וישב . Jacob wished to dwell in tranquility. G–d reacted to this wish by saying: "Are the righteous not satisfied with their portion in the Hereafter that they also demand tranquility in this world?" If this is the way G–d reacted when a man of Jacob's caliber wished for tranquility, what can an ordinary mortal whose life is full of transgressions look forward to? How can anyone of us expect to become the beneficiary of the good G–d pours out into this world? When the likes of us experience all this goodness of G–d in our daily lives, must we not be afraid that this is ultimately to our detriment? Are we not consuming our few merits already in this world? In order to make certain that this will not be so, we must practice charity in a generous manner and return to G–d with all our hearts. We must be mindful of the Zohar's comment on the words 37,1) ,מגורי אביו) that Jacob was afraid all his days of having offended G–d, just as his fathers had been so concerned all of their lives.

והוא נער את בני בלהה ואת בני זלפה . We can learn from here how humble Joseph was. Although he was a son of one of Jacob's proper wives, Leah and Rachel, and was very dear to his father, more than all his other brothers, he was content to defer even to his half-brothers, the sons of the maids, as if these wives were נשי יעקב, full-fledged wives of Jacob.

ויבא יוסף את דבתם רעה . Joseph told his father that his brothers were eating forbidden food such a limbs removed from live animals, that they were belittling the sons of the maids by calling them "slaves," and that they were suspected of immoral conduct. Everybody wonders how we can reconcile such behavior by the founders of the Jewish nation. If the brothers were not guilty of such conduct, however, why would Joseph report such behavior to his father? Would Joseph have reported such conduct to his father unless the brothers had been guilty of it? The very wording of the Torah: "He brought, ויבא their דבה to their father makes this unlikely. When the דבה is false, the Torah would have written ויוצא דבתם, "he invented gossip about them." At any rate, how could the brothers have been guilty of such gross misconduct?

I have heard about an explanation found in an ancient manuscript: Abraham wrote the ספר יצירה, and handed it over to his son Isaac. Isaac in turn passed it on to Jacob. Jacob passed the book on to those of his sons who were the most deserving. Torah secrets are not supposed to be handed to undeserving people. As a result, only the sons born of Jacob's fully fledged wives were given copies of the book. We find in the Talmud that Abraham created a calf every Friday, by using instructions in the ספר יצירה on how to arrange the various letters in G–d's name in order to accomplish this. Since the brothers had access to that information, they may have done the same thing. Anything which came into being through this method is not subject to the halachot requiring slaughter, removal of blood, etc., before the animal is fit to be consumed. An animal created in such a way may be eaten while "alive." Joseph was not aware of this, hence he thought that what he reported to his father was a misdemeanor by his brothers.

Sanhedrin 65b reports that the Amora Rava created a human being [using the technique discussed in the ספר יצירה, Ed.]. He sent that creature to Rabbi Zeirah who addressed him. The creature did not respond to what Rabbi Zeirah said to it. Thereupon Rabbi Zeirah ordered the creature to turn back into dust (if he was the creature made by one of the scholars). Rabbi Chanina and Rabbi Oshiyah are reported to have studied the ספר יצירה together every Friday, and to have created a three-year-old calf [a calf which appeared as big as a three-year-old, when it is most tasty; compare Rashi on that folio] and to have eaten it. [In that connection the Talmud states that had they wanted to, the scholars could have created a whole world with the help of the ספר יצירה. I presume that the reason the Talmud tells us all this is that it wants to put the relatively minor accomplishments by soothsayers and other so-called magicians which are discussed on that folio into proper perspective. Ed.] There are letters in certain names of G–d, which, if manipulated in the correct manner, enable one to create female creatures, whereas other letters in other names of G–d, when correctly manipulated, produce male creatures. It is quite possible that the brothers used their knowledge of the ספר יצירה to create female creatures (human look-alikes), and that they consorted with these creatures. Joseph arrived at the erroneous conclusion that there was something immoral about the brothers' conduct with those "females." Whenever the brothers were busy using the ספר יצירה, and the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah wanted to join them, they told their half-brothers that they could not, seeing that they were of an inferior status, being the sons of the maids. Such statements by the sons of Leah were not derogatory in nature, since the brothers wanted to protect the secrets of the ספר יצירה from falling into the hands of those for whom the book was not intended. It follows that both the brothers and Joseph were righteous. Whatever Joseph told his father was intended to lead to the brothers improving their ways through being admonished by Jacob. Nonetheless the Torah refers to these reports of Joseph about his brothers as דבה רעה, "reports of evil," because he should have investigated the circumstances before assuming the worst and telling his father about it.

When looking at what happened to Joseph as a result of his well intentioned tale-bearing, we must reflect how much more prone to punishment we must be, when our tale-bearing is not לשם שמים, as was Joseph's.

ויעש לו כתונת פסים . The Talmud in Shabbat 10b tells us that one must not treat any of one's children differently, since, on account of the extra two silver-coins-worth of money spent on Joseph's colored coat his brothers became jealous of him and this in turn led to the exile in Egypt.

ולא יכלו דברו לשלום . Rashi comments that we can learn the praiseworthy character traits of the brothers from the very criticism the Torah directs at them. The brothers were no hypocrites, fawning on Joseph to his face and cursing him behind his back. They were candid and frank. We have a parallel to this frankness in Samuel I 25,3, where Naval is described. Our sages say that he was just as evil as is implied by his very name [hardly a name given to him by his father at birth. Ed.], i.e. he did not bother to conceal his עין הרע, ill-will. The difference between Naval and the brothers was that whereas Naval was offensive to everybody, the brothers refrained from speaking to Joseph altogether. They did not want to be guilty of hypocrisy by speaking to him peacefully, hiding what was in their hearts; they also did not want to be guilty of hateful behavior towards him.

ראה את שלום אחיך ואת שלום הצאן . We learn from here that first and foremost a person must concern himself with the welfare of his family before turning his attention to the welfare of his property, in this instance the flocks. Jacob sent out Joseph out of concern about the welfare of the brothers who were tending sheep near the town of Shechem, a town which had become the symbol of the hostility of the local population of the region after the brothers Shimon and Levi had killed its inhabitants.

Joseph accepted his father's mission with alacrity as we know from his immediate response: הנני, "I am ready!" Although Joseph had known intellectually that he faced deathly danger, he did not demur by saying to his father:"my brothers hate me, who knows what will happen when they merely see me." His father, who did not entertain such concerns, felt in a way that he complied with something decreed already since the time of Abraham. When the Torah describes Joseph as parting from his father in the valley of Hebron, (Genesis 37,14), the Talmud in Sotah 11 comments that the reason that detail is mentioned is to show us that this mission was the first step in the fulfillment of the prophecy which Abraham (who is buried in Hebron) had received that his descendants would be strangers and slaves in a land not theirs (15,13). Joseph obeyed his father's instructions despite the danger he knew himself to be in. Our sages have said in Yevamot 5 that when one is commanded by one's father to desecrate the Sabbath, one must not obey such an instruction, the reason being that both father and son are under G–d's orders to keep the Sabbath holy and thereby to honor G–d Himself. Such exceptions to the requirement to obey father or mother apply only when commandments between man and G–d are involved. When the father's command may jeopardize the son's life without, however, infringing on one of G–d's commandments, the son is not free to disobey his father.

Gersonides comments that when one observes someone about to perform something terrible, one should try and dissuade such a person in stages instead of demanding that the person desist immediately and absolutely. If one did the latter, one might just reinforce the sinner's intention to go ahead, because his ego has been challenged.

This is why when Reuben saw what his brothers were up to, he did not demand the immediate and unconditional release of Joseph. Reuben realized that if he were to demand more than that the brothers throw Joseph into a pit at that stage, they would not listen to him at all. This is why he only asked them not to spill Joseph's blood with their own hands. He intended to gradually convince his brothers to release Joseph unharmed and to personally bring him back to their father. Similar considerations also motivated Yehudah who suggested that Joseph be sold to the Ishmaelites.

וירא שם יודא בת איש כנעני . From this verse, our sages in Kidushin 41 derive the rule that one must not marry a woman until one has seen her.

The death of both Er and Onan was due to their deliberately destroying their semen. We need only to examine what occurred here in order to get an idea of how seriously the sin of wasting one's sperm is considered. The Torah had not yet been given. The Torah had not specifically warned man not to become guilty of willful destruction of his sperm, and yet the punishment from Heaven was so severe. Man, of course, had an oral tradition going back to Adam that deliberate waste of semen was strictly forbidden. We, who have been the recipients of the Torah, are forewarned in the strictest terms not to engage in any activity which would lead to the emission of semen for purposes other than procreation.

לאיש אשר אלה לו אנכי הרה . The Talmud Sotah 10b concludes that this verse teaches that one should rather suffer oneself to be burned alive than to shame one's fellow-man publicly. The penalty for publicly shaming someone is so great that one must not do it even if one can save lives, and even if the person who would suffer the embarrassment is guilty of the crime one accuses him of.

ויבא הביתה לעשות מלאכתו . The Zohar understands the words "to do his work," as referring to the study of Torah and performing of מצות, activities which make up one's מלאכתו in this world. One should take firm hold of these activities as does an איש. When the Torah continues by saying: ואין איש בבית, the reference is to the evil urge observing that there was no one to oppose him; he immediately grabs the potential sinner by his garment, i.e. ותתפשהו בבגדו, and demands that one join him. If someone is righteous, he holds on to his garment, i.e. ומתחזק בבגדו, and one battles the evil urge, i.e. וינס החוצה. Only then can one be saved from the attack of the evil urge.

The mention of the "garment" in this story is an allusion to the "leather garments." Ever since man became degraded, so that he needs to wear these kinds of garments, he has also become a target for the evil urge to focus upon.

ולא זכר שר המשקים את יוסף וישכחהו . The lesson here is clearly that one must only place one's trust in G–d Himself.