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