(1) Some problems in the text of our story:
1) Since the brothers were all superior people who would neither ruin their father's old age nor heap guilt upon themselves, why did they treat Joseph as they did? This is especially puzzling since we know from Gittin 52, that dreams as a way of foretelling future events may be discounted, disregarded even?
2) Since the brothers appear to have feared that Joseph would rule over them, why did they reverse their intention and allowed Joseph to live? Surely this kept the chance of his dreams coming true alive?
3) Why did the brothers have to resort to subterfuge to get rid of Joseph? Why did they not simply kill him and bury him? Why did they so readily consent to changes in plan, such as Reuben's suggestion to throw him into the pit, and Yehudah's suggestion to sell him to the caravan of Midianites? From their entire behavior, it seems they wanted to avoid bloodshed and were only afraid of what Joseph could do to them if he remained alive and free at the same time.
4) Why did the Torah not report explicitly how the brothers were punished for their treatment of Joseph? In fact, it appears that they had heavenly assistance in carrying out their plan
(Bereshit Rabbah 84). They appear to have been beneficiaries of their misdeed, getting the VIP treatment in Egypt during the famine in later years, ensuring their own and their families' survival and well being. We seem to find here a classic case of the
chote veniskar, the sinner who is rewarded for his sin. All these arguments lead one to believe that their actions might have been involuntary, pre-ordained and therefore not culpable, if we had not already explained previously that this was not the case.
5) If Joseph's reports to his father about his brothers' wrongdoing had been factual, he should have received a reward for alerting his father to actions which their father would not have been able to correct unless someone had told him about them. Why was he punished for this? If, on the other hand, his reports were not factual, the Torah should have written, "He made up evil reports," not "He brought home evil reports" (37,2)!
6) Hatred by the brothers is mentioned three times. We hear the word "jealousy" only in connection with the second dream, when there is no mention of the word "hatred." Why is this? Why are the words "to rule" and "to reign" used separately? What is the difference between them?
7) What prompted Jacob to send out Joseph to check on the welfare of the brothers on this of all days? Why did Joseph get lost? Why did the man whom he encountered tell Joseph about his brothers' plans to relocate?
8) Why did the brothers select a wild beast as their alibi instead of claiming that robbers had killed Joseph and that they had buried his remains? Why did Jacob not send a search party to find Joesph's bones to bury what was left?
9) What had been in Reuben's mind when he said "Do not shed blood?" His plan too would have resulted in Joseph's blood being spilled. Why did he say in his brothers' presence, "What will happen to me since the lad is gone!" Surely, this statement revealed to the brothers that he had intended to rescue Joseph? What is Rashi trying to say when he writes, "The holy spirit spoke here?" Even Yehudah's advice allowed for the chance of Joseph surviving and ultimately revenging himself. Why the confusing statements about the Midianites and the Ishmaelites?
10) Why did Jacob refuse to be comforted (
see Moed Katan 27, that one must not grieve for the dead excessively)? The statement should have read, "Jacob was unable to accept comfort."
11) Why is the sequence of the story interrupted by the affairs of Yehudah and Tamar? Why does the Torah have to tell us the name of Yehudah's first father-in -law? What do the names of his three sons denote, and why are we interested in reading about Yehudah's whereabouts at the time Sheylah was born?
12) Since Yehudah's two older sons seem to have died for sins that gentiles are not culpable for, namely the deliberate wasting of semen, how could they have been guilty of the death penalty not even having been aware that there was a prohibition? What did Onan mean by saying that the issue would not be his?
13) Why did Yehudah delay marrying off Sheylah seeing that the reason he gave, "Maybe he will die too,” would apply for the remainder of his entire life?
14) How did Tamar know that Yehudah would want relations with her even if he did encounter her at a place where harlots customarily stationed themselves? Having encountered him, why did she set such a high price on her favors that she endangered her whole plan? Why did she become pregnant with twins? Why does the Torah give such a detailed report about the strange behavior of the infants during their birth?
15) What do our sages in Sotah 7 mean when they heap praise on Yehudah for his honesty in saying, "She is more righteous than I" i.e. that he publicly confessed without considering that by doing so he degraded himself in public? Either a harlot had been permitted for a man to lie with before the Torah had been given, or he could have married her as a partner in a levirate marriage. In either case, what was the great admission he made? How did he expose himself to public disgrace by admitting to conduct which was perfectly legal? If on the other hand, Tamar was legally as out of bounds to him at that time as she would be after the Torah legislation had been revealed to the Jewish people, he had committed a shameful act by living knowingly with a harlot, or he had engaged unknowingly in a forbidden incestuous relationship with his daughter-in-law, and a continuation of such relations was certainly out of the question? Besides, who had appointed Yehudah both judge and jury in the case of his daughter-in-law, that he had the right to execute her? Since when does a judge preside over a case in which he has a personal interest?
16) It is strange that Potiphar's wife should make a public issue of her involvement with Joseph, a revelation which would reflect discredit upon her regardless of the appearance of her having been wronged. She could have waited for Joseph to weaken at a later date. Why did Joseph leave his clothing behind when he ran out of the house?
Bereshit Rabbah's comment in Section 84, that as soon as the righteous wish to enjoy this world, Satan interferes, claiming it should be enough for them to know that they enjoy eternity in the world to come, will be explained in Chapter 30. The plain meaning of vayeshev Yaakov is that Jacob settled down. Since the Torah had previously reported the settling down of Esau in the mountains of Seir, the Torah now proceeds to describe Jacob as settling in Canaan, the home of his fathers, the land for which he had longed and toiled for so long to return to. The word "these" in this case means "such" or "thus," describing the character and condition of Jacob's descendants, and the developments which resulted from these conditions. Compare Genesis 27,46, "From the daughters of Chet such as these," or Numbers 26,53, "To these the land shall be divided," meaning to "people such as these."
5) Since Joseph was young and delicate, he had not yet assumed the task of tending sheep with his brothers as a regular duty, but rather did so as a pastime whenever the brothers grazed their flocks near his home. At such times, the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah would watch over his well being. Since he was close to them, he would carry tales of their doings to his father. The surrounding population, observing handsome people like the sons of Jacob, were jealous and accused the brothers of all kinds of misdeeds in order to discourage their respective wives from getting involved with them. The brothers would discuss such matters among themselves, and Joseph, instead of trying to suppress the fact that he had overheard these conversations, repeated them at home. In this way, he created the impression that the subject matters of the conversations he had overheard should be taken at face value, and reflected on the lifestyle of his brothers.
The author wonders why Rashi accepts as facts matters that even the Midrash only voices as a suspicion.
1) "Israel loved Joseph because he was a ben zekunim, son of his old age. When the brothers saw this they hated him." Here we find that the real reason for their hatred was not related to his tale bearing, something they recognized as being due simply to his immaturity. They believed that Jacob's love for Joseph precluded Jacob from loving them. The letter mem in the words mikol banav, is to be understood like the letter mem in the words ma-asser mikol meaning "a tenth of all." Here too the meaning would bem "The brothers saw that of all his sons, Jacob loved Joseph." They all felt relegated to the status of sons of concubines vis a vis Joseph. Being aware of the status of Ishmael in Abraham's household and Jacob's own status in Isaac's household when compared to Esau, his father's favorite, the brothers concluded that they themselves were to be excluded, and that the colored coat was evidence that Joseph had been selected to be the carrier of the tradition. Had they been right, they could have attempted to obtain a blessing by deceit, just like their father Jacob had done. In that case, they would have concealed their feelings towards Joseph. In fact, however, their hatred was confined, at least initially, to their inability to talk to Joseph peaceably.
6) When Joseph started having dreams and revealed the nature of his thinking by prattling on about them, the hatred intensified and brotherly love receded still further, until finally no more is said about hatred, but we hear only about jealousy. Thus a plan was formed to take action against the object of their jealousy. We find something similar in the relationship between Saul and David. Saul's jealousy was stirred into action by the growing success of David (
Samuel I 18,14-16). The dream in which Joseph saw his brothers' sheaves of grain bowing down to his own sheaf reflected the fact that when later on the brothers encounter Joseph on their first trip to Egypt, they paid homage to him since they were in need of obtaining grain from him. At that time, they did not bow down to Joseph per se, since they were unaware of Joseph's identity at that time. In the second dream, reference is made to the time when they would pay homage to him as a ruler over them. Perhaps they ridiculed him when they said, "Do you want to be king over us?" meaning that such a thing could never be until their descendants had increased sufficiently to warrant establishing a nation and a monarchy. Or, they asked, "Do you wish to rule amongst us?" As Onkelos suggests, they accused Joseph's dreams as reflecting his fantasies during his waking hours. Once the brothers had convinced themselves that they were permitted to dispose of Joseph, or were even duty-bound to do so, they planned to do it far away from home so as to have a free hand and not be inhibited by the proximity of their father. Nablus is approximately a day's journey from Hebron, and they knew that Joseph would visit from time to time. Midrash Rabbah's suggestion is that from the word
et, it is clear that the brothers' primary concern was to "tend to themselves." A new element into the frequent visits by Joseph of his brothers is introduced. Previously, due to the brothers grazing their sheep in the vicinity of Hebron, Joseph would visit by day and be back home by evening. This was no longer the case. No doubt, Joseph had not planned to stay away longer than necessary and to report back to his father. Since God did not want lo postpone His plan, He assisted Joseph when Joseph left the beaten trail not having found his brothers in Nablus and went to look for them. Joseph imagined that the man whom he encountered who seemed to know who he was, would certainly know where his far more famous brothers were. This is why he said merely, "I seek my brothers," without bothering to identify the brothers further. Sometimes God uses the very efforts man makes to thwart His plans as instruments to advance His plans. This is what Joseph had in mind when he said at a much later stage, "God intended for the good what you had intended for evil." The apparently superfluous words of the angel, "They have moved from here," give rise to the comment of our sages that they had severed brotherly relations with Joseph, and that their very departure from Shechem (Nablus) was proof of this. What the man meant to tell Joseph was that the brothers' departure itself was far more relevant than the place they had moved to.
2) The brothers' attitude towards Joseph was unanimous, though they disagreed on the method of implementation. Each of them considered how to rid themselves of the evil forces that they felt Joseph represented. In Jeremiah 18,18, we find a similar dilemma facing those who wanted to silence the prophet. Their course of action was "let us go and bad-mouth him, then we will no longer have to listen to his rebukes.” They too wanted to avoid laying a hand on him directly.
3) The brothers had intended that disposing of Joseph should not bring any further consequences. Had they given the impression that robbers had attacked him, surely the robbers would have taken the colored coat, but would have left the body. This would have set off a hunt after the robbers. The idea of putting him in a pit and preserving the coat would explain that no remains were found, and would prevent a search being instituted. In this way they would escape retribution by their father. They hoped to escape retribution by God by saying, "Let us see what will happen to his dreams!" What they meant was that if his dreams had indeed been Divine messages, they were anyways powerless to prevent their realization. If Joseph's dreams would be realized, at least they would know that they were meant to be realized. In that event, God Himself would prevent them from actually becoming guilty of bloodshed. If, on the other hand, God would not save Joseph, the brothers would feel at ease for having opposed their father whose love of Joseph they considered misplaced, and it would have proved to Joseph they considered misplaced, and it would have proved to them that Joseph had deserved his fate.
7) Jacob may have chosen that day since he had heard the brothers had decided to graze their flocks so much further from home.
9) Reuben may have hoped to dissuade Joseph from his mode of behavior and to save him in that manner, although in order to get his way with his brothers, he had to use more devious language to conceal his plan. Reuben explained to his brothers that they must make allowance for the possibility of a natural means of Joseph surviving, if they wanted to escape responsibility for having murdered him. Relying on God performing a miracle to save Joseph is not enough to claim that not only the brothers' will but also God’s will had been done, should Joseph die as a result of their actions. Rashi's comment that verse twenty-two had been said by the holy spirit, means that the second part of the verse is a report to us, the readers, not of the conversation that took place between Reuben and his brothers, but that the Torah added this line as evidence that Reuben was not lying when he said to the brothers in 42,22, "I told you not to sin against the lad!" The caravan looked like a typical Ishmaelite caravan from the distance, but on closer inspection turned out to be a group of Midianites. Since the former usually carried merchandise down to Egypt, Yehudah suggested they sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites. Later they recognized the Midianites, a special branch of the tribe of Ishmaelites. Since Yehudah had not been aware of everything Reuben had in mind, namely to bring Joseph back to their father, he advised in keeping with the expressed intention of Reuben, that they refrain from laying a hand on Joseph themselves, and that they merely sell him. Since Joseph was their flesh and blood, they did not want to become guilty of murder, did not even want indirect guilt on their conscience.
8) In order to forestall any search or further inquiries, they then treated Joseph's colored coat in such a way that the impression would be created that he had fallen victim to a ferocious beast. Jacob's mourning was indicative of his despair to ever see Joseph again. The contrast between Jacob's behavior and that of David, when the latter lost his first son by Bat Sheva, is explained in Midrash Tanchuma Parshat Vayigash (
compare Samuel II 11,
12).
10) Jacob mourned himself, having a tradition that should a son of his die during his lifetime, he, Jacob, would end up in purgatory. This accounts for his reference, "For I will go down to my son to
she-ol," the latter word meaning
gehinnom, i.e purgatory. This subject and the need for all of his twelve sons to play their part in the founding of the Jewish nation is discussed in Chapter 31. Jacob hoped that this would be the last and only mourning he would have to observe before his death. In this way, his refusal to be comforted was not a complaint against what fate had decreed against him. Since Jacob was aware that his son must have died because of a sin he had committed, and that this in turn reflected on the manner in which he had raised him, acceptance without further mourning would indicate that he, Jacob, had not been sufficiently chastened by what he had suffered, and that just as in the case of
makkat mardut, lashes imposed by Rabbinic tribunal for a person's obstinacy in not submitting to the Rabbis' decision, a further series of lashes is administered until the victim changes his attitude. Jacob was afraid then that if he did not mourn sufficiently he might be in line for further chastisement. This is similar to what Job says (
Job 9,27-28), "Should I say I will forget my complaint and comfort myself, I am afraid of all my sorrows, I know that You will not acquit me." Anyone acting differently would be like someone whose IOU had been paid off, but had not been destroyed by the creditor. The brothers' intention had been fulfilled as soon as Joseph was sold to Egypt, a country from which slaves could not escape. Thus the brothers were no longer worried about Joseph's dreams becoming realized. Even when they came to Egypt during the famine, they never thought of him in that connection. God had to put in motion all these events in order for Israel eventually to become fit to become God’s chosen nation once they would leave Egypt. If the brothers were not punished, it is not because they were not free to do otherwise, but because they acted freely, convinced that their conduct was justified.
4) Midrash Tanchuma, which pictures God as having been involved in the brothers' plan, wishes to direct our attention to the fact that the ultimate benefit which accrued to the brothers from their action, is proof that it enjoyed Divine sanction, and that if the brothers had not done what they did, God would have been forced to seek other means to set in motion a chain of events leading to similar results.
