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.