Walk to Chabad of East Lakeview

Genesis Verse 29:21 – כִּ֥י מָלְא֖וּ יָמָ֑י

Maskil L’Dovid – Rabbi Dovid Pardo (1718-1790)

Got up at 4:15 AM Shabbos morning to prepare for my Shiur at Chabad of East Lakeview.  Left for the Shiur at 8:30 AM and arrived at Chabad at 10:30 AM.  There was no minyan when I arrived as many people were away for Thanksgiving.   About 15 minutes later, the Minyan came.  Kiddush was great as always.  The Cholent is phenomenal.   Davened Mincha.

Gave my Shiur at 2:00 PM.  It was a smaller Shiur than usual.  I went through Perek 29 which starts with Yakov arriving in Haran, meeting Rochel, their mg B arriage, and the birth of their kids.  .  I read the rich dialogue and explained it using Rashi.  I explained the deception, what is like for Yakov to wake up the next morning thinking he married the love of his life and it was someone else;  Leah’s prayers changed history, what she must have felt like during the seven years that Yaakov worked for the family, Yakov before he introduced himself kissed Rochel, was she wearing a veil or not,  he knew that Rochel is my life mate, but there will be problems, etc, etc.

I said that tragedy and hardships in life produces greatness.  I mentioned my mother and June chimed in about her life.  

Walked back home at 3:55 PM and got home at 5:40 PM.  

This is my Torah from this week.

Genesis Pasuk 29:21

וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יַעֲקֹ֤ב אֶל־לָבָן֙ הָבָ֣ה אֶת־אִשְׁתִּ֔י כִּ֥י מָלְא֖וּ יָמָ֑י וְאָב֖וֹאָה אֵלֶֽיהָ׃

Then Jacob said to Laban, “Give me my wife, for my time is fulfilled, that I may cohabit with her.”

Fulfilled is an okay word but completed would probably be a better word.  In Hebrew  כִּ֥י כלו יָמָ֑י .  

There seems to be a Machlokes in how to translate Yakov’s statement כִּ֥י מָלְא֖וּ יָמָ֑י.  Onkleys and Rashbam says that it means I worked for you for seven years, I fulfilled my end of the bargain.  Rashi does not say this but rather it means two things 1) that I have completed the days that my mother told me to stay in Haran and then come back home.  2) It is time for me to get married and raise my family.  

I will end up saying that Rashi agrees with Onkelys and the Rashbam, but adds depth to Yaakov’s words.

The Explanations:

Onkelys:                                          וַאֲמַר יַעֲקֹב לְלָבָן הַב יָת אִתְּתִי אֲרֵי אַשְׁלֵמִית יוֹמֵי פָלְחָנִי וְאֵעוֹל לְוָתַהּ:

Yakov said to Lavan, “Deliver my wife, for my days have been completed, and I will come to her”.

Rashbam:             כי מלאו ימי – שבע שנים עבדתיך.

כי מלאו ימי, “I have served you for seven years.”

Rashi:

מלאו ימי. שֶׁאָמְרָה לִי אִמִּי, וְעוֹד מָלְאוּ יָמַי, שֶׁהֲרֵי אֲנִי בֶן פ”ד שָׁנָה וְאֵימָתַי אַעֲמִיד י”ב שְׁבָטִים? וְזֶהוּ שֶׁאָמַר וְאָבוֹאָה אֵלֶיהָ, וְהֲלֹא קַל שֶׁבַּקַּלִּים אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר כֵּן? אֶלָּא לְהוֹלִיד תּוֹלָדוֹת אָמַר כֵּן:

MY DAYS ARE FULFILLED — which my mother told me to remain with you. And another explanation is: MY DAYS ARE FULFILLED for I am now eighty-four years old and when shall I beget twelve tribes? That is what he meant by adding “that I may go in unto her”; for surely even the commonest of people would not use such an expression. But he said this because his mind was intent upon having issue (to fulfill his mission of rearing children who would carry on the religious traditions of his fathers) (Genesis Rabbah 70:18).

Rashi is Difficult:

The question on Rashi is that the simple meaning is clearly like Onkelys and Rashbam.  Why does Rashi come up with two other reasons and does not say the simple meaning.  Is Rashi saying that Yakov’s words of כִּ֥י מָלְא֖וּ יָמָ֑י is not telling Lavan that I have finished my years of service., but rather the two other things.    Yes, says the Maskil L’Dovid. Yakov wasn’t saying that I Completed my service because Lavan knew that Yakov completed the seven years and he did not have to tell Lavan this fact..  The Maskil L’Dovid as quoted by Artscroll page 324, note 2.  “Rashi does not understand ‘my days are filled” as referring to Jacob’s term of labor, as Targum Onkelos does, because that would have been obvious to Laban and Jacob  would not have needed to mention it.”

I do not agree with the Maskil L’Dovid.  There is no question in my mind that Yakov told Lavan, I fulfilled my end of the bargain, now I want you to fulfill your end of the bargain.  This is how people talk and especially to an evil person.   This Sedra is rich with dialogue and I am sure this is the dialogue between Yakov and Lavan.  There was no need for Rashi to explain that Yakov said I have completed my days because this is obvious from the context of the words and anyone reading the Torah would understand this.  Rashi does not come to tell us the obvious.  Onkelys is a translation so he translates it as we read it.  

Why does Rashi then come up with two other explanations for  כִּ֥י מָלְא֖וּ יָמָ֑י.   The answer is that while the reason for Yaakov saying  כִּ֥י מָלְא֖וּ יָמָ֑י  is the obvious reason and Rashi agrees to this, Yakov had other emotions and motivations which he expressed to Lavan.  Rashi is speaking to these deeper emotions of Yakov.  Yakov told Lavan that it has been 21 years since I left my parents and I want to go back home.  Rashi also expresses Yakov’s second motivation, that I am 84 years old and when will I establish twelve tribes if I do not get married now. 

(I am not sure if he actually expressed this to Lavan.  As I thought about it Yakov who was an Ish Tam did express it.  Lavan, who was a Rasha, did not want Yakov to leave because he and his town were blessed because of Yakov.  There is a medresh on this that the townspeople did not want to trick Yakov but Lavan convinced them that they had to trick Yaokv to get Yakov to stay in Haran.)  

When I told my Torah to Rabbi Revah he disagreed and said just because I feel this way does not make it so.  The answer to Rabbi Revah is as follows.  How did Rashi know that Yakov expressed these other reasons?  The language Yakov used is כִּ֥י מָלְא֖וּ יָמָ֑י .  The language Yakov should have used is   כִּ֥י כלו יָמָ֑י , meaning I ended/completed the terms of our agreement.  By using כִּ֥י מָלְא֖וּ יָמָ֑י, Yakov is saying other reasons.  Yakov is saying I have fulfilled my mother’s statement that you will stay in Haran for  יָמִ֣ים אֲחָדִ֑ים .  Verse 27:44.  The  reason of fathering twelve tribes is in Rashi itself and learning from the end of the Pasuk,   וְאָב֖וֹאָה אֵלֶֽיהָ.  

Rabbi Mayer Twersky in his Sefer, Insights and Attitudes, adds depth to Yakov’s last reason.  He says, page 44, “Upon reflection, there is a remarkable message in Yakov Avinu’s words.  On the one hand, he knows through Ruach Hakodesh that he is destined to father twelve tribes.  Yet, on the other hand he is very concerned that he may not do so.  The message is clear:  Hashem may prepare a destiny for us, but he does not not decree fulfillment of that destiny.   We must, with alacrity and determination, apply ourselves to realize that destiny.  Hashem may assign us a role in history, but we must carry out that assignment.  Otherwise, our destiny will remain unfulfilled and Hashem will find other means to guide history according to His will.

Rabbi Mayer Twersky is saying that  כִּ֥י מָלְא֖וּ יָמָ֑י – I have to complete my days that I was put on this earth to accomplish, I have live my destiny which is to have twelve tribes and create a nation.  I cannot lose it.  

I compare this to myself.  Everything I do has a primary reason and secondary reasons embedded into my primary reason.  For example – I love going to Tel Aviv Pizza to eat.  What are my reasons?

Primary reason:

1. The primary reason is to have lunch

Secondary reasons:

2. When I was a kid, there were no restaurants in Chicago and even if there were, my parents  would not have spent the money going to restaurants.  Going to restaurants and having someone serve me food without having to prepare the meal is a treat for  me.  I still feel that deprivation and the subsequent joy of going to restaurants to this day.
3. To give the owner business
4. To schmooze with people.
5. I have an open line of credit and look around to pay for people’s meals.
6. I love pizza stores and they are needed in the frum world.  Frum people need relatively inexpensive places to feed their families.  Pizza stores are places of Chesed.

Additional Information:

Maskil L’Dovid –  Rav Dovid Pardo (1718-1790)

מלאו ימי שאמרה וכו׳ לא ניחא ליה לרבינו לפ׳ כי מלאו ימי יומי פולחני וכדתרגם אונקלוס דהא הוה ידע לבן שעברו הז׳ שנים ולא הול״ל אלא הבה את אשתי ותו לא.

 ומה שהוצרך לפרש עוד שהרי אני בן פ״ד שנה וכו׳ משום שגם בפי׳ ימים שאמרה לי אמי יש בו דוחק דהא לא חזי׳ עד השתא שהזכיר יעקב מידי מהימים אחדים שאמר׳ לו אמו ואיך שייך לומר לו סתם מלאו ימי מהיכן יבין לבן כוונתו

I do not understand what Reb Dovid Pardo means that how would Lavan know.  According to Rashi, Yakov told him that he missed his parents and wanted to go back home.

 ועל פי׳ הב׳ ג״כ ק״ק דלא שייך בזה לשון מלאו דמשמע נשלמו ומ״ש רש״י על ואבואה אליה והלא קל שבקלים אינו אומר כן וכו׳ ק׳ דמאי נ״מ שלהוליד תולדות אמר כן והלא הקו׳ במקומה עומדת והלא קל שבקלים וכו׳ שהרי יכול להוליד תולדות מבלי שיאמר כן. ונר׳ שכוונת יעקב באומרו ואבואה אליה משום דידוע שיעקב לא הו״ל כסף מידי ולא שוה כסף לקדש את רחל ואם בדמי העבודה הו״ל מלוה וקי״ל המקדש במלוה אינה מקודשת ולכך א״ל ללבן דאפ״ה יקדישנה בביאה ועל זה מקשי רבינו והלא קל שבקלים וכו׳ אינו אומר כן דאפילו דיבור אסור דהויא פריצותא דאמרי׳ רב מנגיד אמאן דמקדש בביאה דפריצות׳ היא ולכך משני שהוצרך לומר כן כדי שלא ידחהו לבן עד שיהיה לו כסף לקדש והוא היה צריך להוליד תולדות לכך הוצרך לומר לו כן 

There is a Ramban that discusses this Rashi and I am not sure I understand the Ramban.

Ramban

כי מלאו ימי שאמרה לי אמי ועוד כי מלאו ימי הריני בן פ”ד שנה ואימתי אעמיד י”ב שבטים לשון רש”י (רש”י על בראשית כ״ט:כ״א):

FOR MY DAYS ARE FULFILLED. This means “the time which my mother told me to remain away from home.” Another explanation is: For my days are fulfilled — “I am now eighty-four years old and when shall I beget twelve tribes?” These are the words of Rashi.

29:27

מלא שבוע זאת דבק הוא בחטף שבוע של זאת והן ז’ ימי המשתה גם זה לשון רש”י (רש”י על בראשית כ״ט:כ״ז) ואם כן למה לא פירש הרב מלאו ימי על שני העבודה והתנאי ששלמו כדברי אונקלוס (תרגום אונקלוס על בראשית כ״ט:כ״ז) והוא משמעות הכתוב באמת ובשביל הימים שאמרה לו אמו גם מפני זקנתו לא יתן לו לבן בתו קודם זמנו אשר התנו שניהם ודי שיקיים תנאו וכדברי אונקלוס הוא שנצטרך לפרש מלא שבוע זאת על ימי המשתה כי ימי העבודה שלמים היו כאשר אמר לו יעקב וכן פירש רבי אברהם (אבן עזרא על בראשית כ״ט:כ״ז) ואני לא ידעתי כי שבעת ימי המשתה תקנת משה רבינו לישראל (ירושלמי כתובות פ”א ה”א) ואולי נאמר שנהגו בהם מתחלה נכבדי האומות כענין באבילות דכתיב (בראשית נ׳:י׳) ויעש לאביו אבל שבעת ימים ומה שלמדו כאן בירושלמי (מו”ק פ”א ה”ז) ובבראשית רבה (בראשית רבה ע׳:י״ט) שאין מערבין שמחה בשמחה סמך בעלמא ממנהגי הקדמונים קודם התורה אבל בגמרא שלנו (מו”ק ט) לא למדוה מכאן ודרשוה מויעש שלמה את החג (מלכים א ח סה) ויתכן לומר כי היה זה מחלוף משכורתו עשרת מונים (בראשית ל״א:מ״א) כי יעקב אמר לו מתחלה כי מלאו הימים ולבן שתק ונתן לו לאה ואחר כן אמר לו לבן מלא שבוע זאת כי עדיין לא מלאו ימי עבודת לאה וקודם זמני נתתיה לך ויעקב שמע אליו וימלא אותם כדברי לבן כי מה יוכל לעשות והוא ברחל יחפוץ ולכן לא אמר הכתוב בתחילה “ויהי במלאת הימים ויאמר יעקב וגו'” ועוד יתכן לומר כי כאשר היה בשנה השביעית אמר יעקב ללבן הבה את אשתי כי מלאו ימי שזו שנת מלאת הימים וכן זקן עם מלא ימים (ירמיהו ו יא) הוא אשר הגיעו לשנת סופו וכן עד יום מלאת ימי מלואיכם (ויקרא ח לג) עד יום השביעי שבו ימלאו ימי המלואים או שאמר “מלאו” בעבור שהיו קרובים להמלא וחשובים כמלאים וכמוהו רבים וכן בסדר האחר (בראשית ל״ה:י״ח) בצאת נפשה כי מתה בהיותה קרובה לכך וחשובה כאילו מתה וזה טעם ואבואה אליה כלומר לא שתתן אותה ואלכה אבל שאשאנה ואשלים מעט הימים אשר עלי כי מעתה לא תירא ממני שאעזבך ורבותינו עשו מדרש (ב”ר ע יח) בלשון “ואבואה אליה” בעבור שאיננו דרך מוסר להזכיר כן אף כי בצדיקים אבל הכוונה היא מה שאמרתי ואחרי כן אמר לו לבן מלא שבוע השנים של לאה זאת כי אולי בעבור שעברתי על דעתך לא תשלים אותן או כדי שיהיה ידוע מתי התחילו ימי עבודת רחל ואז אתן לך האחרת בעבודה אשר תעבוד עמדי לאחר הנישואין:

FULFILL ‘SHVUA’ (THE WEEK OF) THIS ONE. The word shvua is in the construct state for it is punctuated with a sheva. It thus means the seven days of this wife, referring to the seven days of the wedding feast. These too are the words of Rashi.

But if so, [i.e., if Rashi interprets shvua as referring to the seven days of the wedding feast rather than, more simply, the seven years of labor, thus implying that the seven years of work had been completed], why did not the Rabbi [Rashi] explain the verse above, my days are fulfilled, as referring to the years of work and the condition which were completed, as Onkelos has it, and which is the true sense of the verse, [instead of explaining it as referring to the length of time his mother told him to remain there or to his advanced age]? For merely because the days his mother told him to remain with him were completed or because of his advanced age, Laban would not give him his daughter before the mutually agreed time, and it is enough to expect of Laban that he fulfill his condition. It is according to Onkelos, [who says that Jacob’s seven years of work had been completed], that we are bound to explain, fulfill ‘shvua’ this one, as referring to the seven days of the wedding feast for as Jacob had told him, the days of work had already been completed. So also did Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explain it. 

And I do not know [how the reference here could be to “the seven days of the marriage feast,” as Rashi claims], for “the seven days of the wedding feast” is an ordinance established for Israel by our teacher Moses.  Perhaps we may say that the dignitaries of the nations had already practiced this custom of old, just as was the case with mourning, as it is written, And he made a mourning for his father seven days. And that which the Rabbis have deduced from here in the Yerushalmi and in Bereshith Rabbah, “One must not mix one rejoicing with another,” that is merely a Scriptural intimation based upon the customary practices of the ancient ones prior to the giving of the Torah. But in our Gemara, the Rabbis did not derive it from here, [i.e., from Laban’s statement], but instead they deduced it from the verse, And Solomon held the feast etc.

Now it is possible to say that this was part of “the changing of the hire ten times” of which Jacob accused Laban. For Jacob told Laban originally that the days were fulfilled, and Laban kept quiet and gave him Leah. Later, Laban told him, “Fulfill ‘shvua’ this one, for the work period for Leah has not been fulfilled, and I gave her to you before the time I had agreed upon.” And Jacob listened to Laban and completed the days as defined by Laban, for he desired Rachel, and what could he do? Therefore, Scripture does not say at first, “And it came to pass when the days were fulfilled, and Jacob said, etc.,” [for this would have indicated mutual agreement concerning the completion of the work period, whereas Laban, as explained, claimed that that time had not yet arrived].

It is also possible to say that when the seventh year arrived, Jacob said to Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, meaning that this is the year in which the days will be fulfilled. Similarly, The aged with him that is full of days, which means, “he who is attaining his final year.” Similarly, Until the day of your consecration be fulfilled, which means, “until the seventh day in which the days of your consecration will be fulfilled.” It is possible that Jacob said, My days are fulfilled, because they were about to be fulfilled and are considered as if fulfilled. There are many similar examples in Scripture. Likewise, in the next Seder (portion of the Torah), As her soul was departing, for she died, which means, “when she was near death, and was considered as if she had already died.” And this is the meaning of the expression, that I may come unto her, that is to say, Jacob said, “My request is not that you give her to me and I will then leave, but rather that I marry her and complete the few days which are still obligatory upon me for now that the period is almost over, you will not be afraid that I might leave you.” Our Rabbis have given a Midrashic interpretation to the words, that I may come unto her, because it is not the ethical way to mention it in this manner, the more so with righteous people, but the intent is as I have said.

Laban then told Jacob, “Fulfill the seven years of this one, Leah, for perhaps since I transgressed your will by giving you Leah instead of Rachel you will not fulfill them.” Perhaps he mentioned it in order that it be known when the days of work for Rachel begin, and then he told him, “I will give you the other daughter, Rachel, for the service which thou shalt serve with me after the wedding.”

History of the Maskil L’Dovid – Rabbi Dovid Pardo

The twelfth of Sivan is the yahrzeit of Rav Dovid Pardo (1718-1790). Born into a rabbinical family in Venice, he was orphaned at a young age. He and his sister were raised by a wealthy, childless relative named Shmuel Ashkenazi. Mr. Ashkenazi left his fortune to the sister, Rachel, as she had helped him with household chores, with the stipulation that she marry a worthy young man. Unfortunately, she died before she had a chance to marry.

The executors of the estate refused to allow the fortune to pass to Rav Dovid because they felt that since it had never passed to his sister, he had no rights to it. Instead, they gave it to nephews of Mr. Ashkenazi. Desperate for funds and upset at the outcome of the inheritance, Rav Dovid moved to Croatia where he took a position as a tutor. There he became a student of Rav Avraham Dovid Papo, who was the rav of Split, and after his passing Rav Dovid was appointed as rabbi.

Halachic queries from all over the Balkans were sent to Rav Dovid and he opened a yeshiva in which a number of leaders of the next generation were educated. In 1761 Rav Shlomo Shalem, the rav of Belgrade, moved to Amsterdam to take up a position. Rav Dovid went to Belgrade with the understanding that the position would be given to him, but then found out that Rav Shlomo was refusing to relinquish the title despite his moving to Amsterdam. In 1773 Rav Dovid was appointed rav of Sarajevo where he spent nine years. His student Rav Shabsi Ventura took his place in Split. Most of Rav Dovid’s seforim and piyyutim were authored while he was in Sarajevo. He also opened a yeshiva there and founded Torah study initiatives for the lay people and created welfare institutions for the community.

In 1775 Rav Dovid traveled to Livorno to publish a sefer and met the Chida who was there raising funds for Chevron Kollel. The two immediately became close friends (although they often argued about interpretations of Chumash) and Rav Dovid’s son Avraham married Simcha, the daughter of the Chida. While in Livorno, Rav Dovid also met Rav Yom Tov Elgazi and Rav Yaakov Chazan who were also traveling to raise funds for the community in Yerushalayim. They wrote approbations for his seforim and ignited within him a desire to move to Eretz Yisrael. He also met Rav Chaim HaKohen Dwek in Belgrade while Rav Dwek was there raising funds for the community in Teveriah.

Rav Dovid arrived in Yerushalayim in 1782 and was immediately invited by the Ri”t Elgazi to join the Bais Din. Shortly thereafter he was invited to serve as rosh yeshiva in Yeshivas Chesed L’Avraham. He lived in Yerushalayim until his passing.

Rav Dovid was a prolific writer. Among his more well-known seforim are Chasdei Dovid a Rashi-like commentary on the Tosefta and Maskil L’Dovid a super-commentary to Rashi’s commentary on Chumash. He also wrote on mishna and halacha.

Danny Berger

Fred Weingust

On December 29th right after the morning minyan,  I plopped down next to Danny Berger and asked him how Rashi in verse 44:18 understood.  It happened to be that he was working on the Rashi in 44:13 and the Rashi 44:18.  Together we put together a very nice explanation.

Danny Berger:

Parshas Miketz and Vayigash – “Prepared for War While Negotiating Peace”

An idea from Rabbi Elie Teitelman

Written by Danny Berger (dberger36@gmail.com)

The black is from Danny Berger and the blue is from Avrohom Meir Morgenstern.

 Yoseph discovers the goblet in Benyamin’s saddlebag. The brothers are devastated and scared for what lies ahead. The pasuk reads:

וַיִּקְרְעוּ שִׂמְלֹתָם וַיַּעֲמֹס אִישׁ עַל־חֲמֹרוֹ וַיָּשֻׁבוּ הָעִירָה

They rent their garments; each one reloaded his donkey and they returned to the city. (Bereishis 44:13)

Simple p’shat is they tear kriah, pack up and leave to head back to the place in Egypt where they were staying. 

Rashi on above:

ויעמס איש על חמרו. בַּעֲלֵי זְרוֹעַ הָיוּ, וְלֹא הֻצְרְכוּ לְסַיֵּעַ זֶה אֶת זֶה לִטְעֹן

They were men of strength and did not require the assistance of each other in loading (Genesis Rabbah 92:8).

וישבו העירה. מֶטְרוֹפּוֹלִין הָיְתָה, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר הָעִירָה, הָעִיר כָּל שֶׁהוּא אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה חֲשׁוּבָה בְעֵינֵיהֶם אֶלָּא כְעִיר בֵּינוֹנִית שֶׁל י’ בְּנֵי אָדָם לְעִנְיַן הַמִּלְחָמָה

It was the metropolis and yet Scripture says העירה — an ordinary city! But this is because in their eyes it was regarded as a very medium-sized city of only ten inhabitants if it became a matter of waging war against it (Genesis Rabbah 92:8).

Rashi explains that they were so physically strong that they did not to need to assist each other in loading up their donkeys. Rashi also tells us while they were in fact headed back to a big, well-fortified city, they were so strong and confident that their perception of the city was one that was like a small town which they could easily defeat if they waged war against it.

But what is the relevance of the Torah telling us about their strength specifically here?

Continuing in Parshas Vayigash, the Torah tells us Yehuda appeals to Yoseph for Binyomin’s release. The pasuk states:

וַיִּגַּשׁ אֵלָיו יְהוּדָה וַיֹּאמֶר בִּי אֲדֹנִי יְדַבֶּר־נָא עַבְדְּךָ דָבָר בְּאׇזְנֵי אֲדֹנִי וְאַל־יִחַר אַפְּךָ בְּעַבְדֶּךָ כִּי כָמוֹךָ כְּפַרְעֹה

Then Yehuda approached him and said, “If you please, my lord, let your servant speak a word in my lord’s ears and may your anger not flare up at your servant – for you who are like Pharaoh. (Bereishis 44:18)

Rashi seems to be bothered why Yehuda has to say “may your anger not flare up” if he was talking respectfully to him. Rashi teaches the following on this pasuk:

ואל יחר אפך. מִכָּאן אַתָּה לָמֵד שֶׁדִּבֵּר אֵלָיו קָשׁוֹת

From here you may infer that he (Yehuda) spoke to him (Yoseph) in harsh terms.

כי כמוך כפרעה. חָשׁוּב אַתָּה בְעֵינַי כְּמֶלֶךְ, זֶהוּ פְשׁוּטוֹ. וּמִדְרָשׁוֹ סוֹפְךָ לִלְקוֹת עָלָיו בְּצָרַעַת כְּמוֹ שֶׁלָּקָה פַרְעֹה עַל יְדֵי זְקֵנָתִי שָׂרָה עַל לַיְלָה אַחַת שֶׁעִכְּבָהּ (בראשית רבה). דָּבָר אַחֵר מַה פַּרְעֹה גוֹזֵר וְאֵינוֹ מְקַיֵּם, מַבְטִיחַ וְאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה, אַף אַתָּה כֵן; וְכִי זוֹ הִיא שִׂימַת עַיִן שֶׁאָמַרְתָּ לָשׂוּם עֵינְךָ עָלָיו? דָּבָר אַחֵר, כִּי כָּמוֹךָ כְּפַרְעֹה, אִם תַּקְנִיטֵנִי אֶהֱרֹג אוֹתְךָ וְאֶת אֲדוֹנֶךָ

(בראשית רבה)

This Rashi has  four interpretations:

1 –  In my opinion you are as important as the king. This is the literal meaning, 

2 – but a Midrashic explanation is: You will ultimately be stricken with leprosy for detaining Benjamin even as your ancestor Pharaoh was stricken because he detained my ancestress Sarah one night.

3 – Another Midrashic explanation is: you are as unreliable as Pharaoh — just as Pharaoh issues decrees and does not carry them out, makes promises and does not fulfill them, so also do you. Is this what you meant by “setting your eyes” upon him when you said (Genesis 44:21) “Bring him down and I will set mine eyes upon him”? 

4 – Still another Midrashic interpretation of כי כמוך כפרעה FOR THOU SHALT BECOME EVEN AS PHARAOH: if you provoke me I will slay you and your master (Genesis Rabbah 93:6).

Rashi has 4 interpretations for  כִּ֥י כָמ֖וֹךָ כְּפַרְעֹֽה.  Why?

The simple approach to the narrative leads us to perceive that Yehuda and the brothers were scared and were reacting to this tense situation in a state of weakness. However, Rabbi Elie Teitelman points out this is not so. Considering Rashi’s explanations, what becomes apparent is that Yehuda and the brothers are extremely confident as they are willing and able to act aggressively towards Yoseph and Egypt if they so choose. Rashi is telling us the Torah went out of its way at this juncture to inform us they were strong (“בַּעֲלֵי זְרוֹעַ הָיוּ”) and confident about waging war against Egypt if necessary (“לְעִנְיַן הַמִּלְחָמָה … כְעִיר בֵּינוֹנִית”) even if it meant killing Egypt’s leadership (“אִם תַּקְנִיטֵנִי אֶהֱרֹג אוֹתְךָ וְאֶת אֲדוֹנֶךָ

Therefore, the way to read Rashi on Verse 44:18 is that Yehuda was negotiating with Yosef and outwardly expressed respect, but he was thinking that Yosef is an evil person, one who was a liar and a cheat, and we will fight you on Binyamin.  Meaning that if Yosef does not let Binyamin go there will be a war and based on the Rashis in the previous Parsha they were strong and had confidence that they would be successful.

However, Verse 44:16 is incredible and difficult.

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר יְהוּדָ֗ה מַה־נֹּאמַר֙ לַֽאדֹנִ֔י מַה־נְּדַבֵּ֖ר וּמַה־נִּצְטַדָּ֑ק הָאֱלֹהִ֗ים מָצָא֙ אֶת־עֲוֺ֣ן עֲבָדֶ֔יךָ הִנֶּ֤נּוּ עֲבָדִים֙ לַֽאדֹנִ֔י גַּם־אֲנַ֕חְנוּ גַּ֛ם אֲשֶׁר־נִמְצָ֥א הַגָּבִ֖יעַ בְּיָדֽוֹ׃ 

Judah replied, “What can we say to my lord? How can we plead, how can we prove our innocence? God has uncovered the crime of your servants. Here we are, then, slaves of my lord, the rest of us as much as he in whose possession the goblet was found.”

Amazingly, Yehuda knows they are innocent yet s willing to go into slavery with his brothers and says that we have previously sinned to God and we are being punished by God.  Despite the fact that they were very strong, he was willing to go into slavery because he assumed that this is G-ds doing.   Here he doesn’t mention any specific sin.  He may have had the sale of Yoseph in mind.

Yet two Pesukim later, Yehuda is negotiating and willing to go to war.  What changed is Pasuk 45:17.

וַיֹּ֕אמֶר חָלִ֣ילָה לִּ֔י מֵעֲשׂ֖וֹת זֹ֑את הָאִ֡ישׁ אֲשֶׁר֩ נִמְצָ֨א הַגָּבִ֜יעַ בְּיָד֗וֹ ה֚וּא יִהְיֶה־לִּ֣י עָ֔בֶד וְאַתֶּ֕ם עֲל֥וּ לְשָׁל֖וֹם אֶל־אֲבִיכֶֽם׃ {ס}     But he replied, “Far be it from me to act thus! Only the one in whose possession the goblet was found shall be my slave; the rest of you go back in peace to your father.”

Yehuda realizes that this decree is not from G-d and is not willing to accept Yosef’s demand to keep Binyomin.  Binyomin  never sinned.  Yehuda is now willing to go to war.  In his negotiations Yehuda does say that I am willing to be your slave if you agree to let Binyomin go. Verse 44:33 –  וְעַתָּ֗ה יֵֽשֶׁב־נָ֤א עַבְדְּךָ֙ תַּ֣חַת הַנַּ֔עַר עֶ֖בֶד לַֽאדֹנִ֑י וְהַנַּ֖עַר יַ֥עַל עִם־אֶחָֽיו׃ Therefore, please let your servant remain as a slave to my lord instead of the boy, and let the boy go back with his brothers.

If Yehuda knew that he was innocent and in the first verse of VaYigash Rashi says that Yehuda was willing to go to war, why would he agree to be a slave.  After all, Yosef initially never said he was not going to let Binyomin go.  All Yoseeh said was I want to see him.

The answer to this is perhaps go9ng back to the theme of 44:16 that he still felt that he sinned and G-d was punishing him or perhaps he was afraid that some of the brothers would be killed and was not willing to risk a war.

Rabbi Yosef Rothbart talked about these Pesukim in his speech today.  He said like what Danny and I said that he negotiated but was prepared for war.   Rabbi Rothbart said that the word  וַיִּגַּ֨שׁ implies three activities negotiation, prayer, and war, see Yalkut below..  Just like Yaakov when he was about to meet Eisav, rashi says והיה המחנה הנשאר לפליטה. עַל כָּרְחוֹ, כִּי אֶלָּחֵם עִמּוֹ. הִתְקִין עַצְמוֹ לִשְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים, לְדוֹרוֹן, לִתְפִלָּה וּלְמִלְחָמָה.  Negotiation is equivalent to  דוֹרוֹן .  Rabbi Rothbart mentioned a Reb Tzadok that when Yehuda said בִּ֣י אֲדֹנִי֒ he was also saying, in me is G-d.  Yehuda had faith in Hashem and this faith would carry him in battle.  This is why Jews are called Yehudim.  Because we have to always feel that Hashem is within us –  בִּ֣י אֲדֹנִי֒. 

This explains beautifully why in  Verse 44:16 Yehuda was willing for all the brothers to be slaves.     He when he could not say בִּ֣י אֲדֹנִי֒.  He felt that Hashem was punishing the brothers and that G-d was not with them.  Now that Yosef was going to keep Binyomin and let the brothers leave, he realized that this was not a punishment from G-d, he felt בִּ֣י אֲדֹנִי֒ and that he could fight Yosef.

Yalkut Shimoni on 44:18 – 

ויגש אליו יהודה רבי יהודה אומר הגשה למלחמה כמה דאת אמר ויגש יואב והעם אשר אתו למלחמה. רבי נחמיה אומר הגשה לפיוס כמה דאת אמר] ויגשו בני יהודה אל יהושע לפייסו ורבנן אמרי הגשה לתפלה ויגש אליהו.

ד”א ויגש אליו יהודה נכנסו לתוכחות אמר יהודה לנפתלי קפוץ וראה כמה שווקים יש במצרים קפץ וראה אמר שנים עשר שווקים אמר כל אחד ואחד יחריב שלו ואני אחריב שלשה. א”ל יוסף מצרים לא כשכם אם תחריב מצרים תחריב את כל העולם דכתיב כגן ה’ כארץ מצרים. כי כמוך כפרעה אם אשלוף חרבי אהרוג את כל מצרים אמר יוסף אם אתה מוציאה אכרוך אותה על צוארך. א”ל יהודה אני פותח פי ובולעך א”ל יוסף אם תפתח את פיך אני סותמו באבן.

Question #2:

Verse 44:22

 וַנֹּ֙אמֶר֙ אֶל־אֲדֹנִ֔י לֹא־יוּכַ֥ל הַנַּ֖עַר לַעֲזֹ֣ב אֶת־אָבִ֑יו וְעָזַ֥ב אֶת־אָבִ֖יו וָמֵֽת׃ 

There Are three explanations as to who will die:   Binyamin, Yaakov, or both of  them.

Rashi says- ועזב את אביו ומת. אִם יַעֲזֹב אֶת אָבִיו, דּוֹאֲגִים אָנוּ שֶׁמָּא יָמוּת בַּדֶּרֶךְ, שֶׁהֲרֵי אִמּוֹ בַּדֶּרֶךְ מֵתָה:

Rashi is saying that Binyomin will die.   However, the Rashbam says that Yaakov will die as a result. (Mesudah).

Sferno – says that both Yaakov and Binyamin will die and explains –  מאז שיעזוב את עגועגי אביו והסברת פניו יתעצב ונפל למשכב ואז ימות: לא יוכל הנער לעזוב את אביו, from the moment he will have left his father, he will pine for his father and become sick or die. Furthermore

ועזב את אביו ומת. ועם זה אביו ימות בלי ספק: ועזב את אביו ומת, also his father will die without question if the lad leaves him.

Further expanaiotn of thethree explanation of Pasuk  וַנֹּ֙אמֶר֙ אֶל־אֲדֹנִ֔י לֹא־יוּכַ֥ל הַנַּ֖עַר לַעֲזֹ֣ב אֶת־אָבִ֑יו וְעָזַ֥ב אֶת־אָבִ֖יו וָמֵֽת׃ 

The translation of the pasuk like Rashi is –   We said to my lord, ‘The boy cannot leave his father; if he were to leave him, his father would die.’

The translation of the pasuk like the Rashbam is “And we said to my lord, The lad cannot leave his father: for if he should leave his father, his father would die.”  (Koren and JPS)

The translation of the pasuk like the Sferno is”And we said to my lord.  The boy cannot leave his father because Biyomin will so miss his father, that he will get sick or die and if the boy leaves his father, his father will also die,   

Question #3

Verse 44:29

וּלְקַחְתֶּ֧ם גַּם־אֶת־זֶ֛ה מֵעִ֥ם פָּנַ֖י וְקָרָ֣הוּ אָס֑וֹן וְהֽוֹרַדְתֶּ֧ם אֶת־שֵׂיבָתִ֛י בְּרָעָ֖ה שְׁאֹֽלָה׃   

Verse 44:31

וְהָיָ֗ה כִּרְאוֹת֛וֹ כִּי־אֵ֥ין הַנַּ֖עַר וָמֵ֑ת וְהוֹרִ֨ידוּ עֲבָדֶ֜יךָ אֶת־שֵׂיבַ֨ת עַבְדְּךָ֥ אָבִ֛ינוּ בְּיָג֖וֹן שְׁאֹֽלָה׃   

These Pasukim repeat the same thing and are redundant.  One was בְּרָעָ֖ה – with evil and 6                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      the second בְּיָג֖וֹן – with sorrow. 

Comments/Question #3:

Verse 45:2

 וַיִּתֵּ֥ן אֶת־קֹל֖וֹ בִּבְכִ֑י וַיִּשְׁמְע֣וּ מִצְרַ֔יִם וַיִּשְׁמַ֖ע בֵּ֥ית פַּרְעֹֽה – Yosef is crying , so loud that everyone heard him.

What is the difference between Egypt and the house of Pharah?  How could the entire Egypt hear him?  If anything, say the house of Pharaoh first as that is limited and then Egypt heard him.

Verse 45:3

 וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יוֹסֵ֤ף אֶל־אֶחָיו֙ אֲנִ֣י יוֹסֵ֔ף הַע֥וֹד אָבִ֖י חָ֑י וְלֹֽא־יָכְל֤וּ אֶחָיו֙ לַעֲנ֣וֹת אֹת֔וֹ כִּ֥י נִבְהֲל֖וּ מִפָּנָֽיו׃ – was Yosef still crying?    

Yosef said אֲנִ֣י יוֹסֵ֔ף הַע֥וֹד אָבִ֖י חָ֑י all in one breath.  He did not pause after אֲנִ֣י יוֹסֵ֔ף, but it seemed as if he said both of these ideas in one stream of consciousness.  

Did say  הַע֥וֹד אָבִ֖י חָ֑י to rebuke them saying, you said that if Binyomin does not go back to our father, our father will die.  Why didn’t you worry about our father when you sold me?

As i look at the Sedra, I doubt if he meant to rebuke them. He was crying.   Just saying, “I am Joseph” is enough rebuke.  Besides, he was one of the holy founders of 2 tribes. He had to see G-d’s hand in all the events.  And the best revenge is success.

Rashi in verse 45:4 has to be explained.  Rashi says that he saw them backing up and Joseph said to himself, “Now, I see that they are embarrassed.”Then he called to them in a soft voice and conciliatory voice, and showed that he is circumcised. It seems that when Yoseph said “I am Joseph, is my father alive” he was rebuking them.  

Fred Weingust

At Kiddush I spoke to Fred Weingoth at length.  Comes out he worked for IBM for years and worked on 5/3rds accounts.  He understood their problems when I related to him their customer service issues.   Every summer he would load his 5 kids in their Caravan minivan and go cross country in Canada.  One year they drove route 66, first stopping off at Romanian in Chicago and loaded up with salami, hot dogs, etc.  The Levy family from Florida is also driving Route 66 in May.

Verse 37:1 – וַיֵּ֣שֶׁב יַעֲקֹ֔ב בְּאֶ֖רֶץ מְגוּרֵ֣י אָבִ֑יו בְּאֶ֖רֶץ כְּנָֽעַן 

Nothing new to report in Toronto.  We are taking it day by day.  It is cold and snow has fallen. 

Friday night my mother in law came to the table and had some Kiddush.  On Shabbos morning I davened at Chabad of Flamingo, a 1.8-mile walk.  The Rabbi is Rabbi Mendel Kaplan and his son was being Bar Mitzvahed.  Rabbi Kaplan Spoke beautifully before each Aliyah for 3 to 5 minutes and then gave a 20 minute speech.  Davening was over at 12:40 PM.  Kiddush afterwards, then walked to Victor and Debbi Janowski who live one block from the Shul.

Rabbi Mendel Kaplan:

My Torah:

First Vort:

Background:

In last week’s Sedra Pasuk 35:7 we read that Yaakov arrived to Chevron by his father

וַיָּבֹ֤א יַעֲקֹב֙ אֶל־יִצְחָ֣ק אָבִ֔יו מַמְרֵ֖א קִרְיַ֣ת הָֽאַרְבַּ֑ע הִ֣וא חֶבְר֔וֹן אֲשֶׁר־גָּֽר־שָׁ֥ם אַבְרָהָ֖ם וְיִצְחָֽק׃

The next two Pasukim in VaYishlach talk about Yitzchok’s death as follows:

וַיִּֽהְי֖וּ יְמֵ֣י יִצְחָ֑ק מְאַ֥ת שָׁנָ֖ה וּשְׁמֹנִ֥ים שָׁנָֽה׃

וַיִּגְוַ֨ע יִצְחָ֤ק וַיָּ֙מׇת֙ וַיֵּאָ֣סֶף אֶל־עַמָּ֔יו זָקֵ֖ן וּשְׂבַ֣ע יָמִ֑ים וַיִּקְבְּר֣וּ אֹת֔וֹ עֵשָׂ֥ו וְיַעֲקֹ֖ב בָּנָֽיו׃

Chapter 36 is the story of the family of Eisav, which the Torah dispatches in 37 verses covering hundreds of years.

Opening of this week’s Sedra:

Verse 37:1: 

וַיֵּ֣שֶׁב יַעֲקֹ֔ב בְּאֶ֖רֶץ מְגוּרֵ֣י אָבִ֑יו בְּאֶ֖רֶץ כְּנָֽעַן׃  – Now Jacob was settled in the land where his father had sojourned, the land of Canaan.

Rashi

וישב יעקב וגו’. אַחַר שֶׁכָּתַב לְךָ יִשּׁוּבֵי עֵשָׂו וְתוֹלְדוֹתָיו בְּדֶרֶךְ קְצָרָה, שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ סְפוּנִים וַחֲשׁוּבִים לְפָרֵשׁ הֵיאַךְ נִתְיַשְּׁבוּ וְסֵדֶר מִלְחֲמוֹתֵיהֶם אֵיךְ הוֹרִישׁוּ אֶת הַחֹרִי, פֵּרֵשׁ לָךְ יִשּׁוּבֵי יַעֲקֹב וְתוֹלְדוֹתָיו בְּדֶרֶךְ אֲרֻכָּה כָּל גִּלְגּוּלֵי סִבָּתָם, לְפִי שֶׁהֵם חֲשׁוּבִים לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם לְהַאֲרִיךְ בָּהֶם, וְכֵן אַתָּה מוֹצֵא בְּי’ דוֹרוֹת שֶׁמֵּאָדָם וְעַד נֹחַ פְּלוֹנִי הוֹלִיד פְּלוֹנִי, וּכְשֶׁבָּא לְנֹחַ הֶאֱרִיךְ בּוֹ, וְכֵן בְּי’ דוֹרוֹת שֶׁמִּנֹּחַ וְעַד אַבְרָהָם קִצֵּר בָּהֶם, וּמִשֶּׁהִגִּיעַ אֵצֶל אַבְרָהָם הֶאֱרִיךְ בּוֹ. מָשָׁל לְמַרְגָּלִית שֶׁנָּפְלָה בֵּין הַחוֹל, אָדָם מְמַשְׁמֵּשׁ בַּחוֹל וְכוֹבְרוֹ בִּכְבָרָה עַד שֶׁמּוֹצֵא אֶת הַמַּרְגָּלִית, וּמִשֶּׁמְּצָאָהּ הוּא מַשְׁלִיךְ אֶת הַצְּרוֹרוֹת מִיָּדוֹ וְנוֹטֵל הַמַּרְגָּלִית. 

English Translation from Seferia  

AND JACOB ABODE — After it (Scripture) has described to you the settlements of Esau and his descendants in a brief manner — since they were not distinguished and important enough that it should be related in detail how they settled down and that there should be given an account of their wars and how they drove out the Horites (see Deuteronomy 2:12) — it explains clearly and at length the settlements made by Jacob and his descendants and all the events which brought these about, because these are regarded by the Omnipresent as of sufficient importance to speak of them at length. Thus, too, you will find that in the case of the ten generations from Adam to Noah it states “So-and-so begat so-and-so”, but when it reaches Noah it deals with him at length. Similarly, of the ten generations from Noah to Abraham it gives but a brief account, but when it comes to Abraham it speaks of him more fully. It may be compared to the case of a jewel that falls into the sand: a man searches in the sand, sifts it in a sieve until he finds the jewel. When he has found it he throws away the pebbles and keeps the jewel (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 1).

 : Analysis

Seemingly Rashi is not telling us a Pshat in the first Pasuk. Rashi is giving us an overview of why in the Torah the storyline of Esiav and other nations of the world are given short shrift.   In fact Rashi did not have to put a heading – Divrei Hamaschil.   Rashi could have labeled it Introduction.

Question #1 – Do we need Rashi to tell us this fact?  We could easily figure it out.  The storylines of the other nations of the world are simply not our storyline.    The Bible is the story of the Jewish nation.  The Torah’s purpose is to tell the story of how the Jewish nation came into being, the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai, our formative years and the great closeness of our ancestors to Hashem.  It is important to Hashem due to our special relationship with Him. 

Question #2 – A) what does the מָשָׁל  of the person searching for a jewel add to Rashi’s answer.  Rashi’s answer is clear and does need a parable and B) it does not fit.    Rashi’s answer is not that we are searching for anything.   Also, the parable says that once we find the jewel, we throw away the pebbles.  This is not at all what Rashi explained.   

Answer

The answer is that Rashi is telling us something very important.  Not only wasn’t their history important and G-d did not include it in the Torah,  but their history is rubble, useless.  We have to learn our history, our Tanach, how our righteous leaders led, and how we failed.  The history of the world is one of brutality. death, and destruction.  The history of the world is about man’s domination of man by brute force.   Even the  Greek empire from which the world got democracy, was harsh.   The Romans  were brutal.   This includes all the way into the 20 century where three madmen of the world  killed over 100 million people.   Read the real story of the British exploitation and domination of India.  This Is the one truth consistent about history.

There is a great story that illustrates this in the book by Herman Wouk,  “The Will to Live On: This is Our Heritage” published in  February 2001.  He writes that when his father died, his philosophy professor who was a secular Jew, Professor Elbaum, came to pay a Shiva call.  Herman Wouk introduced his grandfather, Rabbi Abraham Issac Wouk, to his college professor.  Rabbi Abraham Isaac Wouk came from Minsk and lived in the south Bronx, was a Posak, and spoke little English.  I believe he was a Lubavitcher Chasid.   Professor Elbaum quoted Marcus Auerlous to impress Herman Wouk’s grandfather. Rabbi Wouk asked in Yiddish, Ve is dous Marcus?  Professor Elbaum responds, a Roman. Rabbi Wouk says a Roman, phe, phe!  I do not think Professor Elbaum or Herman Wouk understood what his grandfather was saying.  He was saying, don’t quote me philosophy from a Roman; they were brutal, enslaved and killed millions of people. They have nothing to teach the world about morality.

Rashi says that learning in depth about their wars, conquests, and society is useless; especially since most of these societies discriminated against Jews, suffocated us, made us second class citizens, and threw us out of the country.  European history led to the holocaust.  I am sure that there is some worth but it is crucial for us to understand our history,

I admit I love Gettysburg and have studied the three day battle in depth where in my mind’s eye, I can see the entire three day battle.  I could go to the battlefield site which is a huge empty tract of land, with many monuments and “see” the battle unfolding.  Understanding Gettysburg did lead me to understand the greatness of the Kotzker.  However, I do not know Tanach, which is terrible.  I know Jewish history and I am conversant about the founding of the State of Israel, but do not have deep knowledge.

Moshe Revah

Dec 16, 2022, 2:28 PM (2 days ago)

Reply

Beauty!!

Great Vourt!

I really like it!

Have a great Shabbos!

elliott.baral@gmail.com

Dec 16, 2022, 1:22 PM (2 days ago)

Reply

Mitch, excellent! Very good observation. Thank you for sharing that with me. Have a great Shabbos! – Elliott 

Rashi brings down another explanation of וישב יעקב from the Midrash Tanchuma VaYeshev 1:2

דָּ”אַ וישב יעקב, הַפִּשְׁתָּנִי הַזֶּה נִכְנְסוּ גְמַלָּיו טְעוּנִים פִּשְׁתָּן, הַפֶּחָמִי תָמַהּ אָנָה יִכָּנֵס כָּל הַפִּשְׁתָּן הַזֶּה? הָיָה פִּקֵּחַ אֶחָד מֵשִׁיב לוֹ נִצּוֹץ אֶחָד יוֹצֵא מִמַּפּוּחַ שֶׁלְּךָ שֶׁשּׂוֹרֵף אֶת כֻּלּוֹ, כָּךְ יַעֲקֹב רָאָה אֶת כָּל הָאַלּוּפִים הַכְּתוּבִים לְמַעְלָה, תָּמַהּ וְאָמַר מִי יָכוֹל לִכְבֹּשׁ אֶת כֻּלָּן? מַה כְּתִיב לְמַטָּה, אֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדוֹת יַעֲקֹב יוֹסֵף, דִּכְתִיב וְהָיָה בֵית יַעֲקֹב אֵשׁ וּבֵית יוֹסֵף לֶהָבָה וּבֵית עֵשָׂו לְקַשׁ (עובדיה א’) 

– נִצּוֹץ יוֹצֵא מִיּוֹסֵף שֶׁמְּכַלֶּה וְשׂוֹרֵף אֶת כֻּלָּם:

The camels of a flax dealer once came into a city laden with flax. A blacksmith asked in wonder where all that flax could be stored, and a clever fellow answered him, “A single spark caused by your bellows can burn up all of it.” “So, too, when Jacob saw (heard of) all these chiefs whose names are written above he said wonderingly, “Who can conquer all these?” What is written after the names of these chieftains? — and in this may be found the reply to Jacob’s question: These are the generations of Jacob — Joseph. For it is written (Obadiah 1:18) “And the house of Jacob shall be a fire and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau, for stubble: one spark issuing from Joseph will burn up all of these (descendants of Esau) . The passage beginning “Another explanation” is found in an old Rashi text.

This answer is also problematic.  If the house of Jacob is a fire, a spark can burn all the straw.   Why do we need a flame?  Besides that, we had Shimon and Levi.

I am working on an answer.

Second Vort:

Verses 39:1, 39:2, 39:5

וְיוֹסֵ֖ף הוּרַ֣ד מִצְרָ֑יְמָה וַיִּקְנֵ֡הוּ פּוֹטִיפַר֩ סְרִ֨יס פַּרְעֹ֜ה שַׂ֤ר הַטַּבָּחִים֙ אִ֣ישׁ מִצְרִ֔י מִיַּד֙ הַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר הוֹרִדֻ֖הוּ שָֽׁמָּה׃

וַיְהִ֤י יְהֹוָה֙ אֶת־יוֹסֵ֔ף וַיְהִ֖י אִ֣ישׁ מַצְלִ֑יחַ וַיְהִ֕י בְּבֵ֖ית אֲדֹנָ֥יו הַמִּצְרִֽי

וַיְהִ֡י מֵאָז֩ הִפְקִ֨יד אֹת֜וֹ בְּבֵית֗וֹ וְעַל֙ כׇּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר יֶשׁ־ל֔וֹ וַיְבָ֧רֶךְ יְהֹוָ֛ה אֶת־בֵּ֥ית הַמִּצְרִ֖י בִּגְלַ֣ל יוֹסֵ֑ף וַיְהִ֞י בִּרְכַּ֤ת יְהֹוָה֙ בְּכׇל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר יֶשׁ־ל֔וֹ בַּבַּ֖יִת וּבַשָּׂדֶֽה׃

Why does it say that Potiphar was an Egyptian?  Obviously he was an Egyption.  Plus why in the first Pasik does it say  אִ֣ישׁ מִצְרִ֔י, using the same word אִ֣ישׁ as in Pasuk 37:15 – וַיִּמְצָאֵ֣הוּ אִ֔ישׁ וְהִנֵּ֥ה תֹעֶ֖ה בַּשָּׂדֶ֑ה וַיִּשְׁאָלֵ֧הוּ הָאִ֛ישׁ לֵאמֹ֖ר מַה־תְּבַקֵּֽשׁ?

Rabbi Mendel Kaplan suggested that the  אִ֔יש who was the angel Gavriel who represented Din.  Din is harsh and Joseph had to overcome the din of Shamayim and accept it,    Joseph also had to overcome his harsh reality with Potipher who also represented the ultimate Egyptian.  This is why it says that Potiphar was an  אִ֣ישׁ מִצְרִ֔י an ultimate Egyptian. When you look up the definition of an Egyptian in the dictionary, you saw a picture of Potiphar.   Yoseph was able to overcome the harsh and brutal Egyptian culture which treat slaves like dirt, worthless human beings.  Yosef was positive despite his circumstances because he had faith in G-d, always mentioned G-ds name in allowing him to be successful.  Having faith in Hashem, giving him credit, and having a positive attitude can overcome the worst of times, depression, and other issues that bring one down.

Torah from Rabbi Mendel Kaplan:

Vort #1)

Verse 37:15 – וַיִּמְצָאֵ֣הוּ אִ֔ישׁ וְהִנֵּ֥ה תֹעֶ֖ה בַּשָּׂדֶ֑ה וַיִּשְׁאָלֵ֧הוּ הָאִ֛ישׁ לֵאמֹ֖ר מַה־תְּבַקֵּֽשׁ׃

Rashi:

וימצאהו איש. זֶה גַּבְרִיאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְהָאִישׁ גַּבְרִיאֵל (דניאל ט כא):

Maskil L’Dovid:

18th century super commentary on Rashi from Reb Dovid Pardo, an Italian Rabbi and poet.

וימצאהו וכו׳ דייק הכי מדלא כתיב וימצא איש ש״מ דזה האיש מבקשו ומצאו ומי הוא זה אם לא מלאך:

Ibn Ezra:

וימצאהו איש. דרך הפשט אחד מעוברי דרך:  

Paanach Raza:

A 13th century commentator by one of the French Baala Tosfes explaining the plain meaning of the text while weaving in Gematrias and word schemes.

וימצאה”ו אי”ש גימט’ גבריא”ל מלא”ך מצ”א, וישאלה”ו האי”ש גימ’ מלא”ך גבריא”ל שאל”ו: 

The Lubavitcher Rebbe asks, that Rashi normally explains the plain meaning of the text so why doesn’t he say like the Ibn Ezra that the  אִ֔ישׁ was an anonymous person.  The Lubavitcher Rebbe explains like the Maskil L’Dovid that the word וימצאהו means that this אִ֔ישׁ was looking for Yoseph.  It could not mean that Yoseph encountered any person, but rather it was an angel. 

The Rebbe asks, why Gavriel?  He answered that Gavriel represents Din.  Yosef was facing Din – judgment which was harsh.  Yoseph had to overcome Din by accepting it and looking forward to tomorrow, hoping that it would be better.

Vort #2)  When the wife of Potiphar  ( according to the Sefer haYasher her name was Zulycah) accused Joseph of attacking her, why wasn’t he killed?  A slave was accused of attacking the wife of a high official in Egypt.

Rabbi Mendel Kaplan explained that there is a medresh that said Pharaoh did decree on Yoseph death.  However, the angel Gavriel dressed as an official said let us investigate and see whose cloak was ripped.  If it was the wife of Potiphar then we know the Yospeh attacked her, if it was Joseph’s then we know he has been falsely accused.  They looked and saw it was Yoseph gasment that was torn.  There was another test and it was clear that Joseph was innocent.  Even though they knew Yoseph was innocent, they threw him in jail for life.

Vort #3) The Torah relates the story of the dreams of Pharaoh’s cupbearer and baker in 23 Pesukim in detail when many laws of the Torah are one Pasuk or less. The Rebbe or Rabbi Kaplan answered that all the Pasukim were put for the four words Verse 40:7 –  “מַדּ֛וּעַ פְּנֵיכֶ֥ם רָעִ֖ים הַיּֽוֹם”  .

Joseph could have been bitter and ignored the two officials of a regime that imprisoned him for life.  Yet he did not and showed concern for them and wanted to help. This led  to his redemption.

This idea of doing good in the world even one Mitzvah can bring light to the world.

In 1991 there was a hookup from around the world of Menorahs being lit at the same time. This is well before Zoom and it was unique and expensive to do a live hookup from around the world.   The Lubavitcher Rebbe spoke and mentioned that we are seeing Menorahs being lit all over the world; in Moscow, Israel and many other locations.  The Rebbe mentioned Calcutta, India.  Rabbi Mendel Kaplan noted this because there was no official hookup from Calcutta.  This mystery was solved about a year ago when someone told him the following story.  The Jewish community in Calcutta was once vibrant and strong.  In the early 1940s the girls school had 400 kids.  By 1991, the community dwindled to a point where it was very difficult to get a minyan.  It was Chanukah 1991 and David Ashkenzey, the leader of the Calcutta Jewish community, was depressed and told himself that he will not lite the Chanukah Menorah.  It bothered him, gnawed at his heart, and eventually he lit the Menorah.  He sat down to watch TV and was channel surfing.  He happened upon the channel that was carrying the worldwide lighting ceremony from New York.  He heard the Rebbe speaking and thought he heard the Rebbe saying that a menorah was lit in Calcutta.  He was not sure if he heard correctly, and the Rebbe mentioned Calcutta a second time.  This simple concern of the Rebbe for the act of David Ashkanezy (besides the miracle fact that there was no hookup from Calcutta) reignited the fire in his heart and he renewed his efforts on behalf of the remaining Jews of Calcutta, helping it survive for a number of years afterwards.

The Rebbe’s concern and mention of Calcutta was enough to change this man and Jewish life in Calcutta.  This is what Yoseph did when he said to these two government ministers, “מַדּ֛וּעַ פְּנֵיכֶ֥ם רָעִ֖ים הַיּֽוֹם” .