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

Parshat Miketz

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/73.html

Parshat Vayeishev answers

VaYeshev 5727
Alef.

1. Usually, the hatred that the other brothers felt for Yosef is explained as classical sibling rivalry, with each of them wishing to be the “apple of their parent’s eye.” Akeidat Yitzchak understands their upset as stemming from comparing the fates of Yishmael and Eisav with what lay in store for them, once it was determined that only Yosef and no one else would have  bestowed upon him the special blessing that originated with Avraham.
2. “MiKol Banav” could mean more than the other brothers, implying that he loves them too, just that he loves Yosef more. However, if the referent is Beraishit 14:20, then just as “Ma’aser only MiKol” contrasts that which is Ma’aser with that which is not or Chullin, i.e., there is Kedusha in a percentage that is separated, but none in the remainder, then similarly, love will only be extended to one of the children, Yosef, but none to the others.
3. In Beraishit 27, Rivka obviously believed that Yitzchak had only one special Beracha to bestow, and if he would give it to Eisav, then by definition he could not give anything to Yaakov. Consequently, she plotted so that Yaakov would be in position to obtain that blessing. However, by virtue of Yitzchak giving Yaakov a second blessing before he sets out for Padan Aram (28:3-4), it is clear that Yitzchak in fact never intended to give Eisav the “special” blessing, precluding the need for the entire subterfuge. However, the essential premise, that there is a single blessing that can be given to only one of the two sons, is born out by this story.
4. In 37:2 where it is mentioned that Yosef would report on his brothers, no mention is made of any reaction on their respective parts. However in 37:4 after Yaakov gives Yosef a special coat indicating his special and in the minds of the brothers, exclusive affection for him, this is when they begin to hate him, leading Akeidat Yitzchak to conclude that they were prepared to assume that he would outgrow being a talebearer, but Yaakov’s love for him wasn’t so much a function of Yosef’s stage in life, but rather Yaakov’s feelings towards the members of his family, and there was no reason to assume that that would change over time.

Beit.

1. “כינוי הפועל”—lit. is actively being done, to which the actor is contributing, e.g., an interpretation of the events. Beraishit Rabba and RaShI attribute to Yosef an active involvement in the reporting of the activities of his brothers. Furthermore, from the response on the part of God, i.e., that Yosef is punished “in kind” for each of his reports  suggests that his interpretations were incorrect.

     “כנוי הפעול”—lit. there is only passive involvement. This would appear to be more in accordance with Abrabanel who states that Yosef did not even see the things that his brothers were purported doing, but rather would merely convey to his father the things that people were saying about them, leaving it up to Yaakov to decide whether or not and how to respond.

2. I would respond to Gur Aryeh by invoking Avot 1:6:

יהושע בן פרחיה אומר עשה לך רב וקנה לך חבר והוי דן את כל האדם לכף זכות:

            (Judge everyone giving them the benefit of the doubt.)

     There is no mention that Yosaf approached his brothers in order to verify whether his      interpretations of what they were doing were accurate. Consequently, at the very least, if it was true, then he would be guilty of Lashon HaRa   and if it wasn’t, then Motzee Shem Ra would come into play.

3. Interestingly, in Chapt. 37, while it describes the various parties to whom Yosef was sold, the text never states that he was sold to be an Eved (slave/servant.) Even in Chapt. 39, when Mrs. Potiphera makes her accusation against him (39:19) , she uses the term “Eved”, modifying it so that she emphasizes that Yosef’s presence is her husband’s fault, i.e., “your servant”, but her choice of language might have been simply to paint Yosef in as unflattering a light as possible. Even in prison, Yosef is not referred to as a slave. The only other time that Yosef is referred to as an Eved is in 41:12 when the butler recalls how someone with whom he was in prison had explained his and his fellow prisoner’s dream, and perhaps that individual would be able to explain Pharoah’s dreams.
4. In 37:2 where mention is made of Yosef’s bringing back evil reports, it also states that he shepherded sheep along with his brothers. This suggests that while working with them, he also observed what they were doing and reported back to Yaakov about his brothers’ activities. If the reports included things that he did not witness, there was no reason to have preceded this action with the fact that he actually spent time with his brothers outside the parental home.
5. Usually words are not “brought”, they are recounted, told, etc. Perhaps Abrabanel thinks that the verb “VaYaveh” suggests that he is bringing reports not that he himself has created, but rather that were circulating about his brothers composed by others.

Gimel.

1. a) Could not speak with him: Tanchuma Yashan; R. Yona Ibn Genach; RaShI; Abrabanel.

b) Could not accept/listen to his words: ShaDaL; Eliyahu ben Amozag.

2.   The practical difference between the two approaches would appear to be whether the brothers were ever able to hear Yosef’s words in terms of his dreams and other communications, and they then could file the words away for future reference as Yaakov appears to do (37:11) and the only hindrance was that they couldn’t have a give-and-take with Yosef because of their hatred, or they were so repulsed by Yosef that not only would they not communicate with him, they would never pay much mind to anything that he would say, including his account of his dreams. This would have an effect at a later point in the sense that when the brothers come down to Egypt in order to purchase food due to the famine in Canaan, anyone who remembers the dreams, like Yosef (42:9)  might recognize their fulfillment when all of these individuals are bowing down to Yosef upon their arrival in Egypt. Those who never listened to the dreams naturally could not be reminded of them at a later point.

3.   בראשית פרק לז

 ויוספו עוד שנא אתו על חלמתיו ועל דבריו:

“The brothers continued to hate him… for his words”—apparently before he told the dreams, they couldn’t stand to even listen to his words, now all the more so when they hear his describing dreams that sound as though he believes that he will rule over all of them.

4.   Abrabanel would appear to be consistent in both of his comments. Earlier he stated that Yosef would only speak well about his brothers. He did feel that it was his responsibility to convey to his father what others were saying about the brothers; he himself however would only speak positively to them. Similarly in this comment, Yosef only says nice things, even if his brothers resent him so much that they refuse to respond or even recognize that he has offered greetings.

Verses cited in R. Yona Ibn Genach:

Yechezkel 5:16

When I shall send upon them the evil arrows of famine, that are for destruction, which I will send to destroy you; and I will increase the famine upon you, and will break your staff of bread.

Ibid. 3:27

But when I speak with thee, I will open thy mouth, and thou shalt say unto them: Thus saith the Lord GOD; he that heareth, let him hear, and he that forbeareth, let him forbear; for they are a rebellious house.

Shemot 7:7

And Moses was fourscore years old, and Aaron fourscore and three years old, when they spoke unto Pharaoh.

Devarim 12:29

When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest in to dispossess them, and thou dispossessest them, and dwellest in their land;

Beraishit 25:26

And after that came forth his brother, and his hand had hold on Esau's heel; and his name was called Jacob. And Isaac was threescore years old when she bore them.

Devarim 23:22

When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not be slack to pay it; for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it will be sin in thee.

Yeshayahu 53:10

Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of the LORD might prosper by his hand:

Beraishit 37:4

And when his brethren saw that their father loved him more than all his brethren, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him.

I Shmuel 25:40

And when the servants of David were come to Abigail to Carmel, they spoke unto her, saying: 'David hath sent us unto thee, to take thee to him to wife.'

Beraishit 30:15

And she said unto her: 'Is it a small matter that thou hast taken away my husband? and wouldest thou take away my son's mandrakes also?' And Rachel said: 'Therefore he shall lie with thee to-night for thy son's mandrakes.'