THAT THE ETERNAL WAS WITH HIM. The name of G-d was a familiar word in his mouth. This is Rashi’s language. But it does not appear to be correct.²¹³ Instead, And his lord saw that the Eternal was with him, means that he saw that his endeavors were always more successful than that of anyone else, so he knew that success came to him from G-d. In a similar sense is the verse, We have surely seen that the Eternal was with thee.²¹⁴ Thus Joseph found favor in his lord’s eyes, and he appointed him as his personal attendant and overseer of his house.

footnotes: ²¹³ For, according to Rashi, the text should have read: “that the name of the Eternal was familiar in his mouth” ²¹⁴ Above 26:28.

AND ALL THAT HE HAD HE GAVE INTO HIS HAND. I.e., to be overseer and officer in charge of all that he had in the house and in the field. Our Rabbis have a Midrash on this verse. Thus they say:²¹⁵ “He would whisper²¹⁶, Commentaries.) whenever he entered and whenever he left. If his master said to him, ‘Mix a hot drink,’ it was hot immediately in Joseph’s hands and if he said, ‘Mix it lukewarm,’ it was lukewarm. [Because he suspected Joseph of witchcraft, his master said to him,] ‘What is this, Joseph? Bringing witchcraft to Egypt is like importing straw to Ofraim!’²¹⁷ How long did his master suspect him of practicing witchcraft? It was until he saw the Divine Presence standing over him. This is the meaning of the words, And his lord saw that the Eternal was with him.”²¹⁸ The point of this Midrash is that because his lord was an Egyptian who did not know the Eternal, the Sages in the Midrash said that when he saw Joseph’s great success he suspected that it was done by witchcraft, as was the case with his countrymen, until he saw in a vision which was shown to him in a dream, or, when awake, in the form of a cloud of glory or the like, that his success came from the Supreme One. This was done in honor of the righteous Joseph.

footnotes: ²¹⁵ Bereshith Rabbah 86:6. ²¹⁶ His father’s instructions. (Ibid. ²¹⁷ “Straw to Ofraim” is the Midrashic equivalent of the present day expression, “coals to Newcastle.” ²¹⁸ Verse 3 here.

SAVE THE BREAD WHICH HE DID EAT. In the words of our Rabbis, this is a refined expression which refers to his wife.²¹⁹ Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said in interpretation of the verse that whatever Potiphar possessed was left in the hands of Joseph excepting the bread which he ate. This he did not even permit him to touch since he was a Hebrew. It was the customary behavior of the Egyptians towards the Hebrews that they not permit the Hebrews to touch their food, because that is abhorrent to the Egyptians.²²⁰ Possibly this is so. Perhaps the interpretation of the verse is that his lord did not know of Joseph taking anything from him save only the bread which Joseph ate, but no other pleasures as young people are wont to do. Nor did he gather wealth and property, just as it is said of David, And I have found no fault in him since he fell unto me unto this day.²²¹ Now the verse, Having me, he knoweth not what is in the house,²²² expresses another matter, namely, that he [Joseph’s lord] did not trouble himself to know about anything inside the house. But the present verse, Having him, he knew not aught, is an expression of negation; he knew that nothing in the house is [taken by Joseph except the bread which he eats].²²³

footnotes: ²¹⁹ Bereshith Rabbah 86:7. ²²⁰ Further, 43:32. ²²¹ I Samuel 29:3. ²²² Verse 8 here. Joseph speaking to Potiphar’s wife. ²²³ See my Hebrew commentary, pp. 219-220.

AND JOSEPH WAS HANDSOME AND GOOD-LOOKING. The verse mentions this here in order to indicate that it was on account of his good looks that his master’s wife cast her eyes upon him. And Rashi wrote that because he saw that he was ruler of the house, he began to eat and drink, and curl his hair, etc.²²⁴

footnotes: ²²⁴ “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Joseph: ‘Your father is mourning for you, and you curl your hair. I will incite a bear against you.’” (Rashi.) That is, “I shall let temptation loose against you.”

BUT HE REFUSED, AND SAID UNTO HIS MASTER’s WIFE. Scripture relates that he refused to do her will even though she was his mistress, i.e., his master’s wife, and he feared her, for he feared G-d more. This is the meaning of the expression, unto his master’s wife.

AND I SHALL SIN AGAINST G-D. The Sons of Noah²²⁵ were commanded concerning forbidden relations. This is Rashi’s language. This is correct. It is only due to the feminine lack of knowledge that he first told her that the act would constitute a betrayal of his master who trusted him, and following that he added that it also involves a sin against G-d. It is possible to further explain the verse, And I shall sin against G-d, by this betrayal, since “it would be a matter of great evil consequence which would be accounted to me as a sin against G-d since His eyes are upon the faithful of the land,²²⁶ and no traitor dare come before Him.” Joseph spoke the truth. However he did not mention the prohibition of the illicit relation²²⁷ because he spoke in language suitable to women.

footnotes: ²²⁵ See Note 113 above. ²²⁶ Psalms 101:6. ²²⁷ According to this interpretation.

TO LIE ‘ETZLA’ (BY HER). The meaning of this expression is as Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra interpreted it: “even to lie near her, each in their garment, or to be with her for general conversation.” This interpretation is correct since we do not find the word etzla (near her) in Scripture in connection with sexual intercourse, only the word ima (with her) or othah (with her), as for example: *Lie ‘imi’ (with me);*²²⁸ *And if any man lie ‘othah’ (with her);*²²⁹ And the women ravished (‘tishachavnah’).²³⁰, the plural form of othah is implicit.

footnotes: ²²⁸ Verse 12 here. ²²⁹ Leviticus 15:24. ²³⁰ Zechariah 14:2. In tishachavnah

AND HE LEFT HIS GARMENT IN HER HAND. Out of respect for his mistress he did not wish to take the garment from her hand with his superior strength, and he removed it from upon himself, as it was a garment which one wears as a robe and headdress. But when she saw that he left his garment in her hands she feared lest he expose her to the people of the household or his master, and so she preceded him to them, saying that he had removed his garment to lie with her, but “when he saw that I screamed he fled in confusion.” This is the meaning of the verse, And it came to pass, when she saw that he had left his garment in her hand.²³¹ This is also why she did not say, “And he left his garment in my hand,” but she instead told the men of her house and her husband, And he left his garment ‘etzli’ (with me).²³² (with me) indicates that he himself had removed his garment, as explained above.

footnotes: ²³¹ Verse 13 here. ²³² The word etzli

SEE, HE HATH BROUGHT IN A HEBREW UNTO US. The meaning thereof is that the Hebrews were hated by the Egyptians. They did not eat with them, this being a matter of abhorrence to them.²³³ They did not purchase them as servants except as vinedressers and plowmen, but they would not permit them to come into their homes. This is why she said: “Behold, the master has done us evil by bringing a Hebrew into our home, and he has further appointed him as overseer and ruler, and now he has fittingly seen to mock us.” [The point of her statement] is similar to that which is said in the verse, He that delicately bringeth up his servant from a child shall have him become a master at the last.²³⁴ This is the meaning of her saying, Whom thou hast brought unto us,²³⁵ as his being brought into their house was in itself embarassing to them. In the verse before us, the expression, He has brought us, refers to her husband. She does not mention him by name out of respect,²³⁶ or perhaps because such is the ethical way for women to speak, or perhaps because it is known who brought Joseph into the house. Similarly, in many places in the book of Job it speaks of Almighty G-d anonymously because the conversants know that they are speaking of Him. Similarly, in the verse, *And he said to Abner, Why hast thou gone in unto my father’s concubine?*²³⁷ the name of the speaker is not mentioned, and no reference is made to him at all in the above verse because it is known that he was Ish-bosheth.²³⁸

footnotes: ²³³ See further, 43:32. ²³⁴ Proverbs 29:21. ²³⁵ Verse 17 here. ²³⁶ In view of the fact that she blames him for what happened. ²³⁷ II Samuel 3:7. ²³⁸ Of “the house of Saul,” mentioned there in Verse 6. And it is already self-understood that the speaker in Verse 7 is Ish-bosheth, as he was the leader of the house of Saul. (R’dak.)

AND IT CAME TO PASS, WHEN THE MASTER HEARD. She told him about it at the time of conjugal intimacy. Matters such as these did your servant to me, i.e., matters of intimacy such as these. So says Rashi. So also did they say in Bereshith Rabbah:²³⁹ “Rabbi Abahu said, ‘She said it to him at the time of conjugal relations.’” Now I wonder. Joseph’s master was a castrate,²⁴⁰ who had married his wife during his youth, and the Rabbis expounded, “ ‘Sris’ (a captain of) Pharaoh²⁴¹ — this teaches us that he bought Joseph for carnal purposes only, but the Holy One, blessed be He, caused Joseph’s master to become castrated.”²⁴², the same word mentioned in the verse above. Moreover, how would she dare discredit herself and become loathsome in the eyes of her husband by telling him that she had committed adultery, whether by force or with acquiescence, which would have merited mortal punishment, for why did she not cry out at the outset, so that he should run away, as she did at the end? Now to the men of her house she said, He came unto me to lie with me,²⁴³ but not that he lay with her, only that he came to do so, but she cried out and he fled. And surely she would hide the matter from her husband. And should you say that she told him so in order that his anger be kindled against him and that he should kill him, [it would have been sufficient for this purpose that she say that he attempted to violate her, for] any servant that attempts to violate his master’s wife deserves the death penalty! It is possible that they intended to explain the expression, Matters such as these, as meaning matters of intimacy, meaning, exposing and caressing but not actual intimacy, as his master had become physically castrate, having been visited by a disease which resulted in a lack of desire for conjugal relations, as is the case with a shachuf.²⁴⁴ In line with the literal interpretation of Scripture there is no need for all this, for the Hebrew letter kaph, in the word kadvarim, is not for the purpose of expressing comparison to other matters. Instead its meaning is “these things.”²⁴⁵ A similar usage [of the letter kaph is found in these verses]: *And she told her mother’s house ‘kadvarim ha’eileh’ (according to these words);*²⁴⁶ And when he had spoken unto me ‘kadvarim ha’eileh’ (according to these words) I set my face toward the ground.²⁴⁷ There are many similar verses. It may be that the verse is saying that when his master heard his wife’s words which she told him — “Your servant did unto me such matters as these which I had immediately related to the men of the house” — then his anger was kindled. It is possible that the kaph is here used for exaggeration, similar to its use in the verses: *Why speaketh my lord ‘kadvarim ha’eileh’ (such words as these)?*²⁴⁸ *And there have befallen me such things as these (‘ka’eileh’)?*²⁴⁹ Now due to his master’s love for Joseph he did not kill him, or it was a miracle of G-d, or knowing Joseph’s righteousness, he doubted her words. Similarly the Rabbis said in Bereshith Rabbah:²⁵⁰ “The master said to Joseph, ‘I know this charge against you is false, but lest a stigma fall on my children,²⁵¹ [I will put you in prison].’”

footnotes: ²³⁹ 87:10. ²⁴⁰ Sotah 13b. ²⁴¹ Above, 37:36. ²⁴² The Hebrew word for castrate is saris ²⁴³ Verse 14 here. ²⁴⁴ One whose genitals are atrophied. ²⁴⁵ I.e., only to indicate approximation, and here meaning: “matters as these, more or less.” ²⁴⁶ Above, 24:28. ²⁴⁷ Daniel 10:15. ²⁴⁸ Further 44:7. ²⁴⁹ Leviticus 10:19. ²⁵⁰ Bereshith Rabbah 87:10. ²⁵¹ Lest people say; “Just as she was free with you, so she was with others, and the children she had are not his.”

AND HE PUT HIM INTO PRISON, THE PLACE WHERE THE KING’s PRISONERS WERE BOUND. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra says that the verse itself explains that a beth haso’ar (prison) is “a place where the king’s prisoners were bound.” The reason this is stated in the verse itself is that beth haso’ar is an Egyptian word, for it is the style of Scripture to explain foreign words just as, they cast pur, that is the lot.²⁵² This interpretation is of no significance. Rather, And he put him into the prison, means that he put him into a certain prison recognized as the royal prison, which was the place where the king’s prisoners were bound. The sense of the verse is thus to state that this was the cause of the butler and the baker being imprisoned with him. It is possible that the term, “the king’s prisoners,” means his servants and attendants who have sinned against him in matters of state, as other prisoners of the people sentenced by judges and officers were placed in another prison house. Scripture relates that they placed Joseph in the king’s prison because of his master’s love for Joseph, all of which was caused by G-d. Linguists²⁵³. explain sohar as an arched chamber, similar in expression to, agan hasohar (a round goblet).²⁵⁴ In my opinion it is an underground house having a small opening above ground, through which the prisoners are lowered and from which they have light. The word sohar is thus derived from the word sihara (light) in Aramaic, just as in Hebrew, Scripture says; A transparency (‘tzohar’) shalt thou make to the ark,²⁵⁵ the word tzohar being derived from tzaharayim (mid-day — when the light reaches its zenith). The difference between tzohar and sohar is that tzohar connotes an abundance of light, while sohar connotes minimal light.

footnotes: ²⁵² Esther 3:7. ²⁵³ Here referring to R’dak, who so writes in his Book of Roots, under the term sohar ²⁵⁴ Song of Songs 7:3. ²⁵⁵ Above, 6:16.