Joseph Accuses His Brothers of Selling Him – But Did They?

Nahum Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 261.

See, similarly, the commentary of Rabbi David Kimhi (1160–1235): אחי יוסף משכוהו והעלוהו מן הבור ומכרוהו לישמעאלים—Joseph’s brothers pulled and lifted him out of the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites. Joseph Bekhor Shor (12^th cent.), Nahmanides (1194–1270), and Gersonides (1288–1344) opine similarly.

As Sarna writes (ibid.) “On the basis of 45:5 it [the subject] is generally taken to be the brothers.”

It is beyond the purview of this essay to deal with the names of the nations—Ishmaelites, Midianites and Medanites—who bought Joseph, brought him to Egypt, and sold him to Potiphar. Rabbi Shmuel Klitsner (in a personal conversation) notes that in this story of brothers rejecting their half-brother, the bit parts are all played by the rejected half-brothers of their grandfather, Isaac: Ishmael, Midian, and Medan (see Gen 16:15 and 25:1-2).

Rashi’s interpretation must also contend must contend with what the Midianites are doing there. If the brothers sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites, then the Midianites seem entirely superfluous. To deal with this problem, Rashi creates a cumbersome narrative:

והישמעאלים למדנים, והמדנים מכרו אותו אל מצרים

The Ishmaelites [then sold Joseph] to the Midianites, and the Midianites to the Egyptians.

Notably, Rashbam, who, as we shall see, does not accept Rashi’s read that the brothers are the ones who sold Joseph, offers an alternative way of explaining the Midianites’ presence according to Rashi’s reading:

ואף אם באתה לומר: וימכרו {את} יוסף לישמעאלים – כי אחיו מכרוהו, אם כן צריך לומר שהם ציוו למדיינים סוחרים למושכו מן הבור ואחר כן מכרוהו לישמעאלים.

Even if one were to insist on saying that “they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites” means that Joseph’s brothers sold him, one would still have to say that Joseph’s brothers first commanded the Midianites to pull Joseph out of the pit, and then sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites.

Needless to say, in both cases, the involvement of the Midianites seems narratively superfluous.

For a look at the documentary solution to these problems, see Ben Sandler, “Encountering the Documentary Hypothesis in the Joseph Story,” TheTorah (2014).

R. Menachem brings prooftexts here for his reading of this verb:

ומאי משמע דהאי ויעברו לישנא דאקדומי הוא, דכתיב וירץ אחימעץ דרך הככר ויעבר את הכושי (שמואל ב יח כג), ואיבעית אימא מהכא, ויעבור מלכם לפניהם וה' בראשם (מיכה ב יג),

And how do we know that the verb “and they passed” has the connotation of pulling ahead? For it says (2 Sam 18:23): “And Ahimaaz ran by way of the plains and passed the Kushite.” Or, I can suggest from here (Mic 2:13): “Their king passed before them, and God was at their head.”

This difficult verse may actually refer to eating meat with the blood still in it, but Rashbam is using it poetically here, saying that the brothers were unable to eat in proximity to their brother whom they were leaving to die in a pit.

While this solution differs from that of R. Menachem, it is likely that Rashbam was influenced to some degree by R. Menachem’s insistence that the Midianites are the subject of all the verbs in the verse, and that the point is the Midianites arrived unexpectedly fast. For a general argument about Rashbam’s familiarity with Sekhel Tov, and its influence on his commentary, see, Martin Lockshin “זיקת פירוש הרשב"ם לתורה אל מדרש שכל טוב” [The Connection Between Rabbi Samuel ben Meir’s Torah Commentary and Midrash Sekhel Tov] , Proceedings of the World Congress for Jewish Studies, 11.1 (1993): 135­–142.

Rashi is forced to make recourse to midrashic explanations from Bereshit Rabba 84:

ובמכירתו לא היה שם, שהגיע יומו לילך ולשמש את אביו. דבר אחר: עסוק היה בשקו ותעניתו על בילבול יצועי אביו

Reuben had not been present when Joseph was sold for it was his day to go attend to his father. Another explanation is: he had been busy with his sackcloth and fasting in penitence for having disturbed his father’s marital bed [alluding to Gen 35:22].

Aside from the fact that these stories do not appear in the biblical text, they also do not accord with Reuben’s plan to save Joseph from the pit at the first opportunity by returning there before his brothers had a chance to (v. 22). Logically, would he then leave Joseph in the pit and go somewhere else where he could not see Joseph or his brothers?

So also Rabbi Bahya ben Asher (1255-1340).

Other commentators such as Malbim (Rabbi Meir Leibush Wisser; 1809-1879) and Rabbi David Zvi Hoffmann (1843-1921) accepted this as the best reading of the text as well.

Alluding to Gen 42:21.

Notice that Loli uses more religious language than Rashbam did. Rashbam wrote that the Midianites came by על ידי מקרה—by coincidence. Loli attributes this to divine providence (מקרה אשר הקרה ה').

An allusion to Psalms 68:3.

Joseph’s begging for mercy from the pit can also help explain why the brothers chose to eat at some distance from the pit, as Rashbam and Shadal suggest.

See my “A Wife for Isaac: From Abraham’s Hometown or Family?” TheTorah (2015).

See Shadal’s comment on Gen 43:7.

So also Rabbi David Zvi Hoffmann.

As Shadal writes:

רוב העולם מאמינים כי אחי יוסף מכרו אותו

Most people believe that Joseph’s brothers sold him.

For example, Joseph Bekhor Shor (late 12^th century) refers to Rashbam’s explanation in dismissive language: ואינו רק דברי בדאות, “it’s a concocted story.”