WHY ‘TITHRA’U’. (DO YOU LOOK TO YOURSELVES)? “Do not show yourselves before the children of Esau and Ishmael as having plenty to eat.” At that time they still had some grain. From others I have heard that the word tithra’u is an expression of leanness. Thus Jacob said to his sons, “Why should you become lean through hunger?” A similar [use of the word tithra’u, i.e., similar to the first explanation], is the verse: And he that satisfies (‘umarveh’) abundantly shall be satisfied (‘yoreh’).¹¹⁹ Thus the language of Rashi. Now the comment of “others,” [namely, that the word tithra’u connotes leanness], has no validity whatsoever. And I did not understand that which Rashi says, “Do not show yourselves before the children of Ishmael and the children of Esau as having plenty to eat.” The children of Ishmael and of Esau were not then present in the land of Canaan, and why did Jacob not say that they should not show themselves before the children of Canaan as having plenty to eat? Perhaps the children of Ishmael and of Esau did come from their dwelling places to Joseph to buy food, and they came by way of the land of Canaan, thus passing by Jacob. He thus said to his children that they should not show themselves before them as having plenty to eat, for they would then suspect that Jacob has food, whereupon they would come to eat bread with him in his house. Accordingly, Jacob’s words, That we may live, and not die,¹²⁰ constitute another reason for his command to them. He warned them to be careful with the little food yet left to them, and that they should go to buy food from Egypt so as not to die when all the bread in their possession is consumed. The correct interpretation is: “Why do you show yourselves in this place, for you should have immediately journeyed from here when you heard that there is grain in Egypt,” since they were already in a state of danger if they would not make haste in the matter. This is the meaning of the words, That we may live, and not die.¹²⁰

footnotes: ¹¹⁹ Proverbs 11:25. That is, he who is benevolent to others will himself be recompensed by the Divine bounty. ¹²⁰ Verse 2 here. ¹²⁰ Verse 2 here.

HE IT WAS THAT SOLD GRAIN TO ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE LAND. Now it is not befitting a ruler of a land, second in rank to the king of Egypt, that he sell everyone a se’ah [a dry measure] or a half thereof of grain. It was for this reason that our Rabbis were impelled to say¹²¹ that Joseph had ordered at that time that all storehouses except one be closed so that he would be sure to meet his brothers. In line with the literal interpretation of the verse it is possible that the people from all lands came before him, and he would question and investigate them, and then command the officers, “Sell so much food of this — and that — kind to the people of that city.” Thus it was necessary for the children of Jacob to come before him among those who came from the land of Canaan, that he could issue an order concerning them, specifying how much grain should be sold to their land, since they were the first to come from the land of Canaan¹²² and they came before him for the sake of all.

footnotes: ¹²¹ Bereshith Rabbah 91:6. ¹²² See further, at the end of Verse 9, where Ramban establishes the fact that the brothers were the first to come from the land of Canaan to buy grains, thus offering Joseph the opportunity to charge them as spies.

AND JOSEPH SAW HIS BRETHREN, AND HE RECOGNIZED THEM. Immediately as he saw them he recognized them, and he feared lest they recognize him. And he made himself strange (‘vayithnakeir’) unto them by putting a mitre upon his forehead and part of the face, thus disguising himself, just as it is said concerning the wife of Jeroboam, Arise, I pray thee, and disguise thyself, that thou be not known to be the wife of Jeroboam,¹²³ in a physical sense. Joseph disguised himself by placing his mitre over his face. Further on, Ramban mentions a second interpretation. See Note 126. and it further says, For it will be, when she cometh in, that she ‘mithnakeirah’ (will pretend to be another woman).¹²⁴, Verse 6. It may be that the word vayithnakeir here means that he made himself strange by his words, speaking to them harshly and asking them in anger — as if it were not customary to come before him to purchase food — “From where do you come to appear before me?” And they said, From the land of Canaan to buy food. When they mentioned this to him, it then became clear to him that they were indeed his brothers. This is the meaning of the expression, And Joseph recognized his brethren,¹²⁵ which is mentioned a second time to indicate an additional sense of recognition and knowledge of the truth with respect to them. Now Rashi wrote in explanation of the word vayithnakeir: “He made himself like a nochri (stranger) in conversation by speaking harshly to them.” According to Rashi’s opinion, the word vayithnakeir signifies that he spoke to them as a man who is a nochri (stranger). But this is not correct.¹²⁶ having the same root as heker (recognition), except that the word here changes its meaning so as to indicate its opposite. See Rashi on Exodus 27:3, where he says that there are many such words in the Hebrew language. In the case before us, the word vayithnakeir would thus mean that Joseph made himself unrecognizable by speaking harshly to them. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 232.

footnotes: ¹²³ I Kings 14:2. Ramban explains the word vayithnakeir ¹²⁴ Ibid. ¹²⁵ Verse 8 here. ¹²⁶ A stranger does not necessarily speak harshly. Hence Rashi’s interpretation is incorrect. Ramban’s second interpretation mentioned above, however, is based upon the word vayithnakeir

BUT THEY DID NOT RECOGNIZE HIM. I.e., at all. And so he no longer needed to make himself appear strange to them. Now in this matter of recognition, our Rabbis have said¹²⁷ that Joseph recognized his brothers because he had left them bearded, but they did not recognize him because when he left them he had no beard and now they found him with a beard. Now Issachar and Zebulun were but a little older than Joseph,¹²⁸ but having recognized the older ones, he recognized them all. Moreover, he recognized them because he knew they were bound to come, but they did not recognize him because it did not occur to them that a slave sold to the Ishmaelites should be the ruler of a land. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra says: And he recognized them.¹²⁹ That is, at first he recognized them to be his brothers, and following that, he looked at each one and recognized him individually.¹³⁰, since it refers to individual recognition.

footnotes: ¹²⁷ Kethuboth 27b. ¹²⁸ Thus they were also beardless when Joseph left, so how did he recognize them now that they were bearded? ¹²⁹ Verse 7 here. ¹³⁰ This explains the repetition in Verse 8, And Joseph recognized his brethren

AND JOSEPH REMEMBERED THE DREAMS WHICH HE DREAMED OF THEM. [That is, he remembered the dreams which he dreamed] concerning them, and now knew that they had been fulfilled, for they had bowed down to him. This is the language of Rashi. In my opinion, the matter is the reverse. Scripture states that when Joseph saw his brothers bowing down to him, he remembered all the dreams which he had dreamed concerning them and he knew that in this instance, not one of the dreams had been fulfilled. He knew that it was inherent in their interpretation that according to the first dream, at first all his brothers would bow down to him, as it says, And, behold, we were binding sheaves,¹³¹ for “we” refers to all eleven of his brothers. The second time, in accordance with the second dream, the sun, the moon and eleven stars¹³², Verse 9. would bow down to him. Now since he did not see Benjamin with them, he conceived of the strategy of devising a charge against them so that they would also bring his brother Benjamin to him, in order to first fulfill the first dream. It is for this reason that he did not wish to tell them at this time, I am Joseph your brother,¹³³ and to say, Hasten and go up to my father,¹³⁴, 45:9. and send wagons, as he did to them the second time,¹³⁵, Verse 19. for in that case his father would undoubtedly have come at once. It was only after fulfillment of the first dream that he told them, I am Joseph your brother,¹³³ etc., in order to fulfill the second dream. Were it not for this consideration, Joseph would indeed be regarded as having committed a great sin: bringing anguish to his father, leaving him for many days in the position of being bereft and mourning for Simeon and him. Even if it was his intention to cause his brothers minor anguish, how did he not have compassion for his elderly father? But he assigned each to its proper time¹³⁶ in order to fulfill the dreams, knowing that they would truly be fulfilled. Also, the second matter, which he effected against them in connection with the goblet,¹³⁷ is not to be interpreted as if his intention was to cause them anguish, but rather because he suspected that they might hate Benjamin as a result of their jealousy of him on account of his father’s love for him, just as they were jealous of Joseph. Perhaps Benjamin had sensed that they had harmed Joseph, thus causing a quarrel and hatred to erupt between him and his brothers. Therefore, Joseph did not wish Benjamin to travel with them until he had tested their love for him, lest they harm him. It is to this matter that our Rabbis in Bereshith Rabbah¹³⁸ referred when they said: “Rabbi Chiya the son of Rabbi Abba said, ‘When you read the entire plea which Judah made in the presence of his brothers, until you reach the verse, Then Joseph could not refrain himself,¹³⁹ [you can see that] there was in it an attempt to win the sympathy of Joseph, the sympathy of his brothers, and the sympathy of Benjamin. Joseph’s sympathy [would be gained since Joseph would think], ‘See how he is ready to give his life for Rachel’s children, etc.’” Similarly I say that all these acts of Joseph are accounted for by his wisdom in the interpretation of the dreams. Otherwise, one should wonder: After Joseph stayed in Egypt for many years and became chief and overseer in the house of a great lord in Egypt, how was it possible that he did not send a single letter to his father to inform him of his whereabouts and comfort him, as Egypt is only about a six-day journey from Hebron? Even if it were a year’s journey, out of respect to his father, he should have notified him, in which case even if the ransom of his person would be ever so costly, he would have redeemed him. But it was because Joseph saw that the bowing down of his brothers, as well as his father and all his family, could not possibly be accomplished in their homeland, and he was hoping that it would be effected in Egypt when he saw his great success there. This was all the more so after he heard Pharaoh’s dream, from which it became clear to him that all of them were destined to come there, and all his dreams would be fulfilled.

footnotes: ¹³¹ Above, 37:7. ¹³² Ibid. ¹³³ Further, 45:4. ¹³⁴ Ibid. ¹³⁵ Ibid. ¹³³ Further, 45:4. ¹³⁶ Ecclesiastes 3:11. ¹³⁷ In which he accused Benjamin of stealing the goblet. (Further, 44:17). ¹³⁸ 93:9. ¹³⁹ Further, 45:1.

AND HE SAID UNTO THEM, YE ARE SPIES. This accusation requires some reason or some plausible explanation, for what did they do that he should so accuse them? People from every country came to him to buy grain, and they were “among those who came,” just as it says, To buy grain among those that came, for the famine was in the land of Canaan.¹⁴⁰ Perhaps [the reason for the accusation was that] they had the appearance of men of stature and prominence, all of them clothed most gorgeously,¹⁴¹ whereupon he said to them, “It is not customary for prominent people as you to come to buy food, having as you do many servants.” It is possible that they were the first ones to come from the land of Canaan. This is the meaning of the verse, And the sons of Israel came to buy grain among those that came, for the famine was in the land of Canaan,¹⁴⁰ meaning that now they were the first who came from there. So Joseph said to them, “You are spies, since no one has come from the land of Canaan to buy food.” This is the intent of the question, *“Where have you come from?”*¹⁴² which he addressed to them at the outset.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁰ Verse 5 here. ¹⁴¹ Ezekiel 38:4. ¹⁴⁰ Verse 5 here. ¹⁴² Verse 7 here.

WE ARE ALL ONE MAN’s SONS. It is possible to explain this plea as follows: They said that “since we are brothers, one man’s sons, who do not separate from each other for such is our father’s will, we all came to buy food, and we did not send one of us with his servants.” This indeed was the truth, for why should Jacob have sent them all, except that it was not their wish to be separated from one another. It is also possible that they did so because of the extreme famine, lest the grain brought by their servants be robbed from them on the way. It is also possible that they said to him: “We are all one man’s sons. You can investigate him, for he is known in the gates by the vastness of his wealth and the multitude of his children. And if you will inquire and investigate, you will know that we are trustworthy, righteous men, sons of a righteous one, and not spies.”

THY SERVANTS HAVE NOT BEEN SPIES. The meaning of this expression is: “We have been trustworthy in all our affairs from our youth on. Your servants have not been spies from then till now.” Similarly, We have not been spies,¹⁴³ means: “We have never been spies.” Now our Rabbis have been aroused by the matter we have discussed,¹⁴⁴ and they have expounded¹⁴⁵ that they entered the city by ten different gates in the manner of spies, and it was for this reason that he accused them. Now this is plausible; however, Scripture does not mention it! Moreover, at the very outset, the brothers said to him in defense of themselves, We are all one man’s sons, and [if, as the Midrash has it, the basis of his accusation was that they entered by ten different gates], this itself indicates their guilt.¹⁴⁶ Now it is possible to say in explanation of the Midrash that Joseph originally said to them, “you entered by ten gates, and now you are all gathering in one place and conspiring together. This is nothing other than the behavior of spies.” Thereupon they said to him, “It is because we are brothers that we are gathered together.” But he said, “Not so, but you have come to find out the condition of the land.¹⁴⁷ If you were brothers you should have entered by one gate, just as you are now together.” Then they told him that one of them is gone,¹⁴⁸ and that they had gone in search of him, [which was why they entered by different gates]. Scripture, however, does not care to prolong the discussion of the motivation of their arguments.

footnotes: ¹⁴³ Further in Verse 31. ¹⁴⁴ Namely, what did the brothers do to justify Joseph’s accusation that they were spies? ¹⁴⁵ Bereshith Rabbah 91:6. ¹⁴⁶ Since brothers as a rule stay together, the fact that they did not enter by the same gate indicates that they are spies. ¹⁴⁷ Verse 12 here. ¹⁴⁸ Verse 13 here.

AND HE PUT THEM ALL TOGETHER INTO A WARD THREE DAYS. This he did in order to frighten them and to make them believe that it is G-d he fears,¹⁴⁹ meaning that it is because of his fear of G-d that he is releasing them lest the people of their households perish from hunger. This is the meaning of his words, The rest of you, go and take grain home to your starving households.¹⁵⁰ Besides, they would not have consented to leave the one [Simeon]¹⁵¹ behind except for the purpose of saving all their families.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁹ Verse 18 here. ¹⁵⁰ Verse 19 here. ¹⁵¹ See Verse 24.

IN THAT WE SAW THE DISTRESS OF HIS SOUL, WHEN HE IMPLORED US. It is obvious that the brothers now considered their display of cruelty towards Joseph as deserving of a greater punishment than the sale itself since it was their blood-brother who was imploring and prostrating himself before them and they remained unmoved. Scripture, however, did not relate there [that Joseph implored them at the time of the sale], either because it is naturally understood that a person would implore his brothers when falling into their grip when their intention is to harm him, swearing by the life of his father, and doing all that is possible to save himself from death. It may be the desire of Scripture to speak only briefly of their sin, or it is possible that it is characteristic of Scripture to speak briefly about a matter in one place, and to elaborate on it in another place. Now Reuben answered them by saying: “Now I already told you at the time that the event took place that you should not sin against him for he is only a lad, and only on account of his youth did he sin against you, and it is therefore fitting for you to gloss over the sins of his youth. And now, his blood also,¹⁵² together with the display of cruelty which you mention, is required.” Perhaps the explanation of the phrase, his blood also, may be: “Even though you have not killed him, G-d will require his blood of you, and it will be accounted to you as if you spilled his blood since he was sold as a permanent slave, for it is possible that being a darling child,¹⁵³ unused to work, he died.” Our Rabbis have expounded¹⁵⁴ “The expression, ‘Also’ his blood, implies his blood and the blood of his aged father.”

footnotes: ¹⁵² Verse 22 here. ¹⁵³ Jeremiah 31:19. ¹⁵⁴ Bereshith Rabbah 91:10.

AND TO GIVE THEM PROVISION FOR THE WAY. The reason for saying this is so that they should not consume the food which they bought in the course of the journey. He informed them of this for he gave them the provisions for the journey in a kindly fashion so that they should be able to bring the brother [Benjamin] to him, for he said, “I have no intention of harming you if your words are verified.”

AND AS ONE OF THEM OPENED HIS SACK. One of them opened his sack in the inn to give therefrom some fodder to his ass, while the others did not open their sacks until they were with their father, just as it says, And it came to pass as they emptied their sacks,¹⁵⁵ for perhaps the others took straw for their asses, lest they consume their entire loads on the way. But the one who opened the sack on the way had a weak ass, which required fodder, and he thus found the money in the mouth of his bag (‘amtachto’). Now Rashi writes that amtachath is the sack, but Onkelos translated it as “load.” It appears from Onkelos’ opinion that each one in order to equalize his load, had large sacks and small sacks, and the total load of each one is called amtachath. Thus it happened that one of them found his money at the mouth of the particular sack he opened, while it did not happen to the others until they emptied all their sacks. It seems plausible to me that amtachath is a large sack containing two sides, known in the language of the Talmud as matrata,¹⁵⁶, meaning that if a person is carrying two leather sacks of equal weight on his right and left shoulders, why should he change one sack for the other? (See Rashi there.) and the money of each one was put at the mouth of one of the sides. Now it so happened that one of them opened the side where the money lay, but it did not happen to the others. This kind of sack is called amtachath because it stretches (yimtach) at the sides.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁵ Verse 35 here. ¹⁵⁶ Kethuboth 110 a: hafuchi matrata lamah li

AND YOU SHALL BE FREE (‘TIS’CHARU’) TO TRADE IN THE LAND. They altered it for the sake of peace¹⁵⁷ so that Jacob would consent to send Benjamin along with them. It had been their desire to return immediately were it not that Jacob had said, My son shall not go down with you.¹⁵⁸ Similarly, for the sake of peace, they told him Joseph’s words, ‘Leave’ one of your brothers with me,¹⁵⁹ and they did not tell their father of their imprisonment or of Simeon’s imprisonment. It is possible that Joseph did tell them, And you shall be free to trade in the land, but Scripture does not relate it. If so, the intent of the statement is that “you will be able to bring merchandise at your will for the purpose of purchasing grain, and I will not take it, as compensation for your embarassment.”¹⁶⁰ Similarly, their saying, The man persisted in asking about ourselves, and our family,¹⁶¹ constitutes a motivating plea to their father, [but the event never actually took place]. It may be that when they told Joseph, We are all one man’s sons,¹⁶² he said to them, “Not so, but you have truly come to find out the condition of the land.¹⁶³ Now tell me if your father is alive, and if you have another brother, for I will investigate you and know what you are.” Then they said, “We are twelve brethren, the sons of one man who is presently in the land of Canaan, for he is still alive, and the youngest one is with him, and one is gone.” This was what Judah said to Joseph: *My lord asked his servants, saying, Have you a father, or a brother?*¹⁶⁴ In a similar manner Scripture, in many places, is concise about an event or the recounting thereof, as I have mentioned.¹⁶⁵ Now Rashi writes: “Tis’charu, you may travel round the land. All expressions of s’chorah (merchandise) and socharim (merchants) are derived from sochar, which means ‘going around,’ because the merchants go round looking for merchandise.” It would seem that the Rabbi [Rashi]¹⁶⁶, Note 139. aimed by this interpretation to guard himself against this difficulty.¹⁶⁷ in the land. Therefore, Rashi explained the word tis’charu as giving them the right to travel around the land and buy grain always without hindrance. He therefore explained their words as reporting only that Joseph had said that they would be permitted to travel around the land and always buy grain at their pleasure. But above, in the story of Shechem, Rashi did not so interpret the same expressions: *Settle down ‘us’charuah’ (and engage in trade);*¹⁶⁸ *‘v’yis’charu othah’ (and engage in trade in it).*¹⁶⁹, Verse 21.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁷ For we do not find that Joseph told this to his brothers. ¹⁵⁸ Verse 38 here. ¹⁵⁹ Verse 33 here. ¹⁶⁰ Thus he suggested that they will be able to keep their original merchandise for sale to others, and obtain grain free. ¹⁶¹ Further, 43:7. ¹⁶² Verse 11 here. ¹⁶³ Verse 12 here. ¹⁶⁴ Further, 44:19. ¹⁶⁵ See Ramban above in Verse 21. ¹⁶⁶ See Bereshith ¹⁶⁷ Namely, that we do not find that Joseph mentioned to his brothers about being free to trade ¹⁶⁸ Above, 34:10. For there actual trade is referred to, while here only travelling around the land is meant. Therefore Rashi makes his comment here, and not there in the story of Schechem. ¹⁶⁹ Ibid.

MY TWO SONS ‘TAMITH’ (THOU SHALT SLAY). Under penalty of a curse,¹⁷⁰ is not to be understood literally as meaning that Reuben was ready to forfeit the lives of his two sons. Instead, the word is to be understood in a general sense, i.e., that Reuben is willing to be punished, but not that Jacob slay Reuben’s sons. Reuben obligated himself to return Benjamin to his father, as he said to him, My two sons ‘tamith,’ meaning, “May thy punishment be upon me if I do not bring him back to you.” This is similar in intent to that which Judah said: Then I shall have sinned against thee all my days.¹⁷¹ Now Reuben said, My two sons, although he actually had four.¹⁷², 46:9. His intent in saying “two” was to state that “in place of one of your sons, it should be visited doubly upon my sons.” Now Jacob did not rely upon Reuben as he did upon Judah,¹⁷³ for Judah prevailed upon his brethren.¹⁷⁴ Moreover, Reuben had already sinned against his father,¹⁷⁵ and therefore he would no longer rely upon him. Generally, Judah’s counsel was sound: i.e., to leave the patriarch alone until there was no bread in the house, for then he would listen. This — [Judah’s reference to the complete absence of food] — is indicated by Judah’s words to his father: That we may live, and not die, both we, and thou, and also our little ones.¹⁷⁶

footnotes: ¹⁷⁰ Ramban’s intent is to explain that the word tamith ¹⁷¹ Further, 43:9. ¹⁷² Ibid. ¹⁷³ For when Judah gave his promise to his father that he would bring back Benjamin, he finally consented to send him along (43: 9-13), but Reuben’s plea went unanswered. ¹⁷⁴ I Chronicles 5:2. Thus suggesting that Judah’s great influence upon his brothers would assure their cooperation in bringing back Benjamin under all circumstances. ¹⁷⁵ Above, 35:22. ¹⁷⁶ Further 43:8.