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.