Yosef's Economic Policies

Exegetical Approaches

Overview

Exegetes vary both in how they explain the presence of this episode in the Torah and in how they evaluate Yosef's economic policies.  The vast majority of commentators suggest that the story reveals positive attributes of Yosef.  Rashi and others focus on how his actions eased his family's immigration, while Ramban and others look to the wisdom of his strategies and how they aided both Paroh and the Egyptian people.

However, many modern scholars, following R"Y Bekhor Shor, view the very same actions from the opposite perspective, suggesting that Yosef's policies were overly harsh, and that his favoritism toward his family backfired, ultimately paving the way for the Egyptian enslavement of the Children of Israel.  A third approach adopts a neutral view of Yosef and suggests that the story was included, not for what it teaches about Yosef, but for what it reveals about the dire economic situation in Canaan and how that led to a much longer than anticipated Israelite sojourn in Egypt.

Positive Aspects of Yosef's Character

The details of Yosef's economic policies help the reader better appreciate the nobility of his character, by demonstrating his concern for his family's welfare and/or his wisdom in managing the Egyptian crisis.

Sources:PhiloOn Joseph, 43About Philo, Talmud BavliChulin 60bAbout the Bavli, R. Shemuel b. Chofni GaonBereshit 47:16,18,21About R. Shemuel b. Chofni Gaon, 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 b. Nachman, RalbagBereshit 47:21-27Bereshit 47Toalot 6-8About R. Levi b. Gershom, Ma'asei HashemMa'asei Avot 42About R. Eliezer Ashkenazi, Keli YekarBereshit 47:21,27About R. Shelomo Ephraim Lunshitz, 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:

• Concern for family – Bavli Chulin, Rashi, Keli Yekar, and Or HaChayyim suggest that Yosef's policy of population displacement eased the difficulties inherent in his family's immigration.¹  Since the entire country had similarly been displaced² and impoverished,³ the Israelites did not stand out.  The Ma'asei Hashem and the Netziv add that the policy cleared Goshen of its inhabitants, providing Yosef's family with an isolated area in which to live so as to reduce the danger of their assimilation.⁴
• Wisdom and Concern for Egyptians – Yosef, in his wisdom, recognized that austerity measures were necessary in order to ensure an adequate food supply without the raiding, corruption, and anarchy⁵ which often accompanied the stress of famine.⁶  Yosef, though, tried to ease the necessary hardship in several ways, and thereby succeeded in finding favor in the eyes of the Egyptian populace:
• R. Shemuel b. Chofni Gaon maintains that Yosef offered to buy the Egyptians' cattle so they would no longer need to feed them.
• Shadal, R. Hirsch, and the Netziv assert that when displacing the people, Yosef made sure to move the Egyptians in large groups (city by city) so that their social ties remained intact.
• According to Ramban, even though the people offered themselves as slaves, Yosef did not accept their offer, but rather bought only their land and not their bodies.⁷

• Honesty – Many commentators⁸ suggest that the story highlights Yosef's honesty and loyalty to Paroh.  The verse emphasizes that "וַיָּבֵא יוֹסֵף אֶת הַכֶּסֶף בֵּיתָה פַרְעֹה" to underscore that he took nothing for himself.⁹  Everything Yosef did was intended solely for the benefit of the king, and not to enrich himself.¹⁰

Did Yosef enslave the Egyptians? Ramban¹¹ asserts that Yosef did not acquire the Egyptians as slaves, but rather only as tenant farmers.¹²  Moreover, he suggests that the terms were better than expected, as only a fifth was to go to the landlord.¹³

"וְאֶת הָעָם הֶעֱבִיר אֹתוֹ לֶעָרִים" – why?

• According to many of these exegetes,¹⁴ the population transfer served to concretize the fact that all of the land belonged to Paroh.¹⁵

• 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 up rather than by expropriating it by royal fiat.¹⁶  Thus, later on, Yosef was not charging the Egyptians exorbitant prices for food which was rightfully theirs.  Rather, Yosef emerges as a shrewd entrepreneur, buying low when the market was inundated with produce, and selling at high profit margins when supplies were limited.

"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 the 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.

Dual 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.

"וַיֵּאָחֲזוּ בָהּ וַיִּפְרוּ וַיִּרְבּוּ מְאֹד" – This position might suggest that the Israelites' proliferation is mentioned to emphasize Yosef's success in caring for his family.  His policies accomplished his goal, and helped transform his family into a strong nation.

Impoverishment of Canaan – Most of these commentators do not address the need for 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 were a promise that Yosef would care for the family in Egypt.  Alternatively, Netziv suggests that Yaakov's greatest fear in going to Egypt was that his progeny might assimilate.  Hashem thus reassured him that Yosef would find them a place to live apart from the Egyptians.²³

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

Backdrop to Israelite Bondage

The story lays the foundation for the Egyptian enslavement of the Israelites.  Yosef's enslaving of the Egyptians led to a later backlash against his family who had been spared from the effects of his harsh policies.

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

Did Yosef enslave the Egyptians? According to these commentators, Yosef enslaved the Egyptian populace, a policy which naturally bred resentment.

"וְאֶת הָעָם הֶעֱבִיר אֹתוֹ לֶעָרִים" – Why? The population displacement ensured that all recognized that the land now belonged to Paroh.  Severing the people's ties to their land and social structures made it less likely that they would rebel.²⁵

"וַיִּקְבֹּץ אֶת כָּל אֹכֶל שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים" – This approach might suggest that Yosef gathered the food during the years of plenty without compensating the Egyptian farmers.²⁶  If so, being forced to pay for what had originally belonged to them might easily have led to bitterness on the part of the Egyptians.

Contrast between Egyptians and Israelites – T. Granot and D. Sabato²⁷ note that the verses set up a series of contrasts between the fate of the Egyptians and that of Yaakov's family.  Yosef's nepotism 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 giving of an "אֲחֻזָּה" to Yaakov and his sons, enabling them to settle comfortably in Goshen.  In contrast, the main section of the story describes how the Egyptians lose their ownership of the land.²⁸ In essence, the foreigners become settlers, while the original settlers become foreigners.
• Cattle – Yosef's family bring their cattle with them, and are provided with grazing lands in addition to food.  The Egyptians, in contrast, are all forced to sell their cattle to Yosef so as to acquire food for themselves.

"וַיֵּאָחֲזוּ בָהּ וַיִּפְרוּ וַיִּרְבּוּ מְאֹד"

• This approach might suggest that the mention of the Israelites' proliferation also serves to contrast the two nations.  The Egyptians were on the verge of death while the Israelites were rapidly multiplying.
• T. Granot and D. Sabato, instead, relate the description here to the similar depiction of proliferation mentioned in Shemot 1. They contend that the shared language between these two stories suggests 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 occurring simultaneously with the events of the previous chapters (i.e. during 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.

Dual mention of priestly exemption – D. Sabato suggests that the mention of the priestly exemption highlights the Israelites' similar dispensation, setting both groups apart from lay Egyptians.

Impoverishment of Canaan – These commentators do not explain the Torah's emphasis of this aspect.

Evaluation of Yosef's actions

• Neutral –  R"Y Bekhor Shor does not cast any blame on Yosef.  His words are ambiguous but might suggest that the Egyptians simply used the Israelite exemption from taxation as an excuse to enslave them.
• Error in judgment – M. Pava²⁹ and T. Granot view Yosef's harsh treatment of the Egyptians and favoring of his own family more as an error in judgment than a flaw in character.  Although 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:³⁰ 
• Land of Paroh/Hashem – While Yosef worked to give Paroh total control over the land ("וַתְּהִי הָאָרֶץ לְפַרְעֹה"), the Torah states that land can never be sold permanently, for it belongs to Hashem ("כִּי לִי כָּל הָאָרֶץ").
• 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, "כִּי עֲבָדַי הֵם ".
• 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 tithe for Hashem and his servants,³¹ 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 remained on foreign soil.

What happened in 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 a collapsed economy.

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 immediately after the famine.³² Only because there was nothing to which to return, did they remain 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 of the details regarding the enslavement and displacement of the Egyptians contribute to the portrait of the famine's severity.

"וַיֵּאָחֲזוּ בָהּ וַיִּפְרוּ וַיִּרְבּוּ מְאֹד" – The mention of the Israelites' proliferation may highlight how the family's original plans to simply sojourn in the land³³ turned into a more permanent settlement, with the initial seventy person nucleus multiplying many times 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.

Dual mention of priestly exemption – These verses emphasize the totality of the famine's repercussions.  The Egyptian priests were the only ones who were unaffected.

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

¹ See also more recently, R. Tamir Granot, "מנהיגותו של יוסף במצרים", available here.

² The Keli Yekar points out that, after being foreigners themselves, the Egyptians would be able to empathize with real foreigners and treat the Israelites with compassion.

³ 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.

⁴ 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.

⁵ 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.

⁶ See R. Alex 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".

⁷ 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.

⁸ See Philo, R. Avraham b. HaRambam, Radak, Ramban, Ibn Kaspi, Ralbag, and Netziv.

⁹ 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.

¹⁰ 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 basic needs.

¹¹ Netziv follows his explanation.

¹² 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.  The 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.

¹³ 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.

¹⁴ See Rashi, R. Shemuel b. Chofni Gaon, Radak, Ralbag, and R. Hirsch.

¹⁵ 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 was no longer theirs.  Moreover, they would be likely to desire and demand it back.  R. Shemuel b. Chofni Gaon compares the policy to Sancheriv's similar population transfers, the point of which was to sever a nation's ties to its land to prevent rebellions.

¹⁶ See also Ibn Ezra Bereshit 41:34.

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, and this leads them to this alternative chronology.  Shadal is instead motivated by the fact that Yosef gives the nation seeds to sow, which would only make sense if the famine was ending. [According to Rashi, following Tosefta Sotah 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 completely chronological and this story does not overlap with the previous chapters but instead follows them.  This is consistent with Ramban's position that the Torah is generally in chronological order – see Ramban.

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 greatly 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, and there was thus 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, T. Granot, "מנהיגותו של יוסף במצרים", and D. Sabato, "ותהי הארץ לפרעה - שורשו של שעבוד מצרים", Megadim 52 (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 R. Shemuel b. Chofni Gaon above and Rashbam who note the parallel to the Assyrian policies of forced population transfers.

²⁶ See Rashbam who suggests that the reason Yosef needed to appoint officers to gather the grain was because he did so against the will of the Egyptians.

²⁷ See his article cited in above note.

²⁸ See above that according to the Ma'asei Hashem and Netziv, it was the very policy of population displacement that emptied Goshen to enable the Israelites to live there.

²⁹ See article cited in above note.

³⁰ See N. Leibowitz, Iyyunim BeSefer Bereshit, (Jerusalem, 1992): 378-379 who points to the same parallels.  However, she does not suggest that this is an implicit negative evaluation of Yosef.  Rather, 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 the Torah.

³¹ Taken together, the tithe given to the Levites and the tithe brought to Yerushalayim or given to the poor, constitute a fifth.

³² When Yosef initially tells his brothers to come live in Egypt, he mentions providing for them only during the five years of famine (Bereshit 45:11), perhaps assuming that they would return home shortly afterwards.

³³ See Yaakov's words to Paroh, "לָגוּר בָּאָרֶץ בָּאנוּ".