וישב יעקב, “Yaakov settled, etc.” [the author addresses the strange line “in a land in which his father had been a stranger, the land of Canaan.” Ed.] Seeing that the Torah previously had reported that Esau had settled in the mountains of Seir, whereas Yaakov and family had dwelled like strangers in a land in which their fathers had dwelled only as strangers, in a land which was not theirs, and the prediction to Avraham their founder that his descendants would remain strangers for 400 years in a land not theirs had been in effect for a long time already, the Torah reminds us that this prediction had been meant for Yaakov’s descendants specifically, seeing that Yaakov’s father Yitzchok had never left the Holy Land since birth. The Torah had to remind us that the land of Canaan was not yet considered a “homeland” for Yitzchok’s or Yaakov’s descendants.

אלה תולדות יעקב, “These are the developments of Yaakov;” Rashi interprets these words as introducing the background to the many places Yaakov’s descendants lived and emigrated to, before they finally settled in the Land of Israel, previously the land of Canaan. The first cause for these wanderings is to be found in the story of Joseph and his brothers. Ibn Ezra’s commentary follows the same general approach as that of Rashi. Nachmanides claims that the expression תולדות cannot be applied to successive residences of a person or a people, but only to days, years, etc., i.e. generations, births, etc. A well known example is Proverbs 27,1 מה ילד יום, “what the day will bring” (give birth to). I believe that the correct interpretation of our verse is: “these are developments of Yaakov, Joseph and his brothers and what has been happening to them.” Possibly, just as the Torah listed the developments of Esau down to the giving of the Torah to the Jewish people, it lists what had happened to the descendants of Yaakov and all his descendants until they moved to Egypt, 70 in number.

והוא נער את בני בלהה. “and he was a lad keeping company with the sons of Bilhah.” Rashi interprets this as Joseph’s immaturity, acting childishly. Onkelos interprets this to mean that already from his earliest youth, Joseph preferred the company of the sons of Bilhah who looked up to him and flattered him. Nachmanides writes that the words והוא נער, refer to what has been written previously, so that we have to understand the sequence of the verse as follows: “these are the developments in the house of Yaakov; Joseph, who was a lad of 17 years used to tend the sheep together with his brothers.” Ibn Ezra interprets the verse to mean that because Joseph was still immature at 17, the sons of Bilhah made him their personal valet. The Torah suggests that if Joseph had acted as valet to the sons of Yaakov’s real wives no problems would have arisen at all. This is the meaning of the דבתם רע, the evil reports Joseph brought to his father concerning the conduct of the sons of Leah. Joseph resented being assigned to being a valet to the sons of the handmaids. It is also possible that due to his youth, the Torah refers to him as נער, even though physically speaking he was fully grown. We encounter something similar with Avshalom, son of David, who was also referred to as נער, not because he was so young in years at that time, but because he was younger than his brothers. (Samuel II 19,33)

את בני בלהה, “the sons of Bilhah, etc.” According to Rashi Joseph befriended them because the sons of Leah shunned them.

נשי אביו, “his father’s wives.” The Torah emphasizes that these ladies were Yaakov’s legal wives in the fullest meaning of the term. They were described as maidservants only in their status compared to Rachel and Leah, seeing that the latter were their seniors. This is why when Yaakov presented his wives to his brother Esau, and he first presented Zilpah and Bilhah, these are described as שפחות, maidservants, (33,6) seeing that in the event Esau would molest them, this would be a warning for Leah and Rachel to hide, or something. After all, Zilpah and Bilhah continued as maidservants in the employ of Leah and Rahel also after Yaakov married them. When Reuven was described as “sleeping” with Bilhah, she is also described as פלגש, a concubine, but this is only vis-à-vis her deceased mistress Rachel. It is quite possible that while Rachel and Leah were alive, Yaakov referred to them both as שפחות and as פילגשים, “maidservants and concubines.”

את דבתם רעה, ”evil reports about them.” Anything wrong that the sons of Leah did, Joseph reported to his father. Nachmanides queries that if that were indeed so, the sons of the maidservants should have loved him, and if so, why did they not save him at the time when the sons of Leah were about to kill him and eventually sold him? After all, there were four of them, and if you add Reuven who, as we know, tried to save Joseph, they would have been equal in number to the other five sons of Leah? Furthermore, from the text it appears as if all the brothers, including the sons of the maidservants agreed to sell him! According to our sages in Bereshit Rabbah, Joseph reported evil deeds both of the sons of Leah and the sons of the maidservants. Accordingly, the meaning of the words את בני בלהה ואת את בני זלפה, is simply that Joseph spent most of his time in the company of these sons of the maidservants as they were so much closer to him in age. In fact, their father had commanded these sons of the maidservants to keep a constant eye on Joseph, to insure that no mishap would befall hum. They were to attend to his needs. He did not instruct the sons of Leah to tend to Joseph’s needs. Joseph brought tales of misconduct of the sons of the maidservants to his father, seeing that he had so much opportunity to observe their conduct. This is why they learned to hate him.. We hear only later, that as a result of his dreams and his telling the sons of Leah about them, the sons of Leah grew to be jealous of him and to hate him, especially when they could not help noticing how his father preferred him over them. Everyone of the brothers had his own reason for hating Joseph.

דבתם רעה, “reports of their wrong doing.” According to Nachmanides the word דבה always implies something exaggerated. It is therefore evil by definition. Rashi explains that Joseph told his father that the sons of Leah were belittling the sons of the maidservants, that they were suspect of eating flesh from animals not yet slaughtered or dead, and that they indulged in incestuous sexual relationships. It is difficult to understand that if Joseph’s accusations were true, why he himself in the course of his life, was exposed to precisely these three potential sins. On the other hand, if Joseph’s accusations were unjustified, how could a person who is regarded throughout our history as an outstandingly righteous individual, a model of uprightness, have been guilty of defaming his brothers in such a manner? The answer usually given to this question is that even if his accusations had been true, he was wrong to act as a sole witness whose evidence was not supported by a second disinterested witness. The whole matter is reminiscent of a story in the Talmud Makkot 11A, where someone called Tuviah, had become guilty of a sin, and a single witness named Zigud testified against him and was punished for slandering him by unsupported testimony, whereas the alleged sinner went free.

כי בן זקונים הוא לו, “for he was born to him when he was advanced in years;” according to Rashi. Nachmanides questions Rashi’s interpretation of the term בן זקונים, reminding us that all of Yaakov’s children were born to him when he was advanced in years, seeing that he only married when he was already 84 years old. Issachar and Zevulun were no more than a year or two older than Joseph. Moreover, Binyamin was much younger (seven years), than Joseph, and the term בן זקונים should have been applied to him, instead. Nachmanides therefore concludes that the Torah refers to an ancient custom of fathers who were already aged selecting one of their sons to attend to their needs on a regular basis. That son then becomes known as בן זקונים. Seeing that Joseph had been selected to perform these filial duties, he no longer went with his brothers to tend the flocks when they went far away from Chevron. We may also understand Onkelos in this sense, when he translates בן זקונים as ארי בר חכים, as extraordinarily intelligent. It is interesting that the Torah applies the term בן זקונים for Joseph only in his relationship to his father, i.e. בן זקונים הוא לו, for him,” not when compared to the world around him.

ועשה לו כתונת פסים, “and he made for him a striped coat of many colours.” This verse teaches us how important it is for a parent not to have favourites among his children, [not to display such favoritism. Ed.] The extra cost of Joseph’s tunic, a measly 2 shekel, triggered a history of tragic jealousy, strife, near fratricide, etc. It even ultimately was directly responsible for Jews going to Egypt for a second time in history to seek relief from a famine in the land of Canaan.

ולא יכלו דברו לשלום, “and they were unable to converse with him or about him, peacefully.” You will note that the Torah did not write that the brothers did not speak to him, but whenever they spoke, even to strangers, and Joseph became part of their conversation, they referred to him negatively.

מלוך תמלוך?, “are you planning to rule over us?” According to Ibn Ezra the expression מלוך refers to rule by a king with the consent of his subjects, so that the brothers asked: “do you expect us to crown you as king over us?” The expression משול refers to imposition of authority without or against the wish of those that are subject to such authority. The brothers wanted to know if Joseph perhaps thought that he could impose his will upon them. It is somewhat difficult to understand why the brothers accused Joseph of such plans, based simply on the fact that he had had a dream or two. Are then dreams something over which the dreamer has control? What proof did the brothers have that Joseph’s dreams reflected his innermost hopes? Some commentators attribute Joseph’s aspirations to the fact that it had become plain that their father had preferred him to all of them, something that had gone to his head and given him ideas of grandeur. The proof that Joseph indeed harboured such thoughts, lay in the fact that even his dreams reflected what he had been thinking about by day.

ועל דבריו, “and on account of his talk.” Joseph’s real error lay in his telling his brothers of his dreams, as if boasting of the grand future that he considered in store for himself. Had he not been telling his brothers the details of his dreams, i.e. שמעו נא החלום הזה אשר חלמתי, “listen please to this dream that I dreamt, etc.,” the entire tragic sequence of events that follow might have been avoided. He had only dreamt one dream, and already he uses it as something inflammatory, something that is bound to arouse further jealousy among his brothers. Why does the Torah refer to חלומותיו, “his dreams,” (pl;) when only the content of a single dream has been reported? (verse 8) Some commentators believe that he had had a previous dream, a dream which the brothers did not pay much attention to, seeing it was an isolated event. Once he told them the content of his second dream they became alerted to the trend displayed in this dream and revised their opinion about the first dream he had told them about, also.

ותשתחוין לאלומתי, “they prostrated themselves before my sheaf.” Joseph did not say that these other sheaves prostrated themselves before him, but before his sheaf. (as opposed to his second dream). In that dream he could not have phrased it differently, saying that sun and moon bowed to “my” star, as how would he know that a particular star was his. The interpretation of this first dream is that seeing Joseph provided the grain to the brothers and all other travelers to Egypt during those years, it was as if they prostrated themselves before him. The fact that in his dream the sheaves arranged themselves around his sheaf, conveyed to the brothers that Joseph saw himself as the central figure in all this.

ויחלום עוד חלום אחר, “He dreamt yet another dream.” The reason why G’d did not fulfill the events foreshadowed in the dream promptly, as He did with the events foreshadowed in Pharaoh’s dream in chapter 41, may have been that Pharaoh had dreamt both dreams in a single night, whereas Joseph had his dreams on different nights.

ויספר אל אביו, “he told his father, etc.” He had not told his father about his first dream, seeing that he was certain that he understood the meaning of his dream. Seeing that the subject of his second dream concerned his father, he told him about it.

ואל אחיו, “and to his brothers.” After he had told this dream to his father, he told it to his brothers in the presence of his father. His father rebuked him [not because of its content, Ed.] but in order to deflect his brothers’ fury from him. Some commentators ask that seeing all dreams supposedly are influenced by the interpretation given to them, (Berachot 58) why was this dream fulfilled altogether, seeing that Yaakov had rejected the original interpretation as soon as he heard the dream in front of the brothers? They give a very forced answer, saying that seeing Joseph had already told the dream to his father previously, and at that time his father had not disagreed with the apparent interpretation, it was now too late to do anything about it. Personally, I do not think that the question has any merit at all. Rather, on the contrary, the reason that fulfillment was so long delayed was because Yaakov had protested the obvious interpretation. This is further proof that the sages were correct in saying that the results of the dreams are greatly influenced by who interprets them and how. [The Talmud, on the folio quoted, illustrates the point with numerous examples. Ed.] His father’s objection to the obvious interpretation of his dream resulted in it coming true so many years later.

הבא נבא אני ואמך, “are indeed I, your mother etc., going to come and bow down, etc.?” How could this be seeing that your mother has died already? Yaakov was not aware that the moon in Joseph’s dream portrayed Bilhah who had raised Joseph as his foster mother. This is Rashi’s interpretation of our verse. Nachmanides writes that in his opinion Bilhah had died before Yaakov moved to Egypt so that she had no opportunity to prostrate herself before her stepson. The Torah, when listing the names of who went down to Egypt, speaks of 70 souls, not including the wives of Yaakov’s sons. We are therefore forced to conclude that had Zilpah and Bilhah been alive still at that time, they would have been mentioned by name. If the Torah at that juncture (46,26) did not want to refer to them as “the wives of Yaakov,” seeing they were his concubines, this is no argument at all, seeing that we read the words נשי אביו, (37,2) and those words clearly refer to Bilhah and Zilpah. We must assume that the sun in the dream refers indeed to Yaakov, and the moon to the members of his household, including all his wives and their children, a total of 70. The eleven stars refer to Joseph’s eleven brothers bowing down to Joseph on their second trip to Egypt, before they had decided to immigrate to Egypt.

וישלחהו מעמק חברון, “he sent him on his way after having accompanied him to the valley of Chevron.” Although, according to all our records, Chevron is situated on a mountain, as we know also from the route taken by the spies (Deuteronomy 1,24), his father accompanied him all the way down to the valley. Only after reaching the lowlands did Yaakov send Joseph alone on his fateful journey. The Torah makes a point of letting us know from where Joseph was sent on this mission (presumably on foot), so that we realize how far he had to travel, i.e. how much distance the brothers had put between themselves and their father. They had done so precisely to discourage their father from sending Joseph, assuming also that if their father would want to send him, he might demur, citing both the distance and the fact that the brothers hated him.

והנה תועה בשדה, ”and here he was lost in the field.” He had departed from the road and entered a field, knowing that his brothers would choose the best looking pasture available.

נסעו מזה, “they have moved away from here quite some time ago.” Rashi interprets the expression as not referring to physical distance, but as referring to the bonds of brotherliness. The man (angel Gavriel) did not tell him this in so many words, for had he done so Joseph certainly would not have continued on his way. The angel used a double entendre, which could be interpreted in one of two ways. Both interpretations would correspond to the truth. The principal reason our sages interpret this is that all the angel had to say was: ”they went to Dotan.” The introductory words: “they have moved away from here,” were quite irrelevant, and therefore must be intended to teach us something additional.

ובטרם יקרב אליהם ויתנכלו אותו להרגו, “and before he could come close to them, they made plans how to kill him.” The meaning of this phrase is that the plans they made were how to kill him before he could come close to them so that they would not have to lay a hand on him. In Bereshit Rabbah 84,14 on that verse, we are told that they released ferocious dogs in his direction. When they realized that the dogs had not attacked him, they said: “let us kill him (with our own hands).”

השליחו אותו אל הבור הזה, “throw him into this pit, etc.” He said: “into this pit,” because he had ascertained that that pit did not contain any harmful substances. The brothers did not heed him and threw him into a pit containing harmful substances such as snakes and scorpions, according to our sages. This is the meaning of verse 29 that when Reuven returned to the pit there was no Joseph in it. Nachmanides writes that according the Midrash that there were snakes and scorpions in the pit, we must assume that the brothers had not seen those. They must have been hiding in nooks and cracks within the pit. The fact that they did not ham Joseph before he was lifted out and sold was due to a miracle. This proves that Joseph was quite innocent, else why would G’d have extended this kind of help to him? I do not understand why anyone needs to resort to an explanation of this kind, for even if we do not consider Joseph as a totally innocent victim but as at least partially guilty, he was certainly not an evil person and did not deserve to die. In spite of his not being guilty of death the brothers set about killing him. The reason was that hatred distorts one’s ability to judge fairly and to apply one’s reason objectively. According to the plain meaning of the text, the words “the pit was empty,” mean that there was no accumulation of water inside the pit, for if there had been water in it, it could not be described as “empty.”

ויפשיטו את יוסף את כותנתו, “They stripped Joseph of his tunic.” Rashi explains the word כתונת as “shirt,” an undergarment. This is a difficult explanation, as the question is how they could remove an undergarment before removing his outer garment first, the famous striped coat. The answer usually given to this question is that it is normal for someone robbing someone else of his clothing to pull all his garments off him in one motion, and to then turn these garments inside out, beginning to separate them, so that the undergarment is separated first. Alternately, travelers have a habit of covering their outer garments with their undergarments as a form of protection for them while they are on the journey encountering obstacles that might damage the costly outer garments. Personally, I believe that the Torah speaks of only one garment, describing his fancy outer garment as also his undergarment, and the fact that he wore it visibly when planning to visit his brothers inflamed their hatred even more.

והנה אורחת ישמעאלים, ”and here there was a caravan of Ishmaelites, etc.” Nachmanides explains that when the brothers looked around they saw a group of people and camels in the distance whom they immediately identified as Ishmaelites, though they were still quite distant. They knew that these Ishmaelites were headed for Egypt as it was their custom to bring these various spices named in our verse to Egypt. This is why Yehudah said that seeing these people come from a distant land and are headed for a distant land, they could sell Joseph to them and this matter would never become known. When these people drew near, they realized that they were not the people whom they had thought them to be, but that they were merchants who traveled these regions all the time. These merchants had bought the spices from the Ishmaelites and had rented camels from them. They sold Joseph to these merchants, who bought him to trade him off, just as they traded their other merchandise. The caravan of Ishmaelites they had espied earlier were in the business of renting out camels, never buying merchandise for their own consumption. This is the meaning of the words: מיד הישמעאלים אשר הורידוהו שמה, “from the Ishmaelites who had brought him down to Egypt.” (39,1) Joseph was under the control of the Ishmaelites, although he was owned by the Midianites, prior to his sale to Potiphar. The style of the whole paragraph i.e. the repetition of the events related therein, must be understood as once described from the Ishmaelties’ perspective, and once from the Midianites’ perspective. We encounter something of a similar nature at the very end of the Torah (Deuteronomy 34,12) ולכל היד החזקה וכל המורא הגדול אשר עשה משה לעיני כל ישראל, where all the miracles performed by Moses are attributed to him, whereas previously in Deuteronomy 11,3 all of these miracles are attributed to G’d Himself.” Ibn Ezra (on verse 28) says that the Midianites are called here Ishmaelites, as they are in Judges 8,24, [although Gideon had been fighting the 5 Kings of the Midianites. Ed] seeing that their founding mother was Hagar. [if she was identical with Keturah. Ed.] Rash’bam writes that the brothers did not sell Joseph at all, but they sat down to eat, and while they were eating they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites in the distance. They then decided that after they would have completed their meal they would sell Joseph to these Ishmaelites. Before being able to do so, the Midianites arrived on the scene (the brothers not being within earshot of Joseph’s cries for mercy) and pulled Joseph out of the pit. They proceeded to sell him to the Ishmaelites. As to Joseph saying to his brothers in Genesis 45,4: “I am your brother whom you have sold to Egypt,” Joseph simply blamed what the brothers had done to him for his having been sold to Egypt. Some commentators interpret the word ומדנים as not referring to Midianites, but as being a derivative of the word מדון, strife as in ריב ומדון, Chabakuk, 1,3 where it describes strife and contention. The Torah meant that the strife and contention between the brothers ultimately resulted in Joseph being sold to Egypt. Yet another view expressed by some commentators is that the brothers sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites, but they were afraid of raising him from the pit as they themselves might be bitten by the snakes; they therefore waited until the Midianites had raised him from the pit, as the Midianites were snake charmers and could safely venture into the pit. We know about all this from the Midianites who brought their charms with them when they visited Bileam as part of the delegation from Balak. (Numbers chapter 22) Joseph wound up being owned jointly by the Midianites and the Ishmaelites Some commentators say that the Ishmaelites sold Joseph to Potiphar who had accused them of having kidnapped him. The Midianites guaranteed to Potiphar that Joseph was theirs to sell, and had not been kidnapped. This is why the Torah attributes the actual sale to the Midianites who acted as guarantors for the validity of the sale. The Ishmaelites are also described as selling him, as 1) they had physical possession of him, and 2) they had paid 20 silver pieces for him to the brothers. The reason why so little money changed hands was that Joseph, because of his traumatic experience in the pit, no longer looked nearly as handsome as he had before his trauma.

מה בצע, “what financial advantage?” There is a view expressed in the Midrash (Pessikta Rabbati Parshat Ki Tissa) according to which the brothers asked Yehudah to break the bread and to pronounce the blessing to G’d, לבצוע, at the meal, and he replied to them that it was most inappropriate to do so while they planned to commit murder.

וכסינו את דמו, ”and we will conceal his blood.” According to Rashi these words are a euphemism for “let’s conceal his death.” According to Nachmanides the words may be taken at face value, as it was the custom of murderers ever since the first one, Kayin, to bury the victim under a heap of earth and thus to conceal his blood.

וישב ראובן, “Reuven returned;” According to Rashi, Reuven reverted to wearing sackcloth and observing fasts as penitence over his indiscretion with Bilhah, even though he had not made a public confession until after he had heard his brother Yehudah publicly confess his sin against Tamar. (Genesis 38,26)

ויקרע את בגדיו, “he rent his outer garments.” When his father heard about Joseph’s apparent death, the Torah describes the rending of his garments with the words ויקרע שמלותיו, “he rent his (under)garments.” When mourning parents or children, one rends all of one’s clothing, whereas when mourning siblings one only rends outer garments. The word שמלה appears as covering for one’s skin” (Exodus 22,26)

וישלחו את כתונת הפסים ויביאו אל אביהם, “they sent the striped coat and brought it to their father.” Either they instructed the bearer to bring it to their father, or the bearers brought it to their father without having had specific instructions. It is also possible that they sent the coat home, and when they came home the next time [after all, Dotan is over 70 km from Chevron. Ed.] they themselves brought it to their father. The Torah emphasizes the striped coat, as the stripes would help to identify who had worn it.

חיה רעה אכלתהו, “a wild beast has devoured him.” He did not say that robbers had slain him, for if so they would have robbed him of his precious tunic.

וכל בנותיו, “and all his daughters.” His daughter and his granddaughter. Some commentators say that his daughters–in-law are included in the term “his daughters.”

וימאן להתנחם, “he refused to be comforted.” According to the plain meaning, Yaakov could not accept words of comfort as he considered himself partially responsible for what happened, seeing that he had sent Joseph alone on a dangerous mission.

שר הטבחים, “the minister in charge of the butchers.” Rashi claims that Potiphar was in charge of all the King’s livestock. According to Onkelos, Potiphar was the King’s chief executioner. We do indeed find the expression טביחה used in the Bible in connection with the slaughter of human beings, for instance in Lamentations