Vayigash answers

VaYigash 5728
Alef.

1.  Beraishit 45:16-20 indicate that Pharoah even before the family comes to Egypt, approves of Yosef supporting them, thereby refuting the contention that Yosef first wanted to create “a fact on the ground” before informing Pharoah and thereby influencing him to allow what had already been begun to continue.

2.  It is possible that Yosef did not want the general population to become familiar with the story of how he had been “sold” by his brothers and come to Egypt originally as a slave. See “Yosef’s Egyptian Makeover” http://text.rcarabbis.org/parashat-miketz-yosefs-egyptian-makeover-by-yaakov-bieler/ for the lengths to which Pharoah went to try to give Yosef a new identity which would be more palatable to the Egyptian people.

Beit.

1.  RaShI: “LeChol HaNitzavim”—due to all of those who were standing in his presence. Yosef did not wish to reveal himself while non-family members were present.

     Ibn Ezra: “LeChol HaNitzavim”—until all those standing in his presence (had left on their own). Yosef could not wait to reveal himself to his brothers. But it was taking so long for all those present to leave that he had to order them to exit.

2.  The problem with RaShI’s interpretation would seem to be the implication of “Hotzee’u” in 45:1. If everyone was to leave except for his brothers, then instead of saying “Hotzee’u” implying that some officials were the ones who removed everyone else, but they in the end would remain and could hear Yosef’s revelations as well as witness the brothers’ embarrassment, it should have said “Yeitzu”—imperative of leaving implying that everyone should leave.

Gimel.

     In 43:27, before the incident with finding Yosef’s cup in Binyamin’s sack, when Yosef first sees the brothers on their second visit to Egypt, he already inquires about their father. Consequently, it does not make sense that he should now ask again at the time when he reveals himself. Therefore, the commentators have to find some additional meaning in Yosef’s question to justify his repeating it.

Daled.

The phrase “Asher Machartem Oti Mitzrayma” would appear to be superfluous. Once it is established that he is Yosef their brother, they know all too well what transpired more than two decades before. Consequently Sephorno has to supply a rationale to account for the additional identifying phrase.

Heh.

1.  45:8 and 9 don’t seem to be saying the same thing—how did Yosef come to his position? Was it Pharoah’s appointment or God’s Doing? The commentator finds a way to integrate both verses into the explanation being sent to Yaakov.

2.  Since this is Yosef’s first communication with his father for over twenty years, he does not wish to give the impression that he has forgotten his traditions and faith. Therefore after stating generally what his position involves, he quickly amends the statement with essentially what he told his brothers, i.e., that in fact God has Orchestrated everything that has occurred and it is God’s Plan that is being played out within the events that have taken place in and to the family.

3.  In 45:10, before even knowing Yaakov’s reaction to the proposal to come to Egypt, Yosef already states that he plans to settle his family in Goshen. In 46:28, Yaakov sends Yehuda ahead to make the land of Goshen ready for the family’s arrival, suggesting that he approved of Yosef’s original suggestion.

Vav.

1.  RaShI, RaMBaN, Bei’ur:  become poor.

     Ibn Ezra, ShaDaL: become cut off, i.e., you will die.

     RaShBaM: become exiled from the land.

2.  The interpretation of “lest you become exiled” makes no sense since Yosef is proposing that very thing, that Yaakov and everything that he has leave the land in order to wait out the famine in Egypt.

3.  ShaDaL feels that poverty is a condition that affects humans but not their possessions. Consequently since Yosef includes herds of sheep and cattle in v. 10, he has in mind something that will physically happen to them rather than a description of their economic condition.

4.  The condition of poverty is not what threatens Yaakov’s welfare in Canaan, but rather starvation due to a lack of food.  When there is no food to be had, it does not matter how much money one has!

Zayin.

1. The Midrash inferred from the fact that it does not say that all of Pharoah’s servants were thrilled about the rest of Yaakov’s family coming to Egypt, that there were some who were complaining that each one who comes replaces a high ranking Egyptian in a status position.

2.  R. Hirsch was very patriotic with respect to Jews living in Germany. He felt that they could be accepted as “good citizens”. So too Yaakov’s family in Egypt; despite their being immigrants, the Egyptians welcome them with open arms since Yosef, and potentially the rest of Yosef’s family, will prove so beneficial to the society-at-large.

  

Vayigash

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/13.html

Parshat Miketz answers

Miketz 5726

Alef.

1.א. Moshe Aryeh Mirkin (Midrash Rabba, Vol. 4, Yavneh, Tel Aviv, 1980, p. 93) writes that the association between the verse in Tehillim and the verse in Beraishit 42 is that if one reads 

שֶׁבֶר as if it were written שׂבר, then the meaning is that Yaakov saw through Divine Inspiration, that there is “hope” (as opposed food available for sale) in Egypt, i.e., Yosef, who can change the course of Jewish history.

בראשית פרק מב

(א) וַיַּרְא יַעֲקֹב כִּי יֶשׁ שֶׁבֶר בְּמִצְרָיִם וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב לְבָנָיו לָמָּה תִּתְרָאוּ:

תהלים פרק קמו

(ה) אַשְׁרֵי שֶׁקל יַעֲקֹב בְּעֶזְרוֹ שִׂבְרוֹ עַל יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיו:

Happy is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the LORD his God.

ב. The Midrash is refocusing the meaning of the verse. As opposed to stating that Yaakov realized that there was food in Egypt, which was a short-term solution to the immediate problem of famine, the Midrash is emphasizing that Yaakov was seeing something long-term that would allow for the Divine Predictions made on the occasion of the Brit Bein HaBetarim (Beraishit 15) to begin to be fulfilled, i.e., that Yosef was in a position to provide for the family when it would go into exile in Egypt.

2.א. 

איוב פרק יב

(יד) הֵן יַהֲרוֹס וְלֹא יִבָּנֶה יִסְגֹּר עַל אִישׁ וְלֹא יִפָּתֵחַ:

Behold, He Breaketh down, and it cannot be built again; He Shutteth up a man, and there can be no opening.

         The plan of the “Shevatim”, i.e., the brothers, was to destroy Yosef in order to obviate the fulfillment of his dreams (Berashit 37:18-20). God thwarted their plans by setting up Yosef in a situation whereby the dreams would be able to be fulfilled when first Yosef’s brothers and then even his father, step-mother and handmaidens would come to Egypt and act deferentially towards him.

     ב. One could insist that the brothers were not “building” a plan that God “destroyed” before it could be completed, as in the case of the Tower of Bavel (Beraishit 11:7) , but rather He Saw to it that their intentions to eliminate Yosef, which they thought they had accomplished quite fully, would not be realized.

     ג. One might ask why it was specifically Yaakov and not his sons who came up with the idea to go down to Egypt to buy food. HaShem Closed off from the brothers thoughts of Egypt in order to create a greater shock when in the end Yosef reveals to them his real identity (Beraishit 45:1-13).

     ד. The following verses imply that Yaakov had resigned himself to the fact that Yosef was dead:  

בראשית פרק לז

(לג) וַיַּכִּירָהּ וַיֹּאמֶר כְּתֹנֶת בְּנִי חַיָּה רָעָה אֲכָלָתְהוּ טָרֹף טֹרַף יוֹסֵף:

(לד) וַיִּקְרַע יַעֲקֹב שִׂמְלֹתָיו וַיָּשֶׂם שַׂק בְּמָתְנָיו וַיִּתְאַבֵּל עַל בְּנוֹ יָמִים רַבִּים:

(לה) וַיָּקֻמוּ כָל בָּנָיו וְכָל בְּנֹתָיו לְנַחֲמוֹ וַיְמָאֵן לְהִתְנַחֵם וַיֹּאמֶר כִּי אֵרֵד אֶל בְּנִי אָבֵל שְׁאֹלָה וַיֵּבְךְּ אֹתוֹ אָבִיו:

בראשית פרק מב

(לו) וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם יַעֲקֹב אֲבִיהֶם אֹתִי שִׁכַּלְתֶּם יוֹסֵף אֵינֶנּוּ וְשִׁמְעוֹן אֵינֶנּוּ וְאֶת בִּנְיָמִן תִּקָּחוּ עָלַי הָיוּ כֻלָּנָה:

(לח) וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא יֵרֵד בְּנִי עִמָּכֶם כִּי אָחִיו מֵת וְהוּא לְבַדּוֹ נִשְׁאָר וּקְרָאָהוּ אָסוֹן בַּדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר תֵּלְכוּ בָהּ וְהוֹרַדְתֶּם אֶת שֵׂיבָתִי בְּיָגוֹן שְׁאוֹלָה:

בראשית פרק מד

(כח) וַיֵּצֵא הָאֶחָד מֵאִתִּי וָאֹמַר אַךְ טָרֹף טֹרָף וְלֹא רְאִיתִיו עַד הֵנָּה:

בראשית פרק מה

(כו) וַיַּגִּדוּ לוֹ לֵאמֹר עוֹד יוֹסֵף חַי וְכִי הוּא מֹשֵׁל בְּכָל אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם וַיָּפָג לִבּוֹ כִּי לֹא הֶאֱמִין לָהֶם:

(כז) וַיְדַבְּרוּ אֵלָיו אֵת כָּל דִּבְרֵי יוֹסֵף אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר אֲלֵהֶם וַיַּרְא אֶת הָעֲגָלוֹת אֲשֶׁר שָׁלַח יוֹסֵף לָשֵׂאת אֹתוֹ וַתְּחִי רוּחַ יַעֲקֹב אֲבִיהֶם:

A way to reconcile these verses with the Midrash’s assumption that Yaakov had hope that there was something in Egypt that will help the Jewish people, is by saying that Yaakov felt that there was reason to hope in Egypt for a solution to the problem of the famine, but not necessarily that he hoped against hope that Yosef was still alive. Only in retrospect will Yaakov realize that the cause for his optimism was Yosef’s presence in Egypt, but at this point, it would have been impossible for Yaakov to have known this—unless of course HaShem would have wished to disclose this to him via prophecy, and there is no indication that this was the case.

3.א. 

איוב פרק ט

)ז) הָאֹמֵר לַחֶרֶס וְלֹא יִזְרָח וּבְעַד כּוֹכָבִים יַחְתֹּם:

Who commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars.

All three Midrashim claim that Yaakov had an insight into the presence of the savior of the Jews during the years of famine in Egypt, i.e., Yosef, but that the brothers despite their physically entering and leaving Egypt on two separate occasions, continued to fail to realize Yosef’s presence.

ב.  The problem in Beraishit 42:1 is how can it be explained that Yaakov “saw” something about the food situation in Egypt—he could have “heard” there was food there, but short of actually travelling to Egypt, how could he see what was going on there? Consequently the Midrash defines “seeing” in the biblical text as referring to some sort of prophetic seeing.

ג.  Referencing the sun and the stars reminds one of the second of Yosef’s dreams:

בראשית פרק לז

(ט) וַיַּחֲלֹם עוֹד חֲלוֹם אַחֵר וַיְסַפֵּר אֹתוֹ לְאֶחָיו וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֵּה חָלַמְתִּי חֲלוֹם עוֹד וְהִנֵּה הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְהַיָּרֵחַ וְאַחַד עָשָׂר כּוֹכָבִים מִשְׁתַּחֲוִים לִי:

ד.  See answer 2ד above.

Beit.

1.  RaShI brings the Midrash because since it had already stated earlier, in v. 7 that he had recognized the brothers, why is the text repeating this fact; it would have been sufficient in v. 8 to simply say that they did not recognize him. Consequently, the Midrash explains that we no longer are talking about just knowing who the people are, but rather the manner in which they related to one another, Yosef doing so positively while the brothers in the past relating to him negatively.

2.  The first time in v. 7, we are being told a fact of immediate recognition—Yosef was surprised to see his brothers bowing in front of him. The end of v. 7 however, suggests that Yosef estranged himself from them by speaking to them harshly. Despite the fact that externally it appeared as if Yosef had ignored his awareness that they were his siblings, v. 8 states again that he in fact was fully aware of the situation, despite the fact that they were not. One could even say that he deliberately spoke harshly in order to not even allow them to begin thinking that perhaps they know him from somewhere else.

3.  It would seem that this section of RaMBaN supports RaShI—if the brothers did not recognize Yosef because when they parted he did not have a beard, then why did he recognize the younger brothers who were barely older than he, if they too did not have beards and now presumably they do. RaMBaN answers that in fact if only the younger brothers had come, Yosef probably would not have recognized them; but since they came at the same time as the older siblings who already had beards at the time of Yosef’s being sold, he associated them together and recognized all of them.

4.  RaShI: a) They parted at a stage of personal development where they only knew a younger Yosef, not a more mature one.

                  b) The expression of “recognizing” connotes brotherly treatment, something that Yosef was continuing to do, but not something by which they had related to him.

      RaMBaM: a) Although they were not all at the point where they had beards at the time of Yosef’s sale, Yosef deduced from their coming at the same time along with the older ones whose bearded appearance he did remember, that they were all his brothers.

                   b) Yosef always knew that eventually they would come to Egypt for food, so he was  expecting them. They on the other hand, never expected to see Yosef in Egypt, after knowing that he had been sold as a slave by the Yishmaelim.

5.  Yosef’s plan to give them an opportunity to atone for what they had done to him all those years ago was in fact an act of Chesed, as opposed to remaining in a state of resentment and hatred towards them for what they had done to him. When he saw especially Yehuda prepared to enslave himself in order that Binyamin could be returned to Yaakov in order not to cause Yaakov additional undue grief, Yosef felt that the circle had been closed and that he no longer would harbor enmity towards his brothers.

Gimel.

1.א. RaShBaM understands the verse in II Melachim as an attempt by Amatzya to impress Yehoash with his military prowess, although the simple meaning seems to be going to war with one another, a war that Amatzya roundly loses.

מלכים ב פרק יד

(ח) אָז שָׁלַח אֲמַצְיָה מַלְאָכִים אֶל יְהוֹאָשׁ בֶּן יְהוֹאָחָז בֶּן יֵהוּא מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר לְכָה נִתְרָאֶה פָנִים:

(ט) וַיִּשְׁלַח יְהוֹאָשׁ מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל אֲמַצְיָהוּ מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה לֵאמֹר הַחוֹחַ אֲשֶׁר בַּלְּבָנוֹן שָׁלַח אֶל הָאֶרֶז אֲשֶׁר בַּלְּבָנוֹן לֵאמֹר תְּנָה אֶת בִּתְּךָ לִבְנִי לְאִשָּׁה וַתַּעֲבֹר חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה אֲשֶׁר בַּלְּבָנוֹן וַתִּרְמֹס אֶת הַחוֹחַ:

(י) הַכֵּה הִכִּיתָ אֶת אֱדוֹם וּנְשָׂאֲךָ לִבֶּךָ הִכָּבֵד וְשֵׁב בְּבֵיתֶךָ וְלָמָּה תִתְגָּרֶה בְּרָעָה וְנָפַלְתָּה אַתָּה וִיהוּדָה עִמָּךְ:

(יא) וְלֹא שָׁמַע אֲמַצְיָהוּ וַיַּעַל יְהוֹאָשׁ מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיִּתְרָאוּ פָנִים הוּא וַאֲמַצְיָהוּ מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה בְּבֵית שֶׁמֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר לִיהוּדָה:

(יב) וַיִּנָּגֶף יְהוּדָה לִפְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיָּנֻסוּ אִישׁ לאהלו לְאֹהָלָיו:

(יג) וְאֵת אֲמַצְיָהוּ מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה בֶּן יְהוֹאָשׁ בֶּן אֲחַזְיָהוּ תָּפַשׂ יְהוֹאָשׁ מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּבֵית שָׁמֶשׁ ויבאו וַיָּבֹא יְרוּשָׁלִַם וַיִּפְרֹץ בְּחוֹמַת יְרוּשָׁלִַם בְּשַׁעַר אֶפְרַיִם עַד שַׁעַר הַפִּנָּה אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת אַמָּה:

(יד) וְלָקַח אֶת כָּל הַזָּהָב וְהַכֶּסֶף וְאֵת כָּל הַכֵּלִים הַנִּמְצְאִים בֵּית יְקֹוָק וּבְאֹצְרוֹת בֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ וְאֵת בְּנֵי הַתַּעֲרֻבוֹת וַיָּשָׁב שֹׁמְרוֹנָה:

Then Amaziah sent messengers to Jehoash, the son of Jehoahaz son of Jehu, king of Israel, saying: 'Come, let us look one another in the face.' And Jehoash the king of Israel sent to Amaziah king of Judah, saying: 'The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon, saying: Give thy daughter to my son to wife; and there passed by the wild beasts that were in Lebanon, and trod down the thistle. Thou hast indeed smitten Edom, and will thy heart lift thee up? glory therein, and remain at home; for why shouldest thou meddle with evil, that thou shouldest fall, even thou, and Judah with thee? But Amaziah would not hear. So Jehoash king of Israel went up; and he and Amaziah king of Judah looked one another in the face at Beth-shemesh, which belongeth to Judah. And Judah was put to the worse before Israel; and they fled every man to his tent. And Jehoash king of Israel took Amaziah king of Judah, the son of Jehoash the son of Ahaziah, at Beth-shemesh, and came to Jerusalem, and broke down the wall of Jerusalem from the gate of Ephraim unto the corner gate, four hundred cubits. And he took all the gold and silver, and all the vessels that were found in the house of the LORD, and in the treasures of the king's house, the hostages also, and returned to Samaria

 ב.

יחזקאל פרק כט

(טו) מִן הַמַּמְלָכוֹת תִּהְיֶה שְׁפָלָה וְלֹא תִתְנַשֵּׂא עוֹד עַל הַגּוֹיִם וְהִמְעַטְתִּים לְבִלְתִּי רְדוֹת בַּגּוֹיִם:

It shall be the lowliest of the kingdoms, neither shall it any more lift itself up above the nations; and I will diminish them, that they shall no more rule over the nations.

2. RaShI’s approach to understanding “ערוה” does not appear to fit the context of Yosef’s accusation. The sexual innuendo of “ערוה” suggests something private that is not meant to be publicly exposed. However, just because something is secret does not mean that it has strategic value. There may be certain scandalous or personal issues that are not openly discussed, but nevertheless are devoid of strategic value. RaShBaM’s definition of “ערוה” as breaches in the country’s defenses would make more sense as a target for spies who wish to invade the land.

3.  RaShBaM in his first comment on v. 9 had made part of Yosef’s accusation the fact that the ten men stuck together wherever they went, which was apparently unusual with respect to those coming to purchase food. This drew suspicion to them. They respond that the reason why they stay together is because they come as members of single tightly-knit family and therefore while it may seem out of the ordinary, there is nothing nefarious about what they are doing.

4.א. Ostensibly it does not seem that anything new is added in v. 12. Yosef has already stated his suspicions in v. 9. Why is he so insistent on accusing them of being spies? RaShBaM answers that he wishes them to explain more about family details with respect to Binyamin and even about how they speak about the twelfth brother’s absence.

  ב. Why did the brothers offer so much information even referring to Yosef? It was only because of Yosef’s obstinacy in continuing to accuse them of being spies did they begin to disclose more information than they originally intended in order to convince him of their telling the truth.

ג . The brothers have to justify to Yaakov why they disclosed the existence of Binyamin as well as the fact that a twelfth brother is missing. It was only because Yosef pressed them so hard did they decide or perhaps simply blurted out the additional facts about their family.

  ד. The brothers did not tell the truth to Yaakov when they said in 43:7 that Yosef by means of his questioning had forced them to disclose the existence of two other brothers. In fact it was as a result of Yosef’s refusing to believe them that they shared the information. RaShBaM is explaining that Yosef’s brutality was a ploy to get them to admit publicly that there were additional sons.

  ה. There is a principle cited in the Midrash, e.g.,

אוצר המדרשים (אייזנשטיין) ל"ב מדות באגדה עמוד 268

. ר' נחמיה אומר דברי תורה עניים במקום אחד ועשירים במקומות אחרים, וכה"א היתה כאניות סוחר ממרחק תביא לחמה (משלי ל"א).

i.e., that sometimes the Tora goes to great lengths to provide every detail, while at other times, only some of the information is actually set down and one has to assume or extrapolate the rest. Consequently, just because the Tora does not explicitly state that Yosef asked such a question does not mean that it did not happen, just as in the case of the plagues, sometimes the Tora records a conversation between Moshe and Pharoah, and sometimes it does not. That does not necessarily mean that such conversations nevertheless took place, even if a record does not appear in the relevant verses.

5. Perhaps the repetition of the word “צרה”, first with respect to Yosef and then with respect to the brothers, ties together the two situations.

Parshat Miketz

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/520.html

Parshat Vayeshev Answers

VaYeishev 5722

בראשית פרק לז

(יח) וַיִּרְאוּ אֹתוֹ מֵרָחֹק וּבְטֶרֶם יִקְרַב אֲלֵיהֶם וַיִּתְנַכְּלוּ אֹתוֹ לַהֲמִיתוֹ:

(יט) וַיֹּאמְרוּ אִישׁ אֶל אָחִיו הִנֵּה בַּעַל הַחֲלֹמוֹת הַלָּזֶה בָּא:

(כ) וְעַתָּה לְכוּ וְנַהַרְגֵהוּ וְנַשְׁלִכֵהוּ בְּאַחַד הַבֹּרוֹת וְאָמַרְנוּ חַיָּה רָעָה אֲכָלָתְהוּ וְנִרְאֶה מַה יִּהְיוּ חֲלֹמֹתָיו:

(כא) וַיִּשְׁמַע רְאוּבֵן וַיַּצִּלֵהוּ מִיָּדָם וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא נַכֶּנּוּ נָפֶשׁ:

(כב) וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם רְאוּבֵן אַל תִּשְׁפְּכוּ דָם הַשְׁלִיכוּ אֹתוֹ אֶל הַבּוֹר הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר בַּמִּדְבָּר וְיָד אַל תִּשְׁלְחוּ בוֹ לְמַעַן הַצִּיל אֹתוֹ מִיָּדָם לַהֲשִׁיבוֹ אֶל אָבִיו:

(כג) וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר בָּא יוֹסֵף אֶל אֶחָיו וַיַּפְשִׁיטוּ אֶת יוֹסֵף אֶת כֻּתָּנְתּוֹ אֶת כְּתֹנֶת הַפַּסִּים אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו:

(כד) וַיִּקָּחֻהוּ וַיַּשְׁלִכוּ אֹתוֹ הַבֹּרָה וְהַבּוֹר רֵק אֵין בּוֹ מָיִם:

(כה) וַיֵּשְׁבוּ לֶאֱכָל לֶחֶם וַיִּשְׂאוּ עֵינֵיהֶם וַיִּרְאוּ וְהִנֵּה אֹרְחַת יִשְׁמְעֵאלִים בָּאָה מִגִּלְעָד וּגְמַלֵּיהֶם נֹשְׂאִים נְכֹאת וּצְרִי וָלֹט הוֹלְכִים לְהוֹרִיד מִצְרָיְמָה:

And they saw him afar off, and before he came near unto them, they conspired against him to slay him. And they said one to another: 'Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now therefore, and let us slay him, and cast him into one of the pits, and we will say: An evil beast hath devoured him; and we shall see what will become of his dreams.' And Reuben heard it, and delivered him out of their hand; and said: 'Let us not take his life.' And Reuben said unto them: 'Shed no blood; cast him into this pit that is in the wilderness, but lay no hand upon him'--that he might deliver him out of their hand, to restore him to his father. And it came to pass, when Joseph was come unto his brethren, that they stripped Joseph of his coat, the coat of many colours that was on him; and they took him, and cast him into the pit--and the pit was empty, there was no water in it. And they sat down to eat bread; and they lifted up their eyes and looked, and, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites came from Gilead, with their camels bearing spicery and balm and ladanum, going to carry it down to Egypt. 

Alef.

1.א. The simple meaning of the phrase is “they conspired against him to slay him”. However, the plotting went beyond how to kill Yosef, i.e., whether to murder him actively or to throw him into a pit and thereby murder him passively. They also plotted regarding what they would say to Yaakov in order to cover up Yosef’s murder, i.e., that a wild animal had killed Yosef, and for this reason they took his coat from him (v. 20, 23). Finally, the murder was not only in order to eliminate a person who was proving disturbing and threatening to them, but also to test whether the dreams that Yosef  had shared with his family would in fact be fulfilled (v. 20). Consequently they not only plotted murder, but also created a theological test and a cover-up, leading RaShI to expand the implications of “ויתנכלו”. 

ב.  See above.

ג.  Whereas in the two instances in I Shmuel 19, the intent of the infinitive is to end the life of the individual by murdering him, in the case of I Shmuel 2, the verse is referring to allowing the sons of Eli to make a decision that would lead to their deaths indirectly, rather than directly taking their lives. Reuven’s convincing his brothers to throw Yosef into a pit rather than actually directly spilling his blood was also intended, at least in the brothers’ minds, to constitute a means of passive murder, with Reuven’s true intention being to save Yosef at a later moment when the others were not watching.

שמואל א פרק ב

(כה) אִם יֶחֱטָא אִישׁ לְאִישׁ וּפִלְלוֹ אֱלֹקים וְאִם לַיקֹוָק יֶחֱטָא אִישׁ מִי יִתְפַּלֶּל לוֹ וְלֹא יִשְׁמְעוּ לְקוֹל אֲבִיהֶם כִּי חָפֵץ יְקֹוָק לַהֲמִיתָם:

If one man sin against another, God shall judge him; but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall entreat for him?' But they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them.

שמואל א פרק יט

(ב) וַיַּגֵּד יְהוֹנָתָן לְדָוִד לֵאמֹר מְבַקֵּשׁ שָׁאוּל אָבִי לַהֲמִיתֶךָ וְעַתָּה הִשָּׁמֶר נָא בַבֹּקֶר וְיָשַׁבְתָּ בַסֵּתֶר וְנַחְבֵּאתָ:

And Jonathan told David, saying: 'Saul my father seeketh to slay thee; now therefore, I pray thee, take heed to thyself in the morning, and abide in a secret place, and hide thyself.

שמואל א פרק יט

(טו) וַיִּשְׁלַח שָׁאוּל אֶת הַמַּלְאָכִים לִרְאוֹת אֶת דָּוִד לֵאמֹר הַעֲלוּ אֹתוֹ בַמִּטָּה אֵלַי לַהֲמִתוֹ:

And Saul sent the messengers to see David, saying: 'Bring him up to me in the bed, that I may slay him.'

2.א. Whereas RashI understands “ויתנכלו” as describing the brothers’ interior thoughts about eliminating Yosef, Sephorno interprets the verb as referring to how the brothers’ internally understood Yosef’s   purpose in coming out to see them, i.e., to discover things about them that would lead either to Yaakov cursing them or HaShem Punishing them, a case of Yosef plotting the brothers’ destruction rather than the other way around. A support to such an interpretation would be Beraishit 37:2--

אֵלֶּה תֹּלְדוֹת יַעֲקֹב יוֹסֵף בֶּן שְׁבַע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה הָיָה רֹעֶה אֶת אֶחָיו בַּצֹּאן וְהוּא נַעַר אֶת בְּנֵי בִלְהָה וְאֶת בְּנֵי זִלְפָּה נְשֵׁי אָבִיו וַיָּבֵא יוֹסֵף אֶת דִּבָּתָם רָעָה אֶל אֲבִיהֶם:

ב. Just like in Devarim 4:14 the infinitive means that you should do the Mitzvot, and in Devarim 29:11, that you should pass into the covenant, so too in Beraishit 37:18, that it is Yosef who is plotting to kill the brothers.

דברים פרק ד

(יד) וְאֹתִי צִוָּה יְקֹוָק בָּעֵת הַהִוא לְלַמֵּד אֶתְכֶם חֻקִּים וּמִשְׁפָּטִים לַעֲשֹׂתְכֶם אֹתָם בָּאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם עֹבְרִים שָׁמָּה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ:

And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and ordinances, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it.

דברים פרק כט

(יא) לְעָבְרְךָ בִּבְרִית יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ וּבְאָלָתוֹ אֲשֶׁר יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ כֹּרֵת עִמְּךָ הַיּוֹם:

that thou shouldest enter into the covenant of the LORD thy God--and into His oath--which the LORD thy God maketh with thee this day. 

ג.  Shemot 12:42 would seem to fit RaShI’s understanding that the infinitive directly relates to the subject of the sentence, HaShem Who is Taking the Jews out of Egypt, Beraishit 19:17 parallels Sephorno’s interpretation where the verb refers to Lot and his family, the object of the sentence.

בראשית פרק יט

(יז) וַיְהִי כְהוֹצִיאָם אֹתָם הַחוּצָה וַיֹּאמֶר הִמָּלֵט עַל נַפְשֶׁךָ אַל תַּבִּיט אַחֲרֶיךָ וְאַל תַּעֲמֹד בְּכָל הַכִּכָּר הָהָרָה הִמָּלֵט פֶּן תִּסָּפֶה:

And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said: 'Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the Plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be swept away.'

שמות פרק יב

(מב) לֵיל שִׁמֻּרִים הוּא לַיקֹוָק לְהוֹצִיאָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם הוּא הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה לַיקֹוָק שִׁמֻּרִים לְכָל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְדֹרֹתָם: פ

It was a night of watching unto the LORD for bringing them out from the land of Egypt; this same night is a night of watching unto the LORD for all the children of Israel throughout their generations.

ד. In Beraishit 42:21, when the brothers are reflecting on how they had sinned against  Yosef in the past, they do not express regret over wanting to kill or sell him, only for not responding to his pleas for mercy when he was cast into the pit. Sephorno argues that if in the brothers’ minds Yosef was indeed trying to kill them either physically or spiritually by bringing evil reports about them to Yaakov, then they were only protecting themselves by trying to eliminate him, something that they had a legal right to do based upon the Rabbinic principle, “if one comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first,” based upon Shemot 22:1.

בראשית פרק מב פסוק כא

וַיֹּאמְרוּ אִישׁ אֶל אָחִיו אֲבָל אֲשֵׁמִים אֲנַחְנוּ עַל אָחִינוּ אֲשֶׁר רָאִינוּ צָרַת נַפְשׁוֹ בְּהִתְחַנְנוֹ אֵלֵינוּ וְלֹא שָׁמָעְנוּ עַל כֵּן בָּאָה אֵלֵינוּ הַצָּרָה הַזֹּאת:

And they said one to another: 'We are verily guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the distress of his soul, when he besought us, and we would not hear; therefore is this distress come upon us.'

ה. Shemot 22:1

שמות פרק כב

(א) אִם בַּמַּחְתֶּרֶת יִמָּצֵא הַגַּנָּב וְהֻכָּה וָמֵת אֵין לוֹ דָּמִים:

If a thief be found breaking in, and be smitten so that he dieth, there shall be no bloodguiltiness for him.

ו.   Never once is there an explicit discussion in the text at this point or prior that the brothers thought that Yosef was out to destroy them. They hated Yosef for telling them the dreams that seemed to imply superiority on his part. However, to use those instances as the basis for their wanting to kill him seems to be a stretch. On the other hand, because their reaction appears to be so over the top, perhaps there was a perception that his tattling and spying had nefarious intentions. Otherwise why would the brothers, from whom the entire Jewish people descend, go to such extremes?

Beit.

The problem in the verse is the “ו” at the beginning of the word “טרם”—

בראשית פרק לז פסוק יח

וַיִּרְאוּ אֹתוֹ מֵרָחֹק וּבְטֶרֶם יִקְרַב אֲלֵיהֶם וַיִּתְנַכְּלוּ אֹתוֹ לַהֲמִיתוֹ:

Either the phrase beginning “ובטרם” should have been at the beginning of the verse, or if it is to remain in its present position, the “ו” should have been omitted. Consequently, since it seems that this phrase is set off in an inappropriate position, Ohr HaChayim interprets the first phrase beginning with “ויראו” as not describing what they saw, but rather how they felt.

Gimel.

1. The three commentators are attempting to account for the Tora’s mentioning that once Yosef had been dispatched into the pit, they sat to eat. It offers an impression that the brothers were extremely cold-hearted and dispassionate, not a very exemplary manner by which to deport themselves.

2.  R. Avraham ben HaRaMBaM: The brothers had no reservations regarding the appropriateness of what they had done.

     Sephorno: Because they had judged Yosef as a Rodef (an individual who was bent upon destroying them—see Alef 2ד above.)

      HaEmek Davar: The fact that the brothers raised their eyes in the middle of their meal (see v. 25) indicates how while they may have felt justified in eliminating Yosef, they were not sanguine due to his cries for mercy and help from the bottom of the pit.

3.  HaEmek Davar probably bases himself on the brother’s remark after Yosef initially places all the brothers in prison after accusing them of being spies, and then informs them that he will keep one of them hostage and will not give them any more food until they bring their brother Binyamin with them to Egypt:

בראשית פרק מב

(כא) וַיֹּאמְרוּ אִישׁ אֶל אָחִיו אֲבָל אֲשֵׁמִים אֲנַחְנוּ עַל אָחִינוּ אֲשֶׁר רָאִינוּ צָרַת נַפְשׁוֹ בְּהִתְחַנְנוֹ אֵלֵינוּ וְלֹא שָׁמָעְנוּ עַל כֵּן בָּאָה אֵלֵינוּ הַצָּרָה הַזֹּאת:

And they said one to another: 'We are verily guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the distress of his soul, when he besought us, and we would not hear; therefore is this distress come upon us.'

4.  Eliezer in Beraishit 24 appears very anxious to get on with his mission and does not stay in one place longer than necessary, even when Rikva’s family attempts to stall.

Daled.

1.  The premise of the Midrash is that the heartlessness that the brothers displayed with respect to how they disposed of Yosef, only to eat and drink immediately afterwards, would have to eventually be atoned for by the brothers’ descendants (parallel to the liturgical poem recited during Musaf Yom HaKippurim that projects the torture and execution of the Ten Martyrs as payback for the ten brothers’ kidnapping Yosef.)

תהלים פרק י

(ב) בְּגַאֲוַת רָשָׁע יִדְלַק עָנִי יִתָּפְשׂוּ בִּמְזִמּוֹת זוּ חָשָׁבוּ:

Through the pride of the wicked the poor is hotly pursued, they are taken in the devices that they have imagined.

2.  See Daled 1 above.

3.  It would appear that the Midrash is in line with the approach of R. Avraham ben HaRaMBaM in Gimel 2 above.

Heh.

1.  The Midrash as well as the commentaries in Gimel pitted all of the brothers against Yosef, suggesting that even Reuven was proximate to the act of throwing Yosef into the pit  even if he was unaware of Yosef being sold to the Yishmaelim. R. Yosef Bechor Shor in his first explanation supposes that not only Reuven was away, but some of the other brothers as well. In the second and third explanations, Reuven was either engaged in the religious act of repentance for what he had done with Bilha or was far from the brothers because he was taking care of Yaakov. Whichever way you look at it, at least Reuven and his descendants, if not those of some of the others should be given a bye for what ultimately happened to Yosef and therefore cannot be included in the condemnation that is issued against the people in general.

2.  Perhaps in light of Reuven’s having talked the brothers out of killing Yosef, was excluded from the plan to sell Yosef due to a fear on the part of the other brothers that he would attempt to once again derail their plan to get rid of Yosef once and for all. 

Parshat Vayeshev

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/293.html

Vayishlach Answers

VaYishlach 5727

Alef.

      Preparations for meeting with Eisav.

Beraishit 32

a. Reconnaissance; offer of tribute (bribe?)   4-6

b. Informed that Eisav is advancing with an armed force. 7

c. Divides his entourage and possessions into two groups in preparation for a murderous attack. 8-9

d. Prayer. 10-13

e. Sends a series of tributes to Eisav in the hope that Eisav will stand down from any violent intentions. 14-22

f. Transfers encampment to other side of the Ford of the Yabbok (probably for strategic purposes). 23-4

g. Requests blessing from mysterious assailant. 25-33

Beraishit 33

h. Divides up his family members even further. 1-2

i. Bows in an obsequious manner. 3

j. Insistence that Eisav take the tribute. 10-12

k. Declines to be accompanied/protected by Eisav. 13

l. Promises to come to Eisav’s base in Se’ir, (but never does.) 14

m. Declines offer of Eisav leaving men for protection. 15 

Preparations for meeting with Tzofnat Pa’aneach:

Beraishit 43

a. Take tribute to Egypt. 11

b. Take double the money, to cover not only new food but also to repay that which was found in their sacks upon their return from Egypt. 12

c. Take Binyamin as Tzofnat Pa’aneach requested. 13

d. Prayer. 14 

Both lists include sending gifts and prayer. While in Tzofnat Pa’aneach’s case there is only an implied threat of physical harm—the initial incarceration of all of the brothers followed by the retention of Shimon as hostage, concerning Eisav, in light of his threat many years before to kill Yaakov, there is real concern of a vengeance-driven massacre, resulting in trying to minimize the effects of such an attack.  

Beit.

1. א. The difficulty with the verse is why Lavan should be interested in how Yaakov has spent the years during which the brothers have been separated.

     ב.  The Peshat deals with Yaakov’s social status during this time. The Derash is a comment on his religious and moral status.

      ג.  One could answer Maskil LeDavid’s question by positing that Yaakov interprets Yitzchak’s blessing to him as referring to personal social status. Eisav is clearly has been a general, leader of men, whereas Yaakov has been a sojourner in a foreign land, a status that is inferior to that of his brother. Consequently, no advantage had been conferred upon him despite his obtaining the blessing meant for Eisav.

      ד. The answer to Imrei Shefer is found in the RaShI on 27:40:

רש"י בראשית פרק כז פסוק מ

והיה כאשר תריד - לשון צער, כמו (תהלים נה ג) אריד בשיחי, כלומר כשיעברו ישראל את התורה, ויהיה לך פתחון פה להצטער על הברכות שנטל, ופרקת עלו וגו':

The Midrash suggests that Yaakov had maintained the moral and spiritual standards that entitled him to a superior status over Eisav.

2.   In the two examples offered by R. Eliyahu Mizrachi, once the relationship has been established by the first word, i.e., “my master”, “your servant”, there is nothing additional being added by the mention of the name. Yaakov is assuming a subservient role to Eisav, and that is all that matters in this situation. This is in contrast to the first examples that appear in the question, e.g., “your brother, Eisav”, where the name has a particular connotation that is the opposite, i.e., an evil-doer, of what “brotherhood” usually connotes.

3.   א. RaShI may be wondering why Yaakov is so insecure in light of the promises that HaShem Makes at the beginning of Parashat Vayetze (28:15): And, behold, I am with thee, and will Keep thee whithersoever thou goest, and will Bring thee back into this land; for I will not Leave thee, until I have Done that which I have Spoken to thee of.

       ב.  RaShI understands the “מ” as a contraction of “משום”, i.e., because of, due to.

       ג.   The alternate RashI that Nechana cites:

רש"י בראשית פרק טו פסוק א

(א) אחר הדברים האלה - כל מקום שנאמר אחר סמוך, אחרי מופלג. אחר שנעשה לו נס זה שהרג את המלכים והיה דואג ואומר שמא קבלתי שכר על כל צדקותי, לכך אמר לו המקום אל תירא אברם אנכי מגן לך מן העונש שלא תענש על כל אותן נפשות שהרגת, ומה שאתה דואג על קבול שכרך, שכרך הרבה מאד:

The similarity in both sources presumes that when things go particularly well, merits that possibly might be needed at some future point have now been exhausted, rendering the individual particularly vulnerable to new dangers lying ahead.

ד.  The reference in Yirmiyahu 18 is the following:

(verses 9-10) And at one instant I may Speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to Build and to Plant it; but if it do evil in My Sight, that it hearken not to My Voice, then I Repent of the good, wherewith I Said I would Benefit it. 

It would appear that this is the biblical paradigm of “שמא יגרום החטא”.

Gimel.

1. RaShI: Peshat—Yaakov associated the Name of HaShem with the altar (as opposed to directly naming the altar) in order to remember the miracle that was performed on his behalf.

Derash: HaShem Referred to Yaakov as “Keil”. (Becomes a type of “mutual admiration society”, i.e., the same term with which Yaakov refers to God, God Uses in terms of referring to Yaakov. This is parallel to the concept in Berachot 6a whereby not only do the Jewish people wear Tefillin within which are Parashiot that praise HaShem, HaShem Wears Tefillin within which are inscribed praises of the Jewish people.)

     RaShBaM: The altar was directly named with a reference to God, just as people are given names in which God’s Name is contained, e.g., Eliezer, Imanel.

Ibn Ezra: The altar was directly named with a reference to God, in recognition of the Divine Help that Yaakov received.

2.  The Aggadeta in Megilla 18a, that RaShI quotes as a second interpretation, understands the verse as connoting that HaShem Called Yaakov by the term “Keil”.

3.  Tosafot at first presents the alternative “Peshat” interpretation, i.e., Yaakov called the altar by HaShem’s Name as did Moshe and Gidon. He explains that the Talmud did not follow such a course since in the case in Beraishit 33, there is no clear-cut miracle or conceptual pursuit of peace that would readily explain why Yaakov should refer to the altar in this manner.

תורה תמימה הערות בראשית פרק לג הערה יז

יז) מפרש קל מלשון תוקף וחיזוק, וכמו אילי הארץ (יחזקאל י"ז), וע' יבמות כ"א א', וכן מפרש הלשון ויקרא לו קל אלקי ישראל, כמו ויקרא לו אלקי ישראל - קל, והיינו שקרא אלקותו עליו והשרה עליו שכינתו, ועיין בנמוקי רמב"ן. אך אינו מבואר בכלל מה קשה לו ויקרא לו יעקב מבעי ליה, הא כמו כן כתובים כל הפעלים שבפסוק זה בלא שם הכנוי יעקב, ויחן, ויקן, ויצב, וכולם מוסבים על השם יעקב שבתחלת הפסוק, וא"כ גם בפעל ויקרא כן הוא, ובאמת כן דרוש להיות ע"פ חקי הלשון, והרבה מאד לשונות כאלה במקרא, וכמו בפ' תולדות, ויאכל וישת ויקם וילך ויבז עשו, מוסבים כל הפעלים אל שם עשו. ולכן נראה דקצור לשון בגמרא כאן, והכונה כמו שהיה אומר, דאי ס"ד למזבח קרא יעקב קל, א"כ ויקרא לו קל אלקי יעקב מבעי ליה. והבאור הוא, דלא הו"ל ליעקב לקרוא עצמו בשם ישראל [אלקי ישראל], שהרי עדיין לא נצטוה מהקב"ה על שנוי השם יעקב לישראל, ונצטוה על זה לאחר מעשה זו, כמבואר לקמן בפרשה (ל"ה י'), ומה שאמר לו המלאך למעלה לא יקרא עוד שמך יעקב וכו', לא הייה זה צווי רק הודעה לצווי הבא, שכן יהיה, ומדקרא קל אלקי ישראל מוכח דהפירוש הוא שהקב"ה קראו ליעקב קל, ושיעור הפסוק ויקרא לו [ליעקב], קל, ומי קראו - אלקי ישראל. ולא קשה איך קראו הפסוק כאן להקב"ה בשם אלקי ישראל אחרי דעדיין לא נקרא יעקב כן, יען דהכתוב כתב ע"ש העתיד, וכמו על כן לא יאכלו בני ישראל את גיד הנשה. ועיין במ"ר דרשה אחרת בפסוק זה, ונבארה אי"ה בר"פ תבא בפסוק הגדתי היום לה' אלקיך, יעו"ש:

4. RaMBaN and Heidenheim understand Onkelos’ interpretation of the prepositional pronoun “לו” as connoting either “בו” or “עליו”, whereby rather than calling the altar a name, the altar was a prop by/through which to address HaShem.

5.  The Ta’amim do not indicate that the phrase “קל אלקי ישראל” is a continuation of "ויקרא לו", but rather a phrase that describes the content of the “call” of"ויקרא".

כ וַיַּצֶּב־שָׁ֖ם מִזְבֵּ֑חַ וַיִּ֨קְרָא־ל֔וֹ אֵ֖-ל אֱלֹהֵ֥-י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃

   From the Ta’amim in the following verses wherein Leah names her children, one sees that the Trop clearly indicates that the names are continuations of the verb “to call”:

לב וַתַּ֤הַר לֵאָה֙ וַתֵּ֣לֶד בֵּ֔ן וַתִּקְרָ֥א שְׁמ֖וֹ רְאוּבֵ֑ן כִּ֣י אָֽמְרָ֗ה כִּֽי־רָאָ֤ה ה' בְּעָנְיִ֔י כִּ֥י עַתָּ֖ה יֶֽאֱהָבַ֥נִי אִישִֽׁי׃ לג וַתַּ֣הַר עוֹד֮ וַתֵּ֣לֶד בֵּן֒ וַתֹּ֗אמֶר כִּֽי־שָׁמַ֤ע ה' כִּֽי־שְׂנוּאָ֣ה אָנֹ֔כִי וַיִּתֶּן־לִ֖י גַּם־אֶת־זֶ֑ה וַתִּקְרָ֥א שְׁמ֖וֹ שִׁמְעֽוֹן׃ לד וַתַּ֣הַר עוֹד֮ וַתֵּ֣לֶד בֵּן֒ וַתֹּ֗אמֶר עַתָּ֤ה הַפַּ֨עַם֙ יִלָּוֶ֤ה אִישִׁי֙ אֵלַ֔י כִּֽי־יָלַ֥דְתִּי ל֖וֹ שְׁלֹשָׁ֣ה בָנִ֑ים עַל־כֵּ֥ן קָרָֽא־שְׁמ֖וֹ לֵוִֽי׃ לה וַתַּ֨הַר ע֜וֹד וַתֵּ֣לֶד בֵּ֗ן וַתֹּ֨אמֶר֙ הַפַּ֨עַם֙ אוֹדֶ֣ה אֶת־ה' עַל־כֵּ֛ן קָֽרְאָ֥ה שְׁמ֖וֹ יְהוּדָ֑ה וַֽתַּעֲמֹ֖ד מִלֶּֽדֶת׃

6.  R. Saadia Gaon is quoted by Ibn Ezra as interpreting the verse in question that “Elokei Yisrael” was called “Keil” by Yaakov.

ירמיהו פרק כג פסוק ו

בְּיָמָיו תִּוָּשַׁע יְהוּדָה, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁכֹּן לָבֶטַח, וְזֶה שְּׁמוֹ אֲשֶׁר יִקְרְאוֹ יְקֹוָק צִדְקֵנוּ: ס

   The Gaon would similarly interpret this verse in Yirmiyahu that the Navi called HaShem by the Name “Tzidkeinu.”

   Ibn Ezra would invoke the Ta’amim as negating such an interpretation since the term “Keil” is separated by the Trop from “VaYikra Lo”.

7. If “Elokei Yisrael”  is a more specific term than “Keil”, then why isn’t the name of the altar simply “Elokei Yisrael”? Ibn Ezra answers that the addition of “Keil” serves as a descriptive term, in this case that “Elokei Yisrael” is strong and mighty since that is the connotation of “Keil”.

Vayishlach

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/71.html

Vayetze Answers

VaYetze 5727

Alef.

1. There isn’t necessarily a contradiction between these commentators. Sephorno claims that these names had been used previously. Eliyahu ben Amozeg states that the fact that the names were Hebrew rather than Aramaic shows how much Yaakov valued the Hebrew language despite his having been away from Canaan for twenty years. The names could have been in Hebrew, and used by ancestors in Canaan in the past.

2.  A proof to Sephorno’s contention that these names had been previously used by earlier generations is his citing of Beraishit 26:34 where one of Eisav’s wives was named Yehudit, a female equivalent of Yehuda.

Beit.

1. R. Yaakov b’r Shlomo ben Chaviv asks about the apparent anachronism in the Talmud where Reuven’s name is explained as Leah’s calling attention to the fact that whereas Eisav hated Yaakov for supplanting him as the Bechor, Reuven did not harbor similar feelings towards Yosef, although the same thing takes place. Since Yosef had not as yet been born, why should Leah have been naming her son in light of something that was not as yet even possible? Consequently, the commentator feels that the reason for Leah’s naming her first son Reuven that appears in the Bible, i.e., HaShem has Seen my affliction, should suffice.

     It could be said as R. Yaakov states in passing that via picking this name, she was prophesying without realizing it. Even if there is a conscious reason for why a name is given by a parent to a child, the origin for the idea could come from without, even implanted by HaShem. An example of such a phenomenon is the naming of Yishmael:

בראשית פרק טז

(יא) וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ מַלְאַךְ יְקֹוָק הִנָּךְ הָרָה וְיֹלַדְתְּ בֵּן וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ יִשְׁמָעֵאל כִּי שָׁמַע יְקֹוָק אֶל עָנְיֵךְ:

(טו) וַתֵּלֶד הָגָר לְאַבְרָם בֵּן וַיִּקְרָא אַבְרָם שֶׁם בְּנוֹ אֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה הָגָר יִשְׁמָעֵאל:

     When the angel originally stated that Hagar’s child would be called Yishmael, Avraham was not present. Yet when the child is born, the text states that it is Avraham that gives Yishmael his name, a name that had been previously established by the Divine.

2.  Iyun Yaakov asks with regard to the Derasha in Berachot 7b, why when demonstrating how Eisav hated Yaakov regarding the latter’s supplanting him for the Bechora, the verse reflecting how Eisav felt about Yaakov is mentioned before the verse in which he notes that Yaakov’s name is appropriate because it suggests how he has taken advantage of Eisav a number of times—“hitching a ride” upon being born, “buying” the Bechora for a bowl of lentils, masquerading at Eisav in order to obtain Eisav’s blessing—although in the Tora the order of these verses is reversed.

     Perhaps the order of verses that were mentioned in the Talmud was reversed because the point of emphasis was how Eisav felt about his sibling, the reason why this was so was of less significance. Furthermore, when comparing Reuven to Eisav, the comparison focuses upon the attitude of the two men to their competitor-sibling, the reasons for why they might have felt resentment were not the same, e.g., Yosef had not done anything to Reuven twice; Yosef’s name did not suggest anything about replacing Reuven.

3.  Anaf Yosef challenges the Gemora’s Derasha with respect to the contention that Eisav hated Yaakov because of  both the taking of the Bechora as well as dishonestly obtaining the blessing. Yet the verse which describes how Eisav feels towards Yaakov is only about the blessing.

     One could say that since both Rivka and Yaakov were under the impression that Yitzchak’s intention to give Eisav a blessing before he died was due to his viewing Eisav as the first-born, the two were intrinsically connected. (However the fact that Yitzchak gives Yaakov yet another blessing before he leaves for Padan Aram (Beraishit 28:1-4) demonstrates that even if Yitzchak thought that Eisav was the Bechor and had a particular blessing in mind for him, the special blessing that originated with Avraham was never meant for Eisav, whether he was technically the Bechor or not.

Gimel.

1. The question that the commentators are addressing is why now that Leah has given birth to a third child does she expect Yaakov to be any more attentive to her than he was previously?

2.  RaShI: Assuming that Yaakov was aware of the total number of women with whom he would have children as well as the number of tribes he would found, Leah’s having a third son entitles her to be finally considered a full-fledged contributor to the formation of the Jewish people.

     Mincha Belula: Practically speaking, Yaakov will not have to literally “give me a hand” to take care of the three children that I have bore to him, since I cannot manage alone.

     Sephorno: Having a third child establishes my status as a fertile woman who can conceive children.

Daled.

Beraishit 30:20

And Leah said: 'God hath endowed me with a good dowry; now will my husband dwell with me, because I have borne him six sons.' And she called his name Zebulun.

1.  HaRechasim LaBika is bothered by the superfluity of the root זבד, i.e., if the verb form זבדני is used at the beginning of the verse, why does זבד have to be used yet again?

     One could respond that the verb זבדני simply suggests that one has been given something, but no value judgment is being offered regarding the nature of that which one has been endowed. זבד טובmakes clear the desirability and appreciation of the recipient for what has been given.

2.  The three questions that RaShI might be answering via his comment are:

   a. With which one of his wives had Yaakov been living most of the time until this point? (By Leah stating that from this point going forward, she expects Yaakov to be with her, this suggests that until this time he has not been. And therefore we understand how irksome it was for Leah and her children that upon Rachel’s death, Yaakov moves in with Bilhah, Rachel’s handmaiden, rather than Leah.)

b. Why at this particular point in time does Leah expect Yaakov to move in permanently with her rather than with Rachel or one of the handmaidens? (By serving as the mother of the majority of Yaakov’s sons, Leah thinks that she has earned the right to be considered the primary wife.)

c. By Leah being part of the general encampment, it could be said that Yaakov does dwell with her. Obviously, however, this was not satisfactory to Leah, who felt that it was publicly humiliating for her when Yaakov chooses to make his main residence in Rachel’s tent. Leah was not satisfied with having the majority of Yaakov’s children; she also wanted the majority of Yaakov’s attention and physical presence.

Heh.

1.א. The problem is the apparent inconsistency in Targum Onkelos concerning how he translates the verb ראה with respect to HaShem. If it were a problem of avoiding anthropomorphism as much as possible, then it should always be translated in a non-literal manner.

         RaMBaM: Since “seeing” in TaNaCh connotes not only sensory perception, but also intellectual contemplation, the word should never be considered a form of anthropomorphism vis-à-vis HaShem. Consequently, RaMBaM wonders why Onkelos did not simply translate the term simply in every case that it is associated with HaShem. (An answer is given in the Alon HaDeracha, to the effect that whenever the “seeing” is associated with something untoward or sinful, then a more indirect language is used with respect to HaShem.)

        יא"ר: If a human being can actually “see” something, then “seeing” will also be attributed to HaShem. It is only when human beings are incapable of “seeing” what is being discussed, e.g., some internal thought or feeling, that a language of “revealed before HaShem” will appear in Onkelos.

         ShaDaL: In addition to mentioning the position articulated by יא"ר, ShaDaL also mentions the possibility that if the anthropomorphism would bring discredit to HaShem, then Onkelos will diverge from a literal translation, which would not be the case if the anthropomorphism brings credit to HaShem.

ב. The usage of “seeing” in 29:31 is an internal thing. Hatred is an emotion that resides within a person, albeit there could be manifestations in outward actions. But such actions are sometimes ambiguous and cannot be always relied upon to conclude that a certain emotion is extent. The usage of “seeing” in 29:32 appears to relate to actual acts of affliction, something that is not only readily apparent to the human eye, but also something regrettable and negative. Consequently with respect to HaShem, a more indirect language is utilized.

2.  In 29:35 and 30:20, the connotation of the term הפעם is “this time” as opposed to previous times. Leading to the Targum הדא זמנא.

         In Shemot 9:27, when Pharoah says, “I have sinned this time”, it is not the first time that he has sinned, since he has refused to let the Jews leave Egypt previously. Consequently there could not be the stark contrast between this time and previous times that are implied by 29:35 and 30:20.

  In 9:17, Pharoah is requesting that his sin be forgiven this time, once again, the sins for which he should be forgiven have begun a good time before, with his refusal of Moshe’s first and subsequent requests that the Jews be freed.

  In Shemot 18:32, Avraham has been bargaining with HaShem regarding the fate of the inhabitants of Sodom and Amora for a while, and therefore this is not the first time that he is making a request.