HE KNEW NOT AUGHT SAVE THE BREAD WHICH HE DID EAT. Some say that the bread which he did eat is a euphemism for a conjugal relationship.¹ However, this interpretation is far-fetched. Furthermore, Potiphar was a eunuch.². I.E. interprets seris paroh (an officer of Pharaoh) as Pharaoh’s eunuch. If he was a eunuch then the bread which he did eat obviously cannot refer to sexual intercourse. I believe that what this verse says is that Potiphar put Joseph in charge of everything that he had except for his bread, which Joseph was not permitted even to touch because he was a Hebrew, as we see from the verse because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians (Gen. 43:32). Potiphar knew that Joseph was a Hebrew. Potiphar’s wife similarly said, See, he hath brought in a Hebrew unto us to mock us (v. 14).³

footnotes: ¹ Cf. Rashi. ² Cf. verse 1, Potiphar seris paroh ³ Which proves that his master knew that Joseph was a Hebrew.

AND JOSEPH WAS OF BEAUTIFUL FORM. Like his mother.

[TO LIE BY HER.] To just lie next to her,⁴ or to be with her, to converse with her.

footnotes: ⁴ That is, just to lie next to her, “to lie next to her while both are fully clothed” (Nahmanides).

AND IT CAME TO PASS ON A CERTAIN DAY. On the same day that she had first asked him to lay with her.⁵ It was on this same day a week later, or a month later or a full year later. The latter appears correct to me.

footnotes: ⁵ The Hebrew literally reads: And a day like this came to pass, i.e., a day like the one described above, that is, the day that she said, “lie with me.”

TO DO HIS WORK. To supervise the housework or to oversee his master’s wealth, for Joseph was in charge of everything. The Midrash pertaining to and there was none of the men⁶, 9, Joseph wanted to have intercourse with Potiphar’s wife but found himself impotent (Weiser and Krinsky according to one interpretation). Or the reference may be to Soteh 36b, that he wanted to have intercourse with Potiphar’s wife but his father’s image appeared before him and as a result Joseph refrained from sinning. Thus and there was none of the men of the house there within but his father’s image was there. is an individual opinion.⁷

footnotes: ⁶ The Hebrew literally reads: and there was no man. According to Tanchuma, Va-yeshev ⁷ Hence it is not binding.

HE HATH BROUGHT UNTO US. That is, my husband.⁸

footnotes: ⁸ Our verse is short for: my husband hath brought unto us (Weiser).

THAT HIS WRATH WAS KINDLED. Potiphar nevertheless did not kill Joseph because he wasn’t certain as to the truth of his wife’s accusation.

PRISON. We can not ascertain whether bet ha-sohar (the prison) is a Hebrew or Egyptian word in view of the fact that the Bible goes on to explain its meaning⁹. as it does with the Persian word ha-achashteranim (that were used in the King’s service) which is followed by the Hebrew bene ha-rammakhim (bred of the stud)¹⁰ is Hebrew for achashteranim. (Est. 8:10).

footnotes: ⁹ Were it a Hebrew word there would be no reason to explain the place where the King’s prisoners were bound ¹⁰ According to I.E. bene ha-rammakhim

AND WHATSOEVER THEY DID THERE, HE WAS THE DOER OF IT. Some interpret this to mean that Joseph, like all the other prisoners, was engaged in work to support himself.¹¹ However, I believe that the meaning of our verse is: and whatsoever they had to do there he was, as it were, the doer of it, because he was their supervisor. The next verse bears out the latter interpretation.¹², which implies that Joseph did not actually do any work, but supervised the others.

footnotes: ¹¹ That is, whatever they did he did. ¹² Verse 23 relates that the keeper of the prison looked not to anything that was under his hand