כתונת פסים, “an embroidered garment;” extending down to the palms of his hands.

והנה אנחנו מאלמים אלומים, “and here we were busy binding sheaves;” when Joseph rose to greatness, the Torah uses a similar expression when describing him as ויצבר יוסף בר, “Joseph bundled together (piled up) corn.” (Genesis 41,49.)

על חלומותיו, “on account of his dreams.” If you were to ask that thus far Joseph has been reported as telling his brothers the content of only a single dream, so why does the Torah speak of “dreams” in the plural mode? We must answer that the Torah already referred also to events in the future. Alternately, Joseph had been in the habit of telling his brothers about his dreams, but it was only the ones in which he appeared as placing himself above his brothers that they hated him for.

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

וימצאהו איש והנה תעה בשדה, “a man found him while he was lost in the field;” this (the three letters in the word תעה) is where the Angel Gavriel gave Joseph a hint of three exiles the Jewish people would endure. ת=400 years of exile in Egypt; ע=70 years of exile in Babylon; ה=5, till the end of the exile commonly known as the Roman exile, till the coming of the Messiah. [The author attributes this to his father of blessed memory. Ed.] He adds that he had heard something along the same lines in the name of Rabbi Binyamin Gozel, but from Genesis 32,5, using the letters of word עתה as the hint.

נסעו מזה, “they have moved away from here; they have said that they are no longer interested as being 12 tribes”. The numerical value of the letters in the word זה is 12.

והבור רק אי בו מים, “the pit was empty, not containing any water.” Rashi comments that this is to tell us that while there was no water in the pit in which he could have drowned, there were other hazardous inhabitants in that pit such as snakes and scorpions. (based on B’reshit Rabbah 84,16.) This interpretation is based on the principle that when two negatives follow one another this indicates that we are being told something positive, even if not beneficial. It would have sufficed to describe the pit as simply: “empty.” If you were to ask why did it have to refer to the presence of scorpions? What hint is there of that? Maybe there were merely stones inside the pit? The expression רק for empty, instead of ריק means that it was empty on occasion but filled with water at other times. Scorpions take refuge there when it has been emptied from water.

וימשכו ויעלו, “they pulled and raised;” first they struck a deal to sell him for twenty pieces of silver. Then in order to deliver him to the purchaser they had to haul him out of the pit. While Joseph had been in the pit, wondering how he would ever escape, he had lost his good looks and was not presentable to people who wished to buy a young and able bodied slave. As soon as he was hauled out of the pit he regained his former looks. The sellers were now not prepared to sell him for so little money and they were about to throw him back into the pit. In order to prevent this, the Ishmaelites added shoes of their own free will in order to satisfy the Midianite merchants. This is what the prophet Amos referred to (Amos 2,6) when he said: על מכרם בכסף צדיק ואביון בעבור נעלים, “because they have sold for silver those whose cause was just and the needy for a pair of sandals.” As soon as the Ishmaelites offered more than originally, the Midianites raised Joseph from the pit again.

וימכרו את יוסף לישמעלים, “they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites. According to Rashi, the subject here are the brothers, who sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites, whereupon the latter sold him to the Midianites who in turn sold him to the Egyptians. If so, we must understand the whole paragraph as follows: They (the brothers who had sat down to eat but had not eaten yet) raised their eyes (verse 25) and they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites approaching, (from the east travelling south) while at the same time Midianite merchants arrived at the pit from a different direction who (eventually) hauled Joseph out of the pit. (verse 28) [Remember the brothers had sat down for lunch some distance from the pit so that they would not hear Joseph’s cries. Ed.] These Midianites sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for 20 pieces of silver. The reason why the Torah mentions this at this stage is that we should not wonder when the Torah in verse 36 reports that the Medanim had sold Joseph already some time previously to the Egyptians. The individual Egyptian who purchased Joseph was Potiphar. Most of this had taken place while the brothers had still argued among themselves if to sell him to the Ishmaelites. They had been pre-empted in the meantime by the Midianites. The Midianites in the meantime had become witnesses to the discussions among Joseph’s brothers and had bought Joseph subsequently from the Ishmaelites. They were certain that Joseph had been hauled up from the pit in order that he could be sold to them. There were two separate groups of people, some called Medanim, and the others Midianim. The Ishmaelites who were traveling in the direction of Egypt, were the ones who sold Joseph to Potiphar once they had arrived in Egypt. If you were to say why does the Torah write in verse 36 the Medanim had sold him to Egypt, so that eventually he was sold to Potiphar, etc.? We would have expected the subject in that verse to have been the Midianites! Rash’bam in his commentary on the Chumash claims that the three people mentioned in this story, i.e. the Ishmaelites, Midianites, and Medonites, were all members of the same people though not of the same tribe. Their founder fathers were all brothers from the same mother and father Avraham-Keturah (Hagar), as we know (assuming that Keturah was identical with Hagar) (Compare Genesis 25,2) The query mentioned above was already raised by Rashi, (verse 3) we quote him (the Midrash which he quotes) literally: the word פסים in the garment described as כתונת פסים, contains a hint of future problems, being sold four times, Joseph would endure. The letter פ refers to Potiphar to whom he had been sold. The letter ס refers to the סוחרים, the merchants (verse 28) the letter י to the Ishmaelites, and the letter ם to the Medonites. The problem with the Midrash is that only three sales have been reported in the Torah. In view of this difficulty I suggest the following: concerning the line (verse 25) ‘they raised their eyes and here there was approaching a caravan of Ishmaelites, etc.;” this happened while the brothers were discussing among themselves how to proceed from there. They hit on the idea of selling Joseph to the members of that caravan. Before the caravan of |shmaelites had even reached them, another group of Midianite merchants had passed the pit from the opposite direction and hearing his cries, sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites before even having raised him from the pit, for the measly amount of 20 pieces of silver. They then hauled Joseph from the pit alive. The Ishmaelites sold him to the Medonites, and these in turn sold him to Potiphar. So we do have four separate sales. When the Torah wrote in Genesis 39,1 that Potiphar acquired him from the Ishmaelites, this is quite correct as when Potiphar set eyes on him he looked very handsome, and he reasoned that “negroes do not sell whites, whereas whites sell negroes;” in other words, he considered it unlikely that the Medonites had come by Joseph legally, and he wanted reassurance that he did not buy someone who had been kidnapped. The |shmaelites who had sold him to the Medonites gave Potiphar a guarantee that everything was completely legal. (B’reshit Rabbah 86,3)

בעשרים כסף, “for twenty pieces of silver.” If you were to ask how it is possible that a young man as physically fit and handsome could have been sold for so little, [according to the Torah the going price for people such as Joseph was a minimum of 50 shekel, Ed] perhaps the Torah meant that each brother received 20 pieces of silver as his share of the sale. This question had been raised in Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, chapter 38. One of the answers given there is that he had become so upset as a result of his experiences that he had not only lost his good looks but had also become physically completely weakened; [my edition of Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer only quotes the verse from Amos 2,6, from which he derives that each brother bought himself a pair of sandals for the 2 pieces of silver he had received from that sale. Ed.]

וישב ראובן אל הבור, “when Reuven returned to the pit, etc.” Rashi, in answer to the question we should have asked about where Reuven was in the interval, answers that he had been preoccupied with trying through fasting and wearing sackcloth, to obtain forgiveness for his indiscretion in removing evidence of Bilhah sleeping with his father. [one of two explanations which Rashi suggests, the more likely correct one. Ed.] This explanation is difficult, seeing that the Talmud in tractate Makkot folio 11, arrives at the conclusion that Yehudah had been the first person ever to have done real penance by admitting his sin publicly, so that his brother learned from him when admitting being the father of the fetus his daughter-in-law Tamar was carrying in her womb. (Genesis 38,26) From that statement it is clear that at this stage Reuven had not felt the need to do penance. He did so only after Yehudah had set the example, which clearly had been some time after the sale of Joseph. Possibly, in order to solve this problem, perhaps the Talmud meant that until Yehudah had confessed publicly, Reuven had only done penance in the privacy his own house. He had been wearing sackcloth in his house already at this point.

וישלחו את כתונת הפסים, “they sent Joseph’s special garment,” (suitably torn and drenched in blood). The correct interpretation of this verse which on the face of it contains a contradiction, when it continues with: ”they brought it to their father,” claiming that they had found it, is that the carriers of Joseph’s garment brought it to the brothers’ father, Yaakov. Another interpretation of the word וישלחו, is “they dragged it.” The expression “שלח” is also used for a weapon, a kind of sword or dagger, used in personal combat. It appears in that sense in Job 33,18: מעבור בשלח, “from perishing by the sword,” or in Song of Songs 4,13: שלחתיך פרדס, “your offshoot will be pomegranate;” if understood as in Song of Songs, the brothers themselves brought Joseph’s blood drenched and ripped up garment to their father. They did so in order to have an excuse for getting their father to exclaim that Joseph had become the victim of a ferocious beast, (as he did).

!הכר, “know!” Yehudah was the brother who said this to his father; this is why he was the one charged with causing his father this anguish (losing a son, so that he lost two sons) This interpretation may be understood more literally, i.e. why Tamar when about to be burned at the stake for supposedly having committed adultery used the same wording when asking her father-in-law and judge: הכר נא למי החותמת, “please identify whom this signet ring belongs!” (Genesis 38,25) (Based on B’reshit Rabbah, 84,19)

וכל בנותיו, “and all of his daughters;” according to Rabbi Yehudah, twin sisters had been born for Yaakov with the birth of all of his sons. These had been married by their respective half-brothers, sons of different mothers. According to the opinion of Rabbi Nechemyah, all the sons married wives of Canaanite origin. If he were correct, why does the Torah in our verse not speak of “all his daughter-in-law?“ Rabbi Nechemyah, aware of this, would reply, that in the whole world daughters-in-law are referred to as daughters. (B‘reshit Rabbah 84,21) [Naomi, in the Book of Ruth, certainly is not described as calling her daughters-in-law, “daughters.” Ed.] It is difficult to understand Rabbi Nechemyah, as we all know to what length Avraham had gone to prevent Yitzchok from marrying a wife of Canaanite descent. Yitzchok too had commanded Yaakov not to marry a woman of Canaanite descent and had sent him all the way to Charan to avoid such a union. (Genesis 28,1) Nonetheless, Yehudah married a woman of Canaanite descent. (Genesis 38,2 ברת גבר תגרא, (daughter of a business man, according to Onkelos איש כנעני means business man, traveling salesman) Onkelos therefore accepts the view of Rabbi Yehudah, who said that twin daughters were born with all of Yaakov’s sons.) This is also how we have to understand Genesis 46,10: ושאול בן הכנענית, “and Sha-ul, son of a female merchant.” According to Rabbi Nechemyah’s approach to the subject, there is no need for what sound like far fetched solutions to our problem. The word כנעני or כנענית in either of the verses that bothered us, are simply understood as elsewhere in the Bible, as people of Canaanite descent. We do have a problem if we accept Rabbi Yehudah’s interpretation, an interpretation lacking specific sources in the written text. The Talmud, tractate Yumah folio 28, states that Avaraham had voluntarily observed all the commandments in the written and oral Torah, even including the rabbinic commandment known as eyruv tavshilin, a method of how to prepare food when the day after a festival is a Sabbath, and preparation of food on the festival for the Sabbath is not admissible. He is also supposed to have observed the law of yibbum, marrying the widow of a brother who died without having ever had any children. (Compare Genesis 38,8) where Yehudah, Er’s father, gave Er’s widow Tamar to Onan, his brother, as a wife, in order for him to become posthumously and vicariously a father. If these laws were operative prior to the Torah having been revealed at Mount Sinai to the Jewish people, how could Yaakov have married two sisters while the first sister had still been alive? Also, how could any of the sons of Yaakov have married their sisters? We could answer that although these laws were already known by tradition since Avraham’s time, they had not become obligatory until after revealed at Mount Sinai. Our forefathers were free to choose the parts of the commandments they wished to observe voluntarily even they had been privy to them through the Holy Spirit. When the Talmud in Pessachim, folio 119, tells us that in the future (afterlife) at the meal prepared by G–d for the righteous, that when Yaakov was being honoured presiding over the grace after the meal, he declined the honour, saying that seeing he had wed two sisters while both were alive, he was not worthy of that honour. Clearly he considered what he had done as having been improper. It is possible to argue that having been aware that what he had done would qualify for a penalty if he would do so after the revelation at Mount Sinai, he felt that he deserved at least a minor penalty. If he decided in favour of committing an act deserving of a minor penalty, he did so because he wished to marry only wives who were personally righteous, and these were hard to find, especially considering the age at which he had a chance to get married. As it turned out, even one of these two sisters who was a righteous woman did not by herself bore for him all the twelve tribes.

ויבך אותו אביו, “his father wept for him (losing him).” According to Rashi, the word: “his father,” in this verse refers to Yitzchok, Yaakov’s father. He was however, not mourning him as he knew that Joseph was still alive. He did not want to reveal this to Yaakov out of respect for G–d, who had not seen fit to reveal this to his son. (B‘reshit Rabbah 84,21) Rashi had already explained that the brothers had sworn a solemn oath one to another not to reveal what they had done Joseph to anyone, and they had included G–d in that oath of theirs. When, after 22 years they came to Egypt and found Joseph alive, they cancelled this oath. This released G–d also, and that is why the Torah wrote that upon hearing that Joseph was alive and well, the bothers’ father Yaakov “revived,” i.e. again was blessed with Holy Spirit. (Genesis 45,27). From this verse it is clear that ever since Joseph’s disappearance he had not enjoyed the presence of the Holy Spirit. From this entire chapter we learn and can prove that when an entire congregation unanimously declares something or someone as “banished,” and a single member of that congregation demurs by not accepting that decision, he is bound by the decision of the congregation, nonetheless. After all, Joseph had not been a party to the brothers’ oath, and it had remained in force nonetheless. If Joseph had been part of that oath, the other brothers would not have had to include in their oath. They had been lacking Reuven and Binyamin to make up the necessary quorum by themselves. Although Joseph was aware of this, he did not wish to interfere with that oath by revealing his whereabouts to his father. The author promises to also provide an alternate reason why Joseph did not let his father know during all these years that he had been alive and well. If you were to argue that the ban into which the brothers had put the subject of the sale of Joseph was more stringent than an ordinary such ban where G–d had not been co-opted as a partner, this is not a valid argument, as even nowadays whenever we make such a ban, we add the words: “with the consent of the Lord.” We also find this approach to oaths in the Book of Samuel 14,24, where King Sha-ul had sworn that any man eating food before evening (the day of the battle) and the army had defeated their enemy, would be cursed, i.e. executed, that his own son Jonathan, who had tasted some honey, not having been aware that his father had pronounced such an oath, had become aware of someone having violated that oath, as one of the jewels in the breastplate of the High priest had suddenly lost part of its luster. Whenever a tribe performed a commandment, the jewel representing that tribe would shine more forcefully. When a tribe, or member of it, committed a trespass, its jewel would lose its luster. When King Sha-ul found out that the jewel representing his own tribe, that of Binyamin, suddenly did not shine anymore, he realised that the fault must lie with someone of his own tribe and family. He determined who that member of his tribe was by casting lots, as had done Joshua in Joshua 7, when he found out that the jewel representing the tribe of Yehudah had lost its luster. He had cast lots to determine which member of the tribe of Yehudah had been the guilty party. Achan, son of Karmi, was the one who had illegally pocketed some of the loot from the city of Jericho, and he was duly executed after having confessed.