Comentário sobre Gênesis 37:2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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