וישב יעקב בארץ מגורי אביו בארץ כנען. Jacob settled down in the land where his father sojourned, the land of Canaan. At first glance the entire verse seems superfluous seeing we have read in 35,27 that Jacob returned to Kiryat Arba the town where his father and grandfather had lived. As long as Jacob did not leave that town again, why did the fact that Jacob had settled there have to be repeated? Besides, why did the Torah have to say both: a) in the land his father sojourned, and b) the land of Canaan? If the Torah only wanted to pinpoint the place all that was necessary was the word "in Chevron." We already know that both Abraham and Isaac had lived there.

However, since the Torah told us in the preceding paragraph that Jacob's brother Esau inherited the land of Se-ir thanks to the merit of his fathers, the Torah also had to tell us what Jacob's heritage was. The entire verse is an acknowledgment of Jacob's goodness. Although he had noted that his brother had inherited the land of Har Se-ir (see my commentary on 35,12), he, Jacob did not do so but was content to continue on the basis of his fathers who had merely considered themselves as sojourning on that land, i.e. he still viewed it as ארץ כנען.

Another possibility is that it is called here the land of Canaan which had been given to Jacob by G'd as an inheritance although he personally conducted himself there as if he were only an alien until the trouble with Joseph happened. This is one of the meanings of: "These are the developments of Jacob, Joseph." It means that effectively, the history of the development of the Jews as a people began with the sale of Joseph, the subsequent descent into Egypt, how G'd redeemed them from there and kept His promise and how they eventually inherited the land of Caanan.

אלה תולדות, These are the developments, etc. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 12,3 say that wherever a paragraph commences with the word אלה this represents a contrast to and criticism of what has been reported previously. On the other hand, when a paragraph commences with the word ואלה, it suggests a continuation of what preceded it. Here the word אלה is intended to criticise or disqualify what Esau had done. If that was indeed the intent of the Torah it is unnecessary seeing that Esau himself was unfit; anything he did would be improper anyway.

We also need to analyse the meaning of תלדת יעקב יוסף. What happened to the other tribes? Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 84,6 claim that Joseph was the principal descendant of Jacob. Others say that it reflects the similarities Jacob and Joseph experienced in their respective fates. Both were already born without a foreskin, etc. Of course, this is all homiletics.

I believe that the plain meaning of the verse is what the other sages say, namely that Jacob wanted to enjoy peace and quiet in this world; as a result he suffered the upsetting experience with Joseph, literally, קפץ עליו רוגזו של יוסף. Joseph's sale, etc, is all blamed on Jacob's desire to enjoy peace and serenity on this earth. We therefore must understand the verse thus: "Jacob wanted to settle down; the consequence of Jacob's settling down was Joseph (his sale, etc)." The Torah teaches us the basic lesson that man brings upon himself whatever befalls him. Harm does not originate with G'd who is the source of all that is good by definition; Jacob was no exception to this rule.

Our verse also wants to inform us that in spite of all the various trials such as the life and death struggle with Esau, his oppression by Laban, etc., which Jacob had experienced up until that point in his life, these were all as nothing compared to what he would still have to endure through the sale of Joseph, etc. This is why the Torah commences the paragraph with the word אלה. This word is meant to put his previous problems into a new perspective.

Another meaning of these words is explained in Sotah 36 where we are told that Joseph was actually meant to become the father of twelve tribes; he lost that opportunity on account of his involvement with the wife of Potiphar, when, according to the Midrash, he was able to resist the lures of that lady only by ejaculating semen through his ten fingertips instead of through the regular channel for such an acitivity. As a result he became the founder of only two tribes, Ephrayim and Menashe. The defective spelling of the word תלדת, minimum plural two, hints at the above mentioned aggadah. The word אלה "cancelled" the previous intention to make Joseph founder of twelve tribes.

Still another meaning that we can find in this verse is based on Psalms 77,16 בני יעקב ויוסף סלה. "The sons of Jacob and Joseph, selah." Sanhedrin 19 explains that the reason that the sons of Jacob and Joseph are lumped together here is that Joseph provided the brothers and their families with food during the famine. Whenever someone assumes the burden of feeding someone else he is entitled to be called by that someone's name. This is alluded to in the sequence of the words תלדת יעקב יוסף, "the descendants of Jacob were possible only by the grace of Joseph." These words could also be translated as "the descendants of Jacob and Joseph." We have several examples of this in the Bible, such as in Exodus 1,2 ראובן שמעון. The meaning is ראובן ושמעון. Here too we must mentally add a conjunctive letter ו before the name יוסף. The Torah provides the rationale why the whole family is included in the name Joseph, i.e. he was the whole family's provider.

בן שבע עשרה שנה. seventeen years old. The reason the Torah had to tell us Joseph's age was because we know from Berachot 55 that if a person had a good dream he should wait up to twenty two years for it to become true. Had we not been informed here that Joseph was seventeen at the time he had these dreams we would not have known that rule.

The Torah also alludes to another lesson mentioned in Kidushin 29. Rabbi Chisdah there describes himself as superior to his friends because he married at sixteen. The evil urge is not as strong in a person who is sixteen as it is in a person who is seventeen years of age. By telling us Joseph's age when the sale occurred we know that his evil urge was very active within him at that time. This may have accounted for his provocative conduct towards his brothers and the fact that he engaged in tale-bearing.

היה דעה את אחיו בצאן, he used to tend the flocks with his brothers. The wording seems unusual. We would have expected: היה רעה הצאן את אחיו. Besides, why did the Torah add the words: "he was a lad," when we are told his age in the same breath? Bereshit Rabbah 84,7 explains this by saying that Joseph indulged in childish activities. If that were true why would he do so only with the children of Bilhah? Rashi explains that he felt at home in the environment of Bilhah who had been the handmaid of his mother. This is even more far-fetched; why did the Torah mention נשי אביו, "his father's wives? We must also know what precisely the רבתם רעה, the evil reports about the brothers which Joseph brought to his father consisted of? The Torah is not intended to complicate an issue by speaking in riddles but to help us understand it! We believe therefore that the Torah wanted us to know that this is what happened.

The words היה רעה את אחיו בצאן refer to the sheep the brothers were accused of eating. The words והוא נער refer to Joseph's earlier childhood during which he had spent much time with the sons of Bilhah. The reason the Torah mentions נשי אביו is to tell us that Joseph did not discriminate against the sons of the handmaidens but related to their mothers as "his father's wives." This is especially mentioned as only Joseph treated Bilhah and Zilpah as wives of Jacob in the full sense of the word. According to the Midrash there Joseph suspected his brothers of eating parts of the sheep while the animal was still alive. The Torah disproved this suspicion later when it reported that the brothers even slaughtered an animal, which they were presumably not going to eat, before they dipped Joseph's tunic in its blood. [I suppose the author feels that the word רעה, tending, could also be read as רעה, evil, to account for this allusion to Joseph's suspicions of his brothers. Ed.] Joseph's suspecting his brothers of immoral behaviour may have stemmed from their viewing the handmaidens as merely slaves and their belittling the sons of the handmaidens. When Joseph observed how the brothers belittled their half-brothers this may have caused him to begin to belittle the sons of Leah instead. The author discusses the halachic aspects of the issue of someone who sleeps with a handmaid, concluding that at any rate someone of the stature of Jacob would certainly do so only in order to raise the woman in question to a higher status, and the children would automatically be free men.

The problem with all the above speculations in the Midrash is why, if four of the brothers were treated as inferior, all of them voted against Joseph and agreed to sell him? Perhaps it was because Joseph had included them in the suspicions about their eating habits which he had related to his father. Alternatively, these four brothers exploited that opportunity to gain favour with the sons of Leah although they themselves harboured no ill feelings against Joseph.

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

ויחלום יוסף חלום. Joseph had a dream. Why did Joseph add to his brothers' hatred of him by telling them of his grandiose dreams? Furthermore, knowing as he did that the brothers hated him fiercely, why did he accept his father's mission (verse 14) and venture "into the lion's den?" (According to Bereshit Rabbah 84,11 even Jacob could not understand Joseph's preparedness to accept his mission) Perhaps Joseph went to tell his brothers that they were wrong in ascribing his dreams to his ambitions, but that for some resaon G'd planned to elevate him to a high position and that Jacob's agreeing to send him on this mission was a sign that all of this had been approved by G'd. He may have hoped to assuage their hatred of him by accepting the misssion.

On the other hand, he may have warned them that the time would come when they would have need of him, and that they might do better to suppress their hatred of him pending further developments; otherwise they would expose themselves to retaliation on his part when the time came. He was convinced that the brothers would accept what seemed to them a heavenly decree.

There is yet another possibility. Joseph actually hoped to draw his brothers' hearts nearer to him. We have a saying Berachot 55 that כל החלומות הולכים אחר הפה, that "all dreams follow the mouth." [What the interpreter sees in the dream determines its true meaning. The reader is referred to an excellent analysis of this statement by Rabbi Yitzchak Arama in chapter 29 of his Akeydat Yitzchak, see my translation page 247, second edition. Ed.] The rabbis also say that one should enquire from someone who is well disposed towards him when searching for the meaning of one's dream (Rosh on that paragraph). Joseph hoped that by telling the brothers of his dreams they would themselves find an acceptable and plausible explanation which would put their minds at ease. At least they would realise that Joseph had no ambition to become king over them. Why else would he be silly enough to provoke their hatred by telling them about his dreams? All of this might have worked if the existing hatred had not already closed the brothers' minds to any conciliatory gestures.

ויחלום יוסף Joseph dreamed. The Torah reports that Joseph only dreamed so that we should not think that he hallucinated making himself believe he had dreamed when in fact he entertained thoughts of lording it over his brothers. The reason that in verse 9 the Torah repeats again that Joseph dreamed is also to emphasise that it was a nocturnal vision, that he had not made up the story he told his brothers.

ויגד לאחיו. He told his brothers. It was a good dream. The brothers were tough as nails and did not even want to know what he had dreamed; this is why he had to say: "please listen to the dream I have dreamed." I am sure that the Torah does not here refer to a dream the content of which has not been mentioned, nor to a dream which did not come true. If the latter, why mention the existence of such a dream? If to tell us that the brothers hated him even more, this too has already been adequately explained. We must therefore assume that these words refer to the dream Joseph revealed only after having insisted that the brothers listen to his dream.

שמעו נא החלום, please listen to the dream, etc. He had to add the word נא, please, because at first they had refused to listen.

Alternatively, in accordance with Berachot 56, dreams should preferably be interpreted on the day following (the same day) the night they have been dreamt. This is the reason that one may fast even on the Sabbath if one has had a bad dream. Joseph therefore insisted that the brothers hear him out at once. Any delay might result in the dream not being fulfilled. He may also have wanted to prove to them that he had not told any of his friends about this dream expecting them to give him a positive interpretation, but had instead come to his brothers first. Had he first told his friends of his dream the brothers would not have believed that he wanted to convince them that he wanted to be on good terms with them. According to Berachot 55 Rabbi Banah once told his dream to 24 different interpreters and received 24 different interpretations, each one of which proved correct. It is possible that this was so because none contradicted any of the other interpretations. When contradictory interpretations are received the more recent interpretation cannot cancel out a previous one. Joseph may have wanted to convince the brothers of his תמימות, his sincerity, by offering them a chance to come up with a negative interpretation of his dream which his friends could not later on nullify. He did this by urging them to listen to his dream immediately.

החלום הזה, "this dream." The use of the definitive article ה in front of the word חלום indicates that he had already told them that he had had a dream without revealing any details about it. Now he repeated: "please listen to the dream which I have dreamed."

והנה אנחנו מאלמים אלומים, "Here we were tying sheaves, etc." Why is the word והנה repeated three times in this verse? You should appreciate that if a dream is to be perceived as a prophetic vision, it is essential that it be as clear and distinct as bright daylight. The person dreaming it should have the feeling that he actually experiences what he sees in the dream as if it were reality. When these conditions are met, he may consider the dream as a prophetic revelation. Dreams that young people dream are often blurred or contain unlikely and exaggerated occurrences. When Joseph told his dream to the brothers he repeated the word והנה three times to demonstrate that each part of the dream had been crystal clear, and that at the time he had thought that the events shown him in the dream were actually happening. This is why he thought that the dream foretold the future in some way.

In the dream G'd showed him the bundles. These bundles represented bundles of מצות which all of the brothers would perform jointly; his own bundle stood more upright than the others as an allusion to his experience with the wife of Potiphar whose advances he had to resist. The fact that his bundle remained standing upright indicated that he would become a ruler in Egypt. All the bundles of the brothers would be relatively downgraded before the merit of Joseph because in the final analysis he provided for all of them and kept them alive during the famine. Joseph hoped that by foretelling them about this their attitude towards him would change for the better.

ויאמרו לו אחיו, His brothers said to him, etc. We need to understand why both the word מלך and the word משל are repeated here. This dream could have been interpreted in two ways. 1) It could presage that Joseph would become an actual physical ruler i.e. מלך; 2) it could presage merely ממשלה. The interpretation that Joseph would become an actual ruler was an interpretation that allowed for some doubt, whereas the interpretation that he would become a משל, a highly placed administrator, seemed absolutely certain. This is why they answered him in accordance with either of these possibilities. Concerning the possibility of his becoming an actual ruler they asked: המלך תמלך עלינו? "Are you really considering the possibility of becoming king over us?" Concerning the definite prediction that he would become a highly placed administrator, they asked אם משל תמשל בנו, "are you going to be administrator over us? Onkelos has referred to this distinction when he rendered the first המלך as את מדמי "do you imagine, etc?" whereas he renders the word אם משל as את סביר, do you think, etc?" The brothers repeated the words because they were amazed at two aspects of the interpretation. 1) Do you think you will become king at all? 2) Do you think your authority as king will also extend over us? The reason for their incredulity was the fact that they had a tradition that Yehudah would become king over all of them. How could Joseph's vision uproot such a tradition?

Another reason these words are repeated is that they accused Joseph of dreaming at night what he had been day-dreaming about by day. They said: "It is only because you have a desire to rule over us that you are able to have such dreams even at night!" This would correspond to Daniel 2,29: רעיוניך על משכבך סלקו "your thoughts (of the day) returned to you while you were on your bed (at night)."

ויוסיפו עוד שנוא אוחו, They hated him even more, etc. Since we explained that the dream under discussion is only one, we need to understand why the Torah mentions that the reason the brothers hated Joseph even more was because of "his dreams" (pl). This is accounted for by the various details in the dream. Each time Joseph had said והנה, the brothers understood this as a separate dream.

ועל דבריו. and because of his talk. Because he told them the contents of his dream. It was bad enough that he had such dreams; talking about them made it even worse.

Another reason maybe the one we already mentioned. The brothers felt that Joseph's dreams reflected his aspirations during daytime.

It is also possible that the meaning of the expression ועל דבריו is that whereas he spoke to them as if he were soliciting their friendship and brotherliness, in his heart he strove all the time to become a ruler over them.

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

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

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

לך נא ראה, "Please go and have a look, etc." Now Jacob spelled out the details of the commandment Joseph was to fulfil including bringing back a report to his father. This would make him his father's messenger both on the outward journey and on the return journey. If the bringing back of the report became a separate commandment this would act as protection for Joseph even according to the view in the Talmud that such messengers are enjoying divine protection only until they reach their destination. Jacob made sure that Joseph had two destinations. Joseph could now rest assured that he would return safely.

Jacob believed that despite the fact that the brothers hated Joseph and it was therefore not unlikely that he would be in danger, the מצוה he performed by obeying his father would protect him. He based himself on the following discussion in Pesachim 8. We are taught in a Baraita: When there is a hole in a wall dividing the property of a Jew from that of a Gentile, one needs to search for possible chametz as far as one's arm can reach. Plymo says that one does not have to endanger oneself in order to locate such chametz. The Talmud counters that Rabbi Eleazar has said that when one is engaged in the performance of a מצוה one is not liable to suffer harm. So why should considerations of danger prevent someone from searching for chametz? The Talmud answers that the rule of Rabbi Eleazar holds true only where danger is not likely to be encountered. The other rabbis who disagree with Plymo hold that the two situations are not alike. When danger is apparent, such as certain hornets having their lairs inside the holes of a wall, one endangers one's life frivolously by putting in one's arm searching for chametz. When the danger consists of the Gentile possibly accusing the Jew of engaging in sorcery because he performs an act such as looking for chametz, something that seems non-sensical to the Gentile this is no reason to desist and to rely on miracles instead. The Talmud cites the incident of Samuel enquiring of G'd how he could endanger himself carying out his command to anoint David when there was a price on David's head? G'd told him to pretend to go to Hebron to slaughter an animal for G'd (Samuel I 16,2). Samuel was in very real danger, as the chances that king Saul would hear about his trip to Hebron were close to 100% and he would be very suspect. Such danger could not be compared with that of searching for chametz in a wall and the Gentile neighbour jumping to the wrong conclusion. Joseph's brothers had never been suspected of planning to actually harm him physically. Plymo might also not have considered Joseph's danger at the hands of his brothers as real enough for him not to rely on Rabbi Eleazar's dictum that the performance of the מצוה would act as his shield.

In view of the above you may well ask how it was that Joseph wound up being sold as a slave, etc.? The answer is that when Rabbi Eleazar said that שלוחי מצוה אינן ניזקין, people on a מצוה mission would not come to harm, he meant permanent harm. Joseph wound up as the ruler of Egypt as a result of having been sent to his brothers. The fact that he experienced degradation on the way was merely a preparation for his eventual elevation.

There is another aspect to all this. When Jacob despatched Joseph he was very careful to refer to the location where the brothers were supposed to be tending the sheep. He asked: "are not your brothers tending the flocks at Shechem?" He had therefore made it plain that Joseph was supposed to go to Shechem. When Joseph went to Shechem and failed to find the brothers his mission was completed. If he decided nonetheless to go to Dothan to locate them there he was no longer his father's messenger. This is why he was no longer protected by performing a commandment of his father. Jacob was convinced that no harm would befall Joseph at Shechem. Joseph thought that his father had mentioned Shechem only as a likely place where he would find his brothers but that his mission was not restricted to Shechem.

ויבא שכמה, He arrived at Shechem. The place to which his father had sent him; however, he did not find his brothers. He searched for them, something the Torah did not need to spell out as otherwise the first words in the next verse, i.e. "A man found him," would not make sense. By now Joseph was lost.

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

נסעו מזה, כי שמעתי אומרים, "They have moved away from here, for I have heard them say, etc." Why did the stranger have to preface his information by saying: "they have moved away from here?" It would have sufficed for him to say: "I have heard them say: 'let us go to Dothan!'" Rashi explains that the words mean that the brothers had abandoned the path of brotherliness (and devised legal schemes to kill him). If so, why was Joseph not worried enough to turn around and to return to his father's home? What greater degree of danger could there be? In fact, was Joseph not guilty of almost committing suicide by continuing to search for his brothers?

Perhaps Joseph did not understand the warning properly. Our sages who had the benefit of hindsight were able to interpret the words of the "man" as a warning. Joseph who was not blessed with such hindsight had no reason to see a dire warning in these harmless sounding words. He merely understood that his brothers had not only left Shechem but the whole district. The reason the "man" added "I have heard the brothers say: 'let us go to Dothan,' was to explain what he meant by "they have moved from here.'" He could not say with certainty that the brothers had actually arrived at Dothan. He only had knowledge of their intention. It did not occur to Joseph that the man with whom he talked was an angel; therefore he did not try to read any more into the man's words than appeared obvious. When the Torah writes: "Joseph went after his brothers and he found them in Dothan," this is in order then. Had Joseph understood the veiled warning of the "man," the Torah should have written: "Joseph followed his brothers to Dothan and found them." Joseph searched for his brothers seeing that the man had not been precise about their present location. As a result of his search, Joseph found his brothers in Dothan. Our sages' interpretation of what occurred is perfectly in order, i.e. that the Torah reveals that the angel who spoke to Joseph had given him a veiled warning.

Proof that Joseph had not understood this is that the Torah reports Joseph as searching for his brothers. He was under the impression that they still considered him their brother.

The question we must all ask is that if the angel remained deliberately so vague that Joseph did not understand his warning, why did he direct him to a location which was so fraught with danger for Joseph? Perhaps, after having become aware that Joseph's intention was to find brotherliness, i.e. את אחי אנכי מבקש, the angel wanted to increase the merit Joseph would accumulate by persisting in such a worthwhile endeavour. For all we know this is how Joseph acquired the merit necessary to qualify ultimately as the ruler of Egypt and the provider for his family.

"And they saw him afar off" It is necessary to know, when saying "and before" (Gen. 37:18), whether it applies to what was before it, as follows: 'And they saw him afar off before he came near to them' or if it [namely, the word "before"] is the beginning of what comes afterwards, as follows: 'Before he came near to them they conspired regarding him...' Both interpretations are difficult: if it applies to what was before it, it should have said 'before he came near' [not AND before he came near], and if it is the beginning of what comes afterwards, it should have said 'and before...they conspired' [not AND they conspired]. Maybe the addition of the vav was meant to increase distance, meaning that you shouldn't say that the distance implies that he [Joseph] has not yet approached them [his brothers], rather "and before he came near to them" means they saw him at an exaggerated distance.

We could say further that "and they saw him from afar off" refers to the distance of their hearts, because they did not see him as brothers see their brothers, rather, they saw him like a man distant from them; "and before he came near..." means that this seeing was also "before..." and if it hadn't said "And before" with a vav it would have implied the reading of distance above [namely that they saw Joseph at a great physical distance], therefore the vav was added, to show that the matter was different [namely that the distance was emotional]. One could also offer a different explanation of the text, but it appears that this is the best reading.

ועתה לכו ונהרגהו, "Come now let us kill him!" They planned to kill him before he had a chance to actually reach them; they went towards him. This is why the Torah emphasises the word ועתה. They were so upset emotionally that they could not even contain their anger until he would reach them. What the brothers did is best described in Baba Kama 26 where the Talmud rules that when ten people kill one person simultaneously they cannot be held responsible by a human court. The brothers' main concern was to escape a trial by a human court.

ונשליכהו באחד הבורות, "and let us throw him into one of the pits." When the brothers mentioned how they would explain Joseph's disappearance, i.e. ואמרנו, they meant that as a rule anyone found in one of these pits would be consumed by a variety of rodents which abound in them. They would then be telling the truth when they described him as having fallen victim to wild beasts. By not saying the rodents had killed him they would refrain from uttering an outright lie.

Naturally, we must explore by whose authority the brothers imagined that they were entitled to kill a human being, and such a righteous human being at that? Even allowing for the fact that the manner in which they planned to kill Joseph would not have made them liable to a human tribunal, how did they expect to escape retribution at the hands of G'd?

Perhaps the brothers applied to Joseph the laws pertaining to עד זומם, someone who testifies to a crime he did not really see and who thereby intended to have the accused convicted of the death penalty. In such a situation the Torah demands that the עד זומם himself will be executed by the same death penalty he intended for his victim. Joseph had accused his brothers of eating אבר מן החי, tissue from a living animal. A fitting penalty would be for Joseph himself to be consumed by wild animals before he was dead. Joseph had also claimed that the brothers engaged in sex with partners forbidden to them. All these accusations, if true, carry the death penalty when committed by Gentiles. Moreover, a Gentile may be convicted by the testimony of a single witness without corroboration and without the victim having been warned of the consequences of his behaviour. Even next of kin may testify against the accused (Maimonides Hilchot Melachim chapter 9). Accordingly, the brothers applied to Joseph the law of an עד זומם thus exonerating themselves in the eyes of heaven. However, if so, they would not be considered innocent before a human tribunal because they had no הזמה, evidence of an alibi placing the witness Joseph in a different location at the time that he claimed that the brothers had committed the crimes he had accused them of. This is why they had to resort to the ruse of ganging up on him simultaneously. No human court could then prove that either one of them had administered a lethal blow. They felt quite at ease vis-a-vis heaven, being convinced that Joseph wanted to kill them. All of these considerations helped G'd carry out what He had planned without interfering with the freedom of will of the brothers or of Joseph. Perhaps the brothers even alluded to the fact that they would eventually repent what they were about to do and this is why they said ועתה, i.e. "for now this is what we are going to do." Bereshit Rabbah 21,6 claims that whenever the expression ועתה is used it refers to repentance.

ונראה מה יהיו חלומותיו, "and we shall see what becomes of his dreams." They were at pains to prove that his dreams contained false information, or that the dreams were merely reflections of what he had been thinking by day. If they would kill him now this would prove that the dreams only reflected Joseph's own aspirations.

ויצילהו מידם. "He saved him from harm at their hands. This action was applauded by the Torah as man is a free creature possessing freedom of choice and able to kill people who are not guilty or have not been convicted, as distinct from wild beasts which do not kill humans unless the latter are guilty of death in the eyes of G'd. The words ויצילהו מידם mean that he saved them from the evil consequences of carrying out their freedom of choice to kill. By doing what he did Reuben nullified the brothers' statement: "we shall see what happens to his dreams."

לא נכנו נפש. "Let us not kill him." What Reuben meant was "let us not kill him outright ourselves but only cause his death indirectly." When he said later: "do not shed blood, throw him into the pit," this was his argument to his brothers. He only pretended to agree that Joseph's death should be caused because he could think of no other way of saving Joseph's life and restoring him to his father. He was quite certain in his own mind that no wild beast would harm Joseph, or any other of Jacob's sons for that matter. He himself would also not allow Joseph to remain in the pit long enough to die of hunger. Proof of Reubens' intention is that the Torah reports that he returned to the pit shortly after the brothers had sold Joseph in his absence. He had planned to take Joseph out of the pit.

ויפשיטו את יוסף את כתנתו, They stripped Joseph of his tunic, etc. According to the plain meaning of the verse the word כתנתו refers to his shirt, whereas the additional words את כתנת הפסים refer to his outer garment, the one his father had made for him. In order to understand the verse thoroughly we have to know why the Torah did not write ואת כתנת הפסים, "and the striped coat."

The Torah wanted us to understand that the brothers did not want to strip Joseph naked. Their main concern was to remove the striped coat which had aroused their jealousy. The Torah tells us that when they began to strip the striped coat off him they were so angry at him that they inadvertently also removed his shirt at the same time. The Torah describes that Joseph was left naked by writing ויפשיטו את יוסף את כתנתו, "they stripped him naked by unintentionally removing his shirt with his striped coat."

The Torah adds אשר עליו, "which he wore on top," to further underline that the striped coat was an outer garment. In spite of this, in their frenzy they removed all his garments.

ויעברו אנשים מדינים, Midianites were passing, etc. Why did the Torah mention the passing by of Midianites when the sale was conducted with the Ishmaelites as is clearly stated at the end of this verse? Verse 25 also makes it clear that Joseph was sold to the Ishmaelites.

Furthermore, we read in verse 36 that the Midianites sold Joseph in Egypt to Potiphar, etc. This appears to prove that the brothers had sold Joseph to the Midianites, something which contradicts what we have been told previously. To confuse the issue still further, we are told in 39,1 that Joseph was brought down to Egypt where Potiphar purchased him from the Ishmaelites. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 84,22 account for all this by saying that Joseph was sold several times over. This does not seem to solve all the difficulties in the text, however.

The correct interpretation is that the Torah first mentions the appearance of a caravan of Ishmaelites (verse 25) and Yehudah's suggestion that they should sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites. When the brothers became aware that the Ishmaelites in that caravan dealt only in spices, etc., and that they would not consider slave trading, G'd arranged for מדנים סוחרים, Midianite merchants to pass by. The Torah adds the word "merchants" to tell us that the brothers recognised that these men were less discriminating in the kind of merchandise they dealt in. The brothers sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites using the Midianites as middlemen. The Ishmaelites would have refused to buy a human being (who presumably had been a free man) from the brothers directly. Inasmuch as the deal involved both the Midianites and the Ishmaelites, the Midianites received part of the profit. The Ishmaelites who had financed the sale, paid out the cash at that time.

The Torah was able to say "the Midianites had sold him to Egypt (37,36)" since they received part of the profit of the transaction. Inasmuch as they and not the Ishmaelites knew Joseph's true value as a slave, they conducted the sale to Potiphar.Meanwhile Joseph's body, i.e. his person remained in the care of the Ishmaelites so that when Potiphar acquired him he did so from the hands of the Ishmaelites (39,1). The Torah emphasises מיד הישמעלים, to make certain that we understand that Joseph was in the physical possession of the Ishmaelites who handed him over to Potiphar. All the various verses make perfect sense when looked at in this vein. Perhaps the author of the Midrash mentioned מכירות הרבה, many sales, because the different stages involved in Joseph's sale appeared to him as if he was being sold many times over.

וימכרו את יוסף. They sold Joseph. It is possible that after the brothers had humiliated Joseph by stripping him naked and tossing him into the pit that their anger abated partially and they were willing to accept Yehudah's suggestion. They may have thought that their declared objective to frustrate realisation of Joseph's dreams would be achieved if he were to be sold into slavery. Once he had become a slave there were no known ways in which Joseph could rise to a higher status, much less to that of king. This is what Psalms 105,17 had in mind when the Psalmist stated: כי לעבד נמכר יוסף, "Joseph had been sold into slavery."

וישב ראובן אל הבור, Reuben returned to the pit, etc. What was Reuben's argument when he complained to the brothers ואני אנה אני בא, "where shall I go?" Would Joseph not have been lost even if his own suggestion to throw him into a pit had been carried out? After all, the Torah itself testified that Reuben had never told his brothers that he intended to save Joseph and to restore him to his father! When Yehudah said to the other brothers: "what profit is there in killing our brother, etc," does this not prove that Joseph's remaining in the pit was meant to result in his death? How then could Reuben complain to his brothers?

Actually, Reuben argued that inasmuch as he was the oldest, his father would charge him with leading the search for the missing Joseph from one end of the earth to the other. If Joseph had remained in the pit, he would have brought Joseph's remains to his father and explained to him that wild beasts had killed him. This would have been the end of his involvement. Now he could not do this. This is why he said: "where shall I go?" As a result the brothers hit on the idea of slaughtering a male goat and dipping Joseph's tunic in its blood, etc. By returning the tattered and blood-soaked remains of Joseph's striped coat they made it unnecessary for Reuben to start a search for Joseph.

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

ויקומו כל בניו…לנחמו, "All his sons arose in order to comfort him, etc." The Torah is silent about the nature of these words of comfort that were offered to Jacob.

Perhaps the Torah wishes to stress that the comfort was not expressed in words but in the demonstration of how many sons and daughters Jacob had left. They had first observed their father rend his garments, wear sackcloth and carry on mourning for an inordinately long period. This would have been appropriate if Jacob had lost an only son, or even one of relatively few children. Since Jacob had many children, he should have remembered what he had left instead of only harping on what he had lost. His children brought this to Jacob's attention without uttering a word by surrounding him with their combined presence. This was supposed to provide some comfort. Jacob, however, refused to accept comfort, saying that the reason he would mourn Joseph until his own death was that Joseph was one of a kind and there was no substitute for him. The Zohar (volume 1, page 180) goes into greater detail about the mutual affinity of the souls of Jacob and Joseph, etc.

The Torah also hints that Jacob did not view his inability to console himself as a sign that Joseph was not dead though we have a rule that one is unable to console oneself when the person mourned is not actually dead. The reason Jacob could not accept comfort was that he viewed himself as condemned to descend to שאול, to purgatory, because of a tradition (compare Rashi quoting a Tanchuma on ויגש) he had that as long as none of his children would die during his lifetime he could rest assured that he himself would not descend to purgatory.

ויבך אותו, He wept for him. When Jacob explained why he could not respond to manifestations of condolences he had to start weeping again. The Torah stresses the word אביו, his father, in order to make a distinction between himself and all his children. The only person who broke out weeping when Joseph's name was mentioned was his father. Bereshit Rabbah 84,21 considers the word אביו, his father, as a reference to Isaac, Jacob's father.