Miketz Answers

MiKetz 5725

Alef.

1. With respect to secreting Yosef’s cup among the sacks of the brothers, Yosef wanted a pretense by which he could accuse them of criminal activity and ingratitude, as well as to impress upon them his divining powers, i.e., that they couldn’t hide their crime from him.¹

     The return of the money in their sacks would make them feel that something outside of their control was taking place. (This is reminiscent of many portions of Tom Stoppard’s play, Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.) While it is possible that they were afraid that Yosef was framing them,² we see that the brothers also attribute the manipulation to God Setting them up for punishment due to their having sold Yosef those many years before. ³

2.  Placing Yosef’s cup specifically in Binyamin’s sack would create a situation whereby Yosef could legally insist that Binyamin become his slave, thereby creating the dilemma of whether or not the brothers would leave him behind, further causing grief to their elderly father who was reticent to send Binyamin in the first place.

Beit.

1.  The difference between the three interpretations is the association of the cup with   divination.

RaMBaN: The cup was not the medium of divination, but rather if it is in the hands of others, Yosef will have to use diviners to establish its whereabouts, something that Yosef did not wish to do  because it would be beneath his dignity.

HaMishtadel:⁴ What happens to the cup, e.g., if it drops from one’s hand, if it breaks, if it is lost, etc., are omens regarding what will happen to its owner.

Ben Amozeg:⁵ The commentator mentions various religious practices among different cultures where cups are used: a) Greece—copper cups are struck with one another to produce sounds that are interpreted as predicting the future; b) Tibet—the future is predicted by inspecting a cup overflowing with water; c) Egypt—a cup would be placed next to the deity Irmis,⁶ and then the future would be predicted.

2.  RaMBaN wishes to explain why Yosef instead of simply stating that he uses the cup for divination, says, “…Know ye not that such a man as I will indeed divine?” Why mention a whole category of men if what is intended is that Yosef is a diviner?

3.  The loss of his cup is explained by ShaDaL to indicate a bad omen for Yosef. But Yosef’s comment in 44:15 (see above, question 2) does not refer to something bad that might happen to him, but rather that he is a diviner, implying that he not only uses the cup for predicting the future, but also has other devices by which he was able to discern that one of the brothers had illicitly taken the cup.

4.  Concerning Beraishit 44:8, “Behold, the money, which we found in our sacks' mouths, we brought back unto thee out of the land of Canaan; how then should we steal out of thy lord's house silver or gold?”, Ohr HaChayim states:

 וכנגד מה שנתחכמת לומר כי למרמה נתכוונו בהשבת הכסף, הן אמת כי דבריו יוצדקו אם היה הגביע נחשב אצלם לפעולתו לנחש יהיו הדברים כטענתו, אבל כפי האמת הוא אצלם כשאר כסף בעלמא כי לא ינחשו וגם לא ידעו לנחש בו ואינו אצלם אלא כשאר כסף, והוא אומרו ואיך נגנוב וגו' כסף וגו', פירוש אינו אצלנו הגביע אלא בגדר כסף…

  i.e., we do not attribute any importance to a divining cup. At best, it is merely another piece of silver. And we have shown our honesty by returning the original silver that had been placed in our sacks. Why should we now take additional things?

Gimel.

1.  א) By saying that HaShem “Found” the transgression of your servants, according to Onkelos, this is too much of an anthropomorphism. Consequently, Onkelos interprets that this has gone out “from before HaShem”.

     ב)  Beraishit 44:16—“…God hath Found out the iniquity of thy servants…”, perhaps for RaShI this suggests that somehow HaShem Conducted some sort of investigation and Discovered that the brothers had sinned. However, according to the premise of HaShem’s Omnipotence, He has always “Known” what transpired and therefore the verb “Matza” would appear inappropriate. Consequently RaShI connects the verb with Finding a means by which the brothers can finally be properly punished, rather than Discovering that they had sinned in the first place.

      ג)  It would appear that Ben Amozeg is following the lead of Targum Onkelos, when he says that the verse connotes that what is happening to the brothers is due to some previous transgression rather than anything that is taking place in the present.

2.  Ohr HaChayim offers two interpretations for the phrase (Beraishit 44:16) “Ma Nitzdak”  (lit. how can we justify; fig. how shall we clear ourselves)?

According to the first interpretation, even if we appear before actual judges, we will not be able to emerge judged innocent since HaShem is Behind the events.

According to the second interpretation, the reference is to the original justification that was given to demonstrate that the brothers were honest, i.e., (Ibid. 44:8) “Behold, the money, which we found in our sacks' mouths, we brought back unto thee out of the land of Canaan; how then should we steal out of thy lord's house silver or gold?” If it is Binyamin who stands accused, he did not accompany us on our first trip to Egypt, and consequently, no money was originally secreted in his sack for him to return on the second visit.

Daled.

The Midrash in Beraishit Rabba 92, commenting upon Beraishit 44:16

…הָאֱלֹקים מָצָא אֶת עֲוֹן עֲבָדֶיךָ... ,

puns on the word “מצא” replacing  it with “מצה” which can mean “exhaust, empty”. Consequently the Midrash understands the verse as describing how the sin of the brothers had been preserved for a long time (as if “in a barrel”), and the time had now arrived for the barrel to be emptied out and punishment applied.

Heh.

ברא' מא:נז וְכָל־הָאָ֨רֶץ֙ בָּ֣אוּ מִצְרַ֔יְמָה לִשְׁבֹּ֖ר אֶל־יוֹסֵ֑ף כִּֽי־חָזַ֥ק הָֽרָעָ֖ב בְּכָל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃

1. א) Onkelos is the only one of those listed who changes the preposition “אל” to “מן”. The others keep the preposition as is and reverse the order of the words: “אל יוסף לשבור”. ShaDaL posits that the surrounding nations came to Egypt not to see Yosef; but since the food could only be obtained via Yosef, they had to see him.

ב) The Ta’amim indicate that “לשבר אל יוסף” is a unit separated from “וכל הארץ באו מצרימה”, supporting Onkelos and ShaDaL, as opposed to RaShI, RaShBaM and Ibn Ezra.

ג) RashI, RaShBaM and Ibn Ezra, in order for the Ta’amim to support them, would have had to have had to connect “לשבר” with “באו מצרימה” rather than with “אל יוסף”.

2. 

ברא' מג:כז וַיִּשְׁאַ֤ל לָהֶם֙ לְשָׁל֔וֹם וַיֹּ֗אמֶר הֲשָׁל֛וֹם אֲבִיכֶ֥ם הַזָּקֵ֖ן אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֲמַרְתֶּ֑ם הַֽעוֹדֶ֖נּוּ חָֽי׃

            כח וַיֹּֽאמְר֗וּ שָׁל֛וֹם לְעַבְדְּךָ֥ לְאָבִ֖ינוּ עוֹדֶ֣נּוּ חָ֑י וַֽיִּקְּד֖וּ וישתחו (וַיִּֽשְׁתַּחֲוֽוּ)׃

The two questions that Yosef asks are:

1) What is the welfare of your elderly father?

2) Is he still alive?

The brothers answer in the affirmative to both questions.

The Ta’amim on v. 27 by means of an Esmachta under “אמרתם” clearly break up the questions into two separate parts. However the Ta’amim on v. 28, by virtue of putting the Etnachta under the word “חי” suggest that it’s only one answer, i.e., “Your servant our father is well, in the sense that he is still alive.”

Perhaps the Ta’amim reflect the lack of readiness on the part of the brothers to state that Yaakov was in a good frame of mind. After all, not only had he lost Yosef for whom he appears to continue to mourn, but he also did not know the whereabouts of Shimon who Yosef had kept as a hostage, as well as what might happen to Binyamin whom he only reluctantly allowed to accompany the brothers to Egypt on the second trip since this seemed to be insisted upon by Yosef. Granted that Yaakov was alive, and therefore if “שלום” is limited to a physiological definition, they have answered honestly. But if “שלום” means “to be at peace”, then Yaakov could hardly be described as that.

¹ Beraishit 44:15

And Yosef said unto them: 'What deed is this that ye have done? Know ye not that such a man as I will indeed divine?'

² Ibid. 43:18

And the men were afraid, because they were brought into Joseph's house; and they said: 'Because of the money that was returned in our sacks at the first time are we brought in; that he may seek occasion against us, and fall upon us, and take us for bondmen, and our asses.'

³ Ibid. 42:28

And he said unto his brethren: 'My money is restored; and, lo, it is even in my sack.' And their heart failed them, and they turned trembling one to another, saying: 'What is this that God hath Done unto us?'

Ibid. 35

And it came to pass as they emptied their sacks, that, behold, every man's bundle of money was in his sack; and when they and their father saw their bundles of money, they were afraid.

⁴ ר' שמואל דוד לוצאטו (שד"ל), איטליה (1800-1865)

מחכמי איטליה במאה ה-19, פרשן המקרא, בלשן ומשורר. כבר מנעוריו נודע כתלמיד חכם שקנה לו ידע רב בשפות האירופיות השונות. בהיותו בן 22 פרסם פירוש באיטלקית לסידור התפילה.

⁵ ר' אליהו בן-אמוזג (אם למקרא), איטליה (1822-1900)

רב ופילוסוף, כתב פירוש למקרא. בן למשפחה ששורשיה בפאס שבמרוקו. למרות שגדל ללא הורים (נפטרו בהיותו בן 4), הצליח לרכוש השכלה רחבה וכבר בגיל 18 הוסמך לרבנות, ושימש כרב העיר ליוורנו במשך כחמישים שנה.

בהגותו ביקש להדגיש את היסוד האוניברסליסטי שלטענתו משתקף מהדת היהודית (למשל בספרו "ישראל והאנושות"). ניתן לזהות בכתביו נסיונות להתמודד עם רעיונותיהם של קאנט, הגל, פיכטה, ופילוסופים אחרים.

⁶ J.G. Forlong, Rivers of Life, Pt. II: Sources and Streams of Faith of Man in All Lands Showing the Evolutions of Faith from the Rudest Symbollisms to the Latest Spiritual Development, p. 514.

“Nebo was the inventor of letters corresponding to Toth and Hermes, whom Babylonians called Irmis, and said was ‘the deity of the Temple Towers.’”