attention to the little things and the little people is the key to greatness

At the end of the parsha we have the story of Yosef's interpretation of the dreams of the Sar haMashkim and the Sar ha'Ofim, but before we get to those dreams, we have a bit of introduction:

וַיָּבֹא אֲלֵיהֶם יוֹסֵף בַּבֹּקֶר וַיַּרְא אֹתָם וְהִנָּם זֹעֲפִים

וַיִּשְׁאַל אֶת סְרִיסֵי פַרְעֹה אֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ בְמִשְׁמַר בֵּית אֲדֹנָיו לֵאמֹר מַדּוּעַ פְּנֵיכֶם רָעִים הַיּוֹם

וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו חֲלוֹם חָלַמְנוּ וּפֹתֵר אֵין אֹתוֹ וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם יוֹסֵף הֲלוֹא לֵאלֹקים פִּתְרֹנִים סַפְּרוּ נָא לִי

R' Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi asks: Why do we need all this? Just cut to the chase and get to the dreams and their interpretation?!

He doesn't mention it, but the Abarbanel and Seforno were already bothered by this question. Abarbanel answers (and Seforno says something similar) that Yosef acted like a valet for these two officers, as we read earlier וַיִּפְקֹד שַׂר הַטַּבָּחִים אֶת יוֹסֵף אִתָּם וַיְשָׁרֶת אֹתָם. Like a good valet, Yosef stopped by in the morning to check on his masters and find out if they needed anything. When he saw them looking out of sorts, he was concerned lest he had done something wrong, e.g. perhaps he had not turned down the bed properly the night before, and so he inquired what was bothering them.

Aside from the question of why the Torah would need to go out of its way to inform us that Yosef performed his role as valet faithfully, I find it hard to see Yosef in this role. We read earlier: וַיִּתֵּן שַׂר בֵּית הַסֹּהַר בְּיַד יוֹסֵף אֵת כׇּל הָאֲסִירִם אֲשֶׁר בְּבֵית הַסֹּהַר. It sounds like Yosef was the overseer of the entire prison not just a mere valet to the two officers. As for the words וַיְשָׁרֶת אֹתָם, it doesn't say that Yosef was appointed to this task, but simply that he performed it. As Netziv explains, Yosef took it upon himself to serve these two officers so that by ingratiating himself with them his own position would be more secure מעצמו שרת אותם, כדרך מדת ישראל להשפיל את עצמם לפני שרי אומות העולם, ולהכיר החמלה אשר נדרשים מאד לשימוש לפי הרגלם, ואין איש אחר זולתו

R' Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi is a baal mussar and comes at the question from that angle. Yosef is Yosef hatzadik, and surely had great and holy things on his mind from morning until night.  Yosef was the administrator of the entire prison, something that would consume all the energy and thought of a regular person. How does such Yosef start his day? וַיַּרְא אֹתָם וְהִנָּם זֹעֲפִים  He looks in on each individual. ַיִּשְׁאַל אֶת סְרִיסֵי פַרְעֹה אֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ בְמִשְׁמַר בֵּית אֲדֹנָיו לֵאמֹר מַדּוּעַ פְּנֵיכֶם רָעִים הַיּוֹם He asks after their welfare.  "Good Morning, how are you doing?  Everything going OK?  Anything I can do?"   Yosef doesn't start his day with his head in the clouds contemplating devarim ha'omdim b'rumo shel olam, and does not start his day thinking about the prison system as a whole, but rather he starts his day by showing consideration for each individual, no matter now small, no matter that they are just a fellow prisoner trapped in the same dungeon that he is. That's gadlus!  As I've quoted before from R' Kook, great people are not great because they think only about great things; great people are great because they think about and notice even the little things, and even the little people. 

My wife just mentioned to me that she spent some extra hours at work filling in when someone was out and the first thing the person said when they got back was, "Did you take care of ....?"  Had that person been Yosef, the first thing would have been, "Good morning, and thank you for filling in on short notice when I couldn't be here."  Yosef is the CEO who, when he enters the building, thanks the doorman and asks how he is doing, even though he has an entire company to run and probably has other things on his mind.   

Yosef later tells his brothers כּי למחיה שׁלחני אלקים אליכם.  That behavior didn't start then when he was viceroy over all of Egypt . It started  now, when he saw a prisoner, a nobody, who was upset, and Yosef's reaction was an emphathetic, "What can I do to help," כּי למחיה שׁלחני אלקים אליכם, because that is what Hashem put me here for.

kesones pasim and distinctive dress

וַיָּבֹא יַעֲקֹב שָׁלֵם after leaving Lavan's home is interpreted by Chasam Sofer as an acronym for שׁם, לשׁון, מלבּושׁ. Yaakov preserved his Jewish name, his language, and his unique mode of dress in the galus of Lavan's home.  This is the key to survival in exile.

Chasam Sofer interprets Yaakov's instructions in last week's parsha (35:2) וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב אֶל בֵּיתוֹ וְאֶל כׇּל אֲשֶׁר עִמּוֹ הָסִרוּ אֶת אֱלֹהֵי הַנֵּכָר אֲשֶׁר בְּתֹכְכֶם וְהִטַּהֲרוּ וְהַחֲלִיפוּ שִׂמְלֹתֵיכֶם in a simlilar vein. While Rashi explains the need to discard the garments as stemming from a suspicion of those clothes having been used for avodash zarah, שמא יש בידכם כסות של עבודה זרה, Chasam Sofer sees it as a restoration of the Bnei Yaakov's unique mode of dress. Having killed the inhabitants of Shechem, Yaakov's family was relatively isolated from the outside world and could dress and they pleased without fear of becoming assimilated into the surrounding culture. Now that they were entering more populated areas, greater care was needed to remain distinctive in dress.

In his derashos (vol 1 p 155) Chasam Sofer quotes Ramban that the kesones passim given to Yosef was a form of royal garb that was common in the court of ancient kings. He then makes the astounding claim that the reason so much tragedy came on the heels of the kesones being given to Yosef is because it imitated the dress of the non Jews. Later in the parsha we read that Eishes Potifar grabs onto Yosef's kesones -- וַתִּתְפְּשֵׂהוּ בְּבִגְדוֹ. Adopting the dress of the outside world allows that outside culture a foothold to latch onto, which then becomes a slippery slope to greater assimilation (derashos p 144).

וַיְהִי כְּדַבְּרָהּ אֶל יוֹסֵף יוֹם יוֹם (39:10) The Vishever Rav explains that Eishes Potifar told Yosef that there is no such thing as a slippery slope, no such thing as aveira goreres aveira. Every day is unique in its own right; every incident stands alone in its own right.  What happens today doesn't influence what might happen tomorrow. Yosef understood this is not the case. A small breach today leads to a larger breach tomorrow.

I thought this C.S. sheds new light on the pasuk in sefer Daniel (3:21) which describes how Chananya, Mishael, and Azarya were thrown into a burning furnace and specific mention is made of their clothes being left on them when this was happening.  ֵּאדַ֜יִן גֻּבְרַיָּ֣א אִלֵּ֗ךְ כְּפִ֙תוּ֙ בְּסַרְבָּלֵיהוֹן֙ פַּטְּשֵׁיה֔וֹן וְכַרְבְּלָתְה֖וֹן וּלְבֻשֵׁיה֑וֹן וּרְמִ֕יו לְגֽוֹא־אַתּ֥וּן נוּרָ֖א יָקִֽדְתָּֽא  Chazal take note and have a pshat here, but perhaps one can explain that Chananya, Mishael, and Azarya remained distinct not only in their belief and refusal to bow to Nevuchadnezer's idol, but in their dress as well, as that was their bulwark against the tide.

The story of Yosef is the story of our descent into galus, and so given C"S's thesis that the kesones passim = a step toward assimilation, it is understandable midah k'neged midah that one of the merits for which Bn"Y is given credit in Mitzrayim is the fact that they retained their distinctive mode of dress even in galus (granted thar there are many different versions in midrash of what Bn"Y is credited for, but this is one that has certainly become popularized, even if it is not one that is found in most versions of that Chazal). If not maintaining distinctive dress started us down the road to galus, undoing that error led us on the road out.

entering into safeik sakana to save someone else from vaday sakana

Yaakov was certainly aware of the animosity the brothers had for Yosef, so why did he send Yosef to check on them. throwing him into the lion's den, so to speak?  B'pashtus you could say that Yaakov underestimated the level of animosity and danger.  Sibling rivalry is not uncommon, but it seldom leads to what happened to Yosef.  The Hadar Zekeinim (from the Baalei HaTos') on the parsha quotes another interesting answer from Ibn Ezra:

וא״ת מה ראה יעקב לשלחו לאחיו הלא יודע ששונאים אותו. ואומר אבן עזרא לפי שהלכו במקום סכנה לרעות כי הרגו אנשי שכם. אמר יעקב שמא יענישו לך ספק הוא ושיהרגום אנשי שכם אם ימצאום ודאי הוא ומוטב ליקח הספק מן הודאי לך אמור להם שישובו פן יכום אנשי שכם מכת חרב.

Yaakov perceived the Shechem was a dangerous place for his family to be.  Recall that he did not support the attack on Shechem, fearing that there would be retribution.  When he heard the brothers had taken the sheep to graze near Shechem, he felt that better to send Yosef after them and expose him to some level of risk in order to remove the brothers from certain danger.  

It seems that a person can place himself in safeik sakana to save someone else from a vaday sakana.

This point is debated by others.  The Mishna in Makos (11b) writes that even a great general like Yoav who is needed by the nation is not allowed to leave the ir miklat lest the goal ha'dam attack him  ואפי' ישראל צריכים לו ואפי' שר צבא ישראל כיואב בן צרויה אינו יוצא משם לעולם. The general faces a safeik sakana, but the war is a vaday sakana.  According to the chiddush of Ibn Ezra, why should he not leave the ir miklat?

(Just to add: I don't think the argument advanced by Yehudah in next week's parsha, as explained by Rashi 43:8, to allow Binyanim to travel with the brothers to Egypt is relevant here.    בנימן ספק יתפש ספק לא יתפש, ואנו כולנו מתים ברעב אם לא נלך. מוטב שתניח את הספק ותתפש את הוודאי.  In that case Binyamin was not being put in a safeik sakana to save others, as if he did not go down to Egypt he would be in as much a vaday sakana of dying from hunger as the rest of the family.)  

chisaron in hasbara=chisaron in havana; the power of Yaakov's tears; an amazing Midrash Talpiyot on the identity of Yehuda's wife

1) In yeshivos they like to quote the aphorism from R' Chaim that a chisaron in hasbara indicates a chisaron in havana.  If you can't explain something, it's a sign that you really don't understand it.  (see this post from earlier this year ).  In last week's parsha, Shimon and Levi disagreed with their father Yaakov about how to respond to what happened to Dinah.  When Yaakov chastised his sons, י֮ עֲכַרְתֶּ֣ם אֹתִי֒ לְהַבְאִישֵׁ֙נִי֙ בְּיֹשֵׁ֣ב הָאָ֔רֶץ, they responded and justified their actions,  וַיֹּאמְר֑וּ הַכְזוֹנָ֕הא יַעֲשֶׂ֖ה אֶת⁠־אֲחוֹתֵֽנוּ׃.  In contrast, the brothers never revealed to their father what they did to Yosef and why they acted such.  They didn't even have the courage to directly tell Yaakov their concocted story, but rather  וַֽיְשַׁלְּח֞וּ אֶת⁠־כְּתֹ֣נֶת הַפַּסִּ֗ים וַיָּבִ֙יאוּ֙ אֶל⁠־אֲבִיהֶ֔ם וַיֹּאמְר֖וּ זֹ֣את מָצָ֑אנוּ הַכֶּר⁠־נָ֗אא הַכְּתֹ֧נֶת בִּנְךָ֛ הִ֖וא אִם⁠־לֹֽא׃.  According to Rashbam וַֽיְשַׁלְּח֞וּ means through a messenger על ידי בני אדם שלא יגידו מי השולחים, אלא שיאמרו:⁠א זאת מצאנו so that they could hide their hand in the whole affair.  Why hide behind the veil of secrecy?  Why not explain to their father why they acted against Yosef?  R' Shmuel Birnbaum explains that when it came to Shechem, Shimon and Levi understood crystal clear what they needed to do and why their actions were justified.  Therefore, they were able to answer their father.  When it came to dealing with Yosef, the fact that they could not find the words to justify their actions indicates that the rationale for what they were doing was not really clear in their own minds. 

2) Yosef is taken by the Midyanim and sold into slavery in Egypt  וַיַּֽעַבְרוּ֩ אֲנָשִׁ֨ים מִדְיָנִ֜ים סֹֽחֲרִ֗ים וַֽיִּמְשְׁכוּ֙ וַיַּֽעֲל֤וּ אֶת⁠־יוֹסֵף֙ מִן⁠־הַבּ֔וֹר וַיִּמְכְּר֧וּ אֶת⁠־יוֹסֵ֛ף לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִ֖ים בְּעֶשְׂרִ֣ים כָּ֑סֶף וַיָּבִ֥יאוּ אֶת⁠־יוֹסֵ֖ף מִצְרָֽיְמָה׃ (37:28).  The brothers present their story to Yaakov, who refuses to be comforted,  וַיָּקֻ֩מוּ֩ כׇל⁠־בָּנָ֨יו וְכׇל⁠־בְּנֹתָ֜יו לְנַחֲמ֗וֹ וַיְמָאֵן֙ לְהִתְנַחֵ֔ם וַיֹּ֕אמֶר כִּֽי⁠־אֵרֵ֧ד אֶל⁠־בְּנִ֛י אָבֵ֖ל שְׁאֹ֑לָה וַיֵּ֥בְךְּ אֹת֖וֹ אָבִֽי (37:35)  The Torah then ends that chapter by repeating what happened to Yosef,  וְהַ֨מְּדָנִ֔ים מָכְר֥וּ אֹת֖וֹ אֶל⁠־מִצְרָ֑יִם לְפֽוֹטִיפַר֙ סְרִ֣יס פַּרְעֹ֔ה שַׂ֖ר הַטַּבָּחִֽים.  We then have an entire chapter devoted to the episode of Yehuda and Tamar, and return in Ch 39 to the Yosef narrative,  וְיוֹסֵ֖ף הוּרַ֣ד מִצְרָ֑יְמָה וַיִּקְנֵ֡הוּ פּוֹטִיפַר֩ סְרִ֨יס פַּרְעֹ֜ה שַׂ֤ר הַטַּבָּחִים֙ אִ֣ישׁ מִצְרִ֔י מִיַּד֙ הַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר הוֹרִדֻ֖הוּ שָֽׁמָּה׃.  Alshich asks: why do we need that final pasuk in ch 37 before the episode of Yehuda and Tamar to tell us again about the Midyanim selling Yosef off?  It really belongs to the start of ch 39.  Instead of that chapter starting וְיוֹסֵ֖ף הוּרַ֣ד מִצְרָ֑יְמָה, eliminate those words and start by saying הַ֨מְּדָנִ֔ים מָכְר֥וּ אֹת֖וֹ אֶל⁠־מִצְרָ֑יִם upon which time he was bought by Potifar.  It is more concise, and does away with what seems an extraneous pasuk at the end of ch 37.

The Tzror haMor answers that the final pasuk of ch 37 which tells us וְהַ֨מְּדָנִ֔ים מָכְר֥וּ אֹת֖וֹ אֶל⁠־מִצְרָ֑יִם לְפֽוֹטִיפַר֙ סְרִ֣יס פַּרְעֹ֔ה שַׂ֖ר הַטַּבָּחִֽים is not just there to convey information about what happened to Yosef.  It is actually connected to the description of Yaakov's grief and his refusal to cease crying for his son.  Chazal tell us that even when the gates of tefilah are closed, the gates of tears remain open.  Yosef might have ended up anywhere.  He might have been taken across the sea to a distant land or been carted off to the far reaches of the world.  Were that to happen, the chances of his being reunited with his family would be slim.  Thanks to Yaakov's endless tears, Hashem arranged things so that Yosef did not wind up too far from home.  Of course it would be years before he ultimately was able to see his father again, but the possibility of that happening was already in place and the wheels were in motion from the get-go.

3) Abarbanel comments ואמנם בהפלגת אבלות יעקב הוא מקום תימה רב.  The baalei mussar like the Seforno here: יאמר כי ארד אל בני אבל שאלה – קבל עליו אבלות לכל ימיו, מפני שארעה התקלה על ידו ששלח את יוסף אל אחיו  Yaakov refused to be comforted because he saw himself as being at fault because he was the one who send Yosef to check on his brothers.  It was the guilt that weighed him down.  No wonder he refused at first to send Binyamin down to Egypt.  Even though Shimon was being held captive waiting the brothers return, Yaakov had no hand in Shimon's being held, but were he the one to send Binyamin off to harm, in his mind he would be just as much at fault as when he sent Yosef.

3) I just saw this Midrash Talpiyot (bottom of first column( quoted somewhere this week and what an interesting find it is.  וַיַּרְא⁠־שָׁ֧ם יְהוּדָ֛ה בַּת⁠־אִ֥ישׁ כְּנַעֲנִ֖י וּשְׁמ֣וֹ שׁ֑וּעַ  Rashi tries to explain away כְּנַעֲנִ֖י as meaning a merchant.  The M.T. writes that Yeuhuda married the daughter of Eisav (!), whose name contains the same letters as שׁ֑וּעַ.  How could a tzadik like Yehuda have childen like  עֵ֚ר and אוֹנָ֔ן ?  It must be that their mother's genes from Eisav rubbed off on them.  

putting stock in dreams

Dreams play a prominent role in this week's and next week's parsha.  There has been some interesting discussion in the Torah world recently about dreams because of a fantastic story that has been making the rounds (see here, R' Asher Weiss' psak, here quoting R' Zilberstein).  There is a chozeir be'teshuvah who, on the advice of his very close rebbe, remained living in the south even though the community was not a religious one.  On the night of 10/7 his rebbe appeared to him in a dream and told him he was in grave danger and had to flee. He did not put much stock in a bad dream and attempted to go back to sleep, but his rebbe appeared to him again and forcefully told him that he must flee immediately.  Like we read in next week's parsha,  וְעַל הִשָּׁנוֹת הַחֲלוֹם ... פַּעֲמָיִם כִּי נָכוֹן הַדָּבָר מֵעִם הָאֱלֹקים.  Now he was awake and paying attention.  Having no one to really ask what to do and feeling that the dream was real, he got in his car with his family and took off, and as a result, his family escaped the events of 10/7 (no idea if he alerted others and what their reaction was, but let's be real -- would you pay attention if someone woke you in the middle of the night and told you they had a dream like that?)  But did he make the right decision?  Does the threat of sakana revealed by a dream allow for chilul shabbos or y"t?  Does the fact that after the fact we know his actions did result in saving lives excuse them?

This is a big topic, and I will just touch the surface regarding three points:

My initial reaction was that the individual is patur on chilul shabbos.  Menachos 64a tells us

 דאיתמר שמע שטבע תינוק בים ופרש מצודה להעלות דגים והעלה דגים חייב להעלות דגים והעלה דגים ותינוק רבא אמר חייב ורבה אמר פטור

A baby fell into a river on shabbos.  Someone was mechalel shabbos to go fishing and just happened to catch the baby into his net and save him.  We pasken like Rabbah and hold in this case the individual is not liable for chilul shabbos.  L'maaseh the fisherman saved the baby's life, whether or not that was his intention when he cast out his nets.  Here too, lmaaseh, the person who drove away saved his family's life, whether or not he intended or was justified in taking action l'chatchila.

Upon further review, however, the cases are not parallel.  When the fisherman cast his nets, the baby was already in danger and floating downstream.  The act of catching fish occurred simultaneously with the act of saving the baby.  When the person got into his car to drive away, there was no danger at that moment and no way (aside from his dream) that he could have anticipated the danger.  

Second issue: Kiddush 81b writes

דתניא אישה הפרם וה' יסלח לה במה הכתוב מדבר באשה שנדרה בנזיר ושמע בעלה והפר לה והיא לא ידעה שהפר לה בעלה והיתה שותה יין ומטמאה למתים רבי עקיבא כי הוה מטי להאי פסוקא הוה בכי אמר ומה מי שנתכוין לאכול בשר חזיר ועלה בידו בשר טלה אמרה תורה צריכה כפרה וסליחה מי שנתכוין לאכול בשר חזיר ועלה בידו בשר חזיר על אחת כמה וכמה 

It would seem that someone who intends to do wrong but things work out right still needs kapara.  

Does the fisherman in the previous case from Menachos 64 need kapara?  When the gemara there says  פטור does it mean exempt from chiyuv misa or korban for chilul shabbos but still requiring some kapara, or does not mean off the hook completely?  Does the fact that the outcome was a mitzvah of saving a life and not just eating a kosher piece of meat change things?  

Last point: how seriously should we take dreams?  Sanhedrin 30a

 הרי שהיה מצטער על מעות שהניח לו אביו ובא בעל החלום ואמר לו כך וכך הן במקום פלוני הן של מעשר שני הן זה היה מעשה ואמרו דברי חלומות לא מעלין ולא מורידין:

A father who comes to his son in a dream and reveals the location of $ but tells his son the funds are maaser sheni money is not believed about the funds being maaser -- dreams are not evidence.  As Rashi on our parsha puts it, אין חלום בלא דברים בטלים.  

R' Akiva Eiger in the gilyon sends you to a Shu"T Tashbetz because things are not so simple.  Nedarin 8:

אמר רב יוסף נידוהו בחלום צריך י' בני אדם להתיר לו

Why should a person who is put in נדוי in a dream pay any attention?  What happened to דברי חלומות לא מעלין ולא מורידין?

Tashbetz answers that it depends.  A dream that comes from a malach is likely true, but a dream inspired by a sheid is false.  The problem is that we can't really tell the difference, and so as a rule of thumb we treat everything as a safeik.  The gemara in Sanhedrin is talking about a safeik in dinei mamonos, and so we apply the rule that muchzak wins absent clear proof and so the son can keep the $.  The issue in Nedarim is one of issur v'heter, and so we invoke the rule of safeik issura l'chumra.  (See R' Chaim Kanievsky's comments in Derech Emunah questioning whether maaser sheni is really a safeik mamon and not a safeik issur.)

The Hafla'as Nedarim offers a different answer based on Ch haRaN.  When it comes to $, real proof is needed, and a dream is no more proof than nevuah -- lo ba'shamayim hi.  However, when it comes to נדוי, an umdena is enough proof.  Also, there is a concept of נדוי given by beis din shel maalah.  Therefore, it is an exception to the rule. 

According to both these views, dreams are not full proof, but are at least enough proof to create a safeik, and a safeik sakana is enough to justify chilul shabbos.

Ritva in Taanis 12 goes to the opposite extreme and does not see any value in dreams:

 אף על פי שבדברים בעלמא אמרו חכמי׳ דברי חלומו׳ לא מעלין ולא מורידין ואפי׳ בזה שיש צורך איסור מ״מ כשבא לו התעוררו׳ בחלום על עניני עצמו ראוי לו לחוש לדבר אם רואה עצמו נבהל ונפחד שזה ודאי הערה מן השמים הוא שבא עליו שיחפש במעשיו ויחזור בתשובה ועל הדרך הזה אמרו בנדרים בפ״ק במי שנדוהו בחלום שילך לפני עשרה דהיינו הלכתא ויתירו לו והטעם לענין שאמרנו כי הערה הוא מן השמים שעשה נסתרות והיה צריך לנדות או היו נגלות או שעשה עבירו׳ חמורו׳ שהוא נזוף לשמים ומתוך שיטרח בכל זה יפשפש במעשיו ואותן חכמים יורוהו דרכי תשובה ולפי׳ כל שרואה חלום שמפחידו ראוי לו להתענות ולחזור בתשוב

Ritva holds that a dream is just a psychological tool by which Heaven sends a person a message to wake up and do teshuvah.  To the extent a person is bothered by his dreams, he should do something in response, like accept upon himself נדוי, like the sugya in Nedarim.  Beyond that, a dream is not evidence of anything.  It certainly would not be a justification for chilul shabbos.

There are other issues to unpack, as we know that there have been shu"t written based on revelations in dreams, malachim have appeared to teach people torah.  Like I said, this barely scratches the surface. 

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. 

tov acharis davar m'reishiso - Adar and Yosef

On Shabbos I made a siyum on Bechoros in to commemorate my father's yahrzeit, and I tried to tie together the siyum, the parsha, and the fact that it was shabbos mevorchim.  Don't know if I succeeded, but this was my idea:

At the end of the parsha we read (24:5)  וַיִּשְׁלַ֗ח אֶֽת־נַעֲרֵי֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וַיַּֽעֲל֖וּ עֹלֹ֑ת.  Rashi explains את נערי – הבכורות.  Ramban challenges this interpretation: ולא ידעתי למה יכנה הבכורות בלשון נערי, אולי בעבור שהזכיר הזקנים שהם אצילי בני ישראל, קרא הבכורות נערים, כי הם נערים כנגדם.  Why would the Torah refer to the bechorim as ־נַעֲרֵי֙ when the bechor is the eldest of the famly and ־נַעֲרֵי֙ implies someone young?  We could ask a more fundamental question along the same lines: if the Torah meant that the bechorim offered korbanos, then why not use the term bechor?  Why introduce ambiguity by using the term ־נַעֲרֵי֙?

What is it that makes a bechor special?  The Sefas Emes explains (I believe Maharal has this same idea) that a bechor represents hischadshus.  Let me explain with a story.  The first Rosh haShana after my son was born we stayed by my MIL a"h and davened in Yeshiva Far Rockaway.  At some point before tekiyos by wife brought my son to shul in his stroller, where he sat happily sucking his pacifier.  At some point my my son either dropped or tossed his pacifier out of the stroller onto the floor, where it was retrieved by a toddler who was standing there with his mother and some other children.  The little toddler was just about to stick the pacifier back into my son's mouth when his mother, perhaps seeing the aghast look of shock on my wife's face, stopped him and said, "This is a first baby -- first baby's don't take pacifier's from the floor."

When you are still on baby #1, the bechor, the pacifier that falls on the floor gets sterilized.  You have a collection of backups that you can give the kid until you can properly clean the one that dropped.  By the time you are a few babies into building your family, when the pacifier falls on the floor it's enough to rub it on your sleeve, or maybe the 5 second rule applies if you pick it up fast enough (of course I am talking pre-Covid).  When you are dealing with a bechor, everything is new, everything is special, everything is still exciting.

The harm of Amalek is "asher karcha ba'derech."  Amalek cools us off -- our avodah loses its newness, its freshness.  Right after the war against Amalek described at the end of Ki Teitzei, the next parsha is the mitzvah of bikkurim = bechor.  Bring back that excitement to your avodas Hashem  and treat every mitzvah as if it was the first time you were doing it.

That freshness and excitement, "his'naari mei'adar kumi," is what makes the bechor special.  Therefore, the Torah uses the term naar when it calls the bechorim to offer korbanos, since this is the reason they were called to serve Hashem.

The 12 months of the year correspond to the 12 shevatim (Tur Hil Rosh Chodesh).  Chodesh Adar is the month of Yosef.  In a year like ours we have two Adars, and Yosef is the one sheivet that splits into two, Ephraim and Menashe. 

Yosef is the antidote to Eisav/Amalek.  Rashi right at the beginning of VaYeishev tells us היה בית יעקב אש ובית יוסף להבה ובית עשו לקש, ניצוץ יוצא מיוסף שמכלה ושורף את כולם.  The name Eisav, explains Shem m'Shmuel, comes from the same root as a-s-u, made.  Eisav was born with covered with hair -- he looked like a middle aged man right from the womb.  His life was complete from the get-go, with nothing to strive for and nothing left to achieve.  הִנֵּ֛ה אָֽנֹכִ֥י הוֹלֵ֖ךְ לָמ֑וּת וְלָֽמָּה־זֶּ֥ה לִ֖י בְּכֹרָֽה.  Why do I need bechorah -- hischadshus, renewal, rejuvenation -- when I am complete, when I've achieved it all already, and am just going through the motions day after day, waiting to die?  Yosef is the opposite.  He is a "ben zekunim," which the Targum explains to mean "wise," and we know that wisdom usually comes with maturity and age, but at the same time, "v'hu naar," he was and remained a naar, he retained the freshness and excitement of youth.  When Yosef was born, Rachel said, "Yosef Hashem li ben acheir..."  (30:25)  Yosef is never complete -- yosef, Hashem should add more, we should add more and strive for more.  It's no wonder that when Reuvain is displaced as bechor, it is Yosef who takes his place, as Yosef more than any other sheivet has the midah of naarus = hischadshus which defines the essence of what makes bechorah special.  It's no wonder that it is only once Yosef is born that Yaakov takes his leave of Lavan to take on the challenge of meeting Eisav.

When we get to the last month of the year, we might feel that we are out of energy, that we've been through so much these past months that we just want to put it all behind us.  Comes Adar and links us to Yosef, to naarus, to bechorah, to the possibility of renewal at all times, even at the very last moments of the waning year.  "Tov acharis davar m'reishiso" -- the goodness of this last month comes from the reishis, the element of bechorah, naarus, hischadshus, that is latent within it, even though it comes at the end.  Adar and Yosef challenge us to never stop growing.

sound of silence

Yosef has a dream in which he sees his brothers harvesting sheaves of wheat, "v'hinei kamah alumasi v'gam nitzavah," and his bundle stood up from among theirs.  The Midrash does a play on words here and connects the word "alumasi" with the word ileim, (aleph-lamed-mem), a person who is mute, silent.  Yosef was telling his brothers that because his mother Rachel was silent in order not to cause embarrassment to her sister when Leah took her place under the chuppah, he would rise above them.

 וּמַאן קָאֵים לֵיהּ מִשְׁתִּיקוּתָא דְּאִמָּא. קָמָה, וְהִנֵּה קָמָה אֲלֻמָּתִי וְגַם נִצָּבָה

What's the connection between Rachel's silence and the story of Yosef and his brothers?

The brothers misread Yosef's intentions as being hostile and saw eliminating him as the only way they could enjoy the good graces of their father's attention.  

The story of Rachel and Leah proves that they miscalculated.  As far as Rachel knew, if Yaakov married Leah, it would come at the cost of her being his bride.  Nonetheless, when Rachel saw Lavan lead Leah to the chuppah in her place, she kept silent, potentially sacrificing everything rather than throwing her sister under the bus.  In the end, however, Rachel did end of marrying Yaakov, and in fact was the akeret ha'bayit.

Yosef was telling his brothers that the choice his mother faced was a mirror of their own -- risk losing everything by supporting a brother/sister who stood to usurp their own place, or throw that brother/sister under the bus -- and by choosing the path of silence, she came out ahead in the end.  By making the wrong choice in the same situation, rather than gain the upper hand, they would lose it.  

Reuvain's reaction

  וַיָּ֥שׇׁב אֶל־אֶחָ֖יו וַיֹּאמַ֑ר הַיֶּ֣לֶד אֵינֶ֔נּוּ וַאֲנִ֖י אָ֥נָה אֲנִי־בָֽא׃

Rashi explains:  אנה אני בא – אנה אברח מצערו של אבא.  

Reuvain comes back to his brothers, and discovers that Yosef is gone.  "If Yosef is gone," he exclaims, "How can I ever find refuge from our father's pain?"

(Interesting that Yosef here is called a  יֶּ֣לֶד.  Recall that at the beginning of the parsha we are told  וְה֣וּא נַ֗עַר.  The term יֶּ֣לֶד suggests the innocence of a child, someone who does not deserve to suffer for his actions.)

I think my son's favorite derasha in shas, if one can have such a thing, is the derasha on the extra vav in kabeid es avicha v'es imecha that comes to be marbeh achicha ha'gadol (he is the oldest).  (Minchas Chinuch discusses whether this is an independent chiyuv, or whether it is an extension of the din of kibud for a parent, i.e. that part of being mechabeid the parent is to also be mechabeid the achicha ha'hagadol.)  

The Alshich explains that Reuvain saw what happened to Yosef -- he was not sure if he was even alive at this point -- and thought that everything that had happened stemmed from the fact that Yosef did not show the proper respect for his brothers.  If so, thought Reuvain, if this is the punishment for failing to fulfill kibud for a brother, then what will befall me, as I failed to properly fulfill the ikar chiyuv of kibud av by being mibalbel Yaakov's bed.

A second pshat the Alshich suggests, which may explain why it is davka Reuvain who intervened to prevent Yosef's being killed, is that when Reuvain heard Yosef's dream about 11 brothers bowing to him, there was a silver lining to the story for him: he was 1 of those 11, he was part of the family.  His sin in being mibalbel his father's bed did not cause him to become a pariah. However, with Yosef gone, with those dreams dismissed as fantasy, Reuvain wondered if he truly was 1 of the 11, or perhaps that too was just fantasy.

The Midrash that teaches:

 והיכן הלך ראובן? ר׳ אליעזר אומר עסוק היה בשקו ובתעניתו, כלומר שהיה מתענה ולובש שקא על שבלבל יצועי אביו.

takes on a much deeper meaning in light of either approach.  It is Reuvain's sin against his father which is the backrop for his reaction to the loss of Yosef. 

Either way, I'm not sure what we are to make of the fact that the first thing Reuvain thinks of when he discovers Yosef missing is himself.  Notice (as Ibn Ezra does) the repetition of the word "ani" in the pasuk; it serves to highlight the ME of Reuvain's reaction.  Whether or not Yosef is still alive, whether or not Yosef's dreams have any relationship to reality, matters to Reuvain only in terms of what that means for his place in the family, or what it portends for the consequences of his sin against his father.  

R' Avraham ben haRambam has a far more charitable reading of the pasuk that reflects Reuvain's grief over the loss of his brother:  ואני אנה אני בא – צעקת ווי על חסרונו וגודל הצער על אבדונו  

better to face off against a baal bechira than a wild animal?

We've discussed many times before (e.g. see here, here, here, and here) the following famous Ohr haChaim, based on Zohar: Chazal tell us that the pit that Yosef was thrown into was filled with snakes and scorpions.  Why then does the Torah credit Reuvain for saving Yosef?  All he did was take him out of the frypan, out of the brothers’ hands, and toss him into the fire, into the scorpion pit?  O.C. answers that Hashem has complete control over animals and everything else in the natural world, and therefore if Yosef didn’t deserve to die, the snakes and scorpions would not be able to harm him.  However, a human being is different because he/she is a “ba’al bechira,” and Hashem does not interfere with free choice.  Had Yosef been turned over to the brothers or other people, even if he didn’t deserve to die, they would still have been able to harm him had they chosen to do so. 

If the O.C. is correct, what's pshat in 7:22 that Hashem will not allow us to conquer the goyim in Eretz Yisrael too quickly  לֹ֤א תוּכַל֙ כַּלֹּתָ֣ם מַהֵ֔ר פֶּן־תִּרְבֶּ֥ה עָלֶ֖יךָ חַיַּ֥ת הַשָּׂדֶֽה׃ , lest the empty land be overrun with wild animals?  Sounds like it is better to have to deal with the goyim who are baalei bechira, than with the wild animals, who are not, exactly the opposite of the O.C.!?  (See Taz in Divrei David, Targum Yonasan)

worse than a snake pit

Reuvain came up with the idea of throwing Yosef into a pit instead of killing him.  Chazal are medayek from the Torah's description of that pit, "mayim ain bo," there was no water in it, but was something else -- snakes and scorpions.  Nonetheless, the Torah writes about Reuvain that "va'yatzileihu mi'yadam," he saved Yosef from his brothers.  

The Torah never says the same about Yehudah, who was the one who pulled Yosef out of that pit.  The Torah never says about Yehudah "va'yatzileihu" despite the fact that the sale of Yosef into slavery would be the start of the whole chain of events that would lead to Yosef becoming the viceroy of Egypt.  Instead, as we've discussed the past few days, Chazal are critical of Yehudah and condemn anyone who praises him.

Why the difference?

R' Amiel writes in Derashos El Ami that Chazal are teaching us that it is better to be in a pit of snakes and scorpions in Eretz Yisrael than to be the viceroy of a mighty empire in chutz la'aretz.  

Reuvain gets credit because on his watch Yosef remained in Eretz Yisrael; Yehudah is condemned because he caused Yosef to be brought to chu"l.

Yehudah: villain or hero -- take 2

Last week we discussed the machlokes between R' Meir, who is highly critical of Yehudah for telling the brothers that it was not in their best financial interest to kill Yosef, "mah betza ki na'arog es achinu," but rather to sell him, and other Tanaim who disagree and do not share his criticism.  On the other hand, one could argue that given the danger Yosef was in, Yehudah did a great thing by simply ensuring that the brothers did not actually kill Yosef.  On the other hand, R' Meir looked at the potential Yehudah had to do so much more.  Had Yehudah exerted himself more forcefully he could have returned Yosef home. 

There is another possible hesber of the machlokes.  Chazal tell us that a when a person sins, he is overcome with a "ruach shtus."  When a person has a taavah, what it says in shas and poskim goes right out of his mind -- all that matters is satisfying the "I," the ego, the subjective need/desire.  Had Yehudah argued with his brothers not to kill Yosef because it says "lo tirtzach," he would have gotten nowhere -- the yetzer ha'ra was in control already.  However, he could still make the argument that the "I" would get a better deal selling Yosef rather than killing him.  

Is this approach a b'dieved, or can it even be a lichatchila?  If a person, for example, doesn't eat at McDonalds because he tells himself that he is better off without the cholesterol and fat, that the net gain of skipping the Big Mac outweighs the enjoyment he might get from having it, is that on par with a person who doesn't eat the Big Mac because of a pasuk in chumash?  R' Meir is critical of Yehudah's approach -- we should aim for more than convincing ourselves based on arguments from seichel with it comes to avodas Hashem.  Other Tanaim take the opposite approach, that this is not something bad at all.  (Based on Mei haShiloach)

Yehudah: villain or hero -- b'poel vs b'koach

 The gemara (Sanhedrin 6b) quotes R' Meir as being very harshly critical of Yehudah:

 רבי מאיר אומר לא נאמר בוצע אלא כנגד יהודה שנאמר ויאמר יהודה אל אחיו מה בצע כי נהרוג את אחינו וכל המברך את יהודה הרי זה מנאץ ועל זה נאמר ובוצע ברך נאץ ה

Anyone who praises Yehudah for advocating that Yosef be sold instead of killed is insulting G-d, as how can you praise someone who encouraged selling his brother into slavery?

Tos on the spot asks how R' Meir could criticize Yehudah when Yaakov Avinu on his death bed praised Yehudah: גּ֤וּר אַרְיֵה֙ יְהוּדָ֔ה מִטֶּ֖רֶף בְּנִ֣י עָלִ֑יתָ (49:9! Tosfos answers that Yaakov was not praising Yehudah for sparing Yosef's life, but rather  was praising Yehudah for confessing his guilt and not allowing Tamar to be killed.  In other words, the way to read that pasuk is not מִטֶּ֖רֶף בְּנִ֣י, comma, עָלִ֑יתָ, but rather מִטֶּ֖רֶף comma, i.e. from the killing of innocent Tamar, בְּנִ֣י עָלִ֑יתָ you my son, Yehudah, rose up and did not do wrong.  (see Maharasha as well)

Yet if we look at the Yalkut Shimoni on that pasuk, the Yalkut writes:

אָמַר לֵיהּ יְהוּדָה בְּנִי, מְסֻלָּק אַתָּה מֵאוֹתוֹ עָוֹן שֶׁאָמַרְתָּ ״טָרֹף טֹרַף יוֹסֵף״

And Rashi in his first pshat on the pasuk echoes the same:

מטרף – ממה שחשדתיך בטרף טורף יוסף חיה רעה אכלתהו (בראשית ל״ז:ל״ג), וזה יהודה שנמשל כארי

So hadra kushya l'duchta: how can R' Meir accuse Yehudah of wrongdoing when Yaakov proclaims his innocence?  

R' Yehudah Deri in his sichos on the parsha answers that both R' Meir's perspective and Yaakov Avinu's perspective are true.  The brothers were on the verge of literally killing Yosef.  If Yehudah had not stepped in, that would have been the end.  מִטֶּ֖רֶף בְּנִ֣י עָלִ֑יתָ -- Yehudah saved Yosef's life.

Yet, at the same time, as Rashi writes on the sugya in Sanhedrin, כנגד יהודה. שהיה לו לומר נחזירנו לאבינו אחרי שהיו דבריו נשמעין לאחיו, once Yehudah had his brothers' ears, he could have done so much more than simply prevents Yosef's murder.  He could have brought his brother home. 

Yaakov Avinu looked at the b'poel of Yehudah's actions, that without him Yosef was finished.  R' Meir looked at the b'koach of Yehudah, the potential that he wasted in not doing more.

I think these two perspectives are built into Yehudah's makeup.  The Torah tells us that Leah gave her child the name Yehudah because "ha'pa'am odeh es Hashem," she wanted to praise Hashem.  Immediately afterwards the Torah tells us "va'taamod mi'ledes," she stopped having children.  Why after giving praise to Hashem was Leah suddenly not able to have more children?

Maor vaShemesh quotes the Chozeh miLublin:

והנה שמעתי מאדמ"ו הרב הקדוש מו' יעקב יצחק מלובלין הכ"מ זלה"ה במעשה דחוני המעגל במס' תענית שהתפלל על הגשמים עד שירדו גשמים מרובי' ולא היו צריכים להם עוד ובקשו ממנו שיתפלל עליהם שלא ירדו עוד אמר להם שיביאו לו פר הודאה יעוין שם והביאו לו והקריב ופסקו הגשמי' אמר אדמ"ו זלה"ה שהכוונה הי' כנ"ל כי אחר שהקריב פר הודאה בזה רימז שכבר יצאו מן הצער לגמרי ואינם צריכים עוד להטובה וממילא יפסקו הגשמי' וזה מרומז בפסוק שלפנינו אחר שאמרה לאה הפעם אודה את ה' וקראה שמו יהודה לשון הודאה ממילא הראה בעצמה שכבר קבלה כל הטובה בבנים ואינה צריכה עוד לטובה זו על כן ותעמוד מלדת

Imagine you sit down to a big banquet and the waiters start to bring out course after course of delicious food.  You don't get up in the middle, put down your fork and knife, fold your napkin nicely, and go thank your hosts for such a nice evening.  That's what you do at the end of the meal, not in the middle.  If you do it in the middle your hosts will think you are leaving and don't care to stick around for the lavish desert that is coming along with the after dinner drinks.  

"Ha'pa'am odeh es Hashem" is saying thanks in the middle of the meal.  It signals that you are done and are going to take a pass on what is yet to come.  B'poel, you are doing the right thing by thanking your host, but b'koach, you missed out on even more and better things.

Which of these differing perspectives to give greater weight to is the machlokes Shamai and Hillel as to how to light the menorah.  Hillel held to add a candle each night, as each night b'poel the miracle was greater as the menorah continued to burn without additional oil.  Shamai held to start with eight candles and subtract one on each night, as on each night the b'koach potential of what was to come grew less and less.  

Yosef and Yehudah -- oil and menorah

We have been reading these past two weeks about the tragic descent of Yosef, who is first thrown into a pit by his brothers, then sold into slavery, where he is falsely accused by Eishes Potifar and thrown into prison, and then, just as he thinks he has found someone who can help win his release, he is promptly forgotten about by the Sar haMashkim the moment the Sar steps out of prison himself.  And so we find Yosef languishing in prison, seemingly with no hope of escape.  All that is about to change as Yosef is called out of prison to interpret Pharoah's mysterious dreams.  “Va’yiritzuhu min ha’bor” -- Rashi struggles to explain the use of the term “bor” in place of was called in last week’s parsha a “beis ha’sohar.”  Why change terms?  The Zohar solves the problem by reading the pasuk as bringing our narrative fill circle.  The pasuk is not referring to the prison, but rather is referring back to the original pit, that bor where he brothers threw him.  Yosef is on the way out of that pit, on the way to reconciliation with his brothers and fulfillment of his own dreams.

In last week’s parsha (sorry for no post last week – bad cold) the Torah interrupted the Yosef-narrative with the story of Yehudah and Tamar.  There is a parallelism between the stories: both Yosef and Yehudah are rejected by their brothers (as Rashi explains, when the brothers saw the pain caused by Yehudah's plan of selling Yosef they removed him from his position of leadership); both are tempted by women; both Tamar and Eishes Potifar according to Chazal had intentions l’shem shamayim.  Ultimately both narratives intersect in next week’s parsha (will be away from home so probably no post then either) -– VaYigash eilav Yehudah -– and come to a resolution.  From a literary perspective the story is a work of art; if I remember correctly Robert Alter has a wonderful chapter on this whole episode in his book The Art of Biblical Narrative. 

The pshat / narrative relationship between the two stories clues us in to dig deeper into what is going on here.  Malbi”m explains Yehudah’s relationship with Tamar leads to the birth of children from whom will stem the lineage of Mashiach ben David.  At the very moment that the story of Yosef’s sale to Egypt portends our descent into exile, the seeds of redemption are being planted!  At the same time that we are reading of Yosef coming into Egypt, which serves as the paradigm for our physical survival in alien galus culture, we are reading about Yehudah, who keeps the spiritual promise of redemption burning.

This contrast can help us understand another element of the story that will come up in next weeks' parsha.  Rashi tells us that Yaakov sent Yehudah ahead to establish a yeshiva in Goshen before the family arrived.  Why did he need to send Yehudah?  Why not entrust the job to Yosef, who was already there?

We all know that Chanukah celebrates the miracle of the Chashmonaim finding a pure jug of oil that stayed lit for 8 days.  But what about the menorah itself?  Chazal (Menachos 28) tell us that the Chashmonaim did not have the solid gold menorah of the Mikdash; they were forced to light with a plain metal menorah.  Why did a miracle happen to preserve a jug of pure oil, even though technically tumah hutra b’tzibur and any oil could be used, but no miracle happened to ensure the integrity of the menorah itself?

Rav Kook suggests an answer that I am going to take the liberty of reformulating to fit our theme: oil = the spiritual light of Judaism = Yehudah.  Menorah = the physical structure that the light rests on = Yosef.  Yosef looks like an Egyptian, talks like an Egyptian, dresses like an Egyptian –- like a chameleon, he changes his colors to blend in with his environment.  By doing so he is able to become “hu ha’mashbir” who provides for his brothers, and indeed, ensures all of Egypt’s survival during years of famine.  Yehudah, on the other hand, remains in Canaan with his father and brothers.  Yehudah is even willing to sacrifice himself rather than allow Binyamin to be taken into the alien Egyptian society.

When it comes to our material survival, especially in galus, external trappings don’t really matter that much.  Even if the menorah of gold is not available, we can make due with second best.  You can dress like an Egyptian and talk like an Egyptian and still make it.  But when it comes to our spiritual inner core, there are no compromises.  Only the purest of the pure will ever be acceptable. 

On Shabbos we are about to enter the month of Teves.  The Ch haRI”M explains the name Teves comes from the same root as “ha’tavas ha’neiros,” cleaning out the wicks and preparing the menorah for new candles to be lit.  Teves is not the ohr itself -– it’s the physical preparation needed to make ready to receive the ohr.  It’s the Yosef of the story -- “Tvoach tevach v’hachaein,” Yosef commands in our parsha; take the last letter of tevach and the letters of hachein and it spells Chanukah--- laying the physical groundwork upon which a Yehudah can flourish.   Tavas = Aramaic for “tov.”  Not lashon kodesh, because, like Yosef, the “tov” has to dress itself up in the garb of Aramaic.  Teves is the start of the three month period (Teves, Shevat, Adar) where Tziporah had to hide Moshe Rabeinu from the world because the Egyptians counted on a 9 month pregnancy and didn’t realize he would be born early.  Moshe is there, just hidden; Yosef is behind that Egyptian dress, he is just in disguise.  Cleaning out the dirty wicks ain't pretty, but underneath the grime is a pnimiyus of tov preparing the way for those new wicks to produce the ohr.

to'eh ba'sadeh

The Torah tells us that when Yosef was sent to look for his brothers, he could not find them.  A man found Yosef "to'eh ba'sadeh," wandering in the fields, and asked him what he was looking for,  "I am looking for my brothers," Yosef replied, and the man then directed him to Dosan to find them.

Do we really need to know that Yosef stopped to ask for directions?  Do we really need a blow by blow report of that conversation?

Obviously there is more going on here than a conversation about directions.  "Va'yimtza'eihu ish," the man offering directions found Yosef.  Normally you go looking for help when you need directions -- the person offering directions doesn't go looking for and find you.  And normally when you ask for directions you specify a place, a street, and address -- "I'm looking for my brothers" is none of the above.  (Parenthetically, this also hints to a deterioration of relations between Yosef and his brothers.  Surely the brothers had certain regular places that they went, yet Yosef seems clueless as to where to find them.  It seems like he spent so little time with them that he was not aware of their habits or usual haunts.)  Why would Yosef assume this man who he has never met would know who his brothers are or where they are?  These clues are perhaps what led Rashi to explain that the unnamed man here is the angel Gavriel.  By including this episode the Torah is revealing G-d's fingerprints all over what happened.  There was no chance Yosef would not find his brothers, return home, and avoid the fate that awaited him. 

But if Rashi is correct that the man Yosef met is an angel, the question that begs asking (and Ibn Ezra does the asking) is why the Torah doesn't explicitly tell us so.  Why couch the man's identity in mystery and rely on us to infer the truth? 

"V'hinei anachnu m'almim alumim b'toch ha'sadeh..."  Yosef in his dreams sees himself as standing in a field, his brothers bowing subserviently to him.  By bringing their "dibasam ra'ah" to their father, but placing himself on a pedestal above them, might Yosef have misjudged his brothers and not treated them favorably enough?  Might this be the "to'eh ba'sadeh" the Torah is hinting at (Mishnas Sachir, Alshich)? 

I think this may be why the Torah never explicitly reveals to us the identity of the unnamed man Yosef met.  Perhaps this was a final chance for Yosef to make amends.  If an angel could appear to be an "ish," and we only know otherwise based on inference and clues, might Yosef's brothers, whose crimes he reported to their father, in truth be far more saintly than he gave them credit for, but he was missing the subtle clues and signs? 

v'kisinu es damo -- the cover-up

1. Rashi in last weeks parsha comments on the words "vayichbkeyhu... vayishakeyhu" (33:4) that even though it was out of character for Eisav to express love for Ya'akov, in this case the hugs and kisses were sincere as he was truly moved.  Yet two weeks ago in Parshas VaYeitzei the Torah uses nearly the identical phrase of "va'yichabek lo va'yinashek lo..." (29:3) in describing Lavan's greeting of Ya'akov and there Rashi writes that Lavan was insincere and was trying to pat down Ya'akov to find out if he had any jewels on him.  Why in one case does Rashi interpret the hugs and kisses as sincere expressions of love and in the other case as a selfishly motivated act?

HaKsav vHaKabbalah explains that in describing what Lavan did, the Torah separates the verb from it's object: "va'yinasek" = verb, "lo" = object.  There was a disconnect between what Lavan was doing and what he felt about Ya'akov.  In describing Eisav's actions, the Torah lumps subject, verb, and object into one word: "vayichakeyhu."  The person taking action -- Eisav -- was 100% invested into the action of giving those hugs and kisses.  There was no disconnect between them and his true self, his true emotions.

R' Yisrael Resiman brilliantly connects this to our parsha.  "V'lo yachlu dabro l'shalom..."  Of course, had the brothers wants to, they could have spoken nicely to Yosef and about Yosef.  But they wouldn't have meant it.   It would just be words.  They couldn't speak in the manner of "dabro," subject+verb+object in one, where your true self is invested 100%in what you say and every word reflects your true feelings.   

2. Speaking of the Ksav vHaKabbalah, here's another nice one: Yehudah says, "Mah betzah ki na'harog es achinu v'kisinu es damo."  (37:26)  Why should we kill Yosef and have to cover up his blood?  It's an incomprehensible statement.  Is this the way the shivtei K-h speak?  This is like a line from a Mafia movie.  Yehudah is only worried about having to do a cover-up once the crime is committed -- aside from that, no problem?

HaKsav vHaKabbalah explains that the word kisinu here does not mean cover-up.  It is like the word ksus, a garment.  Yehudah was giving mussar to his brothers!  If Yosef is killed, he told them, then we will wear the guilt of that deed like a badge of shame for all of our lives. 

The kabbalists speak of the body being a levush for the neshoma.  A person can take his holy neshoma and dress it in a body that does all kind of crimes and misdeeds.  When Yaakov stole his father's brachos dressed up like Eisav, what that meant is that even when the precious neshoma of a Jew finds itself in the kesus, the levush, of Eisav, his inside remains pure and blessed.

When Eishes Potifar tries to seduce Yosef, the Torah tells us, "Vatispiseihu b'bigdo," she grabbed his clothing (39:12).  The Sefas Emes explains that the yetzer ha'ra has the power to sink its hook into our external levush=begged=kesus. The yetzer can't really get at who we are deep down, but he can nip at our externals and try to change our behavior and our outer personality.  (It's a great strategy because how many of us are in touch with or even think about who we are deep down?   Life is about switching from one role to another, one levush to the next, without taking the time to pay attention to what's underneath.)  So what does Yosef do?  "Va'ya'azov bigdo b'yadah," he abandons that outer shell.  He retreats into himself and digs down to his root core.  (My wife has a creative take on these pesukim here.)  Once you do that, the yetzer no longer has a hold.

the seeds of malchus

Yosef was lost somewhere in Mitzrayim, "vayeired Yehudah," Yehudah lost his leadership position for his role in the fiasco, Reuvain was immersed in doing teshuvah for his sins, Ya'akov could not be consoled over the loss of Yosef -- could things get any worse?  Could things look any bleaker?  Yet, the Midrash (85:1), after going through the above list, tells us that while all this was going on Hashem was busy creating the ohr of mashiach.  At the very moment when things look the bleakest, Hashem was crafting redemption.  That's a great lesson about Jewish history and Jewish destiny.

We have the story of Yehudah and Tamar in our parsha.  The gemara (Sotah 7b) darshens that there is a connection between Yehudah's bracha, "V'zos l'Yehdah...," with a connecting vav, in parshas V'Zos haBracha, and Reuvain's bracha that comes right before it.  Yehudah was not allowed to enter gan eden after death because he had pledged his olam ha'ba as collateral in case he did not bring Binyamin home.  Moshe Rabeinu wanted to rectify that.  He asked that Hashem open the gates of heaven for Yehudah in the merit of the special zechus Yehudah had of causing Reuvain to admit his guilt.  When Yehudah publicly admitted that he was the one who had been with Tamar, Reuvain was inspired and admitted his own guilt in being "bilbeil yetzu'ei aviv" with Bilhah.  In that merit, Yehudah earned entrance to gan eden.  

R' Leib Chasman makes a beautiful point.  Why it is that Yehudah's own public admission of guilt, at the cost of great embarrassment, was not enough to earn him olam ha'ba.  Why was it only the fact that he caused Reuvain to confess?  He beautifully answers that it's not only our own tzidkus that ultimately defines who we are, but it's what impact and influence we have on others. 

Be that as it may, I don't understand simple pshat in a Rashi on this sugya.  The gemara says that Yehudah and Reuvain received reward in this world as well as the next.  Rashi (d"h lahem levadam) writes that Yehudah received the reward of malchus; Reuvain received the reward of getting the first portion of land in Eretz Yisrael, in Eiver ha'Yarden.  Putting aside the question of whether Eiver haYarden has a full kedushas ha'aretz, I don't understand why this is a reward.  In Parshas Matos Moshe Rabeinu was highly critical of Reuvain and Gad for asking for that territory.   Taking it was viewed as a negative, and it was only with great reluctance that Moshe agreed that they could settle there.  Why is getting that land a reward?  I don't know.

It takes two to tango, and the reward of malchus given to Yehudah was earned by Tamar as well.   Rashi (38:26) quotes the Midrash that "because Tamar was modest in her in-laws house, therefore I [Hashem] decreed that she should produce kings of Israel." 

The is an amazing Rashi given the context.  Here Tamar says, "haker na," whoever these items belong to is the father of my baby.  She deliberately avoided accusing Yehudah directly, and would have even been willing to give up her life rather than embarrass him in public should he refuse to admit guilt.  Yet, that's not why Tamar earned the reward of malchus!   It's because of her tzeniyus, not her mesirus nefesh, that she was deserving of producing kings.

Were I a Beis Ya'akov teacher, this would be an easy home run derasha for the week.  "Kol kevudah **bas melech** pnimah..." (The 45:14)  The midah of tzeniyus and the midah of malchus go hand in hand.  (Why that should be so is something to explore further.  Friday night is a long night -- plenty of time to think : )

The Midrash writes that Yehudah took no notice of Tamar at first, but a malach caused him to turn aside off the road and go to her.  He was coerced somehow to fall into this situation so that malchus yisrael could arise.  It sounds like a supernatural occurrence, a long shot that you would not bet on.  So what was Tamar thinking?  What was this girl, who was so tzanu'a, hoping for?  Surely she could not have expected Yehudah to notice her or to be with her?  It would be like hoping to win the lottery! 

R' Chaim Shmuelevitz (Sichos Musar 5733 #9) answers that when a person realizes great things are on the line, he/she will grasp at every straw and make every effort, no matter how slight the chance of success, to bring things to fruition.  Tamar realized this was her chance -- a slight chance, but still, a chance -- to perhaps be the mother of malchus, the mother who will bring the lineage of mashiach into the world.  No matter what the odds, no matter what effort she took, it was something she had to shoot for.

Still haven't had a chance to write about Chanukah -- never enough time. 

Ya'akov's desire for a little peace

1) "Bikesh Ya'akov lasheves b'shalvah..."  Ya'akov wanted to have  little quiet, but, says the Midrash, that is reserved only for olam ha'ba and is not attainable in this world. 

In this world it's impossible to keep going up and up in constant growth.  It's two steps forward and one step back (hopefully not the reverse).  For tzadikim, they don't take steps back, but even they need to pause between steps on the ladder.  There has to be six days of chol between every day of Shabbos.

Olam ha'ba is a different story -- there the breaks won't be needed and there certainly won't be backsliding.  It will be "yom she'kulo Shabbos" without the need for chol in between.  Kedusha will build directly and immediately upon kedusha; one Shabbos will follow directly on the heels of the next.

Rav Charlap explains that Ya'akov wanted the complete tikun to come about already and for this world to be perfected.  He wanted that state of constant Shabbos, of total "shalvah." 

Unfortunately, the world was not ready. 

2) What's the idea behind Ya'akov giving Yosef a kesones passim?  Was he really blind to the fact that it would be viewed as favoritism?

The gemara (Shabbos 145) says that the talmidei chachamim in Bavel wore fine clothes to look distinguished -- they all had frocks and up-hats -- while the Rabbis in Eretz Yisrael dressed like everyone else.  The gemara explains that in Eretz Yisrael, the talmidei chachaim were respected and distinguished by dint of their Torah and personalities alone.  In Bavel, the same was not true, and they needed clothing to distinguish themselves. 

Ya'akov thought to himself that if the brothers think that he is sharing special Torah with Yosef and making him a bigger talmid chacham, the way to show that this is not true is to give Yosef special clothes, as if to say that he needs clothes to distinguish himself and the Torah alone won't do it.

3) One Chanukah question to get warmed up: the Pri Megadim (quoted in M"B as well) writes that an onein on Chanukah should preferably ask his wife to light for him, but if that is not possible, the onein should light for himself.  He does not explain or address the obvious question: an onein is exempt from all mitzvos -- why is ner Chanukah any different?

I have no time now and it's not Chanukah yet anyway, so you have a head start in coming up with an answer and bl"n will come back to it.