel which G’d had bestowed upon him was not meant to supplant the name he had been given at birth but was to serve as an alternate name for him.

A long colorful cloak. The other brothers were dressed like shepherds, but because Yoseif was his father’s attendant he was required to dress in a dignified manner.

Because he was born to him in his old age... You might ask: Was not Binyamin born in an older age than Yoseif? The answer is: all of Yaakov’s sons were born one right after another, as they were all born within six years — except for Binyamin, whose birth was separated [from Yoseif’s birth] by a long period of time. People had thought that Yaakov would not beget another son from Rochel, so they called Yoseif “son of old age.” And out of habit they continued to do so even after Binyamin was born.

Trotz der vorerwähnten Schwächen steckte ein ganz herrlicher Mensch in Josef. Nicht Jakob, "Jisrael׳ sah in ihm den vorzüglichsten seiner Söhne, בן זקונים הוא לו, er sah sich in ihm fortlebend, in ihm den Fortträger aller seiner geistigen Errungenschaften (siehe Kap.21, 7). — פסים von פסס: aufhören, enden, scheint die Verbrämung der Säume eines Gewandes zu bedeuten, die allen Gewändern gegeben werden, welche die Persönlichkeit mehr hervortreten lassen sollen. Heißt doch vielleicht עדה, die allgemeine Bezeichnung von Schmücken, ebenso wie פסס, zugleich aufhören, wovon: עד, bis. Jedenfalls war es eine Auszeichnung, die ihn als einen zu einer besonderen Bestimmung Auserwählten erscheinen ließ. — Dass alles dies nicht vernünftig war, Jakob seine Reden nicht hätte aufnehmen sollen, wie überhaupt ein "Lieblingskind" in der Geschichte unserer Väter und eines jeden Hauses nur verderbliche Folgen hat, das ist durch die herben Folgen, die alles dies in der Geschichte nach sich zog, bitter genug hervorgehoben. Es sind dies Schwächen, die sich so leicht im Leben der Menschen wiederholen, aber immerhin Schwächen.

כתונת פסים, “an embroidered garment;” extending down to the palms of his hands.

כי בן זקונים הוא לו, “for he had been born to him in his old age. If you were to argue that Binyamin had been born when he was still older, Binyamin caused his father to be reminded of the fact that his very existence brought about his beloved wife Rachel’s death, something which prevented him from loving him as much.

פסים is a term for raiment of fine wool (Shabbat 10b). Similar is (Ester 1:6) כרפס “Fine linen and blue”. The same garment כתנת הפסים is mentioned (2 Samuel 13:18) in the story of Amnon and Tamar and we may therefore gather that it was made of very fine material. There is a Midrashic statement that in the word פסים we may find an allusion to all his misfortunes: he was sold to Potiphar (פוטיפר), to the merchants (סוחרים), to the Ishmaelites (ישמעאלים), and to the Midianites (מדינים) (Genesis Rabbah 84:8).

בן זקונים, he was the most recently born of 11 children. There had been a considerable interval before Binyamin, the last of Yaakov’s children was born. Yaakov’s inordinate love for Joseph developed long before Binyamin was born.

ועשה לו כתונת פסים, the word פס is related to the same word in Daniel 5,5 פס ידא, palm of a hand. The cloth was made of differently coloured surfaces similar to garments made of soft wool which are made in a number of differently coloured stripes or sections. The garment looked very impressive, arousing the hatred of the brothers in addition to the fact that they hated him for spreading tales about them to their father. Our sages in Shabbat 10 seize upon this detail to teach us that a father must ever be careful not to arouse inter-fraternal jealousies, seeing that the fortunes of the Jewish people have been so negatively affected on account of five silver coins worth of angora wool which Yaakov spent more on Joseph’s attire than he did on the garments worn by his other sons. The enslavement of the Jewish people in Egypt was brought about as a direct consequence of this jealousy.

ועשה לו כתונת פסים, “and he made for him a striped coat of many colours.” This verse teaches us how important it is for a parent not to have favourites among his children, [not to display such favoritism. Ed.] The extra cost of Joseph’s tunic, a measly 2 shekel, triggered a history of tragic jealousy, strife, near fratricide, etc. It even ultimately was directly responsible for Jews going to Egypt for a second time in history to seek relief from a famine in the land of Canaan.

ועשה לו כתונת פסים, “he made for him a striped coat.” This was a superior garment.. It may have resembled the כתונת תשבץ worn by the High Priest (Exodus 28,4). The brothers were envious of Joseph on account of this garment. This envy aroused by Yaakov making this garment for Joseph caused our sages (Shabbat 10) to go on record that a father should be careful not to discriminate between his children.
This coat was the first of the various causes which produced the tragedy described by the Torah and whose ramifications ultimately resulted in the enslavement of the bodies of the Jewish people in Egypt. It had still later ramifications in the time of the Romans after the destruction of the second Temple when ten of the most illustrious scholars of that time died a martyr’s death at the hands of the Romans whose Emperor justified himself quoting the penalty of kidnapping provided in the Torah. He argued that the brothers had never been punished for selling their brother. The body is perceived as the outer garment of the soul. The kind of garment one wears is somehow related to the body underneath it just as the body is related to the soul within it.
According to Bereshit Rabbah 84,6 the expression פסים (plural) is used because these stripes were as wide as two פסות ידיו, two handbreadths. Another interpretation of the word פסים: the word is derived from פייס, lot; the brothers drew lots amongst themselves to decide which of the four methods of death the Torah provides to administer to Joseph. This is based on the wording of ויתנכלו להמיתו, “they planned (how) to kill him” (verse 37,18). Alternately, they drew lots who was to bring the news about the torn coat to their father Yaakov. The lot fell on Yehudah and this is why Yehudah said to Yaakov הכר נא ”please identify if this is the coat of your son.” The expression הכר נא is found again with Tamar, Yehudah’s daughter-in-law, who said to Yehudah concerning the pawn he had given her הכר נא למי החותמת וגו', “please identify to whom this signet ring belongs, etc.” (38,25) When Yehudah said to Yaakov: “identify if this is the coat of your son,” Yaakov’s life ended suddenly, and the lives of Yehudah’s sons Er and Onan came to an end at that same moment. [I believe that this Midrash considers the “revival” of Yaakov as having taken place when he heard that Joseph was alive, 45,24, and that the lives of Er and Onan were vicariously revived in the twin sons which Tamar bore for Yehudah 38,28. Ed.] This is the mystical dimension of Jeremiah 32,18 ומשלם עון אבות אל חיק בניהם אחריהם, “but You visit the guilt of the fathers to their children after them.”
Still another possible meaning of the word פסים. The word is reminiscent of the four kinds of troubles which befell Joseph as a result of this coat. The letters in the word are an acrostic for the words פוטיפר, סוחרים, ישמעאלים, מדינים.. All the above owned Joseph at one time or another from the moment the brothers sold him. A more mystical meaning of the word פסים: Yaakov revealed the mystical connections between the 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet to Joseph. In other words, Yaakov “enrobed” his son Joseph with the wisdom contained in the twenty-two letters of the alphabet which he himself had learned at the time he had studied in the academies of Shem and Ever.

Onkelos translates it: “He was a wise son to him.” [Rashi cites Onkelos] because there is a question on the first explanation: What difference does it make [to us] whether Yoseif was born to Yaakov in his old age or his youth? Thus Rashi says, “Onkelos translates it...” But a question still remains: It should have said בן זקנותו. Why does it say בן זקונים? Perforce, it comes to say: “His facial features (זיו איקונים)...” (Maharshal)

פסים, a name that was to be given to this garment retroactively after Joseph had been sold. [Each letter of the word refers to a different master to whom Joseph had been sold, commencing with מ for the Midianites and ending with פ for Potiphar.] A different explanation sees in the word פסים as a “compensation,” for being a half orphan, not having a mother anymore. Yaakov tried to compensate him by having a costly garment made for him.

כתונת פסים, a cloak, (compare Samuel II 13,18 Tamar’s cloak).

A Midrashic explanation is for his misfortunes ... [Rashi cites this] because there is a question on the first explanation: For what purpose does Scripture say that Yaakov made him a כתונת פסים? Perhaps to teach, [as it says in Shabbos 10b,] that a person should not treat one son differently than the others, since Yoseif’s brothers were jealous of him because his coat was worth two sela’im more. But this is not the simple meaning of the verse, as it is not written, “His brothers saw that he made him a כתונת פסים.” Rather, they were jealous of him due to his dreams and words (v. 8). Therefore Rashi cites the Midrashic explanation. (Maharshal)

That he was sold to Potiphar, traders... I.e., פסים is the abbreviation for פוטיפר, סוחרים, ישמעאלים, מדינים. According to this explanation, the [prefix] ו is lacking from the word סוחרים in (37:28): וַיַּrַבְרוּ אֲנָשִׁים מִדְיָנִים סֹחֲרִים. It should be understood as וסוחרים (and merchants), [for otherwise it would mean, “Midianite merchants,” and one group would be missing]. Although Scripture omits Yoseif’s sale to the merchants, it also omits his sale to the Midianites, [which surely took place, as they sold him to Potiphar — see v. 36. This understanding of סוחרים fits the verse well,] because otherwise, why is the word סוחרים even needed?

ולא יכלו דברו לשלום AND THEY COULD NOT SPEAK PEACEABLY TO HIM — from what is stated to their discredit we may infer something to their credit: they did not speak one thing with their mouth having another thing quite different in their hearts (Genesis Rabbah 84:9).

ויראו אחיו כי אותו אהב אביהם, here Yaakov had committed an error, allowing the love in his heart for Joseph to be now become visible through preferential treatment of him.

ולא יכלו דברו לשלום, any conversation with Joseph did not revolve around peacefully discussed matters of common interest, but concerned only matters of dispute between them.

ולא יכלו דברו לשלום, “and they were unable to converse with him or about him, peacefully.” You will note that the Torah did not write that the brothers did not speak to him, but whenever they spoke, even to strangers, and Joseph became part of their conversation, they referred to him negatively.

ולא יכלו דברו לשלום, “and they could not speak about him peacefully.” This was actually a positive aspect of their characters. Instead of hiding their hostility and flattering Joseph, they were straightforward in revealing their feelings toward him (Bereshit Rabbah. 84,9). We find this characteristic praised by Solomon in Proverbs 29,5 where he said: גבר מחליק על רעהו רשת פורש על פעמיו, “a man who flatters his neighbour actually spreads a net for his feet.” The prophet actually compliments Avshalom when he said (Samuel II 13,22) ולא דבר אבשלום עם אמנון למרע ועד טוב כי שנא אבשלום את אמנון. “and Avshalom did not speak to Amnon either friendly or unfriendly words for Avshalom hated Amnon (who had raped his sister).”

Die Konstruktion hebt das אותו hervor. Gerade ihn, der eben nicht zu ihnen gehörte, in keiner freundlichen Beziehung zu ihnen stand, ihnen manchen Vorwurf zuzog usw. gerade ihn, sahen sie, zog der Vater vor. — הב(ה) ,אהב mit individualisierendem א: sich dem andern ganz hingeben und den andern in seine nächste Nähe wünschen. Demgegenüber סנה) שנא): Dorn sein, von sich weisen, möglichst fern halten. Die Extreme erzeugten sich gegenseitig. Die Liebe des Vaters erzeugte den Hass der Brüder. — ׳ולא יכלו וגו, sie konnten mit ihm nicht zum Frieden sprechen, d. h. in einer Weise, die den Frieden erzeugt, oder: sie konnten sein "zum Frieden sprechen" nicht ertragen, konnten es nicht ertragen, wenn er freundlich mit ihnen sprach. Befreundete nehmen sich nichts, Gespannte alles übel und missdeuten das Freundliche am meisten.

דברו means TO SPEAK TO HIM.

ולא יכלו דברו לשלום, even though the brothers had to speak to Joseph pertaining to their business dealings both concerning household problems and problems with the herds and flocks, something imposed upon them by their father’s command to see in him their manager, they did not speak to him concerning any private matters, brotherly concerns.

ויגד לאחיו, this too was an ill advised move. Had he been more mature he would have kept the contents of such a dream to himself.

ויחלום יוסף חלום. Joseph had a dream. Why did Joseph add to his brothers' hatred of him by telling them of his grandiose dreams? Furthermore, knowing as he did that the brothers hated him fiercely, why did he accept his father's mission (verse 14) and venture "into the lion's den?" (According to Bereshit Rabbah 84,11 even Jacob could not understand Joseph's preparedness to accept his mission) Perhaps Joseph went to tell his brothers that they were wrong in ascribing his dreams to his ambitions, but that for some resaon G'd planned to elevate him to a high position and that Jacob's agreeing to send him on this mission was a sign that all of this had been approved by G'd. He may have hoped to assuage their hatred of him by accepting the misssion.

ויחלום....ויאמר, he dreamed, and wanted to make them feel bad seeing that they had displayed jealousy of his father’s love for him, and had allowed that jealousy to deteriorate into hatred of him. Seeing that eventually, Joseph’s rise to power was due to his handling of the harvest in Egypt, the details of the dream were: והנה קמה אלומתי, the symbol of my success, i.e. my sheaf of grain remained erect, whereas your sheaves bowed down to me. It was a fact that in due course the grain harvest was the cause of the brothers prostrating themselves before Joseph.

מלוך תמלוך?, “are you planning to rule over us?” According to Ibn Ezra the expression מלוך refers to rule by a king with the consent of his subjects, so that the brothers asked: “do you expect us to crown you as king over us?” The expression משול refers to imposition of authority without or against the wish of those that are subject to such authority. The brothers wanted to know if Joseph perhaps thought that he could impose his will upon them. It is somewhat difficult to understand why the brothers accused Joseph of such plans, based simply on the fact that he had had a dream or two. Are then dreams something over which the dreamer has control? What proof did the brothers have that Joseph’s dreams reflected his innermost hopes? Some commentators attribute Joseph’s aspirations to the fact that it had become plain that their father had preferred him to all of them, something that had gone to his head and given him ideas of grandeur. The proof that Joseph indeed harboured such thoughts, lay in the fact that even his dreams reflected what he had been thinking about by day.

Er hatte einen Traum und erzählte davon seinen Brüdern. Kaum aber hatte er vertraulich davon angefangen, wollten sie sofort nichts davon hören. Er aber dringt bittend in sie Raw Hirsch on Genesis 37: 6: den Traum müsst ihr doch hören! — Etymologie von חלם siehe (Kap.20, 3). Ob Träume Bedeutung haben, lassen auch die Weisen als eine offene Frage. Siehe Berachot 55 a. Dass aber die Vorsehung diesen halbwachen Zustand benutzt, um Gedanken in die Brust des Menschen zu werfen und ganze Reihen von Begebenheiten damit einzufädeln, dass Gott auch den Glauben der Menschen an Träume in dieser Richtung benutzt, das sehen wir wiederholt aus Jakobs und Josefs Geschichte.

ויחלום יוסף חלום ויגד לאחיו, “Joseph dreamt a dream and he told his brothers its content.” This was a dream that never came true. This is why the Torah does not reveal its content.

On the other hand, he may have warned them that the time would come when they would have need of him, and that they might do better to suppress their hatred of him pending further developments; otherwise they would expose themselves to retaliation on his part when the time came. He was convinced that the brothers would accept what seemed to them a heavenly decree.

ועל דבריו, “and on account of his talk.” Joseph’s real error lay in his telling his brothers of his dreams, as if boasting of the grand future that he considered in store for himself. Had he not been telling his brothers the details of his dreams, i.e. שמעו נא החלום הזה אשר חלמתי, “listen please to this dream that I dreamt, etc.,” the entire tragic sequence of events that follow might have been avoided. He had only dreamt one dream, and already he uses it as something inflammatory, something that is bound to arouse further jealousy among his brothers. Why does the Torah refer to חלומותיו, “his dreams,” (pl;) when only the content of a single dream has been reported? (verse 8) Some commentators believe that he had had a previous dream, a dream which the brothers did not pay much attention to, seeing it was an isolated event. Once he told them the content of his second dream they became alerted to the trend displayed in this dream and revised their opinion about the first dream he had told them about, also.

There is yet another possibility. Joseph actually hoped to draw his brothers' hearts nearer to him. We have a saying Berachot 55 that כל החלומות הולכים אחר הפה, that "all dreams follow the mouth." [What the interpreter sees in the dream determines its true meaning. The reader is referred to an excellent analysis of this statement by Rabbi Yitzchak Arama in chapter 29 of his Akeydat Yitzchak, see my translation page 247, second edition. Ed.] The rabbis also say that one should enquire from someone who is well disposed towards him when searching for the meaning of one's dream (Rosh on that paragraph). Joseph hoped that by telling the brothers of his dreams they would themselves find an acceptable and plausible explanation which would put their minds at ease. At least they would realise that Joseph had no ambition to become king over them. Why else would he be silly enough to provoke their hatred by telling them about his dreams? All of this might have worked if the existing hatred had not already closed the brothers' minds to any conciliatory gestures.

ויחלום יוסף Joseph dreamed. The Torah reports that Joseph only dreamed so that we should not think that he hallucinated making himself believe he had dreamed when in fact he entertained thoughts of lording it over his brothers. The reason that in verse 9 the Torah repeats again that Joseph dreamed is also to emphasise that it was a nocturnal vision, that he had not made up the story he told his brothers.

ויגד לאחיו. He told his brothers. It was a good dream. The brothers were tough as nails and did not even want to know what he had dreamed; this is why he had to say: "please listen to the dream I have dreamed." I am sure that the Torah does not here refer to a dream the content of which has not been mentioned, nor to a dream which did not come true. If the latter, why mention the existence of such a dream? If to tell us that the brothers hated him even more, this too has already been adequately explained. We must therefore assume that these words refer to the dream Joseph revealed only after having insisted that the brothers listen to his dream.

שמעו נא החלום הזה, not only did he tell them his dream, as something by the way, but he invited them to listen to him tell it by saying שמעו נא “please pay attention!” This could not fail to intensify the hostility of his brothers, as we see immediately by their reaction: “do you plan to rule over us?!”

שמעו נא החלום, please listen to the dream, etc. He had to add the word נא, please, because at first they had refused to listen.

ויאמר אליהם: שמעו נא, he said to them: “please listen (to my dream).” His reason for telling them of his dream was to explain to them that his being destined for greatness was not due to the way his father preferred him, but seemed to be a destiny decreed by heaven.

Alternatively, in accordance with Berachot 56, dreams should preferably be interpreted on the day following (the same day) the night they have been dreamt. This is the reason that one may fast even on the Sabbath if one has had a bad dream. Joseph therefore insisted that the brothers hear him out at once. Any delay might result in the dream not being fulfilled. He may also have wanted to prove to them that he had not told any of his friends about this dream expecting them to give him a positive interpretation, but had instead come to his brothers first. Had he first told his friends of his dream the brothers would not have believed that he wanted to convince them that he wanted to be on good terms with them. According to Berachot 55 Rabbi Banah once told his dream to 24 different interpreters and received 24 different interpretations, each one of which proved correct. It is possible that this was so because none contradicted any of the other interpretations. When contradictory interpretations are received the more recent interpretation cannot cancel out a previous one. Joseph may have wanted to convince the brothers of his תמימות, his sincerity, by offering them a chance to come up with a negative interpretation of his dream which his friends could not later on nullify. He did this by urging them to listen to his dream immediately.

החלום הזה, "this dream." The use of the definitive article ה in front of the word חלום indicates that he had already told them that he had had a dream without revealing any details about it. Now he repeated: "please listen to the dream which I have dreamed."

מאלמים אלמים — Understand it as the Targum renders it: were binding bundles i.e. sheaves. Similar is (Psalms 126:6) “bearing (אלומותיו) its sheaves”. Similarly in Mishnaic Hebrew we have (Bava Metzia 22b) “and he takes (האלומות) the sheaves and makes public proclamation”.

MY SHEAF AROSE, AND ALSO PLACED ITSELF UPRIGHT, AND, BEHOLD, YOUR SHEAVES SURROUNDED. The purport of the dream concerning the sheaves is that Joseph was shown that through the sheaves and the produce they will prostrate themselves to him. The matter of “surrounding” — [your sheaves surrounded] — is to indicate that they will surround him as they do a king arrayed for battle, around whom his subjects encamp.

והנה אנחנו מאלמים אלומים, "Here we were tying sheaves, etc." Why is the word והנה repeated three times in this verse? You should appreciate that if a dream is to be perceived as a prophetic vision, it is essential that it be as clear and distinct as bright daylight. The person dreaming it should have the feeling that he actually experiences what he sees in the dream as if it were reality. When these conditions are met, he may consider the dream as a prophetic revelation. Dreams that young people dream are often blurred or contain unlikely and exaggerated occurrences. When Joseph told his dream to the brothers he repeated the word והנה three times to demonstrate that each part of the dream had been crystal clear, and that at the time he had thought that the events shown him in the dream were actually happening. This is why he thought that the dream foretold the future in some way.

וגם נצבה, this conveyed to him the impression that his authority would extend over a considerable length of time. In fact, it proved to be so as he ruled for 80 years. There is no record of any ruler mentioned in the Bible as having ruled equally long or longer than Joseph.

ותשתחוין לאלומתי, “they prostrated themselves before my sheaf.” Joseph did not say that these other sheaves prostrated themselves before him, but before his sheaf. (as opposed to his second dream). In that dream he could not have phrased it differently, saying that sun and moon bowed to “my” star, as how would he know that a particular star was his. The interpretation of this first dream is that seeing Joseph provided the grain to the brothers and all other travelers to Egypt during those years, it was as if they prostrated themselves before him. The fact that in his dream the sheaves arranged themselves around his sheaf, conveyed to the brothers that Joseph saw himself as the central figure in all this.

והנה אנחנו מאלמים אלומים וגו, “and here we were binding sheaves, etc.” They realised in their wisdom that the meaning of the dream was that the sheaves bowing to Joseph’s sheaf meant that he viewed himself as enjoying Royal authority. over them. This feeling of theirs was reinforced by his use of the words נצבה, an expression which is associated with Royalty such as in Kings I 22,48 נצב המלך, ”he acted as king.” It was because they were aware of this interpretation of his dream that they said to Joseph sarcastically: “are you planning to rule over us as a king?” What the brothers were not aware of was the fact that Joseph’s eventual appointment as king would be triggered by the subject of corn harvests (i.e. his prediction of abundance of such harvests and subsequent failure of such harvests).
Seeing that they hated Joseph already it is quite understandable that they interpreted his nocturnal dreams as boding no good for them instead of seeing the positive element that might be presaged by such dreams. Actually, even their interpretation of Joseph’s dreams was inspired by G’d who caused them to verbalise such thoughts. This is reminiscent of something we read in connection with Gideon (Judges 7,10) to whom G’d had said that in preparation for his battle against the Midianites and in order to reassure him, he should go down amongst the camp of the Midianites and listen to what they had to say. Gideon did so and overheard a Midianite soldier tell his companion that he had dreamt that there was a commotion; a loaf of barley bread was whirling through the Midianite camp. It came to a tent, struck it, and the tent collapsed and turned upside down and collapsed. To this his companion responded: “this can only mean the sword of the Israelite Gideon son of Yoash. G’d is delivering Midian and the entire camp into his hands.” When Gideon heard the dream told and interpreted, he bowed low. (to G’d in gratitude) This was another instance when G’d inspired someone to interpret and verbalise a dream which subsequently came true. This may be the source of the Talmud saying in Berachot 58 that “all dreams are influenced by the interpretation which is being “given by the mouth,” [i.e. which has been verbalised. Ed.] Here too G’d placed the words in the mouths of the brothers so that eventually Joseph’s dreams would become true.

To stand steadfastly straight. Rashi is explaining the difference between קמה and נצבה, which seem repetitive because they mean the same. Therefore he explains that קמה means momentarily arising from a lying position, and וגם נצבה means staying that way, remaining steadfastly straight. (R. Meir Stern)

Drei Momente sind in dem Traume mit dem dreimal wiederholten "והנה" hervorgehoben. — בתוך השדה ist nicht soviel als: auf dem Felde, das würde בשדה heißen. Ebenso sind אלמים und אלמות wohl nicht dasselbe. Pea VI, 10 wird zwischen אגודים und אגודות unterschieden, und ist dort אלומה nach einer Auffassung: כריכות קטנות ועושין מג׳ או ד׳ עומר א׳. Es scheint, dass das Feld erst völlig geschnitten, sodann erst kleine Bündel, אלומות, gebunden wurden, die sodann zu großen Haufen, אלומים, in die Mitte des leergeschnittenen Ackers zusammengetragen wurden. Er erzählt demnach: Im Traume waren wir gar nicht so geschieden, waren vereinigt bei der Arbeit und wollten größere Haufen in die Mitte des Feldes aus den kleineren zusammentragen. Auch ich war also bereit, meine kleine Garbe zu dem größeren Gesamthaufen hinzutragen; aber die Garbe wollte nicht, stellte sich und blieb stehen, wollte sich nicht zu dem Gesamthaufen in die Mitte tragen lassen. Und nun noch gar traten eure Garben um die meinige herum, und bückten sich vor meiner Garbe! Da lag einmal der vollständige Ausdruck einer isolierten, die andern überragenden, ja sie um sich unterwürfig konzentrierenden Stellung vor, und zwar wider seinen Willen: er war ganz bereit, seinen kleinen Beitrag zu dem Ganzen zu bringen und darin wie die andern aufgehen zu lassen.

והנה אנחנו מאלמים אלומים, “and here we were busy binding sheaves;” when Joseph rose to greatness, the Torah uses a similar expression when describing him as ויצבר יוסף בר, “Joseph bundled together (piled up) corn.” (Genesis 41,49.)

מאלמים אלימים, “binding sheaves;” this paralleled the manner in which Joseph later on rose to greatness, by piling up corn in anticipation of a famine from which his foresight and providence would save the Egyptian nation and surrounding countries. Compare 41,49: ויצבור יוסף בר, “Joseph heaped up and stored grain;”

קמה אלמתי means it raised itself erect.

In the dream G'd showed him the bundles. These bundles represented bundles of מצות which all of the brothers would perform jointly; his own bundle stood more upright than the others as an allusion to his experience with the wife of Potiphar whose advances he had to resist. The fact that his bundle remained standing upright indicated that he would become a ruler in Egypt. All the bundles of the brothers would be relatively downgraded before the merit of Joseph because in the final analysis he provided for all of them and kept them alive during the famine. Joseph hoped that by foretelling them about this their attitude towards him would change for the better.

Eigentümlich ist es ferner, dass ihm im Traume das Bild von Garbenbinden vorkommt; damit waren sie ja sonst in keiner Weise beschäftigt, sie waren ja Hirten. Ein ackerbautreibendes Volk zu werden, lag ja erst in der Bestimmung ihrer Zukunft. Lagen daher seinem Gemüte Vorstellungen des Ackerbaues so nahe, dass er sich im Traume damit beschäftigte, so konnte dies nur aus Belehrung und Mitteilung seines Vaters Israel über die zu erwartende nationale Bestimmung seines Hauses herrühren. Umsomehr durften die Brüder sich zu der Äußerung berechtigt glauben: Willst du wohl einmal König über uns werden, oder vielleicht gar schon jetzt über uns herrschen? So etwas sollte dir nicht einmal im Traume vorkommen können! Sie hassten ihn daher nur noch mehr, sowohl über den Inhalt seiner Träume als über seine Keckheit — wie sie es auffassten — ihnen solches mitzuteilen.

ותשתחוין לאלומתי, “and you were all prostrating yourselves before my sheaf;” this was a sign that the world would look expectantly to Joseph’s harvest, seeing that he was the sole distributor of grain in all of Egypt to all the people.

וגם נצבה means remaining erect in its place.

ועל דבריו AND FOR HIS WORDS — for the evil report about them which he used to bring to their father.

SHALT THOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? OR SHALT THOU INDEED HAVE DOMINION OVER US? Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained: “Shall we voluntarily make you king over us, or will you rule over us by force?” The opinion of Onkelos appears to be more correct.⁴³Since the authority of a king is essentially the same whether he rules by consent or force, Scripture should not change the expression from malach (reign) to mashal (dominion) if the explanation of Ibn Ezra is correct. Hence Ramban prefers Onkelos’ explanation which follows. He rendered it: “Shall you be king over us or some authority ruling us?” For people prostrate themselves before both. The verse thus means, “You will never be king or any kind of authority over us.”
The meaning of the expression, And they continued to hate him still more for his dreams, and for his words, is that they hated him for the dreams and for relating the dreams to them in a boastful manner, even as it says, Hear, I pray you, this dream which I have dreamed.⁴⁴Verse 6 here.

ועל דבריו, the badmouthing. [how did the brothers find out about this? Ed.]

חלומותיו, because of his dreams. The details he told them proved to the brothers that Joseph was hoping that his dreams would be realised.

ויאמרו לו אחיו, His brothers said to him, etc. We need to understand why both the word מלך and the word משל are repeated here. This dream could have been interpreted in two ways. 1) It could presage that Joseph would become an actual physical ruler i.e. מלך; 2) it could presage merely ממשלה. The interpretation that Joseph would become an actual ruler was an interpretation that allowed for some doubt, whereas the interpretation that he would become a משל, a highly placed administrator, seemed absolutely certain. This is why they answered him in accordance with either of these possibilities. Concerning the possibility of his becoming an actual ruler they asked: המלך תמלך עלינו? "Are you really considering the possibility of becoming king over us?" Concerning the definite prediction that he would become a highly placed administrator, they asked אם משל תמשל בנו, "are you going to be administrator over us? Onkelos has referred to this distinction when he rendered the first המלך as את מדמי "do you imagine, etc?" whereas he renders the word אם משל as את סביר, do you think, etc?" The brothers repeated the words because they were amazed at two aspects of the interpretation. 1) Do you think you will become king at all? 2) Do you think your authority as king will also extend over us? The reason for their incredulity was the fact that they had a tradition that Yehudah would become king over all of them. How could Joseph's vision uproot such a tradition?

ויאמרו לו אחיו, are you planning to lord it over us? If you have dreams of this kind, this only reflects dreams of power you entertain during the day.

ויוסיפו עוד שנוא אותו על חלומותיו ועל דבריו. “They continued to hate him still more on account of his words and his dreams.” The verse explains that their hatred was fanned by two separate causes. First they hated him for having dreamt the kind of dream that he did dream. In addition they hated him for telling them of his dream and bragging about it. It was like a sinful nation who is reprimanded but believes itself righteous expecting favours from G’d instead (Isaiah 58,2).

Will you be a king … will you rule. They noted a contradiction in his dream — his sheaf arising on its own indicated that he would rule by force, but the surrounding of his sheaf by theirs indicated that they would crown him king voluntarily.

על חלומותיו, “on account of his dreams.” If you were to ask that thus far Joseph has been reported as telling his brothers the content of only a single dream, so why does the Torah speak of “dreams” in the plural mode? We must answer that the Torah already referred also to events in the future. Alternately, Joseph had been in the habit of telling his brothers about his dreams, but it was only the ones in which he appeared as placing himself above his brothers that they hated him for.

ועל דבריו, and on account of his having insisted that they listen to the details of what he had dreamt.

על חלומותיו, the plural “dreams,” seeing that only one dream had been reported in detail, suggests there had been at least one more dream of which the Torah did not tell us its content. The other dream may not have directly aroused an intensification of the brothers’ hatred, or, the plural includes already the dream to come that has not been spelled out as yet. The Torah spelled out only two dreams as they were the ones fuelling the brothers’ jealousy of Joseph.

Another reason these words are repeated is that they accused Joseph of dreaming at night what he had been day-dreaming about by day. They said: "It is only because you have a desire to rule over us that you are able to have such dreams even at night!" This would correspond to Daniel 2,29: רעיוניך על משכבך סלקו "your thoughts (of the day) returned to you while you were on your bed (at night)."

ועל דבריו, and on account of his overbearing manner, and the fact that he spread slanderous remarks about them.

ויוסיפו עוד שנוא אוחו, They hated him even more, etc. Since we explained that the dream under discussion is only one, we need to understand why the Torah mentions that the reason the brothers hated Joseph even more was because of "his dreams" (pl). This is accounted for by the various details in the dream. Each time Joseph had said והנה, the brothers understood this as a separate dream.

ועל דבריו. and because of his talk. Because he told them the contents of his dream. It was bad enough that he had such dreams; talking about them made it even worse.

Another reason maybe the one we already mentioned. The brothers felt that Joseph's dreams reflected his aspirations during daytime.

It is also possible that the meaning of the expression ועל דבריו is that whereas he spoke to them as if he were soliciting their friendship and brotherliness, in his heart he strove all the time to become a ruler over them.

ויחלום, in this dream the meaning is crystal clear. Sun and moon refer to Joseph’s parents, whereas the stars refer to his brothers, seeing there were 11 stars in the dream and Joseph had eleven brothers. All the dreams the content of which the Torah described are to be understood as posing a riddle, a challenge to translate the symbols described in the respective dreams into the matching reality in the “real” world. This is true not only of Joseph’s dreams, but equally of the dreams of the cup-bearer and of the Chief of the bakers whom Joseph met in jail. Also Pharaoh’s dream as related in the Torah, and the dream of Nevuchadnezzar as described in the Book of Daniel follow the same pattern. All of them became reality in accordance with the manner in which they had been interpreted.

ויחלום עוד חלום אחר, “He dreamt yet another dream.” The reason why G’d did not fulfill the events foreshadowed in the dream promptly, as He did with the events foreshadowed in Pharaoh’s dream in chapter 41, may have been that Pharaoh had dreamt both dreams in a single night, whereas Joseph had his dreams on different nights.

'והנה השמש והירח וגו, “and behold, the sun and the moon, etc.” we read in B’reshit Rabbah 84,11, that when Joshua commanded the sun to stand still in Joshua 10,12, the sun refused to accept his command until he added: “did you not bow down to my forefather already?” (Joshua was descended from Ephrayim, son of Joseph) Upon hearing this, the sun complied with Joshua’s command.

ויספר אל אביו ואל אחיו AND HE TOLD IT TO HIS FATHER AND TO HIS BRETHREN — After he had related it to his brothers (see 5:9) he again related it to his father in their presence.

AND HE RELATED IT TO HIS FATHER. He told his father of this dream concerning the sun, moon and stars, but not of the first one concerning the sheaves because he himself recognized its interpretation and knew that the sun alluded to his father, and his father rebuked him.⁴⁵Ramban’s intent is to say that the father’s rebuke is proof that he knew that Joseph understood the meaning of the dream.
The meaning of the expression, And he related it to his father and to his brothers, is that he related it to them a second time,⁴⁶Since it is already stated in Verse 9 that he related this dream concerning the sun, moon and stars to his brothers, it must mean here in Verse 10 that he related it to them a second time. as he told it to his father in their presence, and his father rebuked him in order to dissipate their anger towards him.
The meaning of the expression, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? is the same as, What is man that Thou shouldst take cognizance of him?⁴⁷Psalms 144:3. That is to say, “What is this dream? It is nothing that you should relate for it is nothing but idle talk.” Alternatively, the meaning of the rebuke may be: “How dare you dream such a dream? It is but your conceit and youth that bring up such matters in your heart,” just as it says concerning dreams, Thy thoughts came upon thy bed;⁴⁸Daniel 2:29. Here understood literally: “The thoughts you entertained during the day came with you to bed, and you dreamed about them.” And imaginings upon my bed.⁴⁹Ibid., 4:2. Understood in the same sense as above.

מה החלום הזה?, even if Joseph’s mother had still been alive, Yaakov would still have rebuked Joseph for having such a dream.

מה החלום הזה?, this is only a reflection of unworthy thoughts. It shows us that you plan to rule over us. Your nocturnal dreams reflect your thinking when you are awake.

ויגער בו אביו, His father rebuked him, etc. He did so in order to remove the brothers' hatred towards him. He contradicted the interpretation of the dream by questioning how his father and mother could possibly bow down to Joseph? He implied that the sons of Jacob would not attain greatness through the Gentiles rather than through their father. Since the idea that his father would bow down to him was ludicrous, the brothers had no cause to worry. Jacob personally did not discount the dream, however.

ויספר אל אביו, the reason why he told only this dream to his father was because his father appeared in that dream, whereas neither his father nor his mother had been featured in his other dreams.

ויספר אל אביו, “he told his father, etc.” He had not told his father about his first dream, seeing that he was certain that he understood the meaning of his dream. Seeing that the subject of his second dream concerned his father, he told him about it.

ויגער בו אביו, “his father rebuked him;” Yaakov wanted to nullify the meaning of the dream in the presence of Joseph’s brothers; this is why he demonstrated anger in order to divert their anger from him and said:

After he had told it to his brothers he retold it to his father in their presence. You might ask: Why did Yoseif not tell the first dream to his father? The answer is: Yoseif knew that most dreams follow their verbal interpretation, and his brothers interpreted it for the good, so he did not want to tell it to his father. But his brothers did not interpret his second dream for him, as they realized he was telling them his dreams so they will make a good interpretation. Thus he had to tell it to his father so he will interpret it for him. His father did so, and rebuked him so that his brothers would not hate him. (Maharshal)

Die Brüder hatten diesen Traum zuerst gar nicht auf sich bezogen. Als sie aber den Vater ihn so deuten hörten, fingen sie auch an, daran zu glauben und beneideten ihn um die ihm bevorstehende Zukunft.

ויגער בו אביו, “his father rebuked him;” in spite of his father’s obvious displeasure, he carefully retained this dream in his memory, awaiting future developments if any. He displayed anger only in order to minimise the jealousy of Joseph by his brothers [and because of his arrogance in telling about such dreams. Ed.]

ויגער בו AND HIS FATHER REBUKED HIM because he was arousing hatred against himself by relating the dream.

SHALL I AND THY MOTHER AND THY BRETHREN INDEED COME TO PROSTRATE OURSELVES TO THEE TO THE EARTH? “Is not your mother long since dead?” Jacob, however, was not aware that the matter alluded to Bilhah who had raised him as if she were his mother. From here, our Rabbis derived the principle that there is no dream that does not contain invalid matters. Jacob’s intention in pointing out the invalidity of the dream was to cause his sons to forget the matter so that they should not be envious of him because of it. Jacob said to Joseph: “Just as it is impossible for the dream to be fulfilled with respect to your mother, so is the remainder invalid.” Thus the language of Rashi.
In my opinion, at the time when Jacob went down to Egypt, Bilhah and Zilpah had already died⁵⁰See Ramban 46:15. since, in enumerating the seventy souls that went down to Egypt, Scripture states, Besides Jacob’s sons’ wives,⁵¹Further, 46:26. and it does not say “besides Jacob’s wives and his sons’ wives.”⁵²Thus, there is proof that Bilhah had already died at the time Jacob went down to Egypt. So how then could Rashi say that the mother in the dream, symbolized by the moon, who was to bow before Joseph in Egypt, referred to Bilhah? And if you say that because they were concubines Scripture does not want to say “besides Jacob’s sons’ wives and his concubines,” yet we find that they are referred to as his father’s wives.⁵³Above, Verse 2. Why then does Scripture not say “besides Jacob’s wives and his sons’ wives?” Thus it is clear that they had already died. Besides, it is unlikely that “the moon” in the dream alludes to his concubine. Instead, my opinion concerning the matter of the dream is that the sun is an allusion to Jacob, and the moon alludes to the children of his household and all his wives, which comprised Jacob’s seed. Thus, the moon alludes to the fact that all his seed will prostrate themselves to Joseph, these being all the seventy souls that issued from his loins, since they all prostrated themselves when they came before him. The eleven stars represent the brothers who bowed down before him separately,⁵⁴This explains why the brothers are singled out from all of Jacob’s seed, alluded to by the moon. before their father arrived, as it is written, And when Joseph came into the house, they brought him the present which was in their hand into the house, and prostrated themselves to him to the earth.⁵⁵Further, 43:26.

אני ואמך, I and your mother? Just as the dream could not possibly relate to your mother who has died already, so it cannot very well relate to me either. Therefore, you would do well to dismiss this dream entirely. Our sages, on the other hand, learn from this dream that every dream no matter how accurately it foreshadows an event in the future, contains some element which is not going to come true. (Berachot 55)

ואל אחיו, “and to his brothers.” After he had told this dream to his father, he told it to his brothers in the presence of his father. His father rebuked him [not because of its content, Ed.] but in order to deflect his brothers’ fury from him. Some commentators ask that seeing all dreams supposedly are influenced by the interpretation given to them, (Berachot 58) why was this dream fulfilled altogether, seeing that Yaakov had rejected the original interpretation as soon as he heard the dream in front of the brothers? They give a very forced answer, saying that seeing Joseph had already told the dream to his father previously, and at that time his father had not disagreed with the apparent interpretation, it was now too late to do anything about it. Personally, I do not think that the question has any merit at all. Rather, on the contrary, the reason that fulfillment was so long delayed was because Yaakov had protested the obvious interpretation. This is further proof that the sages were correct in saying that the results of the dreams are greatly influenced by who interprets them and how. [The Talmud, on the folio quoted, illustrates the point with numerous examples. Ed.] His father’s objection to the obvious interpretation of his dream resulted in it coming true so many years later.

הבא נבא אני ואמך ואחיך, “do you really expect me and your brothers to come and bow down before you?” Seeing that Joseph’s mother was already dead, Yaakov wanted to demonstrate that the other parts of the dream could also not be taken seriously. Nonetheless, Yaakov took the dream far more seriously than he let on and that is why the Torah added: “his father kept careful track of the matter.” He knew that the dream was very significant and awaited its realisation at a future date. According to Bereshit Rabbah 84,12 the Holy Spirit told Yaakov to remember the matter, i.e. as if the Torah had written שמור את הדבר, “remember the matter well!”

Because he was bringing hatred upon himself. I.e., Yoseif was bringing hatred upon himself. That is why Yaakov rebuked him — not because Yaakov did not want the dream to come true. For it is written in the next verse, “His father kept the matter in mind.” [See Rashi there.]

הבוא נבוא SHALL WE INDEED COME — “Is not your mother long since dead?” He did not, however, understand that the statement really alluded to Bilhah who had brought him up as though she were his own mother (Genesis Rabbah 84:11). Our Rabbis inferred from here that there is no dream but has some absurd incidents (Berakhot 55). Jacob’s intention in pointing out the absurdity of Joseph’s mother, who was dead, bowing down to him was to make his sons forget the whole matter so that they should not envy him, and on this account he said to him, “Shall we indeed come etc.” — meaning, just as it (the fulfillment of the dream) is impossible in the case of your mother so the remainder of the dream is absurd.

הבא נבא אני ואמך, “are indeed I, your mother etc., going to come and bow down, etc.?” How could this be seeing that your mother has died already? Yaakov was not aware that the moon in Joseph’s dream portrayed Bilhah who had raised Joseph as his foster mother. This is Rashi’s interpretation of our verse. Nachmanides writes that in his opinion Bilhah had died before Yaakov moved to Egypt so that she had no opportunity to prostrate herself before her stepson. The Torah, when listing the names of who went down to Egypt, speaks of 70 souls, not including the wives of Yaakov’s sons. We are therefore forced to conclude that had Zilpah and Bilhah been alive still at that time, they would have been mentioned by name. If the Torah at that juncture (46,26) did not want to refer to them as “the wives of Yaakov,” seeing they were his concubines, this is no argument at all, seeing that we read the words נשי אביו, (37,2) and those words clearly refer to Bilhah and Zilpah. We must assume that the sun in the dream refers indeed to Yaakov, and the moon to the members of his household, including all his wives and their children, a total of 70. The eleven stars refer to Joseph’s eleven brothers bowing down to Joseph on their second trip to Egypt, before they had decided to immigrate to Egypt.

But he did not know that these things were referring to Bilhah who had raised him like his mother. You might ask: How does Rashi know that Yaakov did not know this? Perhaps Yaakov knew, but he questioned [the dream] for the reason Rashi had given before: that Yoseif should not bring hatred onto himself. Re’m asks [the question this way]: Regarding the explanation of “These things were referring to Bilhah,” Rashi says that Yaakov did not know. But had he known, he would not have said, “Has your mother not already died?” lest his sons realize [that his comment was just a trick]. Yet, regarding the explanation of “No dream is without meaningless things,” why did Yaakov not fear that his sons, too, might know this rule and thus say that his comment was just a trick? Maharshal answers: [In the first explanation,] had Yaakov known that these things were referring to Bilhah, his sons surely would have known too, because this is a matter grasped through reasoning. Saying, “Shall I, your mother and your brothers come...” would not make them ignore the matter. But [in the second explanation,] it then says, “His father kept the matter in mind,” because Yaakov had an oral tradition that no dream is without meaningless things. His sons however, did not know this tradition.

However, our Sages learned from here that no dream is without meaningless things... Rashi is explaining why Yaakov questioned [the dream] and said, “Shall I, your mother and your brothers come...” Did he not know that no dream is without meaningless things? Perforce, [he said it] “To make his sons ignore...”

But Yaakov intended to make his sons ignore... I.e., our Sages hold that “your mother” must mean Yoseif’s true mother. However, “No dream is without meaningless things.”

שמר את הדבר OBSERVED THE MATTER — He awaited and looked forward to the time when this would come to pass. In the same sense we have (Isaiah 26:2) “that watch (שומר) for faithfulness” (i.e., for the performance of a promise) and (Job 14:16) — “לא תשמור for my sin” — which means “thou dost not wait for my sin”.

ואביו שמר את הדבר. Why did the Torah bother to write this line? The reason is that when the brothers returned from Egypt and reported about Joseph’s position there, and Yaakov did not believe them that Joseph was still alive, he saw the carriages which Pharaoh had sent to transport him in (45,27) and realised that such an honour could only be bestowed by a king, and that seeing that the King of Egypt had no reason to honour him in such a manner, the carriages, though sent with the approval of Pharaoh, must have been sent by someone in an almost equally high position, i.e. his son Joseph, who had dreamed of attaining such stature. It was the recollection of the dream Joseph had told him about which then prompted Yaakov to exclaim רב,עוד יוסף בני חי, וכי הוא מושל בכל בארץ מצרים, “it is too much! Not only is my son Joseph still alive, but he is the ruler of the whole land of Egypt!” (45,28 combined with 26)

ויקנאו בו אחיו, they attributed such aspirations by Joseph to the fact that their father had appointed them as senior to them, otherwise he would not have dared tell such dreams even in his father’s presence.

ויקנאו בו אחיו, His brothers were jealous of him. When the brothers had heard this second dream they backtracked from accusing Joseph of wanting to be a ruler over all of them; they agreed that Joseph could not have aspired to rule over his own father. The very fact that he had such a dream, however, indicated that he had received a message from heaven. They were jealous of Joseph having received that communication.

הדבר, even though Yaakov had been angry at Joseph he was worried about what the dream might forecast and he remembered it.

ויקנאו בו אחיו, “his brothers were jealous of him.” It is well known that in most instances hatred is the result of jealousy; the hatred which the Torah had spoken of earlier in verse four had been due to the brothers’ awareness that their father Yaakov loved Joseph more than he loved them, as the Torah has spelled out there. Why then did the Torah have to repeat here that the brothers were jealous of Joseph? It is possible that the correct explanation of the original hatred of the brothers towards Joseph was not due to the preferred status Joseph enjoyed in the eyes of their father due to his excelling in virtues, but was due merely to their father showing him more love. There was actually no reason to be envious of a young boy of seventeen years of age who had not demonstrated any qualities superior to those of his brothers. One usually envies one’s peers or one’s superiors. One is not given to envy inferiors. Now, after having heard repeatedly the kind of dreams their brother had experienced, his older brothers realised that there might be more to Joseph than they had thought before. Therefore they now envied him his dreams and hated him because of them. The Torah therefore told us of this additional dimension of the brothers’ jealousy of Joseph. This idea is best illustrated by the change of preposition the Torah chose to describe their new jealousy. In our verse the Torah chose the preposition בו as distinct from the preposition את or אותו which was used to describe their hatred of him, or the verse in Genesis 26,14 where the Philistines’ jealousy of Yitzchak is described as ויקנאו אותו פלשתים.

(11-12) Nach dem Vorgange Sipornos, eines unserer denkendsten Kommentatoren, halten wir uns verpflichtet, uns hinsichtlich des nun folgenden Vorganges, wenngleich nicht nach einer Rechtfertigung, so doch nach einer Erklärung umzusehen. Wir haben es doch nicht mit einer Rotte Räuber und Mörder zu tun, denen es ein Leichtes wird, um eines Rockes willen Mord und Totschlag zu begehen. Macht ja Siporno mit Recht darauf aufmerksam, wie später, als den Brüdern in äußerster Not das Gewissen schlug, sie (Kap.42, 21] sich keineswegs über ein an Josef verübtes Verbrechen, sondern nur über ihre Härte Vorwürfe machten, dass sie seinem Flehen haben widerstehen können. Sie müssen also die Tat an sich für hart, aber nicht für Unrecht gehalten haben. Wir müssen daher ein Auge auch für die leisesten Andeutungen haben, die uns alles dies psychologisch erklärlich machen dürften.

ואביו שמר, he remembered it because he thought that the dream reflected what would in fact occur. In fact, his father was looking forward to the fulfillment of Joseph’s dream. This reflects the statement in the Talmud Sanhedrin 105 that a person may be jealous of everyone except his students and his children.

Das Missverhältnis, wird uns gesagt, hatte mit קנאה begonnen; es war darauf שנאה hinzugekommen, sie hassten ihn, weil sie aus seinen Träumen seine Gedanken und Pläne zu erkennen glaubten, sie fürchteten ihn jedoch nicht, weil sie nicht an deren Verwirklichung glaubten. Als sie nun aber seinen letzten Traum hörten — der ihm ja eine höchste Majestät auf Erden und nicht bloß einen Herrscherrang im Familienkreise verhieß — und sahen, wie der Vater dies auffasste, es nicht als bloßen Traum ansah, sondern nachdenkend darüber wurde, an eine Möglichkeit der Erfüllung dachte: da fing in der שנאה zugleich wieder קנאה an wach zu werden (— ׳קנא ב heißt buchstäblich: seine berechtigten Ansprüche durch jemanden gefährdet glauben —) und da heißt es denn unmittelbar darauf: וילכו אחיו und zwar bedeutsam durch Ethnach getrennt, also: sie gingen fort! Es war in sie tief das Bewusstsein gedrungen, dass ihnen durch Josef eine Beeinträchtigung ihrer Rechte drohe, darum gingen sie fort. Und zwar entfernten sie sich sehr weit. שכם ist von הברון zehn bis zwölf deutsche Meilen entfernt. Dazu ist das את in לרעות את צאן punktiert, nach מדרש רבות, anzudeuten: nur ostensibel die Schafe, in Wahrheit "sich zu weiden"; wollten die Selbständigkeit bewahren, die sie durch Jakobs Meinung über die künftige Stellung Josefs beeinträchtigt glaubten. Eigentümlich ist es, dass sie gerade nach Sichem gingen. שכם war ja die Stätte, wo sich das Gefühl ihrer Zusammengehörigkeit zu allererst so energisch betätigt hatte, dort hatten Simon und Levi das denkwürdige: הכזונה יעשה את אחתנו?! gesprochen. Steht nun die ganze Familie als ein Mann nach außen, wenn ein Glied bedroht wird, um wie viel mehr hält sie zusammen, wenn im innern von einem Gliede Ehre und Selbständigkeit bedroht wird — so durften sie denken, und deshalb nach שכם gezogen sein, dort, auf der Stätte brüderlicher Großtat, die ihnen wieder notwendig scheinenden Entschlüsse zu nähren. Und wirklich war ihre Zukunft bedroht, wenn Josefs Stellung eine solche hätte werden sollen, wie sie ihnen vorschwebte. War es ja noch gar nicht so lange her, seildem mit Nimrod das Königtum begonnen. Waren ja ihre Vettern in Sei׳r-Edom bereits unter Aluphim und Königen geknechtet. Im Gegensatz zu diesem, die Menschen zu Ziegelsteinen für den Bau des Ehrgeizes eines einzelnen herabwürdigenden Königtum sollte ja eben die Abrahamsfamilie einen Menschenverein verwirklichen, in welchem auf dem Boden der Freiheit und Gleichheit der Menschenadel und die Menschenwürde zur Geltung kommen, und die gemeinsame Aufgabe לשמר דרך ד׳ לעשות צדקה ומשפט als der ausgesprochene Wille Gottes allein die über alle gleich gebietende Herrschaft haben sollte —: wo bliebe ihre und der Menschheit Zukunft, wenn auch sie sich in die Fesseln des Ehrgeizes eines einzelnen schlagen ließen?? — Merkwürdig, als später, nach Salomos Tode, das Volk dem Rehabeam erst Bedingungen setzen und seine Selbständigkeit durch eine Kapitulation wahren wollte, versammelte es sich wiederum nach Sichem, dort gegen ein seine Macht misbrauchendes Königtum im Gefühle der Zusammengehörigkeit und Gleichheit vor Gott Opposition zu erheben. Es scheint hier ein kleines, ähnliches Vorspiel.

לרעות את צאן TO FEED THE FLOCK — The word את has dots above it, to denote that they went only to feed themselves (Genesis Rabbah 84:13).

וילכו אחיו לרעות צאן, there are dots above the letters of the word את. The sages in Bereshit Rabbah 84,13 suggest that the Torah meant that the brothers were tending themselves, i.e. they distanced themselves from their father in order to escape supervision and to follow their personal inclinations in matters of food and drink and to do in Shechem whatever they felt like doing. They were not afraid at all of the inhabitants of that city whose male population they had killed only a year or two earlier. They had complete confidence in G’d‘s protection. The Canaanite population in the region lived in awe of the sons of Yaakov. They had been afraid of them already at the time when they executed the male population of Schechem for being accessories to the rape of Dinah.

There are dots on the word את indicating that they went only to “pasture” themselves. Rashi means that if there were no dots on את, it would be connected to צאן, and mean “to pasture the sheep.” But now that it has dots, it is as if the את was not written at all. Consequently, לרעות is not connected to the next word, and means: “They went to pasture.” I.e., to pasture themselves. And צאן אביהם בשכם is a separate statement. But if את was completely omitted from the verse, it would not prove the point. Surely we could still say it means “to pasture themselves,” but it would be more logical to say that the words are connected, and form one statement. Thus, although the את would be omitted, we would say it is an abbreviated verse. But now that את is written, and it has dots, it is considered as erased. This indicates that the words are not connected; they are rather two statements. Otherwise, why does it have dots?

לרעות את אחיו את צאן אביהם, “to assist his brothers in tending the flocks of their father.” The reason that there are two dots over the word את in this verse is that the brothers had not gone to the neighbourhood of Sh’chem in order to look after their father’s flocks, but only to look after their own, and to put more mileage between themselves and Joseph. In other words, that word may be considered as if erased. They had not gone to also tend their father’s flocks. We find a similar construction in Michah 7,14: ירעו בשן וגלעד, “the ones which graze in Bashan and Gilead,” where we would have expected the prophet to say: ירעו את בשן ואת גלעד, “They will graze both in Bashan and in Gilead,” [the prophet continues with the words: “as in the olden days,” (when things were better). If you were to interpret the word את in our verse to mean that the brothers had gone to let the flocks graze in a place where there was ample virgin (not privately owned grazing land), or that it means to let their own as well as their fathers’ flocks graze there, there is no possible reason to omit the word את, as we always find it in connection with sheep or cattle grazing.

הנני HERE AM I — An expression denoting humility and readiness: he was zealous to perform his father’s bidding, although he was aware that his brothers hated him (Genesis Rabbah 84:13).

הלא אחיך רועים בשכם, the wording reflects Yaakov's surprise that Joseph’s brothers chose to tend their sheep in a dangerous location such as Shechem where they had killed the local inhabitants not so long ago. (this is what I heard from Rabbi Yoseph Karo our colleague. I enjoyed his interpretation greatly. [this was not original as it is found in Targum Yerushalmi. David Rosin, Ed.]

הלא אחיך רועים בשכם?, Yaakov implied that it was not very far from their home to Shechem. [this seems a bit strange as it is about 100km by air, surely quite a distance for an unaccompanied young man of 17 to travel all by himself. Ed.]

לכה ואשלחך אליהם, "come let me send you to them;" The word לכה implied that Joseph should go visit his brothers. In the event he had qualms, however, Jacob added that he would make him a שליח של מצוה, a messenger on a divine mission, i..e fulfilling the commandment of obeying his father. This would protect him against harm (compare Pessachim 8).

ויאמר...הלא אחיך, don’t you know that your brothers are in Shechem, tending flocks?

A term indicating humility and readiness. You might ask: Why did Rashi not give this explanation on (22:11) אברהם אברהם ויאמר הנני, and on (Shemos 3:4) משה משה ויאמר הנני? The answer is: Here, הנני cannot be a way of answering [when called], as Yaakov was already speaking with him. For it is written, “Yisrael said to Yoseif, ‘Are your brothers not pasturing...’”

Jakob fühlt den Bruch zwischen Josef und den Brüdern, will ihn sich nicht erweitern lassen und zugleich sein Brudergefühl auf die Probe stellen. Er gibt ihm zuerst keinen Auftrag; sagt vielmehr: es ist besser, dass ich dich zu ihrer Herde schicke, dass du bei ihnen seiest. Josef ist sofort bereit. Sein Gemüt ist ja rein. Sein Herz weiß ja nichts davon, Fürst oder Herrscher sein zu wollen.

?הלא אחיך רועים בשכם, “are your brothers not tending flocks in Sh’chem (a dangerous place?) Seeing that they had killed all the males of that town and looted it (Genesis 34,2529).[It occurs to this editor that the reason they had chosen to do so was to show their father that they were less worried about the local population than about Joseph lording it over them. Ed.]

הנני; he was not afraid of his brothers even though they hated him, for he thought that their awe of their father was greater than their desire to harm him. His father also did not think that the brothers posed a threat to his favourite son. Surely, if he had even entertained the slightest concern about the brothers harming Joseph, he would never have sent him on this mission. This entire matter was engineered by G’d Who knows the evil machinations of man in order that this would become the external cause of the patriarchs, i.e. their descendants to descend to Egypt and to fulfill the prophecy G’d had already told Avraham about in chapter 15.

מעמק חברון FROM THE VALE OF HEBRON — But was not Hebron situated on a hill, as it is said (Numbers 13:22) “And they went up into the South and they came unto Hebron” why then does it state that Jacob sent him from the עמק, (the vale, the deep part) of Hebron? But the meaning is that Jacob sent him in consequence of the necessity of bringing into operation the profound (עמוקה) thought of the righteous man who was buried in Hebron (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayera 22) — in order that there might be fulfilled that which was spoken to Abraham when the Covenant was made ‘between the parts” (cf. 15:13), “thy seed shall be a stranger etc.”

AND HE SENT HIM OUT OF THE VALLEY OF HEBRON. Scripture mentions the place from which Joseph was sent, in order to indicate that there was a great distance between father and son, and that this was the reason why the brothers did him evil: they were distant far from their father. It also serves to relate that Joseph, out of respect for his father, strengthened himself to go after them to a distant place, and he did not say, “How shall I go when they hate me?”. Our Rabbis yet have a Midrash concerning this matter, in which they say, “It was to fulfill the profound thought of the ‘seemly companion’⁵⁶Abraham. The Midrash thus explains the word Chevron (Hebron) as if it consisted of the two words: chever na’eh (seemly companion). Thus it refers to Abraham who walked before G-d (above 17:1). The Midrash is in Bereshith Rabbah 84:13. who was buried in Hebron.”⁵⁷Reference is to the covenant — which G-d made with Abraham — that his seed will be a stranger in a land that is not their own (above, 15:13). The idea expressed is that Jacob’s act of sending Joseph to his brethren was thus the beginning of a cycle of events which would fulfill the covenant made with Abraham.

ויבא שכמה, when he came to Shechem he did not find them there.

לך נא ראה, “please go and have a first hand look, etc.” Yaakov meant that Joseph should take care of any matters which in his opinion needed to be improved in the managing of the herds.

לך נא ראה, "Please go and have a look, etc." Now Jacob spelled out the details of the commandment Joseph was to fulfil including bringing back a report to his father. This would make him his father's messenger both on the outward journey and on the return journey. If the bringing back of the report became a separate commandment this would act as protection for Joseph even according to the view in the Talmud that such messengers are enjoying divine protection only until they reach their destination. Jacob made sure that Joseph had two destinations. Joseph could now rest assured that he would return safely.

ויאמר...ואת שלום הצאן, in Bereshit Rabbah 84,13 the instruction by Yaakov to Joseph that he was to enquire not only about their personal well being, but also about the well being of their property, their flocks, teaches us that one must always display concern not only for the health, etc., of people one meets but also about their economic well being.

וישלחהו מעמק חברון, “he sent him on his way after having accompanied him to the valley of Chevron.” Although, according to all our records, Chevron is situated on a mountain, as we know also from the route taken by the spies (Deuteronomy 1,24), his father accompanied him all the way down to the valley. Only after reaching the lowlands did Yaakov send Joseph alone on his fateful journey. The Torah makes a point of letting us know from where Joseph was sent on this mission (presumably on foot), so that we realize how far he had to travel, i.e. how much distance the brothers had put between themselves and their father. They had done so precisely to discourage their father from sending Joseph, assuming also that if their father would want to send him, he might demur, citing both the distance and the fact that the brothers hated him.

ויבא שכמה, “he came to Shechem.” a place destined for a variety of unhappy events (Tanchuma Vayeshev 2). In Shechem Dinah had been raped; In Shechem they sold Joseph. In Shechem the kingdom of David was divided and the ten tribes elected Jerobam as their king. (Kings I 12,1). After Jerobam had been elected king he built up that city (Kings I 12,25).

From the depths of Chevron. See Rashi. If Yaakov was concerned about the well being of ten grown men and their servants, how could he send the young Yoseif on his own to check up on them? Clearly this was the hand of Hashem.

But, is not Chevron on a mountain... Re’m writes: It seems that this verse was not [Chazal’s] proof that Chevron was on a mountain. Although it is written, “Went up,” this could be because Eretz Yisrael is higher than all the lands, as Rashi explains on, “Hurry, go up to my father” (45:9). Rather, Re’m explains, the proof is that Chevron was designated as a burial place. People designate only rocky areas for burial, as it says in Kesubos 112a, and rocky areas are on mountains. An alternate explanation: It is written, “They went up and scouted the land...” (Bamidbar 13:21), and then is written (v. 22), “They went up into the southern part, and came to Chevron.” Why is it written “they went up” twice? Scripture should simply have written, “They went up into the southern part, and scouted the land... and came to Chevron.” Perforce, “they went up” is repeated because it refers to Chevron, which is on a mountain. So it seems to me.

לך נא ראה את שלום אחיך, “please go and check whether everything is all right with your brothers!” Whenever the word נא appears in the Torah, it must be understood as a request rather than as an order. Yaakov told Joseph that although he hears every day reports about what the brothers were doing and where, it was no more than good manners that he, Joseph, should go and look them up, seeing that after all he was their brother.

ויבא שכמה AND HE CAME TO SHECHEM — A spot foredestined to be the scene of misfortunes: there the sons of Jacob sinned (by selling Joseph), there Dinah was maltreated, there the kingdom of the House of David was divided, as it said (1 Kings 12:1) “And Rehoboam went to Shechem etc.” (Sanhedrin 102a).

מעמק חברון, since when is Chevron in a valley? We always associate it with being located on a mountain! The Torah alludes to a profound understanding between G’d and Avraham who had been interred in Chevron. The Torah now alludes to the prediction by G’d to Avraham, that his descendants would for a long time be strangers in a land not theirs (Genesis 15,13)

A place with a predisposition to misfortunes... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise it should simply say, “And he came there,” since it is already written, “Pasturing in Shechem.” Perforce, [the name is repeated to imply,] “the notorious Shechem”. [Alternatively, Rashi knows this because] it should simply say, “He sent him from the depths of Chevron, and a man found him...” Perforce, [Shechem is mentioned to imply, “the notorious Shechem”]. (Maharshal)

Jacob believed that despite the fact that the brothers hated Joseph and it was therefore not unlikely that he would be in danger, the מצוה he performed by obeying his father would protect him. He based himself on the following discussion in Pesachim 8. We are taught in a Baraita: When there is a hole in a wall dividing the property of a Jew from that of a Gentile, one needs to search for possible chametz as far as one's arm can reach. Plymo says that one does not have to endanger oneself in order to locate such chametz. The Talmud counters that Rabbi Eleazar has said that when one is engaged in the performance of a מצוה one is not liable to suffer harm. So why should considerations of danger prevent someone from searching for chametz? The Talmud answers that the rule of Rabbi Eleazar holds true only where danger is not likely to be encountered. The other rabbis who disagree with Plymo hold that the two situations are not alike. When danger is apparent, such as certain hornets having their lairs inside the holes of a wall, one endangers one's life frivolously by putting in one's arm searching for chametz. When the danger consists of the Gentile possibly accusing the Jew of engaging in sorcery because he performs an act such as looking for chametz, something that seems non-sensical to the Gentile this is no reason to desist and to rely on miracles instead. The Talmud cites the incident of Samuel enquiring of G'd how he could endanger himself carying out his command to anoint David when there was a price on David's head? G'd told him to pretend to go to Hebron to slaughter an animal for G'd (Samuel I 16,2). Samuel was in very real danger, as the chances that king Saul would hear about his trip to Hebron were close to 100% and he would be very suspect. Such danger could not be compared with that of searching for chametz in a wall and the Gentile neighbour jumping to the wrong conclusion. Joseph's brothers had never been suspected of planning to actually harm him physically. Plymo might also not have considered Joseph's danger at the hands of his brothers as real enough for him not to rely on Rabbi Eleazar's dictum that the performance of the מצוה would act as his shield.

ואת שלום הצאן, “and check that everything is all right with the flocks.” From this we learn that should enquire if a person’s business is flourishing.

In view of the above you may well ask how it was that Joseph wound up being sold as a slave, etc.? The answer is that when Rabbi Eleazar said that שלוחי מצוה אינן ניזקין, people on a מצוה mission would not come to harm, he meant permanent harm. Joseph wound up as the ruler of Egypt as a result of having been sent to his brothers. The fact that he experienced degradation on the way was merely a preparation for his eventual elevation.

וישלחהו מעמק חברון, “he took leave of him in the valley below Chevron.” Seeing that Chevron is situated at the top of a mountain, we learn from here that Yaakov accompanied Joseph on the beginning of his journey, and that this is considered no more than good manners for anyone to copy. Our sages consider it as more than good manners, i.e. as a requirement. The subject of their conversation is supposed to have been the laws about how to deal with an anonymous corpse who had clearly been murdered, so that the people nearest to that location need not feel indirectly responsible (Deuteronomy chapter 21).

There is another aspect to all this. When Jacob despatched Joseph he was very careful to refer to the location where the brothers were supposed to be tending the sheep. He asked: "are not your brothers tending the flocks at Shechem?" He had therefore made it plain that Joseph was supposed to go to Shechem. When Joseph went to Shechem and failed to find the brothers his mission was completed. If he decided nonetheless to go to Dothan to locate them there he was no longer his father's messenger. This is why he was no longer protected by performing a commandment of his father. Jacob was convinced that no harm would befall Joseph at Shechem. Joseph thought that his father had mentioned Shechem only as a likely place where he would find his brothers but that his mission was not restricted to Shechem.

ויבא שכמה, He arrived at Shechem. The place to which his father had sent him; however, he did not find his brothers. He searched for them, something the Torah did not need to spell out as otherwise the first words in the next verse, i.e. "A man found him," would not make sense. By now Joseph was lost.

וימצאהו איש AND A MAN FOUND HIM — This was the angel Gabriel (Genesis Rabbah 84:14) as it is said, (Daniel 9:21) and the man (והאיש) Gabriel” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 2:3).

AND A MAN FOUND HIM, AND BEHOLD, HE WAS STRAYING IN THE FIELD. The verse is stating that Joseph was straying from the road, not knowing where to go, and he entered a field since he was looking for them in a place of pasture. Scripture mentions this at length in order to relate that many events befell him which could properly have caused him to return, but he endured everything patiently for the honor of his father. It also informs us that the Divine decree is true and man’s industry is worthless. The Holy One, blessed be He, sent him a guide without his knowledge in order to bring him into their hands. It is this that our Rabbis intended when they said⁵⁸Bereshith Rabbah 84:13. that these men⁵⁹And ‘a man’ found him … and ‘the man’ asked him … And ‘the man’ said … (Verses 15, 17). were angels, for these events did not occur without purpose, but rather to inform us that It is the counsel of the Eternal that shall stand.⁶⁰Proverbs 19:21.

'וימצאהו איש והנה תועה וגו, this paragraph has been written in order to demonstrate the reliability and eagerness of Joseph to comply with his father’s wishes; he did not use the fact that the brothers were no longer in Shechem as an excuse to abort his mission and to return home, but kept searching for them until, in the end, he located them. He remembered that part of his father’s instructions had been השיבני דבר, “bring me back a report!”

A man found him, and, see, he was lost in the field. This is Gabriel. From what is said, 'A man found him,' understand that this man had been seeking Joseph. He had been looking around for him, and he found him. But Joseph didn't find the man. The man intended to warn Joseph that he should be wary of his brothers. He saw that he was wandering in the field, mistaken in his opinion that he had gone towards peace, but there would be no peace for him and his brothers. Thus this must be an angel - he knew what was in Joseph's heart. If this is not the case, then how would he know who this other man was, or that he was walking this way in error. Maybe this is his path? Obviously Joseph must have been walking on some road or pathway!

תועה בשדה, walking in every direction to find where they were tending the flocks.

וימצאהו איש , after arriving in Shechem and not finding any trace of his brothers, Joseph went in all directions to see if he could find them, and in the process he lost his way.

My brothers. And from where would he know who he [Joseph] was and who his brothers were? And furthermore, what is this question "tell me please where they are pasturing"? From where would he know? Rather, [it must be] one of the two these possibilities: Either he was a well-known man to them in his importance, or, he recognized him as an angel or prophet that knew everything to do with his brothers. And in truth, the Torah should have said "and he [Joseph] found a man", for it was Joseph that was wandering alone searching and found the man, not the man who was walking on his way. Rather, the text comes to teach that the man was a messenger from Heaven, to encounter Joseph and bring him to such, and the man went and found him in that place.

והנה תועה בשדה, ”and here he was lost in the field.” He had departed from the road and entered a field, knowing that his brothers would choose the best looking pasture available.

This refers to Gavriel... Yoseif did not say to the man, “Do you know my brothers, and where they are pasturing?” Rather, he said [straight away], “Tell me please, where are they pasturing?” This shows it was an angel, [who assumedly knows]. And since Scripture refers to him as איש, this shows it was specifically Gavriel. [Furthermore,] if it was not an angel, why did the Torah recount the whole story of Yoseif going astray? What does it matter if he went straight there, or strayed? Perforce, it was an angel sent by Hashem to bring him to his brothers, in order to fulfill His decree. For Yoseif otherwise would have turned back from Shechem, as he could not find them. (Gur Aryeh)

וימצאהו איש והנה תעה בשדה, “a man found him while he was lost in the field;” this (the three letters in the word תעה) is where the Angel Gavriel gave Joseph a hint of three exiles the Jewish people would endure. ת=400 years of exile in Egypt; ע=70 years of exile in Babylon; ה=5, till the end of the exile commonly known as the Roman exile, till the coming of the Messiah. [The author attributes this to his father of blessed memory. Ed.] He adds that he had heard something along the same lines in the name of Rabbi Binyamin Gozel, but from Genesis 32,5, using the letters of word עתה as the hint.

Its midrashic interpretation is that he erred regarding the matter of the field, as is written of Cain and Abel. It would have been reasonable for Joseph to take to heart what had happened to Abel with Cain. Out of jealousy, Cain had killed his brother. Now Joseph thought: "Cain killed his brother ('when they were in the field') over a field. He said, 'This field that you are standing on belongs to me.' That is the reason for why he did what he did. However, why would my brothers kill me for nothing? Jealousy over a multicolored cloak does not resemble jealousy over a field!" This is the meaning of 'He was lost in (=mistaken about) the field.' The field referenced in the Cain story misled him. He did not realize that the nature of jealousy is volatile - for some little thing a man might rise against his fellow and murder him.

מה תבקש, what are you looking for seeing that you do not keep to the known paths?

איפה הם רועים, in which section of this region.

הגידה נא לי, "PLease tell me!" How did Joseph know that the stranger knew where his brothers were to be found? He did not ask the man if he knew; he only asked him to reveal his knowledge! Perhaps Joseph concluded from the word לאמור which the stranger used that he had some information that was useful for Joseph. Since there was no one else around, why would the stranger have used the word לאמור, to say, before asking "what do you seek?"

הגידה נא לי, if you know where they are tending their flocks.

נסעו מזה THEY HAVE JOURNEYED HENCE — they have departed from all feeling of brotherhood.

THEY HAVE JOURNEYED HENCE. “They have departed from any feeling of brotherhood. ‘Let us go to Dothan, that is, let us go to seek pretexts of dathoth (laws) with which to put you to death.’ According to the literal sense, however, Dothan is the name of a place, and Scripture never sheds its literal sense.” This is Rabbi Shlomo’s [Rashi’s] language.
Now it was not the intent of our Rabbis to say that the man expressly told him, “They have departed hence from any feeling of brotherhood, and they have gone to stir up charges and pretexts against you,” for if so, he would have avoided going there and would not have endangered himself. Instead, their intent is to say that “the man” — Gabriel⁶¹So identified in Rashi (Verse 15), and the source thereof is Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter 38. — who told it to him told the truth, but he spoke words having a double meaning, both of them true. Joseph, however, did not grasp the hidden meaning therein, and he followed the obvious. He thus followed his brothers and found them in Dothan, as he had told him. The Rabbis expounded this on the basis of the fact that the “man” referred to was an angel, and if so, he knew where the brothers were. Why then did he not say, “They are in Dothan,” instead of speaking as if he was in doubt, i.e., that he heard from them that they were going to Dothan but he does not know where they are at present. It is for this reason that they expounded the above Midrash concerning his words.

בדותן, according to the plain meaning this was the name of a town, and the town is also mentioned in the Book of Kings II 6,13.

נסעו מזה, there is no question that they have departed from this grazing area, there is no point in searching any part of this region.

נסעו מזה, כי שמעתי אומרים, "They have moved away from here, for I have heard them say, etc." Why did the stranger have to preface his information by saying: "they have moved away from here?" It would have sufficed for him to say: "I have heard them say: 'let us go to Dothan!'" Rashi explains that the words mean that the brothers had abandoned the path of brotherliness (and devised legal schemes to kill him). If so, why was Joseph not worried enough to turn around and to return to his father's home? What greater degree of danger could there be? In fact, was Joseph not guilty of almost committing suicide by continuing to search for his brothers?

מזה, from this area. We find the expression used in a similar meaning in 38,21 לא היתה בזה, “there was no (prostitute) in this location.”

נסעו מזה, “they have moved away from here quite some time ago.” Rashi interprets the expression as not referring to physical distance, but as referring to the bonds of brotherliness. The man (angel Gavriel) did not tell him this in so many words, for had he done so Joseph certainly would not have continued on his way. The angel used a double entendre, which could be interpreted in one of two ways. Both interpretations would correspond to the truth. The principal reason our sages interpret this is that all the angel had to say was: ”they went to Dotan.” The introductory words: “they have moved away from here,” were quite irrelevant, and therefore must be intended to teach us something additional.

כי שמעתי אומרים, “for I have heard (them) say, etc.” The word אותם is missing in the text.
נלכה דותינה , “let us go to Dotan.” Our sages (Rashi) suggested that this wording was meant to alert Joseph to danger. The words: “they moved away from here” were something that Joseph did not need to be told because he already had found out. These words were the clue to the angel’s warning. In other words, when Joseph indicated that he sought a brotherly relationship with them, the angel cautioned him that they were no longer open to such advances. [Joseph did not understand this oblique warning. Ed.] The sages speak of נכלי דתות, “contriving legislation,” instead of נלכה דותינה. If we take this at face value Dotan was not the name of a location. At any rate, Joseph did not “read between the lines” and understood the meaning of his words to be simply that they had moved to a place called Dotan and went in search of that location. He found the brothers in Dotan, something which the Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 84,14 describes as the natural conclusion of the angel’s piece of warning “they have moved from here,” i.e. they have changed their attitude. When the Torah continues that the brothers plotted to kill him by using the word ויתנכלו, this is confirmation of the expression found in the Midrash that they contrived to find a legal opening for disposing of Joseph.
Some of our sages claim that as soon as Joseph approached close enough to be identified, his brother set dogs upon him. [In this fashion they would not have become guilty of laying a hand on him. Ed.] The dogs, however did not harm Joseph (Nachmanides). As a last resort, when Joseph insisted on going to them instead of realising that the brothers themselves had set the dogs on him, they decided that they had to kill him directly, with their own hands. This is the meaning of verses 19-20, “let us go and kill him.”

They have removed themselves from brotherhood. Rashi is answering the question: How does the angel’s reply pertain to Yoseif’s inquiry? Yoseif only requested to be told where they were, while the angel replied, “They have traveled from here.” Furthermore, Yoseif already knew they traveled from there, since he did not find them there. Thus Rashi explains, “They have removed themselves from brotherhood.” I.e., they want to kill you — do not go there. [You might ask:] how does Rashi know it means [specifically] this? The answer is: זה in gematria is twelve. Thus, it means they have moved away from twelve. I.e., they do not want there to be twelve [brothers], rather they want to kill you, and there will be only eleven. Alternatively, Rashi’s proof is that it says, “From this.” In other words, they have moved away “from this” which you say, “I am looking for my brothers.” They, however, have removed themselves from brotherhood.

Ob sich an Dothan eine Erinnerung knüpfte, die ihrer Stimmung und ihren Absichten noch mehr als Sichem zusagte, ob Sichem von anderer Seite doch auch das Brudergefühl zu sehr wach rief, dem gegenüber דותן eine Erinnerung brachte, die, wie der Name דת ahnen lässt, das Rechtsgefühl mehr emporstachelte — wissen wir nicht.

נסעו מזה, “they have moved away from here; they have said that they are no longer interested as being 12 tribes”. The numerical value of the letters in the word זה is 12.

נסעו מזה 'they have moved on from here.” They had been grazing their flocks there until recently.

נלכה דתינה LET US GO TO DOTHAN — “let us go to seek some legal (דתות) pretexts” to put you to death. According to the literal sense, however, it is the name of place, and Scripture never really loses its literal sense (Shabbat 63a).

כי שמעתי אומרים, the reason why I said that they certainly no longer are in this region is because I myself overheard them saying “lets move on.”

כי שמעתי אומרים, “that they were saying, etc.”

To seek lawful pretexts concerning you... Rashi is answering the question: The angel said to him נסעו מזה, meaning: “They have removed themselves from brotherhood.” If so, what is the meaning of, “Because (כי) I heard them say, ‘Let us go to Doson’”? The word כי always comes to give a reason. What reason is given here? Thus Rashi explains: lawful pretexts concerning how to kill you.

Perhaps Joseph did not understand the warning properly. Our sages who had the benefit of hindsight were able to interpret the words of the "man" as a warning. Joseph who was not blessed with such hindsight had no reason to see a dire warning in these harmless sounding words. He merely understood that his brothers had not only left Shechem but the whole district. The reason the "man" added "I have heard the brothers say: 'let us go to Dothan,' was to explain what he meant by "they have moved from here.'" He could not say with certainty that the brothers had actually arrived at Dothan. He only had knowledge of their intention. It did not occur to Joseph that the man with whom he talked was an angel; therefore he did not try to read any more into the man's words than appeared obvious. When the Torah writes: "Joseph went after his brothers and he found them in Dothan," this is in order then. Had Joseph understood the veiled warning of the "man," the Torah should have written: "Joseph followed his brothers to Dothan and found them." Joseph searched for his brothers seeing that the man had not been precise about their present location. As a result of his search, Joseph found his brothers in Dothan. Our sages' interpretation of what occurred is perfectly in order, i.e. that the Torah reveals that the angel who spoke to Joseph had given him a veiled warning.

FOR I HEARD THEY ARE SAYING. “I heard that they were saying.”⁶²Ramban’s intent is to explain that the Hebrew shamati omrim, literally, “I heard they are saying,” is as if it were written, shamati shehayu omrim, “I heard that they were saying,” thus referring to a past event. Similarly the expression, Rebekah hears,⁶³Above, 27:5. means that she heard. It is possible that he is saying: “The shepherds have gone from here for I heard people saying,⁶⁴According to this interpretation, Gabriel spoke concerning people in general as if he did not recognize that these shepherds were his brothers. ‘Let us go to Dothan.’ Perhaps they were your brothers.” The man thus spoke with him as if he were avoiding the subject.

אחר אחיו, even though he had not been able to locate them in Shechem as his father had asked him to do, he went to more trouble than he was required to, in order to fulfill the wishes of his father.

Proof that Joseph had not understood this is that the Torah reports Joseph as searching for his brothers. He was under the impression that they still considered him their brother.

The question we must all ask is that if the angel remained deliberately so vague that Joseph did not understand his warning, why did he direct him to a location which was so fraught with danger for Joseph? Perhaps, after having become aware that Joseph's intention was to find brotherliness, i.e. את אחי אנכי מבקש, the angel wanted to increase the merit Joseph would accumulate by persisting in such a worthwhile endeavour. For all we know this is how Joseph acquired the merit necessary to qualify ultimately as the ruler of Egypt and the provider for his family.

ויתנכלו AND THEY CONSPIRED — The Hithpael form denotes that they became filled with plots and craft.

AND THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO SLAY HIM. They thought to kill him with their subtle intrigues by which they had conspired against him before he drew near to them⁶⁵According to Tur this refers to attempting to kill him with arrows. so that they would not have to spill his blood with their own hands. Thus did the Rabbis say in Bereshith Rabbah:⁶⁶84:13. “Let us set the dogs against him.” And perhaps they did so but did not succeed. Now, when they saw that he was approaching them and they could not kill him with their intrigues, they said to each other, “Behold, he has come to us, so let us kill him ourselves.”

ויתנכלו אותו, they were full of devious and nefarious thoughts. The word occurs in this sense in Maleachi 1,24: וארור נוכל, “cursed the person who plots deviously.”

ויתנכלו אותו להמיתו, the root נכל always means to plan to do something evil. One example of the use of this word in this sense is found in Numbers 25,18 אשר נכלו אתכם, “who plotted against you.” The brothers had entertained the thought of causing Joseph’s death while they saw him from a distance. They did not think that he had come to make peace with them but that he was spying on them to either cause them to commit a sin which would bring their father’s curses on them or which would cause G’d to punish them. As a result of this, Joseph imagined he alone would survive as blessed of all of Yaakov’s sons. The expression ויתנכל in the reflexive conjugation described what a person fantasizes about in his mind, what imaginary scenarios he entertains in his head. You find the expression in Samuel I 28,9 אתה מתנקש בנפשי, “(the witch of Endor speaking to King Sha-ul who had disguised himself) “you are trying to trap me into forfeiting my life, trying to get me killed! The word להמיתו in our verse refers to Joseph causing the death of his brothers. [While it is true that the word is separated from the word אותו preceding it by the tone sign tipcha which refers to what came before, in the opinion of this Editor it should then have read להמיתם to cause their death,” instead of “to cause his death.” Ed.] We find the expression used in a similar sense in Deuteronomy 4,14 לעשותכם אותם, “so that you will fulfill them.” [the author describes the function of the transitive conjugation of the root נכל and עשה respectively, not any similarity of the subject matter under discussion in the two verses mentioned. Ed.] If we understand the thoughts described in our verse in this vein, we can solve the riddle of how the stones on the breastplate of the High Priest could have been inscribed with the names of all these brothers, if instead of being as righteous as such models ought to have been in order to serve as inspiration for us, they had indeed harboured such murderous thoughts without justification. Even if the brothers’ intention to sell Joseph had been based on mere hatred, how could such brothers qualify as inspiration for the Jewish people of the breastplate of the High Priest? We must therefore endeavour to understand the collective feelings of the brothers as being that they actually felt themselves threatened by Joseph’s aspirations and they were convinced that when one feels threatened one is entitled or even obliged to take measures to neutralise the source of the danger. This is even a halachic principle clearly spelled out in Sanhedrin 72. If we needed any proof for the truth of the brothers’ feelings, it is best provided by their conversation among themselves while in jail (42,21) when they felt that G’d had repaid them for their misdeeds. They did not regret selling Joseph, nor even having planned to kill him; the only thing they regretted and considered themselves guilty of was that they had not responded to Joseph’s pleas for mercy. In other words, even over 20 years after the event they were still convinced that Joseph had posed the sort of threat to their existence which entitled them to take extreme defensive action against him.

"And they saw him afar off" It is necessary to know, when saying "and before" (Gen. 37:18), whether it applies to what was before it, as follows: 'And they saw him afar off before he came near to them' or if it [namely, the word "before"] is the beginning of what comes afterwards, as follows: 'Before he came near to them they conspired regarding him...' Both interpretations are difficult: if it applies to what was before it, it should have said 'before he came near' [not AND before he came near], and if it is the beginning of what comes afterwards, it should have said 'and before...they conspired' [not AND they conspired]. Maybe the addition of the vav was meant to increase distance, meaning that you shouldn't say that the distance implies that he [Joseph] has not yet approached them [his brothers], rather "and before he came near to them" means they saw him at an exaggerated distance.

ויתנכלו אותו, the word אותו here means the same as the preposition בו, “against him.” We find other instances where this preposition is used in connection with this root, as in Psalms 105,25 להתנכל בעבדיו, “to plot against His servants.” The root also occurs in connection with the preposition ל, as in Numbers 25,18 אשר נכלו לכם, “which they conspired against you.” The word basically refers to scheming against someone in one’s heart.

ובטרם יקרב אליהם ויתנכלו אותו להרגו, “and before he could come close to them, they made plans how to kill him.” The meaning of this phrase is that the plans they made were how to kill him before he could come close to them so that they would not have to lay a hand on him. In Bereshit Rabbah 84,14 on that verse, we are told that they released ferocious dogs in his direction. When they realized that the dogs had not attacked him, they said: “let us kill him (with our own hands).”

Similar to אתו, with him, meaning toward him. Rashi is answering the question: How does אוֹתוֹ fit with ויתנכלו? The verb ויתנכלו is reflexive, and means: “They became filled with conspiracies,” thus it does not connect with אוֹתוֹ. If Scripture had written וַיְנַכְלו, [a transitive verb,] אוֹתוֹ would fit. But with ויתנכלו, the fitting word is אליו. Thus Rashi explains that אוֹתוֹ is similar to אִתּוֹ. Rashi is saying that if we follow how it is written [rather than how it is pronounced,] we would read it אִתּוֹ, since it is written missing a ו. Alternatively, [Rashi knows this] because אוֹתָנו sometimes means אִתָנו. Thus, אוֹתוֹ can mean אִתּוֹ. And אִתּוֹ means עמו. And Rashi says, “עמו, meaning אליו,” because Onkelos translates אליו as עמו; see Rashi on 24:7. Consequently, it is as if the verse said אליו. (Re’m) The Maharshal explains that Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say ויתנכלו אתו להמיתו, rather than simply ויתנכלו להמיתו? Perforce, אוֹתוֹ is like אִתּוֹ, “with him.” Thus it means, “They were plotting with him,” i.e., also Yoseif had in mind that they should kill him. And lest we think it means that he and they had in mind to kill someone else, Rashi says that אותו also implies אליו, “toward him” — toward Yoseif. He and they had in mind to kill Yoseif. There is also a varying text of Rashi.

ויתנכלו אתו להמיתו . Siporno erinnert mit Recht, dass: wider jemanden einen Plan schmieden, nicht heißen könne ויתנכלו אותו, sondern — יתנכלו בו. Der Hithpael mit את, wie והתנהלתם אותם, verwandelt das im Reflerixum liegende Objekt zum Terminativ und das einheitliche Objekt ist das mit את eingeleitete: והתנהלתם אותם, ihr sollt sie euch (dat.) vererben. וכל בגד וכל כלי עור וגוי תתחטאו: und jedes Kleid und jedes Geräte usw. sollt ihr euch (dat.) entsündigen. ויתנכלו אותו ist daher eben so viel als: וַיְַנְכלו אותו להם. Der Piel גַדֵל ,צַדֵק usw. heißt ebensowohl: jemanden für gerecht, groß halten und erklären, als ihn dazu machen. So kann וינכלו אותו להם sehr wohl heißen: sie hielten ihn sich für einen נוכל, sie stellten ihn sich als נוכל vor. In בנכליהם אשר נכלו לכם erscheint (Raw Hirsch on Genesis 37: B. M. 25, 18) נכל als Bezeichnung eines Verfahrens, durch welches dem sittlichen Leben unseres Volkes das höchste Verderben bereitet wurde. Ebenso ארור נוכל (Maleachi 1, 14): wehe dem, der unter dem Scheine, das Heiligste zu begehen, gerade dieses Heilige in seinem Innern aufs tiefste höhnend verletzl. Er hat Würdiges und weiht Gott absichtlich einen נכל .בעל מום heißt somit: auf versteckte Weise die höchsten Interessen des andern gefährden. Als er zu ihnen herankam, stellten sie ihn sich als einen, ihre heiligsten und edelsten Interessen aufs tiefste gefährdenden Menschen in einem solchen Grade vor: להמיתו, dass man ihn töten dürfe, dass, zur Selbstverteidigung ihn zu töten, ihnen gerechtfertigt erschien.

אֹתוֹ is here the same as אִתּוֹ which means “with him” — meaning אליו: they became filled with plots and craft directed towards him (אליו).

We could say further that "and they saw him from afar off" refers to the distance of their hearts, because they did not see him as brothers see their brothers, rather, they saw him like a man distant from them; "and before he came near..." means that this seeing was also "before..." and if it hadn't said "And before" with a vav it would have implied the reading of distance above [namely that they saw Joseph at a great physical distance], therefore the vav was added, to show that the matter was different [namely that the distance was emotional]. One could also offer a different explanation of the text, but it appears that this is the best reading.

הלזה; whenever the word הלזה is mentioned it refers to someone or something that one sees from afar, indistinctly. For instance in Genesis 24,65 Rivkah asked Eliezer who the man was who was approaching them from a distance. The word הזה, on the other hand, refers to someone or something close at hand, as for instance Haman in Esther 7,6, to whom Esther points when the King asked here who the culprit was who wanted to destroy her and her people.

הנה בעל החלומות, they meant “the one who told us about his dreams in order to make us angry.” They meant that Joseph had wanted them to commit a sin as a result of their anger so that they would bring down upon themselves the wrath of their father or of G’d. causing our destruction in either event.

בעל החלומות wie בעל מזמות ,בעל כנפים, dem Flügel zu seiner Bewegung. Pläne zu seinen Absichten als Werkzeug bereit stehen. So בעל החלומות, dem Träume zu seinen Absichten bereit stehen, Meister der Träume.

הלזה בא, “has not this one arrived?! (come closer)” (they were surprised that Joseph had dared to follow them all this distance). On the other hand, the word: והלאה is used to describe something that becomes more and more distant.

ונראה מה יהיו חלמתיו AND WE SHALL SEE WHAT WILL BECOME OF HIS DREAMS — R. Isaac said, this verse calls for a homiletic explanation. The Holy Spirit said this latter part of the text. They say “let us slay him”, and Scripture (i.e. the Holy Spirit) breaks in upon their words concluding them by saying, “and we shall see what will become of his dreams”: we shall see whose words will be fulfilled — yours or mine. For it is impossible that they should have said, “and we shall see what will become of his dreams”, for as soon as they would kill him his dreams would be of no effect (Tanchuma Yashan 1:9:13).

AND WE SHALL SEE WHAT WILL BECOME OF HIS DREAMS. This is a derisive metaphor: “We shall see after his death if we shall prostrate ourselves before him.”
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that they said, “Now we shall see what will become of his dreams, for if he shall be rescued from our hands he will surely reign over us.” But our Rabbis said:⁶⁶84:13. “It is the Ruach Hakodesh⁶⁷See Seder Toldoth, Note 90. that says, We shall see what will become of his dreams,⁶⁸The intent is to say that it is the Ruach Hakodesh which completes the sentence, and not Joseph’s brothers. as if to say; ‘We shall see whose words shall stand, Mine or theirs.’”⁶⁹Jeremiah 44:28.

לכו ונהרגהו, the introduction לכו is an invitation for other people to participate in a planned undertaking. We have a similar example in verse 27 of our chapter when the brothers sell Joseph and Yehudah introduces the plan with the words לכו ונמכרנו לישמעאלים, “let us sell him to the Ishmaelites.” Another similar example is found in Exodus 1,10 when Pharaoh invites his people to outsmart the Israelites with the words הבה נתחכמה לו. In that verse the word הבה is used as such an invitation. Compare also Deuteronomy 11,26, where the word ראה is used in the same manner, except that it does not involve active participation by those addressed

ועתה לכו, make up your minds quickly to kill him.

ועתה לכו ונהרגהו, "Come now let us kill him!" They planned to kill him before he had a chance to actually reach them; they went towards him. This is why the Torah emphasises the word ועתה. They were so upset emotionally that they could not even contain their anger until he would reach them. What the brothers did is best described in Baba Kama 26 where the Talmud rules that when ten people kill one person simultaneously they cannot be held responsible by a human court. The brothers' main concern was to escape a trial by a human court.

ועתה לכו, the word לכו in this context is an exhortation to act without delay, as we explained on 28,2. [there it referred to the word קום, Ed.]

אמרנו חיה רעה אכלתהו, so that Joseph will not have a chance of becoming angry at us and first be cursing us.

ונשליכהו באחד הבורות, "and let us throw him into one of the pits." When the brothers mentioned how they would explain Joseph's disappearance, i.e. ואמרנו, they meant that as a rule anyone found in one of these pits would be consumed by a variety of rodents which abound in them. They would then be telling the truth when they described him as having fallen victim to wild beasts. By not saying the rodents had killed him they would refrain from uttering an outright lie.

ונראה מה יהיו חלומותיו, the dreams of which he told us that they foreshadow his rise to greatness and that he would rule over us. Then we will be witness to the fact that all these dreams will dissolve into nothingness and that they are nothing but lies.

Naturally, we must explore by whose authority the brothers imagined that they were entitled to kill a human being, and such a righteous human being at that? Even allowing for the fact that the manner in which they planned to kill Joseph would not have made them liable to a human tribunal, how did they expect to escape retribution at the hands of G'd?

Perhaps the brothers applied to Joseph the laws pertaining to עד זומם, someone who testifies to a crime he did not really see and who thereby intended to have the accused convicted of the death penalty. In such a situation the Torah demands that the עד זומם himself will be executed by the same death penalty he intended for his victim. Joseph had accused his brothers of eating אבר מן החי, tissue from a living animal. A fitting penalty would be for Joseph himself to be consumed by wild animals before he was dead. Joseph had also claimed that the brothers engaged in sex with partners forbidden to them. All these accusations, if true, carry the death penalty when committed by Gentiles. Moreover, a Gentile may be convicted by the testimony of a single witness without corroboration and without the victim having been warned of the consequences of his behaviour. Even next of kin may testify against the accused (Maimonides Hilchot Melachim chapter 9). Accordingly, the brothers applied to Joseph the law of an עד זומם thus exonerating themselves in the eyes of heaven. However, if so, they would not be considered innocent before a human tribunal because they had no הזמה, evidence of an alibi placing the witness Joseph in a different location at the time that he claimed that the brothers had committed the crimes he had accused them of. This is why they had to resort to the ruse of ganging up on him simultaneously. No human court could then prove that either one of them had administered a lethal blow. They felt quite at ease vis-a-vis heaven, being convinced that Joseph wanted to kill them. All of these considerations helped G'd carry out what He had planned without interfering with the freedom of will of the brothers or of Joseph. Perhaps the brothers even alluded to the fact that they would eventually repent what they were about to do and this is why they said ועתה, i.e. "for now this is what we are going to do." Bereshit Rabbah 21,6 claims that whenever the expression ועתה is used it refers to repentance.

ונראה מה יהיו חלומותיו, "and we shall see what becomes of his dreams." They were at pains to prove that his dreams contained false information, or that the dreams were merely reflections of what he had been thinking by day. If they would kill him now this would prove that the dreams only reflected Joseph's own aspirations.

לא נכנו נפש — supply the word מכת so that the meaning will be “Let us not smite him with a smiting of his life” — it means killing.

ויצילהו מידם, he saved his life, no more.

ויצילהו מידם, by first of all preventing immediate action by the brothers, committing an act which would prove to be irrevocable. This would have been the kind of thing Solomon had in mind when he said in Kohelet 1,15 that מעוות לא יוכל לתקן, “there are things so twisted that they are beyond repair.” He referred to matters from which sometimes the righteous person can also not be saved. One such example was the irreversible act of Reuven of having slept with Bilhah. Yaakov himself characterized it as פחז כמים, “hasty like water” (flowing downstream, something beyond recall).

ויצילהו מידם. "He saved him from harm at their hands. This action was applauded by the Torah as man is a free creature possessing freedom of choice and able to kill people who are not guilty or have not been convicted, as distinct from wild beasts which do not kill humans unless the latter are guilty of death in the eyes of G'd. The words ויצילהו מידם mean that he saved them from the evil consequences of carrying out their freedom of choice to kill. By doing what he did Reuben nullified the brothers' statement: "we shall see what happens to his dreams."

וישמע...לא נכנו נפש, killing.

לא נכנו נפש, “let us not commit murder. Reuven found it impossible to agree with the advice, i.e. the solution proposed by his brothers. He intended to save Joseph. Had he said immediately: “we will not kill him,” he would have given away his intention to save Joseph and the fact that he had pity on him. He therefore added the word נפש to convince his brothers that his strategy was not aimed at saving Joseph’s fate but at saving his brothers from committing an unpardonable sin The prohibition of murdering someone in cold blood is absolute and knows of no exceptions. This is why he added אל תשפכו דם, “do not spill blood.” Had he been concerned only with Joseph’s blood not being spilled he would have said אל תשפכו דמו, “do not spill his blood.” He implied that he shared the brothers’ evaluation of Joseph’s guilt and hated him just as they hated him, but that he was concerned with the basic prohibition of shedding the blood of a human being, נפש.

A blow to the soul, which refers to killing. Otherwise, how does נכנו — the object of which is Yoseif — connect to the following word נפש? Thus Rashi explains that the verse is as if it said מכת נפש, [which is an adverbial phrase modifying נכנו]. (R. Meir Stern)

Reubens Verhältnis zu den Brüdern, wie er in dieser Begebenheit auftritt, dürfte rätselhaft erscheinen. Er scheint nur zufällig bei ihnen zu sein, da er ja sich sehr bald wieder von ihnen entfernt haben muss, und bei der eigentlichen Entwicklung gar nicht gegenwärtig war. Ob er überhaupt als בכור an den gewöhnlichen Tagesbeschäftigungen nicht Teil zu nehmen hatte, ob er schon im allgemeinen von ihren Ansichten über Josef differierte und daher an den Absichten und Beratungen, die sie nach Sichem geführt, nicht teilnehmen wollte, dürfte zweifelhaft sein. Wir werden noch Raw Hirsch on Genesis 37: 30. wieder darauf zurückkommen. — לא נכנו נפש ist ganz positiRaw Hirsch on Genesis 37: Einen solchen Gedanken, wie ihr eben angeregt, werden wir nicht ausführen. Ich, als der ältere Bruder, leide das nicht. Indem Raw Hirsch on Genesis 37: 22 nochmals seine Rede eingeleitet wird, scheint es erst Diskussion gegeben zu haben, worauf er dann, um sie zu beschwichtigen, mit dem andern Vorschlag hervortrat.

וישמע ראובן ויצילהו מידם, “when Reuven heard this he saved him from them. G-d decided at that moment that because it was Reuven who had made the first move to save Joseph, the cities of refuge in Israel later on would begin with those in the territory allocated to the tribe of Reuven. (B’reshit Rabbah 84,15) This is also hinted at in Deuteronomy 4,43: את בצר במישור לראובני, “Bezer in the tableland to the members of the tribe of Reuven.”

לא נכנו נפש. "Let us not kill him." What Reuben meant was "let us not kill him outright ourselves but only cause his death indirectly." When he said later: "do not shed blood, throw him into the pit," this was his argument to his brothers. He only pretended to agree that Joseph's death should be caused because he could think of no other way of saving Joseph's life and restoring him to his father. He was quite certain in his own mind that no wild beast would harm Joseph, or any other of Jacob's sons for that matter. He himself would also not allow Joseph to remain in the pit long enough to die of hunger. Proof of Reubens' intention is that the Torah reports that he returned to the pit shortly after the brothers had sold Joseph in his absence. He had planned to take Joseph out of the pit.

למען הציל אתו THAT HE MIGHT DELIVER HIM [OUT OF THEIR HAND] — The Holy Spirit (Scripture) bears witness for Reuben that he said this only for the purpose of saving his brother — that he would come afterwards and draw him up from there. He thought, “I am the first-born and the chief among them, and blame will attach to no one but myself” (Genesis Rabbah 84:15).

SHED NO BLOOD. Reuben said to them: “I would have been tolerant of you when you thought to kill him by your subtle intrigues, for I too hated him and desired that he be killed by others. But do not spill blood with your hands. Far it be from you!” And Reuben’s intent in all this was to rescue him and restore him to his father. Now Scripture relates that which Reuben told them when they paid heed to him. However, originally he told them other things which they did not accept, as he said to them afterwards, Spoke I not unto you, saying: Do not sin against the child and you would not hear?⁷⁰Further, 42:22. Now when he saw that they would not listen to the extent of releasing him, he said to them, “If so, shed no blood with your own hands.”
Now Reuben did not say, “Shed not his blood,” [but instead, he said, “Shed no blood,”] in order to make it appear that he is not saying it because he loves him, but in order that they should not spill blood. Thus he taught them that the punishment of he who indirectly causes death is not as great as that of he who personally spills blood.
The meaning of the expression, This pit that is in the wilderness, is that this pit is deep and he will not be able to get out of it, and it is in the desert, and if he cries for help there is no one to rescue him as no one passes by there.
Now Scripture relates that the pit was empty and did not contain water.⁷¹Verse 24 here. Had there been water in it they would not have drowned him as they had already avoided spilling his blood. Now Rashi writes: “Since it states that the pit was empty, do I not know that there was no water in it? Why then does it say that there was no water in it? It means to state that water indeed was not in it, however it did contain serpents and scorpions.” This is Rashi’s language quoting from the words of our Rabbis.⁷²Shabbath 27a. If so, the serpents and scorpions must have been in the cracks of the pit, or it was deep and they did not know about them. Had they seen them and known that they did not harm Joseph, it would have become clear to them that a great miracle had been done to him, and that he was indeed a perfectly righteous man. They would then have known that his merits would save him from all evil, and how would they touch the anointed one of G-d in whom He delights and whom He saves, even as it says, My G-d hath sent His angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths, and they have not hurt me; for as much as before Him innocency was found in me.⁷³Daniel 6:23. But, we must therefore conclude, they did not know anything about it.
In line with the simple meaning of the verse, it states that the pit was empty and completely devoid of water, for even if there were a little water in it, it would still be called “empty.”⁷⁴Therefore, the verse specifies that there was no water in it to indicate that there was no water at all in it. Similarly, For thou shalt die and not live,⁷⁵II Kings 20:1. which means “not live at all, under any circumstances.” Such redundancies are all for the purpose of clarification and emphasis.

השליכו אותו אל הבור הזה אשר במדבר, where no one passes so that he will die from natural causes.

ויד אל תשלחו בו, according to your judgment that he deserves killing as a רודף, someone threatening you with death or perdition. (compare Samuel I 24,13 מרשעים יצא רשע וידי לא תהיה בך, “although from wicked people come wicked deeds, my hand will never touch you. [David telling G’d that he will personally not harm his persecutor King Sha-ul, but he leaves it to G’d to deal with him. Ed.]

אל תשפכו דם, his blood is innocent, i.e. he is not guilty of a capital crime. But throw him into this pit if you are so angry about his dreams and the way he presents them. You may repay him by making him feel pain such as yours, but do not touch him in a way that will lead to his death. When Reuven said: “throw him into this pit,” he did so in order to know where to find him later and to bring him back safely to his father after rescuing him from the pit. He did not mean for Joseph to be harmed in any way.

השליחו אותו אל הבור הזה, “throw him into this pit, etc.” He said: “into this pit,” because he had ascertained that that pit did not contain any harmful substances. The brothers did not heed him and threw him into a pit containing harmful substances such as snakes and scorpions, according to our sages. This is the meaning of verse 29 that when Reuven returned to the pit there was no Joseph in it. Nachmanides writes that according the Midrash that there were snakes and scorpions in the pit, we must assume that the brothers had not seen those. They must have been hiding in nooks and cracks within the pit. The fact that they did not ham Joseph before he was lifted out and sold was due to a miracle. This proves that Joseph was quite innocent, else why would G’d have extended this kind of help to him? I do not understand why anyone needs to resort to an explanation of this kind, for even if we do not consider Joseph as a totally innocent victim but as at least partially guilty, he was certainly not an evil person and did not deserve to die. In spite of his not being guilty of death the brothers set about killing him. The reason was that hatred distorts one’s ability to judge fairly and to apply one’s reason objectively. According to the plain meaning of the text, the words “the pit was empty,” mean that there was no accumulation of water inside the pit, for if there had been water in it, it could not be described as “empty.”

To rescue him. See Rashi; the Rashba derives from here that good deeds should be publicized.

The Divine Spirit testifies concerning Reuvein. Rashi is answering the question: How could Reuvein himself have said they should throw Yoseif in the pit so he may bring him back to his father? If they knew this, they would not let Reuvein rescue him! Furthermore, if these were Reuvein’s words, it should say, “My purpose is to rescue.” Why does it say, “His purpose was to rescue”? Re’m comments: I do not understand why Rashi needed to write this. It is selfevident that these are not Reuvein’s words.

אל הבור הזה, “to this pit;” the word אל has been used here instead of the prefix ב. In other words: “into this pit.” We have a similar construction in Numbers 19,6: והשליך אל תוך שרפת הפרה, “and he will throw it into the fire consuming the cow.”

למען הציל, in order to really save him. The verse illustrates Reuven’s intention of not only saving Joseph’s life, but of bringing him back safely to his father, as the Torah testifies later in the course of its narrative.

למען הציל אותו, in order to raise him from the pit afterwards.

He thought: “I am the firstborn and the oldest of them all... You might ask: How does Rashi know this is why Reuvein wanted to save him? Perhaps he was very pious and did not want to kill? The answer is: In Parshas Vayechi, among the blessings with which Yaakov blessed his sons, it is written that he blessed Yehudah, who said: “What will we gain if we kill our brother... come let us sell him...” Yet, why did Yaakov not bless Reuvein, who wanted to totally rescue Yoseif and bring him back to his father? Whereas Yehudah suggested to sell him! Perforce, Reuven’s intent was not for the sake of Heaven, but so people should not put the blame on him, saying: “You are the firstborn...” (Maharshal)

להשיבו אל אביו, “intending to bring him back to his father.” His intentions were good; if you were to ask that even though the pit may have been dry, it most likely served as a lair for all kinds of poisonous snakes etc.? The fact that the Torah writes the unnecessary word: רק, “empty,” informs us that the brothers had made sure there were no harmful creatures hiding in it either. After Reuven had left, the brothers threw Joseph into another pit which was infested with snakes and scorpions. When the Torah describes Reuven’s shock when he returned to the first pit later and found it empty, that was the pit which he had told his brothers to throw him, into.

את כתנתו HIS GARMENT — this means his shirt.

את כתונת הפסים, the only reason why these words have been inserted here is to remind the reader of what had been the cause of the entire tragic episode of fraternal hatred. However, if the Torah had not added these words, we would have been misled. The fact that the Torah describes the brothers sending the blood-spattered tattered remains of this tunic to their father (verse 33) was designed to deceive their father into believing that what happened to Joseph had nothing to do with his father having had this garment made for him and the brothers having resented this. The Torah does not want us, the readers, to be misled as the brothers had succeeded in misleading their father into thinking that he had become the victim of a wild animal.

ויפשיטו את יוסף את כתנתו, They stripped Joseph of his tunic, etc. According to the plain meaning of the verse the word כתנתו refers to his shirt, whereas the additional words את כתנת הפסים refer to his outer garment, the one his father had made for him. In order to understand the verse thoroughly we have to know why the Torah did not write ואת כתנת הפסים, "and the striped coat."

ויהי..את כתנת הפסים, the letter ה at the beginning of the word הפסים, referring to a specific garment, is justified seeing that we had previously been told את כתנתו, “his tunic,” i.e. the same tunic.

ויפשיטו את יוסף את כותנתו, “They stripped Joseph of his tunic.” Rashi explains the word כתונת as “shirt,” an undergarment. This is a difficult explanation, as the question is how they could remove an undergarment before removing his outer garment first, the famous striped coat. The answer usually given to this question is that it is normal for someone robbing someone else of his clothing to pull all his garments off him in one motion, and to then turn these garments inside out, beginning to separate them, so that the undergarment is separated first. Alternately, travelers have a habit of covering their outer garments with their undergarments as a form of protection for them while they are on the journey encountering obstacles that might damage the costly outer garments. Personally, I believe that the Torah speaks of only one garment, describing his fancy outer garment as also his undergarment, and the fact that he wore it visibly when planning to visit his brothers inflamed their hatred even more.

This is an additional one that his father gave him in excess of what was given to the brothers. Re’m explains that it is all one garment. He was wearing only one כתונת, which was of פסים, and the verse reads as follows: “They stripped him of his כתונת.” Which כתונת? “The פסים כתונת that he had on.” It cannot mean that he wore two כתונות, one top of the other, because only the garment touching the skin is called כתונת. But Maharshal writes: It seems to me not so. Rather, he had on two כתונות, one on top of the other. The first was on his skin, so that sweat should not ruin the כתונת of פסים. They stripped off both garments at once by grasping the bottom one and removing both. That is why it says אשר עליו (“that was on it”), referring to the other garment on which the פסים כתונת was on top of. The reason they grasped the bottom one was to show him that they were not doing this because his father gave him an additional כתונת of פסים. Rather, it was because of his bad reports and his dreams [that he told his father].

Das ויקחהו steht erst nach dem Ausziehen des Rockes. Er hat überhaupt keinen Widerstand geleistet. Nur durch Bitten suchte er sie zu erweichen, wie wir aus Kap.42, 21 wissen.

את כתונת הפסים, “the striped coat;” because it had been the garment which had caused all the hatred and jealousy.

את כתנת הפסים THE LONG SLEEVED GARMENT — this was the garment that his father had given him additional to those of his brothers (Genesis Rabbah 84:16).

The Torah wanted us to understand that the brothers did not want to strip Joseph naked. Their main concern was to remove the striped coat which had aroused their jealousy. The Torah tells us that when they began to strip the striped coat off him they were so angry at him that they inadvertently also removed his shirt at the same time. The Torah describes that Joseph was left naked by writing ויפשיטו את יוסף את כתנתו, "they stripped him naked by unintentionally removing his shirt with his striped coat."

The Torah adds אשר עליו, "which he wore on top," to further underline that the striped coat was an outer garment. In spite of this, in their frenzy they removed all his garments.

והבור רק אין בו מים AND THE PIT WAS EMPTY, THERE WAS NO WATER IN IT — Since it states, “the pit was empty”, do I not know that “there was no water in it”? What then is the force of “there was no water in it”? Water, indeed it did not contain, but there were serpents and scorpions in it (Shabbat 22a).

אין בו מים. If the pit had been full of water the brothers would not have thrown him into the pit, as they then would have been guilty of drowning him, i.e. killing him with their own hands, as it were. They had said themselves “let not our hands be on him.”

ויקחהו, there is a letter ו missing in this word, making it appear as if only one brother took him. According to Bereshit Rabbah 84,16 this is an allusion to who the brother was who seized Joseph and threw him into the pit. It was Shimon, which was the reason why later on Joseph locked up Shimon as a hostage (42,24 ויקח מאתם את שמעון, he took Shimon from them.)

There was no water in it. The pit was twenty cubits deep, so they could not see that it was filled with snakes. That is why his miraculous survival did not cause them to repent.

No water in it but there were snakes and scorpions in it. Rashi deduces [that it had snakes and scorpions] because it is written, “The pit was empty.” If sticks and stones or the like were in it, this would not be called empty. But with snakes and scorpions, the pit could well be called empty, as they crawl into the holes and cracks, so the pit looks like it is empty although they are there. [Alternatively], it is derived from a gezeirah shavah. In Devarim 8:15 it is written: “Snake, serpent, and scorpion... there was no water.” Just as there, “there was no water” describes a pit with snakes and scorpions, so too here, “there was no water” describes a pit with snakes and scorpions. But it seems to me that “there was no water” cannot teach us that sticks and stones were there, because what difference would that make? Perforce, it comes to tell us that other dangers were there, and they threw him in nevertheless. (R. Meir Stern) We need not ask: If there were snakes and scorpions in the pit, how was Reuven going to rescue him? The snakes and scorpions would kill him! For the answer is: The brothers did not know about this. They thought the pit did not contain even snakes and scorpions. Otherwise, how could they want to sell him after seeing the miracle Hashem performed for him, that he was not harmed or killed? (Re’m)

והבור רק אי בו מים, “the pit was empty, not containing any water.” Rashi comments that this is to tell us that while there was no water in the pit in which he could have drowned, there were other hazardous inhabitants in that pit such as snakes and scorpions. (based on B’reshit Rabbah 84,16.) This interpretation is based on the principle that when two negatives follow one another this indicates that we are being told something positive, even if not beneficial. It would have sufficed to describe the pit as simply: “empty.” If you were to ask why did it have to refer to the presence of scorpions? What hint is there of that? Maybe there were merely stones inside the pit? The expression רק for empty, instead of ריק means that it was empty on occasion but filled with water at other times. Scorpions take refuge there when it has been emptied from water.

אין בו מים, “there was no water in it;” the Torah mentions this to tell the reader that if the pit had been filled with water the brothers would not have thrown him into it, as it would have been equivalent to drowning him with their own hands. They had already ruled out doing something like that, (verse 27).

אין בו מים. If there had been water in the pit, Joseph would have drowned and throwing him into the pit would have been outright murder. The reason why the Torah mentions that there was no water in the pit, having already said that the pit was empty, והבור ריק, could be that there was sticky mud inside it, as for instance in Jeremiah 38,6 where the King’s servants threw the prophet into טיט, meaning a slime pit. That pit is also described as devoid of water, although Jeremiah is described as sinking into the mud. However, it did not cause his death. The allegorical explanation of the sequence of the words in our verse is well known, i.e. though water, one lethal ingredient, was not present in that pit, other potentially worse dangers such as scorpions, etc., were. If this explanation corresponds to the facts, throwing Joseph into such a pit was no better than killing him. The brothers had no way of knowing that G’d would save him by a miracle, i.e. that the scorpions and snakes would not attack him.

ארחת means what the Targum says — A CARAVAN; this is called ארחת with reference to the travelers on the road (ארח) who compose it.

AND, BEHOLD, A CARAVAN OF ISHMAELITES CAME FROM GILEAD. When they looked up and saw at a distance men approaching from the direction of Gilead,⁷⁶Ramban’s intent is to explain why Scripture refers to these men first as Ishmaelites, then as Midianites (Verse 28), and again as Ishmaelites (ibid.), and finally as Midianites (Verse 36). they recognized them as a camel caravan of Ishmaelites on their way to Egypt, for it was from Gilead that balms and spices came, and it was their custom to bring it to Egypt. This was why Judah said to them, “Behold these men come from afar and are travelling to a distant country. Let us sell him to them so that the matter should not become known.” And when they came near they discovered them to be merchants of spices and balms — Midianites, merchantmen⁷⁷Verse 28 here. — who had hired the camels from the Ishmaelites. They sold Joseph to the Midianites who purchased him for profit, but the company of Ishmaelites, the lessors of the camels, would not purchase him for their own investment purposes. The verse which states, And they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites,⁷⁷Verse 28 here. means that it was to them that the Midianites who bought him turned him over, for they were the ones who transported the merchandise to Egypt. This is also the meaning of the verse, From the hand of the Ishmaelites, that had brought him down thither,⁷⁸39:1. for he was in their care. But the Midianites were his masters, and they made trade with him. This is the sense of the verse, And the Midianites sold him to Egypt.⁷⁹Verse 36 here.
All stories in Scripture are written in this manner: sometimes it is told in the name of the authority who commands that it be done, and other times in the name of the agent who performs the act. Such a case is the verse, All the great work of the Eternal which He did,⁸⁰Deuteronomy 11:7. while elsewhere it states, Which Moses did in the sight of all Israel.⁸¹Ibid., 34:12. Similarly it says, Thus all the work that king Solomon did in the house of the Eternal was finished,⁸²I Kings 7:51. but it was Hiram that did it, as it is written, And he came to king Solomon, and wrought all his work.⁸³Ibid., Verse 14. In the case of Joseph himself, the verse says, And whatsoever they did there, he was the doer of it,⁸⁴Further, 39:22. thus ascribing the action both to he who commanded it and the one who did it.
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra says that the Midianites are called Ishmaelites, just as Scripture, in speaking of Midianite kings, says, Because they were Ishmaelites.⁸⁵Judges 8:24. But the matter is not as Ibn Ezra considered it to be since the verse which states, For they had golden ear-rings, because they were Ishmaelites,⁸⁵Judges 8:24. alludes to “the children of the east” whose war it was, as it is written, Now all the Midianites and Amalekites and the children of the east assembled themselves together,⁸⁶Ibid., 6:33. and “the children of the east” are Ishmaelites, for concerning all the sons of the concubines that Abraham had, it is said, And he sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.⁸⁷Above, 25:6. It is also possible that the kings were Ishmaelites who ruled over Midian. Otherwise, why should “kings of Midian”⁸⁸Judges 8:26. be called by the name of Ishmael their brother?
In line with the literal sense of Scripture the correct interpretation concerning the sale of Joseph is as we have said. But our Rabbis have said⁸⁹Bereshith Rabbah 84:2. that he was sold several times [and have thereby explained why his captors are alternately referred to as Midianites and Ishmaelites].

וישבו לאכול לחם, to demonstrate that what they had done was no crime in their eyes, or that the incident was not something that should interfere with their regular meal. When righteous people become aware of having inadvertently committed a sin, they not only do not celebrate it by eating, but they impose a fast day or more upon themselves. A prominent example of people imposing a fast day upon themselves, although they did not feel guilty for having done something wrong, were the Jewish tribes after having practically wiped out the tribe of Binyamin. We read about this in Judges 21,2-3 as well as about the fact that they imposed a fast upon themselves in spite of being convinced that they had done the right thing in going to war against that tribe. We also find something parallel when the King Darius threw Daniel into a pit full of starving lions. (Daniel 6,19). [The King had acted in accordance with the constitution of his country which demanded that a “heretic” such as Daniel be thrown to the lions, and the king’s efforts to have the law changed were rejected by his advisers. In spite of being legally correct, the king felt so badly that he went to bed hungry as a kind of penance for doing what was legally correct. Ed.] If the brothers sat down to eat immediately after throwing Joseph into the pit, this is clear evidence that in their minds they had certainly not committed any wrong. WE, who were not part of Yaakov’s household, and who know that these brothers were unanimously elevated to become the founding fathers of the Jewish nation, must therefore accept the premise underlying their actions as being that they had truly felt themselves personally threatened by Joseph, someone who was considered so mature that his own father had appointed him as manager over his senior brothers. The brothers had made strenuous efforts to put physical distance between themselves and Joseph in order to avoid any altercation. When he had sought them out in spite of their having signaled clearly that they wanted to avoid him, they felt understandably very threatened.

נכאת, according to Bereshit Rabbah 91,11, wax.

והנה אורחת ישמעאלים, ”and here there was a caravan of Ishmaelites, etc.” Nachmanides explains that when the brothers looked around they saw a group of people and camels in the distance whom they immediately identified as Ishmaelites, though they were still quite distant. They knew that these Ishmaelites were headed for Egypt as it was their custom to bring these various spices named in our verse to Egypt. This is why Yehudah said that seeing these people come from a distant land and are headed for a distant land, they could sell Joseph to them and this matter would never become known. When these people drew near, they realized that they were not the people whom they had thought them to be, but that they were merchants who traveled these regions all the time. These merchants had bought the spices from the Ishmaelites and had rented camels from them. They sold Joseph to these merchants, who bought him to trade him off, just as they traded their other merchandise. The caravan of Ishmaelites they had espied earlier were in the business of renting out camels, never buying merchandise for their own consumption. This is the meaning of the words: מיד הישמעאלים אשר הורידוהו שמה, “from the Ishmaelites who had brought him down to Egypt.” (39,1) Joseph was under the control of the Ishmaelites, although he was owned by the Midianites, prior to his sale to Potiphar. The style of the whole paragraph i.e. the repetition of the events related therein, must be understood as once described from the Ishmaelties’ perspective, and once from the Midianites’ perspective. We encounter something of a similar nature at the very end of the Torah (Deuteronomy 34,12) ולכל היד החזקה וכל המורא הגדול אשר עשה משה לעיני כל ישראל, where all the miracles performed by Moses are attributed to him, whereas previously in Deuteronomy 11,3 all of these miracles are attributed to G’d Himself.” Ibn Ezra (on verse 28) says that the Midianites are called here Ishmaelites, as they are in Judges 8,24, [although Gideon had been fighting the 5 Kings of the Midianites. Ed] seeing that their founding mother was Hagar. [if she was identical with Keturah. Ed.] Rash’bam writes that the brothers did not sell Joseph at all, but they sat down to eat, and while they were eating they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites in the distance. They then decided that after they would have completed their meal they would sell Joseph to these Ishmaelites. Before being able to do so, the Midianites arrived on the scene (the brothers not being within earshot of Joseph’s cries for mercy) and pulled Joseph out of the pit. They proceeded to sell him to the Ishmaelites. As to Joseph saying to his brothers in Genesis 45,4: “I am your brother whom you have sold to Egypt,” Joseph simply blamed what the brothers had done to him for his having been sold to Egypt. Some commentators interpret the word ומדנים as not referring to Midianites, but as being a derivative of the word מדון, strife as in ריב ומדון, Chabakuk, 1,3 where it describes strife and contention. The Torah meant that the strife and contention between the brothers ultimately resulted in Joseph being sold to Egypt. Yet another view expressed by some commentators is that the brothers sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites, but they were afraid of raising him from the pit as they themselves might be bitten by the snakes; they therefore waited until the Midianites had raised him from the pit, as the Midianites were snake charmers and could safely venture into the pit. We know about all this from the Midianites who brought their charms with them when they visited Bileam as part of the delegation from Balak. (Numbers chapter 22) Joseph wound up being owned jointly by the Midianites and the Ishmaelites Some commentators say that the Ishmaelites sold Joseph to Potiphar who had accused them of having kidnapped him. The Midianites guaranteed to Potiphar that Joseph was theirs to sell, and had not been kidnapped. This is why the Torah attributes the actual sale to the Midianites who acted as guarantors for the validity of the sale. The Ishmaelites are also described as selling him, as 1) they had physical possession of him, and 2) they had paid 20 silver pieces for him to the brothers. The reason why so little money changed hands was that Joseph, because of his traumatic experience in the pit, no longer looked nearly as handsome as he had before his trauma.

נשא עינים ist nie ein zufälliges, sondern ein absichtliches Ausschauen. Auch ihnen, da sie sich zum Essen niedersetzten, ließ doch das Gefühl keine Ruhe. Sie schauten nach der Grube hin. — Die Ismaeliten waren ein verwandter Stamm, und da dies keine "Kaufleute" waren, die mit allem und auch mit Menschen Geschäfte machten, so durften die Brüder, indem Josef den Ismaeliten verkauft wurde, erwarten, dass er bei ihnen bleiben und mit ihnen, nachdem sie ihre Gewürze in Mizrajim verkauft haben würden, in ihre Heimat, Arabien, zurückkehren würde. Es erklärt dies, weshalb die Brüder später gar keine Ahnung davon hatten, dass Josef in Ägypten sein könne. Es würde dies sich noch mehr bestätigen, wenn, wie es immerhin möglich ist und auch von manchen so aufgefasst wird, die Brüder ihn an die Ismaeliten verkauft hätten, von denen sie, wie gesagt, erwarten durften, dass sie ihn mit sich in die Heimat nehmen würden, und diese es auch getan hätten, wenn nicht inzwischen midianitische Kaufleute schon vorauf gezogen wären, die ihn von den Ismaeliten auf Spekulation kauften und ihn dann in Ägypten wieder verkauften. Dem würde dann anscheinend der Bericht Raw Hirsch on Genesis 37: 36 entsprechen, demzufolge die Medaniten, vermutlich gleichbedeutend mit Midianiten, ihn in Mizrajim verkauften. Wenn es dann Kap.39. 1 heißt, dass Potiphar ihn von der Hand der Ismaeliten, die ihn dort hinabgebracht hatten, gekauft habe, so müsste dies dann nur indirekt verstanden werden: vermittelst der Midianiten, an welche jene ihn verkauft hatten. Es dürfte dann aber darum auf die Ismaeliten dort als die erste Hand hingeblickt werden, in welche Josef durch die Brüder gebracht worden war, weil eben dadurch die irrige Meinung der Brüder motiviert ist, die ihn gar nicht in Ägypten erwarteten, eine Voraussetzung, die zu dem Verfolg der Geschichte nicht unwesentlich ist. Da jedoch jedenfalls entweder Raw Hirsch on Genesis 37: 36 oder Kap.39, 1 in uneigentlichem Sinne verstanden werden muss, das מיד הישמעאלים aber viel weniger eine indirekte Vermittlung, als das מכרו אתו אל מצרים zulässt, wo vielmehr das אל, "nach Mizrajim hin", nicht במצרים, in Mizrajim, ganz eigentlich eine indirekte Vermittelung ausdrückt, da ferner der Wortlaut des Raw Hirsch on Genesis 37: 28 durchaus berichtet, nicht die Brüder, sondern diese midianitischen Kaufleute hätten Josef aus der Grube gezogen und ihn an die Ismaeliten verkauft: so hat diese Auffassung viel mehr für sich. Die Brüder wollten ihn an die Ismaeliten verkaufen, inzwischen kamen ihnen die Kaufleute zuvor, holten Josef heraus und verkauften ihn an die Ismaeliten. Immerhin meinten die Brüder, er befinde sich in deren Händen und sei mit ihnen in ihre Heimat zurückgekehrt. Es war gleichwohl eine ihnen unbekannte Fügung, dass diese ihn dennoch in Ägypten verkauften. Der ganze Verkauf fällt gleichwohl den Brüdern zur Last, da er in ihrem Sinne geschah und sie ihn gerne geschehen ließen, ohne ihn zu hindern, was ihnen ja ein leichtes gewesen wäre.

וגמליהם נשאים AND THEIR CAMELS WERE BEARING etc. — Why does Scripture specially announce what they were laden with? It is to tell you how great is the reward of the righteous: it is not usual for Arabs to carry anything but naphta and itran (tar) which are evil-smelling, but for this one (Joseph, the righteous) it was specially arranged that they should be carrying fragrant spices so that he should not suffer from a bad odour (Genesis Rabbah 84:17).

הולכים להוריד מצרימה, these Ishmaelites were camel owners, they did not own the merchandise described which was carried by their camels. As soon as they would deliver the merchandise to the appropriate address in Egypt their mission was completed.

צרי, according to the view of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel the word refers to resin, sap found in the trunk of the balsam tree. The word לוט according to Bereshit Rabbah 91,11 is מצטכי, Lotus?.

מה בצע, “what financial advantage?” There is a view expressed in the Midrash (Pessikta Rabbati Parshat Ki Tissa) according to which the brothers asked Yehudah to break the bread and to pronounce the blessing to G’d, לבצוע, at the meal, and he replied to them that it was most inappropriate to do so while they planned to commit murder.

וישבו, they sat down; some distance away from the pit, in order to eat their midday meal and not to have to listen to his pitiful pleas.

נכאת SPICERY — Every collection of many kinds of spices is called נכאת. So, too, (2 Kings 20:13) “and he showed them all the house of his נכתה which means the house where his spices were mixed. Onkelos translates it as meaning wax (perhaps an aromatic gum).

צרי AND BALM — a resin that exudes from the wood of the balsam-tree: it is the נטף that is enumerated among the ingredients of the incense used in the Tabernacle (Exodus 30:34; cf. Keritot 6a).

ולט AND LADANUM — This is called Lotos in the language of the Mishna. Our Rabbis have in treatise Niddah 8a explained that it is a vegetable root; it bears the name aristolochia (birthwort).

מה בצע means WHAT PROFIT— just as the Targum renders it.

AND WE SHALL CONCEAL HIS BLOOD. “We shall hide the fact of his death.” This is Rashi’s language. And Onkelos similarly says, “and we shall cover up his blood.”
The correct interpretation is as its literal sense indicates. It is the custom of those who kill in secret to slay the victim, bury him, and conceal his blood in the earth, even as it says, And he hid him in the sand.⁹⁰Exodus 2:12. This was why Judah said to them, “By casting him into the pit we shall kill our brother and cover his blood with dust, for it will so be accounted to us.”⁹¹Judah was arguing against throwing him into the pit, for this act would also be accounted to them as murder. This explanation is developed further on in the text.
Now Reuben had instructed them not to spill blood with their hands. Rather, they should throw him into the pit and let him perish there, since the punishment of he who causes bloodshed is not the same as the punishment of one who actually commits the murder. Judah now came and said, “This too will be accounted to us as murder, as if we had killed him.” Such indeed is the truth, as the verse says, And him [Uriah] thou hast slain with the sword of the children of Ammon.⁹²II Samuel 12:9. The difference between actual murder and causing death is that there is a greater punishment for a murderer and a lesser punishment for the one who indirectly causes death. Thus, the two of them [Reuben and Judah] spoke the truth.

What will we gain. By this we will do harm not only to Yoseif but to ourselves, because we will be filled with remorse.

?מה בצע, “what financial advantage,” as per Onkelos.

וכסינו את דמו, ”and we will conceal his blood.” According to Rashi these words are a euphemism for “let’s conceal his death.” According to Nachmanides the words may be taken at face value, as it was the custom of murderers ever since the first one, Kayin, to bury the victim under a heap of earth and thus to conceal his blood.

What profit? as Onkelos translates it. I.e., we should not explain בצע as “theft.”

מה בצע, was böte uns der Tod unseres Bruders für unsere Zwecke mehr Vorteile, als wenn wir ihn weit in die Fremde hin von uns entfernen!

מה בצע כי נהרוג את אחינו, “what will it profit us to kill our brother?” They did not consider killing Joseph a worthwhile act of revenge, as all dead people become forgotten in short order, as David has stated explicitly when he said to G-d in Psalms 59,12: “Do not kill them lest my people will forget them, bring them low, instead;”

וכסינו את דמו AND CONCEAL HIS BLOOD — this signifies and we hide the fact of his death (for they had not shed his blood, but had cast him into a pit to die).

And cover up his blood. Moreover, the deed will not even serve as a deterrent to our other adversaries because we will have to conceal it for our own honor and out of fear of our father.

כי נהרוג את אחינו, what does this mean seeing Reuven had already prevented them from killing their brother outright? We must therefore understand Yehudah’s words as meaning: “what are we going to do with him? If we leave him in the pit this is just as bad as having killed him.”

And we will conceal his death. Rashi is answering the questions: He was not a wild animal or a bird, [whose blood there is a mitzvah to cover. Why does it say, “Cover up his blood”?] Furthermore, they threw him into a pit. What blood was there to be covered?

מה בצע, the Talmud in Sanhedrin 6, states that anyone who blesses Yehudah for having said this (i.e. saving Joseph’s life) is guilty of insulting him instead, because the reason he gave for saving Joseph’s life was not in order to do him a favour but the reverse. He had implied that if killing him would be profitable they would certainly kill him. The only reason why they did not was because they could not see any advantage in it for themselves in doing so. The Torah spells this out in the next phrase:

וכסינו את דמו, and cover his blood. He meant they had to conceal his death from their father.

וכסינו את דמו, “first we would have to cover up his blood,” (so that we could not even take credit for our deed.) We have to cover up his death and cannot boast about the absence of Joseph or our part in having accomplished this because of our father’s sorrow. When one has fought a war and killed one’s enemy, the revenge is only sweet when the victor can boast about it.

וישמעו AND THEY HEARKENED — The Targum renders this by “and they accepted it from him” (i.e., they agreed with him). Wherever the verb שמע means agreeing with a person’s statement — obeying — as here, and as (28:7) “and Jacob had hearkened (וישמע) to his father”, and (Exodus 24:7) “We will do and we will obey (ונשמע)” it is translated in the Targum by קבל “accepting”, but wherever it merely means hearing with the ear, as e. g. (3:8) “And they heard (וישמעו) the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden”, and (27:5) “and Rebecca heard (שומעת;”, and (31:1) “And Israel heard (וישמע)”, and (Exodus 16:12) “I have heard (שמעתי) the murmurings of the children of Israel”, — all such cases are rendered by various forms of ושמעו: שמע “and they heard“, ושמעת “and she heard”, ושמע “and he heard”,שמיע ,קדמי “there is heard before Me” (I have heard).

לכו ונמכרנו, and this will be an appropriate measure for measure punishment for him; he wanted to make slaves out of us; now he himself will become a slave.

לכו, we already explained this expression on verse 20.

לכו ונמכרנו לישמעאלים, “come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites.” He thought in his dreams that he would rule over us and that we would become his slaves; let us sell him into slavery instead.

וישמעו אחיו, “his brothers listened to him,” i.e. they accepted his logic;” they said that already at the covenant between the pieces between Avraham and G-d in Genesis chapter 15, certain harsh decrees had been revealed as becoming the fate of Avraham’s descendants before they would conquer the land of Canaan and settle in it. Seeing that they were all part of Avraham’s seed, it would be better for them to be sold together with him else the decree would be suffered only by Joseph. (Torah Shleymah by Rabbi Menachem Kasher item 159)

אל תהי בו, to be the indirect cause of his death. If we are going to sell him he will not die.

ויעברו אנשים מדינים AND THERE PASSED BY MIDIANITES — This was another caravan: Scripture indicates that he was sold several times.

ויעברו אנשים מדינים, while the brothers had been sitting down to consume their meal, having distanced themselves somewhat from the pit into which they had thrown Joseph in order not to be guilty of “eating while spilling blood,” they were waiting for the Ishmaelites whom they had seen in the distance, to arrive. During this period the Midianites, coming from a different direction had passed there, saw Joseph in the pit, pulled him up, and proceeded to sell him to the Ishmaelites. One may assume that the brothers had no knowledge of this. Even though the Torah appears to attribute the sale of Joseph to the Ishmaelites to the brothers, (based on Joseph accusing them of having sold him to Egypt, 45,4) we would have to say that because of their having been instrumental in bringing about that sale they are considered as if having assisted in that sale. This appears to me the deeper meaning of the plain meaning of the text both here and in chapter 45. The line describing the Midianites passing that way is described as something totally coincidental, having nothing to do with what the brothers had planned to do with Joseph. Even if the Torah says:וימכרו (את) יוסף לישמעאלים, this sounds as if the brothers did the selling. It is also possible that the brothers noting the Midianites suddenly materialising out of nowhere, instructed them to pull Joseph out of the pit after which they themselves sold him to the Ishmaelites.

מדינים סוחרים, the owners of the merchandise being transported on the Ishmaelites’ camels.

ויעברו אנשים מדינים, Midianites were passing, etc. Why did the Torah mention the passing by of Midianites when the sale was conducted with the Ishmaelites as is clearly stated at the end of this verse? Verse 25 also makes it clear that Joseph was sold to the Ishmaelites.

ויעברו אנשים מדינים, these were the Ishmaelites mentioned previously, seeing that both Midianites and Medanites are descendants of Keturah. [Keturah is understood to be Hagar who had her name changed after Sarah’s death when Avraham took her as a wife. Seeing that she gave birth to both Medan and to Midian, (25,2) this made both these sons full brothers to her earlier son Ishmael by the same father. Ed.] Even assuming that Keturah and Hagar were not identical, the three were at least sons of Avraham and therefore half brothers. Their respective families had intermarried so that they could be considered as brothers in the real sense of the word. The close relationship between their respective descendants comes to the fore in Judges 8,24 where after Gideon’s campaign against the Midianites they are described as Ishmaelites, the kind of jewelry they wore identifying them as members of that tribe.

And they pulled and lifted Joseph from the pit, and they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites. Most of the world believe that the brothers of Joseph sold him, but the Rashbam writes that this was not so, and the Chizkuni agrees with him. My friend and son of my uncle, my teacher and rabbi R. Shmuel Chaim b. David Lo-Li zt"l, delved deeply into the topic of this story, and he tended to the understanding of the Rashbam. He wrote about his opinions to be in a letter (28 Kislev 5589), and these are his words in explanation of this story:
When Joseph's brothers saw him in the distance, they plotted to kill him: "And they said... let us go and kill him..." But Reuven heard and saved him immediately, and advised them to cast him into the pit (in order to save him from their hand). They followed his advice and cast him into the pit. Afterwards, they returned to eat bread, and they distanced themselves from the pit, so as not to hear the cries of Joseph as he begged them, as the verse testifies, "Since we saw the aggrievement of his soul, when he begged us and we did not listen to him." While they were eating, they lifted their eyes and they saw some Ishmaelites. Judah said, "Let us go and sell him, etc." His brothers listened to him, i.e., they all agreed that after they finished eating, they would return to the pit and lift Joseph from there, and bring him to the Ishmaelites to sell him to them. (Since no hint is found in the verses that the Ishmaelites needed to come close to Jacob's sons on their way.) Meanwhile, while they they were speaking amongst themselves, far from the pit—behold!—without any of them knowing, Midianite men, merchants, crossed over by the pit (by Divine Providence). The Midianites pulled and lifted Joseph from the pit and brought him to the Ishmaelites and sold him to them for twenty [pieces of] silver. They brought Joseph to Egypt.
Now, behold! after they ate, Reuven hurried by himself, separating from his brothers without them seeing, and returned quickly to the pit to lift Joseph out and return him to his father before his brothers could reach him to lift him out and sell him. However... as the melting of wax before the fire, so melted Reuven's heart and became water as he gazed into the pit, where Joseph was no longer. He tore his garments [in mourning], for he thought in his imagination that without a doubt, a bear or a lion hunted [Joseph] for its cubs, suffocating him to take him as its prey. It had carried him off alive, as he was, his head on his thighs and on his stomach, to some hole or to some den, to fill its hole with prey and its den with game. And that was why he didn't find any blood or bones!
Reuven returned, in grief and in panic, to his brothers, and he cried and said, "Hei! The boy is no longer, for he has been ravaged! My plan, like yours, has been ruined! Now where do I go? I am guiltier than you all, because it was by my advice that you threw him into the pit, and it is as if I were the cause of his death!" All his brothers believed him and were astonished about this, as if G-d answered them that their brother should die. However, they were not pained, but glad to know that the one they hated was dead, without them having to lay a hand on him. Hence, they did not respond.
After this, they discussed what to do to also save Reuven also from the accusations of their father. Accordingly, they dipped Joseph's coat in blood and sent it to their father, in order that he believe that Joseph was hunted down before he reached them.
Now, when Jacob's sons came to their father, and they saw how Jacob mourned so exceedingly for his son, they regretted immediately everything they had done. But, what was to be done? If Joseph was already ravaged and had become the food of beasts of the field, all that remained for them to do was to comfort him with words, and so they did.
Now, according to this [following], it will be clarified that the children of Jacob, the tribes of Y-ah, which He chose as His unique ones, were not wicked, guided by their evil inclinations; nor were their deaths such that it be said of them, "They will be torn forever. His wrath and His fury will keep eternally." Even if in a small moment they had sinned out of jealousy and hatred, since it is the way of people to be unjust, they could not, Heaven forbid, have remained in their rebellion. It would have abated quickly, they would have recognized their sin, and regretted everything they had done. They were exerting themselves with all their power to cleanse themselves of it, since when they all returned home, no man held back any of their courage and strength to console their father.
That none of them sought out Joseph was because all of them fully believed without any shadow of a doubt that he was hunted down, and there was no hope to bring him back alive. That Reuven was silent when he heard the Judah's suggestion to sell Joseph was with the intention to conceal his good thoughts concerting Joseph from his brothers, so that his brothers not monitor him carefully to see what he was doing when he went alone to the pit. This was especially so after he heard Judah's suggestion, and he knew, or at least it appeared to him, that his brothers did not oppose Judah, the master among the brothers, and none disagreed and all were silent in deference to his suggestion. If he were to reveal his mind to them, they doubtless would not allow him to go alone to the pit as he had planned, lest he prevent them to doing to their brother as they wished. It is also understood why none responded to Reuven when he said to them, "The boy isn't there!" They should have said, "We sold him," but instead, they did not respond, because they did not sell him, and they did not know what had happened to him any more than did Reuven.
It is also understood why Joseph said, "I was verily kidnapped." It was because he was talking about the Midianites who actually kidnapped him and took him away from the land of the Hebrews, since he did not suspect that his brothers sold him from the outset to the Midianites. Regarding what is written after this, "And the Midianites sold him to Egypt," by his understanding, these were the Ishmaelites mentioned above, since in his understanding, "Ishmaelites" is a general term including all the children of Abraham aside from Isaac, and possibly these were descendants of Medan the son of Abraham. Even though the Midianites who sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites were themselves descendants of Abraham, they were certainly different people who were not true Ishmaelites. We cannot say that the sellers and buyers were one and the same, so they were called by a borrowed name separate from the sellers. There is further proof that the Ishmaelites and the Midianites are one and the same, since Scripture says here, "And the Midianites sold him to Egypt to Potiphar," and after that it says, "And Potiphar bought him... from the hand of the Ishmaelites."
And, after these words and truth, it will no longer be difficult to explain one verse that was repeated twice, which appears as if in contradiction to this structure. This is the statement of Joseph to his brothers when he admitted to them, "I am Joseph your brother, whom you sold to Egypt. Now, do not be distraught... that you sold me here," since the intention here is this: "You are the cause of my sale and coming to Egypt." This is similar to "and Solomon built the House. The Shadal [Samuel b. David Lo-Li] said that it is possible to add other, further examples, like, "And you will bring my hoariness down in grief to the grave" (below, Genesis 42:38), "You have killed the people of G‑d" (Numbers 17:6), "And this city shall burn with fire" (Jeremiah 38:23). Similarly, his brothers, in their hatred, were the reason Joseph was sold to Egypt. The proof of this, that in any case, they did not sell him to Egypt, is that it would have been sufficient [for Joseph] to say, "You sold me." Similarly, he says after this, "You did not send me here." It is understood that they did not send him, but were the cause that he be sent to Egypt.
If you wish to explain the verse, "I was verily kidnapped," according to all the commentators, that the intention was regarding his brothers who kidnapped and sold him, then you would also be able to say that Joseph, when he saw the Midianites who pulled and sold him like masters, did not know who the kidnappers were: Were they the brothers? or were they the Midianites?
Perhaps he thought in his imagination that his brothers sold him to the Midianites from the outset, and therefore said to them in his admission, "whom you sold." If you would argue that if the brothers did not sell him, they would not be silent when he said to them, "whom you sold," then the rebuttal is by your side. The brothers were not able to answer him [at all], not even the question, "Is my father still alive?" because they were confounded before him. How could they be so brazen as to bicker with him about their sin?
Until here are the words of the one dear to my soul, Samuel Chaim b. David Lo-Li zt"l. Even though I do not agree with him on all the details of the explanation, the main thing here is that his words and the words of the Rashbam are correct in my view: it appears to me that those who pulled Joseph out of the pit were the Midianites and they sold him to the Ishmaelites, and Jacob's children did not see or know about any of this at all. Joseph believed that they sold him to the Midianites and said to them, "Go pull him out of the pit." Joseph's brothers never said to him that they didn't sell him, since in speaking about it, it would be revealed that their intent was that he die in the pit. How could they say to him, "Don't think that we sold you. It was only in our heart that you die in the pit. When afterwards we agreed to Judah's suggestion to sell you, the Midianites got there first and sold you themselves!" The reason for "I was verily kidnapped" was regarding Joseph's brothers, who (in Joseph's belief) sold him, and kidnapped him from his father.

ויעברו אנשים מדינים סוחרים, וימשכו, “Midianite men, merchants, passed by and pulled Joseph (out of the pit).” According to the plain meaning of the text the passing Midianites pulled Joseph out of the pit and sold him, not the brothers. According to this interpretation, Joseph saying to the brothers in Genesis 45,4 “I am Joseph whom you have sold to Egypt,” has to refer to the fact that the brothers dumped him in the pit as a result of which he was eventually sold to Egypt. This would be supported by the fact that at that time he said מצרימה, i.e. in the direction of Egypt, as opposed to למצרים, which would have meant: “to Egypt.” He referred to a process which eventually brought him to Egypt after he had been traded from master to master. In that event the sin attributed to the brothers by the Romans (who punished Jewish scholars over 1200 years later) would have been an indirect sin at best. They were punished for being the cause which triggered Joseph’s eventually winding up in Egypt as a slave. The Romans felt that leading citizens of the Jewish people should pay for this indirect sale of Joseph by the brothers. They considered it murder seeing that if the Ishmaelites or Midianites had not come along Joseph would have died in that pit. The principle of prominent people being considered guilty of murder even if it was not by laying an actual hand of the victim is reflected in the Bible by the case of David who ordered his commander-in-chief Yoav to place Bat Sheva’s husband Uriah in such an exposed position at the front against the Bney Ammon that he was almost certain to be killed. He instructed Yoav to ensure that Uriah would be killed by withdrawing the support of his comrades-in-arms from Uriah. As a result, Uriah was killed. by the Ammonites, and the Bible (the prophet Natan in Samuel II 12,9) accused David outright of having murdered Uriah though he had not laid a hand on him. The only difference between murdering someone with one’s own hands and between contriving his certain death in another fashion is the culpability before a human tribunal. The sin vis-a-vis G’d is the same (compare Kidushin 43)

Yaakov’s sons [pulled] Yoseif from the pit and sold him to the Yishmaelites... Rashi deduces this from what is written, “They pulled Yoseif up from the pit and sold Yoseif.” If it was the Midianites [who did all this], how could they sell him? He did not yet belong to them! And if [you suggest that] the Midianites pulled him out of the pit without the brothers’ knowledge and sold him, why is it written later (45:4), “I am Yoseif your brother, whom you sold into Egypt”? They never sold him! And why would the brothers say, “Come let us sell him to the Yishmaelites,” if they never sold him? Perforce, “they pulled” refers to Yaakov’s sons who sold him to the Yishmaelites, and the Yishmaelites sold him to the Midianites. We need not ask: How does Rashi know that the Yishmaelites sold him to the Midianites? Perhaps they sold him to the מדנים [written without the intermediate yud, see v. 36], which is a different nation — as it is written (25:2), “Medan, Midian...” [The answer is:] If so, why does the verse mention, “Midianite merchants passed by”? They must be mentioned in connection with Yoseif’s sale, that the Yishmaelites sold him to the Midianites, and the Midianites to the מדנים, and the מדנים to Potiphar. So it seems to me. Re’m asks: The verse says, “Potiphar bought him from the Yishmaelites” (39:1). [But did not the Yishmaelites already sell him to the Midianites?] It appears that the answer is: Although he was sold several times, the Midianites had not yet paid. Because of this, he still belonged to the Yishmaelites, as the Midianites received [from their sale of Yoseif] only the profit, i.e., the amount that exceeded what they owed the Yishmaelites.

That were going through the desert with that caravan of Ishmaelites and the camels, because it is impossible to go through the desert without a large caravan, and they (the Midianites) were going on foot. And what it mentions was not "seen from a distance" except the tall camels. And the Midianites that went on foot turned from the road for the sound of Yosef, or because their hearts pushed them to look into that pit.

וימשכו ויעלו, “they pulled and raised;” first they struck a deal to sell him for twenty pieces of silver. Then in order to deliver him to the purchaser they had to haul him out of the pit. While Joseph had been in the pit, wondering how he would ever escape, he had lost his good looks and was not presentable to people who wished to buy a young and able bodied slave. As soon as he was hauled out of the pit he regained his former looks. The sellers were now not prepared to sell him for so little money and they were about to throw him back into the pit. In order to prevent this, the Ishmaelites added shoes of their own free will in order to satisfy the Midianite merchants. This is what the prophet Amos referred to (Amos 2,6) when he said: על מכרם בכסף צדיק ואביון בעבור נעלים, “because they have sold for silver those whose cause was just and the needy for a pair of sandals.” As soon as the Ishmaelites offered more than originally, the Midianites raised Joseph from the pit again.

And Midianite men passed There are commentaries that the Midianites heard him screaming in the pit, and brought him up, and kidnapped him, and sold him to Yishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver, and made a great profit from this since they hadn't spent anything on him. The Yishmaelites then brought him down to Egypt, and what it says at the end of the parsha, "And the Midianites sold him to Egypt..." (Bereishit 37:36), is that they sold him in order to bring him down to Egypt, and this is not just lies! For behild, it's written there "to Potifar", and further, that in that place it's difficult why he didn't reveal himself. And also, there is one who says Madanim [מדנים] and Midaynim [מדיינים], [called this] for the name of the cargo that they carry, such as in Iyov 38:31 "Can you bind the cords [ma'adnot; מַעֲדַנּוֹת] of the Pleiades?", or I Samuel 15:32 "And Agag came to him in chains [ma'adnot; מַעֲדַנּוֹת]". And sometimes the ayin is omitted, for it's usual to omit the letters alef, chet, hey and ayin. For example, "and laid in wait [vayarev, וַיָּרֶב] in a valley" (I Samuel 15:5), which is like vaye'arev ויארב. And so too is explained "sitters on couches [midin, מִדִּין]" (Shoftim 5:10), that it's like on the cargo which is bound. And all of this isn't worth anything to me, but it was one people, as I have explained, just as they call us sometimes Yehudim and sometimes Yisra'elim and sometimes Yeshurun. And the truth is that his brothers sold him, as he said to them "that have sold me here" (Bereishit 45:4), and [the merchants?] caused them to swear, as I have explained, and made from them great profit, like a man who sells his field because of its poor quality, for they would give of their own that someone would distance it from them, for in they end they hated him with a hatred.

ויעברו אנשים מדינים סוחרים, “in the meantime Midianite merchants had passed by the pit that Joseph had been thrown into and they heard his cries.

וימשכו AND THEY DREW UP — the sons of Jacob drew up את יוסף מן הבור JOSEPH FROM THE PIT, and they sold him to the Ishmaelites, and the Ishmaelites to the Midianites and the Midianites into Egypt (Midrash Tanchuma 1:9:13).

וימכרו את יוסף לישמעאלים, they completed the deal with the Ishmaelites acting as agents for the Midianites. The brothers did not want to speak to the Midianite merchants. The reason was that they did not want to be recognised by them as they were in the habit of frequenting cities in order to ply their wares. The camel drovers, however, were not in the habit of visiting urban areas. At worst they would just pass through towns without stopping there overnight or longer. The actual purchasers, however, were the Midianite merchants, in accordance with the Torah’s narrative that the Midianites sold Joseph to Egypt (verse 36). The Jewish people experienced something parallel during the period of the second Temple, when Midianites sold a portion of our people into slavery to surrounding nations, a phenomenon which was widespread during the time when the descendants of the Hasmoneans were fighting among themselves about who would be king in Jerusalem. This fratricide is responsible for our exile until this day. It was a historical replay of what happened as a result of the brothers selling Joseph, and the whole family winding up in exile in Egypt only a few years later. Compare what our sages have to say on the subject in Shabbat 10.

וימשכו, Joseph’s brothers pulled him out of the pit prior to the sale to the Ishmaelites. All this occurred when Reuven was not present. Perhaps, in the interval he had returned to his father. [a distance of 120 km, hardly likely, as Reuven would have had to come back another 120 km. to retrieve Joseph who would have died from thirst in the interval if not from other causes. Ed.] It is more likely that Reuven had a flock of his own to look after in that general region.

בעשרים כסף, “for twenty pieces of silver.” We have been commanded by the Torah (Numbers 18,16) that the redemption of a firstborn son, an Israelite, (as distinct from a Kohen or a Levite) is to be performed in exchange for 5 selaim. The sela is a coin worth 4 “kesseph,” pieces of silver, such as mentioned in our verse here. This is the reason that Onkelos does not translate “twenty selaim of silver” but leaves the wording of the Torah unchanged and writes: עשרים כסף. One of the underlying reasons for the whole procedure of redeeming the firstborn is the need to atone for that sale of Joseph who was Rachel’s firstborn son and who had been wrongly sold for this amount (compare Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2,3).

The Midianites. And the brothers who saw it rejoiced in this, because their desire was done without their getting involved. And if Yehuda had not spoken so, they would not have set on pulling him out and selling him, but they would have left him in the pit until he died. But when it had been decided by them to do so, it was a delight to them that it was done by the Midianites. And this is what it says in Bereishis Rabbah 84 that Yosef was stolen twice. His brothers stole him from their father, and the Midianites from the brothers. And in any case, Yosef said when he made himself known to his brothers "because you sold me here". Because they caused the matter, and they knew the action of the Midianites and it wasn't stopped by them. This is as if they did it. And so Rashbam interprets....

Furthermore, we read in verse 36 that the Midianites sold Joseph in Egypt to Potiphar, etc. This appears to prove that the brothers had sold Joseph to the Midianites, something which contradicts what we have been told previously. To confuse the issue still further, we are told in 39,1 that Joseph was brought down to Egypt where Potiphar purchased him from the Ishmaelites. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 84,22 account for all this by saying that Joseph was sold several times over. This does not seem to solve all the difficulties in the text, however.

וימכרו את יוסף לישמעלים, “they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites. According to Rashi, the subject here are the brothers, who sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites, whereupon the latter sold him to the Midianites who in turn sold him to the Egyptians. If so, we must understand the whole paragraph as follows: They (the brothers who had sat down to eat but had not eaten yet) raised their eyes (verse 25) and they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites approaching, (from the east travelling south) while at the same time Midianite merchants arrived at the pit from a different direction who (eventually) hauled Joseph out of the pit. (verse 28) [Remember the brothers had sat down for lunch some distance from the pit so that they would not hear Joseph’s cries. Ed.] These Midianites sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for 20 pieces of silver. The reason why the Torah mentions this at this stage is that we should not wonder when the Torah in verse 36 reports that the Medanim had sold Joseph already some time previously to the Egyptians. The individual Egyptian who purchased Joseph was Potiphar. Most of this had taken place while the brothers had still argued among themselves if to sell him to the Ishmaelites. They had been pre-empted in the meantime by the Midianites. The Midianites in the meantime had become witnesses to the discussions among Joseph’s brothers and had bought Joseph subsequently from the Ishmaelites. They were certain that Joseph had been hauled up from the pit in order that he could be sold to them. There were two separate groups of people, some called Medanim, and the others Midianim. The Ishmaelites who were traveling in the direction of Egypt, were the ones who sold Joseph to Potiphar once they had arrived in Egypt. If you were to say why does the Torah write in verse 36 the Medanim had sold him to Egypt, so that eventually he was sold to Potiphar, etc.? We would have expected the subject in that verse to have been the Midianites! Rash’bam in his commentary on the Chumash claims that the three people mentioned in this story, i.e. the Ishmaelites, Midianites, and Medonites, were all members of the same people though not of the same tribe. Their founder fathers were all brothers from the same mother and father Avraham-Keturah (Hagar), as we know (assuming that Keturah was identical with Hagar) (Compare Genesis 25,2) The query mentioned above was already raised by Rashi, (verse 3) we quote him (the Midrash which he quotes) literally: the word פסים in the garment described as כתונת פסים, contains a hint of future problems, being sold four times, Joseph would endure. The letter פ refers to Potiphar to whom he had been sold. The letter ס refers to the סוחרים, the merchants (verse 28) the letter י to the Ishmaelites, and the letter ם to the Medonites. The problem with the Midrash is that only three sales have been reported in the Torah. In view of this difficulty I suggest the following: concerning the line (verse 25) ‘they raised their eyes and here there was approaching a caravan of Ishmaelites, etc.;” this happened while the brothers were discussing among themselves how to proceed from there. They hit on the idea of selling Joseph to the members of that caravan. Before the caravan of |shmaelites had even reached them, another group of Midianite merchants had passed the pit from the opposite direction and hearing his cries, sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites before even having raised him from the pit, for the measly amount of 20 pieces of silver. They then hauled Joseph from the pit alive. The Ishmaelites sold him to the Medonites, and these in turn sold him to Potiphar. So we do have four separate sales. When the Torah wrote in Genesis 39,1 that Potiphar acquired him from the Ishmaelites, this is quite correct as when Potiphar set eyes on him he looked very handsome, and he reasoned that “negroes do not sell whites, whereas whites sell negroes;” in other words, he considered it unlikely that the Medonites had come by Joseph legally, and he wanted reassurance that he did not buy someone who had been kidnapped. The |shmaelites who had sold him to the Medonites gave Potiphar a guarantee that everything was completely legal. (B’reshit Rabbah 86,3)

וימשכו, “they pulled him out;” the Midianites pulled him out of the pit, and proceeded to sell him to the Yishmaelites; the Yishmaelites in turned him over to the Midianites for safekeeping, as they had no immediate use for him. He was then sold to Poptiphar by the Yishmaelites and Midianites jointly. When you understand what happened in this way, all the three verses that describe what happened to Joseph after he was thrown into the pit makes perfect sense. The three verses read as follows: verse 36: The Midianites had sold him to Egypt, specifically to Potiphar.” Chapter 39,1: Potiphar bought him from the Yishmaelites;” chapter 45,4: Joseph speaking: “whom you had sold (me) to Egypt.” Joseph was not concerned with the details but with the cause of his being in Egypt. He accuses the brothers of having been the cause, not the actual sellers.

The Ishmaelites.

The correct interpretation is that the Torah first mentions the appearance of a caravan of Ishmaelites (verse 25) and Yehudah's suggestion that they should sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites. When the brothers became aware that the Ishmaelites in that caravan dealt only in spices, etc., and that they would not consider slave trading, G'd arranged for מדנים סוחרים, Midianite merchants to pass by. The Torah adds the word "merchants" to tell us that the brothers recognised that these men were less discriminating in the kind of merchandise they dealt in. The brothers sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites using the Midianites as middlemen. The Ishmaelites would have refused to buy a human being (who presumably had been a free man) from the brothers directly. Inasmuch as the deal involved both the Midianites and the Ishmaelites, the Midianites received part of the profit. The Ishmaelites who had financed the sale, paid out the cash at that time.

בעשרים כסף, “for twenty pieces of silver.” If you were to ask how it is possible that a young man as physically fit and handsome could have been sold for so little, [according to the Torah the going price for people such as Joseph was a minimum of 50 shekel, Ed] perhaps the Torah meant that each brother received 20 pieces of silver as his share of the sale. This question had been raised in Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, chapter 38. One of the answers given there is that he had become so upset as a result of his experiences that he had not only lost his good looks but had also become physically completely weakened; [my edition of Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer only quotes the verse from Amos 2,6, from which he derives that each brother bought himself a pair of sandals for the 2 pieces of silver he had received from that sale. Ed.]

מן הבור, “from the pit;” his brothers had no knowledge at all of what had happened to Joseph after they had thrown him into the pit. When Reuven came back to the pit and there was no trace of Joseph, all of them thought that some wild animal must have devoured him. They did not lie to their father. If the brothers themselves had sold him to anyone or any country, they would have made extensive efforts during the 22 years until they travelled to Egypt to find out what had happened to him since. Not only that, if they had had any reason to believe that he might still have been alive, they would not have failed to recognise him when they stood face to face with him. He could not have completely fooled them unless they had long ago become convinced that he was dead. At least they would have recognised him when he blessed Binyamin (43,29) or when he gave Binyamin gifts that were five time larger than the gifts he gave to them. (43,34) Also, the fact that he had seated them at the table in strict accordance with the order of their birth, would have convinced them that he must be their long lost brother. I am convinced that this is the correct sequence of what happened. An alternate interpretation of the sequence of events after Joseph was thrown into the pit: while the brothers were still debating among themselves if to sell Joseph to the approaching Yishmaelites, the Midianites had come from a different direction and seen Joseph in the pit and sold him to the Yishmaelites as soon as possible. In order not to be shamed as having left him in the pit while he was crying, they took him out and made him look presentable before handing him over to the Yishmaelites. Following this, the Yishmaelites sold Joseph to the Midianites, who in turn sold him to Potiphar. According to this scenario, Joseph was actually sold no fewer than four times. This would tally with what is written in 39,1 according to which Potiphar bought Joseph from the Yishmaelites. To sum up: the brothers sold Joseph to the Midianites; this sale has not been recorded in the Torah as it remained in effect only for an hour or so. The Midianites then sold him to the Yishmaelites; this sale was also not recorded in the Torah seeing that the Yishmaelites resold Joseph as soon as possible and secretly, not at public auction as they were afraid that the Midianites wished to cancel the sale and sell him to Potiphar instead, getting a much better price. When Potiphar saw Joseph in the possession of the Midianites and realised how handsome a slave this would be, he could not understand why a white person would sell a fellow white skinned person, they usually only sold negroes, although the reverse would have made sense to him. He therefore reasoned that Joseph could not have been born as a slave. Consequently, he demanded an ironclad guarantee that the Midinanites had not kidnapped him. The guarantee that the Midianites furnished was that they brought the Yishmaelites from whom they had purchased Joseph to confirm this for Potiphar. This is why the Torah writes that Potiphar purchased Joseph from the Yishmaelites, who had confirmed that they had sold him legitimately.

The Torah was able to say "the Midianites had sold him to Egypt (37,36)" since they received part of the profit of the transaction. Inasmuch as they and not the Ishmaelites knew Joseph's true value as a slave, they conducted the sale to Potiphar.Meanwhile Joseph's body, i.e. his person remained in the care of the Ishmaelites so that when Potiphar acquired him he did so from the hands of the Ishmaelites (39,1). The Torah emphasises מיד הישמעלים, to make certain that we understand that Joseph was in the physical possession of the Ishmaelites who handed him over to Potiphar. All the various verses make perfect sense when looked at in this vein. Perhaps the author of the Midrash mentioned מכירות הרבה, many sales, because the different stages involved in Joseph's sale appeared to him as if he was being sold many times over.

בעשרים כסף, “for twenty pieces of silver.” The price sounds extremely cheap, seeing that Joseph was such a handsome young man. We would have to understand this as being due to Joseph’s face reflecting horrific experiences he had undergone recently and from which he did not yet recover. The brothers shared the twenty silver pieces, reportedly each buying himself a pair of new shoes (Amos 2,6) A different interpretation of why the Torah mentions the price Joseph was sold for: In Leviticus 27,5, the Torah lists the monetary value of a person who donates the value of such a person to the Temple treasury. The value depends on age and sex. According to what is written there, males between the age of five and twenty are worth 20 shekel; Joseph was 17 years at the time. According to B’reshit Rabbah 84,18, G-d decreed that because the brothers sold Joseph for 5 sela’im=20 dinarim, they will have to pay a priest 5 selaim to redeem a first born son.

וימכרו את יוסף. They sold Joseph. It is possible that after the brothers had humiliated Joseph by stripping him naked and tossing him into the pit that their anger abated partially and they were willing to accept Yehudah's suggestion. They may have thought that their declared objective to frustrate realisation of Joseph's dreams would be achieved if he were to be sold into slavery. Once he had become a slave there were no known ways in which Joseph could rise to a higher status, much less to that of king. This is what Psalms 105,17 had in mind when the Psalmist stated: כי לעבד נמכר יוסף, "Joseph had been sold into slavery."

וישב ראובן AND REUBEN RETURNED — When he (Joseph) was sold he had not been present, for it was his day (his turn) to go to attend to his father (Genesis Rabbah 84:19). Another explanation is: he had not sat with them at the meal because he was occupied with his sack-cloth and fast in penitence for having disturbed his father’s couch (Genesis Rabbah 84:19).

וישב ראובן אל הבור, Reuben returned to the pit, etc. What was Reuben's argument when he complained to the brothers ואני אנה אני בא, "where shall I go?" Would Joseph not have been lost even if his own suggestion to throw him into a pit had been carried out? After all, the Torah itself testified that Reuben had never told his brothers that he intended to save Joseph and to restore him to his father! When Yehudah said to the other brothers: "what profit is there in killing our brother, etc," does this not prove that Joseph's remaining in the pit was meant to result in his death? How then could Reuben complain to his brothers?

וישב, he returned from wherever he had gone to his brothers, going back to the pit to see if he could rescue Joseph without his brothers finding out, and to return him to his father. There is a discussion in Bereshit Rabbah 84,19 as to where Reuven had been in the interval. According to some, it had been his turn to attend to the needs of his father, whereas according to Rabbi Eliezer he was engaged in doing penance, etc., for having slept with Bilhah, his father’s concubine.

וישב ראובן, “Reuven returned;” According to Rashi, Reuven reverted to wearing sackcloth and observing fasts as penitence over his indiscretion with Bilhah, even though he had not made a public confession until after he had heard his brother Yehudah publicly confess his sin against Tamar. (Genesis 38,26)

He was not present when he was sold, for his day had arrived to go and attend to his father. [You might ask:] What forced Rashi to say this? Perhaps he went to take care of business. And the same [question can be asked] according to the alternate explanation, that “he was occupied with his sack-cloth and fasting.” The answer is: If he had gone for mundane business, how was he allowed to leave? He knew his brothers wanted to kill Yoseif. Why did he not fear they would kill Yoseif when he left? Perforce, he went for a mitzvah, as his day had arrived, etc. There is a question [on the first explanation]: Why does it say he “returned” (וישב)? It should say he “came.” Therefore Rashi brings the alternate explanation, [according to which וישב is] an expression of repentance (תשובה). And the second explanation is insufficient on its own, as he should have waited for another day [to do repentance], because of [the danger to] Yoseif. Thus Rashi explains that “his day had arrived...” and he could not delay. (Maharshal)

וישב ראובן אל הבור, “when Reuven returned to the pit, etc.” Rashi, in answer to the question we should have asked about where Reuven was in the interval, answers that he had been preoccupied with trying through fasting and wearing sackcloth, to obtain forgiveness for his indiscretion in removing evidence of Bilhah sleeping with his father. [one of two explanations which Rashi suggests, the more likely correct one. Ed.] This explanation is difficult, seeing that the Talmud in tractate Makkot folio 11, arrives at the conclusion that Yehudah had been the first person ever to have done real penance by admitting his sin publicly, so that his brother learned from him when admitting being the father of the fetus his daughter-in-law Tamar was carrying in her womb. (Genesis 38,26) From that statement it is clear that at this stage Reuven had not felt the need to do penance. He did so only after Yehudah had set the example, which clearly had been some time after the sale of Joseph. Possibly, in order to solve this problem, perhaps the Talmud meant that until Yehudah had confessed publicly, Reuven had only done penance in the privacy his own house. He had been wearing sackcloth in his house already at this point.

ויקרע את בגדיו, “he rent his outer garments.” When his father heard about Joseph’s apparent death, the Torah describes the rending of his garments with the words ויקרע שמלותיו, “he rent his (under)garments.” When mourning parents or children, one rends all of one’s clothing, whereas when mourning siblings one only rends outer garments. The word שמלה appears as covering for one’s skin” (Exodus 22,26)

Another explanation: He was occupied with his sack-cloth... Rashi deduces this because it is written here, “Reuvein returned to the pit,” and it says, “Mordechai returned to the king’s gate wearing sack-cloth” (Esther 6:12). Just as “returned” over there refers to sack-cloth and fasting, so too here. Reuvein must have done his repentance secretly, and thus he was absent at the time of Yoseif’s sale. Otherwise it would contradict Rashi’s explanation of וזאת ליהודה (Devarim 33:7), that Yehudah’s confession over the incident with Tamar was what influenced Reuvein to confess and repent over the incident with Bilhah. Therefore it must be that Reuvein first repented secretly and later he did so publicly.

Actually, Reuben argued that inasmuch as he was the oldest, his father would charge him with leading the search for the missing Joseph from one end of the earth to the other. If Joseph had remained in the pit, he would have brought Joseph's remains to his father and explained to him that wild beasts had killed him. This would have been the end of his involvement. Now he could not do this. This is why he said: "where shall I go?" As a result the brothers hit on the idea of slaughtering a male goat and dipping Joseph's tunic in its blood, etc. By returning the tattered and blood-soaked remains of Joseph's striped coat they made it unnecessary for Reuben to start a search for Joseph.

אנה אני בא WHITHER SHALL I GO? — Whither can I flee from my father’s grief?

אנה אני בא!, what did I came to the pit for!

וישב, he did not know that the brothers had sold him but thought that he had been stolen from the pit.

Where can I flee from my father’s grief? [Rashi knows it means this] because otherwise, would the boy not being there cause a lack of space for Reuvein, leaving him nowhere to flee? Perforce, it means: since the boy is not there, I must flee from my father’s grief, and where can I flee?

אנה אני בא, nicht אלך, nicht: wohin soll ich mich mit meinem Schmerze flüchten! Dazu liegt ja auch eigentlich kein Motiv vor. Er war ja nicht allein mit seinem Schmerze, hatte ja eine ganze Familie zu Schmerzensgenossen. בא heißt ja auch wesentlich: in einen heimischen Ort sich begeben, in den man hingehört (verwandt mit פֺא dem gewöhnlichen [Job 38. 11] פֺה, Ausdruck des Ortes, wohin ein Gegenstand gehört: hier; auch פֶה, Mund, die Mündung, die sich öffnet, um das Hineingehörige aufzunehmen). Es drücken daher diese Worte vielmehr ein Scham- oder Reuegefühl aus, das Gefühl eines zu erwartenden begründeten oder unbegründeten Vorwurfes. Ich werde keine Stätte haben, wo ich werde ruhig sein, wo ich werde meine Augen aufschlagen können, alle Welt wird mich meiden. Was können nun die Motive zu einem solchen Gefühle gewesen sein? Möglich ganz einfach der Grund, dass er nicht mit der nötigen Energie gegen das Verfahren aufzutreten angefangen. Er hatte die מצוה begonnen, ohne sie zu vollenden. Woher aber der Mangel dieser Energie, da er doch der älteste war? Vielleicht, weil er ja auch nicht rein von Makel gewesen, ihn noch das frische Bewusstsein einer Verirrung drückte. Das Bewusstsein der eigenen Schwäche raubte ihm die Kraft zu entschiedenerem Auftreten.

ואני אנה אני בא, “as for me in what terrible situation have I gotten myself into?” Why was Reuven more concerned and afraid than the other brothers? On the contrary, the brother who should have been the one most afraid was Yehudah, who had acted as the brothers’ leader until that time! We must therefore say that he was more concerned because his father had treated Joseph as his firstborn, and he, his father’s biological firstborn could have been accused as being negligent in looking after him due to feelings of jealousy. In addition, he had already been guilty of an indiscretion in Bilhah’s bedroom, which had shown his father that he felt aggrieved about his father having favoured Rachel and her children. Rashi already commented concerning the tales Joseph had been telling to his father, all putting the sons of Leah in a bad light.

Es kann jedoch noch ein anderes zu Grunde gelegen haben. Es war ja das Gefühl der Angst, das die Brüder zu dem Verbrechen getrieben, die Furcht, in der Selbständigkeit von Josef überragt zu werden. Dieses Gefühl hätte auf natürlichem Wege niemanden mehr als Reuben erfüllen müssen. Es waren ja in Jakobs Hause zwei Erstgeborne, Reuben und Josef, und zwar war Josef von der eigentlich beabsichtigten Frau. Der Verdacht musste also bei dieser Tat hinsichtlich der Motive zunächst auf Reuben fallen. Deshalb hatte er sich ganz ferngehalten, deshalb fürchtete er, dass nun ein jeder den Stein zuerst auf ihn werfen werde. Der Erfolg hat ja auch diese Bedenken scheinbar gerechtfertigt. Die Erstgeburt ward wirklich Reuben genommen und auf Josef übertragen.

שעיר עזים A KID OF THE GOATS — its blood resembles that of a human being (Genesis Rabbah 84:19).

וישחטו שעיר עזים, they said that its blood resembled the colour of human blood.

שעיר עזים, “a male goat; ”according to Rashi they chose this animal as its blood most closely resembles the colour of human blood. When we read in the Talmud Gittin, folio 57, where the Babylonian general Nebuzaradan is reported of having tried to compare the blood of the hundreds of thousands of Jews he had slain in Jerusalem to that of the prophet of the prophet Zecharyah which had not stopped bubbling after having been stoned inside the Temple (he was also a priest) for having rebuked King Joash (about 150 years before the Temple was destroyed) and having failed to prove that that blood was human blood, we must assume that this was due to Zecharyah’s blood having become contaminated during all those years.

הַכֻּתֹּנֶת THE COAT — This is the form of the noun in the absolute state, but when it is in the construct state — as e.g., Joseph’s coat”, “the coat of many colours”, “the coat of linen”, — it is punctuated as כְּתֹנֶת.

AND THEY SENT THE COAT OF MANY COLORS, AND THEY BROUGHT IT TO THEIR FATHER. I.e., by command.⁹³Ramban’s intent is to resolve the following difficulty: The verse, And they sent the coat of many colors, clearly indicates that they did not bring it themselves. Ramban answers that the second half of the verse means that they commanded others to bring the coat to their father. Perhaps the word vayavi’u (and they brought) refers to the messengers who brought the coat, for the brothers dispatched it when they were still in Dothan, and it was the messengers who said, This we have found; recognize now. It may be that they sent the coat to Hebron, to one of their homes, and when they arrived they brought it before their father, and said to him, This we have found. They did all of this in order to feign ignorance of the matter, for had they remained quiet, he would have suspected them, saying; “You killed him,” for he knew that they were jealous of him.
And some scholars⁹⁴Mentioned in R’dak in the name of “some” scholars. explain the word vayeshalchu — ordinarily translated as “and they sent” — to mean that they pierced the coat with a sword in order to tear it in many places, to give the appearance of having been torn by the teeth of animals. The word vayeshalchu would thus be derived from the verse, By the sword (‘b’shelach’) they shall perish.⁹⁵Job 36:12. The significance of the word hapasim (many colors) is that they sent him the coat so that he might recognize it by the colors which he had made for him.

וישלחו, by means of human messengers who would not identify themselves, saying only: “this is what we have found!”

וישלחו את כתונת הפסים, they brought it with a dagger, shelach, to show that the tears in the tunic corresponded to those made by the sharp teeth of a wild beast.

וישלחו, some of the brothers were the messengers who delivered this tattered blood-spattered tunic. Some commentators believe that the word is derived from Job 36,12 בשלח יעברו, “they will die by the sword.” According to this, the brothers imitated the incisions made by the sharp teeth of wild beasts so that Yaakov would think that Joseph’s fate had been that he had been devoured or at least killed by such a marauding animal.

וישלחו את כתונת הפסים ויביאו אל אביהם, “they sent the striped coat and brought it to their father.” Either they instructed the bearer to bring it to their father, or the bearers brought it to their father without having had specific instructions. It is also possible that they sent the coat home, and when they came home the next time [after all, Dotan is over 70 km from Chevron. Ed.] they themselves brought it to their father. The Torah emphasizes the striped coat, as the stripes would help to identify who had worn it.

וישלחו את כתונת הפסים אל אביהם, “they sent the striped coat to their father.” According to the plain meaning of the text the messengers presented the coat to Yaakov. This is why the Torah phrases the handing over as accompanied by such an impersonal sounding statement as: “this is what we have found, please identify if this is the coat of your son?” If the brothers had brought the coat to Yaakov themselves they would have said: “is this Joseph’s coat?” The implication in all this was that if some robbers had killed Joseph, surely they would have retained such a precious garment as the striped coat. Other commentators understand the wording of the Torah here as applying to the brothers themselves. In support of their view they cite the words ויביאו אל אביהם, “they brought (it) to their father.” According to this view, the Torah highlighted the cruelty of the brothers’ conduct vis-a-vis their father.

Sie schickten den Rock nicht direkt, sondern ließen ihn durch andere erst in andere Häuser und dann erst zum Vater kommen.

וישלחו את כתונת הפסים, “they sent Joseph’s special garment,” (suitably torn and drenched in blood). The correct interpretation of this verse which on the face of it contains a contradiction, when it continues with: ”they brought it to their father,” claiming that they had found it, is that the carriers of Joseph’s garment brought it to the brothers’ father, Yaakov. Another interpretation of the word וישלחו, is “they dragged it.” The expression “שלח” is also used for a weapon, a kind of sword or dagger, used in personal combat. It appears in that sense in Job 33,18: מעבור בשלח, “from perishing by the sword,” or in Song of Songs 4,13: שלחתיך פרדס, “your offshoot will be pomegranate;” if understood as in Song of Songs, the brothers themselves brought Joseph’s blood drenched and ripped up garment to their father. They did so in order to have an excuse for getting their father to exclaim that Joseph had become the victim of a ferocious beast, (as he did).

וישלחו את כתונת הפסים, “they sent the striped coat, etc.” the Torah abbreviated here; the full text should have been: “they sent the striped coat to their father, and the messengers who delivered it said: “this is what we found;” the brothers themselves did not want to become associated with the find, so as not becoming suspect in having had anything to do with Joseph’s death. After all, the fact that they had hated Joseph had been common knowledge.

הכר נא, According to Bereshit Rabbah 84,19 G’d repaid Yehudah for his use of the phrase הכר נא when tricking his father into making a false deduction, by Tamar challenging him with the very same expression הכר נא, which embarrassed him into admitting that he was the father of the fetus that Tamar his daughter-in-law was pregnant with (38,25)

!הכר, “know!” Yehudah was the brother who said this to his father; this is why he was the one charged with causing his father this anguish (losing a son, so that he lost two sons) This interpretation may be understood more literally, i.e. why Tamar when about to be burned at the stake for supposedly having committed adultery used the same wording when asking her father-in-law and judge: הכר נא למי החותמת, “please identify whom this signet ring belongs!” (Genesis 38,25) (Based on B’reshit Rabbah, 84,19)

ויאמר כתנת בני AND HE SAID, MY SON’S COAT —is this (i.e. supply the words היא זו after בני).

טרוף טורף יוסף, "Joseph has been torn to shreds!" Jacob meant that Joseph had endured a twofold tearing (this is why Jacob said טרף twice). 1) A wild beast had torn him and killed him. 2) That animal had dragged him to its lair; as a result of this even a search for his remains was futile and he, Jacob, could not even bury his body. Were it not for this interpretation why did Jacob not organise a search for Joseph's remains? The brothers were clever enough to stress: "this we have found, examine please, etc." They made it plain to Jacob that they had not even found any bones.

חיה רעה אכלתהו, “a wild beast has devoured him.” He did not say that robbers had slain him, for if so they would have robbed him of his precious tunic.

Is this. It is an abbreviated verse. For without [adding] “is this,” it is not understandable.

אכלתהו vergegenwärtigt ihm den Verlust, טרוף טורף das Entsetzliche des Vorgangs, — er sieht den Sohn, das geliebte Kind, den blühenden Jüngling in den fletschenden Zähnen des Raubtieres: zerrissen, zerrissen ist Josef worden! Siehe jedoch zu 2. B. M. 22, 30 eigentlich: zum Fraß genommen.

חיה רעה אכלתהו, “a wild beast has eaten him;” for if he had fallen into the hands of robbers they would not have left the striped coat behind.

חיה רעה אכלתהו AN EVIL BEAST HATH EATEN HIM — The spirit of prophecy was enkindled within him, for these words may be taken to mean that at some future time Potiphar’s wife would attack him (Genesis Rabbah 84:19). Why did not the Holy One, blessed be He, make known to him (Jacob) that he was still living? Because they had placed under a ban and a curse anyone of them who would make it known, and they made the Holy One, blessed be He, a party with them to this agreement (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 2) Isaac, however, knew that he was living, but he thought, “How dare I reveal it since the Holy One, blessed be He does not wish to reveal it” (Genesis Rabbah 84:21).

It is his destiny that Potiphar’s wife would provoke him... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise Scripture should have written, “Yoseif has been torn to pieces,” [omitting “evil beast had devoured him”]. Furthermore, Rashi is answering the question: How would Yaakov know that a wild animal tore him up? Perhaps bandits attacked him.

Because they banned and cursed anyone who would reveal it and they included God with them... Hashem surely was not “forced” [as it were]. But He willingly agreed with the ban for a number of reasons. First, so that [the decree of] “Your descendants will be foreigners in a land not theirs...” (15:13) could be fulfilled. If Yaakov had known that Yoseif was brought to Egypt, he would have given all the money in the world to redeem him! Second, if Yaakov had known [what the brothers did] he would have cursed them that their names be blotted out, and the seed of Yisrael would have perished — whereas Hashem wanted them to be fruitful and multiply. As Rashi proceeds to explain, “Hashem does not wish to reveal it to him,” implying that He was not forced. Had He wished, He could have revealed it, but He agreed with them in order to fulfill the decree, “...They will enslave them and oppress them” (ibid). Third, it says: “He mourned his son for many days” (v. 24), and Rashi explains that it was twenty-two years. Why did Rashi say specifically twenty-two? He must have been answering the question: Why did Hashem put Yaakov in anguish for twenty-two years, and not tell him [that Yoseif was alive]? Perforce, it was for the twenty-two years that Yaakov did not honor his parents. Whereas if Hashem would tell Yaakov, he would repent, nullifying the twentytwo year decree of anguish. But because Hashem wished to punish him for not having honored his parents, He agreed to the brothers’ ban on revealing it. A ban (חרם) is like an oath, and when Hashem takes an oath [over a decree of punishment], repentance cannot nullify it. For it says [about Moshe’s punishment]: “Therefore, you will not bring this congregation into the land that I have given them” (Bamidbar 20:12). And Rashi there explains: “This was said as an oath... He swore precipitously, so that he should not pray at length about it [to nullify the decree].” Here as well, the ban was like an oath; thus Hashem agreed with them.

ימים רבים MANY DAYS — twenty-two years (Genesis Rabbah 84:20) — from the time he left him until Jacob went down to Egypt. For it is said, (v. 2) “Joseph was seventeen years old” (when all these events happened), and he was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh; seven years of plenty and two years of famine had passed by the time Jacob came to Egypt — making in all 22 years. These correspond to the 22 years during which Jacob had not practised the duty of honouring his parents (that is, the period during which he did not reside with them and attend to their needs) (Megillah 17a): viz., the twenty years he stayed in Laban’s house and the two years on the journey when he was returning from Laban’s house — one and a half year at Succoth and six months at Bethel. This is what he meant when he said to Laban (31:41) “These twenty years that I have been in thy house are לי” — they are for me — the responsibility for them lies upon me (לי being taken as עלי) and at sometimes I shall be punished for a period equal to them.

וישם שק במתניו, a section of fabric which sacks are made of. He draped his loins in enough of this material to demonstrate his being in mourning.

ויקרע יעקב, he mourned him excessively because he had loved him so inordinately. Besides, he blamed himself partially for his fate for having sent him on what turned out to have been a dangerous mission.

Twenty-two years... Maharik writes (ch. 37) that Rashi cited this, although it is not the verse’s simple meaning, in order to explain why Hashem agreed to the ban and did not reveal to Yaakov [that Yoseif was alive]. It was because He had decreed that Yaakov be anguished for twenty-two years. (Nachalas Yaakov)

ויקרע שמלתיו. Nur bei sehr seltenen Vorgängen, — wie noch bei Josua in Ai (Kap.7, 6) und den Brüdern (1. B. M. 44, 13) — findet sich .בקרע שמלות In der Regel sonst בגד .קרע בגד ist das Kleid, welches den Menschen in seinem äußeren Erscheinen darstellt (daher כגור: vollständig zu einer Scheinhülle werden, ein בֺגֵֺד ist nichts als ein בגד von einem Menschen, wir meinen den Menschen zu haben und haben nur ein Kleid!) Schmerz, Trauer, Scham drücken durch einen Riss ins Gewand aus: dass in die äußeren Beziehungen des Menschen ein Riss gekommen; seine Ehre, sein Glück hat einen Riss erlitten. Daher auch Ausdruck für אבל — .אבלות und seine verwandten Wurzeln drücken alle eine Dunkelheit, Unklarheit aus. (אפל die Dunkelheit der Nacht. אול, die Wurzel von אֱוִיל, ein Narr, und אולי vielleicht. Es gibt zweierlei Narren auf Erden. Den einen, der jeden Augenblick seine Meinung wechselt, dem alles unklar ist, der daher Ja und Nein sagt, je nachdem es ihm einfällt. Es ist dies der unklare, buntscheckig phantastische Narr: אויל. Den zweiten, sein Gegenpart: der beschränkte Mensch, der steif in einer einmal gefassten Meinung verharrt, der sich durch nichts überzeugen lässt, sich fest auf seine zwei Füße stemmt, der Lendennarr: כסיל). Die Partikel אְבָל tritt immer, dem noch eben für wahr und entschieden Gehaltenen, es beschränkend entgegen. Wenn nun etwas geschehen ist, wodurch allem Glück, jedem hellen Strahl, jeder Heiterkeit und jedem festen Schritt auf Erden ein "aber": ein אְַבָל! entgegengesetzt wird, da ist אבלות: Trauer. Der Ausdruck dieser Trauer: קריעה, Gegensatz von שלום, dem Zustand ungestörten Wohles, eigentlich ja des Ganzseins. שמלה ist nun vorzugsweise das Gewand, das den nackten Leib berührt, שמלתו לעורו, ( — daher wohl auch Waschen zur Sauberkeit mehr כבס שמלות, während טבילה von :טומאה כבום בגדים —) Jakob zerriss seine Gewänder bis auf den nackten Leib und legt, statt eines sich sanft anschmiegenden Gewandes, ein härenes (שק bezeichnet den Stoff, Ziegenhaare, aus welchem Säcke gemacht wurden), also etwas an, was den Menschen bei jeder Bewegung unangenehm berührt und ihn, wenn er einmal fröhlich sein will, unaufhörlich daran erinnert, er habe kein Recht dazu, fröhlich zu sein. Deshalb auch ויתאבל, er hielt sich in der Trauer, hielt sich stets das "אֲכָל!" "Aber — Josef ist nicht dal" entgegen.

ימים רבים, “for many days.” According to Rashi the reason why Yaakov suffered this grief was as punishment for the many years that he had not observed the commandment of honouring father and mother. If you were to ask how this is possible, seeing that he had been sent away by his father to get himself a wife, the answer is that he was not willing to return home after his mother had sent Rivkah’s nursemaid to tell him that it was safe to come back, as we explained earlier on 35,8 where we have been told about Devorah’s death.

Yaakov did not fulfill honoring one’s father and mother. You might ask: Why was he punished for this? Yitzchak and Rivkah commanded him to go there and take a wife! Rabbeinu Bechaye answers in Parshas Toldos (28:1): They intended for him to marry Leah and return immediately. But he desired Rochel because of her beauty and said, “I will work for you seven years for Rochel” (29:18). Thus, all the time he spent there was his own choice. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

וכל בנתיו AND ALL HIS DAUGHTERS — R Judah said: a twin-sister was born with each of Jacob’s sons and they each took a step-sister to wife (It was these daughters who comforted Jacob) R. Nehemiah said: their wives were Canaanite women and not their step-sisters; what is meant then “by all his daughters”? His daughters-in-law, for a person does not hesitate to call his son-in-law his son and his daughter-in-law his daughter (Genesis Rabbah 84:21).

AND ALL HIS DAUGHTERS. This refers to his daughter and his son’s daughter.⁹⁶Since Jacob had. only one daughter, Dinah, the expression “and his daughters” in the plural must include some other person. Ramban first suggests that the term includes his granddaughter, Serach the daughter of Asher. See also my Hebrew commentary, pp. 211-2. Now it is possible that his daughters-in-law are also included in this category, for in Scripture they too are called “daughters,” or as the saying of the Sages has it:⁹⁷Bereshith Rabbah 84:19. “A person does not refrain from calling his daughters-in-law ‘daughters.’” So did Naomi say to her daughters-in-law: Go, turn back, my daughters;⁹⁸Ruth 1:8 and 12. Nay, my daughters;⁹⁹Ibid., Verse 13. Go, my daughter.¹⁰⁰Ibid., 2:2. It is nothing but an expression of love, just as, Hearest thou not, my daughter?¹⁰¹Ibid., Verse 8. This was said by Boaz to Ruth and can certainly not indicate the relationship of daughter or daughter-in-law.

כי ארד, I will not be consoled but will descend to my grave joining my son while still mourning his death.

וימאן להתנחם, he refused to listen to words of comfort in order not to become guilty of forgetting to mourn.

ויקומו כל בניו…לנחמו, "All his sons arose in order to comfort him, etc." The Torah is silent about the nature of these words of comfort that were offered to Jacob.

ויקומו...וכל בנותיו, his daughter and daughters-in-law who were like daughters to him. In Bereshit Rabbah 84,21 Rabbi Yehudah is quoted as saying that a female twin had been born with each of Yaakov’s sons and they married their respective half-brothers. Rabbi Nechemyah, in commenting on the words וכל בנותיו, says that actually Yaakov had only one daughter, i.e. Dinah, but that he wished he had already buried her (as the fact that she had been raped was something he found it hard to live with) [Rashi on that Midrash. Ed] At any rate, we need not take the text so literally, as most people describe their sons-in-law as sons, and their daughters-in-law as daughters.

וכל בנותיו, “and all his daughters.” His daughter and his granddaughter. Some commentators say that his daughters–in-law are included in the term “his daughters.”

A twin sister was born with each brother... It means that each brother married his brother’s twin, i.e., his paternal but not maternal sister — since a paternal sister is not considered incest for the sons of Noach.

Alle seine Söhne und alle seine Töchter: wohl die Schwiegertöchter "standen auf׳ nicht gingen, kamen, sondern "standen auf, ihn zu trösten. Aufstehen zu einer Tat setzt überall einen vorangehenden Entschluss, eine Ermannung voraus. Sie waren also bis dahin selbst in Schmerz versunken gewesen; hatte doch niemand so viel Schmerz zu empfinden, als eben sie, die Tröstenden. Einen alten Vater untröstlich vor sich zu sehen, jeden heiteren Gedanken sich als Sünde anrechnend, da müsste selbst der hartgesottenste Bösewicht das Gefühl der quälendsten Reue empfinden, selbst so trostlos werden, dass er selbst des Trostes bedürfte, nicht aber Trost zu bringen vermöchte. Warum hat aber keiner den Balsam in die Wunde geträufelt und gesprochen: er lebt? Antwort: Weil dies die größte Grausamkeit gewesen wäre. Ein zerrissenes Kind ist für das Bewusstsein der Eltern nicht verloren, ein ungeratenes mehr als verloren. Wer nicht den Schmerz tausendfach erhöhen wollte, der musste schweigen, bis einmal Josef wiederkehren würde und dann die Freude über den Wiedergefundenen und die Tatsache der Wiederkehr selbst den Gedanken des geübten Verbrechens mildern würden. So hätte er zu dem einen noch zehn Söhne in einem Augenblick verloren.

וכל בנותיו, “and all of his daughters;” according to Rabbi Yehudah, twin sisters had been born for Yaakov with the birth of all of his sons. These had been married by their respective half-brothers, sons of different mothers. According to the opinion of Rabbi Nechemyah, all the sons married wives of Canaanite origin. If he were correct, why does the Torah in our verse not speak of “all his daughter-in-law?“ Rabbi Nechemyah, aware of this, would reply, that in the whole world daughters-in-law are referred to as daughters. (B‘reshit Rabbah 84,21) [Naomi, in the Book of Ruth, certainly is not described as calling her daughters-in-law, “daughters.” Ed.] It is difficult to understand Rabbi Nechemyah, as we all know to what length Avraham had gone to prevent Yitzchok from marrying a wife of Canaanite descent. Yitzchok too had commanded Yaakov not to marry a woman of Canaanite descent and had sent him all the way to Charan to avoid such a union. (Genesis 28,1) Nonetheless, Yehudah married a woman of Canaanite descent. (Genesis 38,2 ברת גבר תגרא, (daughter of a business man, according to Onkelos איש כנעני means business man, traveling salesman) Onkelos therefore accepts the view of Rabbi Yehudah, who said that twin daughters were born with all of Yaakov’s sons.) This is also how we have to understand Genesis 46,10: ושאול בן הכנענית, “and Sha-ul, son of a female merchant.” According to Rabbi Nechemyah’s approach to the subject, there is no need for what sound like far fetched solutions to our problem. The word כנעני or כנענית in either of the verses that bothered us, are simply understood as elsewhere in the Bible, as people of Canaanite descent. We do have a problem if we accept Rabbi Yehudah’s interpretation, an interpretation lacking specific sources in the written text. The Talmud, tractate Yumah folio 28, states that Avaraham had voluntarily observed all the commandments in the written and oral Torah, even including the rabbinic commandment known as eyruv tavshilin, a method of how to prepare food when the day after a festival is a Sabbath, and preparation of food on the festival for the Sabbath is not admissible. He is also supposed to have observed the law of yibbum, marrying the widow of a brother who died without having ever had any children. (Compare Genesis 38,8) where Yehudah, Er’s father, gave Er’s widow Tamar to Onan, his brother, as a wife, in order for him to become posthumously and vicariously a father. If these laws were operative prior to the Torah having been revealed at Mount Sinai to the Jewish people, how could Yaakov have married two sisters while the first sister had still been alive? Also, how could any of the sons of Yaakov have married their sisters? We could answer that although these laws were already known by tradition since Avraham’s time, they had not become obligatory until after revealed at Mount Sinai. Our forefathers were free to choose the parts of the commandments they wished to observe voluntarily even they had been privy to them through the Holy Spirit. When the Talmud in Pessachim, folio 119, tells us that in the future (afterlife) at the meal prepared by G–d for the righteous, that when Yaakov was being honoured presiding over the grace after the meal, he declined the honour, saying that seeing he had wed two sisters while both were alive, he was not worthy of that honour. Clearly he considered what he had done as having been improper. It is possible to argue that having been aware that what he had done would qualify for a penalty if he would do so after the revelation at Mount Sinai, he felt that he deserved at least a minor penalty. If he decided in favour of committing an act deserving of a minor penalty, he did so because he wished to marry only wives who were personally righteous, and these were hard to find, especially considering the age at which he had a chance to get married. As it turned out, even one of these two sisters who was a righteous woman did not by herself bore for him all the twelve tribes.

וימאן להתנחם, “he refused to accept consolations;” he felt that he had been guilty for having sent Joseph on this errand in the first place.

וימאן להתנחם BUT HE REFUSED TO COMFORT HIMSELF — A person does not accept consolation for one living whom he believes to be dead, for with regard to the dead it is decreed that he be forgotten from the heart, but it is not so decreed with regard to the living (Genesis Rabbah 84:20).

ויבך אותו אביו, for a long period of time. Seeing that the line is superfluous, our sages, as quoted by Rashi, added that Yitzchok (his father) wept for the anguish of his son Yaakov although he knew that Joseph had not been killed.

ויאמר כי ארד אל בני אבל שאולה, he vowed to remain in mourning for the balance of his life. His reason was that he blamed himself for what happened because he had sent his beloved son on such a dangerous errand.

שאלה, until the grave, i.e. “I will mourn him for the rest of my life.” The meaning of the words

וימאן להתנחם, “he refused to be comforted.” According to the plain meaning, Yaakov could not accept words of comfort as he considered himself partially responsible for what happened, seeing that he had sent Joseph alone on a dangerous mission.

A person cannot accept consolation for one who is alive but is thought to be dead... The question is asked: Did Yaakov not know that consolation cannot be accepted for a live person thought to be dead? If so, why did he mourn over Yoseif? He would know he was alive! The answer is: Yaakov in fact did not know this because “consolation cannot be accepted for one who is alive but thought to be dead,” is learned from the case of Yaakov himself. Heaven decreed that the dead be forgotten, allowing consolation to be accepted. Yet, Yaakov did not accept consolation. Therefore, we derive that consolation cannot be accepted in such a case, and Yaakov was therefore unaware of this. Maharshal answers: When a person agitates himself, he is unaware that his anguish is excessive because he considers all the anguish as nothing.

Perhaps the Torah wishes to stress that the comfort was not expressed in words but in the demonstration of how many sons and daughters Jacob had left. They had first observed their father rend his garments, wear sackcloth and carry on mourning for an inordinately long period. This would have been appropriate if Jacob had lost an only son, or even one of relatively few children. Since Jacob had many children, he should have remembered what he had left instead of only harping on what he had lost. His children brought this to Jacob's attention without uttering a word by surrounding him with their combined presence. This was supposed to provide some comfort. Jacob, however, refused to accept comfort, saying that the reason he would mourn Joseph until his own death was that Joseph was one of a kind and there was no substitute for him. The Zohar (volume 1, page 180) goes into greater detail about the mutual affinity of the souls of Jacob and Joseph, etc.

Er weigerte sich נחם .להתנחם siehe (1. B. M. 6, 6): Trösten kann man niemanden, man kann ihm nur Trostgründe geben, die er sich selbst zu Gemüte nehmen und damit eine Umstimmung seiner Stimmung bewirken muss; er aber weigerte sich, es auch nur zu versuchen, diese Umwandlung an sich zu vollbringen. כי ארד אל בני אבל שאלה, nicht als ob der Gram ihn töten sollte, sondern er glaubte, bis an sein Grab trauern zu müssen: sein Sohn darf ihn nicht heiter wiedersehen. Jakob mochte sich auch nach seiner Auffassung Vorwürfe machen. Nach einem so schrecklichen Vorgange hält das Gemüt sehr scharfe Abrechnung und verzeiht sich auch das Leiseste nicht. — ויבך אתו אביו, nicht עליו, sondern בכה .אתו verwandt mit פקה ,פקע ,בקע, alles ein Ausbrechen, ein Frei-werden aus einem Innern. בכה: die Wirkung eines hervorbrechenden Gefühls. בכה על: über eine äußere Veranlassung. בכה את, den Gegenstand gleichsam hinausweinen, ihn fortwährend im Herzen tragen, und die Wirkung dieses im Herzen Tragens durch eine von Zeit zu Zeit sich ins Auge stehlende Träne äußern. Er trägt ihn im Herzen, auch wenn er nicht weint. (יצא] יוע=[בקע]בכה], Träne ist der Schweiß der arbeitenden Seele, Schweiß ist die Träne des arbeitenden Leibes). Bezeichnend steht hier die Träne zuletzt. Jakob jammerte nicht und schrie nicht. Das ויבך bezieht sich auf die spätere Zeit. Wenn die andern heiter waren, stahl sich verstohlen eine Träne in das Auge des Vaters.

ויבך אותו אביו, “his father wept for him (losing him).” According to Rashi, the word: “his father,” in this verse refers to Yitzchok, Yaakov’s father. He was however, not mourning him as he knew that Joseph was still alive. He did not want to reveal this to Yaakov out of respect for G–d, who had not seen fit to reveal this to his son. (B‘reshit Rabbah 84,21) Rashi had already explained that the brothers had sworn a solemn oath one to another not to reveal what they had done Joseph to anyone, and they had included G–d in that oath of theirs. When, after 22 years they came to Egypt and found Joseph alive, they cancelled this oath. This released G–d also, and that is why the Torah wrote that upon hearing that Joseph was alive and well, the bothers’ father Yaakov “revived,” i.e. again was blessed with Holy Spirit. (Genesis 45,27). From this verse it is clear that ever since Joseph’s disappearance he had not enjoyed the presence of the Holy Spirit. From this entire chapter we learn and can prove that when an entire congregation unanimously declares something or someone as “banished,” and a single member of that congregation demurs by not accepting that decision, he is bound by the decision of the congregation, nonetheless. After all, Joseph had not been a party to the brothers’ oath, and it had remained in force nonetheless. If Joseph had been part of that oath, the other brothers would not have had to include in their oath. They had been lacking Reuven and Binyamin to make up the necessary quorum by themselves. Although Joseph was aware of this, he did not wish to interfere with that oath by revealing his whereabouts to his father. The author promises to also provide an alternate reason why Joseph did not let his father know during all these years that he had been alive and well. If you were to argue that the ban into which the brothers had put the subject of the sale of Joseph was more stringent than an ordinary such ban where G–d had not been co-opted as a partner, this is not a valid argument, as even nowadays whenever we make such a ban, we add the words: “with the consent of the Lord.” We also find this approach to oaths in the Book of Samuel 14,24, where King Sha-ul had sworn that any man eating food before evening (the day of the battle) and the army had defeated their enemy, would be cursed, i.e. executed, that his own son Jonathan, who had tasted some honey, not having been aware that his father had pronounced such an oath, had become aware of someone having violated that oath, as one of the jewels in the breastplate of the High priest had suddenly lost part of its luster. Whenever a tribe performed a commandment, the jewel representing that tribe would shine more forcefully. When a tribe, or member of it, committed a trespass, its jewel would lose its luster. When King Sha-ul found out that the jewel representing his own tribe, that of Binyamin, suddenly did not shine anymore, he realised that the fault must lie with someone of his own tribe and family. He determined who that member of his tribe was by casting lots, as had done Joshua in Joshua 7, when he found out that the jewel representing the tribe of Yehudah had lost its luster. He had cast lots to determine which member of the tribe of Yehudah had been the guilty party. Achan, son of Karmi, was the one who had illegally pocketed some of the loot from the city of Jericho, and he was duly executed after having confessed.

כי ארד אל בני שאולה, the word: אל, usually translated as “to,” in this case means the same as על, “on account of,” Yaakov foresees that he will wind up in his grave, still in mourning over having been the cause of his beloved son’s tragic and premature death.

ארד אל בני I WILL GO DOWN TO MY SON — This has the same meaning as על בני, on account of my son. There are many examples where אל is used in the sense of על: (2 Samuel 4:21) “(אל) because of Saul (ואל) and because of his bloody house”; (1 Samuel 4:21) “(אל) because the ark of God was taken (ואל) and because of the death of her father-in-law and her husband”.

על בנו, instead of the pronoun ending ויתאבלו, is to describe Yaakov’s attitude henceforth, i.e. “I will go join him in his grave.” Compare Samuel II 12,23 where David uses such language explaining that in order to be reunited with the baby son he had just lost he would have to join him in his grave, as the baby would not come back to him and be resurrected. Or, compare the standard expression used by the Torah when people die and they join their ancestors in the grave or hereafter, i.e. ויאסף אל עמיו “he was gathered in to his people” (Genesis 25,17 et al).

ויבך אותו אביו. Yitzchok wept over Yaakov’s decision to remain in mourning for the rest of his life. As a result of being in mourning he would forfeit Divine inspiration also.

ויבך אותו אביו, “his father wept for him.” This is a reference to Yitzchak, Yaakov’s father. Yitzchak wept when he observed the anguish of his son Yaakov and was unable to tell him that actually Joseph was alive. The expression “Yitzchak wept for him,” is to tell us that whereas he “wept,” he did not mourn Joseph as you do not mourn the living.

The same as על בני... It means, “because of my son.” This is because [in this verse,] אל cannot mean “next to” or “to,” as in, “Avimelech came to him (אליו) from Gerar” (26:26), and as in, “He said to him (אליו): ‘I am Adonoy’” (15:7).

The Torah also hints that Jacob did not view his inability to console himself as a sign that Joseph was not dead though we have a rule that one is unable to console oneself when the person mourned is not actually dead. The reason Jacob could not accept comfort was that he viewed himself as condemned to descend to שאול, to purgatory, because of a tradition (compare Rashi quoting a Tanchuma on ויגש) he had that as long as none of his children would die during his lifetime he could rest assured that he himself would not descend to purgatory.

ויבן אותו אביו, his father wept over him;” according to B’reshit Rabbah 84,21, this does not refer to Yaakov, about whose mourning we have already read, but refers to Yaakov’s father Yitzchok, who was still alive; [according to different opinions quoted there while Yitzchok ostentatiously shared Yaakov’s grief, this was only when he was in the presence of his son. He was aware that Joseph was alive, but did not reveal this to Yaakov, as he felt it was inappropriate to reveal something to Yaakov that G-d apparently had deliberately kept secret from him.] As Rav said to his son Hiyya, when the latter’s wife was in mourning: In her presence practice mourning, but out of her presence do not practice mourning. The source for this is the Talmud in Moed Katan folio 20.

אבל שאלה MOURNING INTO THE GRAVE — According to the literal meaning שאל means “the grave” — whilst I am still in a state of mourning I shall be interred (i.e. even to the day of my burial I shall mourn) and I shall not be comforted all my life. The Midrash explains it to refer to Gehinnom. “This omen has been given me by God: if none of my sons die during my lifetime I may be assured that I shall not see Gehinnom” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 9).

ויבך אותו אביו, the reason why the Torah adds the unnecessary word אביו, “his father,” is to demonstrate the serious nature of losing a son who had been constantly the one at his father’s side. The remarkable thing about Joseph had been that although the Torah had described him as occupied tending sheep with his brothers, most of the time he had spent in attending to the needs of his widowed father, whose beloved wife Rachel, Joseph’s mother, had died when Joseph had only been about 6 years old. Whenever an occasion would arise which would have required the services normally rendered by his son Joseph, his absence would rekindle Yaakov’s grief over his fate. According to our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 84,21 the superfluous word אביו refers to Yaakov’s father Yitzchok, who was still alive at the time Joseph was sold, seeing that Yaakov had been born when Yitzchok was 60 years old, in other words Yitzchok only died when Yaakov was 120 years of age. At the time of Joseph’s sale Yitzchok was 168 years old seeing that the separation between Yaakov and Joseph lasted for 22 years, the same length of time as Yaakov had been separated from his father Yitzchok.

While still in mourning will I be buried and not be consoled all of my life... I.e., this mourning will stay with me until I am buried. But not that I will mourn in the grave, for there is neither mourning nor joy there.

ויבך אותו, He wept for him. When Jacob explained why he could not respond to manifestations of condolences he had to start weeping again. The Torah stresses the word אביו, his father, in order to make a distinction between himself and all his children. The only person who broke out weeping when Joseph's name was mentioned was his father. Bereshit Rabbah 84,21 considers the word אביו, his father, as a reference to Isaac, Jacob's father.

ויגש). ויבך אתו אביו THUS HIS FATHER WEPT FOR HIM — His father refers to Isaac: he wept for Jacob’s trouble, but he did not mourn for he knew that he (Joseph) was alive (Genesis Rabbah 84:21).

If none of my children die in my lifetime then I am assured not to see Gehinom. She’ol is one of Gehinom’s seven names. The rationale [of the sign] is that a person can be judged to twelve months [at most] in Gehinom. If Yaakov’s twelve sons are all alive, corresponding to the twelve months, Gehinom cannot affect him. (Gur Aryeh)

But he did not mourn, for he knew that he was alive. Rashi is answering the question: Scripture should have written simply, “He wept for him,” as it had written before: “All his sons and daughters rose to console him.” [Why does it say, “His father wept for him”?] A further question: Why does it say, “He wept,” rather than, “He mourned,” as it said before: “He mourned for his son”? Thus Rashi explains that it refers to Yitzchok, about whom it cannot be said, “He mourned,” for he knew Yoseif was alive. And we need not ask how Yitzchok knew, as Hashem might have revealed it to him to save him anguish; for the ban was only against revealing it to Yaakov.

הטבחים— means the slaughterers of the kings animals.

OFFICER OF ‘HATABACHIM.’ This means the slaughterers of the king’s animals. This is the language of Rashi. Similarly, it says, And the ‘tabach’ (cook) took up the thigh;¹⁰²I Samuel 9:24. For perfumers and for cooks ‘tabachoth’.¹⁰³Ibid., 8:13.
Closer to the meaning of the word hatabachim is the opinion of Onkelos who says that since the prison house was under his charge, [he was called the officer of the tabachim, since] we find the word t’vichah in connection with the killing of people. Prepare ye the slaughter (‘matbiach’) for his children;¹⁰⁴Isaiah 14:21. Thou hast slaughtered (‘tavachta’) unsparingly.¹⁰⁵Lamentations 2:21. The verse in the book of Daniel is proof of the validity of Onkelos’ interpretation: To Arioch the captain of ‘tabachaya’ of the king, who was gone forth to slay the wise men of Babylon.¹⁰⁶Daniel 2:14. The word tabachaya or tabachim is thus clearly associated with the slaying of people. See my Hebrew commentary, Note 77, pp. 211-212.

והמדנים מכרו אותו אל מצרים. The Midianites, Medanites, and the Ishmaelites are brotherly tribes. (compare 25,20) According to the plain meaning of the text, they are the same people, sometimes called by one name, other times by the other name. This is why the Torah wrote here that the Midianites had sold him, whereas the Ishmaelites had transported him there.

והמדנים, we already explained who they were and what they did on verse 28.

שר הטבחים, “the minister in charge of the butchers.” Rashi claims that Potiphar was in charge of all the King’s livestock. According to Onkelos, Potiphar was the King’s chief executioner. We do indeed find the expression טביחה used in the Bible in connection with the slaughter of human beings, for instance in Lamentations

The slaughterers of the king’s animals. [Rashi knows this] because if Hashem brought balsam and lotus carriers for Yoseif, to spare him the odor of naphta [see Rashi on v. 25], He surely would not bring him to an executioner, who is even more repulsive. Onkelos holds that Potiphar was merely appointed over the executioners, but he himself did not kill. (Gur Aryeh)

סריס bezeichnet einerseits unzweifelhaft eine Verstümmelung des Körpers, die der Fähigkeit beraubt, Nachkommen zu erhalten, andererseits ebenso unzweifelhaft bloß Diener. Eben dieser Potiphar war ja verheiratet und war ja, wahrscheinlich, אסנת seine Tochter. סרם verwandt mit זרו .שרש ,זרז: behend, rüstig in Bewegung sein, etwas rasch fördern. זרזיר מתנים: ein Tier, das rasch, gelenk in den Lenden ist, rasch läuft. Ähnlich wie זרזיר von זרז ebenso סרסור rabbinisch von סרס: ein Agent, der etwas für den andern betreibt und fördert. שרש ist auch im Grunde nichts anderes; denn die Wurzel ist der "Agent" der Bäume. Von שרש ist auch שרשרות, Kette, das ist: Vermittlerin zwischen zwei verschiedenen Teilen desselben Objekts. Demgemäß heißt סרים im allgemeinen: Agent, speziell: Hofagent, Hofdiener, irgend ein Angestellter in nächster Umgebung des Fürsten, der für die prompte Herbeischaffung der fürstlichen Bedürfnisse zu sorgen hat. Die andere Bedeutung: entmannt, ergiebt sich analog, wie שרש auch das Entgegengesetzte: entwurzeln bedeutet, עֵקֶר, Wurzel, und עקר sprosslos, kinderlos, ohne Wurzelkraft für ein künftiges Menschendasein, so auch סריס: einer, der in Fortförderung, Fortsetzung des Menschengeschlechts gehemmt ist. Potiphar war also Pharaos Hofbeamter und zwar שר הטבחים: Oberhofkochmeister der ägyptischen Majestät. Indem wir hier in den bedeutendsten alten Staat eingeführt werden, der für die Bildung der alten Völker so bedeutsam geworden, ist es charakteristisch, sogleich am Eingange einen "Fürsten" der Köche, Bäcker, Schenke zu finden. Sagen dürfen wir uns, dass selbst in den entartetsten Zeiten der jüdischen Geschichte wir solche Chargen nicht finden. Wer dem Fürsten den Becher, den Teller etc. kredenzte, war und blieb ein ganz gewöhnlicher Mensch. Nur in Staaten in welchen, wie im alten Ägypten, den Fürsten ein göttlicher Nimbus umfließt — sehen wir doch noch auf ägyptischen Bildern den König vor dem Göttlichen seiner eigenen Majestas knien — werden auch eines Abglanzes dieses Nimbus teilhaftig, die in nächste Berührung mit der geweihten Person kommen. Ist der König ein Gott, so wird sein "Truchseß" (Trogsetzer] ein Ministrant des Göttlichen, und der Koch: ein "Fürst der Köche". Ist dies eine heitere Seite des Amtes, so hat es zugleich eine entsetzliche Zusammenstellung: der Viehschlächter war zugleich der Menschenschlächter. So der Oberhofmenschenschlächter Nebusaradon (Kön. II. 25, 9).

והמדנים מכרו אותו אל מצרים, “the Midianites had sold him into Egypt;” the Torah chooses this wording [instead of mentioning at this point to whom specifically he had been sold, Ed.] as foreshadowing the brothers’ and their descendants having to remain in Egypt for many years in the future. The enslavement and forceful detention of the Israelites inside Egypt commencing after the last of the brothers had died, was an example of G-d meting out punishment fitting the crime that had been committed, in this instance to the children of those who had committed the crime. [Although Joseph had not committed the same crime, he had been the cause of all] the crimes that were committed. This still leaves open the question of how Binjamin’s descendants had to be punished. Ed.] All of the brothers, however learned from the corrupt ways of the Egyptians so that they had to suffer before being found worthy of redemption.

שר הטבחים, as per Onkelos, Pharaoh’s chief executioner.

אל מצרים, “in Egypt;” another example of the word אל being used as meaning: “in,” is Exodus 25,21, ואל הארון תתן את העדות, “and you are to place the testimony (Tablets) inside the ark,” as well as Numbers 19,17 as well as Numbers 19,6:.אל תוך

שר הטבחים, “chief of the king’s slaughterers.” He was in fact the chief of the executioners, the death penalty in Egypt being quite common. We find the expression “slaughter” applied to executioners in Psalms 37,14.