Комментарий к Берешит 39:6

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!