Home / Legacy /

Who Sold Yosef? It Doesn’t Matter

 

The story of Yosef’s sale is enigmatic. While the main characters in this drama are clear, the supporting actors are ambiguous and their precise actions are vague. Who sold Yosef and brought him down to Egypt? This summary and commentary is adapted from R. Shmuel Goldin’s Unlocking the Torah Text: An In-Depth Journey Into the Weekly Parsha on Bereishis:

Approaches (in my summary):

  1. Rashi holds that the brothers sold Yosef to the Ishmaelites, who sold him to the Midianites, who sold him to Potiphar in Egypt [Medanites = Midianites].
  2. Ramban and Sforno hold that the Ishmaelites and Midianites were working together. The brothers sold Yosef to them, and they sold him to Potiphar in Egypt. Ibn Ezra says that the Ishmaelites and Midianites were the same people. Chizkuni says that the brothers sold Yosef to the Midianites, who sold him to the Ishmaelites, who sold him to the Medanites, who sold him to Potiphar in Egypt.
  3. Rashbam, Rabbenu Bachya, R. Samson Raphael Hirsch and Malbim say that the brothers didn’t sell Yosef. Rather, the Midianites took him out of the pit, sold him to the Ishmaelites, who sold him to Potiphar in Egypt. R. Goldin suggests that this represents a closer textual reading than the approaches in B.

And then D (p. 213):

The most important question, however, yet remains. Why is the Torah, at this critical and dramatic moment in the story of our people, so deliberately vague? Why doesn’t the text tell us clearly whether or not Yosef’s brothers were actively involved in his sale? Why allow for conflicting interpretations?

Perhaps the text is deliberately vague to teach us that it really doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter whether the brothers actually pulled Yosef out of the pit and sold him or whether they simply set the stage for others to do so. Their guilt, in either case, remains constant.

Centuries later the Torah text will proclaim: “Do not stand idly by the blood of your friend” (Lev. 19:16) — If you witness danger to another, you are obligated to act.

We are responsible for the pain we cause or allow to occur to others even when it is not inflicted directly by our hands.

(Adapted from a post two years ago)

 

Share this Post

 

Related Posts

About the author

Gil Student

Rabbi Gil Student is the founder, publisher and editor-in-chief of Torah Musings.

 
The opinions and facts here are presented solely by the author. Torah Musings assumes no responsibility for them. Please address religious questions to your rabbi.
 

10 Responses

  1. Jon_Brooklyn says:

    Question is way better than the answer. The “moral of the story” is one that you, I, and everyone else knew without the Torah doing what it did. In that case, the Torah was completely redundant.

  2. Shimon S says:

    As usually, Rav Menachem Leibtag offers a fascinating presentation:

    http://tanach.org/breishit/vayesh/vayeshs1.htm

  3. Hesh says:

    This is similar to what R. Sacks says about why the Torah doesn’t say what Kayin said to Hevel — it doesn’t matter what he said, since nothing could justify the murder.

  4. Holy Hyrax says:

    >Perhaps the text is deliberately vague to teach us that it really doesn’t matter.

    Sounds like he is just trying to kick the can.

  5. Steve Brizel says:

    IIRC, the Meshech Chachmah writes either in this week’s Parsha or Acharei Mos, that the Nusach HaTefilah of YK describes HaShem as being Melech Moch…. Shivtei Yeshurun Bchol Dor VaDor, thus suggesting at least some culpability of Yosef’s brothers. RYBS also pointed out that the reconciliation of Yosef and his brothers was predicated on their Teshuvah.

  6. avi says:

    Can you explain why Rashi says that Medianites and Midianties are the same people when Katura has children by both names?

  7. avi says:

    ” The “moral of the story” is one that you, I, and everyone else knew without the Torah doing what it did. In that case, the Torah was completely redundant.”

    I can’t disagree more. Most people in the world believe that “who did what to whom” is very important.

    ‘Pick up your toys’, ‘But I wasn’t the last to play with them!’

    Why should the brothers be held responsible if they were no where close by when the sale happened? Well, now that there is ambiguity, let’s delve into this and figure out why.

  8. Anonymous says:

    FYI – I stand corrected – it was R. Goldin, not R. Sacks, who made the comment about Kayin and Hevel.

  9. Nachum says:

    Or that, according to some, Hevel was…not being nice.

 
 

Submit a Response

 

You must be logged in to submit a response.