why does Yosef tell his brothers that they are off the hook?

“Now don’t be sad or angry over the fact that you sold me here [to Egypt] because G-d has sent me here to provide for your sustenance.”  (Braishis 45:5)  Yosef is conciliatory, he holds no grudges, but more than that, he tells his brothers that they have no need for remorse or regret, as G-d has arranged for everything they did to work out for the best.

So what?

R’ Leibele Eiger (here) frames the question perfectly (not that he needs my haskama).  Recall that the brothers had incorrectly judged Yosef to be deserving of death.  They threw him in a pit simply to avoid direct bloodshed.  They then decided to let him off and “merely” sell him as a slave.  All this was done because their jealously blinded them to Yosef’s true tzidkus.  So what if G-d intervened and not only thwarted their plan, but turned that plan on its head so that Yosef ended up rising to greatness in Egypt?  So what if Yosef could now use his position to now provide food and sustenance for his family, “ki l’michya shlachani…?”  Had Yosef not been sold, surely G-d would have arranged some other means of the family surviving the famine.  The bottom line remains that the brothers  erred in their judgment and if not for G-d’s intervention would have caused tremendous harm.

How does the fact that there was a positive outcome (that they had nothing to do with) absolve the brothers of the need for remorse, regret, and acceptance of guilt?

how Yehudah forced Yosef to reveal himself

1) Amidst speaking of the pain that the loss of Binyamin would cause Ya’akov, Yehudah mentions “ki avdecha eirav es ha’na’ar,” (44:32, Rashi) that he has stepped forward to speak because he put his olam hazeh and olam ha’bah on the line and guaranteed that he would bring Binyamin home.  Yehudah then goes back to telling Yosef that he cannot return without Binyamin and cause Ya’akov such sorrow.  It seems that Yehudah only uses the fact that he is an areiv to justify his speaking up on Binyamin’s behalf, but he never mentions this as a reason to let Binyamin go.  Forget the pain to Ya’akov -- you would think that Yehudah would demand that Binyamin be set free because otherwise he, Yehudah, loses everything!

We see from this parsha, says the Sefas Emes, that Yehudah was able to completely put aside his own self interest and engage in fighting for Binyamin just to do what is right by Ya’akov.  The old Yehudah who could not let the threat of Yosef’s dreams pass is a personality of the past.  It started to vanish when rather than protect his own reputation, he acknowledged that Tamar’s children were his own; it ended here with a speech demonstrating complete selflessness.

 

This selflessness is what eliicited Yosef's revealing of himself.  The Sefas Emes doesn't spell it out, but I think the connection is clear: so long as the brothers were acting in any way to protect and/or serve their own interests, Yosef could remain in hiding, protecting his own interests and identity as well.  But when Yehudah stepped forward and acted without any personal negiyos, purely out of empathy for the pain of another, Yosef was forced to respond in kind and abandon his personal hope of his dreams being completely fulfilled and instead, overcome by empathy for their brother's pain, he was forced to reveal himself.

 

2) We finally come to the conclusion of the drama of Yosef and his brothers, and instead of simchas torah it seems like tisha b’av. “He fell on the neck of his brother Binyamin and cried and Binyamin cried on his neck.” (45:14) Rashi comments that Yosef cried because he foresaw the destruction of the Mikdash, which was built in Binyamin’s portion, and Binyamin cried for the destruction of the Mishkan, which was built in Yosef’s portion.

Why were the brothers crying over the destruction of the Mikdash and Mishkan in what should have been a joyous moment of their reunification?

The Sefas Emes explains that the tragedy of galus came about because there rift between the brothers was not in fact fully healed. Yosef wanted to hold out longer to achieve a complete tikun, but he could not. Yosef and Binyamin therefore cried over the future churban that they knew would inevitably result.

3) Chazal draw a kal v’chomer: if the brothers were so taken aback with shame and remorse when Yosef revealed himself, how much more filled with shame and embarrassment will we be on the day of G-d’s judgment.

The Sefas Emes points out that this is not just some arbitrary comparison, but rather there is an underlying common denominator. Yosef’s revelation proved that all that the brother’s had perceived on the surface –- that they were dealing with some Egyptian viceroy who was playing games with them – was false. It was really Yosef, it was really hashgacha, it was really l’tovah. On the future day of judgment G-d is going to show us that everything in life that we see as negative, as an obstacle to growth, as devoid of kedudah, is really just a disguise, and beneath it all was hashgacha, was tovah, was bracha. G-d is not going to shower the world with new kedusha; He is just going to show us the kedusha that was always immanent.  And then we are going to kick ourselves for not seeing it that way earlier. 

 

(This is a theme that runs through the Sefas Emes; I think you can probably find it in every parsha. Spirituality is not "out there" somewhere, seperate from the day-to-day reality of life, but is already inside, b'pnimiyus.  It just has to be revealed.)

ha'ragil b'ner chanukah -- taking chanukah with you every day

In the Leket Reshimos based on the torah of R’ Noson Wachtfogel the mashgiach is quoted as having said that just as there is what he calls the zericha, the rising of the sun of the chag so to speak, meaning an anticipation that builds for the chag, which is reflected in the halacha of learning hilchos hachag 30 days beforehand, so too there is a shkiya to every chag, a setting of the sun, a slow fading of the light of the chag as we move away from it. 

Zos Chanukah is the last chance to grab a bit of chiyus from Chanukah  -- “Zos asu v’chyu,” Yosef tells his brothers -- before it fades away into the distance. 

The Sefas Emes explains that the mitzvah of menorah is “l’haniacho al pesach beiso,” to leave it by the doorway –- the chag moves on, but the menorah needs to be left behind and stick with us.  The gemara (Shabbos 23b) speaks about “ha’zahir b’mezuzah… ha’zahir b’tzitzis… ha’zahir b’kiddush…,” but uses the term “ha’ragil” – not ha’zahir – “b’ner Chanukah” (see Maharasha).  How can you be “ragil” in doing something that lasts for only just over one week?  By taking the spirit of Chanukah with you and making it part of every day.

When Ya’akov meets Eisav he tells him to go on ahead to Seir, as he, Ya’akov, must travel slowly “l’regel ha’melacha u’l’regel hayeladim.”  Rashi writes that we will only get to Seir with the coming of Moshiach and ultimate judgment for Eisav.  We have to wait for the tikun of Jewish history that started figuratively at the head of galus to make its way down to the bottom of the feet, to the "regel."  (Perhaps this is what Yosef meant when he told his brothers, “Meraglim atem.” ) "Haragil b’ner chanulah"  -- the Radomsker explains that ner Chanukah is our tool to get to the regel, that ultimate tikun.  We are right there at ikvisa d’meshicha, the “heel,” and just need to push a little harder.

is there psak on what constitutes hidur

I don’t know why I never noticed, but it’s interesting that the Shulchan Aruch in the dinim of how to light (siman 571)does not mention at all that you can be yotzei with one candle ner ish u’beiso.  The mechaber writes to light one candle on the first night and then add one more on each succeeding night – mosif v’holeich – without mentioning that this is a hidur and not the baseline.    

The Biur Halacha has an interesting chiddush (d”h yesh omrim) with respect to hidur.  The gemara has a machlokes Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel whether to start with one candle and add more each night or start with eight and subtract one each night.  Even though normally the halacha is like Beis Hillel against Beis Shamai, the M.B. suggests that this rule may be true only with respect to debates about ikar hadin, not with respect to hidur.  The sugya continues that Rabbah bar bar Chana saw two elders, one who lit like Beis Shamai, one who lit like Beis Hillel, indicating that there was not a clear resolution.  This is quoted by the RI"F, even though if halacha is like Hillel it has no relevance.  It seems that since we are speaking about a matter of hidur, perhaps Beis Shamai's view is not totally rejected.

 

I imagine the sevara here is that when it comes to hidur, beauty is in the eye’s of the beholder.  It’s not something that can be formalized as a matter of psak. 

 

(In a comment earlier in the week GU suggested that the ikar takanah was hallel v'hoda'ah and lighting just provides a context for the brachos. Proof: if hadalakah was crucial, how could there be such a fundamental machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel about how to fulfill the mitzvah? [By way of analogy, the Ran in R"H asks how there could have been such different views - shevarim, teru'ah, or shevarim-teruah - of how to blow shofar. It is impossible to imagine that there was no tradition of how to do the mitzvah.] In light of the M.B., the proof is a little less convincing.  Perhaps because the debate was not about the fundamental ikar mitzvah, but rather only about a subjective element of hidur, there was room for a divergency of views to emerge based on different perspectives.)

R’ Shach in Avi Ezri writes that the takanah of mehadrin and mehadin min hamehadrin is not rooted in the din of hidur in kol hatorah kulah.  Let me explain with an example: there is a din to take an esrog, and there is an added element of hidur in having  a beautiful esrog.  The person who has a $30 esrog, the person who has a $100 esrog, and the person who has a $175 esrog are all doing the same mitzvah, just each has invested more or less into it.  Ner chanuklah is different.  The takanos of mehadrin and mehadrin min hamehadrin are not just means of adding beauty to the same one takanah of hadlakah.  They are actually three different ways Chazal instituted of being mekayeim ner chanukah, three different takanos if you will.  (He has a number of proofs -- not for now).

I was wondering whether the M.B.’s chiddush would be true if you understand hidur like R’ Shach does.  If the hidur we are talking about is not just a matter of beauty, the icing on top of the cake of the mitzvah, but is rather something  that speaks to the very definition of how Chazal formulated the mitzvah, then shouldn’t we use klalei psak to determine that issue?

brachos on hadlakah b'tzibur

The Beis Yosef (671:7) paskens that the menorah should be lit in shul with a bracha.  Given that the gemara does not mention any chiyuv to light in shul, and apparently the lighting is only a minhag, how is one allowed to say a bracha?  The Riva”sh (one of the sources for this din) compares it to saying a bracha on hallel of Rosh Chodesh, which is also only a minhag.  The problem is, as the Chacham Tzi asks, is that the Beis Yosef himself holds that a bracha may not be recited on hallel of Rosh Chodesh because he holds that we don’t say brachos on minhagim.  How then can the Beis Yosef here pasken that one should say brachos on the lighting?

R’ Wahrman z”l suggested that we can use the chiddush of R’ Ya’akov Emden that we have been discussing (here and here) to answer this question as well.  Since in the case of ner chanukah the brachos are part of the definition of the cheftza shel mitzvah, they must go hand in hand with lighting -- a ner lit without brachos is not a ner chanukah.  In the case of other mitzvos and minhagim, the brachos are separate from the ma’aseh mitzvah itself.

The GR”A comments on this din in S.A. that the lighting of menorah is like hallel on leil Pesach, which is said even according to the Beis Yosef in shul with a bracha for the sake of pirsumei nisa (the Rama disagrees and says hallel is only said at home as part of the haggadah).  Apparently the kiyum of pirsumei nisa, even if done only as part of a minhag, warrants its own brachos. 

I once heard from a talmid chacham that the reason we do hadlakas neiros between mincha and ma’ariv in shul rather than wait until after ma'ariv is not simply because if we wait until after ma’ariv everyone will run out (see M.B.), but rather because we need a “shem tzibur” to accomplish pirsumei nisa.  Since ma’ariv is yet to be davened, that collective unit of a tzibur still exists at the time of hadlakah.  However, once ma’ariv is finished and people are prepared to leave, there is no halachic “glue” so to speak that defines the group as a tzibur anymore.  There may be 10 people standing around, but that does not mean they form a cohesive unit called a tzibur. 

...v'al hamilchamos

“Al ha’nisim v’al hapurkan… v’al hamilchamos.”  It doesn’t say that we give thanks for winning the war – it just says that we give thanks for the milchamos, for the war itself.  Why are we giving thanks for war?

Rashi writes that Moshe Rabeinu’s bracha of “Bareich Hashem cheilo” given to sheivet Levi was a bracha for the small band of Chashmonaim that managed to stand up to the entire Greek army.

I heard b’shem R’ Dovid Kviat that this is what we are giving thanks for in Al haNisim -- the very fact that the Chashmonaim went to war despite the tremendous odds against them is itself a remarkable show of courage and faith.  Whether they won or lost is secondary; that part is b'yad Hashem.  We are celebrating the fact that they stuck their neck out to stand up for what is right.

more on the unique role of brachos of ner chanukah

The Rambam writes (Hil Chanukah 3:4-5)

  כל שחייב בקריאת המגילה, חייב בהדלקת נר חנוכה; והמדליק אותה בלילה הראשון, מברך שלוש ברכות

etc.

The Rambam then goes on to say there is a mitzvah of saying hallel with a bracha, and continues:

אף על פי שקריאת ההלל מצוה מדברי סופרים, מברך עליה אשר קידשנו במצוותיו וציוונו, כדרך שמברך על המגילה ועל העירוב--שכל ודאי של דבריהם, מברכין עליו.

The Rambam tells us not to be troubled by the fact that we say a bracha on the derabbanan of hallel because it is no different than megillah and eiruv where we also recite brachos. 

Why does the Rambam address himself to this issue of how we are allowed to recite a bracha on a derabbanan only in halacha 5 when he speaks about hallel and not in halacha 4 where he speaks about the brachos on ner Chanukah?  Those brachos are also on a takanah derabbanan, and furthermore, the gemara addresses itself to the question in the context of new Chanukah, not hallel!

Secondly, why does the Rambam prove that you can say a bracha on a derabbanan from the examples of megillah and eiruv and not from the case of ner Chanukah which he just spoke about in halacha 4?!

Based on the chiddush we quoted yesterday from R’ Ya’akov Emden, the Rambam makes fits beautifully.  R’ Y.E. suggested that the brachos on ner Chanukah are different than all other brachos is that they serve to define the ner as a cheftza shel mitzvah and not just as a lamp in your living room.  The brachos are part and parcel of the mitzvah of hadlakah, not a separate din. 

Therefore, the Rambam was not bothered by why we recite brachos on ner chanukah.  Without a bracha, it’s just a lamp in your living room – those brachos are a crucial component of the mitzvah.  The Rambam was only bothered by why we can say brachos on other mitzvos derabbanan where the bracha is just an added element.

This also explains why the Rambam used the examples of megillah and eiruv and not ner chanukah to make his case for reciting brachos on all dinim derabbanan.

(I found this diyuk in Rambam in R’ Moshe Brown’s (no relation) sefer Ma’adanei Moshe, but he explains it just slightly differently [he says that there is a kiyum of pirsumei nisa inherent in the hadlakah which must be accomplished by the recitation of brachos], with a nafka minah l’dina, so ayen sham if you are interested. 

G.U. in a comment yesterday also suggested that perhaps the ikar takanah is the hoda’ah through brachos and al hanisim and the hadlakah is just a means to provide a context to that expression.  This is a beautiful sevara that explains a lot of other things as well...)

birchos ner chanukah -- what define the ner as a cheftza shel mitzvah

The gemara (Shabbos 21b) questions how one can hold kavsa ain zakuk lah when there is a din that the candles have to burn ad she’tichleh regel min hashuk.  The gemara gives two answers: 1) you have until ad she’tichleh regel to light, but once you light you are not responsible if the candles go out; 2) you have to put in enough oil to last ad she’tichleh regel. 

Assuming the two answers are in disagreement, a nafka minah would be whether someone who comes home after the time of tichleh regel min hashuk can light.  According to the first answer, ad she’tichleh regel is a time limit; according to the second answer, it’s just a shiur in how much oil you need.  Tosfos paskens that since the issue is a machlokes, you can light late m’safeik, while the Rambam disagrees. 

Shulchan Aruch (672:2) ruless that l’chatchila one should try to light on time in consideration for the Rambam’s view, but b’dieved one can rely on the view of Tos and light all night.

The Be’er Heitev (based on MG”A) points out that the S.A. seems to omit an important qualification.  Since lighting later involves a sfeika d’dina, it would seem that you should light without a bracha.  Yet, the S.A. just says that if you are late, b’dieved you can light -– no word aboutthe bracha (see M.B. is Sha’ar haTziyun).  Why does the mechabeir omit this important detail?

R’ Ya’akov Emden answers that there is a difference between brachos on ner Chanukah and all other brachos.  If you just light a candle, esp if you in chutz la’aretz where we light indoors, the only thing that distinguishes what you are doing as being l’shem mitzvah as opposed to just wanting to have light in the room is the fact that you recite brachos on the hadlakah.  Unlike the bracha on shofar, or the bracha on lulav,where it is clear what the cheftza shel mitzvah is and the bracha is just added icing on the cake, when it comes to ner chanukah it is the bracha that defines the ner as a cheftza shel mitzvah.  It is therefore part and parcel of the hadlakah itself.  Whenever you do a hadlakah, even m’safeik, the brachos must be part of the ma'aseh mitzvah.

rotzeh Hashem es yerei'av -- Hashem does ritzuy and reaches out to us

It’s easy to get all caught up in Chanukah and forget there is parshas ha’shavua too.  I want to share a beautiful Zohar and a question. 

The Zohar (link) asks why the pasuk says “Rotzeh Hashem es yerei’av” instead of saying “Rotzeh Hashem b’yerieav.”  The word “es” usually means we are dealing with a transitive verb, yet here b’pashtus the pasuk means Hashem is filled with love for those who fear him – it’s an intransitive verb. 

The Zohar puts a new twist on the pasuk.  The word “rotzeh” here is like the word “ritzuy.”  If you have a breakdown in a relationship with a friend, you have to go out and do ritzuy, piyus, to restore the friendship.  A person can have a breakdown in their relationship with G-d as well.  “Rotzeh Hashem es yerei’av” means that Hashem doesn’t wait for the person to come back; he goes out and does “ritzuy” and re-ignites and rebuilds the ratzon within the person. 

The Zohar continues that “Vayiritzuhu min ha’bor” means that in addition to Yosef being physically taken from the prison pit, there was ritzuy and piyus involved.  Yosef had to make peace with what had transpired, he had to overcome the anger and depression at being thrown into that pit and accept it as just another hurdle on his path to greater things. 

I have nothing to add; I just wanted to pass it along because it is a nice thought. 

Now for the question:

 וישלח ויקרא וגו' ר' יהושע דסכנין בשם רבי לוי פתרין היו אותו אלא שלא היה קולן נכנס באזניו שבע פרות הטובות שבע בנות אתה מוליד שבע פרות הרעות שבע בנות אתה קובר וכן אמרו שבע שבלים הטובות שבע מלכיות אתה מכבש שבע שבלים הרעות שבע אפרכיות מורדות בך הה"ד (משלי יד) בקש לץ חכמה ואין אלו חכמי פרעה וחרטומי מצרים ודעת לנבון נקל זה יוסף

The Midrash gives some examples of interpretations of Pharoah’s dreams suggested by his advisors, and applies the pasuk of “bakeish leitz chochma v’ayin” (Mishlei 14:6) to their unsuccessful efforts.  Yosef, however, is “da’as l’navon nakeil,” as his interpretation was correct.

What does this Midrash tell us that we don’t already know from the pesukim?  Surely the details of Pharoah’s advisors misinterpretations are not important, and we also know already that Yosef’s interpretation was right.  What are Chazal adding to our understanding of the parsha and what are they trying to teach us?

Sefas Emes on the miracle of the first day of Chanukah

The Beis Yosef famously asks why we celebrate the first day of Chanukah.  There was enough oil for one day, so the miracle really started from the second day onward. 

The Sefas Emes writes that the eight nights of Chanukah represent the tikun of the seven midos/sefiros that make up the natural world, and the eighth is the l’ma’lah min hateva of the supernatural. 

 

Every person has a particular midah that is predominant -- some people tend towards chessed; other people tend towards din/geduvah, etc. -- but you can’t serve G-d with one midah alone and no single midah can exist alone.  Every single midah needs to have within it elements and shades of all the others as well. 

Let me give you a very bad analogy.  You may like vanilla ice cream; I like chocolate.  If you look at the ingredients on the containers, it turns out that most of what goes into either one is the same stuff.  You can’t say, “I like vanilla ice cream so get that stuff that goes into the chocolate out of there.”  You can’t make vanilla ice cream without those ingredients – you just need to accentuate the vanilla flavor so it is dominant.  Same with the midos. 

Now we can answer the Beis Yosef's question.  Chanukah is not eight days of celebration; it's one celebration spread across eight days.  If the ability for the menorah to be lit on night 2, 3,… 8, i.e. for the tikun of the midos going down the line for all eight days did not exist, then the menorah would not have been able to be lit on that first night either.  Since every midah/day/candle requires the others to be present as well, the lighting of the candle on the first night presupposes and includes the potential for there to be a miraculous lighting on all the other nights as well.

kavsah ain zakuk lah on erev Shabbos

Just to clarify the previous post a little bit -- Yesh lachkor whether the idea of kavsah ain zakuk lah means a partial kiyum hamitzva is sufficient, or whether it means it is k’ilu the whole mitzvah has been completed already.

The pashtus is that kavsah ain zakuk lah is because a partial kiyum is enough.  Really, your candle should burn longer, but even if it burned 5 minutes instead of 30, Chazal said it’s enough.

However, if you use the lomdus of the Nimukei Yosef that I suggested last post, i.e. it is as if the entire process of burning takes place the second you start the fire, then kavsah ain zakuk lah is not because a partial kiyum is enough, but rather because it is as if everything is done already – you already have a full kiyum the second you light the candle.

There is a machlokes between the Terumas haDeshen and the Taz (673:s”k 9) if your chanukah candles go out before shekiya on erev Shabbos whether or not you have to relight them.  On a regular night of Chanukah, when you light after dark, the kiyum mitzvah happens as soon as you light.  Therefore, kavsa ain zakuk lah.  On erev Shabbos, however, the kiyum mitzvah does not happen until after dark, long after you light the candles.  Therefore, the Taz holds that if you still have time to relight before shekiya, you have to do so – as long as you can make an effort to get in the kiyum, you should.  The Terumas haDeshen disagrees.  Since Chazal said to do hadlakah before shekiya, once you light the mitzvah is done and kavsah ain zakuk lah.  

If kavsah ain zakuk lah means a partial kiyum mitzvah is enough, then it would seem that the Taz is right.  You need to do your best to at least have some kiyum mitzvah get off the ground.  However, if kavsah ain zakuk lah means time or the future action that will unfold (or whatever other formulation you use) is compressed into the initial moment of lighting, then the Trh”D seems correct -- once the hadlakah happens, the kiyum mitzvah that will unfold later counts as if it occurred at that moment already.