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

2) Ch. 37, v. 8: "Hamoloch, hamoshol" - What is the difference between these two words?

3) Ch. 37, v. 29,30: "Va'yoshov Reuvein, Ha'yeled ei'nenu va'ani onoh ani vo" - Back in verse 22 Reuvein suggested to his brothers that they not directly kill him, but rather, throw him into a pit. The Torah testifies that his intention was to save Yoseif, "l'maan hatzil oso miyodom." The gemara Shabbos 22a says that although the pit contained no water it did contain snakes and scorpions. If so, Yoseif would surely be poisoned barring an open miracle. How then was this an attempt to save him?

4) Ch. 37, v. 34: "Va'yisa'beil al b'no yomim rabim" - Rashi (gemara Megiloh 17a and M.R. 78:16) calculates for us that Yoseif was away from his father for twenty-two years, as a commensurate punishment for Yaakov who also was away from his parents for twenty-two years. Part of the twenty-two years Yaakov was absent was spent in pursuit of a wife, which cost him seven years of labour. Possibly even fourteen years should be considered time spent fulfilling his father's wish to pursue marriage, if we include both Rochel and Leah. Why then are these years counted in the time he was away? There was no lack of parental honour since he was doing his father's bidding. Furthermore, the six months he stayed in Beis Ei-l should also not go into the 22 year calculation as Hashem specifically commanded him to stay in Beis Ei-l for a while (35:1).

5) Ch. 40, v. 16-19: How did Yoseif know that the dream of the baker indicated that he would be put to death?

ANSWERS:

#1

The M.R. 84:7 says that the negative talk (37:2) which Yoseif related to his father Yaakov was that:

1) The children of Leah treated the children of the maidservants, Zilpoh and Bilhoh, with contempt, calling them slaves.

2) His brothers ate meat taken from an animal while it was still alive, known as "eiver min hachai," which is prohibited to a non-Jew as well as a Jew.

3) They had engaged in immoral acts.

This was the intention of Yaakov when he asked Yoseif to visit his brothers and come back with a report regarding these three matters in the words, "Shlome achecho shlome hatzone v'hashi'veini dovor" (37:14.

1) "Shlome achecho" - meaning peace among his brothers and that there was no denigrating the children of the maidservants.

2) "Shlome hatzone" - meaning the completeness of the sheep; that they were not eating a piece of meat hacked off a living sheep.

3) "V'hashi'veini dovor" - meaning to bring back a positive report about DOVOR, as in "Ervas DOVOR" (Dvorim 24:1), which the gemara Sotoh 2b explains as adultery. (Nachal K'dumim)

#2

The Ibn Ezra says that "moloch" means reigning by virtue of the approval of the populace, and "moshol" means ruling by force.

The GR"A says that Yoseif's brothers derived these two types of leadership from the dream. Yoseif's sheaf standing up indicates his lording over them. Their sheaves bowing down indicates their approval of his reigning over them. Their response was, "Hamoloch timloch oleinu," - Will you then be our king with our approval? Obviously not! If so, "hamoshol timshol bonu" - Will you rule over us by force? Although this is a possibility, since the first part of the dream is nonsense, so is the second part, in keeping with the dictum of the gemara Avodoh Zoroh 17b, "Mid'ho leiso, ho nami leiso" - The negation of one part indicates the negation of the whole.

The GR"A goes on to say that with the difference pointed out between "moleich" and "mosheil" we can understand the verses of our daily prayers in a new light. At the end of our "Oz yoshir" prayers we say, "Ki laShem hamluchoh umosheil bagoyim" (T'hilim 22:29). "V'hoyoh Hashem l'Melech al kol ho'o'retz ......" (Z'charioh 14:9). This means Hashem reigns over the bnei Yisroel with their approval, "Ki Lashem hamluchoh." However the nations of the world do not accept His leadership, so He must rule over them with force, "u'mosheil bagoyim." In the future Hashem's reign will be willingly accepted not only by the bnei Yisroel but also by all nations of the world, "V'hoyoh Hashem l'Melech al kol ho'o'retz ......"

#3

1) See the Ohr Hachaim Hakodosh, whose words in a manner of simple reading seem to mean that human intervention can foil Hashem's plans.

2) The Ponim Yofos explains that Yehudoh went with the dictum that a person is not punished by Heavenly intervention, "min hashomayim," under the age of 20 years. Thus, although Yoseif's brothers might have been able to kill him as this is not heavenly intervention, being killed by poisonous creatures is to be considered "Heavenly intervention," and Yoseif would be safe from snakes and scorpions.

We can now understand a most puzzling M.R. (84:19) on our verses. It says that when Reuvein later returned to the pit and saw that Yoseif was gone, "va'yoshov Reuvein," he returned to his mourning sack cloth and fasting, saying "va'ani onoh ani vo," - what will become of me because of my tampering with the bed of Bilhoh? What is the connection? The Ponis Yofos says that it is now understood. Once Reuvein saw that Yoseif was missing and he suspected the worst had happened, he realized that the Heavens intervene even when one has sinned when under the age of 20 years old. Until now Reuvein felt safe from punishment for his rash action with the bed of Bilhoh because he was under 20 years old when he committed the act. Now that he assumed that Yoseif was punished, indicating that Hashem treated the bnei Yaakov as fully mature adults (see Tosfos on gemara Sanhedrin 69a that before the giving of the Torah people were considered more mature), Reuvein went back to repenting in a more serious manner.

#4

The Maharsh"o on the gemara Megiloh 17a asks the second question of the additional six months in Beis Ei-l which were a command from Hashem.

Rabbi Pinchos Menachem Alter zt"l, a previous Admor of Gur, in his sefer Toros'cho Shaashu'oy answers these questions with the insight of the Beis haLevi into a mishnoh in the gemara Makos 5a. There is a rule that if witnesses are found to be totally false in a certain manner (imonu heyisem), called "eidim zom'mim," their punishment is to incur the loss or punishment that they attempted to have done to the innocent defendant. The mishnoh says that if witnesses falsely testified that a person owes another person 100 dollars, they may pay an accumulative 100 dollars and it is not required for each witness to pay the full 100 dollars. However, if they testified that the defendant transgressed a sin that carries the punishment of 39 lashes, we do not say that the lashes are divided between or among the witnesses. Rather, each witness receives the full complement of 39 lashes. Why is this so? The Beis haLevi explains that money only has a quantitative nature to it and as long as the defendant has received 100 dollars, the punishment was fully carried out. However, when it comes to lashes there is a qualitative aspect as well. The level of pain of the first lash upon one's back is not the same as the 39th, which lands upon an already very sore back. The taste of the 39th lash can only come about after experiencing the first 38 lashes. Hence, we must administer 39 lashes to each witness.

Similarly, says the Toros'cho Shaashu'oy, although Yaakov was not guilty of being away for many of the 22 years of his absence, since the last years were through his own choice, deciding to stay on at his father-in-law's home to build up his finances, Yaakov caused his father Yitzchok the qualitative anguish of longing for his son who was absent for 22 years. There is no way Yaakov could make up the qualitative aspect without suffering being parted from his son Yoseif for 22 years, although he was guilty for only a fraction of this time. It is questionable if this answers the difficulty of the Maharsh"o, since the stay in Beis Ei-l took place after Yaakov's delay of six years of his own volition.

Although this is a brilliant resolution of the problem it seems that a new difficulty arises. We know that there were another fourteen years of absence by Yaakov which were spent in Yeshivas Eiver, as explained in the above gemara Megiloh and recounted in Rashi 28:9. The gemara says that the merit of learning Torah protected Yaakov from any retribution for those 14 years away from his father. This makes perfect sense until now. However, upon introducing the qualitative factor, we seem to still have a problem. In fact, Yaakov was away from his father for 36 years. Should he then not have been punished by suffering the absence of Yoseif for the same amount of time? Saying that he was not punished for the time spent learning doesn't answer the question, since many other years of his absence were also not years for which he was punished. Perhaps an answer can be found in the words of the Maharsh"o on the above-mentioned gemara Megiloh. He says that Yeshivas Eiver was located in B'eir Sheva, the city of Yitzchok. Although Yaakov left his father's home he did not leave the city in which his father resided. Perhaps the reason the gemara finds it necessary to exclude those years from the total years of absence even though Yaakov was in the same city, is because Yitzchok was blind and thus somewhat immobile, and would not visit Yaakov at the Yeshiva.

However, in regard to the new concept introduced by the Toros'cho Shaashu'oy of accumulative longing, since Yitzchok knew that Yaakov was close at hand and if need be could be immediately summoned, those years did not accrue to the qualitative longing.

Incidentally, the words of the Maharsh"o brought a difficulty to mind. If Yeshivas Eiver was in B'eir Sheva, how was Yaakov fulfilling the wishes of his mother, who specifically commanded him to leave to escape the wrath of Eisov (27:42,43)? Perhaps Yaakov knew that Eisov would never consider stepping into the hallowed halls of Yeshivas Eiver. Eisov might have waited for him during the break between daily sessions and at night when the students went to sleep in the dormitory. We know however, that Yaakov never left the Yeshiva even to go to sleep, as pointed out by Rashi (M.R. 68:11) on the words "Va'yishkav bamokome" (28:11). After waiting for a few years for Yaakov to exit the Beis Ha'medrash, Eisov probably got tired of waiting and just gave up.

#5

The Dubner Magid answers this, based on a story. There was an artist who drew a beautiful picture of a farmer carrying a basket of luscious fruits. This work of art was displayed at a very prestigious gallery which was open to the public. The artist wanted to hear what people's opinions were of his painting. He went to the art gallery incognito and heard the remarks of the people. There was a mixed bag of reviews and the artist felt hurt. He felt he could turn the tide of remarks in his favour by pointing out that a few birds had made their way into the gallery and flew up to the canvas and fluttered in front of it. He said that the painting seemed so real that even birds were fooled into thinking that the fruits were real. An elderly man, although not an expert in art, remarked that the exact opposite was true. Since there was also a man in the painting, birds would never fly that close to a live person. Obviously, the birds realized that this was not a live scene.

This answers our original question. Since in the baker's dream, the birds flew right up to the person carrying the baskets of baked goods, the man in the dream could not have been alive. This is an indication of the baker's impending death sentence.

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