창세기 39:28의 주석

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)

ויהי ה' את יוסף, to save him from anyone who would take advantage of him.

ויהי בבית אדוניו, He stayed in the house of his master, etc. The Torah described how G'd arranged for a variety of promotions Joseph experienced while in the service of Potiphar. At the beginning Joseph performed menial labour outside the home of Potiphar. When he did so successfully he was promoted to work inside the home. He then became a guard in the home. Eventually, he performed all his duties only indoors, i,e. בבית אדוניו. Still later he became Potiphar's personal valet, i.e. וישרת אותו. This made Joseph's life comfortable. Still later Potiphar appointed Joseph as the general manager over his entire household, i.e. ויעזוב כל אשר לו ביד יוסף. Eventually, Potiphar left every initiative to Joseph, not even bothering to ask him to account for what he was doing.

ויהי ה' את יוסף ויהי איש מצליח, he was successful in all things he undertook on his own behalf and also was successful in the house of his Egyptian master. Every task that was assigned to him he managed to carry out successfully.

(2-4) Dreimal heißt es ויהי. Die Weisen bemerken: die Brüder, erwachsen, zu Hause, in väterlicher und Geschwistergemeinschaft, bedurften der besonderen Gottesnähe nicht; allein Josef, der isolierte, verstoßene, in eine solche Umgebung verstoßene Jüngling, er bedurfte des besonderen Goltesschutzes. Darum wanderte Gott mit ihm, und da ward er denn der treffliche Mensch, zu dem er schon immer die Anlage in sich trug, und der nur eben solcher Ereignisse bedurfte, um völlig geweckt und rein von all den kleinen irdischen Schwächen hervorzutreten, die ihm in glücklicher Umgebung noch anhaftend gewesen. Wenn Gott mit Josef war, so kann dies nur sein, weil Josef mit Gott war. Wenn die Ziele, die der Mensch anstrebt, mit Gottes Zielen zusammen fallen, so gestaltet Gott die Verhältnisse der Erreichung dieser Ziele günstig und förderlich.

ויהי ה' את יוסף , “and the Lord was with Joseph;” the Midrash sees in this line a lesson for us to compare G–d’s method of befriending us to how human beings befriend their masters or superiors. As long as their superiors are successful and amass glory the underlings surround the king and flatter him nonstop. As soon however, as the king or master falls on hard times, his former “friends,” and flatterers abandon him as they would a ship about to sink. The reverse is true of Hashem. As soon as Joseph fell on hard times, G–d went out of His way to show him that far from having abandoned him, on the contrary, He now went out of His way to make life easier for him. He supported him when he became viceroy of Egypt for 80 years, as well as when he was still a slave in the house of Potiphar, and even when jailed for supposedly having tried to rape his wife. It is remarkable that also Joseph’s way of responding to the way the brothers had treated him were quite different from the way ordinary people would have reacted to this given the chance. Normally, poor people display some fear of G–d, as He is the only one from whom they can expect help. Joseph, even when in a position of power, repeatedly refused to do something that G–d would not approve of (Compare Genesis 42,18 as well as 39,9) An alternate interpretation of the line: ויהי ה' את יוסף. Imagine someone blessed with ten children, each one of whom lives in a different country. Instead of visiting them all in rotation, he concentrated on spending time with the youngest, as he was less well endowed than his brothers, and depended more on advice and assistance from his father. Take another parable illustrating our subject. A wine merchant had loaded ten donkeys with barrels of wine and began to lead them on the public highway. Suddenly one donkey veered and entered the house of a pagan. Right away the owner abandoned all the other nine donkeys out of concern that a pagan might touch the wine on the back of the last mentioned animal and make it unfit for Jews to drink from. Similarly, as soon as G–d saw that Joseph had been brought to the house of an Egyptian who was now his master, He hurried to supervise his fate to protect him from harm. He was afraid that unless He did so, Joseph might learn to copy the lifestyle of his master.

And the Eternal was with Yosef that he didn't become sullied by the non-Jews with whom he travelled. A metaphor: it's like an animal-driver who brought twelve camels loaded with jugs of wine. One of them entered the shop of a non-Jew, and the animal-driver left the eleven and entered the non-Jew's house [to pursue the stray twelfth]. [Someone] said to the animal-driver, "Why did you leave the eleven and pursue the one?" The animal-driver responded, "Those that are on the path need no guarding at all, for no-one will libate the wine they carry [making it unsuitable for Jews to drink]. But this one needs guarding, so that no non-Jew will libate its wine." And so, the Eternal was with Yosef, who had entered amongst the non-Jews - [this is from] Rabbi Ovadiah, may the memory of the righteous be a blessing. And so too with "May the Eternal our God be with us" (Malachim Alef 8:57) - since we are exiled amongst the non-Jews. הגה"ה.

ויהי ה' את יוסף, “Hashem was with Joseph;” he required Divine assistance in order to insulate him against the temptation to adopt the corrupt ways of that country.

Now Joseph, despite being merely a slave to the ruling classes, constantly retained the fear of God before his eyes, and had the Almighty in mind throughout the course of his activities. It is regarding this that (the Torah) states: ‘And the Lord was with Joseph’, i.e. that the thought of Him was always in Joseph’s mind. Accordingly, as a reward for this, he became a person who succeeded in every venture he undertook.

ויהי איש מצליח, he achieved every venture that he set out to accomplish.

(צלח verwandt mit שלח, vielleicht auch שלח .סלח: schicken, zu einem Ziele hin bewegen. סלה vielleicht: fahren lassen; die unverziehene Sünde ist ein Hemmnis im Lebenslauf des Menschen, er wird angehalten, סליחה löst den Knoten und gestattet einen ungehinderten Fortgang. צלח ist: ein Hindernisse überwindendes Fortschreiten zum Ziele.) Josef ward ein Mann, der alles, was er unternimmt, glücklich zum Ziele führt. Da überwand der Mizri den Widerwillen gegen den Jwri und nahm ihn sogar in sein Haus, wies ihm in seiner Nähe Beschäftigung an. Und als nun, Raw Hirsch on Genesis 39: 3, auch dort sein Herr sah, dass auch dort "Gott mit ihm war" und alles, was er unternahm, Gott gelingen ließ — es war dies die erste Gottesoffenbarung in einem mizrischen Kreise; in einem Kreise, in welchem das Gute und Sittliche nichts galt, zeigt sich plötzlich ein Jüngling, der arm und in tiefster Erniedrigung war, und dem doch alles gelang, weil er es tat, zeigt sich mit einem Male die segnende Kraft eines reinen und sittlichen Wollens — da fand endlich Josef חן in seinen Augen, so dass er ihn zuerst zu seinem persönlichen Diener erhob und ihn dann zum Verwalter seines ganzen Hauses machte. מצא חן (siehe zu Kap.6, 8).

However, I personally consider the most accurate overall interpretation of these verses to be that Scripture here records three enormous acts of grace conferred by the Holy One, blessed be He, upon Joseph there (in the jail). The first was that, despite being but a slave, with a depressed spirit, he nonetheless enjoyed Divine influence to such a degree that when he heard a dream, he could interpret it in accordance with what would actually transpire in the future – and it was impossible for this to be on account of (his) inherent gift of discernment, simple knowledge (of current events), and well-developed analytical powers possessed by him, as such powers are variable in their results – they do indeed predict the truth on some occasions, whilst on others they fail to do so. (We are thus forced to conclude that) it was the spirit of the Almighty speaking through him, and that His word was upon his (Joseph’s) tongue; and accordingly, not a single one of his predictions failed to be fulfilled; he could also see dreams fulfilled in accordance with his predictions; and it is thus, in relation to all this, that Scripture states: ‘And the Almighty was with Joseph’. The second (act of Divine grace) was that he succeeded in all his affairs. Concerning this aspect, we are told, ‘And he was a successful person’ in that whatever he turned his hand to prospered. The third (act of Divine grace) was that, despite the general custom amongst high-ranking officials, on purchasing a slave, to leave him to labor in the fields, [indeed the Egyptians, in particular, would treat Hebrews in this fashion, as they were hated by them on account of their (i.e. the Hebrews) being meat-eaters], in this instance the Almighty favored him in his master’s house by allowing him to remain working inside the house, (even) in Egypt, where he could relax, rather than dispatching him to the fields to toil away there. In regard to this point, the verse emphasizes: ‘And he was in the house of his Egyptian master’. Moreover, since each of these three (acts of grace) were quite distinct, the narrative repeatedly utilizes the word ‘va’yehi’ (‘and he was’) in each particular instance. Thus, in the light of this interpretation, the first of the questions initially posed (by us) has been satisfactorily resolved.

ויהי בבית אדוניו המצרי, he would perform tasks in his master’s private room. The meaning of the word היה here is the same as the meaning of the word עמד elsewhere, i.e. stationed, remaining in a fixed position. Examples of the word היה occurring in this sense are found in Deuteronomy 31,26 והיה שם, “it would remain there.” Compare also Deuteronomy 10,5 ויהיו שם כאשר צוני ה', “they remained there as the Lord had commanded me.”

כי ה‘ אתו THAT THE LORD WAS WITH HIM — the name of God was a familiar word in his mouth (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 8).

THAT THE ETERNAL WAS WITH HIM. The name of G-d was a familiar word in his mouth. This is Rashi’s language. But it does not appear to be correct.²¹³For, according to Rashi, the text should have read: “that the name of the Eternal was familiar in his mouth” Instead, And his lord saw that the Eternal was with him, means that he saw that his endeavors were always more successful than that of anyone else, so he knew that success came to him from G-d. In a similar sense is the verse, We have surely seen that the Eternal was with thee.²¹⁴Above 26:28. Thus Joseph found favor in his lord’s eyes, and he appointed him as his personal attendant and overseer of his house.

כי ה' אתו, “for the Lord was with him.” One reason was that Joseph invoked the name of the Lord in his daily conversation. According to the plain meaning of the text, the פשט, his master observed how unusually successful everything Joseph undertook turned out to be. Our sages interpret the word וירא, “he saw,” to mean that Potiphar observed that prior to carrying out a task Joseph invariably whispered something. He concluded that Joseph was employing witchcraft, challenging him that he had brought witchcraft with him to Egypt, something which had been banned in Egypt for a long time already. He then noticed that the Divine presence rested above Joseph, having had a dream that featured the Divine Presence as reposing above the head of an individual. This Presence appeared in the shape of a pillar of cloud, honouring the presence of a righteous individual.

כי ה' אתו, “for G’d was with him.” Actually, the Torah should have written כי אלוקים אתו, “for G’d (in His capacity as the Force who established an orderly universe) was with him.” However, seeing that Joseph’s master was an Egyptian and did not know of a G’d in heaven known as Hashem, his master would have attributed the extraordinary success of Joseph to a superior form of sorcery and magic. After all, Egypt was the epitome of these magic arts, the Egyptians had written the textbook for them. Potiphar eventually became aware that Joseph’s success could not be due to such magic so that he came to realise a new dimension of the G’d in heaven, one that overrides the attribute Elohim. This is why the Torah described G’d’s assistance to Joseph in terms of the supernatural rather than in terms of the natural. According to Bereshit Rabbah 86,5 G’d even let Potiphar have a dream in which he confirmed His assistance. Some say that a pillar of cloud hovered over Joseph to show that he was under G’d’s direct guidance. Examples cited by the Midrash of Joseph’s extraordinary abilities are: when Potiphar demanded that he boil water, the water came to a boil immediately. When he commanded the water to be cooled so that it would be lukewarm, it would become lukewarm immediately. Had G’d not demonstrated His dimension as Hashem to Potiphar, he would have said: “big deal! do you Joseph want to teach us additional magic? It is like carrying coal to Newcastle.” For these reasons the Torah had to testify: וירא אדוניו כי ה' אתו, “his master realised that a special dimension of G’d was active on Joseph’s behalf.”

And his master saw - He didn't pay attention to the successes that were natural, but he did pay attention to the successes that were providential: "he saw that Ad-nai was with him". And we have an indication that we should make a distinction between these two types of success. The natural success is brought to those who succeed through issues that are obviously successful in nature, such as one sells something that is searched for, and obviously succeeds, but this won't happen if he chooses to sell things that can't be sold well. But the providential success is actually the opposite, that if he can't have luck, and chooses things that are bad and cannot bring success, despite all this the things are changed to being good through providence against nature. And Yosef had those two different types of success, natural and providential. His master recognized "that Ad-nai was with him", through seeing "that all that he does" - that he succeeded even things that he did that were not naturally successful, because "Ad-nai lent him success" - [meaning] God transformed into success what was "in his hand" through Ad-nai and His providence.

וכל יש לו AND ALL THAT HE HAD — This is an elliptical phrase — the word אשר is omitted after.

וישרת אותו, he attended to his master’s bodily needs.

וימצא.יוסף חן...וישרת אותו, because Joseph had found so much favour in his eyes he appointed him as his exclusive personal valet. At the same time he appointed him in charge so that without Joseph’s approval nothing could be done within this household.

וישרת אותו, “he became his personal valet.” He performed such tasks promptly and with extreme regard for cleanliness.

AND ALL THAT HE HAD HE GAVE INTO HIS HAND. I.e., to be overseer and officer in charge of all that he had in the house and in the field. Our Rabbis have a Midrash on this verse. Thus they say:²¹⁵Bereshith Rabbah 86:6. “He would whisper²¹⁶His father’s instructions. (Ibid., Commentaries.) whenever he entered and whenever he left. If his master said to him, ‘Mix a hot drink,’ it was hot immediately in Joseph’s hands and if he said, ‘Mix it lukewarm,’ it was lukewarm. [Because he suspected Joseph of witchcraft, his master said to him,] ‘What is this, Joseph? Bringing witchcraft to Egypt is like importing straw to Ofraim!’²¹⁷“Straw to Ofraim” is the Midrashic equivalent of the present day expression, “coals to Newcastle.” How long did his master suspect him of practicing witchcraft? It was until he saw the Divine Presence standing over him. This is the meaning of the words, And his lord saw that the Eternal was with him.”²¹⁸Verse 3 here.
The point of this Midrash is that because his lord was an Egyptian who did not know the Eternal, the Sages in the Midrash said that when he saw Joseph’s great success he suspected that it was done by witchcraft, as was the case with his countrymen, until he saw in a vision which was shown to him in a dream, or, when awake, in the form of a cloud of glory or the like, that his success came from the Supreme One. This was done in honor of the righteous Joseph.

וכל יש לו, all that he owned.

ויפקידהו על ביתו, “he appointed him to be in charge of his household.” He was the supervisor of the entire household. We find such a position in Kings I 18,3 when Achav appointed such a supervisor.

וכל אשר יש לו נתן בידו, “and he entrusted all his belongings to the care of Joseph.” He appointed him as manager of the household budget. We find something similar in Isaiah 22,15: “go in to see that steward, that Shevna, in charge of the palace.”

ויברך ה' את בית המצרי בגלל יוסף, “G’d blessed the household of the Egyptian on account of Joseph. Here the Torah draws a comparison with the house of Oved Edom HaGitti whose house was host to the Holy Ark and whom G’d blessed for the sake of the Holy Ark (Samuel II 6,11). The blessing extended both to money and other objects.

פקד (verwandt mit בגד): einen Gegenstand, mit seinen Beziehungen und einzelnen Verhältnissen bekleidet, sich vergegenwärtigen. Daher derjenige, dem ein Gegenstand in Obhut gegeben worden, der also dessen Verhältnisse überwachen und erhalten soll: פָקִיד, und jemandem Angelegenheiten zu überwachen und zu versorgen übergeben: יֵש — הפקיד verwandt mit קשה und גשש: das Harte, Feste, Tastbare, Reelle. — בגלל von גלל, verwandt mit גלל .כלל ,קלל: sich um seine Axe drehen, also den Schwerpunkt in sich haben, ohne Punkte der Reibung und des Hindernisses auf der Fläche, auf der man sich bewegt. Daher einerseits קל: was nirgends einen Anhaltspunkt hat, in seiner Fortbewegung nirgends aufgehalten wird, das Leichte, andererseits כלל: umfassen, alles Seinige in sich tragen. Alles vermittelnde Herbeiführen, Veranlassen, wird bildlich als eine drehende Kreisbewegung gedacht; es wird gleichsam das Verhältnis in seinem Mittelpunkte gefasst und ihm die beabsichtigte Wendung gegeben; so auch מאומה — .סבב: sowie מהומה von המם-הום, so dürfte מאומה von אמם-אום, der Wurzel von אֵם, Mutter, und אִם, wenn, stammen. Wenn nun dem אמם die Bedeutung: "Bedingung eines werdenden Seins" innewohnt, so wäre מאומה der Zustand, der etwas Werdendes bedingt. Es ist der Anfang eines Seins. Dies ist aber vollständig das, was wir durch etwas; bezeichnen: "mehr als nichts und doch noch nichts Vollendetes": Der Übergang von Nichtsein zu dem definierbaren Sein: מאומה, etwas. — תואר von תור, Reihe: das harmonische Ebenmaß der Glieder. — יפח ,יפה hauchen, יפע strahlen. Der Begriff des Schönen wird also im Hebräischen nicht objektiv, als Beschaffenheit des schönen Wesens, sondern als der Eindruck bezeichnet, den es auf den Beschauer macht; Schönheit wird als Hauch und Strahl begriffen, mit welchem das Schöne auf das Gemüt wirkt. Höchst bezeichnend erscheint nun die Bemerkung von Josefs Schönheit, die wir gleich am Beginn der Erzählung als das erste hätten erwarten sollen, womit sich der Unbekannte der Herrschaft empfahl, und die ja in der Tat der erste Empfehlungsbrief eines Unbekannten ist, ganz zuletzt. Es dürfte dies insbesondere für den weiteren Verlauf von Bedeutung sein. Es dürfte nämlich für einen Josef eine weit größere Versuchung sein, wenn ein nicht ge- wohnliches Weib ihn zu verführen versucht. Es wird uns daher erzählt, dass nicht zunächst Josefs Schönheit, sondern die glänzenden Erfolge seines Geistes, die ihn vom niedrigen Sklaven fast zum Herrn seines Herrn erhoben, den gewinnenden Eindruck auf seine Herrin gemacht. Seine Schönheit gab diesem Eindruck nur die überwältigende Steigerung. אחר הדברים האלה heißt es daher im folgenden Verse. Alles Bisherige hatte dazu beigetragen.

בכל אשר יש לו בבית ובשדה, “on everything that he owned, be it inside the house or out on the field.” He made all his efforts inside the house successful during the winter when people are more or less housebound, and in the summer when most of their activities take place outdoors. Actually, Joseph worked in the house of Potiphar for only one year, after which he was put in jail as a result of the accusation against him by Potiphar’s wife. (Seder Olam, chapter 2 Joseph spent a total of twelve years in jail. (B’reshit Rabbah 86,6)

When his master observed that the Almighty ‘was with him’, i.e. that he possessed both Divine knowledge and fear of God, and that He was, so to speak, ‘advising’ him in relation to his affairs; and on his witnessing such a great measure of Divine grace as would guarantee Joseph’s success in all his endeavors, Joseph found favor in his sight.

It is, however, also legitimate to interpret the verse (39:3) ‘And his master saw that the Almighty was with him and that God caused all that he did to succeed’ as follows: sometimes merchants make healthy profits from their merchandise, but this is attributable solely to the deceitful (commercial) practices to which they resort: as Scripture indeed informs us elsewhere: (Hosea 12:8): ‘Canaan (i.e. the merchant) holds in his hands scales of deceit; he loves to defraud’); but Joseph did not act in this fashion, as God’s presence was permanently in his thoughts and before his eyes; hence he would never commit a wrong, nor would he ever resort to deceitful language – but nonetheless, the Almighty allowed all his dealings to prosper. It was due to this that his master elevated him to a higher status. Until now, he had been serving in his master’s home, but not inside his ‘inner sanctum’; he had not been attending upon his master in his inner chamber. But at this juncture, he (Potiphar) elevated his working status in three ways: first, he (Joseph) ministered directly to his master, by dressing and feeding him – this is what is meant by the phrase ‘and he ministered to him’; secondly, he appointed him in charge of his entire household, i.e. that he (Joseph) could henceforth command all the servants employed there to carry out such tasks as befitted them: thirdly, he handed over control of all his possessions to Joseph, by creating him guardian of his treasures and his riches.

Now it was by virtue of Divine Providence that, from the very moment he had appointed Joseph over his household and all he possessed, ‘God blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake’ (39:5). And not only did He bless the items inside the house, which were under Joseph’s direct control, but the Divine blessing extended to all he owned, both in the house and in the fields, despite Joseph having no role to play in the fields at all.

AND HE KNEW NOT AUGHT HE HAD — he paid no attention to anything.

SAVE THE BREAD WHICH HE DID EAT. In the words of our Rabbis, this is a refined expression which refers to his wife.²¹⁹Bereshith Rabbah 86:7.
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said in interpretation of the verse that whatever Potiphar possessed was left in the hands of Joseph excepting the bread which he ate. This he did not even permit him to touch since he was a Hebrew. It was the customary behavior of the Egyptians towards the Hebrews that they not permit the Hebrews to touch their food, because that is abhorrent to the Egyptians.²²⁰Further, 43:32.
Possibly this is so. Perhaps the interpretation of the verse is that his lord did not know of Joseph taking anything from him save only the bread which Joseph ate, but no other pleasures as young people are wont to do. Nor did he gather wealth and property, just as it is said of David, And I have found no fault in him since he fell unto me unto this day.²²¹I Samuel 29:3. Now the verse, Having me, he knoweth not what is in the house,²²²Verse 8 here. Joseph speaking to Potiphar’s wife. expresses another matter, namely, that he [Joseph’s lord] did not trouble himself to know about anything inside the house. But the present verse, Having him, he knew not aught, is an expression of negation; he knew that nothing in the house is [taken by Joseph except the bread which he eats].²²³See my Hebrew commentary, pp. 219-220.

ולא ידע אתו מאומה, in the house

ויעזוב כל אשר לו, he left everything in Joseph’s hands without demanding an accounting from him.

ולא ידע אתו מאומה, he did not involve himself in anything concerning the affairs of his household. Everything rested on Joseph’s shoulders. Everything that needed to be done in the household other than matters relating to the food served in the house. The reason why Joseph was not charged with this relatively minor task was the fact that he was from a different people. We know already from 43,32 that the family of Yaakov, loosely known as העברים, “the Hebrews,” (from the sticks, i.e. a culture beyond the Euphrates river) had such different eating habits that the Egyptians could not eat at the same table with them. Joseph had not changed his eating habits. Other commentators interpret the line כי אם הלחם אשר הוא אוכל, as a euphemism applying to Potiphar’s wife.

כי אם הלחם אשר הוא אוכל, “except for the food which he was in the habit of eating.” According to the plain meaning, Potiphar did not issue any instructions to Joseph concerning his duties, but he left it all to his good sense and sense of duty. He did, however, tell Joseph the kind of menu he wished to enjoy every day. Ibn Ezra explains why Potiphar did not charge Joseph with preparing food; the Egyptians had a different eating culture from that of the Hebrews, and they detested the manner in which Hebrews prepared their food. He did not even let Joseph touch the bread. [This editor has never understood this explanation as something pertaining to the family of Yaakov, who numbered very few, and whose cultural impact on Egypt was nil. It is more likely that all the people from beyond the Tigris and Euphrates, the Sumerians, had different food habits from those of the Egyptians, the competing major culture, and that Joseph as was obvious by his skin colour, (The Eyptians being black) was viewed as culturally basically different. The derogatory manner in which the wife of Potiphar refers to Joseph as a “Hebrew” slave, is further evidence that it was not his “Jewishness” but his being associated with the Sumerians, Accadians, Babylonians, etc., which evoked her disdain once she had been rejected as a lover. (39,14) Ed.] Nachmanides writes that the meaning of the words ולא ידע אתו מאומה כי אם הלחם, mean that Joseph was free to take whatever was in the household and use it on behalf of his master except the bread which his master ate. This was something reserved for the master of the house. All other items in the house that were designed to enhance the residents’ quality of life were Joseph’s to enjoy.

ולא ידע אתו מאומה, “and he did not share any knowledge with him,” the only matters concerning which Joseph bothered to consult his master Potiphar was the menu to be served at meal-time, as the Torah said: “except for the bread he would eat.” The word לחם also included his wife; we know that wives are sometimes referred to as לחם, from Exodus 2,2 קראן לו ויאכל לחם, “call him so that he can take a wife.” We also find the word אכל, “ate,” in that sense in Proverbs 30,2 אכלה ומחתה פיה, “she ate and wiped her mouth.” The verse speaks about the harlot indulging in her trade and acting as if she had done no wrong. We encounter the same meaning of that word again in verse nine: “except for you inasmuch as you are his wife.”

A reference to his wife. You might ask: Perhaps it was actual bread? The answer is: Rashi deduced this from what Yoseif said (v. 9), “He has not withheld anything from me other than you,” implying that Potiphar placed everything except his wife in Yoseif’s hand. Thus, “bread” must refer to his wife.

כי אם הלחם אשר הוא אוכל, (literally) “except for the food that he ate.” We find two more references in the Torah describing that the Egyptians and Hebrews had a mutual distaste for each other’s eating habits and menus. (Compare Genesis 43,32, and verse 9 in this chapter, where Potiphar’s wife is described as out of bounds to Joseph [similar to his bread. Joseph was not afraid to make this comparison. Ed.]

כי אם הלחם אשר הוא אוכל, “except for the food he used to eat.” We have learned already in Genesis 43,32, that the kind of food that Hebrews ate was considered as an abomination by the Egyptians; it is therefore understandable that Potiphar would not allow Joseph to prepare food in an Egyptian kitchen. In Isaiah 30,7 the prophet speaking in the name of the Lord, describes the Egyptians in derogatory terms. In their haughtiness, they looked down on all other nations, on Hebrews especially. [This is also clear from the way Mrs Potiphar refers to Joseph as a lowly subhuman category of being; (39,17). An alternate explanation: Potiphar entrusted everything to Joseph, the only thing he found fault with was his eating habits; we know the prejudice the Egyptians harboured against the Semites on account of that from Genesis 43,32. They could not bring themselves to eat at the same table as the Hebrews.

The narrative continues to relate that Potiphar went yet one step further, by leaving all his possessions in Joseph’s charge, by which is meant without any written record or inventory (of the items in question). This, then, is what is meant by the phrase ‘And he knew nothing of what was under Joseph’s control’ (39:6). For previously, the Torah relates: ‘And he appointed him over his household, and handed over all his possessions to him’ i.e. his treasures – yet his master was aware of what was in the house, and he (Joseph) would account to him on a daily basis. However, once he had observed his success and his uprightness of character – ‘he was not cognizant of anything in Joseph’s possession’ (39:6), insofar as he did not demand any reckoning from him, as is customary amongst administrational delegators. This, then, is the true import of the phrase ‘he abandoned control of all his possessions’.

כי אם הלחם SAVE THE BREAD — this means his wife, but Scripture uses here a euphemism (Genesis Rabbah 86:6) (cf. Joseph’s own words in Genesis 39:9).

AND JOSEPH WAS HANDSOME AND GOOD-LOOKING. The verse mentions this here in order to indicate that it was on account of his good looks that his master’s wife cast her eyes upon him. And Rashi wrote that because he saw that he was ruler of the house, he began to eat and drink, and curl his hair, etc.²²⁴“The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Joseph: ‘Your father is mourning for you, and you curl your hair. I will incite a bear against you.’” (Rashi.) That is, “I shall let temptation loose against you.”

כי אם הלחם אשר הוא אוכל, he did not oversee any of the affairs of his household, not caring where everything originated until the food came on his table, when he proceeded to eat it. The word לחם is an inclusive term applying to any manner of food. It is used in the same sense in Daniel 5,1 עבד לחם רב, “he made a great banquet.” Also in Job 3,24 כי לפני לחמי אנחתי, “my groaning serves me as my food.”

ויהי יוסף יפה תואר ויפה מראה, after Potiphar had entrusted him with all these important tasks Joseph found time to make himself look handsome having no longer to perform demeaning physical labour assigned to most slaves. Psalms 81,7 extols the relief felt when one is freed from such burdensome tasks.

ויהי יוסף יפה תואר, the reason why the Torah mentions that Joseph was handsome is only to help us understand why a highly placed person such as Mrs Potiphar would try to get involved with a foreign-born slave. Joseph was so handsome in appearance. We already explained the nuances of the word יפה תואר and יפה מראה respectively in connection with Rachel (29,17).

ויהי יוסף יפה תואר, “Joseph became exceedingly handsome.” According to Rashi the fact that Joseph enjoyed so much authority caused him to attend to his personal appearance in an exaggerated manner. Nachmanides writes that the Torah had to provide us with a rationale why the wife of Potiphar would want to have an affair with a slave, one from Mesopotamia, of all places. The Torah therefore explains that Joseph’s physique proved of an overpowering attraction to her

ויהי יוסף יפה תואר ויפה מראה, “Joseph was of handsome form and handsome appearance.” The Torah revealed the reason Potiphar’s wife was so attracted to him. (Tanchuma)

Once he perceived himself as a ruler. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why is it mentioned here? [Alternatively,] Rashi is answering the question: ויהי always refers to a new occurrence. But was not Yoseif well-built from birth, and assumedly good looking too? Rashi answers: “Once he perceived himself a ruler...” and this he did not do before. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Now when the Torah tells us (that he left everything in Joseph’s hands) ‘except the bread that he ate’ (39:6), it means to say that he left his entire wealth and possessions in Joseph’s charge without requiring any account from him, besides the bread his master ate; this could not be under Joseph’s control, as he was of Hebrew origin, and (as we are later informed – [Ch. 43:32]: ‘the Egyptians are not permitted to eat bread together with the Hebrews’ – as Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra has noted ( in his Torah commentary). Accordingly, (as we have amply demonstrated), there is, after all, nothing repetitious or superfluous contained within these verses, and thus the second question initially posed by us has been satisfactorily resolved.

ויהי יוסף יפה תאר AND JOSEPH WAS OF BEAUTIFUL FORM — As soon as he saw that he was ruler (in the house) he began to eat and drink and curl his hair. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “Your father is mourning and you curl your hair! I will let a bear loose against you” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 8). Immediately.

I will provoke the bear against you. Immediately: Rashi calls her a beast because it is written (37:33), “An evil beast has devoured him,” referring to Potiphar’s wife, as Rashi explained there. And he calls her a bear because a bear has no rest; it is always moving. So too was Potiphar’s wife — she had no rest because of her pursuit of Yoseif to have relations with him.

After Scripture has praised Joseph by recording that ‘God was with him’ and that ‘he was successful’, thus causing him to find favor in his master’s sight, it continues to lavish yet more praise on him, by relating that he was ‘of fair countenance and handsome appearance’, on account of which he found favor in the eyes of his master’s wife!

ותשא אשת אדניו HIS LORD’S WIFE LIFTED UP HER EYES etc. — wherever אחר is used and not אחרי it means immediately after (Genesis Rabbah 44:5).

ותשא אשת אדוניו, on account of his good looks described before.

ויהי אחר הדברים האלה, after Joseph had been in the house of his Egyptian master for some time and had occupied the highest position in that household, feeling very secure, the invitation of a romantic relationship with Mrs. Potiphar brought tension into his life again. He had, of course, no way of knowing at the time that these developments had as its purpose that he would in due course rise to far higher prominence and that he would become the direct instrument of bringing his family to Egypt where they would reside in comfort and found a nation. Also the sin of the Chief butler and Chief baker respectively, as well as their being held in the same jail as Joseph and his becoming their valet, were all part of G’d’s design to further His plans without interfering with anyone’s free choice. We have to learn from this whole story that when a person suffers a setback in life, one that appears to him undeserved, he must remember how all these setbacks worked in Joseph’s favour at the time although he was not yet aware of it. We must therefore trust that G’d has our best interests at heart at all times, even though we cannot always appreciate this at the time when we are being tested. The incidents were narrated at this point to demonstrate Joseph’s righteousness when on his own without family support, after having in effect been cast out from his family.

It is due to the fact that a man’s high status, plus the fact that everyone pays him attention, frequently induce women to love him, that Scripture states at this point (39:7): ‘So it happened after these events’ i.e. once he had been appointed supreme controller of his master’s house, coupled with his natural good looks, that his mistress started to think about him.

When the verse tells us that ‘his master’s wife raised her eyes towards Joseph’, it intends to convey the idea that she was, so to speak, pleading with him (to surrender to her) because of her love for him. When it states that she ‘raised her eyes towards him’, this expression must be understood in the same sense as the phrase we find (in Psalm 123:1): ‘Unto Thee, O Lord, have I raised my eyes!’ She thus addressed him: ‘Lie with me!’, as though to say, ‘now that you are already in control of the entire household, rule over me as well!’

BUT HE REFUSED, AND SAID UNTO HIS MASTER’s WIFE. Scripture relates that he refused to do her will even though she was his mistress, i.e., his master’s wife, and he feared her, for he feared G-d more. This is the meaning of the expression, unto his master’s wife.

But he refused. The verse testifies that he, without any reasoning, refused to turn his cohabitation into fornication, but that he was forced to give his master's wife ulterior reasons apart from this.

וימאן, the meaning is clear beyond mistake.

ויאמר אל אשת אדוניוו וימאן “He refused, and said to the wife of his master, etc.” Although we are well aware that Potiphar was Joseph’s master, the Torah reports his position, in order to explain that Joseph’s refusal to respond to the advances of his mistress was based on her husband being his master, also. It was not based on Joseph finding her unattractive. He had reason to also fear the anger of his mistress, but he made plain that his fear of G’d was stronger than his fear of the results of her displeasure with him.

לא ידע וגו׳ ,er hat das unbegrenzte Vertrauen zu meiner Geschicklichkeit .das unbegrenzte Vertrauen zu meiner Redlichkeit ,וכל אשר יש לו ונו׳

‘But he (Joseph) refused, and said to his master’s wife’, etc. (39:8) First of all, the verse states that he inwardly refused – as being a mortal sin – to consort , rebelliously and treacherously, with his master’s wife – and, even more so, to beget children destined for idol-worship. And, besides this, i.e. his inward refusal to succumb – he also openly declared to her his reasons for avoiding intimacy with her –

‘Look, my master has handed over all his affairs to me’, etc. (39:8). What he wished to point out by this was that an individual who sins does so exclusively either to satiate himself with something materially beneficial, or for the sake of obtaining glory, or to fulfill a pledge (made by him); ‘but in my case, none of these factors apply: from the aspect of material benefit, my master has no idea of what household items are under my control, having placed all his possessions in my hand. As to obtaining glory, ‘even my master himself is not of higher rank in the household than I am’ – by which he meant to say: ‘whilst it is possible that within the king’s household, he is greater than I, in this household, he is not’. And as regards fulfillment of a pledge, my master has withheld nothing from me besides you, and that too is only because of your being his wife – i.e. insofar as your marital status is concerned; but not in any other respect. Accordingly, if all that remains to him is yourself, on account of your marriage to him, how can I perpetrate so great an evil as to remove you forcibly from him? – for by doing so, I would be acting like a traitor and a thief in respect of what was placed in my care. Furthermore, even if he knew nothing of the affair, and I could thus not be called a sinner against him personally, still, there can be no doubt that the sin would be against God, Who is aware of secret matters’. This, then, is what he meant by exclaiming: ‘I will have sinned against the Almighty!’

ותאמר שכבה עמי, “she said: lie with me!” She spoke vulgarly as do the whores, similar to what has been described in Proverbs 7,10: “and here a woman came toward him dressed in harlot’s attire and of determined heart.” Words such as reported here by the Torah are typical of an adulterous woman. When a chaste woman desires to express similar sentiments she uses refined language as did Ruth when she said to Boaz: “spread your robe over your handmaid;” (Ruth 3,9).

ויאמר אל אשת אדוניו, “he said to the wife of his master, etc.” The Torah could have simply written: “he said to her.” However, the Torah wanted to let us know that Joseph explained to Mrs. Potiphar that seeing she was his master’s wife he was duty bound to accept instructions from her; however, in this instance his duty towards G’d took precedence over his duty to obey her commands.

וחטאתי לאלהים AND SIN AGAINST GOD — The “Sons of Noah” (בני נח) were subject to the command which forbade immorality (Sanhedrin 56b).

AND I SHALL SIN AGAINST G-D. The Sons of Noah²²⁵See Note 113 above. were commanded concerning forbidden relations. This is Rashi’s language.
This is correct. It is only due to the feminine lack of knowledge that he first told her that the act would constitute a betrayal of his master who trusted him, and following that he added that it also involves a sin against G-d.
It is possible to further explain the verse, And I shall sin against G-d, by this betrayal, since “it would be a matter of great evil consequence which would be accounted to me as a sin against G-d since His eyes are upon the faithful of the land,²²⁶Psalms 101:6. and no traitor dare come before Him.” Joseph spoke the truth. However he did not mention the prohibition of the illicit relation²²⁷According to this interpretation. because he spoke in language suitable to women.

כי אם אותך באשר את אשתו, the only restrictions imposed upon me in this house concern the inviolable marital relations between you and my master, your husband.

באשר את אשתו, "inasmuch as you are his wife." Joseph meant that Potiphar had not placed his wife out of bounds to Joseph in so many words; the matter was understood because of her status.

איננו גדול בבית הזה, there is no one in this house who is superior to me in rank except you who are out of bounds to me inasmuch as you are my master’s wife; how could I abuse the trust placed in me by my master?

וחטאתי לאלוקים, “I would commit a sin against G’d.” Rashi explains that basic legislation about incestuous relations including adultery applied universally, not only to Jews. Nachmanides writes that he finds it difficult that Joseph mentioned the sin of adultery against his own master Potiphar, which is secondary, before mentioning the sin against G’d which is primary. He answers this problem by saying that women do not perceive matters in that order. They relate first and foremost to their visible masters, their husbands, and are only marginally concerned with their sins against the Creator, who remains invisible both to them and to their husbands. There is also another way of answering the manner in which Joseph described the sin of giving in to the allure of Mrs. Potiphar. He did not refer to the aspect of illicit sex at all directly, other than saying that he would be committing a great wrong against G’d’s law, without implying that she would be a party to that sin. According to that approach, the words הרעה הגדולה, “the great evil,” would modify the words וחטאתי לאלוקים.

איך אעשה הרעה הגדולה הזאת וחטאתי לאלוקים , “and how could I commit such a great wrong and sin against the Lord?” He explained that indulging in sex with his master’s wife would be wrong on two counts. Not only would it be an act of betrayal against his employer but it would also be a grievous offense against G’d. This is similar to the wording used by the High Priest Eli when he rebuked his sons in Samuel I 2,25: “If a man sins against a man, the Lord may pardon him [after he has served the penalty decreed by a human tribunal, Ed.]; but if a man sins against G’d who can obtain pardon for him?“

וחטאתי לאלקי׳, abgesehen von der Schlechtigkeit gegen deinen Gatten, ists ja auch, wie jede Unsittlichkeit, ein Verbrechen gegen Gott. — חטא. Es ist von Wichtigkeit, den Begriff der Sünde nach dem hebräischen Sprachgedanken zu ergründen, da sich daraus zugleich der Begriff des Gegensatzes, der des sittlichen Lebens ergibt. Im Deutschen heißt Sünde das zu Sühnende, ein Begriff, der in חטא nicht ursprünglich liegt. Wir wagen die Verwandtschaft von חטא mit חתה hervorzuheben. חתה: etwas aus seinem gehörigen Kreis herausnehmen, insbefondere aber: brennende Kohlen aus dem Feuer nehmen. Es ist nun nicht unmöglich, dass הטא ebenso heiße: irgend eine unserer Beziehungen jenem Feuer, dem Feuerstrahle jenes Elementes entziehen, das eigentlich unser ganzes Wesen fassen, wecken, durchläutern und beleben soll. Die Kohle, die ich aus dem Feuer nehme, erlischt. So lange irgend eine meiner Kräfte von jenem göttlichen Feuer beherrscht ist, wird sie leben und das erreichen, wozu sie bestimmt ist. Überlasse ich aber irgend eine Beziehung meines Wesens diesem Feuer nicht, so wird sie: Sünde. Wir sind berechtigt, das zur Beherrschung unseres ganzen Wesens bestimmte Element als "Feuer" zu denken. Nennt sich ja das Göttliche selber אשרת ,אש אוכלת. Ihm sollen wir stets ganz hingegeben sein, und so lange sind wir ohne Schlacken, das göttliche Feuer leuchtet stets und stets in uns und durch uns, wir sind ׳לחם אשה ד: Nahrung des Göttlichen auf Erden. Sobald etwas diesem Feuer entfällt, wird es dunkel, schlecht. Ist das Sinnliche nicht Träger des Göttlichen, nicht קדוש, wird es viehisch: קָדֵש. Was sich der Glut des Göttlichen entzieht, verfällt der Glut der Leidenschaft. Heißt aber חטא: etwas dem Herde des göttlichen Feuers entziehen, das dadurch dunkel, unerleuchtet, undurch- glüht von dem Feuer wird, das es durchglühen sollte: so begreifen wir, wie sich das ganze מעשה קרבנות als symbolische Wiederherstellung des durch חטא gestörten Verhältnisses in buchstäblichstem Sinne darstellt. Wenn unser הטא nichts anderes war, als dass unser הלב וכליות sich nicht als Nahrung dem göttlichen Feuer überlassen, resp. hingegeben haben: so ist die Wiederherstellung eben nichts anderes, als dass wir sie dem göttlichen Feuer wieder übergeben. Unser ganzes Wesen נפש, gehört Gott an, und als Konsequenz davon, alle unsere Glieder, איברים, Seinem Feuer, נתינת אברים על גבי האש ist reine Konsequenz von נתינת דם על המזבח. — (Siehe auch Kap.13, 13.)

וחטאתי לאלוקים, “and I would commit a sin against G-d;” even if the matter will remain concealed from human beings, G-d sees everything.

הרעה הגדולה הזאת, to repay good with evil.

כי אם אותך באשר את אשתו; these words lend support to the words of the Midrash which saw in the words כי אם הלחם a euphemistic reference to Potiphar’s wife. It is also possible that Potiphar had warned Joseph specifically against getting involved with his wife because he was so handsome. There was no need for the Torah to spell out such a prohibition

ואיך אעשה הרעה הגדולה, "how could I possibly commit such a great evil?" By doing so I would lose everything I have achieved.

להיות עמה, in seclusion.

ואיך אעשה הרעה הגדולה הזאת, to sleep with his wife and to betray his trust? Furthermore, this would not only be a grievous wrong against my master, but it would also be a sin against G’d Who commanded man certain rules of sexual behaviour. (we explained these rules in connection with Genesis 2,24 on ודבק באשתו)

Furthermore, I would create an unbridegable gap to the holy roots of my soul seeing that adultery is forbidden to Gentiles as well as to Jews. This is what Joseph meant when he said "I would sin against G'd."

Furthermore, by mentioning that he would commit a sin vis-a-vis G'd Joseph already countered Mrs Potiphar's argument that her husband did not need to know about their liaison and that therefore Joseph did not stand to lose anything. Joseph attributed his present status to the help of G'd. He would certainly forfeit G'd's help if he became guilty of adultery.

לשכב אצלה TO LIE BY HER — even without sinning (Genesis Rabbah 87:6).

TO LIE ‘ETZLA’ (BY HER). The meaning of this expression is as Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra interpreted it: “even to lie near her, each in their garment, or to be with her for general conversation.” This interpretation is correct since we do not find the word etzla (near her) in Scripture in connection with sexual intercourse, only the word ima (with her) or othah (with her), as for example: Lie ‘imi’ (with me);²²⁸Verse 12 here. And if any man lie ‘othah’ (with her);²²⁹Leviticus 15:24. And the women ravished (‘tishachavnah’).²³⁰Zechariah 14:2. In tishachavnah, the plural form of othah is implicit.

להיות עמה, Joseph was even careful not to find himself alone with Potiphar’s wife until there came a day when he was forced to be alone with her in the house as all the other members of the household were occupied outside the house. According to Bereshit Rabbah 87,7 all the other people on that day had gone to watch the river Nile flood its banks, an annual event.

לשכב אצלה להיות עמה, she lowered her demands, even to at least lie down on the same bed beside her, or merely keeping her company. Joseph refused all these suggestions. According to an aggadic interpretation, the apparent repetition of the line לשכב אצלה להיות עמה refers to intimacy in this world on earth, לשכב אצלה, and the spiritual equivalent in the world to come, i.e. להיות עמה. (Sotah 3)

לשכב אצלה, “to lie down beside her;” Ibn Ezra understands this as sitting beside one another on the same settee, fully clothed, engaging in idle chatter. The reason for Ibn Ezra’s explanation is that the term לשכב אצלה, is most inappropriate for intimacy involving sex, as the Torah would have used the word עמה, if it wanted to describe such an intimate physical relationship.

Even without intimacy. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why is it not written לשכב עמה, as it said before (v. 7), שכבה עמי? You might ask: If he would not lie next to her even without intimacy, why does it then say, “nor to be with her,” which Rashi explains as referring to the World to Come? For what would he be punished? [The answer is:] Perhaps the verse is saying he would not lie next to her even without intimacy because he feared his evil inclination might bring him to intimacy, and he would go to Gehinnom. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Now, as regards the next verse: (39:10): ‘And it happened, when she spoke to Joseph daily, but he paid no attention to her importunings’, I believe its correct interpretation is as follows: on the first occasion, Joseph did listen to her words, and replied to her, as she was his master’s wife; but subsequently, he became afraid that her continual advances would (ultimately) entice him; for repeated words or deeds can make a huge impression, so as to effect an alteration in a person’s conduct. Consequently, from then onwards, when she used to speak to him every day – our Sages indeed tell us that this went on for twelve months! – he would not listen to what she said, to avoid himself becoming seduced. Now she, as mistress of the house, would sit on the ground – as is customary for ladies of that rank – on a rug made of linen and embroidered wool – and high-ranking officials, when coming to converse with them, would (customarily) lie down on those very rugs to conduct their dialogue. She was accordingly continually urging Joseph to lie down beside her on the rug so that she could speak to him, but he (for his part) had no desire to approach her. This, then, is the (full) purport of the verse (found here) :(39:10): ‘But he paid no heed to her, to lie by her side, to be with her’. On perceiving that she would not accept his efforts to extricate himself (from her clutches), he chose to shut his ears and neither to listen to anything she said, nor, needless to say, to venture close to her in the place where she was seated.

להיות עמה TO BE WITH HER, in the world to come (Gehinnom) (Genesis Rabbah 87:6).

ויהי כהיום הזה AND IT CAME TO PASS ON A CERTAIN DAY — This means as much as “and it came to pass when a certain distinguished day arrived” — a day of merriment, a day of their sacred feast when they all went to the temple of their idols, — she said), “I shall find no day fitting to associate with Joseph as this day”. She therefore told her attendants I am sick and cannot go to the temple (Sotah 36b).

כהיום הזה, when she raised her eyes to him in lust.

ויהי כהיום הזה, a day, quite similar to this day, when she insistently urged him to sleep with her, occurred. Now a different day occurred when the house was empty of all its other occupants

ויהי כהיום, “A certain day arrived, etc.” It was as clear as day(light) that Joseph had only arrived to perform his regular work.

Rav and Shmuel: One says, literally, his work... Tosafos explain in Sotah 36b [that the second explanation is] because it says ויבא הביתה, which is the same word as ביאה (relations). The verse could have [omitted this phrase and] said: “It was on such a day, and no man of the household was there...”

Das כהיום הזה ist dunkel. היום הזה und כיום הזה bezieht sich gewöhnlich auf die Gegenwart des Erzählers oder Lesers und beides ist hier nicht möglich. Bezieht man es auf die Zeit der Geschichte, so heißt es vielleicht: an einem solchen Tage, und bezieht sich auf das vorhergehende יום יום. Sie hatte bereits an diesem Tage ihre Verführungskunst an Josef versucht und dennoch wagte sich Josef "an einem solchen Tage" in ihre Nähe, obgleich kein Mann sonst im Hause war. Es läge dann ein Vorwurf für Josef darin, den er schwer genug gebüßt hat. Es soll niemand zu sehr auf seine sittliche Standhaftigkeit bauen.

ויהי כהיום, “it was on a day no different from any other day;” this short phrase has been inserted here as in praise of Joseph, the righteous person, and as condemnation of the cursed person. In a cultured society, marital intercourse is an activity reserved for the night, to be performed in darkness; the wife of Potiphar demanded from Joseph that he engage not only in infidelity to his master and to G-d, but that he do so in broad daylight. Seeing that Joseph could not have foreseen such a demand by his mistress, he can certainly not be faulted to have gone about his daily routine on that day just as on any other day. Regardless of this, she tried to disrobe him. According to Rabbi Yishmael, (Pessikta zutrata) that day was the day on which the Nile used to flood its banks to irrigate the fields; that day was a kind of joyous festival, everyone participating in the festivities. Mrs Potiphar and Joseph chose not to participate in those activities.

לעשות מלאכתו TO DO HIS WORK — Rab and Samuel differ as to what this means. One holds that it means, his actual house-work; the other that it means to associate with her, but a vision of his father’s face appeared to him and he resisted temptation and did not sin as is stated in Treatise Sotah 36b.

ויבא הביתה, he entered a room, unaware that she was in that room at the time.

לעשות מלאכתו, to perform specific chores which were part of his regular routine assigned to him, as explained by Onkelos.

ואין איש מאנשי הבית בבית, ”and no one of the normally present people in the house was in the house on that occasion.” The unusual phrasing מאנשי הבית, meaning “of the men normally assigned to the house,” prompted the sages to say that another person was present, referring to the image of Yaakov, Joseph’s father, whose image reminded him not to fall victim to the lure of this woman.

But, his father’s image appeared to him... [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “No man of the household was there in the house,” implying another man was there. (Tosafos ibid, citing R. Moshe Hadarshan) Perforce it was Yaakov, as Rashi comments on 49:24.

AND HE LEFT HIS GARMENT IN HER HAND. Out of respect for his mistress he did not wish to take the garment from her hand with his superior strength, and he removed it from upon himself, as it was a garment which one wears as a robe and headdress. But when she saw that he left his garment in her hands she feared lest he expose her to the people of the household or his master, and so she preceded him to them, saying that he had removed his garment to lie with her, but “when he saw that I screamed he fled in confusion.” This is the meaning of the verse, And it came to pass, when she saw that he had left his garment in her hand.²³¹Verse 13 here. This is also why she did not say, “And he left his garment in my hand,” but she instead told the men of her house and her husband, And he left his garment ‘etzli’ (with me).²³²The word etzli (with me) indicates that he himself had removed his garment, as explained above.

And fled. So that he would not be overcome by desire.

ותתפשהו בבגדו, She grabbed hold of his garment, etc. The Torah reveals Mrs Potiphar's intention when she grabbed Joseph's garment by stating לאמור. This word needs to be translated here: "as if to say." She did not say a word. Her actions spoke louder than any words.

ויעזב בגדו בידה, “he left his outer garment in her hand.” Out of deference for her position as his mistress, he did not wrest the garment from her hands, although he was physically powerful enough to have done this.

ויעזוב בגדו אצלה, “he left his garment with her.” This is another example of Joseph’s chastity; he did not want to struggle for his garment with her and thereby involve himself in physical contact with her. He respected her dignity in not demonstrating his superior male power.

Schon Siporno macht aufmerksam darauf, wie besonnen und rücksichtsvoll Josef selbst in einer solchen Stellung einem solchen Weibe gegenüber gewesen. — וינס ויצא החוצה, er floh — jedoch draußen stürzte er nicht, machte kein Aussehen, sondern: draußen ging er. Sie vermutete diese Rücksicht nicht, sonst hätte sie nicht geschrien. Bei ihr heißt es: כראתה וגי וינס החוצה, sie sah ihn hinauseilen, deshalb rief sie. In ihrer Erzählung freilich sagt sie: וינס וצא החוצה er floh und "schlich" hinaus. Sie will ihn ja eben als den Verbrecher zeichnen.

ותתפשהו בבגדו, “she grabbed him by his outer garment.” According to Kohelet Rabbah on Kohelet 7,26, where the author describes a woman’s hands as having been artificially restrained, אסורים, the kind of woman described by Solomon there would grab men in the street and try and seduce them. Even the relatively chaste women are described there as aggressive in that respect. During the 12 months that Joseph was in Potiphar’s house, he was exposed to those tactics by Potiphar’s wife on a daily basis. When the Torah speaks of these ongoing attempts at seduction (verse 10) as occurring יום יום, “every day,” this must be considered as if Joseph had withstood a year’s temptation. The word is used as meaning “year” as in Esther 3,7. He would literally have to take evasive action, such as covering his face, practically shrinking to the ground. She would use instruments in order to force him to resume his normal posture. She would use the argument that she was not really married to Potiphar; he was a homosexual and had never consummated the “marriage.” He had to explain to her that the Hebrews were not allowed to have sexual relations with Egyptian women even if the latter were unmarried. She would threaten him with having him consigned to jail. Joseph would reply that his G–d had means of freeing him from jail. She would threaten to have him blinded, to which he replied that his G–d could make the blind see. Eventually, if it had not been for the priests who testified hat the drops of semen she produced as evidence that he had tried to rape her were in fact not from a human being, he might have been sentenced to death. This eventually became the reason why he dealt so extraordinarily generously with the Egyptian priests during the years of the famine. (Tanchuma, section 8)

Accordingly, when the power of her love overwhelmed her, and he was no longer paying any attention to her words, she seized him by his robe, reasoning that, once she had been so bold as to grab hold of it, he would be ashamed to despise her and tell her (outright): ‘I do not desire you!’ He, for his part, for fear that he would let himself be seduced by her advances and her conduct, fled away from her presence, and went outside, not even tarrying to extricate his robe from her hand so that she would not seize and kiss him. This is what Scripture intends to convey by (the expression) ‘he fled’ (39:12). He also did not wish to extract his garment from her hand by superior force because she was, after all, his mistress, so that she was able to detach it from him; as it was a robe in which he would envelop himself, like a cloak, as Nahmanides has stated (in his commentary on this passage).

And he went outside. As soon as he left the room he slowed down so that no one would ask questions. She, however, assumed that he continued running and that people would soon know what happened; therefore she called to the men of the household.

וינס ויוצא החוצה, “he fled, leaving the house.” As a reward for Joseph’s fleeing the presence of his master’s wife on that occasion, G–d told him that He would reward him when the sea of reeds fled at the approach of Joseph’s coffin when the Israelites were facing the sea with the Egyptians threatening them from behind. (Tanchuma on parshat Nasso, section 30, interprets Psalms: 114,3: הים ראה וינוס, “the sea saw and fled” as meaning just that.)

She, for her part, seeing that he had left his robe in her hand and had fled outside naked – something which is not done – thought that, without doubt, if his master arrived on the scene, he would question him as to what had occurred, and Joseph would be compelled to reply to him to excuse himself for walking about outside the house naked; and that when he would tell him the truth as to what had taken place, her nefarious conduct would become public knowledge. This, then, is the correct interpretation of the verse: ‘Now it transpired, that when she saw that he had left his robe in her hand and fled outside’ (39:13) – for had he not done both these things, she would not have suspected him of revealing the incident; just as she too had not disclosed it till now. However, as he had fled outside naked, whoever saw him – and most certainly his master – would be prompted to demand an explanation from him; and he in turn would be forced to disclose the incident. It was due to such considerations (only) that she (decided to) act cunningly, for fear of the shame she would suffer on being discovered by the members of the household. Hence she herself publicized the affair, by exclaiming:(39:14): ‘Look how he (my husband) has brought us a Hebrew man’ – an enemy of the Egyptian nation – and promoted him over his household; and he, for his part, perceiving this, had the temerity to mock me!’ [in the sense of the Biblical verse (Proverbs 29:21): ‘he who pampers his slave from his youth will ultimately find the slave lording it over him!’] With such an interpretation of the passage, the third question we initially posed has been satisfactorily resolved.

ראו הביא לנו SEE, HE HATH BROUGHT IN UNTO US — This is an elliptical phrase: “he hath brought in to us” without stating plainly who brought him in She was referring to her husband.

SEE, HE HATH BROUGHT IN A HEBREW UNTO US. The meaning thereof is that the Hebrews were hated by the Egyptians. They did not eat with them, this being a matter of abhorrence to them.²³³See further, 43:32. They did not purchase them as servants except as vinedressers and plowmen, but they would not permit them to come into their homes. This is why she said: “Behold, the master has done us evil by bringing a Hebrew into our home, and he has further appointed him as overseer and ruler, and now he has fittingly seen to mock us.” [The point of her statement] is similar to that which is said in the verse, He that delicately bringeth up his servant from a child shall have him become a master at the last.²³⁴Proverbs 29:21. This is the meaning of her saying, Whom thou hast brought unto us,²³⁵Verse 17 here. as his being brought into their house was in itself embarassing to them.
In the verse before us, the expression, He has brought us, refers to her husband. She does not mention him by name out of respect,²³⁶In view of the fact that she blames him for what happened. or perhaps because such is the ethical way for women to speak, or perhaps because it is known who brought Joseph into the house. Similarly, in many places in the book of Job it speaks of Almighty G-d anonymously because the conversants know that they are speaking of Him. Similarly, in the verse, And he said to Abner, Why hast thou gone in unto my father’s concubine?²³⁷II Samuel 3:7. the name of the speaker is not mentioned, and no reference is made to him at all in the above verse because it is known that he was Ish-bosheth.²³⁸Of “the house of Saul,” mentioned there in Verse 6. And it is already self-understood that the speaker in Verse 7 is Ish-bosheth, as he was the leader of the house of Saul. (R’dak.)

ואקרא בקול גדול, because you were so far away from me. If I had not raised my voice so greatly he would have raped me.

ותקרא לאנשי ביתה, in order to justify her conduct. However, when she saw that Joseph had stopped running after leaving the room where she had waylaid him, and the fact that the people in her house had no reason to question Joseph who was acting perfectly normally, she told those people that Joseph had fled from her room and walked outside, something which actually corresponded to the truth as far as the facts were concerned. (verse 15) However, when relating what had supposedly occurred to her husband who had not been an eye witness to any part of the incident, she described Joseph’s behaviour as a flight not only from her room but also outside of it. (verse 18) In order to make her version of events believable she had to lie so that Joseph would be perceived as having tried to escape from the other members of the household.

ותקרא לאנשי ביתה, she called the members of her household, etc. She was well aware that her husband put great faith in Joseph's righteousness and might not believe her accusation against him. Therefore she called the members of her household asking them, i.e. לאמור to tell her husband what had happened (according to her version). The members of her household who were jealous of Joseph who had risen above them would be happy to testify against him, saying: "look what happened as a result of your bringing this Hebrew man into the house." When she said לצחק בנו, "to make sport of us," she used the word us deliberately to indicate that they had all suffered from Joseph's elevated status, especially since Joseph was an alien.

ותקרא לאנשי ביתה, how is that possible seeing that none of them were in the house at the time?ואקרא בקול גדול.ותאמר..לאמר, to tell her husband.

ראו הביא לנו איש עברי, “see here! He brought us a Hebrew man.” Mrs. Potiphar referred to the “Hebrew” as universally known antagonists of the Egyptians, a reason why the Egyptians would not acquire “Hebrews” as slaves, except to work in the vineyards and other menial occupations in the fields. They were never allowed into the homes of upper class Egyptians. Mrs Potiphar voiced her disgust with her husband who not only had taken a slave of such parentage into their house, but had even elevated him to be the most powerful person in the whole household. It was not surprising therefore that an עברי slave who had been promoted to such a position would begin to take advantage of it and treat all of us as his inferiors, abusing us, as he has just tried to do with me. She deliberately left out a direct reference to her husband, as she wanted to insure that the members of the household would support her.

From the other side of the river. One who is a descendant of Eiver. [Question:] On the verse, “He told Avram the Hebrew” (14:13), Rashi explained: “He came from the other side of the river.” Why did he not he also explain, “A descendant of Eiver”? The answer is: “The other side of the river” is a sufficient explanation for Avraham, who came from there himself. But for Avraham’s descendants it is not sufficient, as they did not come from there, so Rashi needed both explanations. And it is not sufficient to say only that they are descendants of Eiver, because why should they be called after Eiver, and not after Shem? (Gur Aryeh)

עברי A HEBREW — is one who came from the other side (עבר) of the river Euphrates, being at the same time of the sons of Eber (אדניו).

לצחק בנו, to take sexual liberties with us.

הביא לנו, they said to him (accusingly) how he could have brought such a man.

It is also possible that when Mrs Potiphar said ראו, look! that she invited the members of the household to testify only to what they had seen; the Torah describes this as לאמור ראו, "say what you have seen." She included her husband in her accusation in the event he would find excuses for Joseph's alleged behaviour.

בנו, a word denoting glory, i.e. how could he be “over us, in a superior position?”

וינס ויוצא החוצה, “he fled, leaving the house.” As a reward for Joseph’s fleeing the presence of his master’s wife on that occasion, G–d told him that He would reward him when the sea of reeds fled at the approach of Joseph’s coffin when the Israelites were facing the sea with the Egyptians threatening them from behind. (Tanchuma on parshat Nasso, section 30, interprets Psalms: 114,3: הים ראה וינוס, “the sea saw and fled” as meaning just that.)

ויעזב את בגדו אצלי, “he left his outer garment in my hands;” in preparation of raping me. He was not able o retrieve it until I started yelling, when he decided to flee.

אדניו HIS MASTER — Joseph’s master (not the master or owner of the garment).

בא אלי —The sentence means: the Hebrew servant whom thou hast brought unto us came to me to have his sport with me.

ותדבר אליו..לאמור, She spoke to him…saying. The word לאמור here is meant as a reference to the testimony which the members of the household would be willing to supply. Potiphar's anger was not so much directed at Joseph but at the fact that his wife was able to reinforce her accusations by calling the members of the household as witnesses. This is why the Torah writes: "when his master heard the words of his wife which she spoke to him לאמור כדברים האלה." The Torah did not need to write more than: "when his master heard the words of his wife." We are meant to realise that Potiphar only became angry after לאמור, i.e. that there were independent witnesses supporting his wife's tale.

כדברים האלה, “words similar to these.” According to Rashi, a reference to “pillow” talk between Mrs Potiphar and her husband. She considered the timing appropriate to relate to her husband matters pertaining to what she described as Joseph’s sexual advances to her. Nachmanides queries this in light of the Midrashim that teach us that Potiphar had become impotent as a punishment for trying to indulge his homosexual fantasies by using Joseph as his partner. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that Mrs Potiphar would reveal intimate details about Joseph to her husband, details the knowledge of which would incriminate her. If she had accused Joseph of raping her, he would be guilty of execution, so why did Potiphar not have him executed? Moreover, why had she not cried out before Joseph could perpetrate his evil intention? She only raised a fuss after the event! This would give her husband the right to execute her! She only had to tell her husband that Joseph was getting ready to rape her! Perhaps both the Midrash upon which Rashi based himself, and his own understanding of the words עניני תשמיש, is not to be understood literally, but refers to Mrs Potiphar describing fondling of her by Joseph, not his sleeping with her. It is possible that Potiphar, in order to suppress the scandal, did not execute Joseph, as his reputation as a husband cuckolded by a Hebrew slave would have resulted in his becoming a laughing stock among his peers. It is also possible that Potiphar’s fondness of Joseph was such that he could not bear to kill him. Looking at the plain meaning of the text, we do not need all of these convoluted explanations (based on the extraneous letter כ in front of the word דברים), and the meaning is the same as if the Torah had written הדברים האלה, “these matters.” Alternately, the Torah hints, that as soon as Potiphar heard the story of his wife about what Joseph was supposed to have done to her, i.e. her words, not necessarily the true events, he did not believe her, having faith in Joseph’s uprightness, and, seeing that he had to save face, he incarcerated Joseph instead of executing him, thus saving face for his wife also.

In order to mock me, the Hebrew slave that you brought to us. Rashi changes the order of the verse, because as written it implies that her husband brought the Hebrew slave in order to mock her, which is incorrect.

לאמור כדברים האלה, to corroborate such words. Potiphar did not believe his wife. Since the accuser was his own wife, however, he had to make some gesture otherwise his wife would have been publicly discredited. This is why Potiphar did not discipline Joseph nor had him executed, the normal penalty for a slave who dared to aspire to the wife of his master.

ויהי כשמע אדניו AND IT CAME TO PASS WHEN HIS LORD HEARD etc. — She said this when he was alone with her, caressing her. This is what she meant by כדברים האלה “things like these did thy servant do to me” — caresses such as these.

AND IT CAME TO PASS, WHEN THE MASTER HEARD. She told him about it at the time of conjugal intimacy. Matters such as these did your servant to me, i.e., matters of intimacy such as these. So says Rashi.
So also did they say in Bereshith Rabbah:²³⁹87:10. “Rabbi Abahu said, ‘She said it to him at the time of conjugal relations.’”
Now I wonder. Joseph’s master was a castrate,²⁴⁰Sotah 13b. who had married his wife during his youth, and the Rabbis expounded, “ ‘Sris’ (a captain of) Pharaoh²⁴¹Above, 37:36. — this teaches us that he bought Joseph for carnal purposes only, but the Holy One, blessed be He, caused Joseph’s master to become castrated.”²⁴²The Hebrew word for castrate is saris, the same word mentioned in the verse above. Moreover, how would she dare discredit herself and become loathsome in the eyes of her husband by telling him that she had committed adultery, whether by force or with acquiescence, which would have merited mortal punishment, for why did she not cry out at the outset, so that he should run away, as she did at the end? Now to the men of her house she said, He came unto me to lie with me,²⁴³Verse 14 here. but not that he lay with her, only that he came to do so, but she cried out and he fled. And surely she would hide the matter from her husband. And should you say that she told him so in order that his anger be kindled against him and that he should kill him, [it would have been sufficient for this purpose that she say that he attempted to violate her, for] any servant that attempts to violate his master’s wife deserves the death penalty!
It is possible that they intended to explain the expression, Matters such as these, as meaning matters of intimacy, meaning, exposing and caressing but not actual intimacy, as his master had become physically castrate, having been visited by a disease which resulted in a lack of desire for conjugal relations, as is the case with a shachuf.²⁴⁴One whose genitals are atrophied.
In line with the literal interpretation of Scripture there is no need for all this, for the Hebrew letter kaph, in the word kadvarim, is not for the purpose of expressing comparison to other matters. Instead its meaning is “these things.”²⁴⁵I.e., only to indicate approximation, and here meaning: “matters as these, more or less.” A similar usage [of the letter kaph is found in these verses]: And she told her mother’s house ‘kadvarim ha’eileh’ (according to these words);²⁴⁶Above, 24:28. And when he had spoken unto me ‘kadvarim ha’eileh’ (according to these words) I set my face toward the ground.²⁴⁷Daniel 10:15. There are many similar verses. It may be that the verse is saying that when his master heard his wife’s words which she told him — “Your servant did unto me such matters as these which I had immediately related to the men of the house” — then his anger was kindled.
It is possible that the kaph is here used for exaggeration, similar to its use in the verses: Why speaketh my lord ‘kadvarim ha’eileh’ (such words as these)?²⁴⁸Further 44:7. And there have befallen me such things as these (‘ka’eileh’)?²⁴⁹Leviticus 10:19.
Now due to his master’s love for Joseph he did not kill him, or it was a miracle of G-d, or knowing Joseph’s righteousness, he doubted her words. Similarly the Rabbis said in Bereshith Rabbah:²⁵⁰Bereshith Rabbah 87:10. “The master said to Joseph, ‘I know this charge against you is false, but lest a stigma fall on my children,²⁵¹Lest people say; “Just as she was free with you, so she was with others, and the children she had are not his.” [I will put you in prison].’”

כדברים האלה, “things like this;” according to Rashi, Potiphar’s wife showed him how Joseph had tried to arouse her while she was in bed with her husband. This appears difficult, as Rabbi Moshe, quoting the Talmud in tractate Sotah, folio 13 pointed out that the name Potiphar is spelled in the Torah once as פוטיפר, (39,1) without the letter ע at the end, and on another occasion with that letter ע missing (37,36) The Talmud concludes that once he had become a eunuch, as a close servant of Pharaoh, he could not indulge in sexual activity, so that Rashi’s commentary seems forced, to say the least. In fact, it is suggested that he bought Joseph in order to indulge in homosexual relations with him. Alternately, his castration had only been a partial one. Ibn Ezra explains that there are indeed two types of castration. One is called a hot castration, the other a cold castration. [The term occurs in the Talmud Yevamot repeatedly, but I have not found it mentioned here by Ibn Ezra. Ed.] Medically speaking, someone who underwent the “cold castration” requires a great deal of heat before he can ejaculate any semen. Potiphar, according to this opinion, was afflicted with that type of castration.

Undoubtedly, when Joseph’s master, appreciating that God was ever-present in his mind, did not believe what his wife was saying; for had he done so, he would have had to put him to death. However, he was still troubled by this episode, and accordingly put him in prison – had he not acted in this way, he would have become a laughing-stock, as his wife was (already) saying as much. By remaining silent, he would have provided her with a pretext for being unfaithful to him. This, then, is what Scripture intends to convey by the phrase, ‘And when his master heard the words of his wife’ (39:19): – for he was not unduly affected by the incident itself, since he lent it no credence; nor was he influenced by the robe found in her hand – as he undoubtedly questioned Joseph about it, and was told the truth. The Torah mentions this only briefly, as it is quite clear from the basic drift of the narrative. Hence it does not say (39:19): ‘And his fury was aroused against Joseph’, but simply, ‘his fury was aroused’. He was angered by what his wife had said, and his mind pre-occupied with what to do to appease her, given that she was insisting on her version of events. Accordingly, he resolved to incarcerate Joseph in the prison-house, which was under his control and located within the precincts of his own home, to remain there until (his wife’s) fury had subsided.

AND HE PUT HIM INTO PRISON, THE PLACE WHERE THE KING’s PRISONERS WERE BOUND. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra says that the verse itself explains that a beth haso’ar (prison) is “a place where the king’s prisoners were bound.” The reason this is stated in the verse itself is that beth haso’ar is an Egyptian word, for it is the style of Scripture to explain foreign words just as, they cast pur, that is the lot.²⁵²Esther 3:7.
This interpretation is of no significance. Rather, And he put him into the prison, means that he put him into a certain prison recognized as the royal prison, which was the place where the king’s prisoners were bound. The sense of the verse is thus to state that this was the cause of the butler and the baker being imprisoned with him.
It is possible that the term, “the king’s prisoners,” means his servants and attendants who have sinned against him in matters of state, as other prisoners of the people sentenced by judges and officers were placed in another prison house. Scripture relates that they placed Joseph in the king’s prison because of his master’s love for Joseph, all of which was caused by G-d.
Linguists²⁵³Here referring to R’dak, who so writes in his Book of Roots, under the term sohar. explain sohar as an arched chamber, similar in expression to, agan hasohar (a round goblet).²⁵⁴Song of Songs 7:3. In my opinion it is an underground house having a small opening above ground, through which the prisoners are lowered and from which they have light. The word sohar is thus derived from the word sihara (light) in Aramaic, just as in Hebrew, Scripture says; A transparency (‘tzohar’) shalt thou make to the ark,²⁵⁵Above, 6:16. the word tzohar being derived from tzaharayim (mid-day — when the light reaches its zenith). The difference between tzohar and sohar is that tzohar connotes an abundance of light, while sohar connotes minimal light.

ויתנהו אל בית הסוהר מקום אשר אסירי המלך, “he placed him in the jail in which the King’s prisoners were kept.” According to Ibn Ezra the term בית הסוהר is a specifically Egyptian term. This is the reason why the Torah found it necessary to explain the meaning of the term by writing that it was the place in which the King’s prisoners were kept. Nachmanides writes concerning Ibn Ezra’s observation that Ibn Ezra made no contribution at all with his excuse for the apparent repetition, but that the letter ה at the beginning of the word סוהר indicates that this was a very well known jail, the one specially reserved for the king’s prisoners This explains why the King’s baker and the King’s cupbearer were placed in that jail where they met Joseph. It is also possible that the wording in chapter 40,3 indicates that prisoners kept in that jail were dealt with by the King personally, and not by regular judges and courts. The Torah’s reporting that this was the jail Potiphar placed Joseph in, is an indication that Joseph was considered as a V.I.P. by his former master.

סחר ,זהר ,צהר ,סהר usw. סחר: im Kreise herumziehen.־^ und צהר: einen Strahlenkreis um sich bilden, einen Hof um sich bilden. סהר: ein umschließender Raum. Ob ihre Gefängnisse rund gewesen? Es scheint so, da auch בור, der gewöhnliche Name für Gefängnis, rund war. Siehe 50 ב18"ק b. Die Verwandt-19 schaft von סהר, die Kreislinie, mit סור weichen, gibt den Begriff der Kreislinie als eine solche, die in jedem Punkt ihrer Fortbewegung von der eingenommenen Richtung weicht. Sie verändert unaufhörlich ihre "Berührende", ihr Tangente, d. h. sie weicht unaufhörlich. — ויתנהו אל בית הסהר וגו׳ ויהי שם בבית הסהר. Wenn das erste schon hieß, er gab ihn ins Gefängnis, so wäre der Schlusssatz, dort war er im Gefängnis, völlig überflüssig. Potiphar hatte auch das Staatsgefängnis unter sich (siehe folgendes Kap.Raw Hirsch on Genesis 39: 3). Dorthin, אל בית הסהר gab er ihn, versetzte ihn dorthin, damit er dort sich nützlich mache wie bisher in seinem Hause, und auf diese Weise war er dort Gefangener. Es würde dies voraussetzen, dass er in seinem eigenen Innern von Josefs Unschuld überzeugt gewesen, und nur um seiner Ehre willen also handeln musste. — אָסִיר ist Hauptwort, also ein bleibender Charakter, Gefangener, אָסור als Zeitwort bezeichnet nur einen zeitweiligen Charakter. Ein Untersuchungsgefangener ist אָסור, ein Strafgefangener: אָסִיר. Durch Keri und Kethib steht hier beides. Es war das ein Gewahrsam, wohin sowohl Straf- als Untersuchungsgefangene kamen. Auf diesen Umstand scheint der weitere Verfolg zu beruhen. Dadurch konnte Josef mit Männern in Berührung kommen, die, nur zeitweilig interniert, wieder zu einer bedeutenden Stellung zurückkehrten. In der Tat scheinen der Fürst der Bäcker und der der Schenke nur in Untersuchungshaft gewesen zu sein. Raw Hirsch on Genesis 39: 21. ויט אליו חסד, nicht der Menschen, sein, Gottes Wohlwollen neigte Er ihm zu. Es war dies die tiefste Stufe, auf welche Josef sinken sollte. Von nun an wandte Gott ihm חסד zu. — ׳שר ב׳ה. Wiederum ein שר. Je knechtischer und gefesselter ein Volk ist, umsomehr "Fürsten" hat es. Wer nur ein bischen höher steht, wird gleich ein "Fürst".

ויתנהו אל בית הסוהר, “he put him in (the) jail.” He was not guilty of the death penalty as there had been no witness to the alleged rape attempt. In such cases the standard penalty was to be incarcerated.

He did not hand him over to his servants, the officials, to lead him away in shame and derision to the jail, as would be normal (in such cases); but rather, his master personally took him by the hand and led him there, as he (Joseph) was highly esteemed by him. This is what is meant by the verse ‘And Joseph’s master took him, and placed him in the prison-house’. (39:20). However, he did not put him in the area where men of lowly rank were imprisoned by order of the city’s judiciary, but in the section where royal prisoners were incarcerated; for inside the jail were various chambers and storeys, each separate from one another; and Joseph was placed in that very room where those princes imprisoned by royal command had been assigned.

אסורי המלך, “the King’s prisoners;” the spelling here is with the letter ו, although we are to read the word as if it had been written with the letter י instead of the letter ו. We found an interesting Midrash, according to which when Joseph was brought before the King, the angel Gavriel, having assumed the guise of a human being said to the King: “if it pleases Your Majesty may the garments of both the accused and the accuser be examined for evidence. If the woman’s garment show tears it is clear that the accused has tried to rape her. If only Joseph’s clothing has been torn, it is clear that his mistress attempted to seduce him by force. Gavriel’s suggestion was accepted and that was the reason why Joseph was not convicted of the death penalty. He could not be released unconditionally as it would have been too embarrassing for the wife of a highly placed minister at Pharaoh’s Court to have been declared a liar. He was judged by a court of the priests of Egypt, and out of gratitude for this, Joseph did not confiscate the lands of the priests during the years of the famine. (compare 47,22)

As for the next phrase, ‘and he remained there in the prison-house’, we must understand this to mean that he (Potiphar) placed him there, as this was to be his punishment, i.e. to remain there at his pleasure for a period of time; and he was to receive no further punishment.

ויט אליו חסד AND CAUSED HIM TO FIND FAVOUR — so that he was liked by all who saw him. We have the expression חסד in a like sense in the Mishna (Baraitha): “a handsome bride liked by all (חסודה)” (Ketubot 17a).

ויהי ה׳ את יוסף. G'd was with Joseph. The meaning of this verse is that when a human being enjoys divine protection people around him are also influenced by the fact that such a person enjoys G'd's help. It was natural then that Joseph should find favour in the eyes of those who came into contact with him. G'd had to especially influence the warden of the prison to take a liking to Joseph as a righteous person [and therefore innocent, the victim of a miscarriage of justice. Ed.]

And extended kindness to him. The word “extended” implies more than was natural. Even the prisoners, who are usually cruel individuals, treated Yoseif with kindness and respect.

Scripture then goes on to relate: ‘And the Almighty was with Joseph and extended grace towards him, and granted him favor in the eyes of the prison governor’ (39:21). We should note that, whereas in regard to Joseph’s master (Potiphar), who was a high-ranking official, Scripture (deliberately) employs the (more neutral) expression ‘he found favor in his sight’, in the case of the governor of the jail, who was cruel by nature, showing neither pity nor mercy [such a nature well suited his job, as he would inevitably be in the company of wrongdoers and sinful men all day long], – so that Joseph’s finding favor with him would be truly miraculous – Scripture relates: ‘The Almighty was with Joseph and extended him grace, granting him favor (even) with the governor of the jail’. This was nothing less than a miracle, taking into account the governor’s base character. Indeed, (Joseph found favor with him) to such an extent that the governor delegated control of all the prisoners to him, and he was appointed to watch over all their comings and goings. Now, since the poorest element amongst a group of prisoners continue with the performance of their regular occupations whilst in jail so as to allow them to earn some money, and it would be risky to permit outsiders to visit them to buy such items from them as they had made themselves, in case the prisoners plotted an escape, all their business affairs and dealings were directed through Joseph. This, then, is the underlying meaning of the phrase (39:22): ‘and everything they did there was done by him’ – as they carried out all their activities under his supervision. Rashi states in his commentary on this verse that everything was done at Joseph’s command and with his permission; and undoubtedly Joseph too obtained some personal benefit from this arrangement; hence the next verse goes on to say: (39:23): ‘The prison governor saw nothing of all that passed through (Joseph’s) hand’ – as he did not bother to check whether Joseph would obtain material benefit from it or not.

The same verse then records that all these benefits flowed from the prison governor, despite this being totally out of character for him; and we may ascribe this to two reasons; first, because God was with Joseph, causing him to find favor in his sight; and secondly, because the Almighty granted Joseph success in regard to anything to which he turned his hand; and such success allowed him permanently to retain the governor’s favor.

הוא היה עושה HE WAS THE DOER OF IT — understand this as the Targum does: it was done at his command.

הוא היה עושה, which he was doing. Onkelos translates: על מימריה הוה מתעבד, that what was done inside the jail was done at Joseph's instructions. If that was so, why does the Torah not say so outright, i.e. ועל פיו היו עושים? Perhaps the Torah wanted to hint that though Joseph enjoyed great authority within the jail, he did not use it to make the other inmates feel as if he dictated to them. He did not claim any special privileges for himself either. All this was evidence of his good character.

As Onkelos translates it: It was done at his command. It means he had slaves under him, whom he told what to do — i.e., “It was done at his command.” It does not mean that he did what had to be done, for then he would be their servant. And that is not, “Granting him favor in the eyes of the prison chief.”

Alles, was sie dort taten, hatte er getan, oder tat es. Entweder war es eigentlich durch ihn geschehen, er hatte es versorgt, oder: was sonst viele tun mussten, tat er allein.

באשר ה' אתו — means BECAUSE THE LORD WAS WITH HIM (i.e. באשר means because).

Because God was with him. [Rashi knows this] because the ב of באשר ה' אתו cannot follow its usual meaning, [“when Hashem was with him”]. For it says afterwards, “Whatever he did, Hashem made him succeed” — not sometimes yes and sometimes no.