1. Mikeitz Sources -- more than 100 meforshim on parashas Miketz and its haftorah, as well as links by aliyah and perek to an online Mikraos Gedolos.
   
   
2. Why in the world did Yosef compel the Egyptians to circumcise themselves? Explaining Rashi's intent in the midrash -- that he regards it as a conversion of sorts.
   
   
3. Ibn Caspi, and the overwhelming authority of nikkud, pt i -- I saw two interesting comments in Ibn Caspi on Mikeitz which reference how nikkud determines meaning, such that of course one cannot argue on nikkud. Because this was encoded by the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah based on the received tradition from Moshe Rabbenu. Compare with the approach of other meforshim, as discussed by Shadal in his Vikuach. Here, I analyze one of the two comments. I wonder at the particular applications he gives, for his nikkud appears different from ournikkud. Then, I turn to consider his parallel case in Kohelet, where he is certainly right as to the meaning of the nikkud, even as it truly seems that the meaning of the pasuk should be otherwise.
   
   
4. Ibn Caspi and nikkud, pt ii -- In a previous post on Miketz, I discussed Ibn Caspi on nikkud, and how he felt that a particularkamatz on a word indicated the position of the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah. Though we do not have that particular kamatz, this is an important assertion, especially when combined with what we have in this post, that the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah got this meaning from Moshe. And combine that with what we saw in an earlier comment regarding trup, that since it reflects original intent, it makes no sense to argue with it.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Here, we consider Ibn Caspi's comment about the kamatz in hanimtza, whether it is dispositive, and whether it really means to preclude the first person plural verb.
   
   
   
   
5. My remarks at the recent bris, which pertain to Miketz, and the common of circumcision vs. the special meaning of bris milah.

1. In the course of Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah, Shadal claims that Ibn Ezra and Rashbam go against the trup in explaining a pasuk in parshat Miketz, about all the countries coming to Egypt, to Yosef, to buy grain. Perhaps another post is in order exploring just how this goes against the trup.
   
   
2. Miketz sources -- all osrts of sources for studying this week's Torah portion. Including mikraos gedolos and many meforshim you might not otherwise have access to.
   
   
3. Parsha points on Miketz -- all in one paragraph; the daled-resh switchoff; the matching text to biladay; and at length, parallels with the Haftara, of Shlomo Hamelech's dream.
   
   
4. The Miketz - Daniel parallel -- first Daniel borrowing theme and language from Miketz, and then Chazal borrowing material from Daniel to supplement the midrashic narrative of Miketz.
   

1. What Is Bothering Joshy? רְדוּ-שָׁמָּה -- How the "What is Bothering Rashi?" approach can go wrong. How focusing on the textual cues as what is quote unquote bothering Rashi can be misleading. And how a better question is "What is Motivating Rashi?"  Indeed, in the particular devar I take apart, there are a few assertions, based on this approach, which turn out simply not to be so.

1. The Goblet and the Terafim -- Thematic parallels between the story of Binyamin and the goblet, and Rachel and the terafim. And how Binyamin is perhaps involved in each case.
   
   
2. Why Whole Years? Simply put, so that it will be Pharaoh's birthday once again.
   
   
3. Put In A Prison, Taken From A Pit -- Even though Yosef is put into prison, he is taken from a bor, a pit. Just as at the start he is placed in a pit by his brothers. I suggest here that is deliberate. Each time he is removed from the pit, he is moved by a hidden Divine hand toward the position of royal vizier. We can collapse the middle section, and it is almost as if the events in Potifar's house didn't happen. This hidden Divine hand is made explicit in parshat Vayechi. Also, the role of dreams in advancing the narrative is a mark of the hidden Divine hand. This happens as well in Megillat Esther, as I write elsewhere.
   
   
4. Bemidbar: Lift Up The Heads (2005) And the dual meaning. And Bemidbar has a third use of the term.

1. Yosef the Democrat Does he take a fifth? Or does he organize?
   
   
2. Some Pure Speculation (on chronology) (2003) -- and then rejection of the speculation
   
   
3. Vayigash: Are Reuven's Children Tribbles? (2004) How do Reuven's children double in number. A suggestion about the timing of the census.
   
   
4. Ki Teitzei: Eshet Yefat To`ar As Progressive Feminist Legislation (2003) -- in which I note the parallels between the way Yosef is treated when taken out of prison and the way the Yefat To`ar is treated. The relevant excerpt:
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

   First, they removed him from the pit, equivalent to taking the woman out of the captives quarters and into the man's house. Then, he shaved. I would say not shaved exactly, but sheared. He cut his hair and became hygenic. Similarly, the beautiful captive gets to cut her hair which surely became unkempt during captivity. Finally, he changed from his prison clother. Similarly, the female captive gets to change into fresh garments, which, being a captive she probably did not get much opportunity to do.
   

   
   
   
   
   
   
   

Summary: In a previous post on Miketz, I discussed Ibn Caspi on nikkud, and how he felt that a particular kamatz on a word indicated the position of the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah. Though we do not have that particular kamatz, this is an important assertion, especially when combined with what we have in this post, that the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah got this meaning from Moshe. And combine that with what we saw in an earlier comment regarding trup, that since it reflects original intent, it makes no sense to argue with it.

So I read in the news that some hotheads vandalized a mosque in Shechem, and various rabbis intended to visit the mosque and smooth things over. And that Rabbi Metzger condemned the mosque attack:

Joining many national leaders, Rav Metzger stated “this is not our way”, feeling the need to condemn the action and even apologize publically, on the air, to an Islamic official hosted by the radio’s host, Razi Barkai.

It is with great joy and gratitude to Hashem that we welcome our son, [Baby], into the bris of Avraham Avinu.

While looking over this week's parsha, I came across an interesting midrash Tanchuma, cited by Rashi. The years of famine hit Egypt, and we read {Bereishit 41}:

נה  וַתִּרְעַב כָּל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, וַיִּצְעַק הָעָם אֶל-פַּרְעֹה לַלָּחֶם; וַיֹּאמֶר פַּרְעֹה לְכָל-מִצְרַיִם לְכוּ אֶל-יוֹסֵף, אֲשֶׁר-יֹאמַר לָכֶם תַּעֲשׂוּ.

55 And when all the land of Egypt was famished, the people cried to Pharaoh for bread; and Pharaoh said unto all the Egyptians: 'Go unto Joseph; what he saith to you, do.'

What is meant by asher yomar lachem taasu? Rashi writes:

what he tells you, do: Since Joseph had ordered them to circumcise themselves, and when they came to Pharaoh and said, “This is what he said to us,” he (Pharaoh) said to them, “Why didn’t you gather grain? Didn’t he announce to you that years of famine were coming?” They replied, “We gathered much, but it rotted.” He (Pharaoh) replied,“If so, do whatever he tells you. He issued a decree upon the grain, and it rotted. What if he issues a decree upon us and we die?” - [from Mid. Tanchuma Mikeitz 7, Gen. Rabbah 91:5]

אשר יאמר לכם תעשו: לפי שהיה יוסף אומר להם שימולו, וכשבאו אצל פרעה ואומרים כך הוא אומר לנו, אמר להם למה לא צברתם בר, והלא הכריז לכם ששני הרעב באים, אמרו לו אספנו הרבה והרקיבה, אמר להם אם כן כל אשר יאמר לכם תעשו, הרי גזר על התבואה והרקיבה, מה אם יגזור עלינו ונמות:

Now, this is a bit strange. What benefit could there be for the Egyptians to be circumcised? Does this mean kabbalas ol mitzvos? Something else? This midrash means what it means, either on a surface or deeper level, but regardless, the midrash entertains the idea that Yosef ordered circumcision and the Egyptians carried it out.

We see the idea of non-Jewish people being circumcised even outside of midrash, in the text of Tanach itself. In the 9th perek of sefer Yirmiyah,

כד  הִנֵּה יָמִים בָּאִים, נְאֻם-ה', וּפָקַדְתִּי, עַל-כָּל-מוּל בְּעָרְלָה.	24 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will punish all them that are circumcised in their uncircumcision:
כה  עַל-מִצְרַיִם וְעַל-יְהוּדָה, וְעַל-אֱדוֹם וְעַל-בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן וְעַל-מוֹאָב, וְעַל כָּל-קְצוּצֵי פֵאָה, הַיֹּשְׁבִים בַּמִּדְבָּר--כִּי כָל-הַגּוֹיִם עֲרֵלִים, וְכָל-בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל עַרְלֵי-לֵב.  {פ}	25 Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that have the corners of their hair polled, that dwell in the wilderness; for all the nations are uncircumcised, but all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart. {P}

The implication of this, according to Shadal, Shmuel David Luzzato, is that various groups are physically circumcised, but they are uncircumcised in the heart. And that this group includes, among others, the Egyptians. But if all these nations regularly circumcised themselves, why it berit milah considered this a special mitzvah for Jews, which identifies someone as a Jewish person?

We might suggest different answers. For example, if according to the midrash, they got it from us! So it is still our identifying mark. Shadal, on the other hand, maintains that the Egyptians did not get this practice from Avraham Avinu. Rather, he claims that we got it from the Egyptians! That it was an Egyptian practice among their priests, and Hashem commanded Avraham Avinu to practice milah because of the idea that Israel is a mamlechet kohanim vegoy kadosh. Thus, that it was an adopted practice, adapted to its own unique meaning within Judaism -- that in Judaism, it is not the priests who have a special connection to and covenant with Hashem, but rather every Jew has this special relationship and covenant.

And, I would add, that is perhaps the idea being brought forth in the pasuk in Yirmeyah. The physical brit milah is extremely important, as a mitzvah, as a sign of Jewish identity. But the mere physical aspect is not sufficient. We are also supposed to maintain and develop this special connection with Hashem. As we hear in sefer Devarim {10:16}:

טז  וּמַלְתֶּם, אֵת עָרְלַת לְבַבְכֶם; וְעָרְפְּכֶם--לֹא תַקְשׁוּ, עוֹד.

16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Not just ancient Egyptians, but many Americans today have circumcision as medical procedure. So, what makes our bris milah special?

In the hospital, the day after Baby was born, the pediatrician came to congratulate us on Baby's birth and tell us how Baby was doing. At one point he asked whether we intended to have him circumcised in the hospital. Racheli told him that we were not, but were planning on having it done as a religious ceremony. At which point he said "Mazal Tov." Obviously, it was clear to the hospital pediatrician that giving our son a bris, as opposed to a mere circumcision, meant that being part of Klal Yisrael is central to who we are.

The difference between our brit milah and a circumcision conducted in the hospital is that ours is a true mark of identity. Not because of the physical mark, but because we do it here, as a mitzvah and part of a kahal. Because we understand that this ceremony is really about וּמַלְתֶּם, אֵת עָרְלַת לְבַבְכֶם, entering into the covenant of Avraham Avinu to maintain a lifelong connection to Hashem.

While on the subject of investing things with meaning, let me explain the thought behind the naming of [Baby]. [NOTE: The explanation of the name here, but edited out.] We selected a name based on some of the midot we hope our son will carry through his life....bimheira veyameinu, amein. 

Finally, Racheli and I would like to thank some of the many people who have helped our baby reach today's spiritual milestone -- and who have helped make the physical milestones less scary. Besides obviously our own parents who have helped us in infinite ways through all of our own milestones, I would particularly like to thank Janet Hershkowitz, who provided incredible emotional support from the time we came into the hospital up until the time she delivered the baby into this world. And I would like to thank Rabbi Paysach Krohn for his work today in bringing the baby into the covenant of Avraham Avinu, just as he did for me, and baby's big brother [Junior]. Now our own work starts to raise him to be a caring and dedicated member of klal yisrael.

Summary: I saw two interesting comments in Ibn Caspi on Mikeitz which reference how nikkud determines meaning, such that of course one cannot argue on nikkud. Because this was encoded by the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah based on the received tradition from Moshe Rabbenu. Compare with the approach of other meforshim, as discussed by Shadal in his Vikuach. Here, I analyze one of the two comments. I wonder at the particular applications he gives, for his nikkud appears different from our nikkud. Then, I turn to consider his parallel case in Kohelet, where he is certainly right as to the meaning of the nikkud, even as it truly seems that the meaning of the pasuk should be otherwise.

Post: I have a particular interest in how the classic meforshim regarded nikkud and trup. Was it received tradition MiSinai, in which case one cannot argue on it, or was it simply a very ancient (and therefore important) commentary / interpretation? Shadal discusses this in his Vikuach, in terms of many of the classic commentators, where he claims that they all reserved the right to argue on both nikkud and trup. But I saw some interesting comments by Ibn Caspi, in which he maintains that trup and nikkud are from the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah, yet based on received tradition from Moshe Rabbenu. And therefore the trup and nikkud are definitive when it comes to peshat. I discussed his position this last week on Vayeishev in terms of tzadeka mimeni, where he appears to say that the lack of disjunctive trup dividing tzadeka mimeni means that the Divine intent in that pasuk is one statement, "she is more righteous than I."

One interesting comment in this realm is as regards an apparent heh heshe'eilah, which he claims is not one at all. In Miketz, in Bereishit 43:6:

ו  וַיֹּאמֶר, יִשְׂרָאֵל, לָמָה הֲרֵעֹתֶם, לִי--לְהַגִּיד לָאִישׁ, הַעוֹד לָכֶם אָח.

6 And Israel said: 'Wherefore dealt ye so ill with me, as to tell the man whether ye had yet a brother?'

Ibn Caspi writes:

ה(ו) העוד לכם אח, אין הה"א בכאן לתמה ושאלה, וכן

ה"א העולה היא למעלה (קהלת ג׳ כ"א), ופרשו לנו זה אנכה״נ כי

•שמו תחתיו קמץ:

haOd lachem ach -- the heh here is not for astonishment and query, and so too the heh of haOlah hi leMaalah (Kohelet 3:21). And the Men of the Great Assembly explained it to us, for they placed under it a kamatz.

Summary: As discussed in a previous post, saying that tzadeka mimeni are two separate statements ("she is righteous; the pregnancy is from me"; or else "the situation is from Me") is at odds with the trup, which has no pause between them. Yet Rashi endorses this as both peshat and midrash. And it appears that so does Ibn Ezra. Here, I give further thought to what could influence this explanation -- the word yakir and the otherwise absence of an admission by Yehuda.


Post: As discussed in the summary, saying that tzadeka mimeni comprises two separate statement appears to go against trup, but is endorsed by both Rashi and perhaps Ibn Ezra. In giving more thought to what could influence this interpretation, I had two ideas.

First off, in the pasuk:

כה  הִוא מוּצֵאת, וְהִיא שָׁלְחָה אֶל-חָמִיהָ לֵאמֹר, לְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר-אֵלֶּה לּוֹ, אָנֹכִי הָרָה; וַתֹּאמֶר, הַכֶּר-נָא--לְמִי הַחֹתֶמֶת וְהַפְּתִילִים וְהַמַּטֶּה, הָאֵלֶּה.	25 When she was brought forth, she sent to her father-in-law, saying: 'By the man, whose these are, am I with child'; and she said: 'Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, and the cords, and the staff.'
כו  וַיַּכֵּר יְהוּדָה, וַיֹּאמֶר צָדְקָה מִמֶּנִּי, כִּי-עַל-כֵּן לֹא-נְתַתִּיהָ, לְשֵׁלָה בְנִי; וְלֹא-יָסַף עוֹד, לְדַעְתָּהּ.	26 And Judah acknowledged them, and said: 'She is more righteous than I; forasmuch as I gave her not to Shelah my son.' And he knew her again no more.

what does vayaker mean? Does it mean that he recognized these signs? Or does it mean that he acknowledged and admitted them? The first is a private recognition, while the second is an overt admission of guilt and that he was the one who had slept with her (or at least could be).

Above, JPS renders it "acknowledged", but Judaica Press has instead "recognized":

Then Judah recognized [them], and he said, "She is right, [it is] from me, because I did not give her to my son Shelah." But he no longer continued to be intimate with her.

I think we see both meanings to this word. In this week's parsha, when they bring Yosef's ketonet pasim, Yaakov recognizes it. (Though he also identifies it as that of his son.) But in parshat Ki Teitzei, ki et habechor ben hasenua yakir, I think it means "acknowledge".

Once it is acknowledgement, we might expect the rest of the pasuk to be the text of the acknowledgement. He says that it is his fault, in not giving her Shela. That is an admission of sorts. But where does he overtly confess that he is the father? Now, I think as a matter of peshat, there was likely this admission of being the father, which is why she was not killed, and why she was tzadeka -- and not that he was saying that she had the right to sleep around because he did not give her Shelah. But the way Rashi reads the text, he explicitly admits this. And so it works out quite well in the narrative.

(As an aside: If this is so, perhaps the acknowledgement should be about the items, rather than the pregnancy.)

2009

1. Vayeshev sources -- links to an online Mikraos Gedolos, plus more than 100 meforshim on the parsha and haftorah. Thus, updated from last year.
   
   
2. Is tzadeka mimeni one statement or two? Pashtanim arguing on midrash. Once again, midrashim vs. many pashtanim about how to explain a specific pasuk. In this instance, it is something that seems midrashic in the first place, whether tzadeka mimeni is one statement, or two separate statements. Onkelos, Targum Pseudo-Yontan, the gemara, Bereishit Rabba, and Rashi all treat it as two separate statements, either both by Yehuda, or the latter by Hashem. But many of the other meforshim explain it otherwise, as a single statement, that she is more righteous than I. And more interesting that pashtanim arguing on midrash is Ibn Caspi's point, that the derash is at odds with the trup, and that since trup is from Anshei Knesset HaGedolah and reflects Hashem's intent, we cannot argue on it.
   
   
3. The Aramaic translation of the bad word -- Shadal on the correct girsa in Onkelos; I think perhaps a good example of lectio difficilior. The proper Aramaic translation of dibatam -- is it dibbehon or tibbehon. But nothing exceptionally innovative here.
   
   
4. Moral lessons from parashat Vayeishev -- Some straightforward lessons about interpersonal relationships, from Ralbag. Some of which are fairly obvious when you just stop and consider the story carefully. Some of it, of course, it a matter of how one parses the Biblical narrative and associated midrashim.

1. Vayeshev sources -- online, by aliyah and perek in Mikraos Gedolos, and by meforshim, at JNUL. And in the comment section, a discussion of Zuleika, wife of Potifar, which will soon be its own post.
   
   
2. Two noteworthy comments about the nature of peshat, and the one of Vayeshev is the famous comment of the Rashbam.
   
   
3. Parallels between the incident of Tamar and Amnon, and parshat Vayeshev. I note a few of them, and there is a more developed discussion in the comment section.
   
   
4. What in the world is kesonnes passim? And how only Yosef and Tamar were tznius. Or not tznius. And then it develops from there. What does it mean that it reached pas yadav?
   
   
5. What sort of Petil did Yehuda give Tamar as surety? And how, after Ramban rejects the idea it was tzitzis, as sacrilegious, Baal HaTurim suggests it was his tefillin. And much more.
   
   
6. Zuleika, the wife of Potiphar, in the Koran and in Sefer HaYashar. And how I think that this particular midrash might be no more than a borrowing from the Koran.
   
   
7. Who was in the pit? A 4-year old take on parshat Vayeshev.
   

1. The appropriately named Er and Onan, and Hevel, and Machlon and Kilyan. What a choice for names!
   
   
2. Bar Kochva as the gilgul of Shela -- from Rav Chaim Vital.
   
   
3. Which Daughters comforted Yaakov? Did he have more than one?
   
   
4. What did the wife of Potifar ask Yosef to do? And the danger of euphemisms in obscuring the actual intent.
   
   
5. Why Mention that Yosef Got Lost? Dramatic tension, no witnesses, plausibility of the story that he was attacked by wild animals.
   
   
6. The Shevatim Keeping The Torah
   and expressing willingness to perform kisui hadam. humor.
   
   
7. Midianites as a Generic Term
   and as it relates to the sale of Yosef.

• Tamar's Scarf in the News
• whether Islamic style headscarves are what ancient harlots wore.

• Reuven's Return
• As repentance. I analyze various aspects and textual cues of this midrash, and how Rashi reinterprets or correctly understands the midrash.
  
• The Chronology of Yehuda's Marriage
• Was Yehuda's marriage subsequent to, or co-occurring with the general timespan of Yosef's sale. This is predicated on the meaning of baEt hahi.

1. Yaakov/Yosef Parallels While in a previous post I mentioned parallels between Yosef and Esav, a midrash highlights many parallels between the lives of Yaakov and Yosef.
   
   
2. Shortsighted Foresight People who see the future via prophecy or astrology, but misapprehend what they see.
   
   
3. Clothes "Make" The Man Twice, Yosef's clothing serves as a mark of identity
   
   
4. Mistaken Identities -- How many times does the theme of mistaken identity come up in Tanach?
   
   
5. Choice Garments and Goat Bits -- Parallels between two sibling rivalries.

1. In Chutzpah! I note that the brothers are shepherding in Shechem, which they had destroyed in the previous parsha. Although Yaakov initially feared a reaction from the neighboring towns, the pasuk (Bereishit 35:5:) tells us that the fear of God was put into the inhabitants of the towns and the hostile reaction did not surface. Here they are, initially shepherding in Shechem, perhaps even the flocks taken as spoils from Shechem, and Yosef has no fear to go to Shechem alone to see how things fare. Also, Tg Yonatan has two points about the sale of Yosef: it being preordained, and being linked to the destruction of Shechem.
   
   
2. In Dibatam Ra'ah I discuss the word נַעַר as a verb in the second pasuk of Vayeishev, in Bereishit 37:2. The midrash gives three bad things the brothers did, or appeared to do, that Yosef reported - eating 'ever min hachai, treating the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah as servants, and secual improprieties. I show how these might be derived from the pasuk. Finally, Tg Yonatan gives on sin - that he saw them eat the ears and tails separated from the live animals. I give Perush Yonatan's explanation for this, as well as a possible derivation from the text.
   
   
3. In Where Does the First Pasuk Belong? I note the relationship between the first pasuk which says that Yaakov settled in the land of his forefathers, with a similar statement about Esav in the previous parsha. I suggest it logically belongs to the previous parsha. This may relate to the order of the narrative, such that the story of Yosef actually precedes the birth of Binyamin and thus Rachel's death. Some proofs that Binyamin is not yet born - Binyamin is not mentioned; Yosef is called the ben zekunim - son of old age; and Yaakov asks "will I and your mother bow down before you?" implying that Rachel, Yosef's mother, is still alive.
   
   
4. In Brand Name Recognition? Or Lack Thereof? מהר"א אשכנזי, based on Islamic practice, explains Yehuda's command that Tamar be burnt is a command to brand her forhead to label her a harlot. The presence of the mark is the reason harlots would typically cover their faces, and the pasuk says that Tamar did this when pretending to be one.
   
   
5. In A Baaaad Report I suggest that on a peshat level, rather than דִּבָּתָם רָעָה meaning an evil report, it actually means a report as to how the shepherding is going. Proofs to this effect - nowhere do we see explicitly what the bad things he reported were, nor that the brothers hated him for it. Further, it seems to set up the story such that we understand why Yaakov sends Yosef after his brothers to find out how the shepherding is going - this is his role.

Summary: Some straightforward lessons about interpersonal relationships, from Ralbag. Some of which are fairly obvious when you just stop and consider the story carefully. Some of it, of course, it a matter of how one parses the Biblical narrative and associated midrashim.

Post: Based again on Ralbag, some moral lessons from the parsha. He leads off with three lessons in traits.

[1] The first purpose is that one should not cast jealousy among his sons, by raising up one of the individuals. For this will cause him {a corresponding} lowering. Do you not see that Yaakov, because he made the ketonet pasim for Yosef alone from among his brothers in order to show that he was the most beloved of all of them, they placed him as a mesharet {aid, helper, servant} for the sons of the maidservants. And this was, as well, a cause for his brothers hating him with a grievous hate.

[2] The second purpose is in traits, and this is that it is not fitting for a person to relate to his father everything that he hears of the negative matters of the members of the household. For from this is created strife and discord in a household, and will cause himself the loss. Do you not see that Yosef, because he brought the negative report to his father, his brothers hated him, to such a degree that they would have killed him had Hashem not aided him.

[3] The third purpose is in traits, and that is that it is not fitting for a person to tell his fellow something which informs about his own success and the lower stature of the other fellow, for with this many activities will be set into motion and will create strife and discord. Do you not see that which happened to Yosef, when he related his dreams to his brothers, which was informed about his own success and their low stature?

Summary: Shadal on the correct girsa in Onkelos; I think perhaps a good example of lectio difficilior. The proper Aramaic translation of dibatam -- is it dibbehon or tibbehon. But nothing exceptionally innovative here.

Post: In Okelos, from mechon-mamre, on the second pasuk of Vayeishev:

לז,ב אֵלֶּה תֹּלְדוֹת יַעֲקֹב, יוֹסֵף בֶּן-שְׁבַע-עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה הָיָה רֹעֶה אֶת-אֶחָיו בַּצֹּאן, וְהוּא נַעַר אֶת-בְּנֵי בִלְהָה וְאֶת-בְּנֵי זִלְפָּה, נְשֵׁי אָבִיו; וַיָּבֵא יוֹסֵף אֶת-דִּבָּתָם רָעָה, אֶל-אֲבִיהֶם.

אִלֵּין תּוֹלְדָת יַעֲקוֹב, יוֹסֵף בַּר שְׁבַע עַסְרֵי שְׁנִין הֲוָה רָעֵי עִם אֲחוֹהִי בְּעָנָא, וְהוּא רָבֵי עִם בְּנֵי בִּלְהָה וְעִם בְּנֵי זִלְפָּה, נְשֵׁי אֲבוּהִי; וְאַיְתִי יוֹסֵף יָת טִבְּהוֹן בִּישָׁא, לַאֲבוּהוֹן.

But in my Mikraos Gedolos, the translation given is  ית דיבהון בישא, where the first letter is a daled instead of a bet. Meanwhile, in Targum Pseudo-Yonatan, we indeed have tibbehon, or tiveihon: ואייתי יוסף ית טיביהון

Shadal's take on this, from Ohev Ger:

את דבתם רעה ית טיבהון [! (יא"ר וסביוניטה ) וכן בתרגום
המכונה ליונתן, וכן ומוציא דבה הוא כסיל ומפיק טיבא , וכן ודבתך
לא תשוב וטיבך לא הפיך ; וברוב הספרים ית דבהון , ואינו אלא שבוש.

Summary: Once again, midrashim vs. many pashtanim about how to explain a specific pasuk. In this instance, it is something that seems midrashic in the first place, whether tzadeka mimeni is one statement, or two separate statements. Onkelos, Targum Pseudo-Yontan, the gemara, Bereishit Rabba, and Rashi all treat it as two separate statements, either both by Yehuda, or the latter by Hashem. But many of the other meforshim explain it otherwise, as a single statement, that she is more righteous than I. And more interesting that pashtanim arguing on midrash is Ibn Caspi's point, that the derash is at odds with the trup, and that since trup is from Anshei Knesset HaGedolah and reflects Hashem's intent, we cannot argue on it.

Post: In Bereishit 38:26,

כו  וַיַּכֵּר יְהוּדָה, וַיֹּאמֶר צָדְקָה מִמֶּנִּי, כִּי-עַל-כֵּן לֹא-נְתַתִּיהָ, לְשֵׁלָה בְנִי; וְלֹא-יָסַף עוֹד, לְדַעְתָּהּ.

26 And Judah acknowledged them, and said: 'She is more righteous than I; forasmuch as I gave her not to Shelah my son.' And he knew her again no more.

what is meant by tzadekah mimeni? This is not much of a question -- on a peshat level, it most clearly means that "she is more righteous than I." But Onkelos and Rashi say otherwise. Onkelos:

לח,כו וַיַּכֵּר יְהוּדָה, וַיֹּאמֶר צָדְקָה מִמֶּנִּי, כִּי-עַל-כֵּן לֹא-נְתַתִּיהָ, לְשֵׁלָה בְנִי; וְלֹא-יָסַף עוֹד, לְדַעְתָּהּ.

וְאִשְׁתְּמוֹדַע יְהוּדָה, וַאֲמַר זַכָּאָה מִנִּי מְעַדְּיָא, אֲרֵי עַל כֵּין לָא יְהַבְתַּהּ, לְשֵׁלָה בְּרִי; וְלָא אוֹסֵיף עוֹד, לְמִדְּעַהּ.

That is, Onkelos places a pause -- tzadeka, she is righteous and correct in her words; mimeni -- she is pregnant from me.

Rashi as well puts in a pause between the two words. Thus:

She is right: in what she said.		צדקה: בדבריה:
from me: she is pregnant (Targum Onkelos). Our Sages, however, explained this midrashically to mean that a “bath-kol” came forth and declared,“From Me and from within Me these matters have emerged. Since she was modest in her father-in-law’s house, I decreed that kings should be descended from her, and from the tribe of Judah I [already] decreed to raise up kings in Israel.” [from Sotah 10b]		ממני: היא מעוברת. ורבותינו ז"ל דרשו שיצאה בת קול ואמרה ממני ומאתי יצאו הדברים, לפי שהיתה צנועה בבית חמיה גזרתי שיצאו ממנה מלכים, ומשבט יהודה גזרתי להעמיד מלכים בישראל:

Either just as Onkelos, or as in Sotah 10b. Even in the latter case, there is division. She is right in her words, and "It is from Me", as Hashem's interjection. (Ibn Ezra doesn't object, I think, which makes me believe that he agrees with Rashi's first explanation.)

And this is also in Bereishit Rabba:

בבית דינו של שם, ויכר יהודה ויאמר צדקה ממני. 
מהו ממני?
רבי ירמיה בשם ר' יצחק:
אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא: אתם תהיו מעידים מה שבגלוי, ואני מעיד עליו מה שבסתר. 

(כו): צדקה ממני -

צדקה, בדבריה. ממני, היא מעוברת. ורבותינו דרשו (סוטה י ב): שיצאה בת קול ואמרה ממני ומאתי יצאו הדברים, לשון רש"י.

והנכון שהוא כמו צדיקים וטובים ממנו (מ"א ב לב), ויאמר אל דוד צדיק אתה ממני כי אתה גמלתני הטובה ואני גמלתיך הרעה (ש"א כד יז), צדקה במעשיה יותר ממני, כי היא הצדקת ואני החוטא אליה שלא נתתיה לשלה בני.
והטעם כי שלה הוא היבם ואם לא יחפוץ לקחת את יבמתו, אביו הוא הגואל אחריו, כאשר פירשתי למעלה (בפסוק ח): בדין היבום:

פסוק כו
צָדְקָה מִמֶנִּי. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא בָּאָה אֵלַי בְּמִרְמָה, וַאֲנִי לא רְאִיתִיהָ כְּלָל, כִּי שָׁלַחְתִּי הַגְּדִי, מִכָּל מָקום הִיא צָדְקָה בְּמִרְמָתָהּ, שֶׁהָיְתָה לְתַכְלִית טוב וְרָצוּי לָאֵל יִתְבָּרַךְ, שֶׁהוּא קִיּוּם הַזֶּרַע לא לַהֲנָאת עַצְמָהּ, שֶׁהֲרֵי חָזְרָה לְאַלְמְנוּתָהּ תֵּכֶף, יותֵר מִמַּה שֶּׁצָּדַקְתִּי אֲנִי בְּקִיּוּם אֱמוּנָתִי, שֶׁהָיְתָה הַכַּוָּנָה בּו לִכְבודִי וּלְהַשִּׂיג עֵרְבונִי, שֶׁהוּא תַּכְלִית נִפְסָד וְגָרוּעַ. כְּאָמְרָם זִכְרונָם לִבְרָכָה: גְּדולָה עֲבֵרָה לִשְׁמָהּ מִמִּצְוָה שֶׁלּא לִשְׁמָהּ (נזיר כג, ב). 

פסוק כו 
צדקה ממני -
יותר ממני, שאני צויתיה לשבת בית אביה עד יגדל שלה, היא השלימה תנאי שצויתיה, אבל אני לא השלמתי לה תנאי שהתניתי לה כי לא נתתיה לשלה בני.
וכן: על צדקו נפשו מאלהים, יותר מאלהים.
וכן בשאול: ויאמר אל דוד צדיק אתה ממני. יותר ממני. 

צדקה ממני: יותר ממני. (רשב"ם, ר"י בכור שור, רמב"ן, רד"ק ורמבמ"ן).ש

כו) צדקה ממני. אנשי כנסת הגדולה הודיעונו פרושו כפי

כונת נותן התורה ומה יש עוד, כי אנחנו לא נעשה התורה

She is more righteous than I -- the Men of the Great Assembly informed us of its explanation in accordance with the intent of the Giver of the Torah. And what is there more, for we have not made the Torah.

1. The Rebbetzin's Husband on whether Judaism is a cult (part one, two). What are the limits placed on inquiry?
   
   
2. A bet din ordering, and paying heed to, a polygraph, but within precise limitations.
   
   
3. Jewish Worker points out a discussion at Matzav about the propriety of having Santa Coke on the table.
   
   
4. On the Main Line on just how Rav Kanievsky approved of Artscroll gemaras, and whether it was the same way rabbis approved of Pinner's Talmud. And he cites a 5TJT interview, put up at Matzav.
   
   
5. Urgent Kinos to address Shaatnez issues? It sounds strange to have kinos on something entirely within human control, and the result of human negligence. But apparently the word was kenos, a gathering.
   
   
6. Mere coincidence or divine truth? I favor the former, but don't have time or space to go into the why in great detail. But quickly, do we even know the colors corresponding to the Biblical terms. What about how Ibn Ezra and Rav Saadia Gaon claim tzahov is off-white, or gold? Is yerakon indeed green, or is it yellow? What about other colors besides these hand-picked five? Do they also fit on his chart? And how can he speak about a particular wavelength when he does not know the precise definitions of these Biblical terms. Such as techelet. Did he use the precise wavelength of the blue of my tzitzit-strings? If a span, then it might be linearly related but not that one is precisely a function of the other. And his explanation of Lavan seems more like ex post facto reading and relating of one idea into the other. But not endorsing one person's theories of gematria does not mean a denial of divine truth in the general case.
   
   
7. Rav Aviner about vaccinating against swine flu. He seems to advise following the majority medical opinion. Personally, I am not for the swine flu conspiracy theorists, but can see how on an individual basis, swine flu vaccinations might indeed not be the best thing to do. Consult your doctor.
   
   
8. HaEmtzah on supporting Spikna institutions. I disagree. One person did something wrong. But we should get over it, and not allow it to tarnish our view of basically unrelated and fine institutions.
   
   
9. Optimization for bein adam lamakom (but certainly not so in actuality!) over bein adam lachaveiro, an incident on a bus in Israel.
   
   
10. Here at parshablog, posts so far for parshat Vayeshev.

Well, not precisely, but that is the general theme of an explanation by Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz in Tiferes Yehonasan:

2009

1. Vayishlach sources -- links to over 100 meforshim on the parasha and haftarah, as well as links to an online Mikraos Gedolos.
   
   
2. Why did Yaakov weep, pt i -- in this, I analyze Rashi's two answers for Yaakov's weeping, as contrasted with that of Ibn Ezra. Rashi suggests that it was because he saw that Rachel wouldn't be buried with him, and secondly that he came without money, in contrast to Eliezer who came laden with wealth. Maharshal harmonizes the two reasons, so that Rashi can intend to say both simultaneously, but I explain why I think this harmonization is extremely farfetched. Finally, I give my own suggestion as to Rashi's motivations in bringing down these two midrashim from Bereishit Rabba.
   
   
3. Angels or messengers? There is a famous Rashi which starts of Vayishlach that the malachim Yaakov sent were malachim mamash, actual angels. This likely relates to the camp of malachei elokim from the previous parsha. But as Ibn Caspi points out, the parsha gap, or else the petucha gap makes it clear that there is a distinction. Though that is just an indicator, rather than the real reason. Also, how Ralbag and Sefer Hayashar treat the malachim of this parasha and last.
   
   
4. Why was Yaakov distressed? Why did he fear? Yaakov fears and is distressed. Why the duplication? Rashi seems spot on, that the fear is of being killed and the distress is of killing others. But watch out for supercommentators who read their own ideas into him! Would Yaakov not be distressed at killing others, simply because it was halachically justified homicide?
   
   
5. Moral lessons from parshas Vayishlach -- Once again, focusing on the moral lessons one can derive from the parsha, selected from Ralbag's commentary. Because too much attention to dikduk, peshat and derash can leave us without inspiration. A very small selection from his lessons learned from Yaakov's confrontation with Esav, and then a "fun" one from the tale of Dinah.
   
   
6. Machaneh as a feminine and masculine form -- In Vayishlach, Rashi notes that 'camp' is used in both the masculine and feminine genders. What in the pasuk prompts this? And would Rashi necessarily agree with how Gur Aryeh develops this?
   
   
7. In what manner(s) did Shechem rape Dinah? Another study of methodology of peshat, examining how different meforshim treat the duplication in different terminology as Shechem's actions vis a vis Dinah. I last reviewed this idea of peshat methodology in terms of the unnecessary poetic duplication of Rivkah being a virgin, whom no man had known.
   
   
8. How old was Dinah when she was abducted by Shechem? A simple calculation based on when children had to be born within the given time frame would make her about 7 years old. Yet there are difficulties with that. How Rav Shimon Shkop and Ibn Ezra deal with that.
   
   
9. Esav and Yaakov meet, and he kisses him. But there are dots over the word. Rashi cites a midrash, and Ibn Ezra disagrees, in a pretty dismissive manner, stating that the midrash is good for just-weaned children! What are we to make of this? Does Ibn Ezra not say in his introduction that none of Chazal's words fall to the ground? See also my earlier post about the dots over vayishakeihu.

1. From The Age of Trup, how Ramban ignores the pasuk ending and claims that Timna was one of Elifaz's sons, rather than his concubine.
   
   
2. Instances of Malachim, according to Ralbag. He understands the malachim at the end of Vayeitzei to be either angels or prophets, and the malachim at the beginning of Vayishlach to be simply human messengers from Yaakov.
   
   
3. Vayishlach sources -- links to online parsha resources for Vayishlach. Thus, to a Mikraos Gedolos by aliyah and perek, and to an online English Rashi, to Ralbag, and to Shadal. For now.
   
   
4. What was the name of the city of Shechem? Was the city named Shechem, or was it named Shalem? And Shadal's take. Then, in an update, why Shadal might have adopted that approach, as a response to Geiger, and how the Samaritan Torah differs, quite likely to reinforce their own religious message and elevate the prominence of Shechem.
   
   
5. Did Dinah marry Shimon, Iyov, or both? The conflation, or else harmonization, of two midrashim, in a way that might just do injustice to their respective themes.
   
   
6. Two noteworthy comments about the nature of peshat and derash, one from Ibn Ezra on Vayishlach.

1. The Etymology of Maavar Yabbok -- related to their wresting/getting dusty, as a non-explicit etymology? Or does the etymology work in the other direction? Or was this specific unrelated word chosen because of the place name?
   
   
2. Did Esav Kiss Yaakov? If he did, did he really mean it? Should the word be there?
   
   
3. Esav separates from Yaakov, as Lot did from Avraham. With parallels on a peshat and derash level.
   
   
4. Did Yaakov struggle with an angel? Or with God Himself? And the possibility of the two naming incidents of Yisrael being the same incident.
   
   
5. Bet El and Yeravam -- and that the Torah would designate this as a holy place with a mizbeach shows the early authorship of Torah, according to Shadal.

1. Im Lavan Garti ... veTaryag Mitzvot Shamarti? But he married two sisters!? So you will say he was outside Eretz Yisrael? Yet his claim is that he kept Tatyag Mitzvot when with Lavan! I claim the midrash actually means a Torah-true attitude and midot, represented by the 613 of garti, in spite of the evil Lavan's influence. And other explanations.
   
   
2. Why No Adult Male Camels? After all, this represents a break in the pattern of the gifts to Esav. I suggest that the purpose of the camels was to provide camel milk, and having these young there boosts lactation. Having male camels there would end the lactations.

1. Triple Etiologies of Place Names -- of Peniel and Machanayim. Interesting stuff.
   
   
2. The taam elyon and taam tachton on the incident of Reuven, and how the trup alternatives follow naturally from a decision to omit the Targum.
   
   
3. Twelve Boys and Only One Girl? Cross-listed to Vayeitzei. Was Dinah the only girl? Or perhaps not.
   
   
4. Rachel's Triplets -- Further analysis on the textual basis of the midrash that Rachel gave birth to triplets at the time of Binyamin's birth, based in part on interpreting each occurence ofבְּלִדְתָּהּ as the birth of a daughter. Rather than other suggestions, such as Matnot Kehuna that it is a derasha on the word gam.

1. Come and Hear, or Come, Then Hear? Did Dinah's brothers come because they heard the news, or did they hear the news because they came? Midrash, parsing, and trup.
   
   
2. How to Address a Business Letter, and Yaakov's message to Esav. There is a formal form of address, discovered in extra-Biblical sources as well as elsewhere in Tanach. And the parsing which seems proposed by trup, and the traditional explanation, seems against this parse. Yet this parse was apparently known to Yehuda Nesia, and in fact does work out according to trup (looking at Wickes' rules, and against Speiser's suggestion that it does not).
   
   
3. Dinah's Arms being exposed, caused her to be seized?
   
   
4. Binyamin's Name -- Binyamin is named twice, once by his mother and once by his father. I suggest that the names are the same, but one is in Hebrew and the other in Aramaic. Appropriate since Lavan is haArami, the Aramean, and Rachel is his daughter. And note that the same thing happens in parshat Vayeitzei on the name Gal-ed.
   
   
5. A Hebrew cognate in Amharic for Vayishlach -- laka, meaning "send".

1. וְהָיִינוּ לְעַם אֶחָד and cross-cultural circumcision -- Adopting circumcision in order to become one people, in modern times. They better watch out!
   
   
2. In "Dual Etymologies for Names" -- I discuss how various place names seem to have more than one reason for their naming. Specifically, מחנים (in the dual form), named at the end of Vayeitzei, is so named because Yaakov sees a single encampment of angels. But then we see in Vayishlach, shortly afterwards and in the same location, that he splits his family into two camps. I discuss a midrash on the matter in Tg Yerushalmi, and the Scriptural basis for the midrash. Tg Yonatan, Rashi, and Ramban seem to take on the issue of why there is a dual in מחנים.
   
   Another dual place name in Vayishlach is Penuel, which Yaakov first names for having seen God face to face and living to tell the tale, yet later he uses the term to say that seeing Esav's face is like seeing that of God.
   
   Also in Vayishlach is Bet El, which Yaakov seems to name multiple times, but I claim the psukim are speaking in the pluperfect, and he only names the place one time.
   
   
3. In "Dual Etymologies for People's Names" -- I treat dual etymologies for people rather than places as I did in the first post. Turning to Vayeitzei, I find dual etymologies for Yosef and Yissacher, and give possible explanations for this.
   
   
4. In "Shnayim Mikra VeEchad Targum?" -- I discuss two psukim that have only a single targum, and how the trup is constructed so as to omit the translation in shul. It is a pasuk about Reuven and Bilhah.
   
   
5. In "Commentators Who Live In Glass Houses?" -- Ibn Ezra takes a contemporary, Yitzchaki, to task for kefira in the dating of the psukim about the kings of Edom. I show how Ibn Ezra's approach differs from Yitzchaki.

• Rachel the Wrestler, Yaakov the Wrestler
• cross-listed from Vayeitzei
  

Summary: Esav and Yaakov meet, and he kisses him. But there are dots over the word. Rashi cites a midrash, and Ibn Ezra disagrees, in a pretty dismissive manner, stating that the midrash is good for just-weaned children! What are we to make of this? Does Ibn Ezra not say in his introduction that none of Chazal's words fall to the ground? See also my earlier post about the dots over vayishakeihu.

Post: When Yaakov and Esav meet, it seems pretty emotional. Bereishit 33:

ד  וַיָּרָץ עֵשָׂו לִקְרָאתוֹ וַיְחַבְּקֵהוּ, וַיִּפֹּל עַל-צַוָּארָו וַיִּשָּׁקֵהוּ; וַיִּבְכּוּ.

4 And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him; and they wept.

But there are dots over the word vayishakeihu. As I discussed in my earlier post, these dots might mean that there is a question whether the word should be present. (This according to a midrash.) And as Shadal notes, Origin doesn't find the word in his books.

But the question of whether these words really belong can occur on the midrashic plane as well. As Rashi writes: