Yosef and the Mask

42:8- וַיַּכֵּר יוֹסֵף, אֶת-אֶחָיו; וְהֵם, לֹא הִכִּרֻהוּ

The big difficulty here is the fact that none of the brothers recognized Joseph. Rashi, quoting our sages, comments that he had left them without a beard, but many of the commentators find this insufficient. While many suggestions have been offered, all seem to fall a little bit short, because there were ten of them, and could not even one of them discerned the truth?

Perhaps Joseph was wearing a mask, something the Egyptian Pharaohs were known to have worn. While Joseph was only the Prime Minister to the monarch, he may have worn one also. A bit fanciful, perhaps, but nevertheless a possibility.


The Ramban's words are: "...U'k'she'ba Yosef B'Mirkeves Hamishneh, V'Al Panav Hamitznefes K'Derech Malchei Mitzrayim, lo haya nikar l'echav v'gam echav lo hikiruhu..."

I thought mitznefes meant Hat. But I can see how it would mean mask in this context.

Another proof for this suggestion is that immediately after the revelation, the verse says “ the brothers could not speak, because they wers astonished at his face”. ( nivhalo miponov). It suggest that only now they saw his face.

Hat Tip to David Farkas

Yosef's Job Opening

Yosef, while interpreting Pharaoh's dream, he says
"So now, let Pharaoh seek out an understanding and wise man and appoint him over the land of Egypt."

So where did this come from? At first glance, it looks like Yosef is taking advantage of Pharaoh's dream by demonstrating that he has a solution to the problem the dream is presenting.

I think there is another take. I think Yosef sees the solution presented in the dreams themselves.In Dream Interpretation 101, according to Yosef, Two Dreams means that fulfillment is immediate. Yet the two dreams here are different. Different things are happening with the cows and the ears of grain.

The Cow Dream has seven distinct life-forms, swallowed by seven other distinct life-forms, and the swallowing cows don't look like they've eaten anything. as Rashi points out, this symbolizes the fact that there would be no remembrance of the good years once the famine hit.

The Grain Dream has one single stalk, with seven ears of grain growing, followed by seven other ears of grain. No mention of "You couldn't tell that they had swallowed them." The Stalk dream is saying that if the country has a united front, not seven cows, but One stalk, then the seven good years will be able to feed the seven years of famine. But national unity is necessary, in the person of a single leader. He saw that advising people to save up would not work. Taxing would be required. (I wonder how Orthodox Fiscal Conservatives deal with this obviously Keynesian solution right there in Chumash!) Yosef understood somehow (in a way I have not yet figured out) that this individual could not be Pharaoh himself, but someone Pharoah would appoint. So he wasn't fishing for employment. He was interpreting the dream.

Contradictory Interpretations

There are many verses in the Torah that have many complementary interpretations. This week's parsha contains some of those, but also contains verses with mutually exclusive, opposing takes.

For example: Why didn't Yehudah recognize Tamar?
Was Tamar veiled in her father-in-law's house? Or was she veiled out in the street?

Did Yehudah continue to live with Tamar as husband and wife? Or did he never know her again?

Who sold Joseph?

One of Rabbi Menachem Leibtag's most brilliant shiurim ever is on this week's parsha. Here is the link. 

Unlike Rashi, who clearly thinks that the brothers sold him, Rabbi Leibtag convincingly puts forth his view that according to a straight literal reading of the Parsha, Midianite merchants took Yosef out of the pit and sold him to the Yishmaelim before Reuven, the brothers' delegate, arrived at the pit himself to sell him.  The brothers intended to sell him, but actually were beaten to it!  Read the whole shiur for the details. Or if you wish, open up a Chumash and see how the case makes itself. 

"Ben Zekunim"

Q: Why is "Son of Old Age" not the only take on "Ben Zekunim"?  

My A: Because there was a younger son, born when Yaakov was much older.

Has Rashi ever heard of sarcasm?

20. So now, let us kill him, and we will cast him into one of the pits, and we will say, 'A wild beast devoured him,' and we will see what will become of his dreams."		כ. וְעַתָּה לְכוּ וְנַהַרְגֵהוּ וְנַשְׁלִכֵהוּ בְּאַחַד הַבֹּרוֹת וְאָמַרְנוּ חַיָּה רָעָה אֲכָלָתְהוּ וְנִרְאֶה מַה יִּהְיוּ חֲלֹמֹתָיו:
and we will see what will become of his dreams: Rabbi Isaac said, This verse says: "Expound on me." [I.e., this verse demands a midrashic interpretation.] The Holy Spirit says thus: They (the brothers) say, "Let us kill him," but the verse concludes: "and we will see what will become of his dreams." Let us see whose word will stand up, yours or Mine. It is impossible that they (the brothers) are saying,"and we will see what will become of his dreams," because, since they will kill him, his dreams will come to nought. [From Tan. Buber, Vayeshev 13]		ונראה מה יהיו חלומותיו: אמר ר' יצחק מקרא זה אומר דרשני, רוח הקודש אומרת כן. הם אומרים נהרגהו, והכתוב מסיים ונראה מה יהיו חלומותיו, נראה דבר מי יקום או שלכם או שלי. ואי אפשר שיאמרו הם ונראה מה יהיו חלומותיו מכיון שיהרגוהו בטלו חלומותיו:

I ask:  Has Rashi (quoting the Medrash of course) never heard of sarcasm?  

Or is he saying that it's wrong to impute sarcastic intent to the brothers' speech patterns? 

Or perhaps he is saying that even though they intended their words to be sarcastic on a literal level, the inclusion of the words in the Torah means that they have greater significance that must transcend bitter humor.  I like this take best, but it stills carries the slight problem that Rashi says "It is impossible that [the brothers] are saying..."

Vayishlach - Shvi'i (politics)

Edom is a nation that is the result of a merger of the clans of Eisav and Seir.
Edom had leaders called "Aluf".
Then there were eight kings. It was not a hereditary monarchy.  The Kings came from other countries, and did not rule by right of birth.

Vayishlach - Shlishi Revi'i Chamishi

1- Yaakov to Eisav: Don't call me. We'll call you. 


שלם 2: 


שלם בגופו, שנתרפא מצליעתו. שלם בממונו, שלא חסר כלום מכל אותו דורון. שלם בתורתו, שלא שכח תלמודו בבית לבן:
What a beautiful line: שלם בגופו, שלם בממונו,  שלם בתורתו   Isn't that what we all want!

3- It's clear from the narrative that Shechem saw nothing wrong with his conduct.  No apologies.  This is how it's done. I take your daughter and then make arrangements to merge tribes.  A hostile takeover-turned-into-unhostile merger.  This was par for the course in the era that tribes were endeavoring to turn into nations.  Cf. the "Rape of the Sabine Women" by the Romans in Plutarch's Lives.  This was the story of the founding of Rome. Shechem thought he was doing something similar, and was not expecting any vengeful thoughts on the part of Yaakov's family.  Had he suspected resentment, he would not have agreed to surgery for the entire tribe!

Vayishlach - Sheini

1) The Torah says that Yaakov split his people into two groups, so that one camp should have the opportunity to escape in case of attack. Yet when Yaakov and Eisav do meet, Yaakov presents all his wives and children. How then were they split up?  I would love it if someone could draw one of those Football field diagrams, with X's and O's, to explain the set-up.

2) Yaakov feared the unknown. He heard Eisav was bringing 400 men. So what should he expect?  He prepared for all eventualities, by sending the gift, preparing for war, and praying.  This got me thinking, if someone sent the camera to Eisav's side, what was Eisav thinking?  Why did he decide to meet up with so many men, a militia?  Perhaps he didn't know what to expect either.  After all, he thinks Yaakov is a deceiver, so perhaps he decided to prepare for the encounter by not taking any chances.  Perhaps Yaakov is telling the truth but perhaps he is lying, again.  So if we fight, I'm prepared, and if it's just a reunion, he will know that I cannot be taken advantage of.  

It's awkward for me to impute honest motives to Eisav, after having been conditioned for thousands of years with a negative view of him. But I think it's a fair question.   Think about it: If Yaakov's gift and seven prostrations softened Eisav's heart, what was Eisav's intent when he and his 400 men set out to meet Yaakov?  It was less generous. But in what way?  War, or peaceful domination. I think back to Teddy Roosevelt's peaceful display of his American Warships. He wasn't waging war, but he was sending the message, "Howdy, friends. We can smash you, so don't mess with us."  Even if Eisav thought he would speak softly, he wanted to carry a Big Stick, actually 400 Big Sticks, when he encountered Yaakov. 

Yaakov's message to Eisav, "I don't want to fight. I acknowledge you as the stronger one."

3) I think the definitive analysis of this encounter, its prelude and aftermath, is to be found in the Beis Halevi. Although there are strong temporal connections to the Beis Halevi's times, end of 19th century Europe, every line of the Beis Halevi here also fits the Basic Meaning of the story on every level.  If I have time, I'll summarize it later.

Vayishlach - Rishon (Metaphors)

When does a metaphor become a metaphor?  All must agree that a moshol can have no meaning until it has entered the common experience.  That's why I find a couple of Rashis in this aliyah so perplexing.  According to Rashi, "Eisav" is already now a standing metaphor for "Rasha".  See these two Rashis from the first aliya:

באנו אל אחיך אל עשו: שהיית אומר אחי הוא, אבל הוא נוהג עמך כעשו הרשע, עודנו בשנאתו:
We came to your brother, to Esau: Concerning whom you said,“He is my brother,” but he still behaves toward you like the wicked Esau. He still has hatred.

מיד אחי מיד עשו: מיד אחי שאין נוהג עמי כאח אלא כעשו הרשע:
from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau: From the hand of my brother, who does not behave toward me like a brother, but like the wicked Esau.
 

Rashi did the same thing in Parshas Vayeira, where he attaches to the phrase "Anshei Sedom" the active metaphorical meaning
"Evil Men". 

See here, from the third aliya in Vayeira:

טרם ישכבו ואנשי העיר אנשי סדום: כך נדרש בבראשית רבה (נ ה) טרם ישכבו ואנשי העיר היו בפיהם של מלאכים, שהיו שואלים ללוט מה טיבם ומעשיהם, והוא אומר להם רובם רשעים. עודם מדברים בהם ואנשי סדום וגו'. ופשוטו של מקרא ואנשי העיר, אנשי רשע, נסבו על הבית. על שהיו רשעים נקראים אנשי סדום, כמו שאמר הכתוב (יג יג) ואנשי סדום רעים וחטאים:

When they had not yet retired, the people of the city, the people of Sodom: It is interpreted in Gen. Rabbah (50:5) as follows: When they had not yet retired, the people of the city were the topic of conversation of the angels, for they were asking Lot about their character and their deeds, and he told them that most of them were wicked. While they were still speaking about them, “And the people of the city,” etc. The simple meaning of the verse, however, is: “and the people of the city, people of wickedness, surrounded the house.” Because they were wicked, they are called people of Sodom, as Scripture states (above 13:13): “And the people of Sodom were very evil and sinful…”

I must of course grant that Eisav is known to us from Parshas Toldos just as the city of Sedom was known to us from Parshas Lech-Lecha, as Rashi himself points out.  Yet were the terms fully identified? Evidently!

Yaakov's Integrity

What sort of conclusions are we supposed to make about Yaakov's integrity.

On the one hand, the Rambam calls Yaakov a Tzaddik because of his actions in Parshas Vayeitzei: It's not just that he was a good worker. We are supposed to see the story of Yaakov's shepherding as the paradigmatic case of perfect, honest, and responsible human being.

הלכות שכירות פרק יג

יא  וכן חייב לעבוד בכל כוחו, שהרי יעקוב הצדיק אמר "כי, בכל כוחי, עבדתי, את אביכן" (בראשית לא,ו).  לפיכך נטל שכר זאת אף בעולם הזה, שנאמר "ויפרוץ האיש, מאוד מאוד" (בראשית ל,מג). 


On the other hand, there is the matter of the spotted sheep.  Working with Rashi, the only thing that can be called disturbing about Yaakov's techniques is certainly not forbidden.  Here's the question: Does a worker who also has his own business within the same operating space as his employment obligated or ethically encouraged to share a money-making technique with his boss?  Lavan was perfectly willing to take his chances, obviously thinking he would come out ahead, and agreed to the deal.  So there must be a way of seeing this story not as one that needs to be explained and justified and apologized for, but as a perfect example of mentchlichkeit!  Why can't it be simpler?  


צריך עיון

Vayeitzei - Shishi and Shvi'i

Geneiva- The word is usually translated as "theft".  Yet this week's parsha demonstrates that the word actually means deception.   Even when it means theft, it is the deceptive aspect of theft.  This is related to the Gemara that explains the distinction between Geneiva and Gezeila, the former defined as stealing at night.  The distinction always seemed like an arbitrary one: Who cares when a theft takes place?! Theft is theft!  Yet Halacha makes a very big deal of it.  There are two distinct verses, two distinct penalties, geneiva seen as worse evidenced by the requirement to pay double.  The Rambam has "Hilchos Gezeila V'Aveida" and also "Hilchos Geneiva". So he clearly sees them as two different concepts.

I have given this matter a lot of thought.  Here is a summary of my conclusions:

Man relates to this world by possessing things.  The first possession that takes place is from a state of legal ownerlessness. AKA Hefker.  Once possession is taken by one person, the relationship between that person and that thing can only be sundered by that person's will. So the act of possession is an act of will.  Taking possession of something from another with that person's will is a gift, or trade.  Taking possession without that person's will is impossible to tolerate in society.  

That act manifests itself in two distinct forms or crime:
1) The physical taking of possession with no will, or
2) A falsely caused act of will.

The first, gezeila, is the more primitive form of taking, which animals possess as well.
The second is more refined, and can only by done by human beings.  It uses the accepted forms of society living to take that which is not yours.  It is therefore a greater sign of corruption of the human spirit.

More later...

Vayeitzei - Revi'i

• Rashi has been working with the theory that the Matriarchs knew there would be twelve children.  At first glance it seems "midrashic", but there are many indications that even according to the literal reading, the Torah is saying that Leah and Rachel knew there would be twelve sons.  That's why Leah says something about the number of children after hitting each factor of twelve.  

• Yaakov's body being rented for the night seems so disturbing.  I feel such a pathos for Leah, who with each child hoped Yaakov would favor her, spend time with her, make his home with her. And yet it never happened, at least not during her own lifetime b'alma dein.

Vayeitzei - Sheini

There are a few Rashis today where two views of a verse are offered, the literal view and the midrashic view. One of them has always resonated with me, so I will speak about it briefly. The Rashi is here, at verse 11. Why did Yaakov cry when he met Rachel? Rashi offers two approaches:

1) He saw through Ruach Hakodesh that he wouldn't be buried with her.
2) More literally, He was sad he did not have the wealth and bling funds to whisk her away the way Eliezer whisked Rivka away with the jewelry.

I see the two explanations as connected. This is generally my approach, learned from my rebbeim, to see a conceptual connection between the literal read of a passage and its midrashic read.

What Yaakov saw when he met with Rachel is that his relationship with her would be rocky, would lack the ease of courting and living that his father had had. Eliezer found a girl, judged her worthy, brought her to her intended. She was perfect, Yitzchak loved her. the end.

Yaakov, due to the circumstances of his escape, had none of the ease Eliezer did. He knew that given his mess of a life at that point, his relationship status with Rachel would be in the "It's Complicated" category. The Shakespearean phrase "Star-Crossed Lovers" comes to mind. He understood, or intuited, how difficult it would be to gain Rachel's hand in marriage given his poverty and Lavan's already-known character and love of wealth. He felt that despite the love he felt for her immediately, it wouldn't be an easy marriage.

Thus Rashi's two peirushim are connected at the hip: His immediate source of sadness was his grasp that they would not be married with the ease his parents were married. His deeper source of sadness was the understanding that the difficulties would never really go away, up until the last and lasting union, i.e. of burial.

Vayeitzei - Rishon

What an unusual Rashi in the first aliyah! Yaakov has a dream and declares that the place where he had the dream is the Shaar Hashomayim, the Gate of Heaven. This place is identified as Beis-El, formerly known as Luz. Rashi is not pleased with this location and does everything he can to convince the reader that somehow, the place was not Luz, but rather, Yerushalayim! Considering that the city of Luz/Beis-El is rather well-known, what could Rashi possibly say to convince us otherwise?

Take a look at the unusually lengthy comment Rashi makes: It's here, at verse 17. When I learned it, I thought of the metaphor of throwing spaghetti against a wall, hoping something will stick.

Rashi's goal is to transform the Biblical Beis-El into the Midrashic Jerusalem.

More later.