Parsha: Vayeshev
Genesis 37:1-40:1-23
Haftarah: Amos 2:6-3:8
Saturday, December 5, 2026
Your Instructor
Jewish Learning by Kimberly D
Genesis 37:1-40:1-23
Daily Reading Schedule:
Sunday November 29, 2026: Genesis 37:1-11
Monday November 30, 2026: Genesis 37:12-22
Tuesday December 1, 2026: Genesis 37:23-36
Wednesday December 2, 2026: Genesis 38:1-30
Thursday December 3, 2026: Genesis 39:1-6
Friday December 4, 2026: Genesis 39:7-23
Saturday December 5, 2026: All of the above Plus Genesis 40:1-23 AND
maf: Genesis 40:20-23
Haftarah: Amos 2:6-3:8
Talmudic References:
Explore key discussions and cross-references from the Talmud that provide profound depth to the themes of Parsha Bereshit.
1
Sanhedrin
Daf Reference: 10b:7
(Reference for Genesis 37:3)
Shabbat 10b:7
And Rava bar Meḥasseya said that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said that Rav said: A person should never distinguish one of his sons from among the other sons by giving him preferential treatment. As, due to the weight of two sela of fine wool [meilat] that Jacob gave to Joseph, beyond what he gave the rest of his sons, in making him the striped coat, his brothers became jealous of him and the matter unfolded and our forefathers descended to Egypt.
2
Niddah
Daf Reference: 28a:9
(Reference for Genesis 38:28)
Niddah 28a:9
§ Rav Huna says: If a fetus extended its hand out of the womb and then returned it, its mother is impure with the impurity of a woman after childbirth. This is considered childbirth, as it is stated with regard to Tamar, Judah’s daughter-in-law: “And it happened when she gave birth that one put out a hand…and it happened that as he drew back his hand, his brother came out” (Genesis 38:28–29). Evidently, the fetus extending out its hand was considered childbirth, despite the fact that it subsequently drew back the hand.
3
Sotah
Daf Reference: 9a:8
(Reference for Genesis 40:13)
Sotah 9a:8
Is that so? But didn’t Rava say: Why are there specifically three cups of misfortune that are stated with regard to Egypt in the dream of its chief butler (see Genesis 40:11–13)? They are an allusion to three cups of misfortune that would later befall Egypt: One that it drank in the days of Moses during the ten plagues and the Exodus; one that it drank in the days of Pharaoh Neco, the king of Egypt who was defeated by Nebuchadnezzar; and one that it will drink in the future with its companions, i.e., the other nations, when they are punished during the days of the Messiah. This indicates that nations can be punished several times, not only when they are eradicated.
Commentaries from our Sages:
01
Ramban on Genesis 38:26:1-2
(Reference for Genesis 38:26)
Ramban on Genesis 38:26
צָדְקָה מִמֶּנִּי צָדְקָה בִּדְבָרֶיהָ, מִמֶּנִּי הִיא מְעֻבֶּרֶת. וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ דָּרְשׁוּ (סוטה י) שֶׁיָּצְאָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה, מִמֶּנִּי וּמֵאִתִּי יָצְאוּ הַדְּבָרִים, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י (רש"י על בראשית ל"ח:כ"ו). וְהַנָּכוֹן שֶׁהוּא כְּמוֹ "צַדִּיקִים וְטוֹבִים מִמֶּנּוּ" (מלכים א ב לב), "וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל דָּוִד צַדִּיק אַתָּה מִמֶּנִּי כִּי אַתָּה גְּמַלְתַּנִי הַטּוֹבָה וַאֲנִי גְּמַלְתִּיךָ הָרָעָה" (שמואל א כד יז), צָדְקָה בְּמַעֲשֶׂיהָ יוֹתֵר מִמֶּנִּי, כִּי הִיא הַצַּדֶּקֶת וַאֲנִי הַחוֹטֵא אֵלֶיהָ שֶׁלֹּא נְתַתִּיהָ לְשֵׁלָה בְנִי. וְהַטַּעַם כִּי שֵׁלָה הוּא הַיָּבָם, וְאִם לֹא יַחְפֹּץ לָקַחַת אֶת יְבִמְתּוֹ אָבִיו הוּא הַגּוֹאֵל אַחֲרָיו, כַּאֲשֶׁר פֵּרַשְׁתִּי לְמַעְלָה (רמב"ן על בראשית ל"ח:ח') בְּדִין הַיִּבּוּם:
SHE IS RIGHTEOUS FROM ME. “She is righteous in her words. From me is she with child. Our Rabbis expounded that a bath kol (a Divine voice) came forth and said the word mimeni, i.e., ‘From Me and from My authority did these events unfold.’” This is Rashi’s language.
The correct interpretation is that it is similar to the verses: Men more righteous and better than he; And he [Saul] said to David, Thou art more righteous than I; for thou hast rendered unto me good, whereas I have rendered unto thee evil. Here too the meaning is: “She is more righteous than I, for she acted righteously and I am the one who sinned against her by not giving her my son Shelah.” The purport of the statement is that Shelah was the brother-in-law, [hence he was the first designated to marry her], and if he did not wish to take her as his wife, his father is next in line to act as the redeemer, as I have explained above when I discussed the law of marrying a childless brother’s widow.
וְלֹא יָסַף עוֹד לְדַעְתָּה אַחֲרֵי שֶׁהֵקִים זֶרַע לְבָנָיו לֹא רָצָה לִהְיוֹת עִמָּהּ עוֹד, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיָה בִּרְצוֹנוֹ, כִּי אֵינֶנָּה אֲסוּרָה עָלָיו וְהָיְתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ כְּמִשְׁפַּט הַיְּבָמִים. וְזֶה טַעַם הָאוֹמֵר (סוטה י) לֹא פָּסַק, כְּתִיב הָכָא "וְלֹא יָסַף", וּכְתִיב הָתָם (דברים ה יט) "קוֹל גָּדוֹל וְלֹא יָסָף":
AND HE KNEW HER AGAIN NO MORE (‘v’lo yasaph’). After having established progeny for his children, he did not wish to be with her again even though this was dependent upon his wish as she was not forbidden to him, being, in fact, considered as his wife, as is the law when the widow of a childless man has relations with a relative. This is the reason for the explanation given by a certain Sage, who explains the verse as saying, “And he did not cease to know her,” since here the expression used is, v’lo yasaph, and elsewhere it is written, A great voice ‘v’lo yasaph’.
02
Rashi on Genesis 39:1:1
(Reference for Genesis 39:1)
Rashi on Genesis 39:1
ויוסף הורד. חוֹזֵר לְעִנְיָן רִאשׁוֹן, אֶלָּא שֶׁהִפְסִיק בּוֹ כְּדֵי לִסְמֹךְ יְרִידָתוֹ שֶׁל יְהוּדָה לִמְכִירָתוֹ שֶׁל יוֹסֵף לוֹמַר שֶׁבִּשְׁבִילוֹ הוֹרִידוּהוּ מִגְּדֻלָּתוֹ, וְעוֹד כְּדֵי לִסְמֹךְ מַעֲשֵׂה אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל פּוֹטִיפַר לְמַעֲשֵׂה תָמָר לוֹמַר לְךָ, מַה זּוֹ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם אַף זוֹ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, שֶׁרָאֲתָה בְאִצְטְרוֹלוֹגִין שֶׁלָּהּ שֶׁעֲתִידָה לְהַעֲמִיד בָּנִים מִמֶּנּוּ, וְאֵינָהּ יוֹדַעַת אִם מִמֶּנָּה אִם מִבִּתָּהּ:
AND JOSEPH WAS BROUGHT DOWN — It (Scripture) now reverts to the original subject (and consequently it states ויוסף הורד “Joseph had been brought down to Egypt” before the events last mentioned); it interrupted it only in order to connect the account of the degradation of Judah (Genesis 38:1) with that of the sale of Joseph, thus suggesting that it was on account of him (i.e. Joseph — Judah’s part in the sale of Joseph — ) that they (his brothers) degraded him from his high position.
A further reason why this narrative of Judah and Tamar is interpolated here is to place in juxtaposition the story of Potiphar’s wife and the story of Tamar, suggesting that just as this woman (Tamar) acted out of pure motives so also the other (Potiphar’s wife) acted out of pure motives, for she foresaw by her astrological speculations that she was destined to be the ancestress of children by him (Joseph) — but she did not know whether these children were to be hers or her daughter’s (Genesis Rabbah 85:2).
03
Ramban on Genesis 40:8:1-2
(Reference for Genesis 40:8)
Ramban on Genesis 40:8
וְטַעַם וּפוֹתֵר אֵין אוֹתוֹ אֵין מוֹדִיעַ הֶעָתִיד מִמֶּנּוּ. וְיִתָּכֵן שֶׁשָּׁלְחוּ לִקְצָת הַחַרְטֻמִּים בַּבֹּקֶר, אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ אֲנָשִׁים עִמָּהֶם בְּבֵית הַסֹּהַר וְאֵין פּוֹתֵר אוֹתוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ וְאֵין בָּעוֹלָם פּוֹתֵר אוֹתוֹ כְּפִי דַּעְתֵּנוּ, כִּי נֶעֱלָם הוּא מְאֹד:
AND THERE IS NO INTERPRETER OF IT. The meaning thereof is that “there is no one to inform us concerning the future which can be derived from the dream.”
It is possible that they sent for some magicians in the morning, or that there were people with them in the prison, but no one could interpret it. It may be that they said; “There is no one in the world, in our opinion, who can interpret it, for it is very obscure.”
הֲלוֹא לֶאֱלֹהִים פִּתְרֹנִים פֵּרֵשׁ רַבִּי אַבְרָהָם (אבן עזרא על בראשית מ':ח') כִּי יֹאמַר כִּי הַמִּקְרִים הָעֲתִידִים לָבֹא בַּחֲלוֹמוֹת לֵאלֹהִים הֵם, כִּי הוּא לְבַדּוֹ הַמַּחֲלִים וְהַמּוֹדִיעַ הֶעָתִיד וְהוּא הָעוֹשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם וּבוֹרֵא רָע, וְאֵין בְּדִבּוּרִי לָכֶם תּוֹעֶלֶת אוֹ הֶפְסֵד. וְזֶה אָמַר שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲנִישׁוּהוּ אִם תָּבֹא לָהֶם רָעָה, אוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּסַפְּרוּ אוֹתָם אֵלָיו וְלֹא יִבְזוּהוּ. וְאִם כֵּן אֵין לְמִלַּת "הֲלֹא" בָּזֶה טַעַם. וְאוּלַי יִהְיֶה פֵּרוּשׁוֹ כְּמוֹ "הִנֵּה", יֹאמַר הִנֵּה לֵאלֹהִים לְבַדּוֹ הַפִּתְרוֹנִים וְלֹא לָאָדָם הַפּוֹתֵר. וְהַנָּכוֹן בְּעֵינַי כִּי אָמַר הֲלֹא לֵאלֹהִים פִּתְרוֹנִים בְּכָל הַחֲלוֹמוֹת הַנֶּעֱלָמִים וְהַסְּתוּמִים, וְהוּא יָכוֹל לְהוֹדִיעַ פִּתְרוֹן חֲלוֹמְכֶם, וְאִם הוּא נֶעֱלָם בְּעֵינֵיכֶם, סַפְּרוּ נָא לִי, אוּלַי יִישַׁר בְּעֵינָיו לְגַלּוֹת סוֹדוֹ אֵלַי:
DO NOT (‘HALO’) INTERPRETATIONS BELONG TO G-D? Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained it as saying that “future events destined to come as indicated in dreams belong to G-d, for He alone brings on the dream and lets the future be known, and it is He who makes peace, and creates evil, but in my speaking to you there is neither benefit nor loss.” This he said so that they should not punish him if evil should befall them, or so that they should tell him the dreams and not scorn him.
But if so, there is no sense for the word halo (do not) in this context. Perhaps its meaning is the same as that of the word hinei (behold). Thus Joseph is saying, “Behold, to G-d alone belong interpretations, but not to man the interpreter.”
In my opinion the correct interpretation is that Joseph is saying; “Do not interpretations of all dreams which are obscure and confined belong to G-d? He can make known the interpretation of your dreams. Now if it is obscure to you tell it to me; perhaps He will be pleased to reveal His secret to me.”