Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

Parashat Vayeishev tells of the tragic incident of mekhirat Yosef, Yosef's brothers' selling him into slavery. The Torah tells that at first the brothers planned to kill their brother, until Reuven, in an attempt to save Yosef's life, suggested that they instead cast him into a nearby pit. He argued that this way they will not have killed him directly. The Torah, however, testifies to the fact that he had planned to later pull Yosef from the pit and save him. The brothers then sell Yosef to merchants, and Reuven returns to the pit to find it empty. He says to his brothers, "The boy is missing, and I, where am I headed?" (37:30). Many various interpretations have been offered for this comment. The Midrash Lekach Tov explains, "I had thought that I would find a remedy for the incident of Bilha, but now, where am I headed?" Apparently, Reuven had thought that saving Yosef would somehow redeem him from the indelible stain brought upon him by his son with Bilha (35:22). How? What connection is there between saving Yosef and this sin?

Rav Menachem Kasher, in the footnotes to his Torah Sheleima, explains based on the comment of the Hadar Zekeinim that Reuven feared being the focus of suspicion and accusation regarding Yosef's death. As Yaakov had transferred the birthright from Reuven to Yosef as a result of his sin, Reuven could have been accused of harboring deep resentment and planning to kill Yosef. (Recall Esav's reaction upon losing his blessing to his younger brother.) Moreover, the Chizkuni writes that it was Yosef who reported to Yaakov what Reuven had done. Therefore, Reuven, who had a clear motive to kill Yosef, tried to save him and avoid accusation. Now Chazal say that all throughout, Reuven had genuinely repented for this sin. Rav Kasher thus suggests that Reuven here cries, "I thought my repentance has been accepted, but now that Yosef is gone the matter will arise once again, as I will be accused of killing Yosef because of this incident."

We may suggest a different, more straightforward approach to understanding the Midrash Lekach Tov based on a different Midrash, in Bereishit Rabba 84. The Midrash there explains that Reuven had feared expulsion from Yaakov's family as a result of his sin with Bilha. He was concerned that he may suffer the same fate as Yishmael and Esav, who were driven out of their respective families and not included in God's covenant with Avraham. His fears, however, were allayed by Yosef's dreams of the eleven stars and eleven sheaves of grain bowing to him. Reuven realized that if eleven brothers prostrate themselves before Yosef, then he must still be included in the family. Therefore, the Midrash explains, Reuven exerted himself on Yosef's behalf.

One may understand this Midrash in two ways. One could explain that Reuven feels a certain debt of gratitude towards Yosef for including him among the brothers when potentially he could have been seen as expelled. He wanted to save Yosef to pay back this favor. However, we may also explain that for Reuven, the possibility of his remaining in Yaakov's family depended on the fulfillment of Yosef's dreams. While the other brothers hated Yosef for having foreseen his superiority over them, to Reuven these dreams served as a source of hope and encouragement. He wanted these dreams to come true, for otherwise he may have no portion whatsoever in Yaakov's family. Inclusion in the family with Yosef as leader was preferable to expulsion. He thus made a heroic effort to save Yosef, since Yosef represented his only hope of retaining his spot in the formation of God's special nation. Upon seeing that Yosef was gone, he exclaims, "Where am I headed?" His fears of expulsion have materialized once again.

This is perhaps what the Midrash Lekach Tov meant. Reuven had hoped for redemption from his son through Yosef's dreams. Now that Yosef has perished, he does not know where his future will lead.

*****

Embedded within the drama of the sale of Yosef and Yaakov's family's eventual resettlement in Egypt is the story of Yehuda and Tamar. After the sale of Yosef, Yehuda marries a Canaanite woman and begins a family. As the Torah describes, Yehuda's family life did not work out as planned, and ultimately he sleeps with his daughter-in-law who bears for him two children. The older son, Peretz, becomes the ancestor of King David and thus the Davidic line of kings.

A famous Midrash describes the significance of this entire episode as follows (Bereishit Rabba 85:1): "The brothers were occupied with the [aftermath of] the sale of Yosef, Yosef was occupied with his sackcloth and fasting, Reuven was occupied with his sackcloth and fasting, Yaakov was occupied with his sackcloth and fasting, Yehuda was occupied with marriage, and the Almighty was occupied with creating the light of the Messianic King." When reading this Midrash, we often gloss over the first several clauses and focus instead on the final sentence, such that the Midrash simply states that while everyone was involved in their own private affairs, the Almighty already set the stage for the final redemption. Indeed, this is one level of interpreting the Midrash. Just when everything seems hopeless and the Egyptian exile has, in effect, begun taking shape, God is already planting the seeds of salvation.

However, Rav Simcha Bunim of Pashischa is cited as affording profound significance to the first half of this passage, as well. Interestingly, everyone in the family - Yaakov and all his sons - are involved in mourning on some level except Yehuda. Though the Midrash does not describe the other brothers as "occupied with sackcloth and fasting," they were still "occupied with the sale," they could not come to terms with what they had done. Ironically enough, Yehuda, who perhaps takes the bulk of the blame for Yosef's sale, is the only one who "gets on with his life." While everyone else seems stuck in the quagmire of guilt or anguish, Yehuda starts anew, beginning a new business venture and starting a family. Indeed, Yehuda's recovery from the past lays the groundwork for the Mashi'ach. Redemption comes about through stern resilience and insistence on picking oneself up from the ashes and building anew. Together with Yehuda's heroic strength and God's mysterious planning, the ultimate redemption unfolds.

*****

Very often we can better appreciate a comment in the Midrash when viewing it in conjunction with other relevant Midrashic passages. Detecting a pattern of Midrashic thought regarding a certain subject can shed light on each individual passage. This is perhaps especially true when dealing with the Midrashim cited by Rashi. While many different Tanna'im contributed to the corpus that we know as the Midrash, Rashi penned his own commentary. We should therefore expect to find a consistent pattern in the Midrashim he cites. We will employ this approach to try to find a pattern in several Midrashim in Parashat Vayeishev regarding Yosef's experiences in Egypt.

Chazal indicate a transition of sorts in Yosef's general outlook as he worked in Potifar's house. The verse records that "God was with Yosef, and he was a successful man. His master saw that God was with him, and that all that he did, God caused to prosper in his hand" (39:3-4). How did Potifar, an Egyptian idolater, know that God lent success to everything Yosef undertook? How would Potifar acknowledge the hand of God in Yosef's work? The Keli Yakar suggests rereading the verse to mean that Potifar noticed that his enterprises succeeded only when Yosef handled them. He thus concluded that Yosef's God stood behind his efforts. Chazal, however, cited by Rashi in 39:3, explain that Yosef would often invoke God's Name. He noticed that Yosef would attribute his success and accomplishments to God and that he maintained a constant awareness of His presence. As thnext verses describe, Yosef's success earned him an accelera"rags-to-riches" promotion to chief executive of Potifar's affairs. How does Yosef react to this incredible turn of fate? "Yosef was well built and handsome" (39:6). While on the simple level of interpretation, as explained by several commentators, this description simply introduces the next episode, of Potifar's wife's advances, Chazal, cited by Rashi (39:6), view it as well as a conclusion to the previous section. Yosef's newfound power and authority somehow shifted his focus from "the Name of God" to his appearance: "As soon as he saw himself as a ruler, he began to eat and drink and curl his hair. The Almighty said: Your father is in mourning and yet to curl your hair! I will thus incite the bear [= a metaphor for Potifar's wife] against you." What does this Midrash mean?

As a child of Yaakov in the foreign surroundings of Egypt, Yosef must make a fundamental decision as to his essential identity. Will he remain a full-fledged Israelite transplanted in Egypt, or will he gradually undergo a naturalization process? Clearly, this question became progressively more acute as he climbed through the ranks in Potifar's estate. According to the Midrash, the Name of God gradually lost its prominence in Yosef's speech as he slowly turned in the direction of the hedonistic lifestyle of his surroundings. God responded to this progression by exclaiming, as it were, "Your father is in mourning, and yet you curl your hair?" Yaakov's endless grief for his son reflected the ongoing - albeit silent - connection between Yosef and his family that endured throughout his years in Egypt. God admonishes Yosef by noting that Yaakov still loves him and has not forgotten him; he must therefore not forget his heritage by acclimating into Egyptian culture. God therefore sends Potifar's wife against Yosef, which perhaps serves as Yosef's ultimate test. This involved not merely the tension between temptation and ideals, but also the question of Yosef's boundaries, at what point he draws a solid line and erects a brick barrier between him and the corrupt society in which he lives.

This Midrash would thus relate to another passage in Chazal, in Masekhet Sota (36), cited by Rashi in Parashat Vayechi (49:26). The Gemara claims that Yosef had consented to Potifar's wife, when suddenly his father's image appeared to him. This beautifully illustrates the precise conflict that Yosef experienced, the question of whether he would embark on a future detached from his past. Sleeping with an Egyptian woman would mark his full assimilation into Egyptian society, the severing of his ideological and even ethnic ties to his father and all that he represents.

Yosef heroically makes the right decision; he retains his loyalty to his father and withdraws. In prison, he likewise earns the highest rank and becomes in charge of the other prisoners. Yet, the cup-bearer describes his fellow inmate to Pharaoh as "na'ar ivri" - a Hebrew lad. Yosef now remains fully identified with his past, as a Hebrew, rather than becoming an Egyptian.

******

Yesterday we saw Chazal's understanding of the Torah's description of Yosef as "yefei to'ar ve-fei mar'eh" - "well built and handsome." The Midrash, cited by Rashi, explains that while working under Potifar, Yosef began paying attention to his looks and spent a good deal of time grooming himself. We briefly noted that some commentators explain differently. The Ramban, among others, view this verse as an introduction to the incident that follows - Potifar's wife's attempt at seducing Yosef. Other commentators, including the Netziv, offer a different interpretation. The Torah's description of Yosef's good looks as he worked under Potifar underscores the divinely-assisted success he experienced. Very often, hard work expresses itself on the individual's appearance. The weary, drawn look of fatigue that normally surfaces on the face of an employer confronting the pressures and responsibilities that Yosef handled never appeared. God's blessing helped Yosef execute his tasks with supernatural efficiency, such that he retained his composure and dignified presence despite his heavy workload as chief executive of Potifar's affairs.

Before we proceed to another approach raised by the Netziv, we should perhaps emphasize the delicate nature of speaking of our righteous ancestors in critical terms. While Chazal and later commentaries do not shy away from pointing to the flaws and errors of our patriarchs, it is important to remember who they were, what they represent, and that their mistakes in no way undermine their spiritual greatness.

In his "Herchev Davar," the Netziv explains differently, viewing this verse as a critique of Yosef. He suggests that during this time Yosef grew lax in his study of Torah. The Netziv notes Chazal's comment that Yosef forgot the material he had studied under his father, presumably because of his laxity. Having freed himself, to one extent or another, from the tiring burden of Torah learning, Yosef did not experience the stress and pressure he would have if he had exerted himself in his studies.

If we accept this approach of the Netziv, then we may relate it to the aforementioned Midrash to arrive at a very powerful lesson. Combining the Midrash with the Netziv's comments results in Yosef's having used his time for tending to his looks rather than Torah study. When one does not exert himself properly in Torah and mitzvot, then he will inevitably use the free time left in his hands for vanity. There is a well known association drawn by our Sages between chametz and the evil inclination. Just as halakha considers dough chametz of it had been left inactive for a period of time, so does an inactive soul expose itself to the forces of the evil inclination. According to the Netziv, this is precisely what happened to Yosef. Having relaxed his efforts in Torah learning, he became preoccupied with his appearance, bringing on himself the challenge posed by Potifar's wife.

*****

Towards the beginning of Parashat Vayeishev we read about the brothers' sale of Yosef. As the verses describe, the brothers' plan underwent three stages. When they first see Yosef approaching, they suggest killing him (37:18). Reuven intervenes, suggesting that rather than killing Yosef directly, they should instead cast him into a pit and let him die of natural causes. Reuven thus hoped to save Yosef when his brothers weren't looking (37:21-22). Then, after Yosef was hurled into the pit, Yehuda voices his opinion, that the brothers should sell Yosef rather than killing him even indirectly (37:26).

Yehuda's statement, "Ma betza ki naharog et achinu ve-chisinu et damo," generally translated as, "What do we gain by killing our brother and covering up his blood?", has lent itself to different interpretations. We present here the particularly fascinating approach of the classic work, Ha-ketav Ve-hakabbala, who strongly rejects this translation of the verse. As he notes, it suggests that Yosef's brothers wanted to dispose of him in the most beneficial way - such that they make a profit, and in the manner that they could most easily cover up. He therefore interprets the word "betza" to mean "end result," as the verb, "le-vatzei'a" (even in Modern Hebrew) means "to carry out" (see Eikha 2:17). The second half of his statement, "ve-chisinu et damo," means, "we will wear his blood." Yehuda rhetorically asks his brothers, "What will result from murdering our brother?" And he responds, "We will wear the stain of this crime for all time!" Such a heinous crime will profoundly affect who they are as people. Yehuda, the leader of the brothers, thus sharply criticizes the plan to kill Yosef. He suggests instead that they "sell" him to the Yishmaelites. Ha-ketav Ve-hakabbala denies that the brothers would take money for Yosef. After all, they were all very wealthy, and besides, they would have to split the dividends into ten equal portions. Would any of them make any significant profit on this sale? Instead, he claims that Yehuda wished to have Yosef hover into slavery for a period of time in order to subdue his arrogance that the brothers found so threatening to family s. Ha-ketav Ve-hakabbala then accepts the view of the Rashbam and several others that the brothers never pulled Yosef out of the pit. Instead, the Midyanite merchants who happened to pass by (37:28) heard Yosef's cries from the pit, took him out and brought him to Egypt where he was sold.

As it turns out, then, the brothers had never intended to sell Yosef. They accepted Yehuda's admonition ("vayishm'u echav" - 37:27) to hand Yosef over as slave for a brief period rather than hurting him. Providence, however, orchestrated the events such that Yosef would be sold into slavery in Egypt.

We leave it to the reader to identify the several difficulties this approach raises and attempt at their resolution. (Feedback is encouraged: silverb@etzion.org.il)

*****

As a result of Potifar's wife's false accusation against him, Yosef winds up in the royal dungeon where he once again becomes very successful and earns the trust and respect of his superior. The prison warden appoints Yosef over the other inmates, "and everything they would do there - he would do" (39:22). Rashi explains, based on the Targum Onkelos, that whatever went on in the prison took place under Yosef's charge. The Ibn Ezra explains slightly differently, that as Yosef assumed full responsibility for all matters in the prison, it appeared as though he did everything. The Pardeis Yosef, however, brings another interpretation. Although high-ranking officials generally delegate duties and responsibilities so that they can sit and relax, Yosef himself personally tended to the needs of his fellow prisoners. Despite his authority in the jail, he assumed personal responsibility and took care of whatever demanded attention; everything that needed to get done, "he would do."

This perhaps relates to a prominent feature of Egyptian society of that time, as developed by Rav Mordechai Elon (in a shiur delivered in 5754). In Egypt, the concept of slavery was an ideology. Every person lived on top of another and beneath another. Benei Yisrael open the "shirat ha-yam" (song at the sea, after the drowning of the Egyptians), "I will sing to God for He has triumphed gloriously; horse and driver He has hurled into the sea" (Shemot 15:1, 21). Why do they mention the "horse and driver"? Rav Elon explained that Egypt was a country of "horses and drivers," where everyone rode on others and had others riding on them. For this reason, Rav Elon suggests, Yosef responded so emphatically (in the negative) to his brothers' offer to become his slaves to atone for their mistreatment of him (in Parashat Vayechi - 50:18). He sensed that this request reflected a penetration of the Egyptian mindset into his brothers' zeitgeist.

Yosef, who represented the monotheistic teachings of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, strongly opposed such a notion. The belief in one God means that all mankind are His subjects. While some people are wealthier than others, stronger than others, or more skilled than others, they are all, if only on the most basic level, equal as servants of God. For this reason, perhaps, the Torah makes a point of telling us that Yosef personally carried out all tasks in the prison. Total delegation of duties without keeping some for oneself was an Egyptian value, not a Jewish one. Regardless of his stature, Yosef saw himself as an equal to his fellow inmates, and tended to their needs loyally and devotedly.

*****

Considerable confusion exists as to when in the evening the obligation of Chanukah candles sets in. On Leil Shabbat, obviously, the halakha is quite clear: as the rabbinically ordained obligation of Chanukah candles cannot override the Biblical prohibition against lighting fire on Shabbat, one must light candles before the onset of Shabbat. The question, though, arises concerning weeknights. When should one light his candles? Several different customs exist in this regard; we will present some of the background material relevant to this issue in order to clarify the different views.

Two separate issues come into play when determining the time for lighting Chanukah candles. The first involves understanding the Gemara in Masekhet Shabbat 21. The Gemara there establishes that the obligation sets in "when the sun sets." While this ruling may seem straightforward, the Rishonim debate as to the Gemara's intent. The Rashba, Meiri, Mordekhai and Ran take the Gemara at face value, that one should light immediately at sunset. The Rosh, however, whose ruling is accepted by his son, the Tur, claims that Gemara here refers to the very end of sunset, what we generally call, "tzeit ha-kokhavim," or nightfall. (Both these times are available in the commonly circulated calendars.) The Shulchan Arukh adopts this position, and the Rema does not argue (O.C. 672:1). The second relevant issue relates to the other obligation binding upon us as evening arrives: the arvit service. Seemingly, one should preferably recite arvit before lighting Chanukah candles, and this for two reasons (as noted by the Mishna Berura). First, a famous halakha principle establishes that "tadir ve-she'eino tadir, tadir kodem" - when determining the sequence of performance of mitzvot, precedence is granted to the more frequent mitzva. Therefore, the nightly arvit service should presumably come before the eight-day-a-year candle lighting. Secondly, the arvit service includes keri'at shema, whose daily recitation constitutes a Biblical requirement. It should thus take precedence over the rabbinic obligation of Chanukah candles. Adding to the confusion are the different practices regarding the time for the recitation of arvit. Though essentially one may recite arvit even before sundown, many people ensure not to recite arvit until after nightfall, at which point the obligation of keri'at shema sets in. (One who recites shema before nightfall must repeat it again afterwards; many people therefore prefer to wait until after dark so as not to face the risk of forgetting to repeat it later. In fact, the Vilna Gaon, as cited in the Bei'ur Halakha in O.C. 235, writes that reciting arvit privately after nightfall is preferable to reciting it with a minyan earlier.)

The arvit issue presents a dilemma of sorts. The preferable time for lighting Chanukah spans a half-hour period from the onset of the obligation. Thus, by reciting arvit before candle lighting one increases the chances of his missing the preferable period in which he must light.

With this information in mind, we can now proceed to the various positions that exist. At least four different customs appear in halakhic literature:

1. The standard custom among Sefaradim, as ruled in contemporary times by both Rav Ovadya Yosef and Rav Mordekhai Eliyahu, is to recite arvit immediately at sunset, and then return home and light candles at nightfall. Those who follow this practice should repeat shema after candle lighting.
2. Divergent practices have evolved among the Ashkenazim. The practice of the Vilna Gaon, that has been accepted by many, particularly in Yerushalayim, was to light candles at sunset and then recite arvit after dark. This ruling results from two important positions of the Vilna Gaon. First, he sides with the view among the Rishonim that the obligation of candle lighting begins at sundown, rather than nightfall. Secondly, as mentioned parenthetically earlier, the Gaon felt that one should not recite arvit prior to nightfall, when the obligation of shema sets in. Quite naturally, then, in his view one lights at sundown and recites arvit at dark. The Mishna Berura, however, adds that those following this practice should add enough oil (or use large enough candles) for the flame to last for a half-hour past nightfall, in order to satisfy the view of the Shulchan Arukh, that the obligation sets in at nightfall.

Within this custom, a distinction may exist regarding geographic location. Several authorities, including Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe 4:101) and Rav Aharon Kotler (as cited in Az Nidb7:70), claimed that in many regions in Europe and North America, where nightfall does not occur for some time after sunset (as opposed to the Middle East, where night falls relatively sooafter sunset), one should not light immediately at sunset, even according to the Gaon's view. One should rather wait either ten minutes (Rav Moshe Feinstein) or twenty-five minutes (Rav Aharon Kotler).

3. The next group includes those who on the one hand accept the Shulchan Arukh's ruling, that the obligation begins only after nightfall, but also wish not to recite arvit before nightfall. Some Ashkenazim have the practice of reciting arvit immediately at nightfall and then lighting candles. Obviously, this leaves but a small window of opportunity within the half-hour period after nightfall during which one should preferably light. The Mishna Berura therefore urges those following this practice to have the candles set in place already before arvit, so that they can light immediately upon returning home.
4. Others within this group light candles before arvit. Although, for the reasons stated earlier, arvit should take precedence, the adherents of this custom feel that the concern for lighting at the proper time overrides the guidelines dictating precedence in the performance of mitzvot.

Everyone should follow their family custom or consult with a competent halakhic authority for guidance in this regard.

This shiur is provided courtesy of the Virtual Beit Midrash, the premier source of online courses on Torah and Judaism - 14 different courses on all levels, for all backgrounds.

Make Jewish learning part of your week on a regular basis - enroll in the
Virtual Beit Midrash

Yeshivat Har Etzion
Alon Shvut, Israel, 90433
office@etzion.org.il