פרשת וישב תש"ה - יוסף ואחיו בדותן
עצה טובה: להבנת פרקנו קרא Benno Jacob: Quellen Kritik u. Exegese כל הספר הקטן הזה עוסק רק בפרקנו.
א. שאלות כלליות
וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ לֶךְ נָא רְאֵה אֶת שְׁלוֹם אַחֶיךָ וְאֶת שְׁלוֹם הַצֹּאן וַהֲשִׁבֵנִי דָּבָר וַיִּשְׁלָחֵהוּ מֵעֵמֶק חֶבְרוֹן וַיָּבֹא שְׁכֶמָה: וַיִּמְצָאֵהוּ אִישׁ וְהִנֵּה תֹעֶה בַּשָּׂדֶה וַיִּשְׁאָלֵהוּ הָאִישׁ לֵאמֹר מַה תְּבַקֵּשׁ: וַיֹּאמֶר אֶת אַחַי אָנֹכִי מְבַקֵּשׁ הַגִּידָה נָּא לִי אֵיפֹה הֵם רֹעִים: וַיֹּאמֶר הָאִישׁ נָסְעוּ מִזֶּה כִּי שָׁמַעְתִּי אֹמְרִים נֵלְכָה דֹּתָיְנָה וַיֵּלֶךְ יוֹסֵף אַחַר אֶחָיו וַיִּמְצָאֵם בְּדֹתָן:
And he said to him: ‘Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren, and well with the flock; and bring me back word.’ So he sent him out of the vale of Hebron, and he came to Shechem.
מקשה גור אריה, (מהר"ל מפרג, חי ר"פ-שס"ט):
למה צריך כל הסיפור, שמצאו איש ושאל אותו איפה הם רועים, ואמר לו: בדותן הם, והלך אליהם? מאי נפקא מיניה, אם מתחילה הלך אליהם בלי טעות או על ידי טעות, ולמה הוצרך הכתוב לכל זה?
נסה לענות לשאלה זו!
2. נסה להסביר מה ערך הקטע הזה בתוך כל הפרק מבחינה ספרותית!
ב. שאלות כלליות
"וַיֹּאמֶר יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל יוֹסֵף הֲלוֹא אַחֶיךָ רֹעִים בִּשְׁכֶם לְכָה וְאֶשְׁלָחֲךָ אֲלֵיהֶם וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ הִנֵּנִי"
And Israel said unto Joseph: ‘Do not thy brethren feed the flock in Shechem? come, and I will send thee unto them.’ And he said to him: ‘Here am I.’
ד"ה הלא אחיך רועים בשכם: ואין דרך רחוקה עד שם.
הלא אחיך רועים בשכם?, Yaakov implied that it was not very far from their home to Shechem. [this seems a bit strange as it is about 100km by air, surely quite a distance for an unaccompanied young man of 17 to travel all by himself. Ed.]
ד"ה הלא אחיך רועים בשכם: במקום סכנה שהרגו אנשי המקום.
הלא אחיך רועים בשכם, the wording reflects Yaakov's surprise that Joseph’s brothers chose to tend their sheep in a dangerous location such as Shechem where they had killed the local inhabitants not so long ago. (this is what I heard from Rabbi Yoseph Karo our colleague. I enjoyed his interpretation greatly. [this was not original as it is found in Targum Yerushalmi. David Rosin, Ed.]
שניהם עונים לשאלה אחת, מהי? מה ההבדל בין תשובותיהם?
ד"ה הנני: לשון ענוה וזריזות, נזדרז למצות אביו, ואף על פי שהיה יודע באחיו ששונאין אותו.
הנני HERE AM I — An expression denoting humility and readiness: he was zealous to perform his father’s bidding, although he was aware that his brothers hated him (Genesis Rabbah 84:13).
השווה דבריו כאן לדבריו פרק כ"ב פסוק א':
ד"ה הנני: כך היא ענייתם של חסידים, לשון ענוה הוא ולשון זימון.
הנני HERE AM I — Such is the answer of the pious: it is an expression of meekness and readiness (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayera 22).
מה הניע את רש"י להאריך במקומנו ולהוסיף על דבריו שאמר שם?
"וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ הִנֵּנִי"
And Israel said unto Joseph: ‘Do not thy brethren feed the flock in Shechem? come, and I will send thee unto them.’ And he said to him: ‘Here am I.’
אמר ר' חנא בר' חנינא: הדברים הללו היה יעקב אבינו נזכר, ומעיו מתחתכין "יודע היית שאחיך שונאים אותך, והיית אומר לי: הנני".
And God said, "Let there be a firmament" - It is written (Psalms 104:3), "Who lays the beams of his upper chambers in the waters." It is the custom of the world that a king of flesh and blood constructs a palace and makes a roof for it out of stones and wood and dirt. But the Holy One Blessed Be He made a roof for his world out of water, as it says "Who lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters." "And God said 'let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters'". The rabbis said regarding this in the name of Rabbi Chanina, but Rabbi Pinchas and Rabbi Jacob the son of Rabbi Avin said this in the name of Rabbi Samuel son of Nachman: "when the Holy One, blessed be He, said 'let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters', the middle liquid layer solidified, and the lower heavens were formed, and the heavens above the heavens, the upper ones [were formed]". Rab said "their works on the first day were liquid and on the second they were solid. "Let there be a firmament" [means] let the firmament solidify". Rabbi Yehudah the son of Rabbi Simon said "['let there be a firmament' means] let a thin plating be made for the firmament (raqi'a), just as you see it said "and they beat thin (vayeraq'u) the plates of gold (Exodus 39:3)"". Rabbi Chanina said "the fire came forth from above and dried the surface of the firmament [solidifying it]". Rabbi Yochanan came to this conclusion with this verse: "By His breath [meaning fire] the heavens are smoothed (Job 26:13)." He used to say: "Rabbi Chanina taught me well". Rabbi Yudan the son of Rabbi Shimon said "the fire went forth from above and it made the surface of the firmament gleam". R. Berakhyah, R. Yaakov bar R. Avina in the name of R. Abbah bar Kahana said: The work of creation came to teach about the giving of the Torah, and the teaching was revealed through it: "As when fire kindles the parts” (Isaiah 64:1)—its halves. When did the fire split between the upper and lower [heavens], is it not when the Torah was given!? Thus it was at the creation of the universe.Thus it was at the creation of the universe." Rabbi Pinchas in the name of Rabbi Hoshaya said: "as the empty space that is between the earth and the firmament, so there is an empty space between the firmament and the upper waters. So "let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters" [means] between them and in the middle of them". Rabbi Tanchuma said: "I will explain the reasoning. If it is said "and God made the firmament and divided between the waters which were above the firmament" I would say that the water is positioned on the very body of the firmament. But as it says "and between the waters which are over the firmament", see!, the upper waters are hung upon the word". Rabbi Acha said: "[it is] like the flickering of candles, and [its] fruits are the rain waters". A certain Samaritan asked Rabbi Meir and said to him "Is it possible that the upper waters are suspended on a word?" And he replied to him "yes". And Rabbi Meir said "bring me a clepsydra (a water clock)" and the Samaritan brought a clepsydra and he placed upon it a gold plate, but the water did not stand still [under the plate]. He placed a silver plate on it, but the water did not stand still [under the plate]. But when he placed his finger on [the plate], the water stood still [and the plate did not bob]. The Samaritan said to him "you are putting your finger on it!" And Rabbi Meir responded "See how if my finger stills the water, and I am flesh and blood, how much more does the finger of the Holy One, blessed be He [control the water]. Therefore, the water is hung on a word." The Samaritan said to him "Is it possible that he himself, concerning whom it is written "Do I not fill the heavens and the earth (Jeremiah 23:24)" was speaking with Moses from between the poles of the ark?" Rabbi Meir responded: "bring to me large mirrors" and he continued "look at yourself in what is brought; your reflection in large!" Meir said to him "bring me small mirrors" and he brought small mirrors. Rabbi Meir said "look at yourself in what is brought, your reflection is small!" Rabbi Meir said to him "See how if you can change yourself whenever you want, and you are flesh and blood, how much more he who spoke and the universe came into existence, blessed is He! And so when he wishes to be "Do I not fill the heavens and the earth (Jeremiah 23:24)" he is and when he wishes he spoke with Moses from between the poles of the ark. Rabbi Chanina the son of Isei said: "sometimes the universe and its fullness is not strong enough for the glory of His divinity, and at other times He speaks with man from between the hairs of his head. This is written: "Then Hashem answered Job out of the whirlwind (se'arah) (Job 38:1)" [but read instead] from between the hairs (sha'arot) of his head. And still further the Samaritan asked Rabbi Meir "Is it possible that "the river of God is full of water (Psalm 65:10)" from the six days of creation and has not all diminished? How strange!" And Rabbi Meir said to him: "Go in and wash yourself and weigh yourself when you have not gone in and then after you have gone in." As soon as the Samaritan left he weighed himself and his body weight was not at all diminished. Rabbi Meir said "now all that sweat that comes out of you, did it not come out of you?" And the Samaritan said "yes". Rabbi Meir responded "See how if you lost no fluid from your body's spring of fluids, and you are flesh and blood, how much more is it [true regarding] the spring of the Holy One, blessed be He, [that] "the river of God is full of water (Psalm 65:10)" and from the six days of creation has not all diminished?" Rabbi Yochanan said: "The Holy One, blessed be He, raised up all the waters of creation and set half of them in the firmament and half in the Ocean; it is surprising! It is thus written "the river (peleg) of God is full of water (Psalm 65:10)" [the word "river" (peleg) must be understood as the Aramaic word] half (palg'a). The firmament is similar to a lake and above the lake is a covering. From the from the lake heat condensation flows from the covering, and the condensation [as rain] descends to the midst of the salt waters [of the sea] and the rain does not mix itself [with the salt water]. Rabbi Jonah said "do not be amazed, as it is the case that the Jordan River passes through the Sea of Tiberias (the Sea of Galilee) and it does not mix itself with it; this is a miraculous thing to say! A man sifting wheat or chaff in a sieve, the grains have not descended two or three finger-breadths and they have mixed together, but these [raindrops] have traveled and traveled year after year and have not mixed themselves [with salt water]." Rabbi Yudan, son of Rabbi Shimon says "it is because he sends them down by a measured deduction, as it is said "for He draws away (yegara') the drops of water (Job 36:27)". But see how it says "and an abatement shall be made (venigra') from your assessment (Leviticus 27:18)" [showing that the financial use of this root gr' proves that God sends them down in a measured deduction]. The thickness of the earth is equal to the thickness of the firmament, as it is said "He sits above the circle (chug) of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)" [and] "He walked about the circle (chug) of the heavens (Job 22:14)". Since "circle" (chug) occurs in both verses, they are a gezeira shavah [proving the earth and firmament have the same thickness]. Rabbi Acha said in the name of Rabbi Chanina: "This is like a metal plate". Rabbi Joshua, the son of Rabbi Nehemiah, said: "They are about two or three finger-breadths". Rabbi Shimon the son of Pazzi said: "The upper waters are greater than the lower waters by about thirty xestes (pints). "Between the waters above the waters (la-mayim)" [the lamed's gematria is] thirty [thus proving his point that the waters above have thirty extra pints]. The rabbis said "they are half and half". the verse states: "and god made the heavens", this is one of the verses that ben zoma shook the world with, he made implying a physical action , this cant be for we know that the heavens were created with gods speech? which is what it says: " with the word of god the heavens were made and with the wind of his mouth all of their army's"?. why doesn't it say "it was good" on the second day of creation?r yochanan taught in the name of r yosi the son of r chalafta, because hell was created on the second day, as it says " the topheth has been ready for him since yesterday, a day that has a yesterday but not three days ago. another reason that it dose not say "it was good" on the second day, r channina says its because division was created on the second day, as it says: "and it (the heavens) should separate between the two body's of water". r tivyomi said if division that is for the sake of fixing the world does not have good all the more so division that is to mix up the world doesn't have good. r shmuel says because the creation of water wasnt finished, it was written on the third day "it was good" twice, one for the creation of water and one for the days work. a noble woman asked r yosi, why dosen't it say "and it was good on the second day? he answered her even so it was included in the end as it says: "and god saw all that he did and it was very good" she said back to him this is analogous to six people coming to you give each one a manna and to one of them you don't give anything, then you go back and give one manna to everyone, is it not true that 5 of them have a mana and a 1/6 manna and the last one only has 1/6? he said to her like r shmuel says because the creation of water wasnt finished, it was written on the third day "it was good" twice, one for the creation of water and one for the days work. r levi in the name of r tanchum the son of r chnelyayi said, it states in the verse:" he (god) tells the end in the beginning", from the beginning of creation god saw Moses who is called "good" and was ultimately was going to be punished from an issue regarding water and therefore did not write and it was good regarding the water. r simon in the name of r levi said it is analogous to a king who had a bad legion, the king said since this legion is no good my name shouldn't be called on it, so too god said, since these waters punished the generation of the flood, dor enosh, and haflaga it should not be written regarding them "forit was good" "and god called the ferment heavens", rav says it means fire and water mixed together. r abba the son of r chahna said in the name of rav , god took fire and water, joined them together and made the heavens. another matter, the word שמים can be read as meaning "evaluation" for the heavens evaluate the actions of people, if they merit than "the heavens will tell his righteousness" and if he doesn't merit "the heavens will reveal his sin". another matter why is it called shumiaim because people wonder about them are they water or fire?!!! r pinchas said he came and revealed it "
מהי המשמעות המיוחדת המתווספת למילה "הנני" על ידי המדרש?
ג. "מעמק חברון" - שאלות ברש"י
"וַיִּשְׁלָחֵהוּ מֵעֵמֶק חֶבְרוֹן"
And he said to him: ‘Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren, and well with the flock; and bring me back word.’ So he sent him out of the vale of Hebron, and he came to Shechem.
ד"ה מעמק חברון: והלא חברון בהר, שנאמר (במדבר י"ג כ"ב) "ויעלו בנגב ויבוא עד חברון", אלא מעצה עמוקה של [אותו] צדיק הקבור בחברון, לקיים מה שנאמר לאברהם בין הבתרים (לעיל ט"ו י"ג) "כי גר יהיה זרעך".
מעמק חברון FROM THE VALE OF HEBRON — But was not Hebron situated on a hill, as it is said (Numbers 13:22) “And they went up into the South and they came unto Hebron” why then does it state that Jacob sent him from the עמק, (the vale, the deep part) of Hebron? But the meaning is that Jacob sent him in consequence of the necessity of bringing into operation the profound (עמוקה) thought of the righteous man who was buried in Hebron (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayera 22) — in order that there might be fulfilled that which was spoken to Abraham when the Covenant was made ‘between the parts” (cf. 15:13), “thy seed shall be a stranger etc.”
1. הסבר את הרעיון הכלול בדברי המדרש המובאים ברש"י!
2. השווה דבריו אלה לדבריו בראשית י"ג י"א:
ד"ה מקדם: מאצל אברם, והלך לו למערבו של אברם, נמצא נוסע ממזרח למערב. ומדרש אגדה הסיע עצמו מקדמונו של עולם. אמר: אי אפשי לא באברם ולא באלוהיו.
וכן לדבריו בדברים ב' כ"ו:
ד"ה ממדבר קדמות: אף על פי שלא ציוני המקום לקרוא לסיחון לשלום, למדתי ממדבר סיני מן התורה שקדמה לעולם. כשבא הקדוש ברוך הוא ליתנה לישראל, חזר אותה על עשו וישמעאל, וגלוי לפניו שלא יקבלוה, ואף על פי כן פתח להם בשלום. אף אני קידמתי את סיחון בדברי שלום. דבר אחר: "ממדבר קדמות", ממך למדתי שקדמת לעולם [בדברים]. יכול היית לשלוח ברק אחד ולשרוף את המצריים, אלא שלחתני מן המדבר אל פרעה לאמר (שמות ה' א') "שלח את עמי", במתון.
ממדבר קדמות [AND I SENT MESSENGERS] FROM THE WILDERNESS OF KEDEMOTH — Although the Omnipresent had not commanded me to proclaim peace unto Sihon I learnt to do so from what happened in the wilderness of Sinai, i.e. from an incident that relates to the Torah which pre-existed (קדמה) the world. For when the Holy One, blessed be He, was about to give it (the Torah) to Israel, he took it round to Esau and Ishmael. It was manifest before Him that they would not accept it, but yet He opened unto them with peace. Similarly I first approached Sihon with words of peace. — Another explanation of ממדבר קדמות: Moses said to God, "I learnt this from what Thou didst say in the wilderness — from Thee Who wast in existence before (קדמת) the world. Thou couldst have sent one flash of lightning to bum up the Egyptians, but Thou didst send me from the wilderness to Pharaoh, to say gently, (Exodus 5:1) "Let my people go” (Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 764:27).
מהי הדרך הפרשנית, בה הלך בשלושת פירושיו אלה?
ד. "וימצאהו איש..."
פסוק ט"ו
" וַיִּמְצָאֵהוּ אִישׁ וְהִנֵּה תֹעֶה בַּשָּׂדֶה..."
ד"ה וימצאהו איש: זה גבריאל [שנאמר (דניאל ט' כ"א) "והאיש גבריאל"].
וימצאהו איש AND A MAN FOUND HIM — This was the angel Gabriel (Genesis Rabbah 84:14) as it is said, (Daniel 10:21) and the man (והאיש) Gabriel” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayera 22).
רמב"ן:
וימצאהו איש והנה תועה בשדה: יאמר כי הוא תועה מן הדרך ולא היה יודע אנה ילך, ונכנס בשדה, כי במקום המרעה היה מבקש אותם. ויאריך הכתוב בזה, להגיד כי סיבות רבות באו אליו, שהיה ראוי לחזור לו, אבל הכל סבל לכבוד אביו. ולהודיענו עוד, כי הגזרה אמת והחריצות שקר, כי זימן לו הקדוש ברוך הוא מורה דרך שלא מדעתו להביאו בידם. ולזה נתכוונו רבותינו (בראשית רבה פ"ד י"ד) באומרם כי האישים האלה הם מלאכים, שלא על חינם היה כל הסיפור הזה, להודיענו כי עצת ה' היא תקום.
דרך הפשט, אחד מעוברי דרך.
1. מי היה "האיש" לדעת שלושת המפרשים הנ"ל?
2. מצא בפסוקים סעד לדעת חז"ל המובאת בדברי רש"י.
ד"ה ויאכלו: ... והנה פירוש הפרשה הזאת, אחרי שאמר כי בעצם היום הזה נימול אברהם (לעיל י"ז כ"ו), אמר שנראה אליו ה' בהיותו חולה במילתו, יושב ומתקרר בפתח אוהלו מפני חום היום אשר יחלישנו, והזכיר זה להודיע שלא היה מתכוין לנבואה, לא נופל על פניו ולא מתפלל, ואף על פי כן באה אליו המראה הזאת. "באלוני ממרא": להודיע המקום אשר בו נימול. וזה גילוי השכינה אליו למעלה וכבוד לו, כעניין שבא במשכן "ויצאו ויברכו את העם וירא כבוד ה' אל כל העם" (ויקרא ט' כ"ג), כי מפני השתדלותם במצות המשכן זכו לראיית השכינה. ואין גילוי השכינה כאן וכאן לצוות להם מצוה או לדיבור כלל, אלא גמול המצוה הנעשית כבר, ולהודיע כי רצה האלהים את מעשיהם, כעניין שנאמר (תהלים י"ז ט"ו) "אני בצדק אחזה פניך אשבעה בהקיץ תמונתך". וכן ביעקב אמר (להלן ל"ב ב') "ויפגעו בו מלאכי אלוהים", ואין שם דיבור ולא שחידשו בו דבר, רק שזכה לראיית מלאכי עליון, וידע כי מעשיו רצויים. וכן היה לאברהם בראיית השכינה זכות והבטחה. וכן אמרו (מכילתא שירתא ג') ביורדי הים, שאמרו "זה אלי ואנוהו" - ראתה שפחה על הים מה שלא ראה יחזקאל הנביא, זכות להם בעת הנס הגדול שהאמינו בה' ובמשה עבדו. ופעמים יבוא בשעת הקצף "ויאמרו כל העדה לרגום אותם באבנים וכבוד ה' נראה באהל מועד אל כל בני ישראל" (במדבר י"ד י'), ויהיה זה להגן על עבדיו הצדיקים ולכבודם. ואל תחוש להפסק הפרשה, כי העניין מחובר, ולכן אמר "וירא אליו" ולא אמר "וירא ה' אל אברהם". אבל בפרשה רצה לסדר כבוד הנעשה לו בעת שעשה המילה, ואמר כי נגלית עליו השכינה, ושלח אליו מלאכיו לבשר את אשתו וגם להציל לוט אחיו בעבורו, כי אברהם נתבשר בבן מפי השכינה כבר, ושרה מפי המלאך שדבר עם אברהם כדי שתשמע שרה, כמו שאמר "ושרה שומעת". וזו כוונתם שאמרו (סוטה י"ד א') לבקר את החולה, שלא היה לדיבור אלא לכבוד לו.)
And He appeared to him: The language of Rashi - to visit the sick man. Rabbi Hama the son of Hanina said, "It was the third day after his circumcision and the Holy One, blessed be He, came and inquired [about the state of his health]." "And behold, three men came" - the angels that came to him with the appearance of men were three - one to announce to Sarah [the birth of a son], one to cure Abraham and one to overthrow Sedom - and Raphael, who healed Avraham, went from them to save Lot, as this is not two assignments, because it was a different place and he was commanded afterwards or [because] they are both about saving (and therefore really one). "And they ate" - they appeared to be eating. And in the book, Guide for the Perplexed 2:4, it is said that the section is [presented in the style of] the general [followed] by the details: the verse first states that God appeared to him in prophetic visions and [then] how this prophetic vision was - that he lifted up his eyes in a vision and behold, three men were standing upon him. "And he said, 'If I have found favor in your eyes'" - this is the recounting of what he said in a prophetic vision to one of them, to the greatest one of them. And if in the vision the only thing that appeared was just three men eating meat, how could it state, "And God appeared to him?" As behold, God did not appear to him, not in a vision and not in thought. And it is not found like this in all of the prophecies. And behold, according to his words, Sarah did not knead cakes and Avraham did not fix the young cow, and also Sarah did not laugh. [Rather,] everything was a vision. And, if so, this dream came 'with much detail' like the false dreams, as what is the point in showing him all of this? And [the Guide there] also said about the matter of "and a man wrestled with him" (Genesis 32:25), that it was all a prophetic vision. And [if so,] I don't know why he limped on his thigh when he woke up, and why he said (Genesis 32:31), "For I have seen God face to face and He saved my soul"; as the prophets did not fear that they would die because of prophetic visions. And he already saw a greater and more glorious vision than this - as he even saw the glorious God many times in a prophetic vision (see further Genesis 28:13 and 31:3). And behold, according to his opinion, this would require [us] to say this in the matter of Lot - that the angels did not come to his house and he did not bake for them matsot and [that] they ate, but [rather] the whole thing was a vision. [But] how were the evil and sinful people of Sedom prophets? As [otherwise], who told them that people came to his house? And if it was all prophetic visions of Lot, [then] "and the angels pressed, etc. 'Get up, take your wife'" (Genesis 19:15), "and he said, 'escape for your life'"(Genesis 19:17), and "Behold, I have lifted up your face" (Genesis 19:21) and the whole section would be a vision. And Lot would have stayed in Sedom and [Rambam] would think that the acts would have been done on their own, and the statements in each and every thing were a vision. And these things contradict Scripture - it is forbidden to hear them, and even to believe them. And in truth, in all places in Scripture where the seeing of an angel or the word of an angel is mentioned, it is in a vision or in a dream - as the senses cannot perceive angels - but not prophetic visions. As one who [merely] perceives to see an angel or his word is not a prophet; as the matter is not as the teacher defines (Guide for the Perplexed 2:34, Mishneh Torah, Foundations of the Torah 7:6), that the prophecy of every prophet besides Moshe, our teacher, was through an angel. And they have already said about Daniel (Megilah 3a), "They are better than he, as they were prophets and he was not a prophet." And so his book was not written together with the books of the Prophets, because his matter was with [the angel,] Gavriel - even though he appeared to him and spoke to him in a waking state, as it is stated in the vision of the Second Temple (Daniel 9:21), "And I was still speaking in prayer and the man, Gavriel." And so [too], the vision of the final salvation was in a waking state, in his walking with his fellows "alongside the river" (Daniel 10:4). And [likewise] Hagar the Egyptian was not in the category of prophetesses, but it is also clear that her matter was not that of a bat kol (a sub-prophetic heavenly voice), as the teacher said (Guide for the Perplexed 2:34). And the verse distinguished between the prophecy of Moshe, our teacher, and the prophecy of the patriarchs, as it states (Exodus 6:3), "And I appeared to Avraham, to Yitschak and to Yaakov as God Almighty" - and this is one of the holy names of the Creator; it is not the appellation of an angel. And our rabbis also learned about the difference between them and said (Vayikra Rabbah 12:11), "What is [the difference] between Moshe and all the prophets? Our rabbis said, 'All of the prophets saw through a lens that is not polished, such that it is written (Hoshea 12:11), "and I increased the vision and through the prophets I appeared"; And Moshe saw through a polished lens, such that it is written (Numbers 12:8), "the picture of God does he see,"'" as it is explained in Vayikra Rabbah and in other places (Yevamot 49b). And in no place did they [attribute] their prophecies to an angel. And do not be astonished because it is written (I Kings 13:18), "I am also a prophet like you and an angel spoke to me with the word of the Lord, saying"; as its explanation is "I am also a prophet like you, and I know that the angel who spoke to me was with the word of the Lord." And this is one of the levels of the levels of prophecy, as the man of God [also] said (I Kings 13:9), "As so did He command me with the word of the Lord" and (I Kings 13:17) "as the word was to me in the word of the Lord." And our rabbis already said (Bemidbar Rabbah 20:3) about the matter of Bilaam who said, "And now if it is bad in your eyes" (Numbers 22:34), "I did not go until the Holy One, blessed be He, said to me, 'get up, go with them' (Numbers 22:20), and you say that I should go back? Thus is His practice - did He not say thus to Avraham, to sacrifice his son, and afterwards, 'and the angel of the Lord called to Avraham a second time [...] And he said, "do not send your hand upon the youth"' (Genesis 22:11-12). He is accustomed to saying a thing and that an angel take it back, etc." Behold, the sages are bringing [it] up to say that the first prophecy that mentions God is not equal to the second prophecy, about which it says that it is through an angel. But rather, this is the way of prophets, that He will command [them] with a prophecy, and revoke the commandment through an angel, since the prophet knows that [the latter] is the word of the Lord. And at the beginning of Vayikra Rabbah 1:9, they said, "'And He called to Moshe' (Leviticus 1:1), not like Avraham. With Avraham it is written (Genesis 22:15), 'And the angel of the Lord called to Avraham a second time from the Heavens' - the angel calls and the [Divine] speech speaks. However, here the Holy One, blessed be He, says, 'I am the caller and I am the speaker'"; which is to say that Avraham did not perceive the prophecy until he prepared his soul first with the perception of the angel, and he [then] went up from that level to the level of prophetic speech. But Moshe was prepared for prophecy at all times and in all places. The sages saw fit to inform us [here] that the seeing of the angel is not prophecy and that those that see angels and speak with them are not in the category of prophets, as I mentioned with Daniel. [Rather], it is a vision called uncovering of the eyes, as in "And the Lord uncovered the eyes of Bilaam and he saw the angel of the Lord" (Numbers 22:31), and "And Elisha prayed and said, 'O Lord, uncover his eyes and he shall see" (II Kings 6:17). But in a place where it mentions the angels with the name, 'people,' like the matter of this section and in the section with Lot, and so [too], "and a man wrestled with him" (Genesis 32:25), and so [too], "And a man found him" (Genesis 37:15) - according to the opinion of our rabbis (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 2), it is the glory that is created with the angels - that is called by those who know, 'a garment - that is perceived by eyes of flesh, by those of pure souls; like the pious ones and the students of the prophets. And I cannot explain [it]. And about the place where you find in it seeing of the Lord and the word of the angel, or seeing of the angel and the word of the Lord, as it is written in the words of Moshe at the beginning of his prophecy (Exodus 3:2-4) and in the words of Zechariah 3:1-2, I will still reveal the words of the living God with hints (see Ramban on Exodus 3:2). And about "and they ate," the sages said (Bereshit Rabbah 48:14), "it is removed, one at a time." And the matter of removal you will understand from the matter of Manoach (Judges 13:19), if you merit it. And behold, the explanation of this section is that after it stated (Genesis 17:26), "On that very day was Avraham circumcised," it stated that God appeared to him in his being sick from his circumcision, sitting and cooling off at the opening of his tent because of the heat of the day, which weakened him; and it mentioned this to inform that he was not intending prophecy - he did not fall on his face and he did not pray - and nonetheless, the vision came to him. At the terebinths of Mamre: this is to inform of the place that he was circumcised. Now this revelation of the Shechinah came to him as a mark of distinction and honor for him,
ה. "נסעו מז..נלכה דתינה" - שאלות ברש"י
"נָסְעוּ מִזֶּה כִּי שָׁמַעְתִּי אֹמְרִים נֵלְכָה דֹּתָיְנָה"
And the man said: ‘They are departed hence; for I heard them say: Let us go to Dothan.’ And Joseph went after his brethren, and found them in Dothan.
ד"ה נסעו מזה: הסיעו עצמן מן האחוה.
נסעו מזה THEY HAVE JOURNEYED HENCE — they have departed from all feeling of brotherhood.
מה הניעוֹ להוציא את המילים ממשמעותן?
ד"ה נלכה דותינה: לבקש לך נכלי דתות שימיתוך בהם. ולפי פשוטו שם מקום הוא, ואין מקרא יוצא מדי פשוטו.
נלכה דתינה LET US GO TO DOTHAN — “let us go to seek some legal (דתות) pretexts” to put you to death. According to the literal sense, however, it is the name of place, and Scripture never really loses its literal sense (Shabbat 63a).
מה הניעו להוציא את המילים ממשמעותן בפירושו הראשון?
ו. "ויתנכל.."
"וַיִּתְנַכְּלוּ אֹתוֹ לַהֲמִיתוֹ"
And they saw him afar off, and before he came near unto them, they conspired against him to slay him.
ד"ה ויתנכלו: נתמלאו נכלים וערמומיות: ד"ה אֹתו: כמו אִתו, עמו, כלומר אליו.
ויתנכלו AND THEY CONSPIRED — The Hithpael form denotes that they became filled with plots and craft. אֹתוֹ is here the same as אִתּוֹ which means “with him” — meaning אליו: they became filled with plots and craft directed towards him (אליו).
ד"ה ויתפרקו: לשון פריקת משא, כשנטלום מאוזניהם נמצאו הם מפורקים מנזמיהם, דישקריי"ר בלעז (לפרוק). ד"ה את נזמי: כמו מנזמי, כמו (שמות ט' כ"ט) "כצאתי את העיר", מן העיר.
ויתפרקו AND [ALL THE PEOPLE] BRAKE OFF — פרק is a term denoting “unloading a burden”. Being a transitive verb one would expect ויפרקו instead of the reflexive form ויפרקו but when they took them (the pendants) off their ears they themselves became unloaded from their pendants and therefore ויתפרקו “they unloaded themselves”, is the appropriate word to use; décharger in old French, English discharge. את נזמי is the same as מנזמי, (they unloaded themselves from their pendants), (את having the same meaning as מן), similar to (Exodus 9:29) “As soon as I am gone out את העיר”, which means מן העיר, from the city.
ד"ה והתנחלתם אותם: החזיקו בהם לנחלה לצורך בניכם אחריכם. ולא ייתכן לפרש הנחילום לבניכם, שאם כן היה לו לכתוב והנחלתם אותם לבניכם. והתנחלתם כמו והתחזקתם.
והתנחלתם אתם לבניכם means, you may hold them as your possession, לבניכם אחריכם, for the benefit of your children after you. It would not, however, be correct to give the word והתנחלתם the meaning: “leave them as an inheritance to your children”, for if this were intended it should have written: והנחלתם אותם לבניכם (the Hiphil), but והתנחלתם (which is the Hithpael form) is equivalent to והתחזקתם “you may hold them as your possession”.
1. מה קשה לו בכל שלושת המקומות, ומה תיקן בדבריו?
2. באר את לשון רש"י: למה אמר "אותו כמו אתו" ואחר כך ממשיך "עמו כלומר אליו"?
במה שונה ספורנו (ד"ה ויתנכלו) מרש"י, ראב"ע ורשב"ם, ומה הניעו לפרש כך?
הנה לשון נכל יורה על המצאה להרע, כמו "אשר ניכלו לכם". אמר שחשבו את יוסף בלבם נוכל להמית, ושבא אליהם לא לדרוש שלומם אלא למצוא עליהם עלילה או להחטיאם, כדי שיקללם אביהם או יענישם האל יתברך ויישאר הוא לבדו ברוך מבנים. ולשון התפעל יורה על ציור הדבר בנפש, כמו "אתה מתנקש בנפשי" - מצייר בלבבך מוקש על נפשי. ולשון להמיתו שימית הוא את אחיו, כמו "לעשותכם אותם", "לעברך בברית". ובזה הודיע מה היה למו בהיות כולם צדיקים גמורים, עד שהיו שמותם לפני ה' לזיכרון איך נועדו לב יחדו להרוג את אחיהם או למכרו ולא ניחמו על הרעה, כי גם כשאמרו "אבל אשמים אנחנו על אחינו", לא אמרו שתהיה אשמתם על מכירתו או מיתתו, אלא על אכזריותם בהתחננו. והנה הגיד הכתוב כי ציירו בלבם וחשבו את יוסף לנוכל ומתנקש בנפשם להמיתם בעולם הזה או בעולם הבא או בשניהם והתורה אמרה: הבא להרגך וכו'.
ויתנכלו אותו להמיתו, the root נכל always means to plan to do something evil. One example of the use of this word in this sense is found in Numbers 25,18 אשר נכלו אתכם, “who plotted against you.” The brothers had entertained the thought of causing Joseph’s death while they saw him from a distance. They did not think that he had come to make peace with them but that he was spying on them to either cause them to commit a sin which would bring their father’s curses on them or which would cause G’d to punish them. As a result of this, Joseph imagined he alone would survive as blessed of all of Yaakov’s sons. The expression ויתנכל in the reflexive conjugation described what a person fantasizes about in his mind, what imaginary scenarios he entertains in his head. You find the expression in Samuel I 28,9 אתה מתנקש בנפשי, “(the witch of Endor speaking to King Sha-ul who had disguised himself) “you are trying to trap me into forfeiting my life, trying to get me killed! The word להמיתו in our verse refers to Joseph causing the death of his brothers. [While it is true that the word is separated from the word אותו preceding it by the tone sign tipcha which refers to what came before, in the opinion of this Editor it should then have read להמיתם to cause their death,” instead of “to cause his death.” Ed.] We find the expression used in a similar sense in Deuteronomy 4,14 לעשותכם אותם, “so that you will fulfill them.” [the author describes the function of the transitive conjugation of the root נכל and עשה respectively, not any similarity of the subject matter under discussion in the two verses mentioned. Ed.] If we understand the thoughts described in our verse in this vein, we can solve the riddle of how the stones on the breastplate of the High Priest could have been inscribed with the names of all these brothers, if instead of being as righteous as such models ought to have been in order to serve as inspiration for us, they had indeed harboured such murderous thoughts without justification. Even if the brothers’ intention to sell Joseph had been based on mere hatred, how could such brothers qualify as inspiration for the Jewish people of the breastplate of the High Priest? We must therefore endeavour to understand the collective feelings of the brothers as being that they actually felt themselves threatened by Joseph’s aspirations and they were convinced that when one feels threatened one is entitled or even obliged to take measures to neutralise the source of the danger. This is even a halachic principle clearly spelled out in Sanhedrin 72. If we needed any proof for the truth of the brothers’ feelings, it is best provided by their conversation among themselves while in jail (42,21) when they felt that G’d had repaid them for their misdeeds. They did not regret selling Joseph, nor even having planned to kill him; the only thing they regretted and considered themselves guilty of was that they had not responded to Joseph’s pleas for mercy. In other words, even over 20 years after the event they were still convinced that Joseph had posed the sort of threat to their existence which entitled them to take extreme defensive action against him.
ויתנכלו: חשבו מחשבה רעה. וכן "וארור נוכל" (מלאכי א' י"ד).
ויתנכלו אותו: נתמלאו נכליות וערמומיות עליו, כמו "וארור נוכל", "בנכליהם אשר ניכלו".
ויתנכלו אותו, they were full of devious and nefarious thoughts. The word occurs in this sense in Maleachi 1,24: וארור נוכל, “cursed the person who plots deviously.”
ז. דברי ראובן
פסוקים כ"א- כ"ב
"וַיִּשְׁמַע רְאוּבֵן וַיַּצִּלֵהוּ מִיָּדָם וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא נַכֶּנּוּ נָפֶשׁ וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם רְאוּבֵן אַל תִּשְׁפְּכוּ דָם הַשְׁלִיכוּ אֹתוֹ אֶל הַבּוֹר הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר בַּמִּדְבָּר וְיָד אַל תִּשְׁלְחוּ בוֹ לְמַעַן הַצִּיל אֹתוֹ מִיָּדָם לַהֲשִׁיבוֹ אֶל אָבִיו"
1. באר את כפל המילה "ויאמר" (עיין גיליון ויצא תש"ה א2).
ד"ה אל תשפכו דם: אמר להם, הנה הייתי סובל לכם כאשר חשבתם להמית אותו בנכליכם, כי גם אני שנאתיו ורציתי שיומת על ידי אחרים, אבל אתם אל תהיו שופכים דם בידיכם, חלילה לכם. והכונה לראובן בכל זה היתה להצילו להשיבו אל אביו. והכתוב סיפר מה שאמר להם ראובן ושמעו אליו, אבל דברים אחרים אמר להם מתחילה, שלא קיבלו ממנו, כמו שאמר להם (להלן מ"ב כ"ב) הלא דיברתי אליכם לאמר אל תחטאו בילד ולא שמעתם, וכאשר ראה שלא שמעו לעזבו אמר להם, אם כן אל תשפכו דם בידיכם. ולא אמר 'דמו', כי הראה עצמו שלא יאמר כן לאהבתו, רק שלא יהיו שופכים דם, לימד אותם שאין עונש הגורם כעונש השופך דם בידיו.
The pit was empty. If it had contained water they would not have cast him in, since they had already resolved not to kill him.
מה הן השאלות השונות המתורצות בדבריו?
וטעם "אל הבור הזה אשר במדבר": לאמר, הנה הבור הזה עמוק, ולא יוכל לצאת הימנו והוא במדבר, ואם יצעק אין מושיע לו כי אין עובר עליו. וסיפר הכתוב כי היה ריק ואין בו מים, שאם היה בו מים לא יטביעו אותו שכבר נמנעו משפוך דמו. וכתב רש"י ממשמע שנאמר "והבור ריק", אינני יודע שאין בו מים, מה תלמוד לומר "אין בו מים", מים אין בו, אבל נחשים ועקרבים יש בו. לשון רש"י מדברי רבותינו (שבת כ"ב א'). ואם כן היו נחשים ועקרבים בחורי הבור, או שהיה עמוק, ולא ידעו בהם, שאילו היו רואים אותם ולא יזיקו ליוסף, היה הדבר ברור להם שנעשה לו נס גדול ושהוא צדיק גמור, וידעו כי זכותו תצילנו מכל רע, ואיך יגעו במשיח ה' אשר הוא חפץ בו ומצילו, וכעניין שנאמר (דניאל ו' כ"ג) "אלוהי שלח מלאכה וסגר פום אריותא ולא חבלוני כל קבל די קדמוהי זכו השתכחת לי". אבל הם לא ידעו בדבר. ועל דרך הפשט יאמר "והבור ריק אין בו מים" כלל, שגם אם היו בו מים מעט ייקרא ריק, וכן "כי מת אתה ולא תחיה" (מלכים ב' כ' א') כלל בשום פנים, והכל ביאור וחיזוק.
The pit was empty. If it had contained water they would not have cast him in, since they had already resolved not to kill him.
מה הן שתי השאלות השונות המתורצות בדבריו?
ח. "למען הציל"

"וַיֹּאמֶר

אֲלֵהֶם רְאוּבֵן אַל תִּשְׁפְּכוּ דָם הַשְׁלִיכוּ אֹתוֹ אֶל הַבּוֹר הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר בַּמִּדְבָּר וְיָד אַל תִּשְׁלְחוּ בוֹ לְמַעַן הַצִּיל אֹתוֹ מִיָּדָם לַהֲשִׁיבוֹ אֶל אָבִיו"
ד"ה למען הציל: רוח הקודש מעידה על ראובן, שלא אמר זאת אלא להציל אותו, שיבוא הוא ויעלנו משם, אמר: אני בכור וגדול שבכולן, לא ייתלה הסירחון אלא בי.
למען הציל אתו THAT HE MIGHT DELIVER HIM [OUT OF THEIR HAND] — The Holy Spirit (Scripture) bears witness for Reuben that he said this only for the purpose of saving his brother — that he would come afterwards and draw him up from there. He thought, “I am the first-born and the chief among them, and blame will attach to no one but myself” (Genesis Rabbah 84:15).
מה פירוש "רוח הקודש" בדבריו?
לא שמעתי למה הוצרך רש"י לומר זה, כי ידוע הוא מעצמו, שאין אלה דברי ראובן!!
נמק את פליאת הרא"ם בשני נימוקים: מבחינת התוכן ומבחינה תחבירית.
אין הכתוב רוצה לומר שה' עשה זאת שיאמר ראובן כן, כדי להציל אותו, אבל הוא (ראובן) לא כיוון לדבר זה, (וכל כוונתו הייתה רק שלא ישפכו דם בידיהם) – דזה לא יתכן, שאם כן לא היה הכתוב אומר "להשיבו אל אביו", דהא ה' יתברך הביא אביו אליו – אלא הכתוב רוצה לומר שהייתה זו כוונת ראובן להשיבו אל אביו.
דברי דוד, (ר' דוד הלוי בעל טורי זהב לשולחן ערוך שט"ו-תכ"ז):
ממשמעות הכתוב, שלא להצלה אמיתית נתכוון, רק להסיר תלונת אביו, ואם כן הוא נגד כבוד ראובן, לזה אמר רש"י דבאמת הוא נגד כבודו, ורוח הקודש מספר דבר זה, שלא נתכוון רק שלא ייתלה הסירחון בו.
מה ההבדל העקרוני בין שתי התשובות הנ"ל, הניתנות לשאלת הרא"ם?