The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

PARASHAT VAYIGASH

By Rav David Silverberg

            Among the central questions that have been addressed concerning the story of Yosef and his brothers is why Yosef had not contacted his family upon rising to power in Egypt.  Even assuming he had no possibility of contacting his family while working for Potifar and certainly during his years in the Egyptian prison, once he was appointed viceroy he presumably had the means of sending a message to his grieving father to inform him that he is alive and well.  (The Ramban famously addresses this question in his commentary to Parashat Miketz – 42:21.)

            One of the lesser-known answers to this question was offered by Rabbenu Yehuda Ha-chasid, cited in Rav Menachem Kasher's Torah Sheleima (chapter 44, note 74): "Had he done so, all his brothers would flee – this one to the east, this one to the west – from shame.  Instead, he took them with words, slowly and gently, so that they would not feel ashamed, and his intentions were good."  According to this explanation, if Yosef had contacted his family earlier and told them that he was alive and in power in Egypt, they would have been unable to bear the humiliation, and they would have likely fled from Yaakov and from one another.  For the sake of the family's unity, Yosef refrained from contacting his family and revealing his identity until this point, at the beginning of Parashat Vayigash.

            It is unclear, however, how Yosef spared his brothers humiliation by not revealing his identity until after framing Binyamin with theft and hearing Yehuda's plea to allow him to return to Canaan.  If anything, this process only intensified their shame.  The Beit Ha-levi famously noted the sense of humiliation the brothers experienced when Yosef revealed himself and exclaimed, "I am Yosef – is my father still alive?" (45:3).  Yehuda had just insisted that Binyamin be allowed to return home because their father would otherwise die from anguish (44:31); Yosef now turns to his brothers and rhetorically asks, "Is my father still alive?!"  As if to say, "Why did you not think of this concern twenty-two years ago, when you sold me to slavery and subjected my father to two decades of anguish?"  It is hard to imagine that the shame and humiliation experienced by the brothers at that moment was less than what they would have felt had Yosef notified his family of his whereabouts immediately upon being named Egyptian viceroy.

            We might suggest a different approach, that Yosef's brothers would have indeed scattered "this one to the east, this one to the west" had he sent a message earlier, only for the exact opposite reason.  Yosef likely assumed that the brothers felt no remorse over what they had done, and all throughout stood steadfastly by their conviction that he had to be eliminated from the family.  Had he sent a message to Yaakov immediately upon ascending to power in Egypt, he would have then retaken his place as a member of the family.  Even assuming that he would be unable to leave Egypt and return home, he would nevertheless be included once again among Yaakov's sons, and most likely be considered Yaakov's favorite, as he has been previously.  Yaakov's sons would never have accepted this arrangement, and would therefore have "fled," or renounced their own membership in the family.  Yaakov would then have to choose between Yosef and the other brothers – a decision Yosef did not want to force upon his father.

            Yosef therefore devised a plan to place his brothers in a situation where they had to protect Binyamin, Rachel's son, Yaakov's new favorite.  As Abarbanel writes, the brothers' teshuva process was then complete; they atoned for their mistreatment of Yosef through their efforts to protect Binyamin and return him safely to their father.  Only then was Yosef prepared to reveal his identity, as he was assured that his brothers would now embrace him as a full-fledged member of the family.

******

            We read in Parashat Vayigash of Yaakov's arrival in Egypt and his meeting with Pharaoh, at the conclusion of which Yaakov gives Pharaoh a blessing (47:10).  While the Torah does not specify what kind of blessing this was, Rashi, based on the Midrash, explains that Yaakov blessed Pharaoh that the Nile River should rise and overflow its banks in his presence.  Indeed, Rashi adds, from that point on, whenever Pharaoh would go to the Nile the waters would rise in his honor.  This comment of Rashi should likely be read in conjunction with his comments later in this parasha (47:19), where he writes that the famine in Egypt came to an end with Yaakov's arrival.

            Rav Yosef Shaul Nathanson, in his Divrei Shaul (mahadura tanina), speculates that this phenomenon continued during the time of the subsequent Pharaoh, as well, who subjugated Benei Yisrael.  As Rashi comments (based on the Midrash) in Parashat Vaera (Shemot 7:15), Pharaoh declared himself a deity of sorts, and for this reason had to perform his bodily functions in private.  Quite possibly, Rav Nathanson suggests, Pharaoh made this claim on the basis of the river's response to his presence.  Whether or not the king believed his own claim of godly power, he was able to "prove" this claim by approaching the river and showing that its waters rose in his honor.

            If so, then Pharaoh's behavior exemplifies the tendency that people often have to credit themselves for the achievements of others.  People often feel so inadequate and inferior that they are prepared to try bolstering their self-esteem by taking pride in achievements for which they deserve no credit.  Just as Pharaoh declared himself divine on the basis of a blessing he received from Yaakov, so do many people attribute certain qualities to themselves for accomplishments in which they themselves played so significant role.  The lesson of Pharaoh is the need to draw a clear distinction between one's achievements and one's blessings, to feel pride for what he has accomplished, and feel grateful for that with which he has been blessed.

******

            Parashat Vayigash begins with Yehuda's impassioned plea that the Egyptian viceroy (who had yet to identify himself as Yosef) allow Binyamin, in whose luggage Yosef's goblet was discovered, to return to Canaan.  Yehuda's petition consists mainly of his review of the events that transpired since he and his brothers had first come to Egypt to purchase grain.  In recounting the brothers' initial description of their family situation to the Egyptian ruler, Yehuda says, "We said to our master: We have an elderly father and a young child of [our father's] old age, and his brother died…" (44:20).

            Many Midrashim and commentators raised the question of how Yehuda could utter such a flagrant lie – claiming that Binyamin's brother, Yosef, had died.  He knew full well that Yosef was sold a slave and not killed.  How, then, could he report that he had died?

            Rashi, citing Bereishit Rabba, explains that Yehuda had no choice but to lie, for had he said that his brother was missing, Yosef would demand that he be brought to Egypt, just as he demanded that Binyamin join them in Egypt.

            Rav Menachem Kasher, in his Torah Sheleima (chapter 44, note 74), cites a different explanation from the Midrash Sekhel Tov and Mincha Belula, who claimed that once a person was sent to a distant land and not heard from for twenty-two years, he may indeed be legitimately declared dead.

            The Meshekh Chokhma explains along similar lines, drawing our attention to a comment by Rashi in Masekhet Ketubot (22b).  The Gemara there addresses the situation of a woman who remarried after two witnesses had testified to her husband's death.  If subsequent to her remarriage two other witnesses testify that the first husband is still alive, then, under ordinary circumstances, she and her second husband must bring an asham taluy- a guilt offering brought in situations of a possible karet violation.  Since the first husband's status is subject to a terei u-terei – conflicting testimonies by two, equally valid sets of witnesses – this is a situation of a possible karet violation, requiring the wife and new husband to bring this sacrifice.  The Gemara qualifies this halakha by noting that if the woman had married one of the first witnesses who had testified to the husband's death, then the witness need not bring an asham taluy.  Since he is convinced that the first husband had passed away, he has no doubts about the legitimacy of his marriage to the woman, and thus as far as he is concerned, he has not transgressed a possible karet violation.  Similarly, the Gemara adds, if the woman claims that she is sure the first husband had died, she is not required to bring an asham taluy, since she entertains no doubts with regard to the validity of her second marriage.

            On what basis did the woman claim to know with certainty that her husband had died?  Rashi explains that the woman says, "I am sure that were he alive, he would come."  In other words, the woman was confident enough of her husband's loyalty to her that she could declare with confidence that he would have returned if he were still alive.  (Other Rishonim disagree with Rashi's understanding of the Gemara, and maintain that this claim does not suffice to exempt the woman from bringing a sacrifice in such a case.)

            Similarly, the Meshekh Chokhma claims, Yehuda was confident that had Yosef been alive, he would have contacted his father.  The fact that he had made no contact with Yaakov for over two decades provided sufficient proof for Yehuda to refer to Yosef as dead, despite not having clear knowledge of Yosef's fate.

            A much simpler explanation emerges from the commentary of the Rashbam to a verse in Parashat Vayeshev (37:28).  According to the Rashbam, the brothers never actually sold Yosef.  After casting Yosef into the pit in the wilderness, they moved some distance away from the site, and it was there where they saw Yishmaelite merchants traveling towards them and decided to sell their brother.  Reuven then rushed back to the pit to save Yosef, as he had planned (see 37:22), but by the time he reached the pit, Midyanite merchants had come and removed Yosef from the pit.  It was the Midyanites, rather than the brothers, who sold Yosef to the Yishmaelites who then brought Yosef to Egypt.

            According to this reading of the narrative in Parashat Vayeshev, the brothers presumed that Yosef had died in the pit, probably as a result of a snakebite and the like.  Thus, Yehuda was indeed justified in saying to Yosef that his younger brother had died.

******

            In the haftara for Parashat Vayigash, the prophet Yechezkel foresees the day when Benei Yisrael "shall dwell upon the land that I have given to My servant Yaakov, in which your forefathers had dwelled; and they shall dwell upon it – they, their children, and their children's children, forever, with My servant David ruler over them, forever" (Yechezkel 37:25).

            Rav Mendel Hirsch, in his commentary to the haftarot, notes the different formulations employed in this verse with regard to Benei Yisrael's residence in the land.  Twice the prophet depicts Benei Yisrael dwelling "upon the land": "they shall dwell upon the land…and they shall dwell upon it."  By contrast, in reference to the residence of the earlier generations of Benei Yisrael in their homeland, a different expression is used: "in which your forefathers had dwelled."  Our forefathers had dwelled "in" Eretz Yisrael, and the prophet foresees the time when we will all dwell "upon" the land.

            Rav Mendel explains this transition in light of the comments of his father, Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch, in his commentary to a verse in Sefer Vayikra (25:18), "vi-shavtem al ha-aretz la-vetach" – "you shall dwell securely upon the land."  As Rav Hirsch explains, it emerges from this verse that dwelling "upon" the land connotes a sense of stability and security that directly contrasts with the warning earlier in Sefer Vayikra (18:28) that the land will "spew out" Benei Yisrael should they fail to live in accordance with the Torah.  The description of a nation living "upon" a land is one of control and permanence, without any threat of expulsion.

            In retrospect, we can describe our ancestors' residence in Eretz Yisrael as one of living "in the land," but not living "upon the land."  By failing to resist the influences of the surrounding peoples, Benei Yisrael suffered the same fate as their Canaanite predecessors, as the Torah warned in Sefer Vayikra, and were expelled.  Yechezkel thus foresees the time when, as opposed to the previous generations, who lived "in" our homeland, Am Yisrael will once and for all dwell "upon the land," safely, securely, and, most of all, permanently.

******

            Commenting on the confrontation between Yehuda and Yosef narrated in the beginning of Parashat Vayigash, the Midrash Tanchuma relates:

At the time when Yehuda and Yosef were quarreling with one another, the ministering angels said to each other: Let us go down and see the ox and lion wrestling with one another.  Normally, the ox is fearful of the lion, but now, the ox and lion continue to wrestle, and there is jealousy between them until Mashiach comes.

Why are Yehuda and Yosef depicted as a "lion" and "ox," and why is this struggle destined to continue until the Messianic era?

            Rav Yeshaya Eherenfeld (son-in-law of the Chatam Sofer), in his work Shevet Sofer, suggests that the Midrash here portrays the tension between Yosef and Yehuda, and between their descendants, as symbolic of the age-old struggle between inherited and acquired authority.  The lion is, by nature, the unchallenged "king" of the animal world, and thus represents the tribe of Yehuda, which was granted royal authority – "The scepter shall not depart from Yehuda" (Bereishit 49:10).  Yehuda, like the lion, is granted royal authority through a kind of "natural law."  The ox, Rav Ehrenfeld explains, symbolizes authority obtained through talent and skill.  The vital agricultural work performed by oxen in ancient times renders it the "king" of domesticated animals, as it is the most valuable human asset among all animals.  The ox thus symbolizes prestige and honor achieved through hard, dedicated work and skillful talents.  Yosef, like the ox, eclipsed his brothers in terms of acumen and skill, and thus posed a challenge to Yehuda's "natural" status of leadership.

            The conflict historically waged between the tribes of Yehuda and Yosef epitomized this struggle between these two models of royal authority.  Yerovam, a descendant of Yosef, challenged the presumed royal status of the Davidic dynasty, asserting himself as a most suitable candidate for kingship.  The roots of this conflict, s mentioned, can be found already in the struggle between Yosef and his brothers.  Yehuda was named king of the tribes, but Yosef displayed extraordinary skill and talent on the basis of which he sought to assert his leadership.

            The Midrash Tanchuma cites in this context the verse in Sefer Yeshayahu (11:13), "The envy of Efrayim shall be eliminated; Efrayim will not feel envious of Yehuda, and Yehuda will not oppress Efrayim."  The prophet foresees the time when a resolution will be found for this age-old conflict, when the kings of Yehuda will rule effectively and succeed in establishing their authority, while the talents of Efrayim will be harnessed towards the nation's advancement in other areas.  The "lion" will retain its unchallenged position as king, while the "ox" will continue to serve its vital role in furthering Am Yisrael's interests and goals.

******

            Rashi, in his commentary to Parashat Vayigash (45:27), cites the famous comment in the Midrash that draws an association between the agalot – carriages – that Yosef sends with his brothers with which to bring Yaakov to Egypt, and the law of egla arufa.  This law applies to a case where a murder victim's body is discovered along an intercity route, and the perpetrator is unknown.  The leaders of the city nearest to the body perform a ritual in which they disavow any responsibility for the crime.  According to the Midrash, Yaakov and Yosef had been studying this topic just before Yosef took leave of his father for the final time.  He sent agalot with his brothers to show Yaakov as a subtle allusion to their final study session together, which revolved around the topic of egla arufa, thus proving that it is indeed he, Yosef, who has sent for him.

The work Moshav Zekeinim (a compendium of Torah commentaries from the Tosafists) raises the obvious question with this Midrash, namely, that the words "egla" and "agalot" are hardly related to one another.  Although they sound similar, egla means a "calf," whereas an agala is a carriage.  It is difficult to imagine, the Moshav Zekeinim writes, that Yosef would expect Yaakov to make this association between the agalot and the law of egla arufa.

The Da'at Zekeinim and Hadar Zekeinim commentaries (other works from the Tosafists) cite a different Midrashic tradition, namely, that the agalot sent by Yosef alluded not to egla arufa, but rather to the agalot used for transporting the Mishkan during Benei Yisrael's sojourn in the wilderness.  The association is therefore not between carriages (agalot) and the calf (egla arufa), but rather between the carriages sent from Egypt and the carriages used in the wilderness.

The obvious question arises, why would Yosef convey this message to his father, reminding him of the agalot used to transport the Mishkan when Benei Yisrael traveled in the wilderness?

            Rav Menachem Kasher, in his Torah Sheleima (chapter 45, note 91), suggests that the Tosafists refer here to a different Midrashic tradition, cited in Bereishit Rabba (chapter 94), claiming that Yaakov brought wood with him to Egypt in anticipation of the construction of the Mishkan.  According to this Midrash, when Yaakov stopped in Be'er Sheva along his way from Chevron to Egypt (46:1), he did so for the purpose of cutting timber to bring with him to Egypt, realizing that his descendants would later require wood to construct a Mishkan after leaving Egypt.  It stands to reason that Yaakov had informed his children that they or their descendants must bring wood when they leave Canaan and go into exile.  Yosef thus sent with his brothers special wagons with which to transport wood from Canaan, proving to Yaakov that it is indeed he who summons him to Egypt.  Rav Kasher notes that he indeed discovered this approach mentioned explicitly in an early Torah commentary, the Peirush Rabbenu Efrayim.

******

            Yesterday we discussed the famous comment of the Midrash Bereishit Rabba (95:3), cited by Rashi in his commentary to Parashat Vayigash (45:27), that the agalot (wagons) that Yosef had his brothers bring to Yaakov were intended as an allusion to the law of egla arufa.  This law, the Midrash claims, was the last topic Yaakov and Yosef studied together before Yosef left home for the final time, and Yosef thus hoped to remind his father of their final study session by sending him agalot.  As we saw, several works from the Tosafists cite a different tradition, according to which the agalot were meant as an allusion not to the topic of egla arufa, but rather to the wagons used for transporting the Mishkan in the wilderness.  Rav Menachem Bentzion Zaks, in his work Menachem Tziyon, cites a commentary to Bereishit Rabba which claims that the Bereishit Rabba itself refers to the wagons that transported the Mishkan, rather than the egla arufa, and the reference to egla arufa resulted from an erroneous text.

            Yesterday, we presented one possible explanation for the relevance of the wagons that transported the Mishkan to this context.  Rav Zaks suggests a different approach, by examining the symbolic significance of the wagons used by Benei Yisrael in the wilderness.  The transportation of the Mishkan from one station to the next represents the importance of bringing the Torah with oneself wherever he goes.  This is certainly true on an individual level – a person's commitment to Torah and mitzvot must not end the moment he leaves the synagogue or Beit Midrash – but applies on the national level, as well.  Throughout its history, Am Yisrael has heroically implemented this message and succeeded in transporting its traditions and values as it migrated from country to country, from continent to continent.  Herein lies the symbolic significance of the wagons used in the wilderness, which represents the need for Benei Yisrael to bring the Torah with them to whichever land their national destiny brings them.

            Appropriately, then, Yosef reminds his father of these agalot at this fateful time in history, when the fledgling Israelite nation must take leave of its homeland and begin a long and painful period of exile.  The agalot symbolized the commitment made by Yosef and his father to ensure the successful transport of the "Mishkan," of their values and traditions, to their new, albeit temporary, home.  Indeed, as Rashi famously comments on the verse, "He [Yaakov] had sent Yehuda ahead of him to Yosef, show him the way to Goshen" (46:28), Yaakov sent Yehuda ahead to prepare a yeshiva.  As Yaakov's chief concern involved the message of the agalot, the transplantation of his spiritual heritage on foreign soil, he ensured that the educational infrastructure would be in place even before he arrived that would enable the traditions of his father and grandfather to flourish during the nation's stay in Egypt.