Because the brothers appear before Joseph, in 42:5, together, their defense—that they have appeared openly for the innocent purpose of buying food—is plausible. But they undermine it by saying more than they should.
Their tendency to do so (which, as will be seen, many traditionalists argue, for the most part obliquely, is only apparent) appears in 42:7, and persists, to dangerous effect. In their response to Joseph’s first question, “Where are you from?” they say that they are from Canaan; and add, unasked, that they have come “to buy food.” The charge of spying against them repeated, in 42:11, they say, once again unasked, that they are “all the sons of the same man”; and repeat again, in 42:13, that they are “the sons of one man who is in Canaan,” and that “the youngest brother is with our father, and one brother is gone.”
It does not occur to the brothers that the proof Joseph demands of their innocence will prove nothing. One of them, he asserts in 42:16, is to return to Canaan, and bring Benjamin to Egypt. “This will test your claim and determine if you are telling the truth. If not, by Pharaoh’s life, you will be considered spies.” But how the appearance of Benjamin will prove they are not spies is not clear, because the two matters seem entirely unrelated. If he appears, Joseph will presumably acknowledge that he is their younger brother. But why he will therefore conclude they are not spies is not clear.
Nor is it clear why Joseph changes the conditions related to the test: why he asserts, in 42:16, that nine of them will remain imprisoned until the tenth returns with Benjamin, but three days later asserts, in 42:18, that only one of them will remain imprisoned, until the other nine return with Benjamin.
That the brothers should regard their predicament as punishment for the sin they committed against Joseph is understandable. But it is not clear why they regard the predicament as dire; why they seem convinced they murdered Joseph; or why Joseph, overhearing their conversation, weeps.
That conscience should afflict them in 42:21 is not difficult to understand. And Joseph does seem to threaten them with death, when he asserts in 42:20 that, if they return with Benjamin, “you will not die.” But because, to placate him, they must do nothing more than return with Benjamin, it is not clear why they seem convinced, in 42:22, that a “great misfortune” has come upon them. Nor is it clear why they seem to agree with Reuben, in 42:22, that “an accounting is being demanded for [Joseph’s] blood,” because, as noted, they have no reason to believe that Joseph is dead. And why Joseph cries is not clear.
Finally, the reaction of the brothers to a discovery they make at an inn on their way home to Canaan is difficult to understand. Having opened his sack to feed his donkey, one of them, in 42:27, sees his money, and exclaims, in 42:28, that it “has been returned . . .. It’s in my sack!” The other brothers seem profoundly shaken.
Their hearts sank. “What is this that God has done to us?” they asked each other with trembling voices.
It is not clear why each of them does not immediately search his sack (especially because each must feed his donkey); why they complete the journey home, report at length to Jacob what has happened, and only then, in 42:35, open their sacks, and discover that the money of each has been returned. It is not clear why—to say nothing of the terror they feel—not even curiosity prompts each of them to open his sack at the inn, or during the days—perhaps the many days—they are on the road home.
(Nor is it clear why, when they return to Egypt with Benjamin, they tell Joseph’s overseer, in 43:21, that at the inn “we opened our packs, and each man’s money was at the top of his pack.”)
According to Ramban, Joseph tends the family’s flocks with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah only. According to Abarbanel, all of his brothers merely supervise shepherds tending the flocks, and Joseph supervises all of his brothers. According to Sforno, Joseph instructs all of his brothers in shepherding. According to Rashi, Joseph tends the flock together with all of his brothers. Radak agrees; and adds that, because he is inexperienced, the brothers instruct him in shepherding. According to Daat Mikrah, the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah instruct him in shepherding. According to Rashbam and Chizkuni, Joseph tends the flock with the sons of Leah only. According to Malbim, Joseph shepherds his brothers spiritually—he instructs them in virtue—while they shepherd the flock.
According to Rashi, after his age is given as seventeen, Joseph is called “a lad” (naar) to indicate he is vain of his appearance, because he is immature. According to Ibn Ezra, because he is a naar, he is exploited by the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, who make him their servant. According to Alshich, because he is a naar he serves them as a matter of course (not, apparently, because they exploit him). According to Abarbanel, naar is a compliment: though he is only a lad, he is in charge of all of the shepherding, because, as noted, he supervises all of his brothers. According to Rashbam, the words “and he was a lad (naar) with the sons of his father’s wives Bilhah and Zilpah” indicate that he acts immaturely primarily when he consorts with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. According to Daat Mikrah, the same words indicate that Jacob instructs the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah to educate Joseph. According to Sforno, naar indicates that, because he is immature, Joseph sins against his brothers by bringing bad reports about them to their father. According to Malbim, Joseph serves his brothers because he thinks it is appropriate that, as a naar, he do so. According to Ramban, he is called naar because he is less robust physically than his brothers, and because he is the youngest of the brothers involved in shepherding. (Ramban apparently assumes that Benjamin does not participate in the shepherding.)
According to Rashi, Ramban, and Malbim, the opening words of 37:2—“These are the chronicles of Jacob”—begin the narrative that occupies the rest of Genesis; in effect, the chronicles of the lives of Jacob’s children. Rashbam, who agrees, explains why the words cannot be understood as introducing a list of the progeny of Jacob (that is, why 37:2 cannot be parallel in meaning to 36:1, which introduces the chronicles of Esau). According to Ibn Ezra, Radak, and Sforno, the words refer to the events that occur to Jacob. According to Chizkuni, the words “These are the chronicles of Jacob, Joseph” indicate that the story of Joseph, interrupted by the chronicles of Esau, is resuming. Or Hachayim offers as the plain meaning of the words an interpretation Rashi seems to regard as homiletic: the assertion, in Midrash Rabbah 84:3, that because Jacob wishes to live in tranquility, a luxury God typically refuses to grant to saintly men, the anguish of Joseph’s disappearance is inflicted upon him. (Or Hachayim offers two other possibilities as the plain meaning of the words.) According to Abarbanel, because only Joseph emulates Jacob’s virtues, only he can properly be called his progeny, and thus only his life deserves to be chronicled.
According to Malbim, Joseph does not bring to his father any bad report—any slander—of his own regarding any of his brothers; he reports the evil rumors the sons of Leah are spreading about the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, and those the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah are spreading about the sons of Leah. And he does so in the pious hope that his father will admonish them. According to Sforno, the bad report is that the brothers are neglecting their work as shepherds. According to Rashi and Or Hachayim, who reference Bereshit Rabbah 84:7, Joseph brings to his father a bad report about the sons of Leah only: that they eat the limbs of living animals, demean the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, and engage in illicit sexual relationships. According to Rashbam, Joseph tells his father that, unlike Leah’s sons, he treats the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah with respect. According to Ibn Ezra, Joseph complains to his father that the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah have made him their servant. According to Ramban, he slanders only the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah; and in a particularly nasty fashion,