Vol. 8   No. 10

Parshas Mikeitz

When the famine struck the land of Cana'an, Yosef's brothers were slow to resist, and it was only after their father rebuked them with the words "Lomoh tisro'u?" and ordered them to go down to Egypt, that they went to buy corn. Rashi offers a number of interpretations to explain the phrase "Lomoh tisro'u?" The Targum Yonoson translates it as 'Why are you afraid?' though he does not explain of what it was that they were afraid.

The Seforno, citing the Chazal 'A pot belonging to partners does not get hot or cold", meaning that a communal obligation never gets done (since each member of the community relies on the other), explains "Lomoh tisro'u?" in the same light. The brothers were looking at each other, he says, to see who would take the initiative, until their father instructed them all to go.

The Oznayim la'Torah, who agrees with the Seforno's translation of "Lomoh tisro'u?", explains that the brothers were looking at each other because the country concerned was Egypt, and they realized that travelling in the footsteps of the brother whom they had sold there, meant heading for trouble. Indeed, that is also how he explains the Targum Yonoson's interpretation. They were afraid to go down to Egypt, he says, because they would be making the same trip that Yosef had made after they had sold him into slavery. The accusation of the sale, they felt, would be levelled at them from Heaven.

Their consciences had been pricked and that is why, when they eventually followed their father's instructions and made their way to Egypt, they went down as "brothers of Yosef". Rashi explains that they expressed regret at having sold their brother, and were prepared to redeem him at any price.

There is no hint however at teshuvah. It is well known that their decision to kill Yosef, which they latter commuted to selling him into slavery, was the result of careful deliberation and was the decision of a Beis-din. So it is not surprising that, at first, the movement to bring him back was an instinctive one, guided by their consciences, but not accompanied by any genuine feelings of remorse for what they had done. After all, they had been in the right, and teshuvah would have been inappropriate.

The first hint of teshuvah came when Yosef kept back Shimon and permitted the remaining brothers to return to Cana'an. If Yosef's strategy in his dealings with his brothers was to cause them to do teshuvah, then he was certainly succeeding, because he elicited from them an admission that G-d was doing this to them because they had not taken pity on their brother when he pleaded with them.

And what's more, the Oznayim la'Torah points out, it was "ish el ochiv" who made the comment, which is probably Shimon to Levi (the very same two brothers who set upon him in Doson). They were not yet sorry for having decided to kill him, but they were sorry for their callousness in not taking heed of his pleas, as the commentaries point out.

Yosef however, was not satisfied. He wanted his brothers to attain a complete teshuvah. He wanted them to realise that they had completely misunderstood his motives and that consequently, selling their brother had been a travesty of justice. Otherwise, they could not hope to merit atonement for their sin. And he succeeded. He obtained a confession from none other than Yehudah, the brother who was responsible for his sale. Because after orchestrating the episode with the goblet, he had the satisfaction of hearing Yehudah declare "G-d has found the sin of your servants". Moreover, Yehudah went on to volunteer for the brothers to become Yosef's slaves (despite the fact that his servant had already acquitted them), as an atonement for selling Yosef into slavery.

The teshuvah was now complete and a short while later, Yosef would reveal himself to his brothers.

"And Par'oh dreamt and behold he was standing on the River (Nile)" (41:1). Whereas by Ya'akov the Torah writes "And behold Hashem was standing over him" (28:13).

With Resho'im, the Medrash Rabah comments, it is they who stand over their gods (to protect them), whereas with tzadikim, it is their G-d who stands over them.

This is reminiscent of the story with Unklus ha'Ger, who made the very same comment when the Roman soldiers sent by Hadrian to capture him queried him about the mezuzah he was fixing to his doorpost. 'This marks the difference' he replied 'between your emperor, who sits in his palace whilst the people guard him from the outside, and our King, who guards us whilst we sit in our homes'.

"And he (Par'oh) removed his ring from on his hand and placed it on the hand of Yosef" (41:42). They gave Yosef what he deserved, says the Medrash. His mouth which did not kiss sinfully - "And through your mouth all my people will be fed". (The word for 'will be fed' is "yishak" which can also mean "will kiss').

His body, which did not touch sinfully - "and he dressed him in linen garments".

His neck, which he did not bend sinfully - "And he placed the golden chain around his neck".

His hands, which did not feel sinfully - "And the King removed his ring from on his hand and he placed it on the hand of Yosef".

His legs, which did not walk sinfully - shall come and ride in the carriage that was second to the king's.

His brain, which did not think sinfully - And they called before him 'Avrech' (which is the acronym of 'av rach)' ' father in wisdom, but young in years' (the very antithesis of Nevuchdnetzar, the Medrash concludes, who was foolish, even though he was experienced in years).

"And Ya'akov their father said to them 'You have bereaved me, Yosef is no longer there, Shimon is no longer there nd now you will take Binyomin? All these terrible things are happening to me!' "

Everyone knows that a father suffers when he loses his children, asks the Gro, so why did Ya'akov find it necessary to make such a comment?

So he explains it like this: When Rifkah sent Ya'akov in to Yitzchok for the b'rochos, she countered Ya'akov's fear of being discovered with the words "Your curse will be on me my son" (27:13). The three letters of "olai" ("on me") - 'ayin', 'lamed' and 'yud' - also constitute the first letters of Eisov, Lovon and Yosef, and the posuk could therefore be interpreted as a prophecy hinting at the three major calamities that would befall him in his lifetime, three calamities and no more.

With that we can understand Ya'akov's complaint here. "Olai hoyu kulono" - the calamities of Eisov, Lovon and Yosef which his mother had prophesied, had already passed. Why did he now have to suffer the additional loss of Shimon and Binyomin?

It was only after Shimon and Binyomin were safely returned to him that he realized his mother's prophecy was one hundred percent correct. Now, looking back in retrospect, these might be considered minor misfortunes, but hardly major calamities.

Chanukah is unique inasmuch as a traveller who is not going to light that night, nor is there anyone at home to light on his behalf, recites the b'rochoh of 'she'osoh nisim la'avoseinu' (and 'shehechiyonu' when appropriate) upon seeing a lit menorah.

The Avudraham explains that this is due either to the concept of 'pirsumey nisa' (the miracle being publicized), one of the underlying principles of the mitzvah, or because of the fact that so many people did not have homes, and someone without a home does not light Chanukah lights.

The reason that we recite the whole Hallel is because each day of Chanukah has something new - an extra light (for those who do like the mehadrin or the mehadrin min ha'mehadrin), just like the bulls on Sukos which diminish day by day. Whereas on the last six days of Pesach, which are an extension of the first day of Yom-tov, but do not offer any novelty, we recite only half-Hallel (Avudraham).

Others say that it is because on Yom-tov one always recites the complete Hallel, and the reason that on the last days of Pesach we don't, is because these days commemorate the drowning of the Egyptians. Presumably, this is based on Chazal, who say that the angels were forbidden to sing Shiroh because 'the work of Hashem's Hands was drowning in the sea'. And if the angels are not allowed to sing Shiroh, then we cannot recite more than half-Hallel!

The Rivash used to recite "vi'Yehi no'am" and "Yoshev be'seiser" seven times after kindling the Chanukah lights, as he did during the Yomim Noro'im and in times of trouble. The Tashbetz writes that the Chashmona'im would do the same thing when going into battle, and they would recite the last posuk "Orech yomim asbi'eihu ... " twice.

The lights burned for eight days, explains the Yerushalmi, because the oil had to be brought from Teko'a (in Osher's territory), a journey of eight days - four days there and four days back.

The Ge'onim forbade deriving any benefit from the oil and wicks that were used for the mitzvah and were extinguished, since they were designated for the mitzvah.

Why should this be any different than other objects of mitzvah, which should not be abused after the mitzvah is completed, but which may be used?

They explain this in two ways:

1) Because when someone blows a shofar or shakes a lulav for example, he intends it to be used again on subsequent occasions. In other words, he has designated it for all the times that he wants to use it. Whereas when he lights the oil of the Chanukah lights, he expects it to burn to the very end. Consequently he only designates it for the one time, and to use it again should it unexpectedly become extinguished, is forbidden.

2) Because (perhaps due to the fact that it commemorates the lighting of the Menorah in the Beis ha'Mikdosh), Chazal gave the accessories of this mitzvah the din of holy objects, which are forbidden. Indeed, we allude to this when as we kindle the lights, we say 'These lights are holy, and we have no permission to use them, only to see them'.

31. All of the above prohibitions do not apply if they will result in the tree dying or all the fruit spoiling. And the same pertains to vegetables etc. that are not forbidden because of 's'fichim' (which will be discussed later). In such a case they are all permitted, provided one takes great care to do only what is absolutely necessary as we have already explained. Weeding by means of ploughing however, is forbidden under all circumstances.

32. It is forbidden to reap or to harvest grapes in the regular manner. 'The regular manner' entails reaping or harvesting the entire field and making a pile. Likewise, one may not thresh the corn using cattle or a machine in the manner that one normally does.

If however, one did perform any of these in the regular manner, the fruit does not become forbidden.

33. In addition to this, one is also obligated to initiate changes in the manner in which the various tasks are performed, both as regards the reaping and harvesting, and as regards other tasks that one performs after the fruit has been detached, such as threshing, piling and winnowing. Similarly, one may not press the grapes in the wine-press where it is normally done, but in a trough, neither may one crush the olives in the large olive-press, but in the small press; nor may one dry the figs in the designated location.

All these prohibitions extend to the various tasks that are performed with vegetables and other plants to which the isur of s'fichim does not apply.

34. Those changes that pertain to the manner in which one performs the various tasks, only apply where it is practical to initiate them. Where it is not, such as in the case of someone who picks a small amount of fruit from hefker, one may proceed to work in the normal manner.

35. Besides the prohibition of reaping or harvesting one's entire field in one go, it is also forbidden to reap or harvest large quantities, even in an unusual manner. This is because one conveys the impression that he is picking the fruit for marketing (which is forbidden in the Sh'mitah) - what constitutes large amounts will be clarified later.

36. All of these prohibitions apply equally to one's workers as to oneself, irrespective of whether they are working for a wage or free of charge, and even to gentile workers. And they also apply to hefker no less than to property that has an owner. The only exception is fruit that is picked for 'otzar Beis-din' (which will be dealt with later), which requires no change from other years, neither regarding the quantity of fruit nor the quality of work.

37. When the sages saw how many people were sowing their fields in the Sh'mitah and then claiming that the seeds had grown by themselves, they forbade all seeds that grew in the Sh'mitah (of the kind of seeds that are sown annually - such as vegetables and legumes). The prohibition applies irrespective of whether the seeds were actually planted in the Sh'mitah or whether they grew by themselves. This prohibition is known as 'isur s'fichim'.

38. It is a mitzvah to uproot s'fichim in the Sh'mitah. Having done so, the plants should be left where they are and allowed to rot, because it is forbidden to spoil them with one's hands. Nor is one permitted to place one's animal next to s'fichim, so that it should eat them. One may however, uproot unripe shoots that have not yet reached the stage of Ma'asros. There are some fruits of the ground that are not subject to s'fichim, as we shall now see.

39. Vegetables that were planted in the sixth year and which sprouted in the sixth year are not forbidden because of isur s'fichim, even though the bulk of their growth took place in the Sh'mitah-year. And that will be the case even if some of its leaves grew in the Sh'mitah-year. Whatever has a stem that produces leaves and fruit, if the stem grew in the sixth year, it is not subject to the isur s'fichim.

For sponsorships and adverts call 651 9502