Parasha: Vayeshev · Aliyah: Sixth (Yesod)

באשר את אשתו, "inasmuch as you are his wife." Joseph meant that Potiphar had not placed his wife out of bounds to Joseph in so many words; the matter was understood because of her status.

ואיך אעשה הרעה הגדולה, "how could I possibly commit such a great evil?" By doing so I would lose everything I have achieved.

Furthermore, I would create an unbridegable gap to the holy roots of my soul seeing that adultery is forbidden to Gentiles as well as to Jews. This is what Joseph meant when he said "I would sin against G'd."

Furthermore, by mentioning that he would commit a sin vis-a-vis G'd Joseph already countered Mrs Potiphar's argument that her husband did not need to know about their liaison and that therefore Joseph did not stand to lose anything. Joseph attributed his present status to the help of G'd. He would certainly forfeit G'd's help if he became guilty of adultery.

ותתפשהו בבגדו, She grabbed hold of his garment, etc. The Torah reveals Mrs Potiphar's intention when she grabbed Joseph's garment by stating לאמור. This word needs to be translated here: "as if to say." She did not say a word. Her actions spoke louder than any words.

ותקרא לאנשי ביתה, she called the members of her household, etc. She was well aware that her husband put great faith in Joseph's righteousness and might not believe her accusation against him. Therefore she called the members of her household asking them, i.e. לאמור to tell her husband what had happened (according to her version). The members of her household who were jealous of Joseph who had risen above them would be happy to testify against him, saying: "look what happened as a result of your bringing this Hebrew man into the house." When she said לצחק בנו, "to make sport of us," she used the word us deliberately to indicate that they had all suffered from Joseph's elevated status, especially since Joseph was an alien.

It is also possible that when Mrs Potiphar said ראו, look! that she invited the members of the household to testify only to what they had seen; the Torah describes this as לאמור ראו, "say what you have seen." She included her husband in her accusation in the event he would find excuses for Joseph's alleged behaviour.

ותדבר אליו..לאמור, She spoke to him…saying. The word לאמור here is meant as a reference to the testimony which the members of the household would be willing to supply. Potiphar's anger was not so much directed at Joseph but at the fact that his wife was able to reinforce her accusations by calling the members of the household as witnesses. This is why the Torah writes: "when his master heard the words of his wife which she spoke to him לאמור כדברים האלה." The Torah did not need to write more than: "when his master heard the words of his wife." We are meant to realise that Potiphar only became angry after לאמור, i.e. that there were independent witnesses supporting his wife's tale.

לאמור כדברים האלה, to corroborate such words. Potiphar did not believe his wife. Since the accuser was his own wife, however, he had to make some gesture otherwise his wife would have been publicly discredited. This is why Potiphar did not discipline Joseph nor had him executed, the normal penalty for a slave who dared to aspire to the wife of his master.

ויהי ה׳ את יוסף. G'd was with Joseph. The meaning of this verse is that when a human being enjoys divine protection people around him are also influenced by the fact that such a person enjoys G'd's help. It was natural then that Joseph should find favour in the eyes of those who came into contact with him. G'd had to especially influence the warden of the prison to take a liking to Joseph as a righteous person [and therefore innocent, the victim of a miscarriage of justice. Ed.]

הוא היה עושה, which he was doing. Onkelos translates: על מימריה הוה מתעבד, that what was done inside the jail was done at Joseph's instructions. If that was so, why does the Torah not say so outright, i.e. ועל פיו היו עושים? Perhaps the Torah wanted to hint that though Joseph enjoyed great authority within the jail, he did not use it to make the other inmates feel as if he dictated to them. He did not claim any special privileges for himself either. All this was evidence of his good character.