כי ה' אתו, “for the Lord was with him.” One reason was that Joseph invoked the name of the Lord in his daily conversation. According to the plain meaning of the text, the פשט, his master observed how unusually successful everything Joseph undertook turned out to be. Our sages interpret the word וירא, “he saw,” to mean that Potiphar observed that prior to carrying out a task Joseph invariably whispered something. He concluded that Joseph was employing witchcraft, challenging him that he had brought witchcraft with him to Egypt, something which had been banned in Egypt for a long time already. He then noticed that the Divine presence rested above Joseph, having had a dream that featured the Divine Presence as reposing above the head of an individual. This Presence appeared in the shape of a pillar of cloud, honouring the presence of a righteous individual.

כי אם הלחם אשר הוא אוכל, “except for the food which he was in the habit of eating.” According to the plain meaning, Potiphar did not issue any instructions to Joseph concerning his duties, but he left it all to his good sense and sense of duty. He did, however, tell Joseph the kind of menu he wished to enjoy every day. Ibn Ezra explains why Potiphar did not charge Joseph with preparing food; the Egyptians had a different eating culture from that of the Hebrews, and they detested the manner in which Hebrews prepared their food. He did not even let Joseph touch the bread. [This editor has never understood this explanation as something pertaining to the family of Yaakov, who numbered very few, and whose cultural impact on Egypt was nil. It is more likely that all the people from beyond the Tigris and Euphrates, the Sumerians, had different food habits from those of the Egyptians, the competing major culture, and that Joseph as was obvious by his skin colour, (The Eyptians being black) was viewed as culturally basically different. The derogatory manner in which the wife of Potiphar refers to Joseph as a “Hebrew” slave, is further evidence that it was not his “Jewishness” but his being associated with the Sumerians, Accadians, Babylonians, etc., which evoked her disdain once she had been rejected as a lover. (39,14) Ed.] Nachmanides writes that the meaning of the words ולא ידע אתו מאומה כי אם הלחם, mean that Joseph was free to take whatever was in the household and use it on behalf of his master except the bread which his master ate. This was something reserved for the master of the house. All other items in the house that were designed to enhance the residents’ quality of life were Joseph’s to enjoy.

ויהי יוסף יפה תואר, “Joseph became exceedingly handsome.” According toRashi the fact that Joseph enjoyed so much authority caused him to attend to his personal appearance in an exaggerated manner. Nachmanides writes that the Torah had to provide us with a rationale why the wife of Potiphar would want to have an affair with a slave, one from Mesopotamia, of all places. The Torah therefore explains that Joseph’s physique proved of an overpowering attraction to her

ויאמר אל אשת אדוניוו וימאן “He refused, and said to the wife of his master, etc.” Although we are well aware that Potiphar was Joseph’s master, the Torah reports his position, in order to explain that Joseph’s refusal to respond to the advances of his mistress was based on her husband being his master, also. It was not based on Joseph finding her unattractive. He had reason to also fear the anger of his mistress, but he made plain that his fear of G’d was stronger than his fear of the results of her displeasure with him.

וחטאתי לאלוקים, “I would commit a sin against G’d.” Rashi explains that basic legislation about incestuous relations including adultery applied universally, not only to Jews. Nachmanides writes that he finds it difficult that Joseph mentioned the sin of adultery against his own master Potiphar, which is secondary, before mentioning the sin against G’d which is primary. He answers this problem by saying that women do not perceive matters in that order. They relate first and foremost to their visible masters, their husbands, and are only marginally concerned with their sins against the Creator, who remains invisible both to them and to their husbands. There is also another way of answering the manner in which Joseph described the sin of giving in to the allure of Mrs. Potiphar. He did not refer to the aspect of illicit sex at all directly, other than saying that he would be committing a great wrong against G’d’s law, without implying that she would be a party to that sin. According to that approach, the words הרעה הגדולה, “the great evil,” would modify the words וחטאתי לאלוקים.

לשכב אצלה, “to lie down beside her;” Ibn Ezra understands this as sitting beside one another on the same settee, fully clothed, engaging in idle chatter. The reason for Ibn Ezra’s explanation is that the term לשכב אצלה, is most inappropriate for intimacy involving sex, as the Torah would have used the word עמה, if it wanted to describe such an intimate physical relationship.

ויהי כהיום, “A certain day arrived, etc.” It was as clear as day(light) that Joseph had only arrived to perform his regular work.

ואין איש מאנשי הבית בבית, ”and no one of the normally present people in the house was in the house on that occasion.” The unusual phrasing מאנשי הבית, meaning “of the men normally assigned to the house,” prompted the sages to say that another person was present, referring to the image of Yaakov, Joseph’s father, whose image reminded him not to fall victim to the lure of this woman.

ויעזב בגדו בידה, “he left his outer garment in her hand.” Out of deference for her position as his mistress, he did not wrest the garment from her hands, although he was physically powerful enough to have done this.

ראו הביא לנו איש עברי, “see here! He brought us a Hebrew man.” Mrs. Potiphar referred to the “Hebrew” as universally known antagonists of the Egyptians, a reason why the Egyptians would not acquire “Hebrews” as slaves, except to work in the vineyards and other menial occupations in the fields. They were never allowed into the homes of upper class Egyptians. Mrs Potiphar voiced her disgust with her husband who not only had taken a slave of such parentage into their house, but had even elevated him to be the most powerful person in the whole household. It was not surprising therefore that an עברי slave who had been promoted to such a position would begin to take advantage of it and treat all of us as his inferiors, abusing us, as he has just tried to do with me. She deliberately left out a direct reference to her husband, as she wanted to insure that the members of the household would support her.

כדברים האלה, “words similar to these.” According to Rashi, a reference to “pillow” talk between Mrs Potiphar and her husband. She considered the timing appropriate to relate to her husband matters pertaining to what she described as Joseph’s sexual advances to her. Nachmanides queries this in light of the Midrashim that teach us that Potiphar had become impotent as a punishment for trying to indulge his homosexual fantasies by using Joseph as his partner. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that Mrs Potiphar would reveal intimate details about Joseph to her husband, details the knowledge of which would incriminate her. If she had accused Joseph of raping her, he would be guilty of execution, so why did Potiphar not have him executed? Moreover, why had she not cried out before Joseph could perpetrate his evil intention? She only raised a fuss after the event! This would give her husband the right to execute her! She only had to tell her husband that Joseph was getting ready to rape her! Perhaps both the Midrash upon which Rashi based himself, and his own understanding of the words עניני תשמיש, is not to be understood literally, but refers to Mrs Potiphar describing fondling of her by Joseph, not his sleeping with her. It is possible that Potiphar, in order to suppress the scandal, did not execute Joseph, as his reputation as a husband cuckolded by a Hebrew slave would have resulted in his becoming a laughing stock among his peers. It is also possible that Potiphar’s fondness of Joseph was such that he could not bear to kill him. Looking at the plain meaning of the text, we do not need all of these convoluted explanations (based on the extraneous letter כ in front of the word דברים), and the meaning is the same as if the Torah had written הדברים האלה, “these matters.” Alternately, the Torah hints, that as soon as Potiphar heard the story of his wife about what Joseph was supposed to have done to her, i.e. her words, not necessarily the true events, he did not believe her, having faith in Joseph’s uprightness, and, seeing that he had to save face, he incarcerated Joseph instead of executing him, thus saving face for his wife also.

ויתנהו אל בית הסוהר מקום אשר אסירי המלך, “he placed him in the jail in which the King’s prisoners were kept.” According to Ibn Ezra the term בית הסוהר is a specifically Egyptian term. This is the reason why the Torah found it necessary to explain the meaning of the term by writing that it was the place in which the King’s prisoners were kept. Nachmanides writes concerning Ibn Ezra’s observation that Ibn Ezra made no contribution at all with his excuse for the apparent repetition, but that the letter ה at the beginning of the word סוהר indicates that this was a very well known jail, the one specially reserved for the king’s prisoners This explains why the King’s baker and the King’s cupbearer were placed in that jail where they met Joseph. It is also possible that the wording in chapter 40,3 indicates that prisoners kept in that jail were dealt with by the King personally, and not by regular judges and courts. The Torah’s reporting that this was the jail Potiphar placed Joseph in, is an indication that Joseph was considered as a V.I.P. by his former master.