Of Course the Brothers Sold Yosef

The correct interpretation, as peshat, is that the brothers sold Yosef. Yosef says so explicitly in parashas Vayigash (Bereishis 45:4):

וַיֹּאמֶר, אֲנִי יוֹסֵף אֲחִיכֶם, אֲשֶׁר-מְכַרְתֶּם אֹתִי, מִצְרָיְמָה
And he said: 'I am Joseph your brother, whom ye sold into Egypt.

Yet all sorts of explanations abound, that the brothers didn't actually sell him.

It is all Rashi's fault. Rashi gives the correct peshat explanation local to our parasha, Vayeshev. But he includes just enough midrash, and people then take that midrash as peshat, and use the facts thereby established to make trouble.

Here are the pesukim (Bereishis 37:25-28):
וַיֵּשְׁבוּ, לֶאֱכָל-לֶחֶם, וַיִּשְׂאוּ עֵינֵיהֶם וַיִּרְאוּ, וְהִנֵּה אֹרְחַת יִשְׁמְעֵאלִים בָּאָה מִגִּלְעָד; וּגְמַלֵּיהֶם נֹשְׂאִים, נְכֹאת וּצְרִי וָלֹט--הוֹלְכִים, לְהוֹרִיד מִצְרָיְמָה.
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוּדָה, אֶל-אֶחָיו:  מַה-בֶּצַע, כִּי נַהֲרֹג אֶת-אָחִינוּ, וְכִסִּינוּ, אֶת-דָּמוֹ.
לְכוּ וְנִמְכְּרֶנּוּ לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים, וְיָדֵנוּ אַל-תְּהִי-בוֹ, כִּי-אָחִינוּ בְשָׂרֵנוּ, הוּא; וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ, אֶחָיו.
וַיַּעַבְרוּ אֲנָשִׁים מִדְיָנִים סֹחֲרִים, וַיִּמְשְׁכוּ וַיַּעֲלוּ אֶת-יוֹסֵף מִן-הַבּוֹר, וַיִּמְכְּרוּ אֶת-יוֹסֵף לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים, בְּעֶשְׂרִים כָּסֶף; וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶת-יוֹסֵף, מִצְרָיְמָה.
"And they sat down to eat bread; and they lifted up their eyes and looked, and, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites came from Gilead, with their camels bearing spicery and balm and ladanum, going to carry it down to Egypt.
And Judah said unto his brethren: 'What profit is it if we slay our brother and conceal his blood?
Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him; for he is our brother, our flesh.' And his brethren hearkened unto him.
And there passed by Midianites, merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. And they brought Joseph into Egypt."

In the first pasuk, the Ishmaelite caravan passes by. In the second and third, Yehudah suggests selling Yosef to the Ishmaelites rather than killing him. In the fourth, those Ishmaelite traders -- now called Midianite merchantmen -- pass by, and THEY, that is, the brothers, draw him out and sell him to the very same Ishmaelite caraven / Midianite merchantman. And those traders bring Yosef to Egypt.

That is the simple peshat. Rashi says the first part**, that it was the brothers who drew him out. This is not midrash. It is peshat. What makes it non-obvious is that it is a grammatical point, namely an "ambiguous antecedent". In English, consider this sentence: "Although the pizza was cold, it tasted good." It, as a pronoun, clearly refers to the pizza, so the pronoun "it" unambiguously refers to the antecedent "pizza". But consider the English sentence "Tim told his brother he was working too hard." The pronoun "he" can refer to either the antecedent "Tim" or to the antecedent "brother". So too, in the Hebrew:
וַיִּמְשְׁכוּ וַיַּעֲלוּ אֶת-יוֹסֵף מִן-הַבּוֹר
the "they" who pulled Yosef out of the pit could refer to the Midianites earlier in the pasuk or to the brothers who hearkened to Yehuda's words at the close of the previous pasuk.

This grammatical point and ambiguity is one that isn't obvious to the casual reader, and they are then persuaded by the assertion that the pasuk in Vayeshev **literally** says that the Midianites pulled Yosef out. The pasuk says no such thing. It says "they" pulled him out, and alas, "they" is an ambiguous antecedent.

Then, Rashi messes us up by incorporating midrash. He writes***, based on Midrash Tanchuma, that the Midianites were a different caravan than the Ishmaelites. (See also the full text of the earlier Rashi.) Others make the Midanim of pasuk 31 into another group, such that the progression is brothers to Midianites to Ishmaelites to Midanites to Egypt.

By putting this forth, Rashi established in people's mind two ideas. (1) That the Midianites and the Ishmaelites are different groups. (2) They they, that is the Midianites, sold Yosef to the Ishmaelites. And then people say that if the Midianites sold him to the separate group the Ishmaelites, then they were also the ones who drew him from the pit. The same pronoun to the same antecedent.

But peshat involves being dismissive of irrelevant distinctions. It is midrash that makes a big deal of minor differences in wording. In truth, the Midiates are the same as the Ishmaelites. And the brothers drew Yosef from the pit and sold him to the Midianites, who were the Ishmaelites. That is, the brothers hearkened to Yehudah's plan (as the pasuk takes great pains to tell us), and so (in the next pasuk), they carry out Yehudah's plan. Ishmaelite is used (say, at the time of matan Torah) to refer to Arab traders who frequent the desert, while Midianite is national origin.

Why does the Torah switch between these two descriptors? I don't care why. You can work it out. It is trying to teach us some deep lesson about these characters. To give us more information about them. To keep the text from being repetitive. Because E and J have different traditions as to their identity. I don't care about the why, just about the what.

The other point people raise is why Reuven is so shocked and runs to tell his brothers, if the brothers including Reuven has sold him. Though it isn't explicit in the pesukim that Reuven had gone away after they hearkened to HIS idea, that is why pasuk 25 takes pains to say that sat to eat bread, וַיֵּשְׁבוּ לֶאֱכָל לֶחֶם

Some of the brothers stayed, while some went on to take care of the sheep. And so they were conveniently there to come up with this other plan, when the Ishmaelites passed.

There are other, peshat-oriented ways of reinterpreting the pesukim. This, to my mind, is the best peshat interpretation. It doesn't require a dismissal of an explicit pasuk in Vayigash. It doesn't work with a misunderstanding of the nature of peshat, in making much ado about irrelevant distinctions.

Footnotes:
_______
* See Rashi here:
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8232#showrashi=true
וימשכו: בני יעקב את יוסף מן הבור וימכרוהו לישמעאלים, והישמעאלים למדינים, והמדינים למצרים:
"and they pulled: The sons of Jacob [pulled] Joseph out the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites, and the Ishmaelites to the Midianites, and the Midianites to Egypt. [From Midrash Asarah Harugei Malchuth]"

** See here for ambiguous antecedent:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/uofc/eduweb/grammar/course/speech/1_2b.htm

*** See Rashi in same pasuk:
ויעברו אנשים מדינים: זו היא שיירא אחרת, והודיעך הכתוב שנמכר פעמים הרבה:
Then Midianite men, merchants, passed by: This is another caravan, and Scripture informs you that he was sold many times. [From Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 13]

The Midrash Sees: The Aretz upon which you are lying

A curious Rashi towards the beginning of parshat Vayeitzei can open our eyes to some of the poetry in Yaakov’s prophecy.

The pasuk (Bereishit 28):

And behold, the Lord was standing over him, and He said, "I am the Lord, the God of Abraham your father, and the God of Isaac; the land upon which you are lying to you I will give it and to your seed.

יג וְהִנֵּה ה נִצָּב עָלָיו וַיֹּאמַר אֲנִי ה אֱלֹהֵי אַבְרָהָם אָבִיךָ וֵאלֹהֵי יִצְחָק הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה שֹׁכֵב עָלֶיהָ לְךָ אֶתְּנֶנָּה וּלְזַרְעֶךָ:

And the Rashi:

upon which you are lying: (Chullin ad loc.) The Holy One, blessed be He, folded the entire Land of Israel under him. He hinted to him that it would be as easily conquered by his children (as four cubits, which represent the area a person takes up [when lying down]). [From Chullin 91b]

שכב עליה: קיפל הקב"ה כל ארץ ישראל תחתיו, רמז לו שתהא נוחה ליכבש לבניו:

I do not think that Rashi believes that the peshat is that there was this astonishing miracle* for the simple purpose of conveying this hint about the ease of conquering the land. Even though there are miracles abounding in Rashi’s interpretation, of the kefitzat haderech, folding up of the path, to get Yaakov places, or of multiple stones coalescing into a single large stone. He presents us with a derasha, which he either believes to be historical or ahistorical, to teach us some message.

There is, however, an irregularity in this text which the midrash picks up upon. The word eretz serves two purposes in Biblical Hebrew. It refers to ground, that is to dirt, and it refers to a country.

And the word seems to be deliberately used for both purposes here. Hashem specifies the eretz upon which Yaakov sleeps. This is a concrete piece of ground, for cubits. But it would be silly to tell Yaakov that He is granting him those four cubits of ground, to him and to his descendants. Obviously it is referring to the country**.

This is then a more poetic prophecy that other Divine promises. It either uses the word eretz in both senses, or it is a type of synecdoche (using a part to refer to the whole). Why do this? It is emphasizing the humble state of now and contrasting it with the eventual end state. Yaakov had fled and was on his way to Charan, with little in the way of earthly possessions. (This is not just the midrash about Elifaz stealing his wealth, but in the pesukim themselves. For instance, where he says in Vayishlach “for I passed over this Jordan with only my staff, and now I have become two camps.”) He is in the wild, unprotected, and sleeping on the bare ground. And now Hashem appears to him and is nitzav upon him, guarding him, and guarantees that he will guard him everywhere he will go. And so Hashem tells him that this very bare ground upon which he sleeps, and indeed the entire country it is connected to, will belong to him.

The same poetry is present in the next pasuk, and if not for this midrash, we might have missed it:

And your seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and you shall gain strength westward and eastward and northward and southward; and through you shall be blessed all the families of the earth and through your seed.

ידוְהָיָה זַרְעֲךָ כַּעֲפַר הָאָרֶץ וּפָרַצְתָּ יָמָּה וָקֵדְמָה וְצָפֹנָה וָנֶגְבָּה וְנִבְרְכוּ בְךָ כָּל מִשְׁפְּחֹת הָאֲדָמָה וּבְזַרְעֶךָ:

Why the dust of the earth? It is again riffing on the fact that he is sleeping on the bare ground, made of dust.

One additional thought: Dust is plentiful, and beyond counting, so the standard understanding of “numerous” works here. But dust is also not rooted. When the wind blows, it will blow that dust in all directions, westward, eastward, northward and southward. And in such scattering, all the clans of the adama (ground, country) shall be blessed, as your influence and progeny spreads.

_______

Notes:

* Actually, since this is occurring in his dream, so it need not even be a miracle. It can be a miraculous dream-event, in which he imagined that Hashem folded up the earth.

* See Haksav veHakabbalah, who notes that saying, on a peshat level, the land you sleep upon need not be the land directly beneath you, but surrounding you. Perhaps. I think this is deliberate poetic use.

Beshalach: The Five Midrashim Rashi Doesn’t Want You To Know

(Number Three Will Amaze You!)

At the start of parashat Beshalach, Rashi tells us that there are midrashic explanations of a certain pasuk, but that he isn’t going to tell them to us:

17It came to pass when Pharaoh let the people go, that God did not lead them [by] way of the land of the Philistines for it was near, because God said, Lest the people reconsider when they see war and return to Egypt

יז וַיְהִי בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה אֶת הָעָם וְלֹא נָחָם אֱלֹהִים דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא כִּי | אָמַר אֱלֹהִים פֶּן יִנָּחֵם הָעָם בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה:

for it was near: and it was easy to return by that road to Egypt. There are also many aggadic midrashim [regarding this].

כי קרוב הוא: ונוח לשוב באותו הדרך למצרים. ומדרשי אגדה יש הרבה:

It is unclear whether this is a recommendation and referral -- “There are many midreshei aggadah explaining karov, so check them out” -- or a dismissal -- “There are many midreshei aggadah explaining this, but our concern here is peshat and a certain kind of midrash, and those midrashim are not peshat oriented.”

I am of the opinion that it is more the latter. He is saying that these midrashim are outside the scope and concern of his own commentary. You can go to those midrashim if you want to see those midrashim, but here, the focus is on peshat and a certain kind of midrash. Note how he employs the word הרבה (many) regarding those midrashim he does not bring.

This calls to mind his wording in parashat Bereishit, where he wrote:

8And they heard the voice of the Lord God going in the garden to the direction of the sun, and the man and his wife hid from before the Lord God in the midst of the trees of the garden.		חוַיִּשְׁמְעוּ אֶת קוֹל יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהִים מִתְהַלֵּךְ בַּגָּן לְרוּחַ הַיּוֹם וַיִּתְחַבֵּא הָאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ מִפְּנֵי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהִים בְּתוֹךְ עֵץ הַגָּן:
And they heard: There are many Aggadic midrashim, and our Sages already arranged them in their proper order in Genesis Rabbah and in other midrashim, but I have come only [to teach] the simple meaning of the Scripture and such Aggadah that clarifies the words of the verses, each word in its proper way.		וישמעו: יש מדרשי אגדה רבים וכבר סדרום רבותינו על מכונם בבראשית רבה (יט ו) ובשאר מדרשות ואני לא באתי אלא לפשוטו של מקרא ולאגדה המישבת דברי המקרא דבר דבור על אופניו:

There as well, he said that there were many midrashim, which you can look to in Bereishit Rabba and elsewhere, but that isn’t the focus of his commentary. He will certainly bring midrashim -- I would estimate that 80% or more of Rashi is selected from midrashim. But he will bring only a certain type of midrash. And so, it pays to investigate what those midrashim were. By seeing what sorts of midrash he won’t bring down, we might get a better sense of what he sees in the midrashim he does bring down, and from there, his overall aim in producing his commentary. (See what I wrote briefly about those midrashim in Bereishit.)

We can see these midrashim in the Mechilta:

דרך ארץ פלשתים כי קרוב הוא -

הוא הדבר שאמר הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה: בהוציאך את העם ממצרים תעבדון האלהים על ההר הזה.

כי קרוב הוא -

קרוב הדרך לשוב למצרים, שנאמר: דרך שלשת ימים נלך במדבר.

דבר אחר:

כי קרוב הוא -

קרובה השבועה שנשבע אברהם לאבימלך: השבעה לי באלהים אם תשקור לי ולניני ולנכדי, ועדיין נכדו קיים.

דבר אחר:

כי קרוב הוא -

קרובה השבועה, מלחמה ראשונה לשניה.

דבר אחר:

כי קרוב הוא -

בקרוב ירשו כנעניים את הארץ, שנאמר: ודור רביעי ישובו הנה.

ולמה לא הביאן הכתוב דרך פשוטה לארץ ישראל אלא דרך המדבר?

אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא: אם אני מביא עכשו את ישראל לארץ, מיד מחזיקים אדם בשדהו ואדם בכרמו. והן בטלים מן התורה, אלא אקיפם במדבר ארבעים שנה שיהיו אוכלים מן ושותים מי הבאר. והתורה נבללת בגופן.

מכאן היה ר' שמעון אומר:

לא ניתנה התורה לדרוש אלא לאוכלי המן. ושווין להם אוכלי תרומה.

דבר אחר:

כי קרוב הוא -

לא הביאן המקום בפישוטן, אלא כיון ששמעו כנעניים שישראל נכנסו עמדו ושרפו כל הזרעים וקבצו כל האילנות וסתרו את הבניינים וסתמו את המעיינות.

אמר הקב"ה: לא הבטחתים לאבותם שאכניסן לארץ חריבה אלא מלאה כל טוב, שנאמר: ובתים מלאים כל טוב, אלא הריני מקיפן במדבר ארבעים שנה עד שיעמדו כנעניים ויתקנו מה שקלקלו.

“By way of the land of the Philistines, for it is near [karov] -- This is what Hashem said to Moshe (Shemot 3:12 [by the burning bush, that the sign would be]), בְּהוֹצִיאֲךָ אֶת-הָעָם, מִמִּצְרַיִם, תַּעַבְדוּן אֶת-הָאֱלֹהִים, עַל הָהָר הַזֶּה, “when thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain.”

[Josh: Thus, because the mountain is karov.]

For it is near [karov] - the path is near to return to Egypt, as is stated (Shemot 8:23) דֶּרֶךְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים, נֵלֵךְ בַּמִּדְבָּר, “We will go three days' journey into the wilderness.”

Another explanation, for it is near [karov] -- the oath which Avraham swore to Avimelech is near. (Bereishit 21:23) הִשָּׁבְעָה לִּי בֵאלֹהִים הֵנָּה, אִם-תִּשְׁקֹר לִי, וּלְנִינִי וּלְנֶכְדִּי, “swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my son's son”. And his grandson was still alive.

[Josh: nearness as in proximity or applicability of the oath. Alternatively, perhaps ‘he is a karov’ as ‘he is a relative’.]

Another explanation: For it is near: The oath [sic] first battle is too close to the second one.

[Josh: The first war is properly that between the Philistines and the Children of Ephraim who left Egypt early. The Children of Ephraim were all slain. The second war is this second war which would likely occur if Hashem directed them דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים, and which is therefore being avoided.]

Another explanation: For it is near: [Only] recently, the Canaanites inherited the land, for it is written (Bereishit 15:16) [וְדוֹר רְבִיעִי, יָשׁוּבוּ הֵנָּה: [כִּי לֹא-שָׁלֵם עֲו‍ֹן הָאֱמֹרִי, עַד-הֵנָּה, And in the fourth generation they shall come back hither [for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full].

And why didn’t the Scriptures [sic] bring them in a straight path, but rather by way of the wilderness? Hashem said: If I bring them now to the land of Israel, each person will immediately take hold of his field or vineyard, and they will be disengaged from the Torah. Rather, I will take them around in the wilderness for forty years, while they eat manna and drink the water of the Well [of Miriam], and the Torah will be stirred into their bodies. From here Rabbi Shimon said: the Torah was given to be expounded only for those who ate the manna. And equivalent to them, those who eat Terumah.

Another explanation: For it is near: He did not take them in the straight way. For when the Canaanites heard that Israel was coming, they arose and burnt all the plants, cut down all the trees, broke all the buildings and sealed all the springs. Hashem said: I didn’t promise their forefathers that I would bring them [the descendants] to a barren land, but to a land filled with everything good, as is stated (Devarim 6:11) וּבָתִּים מְלֵאִים כָּל-טוּב, “and houses full of all good things”. Rather, I will take them around in the wilderness for forty years, until the Canaanites arise and fix what they ruined.”

It is possible that Rashi simply thought that these midrashim were too good to miss, and so he referred us to them. But it is also quite possible that he is rejecting these “many” midrashim from his peshat commentary because they don’t fit his criteria.

In general, I believe that Rashi will include a midrash if it solves some peshat problem (where the “problem” is a grammatical or otherwise linguistic irregularity, often paired with something missing or off in the narrative.)

Here, there is a definite linguistic irregularity. Namely, the pasuk stated:

לֹא נָחָם אֱלֹהִים דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא

If translated most literally -- and this entails selecting the most common meaning of each word -- the translation is: “And God did not take them by way of the land of the Philistines, for it was near.”

Rashi does not proffer the following peshat explanation: “And God did not take them by way of the land of the Philistines, though it was near.” This would require taking the word כִּי to mean “though”. Indeed, all of the midrashim take כִּי to mean “for”. In large part, this is because midrash is hyper-literal. Once כִּי means “for”, this introduces a problem. Why should the closeness be a reason to avoid the land of the Philistines? It should be a reason to go that way, rather than to avoid it. Therefore, they consider the various possible meanings, or rather allusions, of the next word, karov. In this way, ki karov is once a reason to avoid that way, and that land.

Rashi often repurposes midrash for his peshat commentary. And he takes כִּי to be for, just like the midrash. Once trapped by that choice, he needs to explain ki karov as a reason to avoid the land. And then from the six midrashim, he selects the one which fits in best with the flow of the narrative, and with the rest of the pasuk. That is, Rashi selects midrash #2:

כי קרוב הוא -

קרוב הדרך לשוב למצרים, שנאמר: דרך שלשת ימים נלך במדבר.

For it is near [karov] - the path is near to return to Egypt, as is stated (Shemot 8:23) דֶּרֶךְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים, נֵלֵךְ בַּמִּדְבָּר, “We will go three days' journey into the wilderness.”

This midrashic-peshat also works out with the rest of the pasuk, which has a second  כִּי. This second  כִּי  certainly means “for”. Thus, כִּי | אָמַר אֱלֹהִים פֶּן יִנָּחֵם הָעָם בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה. Thus, the two reasons are linked. Because it was near, and because Hashem was afraid they would return to Egypt.

In contrast, most of the other midrashic explanations have the first כִּי as a different reason. To give the land time to recoup, to allow the Canaanites their four generations, because the oath to the surviving grandson of Avimelech hadn’t passed, because Hashem wanted them to learn Torah.

I would suggest that when Rashi lists as a criterion (in Bereishit) for including a midrash aggadah, as ולאגדה המישבת דברי המקרא דבר דבור על אופניו, the words דבור על אופניו means that it works out well with the rest of the words in that pasuk, and with the flow of the narrative and the text. And having the two explanations mesh together would then fulfill the criterion.

It is then perhaps surprising that Rashi doesn’t mention the battle waged by the Tribe of Ephraim who fled Egypt early, and were killed by the Philistines. This midrash might be a candidate for inclusion. One battle with the Philistines was too close to another battle with the Philistines. And this, in turn, would be a cause to flee back to Egypt. It fits in nicely with the specific mention of the land of the Philistines. And the milchama would be the milchama with the Philistines. (Or, alternatively, the milchama would be the result of the prior milchama, vis. the corpses of the Ephraimites, as one position in the Mechilta gives it: שלא יראו עצמות אחיהם מושלכין בפלשת ויחזרו להם.) I would answer that indeed, this might have been a selection, but Rashi already selected his one midrash and developed it at quite some length -- in his comment on this phrase as well as in the other phrases in this pasuk. Further, he was already dismissing a bunch of midrashim, and this one went with the bunch. And finally, the one Rashi in fact selected is much more of a peshat-oriented midrash than this one. We don’t have to bring in a whole other story which would be only hinted at / alluded to by a word here or there. Rather, we can make sense of the entire pasuk as a self-contained unit.

Ki Teitzei: Dire predictions about the happiness of marriage

In parashat Ki Teitzei, we read that after an Israelite man takes a beautiful captive woman as a wife, he must treat her as a full wife. That means that if he no longer desires her, she is not a sexual slave to be passed on to the next man who will purchase her. Rather, there is a regular divorce and she goes free as a full Israelite woman.

Devarim 21:14 (with Rashi in link):

14 And it will be, if you do not desire her, then you shall send her away wherever she wishes, but you shall not sell her for money. You shall not keep her as a servant, because you have afflicted her.

יד וְהָיָה אִם לֹא חָפַצְתָּ בָּהּ וְשִׁלַּחְתָּהּ לְנַפְשָׁהּ וּמָכֹר לֹא תִמְכְּרֶנָּה בַּכָּסֶף לֹא תִתְעַמֵּר בָּהּ תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִנִּיתָהּ:

In Taama Dekra, Rav Chaim Kanievsky analyzes a midrash about this pasuk:

“וְהָיָה אִם לֹא חָפַצְתָּ בָּהּ -- Rashi explains: The Scripture is informing / predicting that you will eventually come to despise her.

And so it is in the Sifrei. And the Re’em [Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi] wrote: ‘I do not know from where they darshen this, for behold it [the words in the pasuk] are required for it [the law] itself.

And in my humble opinion, one can explain this based on the Midrash (in parashat Lecha Lecha), that every place where it states ויהי it is a language of pain and every place where it states והיה it is a language of joy. And so, it was difficult to Chazal why it states by divorce [as is the case in this pasuk] a language of joy [והיה]. Therefore, they darshened that the Scripture is informing you [מבשרך], and it is a besora [בשורה] tova, good news, that you will divorce her and she will not give birth for him a ben sorer umoreh. And so too in the second pasuk [Devarim 21:15] וְהָיָה הַבֵּן הַבְּכֹר לַשְּׂנִיאָה, they said in the Sifrei, ‘the pasuk is informing [מבשרך] that the firstborn son will be to the hated one, and this as well is darshened from the language of וְהָיָה, that they are mevasrim [informing of good news] to the hated wife that she will have the firstborn.”

You can read the Sifrei[1] on the first pasuk here and the Sifrei[2] on the second pasuk here.

While Rav Kanievsky does not make this absolutely explicit, he is certainly working with yet another midrash, as cited by Rashi on pasuk 11:

11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman and you desire her, you may take [her] for yourself as a wife.

יא וְרָאִיתָ בַּשִּׁבְיָה אֵשֶׁת יְפַת תֹּאַר וְחָשַׁקְתָּ בָהּ וְלָקַחְתָּ לְךָ לְאִשָּׁה:

[and you desire her,] you may take [her] for yourself as a wife: [Not that you are commanded to take this woman as a wife,] but Scripture [in permitting this marriage] is speaking only against the evil inclination [, which drives him to desire her]. For if the Holy One, blessed is He, would not permit her to him, he would take her illicitly. [The Torah teaches us, however, that] if he marries her, he will ultimately come to despise her, as it says after this, “If a man has [two wives-one beloved and the other despised]” (verse 15); [moreover] he will ultimately father through her a wayward and rebellious son (see verse 18). For this reason, these passages are juxtaposed. — [Tanchuma 1]

ולקחת לך לאשה: לא דברה תורה אלא כנגד יצר הרע. שאם אין הקב"ה מתירה ישאנה באיסור. אבל אם נשאה, סופו להיות שונאה, שנאמר אחריו (פסוק טו) כי תהיין לאיש וגו' וסופו להוליד ממנה בן סורר ומורה, לכך נסמכו פרשיות הלל

Rashi is based on a Midrash Tanchuma Aleph[1] on parashat Ki Teitzei, which couples Rabbinic disapproval for Ben Sorer Umoreh with the general midrashic approach of darshening semuchim (juxtaposed sections), particularly in sefer Devarim.

Thus, Rav Kanievsky knows that Rashi is saying, based on a midrash, that the inevitable sad conclusion of marrying and staying married to a Yefat Toar is a Ben Sorer Umoreh. Therefore, the divorce which prevents this conclusion, constitutes good tidings, besorot tovot. And thus the midrash is based on Chazal’s derasha on the otherwise incongruous vehaya in the context of divorce.

This is a marvelous construction which creates a harmonious whole out of several different midrashim and midrashic derivations.

However, as a matter of peshat -- by which I mean the authorial intent -- of the midrash, I don’t think Rav Kanievsky is correct. Methodologically, I have the following objections:

1. We need not worry about ma kasheh leRashi, what is “bothering” Rashi, or indeed, what is “bothering” Chazal. This construction appears concerned with this, insofar as the answer points out an incongruity -- the happiness implied by vehaya -- that sparked the midrash. Rather, I would look towards opinion plus opportunity, such as a displeasure towards the institution of yefat toar (certainly supportable in my opinion by various portions of the pesukim on a peshat level) together with the opportunity afforded by an ambiguous Biblical text to assert a predicted unhappy conclusion.
2. Saying that the hatred of the married yefat toar, together with the divorce, is a happy occurrence is certainly extremely creative, but goes against the tone set by other midrashim (and as cited by Rashi in pasuk 11, that there are unhappy conclusions to his decision to wed the yefat toar.
3. To find peshat in any one midrash, I believe it worthwhile to consider that midrash in isolation. Creating a hodgepodge of midrashim and midrashic methods takes one away from peshat in the midrash. Here we have brought in, from left field, the midrashic method of vayhi vs. vehaya, with happiness as a message. Sure, that is possibly supported by the language of besorah, but that feels like very tenuous support. We ignore the darshening of semuchin from Tanchuma and Rashi, but it is there at the least if we are going to be considering Rashi. Though perhaps, when focusing just on Sifrei, we should indeed ignore the darshening of semuchin.
4. Meanwhile I feel that there is a more obvious and simple derivation for the Sifrei, also centered on vehaya.

If we just focus on the two midrashim in the Sifrei, I would posit the following derivation. All examples pulled from Devarim perek 21 and perek 22. The Torah employs specific words to connote a condition. For instance, כִּי תִהְיֶיןָ לְאִישׁ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים, if a man has to wives. Of כִּי יִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, if a man has a rebellious son. The word ki introduces something which might happen, and explains what regulations cover that situation. Alternatively, the Torah might employ im to denote if. וְאִם לֹא קָרוֹב אָחִיךָ אֵלֶיךָ, and if your brother [who lost the ox] is not in close proximity to you.

Meanwhile, the word והיה is regularly employed not to indicate a conditional but the next logical event in a progression. For example, וְהָיָה בְּיוֹם הַנְחִילוֹ אֶת בָּנָיו, and it will be on the day he bequeaths property to his sons. וְהָיָה הָעִיר הַקְּרֹבָה אֶל הֶחָלָל, and it will be that the city closest to the corpse will have its elders perform the ritual of egla arufa. וְהָיָה עִמְּךָ עַד דְּרשׁ אָחִיךָ אֹתוֹ וַהֲשֵׁבֹתוֹ לו, by keeping the lost ox in your possession, it will be with you when your non-proximate neighbor seeks it out.

That does not mean that וְהָיָה cannot connote a conditional; just that it is regularly employed to connote a definite.

Suddenly, in pasuk 14, we have וְהָיָה coupled with אִם.

14 And it will be, if you do not desire her, then you shall send her away wherever she wishes, but you shall not sell her for money. You shall not keep her as a servant, because you have afflicted her.

יד וְהָיָה אִם לֹא חָפַצְתָּ בָּהּ וְשִׁלַּחְתָּהּ לְנַפְשָׁהּ וּמָכֹר לֹא תִמְכְּרֶנָּה בַּכָּסֶף לֹא תִתְעַמֵּר בָּהּ תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִנִּיתָהּ:

Is it “if” or is it “it will be”. The answer, according to the Sifrei, is that while this is given as a conditional law, since it describes what is to happen if he doesn’t like her, in fact, it is a certainty or near-certainty that this conditional will come to happen. Thus, it is both וְהָיָה and with אִם. And if you need a midrashic hook, you can say it is the incongruity of the וְהָיָה coupled with the אִם which sparks the midrash.

There is also the Rabbinic displeasure with the yefat toar (that it is a Biblical compromise) impelling this interpretation. The same motivation which impels the Midrash Tanchuma to darshen semuchin to assert this unhappy result was the inevitable conclusion impels the Sifrei to darshen the וְהָיָה coupled with the אִם

So much for the first Sifrei. As for the second Sifrei, it is on pasuk 15:

15 If a man has two wives-one beloved and the other despised-and they bear him sons, the beloved one and the despised one, and the firstborn son is from the despised one.

טו כִּי תִהְיֶיןָ לְאִישׁ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים הָאַחַת אֲהוּבָה וְהָאַחַת שְׂנוּאָה וְיָלְדוּ לוֹ בָנִים הָאֲהוּבָה וְהַשְּׂנוּאָה וְהָיָה הַבֵּן הַבְּכֹר לַשְּׂנִיאָה:

On a peshat level, the word וְהָיָה is just continuing to describe an element of the conditional started by כִּי תִהְיֶיןָ. That is, this pasuk sets up the situation, and so וְהָיָה is warranted as a simple continuation of the situation. One need not repeat ki or vechi. And the conclusion of what regulations control the situation begins the next pasuk.

However, on a midrashic level, especially after the previous similar derasha on the immediately preceding pasuk, we are primed to read this וְהָיָה as another inevitable conclusion. This is not peshat, but it is midrash, taking advantage of the ambiguity of language to read the pasuk in an unexpected and totally novel manner. And so, it is the hatred of the wife that will almost guarantee that the bechor will be granted to the disfavored wife.

Why should this be so? Hashem favors the underdog. We need look no further than the canonical hated and beloved wives to see this. In parashat Vayeitzei, Bereishit 29, with the birth of Reuven the bechor to Leah, when Rachel was barren:

And the Lord saw that Leah was hated, so He opened her womb; but Rachel was barren.

לא וַיַּרְא ה כִּי שְׂנוּאָה לֵאָה וַיִּפְתַּח אֶת רַחְמָהּ וְרָחֵל עֲקָרָה:

As such, we have no need to travel far away to bring in a completely separate derasha, about vehaya generally meaning happiness, which doesn’t seem to fit the context and thus sparks the midrash. This simply isn’t what Chazal mean. And so, I would deem the innovative interpretation of the midrash to be a brand new, neo-midrash, from a Gadol baTorah, but still not at all the intent of the midrashic author of the Sifrei.

Since we are discussing Rav Chaim Kanievsky and how vehaya can be midrashically reinterpreted from a possibility to mean a definite and a prediction, it seems proper to discuss Rav Chaim Kanievsky and how his words were reinterpreted from a hopeful possibility to mean a definite and / or a prediction. As we’ve seen many times in the past, some of the people surrounding Rav Kanievsky are idiots, who regularly misinterpret his words to be messianic predictions. In response to such reports that he has issued a messianic prediction, Rav Kanievsky is on record as saying that this is “shtuyot”, nonsense, but this doesn’t prevent the idiots from continuing to turn his words into a choyzek.

The latest such attempt was reported at Yeranen Yaakov:

As with every statement attributed to Rav Chaim Kanievsky, this statement must be triple-checked and verified before believed.

Kooker and quoted by Sod1820 (my translation):

Emotional moments in the home of the Prince of Torah Haga'on Rav Chaim Kanievsky Shlit"a who hosted in his home the chairman of Yad Sarah - Rav Moshe Cohen - and the director of the emergency switchboard and home hospitalization program - Rav Nachum Gitman - who accepted his blessing.

At the focus of the visit stood the initiative to install an emergency button in synagogues and Mikva'ot.  They were discussing a new initiative from Yad Sarah that was born against the backdrop of a deteriorating security situation.

During the visit, the button and the mode of operation of the emergency switchboard of Yad Sarah were presented to the Ga'on Rav Chaim Kanievsky Shlit"a.  The Ga'on Rav Chaim Kanievsky's response was "Mashiah will come before the holidays and you won't need to install any more emergency buttons." Additionally, the rav blessed the switchboard operators with blessings of success.

...

To give some background not in the translation, Rav Elyashiv zatza”l had approved certain mechanism by which emergency buttons, installed in shuls, could be used with zero or minimal halachic problems on Yom Tov. On a weekday, in case of emergency, one can use a cell phone to call for help. But an emergency button is faster, and on Yom Tov people won’t be carrying phones. And, as someone in the article notes, on Yom Tov, there are more people in shul. They brought these emergency buttons to Rav Chaim Kanievsky, who is Rav Elyashiv’s son-in-law and a living Gadol, to examine, and presumably as a photo-op / promotion. He gave a blessing:

עד החגים יבוא משיח ולא תצטרכו להתקין יותר לחצני מצוקה

“Before Yom Tov arrives, [may it be] that Mashiach will arrive, such that we will not need any emergency buttons.”

As the first commenter at Kooker says:

בטוח אמר זאת מתוך אמונה ותפילה, וכמשאלה הרי אנחנו מחויבים להאמין ולחכות לו בכל יום שיבא, ולא כנבואה.

I would say that this is the jussive. Hebrew can be ambiguous, and the jussive or subjunctive (“let there be light”, “may there be light”) can sometimes be expressed in the same way as the perfect (“there will be light”). Rav Kanievsky was expressing a hope and a blessing, but overeager people took his words and corrupted them to mean a prediction.

Another such example:

There was a story that happened last week that caused all the ruckus. A young girl who had recently died reportedly came to her father in a dream saying that on Thursday, the day after a solar eclipse, Mashiach would come. The father went to Rav Kanievsky to relate the story and Rav Kanievsky supposedly told his family (after) to purchase a new suit for Thursday (presumably with which to greet Mashiach). This created the ruckus.

The story was later denied by the family of Rav Kanievsky and explained as a misunderstanding. Rav Kanievsky was asked by an avreich about purchasing a new suit for a wedding, and he answered with a smile and a joke that maybe Mashiach will come and he will also be able to use the suit for that. That is the source for the balagan, as reported by Mishpacha magazine (Hebrew edition).

----------------------

Footnotes:

[1]

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20318&st=&pgnum=131

[2]

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20318&st=&pgnum=133

[3] The Midrash Tanchuma as we have it seems like it might be a little different in message:

כי תצא למלחמה

שנו רבותינו:

מצוה גוררת מצוה, ועבירה גוררת עבירה.

וראית בשביה וגו', וגלחה את ראשה ועשתה את צפרניה

כדי שלא תמצא חן בעיניך.

מה כתיב בתריה?

כי תהיין לאיש שתי נשים וגו'. שתים בבית, מריבה בבית.

ולא עוד, אחת אהובה ואחת שנואה, או שתיהן שנואות.

מה כתיב אחריו?

כי יהיה לאיש בן סורר ומורה.

כל מאן דנסיב יפת תאר, נפיק מנייהו בן סורר ומורה.

That is, one mitzva leads to another mitzvah and one aveira leads to another aveira. The purpose of the growing of her nails and shaving of her head is to make her unattractive, so that you don’t marry her. Written immediately afterwards is the case of a man with two wives. Two wives in the house, discord is in the house, and not only that, one if loved and the other is hated, or both are hated. Written immediately afterwards is the Ben Sorer Umoreh. Whoever marries a beautiful captive woman, from her will emerge a Ben Sorer Umoreh.

This midrash Tacnhuma looks at both Yefas Toar and polygamy as much less than the ideal. This Rabbinic disapproval couples with the general midrashic approach of interpreting juxtaposed sections (darshening semuchos), especially in sefer Devarim, to say that one juxtaposed bad result is the inevitable conclusion of the earlier bad action.

Rashi clearly understands Midrash Tanchuma as saying both the hatred and rebellious son stem from marrying the beautiful captive. This might well be what our Midrash Tanchuma is saying, but besides this, Rashi works off Midrash Tanchuma Aleph, which often differs in details from our Midrash Tanchuma.