It seems that we have two occasions in which the brothers came to Egypt to buy grain, and in each case, despite their paying money, Yoseif had their money returned in their sacks of grain.

I have two questions on this grain.


Who's grain was it to sell or give?

What purpose did returning the money serve?

Surely Pharoah had every right to do with Egypt's resources as he saw fit, and surely Yoseif is accurately credited with increasing Egypt's wealth.

Keeping in mind that one of the evils of Communist regimes is that the leadership have wealth and the regular people have poverty...

It would seem to be an injustice (even if Pharoah had authority, within Egyptian standards) to even waste such natural resources for Yoseif HaTzadik to be involved with giving away Egypt's grain without charge, particularly at a time of famine.

If in modern times someone named Yoseif worked at a business with abundant office supplies, it seems to be a well recognized act of impropriety to utilize an employer's resources for personal benefit.

Perhaps we can use this as proof that either this particular grain came out of Yoseif's personal alotment, or that it was paid for by Yoseif's own funds.

Either way, it leads us to a realization that, despite in Rambam's time, the "honor" of being the ruler's physician was expected to be more than sufficient compensation, that Yoseif, as overseer of Egypt must have had some sort of salary, or compensation for his work.

And unlike the gluttony commensurate with corrupting power today, even in a democracy with elected officials, Yoseif had sufficient personal reserves by which to do these grain payment actions...

And the assistant who told the brothers that their payment had already reached his hand was speaking truthfully.

Furthermore, Yaakov's gift of the finest of Eretz Canaan was brought into Egypt on account of making up for the extra payment, and the brothers did return with double money. So we do get to see role model behavior in Yaakov Avinu.

But still, what purpose did these grain payment actions serve?

In each case it caused the brothers great discomfort and worry.

And in the second case, it was part of the basis by which Yoseif put Binyamin into a predicament, by which the brothers acted in a responsible brotherly fashion.

If Yoseif had simply a desire to "mess with their heads" would grain payment refund by the best mechanism?

How would the story have played out differently if these actions had not taken place?

B"H

Rob,

Why do you find it surprising that Yoseph would do this (I mean, give the grain that was stored by the Egyptians to his own family who had not laboured in it, nor paid for it)? Afterall, Yoseph was viceroy (משנה למלך) in Egypt, and Pharaoah had given him unprecedented authority, as it says: אתה תהיה על ביתי ועל פיך ישק כל עמי וגו' ראה נתתי אותך על כל ארץ ×ž×¦×¨×™× ×•×’×•' ובלעדיך לא ×™×¨×™× ××™×© את ידו ואת רגלו בכל ארץ מצרי×

One of the privileges of a king (and Yoseph having the same privileges of the king, aside from the throne itself) is that he can make himself a road wherever he lists (Talmud Sanhedrin), without asking permission from his subjects. He can also set levies and taxes and imposts, etc. without prior consent from the people. The corn that was stored by the masses was also supplied to the king's house (Pharaoah) for his own sustenance, and for those of his ministers. Think of it as a tax. Yoseph simply gave what belonged to him to his own brothers.

David

Ramban comments that Pharoah commanded Yoseif to send the wagons of food to Yaakov after hearing the news of his brothers... because Pharoah knew that Yoseif would not take it otherwise.

Furthermore Ramban comments that when Yoseif told the brothers to bring Yaakov to Egypt he said that it would be a problem to send the food to Eretz Canaan since it might appear to the Egyptians that he was sending the food there to sell and amass wealth for himself there, and then leave Egypt to live there.

I believe both of these support my position that it is consistent with Yoseif's outstanding ethical conduct to not send the grain without Egypt being paid for it, this despite his authority over Egypt, and in fact as Ramban points out, his authority over all the neighboring peoples who were dependent upon him and Egypt to have food to buy during the years of famine.

B"H

Rob,

Initially, when you asked this question, you asked about that time when Yoseph's brothers came down into Egypt to buy grain, and Yoseph had not yet revealed himself to his brothers. Using your own words: "It seems that we have two occasions in which the brothers came to Egypt to buy grain, and in each case, despite their paying money, Yoseif had their money returned in their sacks of grain."

So, in this case, Rambam's explanation would not apply here, at least during their first trek down into Egypt, since Pharaoah had no way of knowing that Yoseph's brothers had come unto him at that time. It was only after Yoseph had cried outloud that Paharaoh's household learned about the visit of Yoseph's brothers.

Again, I see no problem with Yoseph's high ethical behaviour at his giving grain to his brothers, since he was the authority on how to dispense of that grain, besides what naturally belonged to him as the viceroy of Egypt.

David

B"H

Dear Reb David:

Actually I was quoting Ramban, and the matter does apply.

Since we see that in Pharoah's eyes it would be beneath Yoseif's dignity (ethics, etc) to _take_ from Egypt on his own, unless he were commanded to, the same should apply as to whether it would be possible for Yoseif to have taken from Egypt during his brothers' first visits.

Since the Torah through Pharoah confirms for us that Yoseif would not do such a thing, all the more reason we can use it, as I deduced, as a proof that Yoseif had his own resources (be it surplus grain allotment from which he provided the sacks of grain, or money with which he paid for the grain for which he returned the brothers' money)!

B"H

Rob,

Yes. I mistook your writing "Ramban" for "Rambam."

You wrote: "Since we see that in Pharoah's eyes it would be beneath Yoseif's dignity (ethics, etc) to take from Egypt on his own," can I ask you, where do we see this? Afterall, Pharaoh gave authority to Yoseph over the Egyptians.

I would also like to ask you another question:
Why was it necessary for the Egyptians to sell their property, and to make themselves slaves unto Pharaoh, if the grain that they amassed for themselves in the grain silos actually belonged to them?! Why did Yoseph accept payment from the Egyptians for what, according to you, belonged to them?

Or did it belong to them? It would seem that Pharaoh had initially supplied them with grain to make a crop, and that they worked for a percentage of the crop (perhaps what they needed for their immediate sustenance), but that the grain stored in silos and grain bins across the country was the property of Pharaoh.

Second question:

Was it ethical for Yoseph to uproot the Egyptians from their homes, and to send off colonies of Egyptians from one end of Egypt to the other? What authority did Yoseph have to do this?

David

quote:

I would also like to ask you another question:
Why was it necessary for the Egyptians to sell their property, and to make themselves slaves unto Pharaoh, if the grain that they amassed for themselves in the grain silos actually belonged to them?! Why did Yoseph accept payment from the Egyptians for what, according to you, belonged to them?

Since Egypt was a monarchy, I would say that the grain belonged to Pharoah, and not directly belonged to the citizens of Egypt.

Egyptian citizens would have less right to the grain without cost than I would have say to the US national oil reserves, or to the animals in national wildlife refuges.

And just like the inventory of postage stamps at a post office teller do not belong to the post office workers, I believe that Yoseif in his humility (to not take personal credit from doing his job to amass wealth for Egypt's king) and his ethical conduct (as attested to by Pharoah commanding Yoseif to take personal benefit from wagons) would not consider the grain reserves his own property to risk the appearance of being disbursed for personal benefit.

quote:

Second question:

Was it ethical for Yoseph to uproot the Egyptians from their homes, and to send off colonies of Egyptians from one end of Egypt to the other? What authority did Yoseph have to do this?

On the one hand we can say that Yoseif did the uprooting, and the acquisition of their land, and securing their work on the fields, for Pharoah, and not for personal benefit, removing any selfish component of ethical question.

However on the other hand there is an explanation that the uprooting of the people was primarily so that the Bnei Yisroel settling in Goshen would be on an equal footing as everyone else since noone was living where they were before the famine.

In that regard there could be a selfish component.

And since we now know that Jews are at best tolerated in for example European lands, even the most liberal and enlightened of European lands, where Jews earned statistically a high number of iron cross medals in WW-1... pre-empting any such antisemtic hatred against the Bnei Yisroel is perfectly ethical in the abstract reality.

And simply, since it was in Yoseif's authority to rule the Egyptian people this way, and it was in fact their request to be acquired as slaves, and Yoseif worked out something they recognized as more than generous (grain ratio, and lack of acquisition as slaves, but rather workers), yes, perfectly ethical, without any selfish gain.

Furthermore, if the famine was recognized as a state of emergency, and Yoseif uprooted the people in order to build up grain reserves as part of an emergency military law, we seem to have plenty of modern equivalences.

Is it not a historic location if a private home was commandeered by armies of either side in the US revolutionary war?

B"H

Rob,

Still, you did not answer my first question: Viz., You wrote: "Since we see that in Pharoah's eyes it would be beneath Yoseif's dignity (ethics, etc) to take from Egypt on his own, etc." I then asked you: "Where do we see this? How do we know that Pharaoh thought like this? Afterall, Pharaoh gave authority to Yoseph over the Egyptians. Are you saying that he still limited Yoseph's power when it came to his dispensing of Egypt's grain?"

If your answer is this: "...and his (Yoseph's) ethical conduct (as attested to by Pharoah commanding Yoseif to take personal benefit from wagons) would not consider the grain reserves his own property to risk the appearance of being disbursed for personal benefit," we all know that when Pharaoh commanded Yoseph to send wagons to the land of Canaan in order to fetch his father and next of kin, this was done only during the second trip into Egypt by Yoseph's brothers. But, meanwhile, during the first trip into Egypt, Yoseph had already supplied them with grain without receiving in return payment. How do we know that Yoseph had the approbation of the king to do this? Is it not simply good enough to say that when Pharaoh said to Yoseph, ועל פיך ישק כל עמי וגו' ראה נתתי אותך על כל ארץ ×ž×¦×¨×™× ×•×’×•' ובלעדיך לא ×™×¨×™× ××™×© את ידו ואת רגלו בכל ארץ מצרי×, this gave him the authority to dispense of the grain that belonged to the king himself?

David

quote:

But, meanwhile, during the first trip into Egypt, Yoseph had already supplied them with grain without receiving in return payment. How do we know that Yoseph had the approbation of the king to do this?

The way I worked it through I deduce from these points that either Yoseif had a salary, and thus paid for the grain with his own funds, or he had under-utilized his own personal grain allotment and thus sent his own grain with the brothers.

That Pharoah commanded Yoseif to take the wagons (and the commentary explaining how Pharoah knew it was necessary to do so) is proof that Yoseif would not likely have given the grain to the brothers at Egypt's expense, either time.

Rob,

You forget that a person at such a level of responsibility has all sorts of resources at his disposal which he can use in the best interests of the state without it being considered pilfering. I'm sure Josef had an expense account and petty cash etc for emergencies such as this and for entertianing foreign dignitaires. After all his brothers were foreign dignitaries.

The management of resources at that level is quite different from managing them at the local stationery store. The Pharo owed all his grain to Josef. If it weren't for Josef the Pharo wouldn't have had any grain to quibble about and the Pharo knew it, that's why he was only glad to share with Josef's family.

quote:

entertianing foreign dignitaires. After all his brothers were foreign dignitaries.

Okay, your points are very clear, but still leaves some questions...

Would the Egyptian viewer believe that it was entertaining to the foreign dignitaries to accuse them of being spies, throw them in jail, and chase after them after planting their money back in their grain sacks?

Furthermore, what is different about appropriating wagons to bring foreign dignitaries to settle in Egypt, and appropriating grain and petty cash?

If it were your reason, perhaps then the Torah ought not to have reported that Pharoah had to command Yoseif regarding the wagons?

Rob,
I agree with everything you are saying were Josef and Pharo private people. These are public figures and commanding Josef to take waggons was a public gesture, not a private one. You are treating Josef and Pharo as private people and I don't think in this case they are being treated a such.

quote:

Originally posted by rob:
The way I worked it through I deduce from these points that either Yoseif had a salary, and thus paid for the grain with his own funds, or he had under-utilized his own personal grain allotment and thus sent his own grain with the brothers.

That Pharoah commanded Yoseif to take the wagons (and the commentary explaining how Pharoah knew it was necessary to do so) is proof that Yoseif would not likely have given the grain to the brothers at Egypt's expense, either time.

Rob,

So, then, what authority did Pharaoh actually give to Yoseph when he said unto him:
אתה תהיה על ביתי ועל פיך ישק כל עמי וגו' ראה נתתי אותך על כל ארץ ×ž×¦×¨×™× ×•×’×•' ובלעדיך לא ×™×¨×™× ××™×© את ידו ואת רגלו בכל ארץ מצרי×

(Translation)

"You shall be over my house, and all of my people shall pay you homage, etc. Look! I have put you over all the land of Egypt, etc. And without your approbation, no man shall lift his hand or his foot in all the land of Egypt."

What does it all mean?

David

David:

Whatever the passuk means, do you see anything in it which means Yoseif had license to take grain or wagons give ownership of them to his family out of Egypt without fee?

B"H

Rob,

Perhaps Yoseph, indeed, had no authority to take wagons or chariots out of Egypt and to send them to the land of Canaan without Pharaoh's permission. Doing so would seem to have required the prior approval of the king himself, as we clearly see later. But giving grain away without Pharaoh's consent seemed to have been within his scope of power. How do we see this? Later, when the Egyptians came to Pharaoh and asked him for grain, he said to them: "Go to Yoseph, etc." Could Yoseph possibly have known in advance that Pharaoh gave him full authority to dispense of the grain in which ever way he should choose?

(At least its the same logic that you put forward with the wagons, and how that, in this particular case, sending them into another country would require Pharaoh's approval. Here, it clearly did not!)

David

quote:

he said to them: "Go to Yoseph, etc." Could Yoseph possibly have known in advance that Pharaoh gave him full authority to dispense of the grain in which ever way he should choose?

B"H David:

No! why should we assume that Yoseif was not stringent to always receive something in return of which Pharoah would approve?

Acquiring all the land of Egypt as government owned, or the servitude of the Egyptian people, were each acquisitions in return for getting grain and seeds.

Only in the case of the brothers does the Torah tell us that he returned their money, implying that the grain was disbursed without receiving payment of some kind.


And please note that the point regarding sending valuable food to Eretz Canaan comes from Ramban.

B"H

Rob,

Let us not forget that Ramban's explanation about Yoseph not being able to send valuable food to Eretz Canaan without Pharaoh's consent can only be understood in the context of the second visit of Yoseph's brothers, when Pharaoh learned about their visit. We still have no proof about the first visit.

You asked me: "Why should we assume that Yoseif was not stringent to always receive something in return of which Pharoah would approve?"

May I ask you the same question? Why should we assume that Pharaoh did not give him the authority to dispense of the grain in which ever way he should choose, even if it meant not receiving payment for it?

David

quote:

Let us not forget that Ramban's explanation about Yoseph not being able to send valuable food to Eretz Canaan without Pharaoh's consent can only be understood in the context of the second visit of Yoseph's brothers, when Pharaoh learned about their visit. We still have no proof about the first visit.

You asked me: "Why should we assume that Yoseif was not stringent to always receive something in return of which Pharoah would approve?"

May I ask you the same question? Why should we assume that Pharaoh did not give him the authority to dispense of the grain in which ever way he should choose, even if it meant not receiving payment for it?

B"H

David:

To answer whether you can ask me... I have 2 responses:

First, yes, but only if you first answer my question with why you think, given all that we know about proper conduct to 1) avoid the appearance of personal gain, 2) the Mesillas Yesharim's strong views on the most minute theft, 3) Pharoah's recognition of Yoseif's righteousness as explained by the Ramban you quoted back, and 4) Yoseif's statement about why he could not send grain out of Egypt also per Ramban...

How it is you can even conceive of Yoseif sending grain without payment on either the first or second trip given 1) personal benefit of feeding his family, 2) appearance of theft, 3) righteousness, and 4) possible inference by the Egyptian masses that grain would be sent out below wholesale cost to be sold at full retail value, with all profits acruing to Yoseif's secret accounts outside of Egypt...

5) Particularly since they may have read (or were about to write!) antisemitic books about how Jews control the world and exert undo influence on world economies and politics.

B"H

Rob,

The Rabbis teach us that only two things were withheld from Yoseph: 1) the throne; 2) Pharaoh's wife.

It can, thereby, be inferred that the grain stored in Egypt was just as much the property of Yoseph, as it was Pharaoh's. Therefore, there can be no theft in Yoseph giving it away.

As for Yoseph's righteousness, as he is, indeed, called "Yoseph Ha-Tzadik," (Yoseph the Just), this name has been given unto him more on account of his not recompensing evil for evil when he was ill-treated by his brothers. In kabbalistic circles, this name reflects Yoseph's strong will to shun promiscuous pleasures, as in the case of Photiphera's wife. He was called a "Tzadik" because he knew how to control his passions, particularly in "shemiras habris."

David

quote:

The Rabbis teach us that only two things were withheld from Yoseph: 1) the throne; 2) Pharaoh's wife.

It can, thereby, be inferred that the grain stored in Egypt was just as much the property of Yoseph, as it was Pharaoh's. Therefore, there can be no theft in Yoseph giving it away.

As for Yoseph's righteousness, as he is, indeed, called "Yoseph Ha-Tzadik," (Yoseph the Just),

B"H

David,

Yes, that is a great argument!

However, just because something is tolerated, or arguably included in the list of everything else which was permitted, it does not mean that Yoseif would act beneath his own dignity to utilize it.

For example, lets take your own reasoning...

Does this mean that per Egyptian standards, both Mrs. Potiphar herself and Mr. Potiphar's favorite chair were available for Yoseif to take as his own?

Clearly they are just as included as the grain within your accounting of everything other than Pharoah's throne and Pharoah's wife!

And similarly, in which side of the accounting balance would you count the wagons?

Thus, just as we know that Yoseif would not, and in fact did not, take of at least two of those three, we can prove that Yoseif MIGHT not have taken of the grain for his own benefit even if it was permissible for him to do so.

I would go further to say that based on Pharoah's subsequent command on the wagons, and Ramban's comment about building personal wealth outside of Egypt, and extrapolating with the nature of worldwide antisemitism propensity to suspician...

That in fact Pharoah knew that Yoseif would not come any where near the limit of what he was allowed to do, and

Yoseif knew that Hashem and Pharoah and the Egyptian people (as well as his own dignity) had another limit in mind for him.

And thus he would not ever want to go beyond any of those unspoken limits either.

Perhaps for a regular person he might be in violation of the mitzvah to enjoy that which Hashem has created for us to enjoy to purposely avoid something that is good and permissible, but for Yoseif HaTzadik I think it is understandable and commendable to ensure that he avoids the spector of going beyond ANY line.