1
וְיוֹסֵ֖ף הוּרַ֣ד מִצְרָ֑יְמָה וַיִּקְנֵ֡הוּ פּוֹטִיפַר֩ סְרִ֨יס פַּרְעֹ֜ה שַׂ֤ר הַטַּבָּחִים֙ אִ֣ישׁ מִצְרִ֔י מִיַּד֙ הַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר הוֹרִדֻ֖הוּ שָֽׁמָּה
And Joseph had been brought down to Egypt; and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, the chief of the slaughterers, an Egyptian man, bought him from the hand of the Ishmaelites who had brought him down there.
Joseph's descent resumes in the house of an Egyptian official, carrying forward the movement from betrayal into foreign servitude.
Word-by-word analysis· 16 words
וְיוֹסֵ֖ףand Josephconj וְ + proper noun · יוֹסֵף (H3130)Subject (topicalized, casus pendens before passive verb)יוֹסֵף (H3130); the resumed subject of Gen 37:36, fronted before the Hophal predicate to reestablish the narrative topic after the interlude of 37:36.
הוּרַ֣דhad been brought downHophal perf 3ms · יָרַד (H3381)Predicate verb (main clause, passive)→ Perfective: completed descent — Joseph's arrival in Egypt is a fait accompli at the story's openingיָרַד (H3381) 'to go down'; Hophal passive suppresses the agent, foregrounding Joseph's helplessness. The repeated descent root (cf. i=14) frames the verse with a double-descent motif.
מִצְרָ֑יְמָהto Egyptproper noun + directional ה · מִצְרַיִם (H4714)Directional adverbial (destination of the descent)מִצְרַיִם (H4714), dual form for Egypt (Upper and Lower); the directional ה specifies movement toward. Egypt will be the scene of testing, advancement, and divine providence throughout the Joseph cycle.
וַיִּקְנֵ֡הוּand bought himconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms + obj sfx 3ms · קָנָה (H7069)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (main clause)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — the commercial acquisition opens the new domestic episodeקָנָה (H7069) 'to buy, purchase, acquire'; Joseph enters Egyptian legal possession as property. The narrative will invert this status as divine favor elevates the purchased slave to household steward.
פּוֹטִיפַר֩Potipharproper noun · פּוֹטִיפַר (H6318)Subject of וַיִּקְנֵהוּפּוֹטִיפַר (H6318), Egyptian name possibly meaning 'he whom Ra has given'; identified immediately by two official titles establishing his authority and the elevated household into which Joseph enters.
סְרִ֨יסofficer ofN m sg cstr · סָרִיס (H5631)First appositional title (in construct with פַּרְעֹה)סָרִיס (H5631) 'court official, chamberlain'; in Egyptian administrative contexts this denotes a high-ranking royal courtier. Whether literal castration is implied here is disputed; the administrative sense governs.
פַּרְעֹ֜הof Pharaohproper noun · פַּרְעֹה (H6547)Genitival noun (governing the construct סְרִיס)פַּרְעֹה (H6547), Hebrew form of Egyptian pr-ʿȝ 'great house,' used as the title for the Egyptian king. Left unnamed throughout the Joseph cycle; the narrative focus remains on Joseph rather than the royal court.
שַׂ֤רcaptain ofN m sg cstr · שַׂר (H8269)Second appositional title (head of second construct chain)שַׂר (H8269) 'chief, captain, official'; in construct with הַטַּבָּחִים the phrase designates the commander of Pharaoh's executioners or elite bodyguard — a position whose attached prison will become the arena for Gen 40–41.
הַטַּבָּחִים֙the guardsart + N m pl abs · טַבָּח (H2876)Genitival noun (governed by construct שַׂר)טַבָּח (H2876) 'slaughterer, executioner, guardsman'; שַׂר הַטַּבָּחִים is an elite royal-court title. The role's proximity to the king will matter narratively when royal prisoners enter Potiphar's prison in Gen 40.
אִ֣ישׁa manN m sg abs · אִישׁ (H376)Appositive (further characterizing Potiphar by ethnicity)אִישׁ (H376) 'man, person'; used appositionally before the gentilic מִצְרִי to mark Potiphar's ethnic identity in contrast to the Hebrew Joseph who now enters his house.
מִצְרִ֔יEgyptiangentilic adj m sg abs · מִצְרִי (H4713)Attributive adjective (modifying אִישׁ, ethnic identification)מִצְרִי (H4713) 'Egyptian'; the ethnic marker emphasizes that Joseph now serves in a foreign household. YHWH's accompanying presence in v.2 will operate across this ethnic and cultural boundary.
מִיַּד֙from the hand ofprep מִן + N f sg cstr · יָד (H3027)Prepositional phrase of source (from whom Potiphar purchased)יָד (H3027) 'hand'; מִיַּד = 'from the hand of,' an idiom for transfer of legal custody. The spatial image of the hand — central to the chapter's theology of delegation — appears here first in a transaction of purchase.
הַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִ֔יםthe Ishmaelitesart + gentilic N m pl abs · יִשְׁמְעֵאלִי (H3459)Object of מִיַּד (the party from whom the purchase was made)יִשְׁמְעֵאלִי (H3459) 'Ishmaelite'; the traders who transported Joseph from the pit to Egypt (Gen 37:25–28), completing the chain of human agency that brought him southward under providential direction.
אֲשֶׁ֥רwhorelative pronoun · אֲשֶׁר (H834)Relative clause marker (linking הַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים to the following relative clause)אֲשֶׁר (H834), invariable Hebrew relative pronoun; introduces the relative clause specifying which Ishmaelites — those who had transported Joseph southward.
הוֹרִדֻ֖הוּhad brought him downHiphil perf 3cp + obj sfx 3ms · יָרַד (H3381)Predicate of relative clause→ Perfective: completed action — the Ishmaelites' transport of Joseph to Egypt is a settled prior factיָרַד (H3381) Hiphil 'to bring down, cause to descend'; this verb echoes the Hophal הוּרַד at the verse's opening, creating a double-descent frame: Joseph was brought down (passive) by those who had brought him down (active), completing his helpless relocation.
שָֽׁמָּהthereadv + directional ה · שָׁם (H8033)Locative adverb (specifying Egypt as the destination of the descent)שָׁם (H8033) 'there'; the directional form שָׁמָּה reinforces Egypt as the specific destination already named, rounding off the verse's geography and closing the chain of descent.
2
וַיְהִ֤י יְהוָה֙ אֶת יוֹסֵ֔ף וַיְהִ֖י אִ֣ישׁ מַצְלִ֑יחַ וַיְהִ֕י בְּבֵ֥ית אֲדֹנָ֖יו הַמִּצְרִֽי
And the LORD was with Joseph, and he became a prosperous man; and he was in the house of his Egyptian master.
Before the narrative develops socially, it states the controlling fact theologically: YHWH is with Joseph, and his prosperity arises within servitude rather than outside it.
Word-by-word analysis· 11 words
וַיְהִ֤יand wasQal wayyiqtol 3ms · הָיָה (H1961)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (first clause, theological premise)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — states the primary theological fact governing all subsequent prosperityהָיָה (H1961) 'to be'; the first of three wayyiqtol forms in this verse, each layering a new reality: (1) divine presence, (2) Joseph's prosperity, (3) his household location.
יְהוָה֙the LORDproper noun · יְהוָה (H3068)Subject of וַיְהִי (first clause)יְהוָה (H3068), the Tetragrammaton; its fronted position as subject before the comitative phrase sets divine presence as the chapter's controlling theological premise. All subsequent success is attributed to this accompanying presence.
אֶתwithprep · אֵת (H854)Comitative prepositionאֵת (H854) 'with, in company of' (distinct from the object marker H853); יְהוָה אֵת/עִם + person is the standing divine-presence formula in patriarchal narratives (cf. Gen 21:20; 26:3, 28), denoting active accompanying deity.
יוֹסֵ֔ףJosephproper noun · יוֹסֵף (H3130)Object of prep אֵת (the one with whom YHWH is present)יוֹסֵף (H3130); the juxtaposition יְהוָה אֵת יוֹסֵף is the theological hinge of the chapter: everything that follows — favor, advancement, resistance to temptation, prison success — unfolds from this premise.
וַיְהִ֖יand he becameQal wayyiqtol 3ms · הָיָה (H1961)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (second clause, introducing the result of divine presence)→ Wayyiqtol: narrative continuation — divine presence produces visible prosperity as its immediate consequenceהָיָה (H1961); the second wayyiqtol shifts to Joseph as subject and introduces transformation of state: he 'became' a prospering man. The verb signals change, not mere description.
אִ֣ישׁa manN m sg cstr · אִישׁ (H376)Predicate complement (construct noun before participial adjunct)אִישׁ (H376) 'man, person'; in construct before מַצְלִיחַ forms the idiom 'a succeeding man,' individualizing Joseph's prosperity as a defining personal characteristic rooted in YHWH's presence.
מַצְלִ֑יחַprosperingHiphil ptc m sg abs · צָלַח (H6743)Participial predicate complement (characterizing Joseph as one who continually prospers)→ Participle: continuous, habitual success — Joseph kept prospering under sustained divine favorצָלַח (H6743) Hiphil 'to make prosperous, succeed, advance'; the Hiphil ptc used predicatively describes a habitual God-sustained condition. The same root recurs in v.3 and closes the chapter in v.23, forming an inclusio of divine-given success.
וַיְהִ֕יand he wasQal wayyiqtol 3ms · הָיָה (H1961)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (third clause, locative — placing Joseph within the household)→ Wayyiqtol: narrative continuation — establishes the physical setting where divine-given prosperity operatesהָיָה (H1961); third occurrence in one verse. The triplicate structure builds a layered portrait: YHWH is present → Joseph prospers → Joseph dwells in his master's house. Location grounds the theological claims in concrete servitude.
בְּבֵ֥יתin the house ofprep בְּ + N m sg cstr · בַּיִת (H1004)Locative prepositional phraseבַּיִת (H1004) 'house, household'; בֵּית אֲדֹנָיו denotes the whole household system — dwelling, staff, possessions — under Potiphar's authority. Joseph's prosperity will expand to encompass this entire domestic sphere.
אֲדֹנָ֖יוhis masterN m pl cstr + sfx 3ms · אָדוֹן (H113)Genitival noun (possessive — the household's lord)אָדוֹן (H113) 'lord, master'; honorific plural אֲדֹנִים + 3ms suffix is standard in servant-master discourse. אֲדֹנָיו recurs throughout the chapter as the relational axis of Joseph's loyalty and the source of delegated authority.
הַמִּצְרִֽיthe Egyptianart + gentilic adj m sg abs · מִצְרִי (H4713)Attributive adjective (modifying אֲדֹנָיו, ethnic identification)מִצְרִי (H4713) 'Egyptian'; repeated from v.1 to keep the foreign-household context in view: Joseph's God-given prosperity operates within an Egyptian, not Israelite, setting — a first sign that YHWH's blessing traverses ethnic and national boundaries.
3
וַיַּ֣רְא אֲדֹנָ֔יו כִּ֥י יְהוָ֖ה אִתּ֑וֹ וְכֹל֙ אֲשֶׁר ה֣וּא עֹשֶׂ֔ה יְהוָ֖ה מַצְלִ֥יחַ בְּיָדֽוֹ
And his master saw that the LORD was with him, and that everything which he did the LORD made to prosper in his hand.
Potiphar's perception confirms that Joseph's success is not invisible providence alone; it becomes evident in the effectiveness of all entrusted work.
Word-by-word analysis· 12 words
וַיַּ֣רְאand sawconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms · רָאָה (H7200)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (main clause — Potiphar's perception)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — Potiphar's recognition confirms what v.2 declared theologicallyרָאָה (H7200) 'to see, perceive, observe'; the master's seeing is not incidental — it is the social mechanism by which hidden divine favor becomes publicly visible and results in Joseph's advancement.
אֲדֹנָ֔יוhis masterN m pl cstr + sfx 3ms · אָדוֹן (H113)Subject of וַיַּרְאאָדוֹן (H113) 'lord, master'; Potiphar is here characterized primarily through his relational role as Joseph's master, not by name. His perception legitimizes Joseph's advancement while pointing beyond human agency to divine causation.
כִּ֥יthatsubordinating conj · כִּי (H3588)Subordinating conjunction (introducing indirect perception: 'saw that…')כִּי (H3588) 'that, because'; here introducing the content of what Potiphar saw (indirect discourse), not giving a causal reason. The double כִּי clause structure makes YHWH's presence the explicit object of Potiphar's observation.
יְהוָ֖הthe LORDproper noun · יְהוָה (H3068)Subject of the embedded כִּי clause (what Potiphar perceived)יְהוָה (H3068); remarkable that Potiphar — an Egyptian — perceives YHWH's presence. The text does not explain how; the visible fruit of divine accompaniment (success in everything) is presumably the evidence.
אִתּ֑וֹwith himprep אֵת + sfx 3ms · אֵת (H854)Comitative prepositional phrase (divine accompaniment — the content of Potiphar's perception)אֵת (H854) 'with'; the divine-presence formula of v.2 (יְהוָה אֶת יוֹסֵף) is here seen from Potiphar's viewpoint. Acknowledging YHWH's presence from an Egyptian perspective, even implicitly, gives the narrative a cross-cultural theological claim.
וְכֹל֙and allconj וְ + N m sg abs · כֹּל (H3605)Subject of second embedded clause (second object of Potiphar's perception)כֹּל (H3605) 'all, everything, totality'; the scope is emphatic — not some things but everything Joseph does comes under YHWH's prospering hand. The universal quantifier recurs across the chapter as a structural marker.
אֲשֶׁרthatrelative pronoun · אֲשֶׁר (H834)Relative clause marker (introducing the relative clause on כֹּל)אֲשֶׁר (H834), invariable relative pronoun; introduces the relative clause specifying what is covered by כֹּל: everything that Joseph does is what YHWH makes to prosper.
ה֣וּאhepersonal pronoun 3ms · הוּא (H1931)Subject of the relative clause (explicit subject of עֹשֶׂה)הוּא (H1931) 'he'; the explicit pronoun as subject of the participial clause stresses Joseph as the grammatical and agentive reference point, while YHWH is the causative agent (מַצְלִיחַ).
עֹשֶׂ֔הdoesQal ptc m sg abs · עָשָׂה (H6213)Participial predicate of relative clause (Joseph's ongoing activity)→ Participle: habitual, continuous action — whatever Joseph regularly doesעָשָׂה (H6213) 'to do, make, perform'; the Qal participle describes ongoing habitual action: whatever Joseph habitually does, YHWH habitually prospers. The action-result pairing of עֹשֶׂה/מַצְלִיחַ encapsulates the chapter's theology of labor under divine favor.
יְהוָ֖הthe LORDproper noun · יְהוָה (H3068)Subject of מַצְלִיחַ (causal agent of Joseph's success)יְהוָה (H3068); placed as subject of מַצְלִיחַ to make unmistakably clear that the prospering is divine, not natural. The name appears twice in this verse (first as the object of perception, then as the acting subject), forming an envelope around Joseph's activity.
מַצְלִ֥יחַmakes prosperHiphil ptc m sg abs · צָלַח (H6743)Participial predicate (YHWH's habitual causative action over Joseph's work)→ Participle: continuous, habitual causing-to-succeed — YHWH's ongoing activity behind Joseph's successצָלַח (H6743) Hiphil 'to cause to prosper, make successful'; as a Hiphil participle with YHWH as subject, it asserts continuous divine causation — not intermittent help but habitual, comprehensive prospering of everything Joseph does.
בְּיָדֽוֹin his handprep בְּ + N f sg cstr + sfx 3ms · יָד (H3027)Locative prepositional phrase (sphere of prospering — 'in his hand' = within his charge)יָד (H3027) 'hand'; בְּיָדוֹ = 'in his hand,' meaning in his charge, under his agency. The hand idiom recurs throughout the chapter as the vehicle of delegated authority — what is entrusted into the hand is what prospers.
4
וַיִּמְצָ֨א יוֹסֵ֥ף חֵ֛ן בְּעֵינָ֖יו וַיְשָׁ֣רֶת אֹת֑וֹ וַיַּפְקִדֵ֨הוּ֙ עַל בֵּית֔וֹ וְכָל יֶשׁ ל֖וֹ נָתַ֥ן בְּיָדֽוֹ
And Joseph found favor in his eyes, and he ministered to him; and he appointed him over his house, and all that he had he put into his hand.
Favor becomes formal responsibility. Joseph moves from servant to steward as Potiphar commits the household into his hand.
Word-by-word analysis· 14 words
וַיִּמְצָ֨אand foundconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms · מָצָא (H4672)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (main clause)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — favor is found, advancing the social plotמָצָא (H4672) 'to find'; חֵן מָצָא בְּעֵינֵי X = 'to find favor in the eyes of X' is a formulaic idiom for gaining goodwill. Favor is not earned but found — given by another's disposition, here ultimately rooted in divine presence.
יוֹסֵ֥ףJosephproper noun · יוֹסֵף (H3130)Subject of וַיִּמְצָאיוֹסֵף (H3130); Joseph is the grammatical subject of 'finding' favor, but the favor originates with YHWH's presence declared in vv.2–3. Human perception (Potiphar's eyes) mediates divine disposition.
חֵ֛ןfavorN m sg abs · חֵן (H2580)Direct object of וַיִּמְצָאחֵן (H2580) 'grace, favor, attractiveness'; the noun denotes the disposition of goodwill one person bestows on another. Here it signals that Potiphar's perception of Joseph's divinely-prospered work issues in positive relational response.
בְּעֵינָ֖יוin his eyesprep בְּ + N f dual cstr + sfx 3ms · עַיִן (H5869)Locative prepositional phrase (sphere of favor — in Potiphar's perception)עַיִן (H5869) 'eye'; בְּעֵינֵי X = 'in the eyes of X' is the standard idiom for another's perspective or favorable regard. The dual form (two eyes) is idiomatic for the person's overall evaluation.
וַיְשָׁ֣רֶתand served himconj וַ + Piel wayyiqtol 3ms · שָׁרַת (H8334)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (second action — formal personal service)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — favor leads to direct personal attendanceשָׁרַת (H8334) Piel 'to minister, attend, serve'; this is not generic labor but personal attendance on a superior. The Piel intensifies the devoted nature of the service. The verb will occur in priestly contexts for cultic service (cf. Ex 28:35).
אֹת֑וֹhimobj marker + sfx 3ms · אֵת (H853)Direct-object marker (definite object of וַיְשָׁרֶת — Potiphar as the one served)אֵת (H853), nota accusativi marking the definite direct object; the suffix identifies Potiphar as the specific person Joseph attends.
וַיַּפְקִדֵ֨הוּ֙and appointed himconj וַ + Hiphil wayyiqtol 3ms + obj sfx 3ms · פָּקַד (H6485)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (formal appointment — climax of the advancement)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — formal delegation of authority over the householdפָּקַד (H6485) Hiphil 'to appoint, entrust, set in charge'; in this stem it denotes a formal act of delegation. The term appears again in v.5 (הִפְקִיד) and recalls the verb's use for Joseph's appointment over the prison in vv.22–23. Appointment → hand = the chapter's structural pattern.
עַלoverprep · עַל (H5921)Preposition of authority (marking jurisdiction: over the house)עַל (H5921) 'upon, over, concerning'; with the verb פָּקַד the preposition specifies the domain of appointed oversight: Joseph is set over the entire household system.
בֵּית֔וֹhis houseN m sg cstr + sfx 3ms · בַּיִת (H1004)Object of prep עַל (domain of Joseph's appointed charge)בַּיִת (H1004) 'house, household'; the same word as in v.2, now the explicit domain of Joseph's stewardship. What he 'was in' (v.2) he is now 'placed over,' reversing his social position through favor.
וְכָלand allconj וְ + N m sg cstr · כֹּל (H3605)Subject of the following asyndetic clause (second domain given over)כֹּל (H3605) 'all, everything'; the totality of Potiphar's possessions is committed to Joseph. The comprehensive scope — house and everything he owned — signals total stewardship, not partial management.
יֶשׁhe hadexistential particle · יֵשׁ (H3426)Existential particle (predicating possession: what Potiphar possessed)יֵשׁ (H3426) 'there is, there are'; used here as a possessive existential: כָּל יֶשׁ לוֹ = 'all that he possessed.' The particle heads the clause that specifies the scope of Joseph's delegated authority.
ל֖וֹto himprep לְ + sfx 3ms · לְ (prep)Dative of possession (belonging to Potiphar)Preposition לְ with 3ms pronominal suffix; the idiom יֵשׁ לְ- = 'to have, to possess.' Together with יֶשׁ the phrase means 'all that belonged to him (Potiphar).'
נָתַ֥ןhe putQal perf 3ms · נָתַן (H5414)Predicate verb (asyndetic clause — the act of transfer into Joseph's hand)→ Perfective: completed, decisive act of delegation — once given, the authority is fully transferredנָתַן (H5414) 'to give, put, place'; here used for formal transfer of stewardship authority. The perfect tense marks the decisive, completed nature of Potiphar's act. The hand idiom (בְּיָדוֹ) makes the transfer concrete.
בְּיָדֽוֹinto his handprep בְּ + N f sg cstr + sfx 3ms · יָד (H3027)Locative prepositional phrase (the sphere of delegation — 'into Joseph's hand')יָד (H3027) 'hand'; בְּיָדוֹ = 'into his hand,' the standard idiom for delegated authority and stewardship throughout this chapter. The hand that began in v.1 in the hand of Ishmaelites now holds Potiphar's entire estate.
5
וַיְהִ֡י מֵאָז֩ הִפְקִ֨יד אֹת֜וֹ בְּבֵית֗וֹ וְעַל֙ כָּל אֲשֶׁ֣ר יֶשׁ ל֔וֹ וַיְבָ֧רֶךְ יְהוָ֛ה אֶת בֵּ֥ית הַמִּצְרִ֖י בִּגְלַ֣ל יוֹסֵ֑ף וַיְהִ֞י בִּרְכַּ֤ת יְהוָה֙ בְּכָל אֲשֶׁ֣ר יֶשׁ ל֔וֹ בַּבַּ֖יִת וּבַשָּׂדֶֽה
And it came to pass, from the time that he appointed him over his house and over all that he had, that the LORD blessed the Egyptian's house for Joseph's sake; and the blessing of the LORD was upon all that he had, in the house and in the field.
Joseph is now the mediating occasion of blessing even in an Egyptian estate, extending patriarchal blessing language into a foreign household.
Word-by-word analysis· 26 words
וַיְהִ֡יand it came to passconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms · הָיָה (H1961)Wayyiqtol introducing temporal clause (narrative frame)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — introduces the temporal framework 'from the time that…'הָיָה (H1961) 'to be, come to pass'; the formula וַיְהִי מֵאָז introduces a temporal statement: 'and it came to pass from the time that.' The verse then narrates the consequence of Joseph's appointment: blessing spreads to the whole estate.
מֵאָז֩from the time thatprep מִן + adv · אָז (H227)Temporal adverbial (marking the beginning of the time period)אָז (H227) 'then, at that time'; with prep מִן: 'from then, from the time that.' The phrase introduces the precise moment — Joseph's appointment — from which the extension of blessing to the whole estate dates.
הִפְקִ֨ידhe appointedHiphil perf 3ms · פָּקַד (H6485)Predicate of temporal clause (the appointment is the starting point of blessing)→ Perfective: completed prior act — the appointment of Joseph is the ground from which blessing flowsפָּקַד (H6485) Hiphil 'to appoint, entrust'; here in the infinitive-like perfective function within the temporal clause: 'from the time he appointed him.' The same verb as in v.4 (וַיַּפְקִדֵהוּ), anchoring v.5's blessing to that formal act.
אֹת֜וֹhimobj marker + sfx 3ms · אֵת (H853)Direct-object marker (marking Joseph as the object of appointment)אֵת (H853), nota accusativi with 3ms suffix; specifies Joseph as the one appointed, linking this clause back to the appointment narrative of v.4.
בְּבֵית֗וֹover his houseprep בְּ + N m sg cstr + sfx 3ms · בַּיִת (H1004)Locative prepositional phrase (domain of appointment — the household)בַּיִת (H1004) 'house, household'; the domain of Joseph's stewardship, already named in v.4. The blessing now spreads outward from this domestic center to encompass the field as well (v.5 end).
וְעַל֙and overconj וְ + prep · עַל (H5921)Coordinating conjunction + preposition (extending the domain of appointment)עַל (H5921) 'upon, over'; the coordinated prepositional phrase expands Joseph's appointed domain beyond the house to all Potiphar's possessions, paralleling v.4's 'all that he had he put into his hand.'
כָּלallN m sg cstr · כֹּל (H3605)Noun in construct (head of domain phrase — 'everything belonging to him')כֹּל (H3605) 'all, everything'; repeated for the third time (cf. v.3, v.4) to stress that the scope of Joseph's stewardship — and therefore of the blessing — is total, not partial.
אֲשֶׁ֣רthatrelative pronoun · אֲשֶׁר (H834)Relative clause marker (specifying what Potiphar possessed)אֲשֶׁר (H834), relative pronoun; introduces the clause כָּל אֲשֶׁר יֶשׁ לוֹ = 'all that he (Potiphar) possessed,' the totality given into Joseph's charge.
יֶשׁhe hadexistential particle · יֵשׁ (H3426)Existential particle (predicating Potiphar's possession)יֵשׁ (H3426) 'there is, he has'; in the idiom כָּל אֲשֶׁר יֶשׁ לוֹ = 'all that he possessed.' The same expression as in v.4, underscoring total commission.
ל֔וֹto himprep לְ + sfx 3ms · לְ (prep)Dative of possession (marking Potiphar as owner)Preposition לְ with 3ms suffix; יֵשׁ לְ- idiom of possession: 'belonging to him (Potiphar).' Joseph's authority now spans the full scope of Potiphar's estate.
וַיְבָ֧רֶךְand blessedconj וַ + Piel wayyiqtol 3ms · בָּרַךְ (H1288)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (consequence of Joseph's appointment — YHWH blesses the estate)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — the blessing of a foreign estate is the theological consequence of the appointmentבָּרַךְ (H1288) Piel 'to bless'; YHWH extends blessing to an Egyptian household on account of a Hebrew servant — a programmatic replication of the Abrahamic pattern (Gen 12:3: 'in you all families will be blessed'). The Piel intensifies the productive, beneficent action.
יְהוָ֛הthe LORDproper noun · יְהוָה (H3068)Subject of וַיְבָרֶךְיְהוָה (H3068); as subject of the blessing verb, YHWH is presented as the one actively extending patriarchal-style mediated blessing to a foreign household — expanding covenant blessing beyond ethnic Israel.
אֶת[obj]obj marker · אֵת (H853)Direct-object marker (marking בֵּית הַמִּצְרִי as the definite object of blessing)אֵת (H853), nota accusativi; marks the Egyptian's household as the definite recipient of YHWH's blessing — a foreign house blessed by Israel's God.
בֵּ֥יתthe house ofN m sg cstr · בַּיִת (H1004)Direct object of וַיְבָרֶךְ (the blessed entity — the Egyptian's household)בַּיִת (H1004) 'house, household'; here the object of YHWH's blessing. The same word has appeared as Joseph's location (v.2), the domain of his appointment (vv.4–5), and now as the recipient of divine blessing — a narrative transformation of the house through Joseph's presence.
הַמִּצְרִ֖יthe Egyptianart + gentilic adj m sg abs · מִצְרִי (H4713)Genitival adjective (identifying whose house was blessed)מִצְרִי (H4713) 'Egyptian'; the ethnic marker is theologically pointed: YHWH's blessing rests on an Egyptian house on account of an Israelite servant. The Abrahamic blessing moves outward through Joseph to foreigners.
בִּגְלַ֣לfor the sake ofprep בְּ + N m sg cstr · גָּלָל (H1558)Causal prepositional phrase (reason for the blessing)גָּלָל (H1558) 'for the sake of, on account of, because of'; the lexeme occurs primarily in the prepositional phrase בִּגְלַל and nowhere as a free-standing noun. Here it makes Joseph the explicit mediating cause of the Egyptian household's blessing.
יוֹסֵ֑ףJosephproper noun · יוֹסֵף (H3130)Object of בִּגְלַל (the mediate cause of the blessing)יוֹסֵף (H3130); named explicitly as the reason for the blessing on the Egyptian household — the most direct statement in Genesis of Joseph's role as a conduit of Abrahamic blessing to the nations (cf. Gen 12:3).
וַיְהִ֞יand wasconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms · הָיָה (H1961)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (second main clause — describing the extent of the blessing)→ Wayyiqtol: narrative continuation — extends the description of blessing to the whole estateהָיָה (H1961) 'to be, exist'; introduces the clause describing the scope of YHWH's blessing: it rests on everything Potiphar possesses, in house and field.
בִּרְכַּ֤תthe blessing ofN f sg cstr · בְּרָכָה (H1293)Subject of וַיְהִי (second clause — 'the blessing of YHWH was upon all')בְּרָכָה (H1293) 'blessing, gift of prosperity'; from the root בָּרַךְ (H1288). In construct with יְהוָה: 'the blessing of YHWH' — denoting the beneficent, life-producing power of divine favor operating over Potiphar's estate.
יְהוָה֙the LORDproper noun · יְהוָה (H3068)Genitival noun (possessor of the blessing — YHWH is its source)יְהוָה (H3068); 'the blessing of YHWH' specifies its origin, distinguishing it from incidental prosperity. The same divine name that was 'with Joseph' (v.2) is now the source of the blessing extending across the whole estate.
בְּכָלupon allprep בְּ + N m sg cstr · כֹּל (H3605)Locative prepositional phrase (scope of the blessing's resting place)כֹּל (H3605) 'all, everything'; yet another occurrence of the universal quantifier (fourth in the chapter). YHWH's blessing rests on the totality of what Potiphar has — none of his estate is excluded from the mediated favor.
אֲשֶׁ֣רthatrelative pronoun · אֲשֶׁר (H834)Relative clause marker (specifying the domain on which the blessing rests)אֲשֶׁר (H834); introduces the clause 'all that he had' — the relative pronoun making explicit that the blessing covers everything, not just part of the estate.
יֶשׁhe hadexistential particle · יֵשׁ (H3426)Existential particle (predicating Potiphar's possession)יֵשׁ (H3426) 'there is, he has'; third occurrence of the possession idiom יֵשׁ לוֹ in the chapter (cf. vv.4, 5a), consistently marking the full scope of Potiphar's holdings now under divine blessing.
ל֔וֹto himprep לְ + sfx 3ms · לְ (prep)Dative of possession (Potiphar as owner of what is blessed)Preposition לְ with 3ms suffix; idiom of possession: 'belonging to him.' The blessing reaches every dimension of what belongs to Potiphar — house and field alike.
בַּבַּ֖יִתin the houseprep בְּ + art + N m sg abs · בַּיִת (H1004)Locative prepositional phrase (first sphere of blessing — the domestic interior)בַּיִת (H1004) 'house'; the house and field together form a merism covering all of Potiphar's estate — the enclosed domestic sphere and the open agricultural sphere. The blessing leaves no part untouched.
וּבַשָּׂדֶֽהand in the fieldconj וּ + prep בְּ + art + N m sg abs · שָׂדֶה (H7704)Locative prepositional phrase (second sphere of blessing — the agricultural field)שָׂדֶה (H7704) 'field, land, open country'; together with בַּבַּיִת forms the house-and-field merism encompassing all of Potiphar's estate. The verse closes with comprehensive blessing attributable entirely to Joseph's God-given presence.
6
וַיַּעֲזֹ֣ב כָּל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ֮ בְּיַד יוֹסֵף֒ וְלֹא יָדַ֤ע אִתּוֹ֙ מְא֔וּמָה כִּ֥י אִם הַלֶּ֖חֶם אֲשֶׁר ה֣וּא אוֹכֵ֑ל וַיְהִ֣י יוֹסֵ֔ף יְפֵה תֹ֖אַר וִיפֵ֥ה מַרְאֶֽה
And he left all that he had in Joseph's hand, and with him he paid attention to nothing except the bread that he ate. And Joseph was handsome in form and handsome in appearance.
The house is wholly entrusted to Joseph, and then the narrative pivots sharply by noting Joseph's beauty, the feature that will generate the next trial.
Word-by-word analysis· 22 words
וַיַּעֲזֹ֣בand he leftconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms · עָזַב (H5800)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (Potiphar's total withdrawal from oversight)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — Potiphar's complete abandonment of managerial involvementעָזַב (H5800) 'to leave, abandon, relinquish'; Potiphar relinquishes oversight of all his possessions to Joseph. The same verb will recur in v.12 (Joseph leaving his garment) and v.13 (he left his garment), creating a verbal link between total trust and total crisis.
כָּלallN m sg cstr · כֹּל (H3605)Direct object of וַיַּעֲזֹב (head noun of the object clause)כֹּל (H3605) 'all, everything'; the fifth occurrence of the totality marker. Potiphar left absolutely everything in Joseph's hand — the completeness of the delegation sets the stage for the moral test that follows.
אֲשֶׁרthatrelative pronoun · אֲשֶׁר (H834)Relative clause marker (specifying what Potiphar left in Joseph's hand)אֲשֶׁר (H834); introduces the relative clause specifying the scope of what Potiphar relinquished — everything he possessed.
לוֹ֮he hadprep לְ + sfx 3ms · לְ (prep)Dative of possession (belonging to Potiphar — what he relinquished)Preposition לְ with 3ms suffix; possession idiom: 'all that belonged to him.' Potiphar's total relinquishment to Joseph is legally and narratively complete.
בְּיַדinto the hand ofprep בְּ + N f sg cstr · יָד (H3027)Locative prepositional phrase (sphere of delegation — Joseph's hand)יָד (H3027) 'hand'; the seventh occurrence of the 'hand' motif in vv.1–6. Into Joseph's hand passes first legal possession (sale, v.1), then divine success (v.3), then household appointment (v.4), then Potiphar's total estate (here). The accumulation of 'hand' occurrences is structural.
יוֹסֵף֒Josephproper noun · יוֹסֵף (H3130)Object of prep בְּיַד (the steward into whose hand everything is placed)יוֹסֵף (H3130); the delegated authority is total: Potiphar placed everything in Joseph's hands and took no interest in anything except his food. The completeness of the trust intensifies the betrayal of the accusation to come.
וְלֹאand notconj וְ + neg · לֹא (H3808)Coordinating negation (introducing Potiphar's non-involvement)לֹא (H3808), the standard negative particle; together with יָדַע states that Potiphar took absolutely no account of anything in the household — total trust required total withdrawal of oversight.
יָדַ֤עpaid attention toQal perf 3ms · יָדַע (H3045)Predicate verb (Potiphar's non-involvement)→ Perfective: completed state — Potiphar had fully ceased attention to household affairsיָדַע (H3045) 'to know, be aware of, pay attention to'; here in the sense of 'to concern oneself with, take account of' — Potiphar did not involve himself with anything entrusted to Joseph. The exception: his own food.
אִתּוֹ֙with himprep אֵת + sfx 3ms · אֵת (H854)Comitative prepositional phrase (Joseph's domain — 'with him, under his charge')אֵת (H854) 'with, in company of'; אִתּוֹ here marks Joseph's sphere: Potiphar knew nothing 'with him,' i.e., took no account of anything within Joseph's charge. The preposition maintains the 'with Joseph' language of vv.2–3.
מְא֔וּמָהanythingN f sg abs · מְאוּמָה (H3972)Direct object of לֹא יָדַע (the negated content of Potiphar's knowledge)מְאוּמָה (H3972) 'anything, something'; a strong indefinite often used in negative clauses meaning 'nothing at all.' Potiphar's disengagement is emphatic: he took absolutely no notice of anything in Joseph's charge.
כִּ֥יexceptsubordinating conj · כִּי (H3588)Exceptive particle (כִּי אִם = 'except, but only')כִּי (H3588) combined with אִם (H518) to form the standard exceptive idiom כִּי אִם = 'except, but only'; narrows the scope of Potiphar's non-attention to admit one exception: his own food.
אִם[except]conditional conj · אִם (H518)Second element of exceptive idiom כִּי אִם ('except')אִם (H518) here functioning with כִּי not as a conditional but as the second member of the exceptive phrase כִּי אִם = 'except, only.' Together they limit the scope of Potiphar's complete non-involvement.
הַלֶּ֖חֶםthe breadart + N (c) sg abs · לֶחֶם (H3899)Direct object of יָדַע (the single thing Potiphar retained concern for)לֶחֶם (H3899) 'bread, food'; can denote food more broadly. The one thing Potiphar did not relinquish to Joseph was his own daily food — possibly a hint at dietary separation (cf. Gen 43:32), or simply indicating that personal sustenance was the master's irreducible concern.
אֲשֶׁרwhichrelative pronoun · אֲשֶׁר (H834)Relative clause marker (introducing a relative clause on הַלֶּחֶם)אֲשֶׁר (H834); introduces the relative clause that identifies which bread/food is meant: the food that Potiphar himself was eating — reserved from Joseph's stewardship.
ה֣וּאhepersonal pronoun 3ms · הוּא (H1931)Subject of relative clause (Potiphar — the one who eats)הוּא (H1931) 'he'; the explicit pronoun emphasizes Potiphar as the subject of his own eating, distinguishing his personal sustenance from the household affairs he has wholly entrusted to Joseph.
אוֹכֵ֑לwas eatingQal ptc m sg abs · אָכַל (H398)Participial predicate of relative clause (Potiphar's ongoing personal eating)→ Participle: continuous, habitual action — Potiphar ate his own food, an ongoing routine reserved from Joseph's chargeאָכַל (H398) 'to eat'; the participial form signals habitual action: this was Potiphar's ongoing personal domain — the one reserve not handed over. The verse thus defines total delegation with a single personal exception.
וַיְהִ֣יand wasconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms · הָיָה (H1961)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (pivot clause — Joseph's appearance)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — sharp narrative pivot from household administration to physical description of Josephהָיָה (H1961) 'to be'; this wayyiqtol introduces the physical description of Joseph that pivots the narrative from administrative success to moral danger. The appearance notice (יְפֵה תֹּאַר וִיפֵה מַרְאֶה) anticipates the temptation that follows.
יוֹסֵ֔ףJosephproper noun · יוֹסֵף (H3130)Subject of וַיְהִי (the one described as beautiful)יוֹסֵף (H3130); the name is placed before the beauty description to link the physical notice firmly to the person whose story this is. Joseph's attractiveness is introduced as a narrative element that will generate the temptation scene.
יְפֵהhandsome ofadj m sg cstr · יָפֶה (H3303)Predicate adjective (first member of beauty description — form)יָפֶה (H3303) 'beautiful, handsome, fair'; the adjective appears twice (here and i=20) in a deliberately parallel doublet. The same description is used of Rachel (Gen 29:17) and mirrors the beauty description of Joseph's mother, heightening its narrative weight.
תֹ֖אַרformN m sg abs · תֹּאַר (H8389)Genitival noun (first beauty category — physical form, figure)תֹּאַר (H8389) 'form, figure, outline'; denotes the physical shape or contour of a person's body. יְפֵה תֹּאַר = 'handsome of form,' indicating attractiveness of physique. The noun occurs only in contexts of notable appearance.
וִיפֵ֥הand handsome ofconj וִ + adj m sg cstr · יָפֶה (H3303)Second predicate adjective (second member of beauty description — appearance)יָפֶה (H3303) 'beautiful, handsome'; repeated in construct: the doubled description (form and appearance) is emphatic, signaling that Joseph's beauty is in every respect outstanding. The identical pairing recurs in Gen 29:17 for Rachel.
מַרְאֶֽהappearanceN m sg abs · מַרְאֶה (H4758)Genitival noun (second beauty category — visible appearance, countenance)מַרְאֶה (H4758) 'appearance, sight, what is seen'; from רָאָה 'to see.' יְפֵה מַרְאֶה = 'handsome of appearance,' the aspect of Joseph visible to an observer's eye. Together with תֹּאַר the doublet covers both form and visible appearance — a comprehensive beauty notice that sets up the crisis of v.7.
7
וַיְהִ֗י אַחַר֙ הַדְּבָרִ֣ים הָאֵ֔לֶּה וַתִּשָּׂ֧א אֵֽשֶׁת אֲדֹנָ֛יו אֶת עֵינֶ֖יהָ אֶל יוֹסֵ֑ף וַתֹּ֖אמֶר שִׁכְבָ֥ה עִמִּֽי
And it came to pass after these things, that his master's wife lifted up her eyes to Joseph and said, 'Lie with me.'
The testing scene opens with direct desire and direct speech; what had been household success now becomes moral danger.
Word-by-word analysis· 14 words
וַיְהִ֗יand it came to passconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms · הָיָה (H1961)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (temporal frame introducing the temptation scene)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — opens the temptation episodeהָיָה (H1961) 'to come to pass'; the formula וַיְהִי אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה = 'after these things' is a standard narrative transition marking a new episode (cf. Gen 15:1; 22:1). What had been administrative prosperity now pivots to moral testing.
אַחַר֙afterprep · אַחַר (H310)Temporal preposition (introducing the temporal setting of the new episode)אַחַר (H310) 'after, behind'; in the temporal idiom אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה = 'after these things/words,' marking narrative transition to a new episode that follows what has preceded.
הַדְּבָרִ֣יםthese thingsart + N m pl abs · דָּבָר (H1697)Object of אַחַר (the events that preceded the new scene)דָּבָר (H1697) 'word, matter, thing, event'; the plural refers to the events of vv.1–6 — Joseph's prosperity, appointment, and the extension of blessing. The transition phrase acknowledges those events while moving beyond them.
הָאֵ֔לֶּה[these]art + demonstrative pronoun cp · אֵלֶּה (H428)Attributive demonstrative (modifying הַדְּבָרִים — 'these things')אֵלֶּה (H428) 'these'; the demonstrative pronoun refers backward to the events of the preceding narrative unit and marks the closure of the administrative episode before opening the temptation scene.
וַתִּשָּׂ֧אand lifted upconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3fs · נָשָׂא (H5375)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (the woman's action — beginning of the temptation)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — the woman's deliberate gaze initiates the temptationנָשָׂא (H5375) 'to lift, carry, raise'; נָשָׂא עֵינַיִם אֶל = 'to lift the eyes toward' is a deliberate, intentional gaze signaling active attention or desire. The female subject's act is volitional, not accidental.
אֵֽשֶׁתthe wife ofN f sg cstr · אִשָּׁה (H802)Subject of וַתִּשָּׂא (the one who lifts her eyes)אִשָּׁה (H802) 'woman, wife'; throughout the chapter this character is identified only as 'his master's wife' (אֵשֶׁת אֲדֹנָיו), never by name, emphasizing her relational identity relative to Potiphar and her role as the agent of Joseph's trial.
אֲדֹנָ֛יוhis masterN m pl cstr + sfx 3ms · אָדוֹן (H113)Genitival noun (identifying whose wife this is — Potiphar's)אָדוֹן (H113) 'lord, master'; the compound designation 'his master's wife' is precise: her husband is Joseph's lord, making the solicitation not merely adulterous but a betrayal of the master-servant bond to which Joseph appealed in his refusal.
אֶת[obj]obj marker · אֵת (H853)Direct-object marker (marking עֵינֶיהָ as the definite object of נָשָׂא)אֵת (H853), nota accusativi; marks the woman's eyes as the definite object of the lifting action, making the gaze deliberate and directed.
עֵינֶ֖יהָher eyesN f dual cstr + sfx 3fs · עַיִן (H5869)Direct object of וַתִּשָּׂא (the organs of intentional gaze)עַיִן (H5869) 'eye'; dual form in construct. נָשָׂא אֶת עֵינָיו/עֵינֶיהָ אֶל = 'to lift the eyes toward' — the idiom for focused, deliberate attention directed toward an object. Here the direction of her gaze is toward Joseph.
אֶלtowardprep · אֶל (H413)Directional preposition (marking Joseph as the target of the gaze)אֶל (H413) 'to, toward'; the preposition after נָשָׂא עֵינַיִם specifies the direction of the deliberate gaze — toward Joseph. The directional vector makes her desire explicit and focused.
יוֹסֵ֑ףJosephproper noun · יוֹסֵף (H3130)Object of prep אֶל (the target of the woman's gaze)יוֹסֵף (H3130); the beauty description of v.6 has prepared for this: Joseph's appearance is what draws the woman's deliberate gaze, converting the administrative narrative of vv.1–6 into a narrative of sexual danger.
וַתֹּ֖אמֶרand saidconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3fs · אָמַר (H559)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (speech introduction — the solicitation)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — the gaze translates immediately into direct speechאָמַר (H559) 'to say, speak'; the transition from gaze to speech with no intervening action makes the solicitation abrupt and forceful. No delay, no hesitation — desire becomes immediate demand.
שִׁכְבָ֥הlie with meQal impv 2ms + paragogic ה · שָׁכַב (H7901)Imperative (direct command — the solicitation itself)→ Volitional imperative: direct command expressing desire and demandשָׁכַב (H7901) 'to lie down, lie with (sexually)'; the Qal imperative 2ms is blunt and direct. The paragogic ה adds emphasis or urgency to the command. The verb's sexual sense is unmistakable; its reappearance in vv.10, 12, 14 tracks the persistence of the solicitation.
עִמִּֽיwith meprep עִם + sfx 1cs · עִם (H5973)Comitative prepositional phrase (the nature of the demanded lying — with the speaker)עִם (H5973) 'with, together with'; the comitative preposition makes explicit who the demanded partner is — herself. The terseness of the two-word command (שִׁכְבָה עִמִּי) captures the nakedness of the solicitation: nothing is veiled or indirect.
8
וַיְמָאֵ֓ן וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ אֶל אֵ֣שֶׁת אֲדֹנָ֔יו הֵ֣ן אֲדֹנִ֔י לֹא יָדַ֥ע אִתִּ֖י מַה בַּבָּ֑יִת וְכֹ֥ל אֲשֶׁר יֶשׁ ל֖וֹ נָתַ֥ן בְּיָדִֽי
But he refused and said to his master's wife, 'Behold, my master does not concern himself with what is in the house with me, and all that he has he has put into my hand.'
Joseph's first answer appeals to entrusted confidence. He begins not with fear of consequences but with the reality of delegated trust.
Word-by-word analysis· 18 words
וַיְמָאֵ֓ןbut he refusedconj וַ + Piel wayyiqtol 3ms · מָאַן (H3985)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (Joseph's refusal — the moral climax)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — the refusal is emphatic and immediate, countering the commandמָאַן (H3985) Piel 'to refuse, decline'; the Piel denotes determined, deliberate refusal. The verb occurs emphatically at the head of Joseph's response, framing everything that follows as an explanation of that refusal. No vacillation, no deliberation — the refusal is decisive.
וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙and saidconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms · אָמַר (H559)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (speech introduction — the reasoned explanation of refusal)→ Wayyiqtol: narrative continuation — the refusal is elaborated in speechאָמַר (H559) 'to say, speak'; the speech that follows (vv.8–9) is one of the most significant ethical speeches in Genesis, grounding refusal not in fear or self-interest but in trust and accountability before God.
אֶלtoprep · אֶל (H413)Directional preposition (marking the addressee of Joseph's speech)אֶל (H413) 'to, toward'; Joseph's speech is directed specifically to 'his master's wife,' the title maintained throughout vv.7–9 to keep the relational dimension of the betrayal in view.
אֵ֣שֶׁתthe wife ofN f sg cstr · אִשָּׁה (H802)Indirect object of וַיֹּאמֶר (the addressee — his master's wife)אִשָּׁה (H802) 'woman, wife'; identified as the wife of his master — a relational marker Joseph himself uses, showing that he understands the relational network his refusal must navigate.
אֲדֹנָ֔יוhis masterN m pl cstr + sfx 3ms · אָדוֹן (H113)Genitival noun (identifying whose wife — the master's)אָדוֹן (H113) 'lord, master'; Joseph's first argument is grounded in trust: his master has withheld nothing from him. Complying with the wife's demand would betray the very trust that elevated him.
הֵ֣ןbeholdpresentative particle · הֵן (H2005)Presentative particle (introducing Joseph's argument with emphasis)הֵן (H2005) 'behold, see, look'; an interjection of emphasis that signals Joseph is about to state a compelling observation. It invites attention to the reasoned argument that follows.
אֲדֹנִ֔יmy masterN m sg cstr + sfx 1cs · אָדוֹן (H113)Subject of יָדַע (the master who has entrusted everything to Joseph)אָדוֹן (H113) 'lord, master'; now in first-person construct with Joseph's own suffix — 'my master.' This personal possessive frames the argument in terms of loyalty: it is Joseph's own lord who has trusted him completely.
לֹאdoes notneg particle · לֹא (H3808)Negation (negating יָדַע — the master has no knowledge of/concern for household affairs)לֹא (H3808), the standard negation; negates the verb יָדַע to state that Potiphar has no involvement with anything in the household. His trust in Joseph is absolute.
יָדַ֥עis aware ofQal perf 3ms · יָדַע (H3045)Predicate verb (Potiphar's non-concern for household affairs)→ Perfective: a settled, completed state — Potiphar has completely withdrawn from household managementיָדַע (H3045) 'to know, pay attention to, concern oneself with'; used here as in v.6 for Potiphar's deliberate non-involvement in household affairs, not mere ignorance. Complete trust requires complete non-oversight.
אִתִּ֖יwith meprep אֵת + sfx 1cs · אֵת (H854)Comitative prepositional phrase (the sphere of Potiphar's non-attention — 'with me, in my charge')אֵת (H854) 'with'; אִתִּי = 'with me,' meaning within my sphere of charge. Joseph uses the 'with' language (cf. יְהוָה אִתּוֹ, vv.2–3) but here for human non-involvement — his master left him fully independent.
מַהanythinginterrogative pronoun · מָה (H4100)Direct object of לֹא יָדַע (the content of what is unknown/unconcerned)מָה (H4100) 'what, anything'; functions as an indefinite here: 'what is in the house' = 'anything in the house.' Potiphar has no knowledge of or involvement with anything inside Joseph's charge.
בַּבָּ֑יִתin the houseprep בְּ + art + N m sg abs · בַּיִת (H1004)Locative prepositional phrase (the domain of Potiphar's non-involvement)בַּיִת (H1004) 'house, household'; the recurring term for Joseph's sphere of stewardship. Potiphar knows nothing of what is 'in the house' — total trust in Joseph's management.
וְכֹ֥לand allconj וְ + N m sg abs · כֹּל (H3605)Subject of the following asyndetic clause (the second argument — scope of what was given)כֹּל (H3605) 'all, everything'; the universal quantifier appears yet again (sixth occurrence in the chapter). Joseph's second argument mirrors v.4: everything Potiphar had, he put into Joseph's hand.
אֲשֶׁרthatrelative pronoun · אֲשֶׁר (H834)Relative clause marker (specifying what Potiphar possessed and gave over)אֲשֶׁר (H834); the relative clause specifying Potiphar's possessions — echoing the language of vv.4–5 (כָּל אֲשֶׁר יֶשׁ לוֹ).
יֶשׁhe hadexistential particle · יֵשׁ (H3426)Existential particle (predicating Potiphar's possession)יֵשׁ (H3426) 'there is, he possesses'; fourth occurrence of this idiom (cf. vv.4, 5a, 5b). Joseph's speech deliberately echoes the narrative's own language, showing he understands the scope of the trust placed in him.
ל֖וֹto himprep לְ + sfx 3ms · לְ (prep)Dative of possession (Potiphar as owner of what was delegated)Preposition לְ with 3ms suffix; the possession idiom: 'all that belonged to him (Potiphar).' Joseph's argument: the master gave him everything — betraying that trust by adultery would dishonor the complete confidence reposed in him.
נָתַ֥ןhe has putQal perf 3ms · נָתַן (H5414)Predicate verb (Potiphar's completed act of total delegation)→ Perfective: completed, decisive act — the master has already and irrevocably handed everything overנָתַן (H5414) 'to give, place, put'; the same verb as in v.4 (נָתַן בְּיָדוֹ). Joseph's argument repeats the narrative's own language for Potiphar's delegation, appealing to a completed trust that would be violated by compliance with the woman's demand.
בְּיָדִֽיinto my handprep בְּ + N f sg cstr + sfx 1cs · יָד (H3027)Locative prepositional phrase (the domain of delegated stewardship — Joseph's hand)יָד (H3027) 'hand'; now in 1cs suffix: 'into my hand.' The recurring hand motif appears here in Joseph's own first-person speech, showing that he consciously understands himself as the bearer of his master's total trust. To violate that trust sexually would be to betray the hand that holds everything.
9
אֵינֶ֨נּוּ גָד֜וֹל בַּבַּ֣יִת הַזֶּה֮ מִמֶּנִּי֒ וְלֹֽא חָשַׂ֤ךְ מִמֶּ֨נִּי֙ מְא֔וּמָה כִּ֥י אִם אוֹתָ֖ךְ בַּאֲשֶׁ֣ר אַתְּ אִשְׁתּ֑וֹ וְאֵ֨יךְ אֶֽעֱשֶׂ֜ה הָרָעָ֤ה הַגְּדֹלָה֙ הַזֹּ֔את וְחָטָ֖אתִי לֵֽאלֹהִֽים
He is not greater in this house than I am, and he has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. And how could I do this great evil and sin against God?
The refusal reaches its moral and theological height here: adultery would be betrayal of both a human master and God Himself.
Word-by-word analysis· 22 words
אֵינֶ֨נּוּhe is notneg particle + sfx 3ms · אַיִן (H369)Predicate negation (denying that Potiphar is greater than Joseph in the house)אַיִן (H369) 'there is not, is absent'; with 3ms suffix אֵינֶנּוּ = 'he is not (greater).' The inflected negative particle functions as a copular negation with the following adjective as predicate complement.
גָד֜וֹלgreateradj m sg abs · גָּדוֹל (H1419)Predicate adjective (the quality denied — Potiphar is not greater than Joseph in the house)גָּדוֹל (H1419) 'great, large, greater'; comparative use here: 'no one in this house is greater than I.' Joseph asserts a status equal to or exceeding Potiphar's own within the household — not arrogance but a statement of the scope of his delegated authority.
בַּבַּ֣יִתin this houseprep בְּ + art + N m sg abs · בַּיִת (H1004)Locative prepositional phrase (the sphere within which Joseph's authority is supreme)בַּיִת (H1004) 'house'; the domain within which Joseph's claim to supreme delegated authority is made. The house has been the central setting of vv.2–8; here it becomes the sphere within which no one outranks Joseph except Potiphar himself.
הַזֶּה֮thisart + demonstrative pronoun ms · זֶה (H2088)Attributive demonstrative (modifying הַבַּיִת — 'in this specific house')זֶה (H2088) 'this'; specifying the particular household — Potiphar's house, within which Joseph's authority argument applies. The demonstrative makes the claim concrete rather than generic.
מִמֶּנִּי֒than Iprep מִן + sfx 1cs · מִן (H4480)Comparative prepositional phrase (the standard of comparison — 'greater than I')מִן (H4480) 'from, than'; with 1cs suffix in comparative function: 'than I.' Joseph claims that within the household his delegated authority is the highest — Potiphar has withheld nothing from him.
וְלֹֽאand has notconj וְ + neg · לֹא (H3808)Coordinating negation (introducing the second argument — nothing withheld)לֹא (H3808), negation; coordinates with the preceding argument to add a second dimension: not only is Joseph's authority supreme in the house, but Potiphar has withheld nothing from him — except his wife.
חָשַׂ֤ךְwithheldQal perf 3ms · חָשַׂךְ (H2820)Predicate verb (Potiphar's non-withholding — the basis of the trust argument)→ Perfective: completed state — Potiphar's withholding nothing is a settled factחָשַׂךְ (H2820) 'to withhold, spare, restrain'; with מִן + person: 'to withhold something from someone.' Potiphar held nothing back from Joseph — an act of extraordinary trust that makes the demanded violation all the more a betrayal.
מִמֶּ֨נִּי֙from meprep מִן + sfx 1cs · מִן (H4480)Source prepositional phrase (from whom nothing was withheld — Joseph)מִן (H4480) 'from'; with 1cs suffix: 'from me (Joseph).' The first-person suffix places Joseph as the recipient of Potiphar's unqualified trust — a trust that would be catastrophically violated by complying with the woman's demand.
מְא֔וּמָהanythingN f sg abs · מְאוּמָה (H3972)Direct object of לֹא חָשַׂךְ (the thing not withheld — everything)מְאוּמָה (H3972) 'anything, something'; in negative contexts = 'nothing at all.' Potiphar withheld absolutely nothing from Joseph — a total trust that defines the ethical weight of the following exception (his wife).
כִּ֥יexceptsubordinating conj · כִּי (H3588)Exceptive particle (first element of כִּי אִם = 'except')כִּי (H3588); with אִם forms the standard biblical exceptive idiom כִּי אִם = 'except, but only.' Here it introduces the single exception to Potiphar's total non-withholding: his wife.
אִם[only]conditional conj · אִם (H518)Second element of exceptive idiom כִּי אִם ('except, but only')אִם (H518) combined with כִּי to form the exceptive: 'except you.' The exception is remarkable — the one thing Potiphar did not hand over to Joseph is his wife, and yet she is precisely what she demands Joseph take.
אוֹתָ֖ךְyouobj marker + sfx 2fs · אֵת (H853)Direct object of לֹא חָשַׂךְ within the exceptive clause (you are the withheld exception)אֵת (H853) with 2fs suffix; the object marker + pronoun makes the woman herself the explicit object of the exception: 'he withheld nothing from me except you.' The direct address is striking — Joseph names the woman as Potiphar's single reserved possession.
בַּאֲשֶׁ֣רbecauseprep בְּ + relative · אֲשֶׁר (H834)Causal prepositional phrase (reason for the exception — her marital status)בַּאֲשֶׁר (H834 + בְּ) 'because, in that'; introduces the reason for the exception: you are his wife. The causal relative clause grounds the exception not in legal technicality but in the marital bond and its attendant obligations.
אַתְּyou arepersonal pronoun 2fs · אַתְּ (H859)Subject of the causal clause (the woman — she who is the wife)אַתְּ (H859), 2fs personal pronoun 'you (f)'; the explicit pronoun emphasizes personal address and specificity. Joseph faces her directly: it is precisely she, in her identity as his master's wife, who defines the boundary he will not cross.
אִשְׁתּ֑וֹhis wifeN f sg cstr + sfx 3ms · אִשָּׁה (H802)Predicate nominative (what the woman is — Potiphar's wife)אִשָּׁה (H802) 'woman, wife'; אִשְׁתּוֹ = 'his wife' (Potiphar's). Joseph's refusal is anchored here: she is the one thing Potiphar withheld, and her withheld status as another man's wife is precisely the moral boundary Joseph will not violate.
וְאֵ֨יךְand howconj וְ + interrogative adv · אֵיךְ (H349)Rhetorical interrogative (expressing moral impossibility)אֵיךְ (H349) 'how'; a rhetorical question implying impossibility: 'How could I possibly do this?' The question is not seeking information but expressing moral outrage — such an act would be inconceivable given the dual obligations (human and divine) that Joseph has named.
אֶֽעֱשֶׂ֜הcould I doQal impf 1cs · עָשָׂה (H6213)Predicate of rhetorical question (the unthinkable act)→ Yiqtol: modal/potential — 'how could I possibly do this?' — impossibility expressed through imperfective modalityעָשָׂה (H6213) 'to do, make, commit'; the imperfect 1cs here is potential/modal: 'how could I do this?' The rhetorical question converts the possibility of compliance into an expression of moral impossibility.
הָרָעָ֤הthis great evilart + N f sg abs · רָע (H7451)Direct object of אֶעֱשֶׂה (the evil action defined)רָע (H7451) 'evil, wickedness, harm'; Joseph labels the demanded act explicitly as הָרָעָה הַגְּדֹלָה הַזֹּאת = 'this great evil.' The vocabulary is stark: this is not a social impropriety but moral evil — a transgression of binding obligations.
הַגְּדֹלָה֙greatart + adj f sg abs · גָּדוֹל (H1419)Attributive adjective (modifying הָרָעָה — 'this great evil')גָּדוֹל (H1419) 'great, large'; the adjective emphasizes the magnitude of the evil contemplated. Not a minor infraction but a great wickedness — a term that marks the gravity of adultery and betrayal of trust.
הַזֹּ֔אתthisart + demonstrative pronoun fs · זֹאת (H2063)Attributive demonstrative (specifying this particular evil act)זֹאת (H2063) 'this (f)'; the demonstrative specifies the demanded act as the referent: this precise deed would be הרעה הגדולה — great evil. The demonstrative brings the definition close and personal.
וְחָטָ֖אתִיand sinconj וְ + Qal weqatal 1cs · חָטָא (H2398)Weqatal of purpose/result (the theological consequence — sinning against God)→ Weqatal: sequential consequential action — to do this great evil would be to sin against God; the moral argument reaches its theological apexחָטָא (H2398) 'to sin, miss the mark, transgress'; the weqatal after the rhetorical question presents the theological consequence: to do this evil would be to sin against God. This elevates the refusal beyond loyalty to Potiphar and into explicit accountability before the divine.
לֵֽאלֹהִֽיםagainst Godprep לְ + N m pl abs · אֱלֹהִים (H430)Dative/object of sin (God as the offended party)אֱלֹהִים (H430) 'God'; the final word of Joseph's speech names the ultimate relational party who would be offended: not Potiphar alone but God. This theological grounding of ethical refusal — sin against God — distinguishes Joseph's speech as one of the most explicitly theological ethical appeals in Genesis.
10
וַיְהִ֕י כְּדַבְּרָ֥הּ אֶל יוֹסֵ֖ף י֣וֹם י֑וֹם וְלֹא שָׁמַ֥ע אֵלֶ֛יהָ לִשְׁכַּ֥ב אֶצְלָ֖הּ לִהְי֥וֹת עִמָּֽהּ
And it came to pass, as she spoke to Joseph day after day, that he did not listen to her, to lie beside her, to be with her.
The temptation is not momentary but sustained. Joseph refuses not only the act itself but the compromised proximity that would lead into it.
Word-by-word analysis· 13 words
וַיְהִ֕יand it came to passconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms · הָיָה (H1961)Wayyiqtol introducing temporal clause (repeated solicitation — narrative frame)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — opens the account of repeated, daily solicitationהָיָה (H1961) 'to come to pass'; the formula וַיְהִי כְּ- introduces a temporal clause: the solicitation was not a single episode but a pattern. Joseph's refusal was not a one-time act but sustained resistance.
כְּדַבְּרָ֥הּas she spokeprep כְּ + Piel inf cstr + sfx 3fs (subj) · דָּבַר (H1696)Temporal prepositional phrase (the ongoing action of solicitation — 'as she kept speaking')→ Infinitive: the continuous act of speaking — her repeated daily solicitationדָּבַר (H1696) Piel 'to speak, say'; the Piel infinitive construct with subject suffix and prep כְּ = 'as her speaking' = 'as she spoke.' The Piel may intensify the speaking as persistent persuasion. The infinitive captures the ongoing nature of her solicitations.
אֶלtoprep · אֶל (H413)Directional preposition (addressee of the repeated speech — Joseph)אֶל (H413) 'to, toward'; the speaking was directed to Joseph specifically — not general speech but persistent solicitation aimed at him personally, day after day.
יוֹסֵ֖ףJosephproper noun · יוֹסֵף (H3130)Object of prep אֶל (the one solicited daily)יוֹסֵף (H3130); the recipient of daily solicitation. Joseph's name is placed here at the heart of the verse to keep the focus on the one who endures persistent temptation and consistently refuses.
י֣וֹםdayN m sg abs · יוֹם (H3117)First member of repeated-noun idiom (expressing continuous daily action)יוֹם (H3117) 'day'; יוֹם יוֹם = 'day after day, daily, every day.' The repeated noun without conjunction is a standard Hebrew idiom for sustained, recurring action. The temptation was not a momentary crisis but a prolonged campaign of pressure.
י֑וֹםafter dayN m sg abs · יוֹם (H3117)Second member of repeated-noun idiom (day after day — continuous solicitation)יוֹם (H3117) 'day'; the repetition יוֹם יוֹם emphasizes the unrelenting, daily nature of the solicitation. Joseph's moral integrity is tested not once but continuously, across an unspecified but sustained period.
וְלֹאand he did notconj וְ + neg · לֹא (H3808)Coordinating negation (the counter-action — Joseph's sustained refusal)לֹא (H3808), negation; coordinates with the ongoing solicitation to state the continuous counter-response: he never listened to her. The negation is as persistent as the solicitation.
שָׁמַ֥עlistenedQal perf 3ms · שָׁמַע (H8085)Predicate verb (Joseph's consistent non-compliance)→ Perfective: the completeness of his non-listening — he never, across all those days, listened to herשָׁמַע (H8085) 'to hear, listen, obey'; the perfective with negation summarizes the sustained period: he never listened to her. שָׁמַע אֶל/לְ = 'to listen to, obey' — the negation covers both hearing and compliance.
אֵלֶ֛יהָto herprep אֶל + sfx 3fs · אֶל (H413)Directional prepositional phrase (the person not listened to — the soliciting woman)אֶל (H413) 'to'; with 3fs suffix: 'to her.' Joseph refused to listen to her — not merely to her words but to her as the persistent source of solicitation. The repeated direction of her speech toward him (v.10) and his non-listening to her forms the day-by-day moral drama.
לִשְׁכַּ֥בto lie beside herprep לְ + Qal inf cstr · שָׁכַב (H7901)Purpose infinitive (the specific act refused — lying beside her)→ Infinitive of purpose: specifies what Joseph refused to do — the sexual actשָׁכַב (H7901) 'to lie down, lie with (sexually)'; prep לְ + inf cstr = purpose: 'to lie.' This infinitive and the next (לִהְיוֹת עִמָּהּ) are paired to show that Joseph refused not only the sexual act but even the intimacy of ongoing companionship with her.
אֶצְלָ֖הּbeside herprep אֵצֶל + sfx 3fs · אֵצֶל (H681)Locative prepositional phrase (the physical proximity refused)אֵצֶל (H681) 'beside, near'; Joseph refused to lie אֶצְלָהּ = 'beside her,' the specific spatial proximity the woman demanded. The infinitive phrase covers the sexual act; the locative specifies the physical closeness it requires.
לִהְי֥וֹתto beprep לְ + Qal inf cstr · הָיָה (H1961)Second purpose infinitive (the broader ongoing relationship refused)→ Infinitive of purpose: specifies the ongoing social presence also refused — not just the act but the relationshipהָיָה (H1961) 'to be'; the second infinitive broadens Joseph's refusal beyond the sexual act to ongoing companionship: he refused to 'be with her.' This shows that Joseph withdrew from dangerous proximity altogether, not merely refusing the explicit demand.
עִמָּֽהּwith herprep עִם + sfx 3fs · עִם (H5973)Comitative prepositional phrase (the ongoing companionship refused)עִם (H5973) 'with'; לִהְיוֹת עִמָּהּ = 'to be with her.' Joseph refused both the specific sexual act (לִשְׁכַּב אֶצְלָהּ) and the general social-intimate presence (לִהְיוֹת עִמָּהּ) — a comprehensive moral withdrawal from all risk of entanglement.
11
וַיְהִי֙ כְּהַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֔ה וַיָּבֹ֥א הַבַּ֖יְתָה לַעֲשׂ֣וֹת מְלַאכְתּ֑וֹ וְאֵ֨ין אִ֜ישׁ מֵאַנְשֵׁ֥י הַבַּ֛יִת שָׁ֖ם בַּבָּֽיִת
And it came to pass on such a day, that he went into the house to do his work, and there was no man of the men of the house there in the house.
The narrative narrows into a dangerous enclosure: work brings Joseph inside, and the absence of other household men creates the setting for the assault.
Word-by-word analysis· 13 words
וַיְהִי֙and it came to passconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms · הָיָה (H1961)Wayyiqtol introducing temporal clause (setting the scene for the assault)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — introduces the specific day of the decisive crisisהָיָה (H1961) 'to come to pass'; the formula וַיְהִי כְּ- introduces the temporal frame: 'on such a day.' After the extended period of daily solicitation (v.10), the narrative narrows to a single definitive occasion.
כְּהַיּ֣וֹםon such a dayprep כְּ + art + N m sg abs · יוֹם (H3117)Temporal prepositional phrase (specifying the type of day — an ordinary day when the crisis erupts)יוֹם (H3117) 'day'; כְּהַיּוֹם הַזֶּה = 'as on this day,' referring to a particular day among the many of daily solicitation. The indefinite-yet-definite phrasing marks this as the day that differs from all the others.
הַזֶּ֔הthisart + demonstrative pronoun ms · זֶה (H2088)Attributive demonstrative (specifying the particular day of the assault)זֶה (H2088) 'this'; the demonstrative makes the day specific — the narrative moves from the general pattern of daily solicitation (v.10) to this particular day when the crisis reaches its decisive point.
וַיָּבֹ֥אand he cameconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms · בּוֹא (H935)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (Joseph's entry — the action that creates the crisis)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — Joseph's ordinary work-entry creates the dangerous enclosureבּוֹא (H935) 'to come, go, enter'; Joseph entered the house for legitimate work purposes — the assault exploits normal household routine. His innocence of intent makes the danger entirely contingent on the woman's manipulation of circumstances.
הַבַּ֖יְתָהinto the houseart + N m sg abs + directional ה · בַּיִת (H1004)Directional adverbial (the destination of Joseph's entry — the house)בַּיִת (H1004) 'house'; the directional ה specifies movement into the house. The house — the scene of Joseph's stewardship throughout the chapter — becomes the setting of the assault. Legitimate entry for work turns into exposure to danger.
לַעֲשׂ֣וֹתto doprep לְ + Qal inf cstr · עָשָׂה (H6213)Purpose infinitive (the legitimate reason for entry — to do his work)→ Infinitive of purpose: Joseph enters the house for entirely legitimate workעָשָׂה (H6213) 'to do, perform, work'; the purpose infinitive makes Joseph's entry clearly innocent — he came to do his work, not to seek the woman. The moral innocence of his presence heightens the injustice of what follows.
מְלַאכְתּ֑וֹhis workN f sg cstr + sfx 3ms · מְלָאכָה (H4399)Direct object of לַעֲשׂוֹת (the work Joseph came to do)מְלָאכָה (H4399) 'work, craft, service, task'; Joseph's מְלַאכְתּוֹ = 'his work' — his designated household task. The noun will later describe the Tabernacle craftwork (Ex 31:5); here it simply marks his legitimate, daily household service.
וְאֵ֨יןand there was noconj וְ + neg particle · אַיִן (H369)Circumstantial clause (the absence of witnesses — creating the dangerous isolation)אַיִן (H369) 'there is not, absence of'; the circumstantial clause introduces the dangerous isolation: there was no man of the household present. This detail is the narrative's explanation of why the assault happens on this day — opportunity created by solitude.
אִ֜ישׁmanN m sg abs · אִישׁ (H376)Subject of אֵין (the person whose absence creates the dangerous situation)אִישׁ (H376) 'man, person'; no man of the household was present. The absence of male witnesses removes any social deterrent to the woman's action and creates the privacy she requires for the assault.
מֵאַנְשֵׁ֥יfrom the men ofprep מִן + N m pl cstr · אִישׁ (H376)Partitive prepositional phrase (specifying whose men are absent — the household staff)אִישׁ (H376) plural אֲנָשִׁים 'men'; in construct: 'of the men of the house' — members of Potiphar's household staff. The emphatic repetition ('no man … from among the men of the house') underscores the totality of the isolation.
הַבַּ֛יִתthe houseart + N m sg abs · בַּיִת (H1004)Genitival noun (the household to which the absent men belong)בַּיִת (H1004) 'house, household'; the men of this house — Potiphar's entire domestic staff — were absent. The house that had been the scene of productive stewardship now becomes a dangerous enclosure precisely because it is empty.
שָׁ֖םthereadv · שָׁם (H8033)Locative adverb (specifying the place of absence — 'not there, in that house')שָׁם (H8033) 'there, in that place'; the adverb specifies that none of the household men were present there — in that specific house where Joseph had entered to work. The spatial specification makes the isolation concrete.
בַּבָּֽיִתin the houseprep בְּ + art + N m sg abs · בַּיִת (H1004)Locative prepositional phrase (second specification of the location — emphatic repetition)בַּיִת (H1004) 'house'; the second mention of 'the house' in the verse (after הַבַּיְתָה and הַבַּיִת) creates an emphatic locative focus: the house, that specific enclosed space, was where the isolation obtained. The repetition underscores the dangerous enclosure.
12
וַתִּתְפְּשֵׂ֧הוּ בְּבִגְד֛וֹ לֵאמֹ֖ר שִׁכְבָ֣ה עִמִּ֑י וַיַּעֲזֹ֤ב בִּגְדוֹ֙ בְּיָדָ֔הּ וַיָּ֖נָס וַיֵּצֵ֥א הַחֽוּצָה
And she seized him by his garment, saying, 'Lie with me.' But he left his garment in her hand, and fled, and went out outside.
Joseph's righteousness takes the form of immediate flight. The garment remains in her hand and becomes the physical token from which a false narrative can be built.
Word-by-word analysis· 11 words
וַתִּתְפְּשֵׂ֧הוּand she seized himconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3fs + obj sfx 3ms · תָּפַשׂ (H8610)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (the assault — the woman's physical seizure of Joseph)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — the assault is the narrative climax of the temptation sequenceתָּפַשׂ (H8610) 'to seize, grab, take hold of'; the verb is strong — not a gentle touch but a deliberate physical grab. The suffix (him) clarifies the object. The assault moves from verbal solicitation to physical force, escalating the crisis.
בְּבִגְד֛וֹby his garmentprep בְּ + N m sg cstr + sfx 3ms · בֶּגֶד (H899)Instrumental prepositional phrase (the means of seizure — by the garment)בֶּגֶד (H899) 'garment, cloth, clothing'; the garment is the object by which the woman grabs Joseph, and its abandonment will become the physical evidence she uses to construct her false accusation. The word recurs five more times (vv.12×2, 13, 15, 16, 18) as the narrative's central material prop.
לֵאמֹ֖רsayingprep לְ + Qal inf cstr · אָמַר (H559)Complementary infinitive (introducing the accompanying speech — the repeated solicitation)→ Infinitive of manner or accompaniment: she grabbed him while saying…אָמַר (H559) 'to say'; the infinitive לֵאמֹר = 'saying' functions as a speech-introduction formula accompanying the physical assault. She repeats the same demand as in v.7, showing that the physical assault is an escalation of the verbal solicitation.
שִׁכְבָ֣הlie with meQal impv 2ms + paragogic ה · שָׁכַב (H7901)Imperative (the repeated demand — identical to v.7)→ Volitional imperative: urgent command to comply with the sexual demandשָׁכַב (H7901) 'to lie down, lie with'; the identical command from v.7 (שִׁכְבָה עִמִּי) is repeated even as she physically grabs him — showing that the assault is a forcible attempt to compel what verbal persuasion and daily solicitation have failed to achieve.
עִמִּ֑יwith meprep עִם + sfx 1cs · עִם (H5973)Comitative prepositional phrase (the demanded sexual union)עִם (H5973) 'with'; the identical phrase as in v.7. The repetition of the exact demand in the moment of physical assault makes the escalation unmistakable: words have failed; force is the next instrument.
וַיַּעֲזֹ֤בbut he leftconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms · עָזַב (H5800)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (Joseph's response — abandoning the garment and fleeing)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — Joseph's decisive moral response is flightעָזַב (H5800) 'to leave, abandon, forsake'; Joseph leaves his garment as the cost of escape. The same verb used for Potiphar's total trust (v.6: 'he left everything in Joseph's hand') now marks Joseph's total abandonment of the garment in the woman's hand — an inversion with narrative significance.
בִּגְדוֹ֙his garmentN m sg cstr + sfx 3ms · בֶּגֶד (H899)Direct object of וַיַּעֲזֹב (the thing abandoned — the garment)בֶּגֶד (H899) 'garment'; the garment left in the woman's hand becomes the physical evidence of the false accusation. Its abandonment is the cost of Joseph's righteousness — he escapes with integrity but leaves behind the material that will be weaponized against him.
בְּיָדָ֔הּin her handprep בְּ + N f sg cstr + sfx 3fs · יָד (H3027)Locative prepositional phrase (the hand that holds the abandoned garment)יָד (H3027) 'hand'; בְּיָדָהּ = 'in her hand.' The garment that was in Joseph's hand as symbol of stewardship (v.3: בְּיָדוֹ; v.4: בְּיָדוֹ) now passes into the woman's hand as weapon. The hand motif is inverted: from Joseph's trustworthy hand to her deceitful hand.
וַיָּ֖נָסand fledconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms · נוּס (H5127)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (Joseph's flight — decisive moral action)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — flight is Joseph's moral response, the opposite of the demanded complianceנוּס (H5127) 'to flee, escape by running'; Joseph's flight is the narrative climax of his moral resistance. He does not argue or wrestle — he runs. The speed and decisiveness of his flight is a rhetorical embodiment of his refusal. The verb recurs in v.13 and 15.
וַיֵּצֵ֥אand went outconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms · יָצָא (H3318)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (exit from the house — completing the flight)→ Wayyiqtol: narrative continuation — the flight reaches completion as Joseph exits the house entirelyיָצָא (H3318) 'to go out, exit, depart'; paired with וַיָּנָס, the two verbs together describe rapid, decisive departure: he fled and went outside. The double-verb structure emphasizes the completeness and urgency of Joseph's exit.
הַחֽוּצָהoutsideart + N m sg abs + directional ה · חוּץ (H2351)Directional adverbial (the destination of Joseph's flight — outside the house)חוּץ (H2351) 'outside, exterior'; with directional ה: 'to the outside.' The word marks Joseph's complete exit from the dangerous domestic enclosure. He is outside — the woman is inside with the garment. The spatial contrast sets up the two parties for the accusation to follow.
13
וַיְהִי֙ כִּרְאוֹתָ֔הּ כִּֽי עָזַ֥ב בִּגְד֖וֹ בְּיָדָ֑הּ וַיָּ֖נָס הַחֽוּצָה
And it came to pass, when she saw that he had left his garment in her hand and had fled outside,
The woman's response begins not from violated truth but from possession of the garment and the opportunity it creates.
Word-by-word analysis· 8 words
וַיְהִי֙and it came to passconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms · הָיָה (H1961)Wayyiqtol introducing temporal clause (the woman's reaction — narrative transition)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — the scene shifts to the woman's response after Joseph's flightהָיָה (H1961) 'to come to pass'; opens the consequence clause: 'when she saw that…' The seeing functions as the trigger for the accusation sequence that follows.
כִּרְאוֹתָ֔הּwhen she sawprep כְּ + Qal inf cstr + sfx 3fs (subj) · רָאָה (H7200)Temporal prepositional phrase (the moment of the woman's realization — perceiving the abandoned garment)→ Infinitive of temporal clause: the moment of her seeing the situationרָאָה (H7200) 'to see, perceive'; prep כְּ + inf cstr + subject suffix: 'when she saw.' The suffix (3fs) marks her as the subject. Her perception of the abandoned garment immediately triggers the tactical shift from failed assault to fabricated accusation.
כִּֽיthatsubordinating conj · כִּי (H3588)Subordinating conjunction (introducing the content of what the woman perceived)כִּי (H3588) 'that'; introduces the embedded perception clause: she saw that he had left the garment. The subordinating כִּי makes the following clause the specific content of her seeing.
עָזַ֥בhe had leftQal perf 3ms · עָזַב (H5800)Predicate of embedded perception clause (what she saw — the garment left behind)→ Perfective: completed action — the leaving of the garment is a settled fact she now perceivesעָזַב (H5800) 'to leave, abandon'; the same verb used for Potiphar's total trust in v.6 (leaving everything in Joseph's hand) and for Joseph's flight in v.12 (leaving his garment). Here the woman perceives this specific abandonment as the opportunity for accusation.
בִּגְד֖וֹhis garmentN m sg cstr + sfx 3ms · בֶּגֶד (H899)Direct object of עָזַב (the abandoned garment — now evidence in the woman's hand)בֶּגֶד (H899) 'garment'; the garment is the pivot of the entire accusation narrative. Joseph's flight required abandoning it; the woman's possession of it provides the physical 'proof' for her false report.
בְּיָדָ֑הּin her handprep בְּ + N f sg cstr + sfx 3fs · יָד (H3027)Locative prepositional phrase (where the garment is — in her hand, as evidence)יָד (H3027) 'hand'; בְּיָדָהּ = 'in her hand.' The garment is already in her hand (cf. v.12), and this verse confirms that fact as the basis for what follows. The 'hand' motif, the chapter's central image of delegated authority, now signifies manipulated evidence.
וַיָּ֖נָסand had fledconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms · נוּס (H5127)Wayyiqtol in temporal clause (the flight she perceived — the flight that created the situation)→ Wayyiqtol: narrative sequence within her perception — she sees both the garment and his flightנוּס (H5127) 'to flee'; the third occurrence of this verb (cf. v.12 twice). Joseph's flight, which was the act of righteousness, becomes in the woman's retelling the sign of guilt. Righteous flight is reinterpreted as flight from accusation.
הַחֽוּצָהoutsideart + N m sg abs + directional ה · חוּץ (H2351)Directional adverbial (the direction of Joseph's flight — he has exited completely)חוּץ (H2351) 'outside'; the directional ה reinforces the completeness of Joseph's departure. He is fully outside; she has the garment. This spatial arrangement is the material basis for her false narrative: he was here, he fled, here is his garment.
14
וַתִּקְרָ֞א לְאַנְשֵׁ֣י בֵיתָ֗הּ וַתֹּ֤אמֶר לָהֶם֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר רְא֗וּ הֵ֥בִיא לָ֛נוּ אִ֥ישׁ עִבְרִ֖י לְצַ֣חֶק בָּ֑נוּ בָּ֤א אֵלַי֙ לִשְׁכַּ֣ב עִמִּ֔י וָאֶקְרָ֖א בְּק֥וֹל גָּדֽוֹל
that she called to the men of her house and said to them, saying, 'See, he has brought in to us a Hebrew man to mock us. He came in to me to lie with me, and I cried out with a loud voice.'
She frames the charge for the household as communal insult, emphasizing Joseph as a Hebrew outsider brought in to disgrace 'us.'
Word-by-word analysis· 20 words
וַתִּקְרָ֞אthat she calledconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3fs · קָרָא (H7121)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (the woman summons the household — accusation begins)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — the woman moves immediately from perception to accusationקָרָא (H7121) 'to call, summon, cry out'; the woman calls the household men — who were absent in v.11, now summoned as witnesses to her fabricated account. The speed of her response (she sees → she calls) shows pre-meditated resolve.
לְאַנְשֵׁ֣יto the men ofprep לְ + N m pl cstr · אִישׁ (H376)Dative of address (the men called — the household staff)אִישׁ (H376) 'man'; the same word whose absence in v.11 enabled the assault. Now the woman summons those men to be her audience for the accusation. Their absence made the assault possible; their presence now is weaponized to lend the accusation credibility.
בֵיתָ֗הּher houseN m sg cstr + sfx 3fs · בַּיִת (H1004)Genitival noun (whose household men are summoned — her household)בַּיִת (H1004) 'house'; the possessive suffix is 3fs (her house) — interesting since it is technically Potiphar's house. Her use of the possessive may reflect her authority within the domestic sphere in her husband's absence.
וַתֹּ֤אמֶרand saidconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3fs · אָמַר (H559)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (speech introduction — the accusation to the household)→ Wayyiqtol: narrative continuation — the accusation is delivered immediately after the summonsאָמַר (H559) 'to say, speak'; the speech that follows (vv.14b–15) is the first version of the fabricated account, addressed to the household. It will be repeated to Potiphar in vv.17–18, with subtle variations.
לָהֶם֙to themprep לְ + sfx 3mp · לְ (prep)Dative of address (the household men — the initial audience for the accusation)Preposition לְ with 3mp suffix: 'to them' — the assembled household men. They are the first audience for the accusation, and their hearing of it as a group lends it social weight before it reaches Potiphar.
לֵאמֹ֔רsayingprep לְ + Qal inf cstr · אָמַר (H559)Complementary infinitive (speech-introduction formula preceding direct speech)→ Infinitive introducing direct speechאָמַר (H559); the formula לֵאמֹר = 'saying' introduces direct speech. The double speech verb (וַתֹּאמֶר לָהֶם לֵאמֹר) may add formality or indicate that what follows is a public proclamation intended to be heard and remembered.
רְא֗וּsee!Qal impv 2mp · רָאָה (H7200)Imperative (attention-getter — commanding the household to witness her claim)→ Volitional imperative: commands the household men to attend to the accusationרָאָה (H7200) 'to see'; the Qal impv 2mp is a rhetorical call to attention: 'Look!' or 'See!' — demanding that the household men observe and accept the account she is about to give. The imperative creates a posture of outrage and indignation.
הֵ֥בִיאhe has broughtHiphil perf 3ms · בּוֹא (H935)Predicate verb (the charge against Potiphar — he brought the dangerous man)→ Perfective: completed act blamed on Potiphar — 'he brought' this Hebrew into the householdבּוֹא (H935) Hiphil 'to bring, cause to come'; the woman attributes responsibility to Potiphar ('he has brought … a Hebrew man to us') — a subtle shifting of blame onto her husband for creating the dangerous situation. She frames herself and the household as victims of Potiphar's decision.
לָ֛נוּto usprep לְ + sfx 1cp · לְ (prep)Dative of disadvantage (brought to 'us' — the household framed as communal victims)Preposition לְ with 1cp suffix: 'to us.' The woman frames the threat as communal: Joseph was brought among 'us' to mock 'us' (cf. בָּנוּ v.14). This communal framing draws the household into solidarity with her accusation.
אִ֥ישׁa manN m sg abs · אִישׁ (H376)Direct object of הֵבִיא (the one brought — Joseph characterized pejoratively)אִישׁ (H376) 'man'; together with עִבְרִי, this is the derogatory label Joseph is given — 'a Hebrew man.' The ethnic designation underscores outsider status and is used to heighten the sense of violation: an outsider was brought in and abused the household's hospitality.
עִבְרִ֖יHebrewgentilic adj m sg abs · עִבְרִי (H5680)Attributive adjective (ethnic label — marking Joseph as an outsider)עִבְרִי (H5680) 'Hebrew'; the ethnic term for Joseph's people, used here by the woman as a pejorative marker of foreign otherness. The label 'Hebrew man/slave' (here and v.17) contrasts with Potiphar's status as a high Egyptian official and frames the accusation in terms of social outrage.
לְצַ֣חֶקto mock usprep לְ + Piel inf cstr · צָחַק (H6711)Purpose infinitive (the alleged purpose of Joseph's presence — to mock/abuse)→ Infinitive of alleged purpose: the woman frames Joseph's entire presence as aimed at mockery and abuseצָחַק (H6711) Piel 'to mock, laugh at, make sport of, abuse'; the Piel is intensive and here denotes abusive mockery or violation. The verb carries sexual connotations in some contexts (cf. Gen 26:8) and is deliberately ambiguous. The woman uses it to inflame the household's sense of communal shame.
בָּ֑נוּwith usprep בְּ + sfx 1cp · בְּ (prep)Object of לְצַחֶק (the target of the alleged mockery — 'us,' the household)בְּ with 1cp suffix: 'against/with us.' The communal object of לְצַחֶק reinforces the woman's framing of the assault as a collective insult against the entire household, not merely a personal attack on herself. This social framing is designed to generate communal outrage.
בָּ֤אhe cameQal perf 3ms · בּוֹא (H935)Predicate verb (the false account — he came in to her with intent)→ Perfective: completed action in the false narrative — Joseph is said to have come in purposefullyבּוֹא (H935) 'to come, enter'; in the woman's account Joseph 'came to me' (בָּא אֵלַי) implying purposeful entry for assault. This reverses the actual event: Joseph came to do his work (v.11: לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלַאכְתּוֹ) and was seized, not he who came for assault.
אֵלַי֙to meprep אֶל + sfx 1cs · אֶל (H413)Directional prepositional phrase (the target of Joseph's alleged approach — herself)אֶל (H413) 'to, toward'; with 1cs suffix: 'to me.' In the false version, Joseph came toward her — a purposeful directional movement that inverts his actual entry for work. The self-referential phrasing centers her in the account.
לִשְׁכַּ֣בto lie with meprep לְ + Qal inf cstr · שָׁכַב (H7901)Purpose infinitive (the alleged intent — to lie with her)→ Infinitive of alleged purpose: the charge that Joseph came to commit the sexual actשָׁכַב (H7901) 'to lie down, lie with'; the same verb from v.7 (the woman's own demand), now fraudulently attributed to Joseph as his purpose in entering. The sexual demand she made of him is here inverted and charged to him.
עִמִּ֔יwith meprep עִם + sfx 1cs · עִם (H5973)Comitative prepositional phrase (the demanded union attributed falsely to Joseph's intent)עִם (H5973) 'with'; עִמִּי = 'with me' — the same phrase as in v.7 (the woman's actual demand to Joseph). By placing her own words in Joseph's mouth as intent, she constructs a false narrative that precisely inverts the moral reality.
וָאֶקְרָ֖אand I cried outconj וָ + Qal wayyiqtol 1cs · קָרָא (H7121)Wayyiqtol 1cs (the woman's claimed response — she cried out for help)→ Wayyiqtol: first-person sequential action in the false narrative — her cry is claimed as her response to his alleged advanceקָרָא (H7121) 'to call, cry out'; in the false narrative she claims to have cried out for help. In the actual narrative (v.12), she grabbed him and demanded compliance — the cry in her account converts active assault into self-defense.
בְּק֥וֹלwith a voiceprep בְּ + N m sg abs · קוֹל (H6963)Instrumental prepositional phrase (the manner of crying out — with voice)קוֹל (H6963) 'voice, sound, cry'; קָרָא בְּקוֹל = 'to cry out with a voice' — to call aloud. The phrase is a standard idiom for a public, audible cry; the addition of גָּדוֹל makes the cry emphatically loud, establishing audible alarm as evidence.
גָּדֽוֹלloudadj m sg abs · גָּדוֹל (H1419)Attributive adjective (modifying קוֹל — the loudness of the claimed cry)גָּדוֹל (H1419) 'great, large, loud'; qualifies the cry as a 'loud voice,' indicating an audible alarm that should have attracted attention. The claim of a loud cry serves as circumstantial evidence that the woman reacted with proper alarm — and that Joseph fled because he was caught.
15
וַיְהִ֣י כְשָׁמְע֔וֹ כִּֽי הֲרִימֹ֥תִי קוֹלִ֖י וָאֶקְרָ֑א וַיַּעֲזֹ֤ב בִּגְדוֹ֙ אֶצְלִ֔י וַיָּ֖נָס וַיֵּצֵ֥א הַחֽוּצָה
And it came to pass, when he heard that I lifted up my voice and cried out, that he left his garment beside me, and fled, and went out outside.
The accusation uses the abandoned garment as corroboration, converting Joseph's escape into evidence against him.
Word-by-word analysis· 12 words
וַיְהִ֣יand it came to passconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms · הָיָה (H1961)Wayyiqtol introducing temporal clause (narrative frame for the garment-as-evidence claim)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — the temporal clause introduces the planted evidenceהָיָה (H1961) 'to come to pass'; the formula וַיְהִי כְּ- = 'when he heard…' introduces the woman's explanation of how she came to have the garment: she raised her voice, he fled, and left it behind. The fabricated logic is now completed.
כְשָׁמְע֔וֹwhen he heardprep כְּ + Qal inf cstr + sfx 3ms (subj) · שָׁמַע (H8085)Temporal prepositional phrase (Joseph's alleged hearing of the cry — the trigger for his flight in the false account)→ Infinitive of temporal clause: the hearing moment in the false narrativeשָׁמַע (H8085) 'to hear'; in the false narrative, Joseph is said to have heard her cry and fled — inverting the real sequence (he fled first, then she cried). The woman's account reverses cause and effect to make his flight appear as the response of a guilty person caught in the act.
כִּֽיthatsubordinating conj · כִּי (H3588)Subordinating conjunction (introducing the content of what Joseph allegedly heard)כִּי (H3588) 'that'; introduces the embedded clause specifying the content of the hearing: 'that I raised my voice and cried out.'
הֲרִימֹ֥תִיI raisedHiphil perf 1cs · רוּם (H7311)Predicate verb (the woman's claimed action — raising her voice in alarm)→ Perfective: a past completed action in the false account — 'I raised my voice'רוּם (H7311) Hiphil 'to raise, lift up'; הֲרִים קוֹל = 'to raise the voice' is the standard idiom for crying out loudly. The Hiphil is causative: she 'caused her voice to rise' = she raised her voice loudly.
קוֹלִ֖יmy voiceN m sg cstr + sfx 1cs · קוֹל (H6963)Direct object of הֲרִימֹתִי (the voice raised — the alarm cry)קוֹל (H6963) 'voice'; with 1cs suffix: 'my voice.' The claim of raising her voice converts her actual assault into a defensive cry for help. The same noun appears in v.14 (בְּקוֹל גָּדוֹל) — both occurrences are part of the fabricated account.
וָאֶקְרָ֑אand cried outconj וָ + Qal wayyiqtol 1cs · קָרָא (H7121)Wayyiqtol 1cs (coordinated action — the cry following the raised voice)→ Wayyiqtol: 1cs narrative sequence in the false account — the cry completes the alarmקָרָא (H7121) 'to call out, cry'; coordinated with הֲרִימֹתִי to describe a two-stage alarm: raising the voice and calling out. The repeated claim of crying out (cf. v.14) underlines the woman's insistence that her response was immediately defensive.
וַיַּעֲזֹ֤בthat he leftconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms · עָזַב (H5800)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (the alleged consequence — Joseph left his garment)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance in the false account — the abandoned garment is presented as evidence of guiltעָזַב (H5800) 'to leave, abandon'; in the false account Joseph's leaving of the garment (the act of his escape) is presented as evidence against him. The same verb used for his righteous flight in v.12 is here weaponized in false testimony.
בִּגְדוֹ֙his garmentN m sg cstr + sfx 3ms · בֶּגֶד (H899)Direct object of וַיַּעֲזֹב (the abandoned garment — the physical evidence)בֶּגֶד (H899) 'garment'; the garment's abandonment is the central physical evidence of the accusation. Joseph's actual reason for leaving it was to escape her grip (v.12); in her account it becomes evidence of his panic upon being caught.
אֶצְלִ֔יbeside meprep אֵצֶל + sfx 1cs · אֵצֶל (H681)Locative prepositional phrase (where Joseph allegedly left the garment — beside her)אֵצֶל (H681) 'beside, near'; with 1cs suffix: 'beside me.' The precise location of the garment — beside her — is offered as material proof that Joseph had come near to her in the manner she describes. The same preposition used for Joseph's actual refusal to lie אֶצְלָהּ (v.10) appears here in her inverted account.
וַיָּ֖נָסand fledconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms · נוּס (H5127)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (the alleged flight — presented in the false account as guilt-flight)→ Wayyiqtol: narrative continuation in the false account — flight as apparent evidence of guiltנוּס (H5127) 'to flee'; the woman presents Joseph's flight as the reaction of a guilty person caught in the act. In reality, the flight preceded her cry and was the act of righteousness. The narrative's readers know the inversion; the household and Potiphar do not.
וַיֵּצֵ֥אand went outconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms · יָצָא (H3318)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (completing the flight — exit from the house)→ Wayyiqtol: narrative continuation — completes the picture of Joseph's total departureיָצָא (H3318) 'to go out, exit'; paired with וַיָּנָס as in v.12, but here the double-verb narrates the flight as the woman presents it — the garment left behind, the man fled outside. The physical evidence is complete: garment here, man gone.
הַחֽוּצָהoutsideart + N m sg abs + directional ה · חוּץ (H2351)Directional adverbial (the destination of the alleged flight — outside the house)חוּץ (H2351) 'outside'; third occurrence of this word in the narrative (cf. vv.12, 13). Joseph is placed outside and the garment inside — the spatial arrangement the woman exploits as her false proof, closing the first version of the accusation speech.
16
וַתַּנַּ֥ח בִּגְד֖וֹ אֶצְלָ֑הּ עַד בּ֥וֹא אֲדֹנָ֖יו אֶל בֵּיתֽוֹ
And she laid his garment beside her until his master came to his house.
The garment is deliberately preserved for the second telling, turning the scene into prepared courtroom theater within the house.
Word-by-word analysis· 8 words
וַתַּנַּ֥חand she laidconj וַ + Hiphil wayyiqtol 3fs · יָנַח (H3240)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (deliberate preservation of evidence — staging for Potiphar)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — the garment is deliberately kept as staged evidence for the husbandיָנַח (H3240) Hiphil 'to set down, lay, leave, place'; the woman deliberately lays the garment beside her and keeps it there until Potiphar returns. This is not absent-mindedness but deliberate staging of evidence — the garment is physically preserved as material proof.
בִּגְד֖וֹhis garmentN m sg cstr + sfx 3ms · בֶּגֶד (H899)Direct object of וַתַּנַּח (the garment she staged as evidence)בֶּגֶד (H899) 'garment'; the central material object of the entire accusation narrative appears here for the sixth time in the passage (vv.12×2, 13, 15, 16). Its preservation beside her is the final staging act before Potiphar's arrival.
אֶצְלָ֑הּbeside herprep אֵצֶל + sfx 3fs · אֵצֶל (H681)Locative prepositional phrase (where the garment was kept — beside the woman)אֵצֶל (H681) 'beside, near'; with 3fs suffix: 'beside her.' The garment remains in its position — beside her — maintaining the spatial arrangement she will present to Potiphar as corroboration of her story.
עַדuntilprep · עַד (H5704)Temporal preposition (marking the duration of garment-preservation — until Potiphar arrives)עַד (H5704) 'until, as far as'; introduces the temporal limit of the garment's preservation beside her: until the master comes home. The explicit mention of waiting for Potiphar shows the premeditation of the accusation.
בּ֥וֹאthe comingQal inf cstr · בּוֹא (H935)Infinitive in temporal clause (the event awaited — Potiphar's return home)→ Infinitive in temporal clause with עַד: 'until the coming of his master to his house'בּוֹא (H935) 'to come, arrive'; Qal inf cstr in the temporal phrase עַד בּוֹא = 'until the coming of.' Potiphar's return to his house becomes the next narrative moment — when the accusation will be retold to the master himself.
אֲדֹנָ֖יוhis masterN m pl cstr + sfx 3ms · אָדוֹן (H113)Subject of the infinitival clause (the one whose arrival is awaited)אָדוֹן (H113) 'lord, master'; Joseph's master (Potiphar) will arrive and receive the second telling of the accusation. The stage is set: garment preserved, story ready, audience about to arrive.
אֶלtoprep · אֶל (H413)Directional preposition (Potiphar's direction of travel — to his house)אֶל (H413) 'to, toward'; marks the direction of Potiphar's homecoming — coming to his house, where the woman waits with the staged garment and prepared accusation.
בֵּיתֽוֹhis houseN m sg cstr + sfx 3ms · בַּיִת (H1004)Object of prep אֶל (the destination of Potiphar's return — his own house)בַּיִת (H1004) 'house'; Potiphar's house — the scene of the entire drama. The verse closes with the master on his way back to the very house where YHWH's blessing had rested (v.5) and where his trusted steward has now been falsely accused. The house and the coming-home together prepare for the decisive confrontation.
17
וַתְּדַבֵּ֣ר אֵלָ֔יו כַּדְּבָרִ֥ים הָאֵ֖לֶּה לֵאמֹ֑ר בָּֽא אֵלַ֞י הָעֶ֧בֶד הָֽעִבְרִ֛י אֲשֶׁר הֵבֵ֥אתָ לָּ֖נוּ לְצַ֥חֶק בִּֽי
And she spoke to him according to these words, saying, 'The Hebrew slave whom you brought to us came in to me to mock me.'
Retelling the charge to Potiphar, she sharpens Joseph's status and throws responsibility back onto the husband who brought him into the household.
Word-by-word analysis· 14 words
וַתְּדַבֵּ֣רand she spokeconj וַ + Piel wayyiqtol 3fs · דָּבַר (H1696)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (the second delivery of the accusation — to Potiphar)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — the accusation is now retold to Potiphar himselfדָּבַר (H1696) Piel 'to speak, declare'; the Piel intensifies the speech as deliberate, purposeful discourse — not casual mention but a formal accusation. The woman speaks to Potiphar using the same basic account but with variations that sharpen the charge.
אֵלָ֔יוto himprep אֶל + sfx 3ms · אֶל (H413)Dative of address (Potiphar — the recipient of the second accusation)אֶל (H413) 'to'; with 3ms suffix: 'to him' — Potiphar, who has just arrived home. He becomes the second and decisive audience for the false accusation. His response (anger, imprisonment) will determine Joseph's fate.
כַּדְּבָרִ֥יםaccording to these wordsprep כְּ + art + N m pl abs · דָּבָר (H1697)Comparative prepositional phrase (the speech follows the established account)דָּבָר (H1697) 'word, matter'; כַּדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה = 'according to these words,' meaning 'in accordance with what she had said to the household.' The narrative connects the second speech to the first, noting that Potiphar heard essentially the same account.
הָאֵ֖לֶּהtheseart + demonstrative pronoun cp · אֵלֶּה (H428)Attributive demonstrative (specifying which words — the words just spoken to the household)אֵלֶּה (H428) 'these'; refers back to the speech of vv.14–15, now repeated to Potiphar. The demonstrative connects the two speeches as versions of the same fabricated account.
לֵאמֹ֑רsayingprep לְ + Qal inf cstr · אָמַר (H559)Complementary infinitive (speech-introduction formula introducing direct speech to Potiphar)→ Infinitive introducing direct speechאָמַר (H559); לֵאמֹר introduces the direct speech of the second accusation. The slight variations between this speech and vv.14–15 are significant: she now says 'the Hebrew slave whom you brought to us' — more sharply accusing Potiphar himself.
בָּֽאcame inQal perf 3ms · בּוֹא (H935)Predicate verb (the alleged purposeful entry — Joseph's arrival in the false account)→ Perfective: completed entry in the false account — Joseph allegedly came in to herבּוֹא (H935) 'to come, enter'; in the false narrative Joseph 'came in to me' (בָּא אֵלַי) — allegedly purposefully. As in v.14, the reality is that Joseph came to do his work and was physically seized.
אֵלַ֞יto meprep אֶל + sfx 1cs · אֶל (H413)Directional prepositional phrase (Joseph's alleged purposeful approach — toward the woman)אֶל (H413) 'to'; with 1cs suffix: 'to me.' The directional phrase implies intentional movement toward her — the alleged assault posture that is the opposite of what actually happened.
הָעֶ֧בֶדthe slaveart + N m sg abs · עֶבֶד (H5650)Subject of בָּא (Joseph identified pejoratively as 'the slave')עֶבֶד (H5650) 'slave, servant'; the second speech to Potiphar uses הָעֶבֶד הָעִבְרִי — 'the Hebrew slave' — rather than just 'a Hebrew man' (v.14). The more degrading label 'slave' may be designed to emphasize Joseph's subordinate status to Potiphar personally.
הָֽעִבְרִ֛יthe Hebrewart + gentilic adj m sg abs · עִבְרִי (H5680)Attributive adjective (ethnic label — marking Joseph as an outsider/slave)עִבְרִי (H5680) 'Hebrew'; the ethnic designation repeated from v.14, now combined with 'slave' to form the most derogatory possible description. The double label — Hebrew and slave — amplifies the alleged social outrage.
אֲשֶׁרwhomrelative pronoun · אֲשֶׁר (H834)Relative clause marker (linking הָעֶבֶד to the relative clause blaming Potiphar)אֲשֶׁר (H834); introduces the relative clause that shifts blame to Potiphar: 'whom you brought to us.' The relative clause is the new element in the second speech — absent from the household speech — directly implicating Potiphar in creating the dangerous situation.
הֵבֵ֥אתָyou broughtHiphil perf 2ms · בּוֹא (H935)Predicate of relative clause (addressed to Potiphar — the accusation that he brought this danger upon the household)→ Perfective: completed prior action — Potiphar's decision to bring Joseph into the household is now charged as a causal factorבּוֹא (H935) Hiphil 'to bring, cause to come'; 2ms suffix addressed directly to Potiphar. The woman uses the second-person address to implicate him: 'whom YOU brought to us.' This shifts moral responsibility onto Potiphar while keeping Joseph as the named offender.
לָּ֖נוּto usprep לְ + sfx 1cp · לְ (prep)Dative of disadvantage (brought to 'us' — the household framed as victims of Potiphar's decision)Preposition לְ with 1cp suffix: 'to us.' As in v.14, the communal framing (to us, for us) draws the household into the sphere of victimhood and holds Potiphar responsible for bringing Joseph among them.
לְצַ֥חֶקto mock meprep לְ + Piel inf cstr · צָחַק (H6711)Purpose infinitive (the alleged purpose of Joseph's presence — to mock/abuse)→ Infinitive of alleged purposeצָחַק (H6711) Piel 'to mock, abuse'; in v.14 the victim was 'us' (בָּנוּ); here the victim is 'me' (בִּי) — a subtle shift as the woman moves from communal outrage to personal violation in her speech to her husband. The Piel's sexual nuance remains in play.
בִּֽיmeprep בְּ + sfx 1cs · בְּ (prep)Object of לְצַחֶק (the personal victim in the speech to Potiphar)בְּ with 1cs suffix: 'me, against me.' The shift from 'us' (v.14) to 'me' personalizes the accusation before Potiphar, making it more directly his wife who was victimized. This escalation of personal affront is designed to provoke the husband's protective anger.
18
וַיְהִ֕י כַּהֲרִימִ֥י קוֹלִ֖י וָאֶקְרָ֑א וַיַּעֲזֹ֥ב בִּגְד֛וֹ אֶצְלִ֖י וַיָּ֥נָס הַחֽוּצָה
And it came to pass, when I lifted up my voice and cried out, that he left his garment beside me and fled outside.'
The repeated formula gives the false report an air of consistency and lets the planted evidence do its work again.
Word-by-word analysis· 9 words
וַיְהִ֕יand it came to passconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms · הָיָה (H1961)Wayyiqtol introducing temporal clause (completing the second accusation speech)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — the climax of the second speechהָיָה (H1961) 'to come to pass'; the same formula as in v.15, now closing the second speech with the claim of raising her voice and crying out. The near-verbatim repetition lends the false account an air of consistent, practiced testimony.
כַּהֲרִימִ֥יwhen I raisedprep כְּ + Hiphil inf cstr + sfx 1cs (subj) · רוּם (H7311)Temporal prepositional phrase (the alleged alarm — her raising of the voice)→ Infinitive of temporal clause: the moment of raising her voice in the false accountרוּם (H7311) Hiphil 'to raise, lift'; כַּהֲרִימִי = 'when I raised (my voice)' — the same action claimed in v.15. The Hiphil inf cstr with prep כְּ and 1cs subject suffix mirrors the construction of v.15 closely, maintaining the consistency of the fabricated account.
קוֹלִ֖יmy voiceN m sg cstr + sfx 1cs · קוֹל (H6963)Direct object of הֲרִימִי (the voice raised as the alarm cry)קוֹל (H6963) 'voice'; with 1cs suffix: 'my voice.' Third repetition of the claim of raising her voice (cf. vv.14, 15). The consistent repetition of this detail reinforces the accusation narrative's internal coherence — though it is entirely fabricated.
וָאֶקְרָ֑אand cried outconj וָ + Qal wayyiqtol 1cs · קָרָא (H7121)Wayyiqtol 1cs (the coordinated cry — the alarm action completing the claim)→ Wayyiqtol: 1cs narrative sequence in the false account — the cry follows the raised voiceקָרָא (H7121) 'to cry out'; the same coordination as v.15 (הֲרִימֹתִי + וָאֶקְרָא). The near-verbatim repetition to Potiphar of what was said to the household creates a performance of consistent testimony — false but internally coherent.
וַיַּעֲזֹ֥בthat he leftconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms · עָזַב (H5800)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (the alleged abandonment of the garment — the planted evidence)→ Wayyiqtol: narrative advance in the false account — the garment abandonment is presented as the consequence of flightעָזַב (H5800) 'to leave, abandon'; the garment's abandonment as the alleged response to her cry closes the circle of the false narrative: she cried → he fled → he left the garment. The actual sequence was entirely reversed.
בִּגְד֛וֹhis garmentN m sg cstr + sfx 3ms · בֶּגֶד (H899)Direct object of וַיַּעֲזֹב (the garment — the physical evidence)בֶּגֶד (H899) 'garment'; the garment's seventh appearance in the narrative. Its presence in the woman's hands as the closing element of both versions of the accusation (vv.15, 18) makes it the consistent material anchor for the false charge.
אֶצְלִ֖יbeside meprep אֵצֶל + sfx 1cs · אֵצֶל (H681)Locative prepositional phrase (where the garment allegedly was left — beside the accuser)אֵצֶל (H681) 'beside, near'; with 1cs suffix: 'beside me.' The physical location of the garment — beside her — is the material proof of alleged proximity. Repeated from v.15 to maintain the evidence claim before the decisive audience (her husband).
וַיָּ֥נָסand he fledconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms · נוּס (H5127)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (the alleged guilt-flight — closing the accusation)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — the flight as claimed evidence of guilt closes the second speechנוּס (H5127) 'to flee'; the flight that was Joseph's righteous escape from assault is here presented for the third time as the flight of a guilty person caught in the act. The false narrative is now fully presented to its most important audience.
הַחֽוּצָהoutsideart + N m sg abs + directional ה · חוּץ (H2351)Directional adverbial (the direction of the alleged guilty flight — outside)חוּץ (H2351) 'outside'; the directional ה marks Joseph's alleged flight direction as completely exterior — he fled entirely from the scene. This closes the second accusation speech on the same note as the first (v.15), presenting the same fabricated account with identical closing words to Potiphar.
19
וַיְהִי֩ כִשְׁמֹ֨עַ אֲדֹנָ֜יו אֶת דִּבְרֵ֣י אִשְׁתּ֗וֹ אֲשֶׁ֨ר דִּבְּרָ֤ה אֵלָיו֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר כַּדְּבָרִ֣ים הָאֵ֔לֶּה עָ֥שָׂהּ לִ֖י עַבְדֶּ֑ךָ וַיִּ֖חַר אַפּֽוֹ
And it came to pass, when his master heard the words of his wife, which she spoke to him, saying, 'According to these words your servant did to me,' that his anger burned.
Potiphar's anger is the narrative consequence of the speech, and Joseph is now made to bear the wrath generated by a lie.
Word-by-word analysis· 17 words
וַיְהִי֩and it came to passconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms · הָיָה (H1961)Wayyiqtol introducing temporal clause (Potiphar's response — the narrative turning point)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — the master's reaction determines Joseph's fateהָיָה (H1961) 'to come to pass'; the formula וַיְהִי כִשְׁמֹעַ = 'when he heard' introduces the consequence of the second accusation speech. Potiphar's hearing of the wife's words leads directly to his anger and Joseph's imprisonment.
כִשְׁמֹ֨עַwhen he heardprep כְּ + Qal inf cstr · שָׁמַע (H8085)Temporal prepositional phrase (Potiphar's hearing of the accusation — the trigger for his anger)→ Infinitive in temporal clause: the hearing moment that triggers the anger responseשָׁמַע (H8085) 'to hear, listen to'; in the temporal phrase כִּשְׁמֹעַ אֲדֹנָיו = 'when his master heard.' Unlike v.15 where the woman claims Joseph heard and fled, here Potiphar's hearing drives the consequence: anger and imprisonment.
אֲדֹנָ֜יוhis masterN m pl cstr + sfx 3ms · אָדוֹן (H113)Subject of the infinitival clause (Potiphar as the one who hears the accusation)אָדוֹן (H113) 'lord, master'; Joseph's master (Potiphar) hears his wife's words and reacts. The narrative presents his reaction as driven by anger but does not specify whether the anger is entirely belief in the accusation or also embarrassment at his household's reputation.
אֶת[obj]obj marker · אֵת (H853)Direct-object marker (marking דִּבְרֵי as the definite direct object of שְׁמֹעַ)אֵת (H853), nota accusativi; marks the definite object of hearing — the words of his wife. The object marker makes the specific words the content of what Potiphar hears.
דִּבְרֵ֣יthe words ofN m pl cstr · דָּבָר (H1697)Direct object of כִשְׁמֹעַ (the content of Potiphar's hearing — his wife's accusatory words)דָּבָר (H1697) 'word, matter, thing'; דִּבְרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ = 'the words of his wife.' What reaches Potiphar is words — the woman's fabricated verbal account, not independent evidence. He judges on the basis of her speech alone.
אִשְׁתּ֗וֹhis wifeN f sg cstr + sfx 3ms · אִשָּׁה (H802)Genitival noun (whose words Potiphar hears — his own wife's)אִשָּׁה (H802) 'woman, wife'; the possessive suffix identifies the accuser as Potiphar's own wife. The marital bond makes her accusation maximally credible — and maximally dangerous — for Joseph. A wife's accusation against a slave carries enormous social weight.
אֲשֶׁ֨רwhichrelative pronoun · אֲשֶׁר (H834)Relative clause marker (introducing the relative clause specifying the words — those she had spoken)אֲשֶׁר (H834); introduces the relative clause that links the words to the speech act: 'the words which she spoke to him.' The relative clause confirms that it is the specific, fabricated account of vv.17–18 that Potiphar is now processing.
דִּבְּרָ֤הshe spokePiel perf 3fs · דָּבַר (H1696)Predicate of relative clause (the speech act — the woman's speaking to Potiphar)→ Perfective: the completed speech act — she has spoken; the words have been deliveredדָּבַר (H1696) Piel 'to speak'; the Piel emphasizes deliberate, purposeful speaking. The perfective marks the speech as completed and now in Potiphar's possession as the basis for his judgment.
אֵלָיו֙to himprep אֶל + sfx 3ms · אֶל (H413)Dative of address (Potiphar — the recipient of the wife's accusatory speech)אֶל (H413) 'to'; with 3ms suffix: 'to him (Potiphar).' The speech was directed specifically and personally to Potiphar, making it a private accusation from wife to husband — not a public announcement.
לֵאמֹ֔רsayingprep לְ + Qal inf cstr · אָמַר (H559)Complementary infinitive (speech-introduction for the embedded quotation)→ Infinitive introducing the woman's quoted wordsאָמַר (H559); לֵאמֹר = 'saying,' introducing the embedded quotation. The double speech construction (דִּבְּרָה אֵלָיו לֵאמֹר) signals that what follows is verbatim direct speech.
כַּדְּבָרִ֣יםaccording to these wordsprep כְּ + art + N m pl abs · דָּבָר (H1697)Comparative prepositional phrase (the woman's closing self-reference — 'as these things/words he did to me')דָּבָר (H1697) 'word, thing'; כַּדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה = 'according to these words/things' — the woman's summary claim that Joseph acted as she has described. This formula frames the accusation as a neat correspondence between her words and Joseph's alleged deeds.
הָאֵ֔לֶּהtheseart + demonstrative pronoun cp · אֵלֶּה (H428)Attributive demonstrative (modifying הַדְּבָרִים — 'these words/things')אֵלֶּה (H428) 'these'; refers to the account she has just given — the false narrative of vv.17–18. The demonstrative closes the embedded accusation: 'your servant did to me according to these words.'
עָ֥שָׂהּdid to meQal perf 3ms + sfx 3fs · עָשָׂה (H6213)Predicate verb (the climactic accusation — Joseph allegedly did this to her)→ Perfective: completed act in the false account — Joseph is charged with a specific accomplished deedעָשָׂה (H6213) 'to do, make, perform'; with 3fs suffix: 'did to me/her.' The verb is vague enough to encompass whatever the listener understands from כַּדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה — the false account determines what 'did to me' means. Joseph who actually refused every approach is now charged with doing.
לִ֖יto meprep לְ + sfx 1cs · לְ (prep)Dative of disadvantage (the woman as the victim — 'to me')Preposition לְ with 1cs suffix: 'to me.' The dative of disadvantage positions the woman as the victim of the alleged act. This is the closing self-referential element: the accusation ends with her as the wronged party, appealing to Potiphar's protective obligation as a husband.
עַבְדֶּ֑ךָyour servantN m sg cstr + sfx 2ms · עֶבֶד (H5650)Subject of the embedded clause (Joseph — identified as Potiphar's own servant who allegedly did this)עֶבֶד (H5650) 'slave, servant'; with 2ms suffix: 'your servant' — i.e., your slave Joseph. The woman uses Potiphar's own possessive relationship to Joseph to make the alleged offense a personal affront: his own slave violated his own wife. The possessive amplifies the outrage.
וַיִּ֖חַרand burnedconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms · חָרָה (H2734)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (Potiphar's anger — the consequence of hearing the accusation)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — the anger is the decisive consequence leading to imprisonmentחָרָה (H2734) 'to burn, be hot, be angry'; the verb describes the ignition of intense anger — literally 'it burned' with the subject being אַפּוֹ (his nose/anger). The idiom חָרָה אַף = 'the nose burned' is the standard Hebrew expression for fierce anger.
אַפּֽוֹhis angerN m sg cstr + sfx 3ms · אַף (H639)Subject of וַיִּחַר (the anger — the physical-metaphorical site of Potiphar's burning wrath)אַף (H639) 'nostril, nose; anger'; originally the nostrils where breath/heat of anger is felt, then by metonymy the anger itself. חָרָה אַפּוֹ = 'his anger burned/kindled' is the idiom for fierce, burning wrath. The narrative does not specify whether Potiphar is enraged at Joseph alone, at the situation, or partly at himself.
20
וַיִּקַּח֩ אֲדֹנֵ֨י יוֹסֵ֜ף אֹת֗וֹ וַֽיִּתְּנֵ֨הוּ֙ אֶל בֵּ֣ית הַסֹּ֔הַר מְק֕וֹם אֲשֶׁר אסורי אֲסִירֵ֥י הַמֶּ֖לֶךְ אֲסוּרִ֑ים וַֽיְהִי שָׁ֖ם בְּבֵ֥ית הַסֹּֽהַר
And Joseph's master took him and put him into the prison-house, the place where the king's prisoners were confined; and he was there in the prison-house.
Joseph descends once more, from trusted steward to royal prisoner, yet the narrative presents prison as the next stage of providential movement rather than its negation.
Word-by-word analysis· 18 words
וַיִּקַּח֩and tookconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms · לָקַח (H3947)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (Potiphar's punitive action — imprisonment of Joseph)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — Potiphar's anger translates into punitive actionלָקַח (H3947) 'to take, seize'; Potiphar takes Joseph and puts him in prison. The same verb that might describe authority (taking charge) here is punitive — taking Joseph from the household into confinement. The narrative descent continues.
אֲדֹנֵ֨יthe master ofN m pl cstr · אָדוֹן (H113)Subject of וַיִּקַּח (in construct with יוֹסֵף — Joseph's master is the actor)אָדוֹן (H113) 'lord, master'; אֲדֹנֵי יוֹסֵף = 'Joseph's master' — i.e., Potiphar. The construct phrase maintains the relational category: it is in his capacity as Joseph's master that Potiphar acts to imprison him. The master-servant relationship that produced advancement now produces imprisonment.
יוֹסֵ֜ףJosephproper noun · יוֹסֵף (H3130)Genitival noun (whose master acts — Joseph, now being imprisoned)יוֹסֵף (H3130); named as the object of his master's action. The descent begun at v.1 (brought down to Egypt, purchased) now reaches another floor: taken by the master and placed in prison. Divine providence will again intervene to reverse the descent.
אֹת֗וֹhimobj marker + sfx 3ms · אֵת (H853)Direct-object marker (Joseph as the object of Potiphar's taking)אֵת (H853) with 3ms suffix; marks Joseph as the definite, specific object of Potiphar's punitive action. The suffix traces back to the named subject יוֹסֵף, making the imprisonment unmistakably personal.
וַֽיִּתְּנֵ֨הוּ֙and put himconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms + obj sfx 3ms · נָתַן (H5414)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (the actual act of imprisonment)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — Joseph is formally placed in the royal prisonנָתַן (H5414) 'to give, put, place'; Potiphar 'gave' (placed) Joseph into the prison-house. The same verb used for Potiphar's total trust — 'he put everything into Joseph's hand' (v.4) — now places Joseph himself into confinement. The vocabulary of delegation becomes the vocabulary of imprisonment.
אֶלintoprep · אֶל (H413)Directional preposition (marking the destination of the imprisonment — the prison-house)אֶל (H413) 'to, into'; marks the direction of Joseph's placement — into the prison-house. The movement is downward and inward: from the household into an enclosed place of confinement.
בֵּ֣יתthe house ofN m sg cstr · בַּיִת (H1004)Object of prep אֶל (the prison-house — the place of confinement)בַּיִת (H1004) 'house'; in construct with הַסֹּהַר: 'the prison-house.' The word 'house' that has been the central location of Joseph's stewardship now describes a place of confinement — the house as prison, the ultimate inversion of the household.
הַסֹּ֔הַרthe prisonart + N m sg abs · סֹהַר (H5470)Genitival noun (the prison — the type of house into which Joseph is placed)סֹהַר (H5470) 'prison, round house'; a rare term (only in Gen 39–40; possibly an Egyptian loanword). The בֵּית הַסֹּהַר = 'prison-house' is specifically described as the place where the king's prisoners are kept, linking it to the royal court and setting up the encounter with Pharaoh's officers in Gen 40.
מְק֕וֹםthe placeN m sg cstr · מָקוֹם (H4725)Appositional noun (further identification of the prison — the place where king's prisoners are kept)מָקוֹם (H4725) 'place, location'; in construct with the following relative clause: 'the place where…' The noun introduces an appositional specification of the prison, emphasizing its royal character and thus its significance for the subsequent narrative.
אֲשֶׁרwhererelative pronoun · אֲשֶׁר (H834)Relative clause marker (introducing the relative clause specifying the prison's character)אֲשֶׁר (H834); introduces the relative clause: 'the place where the king's prisoners are confined.' This specification identifies the prison not as a common jail but as a royal detention facility — important for the story of Gen 40.
אסוריthose bound [ktv]Qal passive ptc m pl cstr · אָסַר (H631)Participial noun (ketiv — 'those bound of the king,' in construct chain identifying the prisoners)→ Passive participle: those in a state of being bound/confined — the king's confined onesאָסַר (H631) 'to bind, confine, imprison'; the ketiv form (written form) אֲסוּרֵי appears here as a passive participle in construct — 'those bound of the king.' The ketiv and qere together bracket the description of the prison population.
אֲסִירֵ֥יthe prisoners ofN m pl cstr · אָסִיר (H615)Subject-noun in appositive construction (the king's prisoners — who are confined in this place)אָסִיר (H615) 'prisoner, captive'; the nominal form of the same root as אָסַר (H631). אֲסִירֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ = 'the king's prisoners' — men of rank or political significance detained by royal authority. Joseph's presence among them positions him for the encounters of Gen 40.
הַמֶּ֖לֶךְthe kingart + N m sg abs · מֶלֶךְ (H4428)Genitival noun (the king — whose prisoners are confined here)מֶלֶךְ (H4428) 'king'; the king is Pharaoh (unnamed, as throughout). The prison is specifically the royal detention facility, giving it an elite character. Joseph's placement here is not incidental — it is the providential setting for his rise to power in Gen 41.
אֲסוּרִ֑יםare confinedQal passive ptc m pl abs · אָסַר (H631)Participial predicate (the state of the prisoners — bound/confined)→ Passive participle: denoting the ongoing state of confinement in which the king's prisoners are keptאָסַר (H631) 'to bind'; the absolute passive ptc functions as a predicate: 'the king's prisoners (who are) confined.' The absolute form closes the relative clause, completing the description of the prison as the place of royal confinement.
וַֽיְהִיand he wasconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms · הָיָה (H1961)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (Joseph's presence in the prison — the new setting established)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — the new setting is established: Joseph is in the prisonהָיָה (H1961) 'to be, remain'; the same wayyiqtol pattern as v.2 (וַיְהִי יְהוָה אֶת יוֹסֵף) will shortly be restated in v.21 within the prison context. Joseph is now placed in prison; the narrative prepares to restart the divine-presence cycle.
שָׁ֖םthereadv · שָׁם (H8033)Locative adverb (Joseph's location — in the prison-house)שָׁם (H8033) 'there'; specifying that Joseph remained in that prison-house. The adverb echoes v.1's שָׁמָּה (there — Egypt) and establishes the new scene of confinement. שָׁם will be echoed in v.22 (שָׁם) as the prison becomes a new arena of divine favor.
בְּבֵ֥יתin the house ofprep בְּ + N m sg cstr · בַּיִת (H1004)Locative prepositional phrase (resuming and confirming the prison location)בַּיִת (H1004) 'house'; the second occurrence of בֵּית הַסֹּהַר in this verse — the doubling (he was there, in the prison-house) is emphatic, settling Joseph's location firmly in the prison before the theological counterpoint of v.21.
הַסֹּֽהַרthe prisonart + N m sg abs · סֹהַר (H5470)Genitival noun (the prison — confirming the location)סֹהַר (H5470) 'prison'; the verse closes with the repetition of the prison term (first at v.20a, now at the close). The emphatic repetition seals Joseph's imprisonment as the new baseline — from which the restated divine-presence pattern of vv.21–23 will again begin the upward movement.
21
וַיְהִ֤י יְהוָה֙ אֶת יוֹסֵ֔ף וַיֵּ֥ט אֵלָ֖יו חָ֑סֶד וַיִּתֵּ֣ן חִנּ֔וֹ בְּעֵינֵ֖י שַׂ֥ר בֵּית הַסֹּֽהַר
But the LORD was with Joseph, and extended kindness to him, and gave him favor in the eyes of the chief of the prison-house.
The prison scene restarts the same pattern with which the narrative opened: divine presence, covenant kindness, and visible favor in the eyes of an overseer.
Word-by-word analysis· 13 words
וַיְהִ֤יand wasconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms · הָיָה (H1961)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (restating the theological premise — YHWH is with Joseph in prison)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — the divine presence formula from v.2 is deliberately restated in the prison settingהָיָה (H1961) 'to be'; the same wayyiqtol that opened v.2 (וַיְהִי יְהוָה אֶת יוֹסֵף) now restarts in prison, creating a deliberate theological reprise. Prison does not cancel divine accompaniment — the pattern simply relocates.
יְהוָה֙the LORDproper noun · יְהוָה (H3068)Subject of וַיְהִי (YHWH — the one present with Joseph in prison)יְהוָה (H3068), the Tetragrammaton; the identical formula as v.2 — YHWH as subject, with Joseph as the one accompanied. The repetition is the chapter's structural and theological hinge: divine presence is not conditioned by social status or circumstance.
אֶתwithprep · אֵת (H854)Comitative preposition (the divine presence formula — YHWH with Joseph)אֵת (H854) 'with'; the same comitative preposition as in v.2, reconstituting the divine-presence formula in the prison context. The formula יְהוָה אֵת יוֹסֵף = 'YHWH was with Joseph' is the chapter's theological refrain.
יוֹסֵ֔ףJosephproper noun · יוֹסֵף (H3130)Object of prep אֵת (the one with whom YHWH is present — now in prison)יוֹסֵף (H3130); accompanied by YHWH even in prison. The narrative insists that the locus of divine presence has shifted with Joseph from the household to the prison — the divine favor is portable and unconditional.
וַיֵּ֥טand extendedconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms · נָטָה (H5186)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (YHWH's active disposition — extending covenant love toward Joseph)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — YHWH actively extends חֶסֶד to Joseph within the prisonנָטָה (H5186) 'to stretch, extend, incline, turn'; נָטָה חֶסֶד אֶל = 'to extend/incline covenant love toward' — a vivid idiom for actively turning toward someone with committed goodwill. The verb combines spatial and relational dimensions.
אֵלָ֖יוtoward himprep אֶל + sfx 3ms · אֶל (H413)Directional prepositional phrase (the direction of YHWH's extension of חֶסֶד — toward Joseph)אֶל (H413) 'to, toward'; the directional preposition after נָטָה makes the חֶסֶד active and personal — God's covenant love is turned specifically toward Joseph. The movement is from God toward Joseph in his place of confinement.
חָ֑סֶדcovenant loveN m sg abs · חֶסֶד (H2617)Direct object of וַיֵּט (the thing extended — YHWH's חֶסֶד)חֶסֶד (H2617) 'steadfast love, covenant loyalty, lovingkindness'; one of the richest theological terms in the Hebrew Bible, denoting committed relational loyalty — especially God's covenant faithfulness. Its appearance here in the prison context signals that YHWH's commitment to Joseph has not diminished in adversity.
וַיִּתֵּ֣ןand gaveconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms · נָתַן (H5414)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (YHWH's second action — giving Joseph favor in the warden's eyes)→ Wayyiqtol: narrative continuation — the second divine action mediates favor in human perceptionנָתַן (H5414) 'to give, place'; YHWH 'gives' Joseph's חֵן in the eyes of the prison warden — the same mechanism of divinely-granted favor as in v.4 (וַיִּמְצָא יוֹסֵף חֵן). The verb נָתַן used for Potiphar's delegation (v.4) now describes God's gift of favor.
חִנּ֔וֹhis favorN m sg cstr + sfx 3ms · חֵן (H2580)Direct object of וַיִּתֵּן (the favor given — Joseph's חֵן placed in the warden's eyes by God)חֵן (H2580) 'grace, favor, charm'; with 3ms suffix: 'his favor' — Joseph's attractiveness/gracious quality as placed in the warden's perception by God. YHWH is the grammatical subject of the giving: favor is not merely earned but divinely bestowed and directed toward human perception.
בְּעֵינֵ֖יin the eyes ofprep בְּ + N f dual cstr · עַיִן (H5869)Locative prepositional phrase (the sphere of favor — in the warden's perception)עַיִן (H5869) 'eye'; בְּעֵינֵי = 'in the eyes of.' The favor idiom בְּעֵינֵי X repeats the formula from v.4 (בְּעֵינָיו), now with the prison warden as the perceiver. YHWH's gift of favor operates through the same mechanism: human perception of Joseph's qualities.
שַׂ֥רthe chief ofN m sg cstr · שַׂר (H8269)Head noun in construct chain (the prison warden — the new human perceiver of Joseph's favor)שַׂר (H8269) 'chief, captain, officer'; the same term used for Potiphar's title in v.1 (שַׂר הַטַּבָּחִים). Now it designates the chief of the prison — possibly a subordinate of Potiphar, or a different official. Joseph's advancement follows the same structural pattern in both settings.
בֵּיתthe house ofN m sg cstr · בַּיִת (H1004)Medial construct noun (the prison-house — in construct chain with הַסֹּהַר)בַּיִת (H1004) 'house'; in construct with הַסֹּהַר: 'the house of the prison.' The 'house' reappears as the scene of a new stewardship, now the prison-house rather than Potiphar's house. The structural repetition is deliberate.
הַסֹּֽהַרthe prisonart + N m sg abs · סֹהַר (H5470)Genitival noun (the prison — completing the construct chain for the warden's title)סֹהַר (H5470) 'prison'; שַׂר בֵּית הַסֹּהַר = 'the chief of the prison-house' — the prison's chief officer into whose eyes YHWH places Joseph's favor. The chapter's theological pattern (divine presence → favor in authority's eyes → delegated trust) is fully restarted.
22
וַיִּתֵּ֞ן שַׂ֤ר בֵּית הַסֹּ֨הַר֙ בְּיַד יוֹסֵ֔ף אֵ֚ת כָּל הָ֣אֲסִירִ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֖ר בְּבֵ֣ית הַסֹּ֑הַר וְאֵ֨ת כָּל אֲשֶׁ֤ר עֹשִׂים֙ שָׁ֔ם ה֖וּא הָיָ֥ה עֹשֶֽׂה
And the chief of the prison-house gave into Joseph's hand all the prisoners who were in the prison-house; and whatever they were doing there, he was the one doing it.
Delegated responsibility reappears in prison exactly as it had in Potiphar's house, showing the stability of Joseph's character and God's favor across settings.
Word-by-word analysis· 20 words
וַיִּתֵּ֞ןand gaveconj וַ + Qal wayyiqtol 3ms · נָתַן (H5414)Wayyiqtol of narrative sequence (the warden's formal delegation — entrustment renewed in prison)→ Wayyiqtol: foregrounded narrative advance — the warden delegates authority to Joseph, mirroring Potiphar's act in v.4נָתַן (H5414) 'to give, put, place'; the warden 'gives' (= entrusts) all the prisoners into Joseph's hand — the exact same verb and idiom as Potiphar's delegation (נָתַן בְּיָדוֹ, v.4). The structural parallel is unmistakable: the prison is the Potiphar-house pattern in a new setting.
שַׂ֤רthe chief ofN m sg cstr · שַׂר (H8269)Subject of וַיִּתֵּן (the prison warden — the new delegating authority)שַׂר (H8269) 'chief, officer'; שַׂר בֵּית הַסֹּהַר repeats the warden's title from v.21. He becomes in the prison what Potiphar was in the household: the authority figure who delegates total oversight to Joseph.
בֵּיתthe house ofN m sg cstr · בַּיִת (H1004)Medial construct noun (the prison-house — in the warden's title)בַּיִת (H1004) 'house'; the 'prison-house' as the domain of the warden's authority — and now of Joseph's delegated oversight. The 'house' term recurs at the center of the new stewardship, structurally mirroring vv.4–6.
הַסֹּ֨הַר֙the prisonart + N m sg abs · סֹהַר (H5470)Genitival noun (completing the warden's title construct chain)סֹהַר (H5470) 'prison'; the third occurrence of this term in vv.20–22, establishing the prison as the new fixed setting for the chapter's theological reprise. What was said of Potiphar's household (vv.2–6) is now said of the prison.
בְּיַדinto the hand ofprep בְּ + N f sg cstr · יָד (H3027)Locative prepositional phrase (the sphere of delegation — Joseph's hand)יָד (H3027) 'hand'; the hand motif — the chapter's central image of delegated authority — appears here for the final time in this verse. The warden gives everything 'into Joseph's hand,' restoring to him the same status he held under Potiphar but now within the prison.
יוֹסֵ֔ףJosephproper noun · יוֹסֵף (H3130)Object of prep בְּיַד (Joseph — the one into whose hand the prisoners are given)יוֹסֵף (H3130); Joseph's name at the center of the delegation confirms that the advancing pattern of divine favor reaches him personally in the prison. The same name that was 'with YHWH' (v.21) now holds authority in the prison.
אֵ֚ת[obj]obj marker · אֵת (H853)Direct-object marker (marking the prisoners as the definite object of what is given into Joseph's hand)אֵת (H853), nota accusativi; marks the following כָּל הָאֲסִירִם as the definite direct object of the warden's giving. The explicit object marker emphasizes the totality of the delegation.
כָּלallN m sg cstr · כֹּל (H3605)Head noun (the totality of what is given — 'all the prisoners')כֹּל (H3605) 'all, every'; the universal quantifier appears again — now specifying all the prisoners given into Joseph's charge. The same totality language of vv.3–5 (כֹּל in every clause) reappears to signal the completeness of the new delegation.
הָ֣אֲסִירִ֔םthe prisonersart + N m pl abs · אָסִיר (H615)Direct object (the prisoners given into Joseph's charge)אָסִיר (H615) 'prisoner'; the same noun used in v.20 for the king's prisoners confined in this place. Now all those prisoners are given into Joseph's hand — he oversees the very population among whom he himself is confined.
אֲשֶׁ֖רwhorelative pronoun · אֲשֶׁר (H834)Relative clause marker (introducing the relative clause identifying which prisoners)אֲשֶׁר (H834); introduces the relative clause: 'who were in the prison-house,' specifying that the prisoners given to Joseph's charge are those within this specific institution.
בְּבֵ֣יתin the house ofprep בְּ + N m sg cstr · בַּיִת (H1004)Locative prepositional phrase (the location of the prisoners — the prison-house)בַּיִת (H1004) 'house'; in construct with הַסֹּהַר. The prisoners are specifically those inside the prison-house — the closed space that is now Joseph's sphere of stewardship.
הַסֹּ֑הַרthe prisonart + N m sg abs · סֹהַר (H5470)Genitival noun (completing the locative phrase — 'in the prison-house')סֹהַר (H5470) 'prison'; the prison-house as the domain of all the prisoners now under Joseph's charge. The 'house' has been fully repurposed from a place of confinement into a sphere of delegated stewardship.
וְאֵ֨תand [obj]conj וְ + obj marker · אֵת (H853)Coordinating conjunction + direct-object marker (introducing the second object of the delegation)אֵת (H853) with conj וְ; introduces the second element of what the warden gives into Joseph's hand: not only the prisoners themselves but everything done there. The double object spans both persons (prisoners) and tasks (activities).
כָּלallN m sg cstr · כֹּל (H3605)Head noun (totality of activities — 'everything done in the prison')כֹּל (H3605) 'all, everything'; the scope is comprehensive: all the prisoners and all the activities carried out there. The total delegation in prison mirrors the total delegation in the household (vv.4–5).
אֲשֶׁ֤רthatrelative pronoun · אֲשֶׁר (H834)Relative clause marker (introducing the clause specifying the activities)אֲשֶׁר (H834); introduces the relative clause 'that they were doing there' — specifying the activities carried out in the prison that now fall under Joseph's oversight.
עֹשִׂים֙they were doingQal ptc m pl abs · עָשָׂה (H6213)Participial predicate of relative clause (the ongoing activities in the prison)→ Participle: continuous, habitual activity — the ongoing daily activities of the prison populationעָשָׂה (H6213) 'to do, make, perform'; Qal ptc m pl abs: 'those doing, doing.' The participle captures the ongoing, habitual nature of the prison's work. Joseph oversees all that was habitually done there.
שָׁ֔םthereadv · שָׁם (H8033)Locative adverb (specifying the location of activities — in the prison)שָׁם (H8033) 'there'; the locative adverb specifies the prison as the scene of these activities. The same word used in v.20 (he was there, in the prison-house) now marks the sphere of Joseph's new stewardship.
ה֖וּאhepersonal pronoun 3ms · הוּא (H1931)Subject of the following clause (Joseph — the one who does all the work)הוּא (H1931) 'he'; the explicit pronoun is emphatic — he himself was the one doing it. The pronoun singles out Joseph as the personal agent of all prison activity, paralleling v.3 (ה֣וּא עֹשֶׂ֔ה).
הָיָ֥הwas doingQal perf 3ms · הָיָה (H1961)Predicate verb (auxiliary with the following participle — habitual past action)→ Perfective (auxiliary): a completed, established pattern — Joseph was the one doing everythingהָיָה (H1961) 'to be'; functions as a perfect auxiliary with the following participle, forming a habitual past construction: 'he used to do, he was the one doing.' The auxiliary + participle is an established Hebrew idiom for habitual, sustained past action.
עֹשֶֽׂהdoingQal ptc m sg abs · עָשָׂה (H6213)Participial predicate (Joseph's habitual comprehensive activity in the prison)→ Participle with perfect auxiliary: habitual, comprehensive doing — Joseph directed everything done in the prisonעָשָׂה (H6213) 'to do, perform'; the participial predicate in the auxiliary construction: 'he was the one doing (it all).' The verse closes with Joseph as the all-encompassing doer within the prison — restating the pattern of vv.3–4 in the new setting. The repetition of עֹשֶׂה (cf. v.3, 22) is structural and deliberate.
23
אֵ֣ין שַׂ֣ר בֵּית הַסֹּ֗הַר רֹאֶ֤ה אֶֽת כָּל מְא֨וּמָה֙ בְּיָד֔וֹ בַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר יְהוָ֖ה אִתּ֑וֹ וַֽאֲשֶׁר ה֥וּא עֹשֶׂ֖ה יְהוָ֥ה מַצְלִֽיחַ
The chief of the prison-house did not inspect anything at all that was in his hand, because the LORD was with him; and whatever he did, the LORD made to prosper.
The closing verse seals the prison as a new sphere of the same providential pattern: oversight relaxed, trust established, and success attributed again to YHWH's presence.
Word-by-word analysis· 17 words
אֵ֣יןnotneg particle · אַיִן (H369)Predicate negation (the warden's non-inspection — complete trust in Joseph)אַיִן (H369) 'there is not, absence of'; functions here as predicate negation: the warden is not seeing/inspecting anything. The negation mirrors v.6 (וְלֹא יָדַע אִתּוֹ מְאוּמָה) — just as Potiphar abdicated oversight of the household, the warden takes no account of anything Joseph manages.
שַׂ֣רthe chief ofN m sg cstr · שַׂר (H8269)Subject of אֵין (the warden — the one who does not inspect)שַׂר (H8269) 'chief, officer'; the warden (שַׂר בֵּית הַסֹּהַר) is the subject of the non-inspection. His abdication of oversight parallels Potiphar's in v.6, confirming that the chapter's structural pattern of total trust is fully replicated in the prison.
בֵּיתthe house ofN m sg cstr · בַּיִת (H1004)Medial construct noun (in the warden's title — the prison-house)בַּיִת (H1004) 'house'; the fifth and final occurrence of the 'prison-house' (בֵּית הַסֹּהַר) in the chapter, closing the domestic/institutional theme that has structured the narrative from Potiphar's house to the prison-house.
הַסֹּ֗הַרthe prisonart + N m sg abs · סֹהַר (H5470)Genitival noun (completing the warden's title — 'of the prison')סֹהַר (H5470) 'prison'; the final occurrence of the prison term in the chapter. The warden of the prison-house is the subject who does not inspect anything — just as Potiphar did not concern himself with anything in the household (v.6: לֹא יָדַע אִתּוֹ מְאוּמָה).
רֹאֶ֤הdoes inspectQal ptc m sg abs · רָאָה (H7200)Participial predicate of negation (the warden habitually not seeing/overseeing anything)→ Participle: habitual non-action — the warden consistently exercises no oversight of what is in Joseph's handרָאָה (H7200) 'to see, inspect, oversee'; used here for administrative oversight, not mere visual perception. The warden does not see/inspect anything under Joseph's management — a final echo of v.3 (וַיַּרְא אֲדֹנָיו), where Potiphar's seeing led to trust. Here the non-seeing is the expression of trust.
אֶֽת[obj]obj marker · אֵת (H853)Direct-object marker (marking the object of non-inspection — 'anything in Joseph's hand')אֵת (H853), nota accusativi; the object marker introduces the scope of non-inspection: כָּל מְאוּמָה = 'anything at all.' The combination of כָּל and מְאוּמָה is maximally emphatic — the warden oversees absolutely nothing within Joseph's charge.
כָּלanythingN m sg cstr · כֹּל (H3605)Head noun in object phrase (the totality — 'anything at all')כֹּל (H3605) 'all, anything'; in the negative context 'not seeing anything' = 'seeing nothing.' The universal quantifier closes the chapter's structural use of כֹּל (cf. vv.3, 4, 5×2, 6, 8, 22×2, 23) — the 'all' motif has been pervasive, here closing with total non-inspection as the form of total trust.
מְא֨וּמָה֙at allN f sg abs · מְאוּמָה (H3972)Object of non-inspection (the thing not supervised — anything at all under Joseph)מְאוּמָה (H3972) 'anything, something'; in negative contexts = 'nothing at all.' The same word used in vv.6 and 9 to describe the absence of Potiphar's concern now closes the prison unit with the same expression of total trust. The verbal parallel confirms the structural repetition.
בְּיָד֔וֹin his handprep בְּ + N f sg cstr + sfx 3ms · יָד (H3027)Locative prepositional phrase (the sphere of non-inspection — what is in Joseph's hand)יָד (H3027) 'hand'; בְּיָדוֹ = 'in his hand' — the hand motif appears here for its final occurrence in the chapter. The warden inspects nothing in Joseph's hand. The hand that was a vehicle of purchase (v.1), divine success (v.3), household stewardship (vv.4, 6), and now prison oversight closes the chapter with this final occurrence.
בַּאֲשֶׁ֥רbecauseprep בְּ + relative · אֲשֶׁר (H834)Causal prepositional phrase (the reason for the warden's non-inspection — YHWH's presence)בְּ + אֲשֶׁר = 'because, in that'; the causal phrase introduces the theological reason for the warden's trust: YHWH was with Joseph. The warden's non-inspection is grounded not in Joseph's competence alone but in divine presence — the same ground as all preceding favor.
יְהוָ֖הthe LORDproper noun · יְהוָה (H3068)Subject of אִתּוֹ (YHWH — present with Joseph as the cause of the warden's trust)יְהוָה (H3068); YHWH appears for the fifth and final time in the chapter as the causal anchor of the closing summary. The name brackets the chapter: vv.2–3 (YHWH with Joseph, Potiphar sees it) and now vv.21, 23 (YHWH with Joseph, warden entrusts everything). The presence is the constant.
אִתּ֑וֹwith himprep אֵת + sfx 3ms · אֵת (H854)Comitative prepositional phrase (the divine presence — the theological ground of all Joseph's success)אֵת (H854) 'with'; the divine-presence formula (יְהוָה אִתּוֹ) appears here in its final form, echoing vv.2, 3 (אִתּוֹ) and 21 (אֶת יוֹסֵף). The chapter begins and ends with this theological statement, forming an inclusio: YHWH is with Joseph — in house and in prison alike.
וַֽאֲשֶׁרand whateverconj וְ + relative · אֲשֶׁר (H834)Coordinating conjunction + relative clause marker (introducing the second closing statement — YHWH makes Joseph prosper)אֲשֶׁר (H834) with conj וְ; transitions from the presence statement to the success statement. The closing clause restates the pattern of v.3 in almost identical terms: what he does, YHWH makes prosper. The chapter's closing movement is deliberate reprise.
ה֥וּאhepersonal pronoun 3ms · הוּא (H1931)Subject of the relative clause (Joseph — the agent of action)הוּא (H1931) 'he'; the explicit personal pronoun, as in v.3 (ה֣וּא עֹשֶׂ֔ה), emphasizes Joseph as the habitual actor: everything that he does, YHWH makes to prosper. The pronoun marks Joseph's agency while the following predicate marks YHWH's causation.
עֹשֶׂ֖הdoesQal ptc m sg abs · עָשָׂה (H6213)Participial predicate of relative clause (Joseph's habitual activity — whatever he does)→ Participle: continuous, habitual action — whatever Joseph habitually does in the prisonעָשָׂה (H6213) 'to do, perform'; the same participial form as v.3 (עֹשֶׂ֔ה) and v.22 (עֹשֶֽׂה), creating a verbal chain across the chapter: Joseph does → YHWH makes prosper. The three occurrences of the participle form a structural refrain.
יְהוָ֥הthe LORDproper noun · יְהוָה (H3068)Subject of מַצְלִיחַ (YHWH as the final causal agent — making Joseph prosper)יְהוָה (H3068); as in v.3 (יְהוָה מַצְלִיחַ בְּיָדוֹ), YHWH is the subject of מַצְלִיחַ, naming divine agency as the ultimate cause of Joseph's success. The chapter's final naming of YHWH before the closing participle gives it a doxological quality.
מַצְלִֽיחַmakes prosperHiphil ptc m sg abs · צָלַח (H6743)Participial predicate (YHWH's habitual prospering of Joseph's work — the chapter's theological closure)→ Participle: YHWH's continuous, habitual causing-to-succeed — the chapter's closing theological statementצָלַח (H6743) Hiphil 'to cause to prosper, make successful'; the final word of the chapter. The same participial form used in v.2 (אִישׁ מַצְלִיחַ) and v.3 (יְהוָה מַצְלִיחַ בְּיָדוֹ) closes the narrative: in prison as in the household, YHWH makes everything Joseph does to prosper. The chapter ends where it began — with divine prospering as the governing theological reality.