## Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit

###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:1:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:1:1)

**אל תגזול דל כי דל הוא ואל תדכא עני בשער, כי ה' יריב ריבם וקבע את קובעיהם נפש (משלי כב, כב)**

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
**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)


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:1:2
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:1:2)

**שלמה**המלך עליו השלום הודיענו בשני כתובים הללו (משלי כב) עונש הגוזל את הדל, וידוע כי ד' כתות הן שהזהירה התורה על האדם לרחם אותם ושלא להרע להם, ואלו הם עניים יתומים אלמנות גרים. וכן מצינו הכתוב שהזהיר על ארבעתם בפסוק אחד, הוא שכתוב (דברים ט״ז:י״ד) ושמחת בחגך אתה ובנך ובתך ועבדך ואמתך והלוי והגר והיתום והאלמנה, ודרשו רז"ל ארבעה שלי כנגד ארבעה שלך, ואם אתה משמח את שלי אני אשמח את שלך. והזכיר הלוי כנגד העניים, שהרי לויים עניים הם שלא היה להם חלק בארץ, אבל היו זוכין על שלחן גבוה ונהנין מקדשי שמים והם חיל הקב"ה, כענין שכתוב (דברים ל״ג:י״א) ברך ה' חילו. והקב"ה חלקם שנאמר (במדבר י״ח:כ׳) אני חלקך ונחלך. עניים הם שהזהיר עליהם התורה במצות עשה ובמצות לא תעשה, במצות עשה שנאמר (דברים ט״ו:ח׳) נתון תתן. וכתיב (שם ח) פתוח תפתח את ידך לו. מצות לא תעשה שנאמר (שם י) ולא ירע לבבך בתתך לו, וכתיב (שם ז) ולא תקפוץ את ידך. ואחר שהתורה הזהירה על הגזל בלאו של לא תגזול לכל העולם לכך לא הוצרכה להזהיר על גזל העני, וחייב הוא לתת לו ואיך יגזול ממנו, ועל כן בא שלמה ע"ה והוסיף באור בעונש הגוזל את העני, כי אין דרכו בכל ספר משלי להזכיר מצוה מן המצות הכתובות בתורה אלא אם כן יוסיף באור או יחדש בה דבר, כי מי האדם שיבא אחרי משה אם לא לעשות סייג לדבריו. ועל כן אמר אל תגזול דל כי דל הוא, ואין צריך לומר לדל כי אפילו לעשיר אסור לגזול, ומה שהזכיר דל מפני שהוא מצוי שהכל גוזלין אותו לפי שאין לו עוזרים, ואין מי שידבר בעדו כאיש העשיר, אלא הכל שונאין אותו ומתרחקים ממנו ואפילו קרוביו, כענין שכתוב (משלי י״ט:ז׳) כל אחי רש שנאוהו אף כי מרעהו רחקו ממנו. וע"כ יאמר אל תגזול דל מצד שהוא דל והוא חסר הכח ויודע אתה שאין לו עוזר וסומך כנגדך ואין מי יריב ריבו, אל תדמה בנפשך זאת כי הקב"ה יריב ריבו והוא הטוען שלו והוא יעניש את הגוזלים אותו לא עונש ממון רק עונש הגוף והנפש, זהו וקבע את קובעיהם נפש, שהיא מלה כוללת הגוף והנפש. יתומים ואלמנות הוא שהזהירה עליהן התורה בהרבה מקומות (שמות כ״ב:כ״א) כל אלמנה ויתום לא תענון. ודרשו רז"ל אפילו אלמנתו של מלך ואפילו יתומים של מלך. והטעם לפי שנפשם שפלה ודמעתם מצויה ודבר מצוי הוא שהכל מריעין ומענין אותם. ואמר הכתוב (שם) אם ענה תענה אותו, יחזור לכל אחד מהם ליתום ולאלמנה שהזכיר, וכפל הענוי להתמדת הבריות בענוים, וכשם שכפל הענוי כך כפל הצעקה גם שמיעת ה' יתעלה, זהו (שם) כי אם צעוק יצעק אלי שמוע אשמע צעקתו. ולפי ששאר בני אדם המעונים יטריחו אחרי מושיעים וישימו בטחונם בהם, אבל היתום והאלמנה שאין להם מושיעים אינם בוטחים כי אם בהקב"ה, וע"כ הקב"ה שומע צעקתם ויריב ריבם. וכן דבר שלמה ע"ה על היתומים בפרשה זו בעצמו, הוא שאמר אל תסג גבול עולם ובשדי יתומים אל תבא, כי גואלם חזק הוא יריב את ריבם אתך. גרים הוא שהזהירה עליהם התורה בהרבה מקומות, והוא שכתוב (שמות כ״ב:כ׳) וגר לא תונה ולא תלחצנו וגו'. יזהיר שלא יונה אותו באונאת דברים ולא ילחצנו בגזלת ממון כי גרים הייתם בארץ מצרים. והוסיף טעם הכתוב האחר ואתם ידעתם את נפש הגר, לא אמר את הגר אלא את נפש הגר כלומר נפשו שפלה ונכנעת ועיניו תמיד אל ה'. וכן דרשו רז"ל היה בן גרים לא יאמר לו זכור מעשי אבותיך, בא ללמוד תורה לא יאמר לו פה שאכל נבלות וטרפות שרצים ורמשים יבא וילמוד תורה שנתנה מפי הגבורה. כי גרים הייתם בארץ מצרים, מום שבך אל תאמר לחברך. וכן מצינו הצדיקים נקראים גרים.ולשון גר מלשון גרגיר הנפרד מעיקרו, וכן הצדיק רואה את עצמו יחידי אין דירתו בארץ כי אם דירת עראי, וזהו שאמר דוד ע"ה (תהילים קי״ט:י״ט) גר אנכי בארץ אל תסתר ממני מצותיך. המשיל עצמו לגר שהוא מזומן לנסיעה ואינו יודע העת, ולפי שאינו יודע העת הוא צריך שיקח צידה לדרך פן יבא עליו העת פתאום, ומה היא הצדה קיום המצות, זהו אל תסתר ממני מצותיך. וכן מצינו האבות כולם שנקראו גרים. אברהם הוא שכתוב (בראשית כ״ג:ד׳) גר ותושב אנכי עמכם. יצחק הוא שכתוב (בראשית כ״ו:ג׳) גור בארץ הזאת. יעקב הוא שכתוב.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:1:3
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:1:3)

**וישב יעקב בארץ מגורי אביו בארץ כנען.** הזכיר וישב ולא אמר ויגר יעקב, מפני שהזכיר למעלה בעשו וישב עשו בהר שעיר. כי תולדות עשו המלכים והאלופים שיצאו ממנו נתישבו בארץ אחוזתם, הארץ שיצאה להם לאחוזת עולם, לכך הגיד כאן ביעקב כי נתישב הוא בארץ הקדושה בארץ מגורי אביו. ואמר לשון מגורי כי מצינו שקראה הכתוב כן (שמות ו׳:ד׳) לתת להם את ארץ מגוריהם אשר גרו בה, כי לפי שהאבות היה עקרם מעבר הנהר היו עתה גרים בארץ שהיתה לכנען בזמן ההוא.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
**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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:1:4
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:1:4)

**ובמדרש**וישב יעקב כל מקום שנאמר וישב אינו אלא לשון צער, (שמות ל״ב:ו׳) וישב העם לאכול ושתו ויקומו לצחק. (בראשית ל״ז:כ״ה) וישבו לאכול לחם וישאו עינים, ויראו וגו'. (מלכים א ה) וישב יהודה וישראל לבטח ויקם ה' שטן לישראל. (במדבר כ״ה:א׳) וישב ישראל בשטים ויחל העם וגו'. אף כאן וישב בקש לישב בשלוה קפץ עליו רוגזו של יוסף, אמר הקב"ה לא דיין לצדיקים מה שמתוקן להם לעולם הבא אלא שמבקשים לישב בשלוה בעולם הזה. מה כתיב למעלה ואלה המלכים אשר מלכו בארץ אדום, ואלה שמות אלופי עשו, ראה יעקב אלופי עשו נתירא אמר מי יוכל לעמוד כנגד כל המלכים והאלופים הללו. משל למה הדבר דומה לגמלים טעונים קש היה הצורף עומד ותמה היכן יכנס כל אותו הקש, היה שם פקח אחד אמר לו מה תתמה מן הקש ניצוץ אחד יוצא מכירתך ויכלה כל הקש. כך כשראה יעקב לעשו ואלופיו וגבוריו נתירא אמר לו הקב"ה ניצוץ אחד שלך יכלה אותם, הוא שכתוב (עובדיה א׳:י״ח) והיה בית יעקב אש ובית יוסף להבה ובית עשו לקש ודלקו בהם ואכלום. וזה שכתוב אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף, כלומר ניצוץ יוצא מתולדות של יעקב והוא יוסף שיכלה כל תולדותיו של עשו שהיה יעקב מתירא מהם.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:2:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:2:1)

**אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף.** היה ראוי שיזכיר תולדותיו כולן, אבל דרך הפשט כלל תולדותיו ביוסף להורות שהוא כלול מכל מעלות שאר אחיו. וכן דרשו רז"ל כל מעלות מדות השבטים היו בו. בכורתו של ראובן שנאמר (דברי הימים א ה׳:א׳) ובחללו יצועי אביו נתנה בכורתו ליוסף. מלכותו של יהודה שנאמר (בראשית מ״ב:ו׳) ויוסף הוא השליט על הארץ. נבואתו של לוי (שם מא) ויהי כאשר פתר לנו כן היה. חכמתו של יששכר שנאמר (שם) אין נבון וחכם כמוך.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.”


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:2:2
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:2:2)

**וע"ד**המדרש אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף הקיש יוסף ליעקב מפני שהיה דומה לו, שנאמר כי בן זקונים הוא לו, שהיה זיו איקונין שלו דומה לאביו, ועוד שהיה דומה לו בכל עניניו, מה יעקב היה נרדף מפני עשו אחיו שהיה מבקש להורגו כך יוסף נרדף מפני אחיו שהיו מבקשים להורגו. מה יעקב היתה אמו עקרה אף יוסף היתה אמו עקרה. מה יעקב נולד מהול שנאמר (בראשית כ״ה:כ״ז) ויעקב איש תם שאינו נקרא תם אלא מהול, שנאמר (שם יז) התהלך לפני והיה תמים, אף יוסף נולד מהול, שנאמר יעקב יוסף, שהיה כמוהו בכל ענין. מה יעקב נתקשית אמו בשעת לידה אף יוסף נתקשית אמו בשעת לידה. מה יעקב ילדה אמו שנים אף יוסף ילדה אמו שנים. מה יעקב היה רועה אף יוסף כן. מה יעקב נשא אשה בחוצה לארץ אף יוסף נשא אשה בחוצה לארץ והוליד שם בנים. מה יעקב לוו אותו המלאכים אף יוסף לוו אותו מלאכים. א"ר ינאי שלשה מלאכים נזדווגו לו שנאמר, וימצאהו איש, וישאלהו האיש, ויאמר האיש. מה יעקב נתעלה על ידי חלום אף יוסף נתעלה על ידי חלום. מה יעקב נתברך בית לבן בגללו אף יוסף נתברך בית פוטיפר בגללו. מה יעקב ירד למצרים וכלה את הרעב אף יוסף ירד למצרים וכלה הרעב. מה יעקב מת במצרים אף יוסף מת במצרים. מה יעקב נחנט אף יוסף נחנט. מה יעקב עלו עצמותיו אף יוסף עלו עצמותיו.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:2:3
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:2:3)

**וע"ד**הקבלה יעקב יוסף, יעקב הוא הכרוב וכן יוסף, וזהו שאמר אפי רברבי ואפי זוטרי, וכל אחד מהם נקרא נער הוא שכתוב (הושע י״א:א׳) כי נער ישראל ואהבהו. וכתיב ביוסף והוא נער.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:2:4
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:2:4)

**ויבא יוסף.** כל לשון מביא דבה הוא אומר אמת כי הוא מביא ראיה לדבריו, וכל לשון הוצאת דבה הוא שקר שמוציא דברי שקרים מלבו, כלשון האמור במרגלים (במדבר י״ג:ל״ב) ויוציאו דבת הארץ רעה. וכתיב (משלי י׳:י״ח-י״ט) מוציא דבה הוא כסיל. והם דברי כזב כלשון (איוב ח׳:י׳) ומלבם יוציאו מילים.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.”


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:2:5
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:2:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:2:5)

**את דבתם רעה.** ידוע כי כל דבה רעה אבל הזכיר רעה להפליג. את דבתם רעה. פירש רש"י ז"ל כל רעה שהיה רואה באחיו בני לאה היה מגיד לאביו, שהם אוכלים אבר מן החי ומזלזלים בבני השפחות לקרותם עבדים וחשודין על העריות, ובשלשתן לקה. וכתב הרמב"ן שאם כן ראוי היה לבני השפחות להציל את יוסף מיד אחיו, מאחר שהיה אוהב אותם וחס על כבודם והיה בא בשבילם כנגד בני לאה להגיד לאביו דבתם. ואם נאמר כי היו בני השפחות מתיראים מהם, אין זאת, כי היו ארבעה דן ונפתלי גד ואשר, וראובן היה עמהם, ויוסף עצמו, הרי ששה כנגד שאר בני לאה, ואנו רואים בודאי כי כל האחים הסכימו במכירתו מלבד ראובן הגדול שבכולם ובנימן הקטן שבכולן. ועל כן פירש הוא ז"ל כי על בני השפחות היה מוציא הדבה והם בני בלהה ובני זלפה כנזכר בכתוב, ויהיה שעור הכתוב כאילו אמר אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף והוא נער בן שבע עשרה שנה היה רועה את אחיו בצאן, שהם בני בלהה ובני זלפה נשי אביו, ויבא יוסף את דבתם רעה של בני השפחות הנזכרים. ויאמר אחר כך ויראו אחיו, אלו בני לאה, כי אותו אהב אביהם מכל אחיו וישנאו אותו, ונמצא יוסף שנאוי מכולם, מבני בלהה ומבני זלפה מפני הדבה שהביא אל אביהם, ומבני לאה מפני שהיה יעקב אוהב אותו יותר מהם והם בני הגבירה כמוהו.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:3:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:3:1)

**וישראל אהב את יוסף.** מעת שקרא הקב"ה את שמו ישראל ינהגו הכתובים המנהג הזה לקרותו פעם יעקב ופעם ישראל, להורות כי מה שקראו ישראל מוסף על יעקב. וכן בסמוך ויאמר ישראל אל יוסף, ובתחלת הפרשה וישב יעקב, וכן בסוף הפרשה ויקרע יעקב שמלותיו.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:3:2
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:3:2)

**ועשה לו כתנת פסים.** בגד מעולה היה, כענין שכתוב (שמות כ״ח:ד׳) וכתונת תשבץ, ועליו נתקנאו אחיו. ומזה דרשו רז"ל לעולם אל ישנה אדם את בנו בין הבנים. והכתונת הזה היה תחלת הסבות, ועליו נתגלגלו הדברים בשעבוד גופותם במצרים, וכן לאחר זמן עשרה הרוגי מלכות, כי כן הגוף כתונת הנפש. ולשון פסים אמרו במדרש על שם שהיתה גדולה ומכסה שתי פסות ידיו. ד"א פסים על שהטילו פייס ביניהם באיזו מיתה ימיתוהו בארבע מיתות ב"ד, שנאמר ויתנכלו אותו להמיתו. כיון שמכרוהו הטילו פייס ביניהם מי יוליך הכתונת לאביהם נפל הפייס על יהודה, זהו שאמר לו הכר נא, ולכך נאמר לו (בראשית ל״ח:כ״ה) הכר נא למי החותמת. וכשאמר לו הכתונת בנך פסקו חייו של יעקב, לכך פסקו חיי בניו מן העולם, זה ער ואונן שנאמר (ירמיהו ל״ב:י״ח) ומשלם עון אבות אל חיק בניהם אחריהם. ד"א פסים כנגד ד' צרות שאירעו לו. פוטיפר, סוחרים, ישמעאלים, מדינים. דבר אחר כתונת פסים, שמסר לו סוד כ"ב אותיות ע"כ. והכוונה בזה שהלבישו ידיעת החכמה בשם כ"ב אותיות כמו שלמד מפי שם ועבר, והבן זה.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:4:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:4:1)

**ולא יכלו דברו לשלום.** זו מדה טובה בהם שהיו מראין השנאה שבלבם ולא היו מחניפין. וכן אמר שלמה ע"ה (משלי כ״ט:ה׳) גבר מחליק על רעהו רשת פורש על פעמיו. והנה הכתוב משבח לאבשלום, שנאמר (ש"א יג) ולא דבר אבשלום עם אמנון למרע ועד טוב כי שנא אבשלום את אמנון.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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).”


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:7:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:7:1)

**והנה אנחנו מאלמים אלומים וגו'.** היו רואים בחכמתם כי הפתרון בחלום האלומות שהיו משתחוים לאלומתו היא מעלת המלכות, וזהו שאמר וגם נצבה, שהוא מלשון מלכות, כלשון הכתוב (מלכים א כ״ב:מ״ח) נצב מלך. ומפני שידעו זה בחכמת הפתרון אמרו לו כמלעיגים, המלוך תמלוך עלינו אם משול תמשול בנו, אבל נעלם מהם שע"י תבואה עתיד לבא אליו המלכות. ומן הידוע שכיון שהיו שונאים אותו היה ראוי להם לפתור לרעה, אבל הכל היה מאת הש"י כי זימן בפיהם הפתרון הזה למלכות. והנה זה כענין האמור בגדעון (שופטים ז׳:י״ד) אין זאת בלתי אם חרב גדעון בן יואש איש ישראל, לפי שאמר השי"ת רד אל מחנה מדין ואם ירא אתה לרדת רד אתה ופורה נערך אל המחנה, וכאשר ירד אל מחנה מדין שמע לאיש אחד ממחנה מדין שהיה מספר לרעהו חלום, וא"ל חלום חלמתי והנה צליל לחם שעורים מתהפך במחנה מדין, וחברו השיבו אין זאת בלתי אם חרב גדעון בן יואש איש ישראל, זימן הקב"ה הפתרון בפי חברו כדי שישמע גדעון החלום והפתרון ויתחזק בדבר וכן עשה. גם בכאן בענין יוסף זימן הקב"ה הפתרון בפי אחיו להוציאו למלכות, והוא שאמרו המלוך תמלוך עלינו.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:7:2
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:7:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:7:2)

ותמצא בכתוב ג' פעמים **והנה** כנגד ג' פעמים שהוצרכו לרדת למצרים להשתחוות לאלומתי, והיה להם הכנעה לפניו, פעם ראשונה כשהיה רעב בארץ כנען, ופעם שניה כשאמר להם יעקב (בראשית מ״ג:ב׳) שובו שברו לנו מעט אוכל שבו נתגלה יוסף, ופעם שלישית כשחזרו אליו עם יעקב אביהם ואז נתקיימו כל החלומות.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:7:3
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:7:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:7:3)

**ותשתחוין לאלומתי.** גם השמש והירח ואחד עשר כוכבים שהשתחוו לו, והם יעקב ובלהה ואחד עשר אחיו, כענין שכתוב באחיו וישתחוו לו אפים ארצה, וכתיב ביעקב (בראשית מ״ז:ל״א) וישתחו ישראל על ראש המטה.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:8:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:8:1)

**ויוסיפו עוד שנוא אתו על חלמותיו ועל דבריו.** באר כי השנאה ששנאוהו היתה על שני דברים, האחד על חלום שחלם, והשני על ספור שהיה מספר אותו להם והיה מתהלל בו, כגוי אשר צדקה עשה, ואומר להם שמעו נא החלום הזה אשר חלמתי.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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).


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:10:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:10:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:10:1)

**ויגער בו אביו.** רצה לבטל החלום בפני אחיו, וע"כ גער בו לשכך חמתם מעליו.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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:


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:10:2
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:10:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:10:2)

**ואמר הבוא נבוא אני ואמך ואחיך.** והלא אמך כבר מתה כשם שאי אפשר באמך כך השאר בטל, ואעפ"כ ואביו שמר את הדבר, כי היה יודע גודל החלום וממתין שיתקיים, כענין שכתוב (דניאל ז׳:כ״ח) ומלתא בלבי נטרית. ובבראשית רבה ואביו שמר את הדבר, רוח הקדש אומרת שמור את הדבר.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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!”


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:11:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:11:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:11:1)

**ויקנאו בו אחיו.** בידוע כי השנאה ברוב תבא מצד הקנאה, והשנאה שהזכיר למעלה וישנאו אותו, היתה מפני קנאת האהבה, כמו שכתוב ויראו אחיו כי אותו אהב אביהם מכל אחיו וישנאו אותו, וא"כ למה חזר בכאן ויקנאו בו אחיו. ויתכן לפרש כי מתחלה לא היו מקנאים בו מפני יתרון מעלה שהיה לו עליהם רק מפני קנאת אהבת האב שהיה אוהב אותו יותר מהם, ולמה יקנאו בו והם גדולים ממנו, והוא נער בן י"ז שנה, ואין אדם מקנא בחברו אלא בכיוצא בו ושוה לו, אבל עתה אחרי שספר חלומותיו והם חכמים מחוכמים בפתרונים ראו כי הוא מעותד למלוך והתלבשו קנאה בזה, זהו לשון ויקנאו בו לא אמר ויקנאו אותו כמו (בראשית כ״ו:י״ד) ויקנאו אותו פלשתים, אלא בו במעלה שהיו רואים בו.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:14:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:14:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:14:1)

**ויבא שכמה.** מקום הפורענות, בשכם ענו את דינה, בשכם מכרו את יוסף, בשכם נחלקה מלכות בית דוד מישראל והמליכו לירבעם, שנאמר (מלכים א י״ב:א׳) וילך רחבעם שכם כי שכם באו כל ישראל להמליך אותו. כיון שנתחלקו השבטים המליכו שם לירבעם והיה שם בית מלכותו שנאמר (שם) ויבן ירבעם את שכם.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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).


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:17:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:17:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:17:1)

**כי שמעתי אומרים.** יחסר מלת אותם, **כי שמעתי** אותם **אומרים**. **נלכה דותינה.** עשאוהו רז"ל במדרשם מלשון נכלי דתות, כי המלאך רצה לגלות ליוסף מחשבתם הרעה. והנה יוסף לא הבין הנסתר שבתוך הלשון, שהוא נכלי דתות, והלך אחר הנגלה ורדף אחריהם וימצאם בדותן. והוא שאמרו במדרש נסעו מזה הסיעו עצמם מן האחוה והלכו לבקש לך נכלי דתות שימיתוך בהם. וזהו שאמר ויתנכלו אותו להמיתו, היו מחשבין תחבולות היאך יסבבו לו מיתה ושלא יצטרכו להמיתו הם עצמם בידיהם. ומזה דרשו רז"ל שאמרו נשסה בו את הכלבים. ואולי כי כן עשו בטרם יקרב אליהם ולא עלתה בידם, וע"כ כשנתקרב אליהם אמרו להרגו בידים והוא שכתוב הנה בעל החלומות הלזה בא ועתה לכו ונהרגהו.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.”


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:21:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:21:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:21:1)

**לא נכנו נפש.** קשה היה לראובן עצת האחים והיתה כוונתו להצילו, ואילו אמר לא נכנו סתם, היה מראה עצמו בדבריו כי מניעתו זאת לחמלה עליו, וע"כ הוסיף להזכיר נפש כלומר שאינו מקפיד עליו רק עליהם, שלא יכו נפש שום אדם. וכן מה שאמר אל תשפכו דם ולא אמר דמו, כלומר גם אנכי ככם שנאתיו ואין אני מקפיד על דמו כלל כי אם עליכם שלא תהיו שופכי דם.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:24:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:24:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:24:1)

**ויקחוהו**דרשו רז"ל שמעון לקחו, ולכך כתיב (בראשית מלכים ב כ״ד:י״ב) ויקח מאתם את שמעון.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:24:2
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:24:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:24:2)

**והבור רק אין בו מים.** אפילו היה בו מעט מים יקרא רק. וע"כ כשאמר אין בו מים הכונה שלא היה בו מים כלל.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:24:3
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:24:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:24:3)

**ודרשו רז"ל** מים אין בו אבל נחשים ועקרבים יש בו. והוצרכו החכמים לומר כן מפני שיש בכתוב שני מעוטין, והבור רק מעוט אחד, אין בו מים מעוט שני, ואין מעוט אחר מעוט אלא לרבות, ובא לרבות דבר המזיקו והוא נחשים ועקרבים.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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 Bahya, Bereshit 37:24:4
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:24:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:24:4)

**ורבינו תם** ז"ל פירש כי בא להם לרז"ל זה מדיוק הכתוב אין בו מים ממה שכתוב במדבר (דברים ח׳:ט״ו) וצמאון אשר אין מים, והיו שם נחשים כענין שכתוב נחש שרף ועקרב. וכתב הרמב"ן ז"ל היו בחורי הבור נחשים ולא ראו אותם כלל, כי אילו ראו אותם ולא יזיקוהו היה מתברר אצלם שיעשה לו נס וזכותו תצילנו מידם, ואיך יגעו במשיח ה' אשר חפץ בו ומצילו כענין שכתוב (דניאל ו׳:כ״ג) אלהי שלח מלאכיה וסגר פום אריותא ולא חבלוני.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.”


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:24:5
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:24:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:24:5)

**ובמדרש**והבור רק, נתרוקן בורו של יעקב, אל בניו ולא ידעו התורה, שנאמר אין בו מים, אין בהם דברי תורה שנמשלה למים שנאמר (ישעיהו נ״ה:א׳) הוי כל צמא לכו למים. ואינם יודעים מה שכתוב בתורה (דברים כ״ד:ז׳) כי ימצא איש גונב נפש מאחיו מבני ישראל והתעמר בו ומכרו ומת הגנב ההוא, והם מכרו את אחיהם.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:25:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:25:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:25:1)

**וישבו לאכל לחם.** לשון עכוב וקביעות, קבעו עצמם בסעודה.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:25:2
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:25:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:25:2)

**ובמדרש**תהלים וישבו לאכול לחם, אמר הקב"ה אתם מכרתם אחיכם מתוך מאכל ומשתה שנאמר וישבו לאכל לחם, הרי בניכם נמכרים בשושן מתוך מאכל ומשתה שנאמר (אסתר א׳:ג׳) בשנת שלוש למלכו וגו', והמן בא ולוקח אתכם מתוך מאכל ומשתה שנאמר (שם ג) והמלך והמן ישבו לשתות וגו'.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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)


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:27:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:27:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:27:1)

**לכו ונמכרנו לישמעאלים.** הוא סבור בחלומותיו שימלוך עלינו ושנהיה לו לעבדים, לכו ונמכרנו לעבד.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:28:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:28:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:28:1)

**ויעברו אנשים מדינים סוחרים וימשכו.** לפי הפשט העוברים משכוהו ומכרוהו לא האחים, ולפי זה מה שאמר להם יוסף אני יוסף אחיכם אשר מכרתם אותי מצרימה, הענין כי השלכתם אותי לבור שהיתה סבת המכירה, וזהו שאמר מצרימה כלומר שנתגלגל מאדון לאדון ונמכר פעמים רבות עד שהורד למצרים, והחטא שנמצא עליהם המפורש בעשרה הרוגי מלכות הוא זה שהם היו סבת המכירה, וגדולי עולם כמותם ראויים להענש על השלכת אחיהם הנכבד לבור ולהחשב להם לרציחה כאלו הרגוהו בידם, כענין שכתוב (שמואל ב י״ב:ט׳) ואותו הרגת בחרב בני עמון. כי אין הפרש בין ההורג את חברו בידים או המסבב לו מיתה אלא דינא רבה ודינא זוטא.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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)


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:28:2
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:28:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:28:2)

**בעשרים כסף.** נצטוינו בתורה בפדיון הבן שיהיה חמש סלעים, הוא שכתוב (במדבר י״ח:ט״ו-ט״ז) ופדויו מבן חדש תפדה בערכך כסף חמשת שקלים. והסלע ד' דינרים, וא"כ ה' סלעים ד' פעמים הם עשרים כסף, וזהו שתרגם אונקלוס בעשרים כסף, ולא תרגם בעשרין סלעין דכסף, והא למדת למצות פדיון הבן שהוא חמשה סלעים שהם עשרים כסף, לפי שבא לכפר על מכירת יוסף בכורו של רחל שנתנה לו הבכורה, שנמכר בכ' כסף.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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).


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:32:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:32:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:32:1)

**וישלחו את כתונת הפסים ויביאו אל אביהם.** השלוחים הביאוה. וזהו שאמרו הכתונת בנך, שאילו הביאוה האחים היו אומרים הכתונת יוסף. ויש שפירשו וישלחו מלשון (איוב ל״ו:י״ב) בשלח יעבורו. ויחזור ויביאו אל האחים וזהו אכזריותם.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:33:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:33:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:33:1)

**כתונת בני.** כלומר כתונת בני היא זו. **חיה רעה אכלתהו.** על דרך הפשט אם הרגוהו לסטים היו נוטלין הכתונת.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.”


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:33:2
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:33:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:33:2)

**וע"ד**המדרש חיה רעה אכלתהו, נצנצה בו רוח הקדש סופו שתתגרה בו אשת פוטיפר. ולמה לא גלה לו הקב"ה לפי שהחרימו וקללו כל מי שיגלה ליעקב ושתפו הקב"ה עמהם, כן כתוב בפרקי דר' אליעזר, ובאור הדבר כי הם היו תשעה ולכך שתפו להקב"ה להשלים לעשרה והחרימו הדבר. ואל יהי דבר קשה בעיניך, שכן עשה אברהם בענין סדום בקש צרופו של הקב"ה עם תשעה לכל כרך וכרך, אמר לו אתה צדיקו של עולם הצטרף עמהם וינצלו. ואם תאמר אינו דומה כי זה להצלה וזה לפורענות, אין זה פורענות כי אם הצלת כל ישראל וכבוד להקב"ה, כי פחדו לנפשם שאם ח"ו יתגלה הדבר ליעקב יקללם קללה עולמית, ונמצאו ישראל התלוים בזרעו של יעקב בטלים מן העולם, ואין מי יפרסם האלהות, וכענין שכתוב (יהושע ז) והכריתו את שמנו מן הארץ ומה תעשה לשמך הגדול. ועל כן נראה להם כי הצרוף והשתוף ענין מוכרח היה צורך גבוה והצלת כל ישראל. וכן מצינו במשה שבקש צרופו של הקב"ה ובית דינו עמו בקבלת התורה. ואם אולי תשאל מנין ידע יצחק, שדרשו רז"ל ויבך אותו אביו ולא אבי אביו. יש לומר שהקב"ה הגיד לו, וכן הגיד לבנימין שידע ברוח הקודש שהרי אבנו של בנימן ישפה, ודרשו רז"ל יש פה, ואעפ"כ שתק ולא גלה מפני החרם שכן הסכימו כל התשעה והקב"ה בצרוף עמהם שלא יתגלה הדבר ליעקב, שאין הקפידה אלא על יעקב פן יקללם וכמו שהזכרתי.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:34:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:34:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:34:1)

**ימים רבים.** אלו שבעה ימי אבלו. ואין לתמוה אם קראם הכתוב רבים שהרי ג' ימים קרואים רבים ממה שדרשו רז"ל (ויקרא ט״ו:כ״ה) ואשה כי יזוב זוב דמה ימים רבים. ימים שנים, רבים ג'.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:34:2
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:34:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:34:2)

**ובמדרש**ימים רבים, כ"ב שנה, משפירש יוסף ממנו ועד שירד יעקב למצרים, כיצד יוסף בן י"ז כשפירש מאביו, וכתיב ויוסף בן שלשים שנה בעמדו לפני פרעה, ושבע שני שבע, וכתיב כי זה שנתים הרעב, כשבא יעקב למצרים, הרי כ"ב שנצטער מיוסף כנגד כ"ב שנה שלא קיים יעקב כבוד אב ואם, והם עשרים שנה עם לבן י"ד בשתי בנותיו ושש שנים בצאן, וב' שנים בדרך שנה וחצי בסוכות וששה חדשים בבית אל.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.]


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:35:1
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:35:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:35:1)

**כל בניו.** אלו השבטים. **וכל בנותיו.** זו דינה וסרח בת אשר. **וימאן להתנחם.** לפי שאין אדם יכול לקבל תנחומין על החי וסבור שמת, שעל המת נגזרה גזרה שישתכח מן הלב לא על החי. **כי ארד אל בני אבל שאלה.** כלומר באבל אקבר ולא אתנחם כל ימי חיי.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:35:2
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:35:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:35:2)

**ובמדרש**שאולה, גיהנם, לפי שהיה בטוח שלא ימות אחד מהם בחייו, וכאשר היה יוסף נאבד בחייו פחד לנפשו מעונש גיהנם לפי שהיה זה מעיד על רשעו, שאילו היה זכותו שלם לא ימות אחד מבניו בחייו.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.


###### Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:35:3
[Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 37:35:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rabbeinu%20Bahya/s/Bereshit/r/37:35:3)

**ויבך אותו אביו.** זה יצחק, שהיה בוכה מפני צרתו של יעקב אבל לא היה מתאבל שהיה יודע שיוסף חי.

**Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:**
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.