Answers to Last Week’s Riddles
Rashi (45:12) writes that Yosef proved his true identity to his brothers by virtue of the facts that he spoke their language and was circumcised as they were. Why weren’t they able to verify his identity by virtue of recognizing his voice?
The M’rafsin Igri suggests that because 22 years had passed since Yosef’s brothers had last spoken with him, perhaps they had forgotten the sound of his voice. Alternatively, during such a long period of time, his voice may have changed, especially in light of the fact that he was only 17 when they sold him, and he was now 39. Rav Yonason Eibeshutz maintains that a person can only recognize somebody else’s voice if the other person is talking in the language in which he is accustomed to hearing him speak. However, if the other person is talking in another language with different sounds, it may not be possible to recognize his voice. In this case, Yosef’s brothers were accustomed to hearing him speak to them in Hebrew, and now he was addressing them in Egyptian, so they didn’t recognize his voice. He suggests that when Yosef began speaking to them in Hebrew to prove his identity, the proof wasn’t from the fact that he knew their language, but that now that he spoke to them in Hebrew, they recognized his voice. (R’ Ozer Alport)
In this week parsha, Yosef warns his brothers who are about to return to their father: אל תרגזו בדרך - “Do not become agitated on the way” (45:25). Rashi based on the Gemara in Ta’anis (10b) explains, that he was telling them: “Do not occupy yourselves in halachah, lest the way enrage you.” One must be careful about studying Torah while journeying, for immersion in Torah study can cause a person to lose his composure.
The question is, if there is a prohibition to learn whilst travelling, why did Ya’akov not warn them about it when he sent them down to Mitzrayim. Why do we only find that Yosef had to warn them on the way back?
The Kesav Sofer quoting the Sefer Chaim answers, that אם אין קמח אין תורה – “if there is no flour there is no Torah”. When the brothers went down to Mitzrayim they had no food - this is why they went in the first place. Since they didn’t have enough food they weren’t able to get to into their learning, therefore, there was no concern of them getting to immersed in it. However, one the way back from Mitzrayim they now had food, therefore, Yosef needed to warn them אל תרגזו בדרך.
The Chida in Pesach Einayim cites b’shem gadol eched another answer. The Gemara in Kiddishin (30a) teaches, “A person should divide his years into three. A third for learning Mikra, a third for learning Mishnah, and a third for learning Gemara”. The Gemara asks, “Does a person know how long he is going to live for?” and the Gemara answers, “One should split it into days”. Rashi explains: “Two days Mikra, two days Mishnah, and two days Gemara”. Tosfos asks, still, how does one know how long he will live, and explains the answer of the Gemara to mean that one should split every single day into three parts.
Yaakov thought that Yosef had died. Originally Yaakov thought that there was a havtocha [guarantee] that he would outlive his children, however, once he saw that Yosef died, he realized this was no longer true. At that point, the shevotim like everyone else had a chance of dying any coming day, therefore, Yaakov wanted to make sure that they learnt everyone single day, like Tosfos. Therefore, he never told them אל תרגזו בדרך, as he wanted that they should split each day into three, like the opinion of Tosfos. However, Yosef who knew the truth, that he was still alive, understood that Yaakov’s havtocha was still very much in place, therefore, he warned them אל תרגזו בדרך, and he wasn’t worried as he knew that they would be able to make up for it later.
At the emotional reunion between Yaakov and Yosef, the Torah relates (46:29) that Yosef fell on his father Yaakov’s neck and wept. Rashi explains that Yaakov didn’t reciprocate by falling on Yosef’s neck and kissing him because he was in the middle of reciting krias shema. The Shulchan Aruch rules (Orach Chaim 66:1) that a person should interrupt the shema even in the middle of a verse in order to greet a king or other great man whom one is obligated to honor and respect. As Rashi writes (48:2) that Ya’akov exerted himself to sit up in his bed to honor Yosef’s royal position, why didn’t he similarly stop his recitation of krias shema in order to greet and honor Yosef?
The Taz (66:1) and Vilna Gaon (66:4) answer that at the time that Yosef encountered Yaakov, Yaakov was saying the first pasuk of shema, at which time the Shulchan Aruch rules one may not interrupt even to show honor to a king. However, the Chavatzeles HaSharon points out that the Sifsei Chochomim argues that it is unlikely that Yosef would have fallen on his father’s neck and disturbed him when he was saying the first pasuk of shema. Nevertheless, he explains that Yaakov wasn’t permitted to interrupt to show honor to Yosef even in the middle of the other sections of shema because the primary obligation to honor the king only applies to a Jewish king who was selected in fulfillment of the Torah’s mitzvah to appoint a king, whereas Yosef was only the second-in-command and ruled over non-Jews in a foreign land before the mitzvah of appointing a king was given. Even so, there is a separate obligation to demonstrate respect to the general institution of kingship, which explains why Yaakov sat up to show honor to Yosef.
The halachah is (Orach Chaim 66:3) that if one is in the middle of krias shema and he hears kaddish, kedusha or borchu, he is supposed to interrupt even in the middle of shema. If one is in the middle of a mitzvah we say oisek b’mitvzah potur min hamitzvah and he is exempt from shema. Why don’t we say the same thing the other way round, and say that if one is in the middle of the mitzvah of shema, he is fulfilling a mitzvah and oisek b’mitvzah potur min hamitzvah and therefore, he shouldn’t answer to kaddish, kedusah or borchu?
R’ Boruch Mordechai Ezrachi zt”l (Birchas Mordechai) answers as follows: בכל חיובו מצוות החובה היא המצוה שבדבר. שמצוות הקב"ה מחייבת את עשייתה של המצווה. אמנם נראה כי בענייה לדברים שבקדושה יש יותר מכך כי זו היא חובה מצד החפצא של הענין [לא רק מצד המצווה שבו]. זו היא ההגדרה של מצוות "ונקדשתי" שפרט למצוות שבדבר קיימת חובה מצד החפצא ד "ונקדשתי." ולכן נפק"מ לענין "עוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה" שכן לא נאמר הפטור דהעוסק במצווה אלא כשעומדת בפניו חובת מצוה אחרת. משא"כ כשקיימת בפניו חובה מצד עצם ה"ונקדשתי" זה לא שייך לפטור מדין עוסק במצוה וכו'
At the emotional reunion between Yosef and Binyomin, the Torah relates: ויפל על צוארי בנימין אחיו ויבך – “He fell on the neck of Binyomin and cried” (45:14). This event happened on Shabbos, as the pasuk of טבוח טבח והכן was on erev Shabbos, if so, what was the heter for Yosef to cry, on Shabbos it is forbidden to cry?
The Chasam Sofer asks the above question and suggests an answer based on a Taz. The Taz (Orach Chaim 282) says that crying on Shabbos is only prohibited if it’s done due to sadness, if one cries because of joy it’s allowed. The Gemara in Megillah (16b) says that they were crying over the Beis HaMikdosh that was destined to be destroyed. The Medrash on the pasuk מזמור לאסף asks why the kapital of Tehillim which talks about the destruction of the Beis HaMikdosh is referred to as a song, and the Medrash answers, they were happy that Hashem let out his anger on bricks and stones, as opposed to Klal Yisroel themselves. Accordingly, the crying of Yosef was a happy crying, in that Hashem was going to destroy bricks and stones and not Klal Yisroel themselves.
The Madanay Asher answers, there is only a prohibition to cry if one is able to hold himself back, if one isn’t able to hold himself back then it’s ok.
