Chazal famously comment on the pasuk
וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יוֹסֵ֤ף אֶל־אֶחָיו֙ אֲנִ֣י יוֹסֵ֔ף הַע֥וֹד אָבִ֖י חָ֑י וְלֹֽא־יָכְל֤וּ אֶחָיו֙ לַעֲנ֣וֹת אֹת֔וֹ כִּ֥י נִבְהֲל֖וּ מִפָּנָֽיו׃
that Yosef's words were words of rebuke
אַבָּא כֹּהֵן בַּרְדְּלָא אָמַר, אוֹי לָנוּ מִיּוֹם הַדִּין אוֹי לָנוּ מִיּוֹם הַתּוֹכֵחָה, ... יוֹסֵף קְטַנָּן שֶׁל שְׁבָטִים הָיָה וְלֹא הָיוּ יְכוֹלִים לַעֲמֹד בְּתוֹכַחְתּוֹ, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: וְלֹא יָכְלוּ אֶחָיו לַעֲנוֹת אֹתוֹ כִּי נִבְהֲלוּ מִפָּנָיו, לִכְשֶׁיָּבוֹא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וְיוֹכִיחַ כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד לְפִי מַה שֶּׁהוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים נ׳:כ״א): אוֹכִיחֲךָ וְאֶעֶרְכָה לְעֵינֶיךָ, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.
Where is the rebuke in Yosef's asking whether his father was still alive? Why did this question throw the brothers into a state of shock?
The Sheiris Yisrael reminds us of the Rashi at the beginning of P' VaYeishev, ושהיה זיו איקונין של יוסף דומה לו, that tells us that Yosef looked like Yaakov. Sometimes a child is the spitting image of his parent; that's how it was with Yosef and Yaakov.
Yehudah's argument to let Binyamin go rested primarily on the effect the loss of Binyamin would have on Yaakov וְהָיָ֗ה כִּרְאוֹת֛וֹ כִּי־אֵ֥ין הַנַּ֖עַר וָמֵ֑ת וְהוֹרִ֨ידוּ עֲבָדֶ֜יךָ אֶת־שֵׂיבַ֨ת עַבְדְּךָ֥ אָבִ֛ינוּ בְּיָג֖וֹן שְׁאֹֽלָה It is his father's health and well-being which Yehudah professes is uppermost in his mind. Even when he brings up the fact that he personally guaranteed Binyamin's safety and put his olam ha'ba on the line, Yehudah does not focus on himself; he again puts the focus on his father, אִם־לֹ֤א אֲבִיאֶ֙נּוּ֙ אֵלֶ֔יךָ וְחָטָ֥אתִי לְאָבִ֖י כׇּל־הַיָּמִֽים׃. What dedication to their parent! What love for Yaakov!
And then Yosef burst the bubble.
How, if Yaakov is uppermost on your minds, could you see his spitting image before you and not make the connection?
There is a gezeira that one who dies is eventually forgotten. הַע֥וֹד אָבִ֖י חָ֑י? If he is not, your forgetting about him is understandable, but if he is, and he is uppermost in your thoughts as you claim, how have you not recognized me?
The brothers could not answer כִּ֥י נִבְהֲל֖וּ מִפָּנָֽיו, they saw Yosef's face and it suddenly clicked. It was the image of their father that they saw, but that image, as Yosef perceived, had retreated to the back recesses of their mind once they were no longer in their father's presence.
I would just add to the Sheiris Yisrael that it was the דמות דיוקנו של אביו which had appeared to Yosef (39:11 in Rashi) and saved him from sinning with Eishes Potifar. Yaakov's visage never left Yosef's imagination. His brothers, however, had not lived up to that same standard.
2) The pasuk describes Bn"Y coming to Mitzrayim (46:5)
וַיָּ֥קׇם יַעֲקֹ֖ב מִבְּאֵ֣ר שָׁ֑בַע וַיִּשְׂא֨וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל אֶת־יַעֲקֹ֣ב אֲבִיהֶ֗ם וְאֶת־טַפָּם֙ וְאֶת־נְשֵׁיהֶ֔ם בָּעֲגָל֕וֹת אֲשֶׁר־שָׁלַ֥ח פַּרְעֹ֖ה לָשֵׂ֥את אֹתֽוֹ׃
Yaakov is referred to by that name, but his children are referred to as bnei Yisrael -- not as bnei Yaakov. Why the shift?
The gemara (Chulin 100) has a machlokes Tanaim whether the issur of gid ha'nasheh applied only post-mattan Torah, or did it apply earlier. The pasuk tells us עַל־כֵּ֡ן לֹֽא־יֹאכְל֨וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל אֶת־גִּ֣יד הַנָּשֶׁ֗ה. Does Bnei Yisrael with a capital B refer to the Jewish nation, which only came into existence later at mattan Torah, or is it a lower case b and it refers to the children of Yaakov? R' Yehudah's view is that the term B/bnei Yisrael applies pre-mattan Torah as well, as we see from our pasuk.
וישאו בני ישראל – שהיו צריכים מכאן ואילך להיות ״עם בני ישראל״, להשתרר עם אלהים ועם אנשים המתקוממים, בלכתם עתה אל אדמת נכר.
The pasuk deliberately uses the term Bnei Yisrael -- as opposed to Yaakov -- because from this moment onward the shevatim needed to take on the identity of their father that the name Yisrael represented, namely, the ability to wrestle with and fight against outside forces.
3) The Pninei Halacha put out by Mir Yeshiva discusses the question of someone too ill to fast on 10 Teves but who wants to serve as shat"z and get an aliya because they have yahrzeit on that day. Would eating less than the shiur help?
This question would seem to hinge on the machlokes between the Marcheshes and R' Chaim that we discussed earlier this year. According to the Marcheshes, a choleh on a fast day should, if possible, eat less than the shiur and by doing so does not lose the kiyum of the taanis. The lomdus: the shiur of issurei achila, with respect to a taanis or anything else, is always a k'zayis. True, chatzi shiur is forbidden, but chatzi shiur is its own independent issur. Eating chatzi shiur would be like, for example, doing an aveira of speaking lashon ha'ra on a taanis. The person did an issur, but that does not negate their taanis, as it was not an issur achila.
R' Chaim held that a choleh is exempt from fasting since b'makom choli lo gazru rabbanan. If the person chooses not to eat they accomplish nothing; it would be like voluntarily skipping breakfast and lunch on any given day of the week -- no kiyum mitzvah, no shem taanis. A person who is not included in the chiyuv taanis cannot say aneinu or get an aliya for the kri'as haTorah of a taanis.