Who Sold Yosef/2/en

Who Sold Yosef?

Exegetical Approaches

Overview

The story of Yosef's sale focuses on the actions of two brothers – Reuven and Yehuda, and four groups of foreign nationals – Yishmaelites, Midianites, Medanites, and Egyptians. Commentators disagree about the internal relationships among both the brothers and the foreign parties, and the extent of the interaction between them. This has significant consequences for reconstructing the sequence of events in this episode as well as evaluating the brothers' character.

Bereshit Rabbah views the brothers as acting in unison to sell Yosef, with Reuven being the lone holdout. It also maintains that there were numerous unrelated groups of foreigners and multiple transactions, with the brothers' sale to the Yishmaelites being merely the first in a series. In contrast, R. Yosef Bekhor Shor portrays the brothers as divided between the two factions of Reuven and Yehuda, and the foreign nationals as all being part of the same caravan. According to him, half of the brothers sold Yosef to the foreign conglomerate which then proceeded to take him to Egypt. Finally, Rashbam presents all of the brothers including Reuven as one entity which was not responsible for Yosef's sale. He posits that the transaction was instead conducted between the different foreign groups themselves.

All of the Brothers (Except for Reuven) Sold Yosef

Yosef's brothers were the ones who sold him, but Reuven was elsewhere when the sale occurred.¹

Sources: Bereshit Rabbah84:884:15Vilna 84:19Albeck 84:1984:22About Bereshit Rabbah,² Tanchuma (Buber)Vayeshev 13About Tanchuma (Buber),³ Targum Pseudo-JonathanBereshit 37:28-29About Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, RashiBereshit 37:3Bereshit 37:28Bereshit 37:29About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki,⁴ Ibn EzraBereshit 37:25Bereshit 37:28About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, R. TamMS Dresden 399About R. Tam, RadakBereshit 37:28About R. David Kimchi, R. Avraham b. HaRambamBereshit 37:28About R. Avraham Maimonides, RambanBereshit 37:25About R. Moshe Nachmanides, Ma'asei HashemMa'asei Avot 35About R. Eliezer Ashkenazi

"וַיִּמְשְׁכוּ, וַיַּעֲלוּ... וַיִּמְכְּרוּ" – This approach subdivides into differing interpretations of how these three verbs relate to the Midianites who were introduced at the beginning of the verse ("וַיַּעַבְרוּ אֲנָשִׁים מִדְיָנִים סֹחֲרִים"):

• According to Rashi, all three verbs are unconnected to the Midianites, but rather refer back to the brothers who were the subject of the previous verses. The brothers pulled and raised Yosef from the pit and then sold him to the Yishmaelites precisely as they had planned. This position, though, is problematic, as the mention of the Midianites at the beginning of the verse becomes seemingly irrelevant and out of place.⁵
• In contrast, the Ma'asei Hashem⁶ suggests that though the brothers are the ones who sold Yosef to the Yishmaelites, it was the Midianites, playing the role of porters and intermediaries in the sale, who pulled him out of the pit. This proposal easily explains the mention of the Midianites in the first clause of the verse, as they are the subject of what follows.

Yishmaelites and Midianites

• Separate and equal – Bereshit Rabbah understands these to be two totally separate groups of merchants.⁷ The Yishmaelites bought Yosef from the brothers, and the Midianites subsequently bought him from the Yishmaelites and then marketed him in Egypt.⁸
• Separate but unequal – R. Tam and the Ma'asei Hashem also view them as two distinct groups, but suggest that the Midianites played the role of middlemen in facilitating the sale of Yosef by the brothers to the Yishmaelites.⁹
• Same caravan – On the other hand, Ibn Ezra,¹⁰ R. Avraham b. HaRambam, and Ramban maintain, that they were part of the same caravan.
  • Ibn Ezra asserts that these are simply two names for one group of people,¹¹ but does not explain why sometimes they are referred to in one way and sometimes in another.
  • Ramban, in contrast, suggests that the Yishmaelites were the camel drivers¹² while the Midianites were the slave owners.¹³
  • R. Avraham b. HaRambam's position is some place in the middle as he proposes that both the Yishmaelites and Midianites were distinct members of the caravan, but maintains that their names are sometimes interchanged as they shared a common lineage and features.¹⁴

Midianites and Medanites

• Distinct – It appears¹⁵ that Bereshit Rabbah understands them to be two different groups. R. Avraham b. HaRambam also maintains that they were two distinct peoples, but says they were part of the same caravan.
• Identical – Most of the medieval commentators¹⁶ identify the Midianites and Medanites with one another.¹⁷

How many sales?

• Two – Most of these commentators maintain that there were only two sales: by the brothers to the caravan of Yishmaelites¹⁸ and by the Yishmaelites to Potiphar.
• Three – Tanchuma (Buber)¹⁹ and Rashi on Bereshit 37:28²⁰ assert that there were was a total of three sales: Yosef's brothers sold him to the Yishmaelites, the Yishmaelites sold him to the Medanites or Midianites,²¹ and the Medanites or Midianites sold him to Potiphar.
• Four or five – R. Yudan and R. Chona in Bereshit Rabbah84:22About Bereshit Rabbah take the extreme position that Yosef was sold four or five times, with every (or almost every) group mentioned in the story participating in the series of transactions.²²

Reuven's surprise – Rashi asserts that Reuven was not with the brothers during the sale, and hence was surprised when he returned to the pit to find Yosef missing. Rashi suggests that Reuven was either busy atoning for his sin with Bilhah (Bereshit 35:22),²³ or that he had returned home to serve his father.²⁴ Radak, though, suggests that Reuven had simply gone to graze his sheep in a different location²⁵ when the plan to sell Yosef was hatched and implemented.

The cover-up – This position might suggest that the brothers first conceived of a cover-up only after Reuven returned, because their real goal was simply to ensure that Reuven did not get into trouble. Alternatively, only after seeing his distress did they realize how upset their father would be.

"וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ אֶחָיו" – In response to Yehuda's proposal to sell Yosef, the verse tells us that "the brothers heard." Rashi maintains that this implies consent.²⁶

"וְאָחִיו מֵת" – Rashi suggests that when Yehuda says this to Yosef, he is lying, fearful of telling the vizier of Egypt that his brother had been sold.²⁷

"אֲנִי יוֹסֵף אֲחִיכֶם אֲשֶׁר מְכַרְתֶּם אֹתִי מִצְרָיְמָה" – At face value, this verse reflects Yosef's belief that his brothers were the party which sold him, and it supports this approach.

Only Some of the Brothers Sold Yosef

One group of Yosef's brothers (led by Yehuda) sold Yosef, while another group of the brothers (headed by Reuven) were not present and did not participate.

Sources: R. Yosef Bekhor ShorBereshit 37:25-30About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor

Reuven out to lunch – According to R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, the brothers dined in shifts.²⁸ While Yehuda's group ate lunch ("וַיֵּשְׁבוּ לֶאֱכָל לֶחֶם"), Reuven's group was tending to the sheep.²⁹ Thus, Reuven and his entire group of brothers were completely unaware of both Yehuda's proposal and the sale itself.³⁰

"וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ אֶחָיו" – According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, this term implies not just hearing and consent, but also implementation ("ויעשו כן") of Yehuda's plan.

"וַיִּמְשְׁכוּ, וַיַּעֲלוּ... וַיִּמְכְּרוּ" – Yehuda and his contingent of brothers are the subject of the verb "וַיִּמְכְּרוּ". It is unclear, though, whether the brothers also raised and pulled Yosef out of the pit, or if the buyers did that.³¹

"אֲנִי יוֹסֵף אֲחִיכֶם אֲשֶׁר מְכַרְתֶּם אֹתִי מִצְרָיְמָה" – R"Y Bekhor Shor proves from this verse that the brothers were responsible for the sale.

Yishmaelites, Midianites, and Medanites – R"Y Bekhor Shor suggests that these three groups were all traveling together in one caravan, as they were related to each other, all being descendants of Avraham's concubines, Hagar and Keturah. As they were essentially all part of one broader population, the different names are used interchangeably in the text.³²

How many sales? Yosef was sold only twice. The brothers sold him to the combined Yishmaelite / Midianite / Medanite caravan, who then resold him to Potiphar.

"וְאָחִיו מֵת" – R"Y Bekhor Shor does not comment on this verse, but he could maintain, like Rashi above, that Yehuda was simply lying, or that he thought Yosef was as good as dead.

Why Yosef never sent to Yaakov?³³ R"Y Bekhor Shor explains that when the brothers sold Yosef, they forced him to take an oath that he would never reveal his identity or communicate with Yaakov.³⁴

None of the Brothers Sold Yosef

While Yosef's brothers planned on selling him, they never actually succeeded in doing so, as the Midianites preempted them by abducting Yosef from the pit.

Sources: RashbamBereshit 37:28Bereshit 37:36Bereshit 42:21Bereshit 42:28Bereshit 45:24About R. Shemuel b. Meir,³⁵ R. Yehuda HeChasidBereshit 37:28Moshav Zekeinim Bereshit 37:28About R. Yehuda HeChasid,³⁶ ChizkuniBereshit 37:28About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach, R. Azariah FigoBinah LaIttim 57About R. Azariah Figo, Shadal's cousin and ShadalBereshit 37:28Bereshit 37:29Bereshit 37:36Bereshit 42:22About R. S.D. Luzzatto, MalbimBereshit 37:27-29Bereshit 37:36About R. Meir Leibush Weiser

"וַיִּמְשְׁכוּ, וַיַּעֲלוּ... וַיִּמְכְּרוּ" – According to this approach, the subject of all three of these verbs is the Midianites, as they are the direct antecedent in the first part of the verse ("וַיַּעַבְרוּ אֲנָשִׁים מִדְיָנִים סֹחֲרִים").‎³⁷

The original plan

• According to most of these commentators, the brothers intended to sell Yosef to the Yishmaelites, but their plans were foiled when the Midianites beat them to it.³⁸
• R. Azariah Figo and Malbim, however, go a step further. They suggest that Yehuda never intended for the brothers themselves to sell Yosef. Rather, he persuades his brothers to leave the vicinity of the pit so that the Yishmaelites would find the abandoned Yosef and, of their own initiative, sell him as a slave.³⁹

"וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ אֶחָיו" – Shadal's cousin and Malbim interpret literally that all⁴⁰ of the brothers agreed, but did not yet act on their plan.

Reuven's surprise – According to Shadal and Malbim, Reuven is with the brothers when they plan the sale, but hastily returns to the pit to save Yosef before the plan could be implemented, only to find the pit empty. Reuven is thus not the last, but rather the first, to discover that Yosef is missing.⁴¹ When he returns to his brothers, they are just as astonished as he is,⁴² and they all conclude that Yosef must have been devoured by a wild animal.

"וְאָחִיו מֵת" – Yehuda's later statement is readily understandable in light of the fact that the brothers truly believed that Yosef had died. Additionally, Shadal notes that Reuven's words, "וְגַם דָּמוֹ הִנֵּה נִדְרָשׁ", can be understood similarly.

No cover-up – The plans for what to tell Yaakov are discussed only after Reuven's discovery because until then none of the brothers were aware that Yosef was missing. Chizkuni adds that, as the brothers themselves believed that a wild animal consumed Yosef, their dipping of Yosef's tunic in blood was not intended to deceive Yaakov (but was merely an attempt to give him closure).⁴³

No search for Yosef – Chizkuni and Shadal's cousin explain that although the brothers regretted their intended actions and tried to console Yaakov, they did not search for Yosef, because it was a foregone conclusion that he was dead.⁴⁴

Yosef's brothers' character – Shadal's cousin explicitly states that taking this approach mitigates the brothers' sin – "כי בני יעקב שבטי יה אשר בחר לסגולתו אינם רשעים מתכונת נפשם הרעה", and transforms it into a temporary lapse for which they immediately repented: "ואף אם ברגע קטון חטאו מסיבת הקנאה והשנאה, כי הלא דרך אנוש למעול, אינם עומדים ח"ו במרדם, וקל מהרה יכירו חטאם וינחמו על כל אשר עשו, ויטרחו בכל יכלתם להינקות ממנו". Others have also suggested that this approach may be motivated by anti-Christian polemics.⁴⁵

Yishmaelites, Midianites, and Medanites – This approach assumes that the Midianites and Yishmaelites are two distinct groups of people, with the Midianites being the original salesmen and the Yishmaelites the original purchasers.⁴⁶ The approach subdivides, though, regarding the relationship of the Medanites to these two groups:

• Rashbam and Shadal's cousin identify the Medanites as the Yishmaelites, with Shadal's cousin suggesting that all of the sons of Avraham (besides Yitzchak's line) can be referred to as Yishmaelites. This is how they eliminate the contradiction between 37:36 and 39:1.
• Shadal and Malbim, in contrast, identify the Medanites with the Midianites. They propose that 37:36 is not saying that the Medanites physically brought Yosef to Egypt (as that would contradict 39:1), but simply trying to suggest that they were the main cause of Yosef's going to Egypt, as they were the ones who originally drew him from the pit.⁴⁷

How many sales? According to this approach, there were only two sales. The Midianites stole Yosef from the pit and sold him to the Yishmaelites who, in turn, sold him to Potiphar.

"אֲנִי יוֹסֵף אֲחִיכֶם אֲשֶׁר מְכַרְתֶּם אֹתִי מִצְרָיְמָה" – Rashbam explains that while the brothers did not actually sell Yosef, since their actions resulted in his sale, it is considered as if they sold him.⁴⁸ Shadal's cousin adds that it is also possible that Yosef himself mistakenly assumed that the brothers had sold him to the Midianites who had then proceeded to claim their purchase from the well.⁴⁹

"כִּי גֻנֹּב גֻּנַּבְתִּי מֵאֶרֶץ הָעִבְרִים" – Shadal's cousin reads these words of Yosef as a reference to the Midianites stealing him from the pit. Shadal, though, thinks that Yosef is referring to his brothers stealing him from Yaakov, and that this statement merely reflects Yosef's own erroneous assumption that his brothers had sold him.

Why Yosef never sent to Yaakov? R"Y Bekhor Shor notes that Rashbam's approach has the greatest difficulty explaining why Yosef did not send to his father, given the fact that he had not even been sold by his brothers.⁵⁰

¹ Binyamin was also not present, as he was much younger and at home with Yaakov.

² There are conflicting textual witnesses as to whether Bereshit Rabbah 84:8 and 84:22 read "מדיינים" or "מדנים", and this has important ramifications for understanding its position. See also below for the similar question regarding the text of Rashi.

³ See also the slightly clearer version of the Tanchuma cited by R. Elyakim in Minchat YehudaBereshit 37:28About R. Yehuda b. Elazar.

⁴ A precise reconstruction of the details of Rashi's position depends in great part on establishing the correct text of his comments on 37:3 and 37:28 (see above for the similar question regarding the text of Bereshit Rabbah), and determining the relationship between these seemingly contradictory interpretations – see also the notes below. Most printed editions read "מדינים" in the text of Rashi on both 37:3 and 37:28. Accordingly, it is possible that Rashi 37:3 (like Rashi 37:28) refers to only three groups, with the "סוחרים" and "מדינים" being two names for the same people. However, MS Leipzig 1 reads "מדנים" in the text of Rashi on both verses, and see also the discussion in Minchat YehudaBereshit 37:28About R. Yehuda b. Elazar. According to this version, the "סוחרים" and "מדנים" would be two different groups, and Rashi's two interpretations would appear to be based on two conflicting Midrashim (Bereshit Rabbah and Tanchuma) and incompatible with each other.

⁵ See Daat ZekeinimBereshit 37:28About Daat Zekeinim, who assumes that the Midianites and Medanites are the same group of people. On this backdrop, he suggests that it is necessary to introduce the Midianites now so the reader will not be surprised in 37:36, where we find out that the Medanites (rather than the expected Yishmaelites) were the ones who sold Yosef to Potiphar. Alternatively, according to MS Leipzig 1 version which reads "מדנים", Rashi may maintain that the Midianites are the same as the Yishmaelites, and that the names are used interchangeably.

⁶ This might also be the opinion of R. Tam. He, too, understands the role of the Midianites as intermediaries in the sale, but he does not deal explicitly with the question of who pulled Yosef from the pit.

⁷ Whether this is also Rashi's position may depend on the conflicting versions of Rashi's text – see the note above. According to most printed versions which read "מדינים" in Rashi's texts, Rashi clearly adopts this position of Bereshit Rabbah. However, according to the version in MS Leipzig 1 which reads "מדנים", it is unclear whether the Midianites might be identical to either the Yishmaelites or Medanites.

⁸ R. E. Mizrachi points out that this approach does not resolve the contradiction between 37:36 which states that the Medanites sold Yosef to Potiphar, and 39:1 which refers instead to the Yishmaelites.

⁹ This position thus resolves the contradiction between 37:27-28 and 37:29 by postulating that the Midianites are mentioned due to their secondary role as intermediaries, even though they are not one of the main parties. See the note below that one could similarly eliminate the discrepancy between 37:36 and 39:1 by explaining that the Medanites were the middlemen in the second sale of Yosef to Potiphar.

¹⁰ Radak follows Ibn Ezra's lead.

¹¹ As proof, he points to Shofetim 8:24 where Gideon calls the Midianites, "Yishmaelites". Radak follows suit, noting that the families of Avraham's various descendants had mingled through marriage. Cf. Ramban, though, who explains the verse differently, suggesting that the term "Yishmaelites" there refers not to the kings of Midyan but to the "people of the East" who joined them in the battle.

¹² Ramban notes that "הַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים אֲשֶׁר הוֹרִדֻהוּ שָׁמָּה" (Bereshit 39:1) implies that the Yishmaelites' main responsibility was providing the transportation.

¹³ He, too, does not explain why the Torah would want to distinguish between them, sometimes mentioning the drivers and sometimes the owners. See Ma'asei Hashem who raises this question and others on Ramban's approach. Ramban, though, does bring other Biblical examples which attribute the same action to both the primary mover and the secondary tool or messenger. Cf. R. Yehuda HeChasid and Shadal below regarding Bereshit 45:4.

¹⁴ Both share the status of being Avraham's (rejected) descendants.

¹⁵ This depends, in part, on the differing textual witnesses – see the note above.

¹⁶ See the notes above regarding the text of Rashi. According to the versions which read "מדינים", Rashi does not mention the Medanites at all, and it would appear that he identifies them with the Midianites (or, possibly, with the Yishmaelites). For the versions which read "מדנים", Rashi's position is unclear.

Ibn Ezra is silent on the matter, but his identification of the Midianites with the Yishmaelites leads the reader to assume that he would include the Medanites in the equation as well. Radak, who adopts much of Ibn Ezra's position, explicitly states that the Yishmaelites, Midianites and Medanites are just three different names for the same group of people.

¹⁷ None of them relate to the fact that Bereshit 25:2 lists them as separate sons of Keturah. The position taken by R. Tam and the Ma'asei Hashem could easily have suggested that the two are in fact distinct, and that the brothers used the Midianites as intermediaries while the Yishmaelites later used the Medanites for the same function.

¹⁸ See above for the various roles assigned to the Midianites/Medanites according to these exegetes.

¹⁹ See the note above regarding the version cited by Minchat Yehuda.

²⁰ See, though, Rashi on Bereshit 37:3 where he seems to contradict himself, stating that Yosef was sold to four groups: to Potiphar, the traders ("סֹחֲרִים"), the Yishmaelites, and the Medanites or Midianites (see the note above regarding the text of Rashi). [This earlier comment of Rashi is citing Bereshit Rabbah84:8About Bereshit Rabbah which reads the word "פַּסִּים" as an acronym for the groups who caused trouble for Yosef (this Midrash does not speak of the number of sales).] See Minchat YehudaBereshit 37:28About R. Yehuda b. Elazar who attempts to resolve this contradiction in Rashi. See also the note above which presents two possible understandings of Rashi.

²¹ See above regarding the textual variants.

²² See also the variation of this approach found in Daat ZekeinimBereshit 37:28About Daat Zekeinim.

²³ This position seems to be motivated by a play on the word "וַיָּשָׁב" which can connote either a physical or spiritual return, and Reuven's absence from the brothers' meal which might suggest that he had been fasting.

²⁴ This option is difficult given the geographic distance between Dotan and Chevron, but it is possible that Rashi was unaware of this fact, not being familiar with the geography of the land of Israel. Interestingly, only Rashi's first possibility appears in the Vilna edition of Bereshit Rabbah on this verse. It is possible that the text might be corrupt, as it mentions the existence of two opinions, but only brings one. Moreover, Bereshit Rabbah Albeck 84 does indeed bring both possibilities (and compare also Pesikta DeRav Kahana, Shuvah 24:9). Nevertheless, it is not clear if this is Rashi's source, for it speaks of Reuven dealing with all the burdens of the house, while Rashi's language of serving his father is much more similar to that found in Bereshit Rabbah (Vilna) 84:15.

²⁵ Cf. R. Yosef Bekhor ShorBereshit 37:25-30About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor below.

²⁶ Rashi could have posited that it also connotes implementation. Cf. R. Yosef Bekhor ShorBereshit 37:25-30About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor below.

²⁷ Some of the Tosafists (see R"C Paltiel and R. Ephraim) prefer not to have the brothers lie, and suggest instead that since a slave is considered as a dead person, Yehuda was in fact telling the truth.

²⁸ R"Y Bekhor Shor states that this is the general custom of all shepherds.

²⁹ Bereshit 37:25, though, simply states that "they" gathered to eat, giving no indication that it refers to only half of the brothers.

³⁰ R"Y Bekhor Shor rejects the approach of Bereshit Rabbah and Rashi above that, in the interim, Reuven had gone home to tend to Yaakov, noting that the distance was much too far for him to go back and forth so quickly.

³¹ R"Y Bekhor Shor could explain that the Midianites are mentioned in the beginning of the verse either because they are the subject of the pulling and raising of Yosef or because they are being introduced as having arrived, leading the brothers to begin the transaction.

³² He compares this to Tanakh's use of various names to refer to Israel: יהודים,‎ עבריים,‎ ישראל, and ישורון. See the similar approach of Radak and R. Avraham b. HaRambam above. It is nonetheless perplexing why the text employs different names within a single verse.

³³ R"Y Bekhor Shor is the first medieval commentator to grapple with this question. He also notes that according to Rashbam's approach below that the brothers did not sell Yosef, it is strange that Yosef would never have sent to his father.

³⁴ R"Y Bekhor Shor's answer (see also his comments to Bereshit 42:7 and 45:16) bears resemblance to that of the Tanchuma Vayeshev 2 (and see Oxford-Bodley MS 156 of that Tanchuma). For elaboration, see Why Didn't Yosef Send to Yaakov? and Why Did Yosef Frame Binyamin?.

³⁵ Rashbam is the first exegete to suggest that this is what actually transpired. However, the notion that the brothers were uninvolved in the sale is found already in the Testament of Benjamin which presents this as the white lie that Yosef related to Binyamin and instructed his brothers to tell Yaakov. See also the account of Artapanus cited by Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 23.

³⁶ This is the position recorded by his son. The Moshav Zekeinim cites a somewhat different version which integrates an additional element that the Yishmaelites and Midianites had a dispute over their competing claims to Yosef, and they compromised and jointly sold him in Egypt.

³⁷ Rashbam also argues that "וַיַּעַבְרוּ" implies that the Midianites happened to chance by the pit, and not they were sent to do so as part of the terms of the transaction. This claim requires further examination.

³⁸ R. Yehuda HeChasid has the brothers already engaged in negotiating the transaction with the Yishmaelites when the Midianites found Yosef on their own and removed him from the pit. Rashbam and Shadal, in contrast, suggest that the brothers were eating at a distance from the pit, waiting for the Yishmaelite caravan which they saw in the distance to arrive, when the Midianites kidnapped Yosef. See R. Menachem Leibtag's article where he analyzes the location of the brothers vis-à-vis the ancient trade routes to prove how the brothers would likely have seen the caravan from afar, and that they would have needed to bring Yosef about 10 kilometers north to meet the caravan, as it would not have passed in their immediate vicinity (this last point is also noted by Shadal's cousin). He contends that the brothers assumed that they had ample time to eat at a distance from the pit before going to retrieve Yosef in order to sell him. They had no way of knowing that, in the meantime, the Midianites would discover Yosef and abduct him.

³⁹ They suggest that Yehuda's opening word "לְכוּ" is not a call to action, but a literal command of "Go, leave!". In addition, they interpret the words of "וְיָדֵנוּ אַל תְּהִי בוֹ" as disavowing not just the possibility of physically harming Yosef, but even the possibility of being actively involved in his sale. See also below for their interpretation of "וְנִמְכְּרֶנּוּ לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים".

⁴⁰ Reuven pretended to agree, fearing that otherwise his plan to save Yosef would be found out.

⁴¹ This is aptly formulated by R. Menachem Leibtag in his article cited above.

⁴² Shadal's cousin notes that had they in fact sold him, one would have expected them to simply explain to Reuven what they had done. Instead, their silence conveys that they are just as bewildered as Reuven.

⁴³ Shadal's cousin notes that the only element of deception is that they want Yaakov to believe that Yosef was attacked before he reached his brothers, rather than after.

⁴⁴ Chizkuni and Shadal note that this would also account for why the brothers did not recognize Yosef when they came down to Egypt.

⁴⁵ See E. Touitou, in his article in פרקי נחמה (Jerusalem, 2001): 230-231, who advances the theory that Rashbam was motivated by a desire to combat the Christian view of the story as prefiguring Judas (Yehuda) Iscariot's betrayal of Jesus for thirty pieces of silver (cf. the Testament of Gad 2:3-4 which has the brothers selling Yosef for thirty shekel, of which ten were hidden). It should be noted, though, that in contrast to later Tosafists whose point of departure is a reflexive need to defend the brothers ("...כיון שהיו צדיקים"), Rashbam formulates his position as motivated by the simple reading of the text "עומק דרך פשוטו של מקרא" and makes no evaluation of the brothers' character. He also explicitly acknowledges that the brothers' actions led to the sale.

⁴⁶ Shadal's cousin adds that the Midianites of verse 28 had to be a distinct group from the Yishmaelites, or there would not be two parties to the original sale. He suggests that the verse thus specifies that they are "סֹחֲרִים" ("merchants") to clue in the reader that they are not part of the Yishmaelite caravan.

⁴⁷ This is also how R"Y Bekhor Shor understood this approach. R"Y Bekhor Shor, though, rejects this interpretation since 37:36 not only speaks of Yosef being brought down to Egypt, but also specifies that he was sold to Potiphar.

⁴⁸ R. Yehuda HeChasid and Shadal bring a number of additional cases where actions are attributed to someone who was only an indirect cause. [See also R. Bachya who references the verse in Shemuel II 12:9: "וְאֹתוֹ הָרַגְתָּ בְּחֶרֶב בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן" and cf. Ramban above regarding the Yishmaelites and Midianites.] R. Azariah Figo and Malbim explain similarly, and go a step further by attempting to claim that Yehuda's words "וְנִמְכְּרֶנּוּ לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים" also meant that the brothers only cause Yosef's sale, but not actually sell him.

⁴⁹ This is also the option favored by Shadal himself.

⁵⁰ Shadal above would answer that Yosef himself mistakenly thought that the brothers had sold him, and was unaware that they were uninvolved.