AND JACOB DWELT IN THE LAND OF HIS FATHERS. The meaning of the verse is that since Scripture had said that the chiefs of Esau dwelt in the land of their possessions¹. — that is to say, the land which they took to themselves as a possession forever — it now says that Jacob, however, dwelt as his father had, as a stranger in a land which was not their own but which belonged to the Canaanites. The purport is to relate that they² elected to dwell in the Chosen Land,³ and that G-d’s words to Abraham, That thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs,⁴ were fulfilled in them but not in Esau, for Jacob alone shall be called their progeny.⁵

footnotes: ¹ Above, 36:43, the concluding verse in the previous Sedra ² Isaac and Jacob. ³ A term denoting the Land of Israel. See Ramban above, 19:5. ⁴ Above, 15:13. ⁵ “Their”: Abraham and Isaac.

THESE ARE THE ‘TOLDOTH’ (GENERATIONS) OF JACOB. And this is an account of the generations of Jacob. These are their settlements and the events which occurred to them until they attained settlement status. The first cause was Joseph, being seventeen years old, etc. It was through this incident that it happened that they descended to Egypt. This is the literal explanation of the text, which permits each detail to fall into its place. These are the words of Rashi. But the word toldoth cannot apply to a settlement.⁶ as having reference to Jacob’s settlement. Mizrachi, however, points out that Rashi’s intent is that the word Eileh (these are) refers to the settlements, while the word toldoth is to be understood in its usual sense as meaning “children.” The sense of the verse thus becomes: “These are the settlements of the children of Jacob.” And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said [that the verse should be interpreted thus]: “These are the events which happened to him, and the occurrences which befell him.” This is similar in meaning to the usage in the verse, For thou knowest not what a day may bring forth.⁷ (a day may bring forth). Similarly, according to Ibn Ezra, the word toldoth, which has the same roots as yolad, here means the events which evolved. But a person is not said to bring forth his events; it is only to days that events can be ascribed.⁸ can mean events when it modifies a period of time. However, when referring to a person, as in the present verse, it cannot have this meaning. Ramban thus takes issue with Ibn Ezra’s interpretation. Now perhaps the verse, according to Ibn Ezra, is saying, “These are the events which the days of Jacob brought forth.” The correct interpretation in my opinion is as follows: “These are the generations of Jacob: Joseph and his brothers, whom Scripture will mention further on.” Scripture here adopts a concise approach to their names since it already mentioned them above.⁹ But the intent of the verse is to say that these are the generations of Joseph and his brothers to whom the following happened. It is also possible that the word Eileh (these are) alludes to all those mentioned in this book: Thy fathers went down into Egypt with threescore and ten persons.¹⁰ Just as in the chapter, These are the generations of Esau,¹¹ Scripture mentioned sons and sons’ sons, kings and chiefs, including all that there had been among them up to the time the Torah was given,¹² so will Scripture count the generations of Jacob, his sons and grandsons, and all his seed, mentioning only the outstanding details in their generations.

footnotes: ⁶ Ramban thus understood the above text of Rashi as interpreting the word toldoth ⁷ Proverbs 27:1. The Hebrew is yolad yom ⁸ Ramban makes the point that toldoth ⁹ Above, 35:23-26. ¹⁰ Deuteronomy 10:22. The listing of the names of sixty-nine of these seventy people is found further on “in this book,” 46:8-27. Jochebed, who was born as they entered Egypt, is the seventieth. ¹¹ Above, Chapter 36. ¹² See Ramban above, 36:40.

AND THE LAD WAS WITH THE SONS OF BILHAH. His actions were those of youth: he would touch up his eyes and dress his hair. With the sons of Bilhah, that is to say, he associated with the sons of Bilhah because his brothers slighted them as being the sons of handmaids, and he therefore befriended them. Their evil report — he told his father about every wrong which he discerned in his brothers, the sons of Leah. This is the language of Rashi. But if this be so, why did the children of the handmaids not save him later on, inasmuch as he loved and befriended them, and told his father about his brothers’ slighting them. And if we say that they feared their brothers, they were four,¹³ and Reuben was with them,¹⁴ and, with Joseph himself, [they made a total of six]. Surely they would have prevailed against them especially when considering that the remaining five sons of Leah would not wage war against them. Moreover, it appears from Scripture that all¹⁵ of the brothers concurred in the sale of Joseph. However, according to our Rabbis in Bereshith Rabbah,¹⁶ he uttered slander against all of them.¹⁷ In my opinion the correct interpretation is that this verse returns to explain that which it mentioned above, and its purport [is as if the phrases in the verse were transposed as follows]: Joseph being a lad of seventeen years, was feeding the flock together with his brothers, the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives. A similar case requiring transposition of phrases is found in this *Seder:*¹⁸ or Parsha (section). And they dreamed a dream both of them in one night, each man according to the interpretation of his dream, the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were bound in the prison.¹⁹ The verse returns to explain the word shneihem (both of them) which it had mentioned at the outset. Its purport, [after the phrases have been suitably transposed, is as follows]: And both of them dreamed a dream, the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were bound in the prison, each man according to the interpretation of his dream. There are many similar verses. It may be that the word v’hu (and he was) requires another similar word, as if it were written: “and he was a lad, and he was with the sons of Bilhah and with the sons of Zilpah, who were his father’s wives.” The verse thus states that because he was a lad he was constantly with the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives, never being separated from them on account of his youth, for their father had commanded them to watch over him and serve him, not the sons of the mistresses, and he brought an evil report concerning them²⁰ to their father. It was for this reason that these four brothers¹³ hated Joseph. Following that, the verse says that his father loved him. Now when the other brothers²¹ saw that their father loved him more than all, they became jealous of him and they hated him. Thus Joseph is found to be hated by all: the sons of the mistresses were jealous of him because Jacob loved him more than them although they were also sons of a mistress as he was, and the sons of the handmaids, who would otherwise not have been jealous of his superior position over them, hated him because he brought their evil report to their father. The purpose of the redundant expression, dibatham ra’ah (their evil report), is to magnify,²² for dibah itself connotes evil.²³ (evil)? It does so in order to magnify the evil nature of the report. Now according to the opinion of Rashi it is possible for dibah to be a good report. Thus when Scripture uses the expression, “he brings dibah“, it means that he tells what he sees,²⁴ but when it uses the term, he bringeth forth ‘dibah,’ it refers to the fool who speaks falsehood.²⁵ connotes evil only when used in conjunction with the word motzi (bring forth) is borne out by Numbers 13:32. In line with the literal meaning of Scripture, the fact that it calls one a na’ar (lad) when he was seventeen years of age²⁶, which is that his actions were those of a youth. presents no difficulty for since he was the youngest among them, it calls him by that name, indicating that he was not as sturdy as his brothers and therefore needed to be with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah on account of his youth. Now of Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, it is written, And Rehoboam was young and faint-hearted and could not withstand them,²⁷ yet he was forty-one years old when he began to reign.²⁸, 12:13. Similarly the verse: *Is it well with the lad Absalom?*²⁹, 3:3-5), and David ruled thirty-three years in Jerusalem. The rebellion of Absalom occurred three years before David’s death (see Seder Hadoroth, year 2921). Hence Absalom, at his death, was at least thirty years old, yet David calls him na’ar. And Benjamin, upon going down to Egypt, was older than Joseph was now,³⁰ and yet Scripture frequently refers to him as na’ar.³¹ Now Onkelos translated v’hu na’ar as “he grew up with the sons of Bilhah.” Thus the verse states that from the time he was a lad he was in their company. They raised him as a father would, and they served him. This interpretation is also correct according to the literal interpretation of Scripture, which I offered as an explanation, namely that Scripture relates that he brought evil report concerning [the sons of the handmaids, who, according to Onkelos, raised him. This is why they hated him, whereas] the sons of the mistresses hated him because of their jealousy, as explained above.³² The meaning of the expression, His father’s wives, is that they were his “wives” for he took them as such. Scripture calls them “handmaids” only when they are mentioned together with Rachel and Leah, who were their mistresses. Similarly, And he put the handmaids and their children foremost,³³ as if to say that because they were handmaids of Rachel and Leah, Jacob placed them before them in a more exposed position. Similarly, And he lay with Bilhah, his father’s concubine.³⁴ [The word “concubine” is used to indicate] that if she were a mistress it would not have occurred. It is possible that during the lifetime of Rachel and Leah, Scripture calls them “handmaids” and “concubines,” but now that they had died [Jacob] took them as wives.

footnotes: ¹³ Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. ¹⁴ As expressly stated further on in Verses 21-22. ¹⁵ “All,” except Reuben, the eldest, and Benjamin, the youngest, (Rabbeinu Bachya, p. 306, in my edition.) ¹⁶ 84:7. ¹⁷ And not, as Rashi has it, that the evil report concerned only the sons of Leah. ¹⁸ Sedrah ¹⁹ 40:5. ²⁰ The sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. ¹³ Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. ²¹ The sons of Leah. ²² I.e., to indicate that the report was of an exceedingly evil nature. ²³ Otherwise, why does Scripture add the word ra’ah ²⁴ He reports the truth. ²⁵ This opinion that dibah ²⁶ Ramban’s intent is to disagree with Rashi’s interpretation of na’ar ²⁷ II Chronicles 13:7. ²⁸ Ibid. ²⁹ II Samuel 18:32. Now although Scripture does not state how old Absalom was at the time of his death, it would appear certain that he was about thirty years old since he was born to David in Hebron (ibid. ³⁰ For Joseph was separated from his father for twenty-two years. Therefore Benjamin must have been at least thirty years old at the time he went down to Egypt. ³¹ Further, 44:31 and 33. ³² Ramban thus indicates that the authoritative interpretation of Onkelos is here consistent with his own. ³³ Above, 33:2. ³⁴ Above, 35:22.

BECAUSE HE WAS THE SON OF HIS OLD AGE. That is, he was born to him during his old age. Onkelos translated: “he was a wise son to him,” for all that he had learned from Shem and Eber³⁵ he transmitted to him. Another interpretation is that the facial features of Joseph were similar to those of Jacob. This is Rashi’s language. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra also explains it in this way: “Because he was the son of old age — for he begot him in his old age when he was ninety-one³⁶ years old. They likewise called his brother Benjamin a little child of his old age. “³⁷ But in my opinion this is not correct for the verse states that Jacob loved Joseph more than all his children because he was the son of his old age, whereas all his children were born to him during his old age! Issachar and Zebulun were not more than a year or two³⁸ older than Joseph. The correct interpretation appears to me to be that it was the custom of the elders to take one of their younger sons to be with them to attend them. He would constantly lean on his arm, never being separated from him, and he would be called ben z’kunav because he attended him in his old age. Now Jacob took Joseph for this purpose, and he was with him constantly. He therefore did not accompany the flock when they went to pasture in distant places. And Onkelos who translated, “he was a wise son,” intended to say that in his father’s eyes, Joseph was a knowledgeable and wise son, and his understanding was as that of elders.³⁹ However in the case of Benjamin, who is called yeled z’kunim (a little child of his old age), Onkelos translated: bar savtin⁴⁰, as in the case of Joseph. (a son of old age). [The explanation of Onkelos in the case of Joseph becomes clear] because the verse here does not state, “Joseph hayah (was) a son of old age;” instead, it says, hu lo (he was unto him), meaning that in his eyes he appeared to be [a ben z’kunim, and consequently it must mean bar chakim, a wise son].⁴¹, which means that Joseph was a wise son in his father’s estimate. This is the intent of the Sages when they said:⁴² “Whatever Jacob had learned from Shem and Eber³⁵ he transmitted to him,” meaning that he passed on to him wisdoms and the secrets of the Torah, and that the father found the son to be intelligent and profound in these areas as if he were an elder and a man of many years.

footnotes: ³⁵ The traditional masters who taught Torah to Jacob during the fourteen years he hid from Esau (Megillah 17 a). This source, however, mentions only Eber. See Bereshith Rabbah 84:8, where Shem is also mentioned. ³⁶ For when Jacob stood before Pharaoh at the end of two of the lean years he was one hundred and thirty years old (47:9). Now when Joseph stood before Pharaoh he was thirty years old. Therefore after the seven years of plenty, and the two lean years he was thirty-nine. Subtract his age from Jacob’s age and there remain ninety-one years. This was Jacob’s age when Joseph was born. (Ohel Yoseph.) ³⁷ Further, 44:20. ³⁸ See Seder Olam Rabbah, 2. ³⁹ See the interpretation of Ramban on Leviticus 19:32. ⁴⁰ Rather than bar chakim ⁴¹ For if the sense of the verse is to be understood literally as meaning that “he was a son of his old age,” why specify “to Jacob?” Hence Onkelos correctly translated it as bar chakim ⁴² In the Rashi quoted above. The original source is Bereshith Rabbah 84:8. ³⁵ The traditional masters who taught Torah to Jacob during the fourteen years he hid from Esau (Megillah 17 a). This source, however, mentions only Eber. See Bereshith Rabbah 84:8, where Shem is also mentioned.

MY SHEAF AROSE, AND ALSO PLACED ITSELF UPRIGHT, AND, BEHOLD, YOUR SHEAVES SURROUNDED. The purport of the dream concerning the sheaves is that Joseph was shown that through the sheaves and the produce they will prostrate themselves to him. The matter of “surrounding” — [your sheaves surrounded] — is to indicate that they will surround him as they do a king arrayed for battle, around whom his subjects encamp.

SHALT THOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? OR SHALT THOU INDEED HAVE DOMINION OVER US? Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained: “Shall we voluntarily make you king over us, or will you rule over us by force?” The opinion of Onkelos appears to be more correct.⁴³ (reign) to mashal (dominion) if the explanation of Ibn Ezra is correct. Hence Ramban prefers Onkelos’ explanation which follows. He rendered it: “Shall you be king over us or some authority ruling us?” For people prostrate themselves before both. The verse thus means, “You will never be king or any kind of authority over us.” The meaning of the expression, And they continued to hate him still more for his dreams, and for his words, is that they hated him for the dreams and for relating the dreams to them in a boastful manner, even as it says, Hear, I pray you, this dream which I have dreamed.⁴⁴

footnotes: ⁴³ Since the authority of a king is essentially the same whether he rules by consent or force, Scripture should not change the expression from malach ⁴⁴ Verse 6 here.

AND HE RELATED IT TO HIS FATHER. He told his father of this dream concerning the sun, moon and stars, but not of the first one concerning the sheaves because he himself recognized its interpretation and knew that the sun alluded to his father, and his father rebuked him.⁴⁵ The meaning of the expression, And he related it to his father and to his brothers, is that he related it to them a second time,⁴⁶ as he told it to his father in their presence, and his father rebuked him in order to dissipate their anger towards him. The meaning of the expression, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? is the same as, *What is man that Thou shouldst take cognizance of him?*⁴⁷ That is to say, “What is this dream? It is nothing that you should relate for it is nothing but idle talk.” Alternatively, the meaning of the rebuke may be: “How dare you dream such a dream? It is but your conceit and youth that bring up such matters in your heart,” just as it says concerning dreams, *Thy thoughts came upon thy bed;*⁴⁸ And imaginings upon my bed.⁴⁹, 4:2. Understood in the same sense as above.

footnotes: ⁴⁵ Ramban’s intent is to say that the father’s rebuke is proof that he knew that Joseph understood the meaning of the dream. ⁴⁶ Since it is already stated in Verse 9 that he related this dream concerning the sun, moon and stars to his brothers, it must mean here in Verse 10 that he related it to them a second time. ⁴⁷ Psalms 144:3. ⁴⁸ Daniel 2:29. Here understood literally: “The thoughts you entertained during the day came with you to bed, and you dreamed about them.” ⁴⁹ Ibid.

SHALL I AND THY MOTHER AND THY BRETHREN INDEED COME TO PROSTRATE OURSELVES TO THEE TO THE EARTH? “Is not your mother long since dead?” Jacob, however, was not aware that the matter alluded to Bilhah who had raised him as if she were his mother. From here, our Rabbis derived the principle that there is no dream that does not contain invalid matters. Jacob’s intention in pointing out the invalidity of the dream was to cause his sons to forget the matter so that they should not be envious of him because of it. Jacob said to Joseph: “Just as it is impossible for the dream to be fulfilled with respect to your mother, so is the remainder invalid.” Thus the language of Rashi. In my opinion, at the time when Jacob went down to Egypt, Bilhah and Zilpah had already died⁵⁰ since, in enumerating the seventy souls that went down to Egypt, Scripture states, Besides Jacob’s sons’ wives,⁵¹ and it does not say “besides Jacob’s wives and his sons’ wives.”⁵² And if you say that because they were concubines Scripture does not want to say “besides Jacob’s sons’ wives and his concubines,” yet we find that they are referred to as his father’s wives.⁵³ Besides, it is unlikely that “the moon” in the dream alludes to his concubine. Instead, my opinion concerning the matter of the dream is that the sun is an allusion to Jacob, and the moon alludes to the children of his household and all his wives, which comprised Jacob’s seed. Thus, the moon alludes to the fact that all his seed will prostrate themselves to Joseph, these being all the seventy souls that issued from his loins, since they all prostrated themselves when they came before him. The eleven stars represent the brothers who bowed down before him separately,⁵⁴ before their father arrived, as it is written, And when Joseph came into the house, they brought him the present which was in their hand into the house, and prostrated themselves to him to the earth.⁵⁵

footnotes: ⁵⁰ See Ramban 46:15. ⁵¹ Further, 46:26. ⁵² Thus, there is proof that Bilhah had already died at the time Jacob went down to Egypt. So how then could Rashi say that the mother in the dream, symbolized by the moon, who was to bow before Joseph in Egypt, referred to Bilhah? ⁵³ Above, Verse 2. Why then does Scripture not say “besides Jacob’s wives and his sons’ wives?” Thus it is clear that they had already died. ⁵⁴ This explains why the brothers are singled out from all of Jacob’s seed, alluded to by the moon. ⁵⁵ Further, 43:26.

AND HE SENT HIM OUT OF THE VALLEY OF HEBRON. Scripture mentions the place from which Joseph was sent, in order to indicate that there was a great distance between father and son, and that this was the reason why the brothers did him evil: they were distant far from their father. It also serves to relate that Joseph, out of respect for his father, strengthened himself to go after them to a distant place, and he did not say, “How shall I go when they hate me?”. Our Rabbis yet have a Midrash concerning this matter, in which they say, “It was to fulfill the profound thought of the ‘seemly companion’⁵⁶ (Hebron) as if it consisted of the two words: chever na’eh (seemly companion). Thus it refers to Abraham who walked before G-d (above 17:1). The Midrash is in Bereshith Rabbah 84:13. who was buried in Hebron.”⁵⁷

footnotes: ⁵⁶ Abraham. The Midrash thus explains the word Chevron ⁵⁷ Reference is to the covenant — which G-d made with Abraham — that his seed will be a stranger in a land that is not their own (above, 15:13). The idea expressed is that Jacob’s act of sending Joseph to his brethren was thus the beginning of a cycle of events which would fulfill the covenant made with Abraham.

AND A MAN FOUND HIM, AND BEHOLD, HE WAS STRAYING IN THE FIELD. The verse is stating that Joseph was straying from the road, not knowing where to go, and he entered a field since he was looking for them in a place of pasture. Scripture mentions this at length in order to relate that many events befell him which could properly have caused him to return, but he endured everything patiently for the honor of his father. It also informs us that the Divine decree is true and man’s industry is worthless. The Holy One, blessed be He, sent him a guide without his knowledge in order to bring him into their hands. It is this that our Rabbis intended when they said⁵⁸ that these men⁵⁹ … And ‘the man’ said … (Verses 15, 17). were angels, for these events did not occur without purpose, but rather to inform us that It is the counsel of the Eternal that shall stand.⁶⁰

footnotes: ⁵⁸ Bereshith Rabbah 84:13. ⁵⁹ And ‘a man’ found him … and ‘the man’ asked him ⁶⁰ Proverbs 19:21.

THEY HAVE JOURNEYED HENCE. “They have departed from any feeling of brotherhood. ‘Let us go to Dothan, that is, let us go to seek pretexts of dathoth (laws) with which to put you to death.’ According to the literal sense, however, Dothan is the name of a place, and Scripture never sheds its literal sense.” This is Rabbi Shlomo’s [Rashi’s] language. Now it was not the intent of our Rabbis to say that the man expressly told him, “They have departed hence from any feeling of brotherhood, and they have gone to stir up charges and pretexts against you,” for if so, he would have avoided going there and would not have endangered himself. Instead, their intent is to say that “the man” — Gabriel⁶¹ — who told it to him told the truth, but he spoke words having a double meaning, both of them true. Joseph, however, did not grasp the hidden meaning therein, and he followed the obvious. He thus followed his brothers and found them in Dothan, as he had told him. The Rabbis expounded this on the basis of the fact that the “man” referred to was an angel, and if so, he knew where the brothers were. Why then did he not say, “They are in Dothan,” instead of speaking as if he was in doubt, i.e., that he heard from them that they were going to Dothan but he does not know where they are at present. It is for this reason that they expounded the above Midrash concerning his words.

footnotes: ⁶¹ So identified in Rashi (Verse 15), and the source thereof is Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter 38.

FOR I HEARD THEY ARE SAYING. “I heard that they were saying.”⁶², literally, “I heard they are saying,” is as if it were written, shamati shehayu omrim, “I heard that they were saying,” thus referring to a past event. Similarly the expression, Rebekah hears,⁶³ means that she heard. It is possible that he is saying: “The shepherds have gone from here for I heard people saying,⁶⁴ ‘Let us go to Dothan.’ Perhaps they were your brothers.” The man thus spoke with him as if he were avoiding the subject.

footnotes: ⁶² Ramban’s intent is to explain that the Hebrew shamati omrim ⁶³ Above, 27:5. ⁶⁴ According to this interpretation, Gabriel spoke concerning people in general as if he did not recognize that these shepherds were his brothers.

AND THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO SLAY HIM. They thought to kill him with their subtle intrigues by which they had conspired against him before he drew near to them⁶⁵ so that they would not have to spill his blood with their own hands. Thus did the Rabbis say in Bereshith Rabbah:⁶⁶ “Let us set the dogs against him.” And perhaps they did so but did not succeed. Now, when they saw that he was approaching them and they could not kill him with their intrigues, they said to each other, “Behold, he has come to us, so let us kill him ourselves.”

footnotes: ⁶⁵ According to Tur this refers to attempting to kill him with arrows. ⁶⁶ 84:13.

AND WE SHALL SEE WHAT WILL BECOME OF HIS DREAMS. This is a derisive metaphor: “We shall see after his death if we shall prostrate ourselves before him.” The correct interpretation appears to me to be that they said, “Now we shall see what will become of his dreams, for if he shall be rescued from our hands he will surely reign over us.” But our Rabbis said:⁶⁶ “It is the Ruach Hakodesh⁶⁷, Note 90. that says, We shall see what will become of his dreams,⁶⁸ which completes the sentence, and not Joseph’s brothers. as if to say; ‘We shall see whose words shall stand, Mine or theirs.’”⁶⁹

footnotes: ⁶⁶ 84:13. ⁶⁷ See Seder Toldoth ⁶⁸ The intent is to say that it is the Ruach Hakodesh ⁶⁹ Jeremiah 44:28.

SHED NO BLOOD. Reuben said to them: “I would have been tolerant of you when you thought to kill him by your subtle intrigues, for I too hated him and desired that he be killed by others. But do not spill blood with your hands. Far it be from you!” And Reuben’s intent in all this was to rescue him and restore him to his father. Now Scripture relates that which Reuben told them when they paid heed to him. However, originally he told them other things which they did not accept, as he said to them afterwards, *Spoke I not unto you, saying: Do not sin against the child and you would not hear?*⁷⁰ Now when he saw that they would not listen to the extent of releasing him, he said to them, “If so, shed no blood with your own hands.” Now Reuben did not say, “Shed not his blood,” [but instead, he said, “Shed no blood,”] in order to make it appear that he is not saying it because he loves him, but in order that they should not spill blood. Thus he taught them that the punishment of he who indirectly causes death is not as great as that of he who personally spills blood. The meaning of the expression, This pit that is in the wilderness, is that this pit is deep and he will not be able to get out of it, and it is in the desert, and if he cries for help there is no one to rescue him as no one passes by there. Now Scripture relates that the pit was empty and did not contain water.⁷¹ Had there been water in it they would not have drowned him as they had already avoided spilling his blood. Now Rashi writes: “Since it states that the pit was empty, do I not know that there was no water in it? Why then does it say that there was no water in it? It means to state that water indeed was not in it, however it did contain serpents and scorpions.” This is Rashi’s language quoting from the words of our Rabbis.⁷² If so, the serpents and scorpions must have been in the cracks of the pit, or it was deep and they did not know about them. Had they seen them and known that they did not harm Joseph, it would have become clear to them that a great miracle had been done to him, and that he was indeed a perfectly righteous man. They would then have known that his merits would save him from all evil, and how would they touch the anointed one of G-d in whom He delights and whom He saves, even as it says, My G-d hath sent His angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths, and they have not hurt me; for as much as before Him innocency was found in me.⁷³ But, we must therefore conclude, they did not know anything about it. In line with the simple meaning of the verse, it states that the pit was empty and completely devoid of water, for even if there were a little water in it, it would still be called “empty.”⁷⁴ to indicate that there was no water at all in it. Similarly, For thou shalt die and not live,⁷⁵ which means “not live at all, under any circumstances.” Such redundancies are all for the purpose of clarification and emphasis.

footnotes: ⁷⁰ Further, 42:22. ⁷¹ Verse 24 here. ⁷² Shabbath 27a. ⁷³ Daniel 6:23. ⁷⁴ Therefore, the verse specifies that there was no water in it ⁷⁵ II Kings 20:1.

AND, BEHOLD, A CARAVAN OF ISHMAELITES CAME FROM GILEAD. When they looked up and saw at a distance men approaching from the direction of Gilead,⁷⁶), and finally as Midianites (Verse 36). they recognized them as a camel caravan of Ishmaelites on their way to Egypt, for it was from Gilead that balms and spices came, and it was their custom to bring it to Egypt. This was why Judah said to them, “Behold these men come from afar and are travelling to a distant country. Let us sell him to them so that the matter should not become known.” And when they came near they discovered them to be merchants of spices and balms — Midianites, merchantmen⁷⁷ — who had hired the camels from the Ishmaelites. They sold Joseph to the Midianites who purchased him for profit, but the company of Ishmaelites, the lessors of the camels, would not purchase him for their own investment purposes. The verse which states, And they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites,⁷⁷ means that it was to them that the Midianites who bought him turned him over, for they were the ones who transported the merchandise to Egypt. This is also the meaning of the verse, From the hand of the Ishmaelites, that had brought him down thither,⁷⁸ for he was in their care. But the Midianites were his masters, and they made trade with him. This is the sense of the verse, And the Midianites sold him to Egypt.⁷⁹ All stories in Scripture are written in this manner: sometimes it is told in the name of the authority who commands that it be done, and other times in the name of the agent who performs the act. Such a case is the verse, All the great work of the Eternal which He did,⁸⁰ while elsewhere it states, Which Moses did in the sight of all Israel.⁸¹, 34:12. Similarly it says, Thus all the work that king Solomon did in the house of the Eternal was finished,⁸² but it was Hiram that did it, as it is written, And he came to king Solomon, and wrought all his work.⁸³, Verse 14. In the case of Joseph himself, the verse says, And whatsoever they did there, he was the doer of it,⁸⁴ thus ascribing the action both to he who commanded it and the one who did it. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra says that the Midianites are called Ishmaelites, just as Scripture, in speaking of Midianite kings, says, Because they were Ishmaelites.⁸⁵ But the matter is not as Ibn Ezra considered it to be since the verse which states, For they had golden ear-rings, because they were Ishmaelites,⁸⁵ alludes to “the children of the east” whose war it was, as it is written, Now all the Midianites and Amalekites and the children of the east assembled themselves together,⁸⁶, 6:33. and “the children of the east” are Ishmaelites, for concerning all the sons of the concubines that Abraham had, it is said, And he sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.⁸⁷ It is also possible that the kings were Ishmaelites who ruled over Midian. Otherwise, why should “kings of Midian”⁸⁸ be called by the name of Ishmael their brother? In line with the literal sense of Scripture the correct interpretation concerning the sale of Joseph is as we have said. But our Rabbis have said⁸⁹ that he was sold several times [and have thereby explained why his captors are alternately referred to as Midianites and Ishmaelites].

footnotes: ⁷⁶ Ramban’s intent is to explain why Scripture refers to these men first as Ishmaelites, then as Midianites (Verse 28), and again as Ishmaelites (ibid. ⁷⁷ Verse 28 here. ⁷⁷ Verse 28 here. ⁷⁸ 39:1. ⁷⁹ Verse 36 here. ⁸⁰ Deuteronomy 11:7. ⁸¹ Ibid. ⁸² I Kings 7:51. ⁸³ Ibid. ⁸⁴ Further, 39:22. ⁸⁵ Judges 8:24. ⁸⁵ Judges 8:24. ⁸⁶ Ibid. ⁸⁷ Above, 25:6. ⁸⁸ Judges 8:26. ⁸⁹ Bereshith Rabbah 84:2.

AND WE SHALL CONCEAL HIS BLOOD. “We shall hide the fact of his death.” This is Rashi’s language. And Onkelos similarly says, “and we shall cover up his blood.” The correct interpretation is as its literal sense indicates. It is the custom of those who kill in secret to slay the victim, bury him, and conceal his blood in the earth, even as it says, And he hid him in the sand.⁹⁰ This was why Judah said to them, “By casting him into the pit we shall kill our brother and cover his blood with dust, for it will so be accounted to us.”⁹¹ Now Reuben had instructed them not to spill blood with their hands. Rather, they should throw him into the pit and let him perish there, since the punishment of he who causes bloodshed is not the same as the punishment of one who actually commits the murder. Judah now came and said, “This too will be accounted to us as murder, as if we had killed him.” Such indeed is the truth, as the verse says, And him [Uriah] thou hast slain with the sword of the children of Ammon.⁹² The difference between actual murder and causing death is that there is a greater punishment for a murderer and a lesser punishment for the one who indirectly causes death. Thus, the two of them [Reuben and Judah] spoke the truth.

footnotes: ⁹⁰ Exodus 2:12. ⁹¹ Judah was arguing against throwing him into the pit, for this act would also be accounted to them as murder. This explanation is developed further on in the text. ⁹² II Samuel 12:9.

AND THEY SENT THE COAT OF MANY COLORS, AND THEY BROUGHT IT TO THEIR FATHER. I.e., by command.⁹³, clearly indicates that they did not bring it themselves. Ramban answers that the second half of the verse means that they commanded others to bring the coat to their father. Perhaps the word vayavi’u (and they brought) refers to the messengers who brought the coat, for the brothers dispatched it when they were still in Dothan, and it was the messengers who said, This we have found; recognize now. It may be that they sent the coat to Hebron, to one of their homes, and when they arrived they brought it before their father, and said to him, This we have found. They did all of this in order to feign ignorance of the matter, for had they remained quiet, he would have suspected them, saying; “You killed him,” for he knew that they were jealous of him. And some scholars⁹⁴ explain the word vayeshalchu — ordinarily translated as “and they sent” — to mean that they pierced the coat with a sword in order to tear it in many places, to give the appearance of having been torn by the teeth of animals. The word vayeshalchu would thus be derived from the verse, By the sword (‘b’shelach’) they shall perish.⁹⁵ The significance of the word hapasim (many colors) is that they sent him the coat so that he might recognize it by the colors which he had made for him.

footnotes: ⁹³ Ramban’s intent is to resolve the following difficulty: The verse, And they sent the coat of many colors ⁹⁴ Mentioned in R’dak in the name of “some” scholars. ⁹⁵ Job 36:12.

AND ALL HIS DAUGHTERS. This refers to his daughter and his son’s daughter.⁹⁶ Now it is possible that his daughters-in-law are also included in this category, for in Scripture they too are called “daughters,” or as the saying of the Sages has it:⁹⁷ “A person does not refrain from calling his daughters-in-law ‘daughters.’” So did Naomi say to her daughters-in-law: *Go, turn back, my daughters;*⁹⁸ *Nay, my daughters;*⁹⁹, Verse 13. Go, my daughter.¹⁰⁰, 2:2. It is nothing but an expression of love, just as, *Hearest thou not, my daughter?*¹⁰¹, Verse 8. This was said by Boaz to Ruth and can certainly not indicate the relationship of daughter or daughter-in-law.

footnotes: ⁹⁶ Since Jacob had. only one daughter, Dinah, the expression “and his daughters” in the plural must include some other person. Ramban first suggests that the term includes his granddaughter, Serach the daughter of Asher. See also my Hebrew commentary, pp. 211-2. ⁹⁷ Bereshith Rabbah 84:19. ⁹⁸ Ruth 1:8; 1:12. ⁹⁹ Ibid. ¹⁰⁰ Ibid. ¹⁰¹ Ibid.

OFFICER OF ‘HATABACHIM.’ This means the slaughterers of the king’s animals. This is the language of Rashi. Similarly, it says, *And the ‘tabach’ (cook) took up the thigh;*¹⁰² For perfumers and for cooks (‘tabachoth’).¹⁰³, 8:13. Closer to the meaning of the word hatabachim is the opinion of Onkelos who says that since the prison house was under his charge, [he was called the officer of the tabachim, since] we find the word t’vichah in connection with the killing of people. *Prepare ye the slaughter (‘matbiach’) for his children;*¹⁰⁴ Thou hast slaughtered (‘tavachta’) unsparingly.¹⁰⁵ The verse in the book of Daniel is proof of the validity of Onkelos’ interpretation: To Arioch the captain of ‘tabachaya’ of the king, who was gone forth to slay the wise men of Babylon.¹⁰⁶ or tabachim is thus clearly associated with the slaying of people. See my Hebrew commentary, Note 77, pp. 211-212.

footnotes: ¹⁰² I Samuel 9:24. ¹⁰³ Ibid. ¹⁰⁴ Isaiah 14:21. ¹⁰⁵ Lamentations 2:21. ¹⁰⁶ Daniel 2:14. The word tabachaya