Parshat Vaera

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/139.html

Shemot Answers

Shemot 5716.
Alef.

1. א. The basic difference between RaShI and RaShBaM is the second issue which Moshe raises as to why he is not an appropriate person to appear before Pharoah.

  RaShI—Why do the Jewish people deserve to be redeemed from Egypt—this parallels his Midrashic comment on Shemot 2:14:

רש"י שמות פרק ב פסוק יד

אכן נודע הדבר - כמשמעו. ומדרשו נודע לי הדבר שהייתי תמה עליו, מה חטאו ישראל מכל שבעים אומות להיות נרדים בעבודת פרך, אבל רואה אני שהם ראויים לכך:

        It is also independent of the first answer Moshe gives, i.e., whether he is worthy or not for the mission has nothing to do with whether the mission should be undertaken by anyone.

  RaShBaM—The second answer is a continuation of the first, i.e., what standing do I have to enter into Pharoah’s precincts, even if all that I wanted to do was bring him a gift. And seeing that on the contrary, I want him to release a massive number of slaves, why should he listen to me even if I merit being in his presence?

ב. Towards the end of the Alon HaDeracha (found at the end of the Gilayon), Nechama points out that it is premature to bring up the strategy by which Moshe will try to cause Pharoah to the let the people go completely (as opposed to their merely wordhiping HaShem in the desert) during his initial response to God’s Command. We see in the story that Moshe first asks (Shemot 5:1) for the people to be released to worship God in the desert. This is followed by (5:9) Pharoah’s increasing the work-burden of the Jews.  Moshe and Aharon then temporarily cease their efforts, until recalled by HaShem to go to Pharoah once again. This time (7:9 ff.) they are instructed to perform miracles in Pharoah’s court. Then the plagues begin (7:16) with Moshe still requesting only that the people be allowed to worship HaShem in the desert.  It is only at 14:5, after all of the plagues are completed when Pharoah is told that the Jewish people had no intention to return  after worshipping in the desert. So for Moshe to say at the outset that he did not expect Pharoah to listen when he would request that the people be completely freed from servitude is not relevant since he never actually makes such an explicit request of Pharoah.

ג . See the additional source that I cited in my answer to question 1. above.

2.     In the first two responses to God’s Command to go to Egypt and redeem the Jewish people, Moshe was essentially expressing his lack of confidence in his own ability. But in the third comment, he is impugning the people to whom he will be sent. He claims that their skepticism will prevent them from taking seriously anything that he might tell them, in effect rendering his efforts futile. Such an idea appears to be in keeping with the intial RaShI who defined the second part of Moshe’s question having to do with what makes the people worthy of redemption. Not only will their past actions disqualify them, but the manner in which Moshe anticipates they will greet the news of an impending redemption will also hinder the effort.

3.  א. Shemot 4:10 is full of redundant words, leading to the interpretation that the discussion between HaShem and Moshe was a protracted one extending over several days.

שמות פרק ד

(י) ויאמר משה אל יקוק בי אדני לא איש דברים אנכי גם מתמול גם משלשם גם מאז דברך אל עבדך כי כבד פה וכבד לשון אנכי:

ב. It would appear that HaShem Appreciated that Moshe would at least initially be reticent to undertake this mission. Consequently He was “Prepared” to engage him for a prolonged period, Expecting that eventually Moshe would accept his assignment. There was a readiness for allowing a learning curve to run its course, but after a week of cajoling, God became more Autocratic in his dealings with Moshe, and at the same time, lowered the bar by allowing Aharon to serve as the “public speaker.”

ג. Why do the words גם מתמול גם משלשם have to refer to the time that HaShem and Moshe were interacting? Obviously מאז דברך אל עבדך refers to the interchange at the burning bush; however, as for Moshe feeling that he was either figuratively or literally tongue-tied could have been for a long period of time, and that is what he is referring to when he says that it has been so “ both yesterday and the day before.” Such an interpretation is supported by the Midrash that takes literally Moshe’s speech impediment (instead of simply assuming that it was psychological and part of his overall humility) and asserts that it was due to a test to which he was submitted when he was a very young boy:

שמות רבה (וילנא) פרשת שמות פרשה א סימן כו

כו ויגדל הילד, כ"ד חדש הניקתהו ואתה אומר ויגדל הילד, אלא שהיה גדל שלא כדרך כל הארץ, ותביאהו לבת פרעה וגו', היתה בת פרעה מנשקת ומחבקת ומחבבת אותו כאלו הוא בנה ולא היתה מוציאתו מפלטרין של מלך, ולפי שהיה יפה הכל מתאוים לראותו מי שהיה רואהו לא היה מעביר עצמו מעליו, והיה פרעה מנשקו ומחבקו והוא נוטל כתרו של פרעה ומשימו על ראשו כמו שעתיד לעשות לו כשהיה גדול... והיו שם יושבין חרטומי מצרים ואמרו מתייראין אנו מזה שנוטל כתרך ונותנו על ראשו, שלא יהיה זה אותו שאנו אומרים שעתיד ליטול מלכות ממך, מהם אומרים להורגו מהם אומרים לשורפו, והיה יתרו יושב ביניהן ואומר להם הנער הזה אין בו דעת אלא בחנו אותו והביאו לפניו בקערה זהב וגחלת, אם יושיט ידו לזהב יש בו דעת והרגו אותו, ואם יושיט ידו לגחלת אין בו דעת ואין עליו משפט מות, מיד הביאו לפניו ושלח ידו ליקח הזהב ובא גבריאל ודחה את ידו ותפש את הגחלת והכניס ידו עם הגחלת לתוך פיו ונכוה לשונו, וממנו נעשה כבד פה וכבד לשון, ותקרא שמו משה, מכאן אתה למד שכרן של גומלי חסדים, אף על פי שהרבה שמות היו לו למשה לא נקבע לו שם בכל התורה אלא כמו שקראתו בתיה בת פרעה ואף הקדוש ברוך הוא לא קראהו בשם אחר

Parsha Shemot

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/663.html

Parshat Vayechi answers

VaYechi 5722
Alef.

1.  With respect to Yaakov, we are told that while his sight might have been somewhat impaired, he could still see to some extent. For this reason he saw that Yosef’s sons were present (48:8); he initially was unable to recognize exactly who they were. Furthermore if the reversal of his hands was deliberate (v. 19) that implies that he could see sufficiently to tell the difference between the two boys and decide which hand to place upon whom. Yitzchak on the other hand, was unable to see altogether and therefore could be misled by Yaakov into thinking that he actually was Eisav.

2. In chapter 48, Yaakov’s difficulty in seeing is only a part of the entire story of his blessing Yosef as if Yosef is the Bechor. He clearly intended to do this all along and carried out his intention. His eyesight issues led Yosef to believe that his father had erred with respect to placing his hands, something that Yaakov clarifies he actually deliberately placed his hands as he did, further indicating that his sight was not totally impaired. Yitzchak’s blindness is what makes the entire story in Beraishit 27 is predicated on Yitzchak’s not being able to see, so that one son can masquerade as the other.

Beit.

 1.  Klee Yakar suggests that Yaakov was too modest to associate himself with Avraham and Yitzchak. Furthermore, whereas he saw HaShem as the object of worship of his predecessors, his own experience with HaShem was one whereby he felt that he had been protected and provided with sustenance. Since these are two separate Divine Modalities, he differentiates between them.

2.  From the perspective of Avoda, HaShem is Passive and those worshipping Him are active. From the perspective of providing sustenance, HaShem is active and the recipient of His Largesse is passive.

3.  Due to Yaakov’s difficult life experiences, i.e., running from Eisav; dealing with Lavan; meeting Eisav once again; grappling with the tragedy of Dina; losing Yosef, then Shimon and possibly Binyamin; struggling with the famine; worrying about what was going to happen to him and his family once they would take up residence in Egypt, he could have been wondering whether HaShem would Live up to the request that he makes at the beginning of Parashat VaYetze (28:20-1)—

בראשית פרק כח

(כ) וידר יעקב נדר לאמר אם יהיה אלקים עמדי ושמרני בדרך הזה אשר אנכי הולך ונתן לי לחם לאכל ובגד ללבש:

(כא) ושבתי בשלום אל בית אבי והיה יקוק לי לאלקים:

      It is only now at the end of his life when he has the perspective to recognize that HaShem has indeed Kept His end of the bargain.

4.  Klee Yakar associates protection from evil, as opposed to Avoda and Parnasa, with a Malach, i.e., a Divine Intermediary, rather than HaShem’s direct Involvement. Consequently, Yaakov invokes a Malach when he is praying that his grandsons will be protected from all evil.

5.  Benno Jacob might be extending Klee Yakar’s idea, i.e., Yaakov will require considerable protection from all sorts of adversaries and the visions of angels that he saw both upon departing from Canaan and then again returning served as reminders that HaShem constantly “Had his back.”

בראשית פרק כד

(ז) יקוק אלקי השמים אשר לקחני מבית אבי ומארץ מולדתי ואשר דבר לי ואשר נשבע לי לאמר לזרעך אתן את הארץ הזאת הוא ישלח מלאכו לפניך ולקחת אשה לבני משם:

While Avraham attributes to HaShem the “Big Picture” issues of coming to Canaan and Planning to Give the land to Avraham’s offspring, with respect to Eliezer who has been given the finite mission to find a wife for Yitzchak, HaShem’s Protection will be needed and this form of Divine Intervention is associated with an Angel.

Gimel.

1.  It seems to me that they are both addressing two different problems, i.e., R. Avraham ben HaRaMBaM is bothered by the appearance that Yaakov is praying to a Malach as opposed to HaShem directly, and Sephorno is concerned that although Yaakov first references Elokim, when it comes to actually blessing the boys, he apparently asks a Malach to do so.

2.  By adding the second person singular pronoun whose antecedent is Elokim, Sephorno is demonstrating that Yaakov is leaving open the possibility that not the Malach but HaShem Himself will Impart the blessing. It is only if the boys are not worthy of receiving a blessing from HaShem that a secondary request is made that an angel should nevertheless bless them.

3.  Since clearly it is preferable to receive a blessing directly from HaShem rather than via an intermediary, the only justification for having an Angel bless the boys is if there is something disqualifying them from a higher level of blessing. One instance where we see a tension between a blessing issuing from an Angel as opposed to one coming from HaShem Himself is when Yaakov is renamed.

בראשית פרק לב

(כז) ויאמר שלחני כי עלה השחר ויאמר לא אשלחך כי אם ברכתני:

(כח) ויאמר אליו מה שמך ויאמר יעקב:

(כט) ויאמר לא יעקב יאמר עוד שמך כי אם ישראל כי שרית עם אלקים ועם אנשים ותוכל:

(ל) וישאל יעקב ויאמר הגידה נא שמך ויאמר למה זה תשאל לשמי ויברך אתו שם:

בראשית פרק לה

(ט) וירא אלקים אל יעקב עוד בבאו מפדן ארם ויברך אתו:

(י) ויאמר לו אלקים שמך יעקב לא יקרא שמך עוד יעקב כי אם ישראל יהיה שמך ויקרא את שמו ישראל:

(יא) ויאמר לו אלקים אני קל שקי פרה ורבה גוי וקהל גוים יהיה ממך ומלכים מחלציך יצאו:

(יב) ואת הארץ אשר נתתי לאברהם וליצחק לך אתננה ולזרעך אחריך אתן את הארץ:

The fact that the Angel’s blessing did not suffice, but was repeated by HaShem, suggests that this is a higher level blessing.

Another instance in Rabbinic literature where the “level” of individuals causes a diminution in Divine Influence and Spirit is when Yaakov attempts to tell his children what will occur in the end of days.

בראשית פרק מט

(א) ויקרא יעקב אל בניו ויאמר האספו ואגידה לכם את אשר יקרא אתכם באחרית הימים:

(ב) הקבצו ושמעו בני יעקב ושמעו אל ישראל אביכם:

However, when one looks at the blessings themselves, no predictions appear to be made regarding specifics about the distant future.

רש"י בראשית פרק מט פסוק א

(א) ואגידה לכם - בקש לגלות את הקץ ונסתלקה שכינה ממנו והתחיל אומר דברים אחרים:¹

Although the Talmud in Pesachim 56a recounts how Yaakov wondered whether the reason why prophecy was removed from him was that someone among his sons was not a proper believer, and they all responded with a statement to the contrary, just because they say they were on the proper level does not necessarily mean that this was the case.

Daled.

1. “Shem”:

   Ibn Ezra: The name by which the entire people will be referred, as in Yirmiyahu 31:19 “הבן יקיר לי אפרים.”

   RaMBaN: There will be an association between Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov  with them because of their behavior down through the ages.

   R. Maimon: The overall behavior and self-discipline that they will apply to themselves will obviously connect them with Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, as opposed to some other personalities or entities.

   R. Avraham ben HaRaMBaM: A form of blessing, i.e., I hope that the attributes of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov will be transferred to them.

2.   הושע פרק ז

(א) כרפאי לישראל ונגלה עון אפרים ורעות שמרון כי פעלו שקר וגנב יבוא פשט גדוד בחוץ:

In this verse it is clear that Ephraim is only a portion of the people, with “Shomron” being the manner in which the rest of the people are described. If Ephraim and Menashe are being equally blessed, then both of their names should be employed.

תהלים פרק פ

(ב) רעה ישראל האזינה נהג כצאן יוסף ישב הכרובים הופיעה:

In this case, neither Ephraim nor Menashe are mentioned, but rather the Jewish people in its entirety is referred to as Yosef. So the issue of one of Yosef’s sons being more important than the other is avoided.

Yirmiyahu 31:19 uses Ephraim as representative of the entire people, without mention of Menashe.

3.  In Beraishit 46:15, when Leah’s name is mentioned, she is not described as the wife of Yaakov, whereas in v. 19 Rachel is described as Yaakov’s wife. Ibn Ezra accounts for this by noting that had Lavan not tricked him, Rachel would have been Yaakov’s only wife, and for this reason she deserves being referred to in this manner in contradistinction to Leah.

4.    דברים פרק כה

(י) ונקרא שמו בישראל בית חלוץ הנעל: ס

This verse would appear to support Ibn Ezra’s approach re Beraishit 48:16. This individual who refused to perform Yibum with his brother’s widow will be known by this approbation from then on.

רות פרק ד

(יג) ויקח בעז את רות ותהי לו לאשה ויבא אליה ויתן יקוק לה הריון ותלד בן:

(יד) ותאמרנה הנשים אל נעמי ברוך יקוק אשר לא השבית לך גאל היום ויקרא שמו בישראל:

In this case, R. Avraham ben HaRaMBaM’s interpretation, i.e., that this is a language of blessing, would fit the best.

Heh.

1.   בראשית פרק מח

(טז) המלאך הגאל אתי מכל רע יברך את הנערים ויקרא בהם שמי ושם אבתי אברהם ויצחק וידגו לרב בקרב הארץ:

R. Eliezer infers from the present tense, “HaGoel” (Who is Redeeming), that the redemption is ongoing, rather than being a one-time event in the past.

2.     בראשית פרק מח

(טו) ויברך את יוסף ויאמר האלקים אשר התהלכו אבתי לפניו אברהם ויצחק האלקים הרעה אתי מעודי עד היום הזה:

The previous verse would appear to be the proof to this contention since there it is stated with regard to “shepherding” (which could involve occasional saving the flock from calamity, but much more often simply providing food-Parnasa—for the animals under the shepherd’s supervision) that it has been going on from well before until this very day.

3.  R. Shmuel bar Nachman is stating a counter-intuitive truth. One would assume that when a Divine Intervention occurs by which someone is saved from disaster, a greater miracle is required and therefore HaShem Himself is involved. Comes this Rabbinic authority  to state that it is in fact the opposite, i.e., for miracles of salvation, an Angel is dispensed; however with respect to providing ongoing food and sustenance, this is something that HaShem Reserves for Himself. Either this is actually a greater miracle than saving someone, or because HaShem Wishes to manifest His Goodness, providing sustenance is so significant that He, as it were, Refuses to delegate the responsibility to anyone else, but rather Sees to it Himself.

Vav.

R. Eliyahu Mizrachi explains that since Yaakov thought that Yosef had been devoured by a wild animal, it wasn’t only that he hadn’t thought that he would ever see him again, but it never dawned on him to begin to think about seeing him once again, the idea was so preposterous and remote from him.

Parshat Vayechi

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/297.html

Parshat Vayigash Answers

VaYigash 5726
Alef.

1. It seems to me that the reason why Yehuda goes to such lengths in order to explain the situation is for Yosef to realize how difficult it had been to comply with his demand that Binyamin be brought to Egypt. Perhaps if Yosef were made to recognize how reluctant Yaakov was when it came to allowing Binyamin to be taken down to Egypt, Yosef will give greater credence to Yehuda’s claim that Binyamin has to be allowed to return, even if it means that Yehuda is taken in his stead. There is a principle in Halacha of Migo, wherein, if someone, rather than making a simple claim, goes on at length and includes detail that is unexpected, his story gains credibility.

2.  Perhaps Yehuda leaves out that Yosef had accused the brothers of spying when they first came to Egypt because he did not want to give the impression that he was resentful or complaining about their past treatment.

3. אדני (6)—18 ,19,20, 22, 24, 33.

    עבדיך, עבדיו (12)—18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 27, 30, 31 (2x), 32, 33 (2x).

    אבי (12)—19, 20 (2x), 22 (2x), 24, 25, 27, 30, 31, 32 (2x).

   These three words define the parameters of Yehuda’s speech in terms of Yosef being the “Master”, Yaakov and his sons being Yosef’s servants, and Yaakov of course being Yehuda’s father. Yehuda is caught between two “masters”, Yosef and his father.

4. It seems to me that the main verse in the sequence is v. 33:

בראשית פרק מד

(לג) ועתה ישב נא עבדך תחת הנער עבד לאדני והנער יעל עם אחיו:

This is the climax of Yehuda’s entire argument. He realizes that he is opposing the will of the ruler who has declared that Binyamin must remain. However, he makes a thorough case why Yosef should follow the substitute plan that Yehuda has proposed.

The case from Shoftim is similar, with verses 16-18 serving as the build-up and justification of v. 19 which is problematical unless all of the other conditions that Yotam mentions have in fact been satisfied:

שופטים פרק ט

(טז) ועתה אם באמת ובתמים עשיתם ותמליכו את אבימלך ואם טובה עשיתם עם ירבעל ועם ביתו ואם כגמול ידיו עשיתם לו:

(יז) אשר נלחם אבי עליכם וישלך את נפשו מנגד ויצל אתכם מיד מדין:

(יח) ואתם קמתם על בית אבי היום ותהרגו את בניו שבעים איש על אבן אחת ותמליכו את אבימלך בן אמתו על בעלי שכם כי אחיכם הוא:

(יט) ואם באמת ובתמים עשיתם עם ירבעל ועם ביתו היום הזה שמחו באבימלך וישמח גם הוא בכם:

Beit.

Perhaps the reason why Yehuda is upset after Yosef says that only the individual who stole his cup would become his servant, is because that means that he has to go back and face Yaakov, to whom he had sworn that he would bring back Binyamin, a confrontation that would not have happened had Yosef enslaved them all.

Gimel.

If we accept the differentiation between “נשאר” signifying that the remainder has importance in its own right, while “הותיר” the left-overs are not significant in terms of themselves, then Yaakov in 42:38 by using נשאר is indicating that Binyamin is to him as important as Yosef had been. Yehuda, on the other hand, representing the children of Leah, belittles Binyamin’s specialness, and simply states that Binyamin remained to Yaakov as a remembrance of his mother Rachel, but not a significant person in terms of himself. It was just circumstance that positioned him to represent Rachel’s children in Yaakov’s eyes.

בראשית פרק ז

(כג) וימח את כל היקום אשר על פני האדמה מאדם עד בהמה עד רמש ועד עוף השמים וימחו מן הארץ וישאר אך נח ואשר אתו בתבה: it was not an accident that Noach survived the flood, but rather a deliberate plan on the part of God since Noach was so righteous, it was from him that the human race was intended to derive.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

מלכים א פרק יט

(י) ויאמר קנא קנאתי ליקוק אלקי צבקות כי עזבו בריתך בני ישראל את מזבחתיך הרסו ואת נביאיך הרגו בחרב ואותר אני לבדי ויבקשו את נפשי לקחתה:...

(יד) ויאמר קנא קנאתי ליקוק אלקי צבקות כי עזבו בריתך בני ישראל את מזבחתיך הרסו ואת נביאיך הרגו בחרב ואותר אני לבדי ויבקשו את נפשי לקחתה: ס Eliyahu is not claiming to be special and that was the reason why Izevel did not kill him along with the other prophets of HaShem; from his perspective, it was serendipity that he had survived.                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                  

במדבר פרק יא

(כו) וישארו שני אנשים במחנה שם האחד אלדד ושם השני מידד ותנח עליהם הרוח והמה בכתבים ולא יצאו האהלה ויתנבאו במחנה: Although these two individuals were not chosen to participate in the group of seventy elders that were determined by lottery, we can see that they certainly were intrinsically worthy to have been chosen if the number of elders would have been seventy-two, allowing for a full compliment of six to be chosen from each tribe, by virtue of their ability to prophecy.               

שופטים פרק ט פסוק ה

ויבא בית אביו עפרתה ויהרג את אחיו בני ירבעל שבעים איש על אבן אחת ויותר יותם בן ירבעל הקטן כי נחבא: ס

The only reason why Yotam survived was because he was hidden. No intrinsic merits are pointed to in order to claim that a deliberate choice was made to spare his life.                                                                

                                                               

Daled.

בראשית פרק לז

(לה) ויקמו כל בניו וכל בנתיו לנחמו וימאן להתנחם ויאמר כי ארד אל בני אבל שאלה ויבך אתו אביו:

בראשית פרק מב

(לח) ויאמר לא ירד בני עמכם כי אחיו מת והוא לבדו נשאר וקראהו אסון בדרך אשר תלכו בה והורדתם את שיבתי ביגון שאולה:

בראשית פרק מד

(כט) ולקחתם גם את זה מעם פני וקרהו אסון והורדתם את שיבתי ברעה שאלה:

בראשית פרק מד

(לא) והיה כראותו כי אין הנער ומת והורידו עבדיך את שיבת עבדך אבינו ביגון שאלה:

RaShI on 44:29 (and therefore the same terminology in v. 31) defines שיבתי ברעה שאלה as reflecting that Yaakov had made his peace with the loss of both Rachel and Yosef by focusing upon Binyamin. Should Binyamin be taken from him, then it will be as if all three die on the same day, and the elder Yaakov simply wouldn’t be able to withstand such a רעה—evil occurrence.

By contrast, in 37:35, Yaakov was dealing with the immediate loss of Yosef, and his lack of being comforted portended the fact that he would continue mourning for Yosef (אבל) until his own death.

Finally, 42:38 (יגון) seems to indicate the state of mind when the mourner could anticipate something about to happen—what will happen to Binyamin on the way to Egypt—as opposed to responding to the loss after it occurs—in the instance of Yosef. Yaakov, due to his dread re what might happen to Binyamin, will be continually moaning and groaning until he sees that Binyamin in fact is safe and sound.

Heh.

1. The simple meaning of the text appears to be that the brothers would cause Yaakov’s death. However, that happens only because Yosef had insisted that Binyamin remain with him in Egypt. It would appear that Yosef’s enslaving Binyamin is a more direct cause of Yaakov’s potential death than the brothers returning to Canaan and telling their father about what had transpired.

2. Just as we stated in our answer to Beit, i.e., that Yehuda did not want to face Yaakov without Binyamin alongside him, so too in this case, while Yosef was the one holding back Binyamin, it would possibly be the mere sight of the brothers returning without their youngest brother which will lead to Yaakov’s death, with the association between Yaakov seeing them without Binyamin and Yaakov’s death that Yehuda is trying to convince Yosef not to embark on such a path. 

Vav.

1. ShaDaL is understanding “למה” (why) as representing the idea “פן” (lest) because of the phrase that follows, i.e., “כי אפס כסף” (because the money has run out). This is not an answer to why they might die in Yosef’ s presence—food is what is bringing about the starvation death, not currency or coins—but rather the basis of the concern that they may die, as a result of the money no longer being available which in turn makes it impossible to obtain food.

2.  The people apparently were not prepared to use their possessions as “שוה כסף” (the equivalent of money.) They thought that if there is no money, the possibilities for obtaining food had ceased to exist. Verse 16 describes how Yosef addresses their plaint: You need not worry that you will die just because the money has run out. There is another commodity in your possession by which you can stave off famine, i.e., the foods and animals that you have stored up on your farms. As long as you have something of worth to barter, you need not be concerned that when there is no money, then all that can be expected is for people to starve to death.  

zayin

The Etnachta is on “UVaChamorim”  rather than on the fifth word, “Yosef” because the only reason why the people were bringing their animals to Yosef was for Yosef to give them food in return. It was not a two-step process but rather an even exchange. Consequently the verse is broken up only after the exchange has been described.

2.  “יוסף” and “לחם” are joined together by Kadma and Azla, effectively separating them from the first two words of the phrase, “ויתן יוסף” that are connected by Munach-Telisha. Perhaps by setting off “ויתן יוסף” the emphasis is placed upon the fact that Yosef simply did not collect the animals of the people (as Shmuel says Kings have a right to do) but rather Yosef was interested in giving things to the people;  what the actual things were was less relevant than the fact that Yosef was a giver, not a taker.

3.  The four types of animals are grouped: horses, sheep, cattle and donkeys. The reason why they are listed separately is probably because they had different values, and the people would receive different amounts of food accordingly. Horses and donkeys are animals for personal use and therefore they are not prefixed with the word “מקנה” which is not the case with respect to the sheep and cattle.

4.  Although “ויתן” has a Munach note that goes with a Telisha, nevertheless the way it is sung, sets it apart from the word immediately following it.

Parshat Vayigash

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/1461.html

Parshat Miketz Answers (additional sources found below)

MiKetz  5727
Alef.

1. The major questions that the commentators aspire to address:

1. Did Yosef upon seeing his brothers  bowing to him, think that the dreams that he had had in Canaan were or were not fulfilled?
2. Why did Yosef wait before identifying himself to his brothers?
3. When Yosef put his brothers through various difficulties, was he avenging himself on them or pursuing some other purpose? Or, put another way, was he treating his brothers in kind as they had treated him?
4. Why did Yosef not alert Yaakov to his being alive?

2. RaMBaN suggests that Yosef’s two objectives were:
1. To have the dreams fulfilled.
2. To test whether any enmity had arisen between Binyamin and the other brothers either due to Binyamin’s being Rachel’s second child or because Binyamin had found out what the brothers had done to Yosef and he was resentful.
3. RaDaK claims that once he remembered the role played by the brothers in his dreams, while Yosef might not have punished the brothers for their actions regarding him per se, he was not beyond causing them some grief and consternation.

The verses that others cite in opposition to RaDaK’s approach are:

בראשית פרק מב

(ז) וירא יוסף את אחיו ויכרם ויתנכר אליהם וידבר אתם קשות ויאמר אלהם מאין באתם ויאמרו מארץ כנען לשבר אכל:

(ח) ויכר יוסף את אחיו והם לא הכרהו:

(ט) ויזכר יוסף את החלמות אשר חלם להם ויאמר אלהם מרגלים אתם לראות את ערות הארץ באתם:

The proof from the verses that would appear to contradict RaDaK’s assumption is that originally, (v. 7) when Yosef addresses them brutally at the outset ( "וידבר אתם קשות") and asks their business, no mention is made of the dreams. It is as if this was his original response to seeing them come in the anonymous fashion that they did, and he reacted to them as he would to any group of strangers first coming to Egypt and who raise security concerns. Only afterwards (v. 8-9) does Yosef recall the dreams and what had been predicted for the brothers bowing down to him, and it is at this point that he begins the sham of accusing them of being spies and all that followed. Consequently, this was not simply to make them uncomfortable, but rather to launch into the subterfuge to force the dreams to be fulfilled in their entirety in the land of Egypt. At this point the phrase “ "וידבר אתם קשותno longer is relevant, having been invoked only in the verse preceding Yosef’s remembering the dreams.

      4.  R. Moshe Chefetz interprets v. 8

ח) ויכר יוסף את אחיו והם לא הכרהו:

not as describing the cognitive realization of who these various individuals were, but rather that based upon the manner in which the brothers had treated Yosef, they had not “recognized” him as a brother, while when the verb is applied to Yosef, since it has already stated in v. 7 that Yosef recognized them, in the case of v. 8 it means that he did “recognize” them as his brothers and consequently went out of his way not to humiliate them publicly more than “necessary.” Consequently, he would not publicly reveal what they had done to him, but he was prepared to first accuse them of criminal intentions and force them to demonstrate that such suspicions are false.

5.  R. Yehuda Leib Shapiro

)ר' יהודה ליב בר צבי הירש פרנק-פורטר לבית שפירא, אחי סבו של הרש"ר הירש, פירושו לתורה "הרכסים לבקעה" נדפס לראשונה באלטונה ב-1815.(

agrees with RaMBaN that Yosef did not wish to punish or harm the brothers once he recognized them. He adds that Yosef was mortified to think that his brothers and especially his father, in order to fulfill the dreams would have to bow down to him. So this is why he kept up his masquerade in order that they would think that they were bowing to a foreign potentate rather than their brother and son. However, after Yehuda’s impassioned plea involving how torturous not knowing what would happen to Binyamin would prove to Yaakov, Yosef could no longer keep up the subterfuge.

      6.  The phrase that is used by R. Shapiro is “ואחיו אשר כוננו אתו ברחם אחד”, based upon

 איוב פרק לא

(טו) הלא בבטן עשני עשהו ויכננו ברחם אחד:

Did not He that made me in the womb make him? And did not One fashion us in the womb?

It would appear that the reference in Iyov is establishing that HaShem is the Creator of all people, while R. Shapiro is trying to stress that Yosef and his brothers all come from the same father, although their birth mothers varied.

7.  Akeidat Yitzchak is bothered by the assumption that not only was Yosef aware of the meaning of his dreams, but that he felt that it was his responsibility to bring them about, as opposed to merely awaiting when they would be fulfilled. This is reminiscent of what happened once Rivka was informed regarding the relationship between the two feti within her, and set about to assure that Yaakov, the younger, or at least the second of the twins to be born, be the one upon whom Yitzchak bestows the blessing stemming from Avraham.

In defense of RaMBaN, it could be said that once Yosef sees how he has become successful and risen to the position of second-in-command of Egypt, he realizes that he has been positioned by HaShem to make the dreams come true, and he therefore sets about to do so. Rivka, other than being Yaakov’s mother, was not in a position to influence the outcome of the bestowal of the Berachot, except vi a subterfuge, a course that was deemed in retrospect, unacceptable.

Beit.

1. 
   

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֲלֵהֶם֙ יַעֲקֹ֣ב אֲבִיהֶ֔ם אֹתִ֖י שִׁכַּלְתֶּ֑ם יֹוסֵ֤ף אֵינֶ֙נּוּ֙ וְשִׁמְעֹ֣ון אֵינֶ֔נּוּ וְאֶת־בִּנְיָמִ֣ן תִּקָּ֔חוּ עָלַ֖י הָי֥וּ כֻלָּֽנָה׃

According to the Ta’amim, the cases of Yosef and Shimon are included in one continuous phrase, while the case of Binyamin is stated in a separate phrase. Consequently, in light of the third case not yet having happened, the Ta’amim would appear to support Tora Temima’s critique of RaShI as well as the interpretation of  ShaDaL , but not the other interpretations. Of course RaShI also provides a rationale for the third case being separate from the first two according to the Ta’amim, i.e., “and should the third case happen, then going forward I will have to anticipate bad results.”

2. The Tora Temima asks on RaShI, according to the Gemora in Chullin, it’s only after three instances of disaster can one justifiably be concerned about what will occur going forward. However in the instance of Binyamin, Yehuda has yet to take him, so why is Yaakov worried about what will happen regarding Binyamin since it has as yet not occurred. It’s not that you have to be worried about the results of the third instance after two negative occurrences, but rather you have to be worried about a fourth after three. (The question surrounds what constitutes the establishment of a Chazaka. It is similar to the defining of an ox as no longer a Shor Tam but now a Shor Muad. This occurs only after three confirmed instances of goring, not two.)
3. ShaDaL would appear to support RaShI’s interpretation in the sense that by separating the third instance from the first two, the Ba’al HaTa’amim has allowed for the interpretation that now that two instances have been confirmed, if the third instance that appears to be imminent based upon Yehuda’s proposal to take Binyamin down to Egypt in compliance with Yosef’s demand, then the Chazaka will be established and going forward I will have problems because a negative precedent has been established.
4. Whereas the other commentators see the phrase “עלי היו כלנה” as referring to future events, ShaDaL has Yaakov expecting that after three times, the floodgates will be open, and every disaster imaginable will come his way.

Parshat Miketz Sources

רמב"ם הלכות עבודת כוכבים פרק יא הלכה ה

מי שאמר דירה זו שבניתי סימן טוב היתה עלי, אשה זו שנשאתי ובהמה זו שקניתי מבורכת היתה מעת שקניתיה עשרתי, וכן השואל לתינוק אי זה פסוק אתה לומד אם אמר לו פסוק מן הברכות ישמח ויאמר זה סימן טוב כל אלו וכיוצא בהן מותר ד הואיל ולא כיון מעשיו ולא נמנע מלעשות אלא עשה זה סימן לעצמו לדבר שכבר היה הרי זה מותר.

השגת הראב"ד

כל אלו וכיוצא בהן מותר הואיל ולא כיון מעשיו ולא נמנע מלעשות אלא עשה זה סימן לעצמו לדבר שכבר היה הרי זה מותר. א"א אף זאת שאמרו בית תינוק ואשה אף על פי שאין נחש יש סימן לא אמרו לענין איסור והיתר אלא לענין סמיכה אם ראוי לסמוך על סימניהם ואמרו שראוי לסמוך אחר שהוחזקו שלש פעמים.+

הגהות מיימוניות הלכות עבודה זרה פרק יא הלכה ה

[ד] וכן פסקו כל רבותינו שאין נקרא מנחש אלא בסומך על דבריו ומעשיו בעבור ניחושין כדאמר בפרק גיד הנשה אמר רב כל נחש שאינו כאליעזר עבד אברהם וכיונתן בן שאול אינו נחש והקשו התוספות ויונתן היאך ניחש וגם אליעזר היאך ניחש האמר רבי יוסי פרק ארבע מיתות כל האמור בפרשת מכשף בן נח נהרג עליו. וי"ל דסבר רבי יוסי שתחילה שאל בת מי את ואחרי כן נתן לה את הצמידין וכן מוכח בסיפור הדברים ואף על גב דבת מי את כתב לאחר הנתינה אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה. ועל יונתן י"ל שלזרז נערו עשה כן ובלא"ה היה עולה, ע"כ. וכן כתב בספר המצות בשם ר"י. ורמ"א תירץ הא דיונתן בענין אחר וז"ל מיהו הא דיונתן לא נחוש היה דלא הוי נחוש אלא דבר בלא טעם אבל יונתן נתן טעם לדבר עלייה וירידה ואהא דאליעזר לא כתב שום תירוץ, כל זה הארכתי נגד המשחיתים המלעיגים על פסקים אלו:

כסף משנה הלכות עבודה זרה פרק יא הלכה ה

מי שאמר דירה זו וכו'. שם חולין (דף צ"ה:). תניא רשב"א אומר בית תינוק ואשה אף על פי שאין נחש יש סימן. והנך רואה פירוש רבינו בתינוק ורש"י פירש תינוק היינו בן שנולד לו אף על פי שאין נחש שאסור לנחש ולסמוך על הנחש יש סימן סימנא בעלמא הוי דאי מצלח בסחורה אחר שבנה בית או שנולד התינוק או שנשא האשה סימן הוא שהולך ומצליח ואם לאו אל ירגיל לצאת יותר מדאי שיש לחוש שלא יצליח, עכ"ל. וכך הם דברי הראב"ד שכתב אף זאת שאמרו וכו' אחר שהוחזקו שלש פעמים, עכ"ל:

ורבינו מפרש דסימנים אלו אינם על מה שעבר לא על דבר עתיד וק"ל שפסוק לי פסוקיך נראה שהיו נמנעים לעשות מעשיהם על פיהם כדאשכחן בההוא פירקא [חולין צ"ה:] דר"י הוה בעי למיזל לאקבולי אפי שמואל לבבל וא"ל ההוא ינוקא ושמואל מת ונמנע ר"י ולא הלך לבבל, ואין לומר שכוונת רבינו שכל שאינו תולה כל הסימן בדבר שכולו עתיד כגון הנערה אשר אומר אליה וכו' אותה הוכחת אלא שלוקח ראיה מהעבר אל העתיד וכגון ההוא דפסוק לי פסוקך דשמואל מת עבר היה וע"י כן נמנע מלילך לבבל שהרי כתב הואיל ולא כיון מעשיו ולא נמנע מלעשות ובההוא עובדא היה ר"י רוצה לירד לבבל ונמנע ע"י התינוק. וצ"ל דהתם לא היה ר"י שואל לתינוק אם ירד לבבל אם לאו אלא הוי כשואל לו לדעת אם מת שמואל שהוא דבר עבר. אך קשה מדגרסינן בר"פ מי שאחזו [ס"ח.] דרב ששת נמנע מלעשות מעשה מפני שהתינוק אמר לו נטה לך על ימינך או על שמאלך. ויש לומר דשאני התם שלא סמך על פסוק התינוק לבד אלא דנחר ליה רב חסדא ועוד דהוו חשידי עבדי דלא מעלו וכדאיתא התם דאמר איהו גופיה. זהו לדעת רבינו אבל סמ"ג כתב מצינו כמה גדולים שאמרו לינוקא פסוק לי פסוקיך ועושים מעשה ע"פ הפסוק וחושבים זה כענין נבואה עכ"ל, כלומר זה לא היה מין נחש אלא מין נבואה ומש"ה שרי ודבריו כדברי הר"ן שכתבתי בסמוך:

לחם משנה הלכות עבודה זרה פרק יא הלכה ה

מי שאמר דירה זו שבניתי וכו'. גם זה ביאר יפה הרב"י בספר יורה דעה סימן קע"ט. והראב"ד ז"ל בהשגות מפרש דכל זה לא נאמר לענין איסורא אלא לענין אם ראוי לסמוך על הסימנין אלו וראייתו שאמרו בגמרא והוא דאיתחזק תלתא זימני דמשמע דכיון דהוחזק שלש פעמים ראוי לסמוך דאי לענין איסורא מה לי איתחזק. ורבינו ז"ל מפרש אף על פי שאין בהם איסור נחש כלל וא"כ משמע דלא הוי סימן כלל מ"מ סימן טוב הוי ואמרינן בגמרא דדוקא הוי סימן טוב היכא דאיתחזק תלתא זמני:

וכן השואל לתינוק. מפרש רבינו ז"ל שאומר לתינוק פסוק לי פסוקיך. וא"ת איך אמר שם והוא דאיתחזק שלש פעמים דכתיב יוסף איננו ושמעון איננו ואת בנימן תקחו. ולדעת רבינו לא יתיישב בשלמא אם מפרש דתינוק ר"ל מעת שנולד לי תינוק זה אתי שפיר דה"ק יעקב מעת שנולד לי בנימן אירעו לי אלו השלש רעות שיוסף איננו ואת בנימן תקחו וכמו שפירש שם הרד"ק ז"ל בספר שמואל אבל לפירוש רבינו שמפרש שאומר לתינוק פסוק לי פסוקיך מה ראיה היא זו לתינוק כלל. ונראה דמה שאמר והוא דאיתחזק תלתא זמני הכונה לומר אין הרע רע ולא הטוב טוב אא"כ בא שלש פעמים. והביא ראיה שאין הרע רע אא"כ בא שלש פעמים שנאמר יוסף איננו ושמעון איננו ואת בנימין תקחו:

תורה תמימה הערות בראשית פרק מב הערה ט

ט) פירש"י וז"ל, יוסף איננו ושמעון איננו הרי שתים, ואם את בנימין תקחו מיד עלי היו כולנה ואין, לך צרה שאינה עוברת עלי, עכ"ל, ואינו מבואר, דהא הגמרא רוצה להביא ראי' דהיכא דאתחזיק תלתא זימני אז סימן הוא לפעם הרביעי לעשות או לחדול, ולפירש"י הלא הוא מביא ראי' מיעקב שכבר חשש בפעם השלישית, וא"כ מבואר שעוד בפעם השלישית צריך לחוש וכמו שחשש יעקב. כמה מן הדוחק לפרש שחשש אם יקרה סבה בבנימין אז יהי' מוחזק, דהא עכ"פ עתה בפעם השלישית א"צ עוד לחוש. אבל האמת הפשוטה והברורה דצ"ל בגמרא כאן כמו שהיא הגירסא בענין זה ממש בירושלמי שבת פ"ו ה"ב בזה"ל, ואף על פי שאין נחוש יש סימן ובלבד לאחר ג' סימנים, כגון ואני בבואי מפדן מתה עלי רחל, יוסף איננו ושמעון איננו וכו', ומבואר מזה דכבר אירעו לו שלשה מקרים רעים בדרך, ברחל וביוסף ובשמעון, והחזיק עצמו למוחזק לסכנה בדרך, וחשש עתה להניח את בנימין בדרך, עתה בפעם הרביעי. וכמו ברור הדבר, שבגמרא בסוגיא שלפנינו חסר זה הפסוק ואני בבואי מפדן, והענין מבואר, ופליאה רבה על מפרשי הירושלמי שלא הרגישו בתוספת הלשון בירושלמי על לשון הבבלי. ולפי זה מה מאד יתבאר בטוב ענין הדרשה שבסמוך פסוק ל"ח שאמר יעקב וקראהו אסון בדרך, ודרשו בדרך אין בבית לא, מכאן שאין השטן מקטרג אלא בשעת הסכנה, ובאמת לפי פשוטו מכיון שהלכו בשיירא אין כאן סכנת דרכים, אלא הכונה שיעקב חשב לו את הדרך למאורע של סכנה, מפני שכל הסבות מרחל ויוסף ושמעון קרו לו בדרך, וזהו שאמר וקראהו אסון בדרך, בדרך דוקא, דלדידי' הוי דרך בחזקת סכנה, ודו"ק

Parshat Miketz

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/73.html

Parshat Vayeishev answers

VaYeshev 5727
Alef.

1. Usually, the hatred that the other brothers felt for Yosef is explained as classical sibling rivalry, with each of them wishing to be the “apple of their parent’s eye.” Akeidat Yitzchak understands their upset as stemming from comparing the fates of Yishmael and Eisav with what lay in store for them, once it was determined that only Yosef and no one else would have  bestowed upon him the special blessing that originated with Avraham.
2. “MiKol Banav” could mean more than the other brothers, implying that he loves them too, just that he loves Yosef more. However, if the referent is Beraishit 14:20, then just as “Ma’aser only MiKol” contrasts that which is Ma’aser with that which is not or Chullin, i.e., there is Kedusha in a percentage that is separated, but none in the remainder, then similarly, love will only be extended to one of the children, Yosef, but none to the others.
3. In Beraishit 27, Rivka obviously believed that Yitzchak had only one special Beracha to bestow, and if he would give it to Eisav, then by definition he could not give anything to Yaakov. Consequently, she plotted so that Yaakov would be in position to obtain that blessing. However, by virtue of Yitzchak giving Yaakov a second blessing before he sets out for Padan Aram (28:3-4), it is clear that Yitzchak in fact never intended to give Eisav the “special” blessing, precluding the need for the entire subterfuge. However, the essential premise, that there is a single blessing that can be given to only one of the two sons, is born out by this story.
4. In 37:2 where it is mentioned that Yosef would report on his brothers, no mention is made of any reaction on their respective parts. However in 37:4 after Yaakov gives Yosef a special coat indicating his special and in the minds of the brothers, exclusive affection for him, this is when they begin to hate him, leading Akeidat Yitzchak to conclude that they were prepared to assume that he would outgrow being a talebearer, but Yaakov’s love for him wasn’t so much a function of Yosef’s stage in life, but rather Yaakov’s feelings towards the members of his family, and there was no reason to assume that that would change over time.

Beit.

1. “כינוי הפועל”—lit. is actively being done, to which the actor is contributing, e.g., an interpretation of the events. Beraishit Rabba and RaShI attribute to Yosef an active involvement in the reporting of the activities of his brothers. Furthermore, from the response on the part of God, i.e., that Yosef is punished “in kind” for each of his reports  suggests that his interpretations were incorrect.

     “כנוי הפעול”—lit. there is only passive involvement. This would appear to be more in accordance with Abrabanel who states that Yosef did not even see the things that his brothers were purported doing, but rather would merely convey to his father the things that people were saying about them, leaving it up to Yaakov to decide whether or not and how to respond.

2. I would respond to Gur Aryeh by invoking Avot 1:6:

יהושע בן פרחיה אומר עשה לך רב וקנה לך חבר והוי דן את כל האדם לכף זכות:

            (Judge everyone giving them the benefit of the doubt.)

     There is no mention that Yosaf approached his brothers in order to verify whether his      interpretations of what they were doing were accurate. Consequently, at the very least, if it was true, then he would be guilty of Lashon HaRa   and if it wasn’t, then Motzee Shem Ra would come into play.

3. Interestingly, in Chapt. 37, while it describes the various parties to whom Yosef was sold, the text never states that he was sold to be an Eved (slave/servant.) Even in Chapt. 39, when Mrs. Potiphera makes her accusation against him (39:19) , she uses the term “Eved”, modifying it so that she emphasizes that Yosef’s presence is her husband’s fault, i.e., “your servant”, but her choice of language might have been simply to paint Yosef in as unflattering a light as possible. Even in prison, Yosef is not referred to as a slave. The only other time that Yosef is referred to as an Eved is in 41:12 when the butler recalls how someone with whom he was in prison had explained his and his fellow prisoner’s dream, and perhaps that individual would be able to explain Pharoah’s dreams.
4. In 37:2 where mention is made of Yosef’s bringing back evil reports, it also states that he shepherded sheep along with his brothers. This suggests that while working with them, he also observed what they were doing and reported back to Yaakov about his brothers’ activities. If the reports included things that he did not witness, there was no reason to have preceded this action with the fact that he actually spent time with his brothers outside the parental home.
5. Usually words are not “brought”, they are recounted, told, etc. Perhaps Abrabanel thinks that the verb “VaYaveh” suggests that he is bringing reports not that he himself has created, but rather that were circulating about his brothers composed by others.

Gimel.

1. a) Could not speak with him: Tanchuma Yashan; R. Yona Ibn Genach; RaShI; Abrabanel.

b) Could not accept/listen to his words: ShaDaL; Eliyahu ben Amozag.

2.   The practical difference between the two approaches would appear to be whether the brothers were ever able to hear Yosef’s words in terms of his dreams and other communications, and they then could file the words away for future reference as Yaakov appears to do (37:11) and the only hindrance was that they couldn’t have a give-and-take with Yosef because of their hatred, or they were so repulsed by Yosef that not only would they not communicate with him, they would never pay much mind to anything that he would say, including his account of his dreams. This would have an effect at a later point in the sense that when the brothers come down to Egypt in order to purchase food due to the famine in Canaan, anyone who remembers the dreams, like Yosef (42:9)  might recognize their fulfillment when all of these individuals are bowing down to Yosef upon their arrival in Egypt. Those who never listened to the dreams naturally could not be reminded of them at a later point.

3.   בראשית פרק לז

 ויוספו עוד שנא אתו על חלמתיו ועל דבריו:

“The brothers continued to hate him… for his words”—apparently before he told the dreams, they couldn’t stand to even listen to his words, now all the more so when they hear his describing dreams that sound as though he believes that he will rule over all of them.

4.   Abrabanel would appear to be consistent in both of his comments. Earlier he stated that Yosef would only speak well about his brothers. He did feel that it was his responsibility to convey to his father what others were saying about the brothers; he himself however would only speak positively to them. Similarly in this comment, Yosef only says nice things, even if his brothers resent him so much that they refuse to respond or even recognize that he has offered greetings.

Verses cited in R. Yona Ibn Genach:

Yechezkel 5:16

When I shall send upon them the evil arrows of famine, that are for destruction, which I will send to destroy you; and I will increase the famine upon you, and will break your staff of bread.

Ibid. 3:27

But when I speak with thee, I will open thy mouth, and thou shalt say unto them: Thus saith the Lord GOD; he that heareth, let him hear, and he that forbeareth, let him forbear; for they are a rebellious house.

Shemot 7:7

And Moses was fourscore years old, and Aaron fourscore and three years old, when they spoke unto Pharaoh.

Devarim 12:29

When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest in to dispossess them, and thou dispossessest them, and dwellest in their land;

Beraishit 25:26

And after that came forth his brother, and his hand had hold on Esau's heel; and his name was called Jacob. And Isaac was threescore years old when she bore them.

Devarim 23:22

When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not be slack to pay it; for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it will be sin in thee.

Yeshayahu 53:10

Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of the LORD might prosper by his hand:

Beraishit 37:4

And when his brethren saw that their father loved him more than all his brethren, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him.

I Shmuel 25:40

And when the servants of David were come to Abigail to Carmel, they spoke unto her, saying: 'David hath sent us unto thee, to take thee to him to wife.'

Beraishit 30:15

And she said unto her: 'Is it a small matter that thou hast taken away my husband? and wouldest thou take away my son's mandrakes also?' And Rachel said: 'Therefore he shall lie with thee to-night for thy son's mandrakes.'

Parshat Vayeishev

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/72.html

Parshat Vayishlach Answers

VaYishlach 5722
Alef.

1.  In 32:7, Yaakov is described as dividing his encampment, including “the people who were with him,” and the sheep and the cattle and camels. Yet in 33:1-2 we are told how he divided up his wives and children. This latter verse clarifies the phrase in 32:7 that the immediate family was not necessarily included in the original division of the camp. 32:22 would also seem to support such a position since he crosses his entire family over the wadi, not individual groupings of his wives and children.

2.  Either a) 33:1-2 is to be understood as the past perfect, i.e., Yaakov had already divided up his wives and  children, or b) he initially divided everyone, including his immediate family, but then reunited everyone so that they would face the menace of Eisav together, once he had been given assurance by means of the vision of the struggle with the “man” that he would prove victorious. Yet 33:1-2 suggests that he loses some of his nerve and again divides his family up.

3.  32:8  “Divided”; 33:1 “Divided once again.”

4. The problem that MaLBIM deals with appears to be the same as what R. Avraham ben HaRaMBaM was discussing.

5.  Whereas R. Avraham ben HaRaMBaM felt that Yaakov was reassured by the vision involving the “man” struggling with him, MaLBIM understands that while the vision may have been a foreshadowing of Yaakov’s emerging victorious, the injury to his thigh, the area associated with conceiving children, might have suggested that some of his children will be harmed during the confrontation. Consequently, Yaakov reorganized his encampment in order to anticipate such a development.

Beit.

RaDaK: Perhaps Eisav’s anger will flag once he takes it out on some people, allowing those in the rear to survive.

Ibn Ezra: Those at the rear will be in the best position to flee should Eisav begin to murder the individuals with whom he will first contact.

R. Avraham ben HaRaMBaM: It would be improper to suggest that Yaakov would be sanguine if any of his children would be killed. Consequently, it was merely a matter of honor and status, that the family members would be arranged in ascending order towards the back.

Gimel.

1.  The word “Achronim” is used twice, not only for the literally last group (Rachel and Yosef) but also for the next-to-last group (Leah and her children) which brings into question the first of these words. If “Achronim” is literally the last, then how can those who are the middle group be referred to in the same way?

2.  See Alon HaDeracha regarding the third question, where R. Azarya min HaAdumim is being quoted.

3.  תוספות יום טוב מסכת דמאי פרק ז משנה ג

...וזכיתי אני להביא עד שני ועל פי שניהם יקום דבר דכתיב בפרשת שמות "ושמעו לקול האות האחרון" וחוזר ונותן עוד אות שלישי...

In Shemot 4:8, during HaShem’s Demonstrating to Moshe the signs that he is to use to convince first the Jews and then Pharoah that he in fact was HaShem’s Messenger to take the Jews out of Egypt, the second of the signs (hand affected by Tzora’at) is referred to as “HaAcharon” even though another sign was Shown subsequently, i.e., water turning into blood.

Daled.

1.   Midrash HaGadol approved of Yaakov’s behavior and therefore understands that Yaakov’s offspring are rewarded with all sorts of benefits.

      Aggadat Esther criticizes Yaakov and contrasts his behavior vis-à-vis Eisav with that of Mordechai with Haman.

2.   בראשית רבה (וילנא) פרשת וישלח פרשה עח סימן ח

"וישתחו ארצה שבע פעמים", למה שבע? על שם (משלי כד) "כי שבע יפול צדיק וקם".

      The standard explanation is that HaShem will not Allow the Tzaddik to fall more than seven times. Beraishit Rabba assumes that had Yaakov not bowed down (“fallen”) then he would have been judged according to the Attribute of Justice, not a pleasant prospect, and it was only because he bowed down was the Attribute of Justice transformed into the Attribute of Mercy, thereby not viewing the bowing down as a weakness or failure, but rather a positive spiritual quality.

Heh.

   While Eisav is recorded previously as having cried when he realized that Yaakov had taken his blessing (27:38), Yaakov is not described as crying. Even when he is reunited with his long-lost son Yosef (46:29) only one of the participants in that first meeting cried, and from the syntax of the verse, the clearly defined subject is Yosef rather than Yaakov, who, according to the Rabbinic tradition recorded by RaShI, was reciting the Shema. Consequently, if we have no source for Yaakov being a cry-er, it is surprising that he also cries upon meeting Eisav, and therefore Emek Davar feels compelled to provide a rationale for his crying at this point.

Vav.

1.  In 33:5, the first half of the verse describes Eisav seeing Yaakov’s wives and children, yet when he asks about their identity, Yaakov mentions only his children and not his wives.

2.  From the examples of the Avot and Emahot that preceded Yaakov and Eisav, it would appear that no one had more than two wives—Avraham married Sara and Hagar; Yitzchak married Rikva. Consequently, even if Eisav marries more than two—and he could contend that he married the third woman only because he discovered that his first two wives were not pleasing to Yitzchak and Rivka—what brought Yaakov to marry four? (Yaakov could also explain that his initial intention was only to marry Rachel, and possibly her hand maiden, with his marrying Leah and her handmaiden occurring only due to Lavan’s perfidy.)

Zayin.

   In verse 10, the gift that Yaakov wanted Eisav to accept was referred to as “Minchati,” leading one to conclude that “Birchati” in v. 11 is referring to something else.

   Furthermore, it is also possible that Yaakov felt that he had already received Divine Blessings, “Yesh Li Kol,” a fulfillment not so much of the first blessing that he received from Yitzchak that was meant for Eisav, but rather as a result of the second blessing given to him by Yitzchak prior to Yaakov’s leaving for Padan Aram (28:3,4), a blessing confirmed by God during his dream regarding the Ladder (28:13-5), and ratified by Him in 31:3. Consequently Yaakov might have felt that he literally did not “need” the blessing that he had obtained via deceit and could “restore” it to its rightful owner. 

Slight change in plans for VaYishlach

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/292.html

Parshat Vayishlach

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/155.html

Answer to Vayetze

VaYetze 5731
Alef.

1. א. In 28:7, the Tora states that Yaakov went to Padan Aram. But in 28:10 we are told that he is now just leaving Be’er Sheva. RaShI states that the reason why the Tora has to flashback at this point is because the story of Yaakov had been interrupted by the account of Eisav marrying additional wives. Once this tangent was completed, the story of Yaakov is resumed and even though 28:7 suggests that he already had reached his destination, 28:10 ff. is filling in details of an event that took place while he was on his journey prior to arriving at his destination.

ב.

רש"י בראשית פרק לט פסוק א

(א) ויוסף הורד - חוזר לענין ראשון, אלא שהפסיק בו כדי לסמוך ירידתו של יהודה למכירתו של יוסף לומר לך שבשבילו הורידוהו מגדולתו. ועוד, כדי לסמוך מעשה אשתו של פוטיפר למעשה תמר, לומר לך מה זו לשם שמים אף זו לשם שמים, שראתה באצטרולוגין שלה שעתידה להעמיד בנים ממנו ואינה יודעת אם ממנה אם מבתה:

רש"י שמות פרק ו פסוק כט

(כט) וידבר ה' - הוא הדבור עצמו האמור למעלה (פסוק יא) בא דבר אל פרעה מלך מצרים, אלא מתוך שהפסיק הענין כדי ליחסם, חזר הענין עליו להתחיל בו:

רש"י שמות פרק ו פסוק ל

(ל) ויאמר משה לפני ה' - היא האמירה שאמר למעלה (פסוק יב) הן בני ישראל לא שמעו אלי, ושנה הכתוב כאן כיון שהפסיק הענין, וכך היא השיטה כאדם האומר נחזור על הראשונות:

רש"י שמואל א פרק לא פסוק א

(א) ופלשתים נלחמים בישראל - כאדם האומר נחזור לענין ראשון:

Each time a story line in interrupted, when it is resumed, there is overlap with the previous story to reposition the reader so that he can pick up the theme that had been begun previously.

ג. Since in 28:1, Yitzchak had specifically said to Yaakov that he didn’t want his son to marry someone from the Canaanites, when Eisav became aware of this, he determined to do something about it, i.e., go to Yishmael to marry one of his daughters. RaShI is citing why the story of Yaakov is interrupted, i.e., because of an element in this story, Eisav responded in his own way to his father’s pronouncement. This suggests that although the Tora had earlier stated (26:35) that Yitzchak and Rivka were unhappy with Eisav’s original choices for wives, Eisav had been oblivious to their displeasure. That either means that the parents concealed their opinion from Eisav, or he had been oblivious to their feelings. It is interesting that RaShI comments that the reason why Eisav had gotten married at age forty (26:34) was in order to emulate (mislead?—in light of RaShI on 25:27, 28) at least his father, he had not considered that certain women may have been more acceptable to his parents than others. This only becomes apparent to him when he overhears his father’s instructions to Yaakov, instructions that were given on the initiative of Rivka, whose intention was not that Yaakov find someone to marry, but rather that he remove himself from the household in order to be spared the wrath of his brother as a result of his obtaining the blessing meant for Eisav (27:43, 46).

2. א. In this case, rather than comparing 28:10 with the earlier 28:7, RaShI is analyzing the contents of 28:10 in terms of itself, i.e., the first half of the verse seems to be irrelevant, and the only piece of information that seems to be significant is the destination of his journey, rather than his point of origin. If the assumption that the Tora prefers not to waste words would be applied to this verse, unless a rationale for the first part of the verse can be established, it would seem that it is superfluous.

ב.

רות פרק א

(ז) ותצא מן המקום אשר היתה שמה ושתי כלתיה עמה ותלכנה בדרך לשוב אל ארץ יהודה:

The fact that RaShI interchanges the two sources, i.e., in Ruth, Beraishit is the parallel proof and in Beraishit, Ruth is the parallel proof, does not suggest that one is more obvious than the other, but rather that these are two examples of the same turn of phrase, stressing that a journey does not only consist of reaching the destination, but also the effect of leaving the starting point. While this is obvious from the perspective of the traveler him/herself, the reverberations that it has regarding the two locations involved, i.e., the change in the starting point now that this individual is no longer there, and the change in the end point once the traveler has taken up residence in the new location, is less apparent, precipitating RaShI’s comment.

3. א. The apparent symbolism is that the inanimate rocks are “desirous” (an example of the literary conceit of “personification”)¹ of being associated as directly as possible with the righteous Yaakov and therefore are struggling with one another to be the one rock that lies directly beneath his head.

ב.

שמואל א פרק כו

(ז) ויבא דוד ואבישי אל העם לילה והנה שאול שכב ישן במעגל וחניתו מעוכה בארץ מראשתיו ואבנר והעם שכבים סביבתו סביבתיו: ס

(יא) חלילה לי מיקוק משלח ידי במשיח יקוק ועתה קח נא את החנית אשר מראשתיו ואת צפחת המים ונלכה לנו:

(יב) ויקח דוד את החנית ואת צפחת המים מראשתי שאול וילכו להם ואין ראה ואין יודע ואין מקיץ כי כלם ישנים כי תרדמת יקוק נפלה עליהם:

מלכים א פרק יט

(ו) ויבט והנה מראשתיו עגת רצפים וצפחת מים ויאכל וישת וישב וישכב:

In the instances in Shmuel and Melachim, it appears that “מראשותיו” refers to a large area rather than a single spot, i.e., Shaul’s spear and water container were not directly under his head, but rather in the vicinity of his head; the cake and water container were close to Eliyahu’s head but not underneath it. Consequently, it would make more sense according to the Peshat to say that several stones were taken initially and placed in the vicinity of Yaakov’s head, leading to them “vying” to be the “closest.”

Beit.

1. א. According to R. Shmuel bar Nachman in Midrash Tanchuma:

   The Ladder: The duration of the rule of various empires over the Jewish people.

   The Rungs of the Ladder: The specific number of years that each empire would rule.

   The Angels: The representatives of the various empires (parallel to “Saro Shel Eisav”—   RaShI on Beraishit 32:25; “Saro Shel Mitzrayim”—RaShI on Shemot 14:10)

   Their Ascent: The period during which they will hold sway over the Jews.

   Their Descent: The time when they will lose their power to rule over the Jews.

The Dream as a Whole: A foreshadowing of Jewish history, and a vision meant to reassure Yaakov that no matter which civilization, including Rome whose end of influence was not clearly indicated, i.e., their Angel only went up but did not come down, they all would eventually be reduced to having no power over the Jews.

ב. As long as the Temple has not been rebuilt on Har HaBayit, we are considered to continue to be suffering from the domination of Rome whose Empire was responsible for  destroying the Second Temple.

ג. It would appear that in the Midrash, HaShem is “Standing” over the Ladder, Making sure that even the Angel that has ascended and not yet descended, will not be able to remain on High forever, but will eventually be reduced to the same condition as the other empires that had preceded it.

2. א. The first citation from the Tanchuma depicts the Jewish people as being inevitably subjugated to these various empires and the question is only for how long will such domination last. With respect to the latter two citations from the Midrash, Israel is depicted as not willing to take its place among those climbing the ladder, symbolizing therefore not the domination of Israel, but rather a preeminent place in the world in general, paralleling the influences that these other dynasties had during their respective ascendancies.

ב.  From the simple sense of the text, following the vision of the dream, HaShem Tells Yaakov, (28:15) “Behold I will Be with you and Guard you wherever you go…” According to the principle of “Ma’asei Avot Siman LaBanim” (the events that effect the forefathers serve as precursors for  what will be experienced by their descendents), what God is Assuring Yaakov is that he and his offspring will be protected, not necessarily that they should seek out world domination paralleling the likes of Babylonia and Rome.

ג.  One could respond to Abrabanel that in light of the principle of “Ma’asei Avot…” (see answer ב above), it is more relevant to show this vision to Yaakov than to either Avraham or Yitzchak because with Yaakov’s 13 children, you have the true beginnings of the Jewish people, something that could  be said neither of Avraham’s children that included Yishmael and the offspring of Ketura, nor Yitzchak’s that included Eisav. Consequently, the dream could be operating on two levels: reassurance to Yaakov that he will be protected during his immediate travels and travails, and just as he will be protected, so too will the Jewish people be protected throughout Jewish history. Furthermore, the reason why these dreams are taking place in this particular place is because according to tradition, it is the place of the Holy of Holies where the Temple would eventually be built (see e.g., RaShI on 28:11), the epicenter of Jewish history and which will play such a prominent role in the fate of the people in terms of their autonomy on the one hand, and their occupation and exile on the other, down through the ages.