Parshat Miketz
The brothers protest their innocence when Yosef’s household supervisor accuses them of stealing his goblet, as we would expect. In response, 43;10, he uses a phrase challenging to translate: gam atah kedivreichem ken hu, something along the lines of “also now as your words, so it is.” Gam often means also, but also “although,” the way the JPS contemporary Torah has it. Atah does mean now, but it is unclear why he would say “now” when he wants to agree they made a reasonable claim.
HaKetav VeHaKabbalah references two German scholars of his time whom I don’t hear quoted much. First, Wolf Heidenheim had pointed out an oddity of the te’amim, the notes that guide how to read the passage in public. Translations connect kedivreichem, according to your words, to ken hu, so shall it be (or, perhaps, so should it be), but the Torah puts a tipecha on this word, a note for a pause in a phrase, making the reading more correctly “gam atah kedivreichem, also now like your words,” and then, ken hu, so it is.
A Pause for Helpful Grammar Reminders
Heidenheim had then offered a reading R. Mecklenburg finds forced, and doesn’t share [no, I didn’t look it up]. Instead, he focuses on the word gam. Solomon Pappenheim, who published a three part work on Hebrew synonyms, had noted that gam is very similar to af. Both can mean also, express surprise, or indicate the opposite of what came before, such as when the angel tells Bil’am gam otecha haragti, had circumstances worked out differently, I would have killed you and left the donkey alive.
The letter kaf in the word ke-divreichem also offers more than one option. Usually it means like or similar to; were that its intent in our verse, it would mean yes, we will do similar to what you’ve said. It can also mean according to, such as kevirkat Hashem Elokecha (in Devarim 12;15 and 16;17), according to the blessing of Hashem your God (you shall eat meat, or offer sacrifices when coming to the Beit HaMikdash on holidays).
The Better Reading
Now he’s ready to read our phrase. Yosef’s servant was saying “according to your words now,” he would act on what they had just said, which changed the calculus about the situation. For R. Mecklenburg, Yosef’s man was agreeing they had clinched their point when they noted they had gone out of their way to bring back the money from the first trip, so why would then then steal the cup?
Their claims had changed his mind (“gam,” a surprise and a change), so much so he told them they need even less punishment than they had suggested. (I believe R. Mecklenburg is explaining why the servant doesn’t explicitly focus on the words he has now said are the referent of kedivreichem; the servant means “I’ve accepted your claims of innocence and therefore...”).
The cantillation notes of the Torah reading, analysis of both gam and the khaf at the beginning of words, that’s a strong attempt to get at peshat, the direct or first-line meaning of the text. With reliance on two quasi-Maskilic figures, closing with a shout out to Ralbag’s father (who had offered a similar interpretation), another independent thinker on the meaning of Torah.
Ya’akov or Yisrael
My friend and chavruta, R. Francis Nataf, recently offered one idea for how Ya’akov’s two names indicate aspects of his personality coming to the fore. So does R. Samson Raphael Hirsch on 43;6, along similar lines. He points out the Torah consistently used the name Ya’akov after Yosef’s disappearance, until our verse.
The name Ya’akov signaled a downtrodden heart, a sense of loss and falling, a person limping along with events, not taking control of them. The true Jew, says R. Hirsch, only stays depressed when s/he cannot see a path forward. Guilt over failing, doubt of what one is supposed to do, are what give a Jew pause, says R. Hirsch, but not fear of the future.
Ya’akov had been paralyzed by the belief he was prohibited from sending Binyamin; he thought it was his job to protect his youngest son. When he cannot figure out a course of action, he is Ya’akov. Once it became clear Binyamin was in danger anyway (of starvation), Yisra’el reappears.
Turning the idea to all of us, he says that as soon as a Jew realizes human efforts are not the answer, s/he will remember the advice of Tehillim 37;5, to turn our burdens to Hashem, Who will support us [an important idea for our times, too, that we articulate our awareness it is Hashem Who helps with our burdens]. Then, we will find that what is hard is doable, that we will have Yisrael, the power Hashem provides us.
He is ready to go; no more confused Ya’akov, on to active Yisrael, with a vision of where Hashem’s assistance will come.
Recognizing the Brothers, Confusing Them
Prosopagnosia, face blindness or difficulty in recognizing people, comes in degrees, I think. Malbim attributes a bit of that to Yosef, 42;7, where he suggests Yosef wasn’t completely sure they were his brothers until he heard them speak (I have this myself, where I know I know someone but cannot place him/her, and then s/he speaks, and the mystery is resolved).
Once he knows them, he needs them not to know who he is. Malbim thinks he therefore feigns anger, to disconcert them, misdirect them to focus on his accusations, not his face [theoretically, although a harder sell, this could be some explanation for why just a pair of glasses make people not recognize Clark Kent is Superman]. In their rush to defend themselves, they offered more information than they had asked, which he could use as signs of a guilty conscience, accuse them even more, distract them even more.
I’m not sure it’s a full answer, but Malbim is arguing that no one in the incident would have known who the other was based purely on physical appearance (because of the passage of time, perhaps). Yosef got them from their voices, then put on a different tone of voice, to misdirect them to focus on defending themselves, not look at him.
[For what it’s worth, this is the second week in a row where the Malbim I found points out an attempt to misdirect.]
He says Mahari Berav had explained the verse similarly, a tantalizing claim, because I have not been able to locate such a commentary by this teacher of R. Yosef Caro (meaning: the Hebrew encyclopedia I found online, HaMichlol, doesn’t list it among his books).
Leaving that mystery for now, our three commentators showed us some complications of identity, R. Mecklenburg the identity of which words of the brothers Yosef’s servants found correct, R. Hirsch what it meant to be Ya’akov or Yisrael, and for Malbim how Yosef realized his brothers’ identity and kept his own hidden.
