Hi Deb,

See if the following two scenarios outline situations that you could see as possibilities:

Even if the brothers did not sell Yosef, they had wronged him by taking his coat, imprisoning him and, by abandoning him for a while, leaving him vulnerable to what did happen at the hands of the Midyanim. Now that the very bad results of their treatment of Yosef were clear, the brothers could have been very motivated by their guilt to try to place most of the blame on Yehuda for failing to insist that they show proper respect for their younger brother. Maybe that isn't a really good reason for the brothers to be angry at Yehuda (the brothers should have known better themselves), but being angry with Yehuda tends (maybe) to lessen their guilt.

In holding Shimon and sending the other 9 brothers back home with silver money they would find hard to explain to their father, maybe Yosef was deliberately putting them in a situation that would remind them of the time 22 years earlier when they returned home with hard-to-explain silver money and minus one brother. (At this point Yosef still thought that the brothers had sold him for silver, that's why Yosef had silver put in their sacks of grain.)

Why would he want them to bring Binyamin back to Egypt? Notice what happens when Binyamin does get to Mitzrayim -- Yosef arranges (by framing Binyamin for theft) that Binyamin will be held back from returning home while the other 10 brothers return home with money they can't explain to their father and minus a younger half-brother. Now, as the 10 brothers return home, they should be reminded all the more of that time 22 years earlier when the same 10 brothers had to go back to their father minus a younger half-brother. (Yosef had again concealed silver in their bags as another reminder because he still thought the brothers had sold him.)

Yosef's Second Dream

Yosef's second dream is recounted twice -- first to the brothers and then to the father along with the brothers. I wonder why. I want to suggest that there are two interpretations of the dream - one which Yaakov recognizes couldn't be true and one which Yaakov brings to fulfillment.

Yaakov kept the dream in mind, but did he ever make use of that memory? Here's a possibility -- Yaakov made use of his memory when he found himself in a position to bring about its fulfillment under a different interpretation than the one he initially gave to the dream.

In the dream thirteen heavenly bodies bowed to Yosef: eleven stars (obviously his eleven brothers) and the sun and moon. Later in the story there are thirteen sons of Yaakov whose great respect (symbolized in the dream by bowing) Yosef deserves. This happens in chapter 48 when Yaakov adopts the two sons of Yosef as his own sons.

One very slender hint that the sun and moon in the dream are Yosef's sons is that, of the sun and moon, one is greater than the other (Gen. 1:16), just as, in Yaakov's characterization of the two sons, one of them will be greater (Gen. 48:19).

Yaakov saw a chance for Yosef's second dream to have a fulfillment and jumped on it. Though at first sceptical of the dream, Yaakov kept the dream in mind and by seeing the other interpretation of it was perhaps eventually guided to adopt two sons.
* Last updated by: DaleT on 1/6/2010 @ 1:50 PM *

thanks for responding.

I can accept those scenarios on a certain level. I still think that we are left with a couple of questions. First of all, if the brothers did not actually sell Yosef, why are the asarah harugei malchut punished for this sin. We know that when it comes to Bnei Yisrael, Hashem does not punish for bad intentions.
As far as the point about Binyomin, I agree that Yosef was trying to recreate the scenario to enable the brothers to do teshuva gmurah. I did not understand where you saw from the text that Yosef never intended to reveal himself and finally just coud not help himself. If the brothers did to teshuva, what would be the benefit to Yosef not to reveal his identity?
I was also thinking about how Yaakov, who is known for his trait of emet, could be the source for all the trickery done against him due to the bechora. Can we reconcile this other than to say that Hashem is exacting when it comes to tzaddikim?

For Deb,

I don't think Yosef ever said to himself, "I will never reveal myself to them", but I do think there is some liklihood that he never formed the intention of revealing himself. Yosef might be putting the brothers into uncomfortable situations and non-committally seeing what develops, leaving his own future actions undecided for now. Certainly, when he was overcome with emotion into revealing himself he had no intention of revealing himself just then: for it looks like he intended, before being overcome, for the brothers to return home without Binyamin and without knowing he was Yosef. (I'm distinguishing intending never to reveal himself from never intending to reveal himself.)

You may be on the right track with the reading that Yosef is testing the brothers for the performance of teshuva, and even nudging them to do so. I'm just pointing out that someone can entertain other interpretations of Yosef's actions and not be obviously wrong: Yosef may have intended no more than to prick their consciences; or intended only to get even with them by making them worry that Hashem was reminding them ominously of their wrong behavior toward Yosef; or intended to get even with his father whom he suspects of conspiring with the brothers to kick him out of family; or intended to get the whole family to Egypt so that his dream of them all bowing down to him could be fulfilled. Those are some possibilities I see (in addition to the possibility that you might know of some clues buried in the text that should convince me they really aren't allowed by the story).

Concerning the asarah harugei malchut -- "Ten rabbis were martyred by Roman authorities for the sin of their ancestors' (the brothers) having sold Yosef" does not entail that the brothers sold Yosef. (I was once punished by a school principal for the offense of my having carved bad words into the top of a desk, but there was no such event. The principal had a false belief, and maybe the Roman authorities did too.)

The martyrdom story raises a question: Did these rabbis not have the opportunity to defend their ancestors against the charge by showing the authorities that a close reading of Genesis 37 raises serious doubts about the charge? (Or maybe the rabbis also believed the brothers sold Yosef.)
* Last updated by: DaleT on 5/24/2009 @ 3:19 AM *

Hi Deb. Where was the concept of teshuvah introduced in Bereishis? Today we religious Jews take this concept for granted, but could we say that our forefathers knew that an evil action taken could ultimately be erased either through prayer or by confronting one's guilt adequately? Why should anyone automatically assume that? The concept of tefillah, for instance, was introduced as an aftermath to the chet ha'egel. HaShem taught Moshe how to pray and that prayers count.

I do agree that Yosef was bringing the brothers back to a place where they had originally been when they sold Yosef (where the fate of Rachel's other son was now at stake)-- and through Yehudah, they revealed that they had indeed changed in a very significant way by confronting their own sins and guilt fully. This was information that was extremely important for Yosef to know if he was to fulfill what he knew to be G-d's intention which was to be the saviour of his family. It was information that was, as well, important for the brothers to know about themselves -- about how much they had changed since that eventful day 13 years before.

Perhaps what happened here could be seen as a precursor to the concept of teshuvah which will be introduced by the Torah later.

A question for Deb -- why did Yosef choose Shimon from among all the brothers to incarcerate?

A Question about the superfluous intermediaries in Genesis 50.

In chapter 50, when Yosef is seeking permission to bury his father in Cannan, why are we told that Yosef makes his request of Pharaoh through Pharaoh's court or palace staff? Whether he asked permission of Pharaoh directly or through intermediaries is not a matter the reader is going to wonder about. So the purpose of the narrator's recounting this detail is not easy to say.

The episode has the same pattern as another episode a little later in the chapter where the brothers convey Yaakov's request to Yosef that he forgive the brothers the wrong that they had done to him. Both episodes introduce a group of intermediaries who convey a request to a very high ranking official, and in both cases the group of intermediaries seem to be needlessly involved: you'd think that Yosef, considering all that he had done for Pharaoh and Egypt, would have easier access to Pharaoh than any other official. And, in the other case, there was opportunity for Yaakov to make the "Be Forgiving" request of Yosef directly because Yosef was (along with the other brothers) in Yaakov's presence during the last hours of his life. I don't know why the intermediaries were used.

Faced with this similar pattern I find myself asking, Is Pharaoh's granting the requested permission supposed to lean me toward concluding that Yosef granted the requested forgiveness?

Outside of this possibly fictional request made by Yaakov, is there any evidence that Yaakov was told how Yosef was wronged by his brothers?
* Last updated by: DaleT on 1/11/2010 @ 12:46 PM *

The needless introduction of intermediaries balances out the needless removal of intermediaries

Two cases involving one intermediary:
In chapter 50 Yosef’s request to leave Egypt is presented to Pharaoh by the palace staff, thereby adding an intermediate link to the line of communication.
In chapter 48 Yaakov adopts Yosef’s sons as his own sons, thereby removing or bypassing an intermediate genealogical link between Yaakov and those sons.

Two cases involving two intermediaries:
In Genesis 50:15-21, Yaakov’s “Be Forgiving” request is conveyed to Yosef by the brothers having a messenger present the request to Yosef, thereby adding two links to the line of communication. (It is not perfectly clear that a messenger is used, but the text seems, at least, to want to put that thought in our heads.)
In chapter 50, Yosef adopts (“born on his knees”) the sons of Makhir the son of Menashe, thereby removing or bypassing two intermediate genealogical links between Yosef and the adopted sons.

All four incidents are puzzling. What was the point of adding or removing these links?

Pondering this, I tried to make something out of the meaning of the name “Makhir” (it means “sold”). That meaning seems to be an allusion to the account of Yosef's being sold. And, as indicated above, Yosef's adoption of Makhir's children counterbalances the extra links of the last told episode about Yaakov (50:15-21). In that way, the Makhir passage is pointing both to that episode and to the account of Yosef's being sold. the reason?

There is are similarities between them -
i) The brothers talk about Yosef and devise a plan (to sell Yosef, to tell Yosef their father’s request).
ii) There is a lapse of straightforwardness in the wording of the text so that it is not perfectly clear how many intermediate links there are (is there is one or two sales of Yosef before he gets to Egypt? Do the brothers tell Yosef directly or do they use a messenger?)
iii) As Rabbi Fohrman has carefully explained, there are strong reasons in the text to doubt that the brothers sold Yosef, and there are good reasons to doubt that their father ever made the request the brothers claimed.

These similarities and the conclusion that the brothers did not sell Yosef lead me to think that there was no “Yosef, Be Forgiving” request by their father to be conveyed.
* Last updated by: DaleT on 1/28/2010 @ 4:34 PM *

A Blast from the Past -- Why the last told Yaakov episode is out of chronological sequence

The passage about the brothers "seeing that their father was dead" (50:15-21) is placed in the story flow at least 4 months after they had observed their father give his farewells from his deathbed in chapter 49. Why is this passage out of chronological order? (Notice that the verse immediately before the passage leads smoothly into the verse immediately following the passage, as though the passage has been inserted into the middle of consecutive text.)

By making this episode the last one told in the Yaakov-Yosef story, the narrator is giving prominence to this episode so that the reader will notice something: Between this last told episode and the first episode that gets things heading to Egypt (the sale of Yosef) there is significant similarity:

i) brothers devise a plan.
ii) there is some indefinitive wording about how the plan is carried out.
iii) there is something wrong with the plan, something missing (there is no Yosef in the pit to sell, there was no "Yosef, be forgiving" request to convey) and, anyway, the goals of the plans had already been accomplished (Yosef had already been sold and Yosef had already forgiven them).
iv) Yosef is inclined to think that the brothers were doing father's bidding. (This point draws on Rabbi Fohrman's delvings into Yosef's understanding of what happened to him at Dothan -- "my brothers were doing father's bidding", an understanding which Yosef later realized from Yehudah's impassioned speech to be false. Will Yosef also conclude that the brothers are not doing father's bidding in this last told episode?)

This passage's violation of chronology is evidence of skillful narration. Because it is inserted into the strictly chronological history of the surrounding text, this passage strikes the reader as "coming out of the blue". That's how the passage conveys to the reader something of Yosef's experience of the "Be Forgiving" request as coming out of the blue (just as what happened to him at Dothan came out of the blue - a fifth point of similarity).
* Last updated by: DaleT on 1/25/2010 @ 4:10 PM *