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.