A new spin on Joseph’s social policies  

 

Joseph’s social policies are often looked upon unfavorably by modern commentators. The classic Jewish commentators, on the other hand, give the relevant sentences a miss. This is good reason to examine them!

 

These are the problematic sentences:

 

Thus, Joseph acquired all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh, for every Egyptian sold his field because the famine had overwhelmed them. And the land became Pharaoh’s. As for the nation, he resettled it by cities (heevir oto leorim) from one end of Egypt’s borders to the others (Genesis 47:20-22).

 

In effect, Joseph created a nation of serfs for the benefit of Pharaoh. Most students of European history have definite sentiments about serfdom and they are not usually favorable. 

 

To add injury to insult, not only did Joseph make the populace into serfs, but he forcibly moved the farmers from the properties their families had worked on for centuries in order to drive home to them that they were no longer working for themselves but were now employees of Pharaoh.  

 

None of this seems much to Joseph’s credit.  

 

Admittedly, there are commentators such as R’ Hirsch who stress that Joseph did not forcibly disperse the farmers from their hamlets, as might be apparent from the Bible, but he moved them from one place to another in such a way that their social framework was not disrupted.5 This explanation hinges on the translation of le’orim (לֶעָרִים) in “he moved it (i.e. the nation) to cities” to “by cities” and not “to cities.”6 

 

The reality is that it is impossible to know from the text the social consequences of Joseph’s decisions and what the people felt about them. However, knowing Joseph and his modus operandi, it is possible to put a far more positive spin on Joseph’s moves.  

 

Joseph was given absolute authority to manage the forthcoming crisis:

 

Pharaoh said to Joseph: “I am Pharaoh. And without you no man may lift up his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.”. . . Thus, Joseph went out over the land of Egypt (Genesis 41:44-45). 

 

During the years of plenty, Joseph gathered all the food in the land and placed the excess from each geographical area into a central location. The amount of food was so bountiful that it was impossible to keep count:   

 

And Joseph amassed grain like the sand of the sea in great abundance until he ceased taking stock, for it was without number (Genesis 41:49). 

 

What the text does not say is whether Joseph paid for the excess grain or appropriated it. But in actuality, it would have made little difference since the farmers would have benefited in either instance. If Joseph had not siphoned off the surplus grain, the price of grain would have plummeted.

 

At this stage, Joseph was totally dependent on the goodwill of the people to collect the excess grain —which means that he always needed to work in their interest. A win-win situation was being created for the country, and it is likely that Joseph made sure this continued for the populace, for the farmers, for the country, and for Pharaoh. Joseph was teaching the country how a devoted civil servant should act.

 

He will need all his administrative skills as the famine strikes. A major issue he has to deal with is what to do with the surplus grain he has accumulated when the famine arrives. Does he sell it or give it away? If he gives it away there is no change to the system, whereas if he sells it, he can keep on improving Egyptian agriculture. In fact, as the famine progresses, the Egyptian farmers will help him carry out what he intended doing anyway — and the result will be a new social contract for Egypt.

 

Hence, when the famine arrives, Joseph begins selling grain to the people. We may find it strange that the people have to go hungry before the granaries are opened, but Pharaoh seems to have been responsible for this decision. This may be the last significant administrative decision Pharaoh makes with respect to the famine. Everything is now in Joseph’s hands. Pharaoh trusts him explicitly:

 

When all the land of Egypt hungered, the people cried out to Pharaoh for bread. So, Pharaoh said to all of Egypt: “Go to Joseph. Whatever he tells you, do” (Genesis 41:55).   

 

The exact sequence in terms of the years of famine cannot be determined from the text, but Joseph has extracted all the money in Egypt and Canaan and has brought it to Pharaoh. As the famine continues, Joseph says to the people:

 

“Bring your livestock and I will provide for you in return for your livestock if the money is gone.” So, they brought their livestock to Joseph, and Joseph gave them bread in return for the horses, for the flocks of sheep, for the herds of cattle, and for the donkeys; thus, he provided them with bread for all their livestock during that year (Genesis 47:16-17).

 

This man is brilliant! The gathered livestock have to be fed otherwise they will die. Joseph has two alternatives. He can either provide food to the people and to their livestock for free or he can take the livestock and feed it himself. Unstated is that much of this livestock is useless to the government. Admittedly, some of these animals can be sold for meat. But what use does the government have for lots of donkeys? They only have value if he lets the farmers use them. Whether he will charge the farmers in the future for use of these donkeys (i.e., they will be rented), give them back to the farmers for free, or sell them back when they have money is not stated. In any case, he has saved all the livestock of Egypt to everyone’s advantage.  

 

The country is edging more and more towards a socialist-type economy.  As a result of this, the civil service will need to be considerably expanded.  

 

Could this account for Pharaoh’s offer to Joseph’s family once they arrive in Egypt? 

 

And Pharaoh said to Joseph: “. . . . and if you know of any capable men among them, appoint them as managers of the livestock over that which is mine” (Genesis 46:6).

 

One can guess that Joseph already knew what was going to happen next — he was going to take the farmers’ lands. In actuality, it was the farmers themselves who suggested this. Did they do this out of desperation or because they knew that Joseph was a fair person who was working on their behalf? The text does not say, but we are in a position to surmise. 

 

This is what the people say: 

 

And when that year ended, they came to him in the second year and said to him: “We will not hide from my lord how that our money is all spent and the herds of cattle are my lord’s, nothing is left before my lord except for our bodies and our land. Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Acquire us and our land for bread, and we and our land will become bondmen to Pharaoh; and provide us seed so that we may live and not die, and the land will not become desolate” (Genesis 47:18-19).  

 

In effect, Joseph is gathering the people in communes. This is the most efficient way of arranging the agriculture of Egypt. Moreover, it does not drive away enterprise. This is because the workers will still keep the majority of their earnings: 

 

Joseph said to the people: "Look — I have acquired you this day and your land for Pharaoh; here is seed for you — sow the land.  At the ingatherings you shall give a fifth to Pharaoh; and four parts shall remain yours — as seed for the field, the [other] four parts shall remain yours — as seed for the field, food for yourselves, and for those in your household, and to feed your little ones” (Genesis 47:23-24).  

 

In the system that Joseph is creating there are continuing convergences of interest. Pharaoh wants his share of the crop to be as big as possible. He can get this if the farmers work harder‚ and this is exactly what they will do since they keep 80% of the grain. The farmers would like as high a price as possible for their grain, but the populace wants a fair price when they buy the grain. With his 20% of the grain, Pharaoh has the ability to administer price controls and control the market.

 

Pharaoh’s 20% of the grain constitutes a tax on the people. It is a fair tax for both the farmers and for Pharaoh. From now on he will have to keep within budget! 

 

Of upmost importance, Joseph has taught Egypt how to run a country to the benefit of everyone.

 

This was the legacy of Joseph. Unfortunately, although his system was “imposed as a statue till this day regarding the land of Egypt” (Genesis 47:26), his own reputation does not last.  

 

The Book of Exodus relates that “A new king arose over Egypt who did not know of Joseph.” (Exodus 1:8)  

 

A new monarch should have known about Joseph because of all he had accomplished for the country, but for reasons to be explored in a subsequent chapter he did not. This also was part of the Divine plan. 

 

 

Bringing reconciliation between the children of Rachel and Leah

 

Joseph causes considerable anguish to his brothers by imprisoning Simeon and making them bring back Joseph’s younger brother Benjamin to secure Simeon’s release. Why did he do this? Why not just reveal himself as their long-last brother Joseph and dispense with four chapters of the Torah?

 

One answer is that he wanted them to display remorse for what they had done to him. If when put in the same situation as when he was sold, this time they did the right thing and saved Benjamin their repentance would be complete.  

 

This is exactly how the story unfolds. All the brothers are in front of Joseph, including Benjamin, and Joseph now threatens to imprison him for stealing his silver goblet. The goblet in question had been planted in Benjamin’s sack. In a moving speech, Judah rises to the occasion and offers to be incarcerated instead of Benjamin. Benjamin is the son of the deceased Rachel while Judah is the son of Leah. Joseph is emotionally overcome. 

 

There is, however, another level to this story that recognizes that Joseph had more weighty things on his mind than seeking repentance or his own emotions. Joseph was aware that a time would come when the children of Israel would be enslaved in Egypt and then delivered. It was essential that this be in a state of unity. The offspring of Rachel had to be reconciled with the offspring of Leah. This realization was not the consequence of years of thinking. What had happened to him in his father’s home was a thing of the past and had been out of mind. But now, as he saw his brothers in front of him, he suddenly recalled his dreams:

 

Joseph remembered the dreams that he had dreamed about them and he said to them: “You are spies! You have come to see the land’s nakedness!” (Genesis 42:9).

 

What was the connection between the recalling of his dreams and making up a story about them being spies?7  

 

In the first of his dreams all his brothers bowed down to him as sheaves of wheat. This had now occurred and his authority had been demonstrated. It was now his charge to use this authority to unite his family. First, the children of Leah needed to recompense the children of Rachel. Judah had done this by offering to be put in prison instead of Benjamin. To close this story Joseph had to impress upon them that they were completely forgiven.

 

If one dream had been fulfilled, it was likely that the second would now also come about. Joseph had to facilitate this. All his brothers and his father would now come to Egypt. There, they would acknowledge his authority and he would use this to save them from the remainder of the famine. Admittedly, his mother was no longer alive, but Rachel’s maid Bilhah had brought up Rachel’s two children following her death and would take her place.  

 

Joseph probably felt that he had accomplished this task. If so, he may well have felt considerable pain when his brothers came to him after Jacob’s death on the assumption that he had not forgiven them and had been waiting until the death of their father to take revenge. He had gone through this great game for their benefit – and they had still not gotten the message! They still felt the need to concoct a story about their father asking Joseph to forgive them. Could this be why he wept again? They spoke as follows:  

 

“… so now, please forgive the transgression of the servants of the God of your father.” And Joseph wept when they spoke to him. . . . Thus, he comforted them and spoke to their hearts (Genesis 50:15-21).

 

He stressed again that they were forgiven and that “Although you intended me harm, Elohim intended it for good” (Genesis 50:20).  

 

Joseph had engineered a reconciliation between the children of Rachel and the children of Leah. The Children of Israel were now prepared for the difficult future they would face together in Egypt.  

  

 

Joseph — the right person in the right place at the right time 

 

The first CE Jewish historian Josephus argues that Joseph worked for the Hyksos, and there is much to commend this theory, although the evidence is circumstantial.8 

 

Kings I states that Solomon’s Temple was constructed 480 years after the Exodus: 

 

In the 480th year after the Children of Israel’s exodus from the land of Egypt — in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv which is the second month — he built the Temple for YHWH (Kings I 6:1).

 

We know from other sources that the First Temple was destroyed in 587 BCE. From information given in the Bible it can be determined that Solomon succeeded to his throne in 970 BCE and began construction of the Temple in 966 BCE. Thus, the date of the Exodus would have been 480 years earlier in 1446 BCE (see also the chapter on the Exodus for a fuller discussion of these points).

 

The Pharaoh who began persecuting the Israelites was likely Ahmose 1, previously the ruler of southern Egypt, who became Pharaoh over all Egypt in about 1550 BCE. 

 

Prior to this, the Hyksos had been in control of the Nile Delta and Middle Egypt. Ahmose I completed the struggle began by his predecessors and drove out the Hyksos, thereby uniting northern and southern Egypt. The 18th dynasty that he formed became the most successful and powerful dynasty in Egyptian history.

 

Who the Hyksos were and how they came to Egypt is unclear. They are often considered to be of either Semitic or multi-ethnic origin and they took advantage of a general weakening of the Egyptian state to establish themselves in the Nile Delta. The beginning of their 15th dynasty is usually dated to between 1663 to 1648 BCE and they ruled during what is called the Second Intermediate Period of the Middle Kingdom. They introduced advanced military technology into Egypt, such as the horse and chariot, an advanced battle axe and composite bow, all of which gave them a decisive advantage in battle.

 

Their entry into the Nile Delta was probably forceful. Josephus, quoting from the works of the Egyptian historian Manetho, wrote:

 

By main force they easily seized it without striking a blow; and having overpowered the rulers of the land, they then burned our cities ruthlessly, razed to the ground the temples of gods… Finally, they appointed as king one of their number whose name was Salitis.9

 

Nevertheless, this may be historically inaccurate and the Hyksos may have gradually infiltrated into the Nile Delta area and then seized power. 

 

The name Hyksos means in Egyptian “rulers of foreign countries” and the Egyptian populace always regarded them as foreign invaders. They established their capital and seat of government in the Eastern Delta at Avaris. For a brief period, they also occupied southern Egypt. This may have occurred during the reign of the Pharaoh Khyan, who ruled from about 1620 BCE, although it may have lasted only a few years. Nevertheless, the southern kingdom may have been under tribute to the Hyksos for a longer period of time.   

 

The political changes occurring in Egypt at the time of Ahmose I’s expulsion of the Hyksos may be hinted at in the following Torah verse: 

 

A new king arose over Egypt who did not know of Joseph. He said to his people, “Behold! The people, the Children of Israel are more numerous and stronger than we” (Exodus 1:8).

 

This verse intimates that this particular succession was different from previous ones. This king not only did not know of Joseph but he was a “new king.” But do not all successions bring a “new king”? Egyptian history provides the answer. The ascension of Ahmose I begins an entirely new dynasty and there is no reason he would have known, or even wanted to know, about Joseph.  

 

Is it possible that Joseph served the Hyksos? The answer to this question hinges on when Joseph and Jacob arrived in Egypt and how long the Israelites were in Egypt before Ahmose I expelled the Hyksos.  

 

The Book of Exodus informs us: 

 

The habitation of the Children of Israel during which they dwelled in Egypt (Septuagint: and in other lands) was four hundred and thirty years. It was at the end of four hundred and thirty years, and it was on this very day that all the legions of God left the land of Egypt (Exodus 12:40).10 

 

The Exodus marks the fulfillment of a prophecy. At the Covenant between the Pieces Abraham received a promise from YHWH:  

 

And He [God] said to Abram: “Know with certainty that your offspring shall be sojourners in a land not their own, they will enslave them, and they will oppress them four hundred years. . . . And the fourth generation will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite will not yet be full until then” (Genesis 15:13). 

 

Yet this verse is puzzling since four generations is not equivalent to 400 years. However, there is a midrashic tradition that the prophecy that Abraham’s offspring would live for 400 years “in a land not their own” commences with the birth of Isaac  and not with the entrance of Jacob to Egypt.10 The 430 years mentioned in the verse above from Exodus is from the time the prophecy was made at the Covenant between the Pieces and took place 30 years before Isaac was born.11  

 

If this explanation is correct, then the Israelite exile in Egypt lasted only 210 years (i.e., 400 years minus 190). This can be deduced from verses in the Torah that state that Jacob was born when his father Isaac was 60 and Jacob was 130 when he arrived in Egypt (Genesis 25:26 and 47:9). Thus, 190 years of the 400-year prophesy had already passed before Jacob and his family arrived in Egypt.  

 

If the Israelites left Egypt in 1446 BCE and Jacob arrived with his sons 210 years earlier then Jacob’s arrival in Egypt occurred in 1656 BCE or thereabout. From the Torah it can be deduced that Joseph arrived in Egypt 22 years before his father Jacob and began his political career 9 years prior to Jacob’s arrival.12 The date for Joseph leaving prison and becoming viceroy was therefore approximately 1666 BCE. Hence, Joseph’s political career began at about the same time as the Hyksos invasion of Egypt.  

 

All these dates may be attempting to provide more chronological precision to the biblical story than is warranted. Nevertheless, the notion that Joseph arrived in Egypt during the Hyksos period has much to commend it and could explain a number of statements in the Torah: 

 

• Jewish settlement was in the Nile Delta in the “Land of Goshen.” This was the best of the land, in the land of Ramses. This would have been within the Hyksos kingdom.

 

• The foreign status of the Hyksos could explain why there was such readiness on the part of Pharaoh and his entourage to accept another foreigner, Joseph, into their administration. 

 

• It would explain why they were prepared to accept Joseph’s brothers into senior administrative positions (“If you know of capable men among them, appoint them as managers of the livestock over that which is mine” (Genesis 47:6)).  

 

• It would be compatible with Pharaoh providing Joseph with a chariot, since the Hyksos are thought to have brought chariots into Egypt.

 

• It would explain why Ahmose I was so focused on his Israelite population. Prior to his ascension to the throne time, the Israelites would have been a favored population in the Hyksos kingdom. However, once the Hyksos were expelled, the Israelites would find themselves in a very vulnerable position. Ahmose I may not have been totally out of line when he considered the Israelites a security threat (“it may be if a war occur it too may join our enemies” (Exodus 1:10). If the Hyksos had attempted to regain their kingdom, the Israelites could have aided them. Ahmose’s solution was to put the Israelites in labor camps so as to keep a close watch on them.

 

• The Torah tells us “that a new king arose over Egypt who did not know of Joseph” (Exodus 1:8). Joseph’s actions provided considerable benefit to Egypt. Nevertheless, they would have had little to no impact on southern Egypt.

 

Is there any other supporting evidence that the Egyptian exile lasted 210 and not 400 or 430 years?

 

The prophecy at the Covenant between the Pieces mentions that “the fourth generation will return” (Genesis 15:16), and this is borne out by the Torah. Kohath, Moses’ grandfather and the son of Levi, arrived in Egypt with Jacob and lived a total of 133 years (Exodus 6:18). His son Amram, who was Moses’ father, lived 137 years (Exodus 6:20). Moses left Egypt when he was 80. This comes to a total of 350 years. However, the sojourn in Egypt of these three generations would have been much shorter than this since their lives would have overlapped. 

 

On the other hand, it is difficult to see how four generations could have produced 600,00 adult males leaving Egypt (Exodus 12:37). One solution to this is to say that the Hebrew “dor” means not a generation in the conventional sense but more in the way of a period of time in which a generation is still alive.

 

Nevertheless, the notion that Joseph served the Pharaoh of the Hyksos is a fascinating theory.

 

Joseph and his family 

 

Joseph’s father-in-law was probably an influential pagan priest. This was probably an arranged marriage by Pharaoh designed to solidify the palace’s connection to the Egyptian priesthood. 

 

The relevant verse is as follows:

 

Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Tzafnas Pane’ach, and he gave him Asnat the daughter of Poti Phera, priest of On, for a wife (Genesis 41:45). 

 

The Egyptian name for the city of “On” was Annu (literally "[place of] pillars"), and it was located on the outskirts of the present city of Cairo. In Greek times it was known as Heliopolis, or “the city of the sun.” It received this name because of its temples for worship of the sun god Ra (or Re) and the more local sun god Atum.  

 

“Poti Phera” means “He who Ra has given,” and it is likely that he was a priest to the son god Ra. The name of his daughter “Asenat” means “she belongs to the sky goddess Nut.” Joseph was given the more monotheistic title “Tzafnas Pane’ach.” Suggested translations of this name in Egyptian are “The god speaks and he (the bearer of the name) lives” or “the one who knows the life of the god.”  

 

Despite the strong pagan influences around him, Joseph’s household retained their links to the Israelite nation and its monotheistic beliefs.  

 

Before he died, Jacob summoned Joseph and his two sons so they could receive the patriarch’s blessing: 

 

“And now, your two sons who were born to you in Egypt before my coming to you, to Egypt, they are mine; Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine like Reuben and Simeon” (Genesis 48:5).14 

 

Joseph’s two sons are now effectively tribes, and because of this double portion, Joseph has symbolically displaced Reuben from the position of firstborn. 

 

Jacob then blesses Joseph by bestowing blessing on these two children:15 

 

He blessed Joseph and he said: . . . “May the angel who redeems me from all evil bless the lads, and may my name be declared upon them, and the names of my forefathers Abraham and Isaac, and may they reproduce abundantly like fish within the land” (Genesis 48:15-16). 

 

He then blesses the two children themselves:  

 

So he blessed them that day saying: “By you shall Israel bless saying: ‘May Elohim make you like Ephraim and like Manasseh.” — and he put Ephraim before Manasseh (Genesis 48:20).

 

To this day, it is a custom among the Jewish people for parents to bless their children with these words on Friday night.   

 

But what was so special about Ephraim and Manasseh that they warranted being a source of blessing to all male Jewish children?  

 

The text does not say this, but high on the list must certainly be Joseph’s family’s retaining its belief in the existence of one God and its trust in Him despite the multitude of surrounding pagan influences. Also, maintaining a moral family life despite the immorality of the surrounding Egyptian culture. 

  

References

 

1.  In this chapter I adopt the explanation that God was standing above Jacob (Rashi and Bereishis Rabba 69:3), rather than above the ladder (Ramban). Both explanations fit the Hebrew, but “above him” is more commensurate with the YHWH aspect of God. 

 

2. Quoted in Bereshis: A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources, Vol 1(b). Mesorah Publications.

 

3. Maimonides writes in his Mishneh Torah: “It is [one] of the foundations of [our] faith that God communicates by prophecy with man” (Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah 7:1). Without belief in the validity of Moses’ prophecy there can be no Judaism.  

 

4. Rashi opines that God did communicate with Joseph directly. He writes: “He will put a response in my month for Pharaoh’s welfare” (Rashi to 41:16). However, other exegetes including the Ralbag, Ibn Ezra and Radak provide other explanations for Joseph’s comment when he says: “That is beyond me. God will respond to Pharaoh’s welfare” (ibid 41:16).

 

5. This is the interpretation of Onkelos, also quoted by Rashi to Genesis 41:23. 

 

6 .  Another explanation is that God had given him the wisdom to interpret Pharaoh’s dreams.

 

7.   See the explanation of R’ Samson Raphael Hirsch and Targum Onkelos to these verses.

 

8.  Rashi writes that he knew his dreams were fulfilled when he saw his brothers (even though Benjamin was not present).  Ramban disagrees and explains that Joseph engineered the fulfillment of his dreams so that all the brothers would bow down to him — including Benjamin. In other words, Joseph arranged for the fulfillment of his dreams for the sake of them being fulfilled. Only then could he reveal his true identity. This would explain why he never contacted his father during his stay in Egypt. The explanation presented here is different and follows to a degree that of R' Hirsch in his commentary to the Torah to Genesis 42:9. Nevertheless, R’ Hirsch sees matters in more personal terms and not with a tribal connotation.

 

9. Josephus, Flavius, Against Apion, 1:86–90. 

 

10. Rashi to Exodus 40:6 explains the phrase “which they dwelled in Egypt” as meaning — which culminated in their dwelling in Egypt. The Septuagint adds “and in other lands.”  

 

11. Mechilta, Parshas Bo 14:3. This Midrash attempts to reconcile two statements — that the fourth generation would enter Israel and that the exile would last for 400 years. The answer provided in the text is the most widely accepted interpretation. TB Megilla 9a discusses that to avoid reader confusion, the Septuagint inserted the words “and in other lands” to its Greek translation of Exodus 12:41. Although the most accepted explanation, it is not the only one. Another Midrash views the verse in Genesis as being conditional. The Egyptian exile would last three generations if the Jews were worthy, but otherwise would last 400 years (Yalkut Shimoni, Parshat Bo 210).   

 

12. Yalkut Shimoni, Parshas Bo 210.  According to Seder Olam I, Abraham was 70 years old at the Covenant between the Pieces and 100 years old at the birth of Isaac (Genesis 21:5).  

 

13. Joseph met his brothers 9 years after becoming viceroy. There would now be 2 years of bounty and 7 years of famine. Joseph left Canaan when he was 17 (Genesis 37:2) and was presented to Pharaoh at age 30 (Genesis 41:46). He therefore arrived in Egypt 22 years prior to Jacob — 9+(30-17).

 

14. Josephus, Ant 2:15.2 and Ag Apion 1.14.  However, he dates the Exodus to the time of the Hyksos expulsion — Ant 2.9.1

 

15. There is a disagreement among the exegetes Rashi and Nachmanides as to whether this had any territorial consequences. Rashi felt it had none, as each person from each tribe was given equal territory. It had significance only in terms of tribal princes and banners and the location of their inheritance. However, Nachmanides feels that each member of the tribe of Ephraim and Manasseh received twice as much land as the members of other tribes. See also TB Horayos 6b and TB Bava Basra 122a to 123b.

 

16. Commentators note that no direct blessing of Joseph is mentioned.  Perhaps Joseph’s blessing is not mentioned in the text (Sforno). More likely is that by blessing Joseph’s children he was in effect blessing Joseph (Nachmanides, Rashbam and Radak)