פירוש על בראשית 39:1

ויוסף הורד AND JOSEPH WAS BROUGHT DOWN — It (Scripture) now reverts to the original subject (and consequently it states ויוסף הורד “Joseph had been brought down to Egypt” before the events last mentioned); it interrupted it only in order to connect the account of the degradation of Judah (Genesis 38:1) with that of the sale of Joseph, thus suggesting that it was on account of him (i.e. Joseph — Judah’s part in the sale of Joseph — ) that they (his brothers) degraded him from his high position. A further reason why this narrative of Judah and Tamar is interpolated here is to place in juxtaposition the story of Potiphar’s wife and the story of Tamar, suggesting that just as this woman (Tamar) acted out of pure motives so also the other (Potiphar’s wife) acted out of pure motives, for she foresaw by her astrological speculations that she was destined to be the ancestress of children by him (Joseph) — but she did not know whether these children were to be hers or her daughter’s (Genesis Rabbah 85:2).

שר הטבחים, he would execute the people sentenced as murderers and would generally be in charge of imprisoned criminals.

ויוסף הורד, whereas Joseph was brought to Egypt against his will, Yehudah, at the same time exiled himself. During that period all the things related earlier had befallen Yehudah. During that period Joseph had been brought to Egypt by the Ishmaelites, the owners of the camels who were also agents acting on behalf of others.

ויוסף הורד, although this had been mentioned already, it is mentioned again as the narrative continues now to concentrate on what happened to Joseph.

[Scripture now] returns to the earlier narrative, but only interrupted it... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise [there is a question:] Is it not already written, “The Midianites sold him [in Egypt to Potiphar]” (37:36)? Perforce, Scripture “only interrupted it to relate...” (Gur Aryeh)

Wiederholt wird von Potiphar hervorgehoben, dass er ein איש gewesen, eine Eigenschaft, die sich ja von einem Beamten am ägyptischen Hofe in מצרי Ägypten von selbst verstünde. Wir kennen jedoch den Gegensatz, in welchem die Ägypter zu dem ganzen übrigen Völkerkomplex gestanden, kennen insbesondere den Hochmut, mit welchem sie auf nomadische Völker hinabblickten. Einen noch tieferen Gegensatz bildet die Sitte und Lebensweise des Ägypters zu dem "ibrischen Jüngling" wie er später genannt wird. Das Wort מצרי weist uns auf diesen Gegensatz hin und macht uns die Versuchung klar, in welcher sich der Jüngling befinden musste, inmitten eines ägyptischen Hauses und bei einer ägyptischen Herrschaft der reine Jüngling zu bleiben, also, dass Gott ihn würdigte, ihm nahe zu sein. Es lässt uns dieses Wort auch das Übermaß von Geist und Geschicklichkeit erraten, das dazu gehörte, dass ein aus asiatisch nomadischen Händen gekaufter, asiatisch nomadischer Sklavenjüngling bei einem Potiphar, einem königlichen Beamten, der noch dazu ein Ägypter war, in solche Gunst gelangte.

ויוסף הורד מצרים, “and in the meantime, Joseph had been brought down to Egypt;” the Torah does not describe Joseph as descending to Egypt, i.e. ירד, but in the passive mode הורד. This is a reminder to the reader that the decree revealed to Avraham at the time that his descendants would have to be both strangers and at least part of the time, even slaves, in a foreign country, had now begun to be fulfilled. (Compare Genesis chapter 15)

ויוסף הורד מצרימה, “meanwhile Joseph had been transported toward Egypt;” before the first Israelite became enslaved the eventual redeemer had been born. Peretz who was destined to become the ancestor of the Mashiach was born, and only after that does the Torah report about Joseph becoming a slave in Egypt. [Joseph clearly had been brought to Egypt about 21 years earlier, as we demonstrated in our commentary on Genesis 38,1. Ed.] Joseph was the first Israelite to become enslaved.

Also, in order to relate the narrative of Potiphar’s wife to the narrative of Tamar... You might ask: Why did Rashi not explain this before, at the beginning of the section (38:1)? There, Rashi asks why Scripture interrupted to tell the narrative of Yehudah, and Rashi explains only that “his brothers demoted him,” but he did not bring this alternate explanation. The answer is: Before, one could have objected: how does Rashi know that Tamar had pure motives? But now that Rashi proves that her motive were pure, from the verse, “She is righteous, it is from me,” he therefore brings the explanation here. (Kitzur Mizrachi) Question: According to the first explanation, Scripture should have only interrupted [by telling the narrative of Yehudah] until, “Many days passed ... the wife of Yehudah died...” (38:12), where a different episode begins. Why did it not [return and] finish the narrative of Yoseif at that point? Rashi answers, “In order to connect the narrative of Potiphar’s wife to the narrative of Tamar.” But with this explanation only, [a question arises:] The narrative of Yehudah should begin with, “Many days passed ... the wife of Yehudah died...” Why begin with, “Yehudah descended from his brothers” (38:1)? [The answer is:] Perforce, to indicate that they demoted Yehudah. Accordingly, at the beginning of the section Rashi is explaining only why “Yehudah descended from his brothers” follows after Yoseif’s sale. Thus he wrote only the first explanation. But here Rashi is explaining the reason for the entire interruption, so he brings both explanations. (Gur Aryeh)

If we view the history of the Jewish people by comparing it to a parable, it is comparable to a cow which its owner wanted to proceed to a slaughterhouse and the cow objected strenuously; what did the owner do to overcome that objection? He brought her calf to the slaughterhouse first. As soon as the cow saw that, it became anxious to join her calf. When Yaakov found out where Joseph had been taken, he immediately voiced the wish to join him there. (Compare B’reshit Rabbah, 86,2)