Yosef's Economic Policies/2

Yosef's Economic Policies

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

undefined

Positive Aspects of Yosef's Character

The details of Yosef's economic policies help the reader better appreciate the character of Yosef, revealing both his intense care for his family and his wisdom in dealing with the Egyptian crisis.

Sources:PhiloOn Joseph, 43About Philo, Talmud BavliChulin 60bAbout the Bavli, RashiBereshit 47:17,19,21About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, RadakBereshit 46:3-4Bereshit 47:14,15,21About R. David Kimchi, RambanBereshit 47:14-19About R. Moshe Nachmanides, RalbagBereshit 47:21-27Bereshit 47Toalot 6-8About R. Levi b. Gershon, Ma'asei HashemMa'asei Avot 42About R. Eliezer Ashkenazi, Keli YekarBereshit 47:21,27About Keli Yekar, Or HaChayyimBereshit 47:15,23,25About R. Chayyim b. Atar, ShadalBereshit 47:18,21About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, R. S"R HirschBereshit 47:21,22,26About R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, NetzivBereshit 47:14,18,20,21,23About R. Naftali Z"Y Berlin

What is special about Yosef? These commentators differ regarding which attributes of Yosef they think emerge from the episode:

• Honesty – Many commentators¹ suggest that the story highlights Yosef's honesty and loyalty to Paroh.  The verse emphasizes that "וַיָּבֵא יוֹסֵף אֶת הַכֶּסֶף בֵּיתָה פַרְעֹה" to show that he took nothing for himself.²  All he did was aimed at enriching Paroh, and not at increasing his own power.³
• Concern for family – Bavli Chulin, Rashi, Keli Yekar and Or HaChayyim suggest that Yosef's strategy of population displacement served to help ease his family's immigration.⁴  It ensured that they were not singled out as foreigners since the entire country had similarly been displaced⁵ and impoverished.⁶  Ma'asei Hashem and Netziv add that the policy freed up Goshen, providing the family with a sheltered place to live that might prevent their assimilation.⁷
• Wisdom and Concern for Egyptians – Yosef, in his wisdom, recognized that harsh measures were necessary in order to ensure an adequate food supply without the raiding, corruption, and anarchy⁸ which often accompany the stress of famine.⁹  Yosef, though, tried to ease the necessary hardship in several ways, and as such succeeded in finding favor in the Egyptians' eyes:¹⁰

• R. Shemuel b. Chofni Gaon maintains that Yosef offered to buy the Egyptians' cattle so they would no longer have to feed them.
• Shadal, R. Hirsch, and Netziv assert that when displacing the people, Yosef made sure to move the Egyptians as groups together (city by city) so they could still maintain social ties.
• According to Ramban, even though the people offered themselves as slaves, Yosef did not accept their offer and bought their land but not their bodies.¹¹

Did Yosef enslave the Egyptians? Ramban¹² asserts that Yosef did not take the Egyptians as slaves but rather as tenant farmers.¹³  Moreover, he suggests that the terms were better than expected, for only a fifth was to go to the landlord.¹⁴

"וְאֶת הָעָם הֶעֱבִיר אֹתוֹ לֶעָרִים" – why?

• According to many of these exegetes,¹⁵ the population transfer served to concretize the fact that all land belonged to Paroh.¹⁶

• The others suggest that making everyone foreigners meant that the Israelites would not be treated as such.  In addition, the exodus from Goshen opened it for settlement by Yosef's family.

"וַיִּקְבֹּץ אֶת כָּל אֹכֶל שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים" – Ramban raises the possibility that when Yosef initially "gathered" food during the years of plenty, he did so by buying it.  If so, Yosef emerges as a crafty business man, buying cheaply when demand is low and selling it at a vast profit when demand was high. It also means that Yosef was not extorting the people, and forcing them to pay exorbitantly for what was rightfully theirs to begin with.

Mention of the Israelite's proliferation – This position might suggest that the proliferation is mentioned to highlight Yosef's success in caring for his family.  His policies accomplished his goal, and helped turn his family into a nation to be reckoned with.

"וַיָּבֹאוּ אֵלָיו בַּשָּׁנָה הַשֵּׁנִית" – When does the story take  place? These commentators differ regarding the timing of the episode:

• Second year of famine – Rashi, Ma'asei Hashem, and Netziv assume that the Egyptians' request takes place in the second year of the famine.¹⁷ This position is consistent with these commentators' assumption that some of Yosef's policies were aimed at easing his family's move to Egypt.
• Seventh year of famine – Radak, Ramban, and Shadal assert that the verse refers to the second year after the Egyptians' money ran out, which was in the seventh year of the famine.¹⁸ The later dating is compatible with these exegetes' understanding that the story focuses on Yosef's honesty and the success of his policies.

Two-fold mention of priestly exemption

• According to Ralbag, the "כהנים" are not cultic priests but important officers.¹⁹  Their exemption was an effort to keep the elite pleased so as to prevent rebellion.  Ralbag sees this as another example of Yosef's wise strategies.²⁰
• Others might suggest that the verses are purposefully drawing a parallel between the priests and Israelites to show how Yosef succeeded in raising his family to that same status.

What happened to Canaan? Most of these commentators do not address the repeated mention of the impoverishment of Canaan²¹ and do not comment on the level of its devastation.²²

Hashem's promise: "וְיוֹסֵף יָשִׁית יָדוֹ עַל עֵינֶיךָ" – According to Radak, Hashem's words "וְיוֹסֵף יָשִׁית יָדוֹ עַל עֵינֶיךָ" were a promise that Yosef would care for the family in Egypt, which Yosef took pains to do.  Netziv, instead, suggests that Yaakov's greatest fear in going to Egypt was lest his sons assimilate.  Hashem calmed him be telling him that Yosef would find them a place to live apart from the surrounding Egyptians.²³

Evaluation of Yosef's actions – This position views Yosef's actions favorably, trying to see the positive aspects of all his policies.

Backdrop to Israelite Bondage

The story lays the background for the Egyptian enslavement of the Israelites.  Yosef's enslaving of the Egyptians later led to a backlash against his family who had been spared the severe policy.

Sources:R. Yosef Bekhor ShorBereshit 47:21Shemot 1:11About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, modern exegetes²⁴

Did Yosef enslave the Egyptians? According to these commentators, Yosef enslaved the Egyptian populace, a policy which they later resented.

"וְאֶת הָעָם הֶעֱבִיר אֹתוֹ לֶעָרִים" – Why? The displacement ensured that all recognized that the land now belonged to Paroh.  Severing the people's ties to their land made it less likely that they would rebel in order to retrieve it.

"וַיִּקְבֹּץ אֶת כָּל אֹכֶל שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים" – This approach might suggest that Yosef gathered the food during the years of plenty without compensation.  If so, being forced to pay for what had originally belonged to them might have led to bitterness on the part of the Egyptians.

Contrast between Egyptians and Israelites – T. Granot and D. Sabato²⁵ note that the verses set up a series of contrasts between the fate of the Egyptians and that of Yaakov's family.  These likely contributed to feelings of jealousy:

• Food – While Yosef provided for his family so that they would have "לֶחֶם לְפִי הַטָּף", in Egypt there was no bread, "וְלֶחֶם אֵין בְּכָל הָאָרֶץ".
• Land – The story is framed by the fact that Yaakov and sons are given an "אֲחֻזָּה", enabling them to settle comfortably in Goshen.  In the middle, though, all of Egypt loses their individual claims to the land.²⁶ In essence, the foreigners become settlers while the settlers become foreigners.
• Cattle – Yosef's family bring their cattle with them, and are provided with pasture land for them to graze.  The Egyptians, in contrast, are all forced to sell their cattle to Yosef so as to acquire food for themselves.

Mention of the Israelite's proliferation

• This approach might suggest that this fact also serves to contrast the two nations.  The Egyptians were on the verge of death while the Israelites were bearing progeny.
• T. Granot and D. Sabato, instead, relate the description here to the similar depiction of proliferation mentioned in Shemot 1. The Torah's shared language connects the two stories to suggest that the overt hatred of the Egyptians in Shemot began already with this episode.

"וַיָּבֹאוּ אֵלָיו בַּשָּׁנָה הַשֵּׁנִית" – When does the story take place? These commentators do not take a position on the question.  The story might be happening in parallel to the events of the previous chapters (in the first two years of the famine, when Yosef reunites with his family) or they might be a continuation and occur towards the end of the famine.  Either reading is compatible with this overall approach.

Two-fold mention of priestly exemption – D. Sabato suggests that mention of the priestly exemption highlights the Israelite's similar circumstances, setting both groups apart from lay Egyptians.

What happened to Canaan? This position does not relate to the issue.

Evaluation of Yosef's actions

• Error in judgement – M. Pava²⁷ and T. Granot view Yosef's harsh treatment of the Egyptians and favoring of his own family more as an error in judgement than a flaw in character.  Though Yosef's intentions were good, his actions led to resentment and moreover set a precedent for a totalitarian society in which national bondage is tolerated, thus paving the way for the Israelite enslavement.
• Unethical – D. Sabato evaluates Yosef more negatively.  He points to several later commandments that stand in opposition to Yosef's actions, suggesting that the Torah questions their morality:²⁸ 
• Land of Paroh/Hashem – Thus, while Yosef worked so that "וַתְּהִי הָאָרֶץ לְפַרְעֹה", giving Paroh divine-like control, the Torah states that land can never be sold permanently, for it belongs to Hashem "". 
• Slaves to Paroh/Hashem – The Egyptian people became "עֲבָדִים לְפַרְעֹה" while the Torah emphasizes Hashem's role in freeing the Children of Israel and forbids eternal bondage to another human, "". 
• Preferential treatment of priests – Whereas the priestly exemption allowed them to maintain their land, Israelite priests are not given an inheritance at all.  They are not above the people, but meant to serve the public.
• A fifth versus a tithe – Finally, Yosef commands the people to give a fifth of their produce to Paroh, to remind them that all they eat really belongs to him.  The Torah instead commands the nation to give a tithe to Hashem,²⁹ to remind them that all stems from God. 

Cause of Prolonged Stay

The harsh conditions of the famine, highlighted in this episode, explain why Yaakov's family did not simply return to Canaan immediately, but rather stayed on foreign soil.

What happened to Canaan? This position focuses on the three-fold mention of Canaan's shared impoverishment (in verses 13-15), suggesting that it comes to emphasize the extent to which Canaan was affected by the famine.  Just as Egypt was devastated, so too were the surrounding countries.  Even after the famine, Canaan was likely in ruins, with its economy collapsed.

Was Yaakov's family originally intending to stay? This approach would suggest that had it not been for the economic situation, the family would have returned to Israel right after the famine.  Only because there was nothing to return to, did they stay in Egypt longer.

Hashem's promise: "וְיוֹסֵף יָשִׁית יָדוֹ עַל עֵינֶיךָ" – This position might maintain, like Radak above, that Hashem promised Yaakov that Yosef would care for them during the famine and afterwards, knowing that it would not be easy to return immediately to Canaan.

"אָנֹכִי אֵרֵד עִמְּךָ מִצְרַיְמָה וְאָנֹכִי אַעַלְךָ גַם עָלֹה" – Hashem, in His omniscience, might have been referring to redeeming the nation after the years of enslavement.  Yaakov, though, might have understood this to refer to his own family's return, or at least his own burial.

Enslavement and population transfer – This approach would suggest that all the details regarding the enslavement and displacement  of the Egyptians contribute to the portrait of the famine's severity.

Mention of the Israelite's proliferation – This point might highlight how the family's original plans to simply sojourn in the land³⁰ turned into a more permanent settlement ("וַיֵּשֶׁב יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם"), with the initial seventy persons multiplying over the years.

"וַיָּבֹאוּ אֵלָיו בַּשָּׁנָה הַשֵּׁנִית" – When does the story take place? This approach might suggest, like Radak and Ramban above, that the story takes place in the later years of the famine and that it describes the effects of seven years worth of devastation.

Two-fold mention of priestly exemption

Evaluation of Yosef's actions – This position evaluates Yosef neutrally, neither blaming nor lauding his actions.

¹ See Philo, R. Avraham b. HaRambam, Radak, Ramban, Ibn Kaspi, Ralbag and Netziv.

² By bringing all the income to Paroh's house rather than storing it by him, Yosef ensured that no one could even suspect him of taking anything for personal gain.

³ Ralbag adds that Yosef also made sure to feed his family "לֶחֶם לְפִי הַטָּף" but no more.  He did not take advantage of his position to give them above and beyond their needs.

⁴ See also more recently, T. Granot, "מנהיגותו של יוסף במצרים", available here.

⁵ The Keli Yakar points out that after being foreigners themselves, the Egyptians would be able to empathize with real foreigners and treat the Israelites with compassion.

⁶ Or HaChayyim adds that Yosef's impoverishing of the Egyptians ensured that his family would seem wealthy in contrast and thus be honored by their neighbors.

⁷ This is consistent with Netziv's repeated emphasis throughout this story and the beginning of Shemot on the importance of the nation living alone.  He lauds Yosef for trying to prevent their assimilation and points out that it is only after his death that the nation leaves the confines of Goshen.  This mingling with Egyptian society, he claims, is one of the reasons that the enslavement eventually begins.

⁸ See Or HaChayyim who suggests that for this reason Yosef opened the storehouses of grain at the beginning of the famine (Bereshit 41:56). He wanted to show the people how much food there was so as to calm their nerves.

⁹ See A. Israel's article, "Joseph's Economic Strategy" where he elaborates on this idea.  R. Medan also points out that the Egyptians did not resent Yosef's measures, but appreciated their necessity, telling Yosef, "הֶחֱיִתָנוּ".

¹⁰ See Ramban who writes, "סיפר הכתוב זה וגמר הענין בכל הפרשה להודיע מעלות יוסף בחכמה בתבונה ובדעת... ומצא בזה חן גם כן בעיני העם ".  According to him, one of the points of including the story is to show Yosef's successes and, thus, the realization of his dreams.  See also Josephus who contrasts Yosef's wisdom with the ignorance of the masses who did not "make the least provisions for themselves, so ignorant were they what was to be done."

¹¹ Netziv explains that this would benefit both Paroh and the people. Had they actually become slaves to Paroh, he would have been responsible for their food, whether or not they actually worked the land. In becoming tenant farmers, they needed to labor for their own food, and thus had an incentive to work hard.

¹² Netziv follows his explanation.

¹³ As evidence Ramban points to Yosef's response to the nation's request that he buy them as slaves.  The verse states, "וַיִּקֶן יוֹסֵף אֶת כָּל אַדְמַת מִצְרַיִם לְפַרְעֹה", mentioning only that Yosef bought the Egyptians' land, but not their physical bodies.  Later, though, Yosef tells the people, "הֵן קָנִיתִי אֶתְכֶם הַיּוֹם וְאֶת אַדְמַתְכֶם לְפַרְעֹה".  Ramban explains that this means that he bought them only insofar as they were to work the land; or in other terms, he hired them to work the land.  Meshekh Chokhmah instead points to the fact that Yosef says "הַיּוֹם", meaning that he hired them as day laborers. The Netziv explains similarly, suggesting that the word "הַיּוֹם" refers to a temporary situation.

¹⁴ See Josephus who goes a step further to suggest that at the end of the famine, Yosef returned all the land he had bought for Paroh back to the original owners.

¹⁵ See Rashi, R. Shemuel b. Chofni Gaon, Radak, Ralbag, and R. Hirsch.

¹⁶ As long as people still lived on and worked their land, they would feel attached to it and not be readily cognizant of the fact that it no longer was theirs.  Moreover, they would be likely to desire and demand it back.  R. Shemuel b. Chofni Gaon compares the policy to Sancheriv similar population transfers, the point of which was to sever a nation's ties to their land to prevent rebellions.

¹⁷ According to them, this chapter overlaps with the preceding ones. The Biblical text portrays the same time period from two perspectives, first focusing on Yosef and his family and then on Yosef and the Egyptians.

¹⁸ Radak and Ramban question how all the money could have run out in only two years of famine, leading them to this alternative chronology.  Shadal is instead motivated by the fact that Yosef gives the nation seed to sow, which would only make sense if the famine was ending. [According to Rashi, following Tosefta Sota 10:9, the famine ended after the second year due to Yaakov's arrival.]
According to this reading of the story, the Biblical text is totally chronological and this story does not overlap with the previous chapters but instead follows them.  This is consistent with Ramban's general tendency to claim that Tanakh is written chronologically.

¹⁹ He points To Shemuel II 8:18 where David's sons are referred to as "כהנים".

²⁰ It is still not clear, though, why this point needed to be so emphasized.

²¹ Ramban is one exception, suggesting that the Egyptians told Paroh that since there was no more money even in Canaan, no outsiders were coming to buy the stored grain, so there was no reason that Yosef should not sell it to them.

²² Radak mentions in passing that they managed to go to other places besides Egypt to get food, but does not elaborate.  Netziv suggests that in contrast to Egypt, in Canaan it was at least possible to get very poor quality food, fit more for animal consumption, but still edible.

²³ Each of these commentators is consistent with his understanding of Yosef's aims in his economic policies.

²⁴ See U. Simon, "יוסף משעבד את המצרים לפרעה" in בקש שלום ורדפהו, (Tel Aviv, 2002): 86-90, available here, T. Granot, "מנהיגותו של יוסף במצרים" available here and D. Sabato, "ותהי הארץ לפרעה - שורשו של שעבוד מצרים", Megadim 42 (2011): 41-59 .  These scholars all view the later enslavement as stemming from Egyptian resentment towards Yosef's favoring of his family.  See, in contrast, M. Pava, "Joseph and the Use of Inside Information: An Exploration of the Joseph Narrative", Torah u-Madda Journal 4 (1993): 134-147, who claims that Yosef's enslavement set a precedent of national bondage and gave Paroh totalitarian authority, both of which ensured that Paroh's later policy would not be opposed.  He does not mention, though, any element of jealousy.

²⁵ See the article cited in above note. 

²⁶ See above that according to Maasei Hashem and Netziv, it was the very policy of population displacement that emptied Goshen to enable the Israelites to live there.

²⁷ See article cited in above note.

²⁸ See N. Leibowitz, Iyyunim BeSefer Bereshit, (Jerusalem, 1992):378-379 who points to the same parallels.  She does not suggest, though, that this is an implicit negative evaluation of Yosef.  Rarther, she asserts that the Torah is mocking the Egyptian practices and highlighting Hashem's very different morality.  According to her, this contrast is the reason the story is included in Tanakh.

²⁹ It should be noted too, that Hashem only claims a tithe, while Paroh had taken an entire fifth.

³⁰ see Yaakov's words to Paroh, "לָגוּר בָּאָרֶץ בָּאנוּ".