The encounter of Joseph with “a man”(ish, not, as in Kaplan’s translation, “a stranger”) is puzzling per se, and in its details. It is not clear why the encounter is mentioned. Nor is it clear who the man is, why Joseph is blundering about in the fields, and what the import is of his conversation with the man.
The encounter at Dothan is problematic in several regards. How many of the brothers want to murder Joseph is not clear. Nor is it clear why they are easily dissuaded, by Reuben, and afterwards by Judah, why Reuben and Judah want to dissuade them, what the brothers, having cast Joseph into a dry well, plan to do with him, who removes Joseph from the dry well, who buys him, who transports him to Egypt, and who sells him into slavery there. Finally, it is not clear why, after Joseph is thrown into the well, Reuben suddenly disappears, and reappears after Joseph has been sold.
When the brothers see Joseph approaching, in 37:20, some of them at least want him dead.
“Here comes the dreamer,” they said to one another. “Now we have the chance! Let’s kill him and throw him into one of the wells. We can say that a wild beast ate him. Then let’s see what will become of his dreams!”
That Reuben, who immediately objects in 37:21-22, and Judah, who objects in 37:26-27, are not among the would-be murderers, is clear. But it is not clear who the conspirators are who speak “to one another,” or why, having said, in 37:20, “Let’s kill him,” they are dissuaded, almost without effort, first, by nothing more than Reuben’s assertion, in 37:21, “Let’s not kill him!” and by his suggestion, in 37:22, that contains no plan of action alternative to murder, that Joseph be thrown into the well; and afterwards, by Judah’s rhetorical question in 37:26, “What will we gain if we kill our brother and cover his blood?” Nor is it clear why Reuben and Judah object to the proposed murder, because, as noted, they hate Joseph apparently as much as the other brothers do, and apparently are as jealous of him. The assertion in 37:22 that Reuben’s “plan was to rescue [Joseph] from [his brothers] and bring him back to his father” does not explain why Reuben wants to do that. And Judah’s question underscores his rhetorical cunning, but does not explain why he does not want Joseph murdered.
That, having thrown Joseph into the well, the brothers still want to murder him is clear from Judah’s question to them. But why he nonetheless easily convinces them, in 37:27, to sell him is not clear.
Neither who removes Joseph from the well, nor who sells him to whom, is clear. While the brothers are eating, in 37:25, they see “an Arab caravan” (ohrchat yishme’eilim) passing by, and accept Judah’s advice, in 37:27, to sell Joseph “to the Arabs (la’yishme’eilim).” Kaplan’s translation in both verses is misleading; the Hebrew speaks of “a caravan of Ishmaelites” and “to the Ishmaelites.” The difference is important, because in 37:28 the following event occurs:
The strangers, who turned out to be Midianite traders, approached, and [the brothers] pulled Joseph out of the well. They sold him to the Arabs for twenty pieces of silver. [These Midianite Arabs] were to bring Joseph to Egypt.
This translation also is misleading. Translated literally, 37:28 reads as follows:
Midianite men, merchants, approached. They pulled and lifted Joseph out of the well. They sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver. They brought him to Egypt.
In this translation, a second group of Arabs, Midianites, approaches the brothers. And the first two uses of “they” are problematic. The first makes it impossible to determine whether the brothers or the Midianites lift Joseph out of the well; so it is impossible to determine whether the brothers or the Midianites sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites. If the brothers perform both actions, it is difficult to understand why the Midianites are mentioned. And if the Midianites perform both actions, it is difficult to understand why the brothers, who have accepted Judah’s advice, in 37:27, to sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites, do not object. And the assertion, not that the Ishmaelites “were to bring” Joseph to Egypt, but that in fact they “brought him” (va’yavi’u) there, seems contradicted by the assertion, in 37:36, that “The Midanites,” seemingly a third group of Arabs, “sold [Joseph] in Egypt to Potiphar, one of Pharaoh’s officers, captain of the guard.”
Finally, because all of the brothers are present when Joseph arrives at Dothan, and participate in all of the events there, it is not clear why 37:29 asserts that when “Reuben returned to the well, Joseph was no longer there.” He must leave sometime after Joseph arrives; but when, and why, where he goes, and why he returns when he does, are not clear.
The two verses that introduce the journey of the brothers into Egypt to purchase food seem to contain too many words, and two words difficult to understand.
The two verses, 42:1-2, read as follows:
[1] Jacob learned (va’yar) that there were provisions in Egypt, and he said to his sons, “Why are you fantasizing (titra’u)?” [2] “I have heard (shamati) that there are supplies in Egypt,” he explained. “You can go there and buy food. Let us live and not die.”
Rendered more succinctly, they would read as follows:
[1] Jacob learned that there were provisions in Egypt, and he said to his sons, “Why are you fantasizing? [2] You can go there and buy food. Let us live and not die.”
There seems to be no need for the words removed from 42:2.
The verb that opens 42:1, va’yar, means, not “learned,” as in Kaplan’s translation, but “saw.” Why the verb that seems to be appropriate, and that appears in 42:2, shamati, does not appear in 42:1 is not clear. Nor is it clear what the question that closes 42:1 means, because it is not clear that titra’u means fantasizing.
The assertion in 42:5 that the brothers journey to Egypt “because of the famine in Canaan” does not seem necessary, because it seems to repeat the assertion in 41:56 that “the famine was [also] growing more severe in the entire area.” At the minimum, “because of the famine in Canaan” should, it seems, be placed at the beginning of 42:1, the verse that immediately follows 41:56, so as to explain why Jacob speaks to his sons. But if it that were done, the seeming repetition would be underscored in an almost embarrassing fashion, because in the Hebrew (though not in Kaplan’s translation) 41:56 closes with the words “the famine was [also] growing more severe in the entire area,” and thus the altered text, 41:56-47:1, would read:
[56] People from all over the area came to Egypt to obtain rations from Joseph, since the famine was [also] growing severe in the entire area. [1] Because of the famine in Canaan, when Jacob learned that there were provisions in Egypt, he said to his sons, “Why are you fantasizing?”
Left where they appear, the words “because of the famine in Canaan” seem anti-climactic. Moved, they seem redundant. Thus, what purpose they serve is not clear.
When the brothers, having journeyed to Egypt, stand before Joseph, it is not clear why the text asserts twice, in 42:7-8, that he recognizes them.
[7] Joseph recognized his brothers as soon as he saw them. But he behaved like a stranger and spoke harshly to them. “Where are you from?” he asked. “From the land of Canaan—to buy food,” they replied. [8] Joseph recognized his brothers, but they did not recognize him.
Why “Joseph recognized his brothers” should not be removed either from 42:7 or 42:8 is not clear.
Nor is the dialogue about spying that unfolds clear; because it is not clear why Joseph charges the brothers with spying, or why they undermine their plausible defense by repeatedly offering more information than is asked for, and fail to note that Joseph reiterates, but does not support, his charge, and that satisfying his seemingly irrelevant demands will not exonerate them. Nor is it clear why they think they are in terrible trouble, or that the trouble is their punishment for having murdered Joseph, whom they last saw, years earlier, alive.
As will be seen, Joseph’s pretense for charging, in 42:9, the brothers are spies is, according to Midrash, that they entered the Egyptian city in which food was sold in a suspicious manner, and spent three days in a disreputable