Answers to Vayechi

חיות שונות בתור סמלים בברכות יעקב ומשה:

בראשית פרק מט

(ט) גור אריה יהודה מטרף בני עלית כרע רבץ כאריה וכלביא מי יקימנו:

בראשית פרק מט

(ג) ראובן בכרי אתה כחי וראשית אוני יתר שאת ויתר עז:

(ד) פחז כמים אל תותר כי עלית משכבי אביך אז חללת יצועי עלה: פ

(ה) שמעון ולוי אחים כלי חמס מכרתיהם:

(ו) בסדם אל תבא נפשי בקהלם אל תחד כבדי כי באפם הרגו איש וברצנם עקרו שור:

(ז) ארור אפם כי עז ועברתם כי קשתה אחלקם ביעקב ואפיצם בישראל: ס

(ח) יהודה אתה יודוך אחיך ידך בערף איביך ישתחוו לך בני אביך:

(ט) גור אריה יהודה מטרף בני עלית כרע רבץ כאריה וכלביא מי יקימנו:

(י) לא יסור שבט מיהודה ומחקק מבין רגליו עד כי יבא <שילה> שילו ולו יקהת עמים:

(יא) אסרי לגפן <עירה> עירו ולשרקה בני אתנו כבס ביין לבשו ובדם ענבים <סותה> סותו:

(יב) חכלילי עינים מיין ולבן שנים מחלב: פ

(יג) זבולן לחוף ימים ישכן והוא לחוף אניות וירכתו על צידן: ס

(יד) יששכר חמר גרם רבץ בין המשפתים:

(טו) וירא מנחה כי טוב ואת הארץ כי נעמה ויט שכמו לסבל ויהי למס עבד: ס

(טז) דן ידין עמו כאחד שבטי ישראל:

(יז) יהי דן נחש עלי דרך שפיפן עלי ארח הנשך עקבי סוס ויפל רכבו אחור:

(יח) לישועתך קויתי יקוק:

(יט) גד גדוד יגודנו והוא יגד עקב: ס

(כ) מאשר שמנה לחמו והוא יתן מעדני מלך: ס

(כא) נפתלי אילה שלחה הנתן אמרי שפר: ס

(כב) בן פרת יוסף בן פרת עלי עין בנות צעדה עלי שור:

(כג) וימררהו ורבו וישטמהו בעלי חצים:

(כד) ותשב באיתן קשתו ויפזו זרעי ידיו מידי אביר יעקב משם רעה אבן ישראל:

(כה) מקל אביך ויעזרך ואת שקי ויברכך ברכת שמים מעל ברכת תהום רבצת תחת ברכת שדים ורחם:

(כו) ברכת אביך גברו על ברכת הורי עד תאות גבעת עולם תהיין לראש יוסף ולקדקד נזיר אחיו: פ

(כז) בנימין זאב יטרף בבקר יאכל עד ולערב יחלק שלל:

דברים פרק לג

(ו) יחי ראובן ואל ימת ויהי מתיו מספר: ס

(ז) וזאת ליהודה ויאמר שמע יקוק קול יהודה ואל עמו תביאנו ידיו רב לו ועזר מצריו תהיה: ס

(ח) וללוי אמר תמיך ואוריך לאיש חסידך אשר נסיתו במסה תריבהו על מי מריבה:

(ט) האמר לאביו ולאמו לא ראיתיו ואת אחיו לא הכיר ואת בניו לא ידע כי שמרו אמרתך ובריתך ינצרו:

(י) יורו משפטיך ליעקב ותורתך לישראל ישימו קטורה באפך וכליל על מזבחך:

(יא) ברך יקוק חילו ופעל ידיו תרצה מחץ מתנים קמיו ומשנאיו מן יקומון: ס

(יב) לבנימן אמר ידיד יקוק ישכן לבטח עליו חפף עליו כל היום ובין כתפיו שכן: ס

(יג) וליוסף אמר מברכת יקוק ארצו ממגד שמים מטל ומתהום רבצת תחת:

(יד) וממגד תבואת שמש וממגד גרש ירחים:

(טו) ומראש הררי קדם וממגד גבעות עולם:

(טז) וממגד ארץ ומלאה ורצון שכני סנה תבואתה לראש יוסף ולקדקד נזיר אחיו:

(יז) בכור שורו הדר לו וקרני ראם קרניו בהם עמים ינגח יחדו אפסי ארץ והם רבבות אפרים והם אלפי מנשה: ס

(יח) ולזבולן אמר שמח זבולן בצאתך ויששכר באהליך:

(יט) עמים הר יקראו שם יזבחו זבחי צדק כי שפע ימים יינקו ושפוני טמוני חול: ס

(כ) ולגד אמר ברוך מרחיב גד כלביא שכן וטרף זרוע אף קדקד:

(כא) וירא ראשית לו כי שם חלקת מחקק ספון ויתא ראשי עם צדקת יקוק עשה ומשפטיו עם ישראל: ס

(כב) ולדן אמר דן גור אריה יזנק מן הבשן:

(כג) ולנפתלי אמר נפתלי שבע רצון ומלא ברכת יקוק ים ודרום ירשה: ס

(כד) ולאשר אמר ברוך מבנים אשר יהי רצוי אחיו וטבל בשמן רגלו:

הקשר ארי' בתור סמל בתנ"ך:

ישעיהו פרק לא

(ד) כי כה אמר יקוק קלי כאשר יהגה האריה והכפיר על טרפו אשר יקרא עליו מלא רעים מקולם לא יחת  ומהמונם לא יענה כן ירד יקוק צבקות לצבא על הר ציון ועל גבעתה:

הושע פרק ה

(יד) כי אנכי כשחל לאפרים וככפיר לבית יהודה אני אני אטרף ואלך אשא ואין מציל:

הושע פרק יא

(י) אחרי יקוק ילכו כאריה ישאג כי הוא ישאג ויחרדו בנים מים:

תהלים פרק י

(ט) יארב במסתר כאריה בסכה יארב לחטוף עני יחטף עני במשכו ברשתו:

הוכחת יעקב לג' בניו המבוגרות:

בראשית פרק מט

(ג) ראובן בכרי אתה כחי וראשית אוני יתר שאת ויתר עז:

(ד) פחז כמים אל תותר כי עלית משכבי אביך אז חללת יצועי עלה: פ

(ה) שמעון ולוי אחים כלי חמס מכרתיהם:

(ו) בסדם אל תבא נפשי בקהלם אל תחד כבדי כי באפם הרגו איש וברצנם עקרו שור:

(ז) ארור אפם כי עז ועברתם כי קשתה אחלקם ביעקב ואפיצם בישראל: ס

Note: R. Yosef Albo’s discourse in the Alon HaDeracha on the importance of a work ethic and delayed gratification is interesting to reflect upon and discuss. I can understand how this approach appealed personally to Nechama.

Alef.

1. V. 14 and the end of v. 15 are describing the qualities of the members of the tribe of Yissachar. Then unless the beginning of v. 15 is made to fit into that pattern, the reason for those phrases to be part of this description at all is unclear. The blessings are about the qualities of the individuals being blessed, not about the land that they are fated¹ to receive.

Of course, this raises the nurture/nature issue, i.e., if Yissachar had the same upbringing as the founders of the other tribes, why should his tribe be considered more attached to Tora than the others? Is the fact that so many of the descendents of Yissachar gravitated to Tora scholarship say anything beyond the acculturation within the tribe and family? Furthermore, Kohanim also served as judges—see Devarim 17:9. So why is the tribe of Levi not singled out for consideration vis-à-vis Tora? Is it a matter of what is someone’s primary responsibility?

2. While the status of the head of the Sanhedrin might have been prestigious, nevertheless it entailed considerable responsibility. Ultimately, a leader is very much beholden to the people he leads for their loyalty, support, trust, etc. Unfortunately not everyone is so easy to deal with, particularly when they are unhappy about a particular judicial decision. And when a considerable percentage of leaders are expected to come from a particular segment of the population, like a single tribe, the expectation that such a quota will be consistently filled by Yissachar is a burden, a task on the tribe in question. There might be those who would prefer to live their lives in pursuit of other things, but they will have to give up their aspirations in order to carry forward the tribe’s traditions.
3. According to the commentary on Midrash by Moshe Mirkin (Yavneh, Tel Aviv, 1980) the burden associated with the land are the Commandments that are specifically incumbent upon those who live in the land, e.g., tithing agricultural products, Shmitta, Yovel, Aliyat Regel, etc. Of course according to R. Chananya ben Akashya (Makkot 3:16) the more Mitzvot one is required to fulfill, the greater the Zechut with which he has been endowed by HaShem!

A second possibility for understanding the comment is to realize that the moral standards to which the people residing in Israel are held are higher than those for people living elsewhere. This point is made by RaMBaN regarding Sodom and Amora in his commentary to VaYikra 18:25, as to why they were destroyed whereas there were other communities in the world that were equally corrupt, and yet they were not punished. He answers that God Holds the land of Israel to a higher standard, as implied by Devarim 11:12. Consequently, in addition to any specific Commandments that may apply only when one lives in Israel, there is the pressure to live in accordance with relatively higher standards of general morality, to fulfill the mandate of serving as an Ohr LaGoyim (Yeshayahu 42:6; 49:6.)

4. רש"י על ברא' ג:ח

יש מדרשי אגדה רבים, וכבר סדרום רבותינו על מכונם בב"ר ובשאר מדרשות. ואני לא

באתי אלא לפשוטו של מקרא ולאגדה המישבת דברי המקרא דבר דבור על אופניו...

(At the beginning of his commentary to Parashat VaYeishev, RaShBaM disagrees with his grandfather and claims that in the end RaShI agreed that had he enough time, he really should have rewritten his commentary on the Tora more in accordance with the Peshat. Of course this is an argument from silence, i.e., it would have been more credible if RaShI rather than his opponent grandson would have expressly stated his realization that he had often strayed from Peshat.)

In contrast to the Midrash, RaShI does incorporate the second approach when explaining the Reisha of v. 15, i.e., that the land of Israel is being referred to with respect to the words “Menucha” and “HaAretz”. However, with respect to v. 14 and the latter portion of v. 15, all things being equal, it makes more sense according to the intent of this “Blessing” that we should be discussing the qualities that Yissachar is bringing forward. The land is something that is being given to them; the serious attitude about Tora is something that is unique and specific to this particular tribe, which is what Yaakov and Moshe are trying to do as they go through the various brothers/tribes.

Beit.

1. The meaning of the phrase according to the respective commentators:

1. RashI: The donkey sleeps outdoors between the precincts of the cities between which he is carrying loads.
2. RaShBaM: The donkey works outdoors, beyond the precincts of the city,  engaged in ploughing and seeding. (It would appear that he does not account for the verb “Rovetz” which suggests the animal at rest rather than engaged in work.)
3. RaDaK: The donkey constantly carries its two burdens, one on either side of the animal, whether it is standing and walking, whether it is crouching and sleeping.
4. HaRechasim LaBika: Since the donkey is always cold due to its extremely thin coat, it is always crouching near places where cooking is taking place. ²
5. ShaDaL: The donkey is stabled within a stand of stalks (to prevent it from running away.)

It appears that in all of the cases the description of the donkey continues with the phrase רובץ בין המשפתים. It is the donkey either crouching or, for RaShBaM, working.

2. 
   

Position in birth order. Objectionable personal quality, profound error in personal judgment.	(ג) ראובן בכרי אתה כחי וראשית אוני יתר שאת ויתר עז: (ד) פחז כמים אל תותר כי עלית משכבי אביך אז חללת יצועי עלה: פ
Objectionable tendency towards violence. Disassociation from their regrettable actions. A curse directed at the personality trait that led to these actions. A plan to diffuse such actions in the future.	(ה) שמעון ולוי אחים כלי חמס מכרתיהם: (ו) בסדם אל תבא נפשי בקהלם אל תחד כבדי כי באפם הרגו איש וברצנם עקרו שור: (ז) ארור אפם כי עז ועברתם כי קשתה אחלקם ביעקב ואפיצם בישראל: ס
a) Yehuda’s superiority over enemies and   family. b) Comparison to lions who crouch, focus on their prey. c) Images of rulership. d) Ties young horses and donkeys to vines; washing clothes in wine.    Eyes red with wine, teeth white with milk.	(ח) יהודה אתה יודוך אחיך ידך בערף איביך ישתחוו לך בני אביך: (ט) גור אריה יהודה מטרף בני עלית כרע רבץ כאריה וכלביא מי יקימנו: (י) לא יסור שבט מיהודה ומחקק מבין רגליו עד כי יבא <שילה> שילו ולו יקהת עמים: (יא) אסרי לגפן <עירה> עירו ולשרקה בני אתנו כבס ביין לבשו ובדם ענבים <סותה> סותו: (יב) חכלילי עינים מיין ולבן שנים מחלב: פ
e) Where Zevulun will live. Serve as harbor.	(יג) זבולן לחוף ימים ישכן והוא לחוף אניות וירכתו על צידן: ס
b) Comparison to a strong donkey. e) Where it will crouch. f) Attracted to rest and land. c) Will serve and pay.	(יד) יששכר חמר גרם רבץ בין המשפתים: (טו) וירא מנחה כי טוב ואת הארץ כי נעמה ויט שכמו לסבל ויהי למס עבד: ס
c) What Dan will do, i.e., judge. b) Comparison to snake, that bites horse’s heels to defeat enemies.	(טז) דן ידין עמו כאחד שבטי ישראל: (יז) יהי דן נחש עלי דרך שפיפן עלי ארח הנשך עקבי סוס ויפל רכבו אחור: (יח) לישועתך קויתי יקוק:
a) Will be attacked by raiders, but in the end will be victorious.	(יט) גד גדוד יגודנו והוא יגד עקב: ס (כ) מאשר שמנה לחמו והוא יתן מעדני מלך: ס
b) Comparison to a wild antelope. c) Says nice things.	(כא) נפתלי אילה שלחה הנתן אמרי שפר: ס
b) Comparison to a fruitful tree. a) Even though he was attacked by archers, he prevailed with strong hands and the Help of HaShem. g) Recipient of blessings from above and below, blessings of fruitfulness. The blessings from Yaakov will be more powerful than blessings given before by the Avot.	(כב) בן פרת יוסף בן פרת עלי עין בנות צעדה עלי שור: (כג) וימררהו ורבו וישטמהו בעלי חצים: (כד) ותשב באיתן קשתו ויפזו זרעי ידיו מידי אביר יעקב משם רעה אבן ישראל: (כה) מקל אביך ויעזרך ואת שקי ויברכך ברכת שמים מעל ברכת תהום רבצת תחת ברכת שדים ורחם: (כו) ברכת אביך גברו על ברכת הורי עד תאות גבעת עולם תהיין לראש יוסף ולקדקד נזיר אחיו: פ
b) Comparison to a wolf. a) Devouring prey and dividing spoils.	(כז) בנימין זאב יטרף בבקר יאכל עד ולערב יחלק שלל:

Elements in the blessings:

1. Power over others.
2. Comparison to animals.
3. Eventual roles within the Jewish society.
4. Obscure metaphors.
5. Where will take up residence.
6. Personal qualities.
7. Spiritual superiority.

It would appear that the brothers could be divided into two overall categories, those that will be involved in military and hostile clashes with others, and those that will be essentially domestic and pacifistic.

In the first category, the following would appear to qualify:

1. Yehuda
2. Dan
3. Gad
4. Yosef
5. Binyamin

The second category would therefore be made up of:

1. Zevulun
2. Yisachar
3. Naftali

When comparing the Berachot to Yisachar with the Berachot directed at the other brothers, in light of the five commentators cited in the Gilayon, none of the other Berachot have to do with where a Shevet “sleeps” (RaShI); none of the other Berachot have to do with where a Shevet “works” (RaShBaM); none of the other Berachot have to do with the burdens with which a Shevet will have to contend (RaDaK); none of the other Berachot deal with the type of enclosure in which the Shevet will be “contained” (ShaDaL.) However, there are other Berachot that say pejorative things about several of the Shevatim, i.e.,  Reuven, Shimon and Levi.  Consequently a case could be made that Yissachar should be grouped with them (Harechasim LaBika).

3. Yeshayahu 32:2 supports RaShBaM because of the phrase Meshalchei Regel HaShor VeHaChamor. The implication is that those who send forth their animals to work at the far edges of the civilized areas, as opposed to the places where people reside, will be blessed. RaShBaM suggests that Rovetz Bein HaMishpatim is to be understood as the donkey that works beyond the precincts of the inhabited area.
4. Harechasim LaBika as stated above in question 2 is the only one of the commentaries cited who takes a decidedly negative view of what Yaakov says to Yisachar. Although in the case of the war led by Devora in Shoftim, the text states that members of Yissachar did participate, Reuven is castigated in Shoftim 5:16 for remaining Bein HaMishpatim rather than participating in the battle. Even if it did not come to pass vis-à-vis Yissachar with respect to this conflict, that does not mean that either in the future or simply in general, such an attitude would not be held by Yissachar.
5. ShaDaL objects to RaDaK’s interpretation that Bein HaMishpatim refers to the two loads on the donkey’s back, because of the usage of the preposition “Bein” (between). The implication is that it is a reference to separate places (such as outer precincts of habitations, places where things are heated up, or the vertical elements in a coral) rather than two sides of the same animal’s back.

Gimel.

1. a. Perhaps Onkelos was influenced by the following verse:

דברים פרק יב

(ט) כי לא באתם עד עתה אל המנוחה ואל הנחלה אשר יקוק אלקיך נתן לך:

       b. Once you assume that the contemplation of the Menucha VeNachala refers to the conquest of Canaan, then the phrase מס עובד could be a reference to the status of members of the Seven Nations that choose to remain in Israel, associated with the following verse:

דברים פרק כ

(יא) והיה אם שלום תענך ופתחה לך והיה כל העם הנמצא בה יהיו לך למס ועבדוך:

The exertions that will have to be expended in order to reach that stage, i.e., the burden that will have to be undertaken is the conquest of these peoples’ land.

2.    a. R. Eliezer and R. Shmuel bar Nachman are referring to the fact that virtually all of the tribes had Canaanite residents in their portions, and these residents would contribute taxes and work in exchange for permission to continuing to live in Canaan. (For this reason, had the Egyptians not overstepped their rights of making the immigrant Jews work in their land, choosing to also enslave them and kill their children, there would not have been a moral objection to imposing such tasks upon the Jews in exchange for the right to live in the land.)

R. Eliezer understands the verse re Yissachar as stating that all work was done and taxes paid by the members of Yissachar themselves, leading to the conclusion that unlike the other tribes, Yissachar did not have/permit Canaanites to remain on their land. (One can then speculate as to why that was so—were they afraid of the negative influences of these individuals? Did they not wish to create a society of first and second-class citizens? Etc.)

R. Shmuel bar Nachman understands the verse to connote that while Yissachar also had Canaanite residents in its land, unlike the other tribes, these residents always met their tax obligations. Yissachar in effect put their shoulder to the task of insisting that the taxes be paid from the outset, implying greater persistence on their part, that they were more threatening to the Canaanites than the other tribes, that they had a better administrative infrastructure, etc.

b. When the list is given at the beginning of Shoftim which tribes did not completely drive out the Canaanim in their territory, Yissachar is missing, suggesting that they did remove all the Canaanim from their land.

שופטים פרק א

(כב) ויעלו בית יוסף גם הם בית אל ויקוק עמם:

(כג) ויתירו בית יוסף בבית אל ושם העיר לפנים לוז:

(כד) ויראו השמרים איש יוצא מן העיר ויאמרו לו הראנו נא את מבוא העיר ועשינו עמך חסד:

(כה) ויראם את מבוא העיר ויכו את העיר לפי חרב ואת האיש ואת כל משפחתו שלחו:

(כו) וילך האיש ארץ החתים ויבן עיר ויקרא שמה לוז הוא שמה עד היום הזה: פ

(כז) ולא הוריש מנשה את בית שאן ואת בנותיה ואת תענך ואת בנתיה ואת <ישב> יושבי דור ואת בנותיה ואת יושבי יבלעם ואת בנתיה ואת יושבי מגדו ואת בנותיה ויואל הכנעני לשבת בארץ הזאת:

(כח) ויהי כי חזק ישראל וישם את הכנעני למס והוריש לא הורישו: ס

(כט) ואפרים לא הוריש את הכנעני היושב בגזר וישב הכנעני בקרבו בגזר: פ

(ל) זבולן לא הוריש את יושבי קטרון ואת יושבי נהלל וישב הכנעני בקרבו ויהיו למס: ס

(לא) אשר לא הוריש את ישבי עכו ואת יושבי צידון ואת אחלב ואת אכזיב ואת חלבה ואת אפיק ואת רחב:

(לב) וישב האשרי בקרב הכנעני ישבי הארץ כי לא הורישו: ס

(לג) נפתלי לא הוריש את ישבי בית שמש ואת ישבי בית ענת וישב בקרב הכנעני ישבי הארץ וישבי בית שמש ובית ענת היו להם למס: ס

(לד) וילחצו האמרי את בני דן ההרה כי לא נתנו לרדת לעמק:

(לה) ויואל האמרי לשבת בהר חרס באילון ובשעלבים ותכבד יד בית יוסף ויהיו למס:

(לו) וגבול האמרי ממעלה עקרבים מהסלע ומעלה: פ

c. Since Onkelos posits that the conquered peoples did provide taxes, it is R. Shmuel bar Nachman who is in synch with the Targum’s approach.

Daled.

1. 

בראשית פרק מט

(ח) יהודה אתה יודוך אחיך ידך בערף איביך ישתחוו לך בני אביך:

The note under “Yehuda” is a Reviah. This normally separates the word from what has come before. The impression that this is a separate section is also bolstered by the presence of a Petucha (open space until the end of the column) between verses 7 and 8. Furthermore, the Pashta on “Ata” which places emphasis upon that word, and slightly separates it from the Munach/Zakef Katan on “Yoducha Achecha” suggests “You”, in contrast to those who have been mentioned previously, will receive the approbation of your brothers. This would support the readings of Targum Yonatan, RaShBaM, and ShaDaL.

Ibn Ezra does not see v. 8 in contrast to Reuven, Shimon and Levi, but rather as something self-contained. The Reviah draws attention to the name “Yehuda” and then as if there is a colon, the explanation for the name follows.

2.   It would appear that when “Bechori” is being used as a word that stands alone and serves as a predicate adjective, then the accent is placed upon the middle syllable. However, as in the case of Shemot 4:22, when “Bechori” is modifying “Beni”, then the accent is on the final syllable. The cantillation reflects this as well in the sense that in Beraishit 49:3 the note on “Bechori” is Munach, leading directly to the next word, “Ata” while in Yirmiyahu 31:8, the note on “Bechori” is Mercha, leading directly to “Huh” which is a Sof Pasuk. In the case of Shemot 4:22, “Bechori” has the note Tipcha, which links it to the previous word, “Beni”.

פרשת ויחי

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/159.html

Vayigash answers

Gilayon VaYigash 5719
Following Nechama’s recommendation at the beginning of the Alon HaDeracha, second paragraph, that when comparing variant texts that repeat a particular incident or conversation, that it is best to make a chart, here is one covering section Alef:

             ברא' מו:לא-לב                               ברא' מז:א                                  משמעות ההבדלים

In the presentation to Pharoah, the father is both directly mentioned and prior to mentioning the brothers. Gaining sympathy, deemphasizing threat suggested by the presence of the brothers.	אבי ואחי	אחי ובית אבי
In the presentation to Pharoah, the family is described as coming with all of  its belongings	וצאנם ובקרם וכל אשר להם	אשר בארץ כנען
from the land of Canaan. Gives the impression that they are nomads whose most recent stay was in Canaan, but who now are prepared to immigrate to Egypt, without any intent to return to Canaan.  This is in contrast to the original discussion with the brothers where the herds are used as a modifier of the family’s profession, i.e., herders. Furthermore, in the first statement, the terminology “that are in the land of Canaan” suggests that they are only temporarily interested in staying in Egypt, perhaps only as long as the famine lasts. Would Pharoah necessarily be prepared to make the same substantive and long-term commitment to them if that were the case? Another significant change is from Yosef’s stating that the family had come to him, in effect diminishing the importance of Pharoah and Egypt. Consequently upon speaking with Pharoah, Yosef modified this fact.	באו מארץ כנען	באו אלי
The mention of the family already having taken up residence in Goshen serves to make Pharoah’s acquiescence to this arrangement intended to limit assimilation, easier to obtain. The idea that the Jews should be off on their own is reinforced by depicting Yosef’s family as herdsmen; however, when speaking to Pharoah, Yosef appears to wish to make the impression of how distinguished members of his family are, and consequently, he deemphasizes their profession.	והנם בארץ גשן	והאנשים רעי צאן כי אנשי מקנה היו
		וצאנם ובקרם וכל אשר להם הביאו

Beit:

       ברא' מו:לג-ד                                        ברא' מז:ב-ד                                    משמעות

Who will initiate the meeting—Pharoah or Yosef? Or will it seem as though Pharoah is calling them, but in fact it is Yosef who is making all of the arrangements and suggested to Pharoah that he meet his brothers?	ומקצה אחיו לקח חמשה אנשים ויצום לפני פרעה	והי' כי יקרא לכם פרעה
It is likely that in light of Yosef’s immense success in managing the country’s affairs, Pharoah would like to make civil servants of the entire family.	ויאמר פרעה אל אחיו מה מעשיכם?	ואמר מה מעשיכם?
Although at the time of the meeting it appears as though the brothers are spontaneously responding to Pharoah’s questions, in fact everything has been anticipated and scripted.	ויאמרו אל פרעה	ואמרתם
Are the brothers cattle owners thus employing others to shepherd the herds, or are they themselves the individuals who are in direct contact with the animals? The former sounds more distinguished when compared to the latter.	רעה צאן עבדיך	אנשי מקנה היו עבדיך
Is this a profession that has been followed by only this generation, or is this a tradition that has been in the family for many, many generations? It is more difficult to get someone to change when in addition to his own initiative, he is carrying out family traditions.	גם אנחנו גם אבותינו	מנעורינו עד עתה
In what they say to Pharoah, they give the impression that the only reason that they came to Egypt was to find pasture land for their animals. Goshen then becomes a possibility since apparently it possesses the requisite pastures. However, in the original discussion, it appears that the intention was to dwell in Goshen, independent of the needs of the animals.	ויאמרו אל פרעה לגור בארץ באנו כי אין מרעה לצאן אשר לעבדיך כי כבד הרעב בארץ כנען ועתה ישבו נא עבדיך בארץ גושן.
בעבור תשבו בארץ גושן כי תועבת מצרים כל רועה צאן.		Although Yosef was thinking that depicting his brothers as herdsmen would cause the Egyptians, led by Pharoah, to wish to distance themselves as much as possible from them, this was never articulated to Pharoah in order that he not think that he was being manipulated.

1. Here are the verses that according to Benno Jacob, contain parallel questions to that which Pharoah poses to Yosef’s brothers in 47:3.

בראשית פרק ג

](ג) ומפרי העץ אשר בתוך הגן אמר אלקים לא תאכלו ממנו ולא תגעו בו פן תמתון:

This first reference does not contain a question, leading me to conclude that there is a misprint in  the Gilayon.]

(ט) ויקרא יקוק אלקים אל האדם ויאמר לו איכה:

(יג) ויאמר יקוק אלקים לאשה מה זאת עשית ותאמר האשה הנחש השיאני ואכל:

בראשית פרק ד

(ט) ויאמר יקוק אל קין אי הבל אחיך ויאמר לא ידעתי השמר אחי אנכי:

בראשית פרק לג

(ה) וישא את עיניו וירא את הנשים ואת הילדים ויאמר מי אלה לך ויאמר הילדים אשר חנן אלקים את עבדך:

בראשית פרק לג

(ח) ויאמר מי לך כל המחנה הזה אשר פגשתי ויאמר למצא חן בעיני אדני:

These questions can be understood to be not just informational queries but rather pertaining to the existential nature of those being questioned. Consequently they are all double entendres in the sense that on one level they could be answered simply, but the questioner appears to be probing not only for what is taking place externally, but also internally with regard to the ones being questioned:

1. What is it that you, the brothers of Yosef do, so that we can determine how you might best fit into Egyptian society?
2. The fact that you are hiding from Me in the Garden of Eden is a red flag that something terrible has happened that endangers the relationship between God and man. Where are you “at”?
3. What have you done in the sense that you have broken the trust and understanding between God and man?
4. How could you have taken the life of your brother Hevel in that he can no longer be found, i.e., no longer exists?
5. What does having a family mean to you Yaakov, and how do they relate to the tradition that is being passed down from our parents’ generation to us?
6. What is implied by your attempting to incur favor with me by sending such a great gift?

2. See the left-hand column in the chart.
3. It would appear that the actual answers given to Pharoah are intended to allay any fears that he might have that the brothers have designs to play a major role in Egypt due to their prowess and skills. Efforts are made to make them appear inconsequential and unambitious. If in the end Pharoah becomes uninterested in them, he will more readily agree that they should live in Goshen, which is much removed from Egypt’s urban center.
However, in the Alon HaDeracha, Nechama attributes the difference between the brothers’ actual comments to Pharoah and those proposed by Yosef to a lack of self-confidence on their parts, in contrast to their father Yaakov, who when he meets Pharoah bows neither when he first enters or when he departs (47:7-10). Yosef’s brothers bow down repeatedly when they are first brought into only Pharoah’s second-in-command, unbeknownst to them as Yosef  (42:6). If this is how they conducted themselves in this official’s presence, they would understandably be that much more deferential in the presence of Pharoah himself. 
Gimel
1. The term בעבור suggests that the entire audience with Pharoah is geared to accomplish the end of living in Goshen. Although Goshen also serves the ostensible purpose of offering grazing land for their animals, RaShI explains that when the brothers explain that they have no other skills than being herdsmen, the Egyptians will be more than happy to settle them in the distant part of Egypt which is the entire goal.
2. At first Akeidat Yitzchak emphasizes how by avoiding becoming involved in administrating Egypt, the Jews will have weaker ties to the land. Goshen was only one possibility whereby the Jews would be removed from the general Egyptian society. This end could have been accomplished by living in other parts of the country as well.
In the second interpretation, Goshen is considered a very desirable area in Egypt, and by identifying themselves as caretakers of animals that the Egyptians deem as holy, it will be easier for them to justify allowing the Jews to inhabit such prime real estate.

3. a) The first underlined phrase emphasizes that the land of Goshen was secondary to the goal of being far away from the Egyptian center and its culture and idolatry.

    b) The second underlined phrase emphasizes how it is better to lead a powerful individual into thinking that he has made a decision, rather than attempting to make an executive decision on his own, or to ask on his family’s behalf something that Yosef rather than Pharoah thought to do. (While the text implies that Yosef’s administrative moves regarding guiding Egypt through the famine years were carried out without consultations with Pharoah, one can perhaps extrapolate from how Yosef handled the Goshen issue to everything else that he did and conclude that he was always careful to include Pharoah before enacting policy decisions.) Akeidat Yitzchak then says that if Yosef followed such a strategy in the relatively insignificant matter of exactly where his family would reside, it is so much more important to do the same when much greater matters may be at stake.

4.     Although Yosef recognized that he was quite capable of running the country himself, he was careful not to offend Pharoah by leaving him out of the decision-making process. How we act around individuals who at least have the self-perception that they ought to be in charge, goes far in determining whether these individuals will be threatened by those below them or will feel good about taking credit for the achievements of those who serve beneath them.

  Another instance of Yosef allowing Pharoah to take the lead in decision-making is in 45:16-20, where the latter instructs Yosef how his family should come to take up residence in Egypt. His bringing Yaakov to Pharoah so that he could bless the monarch (47:7-10) was another sensitive move on Yosef’s part intended to win sympathy from his master. Furthermore, rather than keeping control of the funds that he collected in exchange for food, all monies were brought to Pharoah’s palace (47:14) symbolizing who truly was in control of what was occurring. Then Yosef oversaw the sale of all Egyptian land as well as the Egyptians themselves (with the exception of the priestly class) to Pharoah in exchange for food (47:18-26). 

5.     Here is the reference that Nechama alludes to in the commentary of Emek Davar on the Gilayon for VeZot HaBeracha 5711, question 3:

העמק דבר, (ר' נפתלי צבי יהודה ברלין, ראש ישיבת וולוזין, נפטר תרנ"ג 1892 ):

ופירוש "בטח"                   ופירוש "בטח" הוא במנוחת הנפש בהאהב בין אדם לחברו ובלי התחרות עם שאר אומות העולם. ו"בדד" הוא בל                ובלי התערבות יתירה עם אומות העולם ברעות והתחתנות, אלא בדד, מובדלים ומצוינים בפני עצמם. ושתי מי                    עצמם. ושתי מידות הללו הם "עין יעקב" – מידתו ומבוקשו של יעקב שיהיו בניו כן.

  Due to the NeTzI”V’s struggles with the Reform movement and the Enlightenment, he would understandably be hypersensitive to the possibility of Jewish assimilation into the greater society, and probably wished for his own “Goshen” that would serve to preserve Jewish identity and tradition. See the Alon HaDeracha for additional background information about NeTzI”V. Nechama in her comments associates his approach not so much as a reaction to Reform, but rather as an advocacy of Zionism. The position of religious Zionists when the movement was first formed not only constituted a response to anti-Semitism which appeared to have primarily spurred on secularists like Herzl, but also an opportunity to unify the Jewish people in one place under one authority.

Daled.
The Haftora for Parashat VaYigash is taken from Yechezkel 37:16-28.
What struck me strange about the first half of the Haftora is the insistence upon unification of the people once they are restored to the land of Israel from their lengthy Exile. While the competition between Yosef and Yehuda was apparent during the early Biblical period with respect to the children of Yaakov and the tribes that they each formed, did this ill-feeling carry forward to the point where the prophet must engage in a symbolic act to emphasize how the kingship must be unified under a descendent of David? When the Jews were carried off to Exile, the kingdoms of Yehuda and Yisrael effectively ceased to function. Consequently, why is it necessary to continue to emphasize how the schism must be ended?
Heh.
The reason why Targum Yonatan changes the interpretation of עץ is the result of the text’s context. In v. 16-17, the original prophetic image that the prophet was shown was described. However, already in v. 19, alongside the reference to the wood of Yosef, there is mention of שבטי ישראל. Since actual wood cannot be the companions חבריו of tribes, therefore the Targum felt it necessary to redefine the “wood” as also referring to one of the tribes in particular stemming from Yosef, i.e., Ephraim.
Vav.
1.  In each of these instances, the prophet publicly does something that is abnormal or at least atypical, eliciting from the onlookers inquiries as to the symbolic significance of his actions.
2.  Rather than simply attributing to the prophet a propensity for idiosyncratic behavior, the onlookers realize that what he is doing has significance for the immanent fate of the Jewish people. Consequently they ask him to explain the meaning of his actions.
3.  Perhaps when contrasting the second case (24:19) with the first and the third (37:18 and 21:12), the situation where despite suffering such a terrible loss as the death of his wife, he refused to mourn, was perceived as so much more abnormal and counterintuitive than putting pieces of wood together or deeply sighing, that the people realized that something portentous regarding the collective fate of everyone was being communicated via this demonstration.
4.  Devarim 29:23, despite on one level paralleling the three verses in Yechezkel in the sense that something that takes place precipitates curiosity and questioning, is nevertheless significantly different in the sense that the overall meaning of the cause-and-effect phenomenon is clear, i.e., God is Displeased with the Jewish people and outsiders wish to know what brought on the punishments that were clearly being brought to bear. The three instances in Yechezkel describe strange behavior on the part of the prophet whose overall meaning is unclear—there is no punishment theme readily apparent when the prophet puts two pieces of wood together, refuses to allow himself to mourn for the passing of his wife or sighs deeply and dramatically—and therefore the people become eager to hear why the prophet is doing these things. Furthermore, the putting the wood together ends up representing the future unity of the kingship and is not associated with anything negative at all, in contrast to the lack of mourning which represents how the Jewish people will act when they suffer terrible losses due to their sinfulness, and the sighing associated with the terrors that God Intends to bring upon the nation due to their sinfulness.
5.  The two verses in Shemot which are associated with two of the four sons discussed in the Haggada (12:26—the Rasha; 13:14—the Tam), describe questions that onlookers direct at someone engaged in activities that are seen to be abnormal, i.e., the rituals practiced at the Seder, some of which are deliberately designed to elicit wonder on the part of younger participants, e.g., taking the Seder plate away before the meal, eating Maror, exclusively eating Matza, insisting that attendees recline when eating and drinking, eating the Pascal sacrifice in one’s home as opposed to within the Temple precincts as was done with all other sacrifices, etc. Nevertheless the assumption that these actions represent what God is about to do to the Jewish people if they do not repent and fulfill His Commandments is absent. The questions rather appear to assume that it is unimportant or even needless to engage in these rituals. Furthermore, one person does not engage in the actions, but rather everyone who has assembled. Finally, the answers demonstrate that the actions are responses to things that have taken place in the past, e.g., Maror for the bitterness experienced by the Jews at the hands of the Egyptians, the Matza due to there not being sufficient time to allow bread to rise as the Jews hurriedly made their way out of Egypt, the reclining as representing the freedom from servitude achieved by the Jews, etc., as opposed to indicating what might or definitely will take place in the future.
Zayin.
Re Yechezkel 37:27
1. The problem for both of the commentators is the usage of the preposition עליהם in conjunction with משכני. As is obvious from the very next verse, the more typical preposition that would relate to God’s Dwelling amongst the people is בתוכם, as in Shemot 25:8; 29:45.
      RaDaK might take his cue from e.g., Shemot 20:16, where the Fear of God is על your faces.
      R. Eliezer MiBalganzi on the other hand might be inspired by the phrase in the Friday evening liturgy, “And Spread עלינו Your Canopy of Peace."
2.  The two verses, Yeshayahu 2:3 (there is a misprint on the Gilayon) and Yechezkel 40:2, suggested as sources for the assumption that Yechezkel 37:27 is to be understood as stating that the future Temple will be built upon a mountain, are unconvincing. Mt. Moriah upon which the two Jerusalem Temples was situated is at a relatively higher elevation than the surrounding land. However, with respect to the usage of the term ליהםע, short of invoking the image of כפה עליהם ההר כגיגית, the idea that the preposition עליהם suggests that the Temple will be on a mountain is difficult to assert.
 

Vayigash Questions

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/568.html

Miketz answers

מקורות שמשתמש בהן האברבנאל:






בראשית פרק לא



(יט) ולבן הלך לגזז את צאנו ותגנב רחל את התרפים אשר לאביה:





בראשית פרק לא



(ל) ועתה הלך הלכת כי נכסף נכספתה לבית אביך למה גנבת את אלהי:



(לא) ויען יעקב ויאמר ללבן כי יראתי כי אמרתי פן תגזל את בנותיך מעמי:



(לב) עם אשר תמצא את אלהיך לא יחיה נגד אחינו הכר לך מה עמדי וקח לך ולא ידע יעקב כי רחל גנבתם:





בראשית פרק מד



(ז) ויאמרו אליו למה ידבר אדני כדברים האלה חלילה לעבדיך מעשות כדבר הזה:



(ח) הן כסף אשר מצאנו בפי אמתחתינו השיבנו אליך מארץ כנען ואיך נגנב מבית אדניך כסף או זהב:



(ט) אשר ימצא אתו מעבדיך ומת וגם אנחנו נהיה לאדני לעבדים:



(י) ויאמר גם עתה כדבריכם כן הוא אשר ימצא אתו יהיה לי עבד ואתם תהיו נקים:





בראשית פרק מד



(א) ויצו את אשר על ביתו לאמר מלא את אמתחת האנשים אכל כאשר יוכלון שאת ושים כסף איש בפי אמתחתו:



(ב) ואת גביעי גביע הכסף תשים בפי אמתחת הקטן ואת כסף שברו ויעש כדבר יוסף אשר דבר:





בראשית פרק מד



(טז) ויאמר יהודה מה נאמר לאדני מה נדבר ומה נצטדק האלהים מצא את עון עבדיך הננו עבדים לאדני גם אנחנו גם אשר נמצא הגביע בידו:



(יז) ויאמר חלילה לי מעשות זאת האיש אשר נמצא הגביע בידו הוא יהיה לי עבד ואתם עלו לשלום אל אביכם: פ





מקורות שמשתמש בהן יצחק שמואל רגיו:





בראשית פרק לז



(ז) והנה אנחנו מאלמים אלמים בתוך השדה והנה קמה אלמתי וגם נצבה והנה תסבינה אלמתיכם ותשתחוין לאלמתי:





בראשית פרק לז



(ט) ויחלם עוד חלום אחר ויספר אתו לאחיו ויאמר הנה חלמתי חלום עוד והנה השמש והירח ואחד עשר כוכבים משתחוים לי:





בראשית פרק לז



(כ) ועתה לכו ונהרגהו ונשלכהו באחד הברות ואמרנו חיה רעה אכלתהו ונראה מה יהיו חלמתיו:





בראשית פרק מה



(ה) ועתה אל תעצבו ואל יחר בעיניכם כי מכרתם אתי הנה כי למחיה שלחני אלקים לפניכם:



(ו) כי זה שנתים הרעב בקרב הארץ ועוד חמש שנים אשר אין חריש וקציר:



(ז) וישלחני אלקים לפניכם לשום לכם שארית בארץ ולהחיות לכם לפליטה גדלה:



(ח) ועתה לא אתם שלחתם אתי הנה כי האלקים וישימני לאב לפרעה ולאדון לכל ביתו ומשל בכל ארץ מצרים:





בראשית פרק נ



(טז) ויצוו אל יוסף לאמר אביך צוה לפני מותו לאמר:



(יז) כה תאמרו ליוסף אנא שא נא פשע אחיך וחטאתם כי רעה גמלוך ועתה שא נא לפשע עבדי אלקי אביך ויבך יוסף בדברם אליו:



(יח) וילכו גם אחיו ויפלו לפניו ויאמרו הננו לך לעבדים:



(יט) ויאמר אלהם יוסף אל תיראו כי התחת אלקים אני:



(כ) ואתם חשבתם עלי רעה אלקים חשבה לטבה למען עשה כיום הזה להחית עם רב:



(כא) ועתה אל תיראו אנכי אכלכל אתכם ואת טפכם וינחם אותם וידבר על לבם:





At the beginning of the Alon HaDeracha, an interesting inference is drawn from the language in Beraishit 42:9, where, when Yosef realizes that it is his brothers who are bowing down before him, emphasis is placed upon Yosef’s remembering the dreams that he had originally dreamt, rather than the things that had been done to him by his siblings. This suggests a support to R. Rigio’s interpretation quoted in section Alef, as opposed to the Abrabanel.





On the other hand, a support to Abrabanel is supplied by RaMBaM, Mishneh Tora, Hilchot Teshuva 2:1, where in order to determine if someone has truly repented, it is necessary to observe the individual as freely acting in a manner that is the opposite of what he had originally perpetrated. Yet it still begs the question why it is up to Yosef to investigate the degree of repentance of his brothers.





Alef 1. What were Yosef’s intentions when he subjected his brothers to the deception of not allowing them to know that he was their long-lost brother, accusing them of being spies, throwing them into prison, demanding that Binyamin be brought before him, returning their money to them each time they purchased food in Egypt, and placing his cup in Binyamin’s bag?



2. The basic difference between the two approaches was that Abrabanel saw all of Yosef’s machinations as part of a plan to assure that they had truly repented of the evil that they had inflicted upon him, Regio understands the elaborate scheme as a means to assure that the two original dreams would be precisely enacted by the members of Yosef’s family, with Yaakov and his spouses coming to Egypt only after Binyamin had already done so.





Beit 1. The phrase בני איש אחד would seem to refer to Yaakov. To interpret the phrase as a reference to the First Adam is rather creative and unexpected.



2. The reason why R. Moshe Chefetz opted for such a strange understanding is because the Peshat meaning makes no sense. The brothers are trying to demonstrate that they are not spies. Why should the fact that they are all the sons of a single father make a difference in this matter? On the other hand, if the emphasis is the common origin of all human beings, and there are some who are not suspected to be spies, what makes this group of men different, more suspicious than anyone else? Aren’t all men the same? And if you, Pharoah’s assistant do not suspect the majority of people to be spies, why are you suspecting us, who are no different than anyone else?





The Alon HaDeracha points out that the problem reflected in this third section is that on three occasions (v. 9, 12, 14) Yosef repeats the accusation that the brothers are spies. Whereas the first two verses appear to be accusations without any basis, the third accusation gives the impression that Yosef has some sort of basis upon which to make the charge. The various commentaries attempt to identify that basis.





In addition to the views cited in the Gilayon, Nechama includes in the Alon HaDeracha ShaDaL’s perspective, i.e., that the brothers supplied more information than they had been asked, leading to suspicions of their guilt. Nechama continues that RaShI’s first interpretation suggests the classic situation where an individual full of himself continues to advance his point of view without actually listening to the responses that his position evokes in those to whom he is talking.





Gimel 1. The difficulty in the verse is the identity of the antecedent of the pronoun in the phrase הוא אשר דברתי.



2. RaShI’s first interpretation does not depend upon anything that anyone has said until this point, but rather is a reiteration of Yosef’s first accusation concerning his brothers, i.e., that they are spies.



3. By including the word הדבר, RaShI emphasizes that what is being referred to is something that was said rather than a specific person, as is suggested in v. 9, 12.



4. RaShI posits in his second, Derash interpretation that the antecedent of הוא is a conversation between Yosef and his brothers that is not articulated in the Tora, He mentions the phrase at the end of his comment, because he first has to state the conversation that led up to Yosef making the statement in question.



5. RaShI’s second interpretation is based upon the presumption that when pressed about the whereabouts of the missing brother, i.e., Yosef, they responded that they are searching for him and are prepared to restore him to freedom no matter what it takes, including resorting to violence (as evidenced by what took place in Shechem, and which is referenced by Yosef, albeit alledgedly via his “divining cup.”) Upon hearing this, Yosef decides that they pose a danger to Egyptians and therefore must be incarcerated.



6. According to Sephorno, Yosef attributed the missing brother to his relaying the intelligence that the rest had gathered back to their homeland so that they can prepare to wage war against Egypt. (In this vein, Yosef is casting himself in the role that he served at the beginning of Parashat VaYeishev (reporting on his brothers) as well as when his father sends him to check up upon his brothers while they were in Shechem. (Yaakov does not see Yosef agains for 22 years.)





Daled The apparent contradiction in Chapt. 42 is between v. 20 in which we read that they fulfilled Yosef’s demands including handing over one of their number to be held as a hostage, and v. 24 where Yosef specifically designates Shimon to serve in this capacity. The prolonged period before any decision about a hostage was made could be understood in accordance with the Rabbinic sources quoted by Emek Davar, where instruction is given regarding the only situations wherein someone can be handed over. Consequently Yosef’s designation of Shimon relieved the brothers from this obligation.





Heh 1. The difference between the two interpretations is whether Yaakov is concerned that his children appear to be unaffected by the famine while everyone else is, or that they are starving like everyone else and why should they suffer when they have the recourse to get food in Egypt.



2. According to the Koren translation of Mishlei 11:25 “he who waters will be nourished also himself”, it would appear to support the first interpretation rather than the second, begging the question why it is brought in support of the second. Unless one says that the phrase ודומה לו relates back to the first interpretation, which would seem to be difficult. However, if the phenomenon that RaShI describes in Shemot 27:3, i.e., that particular words can mean two opposite things, then even if within the context of Mishlei it may mean one thing, it could also mean its opposite when it appears in Beraishit 42:1.



3. The second part of Mishlei 13:7 reads “…there is another who pretends to be poor, yet has great riches.” This would seem to be in keeping with the first interpretation of RaShI where Yaakov is concerned that his sons are giving an impression that they are wealthy, when they should be acting as everyone else, i.e., act as if they are in need and go down to Egypt for food.

Miketz questions (sorry for the tardiness)

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/12.html

VaYeshev answers

Parashat VaYeishev 5724

בראשית פרק מ

(טז) וירא שר האפים כי טוב פתר ויאמר אל יוסף אף אני בחלומי...	(ט) ויספר שר המשקים את חלמו ליוסף ויאמר לו בחלומי...
...והנה שלשה סלי חרי על ראשי:	...והנה גפן לפני:
(יז) ובסל העליון מכל מאכל פרעה מעשה אפה...	(י) ובגפן שלשה שריגם והיא כפרחת עלתה נצה הבשילו אשכלתיה ענבים:
...והעוף אכל אתם מן הסל מעל ראשי:	(יא) וכוס פרעה בידי ואקח את הענבים ואשחט אתם אל כוס פרעה ואתן את הכוס על כף פרעה:
(יח) ויען יוסף ויאמר זה פתרנו שלשת הסלים שלשת ימים הם:	(יב) ויאמר לו יוסף זה פתרנו שלשת השרגים שלשת ימים הם:
(יט) בעוד שלשת ימים ישא פרעה את ראשך מעליך ותלה אותך על עץ ואכל העוף את בשרך מעליך:	(יג) בעוד שלשת ימים ישא פרעה את ראשך והשיבך על כנך ונתת כוס פרעה בידו כמשפט הראשון אשר היית משקהו:

יחזקאל פרק יז

(ג) ואמרת כה אמר אדני יקוק הנשר הגדול גדול הכנפים ארך האבר מלא הנוצה אשר לו הרקמה בא אל הלבנון ויקח את צמרת הארז:

יחזקאל פרק יז

(ז) ויהי נשר אחד גדול גדול כנפים ורב נוצה והנה הגפן הזאת כפנה שרשיה עליו ודליותיו שלחה לו להשקות אותה מערגות מטעה:

רד"ק

(ז) ויהי נשר אחד - זה משל למלך מצרים ואע"פ שהיה תקיף לשעתו לא היה כמו הראשון ולא תארו בתוקף ובהדר כמו הראשון:

לא כתוב בפירוש מה היה חטאתם.

בראשית פרק מ פסוק א

ויהי אחר הדברים האלה חטאו משקה מלך מצרים והאפה לאדניהם למלך מצרים:

תולדות יצחק בראשית פרק מ פסוק א

חטאו משקה מלך מצרים והאופה לאדוניהם למלך מצרים. היה ראוי שיאמר למלך מצרים, או לאדוניהם מלך מצרים, ועוד למה קראם בכאן משקה ואופה ואחר כך קראם סריסים ושרים, והשיב החכם רבי אפרים קארו אחי זצ"ל, שדרך הוא שאע"פ שיש לשר גדול מינוי בבית המלך, אינו עובד הוא עצמו המינוי, אלא ממנה אחרים תחתיו לעבוד, וכן עשו השרים האלה, אבל החוטאים לא היו השרים, שהם אינם עובדים, ואינם משקה ואופה, אבל חטאו המשקה והאופה, ולמי חטאו לאדוניהם, כל אחד לאדוניו, ובמה חטאו לאדוניהם במה שחטאו למלך מצרים, ופרעה לא קצף על העובדים, שלא מינה אותם המלך, רק על השרים לפי שמנו אנשים בלתי ראויים לעבוד, ונכון הוא.

רש"י בראשית פרק מ

חטאו - זה נמצא זבוב בפיילי פוטירין שלו, וזה נמצא צרור בגלוסקין שלו:

בראשית רבה (וילנא) פרשה פח

ב רבנן אמרי שר המשקים זבוב נמצא בתוך פיילי פוטירין שלו, שר האופים צרור נמצא בתוך גלוסקין שלו, הה"ד חטאו משקה מלך מצרים והאופה לאדוניהם, בתשמיש אדוניהם,

רבי אביתר אמר בקשו להזדווג לבתו של מלך, נאמר כאן "חטאו" ונאמר להלן (ברא' לט:ט) "ואיך אעשה וגו' וחטאתי לאלקים."

Alef 1 א:

"מהכרתם ומהתחלפות שררתם" From his recognizing them and from the difference of their service.

"שמהשערת הפתרון הוא הכרת החולם" From the assumptions inherent in the solution is the recognition of the nature of the dreamer.

ב:

Grapes vs. white bread. The former are unprocessed, raw materials; the latter is processed. Consequently the baker has more personal involvement in the production of the product and needs to be more careful re what he does.

Grapes growing as one watches vs. the bread being fully made. A natural process not requiring human intervention vs. already-made product.

Grapes that are not designated for a particular purpose vs. bread specifically designated for Pharoah. The production of the latter product was with a specific purpose in mind, i.e., for the royal table, in contrast to the grapesà wine.

Pharoah’s filled cup is placed in Pharoah’s hand vs. the basket of bread remaining on the baker’s head. In the latter case, the food is never transferred to its intended recipient (unless one accepts the idea that the bird is a symbol of Pharoah himself. Then the implication is that rather than handing the bread to Pharoah, he takes it himself without the agency of the baker.) The implication is that the baker does not fulfill his role, while the butler does.

The butler holding Pharoah’s cup, squeezes the grapes into it, puts the filled cup into Pharoah’s hand vs. bird coming and eating the bread from the basket. There is a suggestion of negligence on the part of the baker, allowing the royal bread to be stolen right out from under his nose.

2. Ibn Ezra: Parallels the approach of Akeidat Yitzchak in the sense that Yosef used his logic to explain the symbolism of the number “3”, i.e., since in three days Pharoah would celebrate his birthday, and on such a day typically various amnesties and pardons would be declared, it was logical to assume that this was the meaning of “3”, similar to the logic of determining the meaning of the other symbolisms in the dreams.

   Abrabanel: Yosef did not rely on personal logic at all, but rather was informed by God (as he suggests in 40:8) of the meaning of the dreams. Consequently the margin of error from the points of view of Akeidat Yitzchak and Ibn Ezra was much greater than that of Abrabanel. Of course, from the point of view of evaluating Yosef’s personal abilities, the position that he was relying on logic is more revelatory, although to qualify as a Navi does require significant personal Middot.

It is possible that the views do not contradict since perhaps the meaning of “3” is a different issue than the interpretation of the other symbols. Whereas “3” could be somewhat open ended in terms of days, weeks, or months, the symbolism of the other elements could be said to be more self-apparent, and therefore God did not Need to reveal these elements to Yosef.

Beit.

The question is why should the dreams have taken place just three days before the amnesty? Meshech Chachma answers that the time that Yosef spent with these ministers was incredibly valuable in order to prepare him for his eventual duties re running the entire country. Consequently, the dreams took place at the latest possible moment, three days before the release of the butler in honor of Pharoah’s birthday. (This parallels Ibn Ezra’s suggestion [Shemot 2:3] that the reason why Moshe had to be raised in Pharoah’s palace as opposed to among the Jews, was in order to prepare him for the leadership role that he was eventually to assume.)

(In order to continue on the theme of dream interpretation, we are going to now study the beginning of Gilayon VaYeishev 5711.)
Alef 1

In 40:8 and 41:15 the Egyptians refer to a פוטר, i.e., ,a person who is skilled in interpreting dreams. Yosef continually insists that no human being is in a position to successfully do this, but only those who merit God’s Assistance will be able to interpret the dreams properly.

2 

      At the end of 40:8 as well as in 41:25, Yosef  says as much.

Beit

1.

    The basic difference between the Midrash and the Targum is whether these individuals had intended to harm Pharaoh (Targum Yonatan) or not (Midrash.

2.

    It is possible that RaShI chose the approach of the Midrash because the word חטאו usually connotes sins committed inadvertently בשוגג rather than on purpose, במזיד.

3.

    RaDaL (commentary on Midrash Rabba) suggests that whereas not much bodily harm could be caused by the fly in the cup, stones in the bread could result in the eater’s choking. Since the butler is pardoned while the baker is executed, that indicates that the level of threat was considerably higher due to one of the mistakes in contrast to the other. If both cases would have been stones or flies, there would not have been any basis for comparison  between the two protagonists and the consequences meted out to them for their respective errors.

Gimel (Same as 5724 Alef. See above)
Daled

1. In 40:1,2 the others in the prison with Yosef have already been identified. Consequently the language in 40:7 is superfluous.
2. RaMBaN understands the repetition as reflective of Yosef’s courage and confidence, since these two individuals are so much his superiors and could have done him harm had they thought him too forward.  Furthermore, had he been wrong in the baker’s case, i.e., as opposed to Yosef’s prediction that the butler would be hanged, had he been exonerated instead, there was a good possibility that the baker would have avenged himself upon Yosef since the latter had caused him so much aggravation and fear, and subsequently had him killed.

Seforno places emphasis upon 40:4 where the Tora states that Yosef’s master had charged him with serving the two officials.  Had there not been an official relationship established by the owner of the prison who also happened to be Yosef’s master, then Yosef would never have been so forward as to inquire regarding the two men’s apparent emotional upset.

Heh.

Yosef appears to see his present circumstance as a continuation of the troubles that began to beset him back in Canaan when his brothers placed him in a literal pit (Beraishit 37:24). From a psychological point of view, Yosef’s being restrained first in a pit and then in prison did contribute to a change in his overall attitude of self-absorption and haughtiness. His noticing his fellow prisoners’ distress and reaching out to them reflected a difference in his overall approach to life.

(Going back to section Daled on Gilayon VaYeishev 5724 for additional details regarding this theme.)
Daled 1

            א. Re 40:4 From the previous verse, it has already been established that the two officials are placed in the same prison to which Yosef had previously been sent. Consequently, what is being added in this verse is a greater specificity, i.e., not only would they be in the same structure, but they would spend time together with Yosef waiting on them.

Re 24:18, we had been told that when Rivka originally came to the well, her pitcher was on her shoulder (24:15) and that she had filled it up (16). At this point we do not know exactly where the pitcher is—in her hand (perhaps now that it is heavy she can’t set it back on her shoulder) or on her shoulder. Consequently when the text states that she lowered the pitcher, RaShI states that we should assume that she had placed it back on her shoulder and therefore this is the context of lowering which is being noted.

Re Shemot 3:3 we had been told in 3:1 that Moshe was deep in the desert, as opposed to following a particular road or path. Therefore when the text states that he wishes to “turn aside,” it is unclear where he originally was that now he must leave that place. RaShI notes that going from one place in order to get to another can be referred to as “turning aside.”

In all three instances, a specificity of location is involved, and phrases that appear to be superfluous in fact are to be understood as indicating achieving greater proximity by means of movement.

ב. In Beraishit 38:16, the text notes that Yehuda “turned to her by the way”. Some sort of movement is being described, but it is unclear. RaShI clarifies by saying that wherever he was previously, he is now going to where she was, and therefore was substituting her דרך for his.

2.      Siftei Chachamim points out VaYikra 25:29 as establishing that ימים can mean a year.

ויקרא פרק כה

(כט) ואיש כי ימכר בית מושב עיר חומה והיתה גאלתו עד תם שנת ממכרו ימים תהיה גאלתו:

    3 א . Shouldn’t the term have been חלומות if each dreamt his own separate dream?

       ב.  The simple meaning of v. 16 is that the baker saw that Yosef offered a “favorable” interpretation of the butler’s dream and he therefore hoped to receive a similar interpretation for his own dream. But if we assume that the baker actually was given insight into his colleague’s dream and then saw that this interpretation was corroborated  by Yosef, then it accounts for both of them dreaming not only his own dream but also the meaning of the other’s dream, suggested by the Derash interpretation quoted by RaShI, which in turn convinced him to confide in Yosef.

       ג.  If in verse 5 it is stated that each one dreamt the solution to his own dream, then why in v. 16 does it say that the baker saw that Yosef had solved the butler’s dream in a good way—he wouldn’t know what the meaning of the butler’s dream would be. However, if it is assumed that each one dreamt the meaning of the other’s dream as pointed out by the second interpretation in RaShI on v. 5, then we can understand why the baker was impressed with Yosef’s rendition of the dream of the butler.

        ד.  The meaning of v. 16 is not that Yosef solved the butler’s dream accurately, but rather optimistically, and this was the type of solution that the baker wished to receive for himself, not knowing at all what his colleague had either dreamt or the dream’s interpretation.

4.         According to Be’er Yitzchak, the proof is in v. 20 where it states that their heads were lifted up בתוך עבדיו. Nevertheless in v. 21 it states that the baker was hung, leading to the conclusion that the previous verse is not talking about their restoration to their previous status, but rather on Pharoah’s birthday they were numbered among his servants; however subsequent to that the baker was executed.