How was Yosef's milah different from that of the Egyptians?

Summary: A seeming, or very real, contradiction between two Rashis. If Yosef compelled the Egyptians to circumcise themselves, how could he present his own circumcision to his brothers as proof of his Hebrew identity? Rav Chaim Kanievsky suggests priyah or that the brothers were previously unaware of Yosef's decree. I suggest, based on another midrash Tanchuma, that Yosef's aposthia would be different than any sort of milah, since there would be no scar. And finally, I consider what midrash contradicts what other midrash, whether contradictions in Rashi are troubling, and establish for myself that I like the question but will dislike any answer.

Post: Rav Chaim Kanievsky discusses an interesting apparent contradiction in Rashi. In parashat Miketz:

55. When the entire land of Egypt hungered, the people cried out to Pharaoh for bread, but Pharaoh said to all the Egyptians, "Go to Joseph; what he tells you, do."		נה. וַתִּרְעַב כָּל אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם וַיִּצְעַק הָעָם אֶל פַּרְעֹה לַלָּחֶם וַיֹּאמֶר פַּרְעֹה לְכָל מִצְרַיִם לְכוּ אֶל יוֹסֵף אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר לָכֶם תַּעֲשׂוּ:
When the entire land of Egypt hungered: For their grain, which they had stored, had decayed, except that of Joseph. — [from Mid. Tanchuma Mikeitz 7]		ותרעב כל ארץ מצרים: שהרקיבה תבואתם שאצרו חוץ משל יוסף:
what he tells you, do: Since Joseph had ordered them to circumcise themselves, and when they came to Pharaoh and said, “This is what he said to us,” he (Pharaoh) said to them, “Why didn’t you gather grain? Didn’t he announce to you that years of famine were coming?” They replied, “We gathered much, but it rotted.” He (Pharaoh) replied,“If so, do whatever he tells you. He issued a decree upon the grain, and it rotted. What if he issues a decree upon us and we die?” - [from Mid. Tanchuma Mikeitz 7, Gen. Rabbah 91:5]		אשר יאמר לכם תעשו: לפי שהיה יוסף אומר להם שימולו, וכשבאו אצל פרעה ואומרים כך הוא אומר לנו, אמר להם למה לא צברתם בר, והלא הכריז לכם ששני הרעב באים, אמרו לו אספנו הרבה והרקיבה, אמר להם אם כן כל אשר יאמר לכם תעשו, הרי גזר על התבואה והרקיבה, מה אם יגזור עלינו ונמות:

and yet, here in parashat Vayigash:

4. Then Joseph said to his brothers, "Please come closer to me," and they drew closer. And he said, "I am your brother Joseph, whom you sold into Egypt.		ד. וַיֹּאמֶר יוֹסֵף אֶל אֶחָיו גְּשׁוּ נָא אֵלַי וַיִּגָּשׁוּ וַיֹּאמֶר אֲנִי יוֹסֵף אֲחִיכֶם אֲשֶׁר מְכַרְתֶּם אֹתִי מִצְרָיְמָה:
Please come closer: He saw them drawing backwards. He said,“Now my brothers are embarrassed” (Tanchuma Vayigash 5). He called them tenderly and pleadingly and showed them that he was circumcised (Gen. Rabbah 93:10).		גשו נא אלי: ראה אותם נסוגים לאחוריהם, אמר עכשיו אחי נכלמים, קרא להם בלשון רכה ותחנונים, והראה להם שהוא מהול:

And so too, a bit later:

12. And behold, your eyes see, as well as the eyes of my brother Benjamin, that it is my mouth speaking to you.		יב. וְהִנֵּה עֵינֵיכֶם רֹאוֹת וְעֵינֵי אָחִי בִנְיָמִין כִּי פִי הַמְדַבֵּר אֲלֵיכֶם:
And behold, your eyes see: my glory and that I am your brother, for I am circumcised, and moreover, that it is my mouth that is speaking to you in the holy tongue (Gen. Rabbah 93:10).		והנה עיניכם רואות: בכבודי, ושאני אחיכם, שהרי אני מהול ככם. ועוד כי פי המדבר אליכם בלשון הקודש:

This would appear to be a contradiction, for how would this be a proof that he was the son of Yaakov? After all, now all Egyptians were circumcised!

Rav Chaim Kanievsky writes, in Taama deKra:

"I was asked that behold, Rashi wrote above that Yosef commanded all Egyptians to circumcise themselves. If so, what if the proof that this was Yosef?


And there is to say that priyah was not given to Avraham Avinu. And Tosafot writes in Yevamot (71b, d"h lo) that even so, Avraham Avinu performed priyah, for he fulfilled the entirety of Torah.


And if so, Yosef commanded them to circumcise without priyah, but Yosef himself performed priyah, for the patriarchs {and shevatim} kept all the Torah.


(And according to the peshat, they did not know that the Egyptians circumcised themselves, for if not so, there is no greater proof than this that it is Torah. For if not so, why did he command them to circumcise?)"

(See also Yosef Daas on this, for a cute pshat.)

If I might throw another midrash into the mix, according to Midrash Tanchuma, Yosef, like Yaakov, was born mahul, such that no milah or priyah would be necessary -- just hatafas dam bris. This is a congenital condition called aposthia. Thus, from the Chachamim, in opposition to R' Yehoshua ben Levi:


וחכמים אומרים: 
תחת אבותיך יהיו בניך (תהלים מה). ש

את מוצא כל מה שהגיע ליעקב הגיע ליוסף: יעקב נולד מהול.
ויוסף כן, שנאמר: אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף. 

We can readily resolve the difficulty on this basis. Typical circumcision leaves a circumcision scar. There are pictures on this Wikipedia page depicting it.

In males who have been circumcised, the circumcision scar refers to the scar after a circumcision has healed. In some cases, the scar can be darker-colored, and, in all cases, it will encircle the shaft of the penis.

The scar is located at the boundary of the outer foreskin and the inner foreskin remnant, which is the portion of the foreskin that was not removed during circumcision. This foreskin remnant is mucosa that lies between the glans and the circumcision scar, which results in dissimilar tissue healing together. In adult circumcision part of the frenulum may remain intact. The foreskin remnant can often have a different color and texture than the rest of the penile skin. It can be pinkish or light-colored, and it can be covered with keratin to protect it from a dry environment.

If so, Yosef could have shown them his milah, and they could have examined it and noticed that there was no circumcision scar, because he was born mahul. Meanwhile, even though the Egyptians practiced milah (and perhaps even priyah!) they would have had a circumcision scar.

And because aposthia is an incredibly rare condition, it would serve well to identify Yosef as their brother.

But as much as I take joy in producing such novel midrashim and harmonizations, based on textual sources, ultimately I do not think that this was the intent of the midrashim under discussion.

My inclination regarding this is that it is indeed a contradiction, and that Rashi will, on occasion, bring contradictory midrashim.

In terms of Midrash Tanchuma, one of Rashi's sources, I don't think there is any contradiction at all, and so there is nothing to harmonize. That is, in parashat Miketz, Tanchuma siman 7, we see compulsive milah:

כשהיה רעב בימי דוד בקש רחמים מלפני הקב"ה, ואמר: ריבון העולם נהיג את צאנך כיוסף, שזן את העולם בשני רעבון, כיון שחזק עליהם הרעב בארץ מצרים נתקבצו המצרים ובאו אצל יוסף. 
א"ל: תן לנו לחם. 
א"ל: אלוהי אינו זן את הערלים, לכו ומולו עצמכם ואתן לכם לחם.
הלכו להם אצל פרעה והיו צועקין ובוכין לפניו, שנאמר: ותרעב כל ארץ מצרים ויצעק העם אל פרעה ללחם.
ויאמר פרעה לכל מצרים: לכו אל יוסף. 
אמרו לו: הלכנו אצלו ומדבר לנו דברים ריקים, שאומר: מולו עצמכם. 
אמר להם: שוטים לא כך אמרתי לכם מתחלה עבדוהו, וקנו לעצמכם תבואה, וכי לא היה קורא לכם כל אותן שני השבע וצווח לכם, הוו יודעים שרעב בא לעולם, אם אתם פשעתם בנפשותיכם, מה תצעקו אלי, מפני מה לא הנחתם בבתיכם תבואה של שתים של שלש של ארבעה שנים? אמרו לו: כל תבואה שהייתה בבתינו כבר הרקיבה. 
אמר להם: לא נשתייר לכם קמח מאתמול? 
אמרו לו: פת שהיה בכלינו עפשה. 
אמר להן: לכו אל יוסף ואשר יאמר לכם תעשו. 
ומה אם שגזר על התבואה והרקיבה מתייראין אנו, שאם יגזור עלינו שנמות, כולנו מתים, אלא כל אשר יאמר לכם תעשו. 

and in parashat Vayigash, in Tanchuma siman 5, no mention is made of Yosef's milah or showing the brothers his milah. Rather, we have:

כיון שראה יוסף שהייתה להם בושה גדולה, אמר להן: גשו נא אלי ויגשו וכל אחד ואחד היה מנשקו ובוכה עליו, שנאמר: וינשק לכל אחיו ויבך עליהם, ו

Indeed, there are two explanations in Rashi as to the meaning of גשו נא אלי ויגשו. The first is that:
He saw them drawing backwards. He said,“Now my brothers are embarrassed” (Tanchuma Vayigash 5). He called them tenderly and pleadingly...

And this is drawn from Midrash Tanchuma. So, according to that source, there is nothing to harmonize. But only then does Rashi add a secondary explanation, that

and showed them that he was circumcised 

In terms of Bereishit Rabba 91:5, in terms of the compulsatory milah, one can read it here. And in terms of showing his brothers his milah, see here, in 93:10:

גשו נא אלי ויגשו הראה להם את המילה. 

This is indeed a contradiction. Perhaps we can say, though, that Midrash Rabba is bringing different sources which are indeed ultimately contradictory. Different Tannaim or Amoraim offered these different interpretations.

But then, Rashi, who is a single individual, brings down these two midrashim. Surely he must have in mind some harmonization! Perhaps, and perhaps not. Perhaps he did not set his mind to harmonizing every side-effect and implication of every midrash, such that they would all work together. Perhaps each of these midrashim, individually, were the sort of midrash he set out to bring -- ולאגדה המיישבת דברי המקרא, דבר דבור על אופניו. But at the same time, he trusted his readers to recognize midrash as midrash rather than peshat, and to therefore realize that whether one puts forth a specific midrash on a specific pasuk is optional. If it is peshat, then it is obligatory, for it is the singular historical meaning of the pasuk (alongside whatever midrashim one brings). But if it is derash, then it is optional, and one can darshen one pasuk and then choose not to darshen a different pasuk in a contradictory manner. And yet, he brings these contradictory midrashim because they fit his criteria for midrashim to bring down.

Thus, at the end of the day, I like the question. But I don't think I would like any 'answer'. The question is right, and true, and should stand.