בראשית, פרק ל״ז, פסוק ח׳

The brothers' reaction to Joseph's ambition reveals the depth of their family's fracture and their fierce resistance to his desires for leadership. When they confront him, they distinguish between two distinct forms of authority. The first is a willing kingship, where a leader is chosen and respected freely by the people. The second is a forced domination, where rule is imposed through strength, against the people's will [רמב״ן, אבן עזרא, מלבי״ם, העמק דבר, נחלת יעקב]. By presenting these two concepts, the brothers confront Joseph with a contradiction: if he intends to rule them by force, he can never be a willingly chosen king.

Other commentators view this dual confrontation differently. Some suggest it highlights the gap between imagination and reality, viewing the idea of kingship as Joseph's false fantasy, and the concept of ruling as an arrogant expectation that will never materialize [תולדות יצחק, מיני תרגומא, נתינה לגר]. Alternatively, the brothers might have been wondering if Joseph was speaking to them in parables and riddles through his visions [אדרת אליהו, קונטרס חיבה יתירה]. Yet, there is also the possibility that the brothers did not dismiss the dream at all. Knowing that Jacob favored Joseph above all his sons, they genuinely feared their father might appoint him as their leader, and their outcry stemmed from shock and deep jealousy [שד״ל]. In a unique perspective, the brothers were actually rebuking Joseph for taking pleasure in the idea of power. They reminded him that leading the public is essentially a form of servitude and dedication to the community's welfare, leaving no room for personal pride [חתם סופר].

Ironically, through their angry response, the brothers unwittingly interpreted the dream for Joseph. Because the fulfillment of a dream follows its verbal interpretation, the moment the brothers explicitly articulated the idea of him becoming a king, they cemented its eventual reality [בית הלוי].

The growing hatred toward Joseph was directed at his dreams, spoken of in the plural, even though he had only shared one vision at this point. Commentators explain this discrepancy in several ways. It is possible that Joseph took such delight in the dream that he repeated it to his brothers many times [הדר זקנים, דעת זקנים, תולדות יצחק]. The plural form might also refer to the numerous details that made up that single vision [אור החיים]. Another approach suggests that the narrative is simply anticipating the future, setting the stage for a second dream that would follow immediately afterward [רד״ק].

This hatred was fueled not only by the dreams themselves but also by his words. This animosity toward his speech is understood through three main avenues. Looking to the past, it may refer to the negative reports Joseph used to bring to their father about his brothers' behavior [רש״י, רשב״ם, משכיל לדוד]. Focusing on the present, the brothers despised the way Joseph shared the dream, noting his boastful manner, his sense of superiority, and his demanding tone [רמב״ן, רבנו בחיי, ספורנו, בכור שור]. Finally, connecting his words directly to the dream, the brothers recognized that nighttime visions are born from daytime thoughts. They realized that while awake, Joseph must have been constantly talking and thinking about his worthiness to rule, and these very words were what birthed the dream in the first place [כלי יקר, מלבי״ם, העמק דבר, אור החיים]. Ultimately, their hatred doubled because of a jarring realization: they were not merely dealing with a favored sibling, but with a person actively cultivating ambitions of power and delusions of grandeur at their expense [ביאור שטיינזלץ].