Genesis · Chapter 37

And Jacob dwelt in the land of his father's sojourning, in the land of Canaan.

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

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

"And he dwelt" — Scripture mentioned that the chieftains of Esau dwelt on Mount Seir, whereas Jacob dwelt in the chosen land. The meaning of "these are the generations of Jacob" is: these are the events and occurrences that befell him — derived from the sense of "what a day may bring forth" (Proverbs 27:1).

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

וישב יעקב בארץ מגורי אביו בארץ כנען. Jacob settled down in the land where his father sojourned, the land of Canaan. At first glance the entire verse seems superfluous seeing we have read in 35,27 that Jacob returned to Kiryat Arba the town where his father and grandfather had lived. As long as Jacob did not leave that town again, why did the fact that Jacob had settled there have to be repeated? Besides, why did the Torah have to say both: a) in the land his father sojourned, and b) the land of Canaan? If the Torah only wanted to pinpoint the place all that was necessary was the word "in Chevron." We already know that both Abraham and Isaac had lived there. However, since the Torah told us in the preceding paragraph that Jacob's brother Esau inherited the land of Se-ir thanks to the merit of his fathers, the Torah also had to tell us what Jacob's heritage was. The entire verse is an acknowledgment of Jacob's goodness. Although he had noted that his brother had inherited the land of Har Se-ir (see my commentary on 35,12), he, Jacob did not do so but was content to continue on the basis of his fathers who had merely considered themselves as sojourning on that land, i.e. he still viewed it as ארץ כנען. Another possibility is that it is called here the land of Canaan which had been given to Jacob by G'd as an inheritance although he personally conducted himself there as if he were only an alien until the trouble with Joseph happened. This is one of the meanings of: "These are the developments of Jacob, Joseph." It means that effectively, the history of the development of the Jews as a people began with the sale of Joseph, the subsequent descent into Egypt, how G'd redeemed them from there and kept His promise and how they eventually inherited the land of Caanan.

וישב יעקב, “Yaakov settled down;” this is recorded as something parallel to Esau’ settling down having been reported in Mount Seir in Genesis 36,8. After Esau having settled on what is now ancestral land for him. (ואתן לעשו את הר שעיר, “I have given to Esau Mount Seir.) (Joshua 24,3) Yaakov is now described as having done something similar on the land promised by G-d to Avraham and his descendants commencing with Yitzchok and Yaakov. G-d had renewed this promise to Yaakov during his first vision in which he saw a ladder to heaven. Both Avraham and Yitzchok had only lived on that soil as sojourners, מגורי אביו; Yaakov’s claim was based on the law of the birthright, something he had purchased from Esau. At this time, when Esau went to the land of Seir, he went as an alien. בארץ מגורי אביו בארץ כנען, “in the land in which his father sojourned, in the land of Canaan.” The Torah had to write both these details, even though it is common knowledge that Yitzchok never set foot on soil outside the land of Canaan. If the Torah had only mentioned the words מגורי אביו, “where his father had sojourned,” we would not know to which land it referred. In fact I might have thought that the Torah speaks about Ur Casdim where Avraham had sojourned for many years. If the Torah had only written: בארץ כנען, “in the land of Canaan,” I would not have known near which city Yaakov settled. וישב יעקב בארץ מגורי אביו. “Yaakov settled in the land his fathers had sojourned in.” The entire line was written in order to show that G-d had kept his promise to both Avraham and Yitzchok, and that one of their descendants had already not only sojourned in this land but had settled in it, and had acquired land in it through purchase. (33,19) In fact the expression ישיבה, referring to being settled did appear in connection with both Avraham and Yitzchok, as we know from 26,12, and 13,18.

אל תגזול דל כי דל הוא ואל תדכא עני בשער, כי ה’ יריב ריבם וקבע את קובעיהם נפש, "Do not rob the poor for he is poor; do not oppress the poor in the gate, for the Lord will fight their battle, He will put in their place those who tried to put them in their place" (Proverbs 22,22-23) In the two verses quoted above Solomon informed us of the penalty for stealing from the poor. It is well known that there are four categories of people concerning whom the Torah has expressed especial concern, asking people to be merciful towards them and not to inflict any harm upon them. They are: the poor, the orphans, the widows and the proselytes. Indeed we find that the Torah expresses a warning against discrimination against the aforesaid in one and the same verse in Deuteronomy 16,14 where we read: ושמחת בחגיך, אתה ובנך ובתך ועבדך ואמתך והלוי והגר והיתום והאלמנה אשר בשעריך. “You are to rejoice on your festival, you, your son, your daughter, your male servant and your maid servant, the proselyte, the orphan and the widow in your cities.” Our sages as quoted by Rashi comment: “these four are Mine (G’d speaking). If you will give joy to those who are Mine, I will provide joy for those that are yours.” Mention of the Levites is equivalent to mentioning the poor as the Levites have no source of income other than the generosity of the Jewish farmer. G’d Himself is their portion as we read in Numbers 18,20 אני חלקך ונחלתך, “I am your share and your inheritance.” When the Torah legislated the treatment of the poor it did so both as a positive as well as a negative commandment. It is written (Deut. 15,10) נתון תתן, “you shall surely give (repeatedly),” (15,8) “and you shall repeatedly open your hand for him (the poor).” The negative counterpart of this commandment is found side by side (15,10), לא ירע לבבך בתתך לו, “your heart must not feel bad when you give him.” We also find another basic aspect of this commandment in Deut. 15,7 לא תאמץ את לבבך ולא תקפוץ את ידך מאחיך האביון, “do not harden your heart or close your hand against your destitute brother.” Seeing that the Torah legislated against stealing altogether already in the Ten Commandments as well as in Leviticus 19, 19,13, there was no need to stress a prohibition against stealing from the poor. The instruction to give to the poor would have been sufficient to make it plain that it is forbidden to steal from the poor instead of giving to the poor. The fact that the Torah nonetheless writes words prohibiting this prompted Solomon to tell us that the penalty for stealing from the poor is far harsher than that for stealing from ordinary people. It was not Solomon’s habit to repeat commandments which have been spelled out in the Torah already and to simply repeat them in his volume משלי, Proverbs. Whenever he does so, he does so only in order to reveal an additional dimension to such a commandment. After all, who is so great that he could arrogate to himself to add to the Torah something Moses had not already thought of or been told by G’d to write down? Solomon, in common with later sages, only added “fences” to the Torah, i.e. warned against conduct which might lead to infringing Biblical commandments. This is why he said: “do not steal from the poor because he is poor,” i.e. stealing from him is so commonplace seeing that the poor is defenseless, that we must be warned not to exploit his weakness. The poor does not have protagonists such as the rich have. Everybody hates the poor and keeps his distance from him, even his relatives. This is why Solomon emphasises that the temptation to steal from the poor is great precisely “because he is poor.” Solomon therefore warns us not to think that because the poor do not have defenders of flesh and blood that they are without recourse. On the contrary, G’d Himself is their advocate and will see to it that they do not suffer because they are being exploited due to their poverty. He will go out of His way to administer punishment to anyone who steals from the poor. Contrary to the penalty for thieves who do not steal from the poor specifically, whose penalty the Torah expressed in terms of financial restitution and penal charges, someone who steals from the poor will endure chastisement of body and soul. This is the meaning of the words וקבע את קובעיהם נפש, “he will put in their places those who have tried to put the poor in their place.” The Torah warns us in many places not to disadvantage orphans and widows, i.e. כל אלמנה ויתום לא תענון, ”do not oppress any orphan or widow” (Exodus 22,21). Our sages in the Mechilta comment on this verse: “even the widow of a king (presumably wealthy and influential) is included in this commandment.” The same applies to children of a king left orphaned. The reason is that in spite of their financial resources, the state of mind of such widows and orphans is one of melancholy and they are apt to cry at the slightest provocation. It is unfortunately a fact of life that people do take advantage of orphans and widows. The Torah goes on to say: אם ענה תענה אותם... והרגתי אתכם בחרב והיו נשיכם אלמנות ובניכם יתומים, “if indeed you will persecute them.then I will kill you and your wives will become widows and your children orphans.” The Torah conditions this harsh punishment on the assumption that the victim cried out to G’d for vengeance. Generally speaking, people faced with unfair treatment put their faith in seeking recourse from a human tribunal. The orphan and widow have no other recourse than G’d Himself. This is why G’d listens specifically to their outcries and fights their battles for them. Solomon also addresses the plight of orphans and widows in this chapter, and this is why he said (Proverbs 23,10-11) אל תסג גבול עולם, ובשדי יתומים אל תבא. כי גואלם חזק. הוא יריב את ריבם אתך. “Do not remove ancient boundary marks; do not encroach upon the field of orphans. For they have a powerful redeemer; he will fight their battles against you.” The Torah also takes up the plight of the proselytes (strangers, immigrants to the land of Israel) on many occasions For instance, we find in Exodus 22,20 וגר לא תונה ולא תלחצנו כי גרים הייתם בארץ מצרים. “And do not taunt or oppress a stranger (convert) for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” The Torah cites an additional reason for treating the proselyte fairly when it writes (Exodus 23,9) כי אתם ידעתם את נפש הגר, “for you are familiar with the mentality of the stranger.” Significantly, the Torah did not speak of your “knowing the stranger,” but of your being familiar with נפש הגר, the soul, the mentality of the stranger. You know that the mentality of strangers is one of feeling subdued, humbled, etc., so that his eyes are constantly turned towards G’d seeing he lacks in self-confidence. The Talmud (Baba Metzia 58) speaks of the prohibition of reminding a proselyte or even his son of his former deeds or the deeds of his father. When such a proselyte comes to study Torah one is not to say to him: “ how can the mouth which used to enjoy all manner of forbidden foods presume to qualify to study the holy Torah.” The reminder of the Torah that when the Jewish people were still enslaved in Egypt their status was not superior to the recent proselyte is an example of the Rabbinic dictum מום שבך אל תאמר לחברך, “do not speak to your fellow man about a blemish as long as you yourself are afflicted with a similar blemish.” (Baba Metzia 59). In fact we find that the righteous themselves are referred to as גרים, strangers, the expression גר being derived from גרגיר, something that has been separated from its origin. The righteous is in the habit of viewing himself as distinctive, a loner, in the sense that he is different from the majority. For instance, he does not view his residence on this earth as something other than temporary. This is what King David had in mind when he said (Psalms 119,19) “I am only a stranger on earth, do not hide Your commandments from me.” He viewed himself as a tourist who has already been invited to commence a journey though he does not know the time of departure. Seeing that he does not know when he will depart, he must accumulate provisions for his journey to guard against a sudden and unprepared departure. What do these “provisions” consist of? The observance of G’d’s commandments. This is what David meant when he asked G’d not to hide His commandments from him. We also note that all of the patriarchs have been referred to as גרים on different occasions. Avraham said of himself (Genesis 23,4) “I am a stranger or a resident stranger amongst you” when he prepared to buy a burial ground for Sarah. Yitzchak was commanded by G’d to remain in the land of Canaan during the famine, albeit as a stranger. The wording is גור בארץ הזאת, “sojourn in this land on a temporary basis” (Genesis 26,3). Yaakov is referred to as a stranger in our verse (first verse of our portion וישב) as well as in Genesis 47,4 and when he described his long stay at Lavan’s as that of a stranger in Genesis 32,5. וישב יעקב בארץ מגורי אביו בארץ כנען, "Yaakov settled in the land in which his fathers had lived as sojourners, in the land of Canaan." The Torah uses the term וישב, i.e. permanent residence, instead of ויגר, “he sojourned (as a stranger)“ in order to create a parallel with Esau who had been described as securely settled in the mountains of Seir in 36,8. Esau was so described as we were told about the kings, etc., which he established in his country starting at that time. His descendants remained on the same soil never to migrate again. The Torah had to contrast this with the fact that Yaakov took undisputed possession of a part of the (subsequent) land of Israel for the first time. Such possession is here described by the words וישב. His tenure is contrasted with that of either Avraham or Yitzchak, who a) lived there as nomads, b) as individuals, not having produced a clan of 70 people plus their in-laws as had Yaakov. At the same time the Torah also refers to the temporary status of the patriarchs in the land of Canaan by saying ארץ מגוריהם אשר גרו שם, (Exodus 6,4) where all of the patriarchs were referred to as only sojourning in that land. The fact is that whereas Avraham had been a first generation immigrant, both Yitzchak’s mother and Yaakov’s mother as well as the mothers of all of his children had been born outside the Holy Land thus making also their children “strangers,” at least technically. According to Midrash Tanchuma 1 on our portion, examination of the occurrence of the word וישב throughout the Torah will reveal that this term is always used when some unhappy event was associated with such “settlement.” The following examples illustrate the point. Exodus 32,6 speaks of וישב העם לאכול ושתו ויקומו לצחק, “the people settled down to eat and to drink and they arose to make sport (worship the golden calf).” On that day three thousand of the people were slain on account of this sin). Genesis 37,25 reports that after throwing Joseph into the pit, וישבו לאכול לחם וישאו עיניהם והנה אורחת ישמעלים באה... וימכרו את יוסף לישמעלים, “when the brothers had settled down to eat their meal they raised their eyes and here a caravan of Ishmaelites arrived... and they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites.” In Kings I 5,5 we read וישב יהודה וישראל בטח... ויקם ה' שטן לישראל, “when Yehudah and Israel had settled safely... G’d made an adversary against Solomon” (11,14) [as a punishment for transgressing certain commands in the Torah, Ed.] In Numbers 25,1 we read וישב ישראל בשטים ויחל העם לזנות, “when the Israelites settled down at a place called Shittim, the people started debasing themselves by whoring” (with the Moabite women which resulted in G’d killing 24,000 of them). In our instance too Yaakov’s “settling” in the land of Canaan had in its wake his traumatic experience of the loss of Joseph. G’d had said (according to the Midrash) “is Yaakov not satisfied with inheriting the world to come that he must now also inherit this terrestrial world. It is not appropriate for the righteous to enjoy the best of both worlds.” According to Tanchuma when Yaakov became aware of the extent of the kings and chiefs listed in the Torah as descendents of from Esau he became worried about not having anything to counter such physical prowess of the Edomites. The matter may be explained in the form of a parable. A caravan of camels was heavily laden with straw. The onlookers could not imagine that there were storage facilities large enough to accommodate all this straw and they were worried that the owners would demand their own (the onlookers’) facilities to accommodate all that excess straw. An old man amongst the onlookers told his compatriots not to worry seeing that it would require only a single match to set fire to the entire mass of straw carried by the camels. Similarly, G’d put Yaakov’s mind at rest telling him that Esau would go up in flames just as straw would go up in flames. This is what the prophet Ovadiah 18 described when he compared the fate of the house of Esau and the fate of the house of Joseph in the future. The “match” in our instance would be Joseph, whose descendants would vanquish the descendants of Esau.

“And Jacob settled in the land where his father had sojourned, in the land of Canaan.” The text should have said “And Jacob settled in the land where his father settled,” or “And Jacob sojourned in the land where his father had sojourned.” Furthermore, why do I need [the phrase] in the land of Canaan? Rather, this comes to criticize Jacob for seeking to establish permanent residence in this world, to be like a permanent resident in this world in the place where his father had merely sojourned. For his father did not act this way, but rather was in this world like a stranger and like a traveler stopping overnight. This is because the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him [Isaac], Sojourn in this land (Genesis 26:3). He used the language of sojourn because God wanted him not to seek permanent residence in this world. And you cannot say that He used the language of sojourn because at that time he was dwelling in a land not his own [and one who dwells in a foreign land is called a stranger], for regarding this the verse specifically states in the land of Canaan. And in that land, Isaac was [actually] a resident because it was his, as Abraham had said, I am a stranger and a resident among you (Genesis 23:4) — [meaning] “if you agree, I am a stranger, but if not, I will take it by right…” Therefore, Isaac too was [technically] a resident in the land of Canaan, as it was his inheritance. So what did God mean by telling him to sojourn in the land? Rather, certainly He was speaking about the temporary nature of [life in] this world, that one should not seek a peaceful settlement even in his own land, like one who [permanently] dwells in a dwelling. And Jacob did not learn from him to do likewise, therefore the tribulation of Joseph jumped upon him. Another interpretation: It was already said to Abraham your offspring will be strangers (Genesis 15:13), and Jacob also had a portion in paying this debt, yet he sought a peaceful dwelling in his father’s place of residence. For from the time Isaac was born, the period of being strangers began, and Abraham and Isaac considered themselves as strangers and were wandering and moving from journey to journey, and they did not purchase inheritances of field and vineyard. They did all this in order to quickly pay the debt of your offspring will be strangers. Understandably, Esau who went to another land — it makes sense when he said “I have no portion in the gift of this land, nor in paying the debt,” as Rashi explained at the end of Parshat Vayishlach on the verse and he went to a land (Genesis 36:6). But Jacob was in the land of Canaan, and wanted to receive a portion in the gift of the land, yet did not want to pay the debt of your offspring will be strangers. Therefore, the distress of Joseph jumped upon him. This is why it says in the land of Canaan, and if Jacob’s peaceful dwelling had not been nullified, these days would not have counted toward the 400 years, and the appointed end [of the exile] would have necessarily been delayed.

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

These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, being seventeen years old, was pasturing the flock with his brothers, and he was growing up with the sons of Bilhah and with the sons of Zilpah, his father's wives; and Joseph brought an evil report of them to their father.

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) 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). 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. 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). 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. 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”.

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. 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. 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. 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. -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. 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, 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, so will Scripture count the generations of Jacob, his sons and grandsons, and all his seed, mentioning only the outstanding details in their generations. 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, and Reuben was with them, 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. 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: 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 0:5. 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 them to their father. It was for this reason that these four brothers hated Joseph. Following that, the verse says that his father loved him. Now when the other brothers 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, e., to indicate that the report was of an exceedingly evil nature. for dibah itself connotes evil. 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, but when it uses the term, he bringeth forth ‘dibah,’ it refers to the fool who speaks falsehood. In line with the literal meaning of Scripture, the fact that it calls one a na’ar (lad) when he was seventeen years of age 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, yet he was forty-one years old when he began to reign. Similarly the verse: Is it well with the lad Absalom? 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, 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. 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. 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, 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. [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.

"And he tended [the flock] with the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah" — Because he was the youngest, the sons of the handmaids made him their servant, for had he served his brothers the sons of the mistress, there would have been no wrongdoing. This is what constitutes "their evil report." As for the view that the evil report concerned the prohibition of a limb torn from a living animal — that is midrash, for the text mentions no accusation from his brothers except from the sons of the handmaids.

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

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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 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. 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.

אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף, “These are the descendants of Yaakov, Joseph.” It would have seemed appropriate to list all of Yaakov’s sons. and daughters. According to the plain meaning of the text they are all subsumed under the name of Joseph seeing he combined all the good characteristics possessed by his brothers in his own person. He possessed the birthright which normally should have been Reuven’s as we know from Chronicles I 5,1 “when he desecrated the couch of his father, his birthright was given to (the tribe of) Joseph.” He possessed the prophetic qualities of Levi as mentioned by the Torah when he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41,13). He also combined within himself the Royal Powers of Yehudah as the Torah testifies in Genesis 42,6 “Joseph was the one who ruled the land (earth?).” He possessed the intelligence for which Issachar is famed, as we know from Genesis 41,40 “there is none as wise and full of insight such as you.” According to a Midrashic approach as found both in Tanchuma and Bereshit Rabbah, Joseph was selected as Yaakov’s prime issue as he was so like his father. This is what the Torah meant when writing כי בן זקונים הוא לו, that his features resembled those of his father. He also resembled his father in that many experiences which Yaakov endured were more or less duplicated in the life of Joseph. Whereas Yaakov had been pursued by his brother Esau, Joseph was persecuted by his brothers. Just as Yaakov’s mother had been barren for many years, so Joseph’s mother had been barren for many years. Just as Yaakov was born without a foreskin, so Joseph was born without a foreskin. We derive this from the fact that Yaakov was described by the Torah as איש תם, a perfectly formed human being, i.e. one that did not need to be circumcised in order to make him whole. The term תם is only used in connection with circumcised people as G’d told Avraham that in order to become תמים, perfect, whole, he had to circumcise himself (Genesis 17,1). The reason the sages believe that Joseph too was born without a foreskin is because the Torah equates Yaakov and Joseph in writing יעקב יוסף, as if to say that what applied to Yaakov applied to Joseph also. These similarities also showed up in that just as Yaakov’s mother experienced a difficult pregnancy and birth, so did Joseph’s mother experience difficulty when giving birth to Binyamin. Just as Yaakov’s mother gave birth to only two sons so did Joseph’s mother give birth to only two sons. Yaakov and Joseph both married while outside the land of Canaan. The children of both Yaakov and Joseph were born outside the land of Canaan. Both Yaakov and Joseph experienced the company of angels protecting them. Rabbi Yannai (compare Bereshit Rabbah 84,14) claims that Joseph was met by three angels while he searched for his brothers. He bases himself on the word איש, “man,” appearing three separate times in verses 15-16 in our chapter. Just as Yaakov emerged from a dream containing a vision spiritually uplifted, so Joseph emerged similarly uplifted after having certain dreams. Just as the environment of Yaakov (the house of Lavan, and, according to some sources the entire region) experienced G’d’s blessing, as well as the famine coming to an end when he descended to Egypt, so Joseph’s presence both in the house of Potiphar and in Egypt generally proved a blessing for all those around him. Just as Yaakov died in Egypt and his remains were embalmed there only to be buried in the land of Israel eventually, so Joseph died in Egypt, was embalmed there and eventually was reburied in the land of Israel. A kabbalistic approach to the sequence יעקב יוסף in our verse adds that Yaakov was the “cherub” (part of G’d’s entourage on earth) and so was Joseph. This is the mystical meaning of Sukkah 5, אפי רברבי ואפי זוטרי, that Yaakov was “the wing of a larger bird and Joseph the wing of a smaller bird, respectively.” Both Yaakov and Joseph have been referred to as נער, “lad” on different occasions. We read of Israel: כי נער ישראל ואהבו, for Israel was a “lad,” and He (G’d) loved him (Hoseah 11,1). Of Joseph we read in our verse that he was a נער. 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.” 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.

These are the generations of Jacob: Joseph. Our Sages of blessed memory (Genesis Rabbah 84:6) taught that Joseph was similar to Jacob in all his experiences, and it was as if Joseph was his main offspring. This midrash holds that Jacob wanted to rectify his failure to honor his father during all those years, therefore he settled in the land of his father’s sojournings, thinking that through this the past would also be corrected. When he sought to dwell in tranquility, the turmoil of Joseph jumped upon him, receiving punishment also for the days his father was not honored by his son who was his primary seed. Corresponding to the number of those days, Jacob would not be honored by his son who was his main offspring. Therefore it states These are the generations of Jacob: Joseph. Regarding what [the Midrash] says “the distress of Joseph jumped upon him [Jacob]”: What is the meaning of the term “jumped”? It should have said “the matter of Joseph came to him.” And what is the meaning of the term “his distress [rogzo]”? And why is the distress attributed to Joseph? The explanation that seems closest to me is that “Joseph’s distress” refers to Joseph’s sin — through which he angered [hirgiz] God by bringing evil reports about his brothers, [reporting] how they would call their brothers slaves, to the point where justice demanded that Joseph himself be sold as a slave. If so, even if Jacob had not sought to dwell in tranquility, this punishment was fitting to come upon Joseph. However, Joseph was 17 years old and was not yet of punishable age in the heavenly court. Because Joseph’s distress and sin coincided with Jacob’s desire to dwell in tranquility, God hastened to make Joseph punishable before his time. This is the meaning of “jumped upon him” — for any “jumping” indicates something that was destined to come anyway but is hastened to arrive before its time. Thus, God desired to bring punishment upon Joseph before his time in order to disrupt Jacob’s [tranquil] dwelling. Both factors together caused this — for Joseph’s punishment alone would not have been sufficient since he wasn’t of punishable age, and Jacob’s [desire for] dwelling in tranquility alone would also not have been sufficient to bring the punishment with Joseph, since [Jacob] had not sinned. And Rashi brings a parable about a pearl that fell among sand, etc. He compares the house of Esau to sand and the house of Jacob to the pearl, following the explanation in Leviticus Rabbah (4:6): Esau had six souls in his household, yet the verse refers to them as “souls” [plural], because they worshipped many gods. Jacob had seventy souls in his household, yet the verse refers to them as “soul” [singular], because they worshipped one God. End quote. And because they [Esau’s household] worshipped many gods, strife was constantly present among them, and they lacked unity due to their multiple religions, and they do not unite and connect like this sand that doesn’t bind together. But Israel, because they worship one God, peace mediates between them, and they are like pearls strung on a thread, attached to one another through the thread that connects them, as it says like a scarlet thread are your lips (Song of Songs 4:3) — lips of knowledge and Torah that increase peace in the world, like this thread that strings the pearls together. And Joseph brought their evil report to their father. Throughout the entire Scripture, we do not find the term “bringing” [hava’ah] used with an evil report [dibbah], but rather the term “bringing forth/spreading” [hotzaah]. Although the commentators have explained that the term “bringing forth” is appropriate for a false evil report, as it is written He who spreads an evil report is a fool (Proverbs 10:18), and similarly They brought forth an evil report of the land (Numbers 13:32), while the term “bringing” is appropriate for something that is true, nevertheless the language here is not precise. For when it says their evil report [dibatam], this implies that the gossip belonged to the brothers, as if the brothers were the owners of the evil report. Furthermore, it is difficult [to understand why it says] to their father — it should have said “to his father.” Additionally, it is difficult that later it states and he lay with Bilhah, his father’s concubine (Genesis 35:22), referring to her as a concubine, while here it states and he was a lad with the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives, where the verse calls them actual wives. Rather, it is certain that all the brothers who were sons of the matriarchs were disrespecting the sons of the handmaids by calling their mothers concubines and maidservants, and they called their sons slaves. Joseph alone would associate with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, for he said that they were truly his father’s wives. For this reason, Reuben disrespected Bilhah, thinking she was a concubine and not his wife, and therefore disturbed his father’s bed. From here there is clear proof that all the sons of the matriarchs spread evil reports about the sons of the handmaids by calling them slaves. Regarding this it is said and Joseph brought their evil report — that evil report which his brothers had spread about the sons of the handmaids — he brought to their father, [the father] of the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. For they should have been concerned for their father’s honor by not calling his sons slaves, and he thought that their father would demand justice for their insult. This is what is meant by Before he came near to them, they conspired to kill him. For they wanted to kill him from afar with a deadly arrow before he came close to them — measure for measure — because he had shot them with his deadly tongue from afar, therefore they too wanted to kill him from afar with arrows. This is what is meant by The archers grievously afflicted him — these were his brothers who wanted to shoot arrows at him. And even though he too spoke lashon hara about them, nevertheless his bow remained taut, because he aimed his bow and established it firmly with righteousness and justice, as it is permitted to speak lashon hara about those who cause discord (Jerusalem Talmud, Pe’ah 1:1), and his brothers had initiated the discord by disrespecting the sons of the handmaids. And in the Midrash Yalkut Shimoni they said, regarding the verse and before he came near to them that they set dogs upon him. The reason for this was that they considered him a spreader of evil reports and a slanderer. Our Sages of blessed memory said (Pesachim 118a) that anyone who speaks lashon hara [evil speech] deserves to be thrown to the dogs, as it is said Do not spread false reports (Exodus 23:1), and adjacent to it [is written] throw it to the dogs. The reason for this is that anyone who speaks lashon hara is likened to a barking dog that wags its tongue. Therefore, regarding the Israelites in Egypt who did not engage in lashon hara, it is written but against the children of Israel, no dog shall whet its tongue (Exodus 11:7). This was measure for measure. And this is what is meant by Let us go to Dothan [nelkhah dotaynah] — to seek religious pretexts [nikhlei datot] against him, based on the Torah’s instruction, to throw to the dogs anyone who speaks lashon hara. And some say that they set the dogs upon him so that they would eat a limb from him while he was alive, to repay him for what he said about them — that they had eaten a limb from a living animal. And shortly, the verse and before he came near to them will be explained in another way. And Rashi explained that Joseph reported how [his brothers] ate a limb from a living animal, were suspected of illicit relations, and degraded the children of the handmaids. It seems appropriate to provide some textual support for his words, because it states he was shepherding his brothers with the flock. Why is this [phrasing] necessary? Would we have thought he was shepherding birds or fish? Rather, it is because we find the term “shepherding” used in four contexts: 1. Simple shepherding of sheep, 2. Regarding illicit relations, as it states one who shepherds prostitutes will lose wealth (Proverbs 29:3), 3. The term shepherding applies to those in authority and leadership of the people, as it states Shepherd of Israel, listen (Psalms 80:2), 4. The term shepherding applies to one who goes to “shepherd himself” and eats from the flock, as it states Should not the shepherds feed the flock? (Ezekiel 34:2) And as Rashi explained, there is a dot over the word et [in the original verse]. And since it states that Joseph was shepherding the flock with his brothers, it implies that his brothers were “shepherding” in all four ways that the term can be used, but he did not agree with them except regarding the actual shepherding of sheep alone. If this were not the case, the verse could have simply stated “Joseph and his brothers were shepherding the flock.” Rather, certainly the word et serves as [the word meaning] “with,” and therefore singled out Joseph to tell you that he only agreed with them regarding the shepherding of the flock alone, but his brothers shepherded in all [four ways]. For which of these [interpretations] would you exclude to limit [the meaning], as the verse did not come to conceal but to explain. And from here Rashi found support for all three [accusations], because regarding the suspicion of sexual impropriety — this refers to being a “shepherd of prostitutes,” and [regarding] eating a limb from a living animal — as the sheep were feeding them, and they went to “shepherd themselves” from the flock to eat forbidden food, namely the limb from a living animal which was forbidden to the children of Noah, although other non-kosher foods were not yet forbidden to them. And this matter can be learned from its context — just as there was shepherding related to promiscuity, or to domination, [both] involving prohibition, so too this feeding from the sheep involved prohibition. And [regarding] calling the children of the maidservants “slaves” — [this was] in order to Lord over them and be their shepherds and leaders, saying “We are the children of the mistresses and you are slaves to us.” And therefore it states “to their father,” to tell you that in all [these matters] they should have been concerned for their father’s honor. For when they called their brother a slave, they should have been concerned for their father’s honor as explained above. And one who engages in immoral sexual behavior also desecrates his father’s honor, as it is written she profanes her father (Leviticus 21:29), and proof [can be brought] from what our Sages said (Genesis Rabbah 87:7) that because Joseph saw the image of Jacob’s likeness, he was saved from Potiphar’s wife. And eating a limb from a living animal produces cruelty in a person’s body, and through this one damages his father’s honor, as it appears as if the cruelty was an inherited trait passed down through birth. As will be explained, God willing, in Parshat Re’eh regarding the verse you shall not eat it, so that it will be well with you and your children after you (Deuteronomy 12:25), for blood produces cruelty and it spreads also to one’s children. Therefore it does not say “to his [Joseph’s] father” but rather writes to their father to tell you that all three [accusations] affected their father’s honor.

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

Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons, for he was a wise son to him; and he made him a fine tunic.

בן זקנים THE SON OF HIS OLD AGE — because he was a wise son to him” — all that he had learnt from Shem and Eber he taught him (Genesis Rabbah 84:8). Another explanation of בן זקנים— his facial features were similar to his (Jacob’s) (Genesis Rabbah 84:8). פסים is a term for raiment of fine wool (Shabbat 10b). Similar is (Ester 1:6) כרפס “Fine linen and blue”. The same garment כתנת הפסים is mentioned (2 Samuel 13:18) in the story of Amnon and Tamar and we may therefore gather that it was made of very fine material. There is a Midrashic statement that in the word פסים we may find an allusion to all his misfortunes: he was sold to Potiphar (פוטיפר), to the merchants (סוחרים), to the Ishmaelites (ישמעאלים), and to the Midianites (מדינים) (Genesis Rabbah 84:8).

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

"For he was the son of his old age" — taken according to its plain sense, for he [Jacob] begot him when he was ninety-one years old. Likewise, his brother Benjamin is called "a child of old age" (Genesis 44:20), and after these two none were born to him. "Passim" — an embroidered coat; "passim" is like "the palm (pas) of a hand" (Daniel 5:5) in Aramaic.

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

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

כי בן זקונים הוא לו, “for he had been born to him in his old age. If you were to argue that Binyamin had been born when he was still older, Binyamin caused his father to be reminded of the fact that his very existence brought about his beloved wife Rachel’s death, something which prevented him from loving him as much. פסים, a name that was to be given to this garment retroactively after Joseph had been sold. [Each letter of the word refers to a different master to whom Joseph had been sold, commencing with מ for the Midianites and ending with פ for Potiphar.] A different explanation sees in the word פסים as a “compensation,” for being a half orphan, not having a mother anymore. Yaakov tried to compensate him by having a costly garment made for him.

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

And Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons because he was a child of his old age to him. Even though it is said and he was a youth with the sons of Bilhah — meaning he would act youthfully like them — nevertheless Jacob loved him because when Joseph was with him, he would conduct himself like an elder, was well-practiced [in proper behavior], and had a pleasant youth. Jacob did not know how Joseph conducted himself with his brothers. Therefore it says because he was a child of his old age to him — the word to him indicates that specifically for Jacob he was a child of old age, but not for his brothers. This is because when Joseph was with them, he would act youthfully like them, but when he was with his elderly father, he would act with elderly maturity. Perhaps he did not want to deviate from custom and knew how to conduct himself appropriately both with youths and with elders. This is why it specifically states he was to him. Some say that [Jacob] transmitted to [Joseph] everything he had learned from Shem and Eber. And why didn’t he transmit what he learned to all his sons? Rather, certainly because all his sons rejected wisdom and did not connect with Jacob to learn from him. But Joseph was a son of his old age to him, as he always turned to Jacob and yearned to hear from him what he had learned from Shem and Eber. Therefore he loved him. And [Onkelos] translates [ben zekunim] as “a wise son to him,” for wisdom is found in the elderly. This is what they meant when they said that his facial features resembled him, for a person’s wisdom illuminates their face. And there is a hint here to what our Sages said, “They all responded and said: Study is greater because it leads to action.” Similarly, here it mentions Joseph’s perfection in the verse he was shepherding the flock with his brothers, excluding all forbidden types of shepherding, and nevertheless [Jacob] only loved him because he was a son of his old age — a wise son — for study is greater, as mentioned. “And he made him a coat of many colors.” It appears that after Reuben had disturbed his father’s bed, the birthright was taken from him, and now it was given to Joseph. For this reason, he made him a coat of many colors, because the Temple service was performed by the firstborn, and the firstborn served as a priest to God Most High. Therefore, he made this coat for honor and glory, similar to the priestly garments which included a patterned tunic. Perhaps this is why it says for he was a son of his old age to him — as if he was the elder and firstborn of all his sons, which is why it specifically says to him, because in truth he was not the eldest of them all. This is further indicated by the double expression they used:. Will you indeed reign over us? Will you indeed rule over us? For the firstborn takes a double portion in all that is found and to him belongs the kingship, as it is written Reuben, you are my firstborn, my might and the first of my strength (Genesis 49:3) — referring to kingship. This will be further explained soon in the verse what profit.

כי בן זקונים הוא לו, “for he was born to him when he was advanced in years;” according to Rashi. Nachmanides questions Rashi’s interpretation of the term בן זקונים, reminding us that all of Yaakov’s children were born to him when he was advanced in years, seeing that he only married when he was already 84 years old. Issachar and Zevulun were no more than a year or two older than Joseph. Moreover, Binyamin was much younger (seven years), than Joseph, and the term בן זקונים should have been applied to him, instead. Nachmanides therefore concludes that the Torah refers to an ancient custom of fathers who were already aged selecting one of their sons to attend to their needs on a regular basis. That son then becomes known as בן זקונים. Seeing that Joseph had been selected to perform these filial duties, he no longer went with his brothers to tend the flocks when they went far away from Chevron. We may also understand Onkelos in this sense, when he translates בן זקונים as ארי בר חכים, as extraordinarily intelligent. It is interesting that the Torah applies the term בן זקונים for Joseph only in his relationship to his father, i.e. בן זקונים הוא לו, for him,” not when compared to the world around him. ועשה לו כתונת פסים, “and he made for him a striped coat of many colours.” This verse teaches us how important it is for a parent not to have favourites among his children, [not to display such favoritism. Ed.] The extra cost of Joseph’s tunic, a measly 2 shekel, triggered a history of tragic jealousy, strife, near fratricide, etc. It even ultimately was directly responsible for Jews going to Egypt for a second time in history to seek relief from a famine in the land of Canaan.

And his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, and they hated him and were not willing to speak a word of peace with him.

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

"They spoke" — like "spoke to him." "For peace" — meaning even so much as a greeting of peace.

ויראו אחיו כי אותו אהב אביהם, here Yaakov had committed an error, allowing the love in his heart for Joseph to be now become visible through preferential treatment of him. ולא יכלו דברו לשלום, even though the brothers had to speak to Joseph pertaining to their business dealings both concerning household problems and problems with the herds and flocks, something imposed upon them by their father’s command to see in him their manager, they did not speak to him concerning any private matters, brotherly concerns.

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

“And they could not speak with him peacefully.” They were capable [of speaking peacefully] but they were not permitted to do so, in order to avoid confirming all the evil reports that he had brought against them. [They reasoned that if they would not speak peacefully with him,] their father would say that it was out of hatred that he [Joseph] had spoken all these [reports]. Therefore, they were not permitted to speak before their father with words that would bring about peace. This is why it specifically states to peace [using the word leshalom and not beshalom].

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

And Joseph dreamed a dream and told it to his brothers, and they hated him yet more.

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

ויחלום יוסף חלום. Joseph had a dream. Why did Joseph add to his brothers' hatred of him by telling them of his grandiose dreams? Furthermore, knowing as he did that the brothers hated him fiercely, why did he accept his father's mission (verse 14) and venture "into the lion's den?" (According to Bereshit Rabbah 84,11 even Jacob could not understand Joseph's preparedness to accept his mission) Perhaps Joseph went to tell his brothers that they were wrong in ascribing his dreams to his ambitions, but that for some resaon G'd planned to elevate him to a high position and that Jacob's agreeing to send him on this mission was a sign that all of this had been approved by G'd. He may have hoped to assuage their hatred of him by accepting the misssion. On the other hand, he may have warned them that the time would come when they would have need of him, and that they might do better to suppress their hatred of him pending further developments; otherwise they would expose themselves to retaliation on his part when the time came. He was convinced that the brothers would accept what seemed to them a heavenly decree. There is yet another possibility. Joseph actually hoped to draw his brothers' hearts nearer to him. We have a saying Berachot 55 that כל החלומות הולכים אחר הפה, that "all dreams follow the mouth." [What the interpreter sees in the dream determines its true meaning. The reader is referred to an excellent analysis of this statement by Rabbi Yitzchak Arama in chapter 29 of his Akeydat Yitzchak, see my translation page 247, second edition. Ed.] The rabbis also say that one should enquire from someone who is well disposed towards him when searching for the meaning of one's dream (Rosh on that paragraph). Joseph hoped that by telling the brothers of his dreams they would themselves find an acceptable and plausible explanation which would put their minds at ease. At least they would realise that Joseph had no ambition to become king over them. Why else would he be silly enough to provoke their hatred by telling them about his dreams? All of this might have worked if the existing hatred had not already closed the brothers' minds to any conciliatory gestures. ויחלום יוסף Joseph dreamed. The Torah reports that Joseph only dreamed so that we should not think that he hallucinated making himself believe he had dreamed when in fact he entertained thoughts of lording it over his brothers. The reason that in verse 9 the Torah repeats again that Joseph dreamed is also to emphasise that it was a nocturnal vision, that he had not made up the story he told his brothers. ויגד לאחיו. He told his brothers. It was a good dream. The brothers were tough as nails and did not even want to know what he had dreamed; this is why he had to say: "please listen to the dream I have dreamed." I am sure that the Torah does not here refer to a dream the content of which has not been mentioned, nor to a dream which did not come true. If the latter, why mention the existence of such a dream? If to tell us that the brothers hated him even more, this too has already been adequately explained. We must therefore assume that these words refer to the dream Joseph revealed only after having insisted that the brothers listen to his dream.

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

מלוך תמלוך?, “are you planning to rule over us?” According to Ibn Ezra the expression מלוך refers to rule by a king with the consent of his subjects, so that the brothers asked: “do you expect us to crown you as king over us?” The expression משול refers to imposition of authority without or against the wish of those that are subject to such authority. The brothers wanted to know if Joseph perhaps thought that he could impose his will upon them. It is somewhat difficult to understand why the brothers accused Joseph of such plans, based simply on the fact that he had had a dream or two. Are then dreams something over which the dreamer has control? What proof did the brothers have that Joseph’s dreams reflected his innermost hopes? Some commentators attribute Joseph’s aspirations to the fact that it had become plain that their father had preferred him to all of them, something that had gone to his head and given him ideas of grandeur. The proof that Joseph indeed harboured such thoughts, lay in the fact that even his dreams reflected what he had been thinking about by day. ועל דבריו, “and on account of his talk.” Joseph’s real error lay in his telling his brothers of his dreams, as if boasting of the grand future that he considered in store for himself. Had he not been telling his brothers the details of his dreams, i.e. שמעו נא החלום הזה אשר חלמתי, “listen please to this dream that I dreamt, etc.,” the entire tragic sequence of events that follow might have been avoided. He had only dreamt one dream, and already he uses it as something inflammatory, something that is bound to arouse further jealousy among his brothers. Why does the Torah refer to חלומותיו, “his dreams,” (pl;) when only the content of a single dream has been reported? (verse 8) Some commentators believe that he had had a previous dream, a dream which the brothers did not pay much attention to, seeing it was an isolated event. Once he told them the content of his second dream they became alerted to the trend displayed in this dream and revised their opinion about the first dream he had told them about, also.

And he said to them: Hear now this dream which I have dreamed.

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

שמעו נא החלום, please listen to the dream, etc. He had to add the word נא, please, because at first they had refused to listen. Alternatively, in accordance with Berachot 56, dreams should preferably be interpreted on the day following (the same day) the night they have been dreamt. This is the reason that one may fast even on the Sabbath if one has had a bad dream. Joseph therefore insisted that the brothers hear him out at once. Any delay might result in the dream not being fulfilled. He may also have wanted to prove to them that he had not told any of his friends about this dream expecting them to give him a positive interpretation, but had instead come to his brothers first. Had he first told his friends of his dream the brothers would not have believed that he wanted to convince them that he wanted to be on good terms with them. According to Berachot 55 Rabbi Banah once told his dream to 24 different interpreters and received 24 different interpretations, each one of which proved correct. It is possible that this was so because none contradicted any of the other interpretations. When contradictory interpretations are received the more recent interpretation cannot cancel out a previous one. Joseph may have wanted to convince the brothers of his תמימות, his sincerity, by offering them a chance to come up with a negative interpretation of his dream which his friends could not later on nullify. He did this by urging them to listen to his dream immediately. החלום הזה, "this dream." The use of the definitive article ה in front of the word חלום indicates that he had already told them that he had had a dream without revealing any details about it. Now he repeated: "please listen to the dream which I have dreamed."

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

Behold, we were binding sheaves in the middle of the field, and behold, my sheaf arose and also stood upright, and behold, your sheaves gathered around and bowed down to my sheaf.

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

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

"Me'allemim" — derived from the root for "sheaves." The related form appears in the feminine: "bearing his sheaves" (Psalms 126:6). "Tassoveinah" — this is a verb of the doubled-root class; the dagesh in the bet absorbs a second bet.

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

והנה אנחנו מאלמים אלומים, "Here we were tying sheaves, etc." Why is the word והנה repeated three times in this verse? You should appreciate that if a dream is to be perceived as a prophetic vision, it is essential that it be as clear and distinct as bright daylight. The person dreaming it should have the feeling that he actually experiences what he sees in the dream as if it were reality. When these conditions are met, he may consider the dream as a prophetic revelation. Dreams that young people dream are often blurred or contain unlikely and exaggerated occurrences. When Joseph told his dream to the brothers he repeated the word והנה three times to demonstrate that each part of the dream had been crystal clear, and that at the time he had thought that the events shown him in the dream were actually happening. This is why he thought that the dream foretold the future in some way. In the dream G'd showed him the bundles. These bundles represented bundles of מצות which all of the brothers would perform jointly; his own bundle stood more upright than the others as an allusion to his experience with the wife of Potiphar whose advances he had to resist. The fact that his bundle remained standing upright indicated that he would become a ruler in Egypt. All the bundles of the brothers would be relatively downgraded before the merit of Joseph because in the final analysis he provided for all of them and kept them alive during the famine. Joseph hoped that by foretelling them about this their attitude towards him would change for the better.

מאלמים אלימים, “binding sheaves;” this paralleled the manner in which Joseph later on rose to greatness, by piling up corn in anticipation of a famine from which his foresight and providence would save the Egyptian nation and surrounding countries. Compare 41,49: ויצבור יוסף בר, “Joseph heaped up and stored grain;” ותשתחוין לאלומתי, “and you were all prostrating yourselves before my sheaf;” this was a sign that the world would look expectantly to Joseph’s harvest, seeing that he was the sole distributor of grain in all of Egypt to all the people.

והנה אנחנו מאלמים אלומים וגו, “and here we were binding sheaves, etc.” They realised in their wisdom that the meaning of the dream was that the sheaves bowing to Joseph’s sheaf meant that he viewed himself as enjoying Royal authority. over them. This feeling of theirs was reinforced by his use of the words נצבה, an expression which is associated with Royalty such as in Kings I 22,48 נצב המלך, ”he acted as king.” It was because they were aware of this interpretation of his dream that they said to Joseph sarcastically: “are you planning to rule over us as a king?” What the brothers were not aware of was the fact that Joseph’s eventual appointment as king would be triggered by the subject of corn harvests (i.e. his prediction of abundance of such harvests and subsequent failure of such harvests). Seeing that they hated Joseph already it is quite understandable that they interpreted his nocturnal dreams as boding no good for them instead of seeing the positive element that might be presaged by such dreams. Actually, even their interpretation of Joseph’s dreams was inspired by G’d who caused them to verbalise such thoughts. This is reminiscent of something we read in connection with Gideon (Judges 7,10) to whom G’d had said that in preparation for his battle against the Midianites and in order to reassure him, he should go down amongst the camp of the Midianites and listen to what they had to say. Gideon did so and overheard a Midianite soldier tell his companion that he had dreamt that there was a commotion; a loaf of barley bread was whirling through the Midianite camp. It came to a tent, struck it, and the tent collapsed and turned upside down and collapsed. To this his companion responded: “this can only mean the sword of the Israelite Gideon son of Yoash. G’d is delivering Midian and the entire camp into his hands.” When Gideon heard the dream told and interpreted, he bowed low. (to G’d in gratitude) This was another instance when G’d inspired someone to interpret and verbalise a dream which subsequently came true. This may be the source of the Talmud saying in Berachot 58 that “all dreams are influenced by the interpretation which is being “given by the mouth,” [i.e. which has been verbalised. Ed.] Here too G’d placed the words in the mouths of the brothers so that eventually Joseph’s dreams would become true. You will note that the expression והנה occurs three times in this paragraph. This is reminiscent of the three journeys the brothers were to make to Egypt on account of Joseph’s sheaf of corn. Each time the journey meant that they would humble themselves before Joseph. The first time they went to Egypt because of the famine which prevailed in the land of Canaan. The second time they went to Egypt at the insistence of their father, ostensibly in order to buy some grain (43,2) but perhaps even more so in order to secure the release of their brother Shimon. On that occasion Joseph revealed himself to them. The third time they traveled to Egypt with their father as immigrants; by that time all three dreams of Joseph had been fulfilled. ותשתחוין לאלומתי, “and they bowed down to my sheaf.” The sun, moon and stars which bowed down to Joseph in his next dream were Yaakov, Bilhah, and his brothers. The expression וישתחו ישראל על ראש המטה, “Israel bowed down (to Joseph) at the head of the bed,” in Genesis 47,31 is the fulfillment of this part of Joseph’s dream. The brothers are reported as prostrating themselves before Joseph already in Genesis 42,6.

“And behold, my sheaf arose and also stood upright.” This alludes that first he would rule over them and afterwards he would reign as king, because there cannot be a king without many people, and at this time they were few in number — over whom would he reign? However, the language of ruling [memshala] is applicable even over a small number of people. Therefore, it says behold my sheaf arose — alluding to the time of rising, when he would rise to rule, as the language of “rising” [kima] speaks of the beginning of a matter, as in “when a man rises against his fellow” to rule over him. And stood upright [nitzava] alludes to kingship, for then he would have stability [matzav] and settlement, and kingship would belong to him. And he spoke in a way of “not only this, but also that” — meaning not only would he have rulership, but he would even have kingship. But they reversed the matter and said Will you indeed reign over us? Will you indeed rule over us? — meaning not only would he not have kingship, but he wouldn’t even have mere rulership over them.

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

And his brothers said to him: Do you think you will reign as king over us, or do you expect to rule over us? And they hated him yet more because of his dreams and because of his words.

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

SHALT THOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? OR SHALT THOU INDEED HAVE DOMINION OVER US? Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained: “Shall we voluntarily make you king over us, or will you rule over us by force?” The opinion of Onkelos appears to be more correct. Hence Ramban prefers Onkelos’ explanation which follows. He rendered it: “Shall you be king over us or some authority ruling us?” For people prostrate themselves before both. The verse thus means, “You will never be king or any kind of authority over us.”The meaning of the expression, And they continued to hate him still more for his dreams, and for his words, is that they hated him for the dreams and for relating the dreams to them in a boastful manner, even as it says, Hear, I pray you, this dream which I have dreamed. here.

"Will you indeed reign over us... or will you indeed rule over us?" — We will make you king, or you will dominate us by force.

חלומותיו, because of his dreams. The details he told them proved to the brothers that Joseph was hoping that his dreams would be realised. ועל דבריו, and on account of his having insisted that they listen to the details of what he had dreamt.

ויאמרו לו אחיו, His brothers said to him, etc. We need to understand why both the word מלך and the word משל are repeated here. This dream could have been interpreted in two ways. 1) It could presage that Joseph would become an actual physical ruler i.e. מלך; 2) it could presage merely ממשלה. The interpretation that Joseph would become an actual ruler was an interpretation that allowed for some doubt, whereas the interpretation that he would become a משל, a highly placed administrator, seemed absolutely certain. This is why they answered him in accordance with either of these possibilities. Concerning the possibility of his becoming an actual ruler they asked: המלך תמלך עלינו? "Are you really considering the possibility of becoming king over us?" Concerning the definite prediction that he would become a highly placed administrator, they asked אם משל תמשל בנו, "are you going to be administrator over us? Onkelos has referred to this distinction when he rendered the first המלך as את מדמי "do you imagine, etc?" whereas he renders the word אם משל as את סביר, do you think, etc?" The brothers repeated the words because they were amazed at two aspects of the interpretation. 1) Do you think you will become king at all? 2) Do you think your authority as king will also extend over us? The reason for their incredulity was the fact that they had a tradition that Yehudah would become king over all of them. How could Joseph's vision uproot such a tradition? Another reason these words are repeated is that they accused Joseph of dreaming at night what he had been day-dreaming about by day. They said: "It is only because you have a desire to rule over us that you are able to have such dreams even at night!" This would correspond to Daniel 2,29: רעיוניך על משכבך סלקו "your thoughts (of the day) returned to you while you were on your bed (at night)." ויוסיפו עוד שנוא אוחו, They hated him even more, etc. Since we explained that the dream under discussion is only one, we need to understand why the Torah mentions that the reason the brothers hated Joseph even more was because of "his dreams" (pl). This is accounted for by the various details in the dream. Each time Joseph had said והנה, the brothers understood this as a separate dream. ועל דבריו. and because of his talk. Because he told them the contents of his dream. It was bad enough that he had such dreams; talking about them made it even worse. Another reason maybe the one we already mentioned. The brothers felt that Joseph's dreams reflected his aspirations during daytime. It is also possible that the meaning of the expression ועל דבריו is that whereas he spoke to them as if he were soliciting their friendship and brotherliness, in his heart he strove all the time to become a ruler over them.

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

And they hated him even more. Three instances of hatred are mentioned here. Initially, they hated him for bringing evil reports [about them], and from that point onward they refused to speak with him, as it is written and they could not speak peaceably with him. Then, Joseph dreamed a dream and told his brothers. He had not yet told them the content of the dream, as it does not say and he told it to his brothers, rather he merely began speaking with them saying Listen, for I have dreamed a dream. Immediately they hated him even more, because he began speaking to them when they had refused to speak with him. Since this hatred was in their hearts and Joseph did not sense it, he therefore made a request saying Please listen to this dream, etc. Then they were forced to open their mouths and say Will you indeed reign over us? Therefore, they hated him even more for his dreams and for his words — not only did they hate him for his dreams, but they even hated him for his words because he wanted to force them to speak with him. And some say [it means] “because of his words.” For all dreams follow the mouth (Berakhot 55b), meaning that whatever a person speaks about before sleeping, that is the type of dream that comes to him. For the dream comes through much activity, and a fool’s voice through many words (Ecclesiastes 5:2) — because the vanities that the fool voices cause him to have many dreams of vanities. Therefore, they [the brothers] assumed that presumably before sleeping, Joseph was either speaking about or contemplating in his heart that he was worthy of kingship, and that is why this dream came to him. Thus, they hated him for his verbal words or for the words in his heart.

And he dreamed yet another dream and recounted it to his brothers, and he said: Behold, I have dreamed a dream again, and behold, the sun and the moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me.

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

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

And he recounted it to his father and to his brothers, and his father rebuked him and said to him: What is this dream that you have dreamed? Are we indeed to come — I and your mother and your brothers — to bow down to you to the ground?

ויספר אל אביו ואל אחיו AND HE TOLD IT TO HIS FATHER AND TO HIS BRETHREN — After he had related it to his brothers (see 5:9) he again related it to his father in their presence. ויגער בו AND HIS FATHER REBUKED HIM because he was arousing hatred against himself by relating the dream. הבוא נבוא SHALL WE INDEED COME — “Is not your mother long since dead?” He did not, however, understand that the statement really alluded to Bilhah who had brought him up as though she were his own mother (Genesis Rabbah 84:11). Our Rabbis inferred from here that there is no dream but has some absurd incidents (Berakhot 55). Jacob’s intention in pointing out the absurdity of Joseph’s mother, who was dead, bowing down to him was to make his sons forget the whole matter so that they should not envy him, and on this account he said to him, “Shall we indeed come etc.” — meaning, just as it (the fulfillment of the dream) is impossible in the case of your mother so the remainder of the dream is absurd.

AND HE RELATED IT TO HIS FATHER. He told his father of this dream concerning the sun, moon and stars, but not of the first one concerning the sheaves because he himself recognized its interpretation and knew that the sun alluded to his father, and his father rebuked him. The meaning of the expression, And he related it to his father and to his brothers, is that he related it to them a second time, as he told it to his father in their presence, and his father rebuked him in order to dissipate their anger towards him. The meaning of the expression, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? is the same as, What is man that Thou shouldst take cognizance of him? That is to say, “What is this dream? It is nothing that you should relate for it is nothing but idle talk.” Alternatively, the meaning of the rebuke may be: “How dare you dream such a dream? It is but your conceit and youth that bring up such matters in your heart,” just as it says concerning dreams, Thy thoughts came upon thy bed; Here understood literally: “The thoughts you entertained during the day came with you to bed, and you dreamed about them.” And imaginings upon my bed. Understood in the same sense as above. SHALL I AND THY MOTHER AND THY BRETHREN INDEED COME TO PROSTRATE OURSELVES TO THEE TO THE EARTH? “Is not your mother long since dead?” Jacob, however, was not aware that the matter alluded to Bilhah who had raised him as if she were his mother. From here, our Rabbis derived the principle that there is no dream that does not contain invalid matters. Jacob’s intention in pointing out the invalidity of the dream was to cause his sons to forget the matter so that they should not be envious of him because of it. Jacob said to Joseph: “Just as it is impossible for the dream to be fulfilled with respect to your mother, so is the remainder invalid.” Thus the language of Rashi. In my opinion, at the time when Jacob went down to Egypt, Bilhah and Zilpah had already died since, in enumerating the seventy souls that went down to Egypt, Scripture states, Besides Jacob’s sons’ wives, and it does not say “besides Jacob’s wives and his sons’ wives.” So how then could Rashi say that the mother in the dream, symbolized by the moon, who was to bow before Joseph in Egypt, referred to Bilhah? And if you say that because they were concubines Scripture does not want to say “besides Jacob’s sons’ wives and his concubines,” yet we find that they are referred to as his father’s wives. Why then does Scripture not say “besides Jacob’s wives and his sons’ wives?” Thus it is clear that they had already died. Besides, it is unlikely that “the moon” in the dream alludes to his concubine. Instead, my opinion concerning the matter of the dream is that the sun is an allusion to Jacob, and the moon alludes to the children of his household and all his wives, which comprised Jacob’s seed. Thus, the moon alludes to the fact that all his seed will prostrate themselves to Joseph, these being all the seventy souls that issued from his loins, since they all prostrated themselves when they came before him. The eleven stars represent the brothers who bowed down before him separately, before their father arrived, as it is written, And when Joseph came into the house, they brought him the present which was in their hand into the house, and prostrated themselves to him to the earth.

"His father rebuked him" — "Rebuke" (ge'arah) construed with the preposition bet indicates disgrace; without the bet it denotes destruction, as in: "Behold, I will rebuke (go'er) the seed for you" (Malachi 2:3). Alternatively, the dream is figurative — the sun would rebuke the seed, and it would be afraid and not grow. "I and your mother" — this refers to Bilhah, the handmaid of his mother who raised him.

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

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

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

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

ויספר אל אביו, “he told his father, etc.” He had not told his father about his first dream, seeing that he was certain that he understood the meaning of his dream. Seeing that the subject of his second dream concerned his father, he told him about it. ואל אחיו, “and to his brothers.” After he had told this dream to his father, he told it to his brothers in the presence of his father. His father rebuked him [not because of its content, Ed.] but in order to deflect his brothers’ fury from him. Some commentators ask that seeing all dreams supposedly are influenced by the interpretation given to them, (Berachot 58) why was this dream fulfilled altogether, seeing that Yaakov had rejected the original interpretation as soon as he heard the dream in front of the brothers? They give a very forced answer, saying that seeing Joseph had already told the dream to his father previously, and at that time his father had not disagreed with the apparent interpretation, it was now too late to do anything about it. Personally, I do not think that the question has any merit at all. Rather, on the contrary, the reason that fulfillment was so long delayed was because Yaakov had protested the obvious interpretation. This is further proof that the sages were correct in saying that the results of the dreams are greatly influenced by who interprets them and how. [The Talmud, on the folio quoted, illustrates the point with numerous examples. Ed.] His father’s objection to the obvious interpretation of his dream resulted in it coming true so many years later. הבא נבא אני ואמך, “are indeed I, your mother etc., going to come and bow down, etc.?” How could this be seeing that your mother has died already? Yaakov was not aware that the moon in Joseph’s dream portrayed Bilhah who had raised Joseph as his foster mother. This is Rashi’s interpretation of our verse. Nachmanides writes that in his opinion Bilhah had died before Yaakov moved to Egypt so that she had no opportunity to prostrate herself before her stepson. The Torah, when listing the names of who went down to Egypt, speaks of 70 souls, not including the wives of Yaakov’s sons. We are therefore forced to conclude that had Zilpah and Bilhah been alive still at that time, they would have been mentioned by name. If the Torah at that juncture (46,26) did not want to refer to them as “the wives of Yaakov,” seeing they were his concubines, this is no argument at all, seeing that we read the words נשי אביו, (37,2) and those words clearly refer to Bilhah and Zilpah. We must assume that the sun in the dream refers indeed to Yaakov, and the moon to the members of his household, including all his wives and their children, a total of 70. The eleven stars refer to Joseph’s eleven brothers bowing down to Joseph on their second trip to Egypt, before they had decided to immigrate to Egypt.

And his brothers were jealous of him, but his father kept the matter in mind.

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

"He kept the matter" — in his heart; similarly, "they kept His testimonies" (Psalms 99:7), according to the correct interpretation.

ויקנאו בו אחיו, they attributed such aspirations by Joseph to the fact that their father had appointed them as senior to them, otherwise he would not have dared tell such dreams even in his father’s presence. ואביו שמר, he remembered it because he thought that the dream reflected what would in fact occur. In fact, his father was looking forward to the fulfillment of Joseph’s dream. This reflects the statement in the Talmud Sanhedrin 105 that a person may be jealous of everyone except his students and his children.

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

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

And his brothers went to pasture their father's flock at Shechem.

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

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

And Israel said to Joseph: Are your brothers not pasturing at Shechem? Come, and I will send you to them. And he said to him: Here I am.

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

"And he said to him: Here I am" — I will do as you say.

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

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

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

And it was at the time of days that Israel said to Joseph, Do not thy brethren feed in Shekem? But I am afraid lest the Hivaee come and smite them, because they smote Hamor and Shekem and the inhabitants of the city. Come now; and I will send thee to them And he said, Behold me.

And he said to him: Go now, see how your brothers are faring and how the flock is faring, and bring me back word. And he sent him from the plain of Hebron, and he came to Shechem.

מעמק חברון FROM THE VALE OF HEBRON — But was not Hebron situated on a hill, as it is said (Numbers 13:22) “And they went up into the South and they came unto Hebron” why then does it state that Jacob sent him from the עמק, (the vale, the deep part) of Hebron? But the meaning is that Jacob sent him in consequence of the necessity of bringing into operation the profound (עמוקה) thought of the righteous man who was buried in Hebron (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayera 22) — in order that there might be fulfilled that which was spoken to Abraham when the Covenant was made ‘between the parts” (cf. 15:13), “thy seed shall be a stranger etc.” ויבא שכמה AND HE CAME TO SHECHEM — A spot foredestined to be the scene of misfortunes: there the sons of Jacob sinned (by selling Joseph), there Dinah was maltreated, there the kingdom of the House of David was divided, as it said (1 Kings 12:1) “And Rehoboam went to Shechem etc.” (Sanhedrin 102a).

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

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

לך נא ראה, "Please go and have a look, etc." Now Jacob spelled out the details of the commandment Joseph was to fulfil including bringing back a report to his father. This would make him his father's messenger both on the outward journey and on the return journey. If the bringing back of the report became a separate commandment this would act as protection for Joseph even according to the view in the Talmud that such messengers are enjoying divine protection only until they reach their destination. Jacob made sure that Joseph had two destinations. Joseph could now rest assured that he would return safely. Jacob believed that despite the fact that the brothers hated Joseph and it was therefore not unlikely that he would be in danger, the מצוה he performed by obeying his father would protect him. He based himself on the following discussion in Pesachim 8. We are taught in a Baraita: When there is a hole in a wall dividing the property of a Jew from that of a Gentile, one needs to search for possible chametz as far as one's arm can reach. Plymo says that one does not have to endanger oneself in order to locate such chametz. The Talmud counters that Rabbi Eleazar has said that when one is engaged in the performance of a מצוה one is not liable to suffer harm. So why should considerations of danger prevent someone from searching for chametz? The Talmud answers that the rule of Rabbi Eleazar holds true only where danger is not likely to be encountered. The other rabbis who disagree with Plymo hold that the two situations are not alike. When danger is apparent, such as certain hornets having their lairs inside the holes of a wall, one endangers one's life frivolously by putting in one's arm searching for chametz. When the danger consists of the Gentile possibly accusing the Jew of engaging in sorcery because he performs an act such as looking for chametz, something that seems non-sensical to the Gentile this is no reason to desist and to rely on miracles instead. The Talmud cites the incident of Samuel enquiring of G'd how he could endanger himself carying out his command to anoint David when there was a price on David's head? G'd told him to pretend to go to Hebron to slaughter an animal for G'd (Samuel I 16,2). Samuel was in very real danger, as the chances that king Saul would hear about his trip to Hebron were close to 100% and he would be very suspect. Such danger could not be compared with that of searching for chametz in a wall and the Gentile neighbour jumping to the wrong conclusion. Joseph's brothers had never been suspected of planning to actually harm him physically. Plymo might also not have considered Joseph's danger at the hands of his brothers as real enough for him not to rely on Rabbi Eleazar's dictum that the performance of the מצוה would act as his shield. In view of the above you may well ask how it was that Joseph wound up being sold as a slave, etc.? The answer is that when Rabbi Eleazar said that שלוחי מצוה אינן ניזקין, people on a מצוה mission would not come to harm, he meant permanent harm. Joseph wound up as the ruler of Egypt as a result of having been sent to his brothers. The fact that he experienced degradation on the way was merely a preparation for his eventual elevation. There is another aspect to all this. When Jacob despatched Joseph he was very careful to refer to the location where the brothers were supposed to be tending the sheep. He asked: "are not your brothers tending the flocks at Shechem?" He had therefore made it plain that Joseph was supposed to go to Shechem. When Joseph went to Shechem and failed to find the brothers his mission was completed. If he decided nonetheless to go to Dothan to locate them there he was no longer his father's messenger. This is why he was no longer protected by performing a commandment of his father. Jacob was convinced that no harm would befall Joseph at Shechem. Joseph thought that his father had mentioned Shechem only as a likely place where he would find his brothers but that his mission was not restricted to Shechem. ויבא שכמה, He arrived at Shechem. The place to which his father had sent him; however, he did not find his brothers. He searched for them, something the Torah did not need to spell out as otherwise the first words in the next verse, i.e. "A man found him," would not make sense. By now Joseph was lost.

לך נא ראה את שלום אחיך, “please go and check whether everything is all right with your brothers!” Whenever the word נא appears in the Torah, it must be understood as a request rather than as an order. Yaakov told Joseph that although he hears every day reports about what the brothers were doing and where, it was no more than good manners that he, Joseph, should go and look them up, seeing that after all he was their brother. ואת שלום הצאן, “and check that everything is all right with the flocks.” From this we learn that should enquire if a person’s business is flourishing. וישלחהו מעמק חברון, “he took leave of him in the valley below Chevron.” Seeing that Chevron is situated at the top of a mountain, we learn from here that Yaakov accompanied Joseph on the beginning of his journey, and that this is considered no more than good manners for anyone to copy. Our sages consider it as more than good manners, i.e. as a requirement. The subject of their conversation is supposed to have been the laws about how to deal with an anonymous corpse who had clearly been murdered, so that the people nearest to that location need not feel indirectly responsible (Deuteronomy chapter 21).

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

And he sent him from the valley of Hebron. Rashi explains [this refers to] the deep counsel of that righteous one who is buried in Hebron. Both the terms “counsel” and “deep” require explanation, for who gave this counsel and what depth is there to it? What seems correct to me is to explain this based on what our Sages said (Genesis Rabbah 44:21): The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Abraham, “Which would you prefer for your children — to be judged in Gehenna or through exiles?” And Abraham chose the exiles. Therefore, this was the advised counsel that Abraham gave — to choose exiles instead of Gehenna, which is called the deep pit. This explains why, when Israel sins, the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not judge them in their own land, and why He exiles them to the lands of the nations. Rather, it is because the exiles take the place of the deep Gehenna, therefore the judgment is to exile them from a high roof to a deep pit, for the Land of Israel is higher than all other lands, and in comparison to it, all other lands are deep. This is what is meant by Come down to me, do not delay (Genesis 45:9), for in going to Egypt, they went by way of descent, like one descending to the deep pit. This serves for them in place of the deep pit. This is what is meant by “from the deep counsel of that righteous one,” for he [Abraham] advised to choose the depth of the lands of the nations, as mentioned.

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

And a man found him, and behold, he was wandering in the field; and the man asked him, saying: What are you seeking?

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

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

"And a man found him" — according to the plain sense, one of the wayfarers.

תועה בשדה, walking in every direction to find where they were tending the flocks. מה תבקש, what are you looking for seeing that you do not keep to the known paths?

“And a man found him, and behold, he was straying in the field.” This refers to [the angel] Gabriel. From the fact that it says and a man found him, we can deduce that this man was searching for Joseph and seeking him out — he [the man] found, but Joseph did not find [him]. His intention was to warn him to be cautious of his brothers, for he saw that Joseph was walking in the field, wandering in his thoughts, as he was going [with intentions of] peace while there was no peace between him and his brothers. Therefore, this must certainly have been an angel, for how else would he have known what was in Joseph’s heart? If not [that he was an angel], how would any other person have known that he was walking astray? Perhaps this was simply his chosen path, for surely he was walking on some road or pathway. And its Midrashic interpretation is that he erred regarding the matter of “the field,” which was mentioned in the story of Cain and Abel. For Joseph should have taken to heart what happened between Abel and Cain, how through jealousy one brother killed another. However, Joseph reasoned: “I understand why Cain killed his brother, as it states when they were in the field — it was about matters concerning the field, for Cain claimed ‘this field that you are standing on is mine.’ Thus, there was a reason for the matter. But why would my brothers kill me without cause? For jealousy over a striped tunic is not comparable to jealousy over a field.” This is what is meant by and behold, he was straying in the field — for this field mentioned regarding Cain led him astray, and he did not realize that the nature of jealousy is such that even over a minor matter, one person will rise up against his fellow and murder him.

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

And he said: I am seeking my brothers. Tell me now, where are they pasturing?

"Where are they grazing?" — if you know.

איפה הם רועים, in which section of this region.

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

And the man said: They have moved on from here, for I heard them say: Let us go to Dothan. And Joseph went after his brothers and found them at Dothan.

נסעו מזה THEY HAVE JOURNEYED HENCE — they have departed from all feeling of brotherhood. נלכה דתינה LET US GO TO DOTHAN — “let us go to seek some legal (דתות) pretexts” to put you to death. According to the literal sense, however, it is the name of place, and Scripture never really loses its literal sense (Shabbat 63a).

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

"Dotanah" — spelled with a yod, and also without a yod; it is the same place.

נסעו מזה, there is no question that they have departed from this grazing area, there is no point in searching any part of this region. כי שמעתי אומרים, the reason why I said that they certainly no longer are in this region is because I myself overheard them saying “lets move on.” אחר אחיו, even though he had not been able to locate them in Shechem as his father had asked him to do, he went to more trouble than he was required to, in order to fulfill the wishes of his father.

נסעו מזה, כי שמעתי אומרים, "They have moved away from here, for I have heard them say, etc." Why did the stranger have to preface his information by saying: "they have moved away from here?" It would have sufficed for him to say: "I have heard them say: 'let us go to Dothan!'" Rashi explains that the words mean that the brothers had abandoned the path of brotherliness (and devised legal schemes to kill him). If so, why was Joseph not worried enough to turn around and to return to his father's home? What greater degree of danger could there be? In fact, was Joseph not guilty of almost committing suicide by continuing to search for his brothers? Perhaps Joseph did not understand the warning properly. Our sages who had the benefit of hindsight were able to interpret the words of the "man" as a warning. Joseph who was not blessed with such hindsight had no reason to see a dire warning in these harmless sounding words. He merely understood that his brothers had not only left Shechem but the whole district. The reason the "man" added "I have heard the brothers say: 'let us go to Dothan,' was to explain what he meant by "they have moved from here.'" He could not say with certainty that the brothers had actually arrived at Dothan. He only had knowledge of their intention. It did not occur to Joseph that the man with whom he talked was an angel; therefore he did not try to read any more into the man's words than appeared obvious. When the Torah writes: "Joseph went after his brothers and he found them in Dothan," this is in order then. Had Joseph understood the veiled warning of the "man," the Torah should have written: "Joseph followed his brothers to Dothan and found them." Joseph searched for his brothers seeing that the man had not been precise about their present location. As a result of his search, Joseph found his brothers in Dothan. Our sages' interpretation of what occurred is perfectly in order, i.e. that the Torah reveals that the angel who spoke to Joseph had given him a veiled warning. Proof that Joseph had not understood this is that the Torah reports Joseph as searching for his brothers. He was under the impression that they still considered him their brother. The question we must all ask is that if the angel remained deliberately so vague that Joseph did not understand his warning, why did he direct him to a location which was so fraught with danger for Joseph? Perhaps, after having become aware that Joseph's intention was to find brotherliness, i.e. את אחי אנכי מבקש, the angel wanted to increase the merit Joseph would accumulate by persisting in such a worthwhile endeavour. For all we know this is how Joseph acquired the merit necessary to qualify ultimately as the ruler of Egypt and the provider for his family.

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

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

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

And they saw him from a distance, and before he drew near to them they devised a plan against him to kill him.

ויתנכלו AND THEY CONSPIRED — The Hithpael form denotes that they became filled with plots and craft. אֹתוֹ is here the same as אִתּוֹ which means “with him” — meaning אליו: they became filled with plots and craft directed towards him (אליו).

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

"And they conspired" — they devised an evil scheme; similarly, "and cursed is the schemer" (Malachi 1:14).

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

"And they saw him afar off" It is necessary to know, when saying "and before" (Gen. 37:18), whether it applies to what was before it, as follows: 'And they saw him afar off before he came near to them' or if it [namely, the word "before"] is the beginning of what comes afterwards, as follows: 'Before he came near to them they conspired regarding him...' Both interpretations are difficult: if it applies to what was before it, it should have said 'before he came near' [not AND before he came near], and if it is the beginning of what comes afterwards, it should have said 'and before... they conspired' [not AND they conspired]. Maybe the addition of the vav was meant to increase distance, meaning that you shouldn't say that the distance implies that he [Joseph] has not yet approached them [his brothers], rather "and before he came near to them" means they saw him at an exaggerated distance. We could say further that "and they saw him from afar off" refers to the distance of their hearts, because they did not see him as brothers see their brothers, rather, they saw him like a man distant from them; "and before he came near..." means that this seeing was also "before..." and if it hadn't said "And before" with a vav it would have implied the reading of distance above [namely that they saw Joseph at a great physical distance], therefore the vav was added, to show that the matter was different [namely that the distance was emotional]. One could also offer a different explanation of the text, but it appears that this is the best reading.

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

And they said to one another: Behold, that master of dreams is coming.

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

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

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

And now come, let us kill him and throw him into one of the pits, and we will say: A wild beast has devoured him; and we shall see what will come of his dreams.

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

AND WE SHALL SEE WHAT WILL BECOME OF HIS DREAMS. This is a derisive metaphor: “We shall see after his death if we shall prostrate ourselves before him.”The correct interpretation appears to me to be that they said, “Now we shall see what will become of his dreams, for if he shall be rescued from our hands he will surely reign over us.” But our Rabbis said:13. “It is the Ruach Hakodesh that says, We shall see what will become of his dreams, as if to say; ‘We shall see whose words shall stand, Mine or theirs.’”

ועתה לכו, make up your minds quickly to kill him. אמרנו חיה רעה אכלתהו, so that Jacob will not have a chance of becoming angry at us and first be cursing us. ונראה מה יהיו חלומותיו, the dreams of which he told us that they foreshadow his rise to greatness and that he would rule over us. Then we will be witness to the fact that all these dreams will dissolve into nothingness and that they are nothing but lies.

ועתה לכו ונהרגהו, "Come now let us kill him!" They planned to kill him before he had a chance to actually reach them; they went towards him. This is why the Torah emphasises the word ועתה. They were so upset emotionally that they could not even contain their anger until he would reach them. What the brothers did is best described in Baba Kama 26 where the Talmud rules that when ten people kill one person simultaneously they cannot be held responsible by a human court. The brothers' main concern was to escape a trial by a human court. ונשליכהו באחד הבורות, "and let us throw him into one of the pits." When the brothers mentioned how they would explain Joseph's disappearance, i.e. ואמרנו, they meant that as a rule anyone found in one of these pits would be consumed by a variety of rodents which abound in them. They would then be telling the truth when they described him as having fallen victim to wild beasts. By not saying the rodents had killed him they would refrain from uttering an outright lie. Naturally, we must explore by whose authority the brothers imagined that they were entitled to kill a human being, and such a righteous human being at that? Even allowing for the fact that the manner in which they planned to kill Joseph would not have made them liable to a human tribunal, how did they expect to escape retribution at the hands of G'd? Perhaps the brothers applied to Joseph the laws pertaining to עד זומם, someone who testifies to a crime he did not really see and who thereby intended to have the accused convicted of the death penalty. In such a situation the Torah demands that the עד זומם himself will be executed by the same death penalty he intended for his victim. Joseph had accused his brothers of eating אבר מן החי, tissue from a living animal. A fitting penalty would be for Joseph himself to be consumed by wild animals before he was dead. Joseph had also claimed that the brothers engaged in sex with partners forbidden to them. All these accusations, if true, carry the death penalty when committed by Gentiles. Moreover, a Gentile may be convicted by the testimony of a single witness without corroboration and without the victim having been warned of the consequences of his behaviour. Even next of kin may testify against the accused (Maimonides Hilchot Melachim chapter 9). Accordingly, the brothers applied to Joseph the law of an עד זומם thus exonerating themselves in the eyes of heaven. However, if so, they would not be considered innocent before a human tribunal because they had no הזמה, evidence of an alibi placing the witness Joseph in a different location at the time that he claimed that the brothers had committed the crimes he had accused them of. This is why they had to resort to the ruse of ganging up on him simultaneously. No human court could then prove that either one of them had administered a lethal blow. They felt quite at ease vis-a-vis heaven, being convinced that Joseph wanted to kill them. All of these considerations helped G'd carry out what He had planned without interfering with the freedom of will of the brothers or of Joseph. Perhaps the brothers even alluded to the fact that they would eventually repent what they were about to do and this is why they said ועתה, i.e. "for now this is what we are going to do." Bereshit Rabbah 21,6 claims that whenever the expression ועתה is used it refers to repentance. ונראה מה יהיו חלומותיו, "and we shall see what becomes of his dreams." They were at pains to prove that his dreams contained false information, or that the dreams were merely reflections of what he had been thinking by day. If they would kill him now this would prove that the dreams only reflected Joseph's own aspirations.

And Reuben heard and rescued him from their hands, and said: Let us not take his life.

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

"Let us not strike him mortally (nefesh)" — this is like "his attendant Joshua son of Nun, a youth (na'ar)" (Exodus 33:11), the meaning being: attendant-service of the sort a youth performs, for he was not a youth at that time. So here too: "let us not strike him a mortal blow (makkat nefesh)" — meaning, not a blow that takes his life.

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

ויצילהו מידם. "He saved him from harm at their hands. This action was applauded by the Torah as man is a free creature possessing freedom of choice and able to kill people who are not guilty or have not been convicted, as distinct from wild beasts which do not kill humans unless the latter are guilty of death in the eyes of G'd. The words ויצילהו מידם mean that he saved them from the evil consequences of carrying out their freedom of choice to kill. By doing what he did Reuben nullified the brothers' statement: "we shall see what happens to his dreams." לא נכנו נפש. "Let us not kill him." What Reuben meant was "let us not kill him outright ourselves but only cause his death indirectly." When he said later: "do not shed blood, throw him into the pit," this was his argument to his brothers. He only pretended to agree that Joseph's death should be caused because he could think of no other way of saving Joseph's life and restoring him to his father. He was quite certain in his own mind that no wild beast would harm Joseph, or any other of Jacob's sons for that matter. He himself would also not allow Joseph to remain in the pit long enough to die of hunger. Proof of Reubens' intention is that the Torah reports that he returned to the pit shortly after the brothers had sold Joseph in his absence. He had planned to take Joseph out of the pit.

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

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

And Reuben said to them: Shed no blood. Cast him into this pit that is in the wilderness, but lay no hand upon him — in order to rescue him from their hands, to return him to his father.

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

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

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

אל הבור הזה, “to this pit;” the word אל has been used here instead of the prefix ב. In other words: “into this pit.” We have a similar construction in Numbers 19,6: והשליך אל תוך שרפת הפרה, “and he will throw it into the fire consuming the cow.” להשיבו אל אביו, “intending to bring him back to his father.” His intentions were good; if you were to ask that even though the pit may have been dry, it most likely served as a lair for all kinds of poisonous snakes etc.? The fact that the Torah writes the unnecessary word: רק, “empty,” informs us that the brothers had made sure there were no harmful creatures hiding in it either. After Reuven had left, the brothers threw Joseph into another pit which was infested with snakes and scorpions. When the Torah describes Reuven’s shock when he returned to the first pit later and found it empty, that was the pit which he had told his brothers to throw him, into.

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

And it came to pass, when Joseph came to his brothers, that they stripped Joseph of his tunic, the fine tunic that was upon him.

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

"And they stripped" — this is a transitive verb governing two objects, meaning they told him to strip it off himself. In the holy tongue, the ketonet is the garment that clings to the skin. Thus they dealt cunningly with him and threw him naked into the pit.

ויפשיטו את יוסף את כתנתו, They stripped Joseph of his tunic, etc. According to the plain meaning of the verse the word כתנתו refers to his shirt, whereas the additional words את כתנת הפסים refer to his outer garment, the one his father had made for him. In order to understand the verse thoroughly we have to know why the Torah did not write ואת כתנת הפסים, "and the striped coat." The Torah wanted us to understand that the brothers did not want to strip Joseph naked. Their main concern was to remove the striped coat which had aroused their jealousy. The Torah tells us that when they began to strip the striped coat off him they were so angry at him that they inadvertently also removed his shirt at the same time. The Torah describes that Joseph was left naked by writing ויפשיטו את יוסף את כתנתו, "they stripped him naked by unintentionally removing his shirt with his striped coat." The Torah adds אשר עליו, "which he wore on top," to further underline that the striped coat was an outer garment. In spite of this, in their frenzy they removed all his garments.

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

His tunic, the striped tunic that was on him. Rashi explains that his tunic refers to a regular garment. Why did they remove his tunic? Perhaps when Joseph went to his brothers, he was afraid that his brothers might steal his striped tunic from him. Therefore, he acted childishly and went and sewed and attached the striped tunic to his regular garment, thinking that surely they wouldn’t leave him naked — he didn’t suspect them of going that far. As a result, they stripped him of his regular garment along with the striped tunic. In this reading, the word et means “with.” Others say that Joseph switched his garments, wearing the striped tunic directly on his body and put the regular garment over it in order to hide the striped tunic from his brothers. This explains why it says his tunic — because first they removed the regular outer garment, and afterwards the striped tunic that was directly on his body [literally on him], not just the outermost layer.

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

And they took him and threw him into the pit; the pit was empty, with no water in it.

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

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

ויקחהו, “they took, etc.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 84,15 use the absence of the letter ו behind the letter ח in ויקחהו, i.e. only one person actually seized Joseph to surmise that the person in question was Shimon. This is why later on (Genesis 42,24) Joseph chose to imprison only Shimon. והבור ריק, אין בו מים, “and the pit was empty, it did not contain any water.” Even if it did contain some water it would still qualify for the description “empty;” this is why the additional words “there was no water in it,” mean that there was absolutely no water in it. Our sages in Shabbat 22, however, use these words to deduce that whereas here was no water in the pit, i.e. that Joseph could not drown in it, to mean that there were other dangerous inhabitants in that pit such as vipers, etc. The reason the sages in the Talmud interpreted the verse in this way is that the verse actually contains two limitations. The first such limitation are the words “and the pit was empty; the second limitation are the words: “there was no water in it.” Whenever we find two limitations the rule is that there was something compensating for these limitations, i.e. deadly dangers other than water. Rabbeinu Tam, one of the Tossaphists, explained that the reason the sages picked examples such as deadly snakes as the inhabitants of that pit Joseph was thrown in may have been derived from the Torah saying in Deut. 8,15 במדבר הגדול והנורא נחש שרף ועקרב וצמאון אשר אין מים בו, “through the great and awesome wilderness of snakes, fiery serpent, and scorpion; and thirst where there was no water.” The absence of water in the desert is contrasted there with the presence of deadly snakes. Nachmanides writes: the snakes in the pit were concealed in holes which were not visible to people looking into it. Had the brothers noted these snakes and observed that they did not harm Joseph they would have realized that Joseph enjoyed the special protection of G’d and that He had performed a miracle on his account. They would not have dared lay a hand on the person whom G’d had so obviously selected for a special role. We observe the presence of such considerations elsewhere in the Bible, such as in Daniel 6,23 where the miraculous escape of Daniel from the den of lions told the king that “G’d had sent an angel and shut the lions’ mouth so that they did not even wound him because merit was found for me before Him.” Bereshit Rabbah 84,16 understands the wording as allegorical. The word “empty” was a simile for Yaakov’s reservoir of spiritual powers being drained through his favorite son being dumped into the pit, whereas the words “there was no water in it,” refer to the absence of the words of Torah which have often been compared to the life-giving properties of water. They base themselves on Isaiah 58,4 “come O thirsty one, go to the source of water!” The brothers were unaware of what would later on be written in the Torah (Deut. 24,7) “If someone be discovered who has sold (kidnapped) a member of his brethren the Children of Israel, and he enslaves him... that kidnapper shall die.” The brothers had thus made themselves guilty of a potentially capital offence.

“And the pit was empty, there was no water in it.” However, it contained snakes and scorpions. They [the brothers] found justification for this because they considered him [Joseph] a bearer of evil reports, a slanderer. We find that those who engage in evil speech are judged through snakes, as it is written And the people spoke against God and against Moses (Numbers 21:5), and it is written And God sent the serpents among them (Numbers 21:6). Let the snake, which sinned with its tongue by speaking slander about its Creator (Exodus Rabbah 3:12), come and exact punishment from those who [misuse their] tongue, as Rashi explains there — that “tongue” corresponds to “tongue.” And it is written If the snake bites before charm is spoken, there is no advantage to the charmer (Ecclesiastes 10:11). And it is written One who breaches a fence will be bitten by a snake (Ecclesiastes 10:8). This refers to the tongue which breaches two fences — one of flesh and one of bone — and emerges to speak. Therefore, the scripture tells us that there were snakes in the pit, suggesting that the snake — which sinned with its tongue regarding matters of sexual impropriety [for it saw Adam and Eve engaged in intimacy and desired her] — should come and exact punishment from Joseph who reported about his brothers that they were suspected of sexual misconduct.

And they sat down to eat bread, and they lifted their eyes and looked, and behold, a caravan of Arabs was coming from Gilead, their camels laden with spices, balsam, and resin, traveling to bring them down to Egypt.

ארחת means what the Targum says — A CARAVAN; this is called ארחת with reference to the travelers on the road (ארח) who compose it. וגמליהם נשאים AND THEIR CAMELS WERE BEARING etc. — Why does Scripture specially announce what they were laden with? It is to tell you how great is the reward of the righteous: it is not usual for Arabs to carry anything but naphta and itran (tar) which are evil-smelling, but for this one (Joseph, the righteous) it was specially arranged that they should be carrying fragrant spices so that he should not suffer from a bad odour (Genesis Rabbah 84:17). נכאת SPICERY — Every collection of many kinds of spices is called נכאת. So, too, (2 Kings 20:13) “and he showed them all the house of his נכתה which means the house where his spices were mixed. Onkelos translates it as meaning wax (perhaps an aromatic gum). צרי AND BALM — a resin that exudes from the wood of the balsam-tree: it is the נטף that is enumerated among the ingredients of the incense used in the Tabernacle (Exodus 30:34; cf. Keritot 6a). ולט AND LADANUM — This is called Lotos in the language of the Mishna. Our Rabbis have in treatise Niddah 8a explained that it is a vegetable root; it bears the name aristolochia (birthwort).

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

"And they sat down to eat bread" — the nine brothers. "A caravan of Ishmaelites" — as the Targum says, because it travels the roads. "Nechot" — R. Moses ha-Kohen the Spaniard, of blessed memory, said that nechot means something pleasant and desirable, as in: "and he showed them his house of nechotah" (Isaiah 39:2); for vav and alef interchange, as they are both quiescent letters. "Tzori" — we find it in Scripture with a shva under the tzadi and a hataf-kamatz: "Is there no balm (tzori) in Gilead?" (Jeremiah 8:22), and also with a holam: "oil and honey and tzori" (Ezekiel 27:17). The Gaon explained it as something made from seventy-five roots. Others said it is a fruit or the oil of a tree brought from Jericho to Egypt, according to Joseph ben Gurion. Rabbi Ishmael said it is resin, and we rely on his view. "Lot" — the Gaon said it is the fruit so called in Arabic, with an added bet. Perhaps that is so.

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

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

וישבו לאכול לחם, “they sat down to eat their meal.” These words are a reflection of some degree of stoppage, permanence. They arrested their previous activities and emotional turmoil by sitting down to eat. Midrash Tehillim chapter 10 states that G’d’s reaction to the brothers “calmly” sitting down to eat as if nothing had happened was: “Your children will be sold as a result of a meal to be consumed at Shushan,” as we know from Esther 1,3:”in the third year of the king’s reign, etc.” Haman came and took the Israelites who had felt emancipated away from the feast the king had prepared and at which the Jews had participated. The decree to wipe out the Jews was followed by the King and Haman sitting down to drink. (Esther 3,15)

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

And Judah said to his brothers: What profit will there be for us if we kill our brother and conceal his blood?

מה בצע means WHAT PROFIT— just as the Targum renders it. וכסינו את דמו AND CONCEAL HIS BLOOD — this signifies and we hide the fact of his death (for they had not shed his blood, but had cast him into a pit to die).

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

"What profit (betza)" — what benefit; its sense is close to "desire" (hefetz); similarly: "what profit is there in my blood" (Psalms 30:10).

What will we gain. By this we will do harm not only to Yoseif but to ourselves, because we will be filled with remorse. And cover up his blood. Moreover, the deed will not even serve as a deterrent to our other adversaries because we will have to conceal it for our own honor and out of fear of our father.

מה בצע כי נהרוג את אחינו, “what will it profit us to kill our brother?” They did not consider killing Joseph a worthwhile act of revenge, as all dead people become forgotten in short order, as David has stated explicitly when he said to G-d in Psalms 59,12: “Do not kill them lest my people will forget them, bring them low, instead;” מה בצע, the Talmud in Sanhedrin 6, states that anyone who blesses Yehudah for having said this (i.e. saving Joseph’s life) is guilty of insulting him instead, because the reason he gave for saving Joseph’s life was not in order to do him a favour but the reverse. He had implied that if killing him would be profitable they would certainly kill him. The only reason why they did not was because they could not see any advantage in it for themselves in doing so. The Torah spells this out in the next phrase: וכסינו את דמו, “first we would have to cover up his blood,” (so that we could not even take credit for our deed.) We have to cover up his death and cannot boast about the absence of Joseph or our part in having accomplished this because of our father’s sorrow. When one has fought a war and killed one’s enemy, the revenge is only sweet when the victor can boast about it.

“What profit is it if we kill our brother and cover up his blood?” Wherever the term “betza” [profit] appears in Scripture, it refers to monetary gain. Here, how would they derive monetary gain from the killing? Therefore, it seems to me that the core of their jealousy was about the birthright, as the brothers sensed from the striped coat that Jacob would give Joseph the birthright, as explained above. Since the firstborn’s portion is double that of others, the brothers went to shepherd their father’s flock in Shechem, a place known for danger and trouble from the surrounding nations, who might steal their flocks and cattle because Jacob’s sons had previously taken their livestock when they attacked Shechem. The brothers were indifferent even if enemies might rise against them and take all the pastureland, saying, “If the youngest among us takes a double portion, neither we nor he shall have anything.” They were willing to forfeit their own portions just to ensure Joseph would lose his double portion, similar to the story of the zealot and the greedy person who came before Solomon. When they went to Shechem, Jacob sensed their scheme and sent Joseph, saying Go see to your brothers’ welfare and the welfare of the flock from the enemies surrounding them. Joseph said, I seek my brothers wasn’t concerned about the flock. Therefore, Jacob said, Are not your brothers shepherding in Shechem? The word halo [are not] implies: “Is this not a dangerous place prone to trouble?” He didn’t say “shepherding the flock,” suggesting that they were only tending to themselves without concern for the flock, for the reason explained above. And regarding what they said “Come, let us kill him” — it seems appropriate to explain that they considered him a gossiper, and every gossiper causes bloodshed, as it is written There were talebearers in you to shed blood (Ezekiel 22:9). Furthermore, our Sages said (Devarim Rabbah 5:10) “Evil speech kills three…” Therefore it says Before he came near to them, they conspired to kill him, because [of the principle that] if someone comes to kill you, rise early to kill him first. This is what it means when it says before he came near to them — to kill them — they conspired to kill him first, before he would approach them. This is what is meant by and now, come let us kill him — what does and now mean? It means now, immediately, before he comes near to us. This is a precious interpretation. And above we explained this verse in another way in the verse And Joseph brought their evil report. And Reuben heard and saved him from their hands because he was afraid they would pin all the blame on him in order that the birthright that was taken from him and given to Joseph would return to him. “And Judah said, ‘What profit…’” [refers to] what monetary profit will we have by killing our brother and covering up his blood? If we had permission to publicize the matter, there would indeed be monetary profit, because since the birthright was taken from Reuben — thus Reuben the firstborn was removed, and [if] Joseph is dead — then the firstborn’s portion would revert to all the brothers equally. However, now, because of our father’s anguish, we don’t have permission to publicize the matter, and all the days there will be doubt whether Joseph is alive and lost, or sold to a distant land. Therefore, even after their father’s death, his portion would remain in the court’s custody until it becomes known what happened to him. And we would need to bring proof that he was killed, since we already told our father that he wasn’t killed, so there is no monetary profit here. Let us sell him to the Ishmaelites — and then we will have monetary profit because there he will be a permanent slave, and therefore whatever a slave acquires belongs to his master, and certainly our father will completely withdraw his inheritance, for what benefit would there be for him to bequeath to him when his master would come and take everything he has. Regarding the sale to the Ishmaelites and Midianites, it appears that this is its explanation: The brothers only wanted to sell him to the Ishmaelites alone, because they said that Ishmael is Isaac’s brother and due to this familial relationship he would have mercy on him. And perhaps it was about Ishmael that they said for he is our flesh and blood, using similar language to for we are brothers. However, these Ishmaelites did not want to buy him because they were not merchants, and as long as they didn’t have a merchant who would immediately buy from them hand-to-hand, they didn’t want to purchase him. And when afterwards Midianite merchants passed by, then the Ishmaelites saw that there were merchants who would buy from them, and then they agreed to buy. This is what it means when it says they pulled and lifted Joseph from the pit and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites, and we consequently learn that the Ishmaelites sold him to the Midianites without the brothers’ consent, or without their knowledge, and the Midianites in turn sold him to Potiphar, etc. And when Reuben returned to the pit and the child was not there, he said where shall I go? meaning, if you killed Joseph because of the rights of the firstborn, then perhaps you will do the same to me so that the firstborn rights won’t return to me, and where shall I go because where can I flee from you? And it’s possible that because of this fear, Reuben wanted to save him from the beginning.

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

Come, let us sell him to the Arabs, and let our hand not be upon him, for he is our brother, our own flesh. And his brothers agreed with him.

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

"He is our brother, our flesh" — like "our flesh," for we are from one flesh.

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

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

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

And Midianite men, merchants, passed by; and they drew Joseph up and brought him out of the pit, and they sold Joseph to the Arabs for twenty pieces of silver, and they brought Joseph to Egypt.

ויעברו אנשים מדינים AND THERE PASSED BY MIDIANITES — This was another caravan: Scripture indicates that he was sold several times. וימשכו AND THEY DREW UP — the sons of Jacob drew up את יוסף מן הבור JOSEPH FROM THE PIT, and they sold him to the Ishmaelites, and the Ishmaelites to the Midianites and the Midianites into Egypt (Midrash Tanchuma 1:9:13).

"And there passed" — when the Ishmaelite merchants passed by them; for the Midianites are called "Ishmaelites," as it says of the kings of Midian: "for they were Ishmaelites" (Judges 8:24).

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

ויעברו אנשים מדינים, Midianites were passing, etc. Why did the Torah mention the passing by of Midianites when the sale was conducted with the Ishmaelites as is clearly stated at the end of this verse? Verse 25 also makes it clear that Joseph was sold to the Ishmaelites. Furthermore, we read in verse 36 that the Midianites sold Joseph in Egypt to Potiphar, etc. This appears to prove that the brothers had sold Joseph to the Midianites, something which contradicts what we have been told previously. To confuse the issue still further, we are told in 39,1 that Joseph was brought down to Egypt where Potiphar purchased him from the Ishmaelites. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 84,22 account for all this by saying that Joseph was sold several times over. This does not seem to solve all the difficulties in the text, however. The correct interpretation is that the Torah first mentions the appearance of a caravan of Ishmaelites (verse 25) and Yehudah's suggestion that they should sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites. When the brothers became aware that the Ishmaelites in that caravan dealt only in spices, etc., and that they would not consider slave trading, G'd arranged for מדנים סוחרים, Midianite merchants to pass by. The Torah adds the word "merchants" to tell us that the brothers recognised that these men were less discriminating in the kind of merchandise they dealt in. The brothers sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites using the Midianites as middlemen. The Ishmaelites would have refused to buy a human being (who presumably had been a free man) from the brothers directly. Inasmuch as the deal involved both the Midianites and the Ishmaelites, the Midianites received part of the profit. The Ishmaelites who had financed the sale, paid out the cash at that time. The Torah was able to say "the Midianites had sold him to Egypt (37,36)" since they received part of the profit of the transaction. Inasmuch as they and not the Ishmaelites knew Joseph's true value as a slave, they conducted the sale to Potiphar. Meanwhile Joseph's body, i.e. his person remained in the care of the Ishmaelites so that when Potiphar acquired him he did so from the hands of the Ishmaelites (39,1). The Torah emphasises מיד הישמעלים, to make certain that we understand that Joseph was in the physical possession of the Ishmaelites who handed him over to Potiphar. All the various verses make perfect sense when looked at in this vein. Perhaps the author of the Midrash mentioned מכירות הרבה, many sales, because the different stages involved in Joseph's sale appeared to him as if he was being sold many times over. וימכרו את יוסף. They sold Joseph. It is possible that after the brothers had humiliated Joseph by stripping him naked and tossing him into the pit that their anger abated partially and they were willing to accept Yehudah's suggestion. They may have thought that their declared objective to frustrate realisation of Joseph's dreams would be achieved if he were to be sold into slavery. Once he had become a slave there were no known ways in which Joseph could rise to a higher status, much less to that of king. This is what Psalms 105,17 had in mind when the Psalmist stated: כי לעבד נמכר יוסף, "Joseph had been sold into slavery."

ויעברו אנשים מדינים סוחרים, “in the meantime Midianite merchants had passed by the pit that Joseph had been thrown into and they heard his cries. וימשכו, “they pulled him out;” the Midianites pulled him out of the pit, and proceeded to sell him to the Yishmaelites; the Yishmaelites in turned him over to the Midianites for safekeeping, as they had no immediate use for him. He was then sold to Poptiphar by the Yishmaelites and Midianites jointly. When you understand what happened in this way, all the three verses that describe what happened to Joseph after he was thrown into the pit makes perfect sense. The three verses read as follows: verse 36: The Midianites had sold him to Egypt, specifically to Potiphar.” Chapter 39,1: Potiphar bought him from the Yishmaelites;” chapter 45,4: Joseph speaking: “whom you had sold (me) to Egypt.” Joseph was not concerned with the details but with the cause of his being in Egypt. He accuses the brothers of having been the cause, not the actual sellers. מן הבור, “from the pit;” his brothers had no knowledge at all of what had happened to Joseph after they had thrown him into the pit. When Reuven came back to the pit and there was no trace of Joseph, all of them thought that some wild animal must have devoured him. They did not lie to their father. If the brothers themselves had sold him to anyone or any country, they would have made extensive efforts during the 22 years until they travelled to Egypt to find out what had happened to him since. Not only that, if they had had any reason to believe that he might still have been alive, they would not have failed to recognise him when they stood face to face with him. He could not have completely fooled them unless they had long ago become convinced that he was dead. At least they would have recognised him when he blessed Binyamin (43,29) or when he gave Binyamin gifts that were five time larger than the gifts he gave to them. (43,34) Also, the fact that he had seated them at the table in strict accordance with the order of their birth, would have convinced them that he must be their long lost brother. I am convinced that this is the correct sequence of what happened. An alternate interpretation of the sequence of events after Joseph was thrown into the pit: while the brothers were still debating among themselves if to sell Joseph to the approaching Yishmaelites, the Midianites had come from a different direction and seen Joseph in the pit and sold him to the Yishmaelites as soon as possible. In order not to be shamed as having left him in the pit while he was crying, they took him out and made him look presentable before handing him over to the Yishmaelites. Following this, the Yishmaelites sold Joseph to the Midianites, who in turn sold him to Potiphar. According to this scenario, Joseph was actually sold no fewer than four times. This would tally with what is written in 39,1 according to which Potiphar bought Joseph from the Yishmaelites. To sum up: the brothers sold Joseph to the Midianites; this sale has not been recorded in the Torah as it remained in effect only for an hour or so. The Midianites then sold him to the Yishmaelites; this sale was also not recorded in the Torah seeing that the Yishmaelites resold Joseph as soon as possible and secretly, not at public auction as they were afraid that the Midianites wished to cancel the sale and sell him to Potiphar instead, getting a much better price. When Potiphar saw Joseph in the possession of the Midianites and realised how handsome a slave this would be, he could not understand why a white person would sell a fellow white skinned person, they usually only sold negroes, although the reverse would have made sense to him. He therefore reasoned that Joseph could not have been born as a slave. Consequently, he demanded an ironclad guarantee that the Midinanites had not kidnapped him. The guarantee that the Midianites furnished was that they brought the Yishmaelites from whom they had purchased Joseph to confirm this for Potiphar. This is why the Torah writes that Potiphar purchased Joseph from the Yishmaelites, who had confirmed that they had sold him legitimately. בעשרים כסף, “for twenty pieces of silver.” The price sounds extremely cheap, seeing that Joseph was such a handsome young man. We would have to understand this as being due to Joseph’s face reflecting horrific experiences he had undergone recently and from which he did not yet recover. The brothers shared the twenty silver pieces, reportedly each buying himself a pair of new shoes (Amos 2,6) A different interpretation of why the Torah mentions the price Joseph was sold for: In Leviticus 27,5, the Torah lists the monetary value of a person who donates the value of such a person to the Temple treasury. The value depends on age and sex. According to what is written there, males between the age of five and twenty are worth 20 shekel; Joseph was 17 years at the time. According to Bereshit Rabbah 84,18, G-d decreed that because the brothers sold Joseph for 5 sela’im=20 dinarim, they will have to pay a priest 5 selaim to redeem a first born son.

ויעברו אנשים מדינים סוחרים, וימשכו, “Midianite men, merchants, passed by and pulled Joseph (out of the pit).” According to the plain meaning of the text the passing Midianites pulled Joseph out of the pit and sold him, not the brothers. According to this interpretation, Joseph saying to the brothers in Genesis 45,4 “I am Joseph whom you have sold to Egypt,” has to refer to the fact that the brothers dumped him in the pit as a result of which he was eventually sold to Egypt. This would be supported by the fact that at that time he said מצרימה, i.e. in the direction of Egypt, as opposed to למצרים, which would have meant: “to Egypt.” He referred to a process which eventually brought him to Egypt after he had been traded from master to master. In that event the sin attributed to the brothers by the Romans (who punished Jewish scholars over 1200 years later) would have been an indirect sin at best. They were punished for being the cause which triggered Joseph’s eventually winding up in Egypt as a slave. The Romans felt that leading citizens of the Jewish people should pay for this indirect sale of Joseph by the brothers. They considered it murder seeing that if the Ishmaelites or Midianites had not come along Joseph would have died in that pit. The principle of prominent people being considered guilty of murder even if it was not by laying an actual hand of the victim is reflected in the Bible by the case of David who ordered his commander-in-chief Yoav to place Bat Sheva’s husband Uriah in such an exposed position at the front against the Bney Ammon that he was almost certain to be killed. He instructed Yoav to ensure that Uriah would be killed by withdrawing the support of his comrades-in-arms from Uriah. As a result, Uriah was killed. by the Ammonites, and the Bible (the prophet Natan in Samuel II 12,9) accused David outright of having murdered Uriah though he had not laid a hand on him. The only difference between murdering someone with one’s own hands and between contriving his certain death in another fashion is the culpability before a human tribunal. The sin vis-a-vis G’d is the same (compare Kidushin 43) בעשרים כסף, “for twenty pieces of silver.” We have been commanded by the Torah (Numbers 18,16) that the redemption of a firstborn son, an Israelite, (as distinct from a Kohen or a Levite) is to be performed in exchange for 5 selaim. The sela is a coin worth 4 “kesseph,” pieces of silver, such as mentioned in our verse here. This is the reason that Onkelos does not translate “twenty selaim of silver” but leaves the wording of the Torah unchanged and writes: עשרים כסף. One of the underlying reasons for the whole procedure of redeeming the firstborn is the need to atone for that sale of Joseph who was Rachel’s firstborn son and who had been wrongly sold for this amount (compare Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2,3).

And Reuben returned to the pit, and behold, Joseph was not in the pit; and he tore his garments.

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

וישב ראובן אל הבור, Reuben returned to the pit, etc. What was Reuben's argument when he complained to the brothers ואני אנה אני בא, "where shall I go?" Would Joseph not have been lost even if his own suggestion to throw him into a pit had been carried out? After all, the Torah itself testified that Reuben had never told his brothers that he intended to save Joseph and to restore him to his father! When Yehudah said to the other brothers: "what profit is there in killing our brother, etc," does this not prove that Joseph's remaining in the pit was meant to result in his death? How then could Reuben complain to his brothers? Actually, Reuben argued that inasmuch as he was the oldest, his father would charge him with leading the search for the missing Joseph from one end of the earth to the other. If Joseph had remained in the pit, he would have brought Joseph's remains to his father and explained to him that wild beasts had killed him. This would have been the end of his involvement. Now he could not do this. This is why he said: "where shall I go?" As a result the brothers hit on the idea of slaughtering a male goat and dipping Joseph's tunic in its blood, etc. By returning the tattered and blood-soaked remains of Joseph's striped coat they made it unnecessary for Reuben to start a search for Joseph.

וישב ראובן, “Reuven returned;” According to Rashi, Reuven reverted to wearing sackcloth and observing fasts as penitence over his indiscretion with Bilhah, even though he had not made a public confession until after he had heard his brother Yehudah publicly confess his sin against Tamar. (Genesis 38,26) ויקרע את בגדיו, “he rent his outer garments.” When his father heard about Joseph’s apparent death, the Torah describes the rending of his garments with the words ויקרע שמלותיו, “he rent his (under)garments.” When mourning parents or children, one rends all of one’s clothing, whereas when mourning siblings one only rends outer garments. The word שמלה appears as covering for one’s skin” (Exodus 22,26)

And he returned to his brothers and said: The boy is gone — and I, where shall I go?

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

"And I — where can I go?" — The word "I" (ani) is mentioned twice; one is superfluous, but such is the idiom of the language.

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

and returned to his brethren, and said, The youth is not; and I,whither shall I go, and how shall I see the look of my father's face?

And they took Joseph's tunic and slaughtered a young male goat and dipped the tunic in the blood.

שעיר עזים A KID OF THE GOATS — its blood resembles that of a human being (Genesis Rabbah 84:19). הַכֻּתֹּנֶת THE COAT — This is the form of the noun in the absolute state, but when it is in the construct state — as e.g., Joseph’s coat”, “the coat of many colours”, “the coat of linen”, — it is punctuated as כְּתֹנֶת.

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

But they took the garment of Joseph, and killed a kid of the goats, because his blood is like the blood of a man, and they dabbled the garment in the blood.

And they sent the fine tunic and brought it to their father, and they said: This we have found. Recognize now whether it is your son's tunic or not.

AND THEY SENT THE COAT OF MANY COLORS, AND THEY BROUGHT IT TO THEIR FATHER. I.e., by command. Ramban answers that the second half of the verse means that they commanded others to bring the coat to their father. Perhaps the word vayavi’u (and they brought) refers to the messengers who brought the coat, for the brothers dispatched it when they were still in Dothan, and it was the messengers who said, This we have found; recognize now. It may be that they sent the coat to Hebron, to one of their homes, and when they arrived they brought it before their father, and said to him, This we have found. They did all of this in order to feign ignorance of the matter, for had they remained quiet, he would have suspected them, saying; “You killed him,” for he knew that they were jealous of him. And some scholars explain the word vayeshalchu — ordinarily translated as “and they sent” — to mean that they pierced the coat with a sword in order to tear it in many places, to give the appearance of having been torn by the teeth of animals. The word vayeshalchu would thus be derived from the verse, By the sword (‘b’shelach’) they shall perish. The significance of the word hapasim (many colors) is that they sent him the coat so that he might recognize it by the colors which he had made for him.

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

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

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

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

And he recognized it and said: It is my son's tunic; a wild beast has devoured him — Joseph is surely slain.

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

"He has surely been torn" (taraf toraf) — a passive verbal form in which the agent is not specified. It is constructed this way because the resh cannot take a dagesh, as similarly: "it shall be scoured and rinsed" (Leviticus 6:21).

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

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

כתונת בני, “the coat of my son!” He meant: “this is the coat of my son.” חיה רעה אכלתהו,“a wild beast has devoured him.” According to the plain meaning of the text he meant: “had robbers slain him they would have taken the coat. Therefore it must have been a beast.” According to Bereshit Rabbah (84,10) Yaakov had a flash of insight seeing in his mind’s eye that Joseph would become provoked by the wife of Potiphar. We may be permitted the question that if G’d granted him such a flash of insight, why did He not reveal to him that Joseph was alive? Our sages answered this by saying that the brothers had all made a solemn agreement that whosoever would reveal what happened to Yaakov would be ostracised. They had included G’d in that agreement, i.e. they did specifically impose silence even on G’d (compare Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer 38). In order to make such a weird sounding statement more plausible, let us consider the following. There were nine brothers present at the time the sale took place (Binyamin and Reuven were absent. Joseph, as the victim was not part of this agreement). In order to make such a solemn oath or agreement legally valid a quorum of ten adult males was required. They had decided to make G’d the tenth member of that quorum (not that they “forbade” G’d to reveal to Yaakov what He saw fit to reveal). If you find this concept difficult to accept, consider, if you will that when Avraham prayed for the cities of Sodom, etc. to be saved if they contained a certain number of righteous individuals, he asked if G’d would spare them if He could find there forty-five such people. Why did he mention the number 45, and not 35, 25, or 15? He began with he number 50 to say that if there could be found a quorum of ten good people in each of the five towns under threat of extinction G’d should spare the town on account of them. In mentioning the number 45, he assumed that if each of these towns would have only nine righteous men G’d would be willing to make up the missing tenth and thus He would complement the required number (Genesis 18,28 according to Rashi). If you were to reject this comparison saying that whereas Avraham wanted to make G’d a partner in order to save a town, in this instance the brothers made G’d their partner in a destructive scheme, remember that their objective was not a nefarious one. Their objective all along had been to preserve the people of Israel and the honour of G’d as they considered how Yaakov would curse all of them if he became aware of what they had done to his favourite son. If the sons and family of Yaakov would perish, who would proclaim the name and glory of G’d in the world? The situation which would then come about is similar to the one mentioned in Joshua 7,9 when Joshua felt that the Israelites were threatened by the defeat they had suffered at the hands of the little town of Ai, and he implored G’d to reverse this defeat. He said: והכיתו את שמנו מן הארץ ומה תעשה לשמך הגדול, “and they will wipe out our name from the land and then what will You do to promote Your great name?” On account of these considerations the brothers had felt justified in including G’d Himself in their scheme. Incidentally, we find that Moses also included G’d and his heavenly tribunal at the time he received the Torah. You might ask that seeing the sages (Bereshit Rabbah 84,21) have told us that Yitzchak knew that Joseph was alive but decided not to reveal this to his son Yaakov as he felt that G’d must have had a good reason if He Himself had not revealed it to him, whence did Yitzchak have his information? We must obviously conclude that G’d had told Yitzchak. He also told Binyamin that Joseph was alive. We know this (compare Bereshit Rabbah 71,8) because the gem on Aaron’s breastplate which represented the tribe of Binyamin was the ישפה, which may be read as יש פה, “there is a mouth”. The Midrash implies that though Binyamin was not included in that solemn undertaking of the nine brothers and he could have told his father that Joseph was alive without violating that pact, he decided to keep his mouth shut as he appreciated the motivations which had guided his brothers when making such a pact, and he too did not want to take the chance that his father would curse the brothers.

“An evil beast devoured him.” This alludes to all the tribes who were compared to animals — a lion, a deer, and a snake, and the scripture encompasses them all saying What was your mother? A lioness among lions (Ezekiel 19:2). Another explanation: evil beast refers to the evil report that Joseph brought about his brothers eating a limb from a living animal. This is the evil report alluded to in the beast that devoured him for they wanted to show that this was not true, rather they slaughtered a kid goat. All of this came from the divine inspiration [ruach hakodesh] that flickered within him, for even according to Rashi who interprets evil beast as referring to Potiphar’s wife, the spirit of God spoke within him. However, the matter of Potiphar’s wife had not yet occurred, so how could he say devoured him in the past tense? Furthermore, what relevance does this have here? Rather, the correct interpretation is as we have explained.

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

And Jacob tore his garments and put sackcloth on his loins and mourned for his son many days.

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

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

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

ימים רבים, “for many days.” The word “many” means the seven days which are prescribed for mourning next of kin who have died. The fact that the Torah refers to seven days as “many” is no cause for surprise as we find that the Torah calls even three days רבים, “many,” from the halachic interpretation of that word by Torat Kohanim on Leviticus 15,25. Bereshit Rabbah 84,20 quoted by Rashi writes that the words “many days” mean “many years,” i.e. for the full twenty-two years that Yaakov and Joseph were apart. Rashi explains how these twenty-two years are arrived at. Joseph was 17 years old when he was sold and he was 39 years old when Yaakov and family moved to Egypt. He was described as 30 years of age when he stood before Pharaoh and interpreted the dreams. This was followed by 7 years of plenty. The brothers traveled to Egypt in the first as well as in the second year of the famine before returning with their families during that same year. These twenty-two years of separation between Yaakov and Joseph corresponded to the twenty-two years Yaakov had been absent from his home when he had to flee from Esau. [The 14 years he spent at the academy of Shem and Ever studying Torah are not counted as that was not the result of his having cheated Esau. Ed.]

And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted, and said: For I shall go down to my son in mourning to Sheol. And his father wept for him.

וכל בנתיו AND ALL HIS DAUGHTERS — R Judah said: a twin-sister was born with each of Jacob’s sons and they each took a step-sister to wife (It was these daughters who comforted Jacob) R. Nehemiah said: their wives were Canaanite women and not their step-sisters; what is meant then “by all his daughters”? His daughters-in-law, for a person does not hesitate to call his son-in-law his son and his daughter-in-law his daughter (Genesis Rabbah 84:21). וימאן להתנחם BUT HE REFUSED TO COMFORT HIMSELF — A person does not accept consolation for one living whom he believes to be dead, for with regard to the dead it is decreed that he be forgotten from the heart, but it is not so decreed with regard to the living (Genesis Rabbah 84:20). ארד אל בני I WILL GO DOWN TO MY SON — This has the same meaning as על בני, on account of my son. There are many examples where אל is used in the sense of על: (2 Samuel 4:21) “(אל) because of Saul (ואל) and because of his bloody house”; (1 Samuel 4:21) “(אל) because the ark of God was taken (ואל) and because of the death of her father-in-law and her husband”. אבל שאלה MOURNING INTO THE GRAVE — According to the literal meaning שאל means “the grave” — whilst I am still in a state of mourning I shall be interred (i.e. even to the day of my burial I shall mourn) and I shall not be comforted all my life. The Midrash explains it to refer to Gehinnom. “This omen has been given me by God: if none of my sons die during my lifetime I may be assured that I shall not see Gehinnom” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 9). ויגש). ויבך אתו אביו THUS HIS FATHER WEPT FOR HIM — His father refers to Isaac: he wept for Jacob’s trouble, but he did not mourn for he knew that he (Joseph) was alive (Genesis Rabbah 84:21).

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

"And his father wept for him" — our early Sages interpreted this as referring to Isaac. And indeed, Isaac did not die until Joseph was twenty-nine years old. Some say that prophecy withdrew from both of them on account of their grief, citing as evidence the statement of Elisha (II Kings 3:15). "And all his daughters" — his own daughter and his son's daughters. The word "she'olah" means "downward," that is, the grave. Here the translator who misguides the misled erred, for he rendered she'olah as "Gehenna." But consider: "for the grave (she'ol) will not praise You" (Isaiah 38:18); "if I make my bed in she'ol, behold You are there" (Psalms 139:8) — the opposite of "if I ascend to the heavens, there You are" (ibid.); "she'ol is naked before Him" (Job 26:6) — and many similar passages.

וימאן להתנחם, he refused to listen to words of comfort in order not to become guilty of forgetting to mourn. ויאמר כי ארד אל בני אבל שאולה, he vowed to remain in mourning for the balance of his life. His reason was that he blamed himself for what happened because he had sent his beloved son on such a dangerous errand. ויבך אותו אביו. Yitzchok wept over Yaakov’s decision to remain in mourning for the rest of his life. As a result of being in mourning he would forfeit Divine inspiration also.

ויקומו כל בניו…לנחמו, "All his sons arose in order to comfort him, etc." The Torah is silent about the nature of these words of comfort that were offered to Jacob. Perhaps the Torah wishes to stress that the comfort was not expressed in words but in the demonstration of how many sons and daughters Jacob had left. They had first observed their father rend his garments, wear sackcloth and carry on mourning for an inordinately long period. This would have been appropriate if Jacob had lost an only son, or even one of relatively few children. Since Jacob had many children, he should have remembered what he had left instead of only harping on what he had lost. His children brought this to Jacob's attention without uttering a word by surrounding him with their combined presence. This was supposed to provide some comfort. Jacob, however, refused to accept comfort, saying that the reason he would mourn Joseph until his own death was that Joseph was one of a kind and there was no substitute for him. The Zohar (volume 1, page 180) goes into greater detail about the mutual affinity of the souls of Jacob and Joseph, etc. The Torah also hints that Jacob did not view his inability to console himself as a sign that Joseph was not dead though we have a rule that one is unable to console oneself when the person mourned is not actually dead. The reason Jacob could not accept comfort was that he viewed himself as condemned to descend to שאול, to purgatory, because of a tradition (compare Rashi quoting a Tanchuma on ויגש) he had that as long as none of his children would die during his lifetime he could rest assured that he himself would not descend to purgatory. ויבך אותו, He wept for him. When Jacob explained why he could not respond to manifestations of condolences he had to start weeping again. The Torah stresses the word אביו, his father, in order to make a distinction between himself and all his children. The only person who broke out weeping when Joseph's name was mentioned was his father. Bereshit Rabbah 84,21 considers the word אביו, his father, as a reference to Isaac, Jacob's father.

וימאן להתנחם, “he refused to accept consolations;” he felt that he had been guilty for having sent Joseph on this errand in the first place. כי ארד אל בני שאולה, the word: אל, usually translated as “to,” in this case means the same as על, “on account of,” Yaakov foresees that he will wind up in his grave, still in mourning over having been the cause of his beloved son’s tragic and premature death. ויבן אותו אביו, his father wept over him;” according to Bereshit Rabbah 84,21, this does not refer to Yaakov, about whose mourning we have already read, but refers to Yaakov’s father Yitzchok, who was still alive; [according to different opinions quoted there while Yitzchok ostentatiously shared Yaakov’s grief, this was only when he was in the presence of his son. He was aware that Joseph was alive, but did not reveal this to Yaakov, as he felt it was inappropriate to reveal something to Yaakov that G-d apparently had deliberately kept secret from him.] As Rav said to his son Hiyya, when the latter’s wife was in mourning: In her presence practice mourning, but out of her presence do not practice mourning. The source for this is the Talmud in Moed Katan folio 20.

כל בניו, “all his sons, etc.” These are his actual sons. וכל בנותיו refers to Dinah and Serach, the daughter of Asher. וימאן להתנחם, “he refused to be comforted.” This was because it is impossible to accept such comfort when the person being mourned is still alive. It is a decree by G’d which enables the survivor to gradually “forget” someone who has died and thus be comforted over his loss (compare Rashi). כי ארד אל בני אבל שאולה, “but I will join my son in She-ol still mourning for him.” He meant that he would be buried while still in mourning for his son as he would never get over this loss. According to Tanchuma Vayigash 9, the word שאולה is a reference to Gehinom, purgatory. Yaakov thought so as he had been certain that not one his children would die during his lifetime. Now that Joseph had died, he felt that this could only have occurred if he himself was destined for purgatory. ויבך אותו אביו, “his father wept for him.” This is a reference to Yitzchak, Yaakov’s father. Yitzchak wept when he observed the anguish of his son Yaakov and was unable to tell him that actually Joseph was alive. The expression “Yitzchak wept for him,” is to tell us that whereas he “wept,” he did not mourn Joseph as you do not mourn the living.

“And he refused to be comforted.” Rashi explains that the divine decree that someone be forgotten from the heart applies specifically to the dead, not to someone living whom one believes to be dead. The reason for this is that the essence of consolation comes when a living person takes to heart that the deceased has merited the great goodness reserved for the righteous, and that he has been transferred from the dark world to eternal light, as it is written For a day in Your courts is better than a thousand, etc. (Psalms 84:11). Jacob saw through divine inspiration that Joseph was not in Gan Eden, therefore he refused to be comforted. He gave a reason for this, saying For I will go down to my son, mourning, to the grave. Our Sages said (see Tanchuma Vayigash 9) that he said this because he was assured that he would not see the face of Gehenna as long as none of his sons died during his lifetime. This explanation is difficult because he should have simply said For I will go down mourning to the grave. The fact that he said to my son implies that his son was also in Gehenna — how did Jacob come to say this? Rather, certainly it was because he saw that his son was not in Gan Eden, he then thought that he must surely be in Gehenna, and I too will go down to him there. Therefore, he refused to be comforted even just about his son alone. Some ask, if so, why didn’t Jacob sense that Joseph was alive? It seems this is not difficult to explain even according to the simple meaning, because Jacob attributed the matter to his fear of seeing the face of Gehenna, which was always before his eyes, as he had been given a sign that as long as none of his sons died in his lifetime, he would not see the face of Gehenna. This is what he meant by saying For I will go down to my son, mourning, to the grave. Nevertheless, the verse I am forgotten as a dead man from the heart (Psalms 31:13) implies actually dead. Therefore, Rashi explained the reason according to the truth, and not the reason according to Jacob’s imagination.

וכל בנותיו, “and all his daughters.” His daughter and his granddaughter. Some commentators say that his daughters–in-law are included in the term “his daughters.” וימאן להתנחם, “he refused to be comforted.” According to the plain meaning, Yaakov could not accept words of comfort as he considered himself partially responsible for what happened, seeing that he had sent Joseph alone on a dangerous mission.

And the Midianites sold him to Egypt, to Potiphar, a great man of Pharaoh, the chief executioner.

הטבחים— means the slaughterers of the kings animals.

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

"Chief of the slaughterers (sar ha-tabachim)" — you will find this term applied both to killing and to cooking. The words of the Aramaic translator [Onkelos] are correct.

והמדנים מכרו אותו אל מצרים, “the Midianites had sold him into Egypt;” the Torah chooses this wording [instead of mentioning at this point to whom specifically he had been sold, Ed.] as foreshadowing the brothers’ and their descendants having to remain in Egypt for many years in the future. The enslavement and forceful detention of the Israelites inside Egypt commencing after the last of the brothers had died, was an example of G-d meting out punishment fitting the crime that had been committed, in this instance to the children of those who had committed the crime. [Although Joseph had not committed the same crime, he had been the cause of all] the crimes that were committed. This still leaves open the question of how Binjamin’s descendants had to be punished. Ed.] All of the brothers, however learned from the corrupt ways of the Egyptians so that they had to suffer before being found worthy of redemption. אל מצרים, “in Egypt;” another example of the word אל being used as meaning: “in,” is Exodus 25,21, ואל הארון תתן את העדות, “and you are to place the testimony (Tablets) inside the ark,” as well as Numbers 19,17 as well as Numbers 19,6:.אל תוך שר הטבחים, “chief of the king’s slaughterers.” He was in fact the chief of the executioners, the death penalty in Egypt being quite common. We find the expression “slaughter” applied to executioners in Psalms 37,14.

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