A Matter of Words and Assumptions in the Household of Jacob

And Jacob dwelt in the land of his father’s sojournings, in the land of Canaan. These are the generations [toldot] of Jacob. Joseph, being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brethren, being still a lad even with the sons of Bilhah, and with the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives; and Joseph brought evil report of them unto their father. Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age; and he made him a coat of many colors. And when his brethren saw that their father loved him more than all his brethren, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him. Genesis 37:1-4

Genesis chapter 37 sets the stage for the saga of Joseph and his brothers which will span the remainder of this book. It opens with Jacob back in the land of Canaan and proceeds immediately to recount Jacob’s toldot. Whereas most of the toldot in the Bible consist of a list of individuals making up an ancestral lineage, the toldot introduced herein dwell upon the story of one family, and its problematic dynamics. First to appear are details about Joseph: his age, level of maturity (or lack thereof), vocation, station in life and a strange piece of information: he tattles on his brothers. These are followed by feelings toward Joseph: his father’s preferential love and its display, the special coat, mirrored by his brothers’ hatred (ironically generated by this love), and its display — the silent treatment. Jacob is aligned with Joseph; the other brothers stand alone. Unlike Mothers Sarah and Rebecca who were vocally engaged members of the family alliances supporting Isaac and Jacob respectively (balancing Abraham’s support for Ishmael and Isaac’s for Esau), there is no mention of such a role with respect to Leah, Zilpa, or Bilha. As the toldot unfold, it becomes apparent that dysfunctional patterns of communication tear the fabric of the family asunder and threaten its continuity as the house of Israel. This article addresses how this manifests itself in Genesis 37, dividing into three sections and a summative coda.

Precursors to the Family Meltdown

Revisiting pertinent pieces of the family’s history will help understand what transpires in the current chapter. Jacob inherited the blessing of Abraham from his father Isaac and it would be safe to assume that his sons knew of his, as well as of the divine nature of these blessings originally bestowed upon their great grandfather. The brachot were clearly essential to the family legacy and its mission. In Jacob’s prophecies God refers to Himself as God of Abraham and Isaac (Gen. 28:13; 35:12) and reiterates the promise of the land of Canaan. Jacob therefore knew firsthand that Ishmael had been divinely excluded, yet he and more so his sons, another generation removed, may not have known that this was not an arbitrary exclusion but rather a result of Ishmael’s misconduct in Abraham’s house. In a similar vein, with respect to the sons, although they knew that Esau parted ways with the Abrahamic family, as they themselves witnessed the separation after the encounter of Esau with Jacob’s camp on their way home from Lavan (Gen. 33:16), they may not have been privy to the context of this separation: Esau himself chose to sell his birthright to Jacob, uninterested in the concomitant responsibility of leading a family who is to pioneer a new faith (Gen. 25:34).¹ Jacob from this perspective did not usurp Esau’s blessings, but took what was rightfully his. It can be gleaned from this that Jacob’s sons may have thought that in each generation there is one individual who is chosen to lead and the other is ousted and that “chosen-ness” was not necessarily dependent on merit. They feared that Joseph was the chosen one of their generation and they were destined to share the fate of Ishmael and Esau without any say or influence regarding their fate.² This notion was of course reinforced by Jacob’s preferential love for Rachel which they clearly knew about, if not before then certainly since Jacob arranged his camp in anticipation of his encounter with Esau. Rachel and Joseph were positioned in the most protected place vis a vis the rest of the family (Gen. 33:2).

Two additional events involving the three eldest brothers, sons of Leah, shed light on this situation. The first is the slaying of the townspeople of Shechem by Simeon and Levi without prior deliberation with their father. Acting in defense of their sister Dina’s honor, the two brothers were harshly rebuked by Jacob. They in turn responded with a rhetorical question: Should one deal with our sister as with a harlot? (Gen. 24:31). No dialogue follows to reconcile father and sons. The other brothers clearly knew of the incident in Shechem and perhaps wondered how Jacob would have responded if it had been Rachel’s daughter who had been abused. They probably also wondered what Jacob’s reprimand meant for the status of the two sons within the family.

The second event is Reuven’s violation of Jacob’s intimate relations with Bilha, Rachel’s servant, in defense of his mother Leah’s honor. The text relates that Jacob “heard” (of Reuven’s action) and immediately thereafter states: the children of Jacob were twelve in number (Gen. 35:22). This is followed with a one by one listing of Jacob’s children, beginning with Reuven. Despite Reuven’s wrongdoing, Jacob is to be steadfast in cultivating all the sons as building blocks of House of Jacob. It is possible that the sons did not know about Reuven’s untoward behavior and wondered why Jacob did not leave him to be the designated leader as he was the first born. Another possibility is they did know about Reuven but were not privy to Jacob’s subsequent assertion with respect to all his sons (including Reuven): all were to remain within the family of Israel, regardless. The latter has great import; it is puzzling that Jacob did not clarify this for the brothers given its ramifications on his preferential treatment of Joseph. The brothers must have been thinking: Was Joseph to be a family leader or the sole successor in the family line? Were some of the children of Jacob to be ostracized?

Words (and Lack Thereof) Matter

Against this backdrop, we are ready to engage the current text. At the age of seventeen, precocious Joseph (already) tended the flock together with his older brothers, or as Sforno (commentary to Gen. 37:2) and other commentators maintain, he was the “master tender” from whom the brothers learned the skills of the trade. Yet he was at the same time a na’ar, as Rashi comments (Gen. 37:2), emotionally immature and comfortable in keeping company with the younger brothers, sons of the Bilha and Zilpa. Joseph brought bad words regarding the misconduct of his brothers to his father’s attention. He chose to report them behind their backs, rather than to confront the brothers face to face. Joseph generated a communicative blockade, the brothers refused to speak to him.

The commentators offer various explanations for Joseph’s behavior and they run the gamut of praiseworthy to unpraiseworthy.³ Some commentators are of the opinion that Joseph genuinely cared about his brothers, he intended for his father to reprimand them so they would mend their ways. His intentions were proper, but the behavior destructive. Others hold that Joseph had malicious intentions: he made superficial accusations (which turned out to be either untrue or at best, inaccurate, no doubt fanning their hatred) and he was merely interested in currying favor with Jacob by placing his brothers in a bad light. It is remarkable that the text couples the word dibah with the word raah (bad) although the word dibah itself connotes a negative action. Ramban (commentary to Gen. 37:2) perceives this as an indication of the severity of the dibah. The text is silent with respect to Joseph’s intentions to which the brothers were not privy; significance lies with how the brothers perceived Joseph’s behavior.⁴ The import of raah is to highlight the detrimental effect the dibah was to have on the family (Kli Yakar 37:8).

Report of the dibah (Gen. 37:2) is immediately followed by Jacob’s open display of love for Joseph (Gen. 37:3) and the two are connected with a conjunctive vav (i.e., the letter vav at the beginning of a statement when it connotes “and in addition”). According to several commentators, the dual open-ended messages (nothing with respect to what was said to the brothers), one “audio” and one “visual”, are perceived as related and their effect is synergistic. Tzror Hamor (commentary to Parshat Va’Yeyshev) states that the brothers assumed Jacob’s love was a direct result of Joseph’s dibah, although he does not specify exactly how. Abarbanel (commentary to Gen. 37) thought that Jacob loved Joseph because he was a source of information for him with respect to how his children were behaving in the field. According to K’tav Sofer (commentary to Gen. 37:4) the brothers knew of Jacob’s unconditional love for Joseph and were thus certain the latter had no need to curry his favor; the dibah was a weapon to marginalize their status within the family. He adds that as the donning of Joseph in the royal coat came only after the dibah, the brothers concluded that Joseph had (via the dibah) maliciously succeeded in further aggrandizing himself at the brother’s expense.

Or HaChaim (commentary to Gen. 37:3) goes a step further by claiming the brothers considered reprimanding Joseph in order to achieve filial reconciliation, a hopeless endeavor. This he attributes to Jacob’s response to the dibah. His continued and unconditional love for Joseph meant that Jacob would inevitably side with Joseph so why should he ever reconcile? Their mistaken conclusion is reflected in the end of the verse, they could not speak peaceably unto him (also joined by a conjunctive vav!) which he interprets as their despondence in speaking openly with Joseph in an attempt to arrive at a peaceful solution. Tiferet Yonatan (commentary to 37:4) adds that had they been capable of speaking with Joseph they would have succeeded in reconciling. These last two commentators point to the potential usefulness of confrontational dialogue; it is not only a modern notion. We don’t, however, need to look further than the explicit commandment in the Torah itself, Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him (Lev. 19:17). True, conditions must be conducive for its success and the brothers did not perceive this to be the case. The text in fact relates that the brothers perceived themselves as incapable (unwilling?) of talking to Joseph, even for the purpose of exchanging mere civilities (commentary of Ibn Ezra, Avraham ben Avraham and Shadal to Gen. 37:3).

Let us sharpen the razor. Joseph gets a special coat; perhaps to single him out as a role model for the other brothers to emulate and look up to. Why, the brothers probably asked themselves, emulate a tattle tale? In addition, what motivation is there to mend one’s ways if “chosen-ness” is not based on merit? It is significant that there is no mention of Jacob conversing with the brothers in order to determine the veracity of the dibah, despite the severity of the accusations. Just as there is no mention of words of reprimand of Joseph, there are none for the brothers; it stands to reason that had there been a response from Jacob it would have been significant enough for the text to report. Joseph gets a special coat; the brothers are ignored. They very likely saw this as a worst-case scenario, a display of apathy, our father does not care what we do. Face to face confrontation and even rebuke would have been much more constructive than no communication whatsoever. Ambiguity allowed the brothers’ imagination to run wild. The first three verses of the chapter offer explanations for the behaviors of each of the three parties. Joseph’s tattling resulted from the combination of his intellectual precociousness on the one hand and his emotional immaturity on the other. Jacob’s love for Joseph is understandable, he was the son of his old age (Gen. 37:3), his soul mate, and the son of his beloved Rachel. The brothers hated Joseph because he totally (unjustifiably?) won over Jacob’s affection. Explanations are of course not synonymous with justifications. Three wrongs did not make a right.

Family Meltdown (1)

And Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it to his brethren; and they hated him yet the more… And they hated him yet the more for his dreams, and for his words… And his brethren envied him; but his father kept the saying in mind (Gen. 37:5-11).

As was the case with the dibah, the commentators vary regarding their approach to Joseph’s behavior with respect to the dreams. Those taking a negative position purport at best, that Joseph boasted out of immaturity (Midrash Sechel Tov, Gen. 37), and at worst, that he wanted to arouse his brothers’ wrath (Sforno, commentary to Gen. 37:8). Those perceiving Joseph in a positive light claim the dreams were prophetic and Joseph was therefore divinely compelled to tell them: a prophet is prohibited from withholding a prophecy (Akedat Yitzhak, gate 29). The latter opinion appears problematic as Joseph makes no mention of God in the context of his dreams.⁵ It is indeed noteworthy that God’s name is not mentioned anywhere in the chapter. It seems as if God has chosen to hide his face; brothers become enemies, and God does not intervene on their behalf.⁶ It may be added that had Joseph experienced his dream as a prophecy, he would probably have shared his dream with his father rather than with his brothers in order to receive guidance from a Patriarch who himself merited five prophecies. From the brothers’ perspective, the dibah lurks in the background, it points to Joseph’s intentions to rule over them. His dreams reflect these intentions (see Or HaChaim and Kli Yakar to Gen. 37:8).

Joseph makes unfortunate decisions regarding what to communicate to whom; it would have been best to talk to the brothers about their misconduct and to his father about the dreams (even if they were not of a prophetic nature) so as not to appear haughty. Of note are the words Joseph chooses as the medium for communication are clearly part of the message: Hear, I pray you (Gen. 37:6), take heed and understand the significance of this dream. You were not willing to accept my superiority; my dream is proof. The brothers hated him yet more for his words. Meshech Chochmah and Kli Yakar (to Gen. 37:8) perceive the additional hatred as stemming from the very fact that Joseph manipulated the brothers into breaking their pact of silence. The brothers also resented Joseph’s lack of sincerity from their perspective: on the one hand he tattles on them and on the other he relates to them as confidants by sharing dreams which are of an intimate nature (Or HaChaim to Gen. 37:5).

Specifically with respect to the first dream, the brothers naturally interpret the bowing of their sheaves to Joseph’s in the context of the family dynamics as they were experiencing it. They perceived the dream as a byproduct of Joseph’s grandiose aspirations, supported by their father: Shalt thou indeed reign over us? or shalt thou indeed have dominion over us? (Gen. 37:8). Although rhetorical questions unfortunately do not invite dialogue, Joseph could have proactively mitigated the implications of their words. Joseph, however, was apparently satisfied, even empowered, by their interpretation as he chose to recount for them his second dream (Gen. 37:9), much more devastating than the first, confirming their worst fears. Joseph is no longer one of them, a sheave among sheaves, although superior and a leader. He is now an outsider, the sun, moon, and stars themselves representative of nobility pay homage to Joseph who is in a category all by himself. This dream stunned them into speechlessness. Eliciting no response from his brothers, Joseph shared the dream with his father in their presence. Jacob also asked a rhetorical question (not conducive to discussion): What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down to thee to the earth? (Gen. 37:10). Joseph overstepped his ground; he was part of the mosaic of Jacob’s family. Jacob however decided to keep the matter to himself, perhaps because he himself was not privy as to the exact meaning of the dreams. On the other hand, the dreams could have been an opportunity to tone down the tensions with respect to family status.

The Family Meltdown (2)

And his brethren went to feed their father’s flock in Shechem… And they saw him afar off, and before he came near unto them, they conspired against him to slay him… And Reuben heard it, and delivered him out of their hand (Genesis 37:12-22).

The second part of this chapter mirrors the first. The brothers are again grazing sheep but (seeking independence) they have distanced themselves from their father’s supervision. The course of events will now be moved forward by the brothers rather than by Jacob and Joseph. The latter is no longer leading the brothers or even grazing with them; he is rather searching after them (Gen. 37:17) in order to get his brothers to the point of peaceful communication (Gen. 37:14). Jacob sends Joseph on a mission, ostensibly to see if all is well with his brothers. But for this, as Sforno (commentary to Gen. 37:14) points out, it would have been enough (perhaps preferable) to send a servant. Jacob is sending Joseph to undo the damage of the dibah by genuinely speaking words of conciliation to the brothers — “davar,” word, viewed as an acronym for dibah ra’ah.⁶ Jacob sent him unescorted; he needed to stand alone and engage the brothers within the intimacy of their fraternity. The mission is unfortunately aborted as the brothers recognize Joseph from afar, probably by his coat which spoke for itself. Joseph did not shed his special coat, a red flag for the brothers. Although hardly of equal magnitude, in exchange for the words Joseph uttered behind their backs, the brothers in impulsive unison, devoid of dialogue among themselves, plot to kill Joseph behind his back. According to the Sforno (Gen. 37:18-19), they were projecting, having convinced themselves, based on Joseph’s prior behavior, that it was in fact Joseph’s plan to rid the family of them. They felt that they were legitimately preempting him in self-defense.

The man Joseph meets in his quest for his brothers informed him, They have departed from here, for I heard them say, ‘Let us go to Dothan’ (Gen. 37:17). As Siftei Chachamim (commentary to Rashi, Gen. 37:17) points out, the phrase they have departed from here would be redundant if it referred merely to a geographical location since the text goes on to specify that the brothers went to Dotan. Several commentators perceive these words as indicative of the brothers’ station vis a vis Joseph.⁷ They are no longer interested in bridging the family divide by talking peace with Joseph. Joseph has clearly become the underdog. Instead of roeh, leading the sheep (Gen. 37:2), he is toeh, losing his way (Gen. 37:15).

Words both reflect thought but also influence thought. In this regard, it is remarkable that although Joseph calls them his brothers whom he seeks out (Gen. 37:16), the brothers refer to Joseph only as “him.” What is more, they virtually stripped Joseph of his personhood; from afar, they reduced him to the lowly dreamer (Gen. 37:19). This eases sentencing him to death in absentia. Tyranny of the majority reigns, only Reuven voices dissent: Let us not kill him (Gen. 37:21). The reader will learn subsequently that the brothers would act upon Reuven’s fallback position of throwing Joseph in the pit but it is remarkable that no dialogue eschews. Reuven is not spoken to, he is ignored and thus delegitimized. The silent treatment vis a vis Reuven will become much more pronounced in the third section of this chapter. We need to appreciate that he was afraid to assert himself regarding his convictions. Perhaps he sensed the brothers did not respect him, either because he was Jacob’s rejected first born or because he did not stand up to Jacob in defense of the brothers. Leviticus Rabbah 34:9 relates that had Reuven known the Bible would report his intentions for posterity he would have been empowered to speak firm on his original position.

A Family Meltdown (3)

And it came to pass, when Joseph was come unto his brethren, that they stripped Joseph of his coat, the coat of many colors that was on him; and they took him, and cast him into the pit… And Jacob rent his garments, and put sackcloth upon his loins, and mourned for his son many days (Gen. 37:23-34).

Having already humiliated Joseph from afar, the brothers now literally strip him of his status and humanity by removing both his under garment and the special coat. They “take” him, in the sense of taking possession, as if he were merely their property, and throw him into the pit. He will die an excruciating death and will have no burial. How did this not come up for a discussion? The brothers literally sunk into the “pit.”

They sit right down to break bread. Ironically, an external trigger, a company of Ishmaelite merchants passing by, generates reflection with respect to what they had just done. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsh (commentary to Gen. 37:25) points out that the phrase they lifted up their eyes (vayisu einehem) is not employed as a reference to a physical lifting of the eyes but rather a contemplative lifting and reflecting. Judah proposes selling Joseph into slavery in lieu of allowing him to die in the pit. For the first time, a brother calls Joseph a brother, and refers to him as their flesh and blood! The brothers, Judah argues, will in any event have to conceal Joseph’s blood; there is nothing more to be gained by killing him rather than selling him. Although there is no discussion, the text recounts that the brothers listened to Judah. The sages take Judah to task for not having gone the final mile and insist that Joseph be returned to his father.⁸

Reuven, who upon anxiously returning from the empty pit and crying out is harshly met by his brothers’ indifference. The brothers don’t tell Reuven what became of Joseph but rather allow him to wallow in his anguish. Reuven’s plight is totally ignored; the text matter of factly proceeds to report that the brothers dip Joseph’s coat in the blood of the goat. The manner in which the brothers communicate (or not) with Reuven is a continuation of a pattern; no dialogue with “outsiders” which apparently Reuven now was. Consistent with the pattern of avoiding face to face communication in uncomfortable situations, the brothers sent Joseph’s coat home with a messenger and a message, is this your son’s coat or not?, as if there is no significant difference between yes, it is or no it is not! This spared the brothers some discomfort at the expense of Jacob having to endure the fake news all alone. The brothers who were not courageous enough to verbally challenge the dibah and their father’s preferential treatment of Joseph end up lying to their father, cowardly and cruelly. Dialogue is a valuable tool not only for changing situations but also for expressing support for individuals in times of distress. The silence with which the brothers coldly treated their distraught brother Reuven is chilling.

Epilogue

The chapter’s first section opened with the bad word, dibah ra’ah, that Joseph brought about his brothers to Jacob and his donning the special coat. It came full circle at the end of the third section with the big lie regarding a bad animal, chaya ra’ah, that allegedly violently killed and devoured Joseph, and the bringing of the now bloodied special coat back to Jacob to cover up their crime. Joseph is separated from the coat and brought to Egypt where he is sold.

The summative coda is Jacob’s refusal to be consoled: And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted; and he said: ’Nay, but I will go down to the grave to my son mourning (Genesis 37:35).

How could the brothers console if their consolation was not genuine? The brothers did not anticipate that Jacob would prefer to go down to the grave with Joseph rather than continue to build the family of Israel with the remainder of his children. This is the last of a long line of misconceptions, the poisonous fruits of an absence of dialogue. There is no redistribution of power reported. The brothers have to suffer the pain of keeping silent with no gain in sight. For 22 years Jacob is without his beloved son, the brothers are tormented by an awful secret they cannot divulge, and Joseph, although ruler in Egypt, is uprooted from his family. The avoidance of dialogue and confrontation brought down a curtain of silence and disconnected the potential-laden family.⁹