Yoma 35B - Various questions on Yosef (and R' Elazar Ben Charsom)

I assume R' Elazar Ben Charsom took the kemach with him for sustenance

The gemara does not show that Yoseph was osek in Torah.

Is the threat of eishes potiphar to be kofef him mean tie him up?

What's the gadlus that Yoseph did not want to be with Eishes Potiphar in Olam Haba. I would not want to be with her in Olam Haba either.

https://gemaraboards.forumotion.com/t64-yoma-35b-hillel-s-poverty
https://gemaraboards.forumotion.com/t63-yoma-35b-hillel-mechayav-es-ha-ani-im
The second one touches on one of your questions.
I also assumed that the flour was for sustenance, though to me turning flour into food is a big time-sink. I'd have advised him to bring a box of matzo?
I didn't understand the gemara about eshes Potiphar much, but the Maharsha does go through her various weird threats. I had thought that כופף meant to bend his stature down, humble him.
While I see your point, I had imagined that "to be with him, in Olam Haba" didn't mean that that was something he wanted. Rather, it was part of his perception of what he had to lose; that being with her would necessarily be a permanent loss.

I am writing again, so probably less clear than first time (if it happens again, I may have to abondon the forum idea)

On your last sentence, you are saying liyhos imah means to have the sin of her with him?

I had read your posts and your question seems to be why is tempation prevent osek batorah whereas my question was the gemara never demonstrates that Yoseph was osek batorah.

As far as your question, these days with the temptation of the Internet it is understood how temptation can be a conflict with Torah learning as a person can be mamshich uncontrollably. This last parapgraph belongs in your thread.

Well, that's true. I had noticed that it didn't mention Yosef's learning Torah, so I guess I approached it differently: How can we understand what the gemara is trying to prove about being osek in Torah, if it doesn't care whether Yosef was? So I thought it just proves that the excuse isn't very good.