CHAMISHOH MI YODEI'A - FIVE QUESTIONS ON THE WEEKLY SEDRAH - PARSHAS MIKEITZ 5770 - BS"D

2) Ch. 42, v. 28: "Mah zose ossoh Elokim lonu" - Why were the brothers of Yoseif questioning what Elokim did to them? Didn't they just accept their tribulations as being justified in verse 21, "Avol asheimim anachnu al ochinu?"

3) Ch. 42, v. 37: "Shnei vo'nai tomis" - Tosfos Hasholeim explains that this refers to Chetzron and Karmi (46:9), sons of Reuvein, whose names in gematria equal Shimon and Binyomin. This statement of Reuvein seems totally senseless. Why would he think that Yaakov would kill his own two grandsons if Yehudoh would not bring back Binyomin?

4) Ch. 42, v. 9: "M'raglim attem LIROSE es ervas ho'oretz BO'SEM" - We find the word LIROSE at the beginning of Yoseif's accusation that the brothers were spies, before the word BO'SEM. Compare this with Yoseif's reiterating his claim in verse 12, "Lo, ki ervas ho'oretz BO'SEM LIROSE," where the word LIROSE appears at the end of the accusation, after BO'SEM.

5) Ch. 44, v. 12: "Bagodol heicheil u'vakoton kiloh" - The medrash says that the "godol" was Shimon and the "koton" was Binyomin. Targum Yonoson ben Uziel disagrees and says that the search began with Reuvein. Why does the medrash say that the "godol" was Shimon, rather than simply saying it was Reuvein, and why is it necessary to say that the "koton" was Binyomin?

ANSWERS:

#1

Rashi says this refers to Paroh. The Moshav Z'keinim says that this refers to Yoseif. In line with the gemara Brochos 55b, which says that a dream is fulfilled according to its interpretation, since Yoseif said that the butler would be reinstated, it is as if Yoseif gave him back his position.

#2

The Rokei'ach answers this with the words of the M.R. 91:6 that the conversation between Yoseif and his brothers went as follows: Yoseif told them that through his divining with his unique goblet he became aware that they traveled to Mitzrayim as a group, and just before entering the city they split up, each entering through a different gateway. This is clearly indicative of espionage, as they wanted to scout out the city to see its weakest points of security, so as to allow for a successful attack. The brothers responded that they were all sons of one man (verse 11), and as such, their father advised them to not enter through one gateway, as they would be subject to an "ayin hora," an evil eye. Yoseif responded that he did not accept this excuse, as he also was apprised that they descended upon the brothel area of town, where the lowlifes come together and for a few dollars could easily be coerced into spilling the secrets of the country. Again this is an indication of espionage intentions. The brothers responded that they went there in search of a missing item, which they did not disclose. They made up their minds to attempt to recover Yoseif, and figured that in all likelihood he was sold to Mitzrayim, and if so he would presumably have been put to use in a brothel, as he was strikingly handsome. They were not ready to admit this to Yoseif, and this circumstantial evidence stood against them.

The Rokei'ach says that we now understand the change in position of the word LIROSE in these two verses. The earlier verse was the claim that they entered through different gateways. This is expressed by "LIROSE es ervas ho'oretz BO'SEM." By coming through different entrances you have positioned yourselves to spy, even before entering the city, thus LIROSE before BO'SEM. In verse 12 Yoseif claimed that he had proof of their plans of espionage by virtue of their all going to the area of houses of ill repute. This happened after they had already entered, thus it is expressed as "ervas ho'oretz BO'SEM LIROSE," with their entry mentioned first.

#3

The Avnei Nezer explains that they understood that punishments visited upon them should be commensurate to their wrongdoing, "midoh k'neged midoh." They originally thought that they came to a correct conclusion that Yoseif was deserving of death. Upon seeing that Hashem sent them difficulties they came to realize that they had acted incorrectly. However, they felt that this was only an UNINTENTIONAL wrongdoing on their part, by judging Yoseif wrongly. In turn, they were UNINTENTIONALLY wrongly judged as spies. However, in our verse they were dealing with finding their payment for the food returned in their knapsacks. This was done INTENTIONALLY. They could not justify such a difficulty coming upon themselves, since they felt that they did nothing INTENTIONALLY wrong.

The son of the Avnei Nezer, the Shem miShmuel, adds that although they did nothing wrong intentionally, nevertheless, they were held responsible as if they acted intentionally, since their mistake came about through lack of sufficient Torah knowledge, which is considered intentional, "sheshig'gas Talmud oloh zodone" (Pirkei Ovos 4:13).

#4

Tosfos Hasholeim asks this. He answers that Reuvein's intention was that two of his sons should receive no portion in the inheritance of Eretz Yisroel. Either with the maxim that "oni choshuv k'meis" (N'dorim 7b), or with the expression found regarding Reuvein (Dvorim 33:6), "Y'chi Reuvein v'al yomos," which means that he will deserve a portion in Eretz Yisroel, we see that without a portion in E.Y. one is considered dead.

It is interesting to note that the Baal Haturim asks that since the literal statement of Reuvein was that two of his sons should be put to death, albeit conditional to the non-return of Binyomin, there is a rule in the gemara Makos 11b that the words of the righteous are fulfilled, even if conditional, so where do we see the fulfillment of Reuvein's words literally? He answers that two descendants of Reuvein, Doson and Avirom, were killed in the incident with Korach (B'midbar 26:9-10), thus fulfilling the words of Reuvein. He adds that "es shnei" equals "heim Doson va'Avirom." Doson and Avirom are also the source for the concept of "oni choshuv k'meis" in the gemara N'dorim 7b (see Ran ad loc.), so it seems that both the literal explanation and Tosfos Hasholeim's explanation of "tomis" are alluded to in the life story of Doson and Avirom. The Chasam Sofer obviously did not see the words of the Tosfos Hasholeim and gives the same answer in his responsa, Orach Chaim #208, near the end of his very lengthy responsa.

#5

The Mahari"l Diskin answers that the medrash assumes that the "kal vochomer" used by the brothers to prove their innocence (44:8) was accepted, and the brothers were assumed innocent. However, this was only effective for those who returned to Canaan, found their returned money, and brought it back to Egypt. Shimon was incarcerated and Binyomin had not been part of the group that descended to Egypt on the first trip. Therefore the medrash says that the "godol' was Shimon. Explaining that the "koton" was Binyomin indicates that he was the ONLY OTHER ONE who was searched, as all the other brothers had a "kal vochomer."

A GUTTEN SHABBOS KODESH. FEEL FREE TO DISTRIBUTE BY COPY OR ELECTRONICALLY.

FEEDBACK IS APPRECIATED. TO SUBSCRIBE, KINDLY SEND REQUEST TO: SHOLOM613@ROGERS.COM

See also Sedrah Selections, Oroh V'Simchoh - Meshech Chochmoh on the Weekly Parsha and Chasidic Insights