During the severe famine in Egypt, the general population was forced to sell their lands to the king in exchange for food. Yet, one specific group maintained its economic independence and held onto its property. The primary approach among commentators is that this privileged class consisted of the priests and ministers of the Egyptian religion [רד״ק, רש״י, רלב״ג, משכיל לדוד]. While their title typically denotes service to a deity, it can also imply power and greatness [שפתי חכמים, ביאור יש״ר, ברכת אשר]. Because of this broader meaning, some identify this group simply as royal ministers and members of the Egyptian nobility [הטור הארוך, חזקוני].
Rather than facing starvation, these individuals received a fixed daily ration of food directly from the king [רש״י, שד״ל, ביאור יש״ר, תורה תמימה]. This government stipend was not an arbitrary gift, but a calculated provision to supply the necessary means for their survival and to maintain their role in society [רש״ר הירש]. Protected by this guaranteed livelihood, they never reached the point of desperation and simply had no need to sell their land [שד״ל, ביאור שטיינזלץ]. Alternatively, another perspective suggests they never actually owned large agricultural fields to begin with, possessing only small plots within their private courtyards [העמק דבר].
Joseph played a direct role in establishing this exemption, driven by a deep sense of gratitude. Years earlier, when his master's wife falsely accused him of assault, it was the Egyptian priests who served as his judges. They conducted a thorough investigation, examining whether his garment was torn from the front or the back, and even testing stains on a sheet with fire to distinguish between egg white and actual evidence. Their fair verdict cleared his name, and in return, Joseph ensured their financial security during the famine [ריב״א, רא״ש, פענח רזא, צאינה וראינה, חזקוני].
Beyond gratitude, pragmatic and personal motives also influenced this policy. Joseph may have avoided buying their land to prevent them from staging a rebellion against the king [חזקוני], or he may have designed the policy to benefit the relatives of his own wife, who was the daughter of an Egyptian priest [הטור הארוך, פענח רזא]. Additionally, Joseph used this legislation as a strategic legal maneuver to protect his own family. Because shepherds held a distinguished status in Egypt similar to that of the priests, establishing a tax exemption for the clergy ensured that his shepherd brothers would eventually enjoy the same privileges in the region of Goshen [הכתב והקבלה].
The preservation of this historical detail offers a powerful moral lesson. If an Egyptian king ensured the livelihood of his pagan priests, the Israelites must certainly avoid being stingy when providing offerings, tithes, and gifts to their own priests [פענח רזא, צפנת פענח]. Furthermore, the Egyptian system itself serves to highlight the divine origin of the Torah. Egyptian priests enjoyed land ownership and a guaranteed government income. In stark contrast, the Torah intentionally denied Israelite priests any inherited land, making their survival entirely dependent on the goodwill and generosity of the people. This fundamental difference dismantles any claim that the laws of the Torah were merely copied from Egyptian culture [רש״ר הירש].