posts so far for parshat Vayigash

2011

1. Why no 'famous' derasha on Isha Ki Tazria?  Maybe there is. Regardless, what about the law of conservation of derashot? Update: The Rashi ktav yad I cited often brings in many other sources, so I would not attribute it to Rashi. The rest of the analysis still stands.

2010

1. Vayigash sources -- expanded. For example, many more meforshei Rashi.
   .
2. How did Yehuda want to speak in Yosef's ear? Three possibilities. If so, where Rashi takes the middle road, is he choosing apeshat or a derash route?
   .
3. In answer to a ponderous parasha point
   .
4. Parsha questions --  From Junior's school parsha sheet, questions on the parsha for Shabbos table discussion. And my answers.

2009

1. The Gra's famous peshat on Vayigash -- The Vilna Gaon has a famous devar Torah interpreting the opening trup on Vayigash. Considering the idea of it, and whether it is compelling..
2. Vayigash sources -- more than 100 meforshim on the parsha and haftorah, clustered into categories such as masorah and supercommentators of Rashi. Plus links to an online Mikraos Gedolos, by perek and aliyah.
   .
3. How many are the days of your life, as question or exclamation? There is a dispute whether kama is a question or exclamation. Ibn Caspi has a nice exchange with an elderly man about this, and also tries to claim that this is what the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah meant when they placed a gaaya {=zakef gadol} on the word. I investigate.
   .
4. Is the trup on veEt Achecha dispositive? Ibn Caspi and Chizkuni each read a pasuk in Vayish differently, Ibn Caspi with the division indicated by trup and Chizkuni against. Except that Chizkuni explains why the trup isn't really against him.
   .
5. Ralbag on Yocheved's birth -- All about Ralbag asserting that on a peshat level, the 70 includes Yaakov, and that of course Yocheved wasn't actually born just as they entered, though there is a deep meaning to that midrash. This can help us understand the approach of this and other Rishonim towards midrash, "arguing" withmidrash, and whether miracles must be explicit.
   .
6. A patach in la`ish, according to Chizkuni -- A brief discussion of a troubling Chizkuni, about the nikkud under a certain letter. And the inclination to emend Chizkuni to make everything all right, which we should reject. This might relate to the idea of lectio difficilior, the "rule" that the more difficult word is more likely original.
   .
7. The deeper meaning of Yocheved's birth between the walls -- In an earlier post, I discussed Ralbag's position -- the midrash that Yocheved was the 70th, and was born between the walls, was al derech derash, but was not intended historically or literally. I would like to explore what deep meaning this midrash might contain, in terms of Yocheved as the 70th, orChushim ben Dan, or Serach bat Asher, or Yaakov himself, or Hakadosh Baruch Hu.
   .
8. The Torah of Rabbi Meir -- What are we to make of the midrashic reference to the variants found in the Torah of Rabbi Meir? In Vayigash, it is uven Dan Chushim. Are these commentaries in a separate book? Explanations written on the side of the sefer Torah? A variant reading? Deliberate variants to accord with midrash, or with what seems to be good peshat. It is unclear. But it is still something to consider. In the end, I side with the idea that it was a variant text to our accepted Masoretic text, and that our Masoretic text is preferable.

2008

1. Did Yosef actually ask about their father and brother, as Yehuda claimed? Just as it interested me last year, it interested me this year. (And I forgot I addressed it last year.) Here, with some new sources addressing it (e.g. Chizkuni), and an expansion on some of the ideas.
   .
2. Some great Chizkunis on Vayigash. Such as why Yosef had the brothers sent off to Goshen; a reparsing of the pasuk as to where Yaakov and the brothers went; and whether one can argue on an etnachta, and so on. Check it out, and the comment section.
   .
3. Anshei Chayil: Warriors or Capable Men? And a contradiction in Rashi, says me.
   .
4. The trup on "rav", and why Shadal correctly changes the tevir to a zakef gadol.
   .
5. 70 souls? But there are only 69?! It could be Yaakov; it could be Yocheved; or else it could be that it really was only 69, but the Torah keeps the nice round number.
   .
6. Ramses vs. Raamses -- the same place? different?
   .
7. Vayigash sources -- links to a Mikraos Gedolos, and many meforshim on the parsha and haftara. Very useful for preparing the sidra.
   .
8. From Jan 2009, with a Miketz crossover - Why in the world did Yosef compel the Egyptians to circumcise themselves? I try to figure it out based on the context and meaning of the original midrash, which Rashi has seen. To quote myself, "The idea behind it, at least as spoken out here, is that Yosef's intention was somehow to be mekarev the Egyptians to his religion."

2007

1. Have you a father or a brother? But where did Yosef ask this question? In 2008, I address this as well, from other sources, and some of the same, but from a slightly different perspective.
   .
2. The trup and nikkud on bevechi -- and how one appears at odds with the other, and Shadal's suggestion.
   .
3. From Vayechi: How big a gap between Vayigash and Vayechi (see pt i, ii, iii).

2006

1. When Was Yosef Sold? We consider the possibility that it was before Rachel's death, and attempt to harness evidence in that direction. There is some evidence the other way (the account of, and the place of Rachel's death), but this is perhaps resolvable.
   .
2. The Ambiguity of וְעָזַב אֶת-אָבִיו וָמֵת -- Ibn Ezra wonders why this is not one of Issi ben Yehuda's five ambiguously parsed pesukim. Vamet can either corefer with Yaakov or with Binyamin. We compare with Issi ben Yehuda's five, and show how they are ambiguities of parsing rather than coindexation. Avi Ezer, a supercommentary on Ibn Ezra, wonders (and resolves) how Ibn Ezra could be so chutzpadik to challenge Chazal in this way. And I give my answer as well.
   .
   Finally, Rashi decides in favor of a coreference to Binyamin. We give several reasons for this, as well as several reasons for a coreference with Yaakov.
   .
3. Issi Ben Yehuda's Five (And Rav Chisda's One) As Disambiguated by Trup -- As a followup to the aforementioned post. Issi ben Yehuda gives five examples of ambiguous parsings of pesukim. Rav Chisda has an additional one. As we know, trup serves as syntactic markup and may well disambiguate each of these examples. In each case, what does the trup tell us? How does Rashi disambiguate in each case? Also, from a certain Rashi, it would seem that if we decide in the end that a narrative happened in a specific way, or that halacha is a certain way, we should emend the trup we read in shul to accord with that reading!

Dec 2004

1. Jewish Might  -- Rather than polite, humble and supplicative, some midrashim cast Yehuda's response (and that of his brothers) as a display of Jewish might. Yehuda's speech is understood in three different strains: appeasement, prayer, and threat of war, much as is Yaakov's approach to Esav. I go into a bit of detail on this.
   .
2. The Three Approaches -- Continuing the idea mentioned above, Chazal show how each of these three approaches are meanings of the word "vayigash" throughout Tanach.
   .
3. Yehuda's Threat -- of leprosy and death. And the specific textual prompts. "Speak a word in my lord's ear" implies a hidden message. Leprosy is derived from "you are as Pharaoh." The parallels drawn to Yaakov's curse and Shimon and Levi's destruction of Shechem might find purchase in אֲדֹנִי שָׁאַל, אֶת-עֲבָדָיו לֵאמֹר: הֲיֵשׁ-לָכֶם אָב, אוֹ-אָח.

Dec 2003 - Jan 2004

1. Pesukim That Imply That Binyamin Is Young -- Some neutral. He is called hakaton, but this might mean youngest as opposed to young. But then, the supposedly 22 year old Binyamin is called the naar, or lad. He is also called yeled zekunim katon, which I think is the strongest that he is fairly young.
   .
2. The trup of the first pasuk -- Contrary to the Vilna Gaon, does not mean that, even on the level of simple translation. Revii does not mean fourth but rather "lie down." And this is not coming to convey some secret message, but is mechanically produced by syntactic rules of division.
   .
   
   
3. Are Reuven's Children Tribbles? -- Accounting for their sudden doubling from 2 to 4, in such a short time span. I suggest the census in Egypt was taken at a later date.
   .
4. Treatment of הַבָּאָה מִצְרַיְמָה a -- And in order to maintain that this census was taken at a later date, in Egypt, I have to explain habbaah mitzrayma as of the generation that came down to Egypt, as opposed to those who left. I show this needs be so, compelled by the fact that Yosef did not physically move to Egypt together with his father, yet is counted there. Rather, it is the census of the generation which moved into Egypt, opposed to the census when the Israelites leave, and indeed is there to show this contrast and the fulfillment of Divine promise.
   
   As a side benefit, a lot of chronology can work out, since there is time for Reuven to have more sons, for Binyamin to grow up and have ten sons, etcetera.

Posts so far for parshat Miketz

2011

1. Does Onkelos translate וַיִּקַּח as וּדְבַר or ונסב?  The answer is that it is the former, despite R' Meir Wolf's variant nusach. Shadal and Lechem Abirim explain.
   .
2. Miketz sources.
   .
3. YU Torah on parashat Mikeitz.
   .
4. Kedushat Levi: how the סריס Potifar could have been informed בשעת תשמיש --  Harmonizing two contradictory Rashi's, that Hashem transformed Potifar into asaris when he bought Yosef for משכב זכר purposes, and that Potifar's wife falsely accused Yosef when she was בשעת תשמיש with her husband.

2010

1. Miketz sources -- expanded. For instance, many more meforshei Rashi.
   .
2. Dreams caused by the four humours -- An example of how Abarbanel is a Torah UMaddah-nik, paying heed to the (unfortunately incorrect) science of his time. If not for it being incorrect, though, we might not know that he is doing this.
   .
3. The meaning of Tzofnas Paneach --  Can we know the meaning or, due to our sins, did we lose this Hebraic knowledge? If the latter, can this serve as an excuse to confidently advance the traditional explanation, "Revealer of Hidden Things?"
   .
4. In answer to a ponderous parasha point.

2009

1. Mikeitz Sources -- more than 100 meforshim on parashas Miketz and its haftorah, as well as links by aliyah and perek to an online Mikraos Gedolos.
   .
2. Why in the world did Yosef compel the Egyptians to circumcise themselves? Explaining Rashi's intent in the midrash -- that he regards it as a conversion of sorts.
   .
3. Ibn Caspi, and the overwhelming authority of nikkud, pt i -- I saw two interesting comments in Ibn Caspi on Mikeitz which reference how nikkud determines meaning, such that of course one cannot argue on nikkud. Because this was encoded by the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah based on the received tradition from Moshe Rabbenu. Compare with the approach of other meforshim, as discussed by Shadal in his Vikuach. Here, I analyze one of the two comments. I wonder at the particular applications he gives, for his nikkud appears different from ournikkud. Then, I turn to consider his parallel case in Kohelet, where he is certainly right as to the meaning of the nikkud, even as it truly seems that the meaning of the pasuk should be otherwise.
   .
4. Ibn Caspi and nikkud, pt ii -- In a previous post on Miketz, I discussed Ibn Caspi on nikkud, and how he felt that a particularkamatz on a word indicated the position of the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah. Though we do not have that particular kamatz, this is an important assertion, especially when combined with what we have in this post, that the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah got this meaning from Moshe. And combine that with what we saw in an earlier comment regarding trup, that since it reflects original intent, it makes no sense to argue with it.
   
   .
   Here, we consider Ibn Caspi's comment about the kamatz in hanimtza, whether it is dispositive, and whether it really means to preclude the first person plural verb.
   
   .
5. My remarks at the recent bris, which pertain to Miketz, and the common of circumcision vs. the special meaning of bris milah.
   .
6. Junior on Miketz and Chanukkah -- regarding Miketz, that when the Torah relates that Yosef gathered up all the food, it couldn't have been literally all the food, for otherwise the Egyptians would have nothing to eat. Ibn Ezra makes the same point.

2008

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

2006

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

2005

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

2004

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

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

Kedushat Levi: how the סריס Potifar could have been informed בשעת תשמיש

Summary: Harmonizing two contradictory Rashi's, that Hashem transformed Potifar into a saris when he bought Yosef for משכב זכר purposes, and that Potifar's wife falsely accused Yosef when she was בשעת תשמיש with her husband.

Post: In Kedushas Levi on parashat Vayeshev, Rav Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev points out an apparent contradiction between two Rashis.

That is, on the following pasuk in Vayeshev, in perek 39, Rashi writes:

19. Now it came about when his master heard his wife's report that she spoke to him, saying, "Your slave did such things to me," that his wrath burned.		יט. וַיְהִי כִשְׁמֹעַ אֲדֹנָיו אֶת דִּבְרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר דִּבְּרָה אֵלָיו לֵאמֹר כַּדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה עָשָׂה לִי עַבְדֶּךָ וַיִּחַר אַפּוֹ:
Now it came about when his master heard, etc.: During intercourse she told him this, and that is the meaning of“Your slave did such things to me,” [meaning] such acts of intimacy. [From Gen. Rabbah 87:9]		ויהי כשמוע אדוניו וגו': בשעת תשמיש אמרה לו כן, וזהו שאמרה כדברים האלה עשה לי עבדך, עניני תשמיש כאלה:

However, in parashat Miketz, in perek 41, Rashi writes:

45. And Pharaoh named Joseph Zaphenath Pa'neach, and he gave him Asenath the daughter of Poti phera, the governor of On, for a wife, and Joseph went forth over the land of Egypt.

מה. וַיִּקְרָא פַרְעֹה שֵׁם יוֹסֵף צָפְנַת פַּעְנֵחַ וַיִּתֶּן לוֹ אֶת אָסְנַת בַּת פּוֹטִי פֶרַע כֹּהֵן אֹן לְאִשָּׁה וַיֵּצֵא יוֹסֵף עַל אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם:

Poti-phera: He is Potiphar, but he was called Poti-phera because he became emasculated since he desired Joseph for homosexual relations. — [from Sotah 13b]		פוטי פרע: הוא פוטיפר, ונקרא פוטיפרע על שנסתרס מאליו, לפי שלקח את יוסף למשכב זכר:

This is based on the gemara in Sotah 13b:

(בראשית לט, א) ויוסף הורד מצרימה א"ר אלעזר אל תיקרי הורד אלא הוריד שהוריד איצטגניני פרעה מגדולתן ויקנהו פוטיפר סריס פרעה אמר רב שקנאו לעצמו (בא גבריאל וסירסו) בא גבריאל ופירעו מעיקרא כתיב פוטיפר ולבסוף פוטיפרע:

'And Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh's bought him', Rab said: He bought him for himself;¹⁶  but Gabriel came and castrated him,¹⁷  and then Gabriel came and mutilated him [pera'], for originally his name is written Potiphar but afterwards Potiphera.¹⁸

Where certainly, after a closed-canon approach, the slight divergence in names contributes to the derasha. But also because the word saris in the pasuk in 39:1 is being darshened.

1. Now Joseph had been brought down to Egypt, and Potiphar, Pharaoh's chamberlain, chief of the slaughterers, an Egyptian man, purchased him from the Ishmaelites who had brought him down there.

א. וְיוֹסֵף הוּרַד מִצְרָיְמָה וַיִּקְנֵהוּ פּוֹטִיפַר סְרִיס פַּרְעֹה שַׂר הַטַּבָּחִים אִישׁ מִצְרִי מִיַּד הַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים אֲשֶׁר הוֹרִדֻהוּ שָׁמָּה:

He purchased him, but became a saris, and so was unable to act out his desires.

But if Potifar had become emasculated, then how could he have engaged in intercourse with his wife?!

Rav Levi Yitzchak of Berditchiv answers that "according to the peshat" of the matter, the incident with his wife was before he was emasculated. And the reason he was not yet emasculated was to give opportunity to this wicked man to believe his wife's words.

This strikes me as a rather unlikely harmonization of the two midrashim. Yosef worked for Potifar for quite a while before the incident with eshet Potiphar. And the assault by Gavriel was not intended as punishment, but rather as a preventative measure to protect Yosef. Do you think that if Potifar indeed bought Yosef in large part to have intercourse with him, he would not have taken action once he was able? And after being told this by his wife, he was enraged, and sought to imprison Yosef, so when could he have tried this?

It seems like the Kedushas Levi regards it as punishment rather than preventative measure. I am not certain how to parse his last statement:

"And the Torah hints to us that, at times, Hashem Yisbarach allows the wicked to prosper when they act wickedly against the tzadik, in order that the righteous one strengthens himself in his actions. And the wicked one says in his heart that he is succeeding in this, that he is doing wickedness to the  tzadik. But in truth, Hashem Yisbarach's intent is to destroy the wicked one after this, as in the statement {in Iyov 12:23}:

כג  מַשְׂגִּיא לַגּוֹיִם, וַיְאַבְּדֵם;    שֹׁטֵחַ לַגּוֹיִם, וַיַּנְחֵם.

23 He increaseth the nations, and destroyeth them; He enlargeth the nations, and leadeth them away.

"


If I am reading this correctly, he is saying that indeed, Potifar did succeed in his evil designs against Yosef, in having homosexual relations with him. But later, as punishment for this, Potifar became a eunuch.

But I am not sure I am reading this correctly.

I would rather say that these are indeed contradictory midrashim, that Rashi happens to cite. One is the gemara in Sotah, from Rav, and the other is in Midrash Rabba, from Rabbi Abahu. And Rashi's concern might be more the equation of the two people, rather than the detail of him being a saris.

The midrash about Potifar becoming a eunuch does not only occur in Sotah. It also appears in Midrash Rabba (86:3), anonymously:

פוטיפרע 
שהיה פורע עצמו לעבודת כוכבים. 
כיון שירד הפר לשם, נעשה פויטנון סריס פרעה, שנסתרס בגופו.
מלמד שלא לקחו אלא לתשמיש, וסרסו הקדוש ברוך הוא בגופו.

משל לדובה, שהיתה משכלת בבני אדוניה. אמר: פכרון ניביה. 
כך מלמד, שלא לקחו אלא לתשמיש וסרסו הקב"ה, הה"ד: (תהלים לז)כי ה' אוהב משפט וגו'.
חסידיו חסידו כתיב,
ואיזה? זה יוסף. 
לעולם נשמרו וזרע רשעים נכרת 
מלמד, שלא לקחו אלא לתשמיש וסרסו הקדוש ברוך הוא.

We should probably make diyukim in the language and presentation of this midrash. For instance, the support derash of לעולם נשמרו referring to the חסיד, Yosef, leads many meforshim to understand that this was a protective measure.

Shadal on Yitzchaki and the eight kings of Edom

Summary: As a further followup to Yitzchaki and the eight kings in parashat Vayishlach, I present Shadal's thoughts on the matter:

Post: Shadal writes:

[לא] ואלה המלכים וגו': הכוונה קודם זמנו של משה, ואעפ"י שבימיו עדיין לא מלך מלך לבני ישראל, אין זה כלום, כי הוא כאומר כל המלכים האלה מלכו באדום ועדיין לא היה מלך לישראל. כן דעת מיכעליס ואחרים. 

וייתכן ג"כ לפרש לפני מלוך מלך לבני ישראל קודם שיהיו ישראל לעם אחד בארץ וראויים להמליך עליהם מלך, ומיד אחרי משה היו יכולים להמליך עליהם מלך. 

ורשב"ם וראב"ע ואחרים פירשו כי משה עצמו נקרא מלך, ככתוב ויהי בישורון מלך (דברים ל"ג ה') וזה עולה יפה לפי דעתי ששם מלך נגזר מן מוליך, ומשה היה מוליך ומנהל את ישראל, אע"פ שפסוק ויהי בישורון מלך איננו לדעתי על משה. 

ויש שואלים והלא מיעקב ועשו עד משה לא היו אלא ד' דורות, ואיך מלכו בתוך כך שמונה מלכים אחרי מות עשו, ומי יודע כמה זמן אחרי מותו התחילו המלכים? לזאת אשיב ראשונה כי במקום אחר אבאר בלא פיקפוק כי א"א שלא עברו יותר מד' דורות מיעקב עד משה, באופן כי בלא ספק ת' שנים שלמות ישבו אבותינו במצרים; 

והשנית כי המלכים האלה לא היו אב ובנו, אלא כולם בני משפחה אחרת, ומי יודע כמה מלחמות היו באדום וכמה מלכים מתו במלחמה ומלכו אחרים תחתיהם. והנה החכם מיכעליס הנ"ל הביא ראיה ברורה שאין המלכים האלה עד ימי דוד, כי המלכים האלה הם ממשפחות שונות, ולא אחד מהם מלך בן מלך, א"כ לא היתה המלוכה מורשה אצלם, אבל בימי דוד מצאנו שלא היה הדבר כן, כי הדד האדומי היה מזרע המלך (מ"א י"א י"ד), א"כ מלכות אדום לא היתה תכונתה בימי דוד כמו שהיתה בימי המלכים האלה הנזכרים בתורה, א"כ לפני מלוך מלך לבני ישראל אין הכוונה בו עד ועד דוד או שאול, וא"כ לא נכתבה הפרשה הזאת בימי מלכי ישראל ויהודה, כמו שחשבו קצת בעקבות היצחקי שהביא ראב"ע.

"And these were the kings: The meaning is 'before the time of Moshe'. And though in his days, there still was no king in Israel, this is insignificant, for it is just like saying, 'all these kings ruled in Edom, and still there was no king in Israel. So is the opinion of Christian Benjamin {C. B.} Michaelis and others.


And it is possible, as well, to explain מלוך מלך לבני ישראל as 'before Israel was a single nation in a land, such that they would be fit to appoint a king upon them', and immediately after Moshe, they were able to appoint over themselves a king.


And Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, and others explained that Moshe himself was called a king, as is stated (in Devarim 33:5), "And there was in Yeshurun a king". And this works out well according to me, that there word מלך is cut from מוליך (Latin dux, {presumably meaning the dialectal Italian doge, a leader, especially in the military sense}), and Moshe would lead and direct Israel -- even though in my opinion ויהי בישורון מלך does not refer to Moshe.


And some ask: Were there not from Yaakov and Esav until Moshe only four generations, so how could there reign eight kings after Esav's death within that time frame? And who knows how long after his death the kings began? To this I would reply that firstly, in another place, I explain without hesitation that it is impossible that there were not more than four generations from Yaakov until Moshe, in a manner that, without a doubt, 400 complete years did our ancestors dwell in Egypt.


And secondly, these kings were not father and son, but rather each was of a different family, and who knows how many battles there were in Edom, and how many kings died in battle, with another king succeeding them? And behold, the aforementioned CB Michaelis brought a clear proof that these kings were not until the time of David, for these kings were from different families, and not one of them was a king son of a king. If so, kingship was not an inheritance for them. But, in the time of David, we find that the matter was not so. For Hadad the Edomite {J: The one that Yitzchaki identifies with Hadar, the last of those eight kings mentioned in the parasha, who appears as Hadad in I Divrei Hayamim 1}was from the descendants of the king (see I Kings 11:14). If so, the kingdom of Edom's character was not the same in the time of David as it was in the time of these kings mentioned in the Torah. If so, the intent of לפני מלוך מלך לבני ישראל is not until the days of David or Shaul. And if so, this parasha was not written in the days of the kings of Israel and Yehuda, as some think, following in the path of Yitzchaki, whom Ibn Ezra cited."

Rav Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev on the role of the shalsheles on וימאן

In a recent post on Vayeshev, I cited Birkas Avraham, who gave several reasons for a shalsheles. I added some ideas, from others. But while he mentioned the Kedushas Levi, Rav Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev, he only listed the first of the reasons the Kedushas Levi gave. In fact, there are quite a number of other reasons offered there. Here, without added commentary, I present the various reasons offered.

"And he refused, and he said to his master's wife: The trup on 'and he refused' is a shalshelet, which is the lifting of the voice, like a person who disdains something and lifts his voice in disdain of that thing.


Or, the shalsheles can be explained as a language of shlosha [three], see the Zohar in parasha Vayikra, page 10a, it is tied [אתקשר] with three knots, etc., and this is the yud of {?} three knots, and upon this is called shalsheles, see inside. And it also has three levels in both the writing of the trup symbol and in the lifting of the voice. That is to say that the merit of the three patriarchs, Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, stood for him in this, and he refused.


Or, the shalsheles can be explained as that all of Israel is nicknamed Yosef, as is stated in Micha {J: I think Amos 5:15}, 'perhaps the Lord God of Hosts will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph.' See Rashi there, that 'All Israel are called by his name [because he sustained them].' And Israel consists of three, namely kohanim, leviim, and yisre'elim, and Yosef remembered this, that all of Israel would be called after his name. Therefore, he refrained.


Or, the shalsheles can be explained as that the shalsheles is in the form of a lamed, and it has three levels, see the Zohar on parashat Vayishlach, page 168b, that the life of David is from Avraham, Yaakov, and Yosef; and most of his days are from Yosef, which is that from Yosef, there were 37 years, and from Avraham and Yaakov, 33 years. And behold, upon David is hinted by the letter lamed, as in the statement of Chazal that kingship is acquired in 30 (=lamed) steps. And so too the 'three' [שלשה] hints to David, in II Shmuel 23, 'These are the names of the mighty men who (served) David. He who sat in the assembly of the wise, the chief of the three-some', see Rashi there:

who sat in the assembly of the wise: Sat in the assembly of the Sanhedrin who are the wise. Now he was a three-fold head (ראש השלישי) , since he was leader in terms of beauty, in terms of wisdom and in terms of strength. Now in these three he was [indeed] a leader, as it is stated: “… and he is understanding, handsome, and a mighty warrior” (I Sam. 16:18).

And this is a reference to Yosef, who gave of his years to David, and he did not want, and he disdained from performing, chas veshalom, this sin.

Or, the shalsheles can be explained as that he needed to explain the dreams, about which was written {Bereshit 40:10} 'and on the vine were three shoots', see the gemara in Chullin 92b [for the positive explanation about Israel]. And because of this, 'and he refused'. And so it mentioned that he was called by three names -- Yosef, Yehosef [once in Tehillim 81:6], and Tzofnas Paneach. See Targum Onkelos [on the name Tzofnas Paneach in Miketz], גֻּבְרָא דְּמִטַּמְרָן גָּלְיָן לֵיהּ, a man to whom secrets are revealed. And because of this, 'and he refused'.


Or, it can be explained, see in the holy Ramban, parashat Beshalach on the verse ויאמר משה אל יהושע, these are his words: And behold, all that Moshe and Yehoshua did first, Eliyahu and Mashiach ben Yosef will do with their descendants. Therefore, Moshe strengthened himself in the matter, see there.


And behold, after Mashiach ben Yosef will come Mashiach ben David, and they are three: Eliyahu, Mashiach ben Yosef, and Mashiach ben David. And this is the chain [shalshelet] upon וימאן -- when Yosef remembered this, 'and he refused'. And this is {Bereishit 50:23, in Vaychi}

23. Joseph saw children of a third generation [born] to Ephraim; also the sons of Machir the son of Manasseh were born on Joseph's knees.

כג. וַיַּרְא יוֹסֵף לְאֶפְרַיִם בְּנֵי שִׁלֵּשִׁים גַּם בְּנֵי מָכִיר בֶּן מְנַשֶּׁה יֻלְּדוּ עַל בִּרְכֵּי יוֹסֵף:

with the closed mem in the word 'Shileishim' as one of the enlarged letters, for that closed mem hints to the throne of David and to his kingdom, see Raza'l as regards the enlarging of the closed mem, that Mashiach ben Yosef is from Ephraim, see the Midrash Rabba parashat Naso. And Yosef hints to this, that after Mashiach ben Yosef will come Mashiach ben David, see in Zohar parashat Mishpatim, page 100a.


Or, the shalsheles can be explained based on Rashi in parashat Kedoshim that every place where you see a fencing off from ervah you find holiness. And Israel are מקדשין שלש קדושות לקדוש. And see the piyut for the first day of Rosh Hashanah, קודש קדושה ומידו ניתן שתי קדושות, see my commentary there, that we find two kedushot to Israel and one kedusha to Hashem. Place on His head one and on the heads of Israel two.

Or, the shalsheles can be explained as the secret of hitkashrut, for יוסף, if we reckon in gematria via מ"ק, it is the same as the Divine name of אהיה, for with this name is tied [קשור] all the Names of Hashem, see in Shaarei Orah. And so too, Yosef is the gematria of ציון, and it is stated אהיה כטל לישראל, and it is stated כטן חרמון שיורד על הררי ציון. And the name כוז"ו which is on the mezuzah has a gematria of טל. See the Zohar parashat Pekudei, page 261b. And via מ"ק, the gematria is אהיה. And this is the shalsheles, that he ties himself up with the Name אהיה, in which is encompassed all the Names of Hashem Yisbarach. And also with Tzion, for it is stated פחדו בציון, etc. And via this, 'and he refused'.


Or, the shalsheles can be explained as that, by a harlot is written רגליה יורדת מות, and Yosef recalled this, to separate from death and to cleave to life. And behold, the name י"ה is ties to the eretz hachaim (Yeshaya 38:11) in the prayer of Chizkiyahu, יה בארץ החיים. And this that they added to Yosef the letter heh to his name [forming Yehosef], see Sotah 36b: 

R. Hana¹⁵  b. Bizna said in the name of R. Simeon the Pious: Because Joseph sanctified the heavenly Name in private one letter was added to him from the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He; but because Judah sanctified the heavenly Name in public, the whole of his name was called after the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He.

That is, the letter heh upon the letter yud, which has in it the name of Hashem. And this is the shalsheles, to be tied to the name of יה in the land of the living."

YU Torah on parashat Mikeitz

Audio Shiurim on Miketz Rabbi Hanan Balk: The Yosef Narrative and Chanukah: Coming Forward to Do What is Right/Integrating Kodesh and Chol  Rabbi Chaim Brovender: Dreamers and Dreams  Rabbi Ally Ehrman: The Bracha Of "Chein"  Rabbi Daniel Z. Feldman: Of Mikeitz, Menorahs and Majesty  Rabbi Joel Finkelstein: From Whence Confidence? Rabbi David Fohrman: Does God Speak to Us Today? A Closer Look at Joseph's and Pharo's Dreams  Rabbi Shmuel Goldin: Classical and Contemporary Theories: Why Didn't Yosef 'Phone Home'?  Rabbi Meir Goldwicht: Yosef's Life: From Not Me to I  Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb: Women and Minyan Rabbi Yisroel Kaminetsky: Yosef's "Interpretation" of Pharoah's Dream  Professor Aaron Koller: Improving on Joseph: Revision of Esther and Daniel in the Second Temple Period  Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz: Thinking Little Picture  Rabbi Aaron Leibtag: Yosef and His Brothers: Why the Wait Rabbi Meir Lipschitz: Reuven and Yehuda  Mrs. Nechama Price: A Glimpse into Yosef - The Egyptian Leader  Rabbi Hershel Reichman: Yosef and Chanukah  Rabbi Michael Rosensweig: Why did Yoseif not just totally forgive?  Professor Smadar Rosensweig: Restoration and Rededication: Zechariah, Haftarah and Chanukah  Rabbi Avi Schneider: So Hard To Say I'm Sorry Rabbi Baruch Simon: Seeing Holiness and it's Effect in our Lives  Mrs. Shira Smiles: Inspired Introspection Rabbi Reuven Spolter: Make All Your Dreams Come True  Rabbi Michael Taubes: Saying Shalom Aleichem to a Friend  Rabbi Andi Yudin: Yosef, Chanuka and Jewish Pride  Rabbi Ari Zahtz: Why Didnt Yosef Contact His Father  Rabbi Eliezer Zwickler: Call Your Father!  Articles on Miketz Rabbi Etan Moshe Berman: Hishtadlus: The Mask of Nature Rabbi Reuven Brand: Menashe: Forgotten and Redeemed Rabbi Ozer Glickman: I Have a Dream Rabbi Avraham Gordimer: Why the Grand Feast? Rabbi Maury Grebenau: A Lesson in Leadership Rabbi David Horwitz: God Did Not Let Joseph’s Brothers “Move On” Rabbis Stanley Wagner and Israel Drazin: Onkelos Clarifies the Biblical Text Rav Avigdor Nebenzahl: Blinded by Bias Rabbi Eli Baruch Shulman: Yosef's Lack of Faith Rabbi Jeremy Wieder: Laining for Parshat Miketz See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Miketz Chanuka To-Go 5772 is here, with 40 pages of divrei Torah and family activities from YU faculty and Roshei Yeshiva. While you are there, you can also download previous issues of Chanuka To-Go to make sure you have enough for all eight days. Click here to see the To-Go page

New This Week Yesodei Chanuka Al Pi Shitat HaRambam  Rabbi Kenneth Brander Hilchos Chanuka: When and Where to Light  Rabbi Avishai David What is Beautiful? Chanukah's Lessons  Rabbi Chaim Eisenstein Ha-Roeh es ha-Nolad  Rabbi Eric Goldman Chanukah - The Obligation of a Guest, Nature of the Mitzvah of Ner Chanuka Rabbi Eliakim Koenigsberg Why is Chanuka So Unique and Meaningful To Us  Professor Smadar Rosensweig Praying for a Miracle:Al Hanisim in Davening and Birkas Hamazon Shay Schachter Contemporary Issues Surrounding Chanukah  Rabbi Baruch Simon Critical Issues Facing The Jewish Family Today Panel Discussion with RIETS Roshei Yeshiva Rabbi Yaakov Neuburger, Rabbi Hershel Schachter and Rabbi Mordechai Willig

What is the role of shalshelet?

Summary: Should we darshen the psik of it? What about the shalsheles leads to these various interpretations?

Post: In Bereishit 39:8, in response to the attempted seduction by Potiphar's wife:

The word וימאן means 'and he refused'.

Birkas Avraham writes of the meaning of the shalshelet and the pesik which follows:

בפסוק ( בראשית לט ח) וימאן ויאמר וגו,  יש טעם פסיק (קו נטוי) אחר תיבת וימאן,  ואפשר לבאר זאת עם מה שכתוב בס' דברי  יחזקאל להרב משינובע ז"ל , על טעם  השלשלת שעל תיבת וימאן, שתחילה מיאן  ושילש במיאון וענה איני רוצה, בלא לתת  טעם, כי אפשר שדרך ויכוח יתפתה, ורק נוסף  למיאון זה, הוסיף אחר כך הטעם עיי"ש .

ושוב ראיתי שיסוד זה על טעם השלשלת  כאן, כתב כבר רבנו מהר"מ אלשיך ז"ל , שעל כן בראשונה החליט שוימאן, כמו שקושר  עצמו בשלשלת, ואחר כך אמר והשיב טענות  הן אדוני וכו'. והוסיף הרב אלשיך ז"ל  שבתיבת הן רמז לה יוסף מה שידענו  מרבותינו ז"ל כי אותיות ה' ון' אין להם בן זוג,  כי כל אחת נפרדת עיי"ש

וכבר דרשו במדרש 'לקח טוב' ומדרש 'שכל  טוב' על הטעם 'שלשלת' שעל תיבת וימאן,  שרומז שהיה מיאון אחר מיאון,  וכעין שלשלת' שעל תיבת (בראשית יט,טז ) ויתמהמה. ובלקח טוב דייק זה גם מהפסיק וגם מהטעם .

ועיין בס' קדושת לוי כאן, שפירש  ששלשלת הוא הרמת קול, כאדם אשר ממאס  בדבר ומרים קול במיאוס הדבר ההוא  עיי"ש" .  ועיין במדרש 'שכל טוב' ובדברינו בפסוק  (בראשית כד יב, ) ויאמר ה' אלקי אדוני  אברהם, הקרה נא לפני

"In the pasuk of וימאן..., there is a trup symbol of pesik (a vertical bar: | ) after the word וימאן, and it is possible to explain this based on what is written in sefer Divrei Yechezkel from the Rav of Szeniawa, za'l, upon the trup symbol of shalshelet on the word וימאן, that first he refused and tripled {? chained?} in refusal, and said 'I do not want', without giving a reason; for it is possible that while arguing he would be seduced. And only in addition to this {absolute} refusal, he added after this a reason... see inside.


And I further saw a principle upon this trup of shalshelet here, that the Alshich za'l already wrote, that therefore at first he was absolute in וימאן, like one who ties himself in chains; and afterwards he spoke and answered arguments of 'behold my master...' And the Rav Alshich za'l adds that in the word הן is hinted by Yosef that which our Sages za'l knew, that the letters ה and ן do not have a match, but rather each of them is separate... see inside.


And they already darshened in the Midrash of Lekach Tov and the Midrash Sechel Tov regarding the shalshelet upon the word וימאן, that it hints that there was refusal after refusal, just as in the shalshelet upon the word (in Bereishit 19:16) ויתמהמה. And in Lekach Tov they deduced this from both the psik and the trup {of shalshelet}.


And see in sefer Kedushas Levi here {R' Levi Yitzchak of Berdichiv}, that he explains that the shalshelet represents the raising of the voice, like a person who is disgusted by a matter and raises his voice in disgust of that matter. See there. And see in midrash Sechel Tov, and in our words in the verse (Bereishit 24:12) ויאמר ה' אלקי אדוני  אברהם, הקרה נא לפני."

This is, again, a psik which does not seem to be a true psik. The vertical bar appears to follow every instance of shalshelet, and thus is a part of the shalshelet. Thus, to extract the list from Wickes:

To cite R' Breuer on this:

The vertical bar that always follows a shalshelet is not a psik, but rather is part of the shalshelet itself, just like the vertical bar is part of the munach legarmeh.

Darshening the psik here seems similar to darshening the psik by a munach legarmeih. Some do it -- we saw, last week, Chizkuni do it. But one can take exception to it, I think.

Here is what Lekach Tov writes about it:

Miun achar miun harbeih peamim, dichsiv bifsik uveshalsheles.

So, yes, it does mention the psik, though as part of the shalsheles.

I think that we can take stock of these various suggestion and consider how they arose.

1. Absolute in his refusal -- based on the word shalshelet, which means "chain". Maybe also the orthography, representing the same chain. Then, the word it is upon is the refusal.
2. 'Refusal after refusal' -- primarily based on the musical value of the shalshelet. It sounds like someone repeating something.
3. Raising the voice -- again, based on the special musical value of the shalshelet.

Wickes repeats an explanation for the shalshelet -- and it is a consistent one, across all examples -- from R' Yehuda HaChassid (at least, it would seem to be that famous 12th-13th century one, since Zalman HaNakdan was 13th century):

"In every place that it [=shalsheles] comes, the matter speaks of an angel, either explicitly or in the midrash -- in the name of Rabbenu Yehuda Chassid."

This might have started from the explicit, and perhaps the midrash comes from the pattern of shalsheles with the angelic details in other places. Maybe we should consider the seven instances at this juncture.

1) Bereishit 19:16, by Lot fleeing Sodom, in Vayera:

16. But he tarried, and the men took hold of his hand and his wife's hand, and the hand of his two daughters, out of the Lord's pity for him, and they took him out and placed him outside the city.

טז. וַיִּתְמַהְמָהּ וַיַּחֲזִקוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים בְּיָדוֹ וּבְיַד אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבְיַד שְׁתֵּי בְנֹתָיו בְּחֶמְלַת יְ־הֹוָ־ה עָלָיו וַיֹּצִאֻהוּ וַיַּנִּחֻהוּ מִחוּץ לָעִיר:

The men who took hold of Lot's hand were angels.

2) Bereishit 24:12, in Chayei Sarah, when Eliezer asks for Divine assistance in identifying Yitzchak's proper mate:

12. And he said, "O Lord, the God of my master Abraham, please cause to happen to me today, and perform loving kindness with my master, Abraham.

יב. וַיֹּאמַר יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֱלֹהֵי אֲדֹנִי אַבְרָהָם הַקְרֵה נָא לְפָנַי הַיּוֹם וַעֲשֵׂה חֶסֶד עִם אֲדֹנִי אַבְרָהָם:

This assistance had been more or less promised by Avraham, earlier in pasuk 7, with the words:
הוּא יִשְׁלַח מַלְאָכוֹ לְפָנֶיךָ וְלָקַחְתָּ אִשָּׁה לִבְנִי מִשָּׁם

Thus, this is the work of an angel.

3) Here in Vayeshev, in Bereishit 39:8:

8. But he refused, and he said to his master's wife, "Behold, with me my master knows nothing about anything in the house, and all he has he has given into my hand.

ח. וַיְמָאֵן וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל אֵשֶׁת אֲדֹנָיו הֵן אֲדֹנִי לֹא יָדַע אִתִּי מַה בַּבָּיִת וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יֶשׁ לוֹ נָתַן בְּיָדִי:

I don't know what angel there is here. However, if I had to guess, I would identify Yosef seeing his father's image, as recounted in the midrash. And then I would guess that some midrash makes this into an angelic appearance. After thinking this, I discovered that this is indeed so -- that some sources do make this equation. Thus:

 Gabriel is mentioned as protecting Joseph when tempted by Potiphar's wife, the angel assuming the guise of Joseph's father. This occurs also in the works of Arabic authors (Ṭabari, Zamakhshari).

(Maybe we can also deduce something from the sources brought down by Ibn Caspi, later.)

4) In Vayikra 8:23, in parashat Tzav:

23. And he slaughtered [it], and Moses took some of its blood, and placed it on the cartilage of Aaron's right ear, on the thumb of his right hand and on the big toe of his right foot.

כג. וַיִּשְׁחָט וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה מִדָּמוֹ וַיִּתֵּן עַל תְּנוּךְ אֹזֶן אַהֲרֹן הַיְמָנִית וְעַל בֹּהֶן יָדוֹ הַיְמָנִית וְעַל בֹּהֶן רַגְלוֹ הַיְמָנִית:

I don't know of a midrash that brings angels into this picture, and do not have time to research it.

5) Then, in Yeshaya 13:8:
8. And they shall panic; pangs and throes shall seize them; like a woman in confinement they shall writhe; each man shall be amazed at his fellow; their faces are faces of flames.

Perhaps the midrash brings in angels causing this panic?

6) Then, in Amos 1:2:
2. And he said: The Lord shall roar from Zion, and He shall give forth His voice from Jerusalem, and the dwellings of the shepherds shall be cut off, and the choice of the fruitful land shall wither.

7) and in Ezra 5:15:
15. And he said to him, 'Take these vessels, go, bring them down into the Temple that is in Jerusalem, and the House of God shall be built on its place.'

I have no insight into the angelic involvement in these. But perhaps, as I suggested, this was a derivation on the basis of the shalsheles and the pattern begun in sefer Bereishit.

Here is an article suggesting that shalsheles denotes hesitation. Once again, I would point to a musical cue here. The notes of shalsheles, as presently sung, do suggest hesitation. And furthermore, we can build up from Lot, where the actual words denote hesitation.

One Rishon who says this is Rabbi Yosef Ibn Caspi. Thus:

"And he refused: Also, the trup of shalsheles is of the commentary of the Men of the Great Assembly, who learned it from Moshe. And I already wrote this regarding Bereishit 19:16, וַיִּתְמַהְמָהּ. And meanwhile, it does not appear on the instances of וַיְמָאֵן which occur by Yaakov twice (in Bereshit 37:35 and 48:19). And be not astonished if the chacham Yosef hesitated regarding this dangerous matter, forwards or backwords, for so is fitting to every chacham[4]. And perhaps his fellow, who name is like his name, took a different path[5]. And what was kept back from our Sages, za'l, who said regarding Yehuda that an angel of Hashem pushed him {to act}[6], while by Yosef they said he inspected himself and did not find himself {ready}[1]? Praised by one who knows to recognize the loftiness of their words."

See also the footnotes designated in [square brackets].