Bereshit 41:25-44, 47-49, 54-57; 42:5,6; 47:13-26: Yosef’s economic and administrative policies in Egypt

Bereshit 41:25-32 records that Yosef interpreted Pharaoh’s dreams that there would be seven good years of agricultural abundance and seven years of famine in Egypt. Yosef then gave Pharaoh advice how Egypt could survive the seven years of famine, and Pharaoh appointed Yosef to administer Egypt, 41:33-44.

Yosef’s plan was for food to be collected in the good years and then distributed during the seven years of famine. The advice to store up food is not surprising because this would seem to be the obvious implication of Yosef’s interpretation of the dream. How was the food to be collected? 

The food could have been collected through force (Rashbam on 41:34,35), as with taxes, or the Egyptian government could have bought the food (Ibn Ezra on 41:34). The implication of 47:24, which records that Yosef imposed a tax on the Egyptian people, is that the taxation appears to have been something new. If this is true, then Yosef’s advice was to buy the food in the seven good years and this can be understood with basic economics. During the seven good years, there would be an increase in the supply of grains (the supply curve would switch right), which would drive the price of wheat down. The government could buy the grain at the lower price knowing that the costs would be recuperated during the bad years since then the price would rise due to the shortages (the supply curve would shift left). Yosef‘s advice was then based on him having perfect information about future prices due to Pharaoh’s dream.

One potential problem with Yosef’s plan to store the food, was that the food could go bad until the seven years of famine. Can wheat be stored so long (see Ibn Ezra on 41:35 and Rashi on 41:48), or was this a miracle in the story that G-d made sure that there was enough wheat for Yosef’s plan to succeed and for Yosef to meet his brothers?

41:47-49 record how Yosef gathered up all of the produce in Egypt. This surely required a large government bureaucracy to coordinate all of the purchasing (or taking), storing and distributing the food. Interestingly, MacGregor (2012, pp. 88-95) in his discussion of the Rhind mathematical papyrus, a papyrus from Egypt from around 1550 BCE that listed 84 mathematical questions which are believed to be preparations for the Egyptian civil servant exams at that time, noted how the papyrus shows the well-developed and mathematically well-trained bureaucracy in Egypt. It is not clear when Yosef lived, a little before 1550 BCE or maybe a little afterwards, but we see that in Egypt there was a talented bureaucracy at his time that could have implemented his policies.

Instead of having this large government bureaucracy, Yosef could have informed the people of the coming famine, and relied on the people themselves to store up their food. Did Yosef think that the people would not have listened since they would not trust him or because people in general are short-sighted? Or, maybe Yosef needed to have the government apparatus in order that he would be able to “catch” his brothers?

Yosef’s policies were an example of big government. Government policies usually suffer from two problems. One, government officials usually do not have sufficient information to solve problems, and two, many times the officials are more concerned with their own welfare than the welfare of the people. However, these problems did not exist in this case since Yosef was a fearer of G-d (39:9, 41:38, 42:18), and through the dreams Yosef had all the necessary information. Yet, while Yosef solved the problem of famine, in the end his solution caused the Jewish people to be in Egypt, where they eventually ended up as slaves. Yosef only had information for fourteen years, and he could not foresee the consequences of his actions after the fourteen years.

41:54-57, 42:5,6 and 47:13-26 record the implementation of Yosef’s plan during the seven years of the famine. Yosef’s actions in these years with regard to non-Egyptians can be divided into several stages, see our discussion on 41:54,56,57; 42:5-7; 47:15, “Was Egypt the breadbasket of the world in the time of Yosef?” 

Yosef’s policies just with regard to the Egyptians had four stages. First, Yosef acquired all of the people's money, then Yosef acquired their animals, and then when the people offered to sell themselves and their land, he bought their land as well. After the famine was almost over, in the fourth stage, Yosef gave the Egyptian people seeds to start over, but he instituted a tax of twenty percent which he justified since he had bought them and their land. The net result of the famine was that the people survived due to Yosef, which they acknowledged, 47:25, and then afterwards they had to pay an annual income tax of 20%.

One question about these policies during the seven years of famine is why did the Torah record them as the section of 47:13-26 seems peripheral to the main focus of the story of Yosef and his brothers? The Torah could have recorded in one sentence that the Egyptians survived the famine due to Yosef and they were thankful to him, without recording all the details of Yosef’s actions.

A second question is while we can understand why Yosef sold the grains to foreigners (from the Egyptian perspective), should Yosef have given the Egyptians the food for free? Benno Jacob (1974, p. 318) argues that it was just for the Egyptians to pay for the food since they had received money when they sold the grains to Yosef during the good years. Yet, after the Egyptians ran out of money, Yosef made them pay for the food by the Egyptians giving him their animals and then accepting their offer to sell their land and themselves for food. Why did Yosef not give the Egyptians the food for free after their money was gone? It is true that when people get things for nothing, they waste them, and during the famine the goal was to conserve the food, which implies that the food should have not been distributed completely free, but was it necessary for Yosef to take all of the Egyptians’ money, animals and their land? Maybe Yosef's goal was to have the people agree to a tax of 20% (47:24). With this idea, after the Egyptians gave Yosef their lands, then the food was given freely since there was nothing left for the people to pay. Furthermore, with this understanding, maybe the reason why the Torah records the details of the implementation of Yosef’s polices was to provide proof of Pharaoh's statement in 41:39 that Yosef was brilliant, as Yosef was able to institute a tax of 20% with complete acceptance by the public.

A third question is, was the 20% tax reasonable or fair? The answer here, as in many cases by the question of fairness, depends on one’s perspective. A tax of 20% is reasonable to a person who pays more than 20% in taxes (see Ramban on 47:19), but for somebody who did not pay any taxes before the famine to pay 20% after the famine was surely a lot.

A fourth question is why would the people trade their animals for food when they could eat the animals? The answer could be that the nourishment from the wheat they received was much greater than what they would have attained by eating their animals. This could be because they received comparably more grains than the value of their animals, and it could have been that the animals had become quite scrawny (like in Pharaoh’s dream) during the famine.

A fifth question is what did Yosef and Pharaoh do with all the animals that they acquired? Did they return them to the Egyptians after the famine? Maybe again they were so scrawny from the famine that they fed some of them and let most of them die.    

After the Egyptians sold their lands to Yosef, he moved the people throughout the country to the cities, 47:21. Not only is this a difficult process logistically, but it also would have increased the suffering of the Egyptians in those years, who were already suffering from the famine. Why did Yosef do this? (A sixth question.)

Rashi (on 47:21) explains that Yosef moved the people from one city to another city in order that they should realize that they had sold their land and that they should not look upon Yaakov's family as foreigners. This is a difficult since the verse just states that the people were moved to the city and not that they were moved from city to city. Also, is this second rationale of helping his family in some minor way sufficient to justify uprooting people from their homes?

Luzzatto (on 47:21) tries to mitigate the suffering of the Egyptians from this action by Yosef by arguing that Yosef maintained the initial groupings of the people. The idea is that all the people from each town were moved together to a new town in order that there were no problems of social adjustment. Furthermore, since the Egyptian people were willing participants in selling the land, there probably was no need to forcibly move the people. Yet, the Egyptians were probably not happy to be moved from their homeland.

Ibn Ezra (on 47:21) first writes that Yosef moved each person from his place, and then he adds a second opinion that Yosef moved all the people from the rural areas to the cities. This second opinion accords with the words of the verse, but why would Yosef do this? Ibn Ezra writes that by moving the people, then the land could be worked. This seems unlikely since during a famine there was no farming at all, 45:6.

Bekhor Shor (on 47:21, also see Rashbam on 47:21) first quotes Rashi's first explanation, and then the Bekhor Shor adds a second possibility that Yosef moved the people from city to city after each city ran out of food. The idea here is that the cities were the places where the food was sold/ distributed, and then when there was no more food to give out, the people moved to another city to get food. The Bekhor Shor writes that Rashi’s explanation is more correct, but Hertz (1960, p. 177) follows the second approach, as he writes "the cities became depots for facilitating the distribution of the food." This idea that the cities were the points of distribution accords with 41:48 that the food was gathered in the cities during the seven good years.

There was no reason for the Egyptian people to remain in the fields during the famine since due to the famine there was no possibility to farm the lands, so following Hertz's understanding, Yosef moved the people to the cities where it would be easier to feed them. Maybe the people worked at crafts in the city during the famine, and then when the famine ended the Egyptian people would have returned to their lands. Thus, Yosef’s action to move the Egyptians was only temporary until the famine was over, and was to ease the lives of the Egyptians during the famine.

However, the moving of the Egyptians as recorded in 47:21 seems to be towards the end of the years of the famine, and then one must argue that only towards the end of the famine would it have been necessary to move the people to the cities to get the food.

Another (seventh) question is that the Torah makes a point of specifying that Yosef did not buy the land of the Egyptian priests, which implies both that they paid either less or nothing for the food that they received from Yosef and that the tax was not instituted on them, 47:22,26. Independent of why the Torah records all the details of Yosef’s action by the Egyptian population in selling them food, why did the Torah mention Yosef’s special policies with regard to the Egyptian priests?

N. Leibowitz (1976, pp. 520-529, also in Jacobson, 1986) offers two explanations. One, the Torah is ridiculing the Egyptian system of justice that allowed a difference in land ownership between the elite, the priests, and the common people. However, it was Yosef who caused the Egyptians to lose their land and who made this difference in land ownership.

N. Leibowitz’s second answer is that the Torah mentions that the Egyptian priests owned their land to contrast the future Jewish law that the Jewish priests would not own land. This point is not entirely correct since while the Jewish priests did not have land in the countryside, they did have their own cities in which presumably they owned property, Bemidbar 35:2. Also, what is to be learned from this contrast? N. Leibowitz writes that it is to show that “the Levites were not chosen in order to enable them to accumulate wealth and exploit their flock” but to work for G-d. It is true that the Torah attempts to prevent the religious elite, the priests, from being the economic elite, and this separation may not have occurred in Egypt, but I doubt this is the point of this section. Here, we do not see the Egyptians priests benefiting at the expense of the people, rather we see the Egyptian people losing their land due to Yosef.

Instead, it could be that this differentiation that Yosef made between the general Egyptian population and the priests is to explain how it was that the Egyptian people seemingly easily agreed to Pharaoh to enslave the Jewish people, Shemot 1:8-10, and then to murder the male Jewish children, Shemot 1:22. Pharaoh must have had popular support from at least a majority of the population when he enslaved and tried to kill the Jewish male children. Yet, why would the people have given Pharaoh this support if 47:25 records how thankful the Egyptians felt towards Yosef? Did all the Egyptians have amnesia? One might argue that Egyptians would have had no compunctions against enslaving the Jewish people since that was normal in those times and it provided free labor, but I think to commit genocide there needed to be some underlying antagonism.

Maybe the answer is Yosef’s policies during the famine. Initially the people were happy with Yosef, but what happened after the famine was over? The people were left without their money, animals and with a new tax of 20%, and they would have forgotten how perilous their existence was during the famine. Yosef would have quickly changed from a hero to a villain. A mere 17 years after Yaakov came to Egypt, Yosef had to have Pharaoh’s officials intercede with Pharaoh to get Yosef permission to bury Yaakov in the land of Israel, 50:4,5. Furthermore, the fact that the priests were given food (either for free or cheaper), did not lose their land and did not have to pay the tax would only have increased the resentment of the Egyptians towards Yosef and his family, the Jews, since this showed that it was not necessary for Yosef to have sold the food to them. Only Pharaoh would have had a reason to remember Yosef since he was the only person who benefited in the long run after the famine was over from Yosef’s plans. Thus, once Shemot 1:8 records that a new king came to Egypt who did not know Yosef, there was nothing to stop the Jewish people from suffering at the hands of the Egyptians. Accordingly, it could be that Yosef's polices was partially responsible for the Jewish people being enslaved in Egypt, see Lerner (1989) and Wildavsky (1993, p. 8).

To conclude, were Yosef’s policies in Egypt good or bad? From a short-term perspective, during the 14 years of the good and bad years, they were successful both in saving Egypt and in re-uniting Yosef with Yaakov and his brothers, but from a long-term perspective, it is not clear if Yosef implemented the best policies during the years of the famine.

Bibliography:

Hertz, J. H. (1872-1946), 1960, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, second edition, London: Soncino Press.

Jacob, Benno (1869-1945), 1974, The first book of the bible: Genesis, commentary abridged, edited and translated by Earnest I. Jacob and Walter Jacob, New York: Ktav Publishing House.

Jacobson, B. S. 1986, Mediations on the Torah, Tel Aviv: Sinai Publishing.

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, Studies in Bereshit, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Lerner, Berel Dov, 1989, "Joseph the unrighteous," Judaism, 38:3, pp. 278-281.

MacGregor, Neil, 2012, A history of the world in 100 objects, London: Penguin Books.

Wildavsky, Aaron, 1993, Assimilation versus separation: Joseph the administrator and the politics of religion in biblical Israel, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Bereshit 42:9 – The beginning of the game between Yosef and his brothers

בראשית מב:ט - ויזכר יוסף את החלומות אשר חלם להם ויאמר אלהם מרגלים אתם לראות את ערות הארץ באתם.

 

When the ten sons of Yaakov went to Egypt to buy food, Yosef recognized them, 42:7, but instead of acknowledging that they were his brothers, he began to play a game with them. He accused them of spying, and then he told them that to prove their innocence, they would need to bring Binyamin, his “full brother,” 42:9-20. It is likely that Yosef had this plan in mind beforehand since he knew that they would be forced to come to Egypt due to the famine, see Bekhor Shor on 42:7. 

Why did Yosef not reveal himself to his brothers? A related question is why did Yosef not seek out his father when he had become head of Egypt?

N. Leibowitz (1976, pp. 457-461) reviews three possible reasons for Yosef’s behavior towards his brothers. One possibility is that he was acting out of revenge, and from 50:15 we see that this was the brothers' understanding even seventeen years after Yosef had revealed himself to them, see our discussion on 50:15-21 "A happy ending?" Yet, she doubts this possibility since Yosef cried immediately after he released them from jail, 42:24 (also 43:30), and a person seeking revenge does not usually cry when he is successful in his revenge.

The second possibility is mentioned by the Ramban (on 42:9) that Yosef acted to have his dreams fulfilled. With this idea, Yosef purposely did not seek out his father because he was waiting to have his dreams fulfilled. The bowing recorded in 42:6 was not the fulfillment of even the first dream since he needed Binyamin to also bow down for the first dream to be fulfilled. When the brothers returned with Binyamin and bowed down to Yosef, 43:26,28, the first dream was fulfilled, and the Netziv (on 43:27) explains that Yosef wanted to keep Binyamin as a hostage in order that Yaakov would come and bow down to him, which would fulfill the second dream. Yosef did not make a condition that Binyamin would go free if Yaakov came to Egypt, but maybe he was going to but Yehuda's speech (44:18-34) stopped him. Or, it could be that Yosef thought that Yaakov would figure out on his own to come to Egypt if Binyamin was being held as a slave.

N. Leibowitz (1976, p. 460) doubts this approach since she claims that Yosef could have had his dreams realized without making his brothers and father suffer. I am not sure what she has in mind and we will return to this approach below.

The third possibility, which is also mentioned by the Ramban (see also S. R. Hirsch 1989), is that Yosef wanted the brothers to repent from their actions towards him. True repentance is when the former sinner is in the same situation as before and does not sin. Thus, Yosef recreated the situation when he was thrown into the pit, but used Binyamin instead of himself. This time the brothers offered to be slaves with Binyamin, 44:16, and Yehuda offered to take Binyamin’s place so that Binyamin could return home, 44:33. According to this approach Yosef accomplished his goal.

While it is true that the brothers repented, the approach is highly problematic. Even if Yosef wanted his brothers to repent, this noble goal was causing great pain to his father. If he thought this repentance was more important than his father’s suffering, then he should have been happy or at least content when the brothers passed his test, yet, he could not control his crying, 45:1,2. Also, twice they admitted their guilt, once explicitly, 42:21, and once obliquely, 44:16. They also offered to be slaves to Yosef, 44:16, which was an acknowledgment of Yosef's "superiority," see our discussion on 44:16, "The middle of the game between Yosef and his brothers: You win." This showed their repentance, but Yosef did not accept their offer, 42:17, and did not reveal himself. This shows that Yosef wanted something more than their repentance. In addition, from 50:15, we see that they did not think of themselves as having repented and that Yosef had forgiven them since they were still worried that Yosef would take revenge on them. My wife, Yonina, also doubts this repentance approach since they only “repented” according to this approach under duress, but they could have looked for Yosef for many years, and it is never recorded that they made any effort to locate Yosef after they returned home without Yosef. (For other questions on this approach, see Yoel Bin-Nun quoted below.)

A fourth approach (not mentioned by N. Leibowitz) is that Yosef acted as an abandoned child. (I thought this was a "modern" approach, but Eli Silverman pointed out to me that a commentator on the Yerushalmi referred to as ha-Meassef, suggested this idea.) Elie Wiesel (1976) writes that who can blame Yosef for breaking with his family since Yosef felt abandoned by his father who had sent him to his brothers. Furthermore, Yosef must have wondered why did Yaakov not search for him? Wiesel explains that Yosef identified himself only when he was able to vanquish his bitterness, but Wiesel does not explain how Yehuda’s speech (44:18-34) vanquished this bitterness.

David Henshke (1987) follows this idea and suggests that Yosef acted not out of bitterness, but that he simply wanted to forget his history and assimilate into Egyptian society. However, once he saw his brothers, then he thought that he could get them to bring him Binyamin and have Binyamin stay with him to build a family together in Egypt. However, Yehuda’s speech brought back strong memories of his father, and then he was forced to acknowledge his past history, which meant identifying himself as Yosef. This is an appealing approach, but did Yosef intend to force Binyamin to separate from Yaakov and his family? Binyamin already had 10 children (46:21), did Yosef not know and/ or did he not care? If Yosef really wanted to forget his past, then this meant forgetting about Binyamin and not trying to force him to stay in Egypt.

Yoel Bin-Nun (1986) develops this idea of Yosef as an abandoned child slightly differently. He argues that Yosef was seeking information about Yaakov’s involvement with the brothers because Yoel Bin-Nun believes that Yosef thought that Yaakov might have been part of a conspiracy to send Yosef away. Accordingly, Yosef wanted Binyamin to stay with him so he could speak to Binyamin and find out whether Yaakov abandoned him. However, in his speech to Yosef, Yehuda said that Yaakov said “Yosef had been ripped to pieces and I have not seen him again,” 44:28. According to Yoel Bin-Nun, Yosef understood these words to mean that Yaakov was depressed about not seeing him, which meant that Yaakov was not part of any conspiracy to send him away and also that Yaakov thought that he was dead, so he should not have expected Yaakov to look for him. With this new information, according to Yoel Bin-Nun, there was no need for Yosef to hold Binyamin to get information from him and also Yosef was no longer an abandoned child, so he revealed himself.

Yaakov Medan (1987) raises numerous problems with this approach. If Yosef’s goal was to get information, then there were many others ways to do so. For instance he could have sent spies to find and speak to Yaakov. Yosef could have investigated the brothers when they first came down to Egypt. Even when Binyamin came to Egypt, Yosef could have kept all the brothers in Egypt until he had time to speak to Binyamin alone, without threatening to make Binyamin a slave. Furthermore, Yosef could have revealed himself earlier, and spoke directly to Yaakov. Also, Yoel Bin-Nun’s approach ignores the main idea of Yehuda’s speech, the suffering Yosef was causing Yaakov. In addition, according to Yoel Bin-Nun, Yosef should have stopped Yehuda after he heard that Yaakov thought he was dead, but Yehuda continued on for another six verses.

One of Yoel Bin-Nun's arguments is the name Menashe, that the name implies that Yosef wanted to forget his past. Yet, while one could argue that the name indicates that Yosef felt abandoned, it is quite a jump to argue that Yosef really thought that Yaakov sent him to his brothers to send him away.

Yoel Bin-Nun also points out that Yishmael was sent away (21:14), so there was a precedent in the family to send away one of the sons. (Also Yitzhak sent Yaakov away, see our discussion above on 28:11, "The wealth test.") Yet, not only is the precedence not exact since Yishmael was sent out of the house, while Yosef was sold into slavery and was almost killed by his brothers before they “sent” him off. Also, Yosef was Yaakov's favorite son, so if one brother was going to be chosen from the family, then Yosef was going to be the chosen one and all the other brothers would have been sent away.

I find it inconceivable that Yosef really suspected that Yaakov sent him to his brothers in order that they would send him away as a slave. Did Yosef really think that Yaakov intended for him to be thrown into the pit? Even if Yaakov criticized Yosef when Yosef announced his second dream (37:10), still this would not contradict 37:3, that Yosef was the beloved son of Yaakov. (I told this to Yoel Bin-Nun, but I do not think my question made an impression on him.)

The best explanation for Yosef’s behavior is the Ramban's explanation that Yosef wanted to fulfill the dreams and this is the only explanation that is supported by the Torah. 42:9 states explicitly that Yosef remembered the dreams and it is implausible that Yosef ever forgot his dreams. 42:9 is an insertion by the Torah to explain the ensuing narrative like by 2:25, 3:1a, 25:26, 29:17, end of 39:6, Bemidbar 12:3, the end of Bemidbar 13:20, and numerous other verses. In all cases, the insertion is to explain the ensuing narrative.

In this case, the insertion in 42:9 is to explain that Yosef was acting to have his dreams fulfilled, and in fact, the word zachor in the Torah means not just to remember but to act based on the memory, see 8:1. Furthermore, just as the brothers immediately re-called the dreams and acted upon them when Yosef went to meet them in Shekhem, 37:19,20, so too Yosef took the initiative to have his dreams fulfilled when he saw the brothers in Egypt. In addition, when he interpreted Pharaoh’s dreams, Yosef said that the repetition of Pharaoh’s dream meant that it was about to occur, 41:32, and for sure Yosef was also referring to his own dreams, which he never forgot.

Akedat Yitzhak (quoted by N. Leibowitz, 1976, p. 459) argues that Yosef should have left the fulfillment of the dreams to G-d and not have caused his father to suffer. Maybe he is correct, but only if one assumes that Yosef was acting righteously would this imply that Yosef did not act to fulfill the dreams. More likely, Yosef was so absorbed by his dreams that in his determination to fulfill the dreams that he sinned in his actions towards his brothers and father. This determination might have been due to Yosef’s personality and/ or because he viewed himself as an abandoned child. Maybe he did not realize the pain he was causing his father by not revealing himself, and once he started his plan, the fulfillment of the dreams took on a life of their own. We also see that by Yosef's interaction with the Egyptian public when they came to buy food that he took a very tough position that they had to sell all their animals and then all their land to get food, 47:15-21. A friend of mine, Yossi Moskowitz has suggested that after all the events in his life of going from a slave to being the second in charge in Egypt, Yosef might felt that he had some special destiny, which prompted him to attempt to have the dreams fulfilled. This determination does not necessarily mean that Yosef did not feel bad about how he was treating Yaakov and his brothers.

Was it possible for Yosef to fulfill the second dream, which refers to a sun and a moon? It is not clear who is the reference to these items (see our discussion on 37:9,10, "Yosef’s second dream: The sun, the moon and the stars"), and hence one cannot know definitely if they were fulfilled. Most likely, Yaakov was either the sun or the moon, and then maybe Yosef wanted Yaakov to bow down to him to fulfill the dream as much as possible.

It is also possible that Yosef was not really concerned about Yaakov bowing down to him since for Yosef the crucial issue was his fight with his brothers and it was enough that his brothers fulfilled their part of the dreams by twice bowing down to him, 43:26,28. In fact, 42:9 states, that Yosef remembered he dreams that he dreamed for his brothers, which implies that Yosef was acting just in reference to his brothers and not his father.

With this idea, after his brothers bowed down to him a second time, they sat down to eat, 43:34, and this was Yosef's "victory" party. Furthermore, as part of the party, he seated them according to their birth order, 43:33, which was his way of indicating to them that they had bowed down to him, see our discussion, on 43:23-34, "The middle of the game between Yosef and his brothers: Know thy opponent."

If the dreams were fulfilled enough for Yosef, why did Yosef not reveal himself to his brothers after they bowed down to him a second time? Was he getting "greedy" and then trying to get Yaakov to come down and bow down to him? Or, maybe, at this point the issue of being an abandoned child arose, not that Yosef thought that Yaakov had sent him away to be sold into slavery, but still maybe Yosef was bothered why did Yaakov not find him? Was it because Yaakov did not look or because Yaakov thought that Yosef was dead? Possibly, Yosef always gave Yaakov the benefit of the doubt, but he must have been troubled by Yaakov's inaction with regard to Shimon. Shimon was locked up and Yaakov knew that he was alive, but he did nothing to try to free him. This raised the question in Yosef's mind did Yaakov abandon him? Thus, maybe at this point, after his "victory" over his brothers, Yosef decided to test Yaakov if he would abandon Binyamin. Accordingly, he continued his deception of his brothers until Yehuda's great speech moved him to reveal himself.

Bibliography:

Bin-Nun Yoel, 1986, A tragic misunderstanding: Why did Yosef not send word to his father? Megadim, 1, pp. 20-31.

Henshke, David, 1987, Response to articles by R. Yehuda Shaviv and Rabbi Yoel bin Nun, Megadim, 2, pp.106-108.

Hirsch, S. R. (1808-1888), 1989, The Pentateuch, rendered into English by Isaac Levy, second edition, Gateshead: Judaica Press.

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, Studies in Bereshit, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Medan, Yaakov, 1987, In the place where repentants stand (Yosef and his brothers), Megadim, 2, pp. 54-78.

Wiesel, Elie, 1976, Messengers of God: Biblical portraits and legends, New York: Random House.

Bereshit 44:16 – The middle of the game between Yosef and his brothers: You win

בראשית מד:טז - "ויאמר יהודה מה נאמר לאדני מה נדבר ומה נצטדק? האלהים מצא את עון עבדיך, הננו עבדים לאדני גם אנחנו גם אשר נמצא הגביע בידו."

After Yosef's steward “found” Yosef's goblet in Binyamin’s pack, Bereshit 44:12, the situation for the brothers was more precarious than ever.  When the brothers first came to Egypt, Yosef accused them of being spies without any evidence, 42:9, but now there was some apparent evidence that they were thieves.  At a minimum Binyamin was going to be a slave, or all of them could have been punished.

Donald Seybold (1974, p. 70) notes that the situation was completely reversed from when the brothers threw Yosef into the pit, 37:24.  Egypt was the pit for the brothers, and Yosef had the option of killing them or making them slaves.

In this desperate situation, Yehuda stated, "What shall we say to my lord? What shall we speak and how shall we prove ourselves right? Elohim has found out your servant's crime. Here we are, slaves to my lord, both we and the one in whose hand the goblet was found," 44:16, slight revision of Altar, 2004, p. 256, translation. This statement by Yehuda raises several questions.

What does it mean "Elohim has found out your servant's crime?" Elohim is usually translated as G-d, but was Yehuda then talking to G-d? Was Yehuda telling Yosef that G-d was controlling the scene and not Yosef?  What does it mean "found out?" Did G-d know not beforehand? Rashi (on 44:16) explains that Yehuda was talking on the side, and noting that G-d was paying them back for their sin of selling Yosef.  Yet, how were they being punished?  Only Binyamin was going to be enslaved.  Yehuda would have let his father down, but he could justify it by saying that it was not his fault, and for the other brothers there was no punishment at all.

In addition, why did Yehuda offer that everybody would be slaves?  It was worse for all the brothers to be slaves instead of just Binyamin. If the goal was to free Binyamin, then it would have been better if the brothers were free men which would have enabled them to earn money to redeem Binyamin from slavery.  Or, Yehuda could have offered that he would be a slave instead of Binyamin, which he did later, 44:33, or that everybody would be slaves instead of Binyamin? 

Hizkuni (on 44:16, also see Luzzatto on 44:16), explains that Yehuda was worried that Binyamin was going to be killed since the brothers had stated, before the goblet was found, that the person in whose possession the goblet was found should be killed, 44:9.  Thus, the offer to be slaves was better than Binyamin being killed.  However, it seems that the steward had rejected the brother's statement that the guilty person should be killed, 44:10.

A different idea is that, as we discussed on 43:23-34, "The middle of the game: Know thy enemy," Yehuda knew that he was speaking to Yosef and then his offer for all the brothers to be slaves was both an admission to Yosef that the brothers were wrong for throwing him into the pit, and an acknowledgement of the realization of Yosef’s dreams, 37:8.  Also, in 44:16, Yehuda twice referred to Yosef as his lord (and many times in his great  speech in 44:18,19,20,22,33) and this was copying how Yaakov had spoken to Esav when they met when Yaakov was returning to the land of Israel, 32:5.  Just like Yaakov was trying to "give back" Yitzhak's blessing to Esav, Yehuda was acknowledging that Yosef was the dominant brother as Yosef has dreamed.  Furthermore, in the beginning of the verse, “what shall we say to my lord?” Yehuda was saying that they could not defend what they did to Yosef when they threw him into the pit and allowed or caused him to be sold as a slave, which again was an admission of their guilt.

The word Elohim in 44:16 refers to Yosef and his steward and not to G-d, as in Shemot 21:6, and Shemot 22:7,8, where the word refers to judges.  The phrase "Elohim has found out your servant's crime" means that Yehuda was telling Yosef, that you, Yosef and your steward, made us understand what we did to you by your continued re-enactment of the sale with the silver on their first visit to Egypt, 42:28, and now with the goblet.    

Yehuda thought that this admission of guilt and his acknowledgement of Yosef would end the game with Yosef since he admitted that Yosef had won, but this was not sufficient for Yosef, 44:17.  Accordingly, in Yehuda’s great speech in the ensuing verses, he tried a different track.  In the speech, he made clear to Yosef the pain Yosef was causing to Yaakov, and this worked, 44:18-34, see our discussion on 44:18-45:3, "Almost the end of the game: Yehuda’s great speech."   

References:

Seybold, Donald, 1974, Paradox and Symmetry in the Joseph Narrative, in Literary Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, edited by Kenneth R. R. Gros Louis, with James S. Ackerman and Thayer S. Warshaw, Nashville: Abingdon Press, pp. 59-73.

Bereshit 42:25,27,35 – The middle of the game between Yosef and his brothers: A double dose of fear

Bereshit 42:25 records that Yosef instructed his servant to secretly return to his brothers the silver (money) they had spent on buying the food. Why did Yosef do this? To be nice? 

Most likely, Yosef was trying to re-create the situation which he thought had occurred when he was sold as the brothers would now be returning home without one brother (Shimon) and with money. Note that Yosef also gave the brothers food for the trip, 42:25, maybe in order that they would not have to open their bags right away which meant that they would only find the silver when it was too late for them to return to Egypt.

Bereshit 42:27 then records that when the brothers stopped at some place on the road home, one brother found the silver that he had used to buy the food. When he told this to the other brothers, they were all scared, and they stated, “what has G-d done to us?" 42:28. The brothers then continued on their way home, and upon arrival they told Yaakov about Yosef’s accusations and that Shimon was being kept as a hostage, 42:29-34. They did not mention anything about the silver. Instead, they opened their sacks, found the silver and they and Yaakov were scared, 42:35. What does it mean that they found the silver in 42:35, as they already knew about the silver in 42:27? Why were they scared a second time?

The traditional answer (see Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Ramban, Radak on 42:27, Luzzatto on 42:35) is that initially only one brother found the silver and it was only when the brothers came home did all the other brothers find their silver. This approach is difficult for three reasons. One, 43:21 records that when the brothers returned to Egypt they returned the silver, and they told Yosef’s steward that they found the silver on their way home. Why should they have lied to the steward about where they found the silver? Two, it is more logical to assume that once one of the brothers found his silver, the other brothers would have searched their sacks as well. Three, this approach does not explain why the brothers did not mention to Yaakov that at least one of them had found the silver.

Sarna (1989, p. 296) suggests that the brothers “had prearranged to tell their father nothing of the money and to stage the discovery in his presence.” Similarly, Robert Altar (2004, p. 244) writes that maybe “the brothers deliberately acted out a discovery in the presence of their father in order to impress upon him how they were all at the mercy of a superior power.” With this idea, one of the brothers found the money in his amtahat, 42:27, and after he told the other brothers they also checked their packs and found the money in their respective amtahot, 43:21. The brothers then put the silver back in the bottom of the sacks with their food for the animals. Once they came home and reported to Yaakov what happened, they deliberately emptied their sacks in front of him to have Yaakov “find” the silver, 42:35.

A possible reason for this explanation is that this was the second time the brothers were returning home without a brother. On the first occasion, they returned home without Yosef, and now they returned home without Shimon. The brothers were very aware of this parallelism since when Yosef told them of his plan to hold one of them hostage, they immediately associated this with their actions with regard to Yosef, 42:19-22.  Hence maybe they thought that it was better for Yaakov to “find” the money instead of them showing him the money since this would increase the chance that he would believe this crazy story that they had been accused of spies and Shimon was being held hostage. Or, maybe the brothers staged the discovery of the money instead of showing the money to Yaakov to break the parallelism between this return home and their previous return home without Yosef. The idea being that they thought that if they showed Yaakov the silver it would appear that they had sold Shimon, and this might have led Yaakov to suppose that they had sold or caused Yosef to be sold.

These ideas can explain why the brothers did not inform Yaakov about the silver they had found, but there is a simpler explanation as to how the brothers found the silver twice and were scared twice. When they were home speaking to Yaakov, the Torah, 42:35, does not state that the brothers found their silver, but that they found their money bag or purse/ wallet. One can simply understand that 42:35 means that the brothers found an empty money bag, and then 42:27 and 42:35 refer to two separate findings, one the brothers found their silver, 42:27, and one the brothers found their empty money bags, 42:35.

This means that when Yosef ordered a person to return the brother's silver to them, 42:25, this was done in two different ways, the silver was placed in their amtahat and the money bag was placed in the sack. Yosef had only said to put the silver in the sack, but either the person on his own separated the silver from the money bags or maybe it was obvious that this is what Yosef wanted.

How would Yosef have attained the brother's money bags, as when people pay for items they give their money/ silver but not their purses? While it could be that they handed over their bags of silver when they paid for the grain, it could also be that Yosef got the bags when he had the brothers in jail, 42:17.

The double finding, first of the silver and then of the empty money bags increased the effect of Yosef scaring his brothers. Furthermore, it is possible that had the money bag not appeared, the brothers would never have told Yaakov about the silver, but once the money bag appeared, then they had to explain that their silver had mysteriously returned to them. Maybe, this is why the money bag was separated from the silver to increase the chance that Yaakov would find out about Yosef returning the silver.

After discussing this idea in my synagogue, Oded Walk noted to me that the following verse, 42:36, records that Yaakov bewailed, "Me you have bereaved, Yosef is no more, Shimon is no more and Binyamin you would take!" (Altar, 2004 translation, pp. 244, 245). Yet, all the facts about Shimon and Binyamin was known before the brothers found their money bags, and hence Yaakov should have made this statement before the finding of the money bags, i.e. after 42:34 and before 42:35. Thus, it is clear that it was the finding of the empty money bags that caused Yaakov to make his statement in 42:36. Oded suggested that maybe the money bags had some relation to the special coat that Yosef had, as somehow it brought back a memory of the brothers showing Yaakov the coat when they returned home without Yosef, 37:32. My wife, Yonina, suggested that this could have happened if there was a family mark or insignia on the money bags.

It is also possible that the fear that resulted from the finding of the empty money bags was not related to the sale of Yosef but to the present predicament of the brothers and Yaakov. My son in law, Yuri Lubomirsky, suggested that when they found the silver, they might have thought that it was a mistake but when they found their money bags, then it was obvious that the returning of the silver was not a mistake. My son, Binyamin, suggested that if Yosef really got the brother's money bags when the brothers were in prison, then the finding of the money bags meant that Yosef was behind the return of the silver.

Bibliography:

Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Bereshit 37:25-36, 39:1, 42:21 (Va-yeshev, Mikketz) – Who sold Yosef?

Bereshit 37:25 records that after Yosef's brothers threw Yosef into the pit, they sat down to eat. When they were eating they saw a caravan of Yishmaelites in the distance going to Egypt, and Yehuda proposed that they sell Yosef to the Yishmaelites, 37:25-27. The Torah informs us that the brothers listened to Yehuda’s proposal, 37:27, which means that they agreed. However, the Torah does not record any action by them, but rather the next verse, 37:28, records that passing Midyanite traders took Yosef out of the pit and sold him to the Yishmaelite traders. The presence of both Yishmaelite and Midyanite traders is not surprising since the brothers were in Dotan, which was on a main trade route crossing (east-west) through the land of Israel. Yet, who sold Yosef to the Yishmaelites: The brothers or the Midyanites? Yosef states that the brothers sold him, 45:4,5 but did Yosef know exactly what happened? In addition, 37:36 records that the Medanites sold Yosef to Potifar, while 39:1 records that the Yishmaelites sold Yosef to Potifar. When did the Medanites enter the picture and how could both the Medanites and the Yishmaleites sell Yosef to Potifar?

Numerous explanations have been suggested to explain the sequence of events in 37:25-36, but the simplest explanation is the Rashbam’s explanation (on 37:28) that the Midyanites took Yosef out of the pit without the brother’s knowledge and the Midyanites sold Yosef to the Yishmaelite traders, see the elaboration on the Rashbam's explanation by a Shmuel Chayyim son of David Lali quoted by Luzzatto in his comments on 37:28 and by N. Leibowitz, 1976, pp. 406,407. The Rashbam explains that the brothers were eating a little bit away from the pit, which means that they would not have seen the Midyanites come and take Yosef. A possible reason for eating away from the pit was because then they would not hear Yosef pleading for mercy, see 42:21. (Maybe, it was this pleading that alerted the Midyanites to Yosef’s presence in the pit.) In addition, the Rashbam explains that when Yosef said to the brothers that they sold him, this should be understood to mean that you (the brothers) caused me (Yosef) to be sold.

According to this explanation the brothers did not sell Yosef, and there are two proofs for this approach. One, 37:29,30 records that Reuven returned to the pit and was surprised that Yosef was not in the pit. Yet, if the brothers sold Yosef, why was Reuven surprised when Yosef was not in the pit? The answer based on the Rashbam's approach is that Reuven was surprised since the brothers did not sell Yosef, and then he could not understand what happened to Yosef. Two, after Yosef had incarcerated his brothers in Egypt, they talked freely amongst themselves, and they expressed remorse for not heeding to Yosef's pleas, 42:21. Why did they not express remorse for selling Yosef? The implication is that they did not sell Yosef, as argued by the Rashbam.

The Rashbam's approach has raised several questions. One, how could the brothers not have known that the Midyanites took Yosef out of the pit? Even if they were not sitting in view of the pit, still they would not have heard the noise and commotion of the Midyanites? Two, why were the brothers other than Reuven not surprised that Yosef was not in the pit? Three, if the brothers did not sell Yosef, why did the Torah record Yehuda’s proposal to sell him? Four, when Yosef said to his brothers that you sold me, can one really understand that Yosef is to be understood to mean that you caused me to be sold?

These questions on the Rashbam's explanation can be answered by realizing that the brothers attempted to actualize their plan to sell Yosef immediately after Yehuda proposed it. 37:27 does not record the brothers acting upon Yehuda's proposal, but they had to act quickly since the Yishmaelites were travelling and if they waited, then they would have missed their opportunity. This need for speed to talk to the Yishmaelites meant that they did not take the time to remove Yosef from the pit, but went immediately to the Yishmaelites to work out a deal.

When all the brothers left to speak to the Yishmaelites, the pit was not being watched, which means that nobody would have seen or heard when the Midyanites pulled Yosef out the pit. As the Rashbam notes, the word, va-yaavru, signals that they happened to be passing by and by chance they passed the pit where Yosef. They then picked up Yosef and met up with the Yishmaelites who were talking to the brothers. The brothers then saw Yosef and he saw them. He started to plead with them, 42:21, but they did not save him and the Midyanites sold him to the Yishmaelites.

When the brothers were negotiating with the Yishmaelites, Reuven realized that this was his chance to save Yosef, so he went back to the pit where Yosef was, 37:29, but during the time when brothers left the area near the pit to speak to the Yishmaelites until the time that Reuven returned, the Midyanites had already pulled Yosef out of the pit, 37:28. By the time that Reuven returned to his brothers, 37:30, Yosef was gone with the Yishmaelites traders.

The understanding answers all the questions on the Rashbam's approach. The brothers were not near the pit when the Midyanites took Yosef out of the pit (first question) since they had gone to make a deal with the Yishmaelites traders. The brothers were not surprised that Yosef was not in the pit (the second question) because they knew that the Midyanites had taken him out of the pit since they saw Yosef when he was sold by the Midyanites to the Yishmaelites traders. It is possible that they never told Reuven that they had seen Yosef being sold so he thought that Yosef had been killed, 42:22. The discussion between the brothers to sell Yosef (the third question) is significant to the story since the brothers acted upon this suggestion, which enabled the Midyanites to take Yosef out of the pit. In addition, when Yosef saw them when he was sold by the Midyanites to the Yishmaelites, he considered them to be accessories of the sale because from his point of view they were cooperating with the Midyanites by not stopping them from selling him to the Yishmaelite traders. Thus, (the fourth question) he stated that they sold him, 45:4,5, and he did not mean that you caused me to be sold. On the other hand, the brothers never thought that they sold him, and instead they believed that their sin was that they had not heeded Yosef's pleas to stop the Midyanites from selling him to the Yishmaelites, 42:21. In this case, both Yosef and the brothers viewed the same situation from different perspectives.

With regard to the Medanites, while many claim that they are Midyanites, this is unlikely. 25:2 records the children of Avraham and Ketura, and in this list, there is Midyan and Medan, which implies that they are different people. Also, 37:36 refers to the Medanites selling Yosef to Potifar in Egypt, while the Midyanites sold Yosef to the Yishmaelites in Israel.  What is the role of the Medanites in the sale of Yosef?

The answer is that Medanites were the brokers who arranged the sale for the Yishmaelites. 37:25 records that the Yishmaelite traders were spice merchants. Why was this information mentioned? The answer is that it teaches us that they were spice traders and not slave traders. They bought Yosef from the Midyanites and brought him to Egypt, but in Egypt they needed help to sell Yosef. The Medanites were the brokers who arranged the sale of Yosef from the Yishmaelite traders to Potifar. Thus, 39:1 records that Potifar bought Yosef from the hands of the Yishmaelite traders, and this signaled the change in ownership of Yosef. However, 37:36 records that Medanites sold Yosef to Potifar, since when brokers arrange for a sale, they say “I sold X,” meaning they were the cause of the sale but not that they were the actual sellers.

In conclusion, Yosef was sold twice, once by the Midyanites to the Yishmaelites, and then from the Yishmaelites to Potifar. With regard to the first transaction, the brothers were aware of the sale but were not actively involved in the sale. With regard to the second transaction, the Medanites were the brokers to the sale but they never owned Yosef.

Bibliography:

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, Studies in Bereshit, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization

Bereshit 41:54-42:7, 47:14,15 – Was Egypt the breadbasket of the world in the time of Yosef?

Bereshit 41:54 records that the famine began as predicted by Yosef, but in Egypt there was food. Does this mean that the famine first started outside of Egypt, or that Egyptians on their own had food from the seven plentiful years even when their crops were no longer growing? The following verse, 41:55, then records that the famine was also in Egypt, and the Egyptians turned to Pharaoh, who told them to speak to Yosef. This verse could mean that the famine just then began in Egypt (no or very limited agricultural production) or that the Egyptians had used up their own private savings of food and now had to depend on getting food from Yosef. (See Rashi on 41:55 for a different explanation for why the Egyptians no longer had their private supplies of food.) 

41:56 then records that the famine was throughout the face of the earth, and that Yosef began to sell food (wheat?) to the Egyptians. Apparently, the idea was that Yosef did not immediately begin to sell the food even when the Egyptians first asked him for food, but he waited until the effects of the famine worsened. 41:57 then records that people from all over the world came to Egypt to buy food.

How extensive was the famine? Could it really have been all over the world? In North America? Did all the people in the world who were unable to get to Egypt and buy food from Yosef die from the famine? Was it really possible that there was enough food in Egypt to feed the entire world?Bereshit Rabbah 90:6 writes that the famine was in three areas besides Egypt, Phoenicia (Lebanon), Arabia and Israel. Similarly, Benno Jacob (1974, p. 280) notes that the phrase "all the earth" in 41:56,57 just refers to the surrounding countries. In fact, since the point of the famine was to "force" Yaakov's family to go to Egypt, there was no need for there to have been a famine everywhere except in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan (following the modern names) and the land of Israel. 

A related question is, did Yosef sell the grains to anybody who came to Egypt? This would be surprising since one would not expect that the Egyptians would be happy to see the grains that they grew being sold to other people in the midst of famine. It could be that they did not have a say in the matter, but 41:55 records that they were able to cry out to Pharaoh, and 47:15 records that they cried out to Yosef.

Another question about the extent of the famine is that 42:5 records that the famine was in the land of Canaan in the context of the brothers of Yosef travelling down to Egypt. Yet, after 41:54,56,57 record that the famine was in all the lands, and the brothers were going to Egypt due to the famine, why did 42:5 need to record again that the famine was in the land of Canaan? The Radak (on 42:5) explains that this information is to tell us that there were many people coming to Egypt from the land of Canaan at the same time as the brothers. I am not sure how this extra mention of the famine in the land of Canaan enables us to assume that many people were coming to Egypt from the land of Canaan. How many were then coming? Is this unspecified number important? Why did the Torah not simply write that the brothers came to Egypt amongst the people coming from the land of Canaan?

My guess is that the end of 42:5, which specifies that the famine was in the land of Canaan, is coming to tell us that people coming from Canaan due to the famine had a different status than other people who lived outside of Egypt. 

Maybe there were several stages by Yosef selling the food. When he began to sell the food, first to the Egyptians (41:56) and then to anybody who came to Egypt (41:57) he did not limit the sales since he wanted his family to come to Egypt. However, he was unable to continue with this policy both because of the limit on the amount of food to sell, and that Egyptians would get upset from Yosef selling to foreigners. Once the word got out that food was available in Egypt, Yosef limited sales to people from Canaan (the end of 42:5) since he needed his family to come to Egypt. It could be that this is why 42:6 repeats that Yosef was in charge of Egypt since this authority allowed him to sell large amounts of wheat to foreigners, people from Canaan, even if this would upset the Egyptians. Afterwards, when Yosef first spoke to the brothers he asked where they were from. This was a legitimate question since at that time only people from Canaan had the right to buy food, and the brothers answered that they met this requirement, 42:7. Also, 47:14,15 record that Yosef had gathered all the money of the people of Egypt and Canaan. We see that people from Canaan were able to buy large quantities of food, but no other foreign country is mentioned. The second half of 47:15 records that the people of Egypt complained to Yosef that he should give them food for free since they had no money, but the people of Canaan, foreigners from the Egyptian perspective, could not ask for Yosef to give them food for free. Yosef then instituted the third (or fourth, depending on how one counts 41:56,57) stage of his policy, which was to only sell food to Egyptians for their animals and land, 47:16-20.

Another question concerning the purchase of the food in Egypt during the famine is that 42:1,2 record that Yaakov told his sons that they should go to Egypt to buy food. While this is a reasonable, why did Yaakov not move to Egypt during the famine, like Avraham did (12:10) and Yitzhak tried to do (26:1,2)? I believe there are six possible answers.

One, it is possible that due to the extensive famine, Egypt was not allowing foreigners to take up residence in Egypt. If this is true, then the fact that Yaakov eventually went to live in Egypt, 46:27, was a special dispensation due to Yosef.

Two, maybe logistically it was not feasible for Avraham or Yitzhak to send somebody to Egypt since their children had not yet been born, were too small, and they did not have enough trustworthy servants to bring back the food from Egypt. However, Yaakov was able to stay in Israel since his sons were old enough to bring back food.

Three, maybe once Yitzhak was told not to go to Egypt, Yaakov thought it was forbidden for him to go to Egypt (see Radak and Bekhor Shor on 46:1). Yaakov had left Israel to go to Haran, but possibly this was permitted while Egypt was not. A problem with this idea is that later, 45:28, Yaakov decided to go to Egypt before G-d told him it was okay. Yet, maybe one could argue that Yaakov was not going to leave without G-d’s approval and that was why he stopped in Be'er-Sheva, 46:1.

Four, maybe Yaakov was worried that if he left the land of Israel then Esav would return to the land of Israel. 36:6 records that Esav left the land of Israel because it was too much for Esav and Yaakov to live together in the land. However, if Yaakov was to leave the land for a substantial amount of time, then it was conceivable that Esav would come back, and Yaakov would have lost the land of Israel to his brother. This approach accords with Luzzatto’s (on 46:1) suggestion that Yaakov stopped in Be'er-Sheva to pray before leaving Egypt not only to inquire as to whether it was permissible for him to go to Egypt but also to ensure that he would not forfeit the land of Israel by going to Egypt.

Five, in the covenant of the pieces, G-d told Avraham that his descendants would suffer in a foreign land, and that the fourth generation would return to Israel, 15:13-16. I understand the fourth generation to be from Avraham which is Yaakov’s children, see our discussion, "Who is the fourth generation?" If this is true, then Yaakov had good reason to fear going down to Egypt since this could be the beginning of the prophecy, as in fact it was (see Ramban on 46:1 and Hizkuni on 46:3). If this approach is correct, then it could be that later Yaakov went to Egypt since his desire to see Yosef prevailed over his fear that the prophecy of the future suffering was about to begin. (This idea could also apply to reason four.)

Six, in a personal conversation, Eric Sherby suggested that maybe Yaakov did not want to leave the land of Israel in case Yosef might return.

Bibliography:

Jacob, Benno (1869-1945), 1974, The first book of the bible: Genesis, commentary abridged, edited and translated by Earnest I. Jacob and Walter Jacob, New York: Ktav Publishing House.

Bereshit 44:1-12 (Mikketz) – The middle of the game between Yosef and his brothers: The Trap

Bereshit 44:1 records that Yosef told his steward to fill the amtahot, packs, of the brothers with food and silver when they were leaving him a second time to go back to the land of Israel. Yosef also told the steward that he should put in a silver goblet in addition to the silver in the amtahat of Binyamin, 44:2. After the brothers left the city where Yosef was situated, the steward chased down the brothers, and accused them of stealing the goblet, 44:4-12. Why did the steward not accuse them of stealing the silver that he also planted in their packs? Why did he put the silver in their packs if it was not part of the set-up? Surely, the silver was discovered when they opened their packs to search for the goblet, but the Torah makes no mention of the silver, why?

The Ramban and Seforno (on 44:1) suggest that the silver was placed in the packs with the knowledge of the brothers to compensate them for their previous troubles. The Ramban adds that even if it was not placed in the packs with the brother's knowledge, still the brothers could have claimed it was a "treasure" that they got from G-d just as the steward had explained the previous appearance of money in their packs, 43:22. However, the brothers could not have been able to make this claim by the silver goblet, and hence they were only accused of stealing the goblet.

Alter (2004, p. 253) suggests that the placing of the silver was "to make the brothers feel they were trapped in a network of uncanny circumstances they could neither control nor explain… The steward, however, was exclusively focused on the retrieval of the silver goblet, and so did not even deign to mention the weights of silver in the bags, as though their appearance there were a matter of course, whatever consternation it might have caused the brothers." With this idea, the steward also found the "stolen silver" but the Torah did not mention this finding.

Maybe there were two other reasons for the silver. One, had they returned home without Binyamin as Yosef intended, 44:10,17, then Yosef wanted them to return to Yaakov with the silver since this would again be re-creating the sale, that they were returning home short one brother but with money, see our discussion on 42:25,27,35, “A double dose of fear." This might have been Yosef's test of Yaakov to see if he would come to Egypt to try to free Binyamin, see our discussion on 42:9, "The beginning of the game between Yosef and his brothers." Thus, the silver was found, but the steward did not mention it since it was desired for the brothers to have the silver.

A second possibility is that the steward put the silver in the amtahot as plan B. Yosef was trying to trap the brothers, but the plan could have gone awry if Binyamin and the brothers realized the goblet was in their amtahot, and either attempted to return it or to dispose of it. Thus, when the steward filled the amtahot of the brothers with grain, he also put silver in their amtahot, as a back-up plan. The steward did not need to use plan B, the silver, since when he opened the amtahat of Binyamin he found the goblet, and hence the silver is not mentioned in 44:12.

Bibliography:

Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Bereshit 42:36-38 – What did Yaakov know? Hope and suspicion

Bereshit 42:36 records that after Yaakov saw the money that his sons had inadvertently brought back from Egypt, he said, “Yosef is not, Shimon is not, and you will take Binyamin – upon me has all this come.” Reuven then volunteered to kill his two sons if he did not return Binyamin, 42:37, and then Yosef stated that he would not send Binyamin with his other sons, “for his brother (Yosef) is dead, and he alone is left,” 42:38.

This last verse is surprising. In 42:36 Yaakov referred to Yosef and Shimon in an equivalent manner, which means that he thought Yosef was alive since he knew that Shimon was alive, while in 42:38 Yaakov appears to have stated that Yosef was dead. Also, why does Yaakov refer to Binyamin as being “the only one left?” Alter (2004, p. 245) writes: "The extravagant insensitivity of Yaakov’s paternal favoritism continues to be breathtaking. He speaks of Binyamin as ‘my son’ almost as though the ones he is addressing were not his sons. This unconscious disavowal of the ten sons is sharpened when Yaakov says ‘he alone remains’ failing to add ‘from his mother.’

In order to understand 42:38, we need to attempt to understand Yaakov’s psyche with regard to Yosef, and this relates to two questions. One, did Yaakov think that Yosef was dead and two, did Yaakov think the brothers were responsible for Yosef’s fate?

With regard to the first question, N. Leibowitz (1976, pp. 476-482) notes that 43:14 records that Yaakov told his sons that he prayed that G-d would help them free “your brother another, and Binyamin,” and Rashi explains that the phrase “your brother” refers to Shimon and the word “another” refers to Yosef. Thus, she writes that this word “reveals Yaakov’s state of mind, aware that his son had been torn by wild beasts yet refusing to accept it, reflecting his hope in his despair, his fortifying himself in his prayers to make an oblique allusion to what he dared not make public reference to.” While this inference from 43:14 is not clear-cut since the phrase can be translated as “your other brother” (see Fox, 1995, p. 206) and the point is that Yaakov was trying to impress on his sons that Binyamin was also their brother, I agree that Yaakov always hoped that Yosef was alive for three reasons.

One, when a child is missing, all parents hope the child is alive as long as the body is not produced. For instance, The New York Times reported (December 22, 2008, In Rhode Island, an old mobster lets go of a long-kept secret, by Dan Barry) that a person named Mr. Scanlon has been missing since 1978, and was believed to have been dead even though his body was never found. After 30 years, a Mr. Pari admitted to killing Mr. Scanlon and he revealed where Mr. Scanlon’s body was buried before he died. A police officer said that even though 30 years have passed the Scanlon family had always hoped that Mr. Scanlon was not dead.

Two, 37:11 records that Yaakov shamor (remembered) Yosef's dreams, which means that Yaakov thought that they would be actualized, see Rashbam on 37:11.

Three, 44:28 records that when Yehuda was speaking to Yosef he quoted Yaakov as saying that, "For sure he (Yosef) is torn, torn to pieces. And, I have not seen him again thus far," (Fox 1995 translation). The end of the verse implies that Yaakov did not believe that Yosef was dead since if Yosef had been torn to pieces, then of course he would not have seen him again. Instead, Yaakov still had hope of seeing Yosef, but he had not yet seen him again, see our discussion below on 45:3,"The end of the game."

With this idea, Yaakov's initial re-action to seeing the blood drenched coat (37:33,34) caused him to think that Yosef was dead but over time he began to hope and really believe that Yosef was alive. One would then assume that Yaakov did look for Yosef, although this is not recorded in the Torah, but the trail went cold, possibly since he did not begin to search right away.

With regard to the question as to whether Yaakov thought that the brothers were responsible for Yosef’s fate there is no definitive answer. Yaakov knew that they hated Yosef, and he must surely have been disappointed in their actions after they returned. They returned home without Yosef, but with Yosef’s garment, and all they said was, 37:32, “do you recognize the garment?” Did they say that after they found the garment that they investigated to find out about Yosef? Even if they did not have CSI then, they still could have found out some information. However, there is no record of them reporting anything to their father. Yaakov also knew that they were capable of killing as they did in Shekhem and he knew from his own experience with his brother, Esav, that a person can want to kill his brother. Yet, he did not know if his children would be capable of killing their brother and as a father he would want to give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe his suspicion of them is why he did not initially believe them when they told him that Yosef was alive, 45:26.

Most likely, Yaakov lived with these two questions, hoping that Yosef was alive and trying to convince himself that his sons were innocent of whatever happened to Yosef. Thus, in 42:36, Yaakov did not state that Yosef was dead only that he was not with them similar to Shimon. However, Reuven’s words in 42:37 jarred these hopes. Reuven said that he would kill his two sons which is not only foolish (see Rashi), but extremely callous. How can a father even think of possibly killing his children? Yaakov realized that if Reuven was willing to kill his sons, then he also would have been willing to kill his brother. This shattered his main basis for believing that his sons were innocent. Thus, in response, Yaakov disowned his other sons since at that moment he perceived them as murders, 42:38. Furthermore, he stated that Yosef was dead since if they were murderers then Yosef was dead. Finally, if Yaakov thought that his sons killed Yosef, then he would not agree to send Binyamin with them to Egypt.

Accordingly, there was nothing for the brothers to say to Yaakov, and the conversation ends. The conversation only resumed with the passage of time and the worsening of the famine, and it is Yaakov who begins the conversation, 43:1,2. Furthermore, the hope that Yosef was alive was probably re-kindled in Yaakov, and maybe 43:14 was a reference to Yosef as argued by Rashi and N. Leibowitz.

Bibliography:

Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, Studies in Bereshit, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Bereshit 43:23-34- The middle of the game between Yosef and his brothers: Know thy opponent

There are at least five strange statements or events when Yosef's brothers return to Egypt the second time.

One, when the brothers returned to Egypt they offered to return the silver that they found in their sacks from their first trip to Egypt. Yosef’s steward told them they could keep the money since “Your G-d, the G-d of your fathers placed a treasure in your packs,” 43:23. This is a very evasive response since the steward seems to be acknowledging that he knew about the silver but he denies that he placed it in their sacks. Luzzatto (on 43:23) quotes a student of his that this statement was bizarre since it implied that the steward knew something of their family.

Two, the brothers were invited to eat with the ruler of Egypt and Yosef seated them according to their age, 43:33, which could not have been fortuitous since all except for Binyamin were born within a few years of each other. The fact that this was quite amazing is that the end of 43:33 records that the brothers were amazed that Yosef was able to discern their ages. The Torah does not explain how Yosef knew the brother’s ages, it also never refers to this incident again. Why is it recorded in the Torah? Later, Yosef will tell the brothers don’t you know that I have special powers, 44:15, which could be referring to his ability to know their ages. Yet, from this case we know that Yosef had no special powers, as he had set up Binyamin, and then here too we see that Yosef, if he was a stranger, had no way of knowing the ages of the brothers.

Three, after Yosef met Binyamin, he said, “May G-d show you favor, my son!” 43:29, and then he proceeded to give Binyamin more portions of food than the other brothers, 43:34. While it always must have seemed odd to the brothers that this ruler of Egypt wanted them to bring Binyamin to Egypt, how could they explain Yosef’s apparent partiality towards Binyamin? Also, the term “my son” is completely out of place since Binyamin was clearly not Yosef's son, and this term must have aroused the brother's suspicion why a stranger would call their brother my son. In Hebrew, the term my son, beni, is the exact same sound of the beginning of Binyamin's name, and then the use of this term, beni, could be because Yosef was hinting to his brothers that he knew Binyamin's name.

Four, Yosef asked about Yaakov’s wellbeing, 43:27, and later told them “go in peace to your father,” 44:17. Why should Yaakov’s wellbeing have been a concern for an Egyptian ruler?

Five, it must have been strange to the brothers to learn that Yosef could not eat with the Egyptians, 43:32, which would inform them that Yosef was not an Egyptian.

An explanation for all these actions is that Yosef was trying to hint to the brothers his true identity, see Pava (1993). First, as we discuss on 37:25-34, 42:21, “Who sold Yosef?” the brothers knew that Yosef had been sold to traders going to Egypt and had not died when they threw him into the pit. Thus, they knew that it was not impossible for Yosef to be the ruler of Egypt.

While the brothers did not initially recognize Yosef, 42:8, they associated being thrown into jail with their actions towards Yosef, 42:21,22, and Yosef heard them making this association, 42:23.

Afterwards when they returned to Canaan, the most natural thing would have been for them to have investigated who was this person who had accused them of being spies and imprisoned Shimon. It would not have taken much effort for them to have learned that the ruler of Egypt had once been a slave and had interpreted dreams to win his freedom. This story was so incredible that surely it become public knowledge. This information in conjunction with their knowledge of Yosef’s dreams must have raised the possibility in their minds that Yosef was their Egyptian adversary. The strange events upon their return to Egypt would have reinforced their suspicion that it truly was Yosef. Furthermore, when they were drinking together, 43:34, they had more time to look carefully at Yosef in an informal setting, and recognize Yosef.

Even though they thought he was Yosef, they could not confront Yosef since there was the possibility that Yosef would have been upset with them for ending the charade, as even when Yosef identified himself, they were scared of him, 45:3. Accordingly, the brothers had to play Yosef’s game until Yosef chose to reveal himself.

Why did Yosef give all these hints to his brothers while not openly telling them he was Yosef? Yosef wanted the brothers to know who they bowed down to, and he might have thought that if the brother did not who he was, then their bowing would not have been a fulfillment of the dreams. However, if he openly revealed himself to his brothers, then they might not have bowed down to him.