Yosef's tochacha; Bnei Yisrael or bnei Yisrael?; choleh on 10 Teves

Chazal famously comment on the pasuk

 וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יוֹסֵ֤ף אֶל־אֶחָיו֙ אֲנִ֣י יוֹסֵ֔ף הַע֥וֹד אָבִ֖י חָ֑י וְלֹֽא־יָכְל֤וּ אֶחָיו֙ לַעֲנ֣וֹת אֹת֔וֹ כִּ֥י נִבְהֲל֖וּ מִפָּנָֽיו׃

that Yosef's words were words of rebuke

אַבָּא כֹּהֵן בַּרְדְּלָא אָמַר, אוֹי לָנוּ מִיּוֹם הַדִּין אוֹי לָנוּ מִיּוֹם הַתּוֹכֵחָה, ... יוֹסֵף קְטַנָּן שֶׁל שְׁבָטִים הָיָה וְלֹא הָיוּ יְכוֹלִים לַעֲמֹד בְּתוֹכַחְתּוֹ, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: וְלֹא יָכְלוּ אֶחָיו לַעֲנוֹת אֹתוֹ כִּי נִבְהֲלוּ מִפָּנָיו, לִכְשֶׁיָּבוֹא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וְיוֹכִיחַ כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד לְפִי מַה שֶּׁהוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים נ׳:כ״א): אוֹכִיחֲךָ וְאֶעֶרְכָה לְעֵינֶיךָ, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.

Where is the rebuke in Yosef's asking whether his father was still alive?  Why did this question throw the brothers into a state of shock?

The Sheiris Yisrael reminds us of the Rashi at the beginning of P' VaYeishev,  ושהיה זיו איקונין של יוסף דומה לו, that tells us that Yosef looked like Yaakov.  Sometimes a child is the spitting image of his parent; that's how it was with Yosef and Yaakov.

Yehudah's argument to let Binyamin go rested primarily on the effect the loss of Binyamin would have on Yaakov   וְהָיָ֗ה כִּרְאוֹת֛וֹ כִּי־אֵ֥ין הַנַּ֖עַר וָמֵ֑ת וְהוֹרִ֨ידוּ עֲבָדֶ֜יךָ אֶת־שֵׂיבַ֨ת עַבְדְּךָ֥ אָבִ֛ינוּ בְּיָג֖וֹן שְׁאֹֽלָה  It is his father's health and well-being which Yehudah professes is uppermost in his mind.  Even when he brings up the fact that he personally guaranteed Binyamin's safety and put his olam ha'ba on the line, Yehudah does not focus on himself; he again puts the focus on his father,  אִם־לֹ֤א אֲבִיאֶ֙נּוּ֙ אֵלֶ֔יךָ וְחָטָ֥אתִי לְאָבִ֖י כׇּל־הַיָּמִֽים׃.  What dedication to their parent!  What love for Yaakov!

And then Yosef burst the bubble.

How, if Yaakov is uppermost on your minds, could you see his spitting image before you and not make the connection? 

There is a gezeira that one who dies is eventually forgotten. הַע֥וֹד אָבִ֖י חָ֑י?  If he is not, your forgetting about him is understandable, but if he is, and he is uppermost in your thoughts as you claim, how have you not recognized me?

The brothers could not answer כִּ֥י נִבְהֲל֖וּ מִפָּנָֽיו, they saw Yosef's face and it suddenly clicked.  It was the image of their father that they saw, but that image, as Yosef perceived, had retreated to the back recesses of their mind once they were no longer in their father's presence.

I would just add to the Sheiris Yisrael that it was the  דמות דיוקנו של אביו which had appeared to Yosef (39:11 in Rashi) and saved him from sinning with Eishes Potifar.  Yaakov's visage never left Yosef's imagination.  His brothers, however, had not lived up to that same standard.

2) The pasuk describes Bn"Y coming to Mitzrayim (46:5)

 וַיָּ֥קׇם יַעֲקֹ֖ב מִבְּאֵ֣ר שָׁ֑בַע וַיִּשְׂא֨וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל אֶת־יַעֲקֹ֣ב אֲבִיהֶ֗ם וְאֶת־טַפָּם֙ וְאֶת־נְשֵׁיהֶ֔ם בָּעֲגָל֕וֹת אֲשֶׁר־שָׁלַ֥ח פַּרְעֹ֖ה לָשֵׂ֥את אֹתֽוֹ׃

Yaakov is referred to by that name, but his children are referred to as bnei Yisrael -- not as bnei Yaakov.  Why the shift?

The gemara (Chulin 100) has a machlokes Tanaim whether the issur of gid ha'nasheh applied only post-mattan Torah, or did it apply earlier.  The pasuk tells us  עַל־כֵּ֡ן לֹֽא־יֹאכְל֨וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל אֶת־גִּ֣יד הַנָּשֶׁ֗ה.  Does Bnei Yisrael with a capital B refer to the Jewish nation, which only came into existence later at mattan Torah, or is it a lower case b and it refers to the children of Yaakov?  R' Yehudah's view is that the term B/bnei Yisrael applies pre-mattan Torah as well, as we see from our pasuk.  

Seforno comments: 

וישאו בני ישראל – שהיו צריכים מכאן ואילך להיות ״עם בני ישראל״, להשתרר עם אלהים ועם אנשים המתקוממים, בלכתם עתה אל אדמת נכר.

The pasuk deliberately uses the term Bnei Yisrael -- as opposed to Yaakov -- because from this moment onward the shevatim needed to take on the identity of their father that the name Yisrael represented, namely, the ability to wrestle with and fight against outside forces.  

3) The Pninei Halacha put out by Mir Yeshiva discusses the question of someone too ill to fast on 10 Teves but who wants to serve as shat"z and get an aliya because they have yahrzeit on that day.  Would eating less than the shiur help?

This question would seem to hinge on the machlokes between the Marcheshes and R' Chaim that we discussed earlier this year.  According to the Marcheshes, a choleh on a fast day should, if possible, eat less than the shiur and by doing so does not lose the kiyum of the taanis.  The lomdus: the shiur of issurei achila, with respect to a taanis or anything else, is always a k'zayis.  True, chatzi shiur is forbidden, but chatzi shiur is its own independent issur.  Eating chatzi shiur would be like, for example, doing an aveira of speaking lashon ha'ra on a taanis.  The person did an issur, but that does not negate their taanis, as it was not an issur achila.  

R' Chaim held that a choleh is exempt from fasting since b'makom choli lo gazru rabbanan.  If the person chooses not to eat they accomplish nothing; it would be like voluntarily skipping breakfast and lunch on any given day of the week -- no kiyum mitzvah, no shem taanis.  A person who is not included in the chiyuv taanis cannot say aneinu or get an aliya for the kri'as haTorah of a taanis.

safeik sakanah -- why have shuls not reinstated mask mandates?

Per the NYC Dept. of Health:

As New York City enters the holiday season, COVID-19 and other seasonal illnesses are seeing unusually high concurrent spikes. To slow the transmission of these viruses, the New York City Health Commissioner issued a Health Advisory that urges New York City residents to use high-quality masks when indoors and in crowded outdoor settings

The referenced Health Advisory states:

1. Everyone, even if vaccinated and even if they have had COVID-19 or flu before, should wear a mask as follows:

    a. Wear a mask at all times when in an indoor public setting, including inside  stores, offices, lobbies, hallways, elevators, public transportation, schools, child care facilities, and other public shared spaces, and when in a crowded outdoor setting. 

Given the standard set down by certain YU Roshei Yeshiva, i.e. "The Torah absolutely condemns and forbids acting in a way which - under any circumstances [emph mine]- may allow for the death of a Jew," I don't understand why shuls (e.g. Young Israel and the like) which align themselves under the YU umbrella have not brought back mask requirements.  Surely there are elderly, immunocompromised, and others who come to minyan and thereby risk exposure to RSV, Covid, flu, and other illness that can prove life threatening. As R' Meir Twersky wrote elsewhere, "It is self-evident that even if the calculated risk to specific individuals within any given minyan were negligible, this calculation would be entirely immaterial because of the danger posed to the k’lal as a whole by convening minyanim. It is a near-certainty -- if not an absolute certainty -- that amongst the many individuals who will elect to participate in such widespread minyanim, there will be at least a few who will indeed contract this dangerous disease."  

L'shaitaschem, what's the heter to now hold maskless minyanim and create a situation of safeik sakanah?  

Even if one does not want to go as far as cancelling tefilah b'tzibur entirely, surely the slight inconvenience of wearing a mask should not only be recommended, but should be halachically obligatory given the danger?

incongruous facts

It was only after being locked up for three days in prison by Yosef, only after he had told them they could go home, provided they leave Shimon behind and agree to bring back Binyamin, that the brothers said to themselves

 וַיֹּאמְר֞וּ אִ֣ישׁ אֶל־אָחִ֗יו אֲבָל֮ אֲשֵׁמִ֣ים ׀ אֲנַ֘חְנוּ֮ עַל־אָחִ֒ינוּ֒ אֲשֶׁ֨ר רָאִ֜ינוּ צָרַ֥ת נַפְשׁ֛וֹ בְּהִתְחַֽנְנ֥וֹ אֵלֵ֖ינוּ וְלֹ֣א שָׁמָ֑עְנוּ עַל־כֵּן֙ בָּ֣אָה אֵלֵ֔ינוּ הַצָּרָ֖ה הַזֹּֽאת׃ (42:21)

Abarbanel asks (see Shem m'Shmuel as well): why did it take them these three days to come to this realization?  Why didn't it hit them as soon as they were accused of being spies, or from the first moment they were locked up?

Abarbanel answers that when the brothers originally were accused by Yosef, they could easily have dismissed his accusations as those of a lunatic, a crazy dictator who for some reason took a disliking to them.  However, after the three days in lockup, look at how Yosef addressed the brothers:

וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֤ם יוֹסֵף֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁ֔י זֹ֥את עֲשׂ֖וּ וִֽחְי֑וּ אֶת־הָאֱלֹקים אֲנִ֥י יָרֵֽא

 אִם־כֵּנִ֣ים אַתֶּ֔ם אֲחִיכֶ֣ם אֶחָ֔ד יֵאָסֵ֖ר בְּבֵ֣ית מִשְׁמַרְכֶ֑ם וְאַתֶּם֙ לְכ֣וּ הָבִ֔יאוּ שֶׁ֖בֶר רַעֲב֥וֹן בָּתֵּיכֶֽם

First of all, he told them that he is a G-d fearing person, i.e. he is a moral individual.  Then he told them that not only can they return home, but they can also pack their bags with food.  The only condition he set is leaving behind Shimon as a means of guaranteeing their return.  

This is not the rantings of a crazy person or person who just hates them.  אֶת־הָאֱלֹקים אֲנִ֥י יָרֵֽא, these are the words of someone who seems to be a law abiding, ethical person, and who only wants to do the right thing.

The brothers could not in their minds find a way to bridge the incongruity of their having been locked up and wrongly accused and the Yosef who now presented himself as a reasonable, ethical person.  The only conclusion they were left with is that it is not some madness or hatred on Yosef's part, but rather it was their own misdeed in selling Yosef which caused Hashem to visit this strange punishment upon them.

This Abarbanel caught my attention because it is this incongruity that the brothers found so unbelievable which I think characterizes modern antisemitism more than the antisemitism of previous times.  

I just finished reading One Hundred Saturdays: Stella Levi and the Search for a Lost World, and there is one passage that stood out in my mind (I'm sorry I already returned the book to the library and can't quote it exactly).  Stella Levi had a sister who was an intellectual; she used to read anything she could get her hands on, she used to sit and talk late into the night about philosophy, politics, etc.  After the war, when Stella was once relating some of her experiences (she survived Auschwitz) in her sister's presence, she found that her sister had gone off and was sitting alone listening to the 9th symphony.  She could not deal with the incongruity of a "civilized" world, the world of humanism, liberalism, ideas and ideals that she had believed in before the war, and what had actually happened. 

Even when news of the concentration camps seeped out, people found it unbelievable because it was so at odds with the image of German culture and reason.  Surely reasonable, intelligent, ethical people would never behave in such a way. 

And yet, they did.  

a yeshiva built on arvus

I think R' Drukman's own words are the most fitting memorial for him.  

Why of all his children did Yaakov select Yehuda to send ahead to establish a yeshiva in Goshen?  R' Drukman quoted the Tiferes Shlomo of Radomsk as explaining that it was Yehuda who in last week's parsha stepped up to guarantee the return of Binyamin (see this post).  The gemara (B"B 173) derives the principle of arvus from Yehudah's words אָֽנֹכִי֙ אֶֽעֶרְבֶ֔נּוּ (43:9):

אמר רב הונא, מניין לערב [קבלן] שמשתעבד, דכתיב אנכי אערבנו מידי תבקשנו

The bedrock upon which Yaakov wanted a yeshiva built is this concept of arvus, of accepting responsibility for others.  It's not enough to lock oneself away and learn Torah; one must also reach out to others, to engage them in learning, to connect them to Torah.   We have a responsibility for and to the klal.  I think that sums up R' Drukman's life mission perfectly.

it's all one dream

Why was Yosef able to recognize his brothers but they unable to recognize him?  The Sanz-Klausenberger Rebbe, a tzadik who, as a Holocaust survivor, was no stranger to hardship, explains that holiness has a way to etching itself on a person's face.  All 12 of the shevatim were tzadikim, but none of them had suffered the way Yosef had suffered in prison, none of them had been challenged with the trials and tests Yosef had been challenged with, none of them had overcome what Yosef had overcome.  Those experiences gave him an air of holiness that was beyond them, and beyond what they could imagine the brother they last saw as a teenager would attain.

This same idea is reflected in the name of sheivet Dan.  The 12 months of the year correspond to the 12 shevatim, and the incoming month of Teives, according to some, corresponds to sheivet Dan.  Why was Dan given that name?  When Bilha, who Rachel had given to Yaakov as a surrogate because she was unable to have children, had a child, Rachel named him Dan because

דָּנַנִּי וְחִיְּבַנִי דָּנַנִּי וְזִכַּנִּי. דָּנַנִּי וְחִיְּבַנִּי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית כ״ט:ל״א): וְרָחֵל עֲקָרָה. דָּנַנִּי וְזִכַּנִּי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ל׳:ו׳): וַיִּתֶּן לִי בֵּן.(Midrash) 

It is not just being validated ,  דָּנַנִּי וְזִכַּנִּי, that Rachel celebrates in the name.  She also celebrates her prior suffering, דָּנַנִּי וְחִיְּבַנִי.  The fact that she did not have it easy caused her to grow, and that was the catalyst for her eventually having children.

Like we said last week, ביקש יעקב לישב שלוה קפץ עליו רוגזו של יוסף, the רוגזו של יוסף is not a punishment, but it's a means to an end. True שלוה does not come from avoiding difficulties; it comes from achieving success in dealing with them.  

Yosef stresses to Pharoah the the dream of the skinny cows and the skinny sheaves and the fat cows and fat sheaves, it's all one dream, חלום אחד הוא.  L'mai nafka minah?  What difference does it make if it's one dream or two dreams or four different dreams?

Sefas Emes (5632) teaches:

חלום פרעה שנא' בתורה וגם כתיב חלום אחד הוא. נראה שיש ללמוד ממנו לעבודתו ית' שהוא ממקום האחדות והפנימיות.

We think of the good parts of life as a like a pleasant dream, and the problems are like a nightmare.  Two separate experiences.  Not true --  חלום אחד הוא.  The latter goes hand in hand with the former.

The Ch' haRI"M, like we once discussed, explains the name of the month Teives from the words "hatavas ha'neiros."  When we think of Chanukah what comes to mind is the beautiful light of the menorah.  In order to have that light someone needs to stick their finger in and clean out the greasy old wicks and set everything up for lighting. דָּנַנִּי וְחִיְּבַנִי דָּנַנִּי וְזִכַּנִּי.  That too is part of the lighting, חלום אחד הוא.  

kindling a fire: hil shabbos vs lighting a menorah

A long time ago we discussed R' Chaim Brisker's question on the Midrash Tanchuma that says that in the days of R' Chanina Sgan haKohanim the menorah miraculously burned from Rosh haShana to Rosh haShana.  How then did they fulfill the mitzvah of hadlakas menorah?  R' Chaim posed this question to to the Imrei Emes when they met.  The Imrei Emes responded by quoting the din (Beitzah 32) that if you add a drop of oil to a burning lamp you are chayav on shabbos for mav'ir.  Based on this, even if menorah continued to burn on its own, the kohanim could have fulfilled the mitzvah of hadlakah by simply adding a drop of oil.

R' Chaim was supposedly very taken with this answer, but R' Wahrman's in his She'eiris Yosef (vol 3) raises an objection.  The Rosh writes that since hadlakah oseh mitzvah there has to be enough oil present in the menorah at the time of lighting to burn for the required shiur.  If not, one has to put out the menorah and relight.  Why should this be necessary?  If adding oil counts as an act of hadlakah, all one should need to do is add the needed amount of extra oil that addition itself should count as a new hadlakah, one now done with the proper amount of oil present!

R' Wahrman asks the question on R' Chaim/the Imrei Emes, but I chanced across seeing that the Chidusehi Ben Aryeh, R' Gershon Edelstein's grandfather, flips things around and asks the question on the Rosh.  How did the Rosh deal with the gemara in Beitzah?  It is a longish piece, but the yesod that he tries to develop is that there is a difference between the definition of the melacha of mav'ir with respect to hil shabbos and the definition of mav'ir/hadlakah with respect to menorah, or other areas of halacha.  Adding oil is a melacha of mav'ir, but not more than that.  You would think that this is classic Brisker thinking -- you have what appears to be the same concept of mav'ir in different contexts, but tease out that it's really tzvei dinim chalukim b'yesodam.  That's what makes the fact that R' Chaim applauded the answer of the Imrei Emes so interesting -- instead of distinguishing between the sugyos, it lumps the concepts together into one.  

haste makes waste, Reuvain's response to the mob, and the idea behind the minhag of Chanukah gelt

 וַיִּשְׁמַ֣ע רְאוּבֵ֔ן וַיַּצִּלֵ֖הוּ מִיָּדָ֑ם וַיֹּ֕אמֶר לֹ֥א נַכֶּ֖נּוּ נָֽפֶשׁ׃

 וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֣ם ׀ רְאוּבֵן֮ אַל־תִּשְׁפְּכוּ־דָם֒ הַשְׁלִ֣יכוּ אֹת֗וֹ אֶל־הַבּ֤וֹר הַזֶּה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּמִּדְבָּ֔ר וְיָ֖ד אַל־תִּשְׁלְחוּ־ב֑וֹ לְמַ֗עַן הַצִּ֤יל אֹתוֹ֙ מִיָּדָ֔ם לַהֲשִׁיב֖וֹ אֶל־אָבִֽיו׃

Why do we need the words וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֣ם ׀ רְאוּבֵן֮  in the second pasuk when the first pasuk already introduced Reuvain as the speaker, וַיִּשְׁמַ֣ע רְאוּבֵ֔ן...  וַיֹּ֕אמֶר opening the quotaton marks, if you will, before the words  לֹ֥א נַכֶּ֖נּוּ נָֽפֶשׁ?  

Netziv explains that the first pasuk was an exclamation, a shout meant to cause everyone to stop and pay attention. Only once the momentum was slowed could the conversation and deliberation which started with the second pasuk, take place.

Seforno adds: ויצלהו מידם – במניעת הפועל הפתאומי המוליד ״מעות לא יוכל לתקן״ (קהלת א׳:ט״ו), שיפול בכמוהו גם הצדיק לפעמים, כענין ראובן עם בלהה, כאמרו ״פחז כמים״ (בראשית מ״ט:ד׳)  Reuvain was the one who spoke out in this way because it was Reuvain himself who knew more than anyone the danger of acting precipitously!  Yaakov blamed Reuvain's sin in moving his bed on ״פחז כמים, Reuvain's haste to take action.

When Reuvain later returns to the pit to pull Yosef out and sees that Yosef is gone, he says in anguish  הַיֶּ֣לֶד אֵינֶ֔נּוּ וַאֲנִ֖י אָ֥נָה אֲנִי־בָֽא׃.  (See Friday's post for one interpretation of these words.)  Abarbanel writes that Reuvain could not have been protesting against the sale of Yosef here.  Rashi earlier interprets the words לְמַ֗עַן הַצִּ֤יל אֹתוֹ֙ מִיָּדָ֔ם לַהֲשִׁיב֖וֹ אֶל־אָבִֽיו׃ above not as Reuvain's words, but as ruach hakodesh testifying as to Reuvain's intentions.  Sifsei Chachamim explains that Rashi must be correct: דקשה לרש״י היאך יתכן לומר שראובן עצמו אמר שישליכו אותו לבור כדי שהוא ישיב אותו אל אביו דאם היו יודעין לא היו מניחין את ראובן  The brothers would surely have rejected any suggestion to simply bring Yosef home and leave him alone, so Reuvain would dare not have voiced his plan aloud.  Therefore, he is not the speaker.  So too in our pasuk, according to Abarbanel, had Reuvain  been protesting what had happened to Yosef, it would give away the game and reveal that everything he had said earlier was merely a ruse, so this cannot be what he meant. 

What then was Reuvain's intent?

Abarbanel explains that Reuvain was saying to his brothers that if they can act so cruelly and plot to destroy Yosef, whom he calls here a יֶּ֣לֶד, just a child, someone immature, someone not fully aware of his actions and words, then what hope is there for Reuvain himself, the eldest?  How can he live among them knowing that if they can turn against innocent Yosef, they can just as easily if not more easily come to turn on him as well?

Oh what a lesson for modern times when various "woke" rabble rousers one day are the leaders of the pack driving the mob against some innocent victim only to find themselves a day later pursued and harasses by the very same mob.  Only a fool tries to stay one step ahead of the hungry alligator that eventually will consume everyone, but we live in a generation of fools.

Lastly a note on Chanukah: What is this minhag of Chanukah gelt all about?  My wife suggested as follows: the Rambam explains that the holiday of Chanukah is about the restoration of Jewish sovreignty.   וגברו בני חשמונאי הכהנים הגדולים והרגום והושיעו ישראל מידם והעמידו מלך מן הכהנים וחזרה מלכות לישראל יתר על מאתים שנים עד החורבן השני:  One of the rights of a king, of a government, is to coin money.  The gemara (Meg 14) writes that Avigail told David that he has no right to judge someone as a moreid b'malchus yet because  אמרה לו עדיין שאול קיים ולא יצא טבעך בעולם .  We once heard from R' Yosef Carmel, Rosh Kollel of Eretz Chemdah Institute, that לא יצא טבעך  means that David's coins were not yet in circulation -- only a true king can mint and circulate his own coins.  There are coins that come from the time of the Bar Kochba rebellion because one of the ways that Bar Kochba showed that Israel was no longer subject to Roman authority was by minting his own money.  Perhaps the Chashmonaim did the same when they won their independence from the Greeks, and Chanukah gelt, chocolate coins and the like, are a zeicher to this statement of independence.

the taint of shelo lishma

1) It's interesting that although Reuvain is the first one to speak out against the killing of Yosef, וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֣ם ׀ רְאוּבֵן֮ אַל־תִּשְׁפְּכוּ־דָם֒ (37:22), it is Yehudah who Yaakov, on his deathbed, gives credit to for saving Yosef, גּ֤וּר אַרְיֵה֙ יְהוּדָ֔ה מִטֶּ֖רֶף בְּנִ֣י עָלִ֑יתָ  (49:9).  Rashi on our parsha comments: אמר: אני בכור וגדול שבכולן, לא יתלה הסרחון אלא בי.  The difference between Yehudah and Reuvain (as the Sifsei Chachamim points out) is that Yehudah had no ulterior motive in mind when he spoke up.  Reuvain, however, knew that ultimately he, as the eldest, would be held responsible for Yosef.  Therefore, he felt compelled to speak out.  It's amazing how just a tinge of she'lo lishma colors what otherwise would be a noble act.

This Sifsei Chachamim stands in stark contrast to R' Amiel's observation (which we've discussed in the past) that it is only Reuvain who gets the credit of  וַיַּצִּלֵ֖הוּ מִיָּדָ֑ם (37:21).  

2) When Reuvain returns and discovers Yosef has been sold, he cries out וַיָּ֥שׇׁב אֶל־אֶחָ֖יו וַיֹּאמַ֑ר הַיֶּ֣לֶד אֵינֶ֔נּוּ וַאֲנִ֖י אָ֥נָה אֲנִי־בָֽא׃ (37:30), wondering how he can return home.  (The repitition of  וַאֲנִ֖י ... אֲנִי is reminiscent of  נָ֛א רְפָ֥א נָ֖א לָֽהּ by Miriam.  Are there other examples of repetition like this?)  There is a fascinating interpretation of R"Y haChassid quoted in the Tur in last week's parsha on the episode of Reuvain's "sin" וַיְהִ֗י בִּשְׁכֹּ֤ן יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בָּאָ֣רֶץ הַהִ֔וא וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ רְאוּבֵ֗֔ן וַיִּשְׁכַּ֕ב֙ אֶת־בִּלְהָ֖ה֙ פִּילֶ֣גֶשׁ אָבִ֑֔יו וַיִּשְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵֽ֑ל  וַיִּֽהְי֥וּ בְנֵֽי־יַעֲקֹ֖ב שְׁנֵ֥ים עָשָֽׂר (35:22)  Here is what he says:

 וה״ר יהודה חסיד פי׳ ויהי בשכון ישראל במקום ההוא וילך ראובן פי׳ שהלך לו וברח משם ולמה וישכב את בלהה פלגש אביו שרצה אביו לשכב עמה וע״ז נתקנא ראובן וברח וישמע ישראל שבשביל זה ברח ראובן ועשה מטתו באהל לאה ואז חזר ראובן ויהיו בני יעקב שנים עשר כבתחלה.

When Reuvain saw that his father had moved his bed to Bilhah's tent, he left home and fled.  He could not tolerate the disrespect that he perceived was shown toward his mother.  When Yaakov heard that, he moved his bed back to Leah's tent (it's not clear whether this was an admission of wrongdoing on Yaakov's part, or did he just want to mollify his son), and Reuvain returned.

Given R"Y haChassid's reading, the words of Reuvain in our parsha, אֲנִ֖י אָ֥נָה אֲנִי־בָֽא, take on added significance.  Reuvain was saying that if he was willing to leave home in protest of the kavod of his mother, then how can he return home now and live in peace with his brothers after they have gotten rid of Yosef and dishonored their father.

3) Seforno comments on וַיָּקֻ֩מוּ֩ כׇל־בָּנָ֨יו וְכׇל־בְּנֹתָ֜יו לְנַחֲמ֗וֹ וַיְמָאֵן֙ לְהִתְנַחֵ֔ם (37:35) that Yaakov accepted on himself lifelong aveilus because he felt that he had a hand in whatever befell Yosef, as he had sent him out to find his brothers.  וַיֵּ֥בְךְּ אֹת֖וֹ אָבִֽיו׃ at the end of that pasuk refers to Yitzchak, who bemoaned the situation.  There was a lot to cry over, especially given (as Rashi explains) that Yitzchak knew that Yosef was alive -- his son Yaakov suffering unnecessarily, the crime the brothers had committed, the breakup of the family.  But that's not why Yitzchak was crying according to Seforno.  He explains

 יצחק בכה על שקבל עליו בנו אבלות לכל ימיו, ובכן לא תשרה עליו שכינה.   

I don't think this means that Yitzchak saw all that transpired solely through the lens of the potential loss of hashra'as haShechina without any regard to the human dimension of loss and suffering.  I think what it means is that davka the acceptance of a lifetime of mourning, as opposed to the normal period of 30 days or a year that halacha mandates, disturbed Yitzchak.  There is a time to mourn, but at some point mourning itself can become debilitating and an obstacle to growth, i.e. hashra'as haShechina.  That is something to cry over.

4) Apropos:

"lei'shev b'shalvah" - something to avoid or something to strive for?

My son wrote last week (lightly edited):

After Yaakov fights with the angel, he is given the name Yisrael כי שרית אם אלקים ואנשים ותוכל.  If the point is that Yaakov was able to even be victorious over angels, shouldn't he have been named תוכל for he was victorious?  Rav Leibel Eger explains that the point isn't the victory, the point is the battle.  Klal Yisrael is named for the fact that they are willing to put up a fight no matter what stands in the way. 

Rashi comments on the opening of our parsha,  וַיֵּ֣שֶׁב יַעֲקֹ֔ב בְּאֶ֖רֶץ מְגוּרֵ֣י אָבִ֑יו, that ביקש יעקב לישב שלוה קפץ עליו רוגזו של יוסף.  R' Moshe Avigdor Amiel points out that the opening pasuk uses davka the name Yaakov, as opposed to 2 pesukim later when we read  וְיִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל אָהַ֤ב אֶת־יוֹסֵף֙ מִכׇּל־בָּנָ֔יו כִּֽי־בֶן־זְקֻנִ֥ים ה֖וּא ל֑וֹ and the name Yisrael is used.  It is Yaakov who desires tranquility, but the role of a Jew is to be a Yisrael, to engage in ongoing toil and battle, as that is the only way to grow.  

Sefas Emes (5635) writes:  ומ"ש קפץ עליו. רוגזו של יוסף לא הי' עונש על זה רק שא"א לתקן הכל בלי נסיונות רבות כאלו.  The trials and tribulations of dealing with the episode of Yosef are not a punishment for asking לישב שלוה.  They are the means of fulfilling that wish.  You can have לישב שלוה by avoiding the difficulties of life; you can have לישב שלוה as a result of successfully managing the difficulties as they come.  Chazal are teaching us that the לישב שלוה of Yaakov/Yisrael is the latter type, and that is what we should strive to emulate. 

An unexpected encounter; the importance of a parent's blessing

1) R' Leible Eiger in Imrei Emes points out that the first nisayon Avraham faced was being told by Hashem, "Lech lecha," to leave his parent's home.  This is considered a major test despite the fact that Avraham's outlook on life was completely different than his father's -- he should have wanted to leave -- and despite the fact that he was being commanded to do so directly by Hashem.

Imagine what was going through Yaakov's head when he left his father's home.  He was not directly told to do so by Hashem; he was compelled to do so as a result of his stealing of the brachos.  Until now had been under the protective and nurturing wing of his parents, who were his guilding lights; he had been "yosheiv ohalim," and now he was forced to flee to parts unknown.  M'igra rama l'beira amikta! 

 

That's the meaning of  וַיִּפְגַּ֨ע בַּמָּק֜וֹם...  The term וַיִּפְגַּ֨ע implies an unexpected encounter, like when you are walking along and suddenly bump into someone you know.  At the very moment when Yaakov thought that he was on a road that would take him far from kedusha, here was the Beis haMikdash, here was the hashra'as haShechina.

 

R' Leible Eiger writes that it was precisely because Yaakov thought that his situation was so dire, that he was on a path that would take him far from ruchniyus, that led to this revelation.  Hashem's dwells among the broken and the downtrodden.  

2) I just want to point out a Seforno that every parent and grandparents should know.  At the end of the parsha, we read: וַיַּשְׁכֵּ֨ם לָבָ֜ן בַּבֹּ֗קֶר וַיְנַשֵּׁ֧ק לְבָנָ֛יו וְלִבְנוֹתָ֖יו וַיְבָ֣רֶךְ אֶתְהֶ֑ם וַיֵּ֛לֶךְ וַיָּ֥שׇׁב לָבָ֖ן לִמְקֹמֽוֹ  The Torah doesn't dwell on meaningless details.  We don't know what Lavan ate for breakfast, or how many people were in his entourage, or any number of other trivial facts because they are not important to the halacha or moral lesson of the story.  Here, we have a pasuk filled with details that all seem unnecessary. וַיֵּ֛לֶךְ וַיָּ֥שׇׁב לָבָ֖ן לִמְקֹמֽוֹ - obviously at some point Lavan returned home.  Why mention it?  Take a look at the Meshech Chochma, Netziv, and others.  I want to focus on the earlier half of the pasuk.  Why does the Torah go out of its way to tell us that Lavan kissed and blessed his children and grandchilden (see Ibn Ezra) before departing?  Seforno answers:

   להורות שברכת האב אשר היא על בניו בכל נפשו בלי ספק ראוי שתחול יותר בסגולת צלם אלקים המברך

When a parent/grandparent, even one like Lavan, gives a blessing to a child, they put their full heart and soul into it, and therefore it is of special significance and worthy of being fulfilled.