Vol. 8   No. 11

Parshas Vayigash

The Or ha'Chayim poses the question why, during the twenty-two years that he spent in Egypt, Yosef did not inform his father that he was alive and of his whereabouts? Why did he not spare his father the anguish that he knew he must have endured in the belief that he was dead? The question, he explains, is not so much during the early years, when he was first a slave, then in jail, when any effort on his part to send his father a message, would in all likelihood, have met with failure. Or, one might add, for Ya'akov to have discovered that he was a slave or a jail-bird would hardly have served as a source of consolation for the broken-hearted father. But later, once he had become viceroy, why did he not take advantage of his position to let Ya'akov know about his situation. And particularly, once the years of famine began, why did he not spare his father the additional suffering by revealing himself to him and tending to his needs? Above all, he concludes, why did he prolong his father's agony by withholding his identity long after his brothers arrived in Egypt? Why did he not reveal himself to them immediately upon their arrival in Egypt?

To be sure, the Or ha'Chayim adds, on the part of G-d there were a number of reasons as to why revealing Yosef's identity to Ya'akov was premature. 1.Ya'akov needed to suffer for twenty-two years, for the twenty-two years that he let his own parents suffer whilst he overstayed his time with Lovon. 2.The two hundred and ten years that Yisroel were destined to remain in Egypt were not yet due to begin. 3. As Chazal tell us, Ya'akov went down to Egypt amidst great honour, in spite of the fact that he was going into exile, and this could not have taken place had he gone down earlier. But all that was G-d's business, he maintains, and not Yosef's. Yosef's concern was honouring his father and alleviating his suffering, and not to act as G-d's policeman.

The Ramban in Parshas Miketz (42:9) adopts the view that Yosef did not sin by failing to inform Ya'akov that he was alive, because his dreams had not yet materialized. And even after his brothers arrived in Egypt and bowed down to him, he notes that Binyomin was not among them, and that consequently, even the first dream had yet to be fulfilled (see Rashi 42:9). This explains why he not only declined to disclose his identity to them at that juncture, but he even devised a plan whereby they would be forced to return with Binyomin, to bring the first dream to fruition. Now it is clear why he remained silent for all those years, allowing his father to suffer (so that Hashem's will would prevail - Gro). And it is also clear why he accused his brothers of being spies, instead of revealing his identity there and then (See also 'What did they Brothers see' in next week's edition).

The Or ha'Chayim however, disagrees with the Ramban. According to him, this silence was vital until such time as circumstances created a situation whereby he could safely divulge his identity without jeopardizing the two parties who stood to suffer were he to do so prematurely. The Gemoro in Bovo Metzi'a (59a) teaches that a person should rather cast himself into a fiery furnace than cause his friend embarrassment. Based on this Gemoro, he explains how Yosef, realizing that he could not possibly reveal his identity without his father getting to know about the sale, preferred to remain silent, to spare his brothers the embarrassment of their actions becoming revealed both to their and to their grandfather Yitzchok.

This reason certainly explains his silence during the years he spent as a slave and in jail, though perhaps to a lesser extent during the years that he was viceroy of Egypt. However, he offers a second reason for Yosef's silence that concerned, not his brothers' honour but his own life. Taking into account the extent of his brothers' hatred, Yosef reckoned that he dare not divulge his identity for fear that they would kill him. Regardless of their current feelings towards Yosef (and they did go down to Egypt with the express intention of redeeming him at all costs), they could not possibly have conceived that, until they had demonstrated to him their change of heart, he would harbor any thoughts towards them other than of revenge. Consequently, in self-defense, Yosef concluded, they would kill him outright. Had the bothers succeeded in their initial plan to find him and redeem him, this would have sufficed to prove their sincerity. But as long as it was he who revealed himself to them, Yosef knew, they would not feel safe, and his life was in jeopardy.

To prove that this explanation is anything but far-fetched, the Or ha'Chayim cites a Medrash Tanchuma which describes how, even after Yosef revealed himself to his brothers, they attempted to kill him, and he was only saved when the angel Gavriel scattered them and foiled their attempt.

When did Yosef consider it safe to reveal himself to them? Only after he had provided them with food and drink, and had given them money, proving to them that, in spite of what they did to him, he harbored no thoughts of revenge and meant them only well. Moreover, he did so only after he had proved to them beyond the slightest shadow of doubt that all that had transpired was Divinely inspired, and that the part they had played was minimal.

And this latter point served to reduce the danger to his own life, since it would convince them that they were no longer threatened by Yosef. And it would also reduce their embarrassment when Ya'akov later discovered the truth about the sale, which according to the Or ha'Chayim, he did.

The neginos (notes) on the opening words of the parshah "And Yehudah approached him and said 'Plese my lord ... ' " are 'kadmo ve'azlo, revi'i, zarko munach segol'.

The Gro explains with this a medrash in last week's parshah, which in turn, explains that when Yehudah said to Ya'akov that if he did not return Binyomin, he would have sinned to him all his days, he meant even in Olom ha'Bo.

Based on that Medrash, the above neginos provide us with the following information: 'Kadmo ve'azlo revi'i ' - why was it the fourth son (Yehudah) who stepped forward to 'plead' with Yosef (and not Re'uven, the firstborn)? Because 'zarko munach segol' - he cast himself from remaining with the treasured nation (by forfeiting his portion in Olom ha'Bo), should he not return Yosef, as indeed Rashi explains (in posuk 32).

"Because my mouth is speaking with you" (45:12) - 'In Loshon ha'Kodesh', explains Rashi. A significant fact, considering that until now, he had only spoken to them in Egyptian, through an interpreter.

The Ba'al ha'Turim however, points out that the numerical value of the words "ki fi ha'medaber aleichem" is the equivalent to that of 'be'egloh arufoh'. In other words, Yosef gave them a sign here by which to notify his father that he was still alive (both physically and spiritually); because that is what his father had taught him the last time he saw him, prior to his sale.

Rashi too, cites this Chazal later in posuk 27 and so does the Ba'al ha'Turim, adding that just as the word 'agolos' occurs four times in this parshah, so too does it occur four times in the parshah of egloh arufoh, from which one can draw the obvious conclusion.

In his first reference to egloh arufoh (in Parshas Vayeishev) the Ba'al ha'Turim relates that Ya'akov had accompanied Yosef as far as Chevron, when Yosef asked his father to return home. Ya'akov then quoted him the parshah of egloh arufoh, and it is on that note that they parted. That explains why Yosef remembered Ya'akov (in every sense of the word), he adds, and why the posuk writes "And he saw the agolos that Yosef sent".

For so Chazal have said 'A person should only take leave of his friend through a d'var halochoh, because it is on account of it that he will remember him'.

And who knows whether it is not for the same reason that, when Yosef was about to accede to the request of Porifera's wife, he held back because the image of his father appeared in the window? Perhaps it was that last d'var halochoh which kept Ya'akov constantly in his mind, and it was that memory of his father which now stopped him in his tracks.

Interestingly, all the brothers' efforts to harm Yosef came to nought - starting with their setting the dogs on him, and ending with their selling him to Egypt as a slave. He survived their attempt on his life and ultimately rose to the highest levels of power, no doubt as a result of the mitzvah that his father had fulfilled when he accompanied him on that fateful trip.

"All the souls of the house of Ya'akov who came to Egypt were seventy" (46:27).

The Seider Olom writes that Levi was 44 when he arrived in Egypt and Yosef, 39. When Ya'akov went down to Egypt, Iyov was born, and when Yisroel left Egypt, he died.

The posuk writes that Iyov lived another 140 years (Iyov 42:16) and it also writes that he received double (of everything that he had had) - ibid. 22:10.

None of the brothers lived longer than Levi and none of them shorter than Yosef. The Medrash continues that as long as one of the brothers lived, the slavery did not commence, as the Torah writes "and Yosef and all his brothers died" (and only then) does it speak about the enslavement.

From here, the Medrash extrapolates, we can learn that when one of the brothers dies, then all the brothers should be worried.

The Medrash requires explanation. But above all, we need to understand the final statement. The enslavement began only with the death of Levi. If that is so, there were no brothers still alive, so how can the Medrash extrapolate from here that when one of the brothers dies, all the brothers should worry?

To solve this problem, the Gro poses another question: If, as we just explained, the slavery began only after Levi's death, and Levi arrived in Egypt when he was 44 and died at the age of a 137 (as the Torah records in Sh'mos), then 93 years elapsed from their arrival in Egypt until the commencement of the slavery. And since Iyov was born when they arrived in Egypt, it would also mean that Iyov was 93 at that time.

But that is impossible, he asks, since the posuk writes that Iyov lived for another 140 years, and, as we saw in the Seider Olam, his total life-span was 210 years, then at the time that the slavery began he must have been 70 and not 93?

The Gro therefore explains that, although the slavery began only after Levi died, the plan to enslave Yisroel (in which Iyov took part) took place already at the death of Yosef (who was the first of the brothers to die, at the age of 110, 70 years after they arrived in Egypt.

What the Medrash therefore means to say is that Iyov lived 140 years after the plot (when Yosef died), and not from the actual slavery (when Levi died). And that is why the Medrash concludes that from here we can extrapolate that when one of the brothers dies, then all the brothers should be worried, because the moment Yosef died, the decision to enslave them was finalized.

124. Not to commit adultery with a married woman - as the Torah writes in Kedoshim (20:13) "Do not commit adultery" and in Acharei Mos (18:20) "Do not lie with your friend's wife". Both the man and woman who transgress are sentenced to chenek (death by strangulation). If she is the daughter of a Kohen however, she will receive s'reifah (death by burning), whilst he will still receive chenek. And if a man commits adultery with a 'na'arah me'urosoh' - a betrothed girl between the ages of twelve and twelve-and-a-half who has not been married before, they will both be sentenced to s'kilah (death by stoning).

This mitzvah applies everywhere and at all times.

125. Not to commit incest with one's aunt, the wife of one's father's brother - as the Torah writes in Acharei-Mos (18:14) "Do not come close to his wife, she is your aunt".

This la'av is confined to the wife of one's father's paternal brother. Someone who transgresses this la'av during the lifetime of his uncle receives chenek; after his uncle's death, the punishment is koreis, even when there are witnesses and warning. The sh'niyos are: the wife of one's father's maternal brother and the wife of one's mother's brother, (both paternal and maternal).

This mitzvah applies everywhere and at all times.

126. Not to commit incest with the wife of one's paternal or maternal brother, even if the brother was born out of wedlock - as the Torah writes in Acharei-Mos (18:16) "Do not reveal the nakedness of your brother's wife". If someone transgresses this la'av during the lifetime of his brother, and whilst they are still married, they are both sentenced to chenek, since she is a married woman. But if he transgresses after she is divorced, or after her husband's death, assuming that there are no children and the mitzvah of yibum does not apply, they are both chayav only koreis. If the yevomoh has already performed chalitzah, they will only have contravened the la'av of "Lo Yivneh" - Ki Seitzei (25:9).

This mitzvah applies everywhere and at all times.

127. Not to commit incest with one's paternal or maternal half-sister, even if she is born out of wedlock - as the Torah writes in Acharei-Mos (18:9) "Do not reveal the nakedness of your paternal or maternal sister, whether she is born in marriage or out of marriage".

For contravening this la'av on purpose, the punishment is koreis, and by mistake, one is obligated to bring a sin-offering. If she is also the daughter of his father's wife, then they are both obligated to bring two chato'os - one because she is his sister and the other, because she is the daughter of his father's wife.

This mitzvah applies everywhere and at all times.

128. Not to commit incest with one's sister who is the daughter of his father's wife- as the Torah writes in Acharei-Mos (18:11) "Do not reveal the nakedness of the daughter of your father's wife". This refers to one's sister, because there is no prohibition against marrying the daughter of one's father's wife from another man.

This la'av incorporates two la'avin, as we explained in the previous mitzvah.

This mitzvah applies everywhere and at all times.

129-130. Not to commit incest with one's father's sister - as the Torah writes in Acharei-Mos (18:12) "Do not reveal the nakedness of your father's sister".

Not to commit incest with one's mother's sister - as the Torah writes in Acharei-Mos "Do not reveal the nakedness of your mother's sister". It makes no difference whether she is a paternal or a maternal sister, and applies even if she is born out of wedlock.

In either case, the punishment for contravening on purpose is koreis; by mistake, a sin-offering.

In all of these cases, the punishment of koreis applies whether or not there were witnesses and warning. Whenever there are witnesses and warning however, someone who is chayav koreis, receives malkos. When this occurs, he is exempt from koreis.

This mitzvah applies everywhere and at all times.

For sponsorships and adverts call 651 9502