‘And Joseph was brought down to Egypt’, etc, to the end of this Scriptural portion. There are (valid) questions arising out of these two chapters (39 40) also, which are as follows:

Question 1: In the verse (Gen. 39:2): ‘And the Lord was with Joseph, and he was a successful man, and he was in the house of his Egyptian master’, the verse utilizes the Hebrew verb ‘hayah’ (‘he was’) three times, which seems unnecessary repetition. It could simply have stated: ‘And the Lord was with Joseph, so that he was successful in his Egyptian master’s household’.

Question 2: In connection with the Torah recording that his master handed over control of everything he had into his (Joseph’s) hands, it has already been stated previously: ‘And he appointed him over his household and all that he had he placed under his control (39:4) and yet again, subsequently, we are told: ‘And he left everything he had in Joseph’s hands and knew nothing of it’, etc (39:6). This threefold reiteration of the same point is surely unnecessary.

Question 3: Why did Joseph’s master’s wife publicize what had taken place between Joseph and herself: for surely, by doing so, she was impugning her own moral dignity? It would have been better for her to maintain silence so as to retain her honor. Furthermore, (had she kept silent), the hope always remained that on some future occasion she might succeed in enticing him to comply with all her desires – in view of this, then, did she act foolishly?

The commentary will cover from: ‘And Joseph was brought down to Egypt’ etc (39:1) to ‘Now it transpired, after these events’ (40:1). Scripture relates that it was part of Divine providence, for Joseph’s benefit, that the Ishmaelites who had purchased him did not take him on their own familiar routes or lead him away to a distant land, nor did they sell him (merely) to grind amongst the millstones, or to work in a lowly occupation entailing much physical labor and exertion, but (on the contrary) sold him in Egypt, which was a highly advanced country, to Potiphar, who was Pharaoh’s officer, a prince – one of his greatest officials.

Now, as regards the true meaning of (the Hebrew word) ‘sarisim’ (appearing here in the text), our Sages of blessed memory held various opinions, some maintaining that they were actually eunuchs – incapable of sexual relations – and others claiming that they were high-ranking officials; the latter view is the one I believe to be correct.

We are also told that the Chief Executioner was appointed for the purpose of executing and incarcerating offenders, and accordingly the prison-house was under his control, being indeed located inside his own house; and the officer in charge of the prison was subject to his jurisdiction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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