Sarah laughed with her relatives

Here is an interesting Torah Temimah on Vayera:

The pasuk is Bereishit 18:12:

וַתִּצְחַ֥ק שָׂרָ֖ה בְּקִרְבָּ֣הּ לֵאמֹ֑ר אַֽחֲרֵ֤י בְלֹתִי֙ הָֽיְתָה־לִּ֣י עֶדְנָ֔ה וַֽאדֹנִ֖י זָקֵֽן׃

"And Sarah laughed within herself, saying: 'After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?'"

Interestingly, the Targum Onkelos on this is

וְחַיֵּיכַת שָׂרָה, בִּמְעַהָא לְמֵימַר:  בָּתַר דְּסֵיבִית תְּהֵי לִי עוּלֵימוּ, וְרִבּוֹנִי סִיב. 

The word בִּמְעַהָא, in her innards, can be quite literal and anatomical. Maybe she is laughing about her innards, about the state of her womb. Compare to parashat Toledot, where it translates both the Hebrew bikirbah (as here), and means womb:

כה,כב וַיִּתְרֹצְצוּ הַבָּנִים, בְּקִרְבָּהּ, וַתֹּאמֶר אִם-כֵּן, לָמָּה זֶּה אָנֹכִי; וַתֵּלֶךְ, לִדְרֹשׁ אֶת-ה.

וְדָחֲקִין בְּנַיָּא, בִּמְעַהָא, וַאֲמַרַת אִם כֵּין, לְמָא דְּנָן אֲנָא; וַאֲזַלַת, לְמִתְבַּע אֻלְפָן מִן קֳדָם יְיָ.

as well as a few pesukim later where it serves as a translation for bivitnah:

כה,כד וַיִּמְלְאוּ יָמֶיהָ, לָלֶדֶת; וְהִנֵּה תוֹמִם, בְּבִטְנָהּ.

וּשְׁלִימוּ יוֹמַהָא, לְמֵילַד; וְהָא תְּיוֹמִין, בִּמְעַהָא.

At any rate, Torah Temimah directs our attention to a gemara in Megillah 9a, where Ptolemy compelled 70 Jewish Sages to translate the Torah to Greek:

מעשה בתלמי המלך שכינס שבעים ושנים זקנים והכניסן בשבעים ושנים בתים ולא גילה להם על מה כינסן ונכנס אצל כל אחד ואחד ואמר להם כתבו לי תורת משה רבכם נתן הקב"ה בלב כל אחד ואחד עצה והסכימו כולן לדעת אחת וכתבו לו (בראשית א, כז) אלהים ברא בראשית (בראשית א, א) אעשה אדם בצלם ובדמות (בראשית א, כו) ויכל ביום הששי וישבות ביום השביעי (בראשית ה, ב) זכר ונקבה בראו ולא כתבו בראם (בראשית יא, ז) הבה ארדה ואבלה שם שפתם (בראשית יח, יב) ותצחק שרה בקרוביה (בראשית מט, ו) כי באפם הרגו שור וברצונם עקרו אבוס (שמות ד, כ) ויקח משה את אשתו ואת בניו וירכיבם על נושא בני אדם (שמות יב, מ) ומושב בני ישראל אשר ישבו במצרים ובשאר ארצות ארבע מאות שנה (שמות כד, ה) וישלח את זאטוטי בני ישראל (שמות כד, יא) ואל זאטוטי בני ישראל לא שלח ידו (במדבר טז, טו) לא חמוד אחד מהם נשאתי (דברים ד, יט) אשר חלק ה' אלהיך אתם להאיר לכל העמים (דברים יז, ג) וילך ויעבוד אלהים אחרים אשר לא צויתי לעובדם וכתבו לו את צעירת הרגלים ולא כתבו לו (ויקרא יא, ו) את הארנבת מפני שאשתו של תלמי ארנבת שמה שלא יאמר שחקו בי היהודים והטילו שם אשתי בתורה:

Within this list is ותצחק שרה בקרוביה, that she laughed with her relatives. This looks like a slight misspelling of בקרבה, just as לא חמוד אחד מהם נשאתי (a desirous thing, rather than donkey) looks like a slight misspelling of לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי, yet is, according to this midrash, a deliberate change, even as the target translation was Greek, where such close spellings seem irrelevant. I would point out that ואמר להם כתבו לי תורת משה רבכם does not imply any translation. Perhaps Ptolemy was demanding a mere transcription of the Hebrew text, rather than a translation?

Rashi on Megillah 9a explains the reasoning for this change, regarding Sarah laughing, as follows:

בקרוביה - שלא יאמר על אברהם לא הקפיד דכתיב ויצחק ועל שרה הקפיד לפיכך כתבו בקרוביה לומר אברהם בלבו והיא אמרה בקרוביה:

"That he should not say that about Avraham He was not strict, as is written [Bereishit 17:17 when Avraham fell on his face and laughed on hearing the news, in Lech Lecha] 'he laughed', while upon Sarah he was strict. Therefore they wrote בקרוביה, to say that Avraham was [laughing] in his heart while she said it among her relatives. [And therefore He was strict..]"

After citing Rashi, Torah Temimah continues:

"And if not for his words, once could suggest that they [the elders] changed this language because, in truth, it is difficult. For since she laughed internally, why should the verse state at all that she laughed? And in truth, in Midrash Rabba [?? I don't see it there], they sensed this, and said that with ruach hakodesh he [the malach?] knew that she laughed. And therefore they worried that Ptolmey would ask how they knew that, and the derasha of the Midrash Rabba that it was known via ruach hakodesh he would not have accepted. Therefore they wrote for him בקרוביה, such that she laughed in public..."

Interestingly enough, in what we call the Septuagint today, many of these emendations are missing. The change of חמוד for חמור is there, as I discuss in a different parshablog post. But here is what we have on this pasuk in Vayera:

12 And Sarrha laughed in herself, saying, The thing has not as yet happened to me, even until now, and my lord is old.

12 ἐγέλασεν δὲ Σαρρα ἐν ἑαυτῇ λέγουσα Οὔπω μέν μοι γέγονεν ἕως τοῦ νῦν, ὁ δὲ κύριός μου πρεσβύτερος.

So the change is missing.

A house full of wealth

Consider the following pasuk and Rashi in Balak:

Balaam answered and said to Balak's servants, "Even if Balak gives me a house full of silver and gold, I cannot do anything small or great that would transgress the word of the Lord, my God.		יח. וַיַּעַן בִּלְעָם וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל עַבְדֵי בָלָק אִם יִתֶּן לִי בָלָק מְלֹא בֵיתוֹ כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב לֹא אוּכַל לַעֲבֹר אֶת פִּי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהָי לַעֲשׂוֹת קְטַנָּה אוֹ גְדוֹלָה:
a house full of silver and gold: This shows us that he was greedy and coveted other people’s money. He said, “He ought to give me all his silver and gold, since he has to hire many armies, and even then, it is questionable whether he will be victorious or not, whereas I will certainly succeed.”- [Mid. Tanchuma Balak; Num. Rabbah 20:10]		מלא ביתו כסף וזהב: למדנו שנפשו רחבה ומחמד ממון אחרים. אמר, ראוי לו ליתן לי כל כסף וזהב שלו, שהרי צריך לשכור חיילות רבות, ספק נוצח ספק אינו נוצח, ואני ודאי נוצח:

I found the following summary of a Torah Temima in Prachei Rashi:

Torah Temimah:

After citing the Rashi, Torah Temimah writes:

"And there is to comment on this. For do we not find in Pirkei Avot 9:6: 'Rabbi Yossi ben Kisma said: If you were to give me all the silver and gold in the world, I would not travel to a place which was not a place of Torah..." And if so, why do we see fit to darshen this one [by Bilaam] negatively, in such language as to the disgrace of Bilaam? 

However, the truth is that this case is not comparable to that one there. For there [in Avot] the story was that a certain person suggested before Rabbi Yossi that he travel to dwell in his city, and that he would give him for this a million gold dinarii, and upon this Rabbi Yossi responded the aforementioned response. And therefore, Rabbi Yossi was compelled to respond to him in similar fashion to the suggestion, that not only would he not take a million gold dinarii, but even all the silver and gold in the world. In contrast here, Balak did not suggest to Bilaam that he would enrich him with silver because of his action, but only promised him that he would honor him, as it states (pasuk 17) 'for I will surely honor you'. 

And if so, Bilaam should have replied in like fashion to his suggestion, that he could not be honored in any honor if it entailed transgressing the word of Hashem. So why did he respond in matters of money? Rather, certainly because he was desirous of money. And this is as is known in nature, that a person's desire is always on his tongue to mention it.'

End quote. The Mishna in Avot reads:

פעם אחת הייתי מהלך בדרך ופגע בי אדם אחד ואמר לי שלום, החזרתי לו שלום. אמר לי, רבי מאיזו עיר אתה? אמרתי לו מעיר גדולה של חכמים וסופרים אנוכי. אמר לי רבי רצונך שתדור עמנו במקומנו, ואני אתן לך אלף אלפים כסף וזהב אבנים טובות ומרגליות? אמרתי לו, אם אתה נותן לי כל כסף וזהב אבנים טובות ומרגליות שבעולם, איני דר אלא במקום תורה! שכך כתוב בספר התהילים "טוב לי תורת פיך מאלפי זהב וכסף"

I certainly agree with the distinction that Torah Temimah is making here. Given the offer by the unnamed man, Rabbi Yossi ben Kisma's response is natural in context and does not reflect any flaw in Rabbi Yossi ben Kisma's nature.

I would tentatively express some slight doubt about Bilaam's response being out of context, however. While Torah Temimah's analysis makes good sense and is quite compelling, we should subject it to scrutiny, considering it in the light of the peshat in the pasuk and in light of Rashi's sources. We shall see.

First off, consider that according to Ibn Ezra, Balak's offer was indeed one of money.

 כי כבד אכבדך -בממון.

וכל אשר תאמר -שיש צורך כדי שתקללם, והעד: כי כבד אכבדך כן שאמר בלעם: אם יתן לי בלק מלא ביתו כסף וזהב:

Thus, Ibn Ezra considered "surely honor you" to be ambiguous, and so takes Bilaam's response as clarifying what it was that Balak offered. Perhaps compare with the root יקר which means both heavy and expensive.

Of course, Rashi is not Ibn Ezra, so Rashi does not need to agree that Balak was offering wealth. However, consider this earlier pasuk and Rashi:

He sent messengers to Balaam the son of Beor, to Pethor, which is by the river of the land of his people, to call for him, saying, "A people has come out of Egypt, and behold, they have covered the "eye" of the land, and they are stationed opposite me.

ה. וַיִּשְׁלַח מַלְאָכִים אֶל בִּלְעָם בֶּן בְּעוֹר פְּתוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר עַל הַנָּהָר אֶרֶץ בְּנֵי עַמּוֹ לִקְרֹא לוֹ לֵאמֹר הִנֵּה עַם יָצָא מִמִּצְרַיִם הִנֵּה כִסָּה אֶת עֵין הָאָרֶץ וְהוּא ישֵׁב מִמֻּלִי:

to call for him: This invitation was for him, [i.e.,] for his benefit, for he promised him a large sum of money. - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 4, Num. Rabbah 20:7]

לקרא לו: הקריאה שלו היתה ולהנאתו, שהיה פוסק לו ממון הרבה:

This shows that money, and not just honor, was on the table.

(Our Tanchuma does not mention money but honor here:

לקרוא לושכתב לו, שלא תהא סבור שלעצמי בלבד אתה עושה ואני מכבדך. 
אם תעקרם, מכל האומות אתה מתכבד, וכנענים ומצרים כלם משתחווים לך. 

Rashi often has a different version of Tanchuma than we have, so we should consider the possibility that he is basing himself on a different version of Tanchuma, rather than changing it.
)

Then, a bit later, in Balak's actual offer:

For I will honor you greatly and do whatever you tell me to do. So please come and curse this people for me.'"		יז. כִּי כַבֵּד אֲכַבֶּדְךָ מְאֹד וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר תֹּאמַר אֵלַי אֶעֱשֶׂה וּלְכָה נָּא קָבָה לִּי אֵת הָעָם הַזֶּה:
For I will honor you greatly: I will give you more than you have ever received in the past. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 6, Num. Rabbah 20:10]		כי כבד אכבדך מאד: יותר ממה שהיית נוטל לשעבר אני נותן לך:

What is the thing of which Balak will give him more? This might be money. But on the other hand, given the context in both Rashi and Tanchuma of honor as a thread running through this, and given that the pasuk itself uses the word כַבֵּד, this can indeed mean more honor.

(The Tanchuma from which this is taken:
כי כבד אכבדך מאד יותר ממה שהיית נוטל לשעבר, אני נותן. 

)

So I think Torah Temimah's explanation can indeed work out, with a shift from honor to money, but with the asterisk that, according to Rashi (and perhaps according to Tanchuma), Balak did indeed promise him a lot of money. And it makes good sense that Rabbi Yossi ben Kisma was responding to an immediate offer of a tremendous treasure, which then makes his idiomatic use of "all the money in the world" not reflective of his personality.

I think that there is another potential explanation, besides that of Torah Temimah. Rabbi Yossi ben Kisma was established based on other evidence as a tzaddik. Meanwhile, Bilaam was established based on other evidence as a rasha. One thing that midrash tends to do is take Biblical characters who are "grey" and paint them as either black or white. Esav is ambiguous, and we can almost see his side. Cheated out of his birthright, because he came in from the field starving. However, the midrash piles on three grievous sins that he had just committed. Yaakov lies to his father about his identity. The midrash breaks up his words so that he just says "It is I. Esav is your firstborn." This is perhaps because the words which are often grabbed for midrashic analysis is ambiguous, and so can be interpreted one way or the other. And the cue for the direction of analysis is taken from their overall sense of the person. Alternatively, there is a homiletic purpose behind such analyses.

It is not just this one trait which the Midrash Tanchuma points out. It is one of three:

ויען בלעם ויאמר אל עבדי בלק אם יתן לי בלק מלא ביתו כסף וזהב וגו' מכאן אתה למד, שהיה בו שלשה דברים, אלו הן: 
עין רעה,
ורוח גבוהה,
ונפש רחבה. 
[עין רעה, דכתיב: וישא בלעם את עיניו וירא את ישראל. רוח גבוהה, דכתיב: מאן ה' לתתי להלך עמכם. נפש רחבה, דכתיב: אם יתן לי בלק וגו']. אלו היה מבקש לשכור חיילות להלחם כנגדן, ספק נוצחין, ספק נופלין. לא דיו שיתן כך ונוצח. הא למדת, שכן בקש. לא אוכל לעבור. 
נתנבא שאינו יכול לבטל ברכות שנתברכו האבות מפני השכינה. ועתה שבו נא בזה גם אתם הלילה. 

ויהי ביום השמיני and how it parallels Maaseh Bereishit

I've been learning through some Torah Temimah on the parsha every week. What he does is first bring down a large collection of derashot on each phrase in each pasuk, and then discuss in detail what each derasha means and how they might have gone about deriving it.

Here, I'll present the first Torah Temima on parashat Shemini, the derasha and his discussion. And I will use that as a jumping off point for my own discussion of the derasha, and how I might bolster it.

So first, the pasuk, derasha, and comment of Torah Temima.

The pasuk is Vayikra 9:1:

וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי קָרָא מֹשֶׁה לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו וּלְזִקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל

"And it was on the eighth day that Moshe called to Aharon and his sons and the elders of Israel."

This was the eighth day of the miluim, such that the Mishkan and the kohanim are finally being inaugurated.

The derasha he cites from Megillah 10b, where it is embedded within a discussion of the word וַיְהִי, and whether it always has negative connotations. וַיְהִי בִּימֵי אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ was certainly negative but the inauguration of the Mishkan is surely positive, as the derasha makes clear:

והכתיב (ויקרא ט, א) ויהי ביום השמיני ותניא אותו היום היתה שמחה לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא כיום שנבראו בו שמים וארץ כתיב הכא ויהי ביום השמיני וכתיב התם(בראשית א, ה) ויהי (בקר) יום אחד

"But it is written: 'And it was on the eighth day' and it was taught in a brayta: That day there was joy before Hakadosh Baruch Hu like the day on which heaven and earth were created. It is written here (Vayikra 9:1) ויהי ביום השמיני and it is written there (Bereishit 1:5) ויהי (בקר) יום אחד."

Torah Temima end the quote with just the citation of ויהי בקר, which doesn't single out a specific day.

In his commentary on the derasha he writes:

א) נראה באור הדרשה ע״פ מ״ש בב״ר פ״ג שבעת
 הקמת המשכן אמר הקב״ה נדמה בעיני כאלו
 באותו יום בראתי את עולמי, ומבואר שם הטעם
 מפני שמחחלת בריית העולם נתאוה הקב״ה ליחד
 שמו וקדושתו בעולם ע״י המשכן, וזה גופא יתבאר
 ע"פ מ״ש במגילה ל״א ב' אלמלא מעמדות לא
 נתקיימו שמים וארץ, ומעמדות היינו בקיום ביהמ״ק
 וקרבנות, כנודע [עי לפנינו בפ' פינחס בר״פ
 קרבנות], ולאשר שביום השמיני למלואים היה גמר
 הקמת המשכן, לכן דריש שגדלה ככיכול שמחתו של
 הקב״ה כיום בריאת שמים וארץ, יען דבבריאת
 שמו״א היתה רצונו ומחשבתו כביכול לברוא את העולם
 לתכלית המעמדות, ובהקמת המשכן נתקיים רצונו
 בזה, ולסמך וסימן לדבר נתן שווי המלות ויהי
 דכתיבי בשניהם

"It appears that the derasha is based on that which is written in Bereishit Rabba parasha 3 (3:9), that at the time of the erection of the Mishkan, Hashem said, 'it seems to me as if today I have created my world'. And it is explained there the reason, that from the beginning of creation Hashem desired to associate/designate [ליחד] his Name and his holiness in the world via the Mishkan. And this itself is explained via that which is written in Megillah 31b, 'if not for the Maamadot the Heavens and Earth would not have been established'. And the Maamadot were in the establishment of the Bet Hamikdash and korbanot, as is known. [See earlier, in parashat Pinchas, at the beginning of the parasha of korbanot.] And since on the eighth day of the Miluim were the completion of the erection of the Mishkan, therefore they darshened that it was as if the happiness of Hakadosh Baruch Hu was as great as the creation of Heaven and Earth, since at the creation of Heaven and Earth, His Will and Though were as if to create the world for the purpose of the Maamadot, and with the erection of the Mishkan His will was fulfilled in this. And as a support and sign to the matter the [author of the midrash] noted the equivalence of the words וַיְהִי which were written by both of them."

So, he explained the intent behind the Midrash as well as how the derasha is working.

I would note that as gezeira shavas go, this seems way too common of a word. How many places does the word וַיְהִי occur? Aside from its frequency, why specifically associate these two instances? Maybe if it is a mere mnemonic, but the idea is already established from elsewhere, as the Torah Temima establishes it.

I'd also note that in the Bereishit Rabba which the Torah Temima cited, the derasha about the Divine purpose in creation uses a different pasuk, which has Vayhi, Yom, and Rishon:

ט [תכלית הבריאה היא השראת השכינה בעולם

אמר רבי שמואל בר אמי: מתחלת ברייתו של עולם נתאוה הקב"ה לעשות שותפות בתחתונים. 

מה נפשך? אם לענין החשבון, לא היה צריך למימר אלא אחד שנים שלושה, או ראשון שני ושלישי, שמא אחד שני שלישי אתמהא?! 

אימתי פרע להם הקדוש ברוך הוא? להלן בהקמת המשכן, שנאמר: (במדבר ז) ויהי המקריב ביום הראשון את קרבנו, ראשון לברייתו של עולם. 
אמר הקב"ה: כאילו באותו יום בראתי את עולמי. 

תני: עשר עטרות נטל אותו היום ראשון למעשה בראשית.
ראשון למלכים,
ראשון לנשיאים,
ראשון לכהונה,
ראשון לשכינה, שנא' (שמות כה) ועשו לי מקדש. ראשון לברכה,
ראשון לעבודה,
ראשון לאיסור הבמה,
ראשון לשחיטה בצפון,
ראשון לירידת האש, שנא' (ויקרא י) ותצא אש מלפני ה' וגו'. 

We find a parallel to the midrash as it appears in the gemara as it appears in the Sifra. The gemara again:

והכתיב (ויקרא ט, א) ויהי ביום השמיני ותניא אותו היום היתה שמחה לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא כיום שנבראו בו שמים וארץ כתיב הכא ויהי ביום השמיני וכתיב התם (בראשית א, ה) ויהי (בקר) יום אחד

And the Sifra can be read here, 15-16. This despite the word כתיב, which is Aramaic, and could have suggested to me that this is a post-Amoraic editor offering the derasha. In the Sifra, it is כאן הוא אומר instead. And there are surrounding supports there for the joy, from צאינה וראינה בנות ציון.

Within the give-and-take of the gemara, the particulars of the derasha do not matter. The point was just that here the word ויהי is used, and we see from this other Tannaitic source that this was a day of great joy.

If I wanted to bolster the derasha, I would do so in a different manner. We already see from elsewhere that there is ambiguity, argued within Chazal in the phrase וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי. Does this mean the eighth day of the miluim? The eighth day of Nissan? One of them? Both of them? Earlier context helps clarify that the miluim was meant, but that does not necessarily mean the eighth of the miluim exclusively.

So here is another interpretation of וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי, that it is the eighth day to Creation. There were six days of creation, all the way until וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי. And then there was the seventh day, on which it was finished, וַיְכַל אֱלֹהִים בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי. And now, skip all of the intervening Chumash and pick up here with the eighth day, in which we encounter the purpose of all of creation.

So it is not (just, or perhaps even) the single word וַיְהִי. Rather, it is how the phrase is reminiscent of the days listed in Maaseh Bereishit, and how Maaseh Bereishit left off on day seven, where here we are encountering day eight.

How could Yosef ask "Is my father still alive?" Yehuda had made it clear that Yaakov was alive!

The Torah Temimah presents two ways of understand Yosef's question, "I am Yosef. Is my father still alive?" I like the first one as peshat and not just midrash. And at the end of the post, I give a novel interpretation of the utterance which looks forwards rather than backwards.

The first is based on the midrashic take, I think a famous one:

He wants to know what the connection is between "I am Yosef" and "Is my father still alive?" And further, they had pretty explicitly said that Yaakov was alive, so why is he asking?

The first approach is that this was said כמתמיה. The midrash understands Yosef's words as a Tochacha, a rebuke, to which the brothers are unable to answer.

Thus, Yehuda had said (Bereishit 44:31):

לא  וְהָיָה, כִּרְאוֹתוֹ כִּי-אֵין הַנַּעַר--וָמֵת; וְהוֹרִידוּ עֲבָדֶיךָ אֶת-שֵׂיבַת עַבְדְּךָ אָבִינוּ, בְּיָגוֹן--שְׁאֹלָה.

31 it will come to pass, when he seeth that the lad is not with us, that he will die; and thy servants will bring down the gray hairs of thy servant our father with sorrow to the grave.

and in this way saying that a report of Binyamin's death would kill Yaakov. And Yosef was very affected by this (Bereishit 45:1-2) and sent everyone out, and then proclaimed to them (45:3):

ג  וַיֹּאמֶר יוֹסֵף אֶל-אֶחָיו אֲנִי יוֹסֵף, הַעוֹד אָבִי חָי; וְלֹא-יָכְלוּ אֶחָיו לַעֲנוֹת אֹתוֹ, כִּי נִבְהֲלוּ מִפָּנָיו.

3 And Joseph said unto his brethren: 'I am Joseph; doth my father yet live?' And his brethren could not answer him; for they were affrighted at his presence.

His brothers being unable to answer him כִּי נִבְהֲלוּ מִפָּנָיו would mean that they had no answer to his rebuke.

The Torah Temimah puts it as follows, as a rhetorical question (a):

"Is there still in him strength to bear a burden after his suffering {?} and pain from my loss, such that he is still alive?"

And with this was the implicit accusation, and the calling to their mind all that Yosef's brothers had done to him. This also explains how it connects to "I am Yosef". All this is an accusation.

Another way I might cast the tochacha is: (b) "Why are you thinking of my father's suffering at the loss now? You were callous about his suffering back then!" Another way: (c) "How can you present to me that he cannot bear the loss of a child? He was able to bear it back then when you caused me to be lost to him."

I like this rhetorical approach. And though it is recorded in a midrash, that midrash is tapping in to a deep and plausible peshat reading of the text.

Perhaps one can find fault with some of the ways of spinning this tochacha. After all, the brothers in the past (e.g. Bereishit 45:27-29) had stressed the loss of Yosef, and that it was the loss of both sons of Rachel which would cumulatively add up to Yaakov's death in sorrow. But this would only be a rejection of (c), not (a) or (b).

But then he presents another explanation al derech hapeshat:

"And as peshat, one can interpret the intent of the question 'Is my father still alive?' is that after he saw that they lied to him regarding his existence, for they said that he died, and as Rashi said in the beginning of this parashah (pasuk 20) that they had a reason for doing so, he was no longer certain about what they said to him until now that their father was still alive. For perhaps they also had a reason [for lying] about this, perhaps in order to stir up mercy in Yosef regarding his old age, or some other reason. And therefore, now, when he made himself known, he asked about him [Yaakov] that they should tell him the truth."

Here is a my own explanation. Stop looking backwards, to Yehuda's mention of Yaakov saying X or Y, or of Yehuda's fear of Yaakov dying. You are supposed to look forwards, to Yaakov's reaction to the good news. Bereishit 45:28:

כח  וַיֹּאמֶר, יִשְׂרָאֵל, רַב עוֹד-יוֹסֵף בְּנִי, חָי; אֵלְכָה וְאֶרְאֶנּוּ, בְּטֶרֶם אָמוּת.

28 And Israel said: 'It is enough; Joseph my son is yet alive; I will go and see him before I die

Even if Yosef did not say it (pretend for a moment, for my rhetorical point), it would be fitting to have put these words in Yosef's mouth, HaOd Avi Chai. Because the literary point is the mutual excitement regarding the reunion. And so it matches Yaakov's statement of Rav, Od Yosef Chai.

Now know that Yosef did say it. And it has some meaning that presumably can be resolved with Yehuda's earlier statements which make clear that Yaakov was alive. But first, the resolution to that apparent conflict is irrelevant, and beside the point. And stress to much on this, and you will end up missing the point. And second, perhaps say that it was an excited rhetorical utterance to himself.

Torah Temima on danger

Summary: Yaakov was diminished by Hashem's kindness. And how one should avoid dangerous situations. And eating meat and fish, and whether bittul works for sakana. Then, at the end, I weigh in.

Post: Rashi in the beginning of parashat Vayishlach reads:

11. I have become small from all the kindnesses and from all the truth that You have rendered Your servant, for with my staff I crossed this Jordan, and now I have become two camps.		יא. קָטֹנְתִּי מִכֹּל הַחֲסָדִים וּמִכָּל הָאֱמֶת אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ אֶת עַבְדֶּךָ כִּי בְמַקְלִי עָבַרְתִּי אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן הַזֶּה וְעַתָּה הָיִיתִי לִשְׁנֵי מַחֲנוֹת:
I have become small: My merits have diminished because of the kindnesses and the truth that You have rendered me. Therefore, I fear lest I have became sullied with sin since [the time that] You promised me, and it will cause me to be delivered into Esau’s hand[s]. — [from Shab. 32a, Ta’anith 20b, Ber. 41]		קטנתי מכל החסדים: נתמעטו זכיותי על ידי החסדים והאמת שעשית עמי, לכך אני ירא, שמא משהבטחתני נתלכלכתי בחטא ויגרום לי להמסר ביד עשו:

That gemara in Shabbos, 32b reads:

R. Jannai examined [the bridge] and then crossed over. R. Jannai [acted] upon his views, for he said, A man should never stand in a place of danger and say that a miracle will be wrought for him, lest it is not. And if a miracle is wrought for him, it is deducted from his merits.⁷  R. Hanin said, Which verse [teaches this]? I am become diminished⁸  by reason of all the deeds of kindness and all the truth.⁹  R. Zera would not go out among the palm-trees on a day of the strong south wind.¹⁰

Torah Temimah points us to the gemara and then writes:

"To explain קָטֹנְתִּי as 'my merits have been reduced'. And apparently this requires consideration, for behold, this language Yaakov said in a manner of humility, and there is not in this an allusion to the matter of reducing merits. And so is apparent in Midrash Rabba: קָטֹנְתִּי, I am not worthy. And see in Ramban and Maharsha who comment in this matter. And to me it seems, based on that which is stated in Bava Kamma 50a:

 R. Hanina said: If a man says that the Holy One, blessed be He, is lax in the execution of justice, his life shall be outlawed, for it is stated, He is the Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are judment.³⁹

And if so, since Yaakov said that he is not worthy of all the goodness, if so, it must be that they were they not done for free, but rather that they reduced his merits.

And know that upon this foundation, that it is prohibited to stand in a dangerous place and rely on a miracle, Chazal forbade many various things which have in there the concern for danger, and many of them are enumerated in Yoreh Deah siman 116. And that which the Taz investigates there if a dangerous substance is nullified in 60X, just as a prohibited substance, it seems to bring proof from Chullin 97a, that there was an incident in which they roasted a goat in its fat, and Rabbi Yochanan said to cut away the meat [and eat it; but here he is reading to discard] until they reached its place [of the fat]. And they [meaning Ravin bar Rav Ada] establish it there in the gemara that this is a case of kilchit in a stewpot [and that Rabbi Yochanan instructed that a non-Jew cook should taste it to see if there was the taste there],

and Rashi explains that a kilchit is a non-kosher species of small fish, in a stewpot of meat. And behold, meat and fish, it is known that this is a dangerous substance, and it is explained that klipah [cutting away] work. And in all places we establish that 60X is better than klipah. [And indeed, in our gemara in Chullin, they explicitly state that the non-Jewish cook should taste it, meaning to ascertain whether taam is there.] Howbeit, in the Yerushalmi it is made clear that a doubt of a danger one needs to be more stringent than a doubt of prohibition.

And we have seen fit to comment here about how the world has seized upon this, to be careful because of a concern of danger, because of the instruction [tzavaah] of Rabbi Yehuda Chassid in the matter of matchmaking, that the name of the groom and the father-in-law, or the name of the bride and her mother-in-law, should not be identical. And many wish to be lenient in this, and they brought out a sevara to say that Rabbi Yehuda Chassid only commanded this to his family; and the like, with other sevarot. See in Shu"t Nodeh Biyhuda Tinyana, chelek Even HaEzer siman 79, and Chasam Sofer chelek Even haEzer at the end of siman 197, and in Chochmas Adam klal 123 din 13, he wrote that this is specifically where the names are threefold, such as that his name is Reuven, his father-in-law's name was Reuven, and he takes a son-in-law whose name is Reuven; and so by a bride and her mother-in-law, and he did not explain a reason in the matter. And further are there more acharonim who wrote other sevarot different from this.

However, to me it seems that this matter is not prohibited because of danger, but rather from the primary law. And this is based on that which we establish that it is forbidden to call his father by his name, and so is it prohibited to call others by their name, where their names are identical, unless you change their name. [And according to the position of the Rambam, in perek 6 from Mamrim, it is prohibited even not before him to call others, whose name is like his, when the name is distinct and irregular, see there.] And according to this, is it not so that it is not possible for a son-in-law and father-in-law, or a daughter-in-law and her mother-in-law, whose names are identical, to dwell together? For is it not so that the daughter will not be able to call her husband by his name before her father, whose name is like his? [And according to the Rambam, for a distinct name, even note before him?] And so too a husband to his wife, whose name is like his mother's name. And there is not to rely on changing the name, for not everyone is knowledgeable of the din, and also at times it is not possible with this. And so, is it not possible to stumble in the cancellation of the command of kibud av va'em, with is Biblical, vedo'k. (See here.)

It is also possible to give the reason for refraining from this based on that which is written in Midrash Rabba, parashat Noach, parasha 38: "Rabbi Yossi said: The rishonim [early ones], because they recognized their lineage, they would name based on events that occurred, but we, who do not recognize our lineage, we name based on our ancestor's name." And the explanation of this is that since we are traveling to and from in Exile, it is fitting for us to recall the chain of our ancestor's lineage, based on the fathers calling their sons based on their fathers [of the fathers] who have passed on, and this is as we are accustomed to in our days. And also in the Talmud we find this custom in every place, such as in Gittin 33b: R' Parta the son of R' Elazar ben Parta, the grandson of R' Parta the Great. And the name of Abayei was Nachmani, based on the name of his grandfather, And see Moed Kata 25b and Yoma 38b.

And behold, if the names of the groom and his father-in-law are the same, the groom and his wife are not able to call their son by the name of the father-in-law and the father of his wife, since the name of the groom is the same as his; and so too for daughters, by a bride and her mother-in-law. And behold, this matter would cause refraining the calling of them for the purpose of recalling the chain of our lineage, vedo'k in this."

End quote.

Here are my thoughts:

1) In terms of fish with meat, we start with the gemara in Pesachim 76b (and here):

תני רב כהנא בריה דרב חיננא סבא פת שאפאה עם צלי בתנור אסור לאכלה בכותחא ההיא ביניתא דאיטווא בהדי בישרא אסרה רבא מפרזיקיא למיכליה בכותחא מר בר רב אשי אמר אפי' במילחא נמי אסורה משום דקשיא לריחא ולדבר אחר:

(q) (Rav Kahana brei d'Rav Chinena - Beraisa): If bread was baked in an oven with roasting meat, it may not be eaten with Kutach. 
(r) A case occurred, fish was roasted with meat - Rava of Parzakiya forbade eating it with Kutach; 
(s) Mar bar Rav Ashi forbade eating it even with salt (i.e. alone), for it (a mixture of fish and meat) is prone to cause odor and Tzara'as.

Now, we have to think about this gemara that the Torah Temimah raised, in Chullin 97b:

והאמר רבה בר בר חנה עובדא הוה קמיה דר' יוחנן בכנישתא דמעון בגדי שצלאו בחלבו ואתו ושיילוה לרבי יוחנן ואמר קולף ואוכל עד שמגיע לחלבו ההוא כחוש הוה רב הונא בר יהודה אמר כוליא בחלבה הוה ושריא רבין בר רב אדא אמר כילכית באילפס הוה ואתו שיילוה לרבי יוחנן ואמר להו ליטעמיה קפילא ארמאה

But surely Rabbah b. Bar Hana has related a case which came before R. Johanan at the synagogue of Ma'on of a kid that was roasted with its fat, and on enquiring of R. Johanan he ruled that one may cut away [the meat] and eat it until one reaches the fat! — That was a lean kid.  R. Huna b. Judah suggested that it was the case of a kidney roasted with its fat, and he [R. Johanan] declared it to be permitted. Rabin son of R. Ada said: It was the case of a kilkith that was found in a pot of stew, and on enquiring of R. Johanan he ruled that a gentile cook should taste it.

Now, Torah Temimah may be correct in interpreting the gemara as each modifying the first statement, such that even where Ravin bar Rav Adda said it was the non-kosher kilkith in stew, Rabbi Yochanan still said (in addition to a gentile cook tasting it) that one should cut away the meat. But I think this is actually an argument as to the situation. And if so, he should not be discussing klipah, but rather whether there is taam, and whether that is parallel to batel beshishim.

Further, if it is not roasting a kid, but cooking in (meat) stew, then perhaps one could assert a distinction between roasting and cooking.

Further, yes, Rashi says it was a meat stew, but before one draws great halachic conclusions from this, outside the primary intent of the sugya, we should consider if there is anything in the gemara itself to suggest that it is specifically meat stew.

Further, and perhaps most importantly, note that in Pesachim, it is only Mar bar Rav Ashi, a very late (7th century) Amora of Bavel. who forbade the meat roasted with fish in any event. Rava of Parzakiya permitted it, so long as it was not eaten with a dairy dip! And while it may indeed be so that we pasken like Mar bar Rav Ashi, it is not a safe assumption that every other Amora agreed with this medical diagnosis. Rabin son of R' Ada, and Rabbi Yochanan, could very well not have held that there was any medical concern with meat cooked/roasted with fish.

2) That said, I think that not contributing taam and being nullified in 60 times as much would be something that the Amoraim would endorse, even for matters of sakana. I don't believe that they maintained 60X as a magical construct, or a mere halachic construction. Here is not the place to elaborate, but it all comes down to the continuum model of matter, as opposed to an atomic model. Rather than matter being made up by distinct pieces, some ancient Greeks believed that matter was made up of a continuum, with different attributes. And they explicitly discuss the case of wine diluted in water. Drop a tiny but of wine in a lot of water and it is nullified. It is NOT that there are bits of wine floating in the water, and we don't care about it. Rather, in the mixture, the various attributes of the wine contribute themselves to the water, so that the water gets a bit more of the wine attributes, and the entire mixture is thus moved a bit further along the continuum. But as such, the entire mixture is really now water. The wine has been physically nullified. However -- and the Greeks discuss this -- keep dripping wine into the water and you have chozer vene'or, it reawakens. Well, not really reawakens, but enough of the attributes of wine have affected the entire liquid substance that it now is quasi-wine.

If so, taste might well be a measure of how far along the continuum something is. And if there is no taste, then it has been physically nullified, and doesn't exist. So perhaps yes, it would work for matters of sakana. 

(One might still distinguish between something which is already sakana and is then nullified / klipa, vs. something that if it infuses sufficiently will create with its mixture something which is a sakana.)

3) In terms of marrying someone with the same name, it is not a matter of seeking a kula. For Nodeh BeYehuda at least, it is a matter of defending Yehuda HaChassid. Because surely if he meant it seriously as halacha, we wouldn't listen. But must we also think negatively about him? Rather, let us be dan lekaf zechut.

That is, halacha is halacha, and that is determined by the gemara. We see from the gemara that Amoraim had the same name as their fathers-in-law. Just because a kabbalist or mystic comes along and invents new rules, against the gemara, does not mean that we need to listen to him. (Thus, Yehuda HaChassid also invents an issur to marry a niece, where the gemara recommends it.)

If so, it is misguided to find reasons to support this invented halacha. We should rather discourage people from heeding Yehuda HaChassid's instructions.

4) In terms of katonti, I don't agree that one must reconcile the midrash and the peshat. The midrash takes the mi of  קָטֹנְתִּי מִכֹּל הַחֲסָדִים as "as a result of". The peshat takes it as "less than". And the rest of the interpretation follows from that. Yes, the peshat interpretation is an expression of humility. But I don't think we need to work that humility into the midrash.

And that Hashem is not a vatran, that is, not lax in the execution of justice, conveys to me that one should not say that Hashem will not punish misdeeds. That is not the same as saying that Hashem will not give a matnas chinam. See the midrashim on va'etchanan, about how Moshe was seeking a free gift, rather than relying on his own merits; and that was a mark of his humility.

How Yaakov Avinu won the Nobel Prize

How do we know that Yaakov Avinu won the Nobel Prize? Because the pasuk says (Bereishit 31:4):

ד  וַיִּשְׁלַח יַעֲקֹב, וַיִּקְרָא לְרָחֵל וּלְלֵאָה, הַשָּׂדֶה, אֶל-צֹאנוֹ.

4 And Jacob sent and called Rachel and Leah to the field unto his flock,

And we also know that the Nobel Prize is given to people out standing in their field.

Anyhoo, there is a gemara in Berachos, 8b, based in part on this pasuk:

תניא אמר ר"ע בשלשה דברים אוהב אני את המדיים כשחותכין את הבשר אין חותכין אלא על גבי השולחן כשנושקין אין נושקין אלא על גב היד וכשיועצין אין יועצין אלא בשדה אמר רב אדא בר אהבה מאי קראה (בראשית לא, ד) וישלח יעקב ויקרא לרחל וללאה השדה אל צאנו:

Or, in English:

It has been taught: R. Akiba says: For three things I like the Medes: When they cut meat, they cut it only on the table; when they kiss, they kiss only the hand; and when they hold counsel, they do so only in the field. R. Adda b. Ahabah says: Which verse [may be quoted in support of the last]? And Jacob sent and called Rachel and Leah to the field unto his flock.¹¹ 

Rashi comments, on the daf:

אלא בשדה - דאמרי אינשי אזנים לכותל:

"[They do so] only in the field: For as the expression goes, the walls have ears."

Torah Temimah cites this gemara and Rashi. He writes:

"And apparently, there is to comment from the proof [in the gemara] from Yaakov. For behold, there it to say that therefore he called them to the field, since he was unable to go from there, for he would then be abandoning his work. And we need to say that he was able to wait until evening, the time that he returned to his house, but perforce, he deliberately called them to the field, since it is good to hold counsel in the field."

An interesting and persuasive idea.

I don't know that support in this case must be such a compelling support, though. Rabbi Akiva was speaking in admiration, based on his own sensibilities. And separate from this, R' Ada bar Ahava found a Scriptural support, which I would read as a remez, to this idea. Such an allusion does not, IMHO, need to disallow any other plausible and parallel causes. But this is just MHO, and one may feel free to argue whether this support is a mere asmachta or something more.

And even if one could say that this would be abandoning his work, one need not say this. At this stage, he was already somewhat wealthy. He could have taken in the flocks or handed them over to his eldest son, or a servant. Recall that Yaakov tells Esav in Vayishlach:

ה  וַיְצַו אֹתָם, לֵאמֹר, כֹּה תֹאמְרוּן, לַאדֹנִי לְעֵשָׂו:  כֹּה אָמַר, עַבְדְּךָ יַעֲקֹב, עִם-לָבָן גַּרְתִּי, וָאֵחַר עַד-עָתָּה.	5 And he commanded them, saying: 'Thus shall ye say unto my lord Esau: Thus saith thy servant Jacob: I have sojourned with Laban, and stayed until now.
ו  וַיְהִי-לִי שׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר, צֹאן וְעֶבֶד וְשִׁפְחָה; וָאֶשְׁלְחָה לְהַגִּיד לַאדֹנִי, לִמְצֹא-חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ.	6 And I have oxen, and asses and flocks, and men-servants and maid-servants; and I have sent to tell my lord, that I may find favour in thy sight.'

(These servant might have been the ones Yaakov sent to Esav.) Surely he could have handed over the flocks to a man-servant. Maybe he would not want to. But all this is hypothetical, and just as Torah Temimah could presume that Yaakov would not want to abandon his work in the day -- which causes the problem -- one could hypothesize all sorts of resolutions, where he would be willing to leave even by day. His resolution is just one of many, and one need not assume that any of this was going through the mind of Rav Ada bar Ahava.

However, we see this idea raised by Torah Temimah, the idea of Yaakov's dedication, and of no bittul melacha in the perek itself, when Yaakov speaks to Rachel and Leah:

מ  הָיִיתִי בַיּוֹם אֲכָלַנִי חֹרֶב, וְקֶרַח בַּלָּיְלָה; וַתִּדַּד שְׁנָתִי, מֵעֵינָי.

40 Thus I was: in the day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night; and my sleep fled from mine eyes.

Also, since he is talking about the sheep, and the changing of wages, and the angel's reference to sheep, then it is more meaningful to do it in the presence of the various spotted, speckled, etc., sheep.

ח  אִם-כֹּה יֹאמַר, נְקֻדִּים יִהְיֶה שְׂכָרֶךָ--וְיָלְדוּ כָל-הַצֹּאן, נְקֻדִּים; וְאִם-כֹּה יֹאמַר, עֲקֻדִּים יִהְיֶה שְׂכָרֶךָ--וְיָלְדוּ כָל-הַצֹּאן, עֲקֻדִּים.

8 If he said thus: The speckled shall be thy wages; then all the flock bore speckled; and if he said thus: The streaked shall be thy wages; then bore all the flock streaked.

However, Rav Ada bar Ahava could point to another salient feature of this story, that this was done without Lavan's knowledge:

כ  וַיִּגְנֹב יַעֲקֹב, אֶת-לֵב לָבָן הָאֲרַמִּי--עַל-בְּלִי הִגִּיד לוֹ, כִּי בֹרֵחַ הוּא.

20 And Jacob outwitted Laban the Aramean, in that he told him not that he fled.

On a peshat level, this would indeed account for calling them into the field. We see that Yaakov sought secrecy in this plan, to flee from Lavan.