ויוסף הורד מצרים, “meanwhile Joseph had been brought down to Egypt.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 86,4 comment on this that “the son of a maid-servant (Midianites descendad from Hagar) sells a free man whereas the slave (Potiphar) buys him,” i.e. a reversal of the norm. Our verse confirms the truth of what Solomon said in Kohelet 10,7: “I have observed slaves riding on horses.” The person described as שר הטבחים was the man who was appointed to execute all those prisoners who had received a death sentence. He was a physically strong specimen and a cruel person such as Nebuzaradan who occupied that position in the army of Nebuchadnezzar as we know from Jeremiah 39,13: “he (Nebuchadnezzar) dispatched Nebuzaradan the chief executioner, etc.” We also find that it was he who is credited with exiling the remnant of the Jewish people (Kings II 25,11). We find in Daniel 2,14 that “Aryoch the chief executioner had set out to put to death the wise men of Babylon.”

Midrash Tanchuma Vayeshev 3 on the words “and Joseph had been brought down to Egypt,” relates a story involving Antoninus, governor of Palestine under the Romans around 200 A.D. When said governor arrived in Caesaria he summoned Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi. The latter took with him his son Rabbi Shimon as well as the great Rabbi Chiya (his nephew). When they arrived there Rabbi Shimon saw an exceptionally tall and handsome Roman soldier and he commented to Rabbi Chiyah on the remarkable physical prowess of the descendants of Esau (referring to them as “the fatted calves”). Thereupon Rabbi Chiyah took Rabbi Shimon to the market-place and showed him gorgeous figs and grapes all of which were infested with flies, etc. Rabbi Chiyah asked Rabbi Shimon to tell him whether he considered these flies as superior to the Roman soldiers who were so impressive in their outward appearance. When Rabbi Shimon returned to his father, he related to him his conversation with Rabbi Chiyah concerning the relative importance of the Roman legionnaires and the flies. Thereupon Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi said to his son: “the Babylonian (Rabbi Chiyah) said something of substance when he compared the legionnaires to the flies. The legionnaires of the Roman Emperor are worth nothing whereas the flies are creatures of the Lord, are like soldiers of the Lord performing tasks assigned to them by their Creator.” This is the meaning of Isaiah 7,18: “On that day the Lord shall whistle to the flies at the end of the water channels of Egypt and to the bees in the land of Assyria; and they shall all come and alight in the rugged wadis.” It is also written in Exodus 23,28: “and I shall dispatch the hornet ahead of you.” During the plagues of insects and frogs these creatures were also commanded by G’d to carry out His directives. You should remember that at the time when G’d wanted to enact the decree of Genesis 15,13 where He told Avram: “you shall surely know that your descendants will be strangers in a land which is not theirs,” that He used the most insignificant little creatures to do His bidding. When Joseph was sold and brought down to Egypt to be followed by his brothers and his father, the IOU described in Genesis 15,13 began to be paid. This is why Joseph’s descent is described in such terms as “he was brought down.”

כי ה' אתו, “for G’d was with him.” Actually, the Torah should have written כי אלוקים אתו, “for G’d (in His capacity as the Force who established an orderly universe) was with him.” However, seeing that Joseph’s master was an Egyptian and did not know of a G’d in heaven known as Hashem, his master would have attributed the extraordinary success of Joseph to a superior form of sorcery and magic. After all, Egypt was the epitome of these magic arts, the Egyptians had written the textbook for them. Potiphar eventually became aware that Joseph’s success could not be due to such magic so that he came to realise a new dimension of the G’d in heaven, one that overrides the attribute Elohim. This is why the Torah described G’d’s assistance to Joseph in terms of the supernatural rather than in terms of the natural. According to Bereshit Rabbah 86,5 G’d even let Potiphar have a dream in which he confirmed His assistance. Some say that a pillar of cloud hovered over Joseph to show that he was under G’d’s direct guidance. Examples cited by the Midrash of Joseph’s extraordinary abilities are: when Potiphar demanded that he boil water, the water came to a boil immediately. When he commanded the water to be cooled so that it would be lukewarm, it would become lukewarm immediately. Had G’d not demonstrated His dimension as Hashem to Potiphar, he would have said: “big deal! do you Joseph want to teach us additional magic? It is like carrying coal to Newcastle.” For these reasons the Torah had to testify: וירא אדוניו כי ה' אתו, “his master realised that a special dimension of G’d was active on Joseph’s behalf.”

וישרת אותו, “he became his personal valet.” He performed such tasks promptly and with extreme regard for cleanliness.

ויפקידהו על ביתו, “he appointed him to be in charge of his household.” He was the supervisor of the entire household. We find such a position in Kings I 18,3 when Achav appointed such a supervisor.

וכל אשר יש לו נתן בידו, “and he entrusted all his belongings to the care of Joseph.” He appointed him as manager of the household budget. We find something similar in Isaiah 22,15: “go in to see that steward, that Shevna, in charge of the palace.”

ויברך ה' את בית המצרי בגלל יוסף, “G’d blessed the household of the Egyptian on account of Joseph. Here the Torah draws a comparison with the house of Oved Edom HaGitti whose house was host to the Holy Ark and whom G’d blessed for the sake of the Holy Ark (Samuel II 6,11). The blessing extended both to money and other objects.

בבית, “in the house.” Both his money and his various utensils increased. ובשדה, “and in the field.” Potiphar’s crops, etc., all prospered unnaturally. Up until this point Joseph, though in charge, was required to present the accounts to Potiphar. From that point on he did not even have to give an accounting of his activities. It says ויעזוב את כל אשר לו ביד יוסף, “he left everything he had in the hand (under the care) of Joseph.

The Midrash Seder Olam understands the words בבית ובשדה, as meaning that during the six winter months Potiphar’s affairs prospered enormously indoors, whereas during the six summer months they prospered in the field. This tells you that the length of time Joseph spent in Potiphar’s employ was one year. Subsequently he spent twelve years in jail. He had been away from his father for thirteen years when he was called in to Pharaoh. Actually, he had been meant to spend eleven years in the service of Potiphar, corresponding to the number of eleven sheaves he had dreamt about in his first dream. Some say that these eleven years corresponded to the eleven stars in Joseph’s second dream. At any rate, he had two years added to that sentence on account of the two words והזכרתני, והוצאתני (40,14) which he said to the Chief of the butlers, asking him to intercede on his behalf. These two words were counted against Joseph just as the fact that he boasted about the dream he had dreamt.

ולא ידע אתו מאומה, “and he did not share any knowledge with him,” the only matters concerning which Joseph bothered to consult his master Potiphar was the menu to be served at meal-time, as the Torah said: “except for the bread he would eat.” The word לחם also included his wife; we know that wives are sometimes referred to as לחם, from Exodus 2,2 קראן לו ויאכל לחם, “call him so that he can take a wife.” We also find the word אכל, “ate,” in that sense in Proverbs 30,2 אכלה ומחתה פיה, “she ate and wiped her mouth.” The verse speaks about the harlot indulging in her trade and acting as if she had done no wrong. We encounter the same meaning of that word again in verse nine: “except for you inasmuch as you are his wife.”

ויהי יוסף יפה תואר ויפה מראה, “Joseph was of handsome form and handsome appearance.” The Torah revealed the reason Potiphar’s wife was so attracted to him. (Tanchuma)

ויהי אחר הדברים האלה, “it was after these events, etc.” The Torah told us of the virtuous nature of Joseph who in spite of experiencing one promotion after another within a short space of town rejected the advances made by his master’s wife, advances which must have appeared very flattering to him. Unlike others in a similar position, Joseph did not exploit the trust of his employer by deceiving him.

According to Tanchuma Vayeshev 8 as soon as Joseph had been promoted to his present high position he began to indulge in food and drink and in paying excessive attention to his outward appearance, carefully coiffing his hair, etc. He went as far as saying “thank the Lord who has made me forget my father’s house.” Upon hearing this, G’d said: “your father is in mourning for you and you live it up! Your mistress will try and seduce you and cause you distress.”

וימאן, ויאמר אל אשת אדוניו הן אדוני, “he refused, and he said to the wife of his master: ‘here my master, etc.” At the beginning of their conversation, Joseph said to Mrs Potiphar: הן אדוני, “my master is present;” he meant: “what do you want with me, seeing you already have a husband?” The reason that Tanchuma interprets Joseph’s words in that fashion is that the tone-sign shalshelet over the word וימאן suggests that Joseph’s refusal contained an element of something forbidden. It is not unusual for the tone-signs on the words to reveal matters not spelled out but which nevertheless we are to read between the lines. This is not unlike to what is called in English “body-language.” The manner in which a person walks, for instance, indicates whether he looks forward to his destination or whether he drags his feet because he dreads what is expected of him at the end of his walk. The Midrash felt that the tone-sign revealed that Joseph’s refusal was hesitant.

Midrash Tanchuma Vayeshev 8 also claims that the words הן אדוני, are a reference to his father Yaakov’s features which sudddenly appeared before Joseph’s mind’s eye, reminding him what moral obligations he owed to the wishes of G’d, his “Master.” His father phrased his admonition thus: “your brothers’ names will be engraved on the gemstones of the High Priest’s Ephod (shoulder epaulettes). Do you want to risk that your name will be omitted from that list? Do you prefer to tend to whores for the rest of your life?”

ותאמר שכבה עמי, “she said: lie with me!” She spoke vulgarly as do the whores, similar to what has been described in Proverbs 7,10: “and here a woman came toward him dressed in harlot’s attire and of determined heart.” Words such as reported here by the Torah are typical of an adulterous woman. When a chaste woman desires to express similar sentiments she uses refined language as did Ruth when she said to Boaz: “spread your robe over your handmaid;” (Ruth 3,9).

ויאמר אל אשת אדוניו, “he said to the wife of his master, etc.” The Torah could have simply written: “he said to her.” However, the Torah wanted to let us know that Joseph explained to Mrs. Potiphar that seeing she was his master’s wife he was duty bound to accept instructions from her; however, in this instance his duty towards G’d took precedence over his duty to obey her commands.

איך אעשה הרעה הגדולה הזאת וחטאתי לאלוקים , “and how could I commit such a great wrong and sin against the Lord?” He explained that indulging in sex with his master’s wife would be wrong on two counts. Not only would it be an act of betrayal against his employer but it would also be a grievous offense against G’d. This is similar to the wording used by the High Priest Eli when he rebuked his sons in Samuel I 2,25: “If a man sins against a man, the Lord may pardon him [after he has served the penalty decreed by a human tribunal, Ed.]; but if a man sins against G’d who can obtain pardon for him?“

ולא שמע אליה לשכב אצלה, “and he did not listen to her request even to (merely) lie beside her.” The plain meaning of the text is that Joseph refused to have any bodily contact with Mrs. Potiphar even if it did not involve intercourse itself. להיות עמה, “to be intimate with her.” To have sexual intercourse. We have found elsewhere in the Bible that the word להיות may mean sexual intercourse, such as in Ruth 1,12 where Naomi speaks about “being in the company of a man,” i.e. to have intimate relations with him which would result in her becoming pregnant.” The Hebrew word used there for having sexual relations is גם הייתי הלילה לאיש.

A Midrashic approach to this verse is found in Tanchuma Vayeshev 8. She said to him: “why do you not listen to me? No one is going to see us.” He replied to her: “we have been forbidden to have sexual relations with you people even when you are not married, how much more so are we forbidden to have such relations with you once you are married to someone?” The best way to illustrate this argument is by means of a parable. A Gentile approached a Jew telling him that he had some delectable dish which he wanted him to taste. When the Jew inquired what precisely this dish consisted of, the Gentile told him that it was the meat from a pig. The Jew replied: “you must really be very foolish. You know that if one of you slaughters an animal we are only not allowed to eat it because it has not been slaughtered by a Jew, how could you imagine that I would eat meat from an animal which I may not eat even if a Jew had slaughtered it?”

The words ולא שמע אליה לשכב אצלה, להיות עמה, which appear repetitive, are viewed by the Midrash as referring to life in the present world, and as a result of committing the former sin, life in the hereafter, i.e. in Gehinom, (hell). We are told in that same Midrash that there are three categories of people who may be trusted implicitly: 1) A private householder who sets aside his tithes conscientiously. Such a person is not suspected of shortchanging the Priest by withholding his Terumah (a form of tithe given to the Priests). There is no greater demonstration of a person’s trustworthiness than that we believe him in other matters based on his observing commandments whose performance cannot be checked. Such people enjoy the greatest trust by their peers. 2) Next lower on the rungs of the ladder of trustworthiness is a bachelor who resides in a quarter inhabited by harlots and does not succumb to the temptation which surrounds him. 3) A poor man who has been entrusted with the safekeeping of valuables for others and has demonstrated that he has kept faith with those who gave him the objects to be kept for them. Joseph excelled them all while he was in Egypt, a country of which the prophet (Ezekiel 23,20) writes that “the flesh of the people there could be compared to the flesh of donkeys.” Seeing that Joseph was seventeen years old at the time he was sold to Egypt, and was subjected daily to sexual temptation by his master’s wife without yielding to such alluring prospects, this meant that henceforth he could never be suspected of any sexual misdemeanour. We are told in Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 39 that there were three prominent people who demonstrated control over their sexual urges when faced with temptation which was hard to resist. They are Joseph, Boaz, and Palti ben Layish. Our sages in Sanhedrin 19 contrast the active libido of Joseph, a teenager, with the relatively dormant one of Boaz, an aged man. They say that whereas Joseph’s feat was indeed major, by comparison to Boaz’s constraint, it was still only a modest accomplishment. Whereas the temptation Joseph faced was by day, the temptation Boaz faced when Ruth came to him in the barn was at night. Joseph might have been afraid of being observed, a possible consideration enabling him to withstand the urgings of Mrs. Potiphar. Similarly what was considered an act of great restraint by Boaz paled into insignificance when compared to the restraint Palti ben Layish imposed upon himself. He had been given Michal (David’s wife) as a legal wife (Samuel I 25,44) by King Saul, and could have claimed her, but did not ever touch her or even share the same house with her. Palti had been aware that a marriage ceremony is invalid when the woman in question is still the wife of another man, David, who had not divorced Michal. King Saul had forced his daughter into marrying Palti. Seeing Palti was afraid of King Saul, he pretended to accept Michal as his wife although he had no intention of sleeping with her. In fact, after Saul’s death (Samuel II 3,14) David sent word to Ish Boshet, Saul’s son, demanding that his wife Michal be restored to him. Ish Boshet agreed, and a weeping Palti accompanied her up to a place called Bachurim. He wept because he was afraid David would not believe that he had not touched Michal. [At any rate, the thrust of the story in the Talmud is that every feat of sexual restraint must be evaluated on its own. There are features in each of these stories which made the deed especially great; on the other hand each of these situations also contained features which helped the person subject to the temptation to successfully resist it. Ed]

ויעזוב בגדו אצלה, “he left his garment with her.” This is another example of Joseph’s chastity; he did not want to struggle for his garment with her and thereby involve himself in physical contact with her. He respected her dignity in not demonstrating his superior male power.

וינס החוצה, “he fled outside.” He left the house in order that she should give up hope to entrap him, so that she would cease her efforts in this regard. Or, he fled outside in order to regain his emotional equilibrium. He had been aroused by the encounter with Mrs. Potiphar.

According to a Midrash the meaning of the words וינס, ויצא החוצה, is G’d said to him: ”today you fled, there will come a day when the sea will flee before your coffin.” This is the meaning of Exodus Psalms 114,3 “the sea saw (it) and fled.” What did the sea see? It saw the coffin containing the body of Joseph.

ראו! הביא לנו איש עברי, “see here! he has brought to us a Hebrew man to make sport with us.” Mrs. Potiphar did not name the subject of “he brought,” i.e. her husband. The reason she did not mention her husband by name is related to a feminine tactic not to directly embarrass their husbands. The reason she described Joseph as איש עברי, “a Hebrew man,” was because both Joseph and his forefathers were considered as “newcomers,” even in the land of Canaan seeing they had immigrated from beyond the river Euphrates. לצחק בנו, “to make sport with us.” The term is one used for sexual license such as in Proverbs 10,23: “just as to a fool carnality is like a sport, etc.” בא אלי לשכב עמי, “he came to me in order to have sexual intercourse with me.” She inflated her ego, claiming that Joseph had initiated the request to have sex with her, whereas she had initiated the request to be intimate with Joseph.

According to Midrash Tanchuma Vayeshev 6, the above words are an illustration of why Solomon warned in Kohelet 7,26: “and I have discovered that a woman whose heart is snares and nets is worse than death.” Rabbi Yehudah son of Shalom added: “there is no worse cause of sin than woman; whereas we find that three thousand Jewish males were slain for having worshipped the golden calf, (Exodus 32,28), twenty-four thousand Jewish males were killed due to the seduction by the Mobaite and Midianite women reported in Numbers 28,9”. What is the meaning of the words אסורים ידיה “her hands are tied?” If G’d had not tied woman’s hands she would accost man in the marketplace demanding that he have carnal relations with her. Kohelet continues by saying that “he who is pleasing to G’d will escape the machinations of such a woman whereas the sinner will be trapped by her.” The “man pleasing to G’d” is a reference to Joseph who escaped the wife of Potiphar, where the “sinner” is a reference to Zimri, prince of the tribe of Shimon, who slept with Cosbi the Midianite during the encounter described in Numbers. When G’d created Chavah, (first woman) He had said to Himself: “which part of Adam shall I use to make into woman? If I use the head she will be of haughty spirit. If I use Adam’s eyes as raw material she will possess insatiable curiosity. If I create her from part of Adam’s mouth she will babble interminably. If I construct her out of part of Adam’s ear, she will turn out to be extremely inquisitive. If I create her out of Adam’s hands, she may turn out to be a thief, whereas if I construct her from part of Adam’s legs, she will constantly roam outside her house. What did G’d do? He formed Chavah from the rib, a place well hidden from Adam’s exterior so that she would be chaste and remain primarily indoors. In spite of the fact that G’d took care not to construct Chavah from one of the organs which would made her prone to the afore-mentioned character weaknesses, we find that she possessed these weaknesses after all. She is described as haughty in Isaiah 3 16, “because the daughters of Zion are so vain and walk with their heads thrown back, with roving eyes, and with mincing gait, etc.” Although G’d did not use part of Adam’s eyes as raw material from which to form Chavah we still find that she was insatiably curious as the prophet records her as possessing “roving eyes.” We also find that the Torah writes (Genesis 3,6) “the woman saw that the tree was good to eat and alluring for the eyes.” Even though G’d did not utilise any of Adam’s hands to create woman she still became a thief as the Torah writes (Genesis 30,15) “Rachel stole the teraphim.” Even though G’d did not use any part of Adam’s ears in order to make Chavah, she became unduly curious as we know from Sarah who is reported as listening to the conversation between Avraham and the angels “at the entrance to the tent” in Genesis 18,10. Even though G’d also did not use any part of Adam’s legs or feet to make Chavah, she still developed the tendency to roam outside her home as we know from Dinah, the daughter of Yaakov and Leah of whom the Torah reports that “she went out to look around amongst the girls of the country”’ (Genesis 34,1). Dinah’s mother Leah has also been described as leaving her home needlessly when the Torah writes (Genesis 30,15) “Leah went out, etc.” We know that Leah was babbling when the Torah describes her as accusing her sister Rachel of taking her husband away from her (Genesis 30,15), an accusation which was quite unwarranted. All this happened although G’d had not made Chavah from any part of Adam’s mouth.

ויתנהו אל בית הסוהר, “and he put him in jail.” This is a kind of underground prison, a dungeon, a place where the mentally ill are kept nowadays (author’s time). These prisons have a small hole on top through which the prisoners are brought in and a little daylight is seen. The expression סוהר is similar to the word צוהר, which is used in Genesis 6,15 to describe the source of light in Noah’s ark. The exchange of the letters ס and צ respectively is not unique. The Torah next mentions that this was an extraordinary dungeon, reserved for the King’s highly placed servants if they had incurred his displeasure. This is why the Torah writes: “the place where the king’s prisoners would be kept locked up.” There were two jails within the same compound, the one reserved for the king’s prisoners being the “deluxe” accommodation. The main distinction between the two appears to have been the amount of daylight the prisoners enjoyed. The reason the Torah adds: “he (Joseph) remained there in the jail,” is in order to place these words next to the words ויהי ה' את יוסף, “G’d remained at Joseph’s side.” This teaches that even within the prison G’d’s שכינה, benevolent presence, remained with Joseph.(based on Mechilta Bo, 14).

It is quite possible that these words were meant to allude to happenings in the future, and that the oppression which Joseph underwent in that dungeon foreshadowed the exile of the Jewish people which has also been compared to a בור, a pit, a dungeon. This may have been the origin of the prayer in which we ask יעלה ויבא, “may He arise and arrive,” a request voiced in our prayers on days when we are especially conscious of the absence of the Temple service and the benefits it had conferred upon the Jewish people. It is a reference to the ascent of the Shechinah. Anyone who finds himself imprisoned in a dungeon needs to literally “arise” in order to get out of there. Just as the Shechinah did not forsake Joseph when he was in jail, so the Shechinah will not forsake the Jewish people just because they are in exile. Just as the Torah wrote concerning Joseph (Psalms 105,18) ברזל באה נפשו, “an iron collar was placed around his neck,” it is also written concerning Israel in exile (Psalms 107,10) יושבי חשך וצלמות אסירי עני וברזל, “some lived in deepest darkness, bound in cruel irons.” Just as we read concerning Joseph ויט אליו חסד, “He endowed him with kindness,” (verse 21) so we find concerning Israel in exile that the prophet says (Isaiah 54,10) וחסדי מאתך לא ימוש, “but My kindness will not depart from you.” Concerning Joseph the Torah writes (21) ויתן חנו בעיני שר בית הסוהר, “He put his favour in the eyes of the prison warden.” We find a corresponding statement in connection with Israel in exile when the psalmist writes (Psalms 106,46) ויתן אותם לרחמים לפני כל שוביהם, “He made all their captors kindly disposed toward them.” Just as Joseph eventually was released from prison and rose to unprecedented power and prominence, so the Jewish people will be redeemed from their exile as is written in Daniel 12,4 “as for you Daniel, obscure the matters and close the book and seal it until the time of the end; let many muse and let knowledge increase.”