Thursday, December 29, 2011

Tamar's judgement as Torah Law, Noachide Law, Contemporary Law

Summary: Which one is it, and when? Ibn Caspi says that the death penalty was Noachide law while freeing her from the same was contemporary law.

Post: A noteworthy Ibn Caspi on Vayeshev:

 הוציאוה  ותשרף.  כן הוא הדין לבני  נח, לכן אמר להם
 מה לי [ די ]  כי זינתה, עשו לה דנה ,אבל מה שטען  הוא לפניהם
  נמלטה לפי דיניהם בזמן ההוא ובארץ ההיא ;

"Take her out and burn her: so is the law for Bnei Noach. Therefore he said do them 'what is it to me [sufficient?], for she has fornicated. Carry out her judgement upon her. But that which he argued before them that she should be spared was in accordance with their laws in that time and in that land."


In saying that the death penalty for Tamar was from the sheva mitzvos bnei Noach, he is differing slightly from the popular midrash, mentioned in Midrash Rabba and brought down by Rashi {38:24}:


24. Now it came about after nearly three months, that it was told to Judah, saying, "Your daughter in law Tamar has played the harlot, and behold, she is pregnant from harlotry." So Judah said, "Bring her out, and let her be burned."כד. וַיְהִי כְּמִשְׁלֹשׁ חֳדָשִׁים וַיֻּגַּד לִיהוּדָה לֵאמֹר זָנְתָה תָּמָר כַּלָּתֶךָ וְגַם הִנֵּה הָרָה לִזְנוּנִים וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוּדָה הוֹצִיאוּהָ וְתִשָּׂרֵף:


and let her be burned: Ephraim Miksha’ah said in the name of Rabbi Meir: She was the daughter of Shem, who was a priest. Therefore, they sentenced her to be burned. [From Gen. Rabbah 85:10]ותשרף: אמר אפרים מקשאה משום רבי מאיר בתו של שם היתה, שהוא כהן, לפיכך דנוה בשרפה:


And that Midrash is here:

הוציאוה ותשרף אפרים מקשאה תלמידו של רבי מאיר אמר משום רבי מאיר:תמר בתו של שם היתה, דכתיב: (ויקרא כא) ובת איש כהן, לפיכך הוציאוה ותשרף. 

Thus, according to that midrash, Yehuda is imposing Torah law on her. A bas kohen shezinsa gets this death penalty.

Ibn Caspi is offering here a different explanation, that it is not Torah law being imposed here, but rather classic sheva Mitzvos benei Noach law. In modern times, we might imagine that the particulars of sheva mitzvos bnei Noach were drashot interpreted by Chazal applying to non-Jews, such that an assumption that the avos knew these particular seven commandments in their many details was an anachronistic, midrashic, retrojection. But Ibn Caspi does seem to hold that this is a straightforward application of the 7 Noachide laws.

How about how she was saved. Why is this not part of the sheva mitzvos bnei Noach? If she was zakuk leyavam, then her sleeping with Yehuda was not necessarily znus. And so, if he admitted that the child was his, why appeal to contemporary extra-Noachide laws?

I think there are two possibilities. First, perhaps despite his being a family member, it was not close enough to avoid the death penalty for her. Second, perhaps he did not admit to fathering this child. As discussed in the past, Ibn Caspi refers to the trup on tzadka mimeni to differ from Rashi and Onkelos. When Tamar shows him the signs, such as the signet ring, he proclaims:

26. 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.כו. וַיַּכֵּר יְהוּדָה וַיֹּאמֶר צָדְקָה מִמֶּנִּי כִּי עַל כֵּן לֹא נְתַתִּיהָ לְשֵׁלָה בְנִי וְלֹא יָסַף עוֹד לְדַעְתָּהּ:

and Rashi explains:

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:


But based on the trup on צָדְקָה מִמֶּנִּי, namely munach zakef-katon, Ibn Caspi treats it as a single statement. Thus, "she is more right than me". If so, there is no explicit admission that the child is Yehuda's.

If so, the appeal to contemporary laws, separate from the Noachide laws, might be the following argument: Tamar was only bound to Shela so long as Shela was an option. Since Yehuda had held back Shela, she was no longer זקוקה ליבם. And if so, her znus with the unnamed boel was not infidelity.

Or, even if he implicitly acknowledged fathering this son, this could be saying that she was right in pursuing / tricking him in this way because of his withholding Shela. Regardless, the details of withholding Shela being a justification for cancelling the death penalty is not in the Sheva Mitzvos Bnei Noach, and must have simply been the law of the land at that time.

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

YU Torah on parashat Vayigash



Audio Shiurim on Vayigash
Rabbi Elchanan Adler: Chanuka and Yosef's Immunity More Than Meets the Eye
Rabbi Hanan Balk: Yosef Hatzaddik and the Power to Forgive
Rabbi Reuven Brand: Wagons and Walking 
Rabbi Asher Brander: Yehuda and Yosef : A Collision Course that Changed History
Rabbi Chaim Brovender: When Yehuda Became King of Yisrael
Rabbi Avishai David: Hypocrisy!
Rabbi Ally Ehrman: Discussing Torah On The Way
Rabbi Chaim Eisenstein: Mesorah and Guidance, Parents and Grandparents in Halacha 
Rabbi Gil Elmaleh: Sensitivity
Rabbi Joel Finkelstein: Making it Through
Rabbi David Fohrman: Did Yosef Ever Reconcile with His Brothers?
Rabbi Beinish Ginsburg: Beis Halevi on Ha’od Avi Chai
Rabbi Efrem Goldberg: Brotherly Love 
Rabbi Yehuda Goldschmidt: How Did Yosef Talk to His Brothers?!
Rabbi Shmuel Hain: Yosef and the Brothers: Halakhic and Philosophical Reflections on Teshuvah 
Rabbi Shalom Hammer: Educating Unity 
Rabbi Jesse Horn: How Yosef made it in the secular world
Rabbi Yisroel Kaminetsky: The Middot of Yosef 
Rabbi Eliakim Koenigsberg: A Clear Vision 
Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz: Constant Crying 
Rabbi Meir Lipschitz: Yehuda's Monologue
Mrs. Zemirah Ozarowski : Yosef and his Plot What were his goals
Dr. David Pelcovitz: Yosef and his Brothers: Insights on Forgiveness from Positive Psychology
Mrs. Nechama Price: Yosef: The Egyptian Leader
Rabbi Yosef Zvi Rimon: Is it the thought that counts? (Hebrew)
Rabbi Zvi Romm: The Role of Yosef 
Rabbi Yonason Sacks: Kibud Av V'Em 
\ Mrs Ilana Saks: When is a wagon more than a wagon? 
Rabbi Avi Schneider: The Sound of Silence 
Rabbi Avraham Shulman: Miracles and Emunah
Rabbi Baruch Simon: Binyamin and not bowing down to other forces 
Mrs. Shira Smiles: Wagon Wisdom
Rabbi Reuven Spolter: Is it All Really for the Best?
Rabbi Moshe Taragin: The Strength to be Weak
Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Weinberg: The Power of Jewish Tears
Rabbi Andi Yudin: Sensitivity, Sensitivity and Sensitivity
Rabbi Eliezer Zwickler: The Right To Kvetch

Articles on Vayigash
Rabbi Etan Moshe Berman: The Authentic Jewish Attitude to the Challenges of Life
Rabbi Shlomo Einhorn: Stealing a Memory
Rabbi Ozer Glickman: Yaakov Avinu and the Tragic Sense of Life
Rabbi Meir Goldwicht: Why did Yosef cry over the Churban?
Rabbi Avraham Gordimer: A Tale of Two Cultures
Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb: Learning the Lesson Before It’s Too late
Rabbi Maury Grebenau: Ordinary Miracles
Rabbi David Horwitz: The Magnificent Transformation of Yehudah
Rabbis Stanley Wagner and Israel Drazin: Reclining on Passover - A Roman Custom?
Rav Avigdor Nebenzahl: Remembering and Forgetting
Rabbi Michael Taubes: Tefillat HaDerech

Rabbi Jeremy Wieder: Laining for Parshat Vayigash
See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Vayigash
 New This Week

How was Yosef's milah different from that of the Egyptians?

Summary: A seeming, or very real, contradiction between two Rashis. If Yosef compelled the Egyptians to circumcise themselves, how could he present his own circumcision to his brothers as proof of his Hebrew identity? Rav Chaim Kanievsky suggests priyah or that the brothers were previously unaware of Yosef's decree. I suggest, based on another midrash Tanchuma, that Yosef's aposthia would be different than any sort of milah, since there would be no scar. And finally, I consider what midrash contradicts what other midrash, whether contradictions in Rashi are troubling, and establish for myself that I like the question but will dislike any answer.

Post: Rav Chaim Kanievsky discusses an interesting apparent contradiction in Rashi. In parashat Miketz:

55. When the entire land of Egypt hungered, the people cried out to Pharaoh for bread, but Pharaoh said to all the Egyptians, "Go to Joseph; what he tells you, do."נה. וַתִּרְעַב כָּל אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם וַיִּצְעַק הָעָם אֶל פַּרְעֹה לַלָּחֶם וַיֹּאמֶר פַּרְעֹה לְכָל מִצְרַיִם לְכוּ אֶל יוֹסֵף אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר לָכֶם תַּעֲשׂוּ:
When the entire land of Egypt hungered: For their grain, which they had stored, had decayed, except that of Joseph. — [from Mid. Tanchuma Mikeitz 7]ותרעב כל ארץ מצרים: שהרקיבה תבואתם שאצרו חוץ משל יוסף:
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:


and yet, here in parashat Vayigash:

4. Then Joseph said to his brothers, "Please come closer to me," and they drew closer. And he said, "I am your brother Joseph, whom you sold into Egypt.ד. וַיֹּאמֶר יוֹסֵף אֶל אֶחָיו גְּשׁוּ נָא אֵלַי וַיִּגָּשׁוּ וַיֹּאמֶר אֲנִי יוֹסֵף אֲחִיכֶם אֲשֶׁר מְכַרְתֶּם אֹתִי מִצְרָיְמָה:
Please come closer: He saw them drawing backwards. He said,“Now my brothers are embarrassed” (Tanchuma Vayigash 5). He called them tenderly and pleadingly and showed them that he was circumcised (Gen. Rabbah 93:10).גשו נא אלי: ראה אותם נסוגים לאחוריהם, אמר עכשיו אחי נכלמים, קרא להם בלשון רכה ותחנונים, והראה להם שהוא מהול:


And so too, a bit later:

12. And behold, your eyes see, as well as the eyes of my brother Benjamin, that it is my mouth speaking to you.יב. וְהִנֵּה עֵינֵיכֶם רֹאוֹת וְעֵינֵי אָחִי בִנְיָמִין כִּי פִי הַמְדַבֵּר אֲלֵיכֶם:
And behold, your eyes see: my glory and that I am your brother, for I am circumcised, and moreover, that it is my mouth that is speaking to you in the holy tongue (Gen. Rabbah 93:10).והנה עיניכם רואות: בכבודי, ושאני אחיכם, שהרי אני מהול ככם. ועוד כי פי המדבר אליכם בלשון הקודש:


This would appear to be a contradiction, for how would this be a proof that he was the son of Yaakov? After all, now all Egyptians were circumcised!

Rav Chaim Kanievsky writes, in Taama deKra:
"I was asked that behold, Rashi wrote above that Yosef commanded all Egyptians to circumcise themselves. If so, what if the proof that this was Yosef?


And there is to say that priyah was not given to Avraham Avinu. And Tosafot writes in Yevamot (71b, d"h lo) that even so, Avraham Avinu performed priyah, for he fulfilled the entirety of Torah.


And if so, Yosef commanded them to circumcise without priyah, but Yosef himself performed priyah, for the patriarchs {and shevatim} kept all the Torah.


(And according to the peshat, they did not know that the Egyptians circumcised themselves, for if not so, there is no greater proof than this that it is Torah. For if not so, why did he command them to circumcise?)"

(See also Yosef Daas on this, for a cute pshat.)

If I might throw another midrash into the mix, according to Midrash Tanchuma, Yosef, like Yaakov, was born mahul, such that no milah or priyah would be necessary -- just hatafas dam bris. This is a congenital condition called aposthiaThus, from the Chachamim, in opposition to R' Yehoshua ben Levi:


וחכמים אומרים: 
תחת אבותיך יהיו בניך (תהלים מה). ש

את מוצא כל מה שהגיע ליעקב הגיע ליוסף: יעקב נולד מהול.
ויוסף
 כן, שנאמר: אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף. 

We can readily resolve the difficulty on this basis. Typical circumcision leaves a circumcision scar. There are pictures on this Wikipedia page depicting it.
In males who have been circumcised, the circumcision scar refers to the scar after a circumcision has healed. In some cases, the scar can be darker-colored, and, in all cases, it will encircle the shaft of the penis.
The scar is located at the boundary of the outer foreskin and the inner foreskin remnant, which is the portion of the foreskin that was not removed during circumcision. This foreskin remnant is mucosa that lies between the glans and the circumcision scar, which results in dissimilar tissue healing together. In adult circumcision part of the frenulum may remain intact. The foreskin remnant can often have a different color and texture than the rest of the penile skin. It can be pinkish or light-colored, and it can be covered with keratin to protect it from a dry environment.
If so, Yosef could have shown them his milah, and they could have examined it and noticed that there was no circumcision scar, because he was born mahul. Meanwhile, even though the Egyptians practiced milah (and perhaps even priyah!) they would have had a circumcision scar.

And because aposthia is an incredibly rare condition, it would serve well to identify Yosef as their brother.

But as much as I take joy in producing such novel midrashim and harmonizations, based on textual sources, ultimately I do not think that this was the intent of the midrashim under discussion.

My inclination regarding this is that it is indeed a contradiction, and that Rashi will, on occasion, bring contradictory midrashim.

In terms of Midrash Tanchuma, one of Rashi's sources, I don't think there is any contradiction at all, and so there is nothing to harmonize. That is, in parashat Miketz, Tanchuma siman 7, we see compulsive milah:

כשהיה רעב בימי דוד בקש רחמים מלפני הקב"ה, ואמר: ריבון העולם נהיג את צאנך כיוסף, שזן את העולם בשני רעבון, כיון שחזק עליהם הרעב בארץ מצרים נתקבצו המצרים ובאו אצל יוסף. 
א"ל: תן לנו לחם. 
א"ל: אלוהי אינו זן את הערלים, לכו ומולו עצמכם ואתן לכם לחם.
הלכו להם אצל פרעה והיו צועקין ובוכין לפניו, שנאמר: ותרעב כל ארץ מצרים ויצעק העם אל פרעה ללחם.
ויאמר פרעה לכל מצרים: לכו אל יוסף. 
אמרו לו: הלכנו אצלו ומדבר לנו דברים ריקים, שאומר: מולו עצמכם. 
אמר להם: שוטים לא כך אמרתי לכם מתחלה עבדוהו, וקנו לעצמכם תבואה, וכי לא היה קורא לכם כל אותן שני השבע וצווח לכם, הוו יודעים שרעב בא לעולם, אם אתם פשעתם בנפשותיכם, מה תצעקו אלי, מפני מה לא הנחתם בבתיכם תבואה של שתים של שלש של ארבעה שנים? אמרו לו: כל תבואה שהייתה בבתינו כבר הרקיבה. 
אמר להם: לא נשתייר לכם קמח מאתמול? 
אמרו לו: פת שהיה בכלינו עפשה. 
אמר להן: לכו אל יוסף ואשר יאמר לכם תעשו. 
ומה אם שגזר על התבואה והרקיבה מתייראין אנו, שאם יגזור עלינו שנמות, כולנו מתים, אלא כל אשר יאמר לכם תעשו. 

and in parashat Vayigash, in Tanchuma siman 5, no mention is made of Yosef's milah or showing the brothers his milah. Rather, we have:

כיון שראה יוסף שהייתה להם בושה גדולה, אמר להן: גשו נא אלי ויגשו וכל אחד ואחד היה מנשקו ובוכה עליו, שנאמר: וינשק לכל אחיו ויבך עליהם, ו

Indeed, there are two explanations in Rashi as to the meaning of גשו נא אלי ויגשו. The first is that:
He saw them drawing backwards. He said,“Now my brothers are embarrassed” (Tanchuma Vayigash 5). He called them tenderly and pleadingly...

And this is drawn from Midrash Tanchuma. So, according to that source, there is nothing to harmonize. But only then does Rashi add a secondary explanation, that

and showed them that he was circumcised 

In terms of Bereishit Rabba 91:5, in terms of the compulsatory milah, one can read it here. And in terms of showing his brothers his milah, see here, in 93:10:

גשו נא אלי ויגשו הראה להם את המילה. 

This is indeed a contradiction. Perhaps we can say, though, that Midrash Rabba is bringing different sources which are indeed ultimately contradictory. Different Tannaim or Amoraim offered these different interpretations.

But then, Rashi, who is a single individual, brings down these two midrashim. Surely he must have in mind some harmonization! Perhaps, and perhaps not. Perhaps he did not set his mind to harmonizing every side-effect and implication of every midrash, such that they would all work together. Perhaps each of these midrashim, individually, were the sort of midrash he set out to bring -- ולאגדה המיישבת דברי המקרא, דבר דבור על אופניו. But at the same time, he trusted his readers to recognize midrash as midrash rather than peshat, and to therefore realize that whether one puts forth a specific midrash on a specific pasuk is optional. If it is peshat, then it is obligatory, for it is the singular historical meaning of the pasuk (alongside whatever midrashim one brings). But if it is derash, then it is optional, and one can darshen one pasuk and then choose not to darshen a different pasuk in a contradictory manner. And yet, he brings these contradictory midrashim because they fit his criteria for midrashim to bring down.

Thus, at the end of the day, I like the question. But I don't think I would like any 'answer'. The question is right, and true, and should stand.

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Proximate vs. ultimate cause in the sending of Yosef

Summary: How Ibn Caspi understands Moreh Nevuchim. I think...

Post: In parashat Vayigash:

7. And God sent me before you to make for you a remnant in the land, and to preserve [it] for you for a great deliverance.ז. וַיִּשְׁלָחֵנִי אֱ־לֹהִים לִפְנֵיכֶם לָשׂוּם לָכֶם שְׁאֵרִית בָּאָרֶץ וּלְהַחֲיוֹת לָכֶם לִפְלֵיטָה גְּדֹלָה:

8. And now, you did not send me here, but God, and He made me a father to Pharaoh, a lord over all his household, and a ruler over the entire land of Egypt.ח. וְעַתָּה לֹא אַתֶּם שְׁלַחְתֶּם אֹתִי הֵנָּה כִּי הָאֱ־לֹהִים וַיְשִׂימֵנִי לְאָב לְפַרְעֹה וּלְאָדוֹן לְכָל בֵּיתוֹ וּמֹשֵׁל בְּכָל אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם:

Of course, the brothers did sell Yosef, and thus did send him to Egypt. But that was just the unwitting fulfillment of the Divine plan.

Ibn Caspi makes an interesting diyuk on וַיִּשְׁלָחֵנִי אֱ־לֹהִים לִפְנֵיכֶם. He writes:

"וַיִּשְׁלָחֵנִי אֱ־לֹהִים לִפְנֵיכֶם; and afterwards, לֹא אַתֶּם שְׁלַחְתֶּם אֹתִי הֵנָּה. May that tzaddik, Rabbenu Moshe [=Rambam] be blessed for good, who enlightened our eyes in this, for he made from these two pesukim two parts (in perek 48 from the second volume [of Moreh Nevuchim, here, the very end of the second volume]). And the explanation of this will be written in another place, and you, understand it, if you are able."

A footnote directs us to Ibn Caspi's remarks in Tiras Kesef:

"Regarding וַיִּשְׁלָחֵנִי אֱ־לֹהִים לִפְנֵיכֶם, behold the Moreh Nevuchim mentions it in one way, and mentions in another way לֹא אַתֶּם שְׁלַחְתֶּם אֹתִי הֵנָּה. And I have already promised you that I would not repeat the words of the kadmonim, but I am hinting regarding this to you because of its greatness and because most people don't understand it. And know that the difference between these two statements are based on the word לפניכם, for this is like the meaning of {Bereishit 46:28}:

28. He sent Judah ahead of him to Joseph, to direct him to Goshen, and they came to the land of Goshen.כח. וְאֶת יְהוּדָה שָׁלַח לְפָנָיו אֶל יוֹסֵף לְהוֹרֹת לְפָנָיו גֹּשְׁנָה וַיָּבֹאוּ אַרְצָה גֹּשֶׁן:

Understand in this what you are able."

And here is Moreh Nevuchim:

And Ibn Caspi writes regarding this, in his commentary on Moreh Nevuchim:

"For Yosef's brothers sent him to Egypt by their choice, for they sold him to merchants who were traveling to Egypt, etc. Yet after this, the Rambam mentions another verse about Yosef that it is from that which is 'happenstance'. And this is because there is written לפניהם [sic; should be לפניכם], for this combines with another, and behold, הנה {?} its intent is to the send him before them [as a forerunner], and that they would come after him, etc."

I don't have enough of a grounding in Greek philosophy and medieval Jewish philosophy to claim that I can fully understand the import. I suppose we should look at Abarbanel on this point, or in the commentary of the Ephodi to Moreh Nevuchim on this point.

But there is a difference in philosophy between proximate and ultimate cause:
In philosophy a proximate cause is an event which is closest to, or immediately responsible for causing, some observed result. This exists in contrast to a higher-level ultimate cause (or distal cause) which is usually thought of as the "real" reason something occurred.
And Aristotle distinguishes between four causes, two of which are efficient cause and final cause:
"Cause" means: (a) in one sense, that as the result of whose presence something comes into being—e.g. the bronze of a statue and the silver of a cup, and the classes which contain these [i.e., the material cause]; (b) in another sense, the form or pattern; that is, the essential formula and the classes which contain it—e.g. the ratio 2:1 and number in general is the cause of the octave—and the parts of the formula [i.e., the formal cause]. (c) The source of the first beginning of change or rest; e.g. the man who plans is a cause, and the father is the cause of the child, and in general that which produces is the cause of that which is produced, and that which changes of that which is changed [i.e., the efficient cause]. (d) The same as "end"; i.e. the final cause; e.g., as the "end" of walking is health. For why does a man walk? "To be healthy," we say, and by saying this we consider that we have supplied the cause [the final cause]. (e) All those means towards the end which arise at the instigation of something else, as, e.g. fat-reducing, purging, drugs and instruments are causes of health; for they all have the end as their object, although they differ from each other as being some instruments, others actions [i.e., necessary conditions].
— Metaphysics, Book 5, section 1013a, translated by Hugh Tredennick[9]
I would understand this as follows. Yes, Yosef's brothers did cause him to go to Egypt. They were the efficient cause, or the proximate cause. If so, what does it mean that וְעַתָּה לֹא אַתֶּם שְׁלַחְתֶּם אֹתִי הֵנָּה כִּי הָאֱ־לֹהִים? That you should not confuse this efficient cause with the final, or ultimate, cause, which was the Divine plan. Thus, it was really Hashem who sent him.

Of course there are proximate causes, and agents which act whether accidentally or with will. Thus, Hashem tells Eliyahu in I Melachim 17:9:

ט  קוּם לֵךְ צָרְפַתָה אֲשֶׁר לְצִידוֹן, וְיָשַׁבְתָּ שָׁם; הִנֵּה צִוִּיתִי שָׁם אִשָּׁה אַלְמָנָה, לְכַלְכְּלֶךָ.9 'Arise, get thee to Zarephath, which belongeth to Zidon, and dwell there; behold, I have commanded a widow there to sustain thee.'

Yet from the description there, it was not a command from Hashem but the widow's choice. And so too by Shimi ben Gera, in II Shmuel 16:10:


יא  וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד אֶל-אֲבִישַׁי וְאֶל-כָּל-עֲבָדָיו, הִנֵּה בְנִי אֲשֶׁר-יָצָא מִמֵּעַי מְבַקֵּשׁ אֶת-נַפְשִׁי; וְאַף כִּי-עַתָּה בֶּן-הַיְמִינִי, הַנִּחוּ לוֹ וִיקַלֵּל--כִּי אָמַר-לוֹ, ה.11 And David said to Abishai, and to all his servants: 'Behold, my son, who came forth of my body, seeketh my life; how much more this Benjamite now? let him alone, and let him curse; for the LORD hath bidden him.

Shimi ben Gera was not a prophet, but rather acting of his own volition. But if it happened, it happened because Hashem willed it to happen. These are some of the examples the Rambam brings in Moreh Nevuchim. And so, it does not matter if, from a human perspective, the humans acted deliberately or accidentally, and whether it was seeming random chance and a multitude of contributory factors. Despite all this, it was ultimately the ratzon Hashem at work.

What of וַיִּשְׁלָחֵנִי אֱ־לֹהִים לִפְנֵיכֶם in the earlier pasuk? This would refer (again) to the final or ultimate cause. Does that mean that Hashem sent him in the same sense of the brothers sending him? Or, does that mean that sent Yosef from before his brothers, such that they indeed sent him? Ibn Caspi understands the pattern of שלח ... לפניו as sending a forerunner to prepare the way. And if so, this is a different kind of שלח than in the later pasuk.

That is all for now, for my limited time. You can read Abarbanel at length here, starting in the middle of the first column, beginning with the words ואמנם כח טענת יוסף.

Vayigash sources -- 2011 edition


by aliyah
rishon (Bereishit 44:18)
sheni (44:31)
shlishi (45:8)
revii (45:19)
chamishi (45:28)
shishi (46:28)
shevii (47:11)
maftir (47:24)
haftara (Yechezkel 37:15-37:28) -- with Malbim and Abarbanel

by perek
perek 45 ; perek 46 ; perek 47

meforshim
Judaica Press Rashis in English and Hebrew (France, 1040 - 1105) -- ואני לא באתי אלא לפשוטו של מקרא ולאגדה המיישבת דברי המקרא, דבר דבור על אופניו
Chizkuni (13th century, commentary written about 1240)-- see Jewish Encyclopedia entry.

Shadal (1800-1865) -- see Wikipedia entry:
  1. In plain text here, though not encoding some of the trup and nikkud, and omitting certain references to non-Jewish scholars.
  2. In Google book form here, but with all that was omitted above. Also, with Shadal's Italian translation of the Chumash text.
  3. Mishtadel, an earlier and shorter commentary
  4. In determining the correct girsa of Targum Onkelos,   Ohev Ger
Daat -- with Rashi, Ramban, Seforno, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma+.
Gilyonot Nechama Leibovitz (HebrewEnglish)  -- see Wikipedia entry.
Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz (1690-1764) -- see Wikipedia entry:
  1. Tiferes Yehonasan
  2. Chasdei Yehonasan  -- chiddushim and pilpulim on midrashim, Toras Kohanim, Sifrei, and Rashi al haTorah. With supercommentary of R' Yaakov Goldshlag.
  3. Toldos Yizchak Acharon, repeated from Rav Yonasan Eibeshutz
  4. Divrei Yehonasan  -- discussing halacha and aggada together, interpreting difficult midrashim
  5. Nefesh Yehonasan   -- commentary on midrashim and pilpulim + Tanchuma, and suygot in Shas connected to each parsha.
  6. Midrash Yehonasan -- on difficult midrashim
Even Shleimah -- from Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich (Hungary, 1860-1944)

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin