And there passed by Midianites, merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. And they brought Joseph into Egypt.
The straightforward answer, as Rashi sees it, is that the brothers took Joseph out of the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites and the Ishmaelites to the Midianites and the Midianites to the Egyptians.
I learned from my son, however, (it’s so wonderful when you can learn from your kids) that Rashbam (who is the grandson of Rashi; can you imagine challenging your own scholarly grandfather?) sees this differently. He suggests that the “they” who do the selling are the Midianites: “The brothers sat down to a meal at some distance from the pit, out of qualms of conscience and waited for the Ishmaelites they had seen. But before the latter arrived, others, Midianite traders passed, saw Joseph in the pit and drew him out and sold him to the Ishmaelites, presumably without the knowledge of the brothers.”
This helps explains Genesis 39:1, where Potiphar buys Joseph from the Ishmaelites. Other commentators complain that Rashi does not adequately explain this pasuk (how do the Midianites fit in? Who sold him to Egypt, Midianites or Ishmaelites?). But if the Midianites take Joseph without the brothers knowing and sells him to the Ishmaelites, then this pasuk makes sense.
Much more on this topic in Nehama Leibowitz’s New Studies in Breishit.
A much simpler question is why does the text in beginning of Miketz say “brothers of Joseph”? Rashi’s explanation is that they went down to Egypt to look for him, that he was very much on their minds (daughter of Mrs. S. said it was out of love for their brother). But if one follows Rashbam’s explanation, that the Midianites sold him and the brothers thought him dead, why does it say “brothers of Joseph”? (I don’t know).
• • •
While we are discussing Joseph, I just want to remark on what Rabbi Levi Meier, z”l, calls “Joseph’s astonishing ability to forgive his brothers.” In his book Ancient Secrets: Using the Stories of the Bible to Improve Our Everyday Lives, Rabbi Meier talks about Fate vs. Destiny: you can have reasons to hold a grudge, you can have a terrible start in life, and you can either sulk and not move forward or you can use it as a way to learn and grow:
Joseph’s forgiving is hard to achieve, especially when you have been terribly wronged by another person. In the case of Joseph, his life could have been ruined by the actions of his brothers. However, it was not, because he did not allow that to happen… Nursing your hurt feelings, your anger, and your bitterness will not bring you to happiness. It will only make you a slave to your fate, and you may never come to know that you could have freed yourself—that you could have been the master of your destiny.
One may give a variety of answers, but a common answer is how Joseph dealt with Egyptian culture. In order to understand this better, we need to look at both the Hanukkah story and the Joseph in Egypt story.
What was the battle of Hanukkah about? There was a lot of pressure in Israel in the days of the Maccabees to conform and become like the Hellenists, to adopt Greek culture and shed Jewish traditions. Those that resisted, like Hannah and her martyred seven sons, became the precursors to today’s Jews.
Joseph, too, needed to live in a foreign culture. His was the world of ancient Egypt. He resisted the morals of that society; for example, he managed to get away from Potiphar’s wife. He never forgot his roots and was eager to reconnect with his family. At the same time, he worked on behalf of Egypt and was able to provide food at a time of famine.
Joseph can be viewed as a model of how one can integrate into a society, even in a leadership role, but not lose one’s heritage and traditions. In contrast, the Hellenized Jews of the days of the Maccabbees discarded far too much of their culture and are lost to history.
Mrs. S. gave the following: One answer is based on Ovadiah 1:18 (which is part of the haftarah for Parshat Vayishlach):
“And the house of Yaakov will be fire and the house of Yosef a flame, and the house of Esav for straw, and they shall ignite them and consume them; and there will be no remnant to the house of Esav, for Hashem has spoken.” She then clarified that comparing Yosef to a flame reminds us of Chanukah. And “giborim b’yad chalashim v’rabim b’yad me’atim” (“the strong in the hands of the weak, and the many in the hands of the few”) — Rashi is suggesting in the first pasuk of Vayeshev – based on the pasuk in Ovadiah – that one Yosef is more than sufficient to overcome all of Esav’s “chiefs”.
• • •
I had two more questions on Sunday:
1) Who sold Joseph? Was it the brothers or was it…? Here’s the pasuk in Vayeshev (Genesis 37:28)-
וַיַּעַבְרוּ אֲנָשִׁים מִדְיָנִים סֹחֲרִים, וַיִּמְשְׁכוּ וַיַּעֲלוּ אֶת-יוֹסֵף מִן-הַבּוֹר, וַיִּמְכְּרוּ אֶת-יוֹסֵף לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים, בְּעֶשְׂרִים כָּסֶף; וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶת-יוֹסֵף, מִצְרָיְמָה.
And there passed by Midianites, merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. And they brought Joseph into Egypt.
The text is not clear. To whom does “they” refer?
2) Why does it say the “brothers of Joseph” instead of “sons of Jacob”? Genesis 42:3 – וַיֵּרְדוּ אֲחֵי-יוֹסֵף
Any ideas? I’ll answer in a separate post. Stay tuned.
Why do we read the story of Joseph at Hanukah time?
There are multiple answers to that questions. Feel free to give your own in the comments. Creativity is welcome.
I hope to post about the upcoming parsha on Thursday See the post on Joseph and Hellenization. On Wednesday, the Kosher Cooking Carnival will show up on this blog. You have until Tuesday to submit a food post. Thank you so much to the many folks who have already written about food! (I know food is a hard topic, one that none of us can relate to… ;-).
Back to the parsha, who sold Joseph? Was it the brothers or was it…?
And in the upcoming parsha, why does it say the “brothers of Joseph” instead of “sons of Jacob”?
Alternate spellings of Hanukkah: Chanukah, Chanukkah, Chanuka, Hanuka, Hanukah … only one in Hebrew: חנוכה
Tamar marries Er, the son of Judah, son of Yaakov and Leah. Er dies. She marries the next brother Onan, as the widow of a brother with no children should marry the younger brother. He dies. She is then supposed to marry Shelah, the younger brother. Judah is reluctant to give her Shelah. She is told to act like a widow. Tamar dresses like a prostitute and seduces Judah. In the process, she asks for his staff, signet and cord and takes them. Judah does not know she is Tamar. Tamar gets pregnant. She is ordered to be burnt to death. She brings out the staff, signet and cord and says, whose are these. Judah responds: "She is more righteous than I, for I didn't give her to Shelah." And then Tamar gives birth to twins, Zerah and Perez. Zerah sticks his hand out first, gets a red string put on it. But Perez comes out first completely. Perez is the ancestor of King David.
So my question on my previous post on Tamar was: Why does Tamar merit to become the ancestress of King David?
Rashi says it was because of modesty. Judah did not recognize her because she covered herself up while in his house. Does this mean a physical modesty? Or maybe she just kept to herself? Or perhaps it’s the way she presented his staff, signet and cord: she could have accused him outright, but she set it up so he could either reveal himself, as he did, or he could deny it, which he chose not to do.
We can understand this story as a growth of Judah’s character; it is juxtaposed to the sale of his brother Joseph for a reason. Judah did not behave well in the sale of Joseph (one could add he did not behave well in withholding Shelah from Tamar as well). At the end of this story, however, he does the right thing by Tamar in admitting that it was his staff, signet and cord and thus he was the one who had impregnated her. You can read more about Judah as penitential man in Rabbi Jonathan Sack’s post.
Getting back to Tamar, I do find it strange that someone who dresses as a prostitute is considered righteous and a role model. But I suppose she knew she needed to carry the ancestor of David, and she knew it should be from Judah.
Wouldn’t ya know it? Yesterday was my first blog anniversary. And I didn’t notice until today.
One year ago I embarked on a journey of blog writing. My original purpose was to learn Word Press (succeeded, though there’s tons more to learn) and to write about and for people in Highland Park. I seem to have found a few readers in Highland Park, but many more around the globe. Thanks to everyone who has read any post of mine; thanks even more to those who leave a comment or two. I love the conversation.
One year ago my oldest son had his bar-mitzvah. He got called to the Torah in the synagogue and read both the Torah and the haftorah portions. It so happens that his Torah portion is Vayeshev, and last year I wrote a d’var Torah, a speech about the Torah, that I gave in the synagogue (at the meal after the services) to a wonderful crowd of people. I enjoyed writing a d’var Torah so much that I hope to continue doing so on my blog. It may not happen each week, but I’ll try. Oh, and in less than a year, we gotta do that bar-mitzvah thing again. It will be on Breishit, the first parsha of the Torah.
And now, for those of you who enjoy little quizzes, what’s the crimson thread?
And why did Tamar merit to become the ancestress of King David?
Can anyone tell me how many dreams there are in Parshat Vayeshev?
Anyone know who Timna is? And why am I talking about presents (which could go with a prayer book and a bow and arrow)? I plan to write more on this for a post to appear on Wednesday.
Poor Leah. She cried, because she thought she would get stuck with Esav (Rashi says weak eyes meant they were weak from tears). Instead, she married Yaakov, but she knew that he really loved her sister, Rachel, best.
Rachel had signs from Yaakov to show that it was she and not someone else when they got married. However, Rachel taught the signs to Leah, so Leah would not be embarrassed.
Leah helped Rachel out by praying for a girl when she was pregnant with her 7th child. She knew that Yaakov would only have 12 sons, and Bilhah and Zilpah already had 2 each. She wanted Rachel to have at least two sons.
As Lion of Zion pointed out, there are also interpretations that say Leah and Rachel were not so nice to each other. But that’s a subject for another post. Maybe next year.
(One more thought: as I tend to prefer a commentary that is sympathetic to the matriarchs, especially to their sadness, as opposed to one that might highlight cattiness, I’m not sure I’m gonna like these other views).
Do you have a sister? I don’t. I’ve always been a bit jealous of sisters. Someone to whom one could connect in a close way.
Rachel and Leah were extra special sisters. Do you know how they helped each other out? Rashi has the answer, and I’ll post the answer on the blog, soon.
Outside the Galil Mountain Winery, Northern Israel
In a previous post, I asked:
Let’s say your teenage or college age child goes away to school. How do you supply funds?
In this week’s parsha of Toldot, Yitzchak gives a blessing to his two sons, one to Esav and one to Yaakov.
Here’s Yaakov’s blessing (Genesis 27:28) —
וְיִתֶּן-לְךָ, הָאֱלֹהִים, מִטַּל הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּמִשְׁמַנֵּי הָאָרֶץ--וְרֹב דָּגָן, וְתִירֹשׁ. May God give you the dew of the heavens and the fatness of the earth, and abundant grain and wine.
Rabbi Frand (from Rabbi Frand on the Parashah 2) wonders why is the term for God here Elo-kim, which represents the Attribute of Divine Justice? Why not the Attribute of Mercy?
Rabbi Frand tells us Rashi’s explanation:
Although Yitzchak blessed Yaakov with much abundance, he made those blessings conditional. Yaakov has to deserve the abundance; the blessings would only come to fruition during those times that his descendants keep the Torah and mitzvos.
In contrast, here’s Esav’s blessing (Genesis 27:39) —:
And Isaac his father answered and said unto him: Behold, of the fat places of the earth shall be thy dwelling, and of the dew of heaven from above;
Esav’s blessing seems to be unconditional, with no strings attached. Why does Yaakov, the righteous son, only receive a conditional blessing, while the wicked Esav is blessed with guaranteed wealth?
Go back and review the choices I gave for how a parent could fund a child. If the parent gives a credit card, that is like Esav’s blessing. He doesn’t need to contact his parents further. Yaakov, on the other hand, needs to check in with his parents, to phone home, to maintain a relationship with God by doing mitzvot and keeping the Torah.
A much simpler question is why does the text in beginning of Miketz say “brothers of Joseph”? Rashi’s explanation is that they went down to Egypt to look for him, that he was very much on their minds (daughter of Mrs. S. said it was out of love for their brother). But if one follows Rashbam’s explanation, that the Midianites sold him and the brothers thought him dead, why does it say “brothers of Joseph”? (I don’t know).
