וישב יעקב, whereas Esau had moved to another country on account of his brother Yaakov, Yaakov settled near his father in the land in which both he, his father, and his grandfather had only sojourned up until now. He claimed this right as the result of having purchased the birthright from his older brother.

אלה תולדות יעקב, intelligent people must remember that our sages taught us that in spite of all different methods of exegesis of the text of the written Torah, no verse may legitimately be explained in a manner which contradicts the plain meaning of the text. While it is true that the Torah, by means of allusions, grammatical anomalies, tone-signs, etc., teaches us far more than meets the eye when we look at the bald text, there are strict limitations even to these methods of exegesis such as the thirteen principles of Rabbi Yishmael and the 32 principles of Rabbi Yossi Haglili. Exegetes of former times, thanks to their piety, relied exclusively on the drashot i.e. allegorical and ethical interpretations of anomalies in the text of the Torah, thereby neglecting a thorough study of the text as it presents itself to the average, though not scholarly, reader. Seeing that our sages stated אל תרבו בניכם בהגיון, “do not burden your children overly with interpretation based on logic, on common sense,” and they also saidהעוסק במקרא מדה ואינו מדה, העוסק בתלמוד אין לך מדה גדולה מזו, “he who studies the written text of the Torah has accomplished something positive but has also failed to accomplish something positive, but on the other hand, he who has studied Talmud has chosen by far the best path in Torah study,” (freely translated), the result of such statements has been that students have not become used to studying the plain meaning of the text without immediately looking at exegesis. (Baba Metzia 33 and a source supposedly in Berachot 28, the correct text being מנעו בניכם מן ההגיון, prevent your children from indulging in speculative reason,” but this does not seem to have any connection with Torah exegesis in the context where the statement is made. Ed.] This principle has been illustrated in Shabbat 63; we read there in the name of Rav Kahane “I was already eighteen years old and had studied the entire Talmud, but had not ever been taught of the principle that אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו, “that the text in the written Torah must not be interpreted in a manner which completely nullifies its plain meaning.” Also Rabbi Shlomoh, my mother’s father of blessed memory (Rashi) the brilliant exegete, who wrote commentaries on the entire Bible, was careful not to ignore the plain meaning of the text. I, Shmuel, son of Rabbi Meir, Rashi’s son-in-law, have argued with him, and he admitted to me that if he had the opportunity, he would compose an additional commentary in which he would concentrate on the plain meaning as it became clearer to him with each passing day. [I believe that the wording here means that Rashi meant that just as his published commentaries consisted mostly of anthologies, i.e. his quoting existing interpretations, so he would search out more commentaries based on the plain meaning to present to the reader when publishing another commentary. Ed.] I am now presenting to the reader what earlier exegetes had to say on our verse.

אלה תולדות יעקב, “the following describes events and problems which Yaakov encountered in his life.” [by the way, Seforno, who lived hundreds of years later than Rash’bam, also accepts the interpretation described as nonsensical by Rash’bam. Ed.] This exegesis is nonsense. Whenever the expression תולדות occurs in the Bible, sometimes this word introduces the names of the grandsons of the party referred to, such as in Genesis 6,9 where the Torah after describing the righteousness of Noach tells us that Noach had three sons and proceeds to give us their names. The names of the sons could not be the purpose of the story there, as we had been told earlier in 5,32 that Noach at the age of 500 sired three sons and we were already told their names. The Torah then continues to describe mankind’s ongoing corruption and that Noach was the only one with whom G’d was pleased. When the Torah commences a second time with the line אלה תולדות נח in 6,9, clearly the Torah does not mean to repeat itself, but it leads to the Torah telling us of Noach’s grandchildren, something that is reported in greater detail in 10,1 under the heading of “and these are the generations of the sons of Noach.” [Perhaps the reason for the repetition of אלה תולדות בני נח in chapter 10, is that if, as the author says, the grandchildren were meant already in chapter 6, now after the deluge, the task of these children to generate a new mankind began in earnest, whereas up to that point they were charged with merely surviving the deluge. Ed.] Just as the Torah reported the growth and development of mankind after the deluge until we have a total of 70 such descendants of Noach being named, so in chapter 36,6 we have been told of the descendants of Esau who have been born in the land of Canaan, i.e. the land in which his father lived. After that, the Torah reported Esau’s further development in Mount Seir, commencing with verse 9 of that chapter. The Torah reports the development of Yaakov’s family in a parallel manner, 35,23 extending through verses 26-27 and listing all his children who had been born in exile, while he was in Padan Aram with Lavan. Now the Torah continues with the words אלה תולדות יעקב, concentrating forthwith on the grandchildren who combine to make up a total of 70 prior to the descent of the family to Egypt. Details of the birth of these various grandchildren are being provided, beginning with the chronicle of what happened to Joseph, who at 17 years of age experienced traumatic events, as a result of which his older brother Yehudah separated from the other brothers and started his own family in Keziv and Adulam, siring three sons, and grandsons respectively, i.e. Shelah, Peretz and Zerach. The history of Yaakov’s family became complicated further with Joseph having been brought to Egypt as a slave where Menashe and Ephrayim were born for him. Having attained high office, Joseph invited his father and family to join him in Egypt so that ultimately 70 members of Yaakov’s family wound up in Egypt. Moses had to record all this in order to substantiate his claim in Deuteronomy 10,22 that “your fathers descended to Egypt when they numbered only 70 persons.”

בן שבע עשרה שנה, this was necessary so that we realise that the separation of Joseph from his father –during which time Yaakov had considered his as dead- lasted for 22 years. The Torah testified in 41,26 that Joseph was 30 years old when presented to Pharaoh, after which time 7 good years and 2 years of famine occurred before Yaakov and family descended to settle in Egypt, making a total of 22 years of separation.

היה רועה את אחיו בצאן, the sons of Leah, are referred to as his brothers, seeing that they were the sons of a major wife, as opposed to the sons of Zilpah and Bilhah who ranked lower on the social scale, though also half-brothers of Joseph. They are therefore referred to here only as the sons for their respective mothers.

והוא נער את בני בלהה ואת בני זלפה, he spent most of his time in the company of those four children who were far closer to him in age. The fact that Joseph preferred the company of the sons of the servant-maids may have been the beginning of the sons of Leah resenting him.

את אחיו, he was tending the sheep with his brothers, but, seeing that he still enjoyed his carefree childhood he spent most of his time with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, instead of in the company of the sons of Leah. As a 17 year old he should have acted like a נער, an adolescent lad approaching manhood. This is the meaning of the word נער in Hoseah 11,1 Samuel II 2,14. The Torah now enumerates a number of other causes which contributed to the brothers hating Joseph. [this was how Leah’s sons viewed his behaviour, not how Joseph explained it. Ed.]

ויבא יוסף את דבתם רעה, the language is somewhat inverted and means the same as את דבתם של אחיו רעה, “reports of his brothers‘ wrongdoing.” This is in line with the interpretation of Bereshit Rabbah, as quoted by Rashi that Joseph told his father that the sons of Leah treated the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah with disdain. He contrasted this with his own behaviour towards these half brothers of his, whom he professed to honour and spend extra time with them as proof of his considering them equal. Other commentators have not related to the principal meaning of our verse. [the brothers would not have known about Joseph badmouthing them as Yaakov would not have told them. Hence they never reacted to this. Ed.]

וישראל אהב, all of the aforementioned details caused the brothers to become jealous of Joseph.

בן זקונים, he was the most recently born of 11 children. There had been a considerable interval before Binyamin, the last of Yaakov’s children was born. Yaakov’s inordinate love for Joseph developed long before Binyamin was born.

כתונת פסים, a cloak, (compare Samuel II 13,18 Tamar’s cloak).

ועל דבריו, the badmouthing. [how did the brothers find out about this? Ed.]

מה החלום הזה?, even if Joseph’s mother had still been alive, Yaakov would still have rebuked Joseph for having such a dream.

ואביו שמר את הדבר. Why did the Torah bother to write this line? The reason is that when the brothers returned from Egypt and reported about Joseph’s position there, and Yaakov did not believe them that Joseph was still alive, he saw the carriages which Pharaoh had sent to transport him in (45,27) and realised that such an honour could only be bestowed by a king, and that seeing that the King of Egypt had no reason to honour him in such a manner, the carriages, though sent with the approval of Pharaoh, must have been sent by someone in an almost equally high position, i.e. his son Joseph, who had dreamed of attaining such stature. It was the recollection of the dream Joseph had told him about which then prompted Yaakov to exclaim רב,עוד יוסף בני חי, וכי הוא מושל בכל בארץ מצרים, “it is too much! Not only is my son Joseph still alive, but he is the ruler of the whole land of Egypt!” (45,28 combined with 26)

הלא אחיך רועים בשכם, the wording reflects Yaakov's surprise that Joseph’s brothers chose to tend their sheep in a dangerous location such as Shechem where they had killed the local inhabitants not so long ago. (this is what I heard from Rabbi Yoseph Karo our colleague. I enjoyed his interpretation greatly. [this was not original as it is found in Targum Yerushalmi. David Rosin, Ed.]

ויבא שכמה, when he came to Shechem he did not find them there.

'וימצאהו איש והנה תועה וגו, this paragraph has been written in order to demonstrate the reliability and eagerness of Joseph to comply with his father’s wishes; he did not use the fact that the brothers were no longer in Shechem as an excuse to abort his mission and to return home, but kept searching for them until, in the end, he located them. He remembered that part of his father’s instructions had been השיבני דבר, “bring me back a report!”

בדותן, according to the plain meaning this was the name of a town, and the town is also mentioned in the Book of Kings II 6,13.

ויתנכלו אותו, they were full of devious and nefarious thoughts. The word occurs in this sense in Maleachi 1,24: וארור נוכל, “cursed the person who plots deviously.”

הלזה; whenever the word הלזה is mentioned it refers to someone or something that one sees from afar, indistinctly. For instance in Genesis 24,65 Rivkah asked Eliezer who the man was who was approaching them from a distance. The word הזה, on the other hand, refers to someone or something close at hand, as for instance Haman in Esther 7,6, to whom Esther points when the King asked here who the culprit was who wanted to destroy her and her people.

לכו ונהרגהו, the introduction לכו is an invitation for other people to participate in a planned undertaking. We have a similar example in verse 27 of our chapter when the brothers sell Joseph and Yehudah introduces the plan with the words לכו ונמכרנו לישמעאלים, “let us sell him to the Ishmaelites.” Another similar example is found in Exodus 1,10 when Pharaoh invites his people to outsmart the Israelites with the words הבה נתחכמה לו. In that verse the word הבה is used as such an invitation. Compare also Deuteronomy 11,26, where the word ראה is used in the same manner, except that it does not involve active participation by those addressed

ויצילהו מידם, he saved his life, no more.

השליכו אותו אל הבור הזה אשר במדבר, where no one passes so that he will die from natural causes.

למען הציל, in order to really save him. The verse illustrates Reuven’s intention of not only saving Joseph’s life, but of bringing him back safely to his father, as the Torah testifies later in the course of its narrative.

את כתונת הפסים, the only reason why these words have been inserted here is to remind the reader of what had been the cause of the entire tragic episode of fraternal hatred. However, if the Torah had not added these words, we would have been misled. The fact that the Torah describes the brothers sending the blood-spattered tattered remains of this tunic to their father (verse 33) was designed to deceive their father into believing that what happened to Joseph had nothing to do with his father having had this garment made for him and the brothers having resented this. The Torah does not want us, the readers, to be misled as the brothers had succeeded in misleading their father into thinking that he had become the victim of a wild animal.

אין בו מים. If the pit had been full of water the brothers would not have thrown him into the pit, as they then would have been guilty of drowning him, i.e. killing him with their own hands, as it were. They had said themselves “let not our hands be on him.”

ויעברו אנשים מדינים, while the brothers had been sitting down to consume their meal, having distanced themselves somewhat from the pit into which they had thrown Joseph in order not to be guilty of “eating while spilling blood,” they were waiting for the Ishmaelites whom they had seen in the distance, to arrive. During this period the Midianites, coming from a different direction had passed there, saw Joseph in the pit, pulled him up, and proceeded to sell him to the Ishmaelites. One may assume that the brothers had no knowledge of this. Even though the Torah appears to attribute the sale of Joseph to the Ishmaelites to the brothers, (based on Joseph accusing them of having sold him to Egypt, 45,4) we would have to say that because of their having been instrumental in bringing about that sale they are considered as if having assisted in that sale. This appears to me the deeper meaning of the plain meaning of the text both here and in chapter 45. The line describing the Midianites passing that way is described as something totally coincidental, having nothing to do with what the brothers had planned to do with Joseph. Even if the Torah says:וימכרו (את) יוסף לישמעאלים, this sounds as if the brothers did the selling. It is also possible that the brothers noting the Midianites suddenly materialising out of nowhere, instructed them to pull Joseph out of the pit after which they themselves sold him to the Ishmaelites.

אנה אני בא!, what did I came to the pit for!

וישלחו, by means of human messengers who would not identify themselves, saying only: “this is what we have found!”

כי ארד, I will not be consoled but will descend to my grave joining my son while still mourning his death.

ויבך אותו אביו, for a long period of time. Seeing that the line is superfluous, our sages, as quoted by Rashi, added that Yitzchok (his father) wept for the anguish of his son Yaakov although he knew that Joseph had not been killed.

והמדנים מכרו אותו אל מצרים. The Midianites, Medanites, and the Ishmaelites are brotherly tribes. (compare 25,20) According to the plain meaning of the text, they are the same people, sometimes called by one name, other times by the other name. This is why the Torah wrote here that the Midianites had sold him, whereas the Ishmaelites had transported him there.