The Brothers on Trial: Yo Safe or Sorry?

(2) את דבתם רעה THEIR EVIL REPORT — Whatever he saw wrong in his brothers, the sons of Leah, he reported to his father: that they used to eat flesh cut off from a living animal, that they treated the sons of the handmaids with contempt, calling them slaves, and that they were suspected of living in an immoral manner. With three such similar matters he was therefore punished. In consequence of his having stated that they used to eat flesh cut off from a living animal Scripture states, (Genesis 37:31) “And they slew a he-goat" after they had sold him and they did not eat its flesh whilst the animal was still living.

(3) And because of the slander which he related about them that they called their brothers slaves — (Psalms 105:17) “Joseph was sold for a slave.” And because he charged them with immorality (Genesis 39:7) “his master’s wife cast her eyes upon him etc.” (Genesis Rabbah 84:7).

The older brothers would make fun of the younger brothers who were born to maids and say that their mothers were concubines and slaves. Yosef would say that they were the children of Yaakov's wives

(3) בן זקנים THE SON OF HIS OLD AGE — He was born to him in his old age. Onkelos translates it as "because he was a wise son to him” — all that he had learnt from Shem and Eber he taught him (Genesis Rabbah 84:8). Another explanation of בן זקנים— his facial features were similar to his (Jacob’s) (Genesis Rabbah 84:8).

(3) And Israel loved. . . All this caused the jealousy.

(3) He was born to him in his old age... And seems to me that the custom of the elders was that they take one of their young sons to serve them, and he would lean on his arm and would never be parted from him, and he called him "a son of his old age", for he served him in old age, and here Jacob took Joseph for this purpose and was always with him, and therefore he did not work with the sheep when they grazed in far away places.

Yaakov had a greater love for Yosef because even though Binyamin was younger than him, Yaakov's wife Rachel died while giving birth to Binyamin.

Rav Bar M'chasya says in the name of Rav Chama Bar Gurya who says in the name of Rav - A person shouldn't favor one son over another, because just the value difference of just two selaim ​which Yaakov gave to Yosef over his other brothers caused jealousy which snowballed into our ancestors descending to (being slaves in) Mitzrayim.

Even to speak peacefully

It was a positive thing that they harnessed the hatred in their hearts rather than take it out on him.

(4) ויראו אחיו כי אותו אהב אביהם, here Yaakov had committed an error, allowing the love in his heart for Joseph to be now become visible through preferential treatment of him.

(6) שמעו נא החלום הזה, not only did he tell them his dream, as something by the way, but he invited them to listen to him tell it by saying שמעו נא “please pay attention!” This could not fail to intensify the hostility of his brothers, as we see immediately by their reaction: “do you plan to rule over us?!”

(8) Three sources of hatred are mentioned here, because at first they hated him for his speaking about them to their father and from then on they never wanted to speak with him, as it says, "And they could not speak peacefully with him." And then [it states] "And Yosef dreamed a dream and he told his brothers." He did not yet tell him the details of his dream, as it does not say "And he told his brothers about it," rather that when [Yosef] spoke to them and told them, "Listen, I dreamed a dream," they immediately hated him even more, because he was speaking to them when they did not want him to, and since that hatred was in their hearts but Yosef did not sense it, he therefore requested of them, "Please listen to this dream." They then were forced to speak with him and they said to him, "Do you mean to rule over us?" so they therefore hated him even more, for his dreams and for his speaking to them. It was not that they hated him because of his dreams, but that they hated him even just for his speaking, because he wanted to speak with them against their will.

(9) "For all dreams follow a person's speech" (Berachot 55b), which is to say that which a person speaks about before sleeping will be the basis for the person's dreams, "For a dream comes from much business, and a fool's voice from much speaking" (Kohelet 5:2), for the foolishness that the fool speaks of cause him much of these silly dreams, therefore the brothers believed that therefore it must have meant that before Yosef would go to sleep, he would speak or think about his being fit to rule, and therefore he would have such a dream. As such, they hated him for that which he said and that which he thought.

(8) על חלומותיו, “on account of his dreams.” If you were to ask that thus far Joseph has been reported as telling his brothers the content of only a single dream, so why does the Torah speak of “dreams” in the plural mode? We must answer that the Torah already referred to events in the future. Alternately, Joseph had been in the habit of telling his brothers about his dreams, but it was only the ones in which he appeared as placing himself above his brothers that they hated him for.

(8) "Would you then reign over us? Would you then dominate us?"

Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra explains: Will we make you a king over us willingly? (That is the meaning of the first question of the brothers). Or will you rule over us by force? (This is the meaning of the second question of the brothers).

But Onkelos' opinion is more sounds: The brothers were asking, "Would you be a king over us or a ruler over us? For people bow down to both a king as well as a ruler. The brothers therefore said, "You will never be over us, neither as a king, nor even as a ruler" (A king has more power than a ruler).

The explanation [in the pasuk for why the brothers hated Yosef] of because of his dreams and because of his talk is that they hated him for the dreams themselves and also for relation of the dream, which he related to them like a bragger. As it says, Hear, if you please, this dream which I dreamt!"

(8) ועל דבריו AND FOR HIS WORDS — for the evil report about them which he used to bring to their father.

(10)

ויספר אל אביו ואל אחיו AND HE TOLD IT TO HIS FATHER AND TO HIS BRETHREN — After he had related it to his brothers (see 5:9) he again related it to his father in their presence.

ויגער בו AND HIS FATHER REBUKED HIM because he was arousing hatred against himself by relating the dream.

(17) נסעו מזה THEY HAVE JOURNEYED FROM THERE— they have departed from all feeling of brotherhood.

The question to Rashi is what is this answer to the question (Yosef asked), for Yosef just wants to know where his brothers went, and the angel responded to him that they left from here? Furthermore, doesn't Yosef know that they left from here since they are can't be found here? Therefore, the explanation is that they left their brotherhood with him, and they wish to kill him, and Yosef shouldn't continue after them.

(17) נסעו מזה, “they have moved away from here; they have said that they are no longer interested as being 12 tribes”. The numerical value of the letters in the word זה is 12.

(17) אחר אחיו, even though he had not been able to locate them in Shechem as his father had asked him to do, he went to more trouble than he was required to, in order to fulfill the wishes of his father.

(18) "They conspired against him to kill him".

They were thinking of ways to kill him through their conspiracy that they conspired, before he approached them, so that they would not have to shed blood with their own hands. And so they said in Breishit Rabbah: The brothers said, "Let us sic dogs on him". Perhaps they actually did so, but it was not successful. And then, when they saw that he had already approached them and they had not been able to kill him from afar in accordance with their conspiracy, they said one to another, "Look, he is already coming to us, and now we will have to kill him ourselves".

(18) "And they saw him afar off"...
We could say further that "and they saw him from afar off" refers to the distance of their hearts, because they did not see him as brothers see their brothers, rather, they saw him like a man distant from them.

(18) ויתנכלו אותו להמיתו... If instead of being as righteous as such models ought to have been in order to serve as inspiration for us, they had indeed harboured such murderous thoughts without justification. Even if the brothers’ intention to sell Joseph had been based on mere hatred, how could such brothers qualify as inspiration for the Jewish people of the breastplate of the High Priest? We must therefore endeavour to understand the collective feelings of the brothers as being that they actually felt themselves threatened by Joseph’s aspirations and they were convinced that when one feels threatened one is entitled or even obliged to take measures to neutralise the source of the danger. This is even a halachic principle clearly spelled out in Sanhedrin 72.

​(20) And Now Go etc... They said "we will kill him" as the Gemara (Bava Kamma 26a) says that if ten people kill a person, they are patur​. This was their cleverness, that they said we will kill him, knowing that they will be exempt from punishment by man.

​(20) And Now Go etc... Perhaps the brothers viewed Yosef as a false witness (worthy of death). We are told that he reported the bad things the brothers did to their father, and those actions were things worthy of the death penalty (if a witness is proven to be false, he is given the punishment the people he is testifying about would have received had they been guilty; in this case it is death). Yosef accused them of eating a limb that was removed from a live animal, and he reported that they committed illicit relations, which are all things bnei Noach are given the death penalty for violating, and a ben Noach ​is killed by a single witness without having to give warning, and relatives are able to testify (Rambam: Hilchot Melachim chapter 9), therefore Yosef was considered a false witness and the brothers were exempt from punishment (for their actions) by the court in heaven.

(21) He saved them from their Hands. ​The explanation is that since human beings have free will, and the ability to kill someone who is not deserving of death, while animals do not have the ability to kill a human being unless they are decreed to die. That's why it says, he saved him from their hands, which means from the hands of people who have the free will, that's why they say let's see what will come of his dreams, since the element of human free will is gone (once he is thrown in the pit) and there wouldn't be any proof of his unworthiness if they kill him themselves.

(22) "Do not shed blood!"

Reuven is saying to them, "Now, I tolerated you when you thought to kill [Yosef] through your conspiracy, for I too hate him and wanted him to be killed by others. But you yourselves - do not shed blood with your own hands; far be it from you! Reuven's intention with all this was to save Yosef, to return him to his father [Reuven's disinction between direct and indirect killing was only a ruse to keep Yosef alive until he could come and save him].

The Pesukim relate here what Reuven told the brothers and successfully persuaded them, for they listened to him. However, he said other things to them previously, which they did not accept from him, as he told them many years later, Did I not speak to you, saying 'Do not sin against the boy,' but you would not listen!(Breishit 42:22). And when he saw that they were not listening to let Yosef go altogether, he said them, If so, at least do not shed blood with your own hands.

(22) למען הציל אתו THAT HE MIGHT DELIVER HIM [OUT OF THEIR HAND] — The Holy Spirit (Scripture) bears witness for Reuben that he said this only for the purpose of saving his brother — that he would come afterwards and draw him up from there. He thought, “I am the first-born and the chief among them, and blame will attach to no one but myself” (Genesis Rabbah 84:15).

"Reuben" — [what means "Reuben"]? R. Eleazar answered : Leah said, "See the difference between my son and the son of my father-in-law (Eisav); for the son of my father-in-law, although he voluntarily sold his birthright — as it is written, 'And he sold his birthright unto Jacob' (ibid. xxv. 33) — see what is written of him, 'And Esau hated Jacob' (ibid, xxvii. 41) and 'Is not he rightly called Jacob? for he hath supplanted me these two times' (ibid. 5:36). But as for my son, although Joseph forcibly deprived him of his birthright — as it is written, 'But, forasmuch as he defiled his father's couch, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph' (I Chron. v. 1 ) — nevertheless he was not jealous of him; for it is written, 'And Reuben heard it, and delivered him out of their hand' (Gen. xxxrii. 21)."

Rashi explains that he intended to do good, but weren't there snakes and scorpions in the pit? Rather, one might say that at first there were no snakes in the pit that he was thrown into, but when Reuven left, his brothers went and threw Yosef in another pit that had snakes and scorpions in it. And when it says "And Reuven returned," this is speaking about the pit in which Reuven said to throw Yosef.

​(23) And They Stripped Yosef etc. ​This means that nothing remained on Yosef, and he was left naked, since they removed his shirt without even thinking while taking off his multi-color coat.

The multi-color coat was actually the outer garment, and yet, they removed all his garments out of their anger and hatred.

And some say that Yosef had switched his coats, and he wore the ketonet pasim on his body, and he put a plain robe on top of it in order to conceal the ketonet pasim from his brothers, and therefore it states, "his coat," because they first removed his plain outer coat and afterward they removed the ketonet pasim that was on his body and that was not his outermost layer.

(24) והבור רק אין בו מים AND THE PIT WAS EMPTY, THERE WAS NO WATER IN IT — Since it states, “the pit was empty”, do I not know that “there was no water in it”? What then is the force of “there was no water in it”? Water, indeed it did not contain, but there were serpents and scorpions in it (Shabbat 22a).

"The pit was empty, there was no water in it"

Rashi writes: "The implication of what is said, and the pit was empty, do I not know that no water was in it? Why, then, does the verse say, no water was in it? It is to intimate that there was no water in it, but there were snakes and scorpions in it. The above is a quote from Rashi, taken from the words of the Sages (Shabbos 22a).

If it is so that the pit was infested with dangerous animals, the snakes and scorpions must have been in the crevices of the pit, or else the pit was so deep that the brothers did not know about them because they could not see the bottom of the pit. For if they had seen the snakes and scorpions, and witnessed that they did not harm Yosef, it would have been clear to them that a great miracle had been done for him and he was therefore a completely righteous person. They would have known that his merits would save him from all evil, so how could they subsequently harm the "anointed one of Hashem" whom Hashem loved and miraculously saved, and sell him into slavery?

But it had within it snakes and scorpions. They found that it was permissible for them to do this because they believed that he had spoken lashon hara by speaking to their father, and we know that those who speak lashon hara were punished with snakes as it states, "The nation spoke [badly] of God and Moshe" (Bamidbar 21:5) and then it states "And God sent snakes [to punish them]" (6). The snake, which sinned with his tongue and spoke lashon hara about his creator [in the story of Adam and Chava], will come "and will punish those who speak lashon hara" (Shemot Rabah 3:12).

(25) וישבו לאכול לחם, to demonstrate that what they had done was no crime in their eyes, or that the incident was not something that should interfere with their regular meal. When righteous people become aware of having inadvertently committed a sin, they not only do not celebrate by eating, but they impose a fast day or more upon themselves. A prominent example of people imposing a fast day upon themselves, although they did not feel guilty for having done something wrong, were the Jewish tribes after having practically wiped out the tribe of Binyamin. We read about this in Judges 21,2-3 as well as about the fact that they imposed a fast upon themselves in spite of being convinced that they had done the right thing in going to war against that tribe. We also find something parallel when the King Darius threw Daniel into a pit full of starving lions. (Daniel 6,19). [The King had acted in accordance with the constitution of his country which demanded that a “heretic” such as Daniel be thrown to the lions, and the king’s efforts to have the law changed were rejected by his advisers. In spite of being legally correct, the king felt so badly that he went to bed hungry as a kind of penance for doing what was legally correct. Ed.] If the brothers sat down to eat immediately after throwing Joseph into the pit, this is clear evidence that in their minds they had certainly not committed any wrong. WE, who were not part of Yaakov’s household, and who know that these brothers were unanimously elevated to become the founding fathers of the Jewish nation, must therefore accept the premise underlying their actions as being that they had truly felt themselves personally threatened by Joseph, someone who was considered so mature that his own father had appointed him as manager over his senior brothers. The brothers had made strenuous efforts to put physical distance between themselves and Joseph in order to avoid any altercation. When he had sought them out in spite of their having signaled clearly that they wanted to avoid him, they felt understandably very threatened.

And he took him. Who is he? Shimon. When was he punished for this? Later on (Breishit 42) "and he took Shimon from them and sent him to the pit."