Interesting Girsa Variants from Sotah 13b on Joseph and Potiphar

Viewer discretion is advised.

I recently answered a question by a friend on Facebook. He asked:

וַתִּקְרָ֞א לְאַנְשֵׁ֣י בֵיתָ֗הּ וַתֹּ֤אמֶר לָהֶם֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר “רְא֗וּ הֵ֥בִיא לָ֛נוּ אִ֥ישׁ עִבְרִ֖י לְצַ֣חֶק בָּ֑נוּ בָּ֤א אֵלַי֙ לִשְׁכַּ֣ב עִמִּ֔י וָאֶקְרָ֖א בְּק֥וֹל גָּדֽוֹל׃”

What exactly is she accusing her husband of? Why lay blame on him rather than Yosef? (She says the same to her husband directly a few lines later).

If she were saying, in essence, "he brought this Hebrew slave home and he tried to rape me" I think we'd expect עינוי. But the term לצחק is associated with consensual sexual contact in the story of Yitzhak and Rivka. So what, according to Eshet Potifar, was her husband's plan?

Someone else responded that she was blaming her husband for causing this issue in the house, and that the question of consent vs. rape isn't really relevant here.

I noted that the Netziv sees her saying that Joseph's response to her showed that he can't sleep with her because she's the master's wife, but he was willing to sleep and flirt with anyone else in the house. So he came to "be a player", in our parlance. His words are the following:

לצחק בנו – הבינה מדברי יוסף טענות מיוחדות שאי אפשר לו למלא רצון אשת האדון בפרטות, מה שאין בזה טעם בשאר בני בית, וגם ראתה אותו יפה תואר שהוא סיבה עלולה לזנות, כדאיתא ביומא (לה,ב) ׳נאה הייתי וטרוד ביצרי׳, על כן חשבה שבאמת הוא רועה זונות ומפתה נשי הבית, משום הכי מצאה לב לומר להם בפשיטות ״לצחק בנו״, עד ש״בא אלי לשכב עמי״ — לפתות אותי שאתרצה לו.

I then noted that I could put two things together. Rashi on Genesis 41:45 says that Potiphar had bought Joseph to be his sex slave:

פוטיפרע – הוא פוטיפר, ונקרא שמו פוטיפר על שם שנסתרס מאיליו לפי שלקח את יוסף למשכב זכור.

So I thought, this idea could actually make the verse read very smoothly. "See what my husband had bought to be our sex slave (letzachek banu), but then he tried to force himself on me."

There are several disadvantages to this, the least of which is that this background is not in the text proper. But also that Potiphar bought him, seemingly, for his own pleasure, not for both him and his wife. But on the other hand, why not?

I also noticed that there are several textual issues with the Rashi on 41:45, and so decided to find his sources. The most immediate source Rashi drew from is in Sotah 13b. Here is how it is put there:

ויקנהו פוטיפר סריס פרעה אמר רב שקנאו לעצמו (בא גבריאל וסירסו) בא גבריאל ופירעו מעיקרא כתיב פוטיפר ולבסוף פוטיפרע

The continuation of that verse states: “And Potiphar, an officer [seris] of Pharaoh’s, the captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him from the hand of the Ishmaelites, who had brought him down there” (Genesis 39:1). Rav says: He purchased the handsome Joseph for himself, for the intended purpose of homosexual intercourse, but was unable to fulfill his desires, as the angel Gabriel came and castrated Potiphar [seireso]. Then Gabrielcame again and further mutilated him [fero] in the same part of his body. This is alluded to in the verses that write Potiphar’s name differently: Initially, it is written “Potiphar” (Genesis 39:1) and in the end it is written “Poti-phera” (Genesis 41:45). The change in his name indicates that a part of himself was mutilated.

As you can see, Rav/the Talmud holds back from saying exactly what Potiphar's intentions were in buying Joseph, except that it was "for himself," but his punishment was certainly harsh, and hindered his sexual capabilities. This easily lead Rashi on the Talmud to state:

לעצמו - למשכב זכור מתוך יופיו

But is it possible something else happened here? It is possible.

First, as we can see from the above passage, there is an issue just how many times he was mutilated, and also by which angels. Above the text itself indicates that it was only Gabriel, doing it once, maybe twice. But the Munich 95 manuscript states that Michael did the first, Gabriel did the second:

' רב שקנאו לעצמו בא מיכאל וסרסו בא גבריאל ופרעו כתי' פוטיפר וכת' פוטיפרע 

 But the Vatican 110-111 manuscript is more interesting. There, this same differentiation between Michael and Gabriel happen, but instead of saying Potiphar bought him for himself, it is pretty different:

אמ' רב שקנאו אדון לעצמו בא מיכאל וסירסו בא גבריאל ופירעו מעיקרא כת' פוטיפר ולבסוף פוטיפרע

 According to this text, again we have Michael and Gabriel taking turns (although I saw that others see just Michael acting here, and the Gabriel part should actually be changed to just Michael). I'll also not that all of these textual variants have angels doing this work, yet Rashi says that he became impotent "on his own," indicating Rashi had neither?

But, anyway, there's something more in this last text. Instead of "he (i.e. Potiphar) acquired him (Joseph) for himself (Potiphar)," it is "he (Potiphar) acquired him, a master (Joseph), for himself (Potiphar)." What does this mean?

It recalls a phrase from the Talmud Kiddushin 22a:

ת"ר כי טוב לו עמך עמך במאכל עמך במשתה שלא תהא אתה אוכל פת נקיה והוא אוכל פת קיבר אתה שותה יין ישן והוא שותה יין חדש אתה ישן על גבי מוכין והוא ישן על גבי תבן מכאן אמרו כל הקונה עבד עברי כקונה אדון לעצמו

The Sages taught: The verse states concerning a Hebrew slave: “Because he fares well with you,” which teaches that the slave should be with you, i.e., treated as your equal, in food, meaning that his food must be of the same quality as yours, and with you in drink. This means that there shall not be a situation in which you eat fine bread and he eats inferior bread, bread from coarse flour mixed with bran, which is low quality. There shall not be a situation in which you drink aged wine and he drinks inferior new wine.There shall not be a situation in which you sleep comfortably on bedding made from soft sheets and he sleeps on straw. From here the Sages stated: Anyone who acquires a Hebrew slave is considered like one who acquires a master for himself, because he must be careful that the slave’s living conditions are equal to his own.

Notice the end - "Anyone who acquires a Hebrew slave is like one who acquires a master for himself." The rabbis were saying that acquiring a Hebrew slave is more than its worth.

So, maybe we could suggest this girsa has that one in mind (perhaps indeed it shied away from implications of male rape when it comes to Joseph), and that Potiphar thought he was acquiring a slave, but actually acquired a master for himself, the result of which caused him to go impotent. That was more than the slave was worth, that's for sure.

Indeed, without Rashi, we could say that the other girsas have this in mind as well. Potiphar bought him to be a slave for him, but that did not end up happening as planned.

If so, we need to explain why angels made him impotent, and not only that, but abused him further. What was the point? Rashi fits well, that he had deviant sexual intentions, so the angels put a stop to that. But it is possible that סרס and פרע are actually referring to different things than "castration/impotent" and "mutilate." Sares could actually mean to switch around, or to make upside-down. So, according to this, the first angel helped Joseph by subverting the normal structure of the relationship, such that Joseph was actually the master of the house, and Potiphar was not, which made Potiphar's wife want to be with him. Then, at the end of the story, there is further "disarrangement," the alternative meaning of פרע, with Joseph becoming the second in command over Egypt and marrying Potiphar's daughter (after having been in prison for supposedly raping her mother!). Perhaps, even, Potiphar had to pay Joseph back for acquiring him into slavery, and perhaps he had to pay Joseph dowry for marrying his daughter! This is another definition of the word פרע. This is truly topsy-turvy.