dignity for the accused

It's always hard to learn parsha when you are caught up in Chanuka, but I don't want to skip a week of writing something.  

When Yaakov sends his sons back to Egypt with Binyamin, he declares (43:14)

 וְק-ל שַׁדַּי יִתֵּן לָכֶם רַחֲמִים לִפְנֵי הָאִישׁ וְשִׁלַּח לָכֶם אֶת⁠ אֲחִיכֶם אַחֵר וְאֶת⁠ בִּנְיָמִין

Abarbanel is medayek in the words לִפְנֵי הָאִישׁ, which seem unnecessary. According to one Midrashic interpretation, the word  אִישׁ actually refers to Hashem:

רַבִּי יַאשְׁיָה בֶּן לֵוִי פָּתַר קְרָא בַּגָּלֻיּוֹת: וְאֵל שַׁדַּי יִתֵּן לָכֶם רַחֲמִים (בראשית מ״ג:י״ד), וַיִּתֵּן אוֹתָם לְרַחֲמִים (תהלים ק״ו:מ״ו).

לִפְנֵי הָאִישׁ – הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ה׳ אִישׁ מִלְחָמָה ה׳ שְׁמוֹ (שמות ט״ו:ג׳).

וְשִׁלַּח לָכֶם אֶת אֲחִיכֶם – אֵלּוּ עֲשֶׂרֶת הַשְּׁבָטִים.

אַחֵר וְאֶת בִּנְיָמִין – זֶה שֵׁבֶט יְהוּדָה וּבִנְיָמִין.

וַאֲנִי כַּאֲשֶׁר שָׁכֹלְתִּי – בְּחֻרְבַּן רִאשׁוֹן.

שָׁכָלְתִּי – בְּחֻרְבַּן שֵׁנִי. כַּאֲשֶׁר שָׁכֹלְתִּי, בְּחֻרְבָּן רִאשׁוֹן וּבַשֵּׁנִי, לֹא אֶשְׁכַּל עוֹד

This is not pshat, as it is hard to understand what it means that Hashem should give mercy before Hashem, unless you say that the different names refer to different midos.  The point the derash means to convey is that the reunification of the brothers portends a reunification of Klal Yisrael which leads ultimately to geulah.  

Abarbanel explains pshat is that אִישׁ is not just stam "man," but it means something like "gentleman;" it connotes chashivus.  Rashi writes in parshas Shlach (13:3)  כל אנשים שבמקרא לשון חשיבות.   Or you could be medayek from Rashi in our parsha on the pasuk הלא ידעתם כי נחש ינחש איש אשר כמני (44:15) where Rashi writes   הלא ידעתם כי איש חשוב כמוני יודע לנחש - notice that he adds the word חשוב.  Here too in our pasuk, what Yaakov was telling his children is that someone of Yosef's stature cannot but help but be moved by their plight:  כי איש הוא ויתפעל מצרתכם.  Surely someone who is an אִישׁ would not be lacking in empathy.

(Parenthetically, if I remember correctly, the Rav explained that this is what struck Moshe Rabeinu (Shmos 2:12)  וַיִּפֶן כֹּה וָכֹה וַיַּרְא כִּי אֵין אִישׁ.  Egypt was the bastion of enlightenment for its time - -a place of culture, refinement, advanced ideas.  When Moshe saw the beating of a Jew, it struck him that for all the superficial appearances, no one in that society was truly an אִישׁ.  They were barbarians at heart, as they lacked human empathy.  Of course, this was a commentary on German high culture before the war, not just pshat in the pasuk.)

R' Chaim Elazari learned by the Alter of Slabodka and always reads the parsha through the lens of Slabodka mussar and its emphasis on gadlus ha'adam.  He focusses on this same word/idea of אִישׁ/אנשׁים later in the parsha to learn a different lesson.  When Yosef orders his majordomo to run after the brothers and accuse them of stealing his goblet, you have the use of that word אִישׁ/אנשים  again: 

הֵם יָצְאוּ אֶת⁠ הָעִיר לֹא הִרְחִיקוּ וְיוֹסֵף אָמַר לַאֲשֶׁר עַל⁠ בֵּיתוֹ קוּם רְדֹף אַחֲרֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים וְהִשַּׂגְתָּם וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם לָמָּה שִׁלַּמְתֶּם רָעָה תַּחַת טוֹבָה

R' Elazari writes that the pasuk is teaching us that even when it seems like a crime has been committed, don't be so hasty to throw around accusations and debase and degrade the accused.  רְדֹף אַחֲרֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים means treat the accused as אֲנָשִׁים; don't rob them of their dignity.  Don't chase after them through the streets screaming, "Stop thief!" so that everyone turns their heads to take a video of the scene as it unfolds.  Wait until וְהִשַּׂגְתָּם, until you catch up to them and stop them, and only then say, לָמָּה שִׁלַּמְתֶּם רָעָה תַּחַת טוֹבָה.  

One could argue that Yosef's concern stemmed from the fact that he knew that his brothers were not in fact thieves.  On the other hand, if he treated them differently than others, that would give away the game, wouldn't it?  

zos chanukah; a beautiful diyuk from R' BenTzion Mutzafi that teaches us how to settle arguments

1) Today is the last day of Chanukah, known as "zos Chanukah."  Rashi in parshas Matos comments on the pasuk at the beginning of that parsha  זֶ֣ה הַדָּבָ֔ר אֲשֶׁ֖ר צִוָּ֥ה ה׳ that משה נתנבא בכה אמר ה׳ כחצות הלילה וגו׳ (שמות י״א:ד׳), והנביאים נתנבאו בכה אמר, מוסף עליהם משה שנתנבא בלשון זה הדבר.  What's the difference whether the word כה or the word זה is used?  Maharal explains in Gur Aryeh: 

ונראה, כי ענין זה הוא תולה בנבואת משה רבינו עליו השלום ומדריגתו, כי הנבואות הם שתים; האחת הוא שנתנבאו בה כל הנביאים על מעשה ה׳ והנהגתו בעולם, לכל אשר נעשה בעולם. והמדריגה של משה היה כולל זה, וכולל גם כן להתנבאות על המצות והתורה שצוה לו השם יתברך מפיו. וזאת המדריגה היא אינו דומה לראשונה, כי המדריגה הראשונה בדברים אשר יחדש ויעשה בעולם, והמדריגה של משה רבינו עליו השלום היא התורה מה שהשם יתברך רוצה שיהיה נוהג תמיד בעולם מבלי שינוי, והוא סדר מציאות כללי בעולם. כי בתורה אשר נתן השם יתברך על ידי משה, סידר את ישראל בסדר כללי, לא בענינים המתחדשים בפרטים מן הסבה הראשונה, שזה אין המדריגה כל כך. 

The word זֶ֣ה means you can always point to the thing; it's axiomatic, true for all eternity, in all times and places. כה is what is true in a particular context, based on circumstance.  

וזאת התורה אשׂר שׂם משׂה.  Only Moshe had the level of nevuah of זה and not just כה that was needed to gives us זאת התורה , a Torah that is eternal.  

Chanukah is not just about what happened centuries ago when we needed to be saved from the Greeks.  זאת חנוכּה, it is an eternal truth, it's about the salvation of the Jewish people in all times and in all places, now as well and then.

2) R' BenTzion Mutzafi has a beautiful diyuk in Rashi in our parsha.  The parsha tells us that Yosef imprisoned Shimon and allowed the other brothers to return home (42:24).   וַיִּקַּח מֵאִתָּם אֶת שִׁמְעוֹן וַיֶּאֱסֹר אֹתוֹ לְעֵינֵיהֶם  Rashi explains that it was only in the other brother's presence, לְעֵינֵיהֶם, that Shimon was locked up, but once the brothers were gone, Yosef released him and gave him food and drink לא אסרו אלא לעיניהם, וכיון שיצאו, הוציאו ומאכילו ומשקו.  We understand that Yosef would release Shimon from jail once the coast is clear, but why does Rashi add that Yosef also fed him and cared for him?  Why are those details important and deserving of mention here?  Rashi is based on the Midrash: רַבִּי חַגַּי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר לְעֵינֵיהֶם אֲסָרוֹ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּצְאוּ לָהֶם הָיָה מַאֲכִילוֹ וּמַשְׁקוֹ מַרְחִיצוֹ וְסָכוֹ.  I am not sure why Rashi cut off the last words מַרְחִיצוֹ וְסָכוֹ, but the point remains the same.  Furthermore, did Yosef really need to be personally involved?  Didn't Yosef, as the head of Egypt, have servants who could take care of preparing the food, or bathing Shimon?  Later in the parsha when Yosef hosts all the brothers, the Torah tells us that Yosef told others prepare the food  וַיֹּאמֶר לַאֲשֶׁר עַל⁠ בֵּיתוֹ הָבֵא אֶת הָאֲנָשִׁים הַבָּיְתָה וּטְבֹחַ טֶבַח וְהָכֵן כִּי אִתִּי יֹאכְלוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים בַּצׇּהֳרָיִם, so why not here as well?   

We learned 2 years ago a yesod from R"Y Salanter, which the Netziv develops as well, on the pasuk (Mishlei 17:13)  מֵשִׁיב רָעָה תַּחַת טוֹבָה לֹא תָמוּשׁ רָעָה מִבֵּיתוֹ.  The way most people understand that pasuk is not to repay a kindness by doing wrong to someone.  The Netziv, however, says that's not the pshat.  The idea of 'hashava' means returning something owed, like the Torah says in the case of theft, "v'heishiv es ha'gezeilah" -- you stole something, you have to repay it back.  If someone does you a favor, you obviously don't owe it to them to wrong them in return.  What the pasuk is talking about, explains Netziv, about is a case where someone wronged you.  In that case, tit-for-tat, you do owe them back wrongdoing, just like they gave you.  You might even think that this is the way to end the fight -- you wronged me, I wrong you back, now we're even and life goes on.  But it doesn't work that way.  What happens in that case is that the first party sees it as an escalation and responds in kind, and the cycle continues.   

The way to settle things is instead of responding to wrongdoing in kind, respond by doing a kindness.  Do something good for the other person who harmed you and their animosity will melt away and that will mend the broken bridges. 

This is what Mishlei is teaching us: you might think that מֵשִׁיב רָעָה, repaying a wrongdoing tit-for-tat in kind, evening the score, is the way to settle things תַּחַת טוֹבָה, instead of following this strategy of doing kindness; kah mashma lan לֹא תָמוּשׁ רָעָה מִבֵּיתוֹ, if you do that, the fight will never end.  The score will never be perceived as even and the argument will continue.

Shimon was one of the ringleaders in selling Yosef. Therefore, Yosef went out of his way to personally do good by him.  Yosef wanted to settle the quarrel and have peace.

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. 

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.  

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.  

all in

 1. Yosef tells Pharoah that the significance of his dream being doubled, his seeing fat cows/skinny cows and full sheaves of grain/skimpy sheaves of grain, is that the events the dream portend will happen immediately:

 וְעַ֨ל הִשָּׁנ֧וֹת הַחֲל֛וֹם אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֖ה פַּעֲמָ֑יִם כִּֽי־נָכ֤וֹן הַדָּבָר֙ מֵעִ֣ם האלקים  וּמְמַהֵ֥ר האלקים  לַעֲשֹׂתֽוֹ

You can't help but wonder what was going through the back of Yosef's mind when he said those words.  He too had had a double dream of the stars, sun, and moon bowing to him and sheaves of grain bowing to him, and here it was 22 years later  and his dream had still not yet been fulfilled.

(Yes, I know the meforshim all draw distinctions between the double-dream of Yosef and the double-dream of Pharoah, but logic does not necessarily satisfy the emotional frustration of the dream not being realized. )

2. Netziv and Malbim interpret  וְלֹֽא־יִוָּדַ֤ע הַשָּׂבָע֙ בָּאָ֔רֶץ מִפְּנֵ֛י הָרָעָ֥ב הַה֖וּא אַחֲרֵי־כֵ֑ן כִּֽי־כָבֵ֥ד ה֖וּא מְאֹֽד (41:31) not that when the famine hits the good years will be forgotten, but rather that the fat years themselves will not be fully enjoyed because the dark clouds of future famine hang over everything.  When you are anxious about the future, it blocks whatever enjoyment you might have from the present.

3. The Taz in Divrei David interprets Reuvain's statement  אֶת־שְׁנֵ֤י בָנַי֙ תָּמִ֔ית אִם־לֹ֥א אֲבִיאֶ֖נּוּ אֵלֶ֑יךָ  (which if read literally, is completely bizarre) to mean that his children will forfeit the double-nachalah that should be their due since their father was the bechor.  

Why did Yaakov accept Yehudah's argument of  אָֽנֹכִי֙ אֶֽעֶרְבֶ֔נּוּ מִיָּדִ֖י תְּבַקְשֶׁ֑נּוּ אִם־לֹ֨א הֲבִיאֹתִ֤יו אֵלֶ֙יךָ֙ וְהִצַּגְתִּ֣יו לְפָנֶ֔יךָ וְחָטָ֥אתִֽי לְךָ֖ כׇּל־הַיָּמִֽים׃, that he would forfeit his olam ha'ba if he failed to bring Binyamin home, but not Reuvain's offer?  

If, as Rashi writes, Yaakov did not want his grandchildren to suffer as that would only compound his losses, why would he accept the possibility of his own son losing olam ha'ba, thereby also compounding his losses?

I saw in the name of the Sefas Emes: Reuvain had 4 sons (46:9).  By putting only 2 of his sons on the line, Reuvain was in effect hedging his bets.  He wanted to bring Binyamin home safely, but hey, you never know.

Yehudah went all in. Either he brings Binyamin home or bust, he loses everything.

A baal bitachon is someone who has wholehearted confidence that Hashem will bring him success, and Hashem in turn midah k'neged midah delivers for such a person.  There is no such thing as a 50% baal bitachon, 75%, or even 90%.  It's all in, or there is no guarantee of the result.  

deja vu all over again

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

After Yosef accused the brothers of being spies and locked up Shimon, they came to the realization (42:21) that the events that had befallen them must be the result of their having ignored Yosef's pleas for mercy.  

How could the brothers say with such confidence that this was the case?  22 years had passed since the sale of Yosef.  Was there no other sin that they might attribute their troubles to?  

Perhaps not.  Perhaps the brothers were such tzadikim that there was in fact nothing else they could think of that would warrant any tzaros.  Or perhaps through all these years the sale of Yosef preyed on their mind; maybe they had some lingering doubts that refused to go away, and events confirmed their worst fears.

Meforshim suggest that the brothers took their cue from what they read as midah k'neged midah in what was occurring.  They had thrown Yosef in a pit and now they too had been thrown into prison (Rashbam); they had failed to show mercy toward their brother and now the viceroy showed no mercy toward them (Seforno); they had abandoned their brother and now their brother Shimon was taken from them (Malbim).  "It's deja vu all over again," as Yogi Berra once said.

The parsha continues and tells us that Reuvain chimed in:

 וַיַּ֩עַן֩ רְאוּבֵ֨ן אֹתָ֜ם לֵאמֹ֗ר הֲלוֹא֩ אָמַ֨רְתִּי אֲלֵיכֶ֧ם ׀ לֵאמֹ֛ר אַל־תֶּחֶטְא֥וּ בַיֶּ֖לֶד וְלֹ֣א שְׁמַעְתֶּ֑ם וְגַם־דָּמ֖וֹ הִנֵּ֥ה נִדְרָֽשׁ׃

Was Reuvain rubbing salt in their wounds?  They already acknowledged their guilt for the sale of Yosef.  Did he need to add, "I told you so!" and cause them further pain?  We've discussed this before, but want to add a bit more for this year.

Netziv reminds us that if we look back to the sale of Yosef (37:19), we have an echo of the same term אִ֣ישׁ אֶל־אָחִ֑יו that our pasuk uses:  וַיֹּאמְר֖וּ אִ֣ישׁ אֶל־אָחִ֑יו הִנֵּ֗ה בַּ֛עַל הַחֲלֹמ֥וֹת הַלָּזֶ֖ה בָּֽא  It was not everyone who admitted guilt at the sale of Yosef; it was the two brothers, the אִ֣ישׁ אֶל־אָחִ֑יו who were the instigators.  And they did not admit wrongdoing for the sale itself, which they held was justified, but only for failing to show any mercy, for ignoring Yosef's cries.  Reuvain then stepped in and admonished all the brothers, saying that it was not one or two or a select few who bear the burden of guilt.  They all do.  

The Midrash brings out a different element of Reuvain's words that ties nicely with the theme of midah k'neged midah.  The Midrash that explains the end of the pasuk as referring not only to Yosef, but to their father: וְגַם דָּמוֹ הִנֵּה נִדְרָשׁ – דָּמוֹ וְגַם דַּם הַזָּקֵן (the word gam serves as a ribuy).  Reuvain was telling his brothers that they needed to repent not just for the pain they caused Yosef, but also to the pain they caused their father Yaakov by failing to take his feelings into account (see Chasam Sofer as well).  

If this is correct, then the midah k'neged midah is all the sharper.  The brothers have been hoisted by their own petard.  Here they are arguing to the viceroy (Yosef in disguise) that they cannot bring their brother Binyamin down to Egypt because if anything were to happen to him their father would be devastated.  Yet those same brothers gave no thought to their father's reaction to losing Yosef!  Where were you guys, said Reuvain, back then?  Where was your concern then that not bringing our brother home would crush our father and cause him immeasurable grief?  Same situation 22 years later, but how different the tune the brothers were singing then was.

in no hurry to leave

Chazal tell us that Yosef had to spend 2 extra years in prison as punishment for asking the Sar haMashkim to remember him.  

The entire story of the conflict between Yosef and his brothers was a necessary lead up to Yaakov coming down to Mitzrayim.  When Yaakov tells the brothers to go down to Egypt, he says רְדוּ, which, as Rashi points out, is gematriya 210, the exact number of years that Klal Yisrael would spend in Egypt from the time Yaakov and the shevatim got there until they leave.  This was all predicted to happen in bris bein ha'besarim, when Avraham was told that his children would have to suffer in galus.

How then can there be 2 "extra" years thrown into the mix?  Even if Yosef might have gotten out of prison sooner, the whole chain of events of his becoming viceroy, the famine that would bring the brothers down to Egypt, their reconciliation with Yosef, the arrival of Yaakov, etc. could not have happened sooner because otherwise the count of 210 years would be thrown off.    

R' Shaul Yisraeli explains that we see from these parshiyos that what happens to the individual is not predetermined by the broader strokes of history.  There is a cheshbon for the yachid, for each prat, that is distinct from the cheshbon of what happens to the klal.  Had Yosef not erred, he would not have had to spend that 2 extra years in prison.  Hashem would have reworked things to find another way for the 210 or 400 years of galus to work out.  

2) When the time came, "va'yiritzuhu min ha'bor, " they rushed Yosef out of the pit.  Seforno comments:

כדרך כל תשועת ה׳ שנעשית כמו רגע, כאמרו ״כי קרובה ישועתי לבוא״ (ישעיהו נ״ו:א׳), וכאמרו ״לו עמי שמע לי... כמעט אויביהם אכניע״ (תהלים פ״א:י״ד-ט״ו), וכך היה ענין מצרים, כאמרו ״כי גרשו ממצרים״ (שמות י״ב:ל״ט), כאמרם זכרונם לברכה ׳שלא הספיק בצקן של אבותינו להחמיץ עד שנגלה עליהם מלך מלכי המלכים הקדוש ברוך הוא וגאלם׳ (הגדה של פסח). וכן אמר לעשות לעתיד, כאמרו ״ופתאם יבוא אל היכלו האדון אשר אתם מבקשים״ (מלאכי ג׳:א׳).

Yeshu'as Hashem is instantaneous -- a person can go in a moment from being a slave in prison to being uplifted to sit with kings.  

I did not see it in Bad Kodesh, but I saw quoted b'shem Rav Povarski that it seems that Yosef himself was in no rush -- "va'yiritzuhu," they had to push him along and hurry him.  It reminds me of Megilas Esther, where we are told "va'yavhilu l'havi es Haman," they had to rush to get Haman ready for the party.  You would think that anyone stuck in prison would run out of there once they had the opportunity, but apparently not Yosef.  

We see this same behavior from Yosef time and again.  When he was first thrown in prison in last week's parsha, the Torah tells us (39:20) וַיִּקַּח֩ אֲדֹנֵ֨י יוֹסֵ֜ף אֹת֗וֹ וַֽיִּתְּנֵ֙הוּ֙ אֶל־בֵּ֣ית הַסֹּ֔הַר...וַֽיְהִי־שָׁ֖ם בְּבֵ֥ית הַסֹּֽהַר.  The statement וַֽיְהִי־שָׁ֖ם בְּבֵ֥ית הַסֹּֽהַר is not just a matter of physical location -- we already know from the beginning of the pasuk that Yosef was sitting in prison -- it is a statement of attitude, that Yosef accepted his fate, that this is where Hashem wanted him.  He did not waste time thinking about fruitless avenues of escape.  Earlier in the same perek we have (20:2) וַיְהִ֕י בְּבֵ֖ית אֲדֹנָ֥יו הַמִּצְרִֽי  Here again, it is not just location, but attitude that the Torah is conveying.  Yosef accepted where he was as the place he should be, the place Hashem wanted him to be.  And so in our parsha, even with the prison gates open, Yosef did not rush out like a man who had suffered years of injustice and did not belong in prison.  

Once out of prison, wouldn't any prisoner immediately want to shed his prison garb and return to normal dress, get a normal shave and haircut, etc.?  Rashi comments on וַיְגַלַּח֙ וַיְחַלֵּ֣ף שִׂמְלֹתָ֔יו that Yosef did it מפני כבוד מלכות.  He was not interested in the external trappings of what he might be wearing except as needed to fulfill the task at hand (see Gur Aryeh).  

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.

ki nashani Elokim... es beis avi

1. When the Chashmonaim came into the Mikdash, they did not have the gold menorah that the Torah describes.  The Tanaim (Avodah Zarah 43) discuss what the menorah they lit was made of, but whatever the answer, the original was lost.

If Hashem made a miracle to allow them to lite with pure undefiled olive oil (despite the fact that tumah hutra b'tzibur and they could have probably used tamei oil), why did Hashem not make a miracle to allow them to light with the real deal gold menorah?

This is the lesson of Chanukah, explains Rav Nevenzahl.  Who would not be impressed with the beauty of a solid gold menorah?  But that's not what we care about.  External beauty is what the Greeks were all about.  It's the oil that's hidden in the olive and has to be pressed out, that not's visible on the surface, that has no external beauty and doesn't catch your attention -- that's our focus.   

2. An amazing statistic: "While three out of every four Israelis light Hanukkah candles "every evening," less than two of every three Jews (60%) in the States do so." 

Quite honestly, I'm actually surprised that anywhere near 40% of American Jews light a menorah.  My wife was just looking at Target yesterday and there was a little menorah decoration that was meant for hanging on your holiday tree.  Does anything say America more than that? 

3. The Midrash opens our parsha with a derasha on the pasuk "keitz sam la'choshech..." (Iyov 28:3)  The pshat in the pasuk according to Rashi is that G-d decreed that in the future, when the end comes, all will ultimately come to darkness, as heaven and earth as they are now will cease to be.  The derash is exactly the opposite, i.e. G-d will ultimately bring an end to the darkness of evil in the world.  So too, says the Midrash, G-d decreed an end to the darkness of Yosef's captivity, and so Pharoah had his dream.

In other words, as R' Moshe Avigdor Amiel (in Hegyonos El Ami) points out, it was not Yosef's ability to interpret Pharoah's dream which was the cause of the termination of his prison sentence.  Rather, it was G-d's decree that the time of Yosef's prison sentence was up which caused Pharoah to have that specific dream which only Yosef could interpret correctly. 

4. Let me share with you another beautiful interpretation of R' Amiel's:

The Torah tells us that Yosef named his bechor Menashe because "nashani Elokim es kol amali v'es kol beis avi," (41:51) G-d helped Yosef forget all the toil he suffered through and forget his father's house.

Forget his father's house?  Why would Yosef want to do that, or be proud of such callous behavior?  Furthermore, in parshas VaYechi we learn that Yosef sent wagons, agalos, to bring Ya'akov to Mitzrayim.  Chazal see this as a hint by Yosef that he still remembered the sugya of eglah arufah that he was learning with his father when he was sold.  That doesn't sound like someone who forgot his father's house!

You could answer simply that "beis avi" does not mean Ya'akov; it means the brothers.  Yosef meant that he forgot what had been done to him by the rest of the family and did not hold it against them.

Netziv (b'kitzur) and HaKsav v'HaKabbalah (b'arichus) both explain that Yosef understood his dreams to be a prophecy.  Yosef of course wanted very much to communicate with his father, but had he done so he would have forfeited any chance of drawing his brothers and father down to Egypt and seeing those dreams / prophecy fulfilled.  Therefore, "nashani **Elokim**" -- against his will, against what his emotions cried out for, the burden of nevuah placed upon him by Hashem caused Yosef to put aside the memory of his father's house for the sake of bringing that prophecy to fruition.

Rav Amiel (see Hirsch as well) offers a different interpretation.  When you lend money to a poor person "lo ti'hiye lo k'nosheh," the Torah tells us in parshas Mishpatim. -- don't bug him and keep reminding him that he is obligated to you.  "Ki nashani Elokim..." -- G-d obligated me.  G-d saved you from prison, G-d gave you the benefit of growing up in the home of a Ya'akov Avinu -- go do something with that.  The tremendous tovos that Hashem does for us obligate us to use those gifts to better ourselves and better the world around us.

Yosef, 70 languages, shabbos

1. The gemara (Sotah 36) writes that Pharoah's advisors objected to his appointing this unknown slave named Yosef to a position of power.  Pharoah answered that he saw royalty in Yosef.  The advisors responded that if Yosef was indeed royalty, then he should be able to speak in 70 languages just like Pharoah, and he should be put to the test.  The gemara says that Gavriel came and tried to help Yosef cram (better than using rosetta stone), but he wasn't getting it.  Gavriel then added the letter hey to Yosef's name -- "Eidus b'yehosef samo [darshened as shemo=his name] b'tzeiso al Eretz Mitzrayim -- and he was then able to learn the 70 languages.  

If Pharoah was able to master 70 languages, how was it that Yosef, "ish chacham v'navon," not to mention a tzadik, was incapable to doing so?  Was it the time pressure, or the pressure of doing it for the test put forth by the advisors?

Maharal (Gevuros Hashem ch 28) explains that Moshe's speech impediment was not a flaw or a defect.  Speech has to come from the chomer, the body, as well as the nefesh.  Because Moshe was so spiritual, he was disconnected from the world, and was unable to connect to his guf to properly express himself through that medium.

R' Zev Hoberman z"l similarly explains that when the world was first created and was in a pristine, spiritual state, the only language that existed was lashon kodesh.  The 70 languages came into being as a result of the sin of dor ha'palagah.  Yosef's neshoma was still on that pristine, high level of spirituality, and therefore, it connected only with lashom kodesh.  Its inability to express itself in other ways was a feature, not a bug.

2. The Midrash darshens Yosef's instructions "tvo'ach tevach v'hachein" as an allusion to Shabbos, which requires hachana, preparation.  Since Yosef is described as a shomer Shabbos, therefore, his descendent was zocheh to offer korbanos at the dedication of the mishkan on Shabbos.  The prince of Ephraim is the nasi who brought his korban and gift on the 7th day of the chanukas hamishkan. 

Even though Yosef gave those instructions, the other shevatim as well as the Avos also observed Shabbos.  Why is the reward given only to Yosef? 

The Midrash in last week's parsha writes that had Reuvain known that the Torah would write that he saved Yosef, he would have grabbed him from the pit, hoisted him on his shoulders, and brought him home.  Does that mean that Reuvain would have done more if he would have known about the great publicity he was going to get?  Of course not.  The Sefas Emes explains that what Chazal are telling us is not to minimize the significance of our own actions.  A person who does a good deed may think to himself/herself, "What does it matter how I do it, what I do, how much I do?   At the end of the day, what difference is my small effort going to make?"  That mindset leads to discouragement, for doing less than the optimal, for giving less than 110%  The truth is that every action we do makes as world of difference for ourselves and for our offspring, who learn from what we do.  Every action is Torah.   Had Reuvain realized that his efforts were Torah, and were not an insignificant fruitless attempt, he would have put more into it.  (A few years ago I wrote up a different pshat here.)

I think that is what Chazal are getting at in this Midrash regarding Yosef as well.  Of course the Avos and shevatim observed Shabbos, but there observance, for whatever reason, is not recorded explicitly, and therefore is not torah in the same was as Yosef's shmiras shabbos.  What is recorded in the text is a limud for all doros for all eternity.  Only Yosef merited that.  (Why that is true, I'm not sure -- you can say whatever sevara you like.) 

The effect it had on Ephraim being able to offer his gift on Shabbos is not a reward -- it's a consequence (all rewards in Torah are really consequence, but that's a discussion for some other time.)  By definition, since Yosef's shemiras Shabbos was torah, it had an effect generations later, because that's what Torah is -- it is eternity.  (See Bad Kodesh by R' Povarski who has a different approach.) 

3. Put yourself in Yosef's shoes -- what would pop into your mind as soon as you see your brothers?  Wouldn't you think to yourself, "These are the guys who sold me down the river!"  But look at what the pasuk says, writes the Alter of Navardok: "Yayizkor Yosef es ha'chalomos asher chalam lahem" (42:8)  Yosef thinks only of the dreams he once had, not what his brothers had done to him, and certainly not of revenge.

beis mishmarchem -- when one brother suffers, all suffer

Yosef imprisons his brothers, but then decides to let them go and only hold back Shimon on the condition that they return with Binyamin.  “Im keinim atem achichem echad yei’aser b’beis mishmarchem…”  (42:19)  Rashi (see Taz on this Rashi) already notes the difficulty with the phrase “beis mishmarchem.”  It wasn’t their prison – they were free to go!  Why does Yosef make it seem like the brothers themselves are still in jail?

The Pardes Yosef answers by quoting a vort from R’ Yitzchok of Vorke.  The gemara (Meg 28) writes that R’ Zeira said that he merited living a long life because (among other things) he never rejoiced in a friend’s downfall.  It seems a very strange thing to boast about.  Surely none of us would be happy to see a friend or colleague have trouble -- this doesn’t sound like a special midas chassidus that would warrant extra praise or extra reward.   What was so special about R’ Zeira’s behavior?

R’ Yitzchok of Vorke explained that we are translating the words wrong.  It goes without saying that R’ Zeira did not rejoice in his friends’ bad luck.  None of us would do that.  What made R’ Zeira special is that he never rejoiced – period – while a friend was in trouble.  His sense of empathy was so great that so long as a friend was in pain, he was in pain. 

Yosef may have held back only Shimon, but all the brothers felt as if they too still remained in prison so long as they were not together.

sometimes the good part of the story is not so good

Generally when a parsha opens with the word “haya” it means something good is going to happen, but “va’yehi” portends bad news (see Megillah 10).  “Va’yehi miketz she’nasayim yamim…”  Yosef is about to get out of prison and rise to become the second in command of Egypt.  Why does our parsha open with the word “va’yehi?”  This is the good part of the story!

One of the answers the Ohr HaChaim gives is that while in the short term things are about to get much better for Yosef, from the perspective of Jewish history, things are about to start going downhill.  Yosef’s rise coincides with a famine that will cause his brothers to come down to Egypt (never mind the pain the famine itself must have caused) and cause his father Ya’akov to enter a galus that will last centuries. 

 

So often we judge events based only on their immediate effect upon ourselves.  That’s human nature.  The Torah, however, takes a longer view and broader view of things.

it's not about me: what Yosef taught Pharoah

1) The symbolism of Pharoah's dream doesn't really seem all that hard to figure out.  Why none of his advisor's could  make sense of it seems more of a mystery than why Yosef got it.

The Midrash contrasts "Pharoah omeid al h'ye'or" with "Hinei Hashem nitzav alav."  The Egyptian diety was  subservient to the Pharoahs -- religion was a tool to control the masses and consolidate power; it served an  instrumental good for mankind.  We believe that religion is not meant to serve our needs and wants; we are meant to  yield to its demands.  

The advisors of Pharoah came from this worldview where everything -- even the will of their deity -- revolved around the "me,"  especially in the case of Pharoah.  Therefore, they interpreted the dreams of Pharoah in that light.  It was about  daughters he would have and bury; it was about rebellious cities that had to be put down.  What would happen to the  Pharoah; what would the result to the Pharoah be.   

When Pharoah tells his dream to Yosef, interestingly he is no longer "omeid al ha'ye'or," but he is "al sefas  ha'ye'or."  His perspective has begun to shift, but it takes Yosef to bring him the rest of the way.  "Es ha'Elokim  oseh her'ah es Pharoah" -- what does G-d do?  He does good for mankind; he does not act for his self-interest.   Explains R' Shaul Yisraeli, this is what Yosef was telling Pharoah - he was showing him a worldview where he must  act not for his own self-interest, but for the good his his kingdom and the good of his people, because that is the  only way the famine will be beat.  

2) The meforshim on last week's parsha discuss why the Torah uses double-language, "V'lo zacahr Sar haMashkim es Yosef  va'yishkacheihu."  Isn't "lo zachar" the same thing as "vayishkacheihu?"

The Sefas Emes explains that "V'lo zachar"  refers to the Sar haMashkim forgetting about Yosef; "vayishkacheihu"  refers to Yosef forgetting about the Sar HaMashkim.  Yosef did not think for a moment that the Sar haMashkim would  actually do anything to help, and so the second the words, "zechartani... v'hizkartani," were out of his mouth,  Yosef immediately put the Sar haMashkim out of his mind.  Yosef's complete trust was that Hashem would deliver him  from prison.

The Midrash criticizes Yosef for saying "zechartani... v'hizkartani," but the same Midrash also calls Yosef a ba'al  bitachon (see the archives for a few approaches to this Chazal).  Yosef for whatever reason felt he had to say  "zichartani v'hizkartani," but the "vayishkacheihu" proves where he true bitachon was.

The Chiddushi haRI"M writes that we see that there is an inverse relationship between asking for "zechartani" and  actually being remembered.  The request of "zechartani" of a Sar haMashkim actually causes "shikcha" and led to two  more years of prison of Yosef.  WHen it comes to Chanukah, the decree "l'hashkicham torasecha" led to us having a  zecher to a nes for dorei doros. 

3) When the brothers return to Egypt a second time and see that they are immediately brought to Yosef's home, to the  palace, they are filled with fear.  "Al dvar ha'kesef ha'shav b'amtichoseinu batechila anachnu muva'im..." (43:18).   The Imrei Emes explains that the brothers were not thinking of the money they found in their bags on the way home,  but rather about the original money ("batechila"), the money they took for selling their brother.  They realized  that they were being forced to pay for their crimes.  

It's interesting that we have so much detail describing how they find the money -- "heim m'rikim sakeihem..."  (42:35).  The Imrei Emes sees in this an allusion to a line in mizmor shir chanukas habayis that we've been saying:  over the chag: "Pitachtah saki va'ti'azreinu simcha."  
    
  

rabeinu bachyei: two types of hashgacha

In the past weeks we’ve discussed the famous statement of the Ohr haChaim that a ba’al bechira, a person who has free choice, can cause harm to someone even if he/she doesn’t deserve it.  How is this possible – doesn’t Hashem’s hashgacha control everything that happens? 

Rabeinu Bachyei in Parshas VaYeira (Braishis 18:19) writes that Hashem’s hashgacha on animals is hashgacha klalis – it is only to the extent necessary to preserve the species, but does not govern each individual animal.  Only humans have hashgacha pratis on the individual.  He then further divides hashgacha prartis on people into two parts or levels: 1) Hashem’s knowledge of events – this applies to all people; 2) Hashem protecting the individual from harm – this level of hashgacha is earned only by the most righteous (see Michtav m’Eliyahu vol 5 who uses this distinction to resolve a number of contradictory statements in Rishonim regarding hashgacha pratis).

We can use R’ Bachyei’s chiluk to formulate the Ohr haChaim’s point and make it a bit more understandable (and this is basically the same idea the L. Rebbe suggested that we discussed in this post): Hashem of course is aware of every event that happens to a person (hashgacha type # 1).  However, unless you are a big tzadik, Hashem will not interfere with events that unfold (hashgacha type #2) to get you out of hot water, especially hot water that comes about when dealing with a ba’al bechira.

When I bounced this topic off my wife she reminded me of the gemara that says that the principle that shluchei mitzvah do not come to harm does not apply when there is a clear and present danger at hand.  We learn this from the fact that Shmuel haNavi, sent as a shliach by Hashem to anoint David, was afraid lest Shaul hear about it and try to kill him.  According to the Ohr haChaim, how is this a proof?  Perhaps a shliach mitzvah is protected through Hashem’s hashgacha, but when it comes to a ba’al bechira, e.g. Shaul haMelech, all bets are off?

Perhaps this very point is what the gemara means by “bari hezeika,” there being a clear and present danger -- it was precisely the ability of Shaul to do as he pleased as a ba’al bechira which made the situation so dangerous.  The problem is, if this is true, it means “bari hezeika” has a very high bar, as many other situations that are truly dangerous still do not measure up to the danger of confronting a ba'al bechira. 

UPDATE: would it be possible to say that Shaul was not a ba'al bechira because "lev melachim b'yad Hashem?"  Does that apply where Shaul would be acting in his personal interest and not in his role as king?

hoisted by his own petard

The Midrash comments that the pasuk, "Ashrei ha'ish asher sam Hashem mivtacho," refers to Yosef, who exemplified the trait of bitachon.  Yet the very same Midrash writes that Yosef was forced to stay in prison two extra years for asking the Sar HaMashkim to get him out of jail, since that showed a lack of bitachon.  It seems like the Midrash contradicts itself! 

Over the years we’ve discussed a few approaches (here, here, here) to explain this Chazal.  One of the famous answers is that for any other person, asking the Sar haMashkim for help or making whatever efforts could be made to get out of jail, would be viewed as proper hishtadlus.  It’s only for Yosef, who exemplified such a high level of bitachon, that these efforts are viewed as wrong.  He should have relied on G-d alone to bring him deliverance.

I want to add 2 extra cents to this answer.  Ramban in last week’s parsha asks why Yosef never once tried to contact his father.  Why for 22 years did he not even send one letter home to let Ya’akov know that he was alive and well?  Ramban answers that Yosef realized that were he to contact his father and return home, any possibility of his dreams coming to fruition would be dashed.  It was his bitachon in his dreams that led Yosef to maintain his concealment, in the hope that his brothers, and even his father, would come to Egypt and bow to him.

It’s understandable that seeing his rise in rank to majordomo in Potiphar’s home and his tremendous success there might lead Yosef to hold onto the hope that this would lead to the fulfilment of his dreams.  Yet Yosef maintained his faith in those dreams even after he was thrown in prison, even when just becoming a free man again was no more than a remote possibility (Shem m’Shmuel).  Even under those dire circumstances, Yosef’s faith in his dreams prevented him from sending word to his father.   

The Midrash’s internal contradiction reflects the contradiction inherent in Yosef’s own behavior.  Chazal are hoisting Yosef by his own petard.  On the one hand, when it came to alleviating his father’s pain, Yosef placed total faith in his dreams and did nothing.  On the other hand, when it came to his own painful plight, he tried to use the Sar haMashkim to get out of jail and did not rely on miraculous deliverance alone.  You can’t have it both ways.  Precisely because Yosef demonstrated such great bitachon and trust in his own dreams, to the point of not alleviating his father's pain because of that trust, was he held to such a high standard with respect to his own behavior.

Ya'akov's tefilah: better to be punished by G-d and avoid the threat of a ba'al bechira

When Ya’akov finally gives in and allows Binyamin to go down to Egypt with his brothers, he davens for them, “K-l Shakai yiteim lachem rachamim lifnei ha’ish…” (43:14) The Midrash has an enigmatic comment: R’ Pinchas b’shem R’ Chanin d’Tziporin opened his derasha on the parsha as follows:  “Ashrei ha’gever asher tiyasreinu K-h…”  The Midrash then goes on to list tzaros that were brought upon Avraham Avinu and his various sufferings.

Do we need a Midrash to tell us that Ya’akov or the other Avos had tzaros?  And why raise that point specifically here?  Perhaps the Midrash is connected to Rashi’s comment that Ya’akov used the shem “Shakai” because he was calling on G-d to end his tzaros (yomar ‘dai’ l’tzarosai), but the connection seems tenuous.

Last week we discussed the Ohr haChaim’s chiddush that a ba’al bechira, a person’s free will, can overcome hashgacha.  The Ksav Sofer suggests the Midrash is reading Ya'akov's prayer in that same light.  “Ashrei hagever asher tiyasreinu K-h,” a person whom *Hashem* afflicts with suffering is lucky.  If Hashem is the one causing the suffering, then Hashem can take away the suffering as well.  But when suffering comes through human hands, through a ba’al bechira, then hashgacha cannot help (see last week’s post).  The Ksav Sofer writes that we mention this in our davening almost every day.  In tachanun we say, “Niplah na b’yad Hashem ub’yad adam al epolah” – better to be punished by G-d’s hands than fall into the hands of man.  Ya’akov was willing to accept Hashem’s punishment (as we see from the end of the pasuk, “…ka’asher shakolti shakalti”), but he davened that his children be spared punishment “lifnei ha’ish,” at the hands of a ba’al bechira, as that is a far more dangerous situation.

While on the topic, I just want to point out the Midrash a few lines later:

אמר ליה רבי אלכסנדרי: אין לך אדם בלא יסורים, אשריו לאדם, שיסורים באים עליו מן התורה, שנאמר: ומתורתך תלמדנו.

Chazal tell us that you can’t go through life without suffering.  The question is what kind of suffering it’s going to be.  You can toss and turn on your pillows worried about your business, your children, your health, or all kinds of other depressing things.  Or, “ashrav l’adam she’yisurim ba’aim alav min haTorah,” you can have yissurim and suffering from Torah – you can lie awake because you can’t figure out pshat in a Tosfos or you are worried about a difficult Rambam.  I would like to hope that a person has the right to choose, and if you worry about the latter, you will be spared the worries about the former.

achichem acheir -- a changed man

Last post I mentioned the Maor v'Shemesh's interpretation that Yosef's changed appearance, as opposed to his brothers', indicated that he had undergone a change in character while they remained the same. The Netziv has a beautiful pshat along these same lines.  When Ya'akov finally relents and allows the brothers to go back to Mitzrayim along with Binyamin, he davens that Hashem will cause the Egyptian viceroy [Yosef] who interrogated them to have mercy on them and "v'shilach lachem es achichem achier v'es Binyamin." (43:14)  The meforshim explain al pi peshuto that "achichem acheir," your other brother, refers to Shimon, who had been left behind in prison.  Why does Ya'akov not refer to Shimon by name?  Ramban answers that Ya'akov still was angry at Shimon for his killing of the people of Shechem.  He doesn't call him "Shimon b'ni" and would have just as well left him in prison and never sent Binyamin if not for the need for food.  Netziv offers a different explanation based on the pasuk's use of "shilach *lachem*" -- why stress that Shimon will be "sent *to you*?"  Shouldn't the pasuk have simply said that Shimon will be freed or released?  Netziv explains that Ya'akov suspected that Shimon was left behind because of some conflict between Shimon and the other brothers; perhaps Shimon was even deliberately turned over as a convenient way to get him out of their hair.  Ya'akov was davening for that rift between the brothers to be healed.  "V'shilach lachem acheichem acheir" -- "acheir" here means not just your *other* brother, but it means a *different* brother.  A man does not emerge from prison the same person who went in.  Ya'akov prayed that the experience of prison should change Shimon into a different person.  He should now become "achichem acheir," a different person, and therefore, "v'shilach *lachem,*" he should be welcomed back, and peace among them be restored.  

it's not the beard that the brothers didn't recognize

The Torah tells us that Yosef was able to recognize his brothers, but they were not able to recognize him.  Rashi explains that the brothers’ appearance was unchanged since Yosef had last seen them, but he had grown a beard in the intervening years. 

The Ma’or v’Shemesh writes that it’s not Yosef’s physical appearance alone which made him unrecognizable.  There are plenty of people whom we recognize even after they’ve grown a beard or changed their hairstyle or dress.  What Rashi is telling us is that in the years that had elapsed since Yosef left home, the brothers did not grow – they remained spiritually stagnant.  They were exactly the same people as they were 20+ years earlier.  Not so Yosef.  He had gained in maturity, he had grown and developed as a person.  It was not Yosef the boy, the Yosef who had told their father tales of his brothers’ wrongdoings and taunted them with his dreams, that stood before the shevatim. It was an older and wiser Yosef, a completely different person.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now for the question:

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

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

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