Parashas Vayechi 5773

  During the journey from Egypt to Chevron to bury Yaakov, a stop is made at Goren Ha’atad for a seven-day period of mourning and eulogies (B’raishis 50:10). The shortest path from Egypt to Canaan was “via the land of the P’lishtim” (Sh’mos 13:17), going east then north along the coast, while Yaakov had come down to Egypt via B’er Sheva (B’raishis 46:1), going south then west (a similar traveling distance). Yet the Torah tells us (twice, 50:10 and 10:11) that Goren Ha’atad was “on the other side of the Jordan (River),” implying that they took a circuitous route from Egypt to Chevron (as Goren Ha’atad was either on the eastern side of the Jordan, or, if it was in Canaan, the “other side of the Jordan” is mentioned because they crossed the Jordan from east to west to get there; see Torah Sh’laima 50:29). Why did Yosef go so far out of the way to get to Chevron, traveling all the way east before coming back west?

    Although it would be nice and tidy to suggest that Yosef took the same route that the Children of Israel would eventually take when they left Egypt (which fits with the notion that Yaakov had his sons carry his coffin in the same formation that the Tribes would travel to the Promised Land, see Rashi on 50:13), it is unlikely Paro would have allowed his army and dignitaries to travel so far out of the way, and be away from Egypt for so much longer, if there wasn’t a practical reason to do so. It was only because of the oath Yosef had taken that Paro let him go at all (see Rashi on 50:6); letting him go for longer than necessary would seem to be out of the question. Besides, if Yosef knew the route that would be taken after the exodus, why did his descendants, the B’nai Efrayim, take a different route when they left 30 years too early?

    Rashi explains why it was called Goren Ha’atad; “all the Canaanite kings and the princes of Yishmael came to wage war. Since they saw Yosef’s crown hanging from Yaakov’s coffin, they got up and hung their crowns there as well, surrounding it with crowns just as a threshing area (goren) is surrounded by a fence of thorns (atad).” [A similar explanation is put forth in the Talmud (Soteh 13a), although the Talmud says it was the children of Eisav, Yishmael and Keturah that had come to attack but changed their minds upon seeing Yosef’s crown on Yaakov’s coffin. Numerous Midrashim (i.e. Tanchuma) say it was the Canaanites (who are mentioned explicitly in the text, see 50:11), but only mention their crowns surrounding Yaakov’s coffin without mentioning that they were coming to wage war. B’raishis Rabbah doesn’t mention the crowns, but does say that the Canaanites would have been heavily defeated had they not honored Yaakov (doing so in other ways than placing their crowns on his coffin). I would suggest that Rashi synthesized the Midrashim, with the war being averted and the reason for the name “Goren Ha’atad” expressed the way the Talmud and some Midrashim describe it, and the Canaanites included as opponents the way the two sets of Midrashim have it. Rashi may have left out the children of Keturah because they are sort-of included in “Yishmael,” and left out Eisav because he was apparently an adversary until his death (see Rashi on 27:45), making it unlikely that at Goren Ha’atad he paid homage to Yaakov. The Talmud does have Eisav, or at least his descendants, in both places (placing crowns on Yaakov’s coffin at Goren Ha’atad and protesting Yaakov’s burial in Chevron), so Eisav could have mourned his brother’s death while contesting where he should be buried. Nevertheless Rashi avoids the issue by having Eisav present at only one of them.]

    There are two ways to understand what happened with the crowns; either the Canaanites and/or the other nations came to attack the Children of Israel as they attempted to bury their patriarch but backed off once they saw Yosef’s crown on Yaakov’s coffin, realizing that the Egyptian military was protecting the Children of Israel so it would be foolish to attack, or they came to attack Egypt because they thought this large Egyptian entourage was coming to assert Egyptian control over their land, but backed off once they realized it was a large funeral procession not an invading Egyptian army. When the “inhabitants of the Canaanite land” said “it is a great mourning for Egypt” (50:11), were they emphasizing “Egypt,” because Egypt was mourning too, not just the Israelites, or were they emphasizing “mourning” because this large faction, including chariots and horseman (50:9) were there to mourn, not to fight? Did Yosef’s crown protect Yaakov’s coffin, or did Yaakov’s coffin protect Yosef’s crown?

    The Talmud discusses the crowns surrounding Yaakov’s coffin to explain why on the trip to Canaan the Egyptian nobles were given precedence (50:7-8) while on the trip back Yosef’s brothers were (50:14); after seeing the honor given to Yaakov by the other nations, the Egyptians realized how special and important he, and by extension his family, were, so treated them with greater respect. (Rashi, on 50:14, quotes this part of the Talmud too.) If the other nations only put their crowns on Yaakov’s coffin because they saw Yosef’s crown there, it would not have caused the Egyptians to have additional respect for the Children of Israel. If, on the other hand, it was Yaakov’s coffin that prevented the nations from attacking the Egyptians, and rather than just back off they put their crowns on his coffin, we can understand why the status of Yaakov’s family had improved. From a practical standpoint as well, it is much more likely that the nations were planning to attack the Egyptian entourage because they thought the Egyptians were attacking rather than because they were accompanying Yaakov’s body, as it would have been difficult for them to ascertain that Yaakov’s coffin was part of the entourage until they were already quite close to it.

    This is supported by a Midrashic manuscript quoted by Torah Sh’laima (31), which says that Yosef realized the eulogy had to be made outside the boundaries of Canaan, as otherwise the people of Canaan would think the Egyptians were coming to conquer their land and would launch a pre-emptive attack. Some of the Tosafists explain that Yosef did not continue past Goren Ha’atad because these nations still feared that he would try to conquer their land. This would explain why the seven-day period of mourning started before Yaakov was buried; since Yosef did not accompany his brothers any farther, he started sitting shiva then. Once his mourning started, Yaakov’s other relatives, who had come to meet the entourage (according to B’chor Shor this included the families of Eisav, Yishmael, Keturah and Lavan) joined in the mourning.

    The Torah’s description flows very nicely: “And chariots and horsemen went up with him (Yosef), and they were a very large camp” (50:9). This large group, including horses, chariots and Egyptian officials, could easily have been mistaken for an invading army. Whether the chariots and horsemen went to honor Yaakov or as a preventative measure–n case the Canaanites (or Eisav) would try to stop them from burying Yaakov in Chevron–is unclear. Either way, Yosef knew how it could be perceived, and therefore took a circuitous route, to an area where it would be easier to hold a eulogy for those relatives who were not in Canaan, traveling through the wilderness to the other side of the Jordan River. Defending armies came to meet them, but when they saw that it was a funeral procession (“Yosef’s crown was hanging from Yaakov’s coffin”), they joined in the mourning. “And they came to Goren Ha’atad which is on the other side of the Jordan, and held a very large and touching eulogy, and mourned for his father for seven days” (50:10). It wasn’t for “their” father (i.e. all the brothers), but for Yosef’s father, since he was not continuing any farther. Why did the nations change their minds and not attack the large Egyptian contingent? “And the people of the Canaanite land saw the mourning at Goren Ha’atad, and they said ‘this is a large group of Egyptian mourners” (50:11), and not, as they first thought, Egyptian invaders. By taking a circuitous route, Yosef avoided an immediate confrontation with the Canaanites, and allowed Yaakov’s relatives on the eastern side of the Jordan to join in the mourning.

Parashas Vayigash 5773

    “And the money from the Lands of Egypt and Canaan was finished, and all of Egypt came to Yosef, saying, ‘give us bread, for why should we die before you, since there is no more money” (B’raishis 47:15). With Canaan and Egypt being in the same predicament, we wouldn’t have expected the request to come only from the Egyptians. And, just as we are only told about the Egyptians asking for more food, it is only the cattle and land of the Egyptians that are mentioned as subsequent payments. How did those from Canaan pay for additional sustenance? We don’t find that Canaan became a province of Egypt (even if it was sometimes ruled by Pharaohs), so ownership of the property must have remained the same. At the point that the Egyptians had to give up their cattle and then their land in order to obtain more grain from Yosef, how did others procure more for themselves?

    Radak says the Canaanites went to other lands (not Egypt) for more food. While this may explain why they didn’t ask Yosef for more grain when the Egyptians did, we still don’t know how they paid for the food they purchased from those other lands. Did they give their cattle as payment? It is possible that the intent of the verse is not that there was no more money left in Canaan, but that there would be no more money coming to Egypt from Canaan (since they were now buying their food elsewhere), and therefore no reason for Yosef not to sell grain to the Egyptians (see Ramban on 47:15). However, the context of the verse (47:15, see also 47:14) seems to indicate that there was no more money left in Canaan, not that they still had money but were spending it elsewhere.

    It should be noted that Rashi (47:18), based on Chazal, says that the purchase of grain with animals and land happened before Yaakov and his family moved to Egypt (see Ramban on 47:18; the purchase of grain with land may have occurred afterwards, with the Egyptians needing grain for the third year because the next crop hadn’t grown/been harvested yet–it couldn’t have even been planted without something to plant); if so, when the brothers came down the second time, the Egyptians had already given the government all of their livestock. (The Brisker Rav points out that this could explain why the brothers were so concerned that their donkeys would be taken away, see 43:18 and 44:3; if their donkeys were taken by the government, there were no donkeys being sold privately to replace them.) Yet, the brothers, who came from Canaan, paid for their grain with money even in the second year, indicating that not all the money from Canaan was gone. Nevertheless, they might have been the exception (see Rashi on 42:1), allowing the statement that the money from Canaan was finished (i.e. all the money from almost all Canaanites) to be true. [Radak, following p’shat, is among the commentators who say that grain was paid for with animals and land well after the first two years of the famine.]

    Netziv says that the famine affected Egypt more than Canaan. When the Nile didn’t rise, absolutely nothing grew in Egypt. In Canaan, however, the lack of rainfall only prevented the crops of grain from growing. Other vegetation was able to grow, allowing its inhabitants to survive on the vegetables and grass that are normally given to livestock. Those who had money went down to Egypt to purchase grain, and were able to eat normally. When their money ran out, though, they were forced to subsist on whatever the land produced. Meanwhile, in Egypt, where there was no other option, the inhabitants had to give anything and everything they had in order to purchase the only food available—the grain Yosef had stored. [This explains how Yaakov was able to put together a present for the viceroy of Egypt during the famine (43:11), and why it would have been appreciated; none of those things were available in Egypt.] However, the argument Yehuda used to persuade Yaakov to let Binyamin go with them to Egypt was that if they don’t buy more food they would all die (43:8). Rashi spells it out more clearly, explaining that Yaakov was afraid that Binyamin might die, but if they didn’t get more grain they would all definitely die. This indicates that they could not have survived solely on what the land in Canaan was producing; Yaakov wouldn’t have put Binyamin’s life at risk just to ensure the continuation of gourmet (at least by famine standards) meals.

    It could be suggested that because there were other options for those living in Canaan (other foods available in Canaan, the ability to buy food from other countries), the Egyptians consumed much more of the grain Yosef had stored (per capita) than the Canaanites did, and because the Egyptians consumed more grain, their money ran out faster. The Canaanites, on the other hand, who were able to survive on less grain, purchased less grain, and their money lasted till the end of the famine. (If their money ran out then, as opposed to two crop years before the famine ended as it did for the Egyptians, the statement that “the money in Canaan was finished” could refer to there being no more money in Canaan at all, not just that no more money would reach Egypt.) There are several possible reasons why the Egyptians may have consumed more grain than the Canaanites did, thus depleting their cash more quickly.

    (1) If, as Netziv suggests, some things grew in Canaan, the Canaanites could supplement their mostly-grain meals with side dishes that were locally produced. They may not have been able to survive without the grain, but it allowed them to stretch the grain they had further.

    (2) Yosef personally handled each sale of grain so that when his brothers came down he would deal with them directly. He also asked each buyer how many people the grain was being purchased for, and sold them precisely what they needed (no more and no less). Abarbanel says Yosef only dealt directly with those coming from outside of Egypt (as that’s where his brothers were coming from), and appointed others to sell grain to the Egyptians. If Yosef’s appointees were not as scrupulous about selling only the amount needed for each family, the Egyptians would have purchased more grain per person than the Canaanites did.

    (3a) When explaining why the Egyptians’ money ran out so quickly (despite having seven years of plenty), Abarbanel (41:54) says that they were so confident that the famine would soon be over that they sold most of their excess grain to foreigners. I would add that this would have caused an initial drop in the market price, so that those coming from Canaan paid less for their first purchase of grain, and likely bought enough to last for a while. By the time the Egyptians needed to buy grain, the price went up, while those in Canaan were still using grain they had bought when it was much less expensive.

    (3b) Although Abarbanel’s suggestion seems to assume that the grain held privately by Egyptians did not spoil (see Rashi on 41:55), it is possible that it just didn’t spoil right away, and others were able to buy cheap grain when the famine first started (when the first crop to be affected wouldn’t have been ready yet anyway). Bearing in mind that the Nile not overflowing and irrigating Egypt would occur after the lack of rain in Canaan would cause a drought there (due to the time it takes for the lack of water in the Blue Nile and White Nile to affect the fields irrigated by the Nile), it is certainly possible that people in Canaan knew they had to buy grain before the Egyptians realized they needed their grain for themselves. If the grain stored by the Egyptians spoiled between the time the Canaanites bought some and the time the Egyptians would have used it themselves, the Egyptians would have had to buy more grain from Yosef than the Canaanites did, and the Egyptians’ money would have run out sooner.

    (3c) Egyptian confidence in a short famine may have also prevented them from conserving. While those in Canaan ate sparingly during the famine, the over-confident Egyptians ate normally, assuming that the famine would end before the supply of grain (and their money) ran out.

    (4) The warehouses, for the Egyptians, were local. Therefore, not only was there an ample supply of grain, but it was not difficult to get to. Whereas in Canaan they knew that when the grain ran out they would have to make a long journey to get more, the Egyptians could just go to their corner grain warehouse. This not only led to additional conservation by the Canaanites, but probably also caused the Egyptians to eat more than was absolutely necessary.

    These factors (and possibly others) combined to raise the per capita consumption of the Egyptians, while lowering that of the Canaanites. This allowed the money in Canaan to last longer than the money in Egypt, which in turn allowed the Canaanites to spend only their money, while the Egyptians had to pay with their money, their animals and their property.

Chanukah 5773

“The Chashona’im that ruled in the second Temple were extremely pious, and without them the Torah and the mitzvos would have been forgotten. Even so, they were punished greatly [for taking the position of king for themselves despite not being from the Tribe of Yehuda]. For the four pious sons of the elder Chashmonai who ruled one after the other, despite all of their might and success, fell by sword by the hand of their enemies, with the punishment going so far that our sages, of blessed memory, said (Bava Basra 3b) whomever claims to be from the family of the Chashmona’im is a servant, for all of them were cut down (the family did not survive) because of this sin” (Ramban, B’raishis 49:10). Being that there is a prohibition for anyone who is not a descendant of Yehuda to be the king of Israel, how could the Chashmona’im, who fought and risked their lives so that the Jewish people could still keep the Torah, violate one of its prohibitions?

 Although we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, and of being taught about the mistake made by the Chashmona’im since we were “Tinokos Shel Beis Raban,” it would be difficult to attribute this severe error, which brought about such a harsh punishment, to that generation not being as familiar with the prohibition as we are. What were the Chashmona’im thinking when they took on the role of ruler in addition to being the Kohanim G’dolim (High Priests)?

 Maharsha (B’rachos 28a) compares the Chashmona’im becoming the rulers with Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya taking over the political leadership (becoming the Nasi) from Raban Gamliel, as the former was a Kohain and the latter was from the Tribe of Yehuda. How could the sages have appointed a Kohain to a position reserved for a descendant of Yehuda? (Interestingly, the Talmud says that they would have appointed Rabbi Yehoshua if not that it would be inappropriate since he had been mistreated by Raban Gamliel, even though Rabbi Yehoshua himself was a Levi.) A similar question can be asked about Sha’ul, who was from the Tribe of Binyamin, being anointed as the first king of Israel. Ramban (on B’raishis) says that G-d specifically chose someone who was not from the Tribe of Yehuda, because He was unhappy with the nation’s request for a king, and didn’t want this king–who only became king because of that request–to come from the Tribe that the ruler was supposed to come from and would always come from. Since the appointment of Sha’ul was only a temporary one, it didn’t contradict that status. The same could be applied to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya; his appointment was never meant to be a permanent one, only a temporary measure until the issues with Raban Gamliel were resolved. Once they were (when he realized he was treating those who disagreed with him too harshly), he was reinstated. Based on this, it would seem that it would not have been a problem if the Chashmona’im had only taken control of the political leadership temporarily, until they cleaned up the mess created by the Hellenistic leaders. 

 Although Raban Gamliel (after appeasing Rabbi Yehoshua) was restored to his position, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya retained his new elevated status as well. Rabbi Yitzchok Sorotzkin, sh’lita (G’vuras Yitzchok, Chanukah 23; http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=51788&st=&pgnum=73) discusses how Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya could remain Nasi if he wasn’t from the Tribe of Yehuda, concluding that there is only an issue if the political leadership rested solely in the hands of someone who was not from the Tribe of Yehuda. Since Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya shared the leadership with Raban Gamliel, the prohibition didn’t apply. Ramban says the same thing, suggesting that had Sha’ul not sinned he would have remained king over his own Tribe, or over the Tribes that came from Rachel; this would not be problematic since Dovid would have ruled over the other Tribes. Based on this, not only wasn’t it a problem that the kings of the Northern Kingdom descended from Yosef (since the kings of the Southern Kingdom were from Yehuda), but it wouldn’t have been a problem for the Chashmona’im to retain their position as rulers had they shared the leadership with someone who was from the Tribe of Yehuda.

 Under his entry in Toldos Tanna’im v’Amorai’m for Shimon HaTzadik (http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=43958&pgnum=385), Rabbi Aharon Hyman brings some strong arguments to support Doros HaRishonim’s position that during the period of the Second Temple there were two different positions referred to as the “Kohain Gadol” (High Priest), one was the political leader and the other was the religious leader. The religious leader served in the Temple, while the political leader answered to the ruler of the empire that controlled the Holy Land. Fearing that a true political leader might eventually rebel, the king of the Persian Empire couched the leadership position of his puppet ruler in the form of being a religious leader, with this position being referred to as the “High Priest.” This “system” was continued by the Greeks, including Antiochus, so that there were Kohanim (or primarily Kohanim, as a non-Kohain could “purchase” this leadership position from a greedy ruler) who were the political leaders in Israel, while other Kohainim served in the Temple.

 This arrangement explains many things, including how Matisyahu, as well as his father Yochanan, could be referred to as Kohain Gadol while Onias, Jason and Menelaus were taking turns (albeit not cordially) being the High Priest. (Since the latter three were Hellenists, it is likely that their position was referred to in Greek, while the title of the religious leader was referred to in Hebrew.) It also explains how the seal of the Kohain Gadol on the jug of oil found when the Temple was purified had religious significance if the High Priest was a Hellenist; this seal was from the religious leader, the Kohain Gadol, not the political leader, the High Priest. In addition, it explains how everyone knew that some of the Hellenistic High Priests had pillaged the Temple’s treasuries in order to pay for their position; the political leader didn’t have access to the Temple, and couldn’t raid it quietly. More relevant to our discussion, it means that the concept of a Kohain being the political leader was not instituted by the Chashmona’im. Rather, it was the political situation that existed for a very long time, and was only continued by the Chashmona’im when they consolidated the two positions.

 Combining these three aspects together, the picture that emerges is not one of power-hungry priests who violated the Biblical prohibition against anyone other than a descendant of Yehuda ruling over Israel. The status quo had been one where Kohanim were the political leaders, and the mess the Hellenistic High Priests had made necessitated taking over that position temporarily in order to clean it up. Had the Chashmona’im relinquished that leadership, or at least shared it with someone from the Tribe of Yehuda after things had been successfully straightened out, there would have been no problem; it was only because they never relinquished their position that they were punished. Rather than Chanukah celebrating a victory (and its associated miracles) that was tainted by an improper power-grab, we are celebrating a wondrous, miraculous victory that saved our religion. The “tainted” part didn’t happen until much later, when what should have been a temporary situation became permanent.

Parashas Vayeishev 5773

Much confusion surrounds the selling of Yosef to Egypt. While his brothers first notice a caravan of Yishmaelim coming from Gilad (Beraishis 37:25), Yosef is sold to these Yishmaelim (37:28), and it was from Yishmaelim that Potifar buys him in Egypt (39:1), somehow it was M’danim who sold Yosef to Potifar (37:36), and Midyanim who “passed by” right before he is sold to the Yishmaelim (37:28). If they are the same people, why are they referred to in different ways, and if they are not the same, who actually bought and sold Yosef?

 Rashi (37:28) explains that the Midyanim are not the same group as the Yishmaelim, and the Torah is telling us that Yosef was sold several times; the brothers sell him to the Yishmaelim, who sell him to the Midyanim (or M’danim according to Yalkut Shimoni, one of the Midrashic sources for this explanation), who finally sell him in Egypt. However, this still leaves us with several problems.

 First of all, if the point of the story is how Yosef gets to Egypt, does it matter who brought him down? Why does the Torah have to let us know that there were several parties involved? Also, Rashi (37:25) tells us that the Torah describes the cargo carried by the Yishmaelim (pleasant-smelling spices) in order to show us that Yosef’s trip was made more bearable than it would have been had it been the regular foul-smelling goods that caravans usually carry. However, if the Yishmaelim sold Yosef to the Midyanim, who made the long journey to Egypt, then the cargo of the Yishmaelim is irrelevant. And if it was the M’danim who sold Yosef to Egypt, why are we later told that Potifar bought him from the Yishmaelim?

 Who are the M’danim and the Midyanim? After Sarah died, Avraham married Keturah (25:1), who, Rashi explains, was Hagar (Yishmael’s mother). Two of their sons (25:2) were M’dan and Midyan, and before Avraham passed away he sent them “eastward, to the Eastern Land” (25:6). This was near Padan Aram, which is described as “the Land of the Eastern People” (29:1). Yishmael’s descendants lived nearby as well, as they “dwelled on the face of all of [their] brothers” (28:18). Since Padan Aram was in what is now Syria (northeast of Israel), this was the general area where these three nations lived. The caravan came from that direction, as Gilad is on the way from Padan Aram to Israel (31:23). It would seem that this caravan, while made up primarily of Yishmaelim (see Ramban), was also comprised of Midyanim and M’danim. [It is possible that the M’danim lived in Midyan, and were therefore described as “people of Midyan” (37:28), so that only one group besides the Yishmaelim–the M’danim–was in the caravan.] Rashi (37:28) does say that the Midyanim were a separate caravan, but since these individuals were merchants, they likely traveled close to the Yishmaelim in order to take advantage of their travel experience and the business opportunities each of their stops along the way provided. Borrowing additional pieces (or similar ideas) from some of the commentators, we can try to reconstruct what might have occurred.

 Although originally the brothers (sans R’uvein and Binyamin) had decided to let Yosef die in the pit, upon seeing a caravan of Yishmaelim approaching, they decided to sell him to be a slave in Egypt. Before the caravan approached, the merchants who traveled along with it and were scouting out possible business opportunities came upon Yosef and the brothers, and wanted to buy Yosef as a slave. However, since their objective was to make money, there was no guarantee that these merchants would wait until the caravan reached Egypt before selling Yosef (see the glosses of Rabbi Yitzchak Katz, Maharal’s son-in-law, on Pa’anayach Raza). If Yosef was sold locally rather than in Egypt, it would allow him to remain near his family, thereby defeating the purpose of selling him. Therefore, in order to ensure that Yosef would be brought all the way down to Egypt, the brothers structured the deal in a way that Yosef was sold to the Yishmaelim, who would retain ownership until the caravan reached Egypt, whereby the Midyanite merchants would take over and be able to sell him in Egypt. It was the Midyanite merchants who sold Yosef in Egypt, but only after they bought him from the Yishmaelim in Egypt itself. Perhaps because of the role the Yishmaelim had in the sale (see Or Hachayim), and/or because they had to vouch for the validity of the ownership of the Midyanim (see B’raishis Rabbah 86:3), and/or to make sure we knew that it was the Yishmaelim who brought Yosef all the way down to Egypt (on their caravan), not a separate group, when the Yosef narrative resumes, it is the Yishmaelim who are mentioned in regards to the sale.

 This approach explains the verses, and works with Rashi’s assertion (37:28) that the brothers sold Yosef to the Yishmaelim who sold him to the Midyanim who sold him to Potifar. It assumes that the “M’danim” and the “Midyanim” are the same people (at least for this transaction), and also that “Midyanite men who were merchants” (37:28) describes just one group, a group comprised of “men,” i.e. individuals, not part of the caravan; “Midyanim,” not Yishmaelim; who were “merchants” by trade, and therefore the ones who brokered the deal. We are taught about this multi-layered transaction in order to maintain accuracy, as well as to inform us that Yosef was not mistreated along the way, as he wasn’t owned by the Midyanim until they reached Egypt, and the Yishmaelim were only his caretakers, not his masters. He was with them for the entire trip down to Egypt, so their pleasant-smelling cargo was relevant, but they couldn’t do anything to him that would negate the second half of the deal–his being sold to the Midyanim once they reached Egypt.

Nevertheless, earlier (37:3) Rashi had referenced a Midrash stating that the word PaSIM (ibid) was an acronym for those who bought Yosef; Potifar, the merchants (“Socharim”), the Yishmaelim, and the Midyanim. If the Midyanim weren’t the merchants, it is fair to assume that the M’danim were. Based on this, the group that “passed by” the pit Yosef was in (37:28) was comprised of “men,” i.e. individual Yishmaelim who were looking to do some business besides their normal “transportation business” (the caravan), Midyanim, and merchants, i.e. M’danim. Although we can still fit the bulk of the above explanation with this (the brothers structuring the deal so that no businessmen could take ownership of Yosef until they reached Egypt), we would need to understand why it is important for us to know that there were several groups of businessmen who were interested in buying Yosef, with at least two of them, the M’danite merchants and the Midyanim, owning him before he was sold to Potifar.

When explaining why G-d dispersed the nations into separate lands with distinct languages and cultures (11:7-8), the M’or V’Shemesh writes that because the 70 nations would have constant battles with each other, they wouldn’t unite to try and destroy the Jewish people. Perhaps just as G-d arranged for the caravan that brought Yosef to Egypt to be carrying pleasant-smelling cargo, He also made sure that there were several parties in the caravan who would be interested in owning Yosef. The differences between the peoples create a kind of rivalry among them, and owning this 17-year-old attractive slave (with the rights to sell him once they reach Egypt) was important enough that the discussions (and possibly bickering) between them prevented them from treating him harshly.