Why does the Pasuk begin with "the generations of Yaakov," and carry on with the story of Yosef?
Rashi #1: "v'Eleh Toledos Yaakov" means (not 'And these are the generations (offspring) of Yaakov,' but,) "These are the events concerning the generations of Yaakov." 1
Rashi #2: The Torah deliberately confines "the generations of Yaakov" to Yosef, for a number of reasons: a. Because Yaakov worked for Lavan for Rachel exclusively; 2 b. Because Yosef was the split image of Yaakov; c. Because whatever happened to Yaakov, happened to Yosef - they were both hated, and both of their brothers wanted to kill them. 3
Ramban #1, Rashbam and Seforno: "Toledos" means chronicles. 4
Ramban #2: The Pasuk is referring literally to Yaakov's children - to Yosef and his brothers, whom the Torah mentions in this Pasuk. It does not specify their names, since it already did so in Parshas Vayeitzei.
Rashbam: Having described the birth of Yaakov's sons, where they were born, and how, together with them, he arrived by his father in Eretz Kena'an, it now proceeds to describe how they developed into a nation, via the events that the Torah now presents. Starting with the current episode, which led to the brothers' hatred of Yosef, as a result of which, a. Yehudah separated from his brothers, and bore Shelah, Peretz and Zerach, and b. Yosef was sold to Egypt, and bore Efrayim and Menasheh. Then it explains how Yosef invited his father and his household, until "seventy souls went down to Egypt." 5
Oznayim la'Torah: Refer to 37:1:1:6* .
Ohr ha'Chayim #1: To teach us that Yaakov's desire to settle down tranquilly caused his grief through the episode with Yosef. 6 Refer to 37:1:2:1 .
Ohr ha'Chayim #2: All Yaakov's sons are attributed to Yosef, since he sustained all of them.
Ohr ha'Chayim #3: It is as if the Torah had written 'v'Eleh Toledos Yaakov v'Yosef' - 'This is what happened to both Yaakov and Yosef. Sometimes the Torah omits a 'Vav.'
Rashi: This incorporates the entire Torah, until they settled down in their Land, beginning with the episode of Yosef and his brothers.
Sifsei Chachamim: Even though also Binyamin was from Rachel, Yaakov worked primarily for Yosef; and when Yosef was born, he asked to return home (30:25).
Seforno: What Yaakov went through from the time that he left his father's house, is similar to what his children were destined to experience in the first Galus (of Bavel). What Yaakov went through from the time that he returned to Eretz Kena'an, is similar to what they would experience in the time of the second Beis ha'Mikdash, its destruction, and the Galus that followed, and the ultimate redemption.
Rashbam: This is the same format that the Torah used when describing Noach and Esav and their respective descendants.
Ohr ha'Chayim: To teach us that a person brings suffering upon himself by virtue of his actions.
What are the implications of "Eleh Toldos Yaakov Yosef"?
Ohr ha'Chayim #1, citing Sotah 36b: In fact, Yosef ought to have fathered twelve tribes, like his father Yaakov, only (when confronted by his mistress, the wife of Potifera) the seed emerged 1 from his ten fingers. 2
Bava Basra 23a: In fact, the firstborn ought to have come from Rachel (Yosef should have been the firstborn of Yaakov), only Leah earned it through Tefilah. 3
Avos d'R. Nasan (Perek 3): It teaches us that, like Yaakov, Yosef was born circumcised. 4
Ohr ha'Chayim #2: "Eleh" excludes what came before. His previous difficulties, including Esav and Lavan pursuing him, were like nothing compared to the episode with Yosef.
Why does the Torah need to inform us that Yosef was seventeen years old?
Rashbam: To teach us that he was away from his father for twenty-two years. 1
Ohr ha'Chayim: This is the age at which the Yetzer ha'Ra overpowers. This is why he contended with his brothers and spoke Lashon ha'Ra about them.
Rashbam: He was 30 when he stood before Pharaoh, and Yaakov descended after the subsequent seven years of plenty and two years of famine (when Yosef was 39). (As for the significance of 22 years, see the following question.)
What is the significance of the twenty-two years that Yosef was separated from his father?
Rashbam: This was Yaakov's punishment for the twenty-two years that he stayed away from his parents. 1
Berachos 55b: We learn from here that one should wait up to twenty-two years for a dream to come true.
Megilah 17a: He was not punished for the fourteen years that he learned in the Yeshivah of Ever. See Rashi at the end of Toldos, who arrives at the same conclusions from a different source.
What are the connotations of "Ro'eh Es Echav ba'Tzon'?
Rashbam and Targum Onkelos: "Es" in this context means 'Im' (with). Yosef looked after the sheep together with his brothers.
Seforno: Yosef supervised his brothers and taught them the art of shepherding. 1
Ohr ha'Chayim: It means that he saw how his brothers Shechted and ate the sheep, and he accused them of eating Eiver min ha'Chai.
Malbim: He supervised his brothers and rebuked them with Yir'as Hashem.
Malbim: He understood it better than they. (After all, he was the son of Rachel, who had been a shepherdess! (CS)) Oznayim la'Torah - He understood that shepherding sheep means looking after the sheep, and not after oneself - Refer to 37:12:1.1:3 .
Why does the Torah need to mention that Yosef was a Na'ar (youth)?
Rashi #1: it means that he tended to do boyish things, such as combing his hair and painting his eyes, in order to enhance his appearance.
Rashi #2 (to Divrei Hayamim II 34:3) and Seforno: It was only on account of his youth that he brought his father bad reports about his brothers. Had he reached the age of thirty, he wouldn't have done that. 1
Rashbam: It was only on account of his youth that he opted to socialize with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. 2
Ramban #1: Because he was younger than the others, and therefore shepherded together with his older brothers, the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, who looked after him. 3
Ramban #2 (citing Targum Onkelos): "... He was brought up by the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah." From childhood onwards, he was with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, who brought him up like a father and saw to his every need. 4
Oznayim la'Torah: To teach us that, in spite of his young age and the fact that he was younger than his brothers, he taught them shepherding. 5
Ha'amek Davar: Na'ar can mean one who serves. In the Pasuk, "ha'Na'ar, Na'ar ha'Navi" (Melachim II 9:4), the first means youth, and the latter means the servant [of the Navi]. Also Yehoshua was called "Na'ar" (Shemos 33:11) because he served Moshe. Here, Yosef served Bnei Bilhah and Zilpah, and they served him.
Seforno: In spite of his deep wisdom, due to his young age, he was inexperienced and immature. That is why, once he matured, he was able to instruct the elders of the generation.
Refer to 37:2:5:2*. Hadar Zekenim - Because he was also with them, people thought that he was a Ben Shifchah! (But he was closer in age to Yisachar and Zevulun than to Bnei Bilhah and Zilpah? - PF)
Ramban: In any event, it is not uncommon for the Torah to call people who are even older than Yosef was then "Na'ar," as we find by Rechavam the son of Shlomo (Divrei Hayamim II 13:7), Avshalom (Shmuel II 14:21), and Binyamin (Bereishis 43:8).
Ramban: At the behest of their father, who placed him in their charge.
Why did Yosef opt to befriend specifically the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah?
Rashi: Because his brothers (the sons of Leah) used to treat them with disdain. 1
Rashbam: Even though he shepherded the sheep together with the sons of Leah, he preferred to socialize with the sons of the maidservants. 2
Malbim: He served them, even though they were Bnei Shefachos. This shows that he was very humble; and that his rebuke of his brothers -refer to 37:2:3:4 - was not due to pride. 3
Refer to 37:2:7:1. Oznayim la'Torah - Because they considered their mothers, Bilhah and Zilpah, to be Shefachos - see 35:22 - whereas Yosef considered them his father's wives - See Oznayim la'Torah, DH 'va'Yavei Yosef.'
This was an additional reason why the sons of Leah hated him.
Malbim: One who follows his 'nature,' e.g. to be merciful, generous, humble... is not a Tzadik. A Tzadik uses his intellect, and decides, 'here I should be merciful, and here (e.g. against Resha'im) cruel;' and so too with each Midah. His brothers judged him unfavorably. They thought that he rebuked them due to pride, that he served Bnei Bilhah and Zilpah due to lowliness (the lowly cling to the lowly), and that he had reported to his father in order to lower them (really, it was for the sake of Shalom)!
Why does the Torah refer to the maidservants here as "the wives of his father" - bearing in mind that, until now, it always referred to them as 'Shefachos' or as 'Pilagshim' (See Oznayim la'Torah DH 'Es Bnei Bilhah... ')?
Ramban #1: Because that is what they were; it only refers to them as maidservants when it mentions them together with Rachel and Leah, who were superior to them, or when for some reason, they are depicted in an inferior role. 1
Ramban #2: It is also possible that the Torah calls them maidservants and concubines as long as Rachel and Leah 2 lived, and now that they had both died, Yaakov (freed the maidservants - Moshav Zekenim, and) took them as wives.
Oznayim la'Torah: Because Leah died about this time, 3 and now that Yaakov's two main wives were no longer alive, it was appropriate to refer to Bilhah and Zilpah as 'Yaakov's wives.'
Ohr ha'Chayim: This hints that he spoke about [Bnei Leah] that they do not consider them wives, and belittle their sons. Also they are suspected of Arayos, for they think that they were not married to Yaakov (like the Rambam (Hilchos Avadim 9:1), who does not assume that one who marries his Shifchah, he freed her. If so, they could have Bi'ah with the Shefachos 4 ! Only Yosef considered them his wives, like the Rif (Yevamos 5a), who assumes that the master freed her. He should not have suspected them. Even the Ramban agrees that presumably, a Tzadik freed her and married her! Also, Rachel and Leah freed their Shefachos when they gave them to Yaakov (Targum Yonasan to 30:4,9); presumably, the Shevatim knew this.
What was the gist of the evil report that Yosef conveyed to his father about his brothers?
Rashi and Targum Yonasan, citing Bereishis Rabah (84:7): The three things that he would report concerning them were that 1. They ate Ever Min ha'Chai; 1 2. They treated the sons of the maidservants with disdain (by calling them slaves) and 3. They were suspected of Arayos (because they would gaze at the maidens of the land). 2 Rashi (to Mishlei 19:7) implies that Yosef deliberately misled his father about this. 3
Seforno: He accused them of causing their father losses, due to their inadvertent bad handing of the sheep - which was their main occupation.
Rashbam: He told his father that the sons of Leah despised the sons of the maidservants, and that he had befriended them.
Hadar Zekenim: He said that they are suspected of Ever Min ha'Chai, murder and Arayos. Therefore, he was taken to Egypt and suspected. They gave him to eat separately (Bereishis 43:32), because they suspected him. 4
Tagum Yonasan: I.e. the ears and the tail (see Perush Yonasan). Riva - That they would eat from a slaughtered animal that was still quivering (Mefarcheses). Yosef erred, however, in that he thought that it is Ever min ha'Chai (because he considered them to be Bnei Noach until Matan Torah; whereas the brothers considered themselves Bnei Yisrael, who are permitted to eat of a Mefarcheses - Moshav Zekenim). See also Ba'al ha'Turim, DH "Dibasam Ra'ah."
See Torah Temimah (citing Yerushalmi, Pe'ah 1:1), with note 9. Gur Aryeh - Yosef ha'Tzadik made great fences against Isur. He considered his brothers to be suspected, for they did not make such fences. Refer to 37:2:7.2:2 and note.
Bereishis Rabah: In fact, he erred in all three points, which is why he was punished Midah k'Neged Midah: (a) They slaughtered a goat after they sold him (they were careful about Shechitah even at the time of their wrongdoing); (b) He was sold as a slave, and (c) His mistress set her eyes upon him.
That Pasuk says that he ate separately because Egyptians cannot eat with Ivrim! This requires investigation (PF).
On whom was Yosef reporting?
Rashi: On the sons of Leah. 1
Ramban: On the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. 2
Ramban (citing the Midrash): On all the brothers, 3 all of whom (with the exception of Reuven, who was not there) later agreed to sell him.
Refer to 37:2:152:3 .
Malbim: He told his father what Bnei Leah said about Bnei Bilhah and Zilpah, and vice-versa, so his father would rebuke them and make Shalom between them. 4
Did Yaakov accept the Lashon ha'Ra?
Moshav Zekenim: Yes. That is why the Torah writes, "v'Yisrael Ahav Es Yosef." 1 Even though the Lashon ha'Ra was true, a lone witness who testifies about an Aveirah is punished. 2
I.e. this caused Yaakov to err. Why must we say that Yaakov accepted it - perhaps he was only concerned lest it is true! We do not find that he rebuked Yosef. Perhaps he thought that Yosef may tell him, for only Yaakov's rebuke would be heeded; he did not realize that a condition for this Heter was lacking (refer to 37:2:7.2:3 ). Perhaps Yosef's sin was judging them unfavorably (PF). There are two kinds of Lashon ha'Ra; one is judging another unfavorably, and revealing this to others (Pachad Yitzchak, Shavu'os 3).
Bearing this in mind, it is difficult to understand why Yaakov was not punished for accepting Lashon ha'Ra? Perhaps the fact that he lost Yosef was his punishment - and the twenty-two years were for the twenty-two years that he did not fulfill the Mitzvah of Kibud Av va'Em. (EC)
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes: "Eleh Toledos Yaakov - i.e. these are [the places of residence] of the offspring of Yaakov." Why doesn't Rashi explain in the straightforward sense?
Gur Aryeh #1: Rashi does not wish to explain the verse as, 'These were Yaakov's offspring, [Yosef];' for Yosef was not Yaakov's only offspring! Rather, the verse is introducing the chain of events that brought Bnei Yisrael to settle [in Eretz Yisrael, after leaving Mitzrayim, at the Torah's conclusion]. 1
Gur Aryeh #2: One may explain (unlike Rashi), 'These are the offspring of Yaakov' - which will be listed fully in Parshas Vayigash (46:8-27). Our verse is merely beginning with Yosef. 2
Refer also to 37:2:1.02:1.
For one of the two reasons that Rashi will mention - a) Yosef was Yaakov's primary offspring; b) The distress over Yosef was the direct result of "va'Yeshev" (37:1), i.e. that Yaakov wanted to live in tranquility.
Rashi writes: "... These were their dwellings and events, until they reached [their permanent] habitation." But by the closing of the Torah, they had not yet reached Eretz Yisrael; only 2 1/2 tribes had found their portions?
Gur Aryeh: The [end of the] Torah tells us that the Bnei Yisrael were about to enter the Land in order to possess it; this is as if it describes their actual settlement in the Land of Israel. 1
Maharal (Chidushei Agados to Nedarim 22b): The Gemara says, "Had Yisrael not sinned, they would have received only the Five Chumashim of the Torah, and Sefer Yehoshua." Just as the Torah puts man within a proper order and framework, in terms of what he must do and not do, Yehoshua arranges each member of Bnei Yisrael in his proper place in the Land. (In that sense, Sefer Yehoshua is the continuation of the Torah.) (CS)
Rashi writes: "[... Their dwellings] and turns of events (Gilguleihem)." Why does Rashi add this?
Gur Aryeh: The Torah does not discuss the settlement of Yaakov's children at this point, but rather the events that brought it about - i.e. the sale of Yosef.
Rashi writes: "But the Midrash Agadah interprets... Yosef was Yaakov's [primary] offspring... The Midrash also interprets 'va'Yeshev' to mean, 'Yaakov sought to dwell in tranquility....'" Why does Rashi turn to the Midrash here?
Gur Aryeh: Rashi interpreted "Eleh Toledos Yaakov" as, "These are [the places of residence] of the offspring of Yaakov." If so, however, the verse should have made two changes, instead reading, 'v'Eleh Shel Toledos Yaakov' (i.e., [Yaakov dwelt in Eretz Kena'an;] and these were the dwellings of his children....' Refer to 37:2:1.041:1 as to how these Midrashim resolve this difficulty.
Rashi writes: " But the Midrash Agadah interprets...." How do these Midrashim resolve Rashi's difficulties (refer to 37:2:1.04:1)?
Gur Aryeh: The verse states, "Eleh Toledos Yaakov," without the word 'Shel', to convey the additional meaning that Yosef was Yaakov's primary offspring. It does not begin with a Vav, for it is conveying a cause and effect - because Yaakov sought to dwell in tranquility, the distress over Yosef befell him.
Rashi writes: "Yosef was Yaakov's [primary] offspring... Firstly, Yaakov had only worked for Lavan in order to marry Rachel." But Binyamin was also a son of Rachel; why was Yosef primary?
Gur Aryeh: When one marries, his goal is not to father a specific number of children, but rather to have children in general. Once Yosef was born, Yaakov's goal was fulfilled. Binyamin came in addition to Yosef.
Rashi writes: "... Everything that happened to Yaakov, happened to Yosef as well." Why does this make Yosef the primary offspring of Yaakov?
Gur Aryeh: Their similar life events show that he was "Kar'a d'Avuha" (lit. his father's leg), an outgrowth or extension of Yaakov.
Rashi writes: "Whatever happened to Yaakov, happened to Yosef... Yaakov was hated, and Yosef was hated; Yaakov's brother tried to kill him, and Yosef's...." What can we learn from this?
Gur Aryeh: Yaakov was hated due to his great stature, he was distinct from everyone else in terms of his G-dly level; that is why his brother (Esav) tried to kill him. Chazal are teaching us that the same was true of Yosef. Yosef was distinct and apart from his brothers in terms of his capability for Malchus; that is why they hated him. 1
Gur Aryeh: Indeed, when Yaakov affixes his name to the blessing of Yosef, saying, "The blessings of your father... shall be upon the head of Yosef" (Bereishis 49:26), he refers to Yosef as "Nezir Echav" (ibid.) - "the one distinct and separated from his brethren" (see Targum there).
Rashi writes: "... Yosef's countenance (Ziv Ikunin) resembled that of Yaakov." Why does external appearance bear any significance?
Gur Aryeh: Yaakov's Tzelem Elokim resembled that of Adam ha'Rishon! 1 (Refer to 27:15:1.02:1 and 32:26:1:4 .) Tzelem Elokim is evident mainly on a person's face. 2 Yosef merited having a similar facial countenance, [this shows his Tzelem Elokim as well].
Gur Aryeh: See Bava Metzia 84a (and Bava Basra 58a).
Refer to 1:27:2.2:1. For more on Tzelem Elokim according to Maharal, refer to 1:27:2.1 .
Rashi writes: "The verse pinpoints Yosef as Yaakov's [primary] offspring." How might we view this conceptually, according to Maharal?
Maharal (Chidushei Agados Vol. 3, p. 75, to Bava Metzia 84a): Yaakov's trait was the median between the traits of Avraham and Yitzchak. 1 (Something in the middle is hidden, while what is at the edges is revealed.) Yosef's strength was also inner and hidden. (That is why Yosef inherited Yaakov's personal blessing, 2 and why the evil eye has no effect over his descendants. 3 ) In this way, Yosef was Yaakov's primary offspring. Yaakov was akin to the root of a tree, Yosef to the trunk, and the other tribes to its branches.
Avraham's trait was Chesed, and Yitzchak's trait was Din. Yaakov's trait was Yosher (uprightness), i.e. to veer neither right nor left. (EK) Also refer to 28:11:8.2:2 and 28:19:153:1 .
Refer to 37:2:1.07:1* .
Rashi to 49:22.
Rashi writes: "'And he was a youth' (v'Hu Na'ar) - [Yosef] acted as a youth would." Why interpret this way?
Gur Aryeh #1: The verse writes explicitly that Yosef was seventeen years old! This extra phrase needs interpretation.
Gur Aryeh #2: The text implies that because Yosef was a youth, he did not realize what would result from his actions (and so he reported badly on his brothers, etc). But by age 17, a person does consider the consequences of his actions; and if so, he should not be called a "Na'ar" in this context. That is why Rashi interprets that just as he acted like a youth with his hair, indeed he acted like a youth by reporting on his brothers as well.
Gur Aryeh #3: The word "v'Hu" is extra; Yosef acted completely like a Na'ar.
Rashi writes: "Whatever bad (Ra'ah) he would see in his brothers... that they would eat Ever Min ha'Chai; they would disgrace the children of Bilhah and Zilpah, calling them slaves; and they were suspect regarding Arayos." How do we derive that Yosef reported about these deeds specifically; and what do they symbolize?
Mizrachi: Our verse says, "Dibasam Ra'ah," and the word "Ra'ah" is used in connection with these three sins. 1
Gur Aryeh #1: All three are derived from our verse itself. The extra word "ba'Tzon" shows that his report was connected to the animals. The Pasuk highlights the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah (whom we know had been maidservants); and it terms them "Neshei Aviv" to suggest matters pertaining to women.
Gur Aryeh #2: Yosef was a Tzadik Gamur; a Tzadik is called 'Tov', 2 he distances himself from any 'Ra.' Three aspects of man are [directly] described as 'Ra' by the Pesukim- the Yetzer ha'Ra, Ayin Ra (the eye), and Lev Ra (the heart). 3 These are exactly what Yosef suspected his brothers of - Arayos (Yetzer ha'Ra), begrudging the children of the Shefachos their status as Bnei Yaakov (Ayin Ra), showing cruelty to animals (Lev Ra)
Gur Aryeh #3: Conceptually, Yosef was distinct from his brothers in that, a) it was in his merit that all the tribes were born; so he drew his brothers close. b) Yosef was the primary offspring of Yaakov, who was called Kadosh, above any possible involvement in Arayos. c) Yosef was the primary offspring, and his brothers were components; as the body relates to the limbs. 4 It was in these three areas that Yosef deemed his brothers worthy of suspicion.
Mizrachi: See Bereishis 37:33; 39:9; Shemos 21:8. But Gur Aryeh asks - we may not derive a Gezerah Shavah on our own!
Gur Aryeh: cf. Yeshayah 3:10.
Gur Aryeh: See Bereishis 8:21; Devarim 15:9; [Shmuel I 17:28]. See Gur Aryeh as to why Leshon ha'Ra (the tongue) is not on this list.
Maharal (Netzach Yisrael Ch. 37, p. 164): Yosef was the "heart" of Keneses Yisrael, just as the heart is at the center of the body, and rules over all of the limbs. Yosef is also compared to the trunk of a tree, and the other tribes to its branches; see Maharal (Chidushei Agados Vol. 3, p. 35, to Bava Metzia 84a).
Rashi writes: "'Bad reports' - Whatever bad [deed Yosef] would see... he would report to his father... [Eventually, Yosef] was stricken [in kind]." If Yosef reported to his father what he saw, so that his father would stop them from sinning, what did he do wrong? Why was he punished?
Mizrachi: Yosef was mistaken in his assessment of his brothers' actions. a. He accused them of eating Ever Min ha'Chai. In actuality they would slice meat from the Shechitah area [after Shechitah but before the animal expired], which is permitted due to the Shechitah. b. He accused them of calling the children of Bilhah and Zilpah slaves; for their mothers were initially maidservants. To Yosef's mind, the Bnei Leah still considered them such. c. He deemed them suspect regarding Arayos, because they interacted in business with the local girls (which Yosef held was forbidden, but the brothers held was permitted). 1
Gur Aryeh: Yosef was mistaken in the way he viewed his brothers [themselves].Yosef was a complete Tzadik; he was personally stringent about many matters that the Shevatim were not. Therefore, they appeared in his eyes to be suspect of actual sins 2 in those areas. a. The brothers allowed their slaves to cook for them; whereas Yosef did not, because slaves are suspect regarding Ever Min ha'Chai. 3 b. The sons of Leah distanced themselves from the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah; Yosef considered this tantamount to calling them slaves. c. The brothers did not avoid looking at girls, whereas Yosef would not look at women at all. 4
We must say that one of the conditions was not fulfilled - Either Yosef said things that he did not see himself, or he could have told his brothers personally that they themselves should ask Yaakov to make Shalom. (EC)
Gur Aryeh asks many questions against this approach.
Gur Aryeh: Yosef referred to their deeds as "Ra'ah," evil. A Tzadik Gamur deems sin to be very grave, and distances himself even from that which is permitted; for him, even that is Ra'ah! Nonetheless, the brothers did not actually sin.
Gur Aryeh: See Gitin 67b.
According to both explanations, it emerges that his sin was that of 'Choshed bi'Kesherim' - suspecting an innocent person of sinning.
Rashi writes: "[Yosef] was stricken in all three [areas]. Regarding Ever Min ha'Chai, 'they slaughtered a goat' (37:31) upon his sale, rather than eating it alive." If so, he was not punished through Ever Min ha'Chai!
Gur Aryeh: Hashem was showing Yosef the truth, that his brothers had not (and still did not) violate this prohibition. Thus, Yosef would comprehend why this punishment was befalling him. Yosef the Tzadik surely then realized that the same was the case about his other accusations as well.
Rashi writes: "'Their bad report' - [... of] his brothers, [i.e.] the sons of Leah...." How does Rashi know that Yosef reported specifically against the Bnei Leah?
Gur Aryeh #1: Rashi wrote above that Yosef drew close the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah; he would not have spoken badly of them.
Gur Aryeh #2: Rashi writes that one of the matters he accused his brothers of was calling the children of Bilhah and Zilpah slaves. This can apply to the children of Leah only - and so too for the other accusations.
Gur Aryeh #3: We may explain (unlike Rashi) that Yosef reported on all of his brothers. It was not Yosef who actively drew the children of Bilhah and Zilpah close; rather, because Yosef was a Na'ar, 1 the children of Leah did not associate with him. He fell in with the children of Bilhah and Zilpah by default. 2
Gur Aryeh: For if we look carefully at the Pasuk, it was not that the children of Bilhah and Zilpah were with Yosef; but rather the reverse, that Yosef was with the children of Bilhah and Zilpah. Also refer to 37:2:152:4.
Rashi writes: "'Their bad report' - Whatever bad Yosef would see in his brothers...." What is Rashi explaining?
Gur Aryeh: The verse says, "Yosef brought their bad report" (va'Yavei), rather than 'va'Yotzi... Dibah,' which would mean slander. The verse does not mean that Yosef fabricated the reports (i.e. the brothers did nothing at all); rather, the sin was in the bringing itself - Yosef reported all that he saw (in a negative light).
Rashi writes: "Dibah - as in the verse 'Dovev Sifsei Yeshenim' (Shir ha'Shirim 7:10)." What is Rashi explaining?
Gur Aryeh: The word "Dibah" simply means "speech." It doesn't necessarily mean bad or disparaging speech. 1 That is why the verse needs to specify, "Dibasam Ra'ah."
But see Targum Yonasan in Parshas Shelach (to Bamidbar 13:32).
Rashi writes that Yosef reported [only] on Bnei Leah. Rashi also writes, "The brothers (i.e. the sons of Leah) would disparage [the children of Bilhah and Zilpah], whereas Yosef drew them close." If that is true, then when the brothers later sat to decide what should be done with Yosef, then his supporters (Bnei Bilhah and Zilpah, along with Reuven and Yosef himself) would have outnumbered those who hated him (by 6-5). They should have saved him!
Mizrachi: All the brothers, including the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, hated Yosef not so much for his evil reports, but because of his Kesones Pasim, and his dreams to rule over them (as they later specifically declared, "Ba'al ha'Chalomos Halazeh Ba" (37:19)).
Ohr ha'Chayim: Bnei Bilhah and Zilpah did not want to oppose the six 1 sons of Yaakov's esteemed wife Leah.
Toras Moshe: Bnei Leah disgraced Bnei Bilhah and Zilpah; the latter complained in their tents about Bnei Leah. Yosef was close to them, and heard. He was upset with both of them. He did not tell Bnei Leah, lest they brawl with Bnei Bilhah and Zilpah. He told his father, and all of them hated him.
Gur Aryeh: We may explain (unlike Rashi) that Yosef did not make any effort to draw his brothers close, and that he reported badly on all of his brothers. Refer to 37:2:8.1:3 .
Perhaps they did not want to overrule the decision of Yehudah, who was their 'king,' or because they were afraid of his strength. Moreover, how can we count Reuven in either group, seeing as he had other plans, as the Torah later relates.
They did not know that Reuven wanted to save him. They thought that he merely did not want to kill him overtly, and even he would consent to sell him. (PF) In that case, they were not in the majority.
