Answers to this Week’s Riddles
(For the riddles, please see back page)
1) Why did Yosef send old wine to Ya’akov? Why is old wine called the “Good of Mitzrayim”? Where did Yosef get kosher wine in Mitzrayim? What is the connection to Chanukah? Why so much wine?
The Maharsha in Megillah (16b) explains: “For old people like Ya’akov, it is pleasing for their minds to have wine, as generally old people feel cold, and wine helps warm them up.”
The Sifsei Chachomim quotes the Nachlas Yaakov, that we find in Maseches Nedorim that wine is bad for the stomach, however, old wine is good. Generally speaking, old people have stomach problems – therefore, old wine is pleasing for the minds of old people.
Rashi explains that old wine is referred to as the “Good of Mitzrayim”, why is old wine attributed to Mitzrayim, surely in Eretz Yisroel there is also good old wine?
The sefer Metzudos Dovid explains: The Yerushalmi says, “Once every seventy years rain comes down to the world and ruins all the wine.” Therefore, there is no wine in the world older than seventy years. However, in Mitzrayim it never rained, therefore, in Mitzrayim there was wine older than seventy years. Since Mitzrayim was the only place with such old wine, old wine is referred to as the “Good of Mitzrayim”.
[The sefer Imrei Moshe on Megillas Esther (R’ Moshe Rapaport zt”l) writes that the word יין (wine) hints at how long wine can last, as יין is gematria seventy. He also explains, the Yerushalmi doesn’t refer to all wine, rather, it refers to wine which is not covered and protected properly.]
The Poras Yosef asks: How Yosef was able to find kosher wine in Mitzrayim, Mitzrayim was a place of full of avodah zorah and presumably all the wine that was there was yayin nesech. Especially, as Yosef sent a tremendous amount of wine?
HaRav Shaul Broch zt”l (K’Hayom Timsoun) writes:שהיין נמצא חתום בחותמו של אברהם אבינו – “The wine was found with a seal of Avraham Avinu” (from the time that he went down to Mitzrayim in the years of famine).
With this we can understand the connection between Vayigash and Chanukah. Rav Shaul Broch explains, that just like Yosef found wine with a seal of Avraham Avinu, similarly the Yidden at the time of the Chanukah story found a jug of oil with the seal of the Kohen Gadol.
We still have to understand why Yosef sent so much wine. Why did he need to send ten donkeys laden with wine, what was Ya’akov going to do with so much wine?
I found an answer to this question in the sefer Birchas Ish (R’ Shein shlita, Rosh Yeshiva of Tiferes Yerusholayim in America), he writes as follows: Yosef knew that when Ya’akov would hear the great news that Yosef was still alive, he would certainly celebrate and give praise to Hashem in public. And he would invite all his family members to the great simcha, to thank and give praise to Hashem for all the kindness and goodness that he does. Certainly, he would serve wine at the simcha, however, Yaakov had no wine, as Rashi says (44:34) from the day Yosef was sold, Ya’akov refrained from drinking wine. If Ya’akov refrained from drinking wine for twenty-two years, presumably he stopped making wine and never had any. Therefore, Yosef made sure to send lots of wine so that Yaakov would have enough for all the people who attended the simcha.
Based on this we have another connection to Chanukah. On Chanukah people like to get together to make Chanukah parties to celebrate and give thanks for all the kindness that Hashem constantly bestows upon us, just like Yaakov Avinu!!! (Mostly based on Pikudecha Dorashti)
2) Why doesn’t a person become completely blind after taking 500 large steps?
Tosfos (Ta’anis 10b) writes that while the first large step takes 1/500th of a person’s eyesight, the second large step takes away less, as it only takes 1/500th of what is remaining. Since each successive large step removes less and less of a person’s vision, even a large number of such steps will not render a person blind.
However, Tosfos questions why the first step should be more damaging than the successive steps. Tosfos answers that: כל התחלות קשות – whenever a person starts something, it is more difficult at the beginning. Alternatively, Tosfos suggests that only the first large step causes any damage to one’s eyesight, and at that point, once the person is accustomed to such large steps, successive ones no longer cause any harm.
3) Why did Yosef give his brothers a change of clothing? If one kills someone accidentally, is he obligated to recompensate the sons who tore kriah, for their clothes?
The Tzror HaMor answers: To remove from their hearts any hatred that they had towards him. They removed Yosef’s special garment like it says, “They undressed Yosef”, therefore, he paid them back “good in place of bad”, to show that he forgave them completely.”
The Chizkuni, Paneach Raza, and Chasam Sofer (Droshas, Vol. 1, pg. 82) all answer: “Yosef caused the brothers to tear their clothes when it wasn’t halachically mandated when he commanded that the special goblet be placed in the sack of Binyomim, and they were very embarrassed about this incident and tore their clothes. Since Yosef caused them to wrongly tear their clothes, he gave them a change of clothing, to replace what he caused them to tear.”
If one kills someone accidentally, is he obligated to recompensate the sons who tore kriah, for their clothes?
The Shu”t Noda B’Yehudah (Mahadura Kama, Orach Chaim 34, cited in Sha’arei Teshuvah 603:1) discusses a case where someone sent an agent to carry out a certain job, and the agent died on the job. The Noda B’Yehudah writes: If the sender wants to give a present to the orphans it’s a good thing, and one of the things he should do for teshuvah is to pay the orphans for the clothes that they had to tear over the loss of their father.”
The Noda B’Yehudah cites proof from the Rishonim who learn that Yosef gave his brothers new clothes, as he caused them to tear kriyah when embarrassing them over the goblet. Just like Yosef paid, presumably in the case of the agent as well, if the sender wants to do teshuvah, he should reimburse the sons for the clothes they had to tear.
R’ Zilberstein (Chasukei Chemed, Eruvin 19a) says, however, that we can’t bring a proof to our case, as children anyway one day will have to tear kriyah, so if one causes them to do it a few years earlier he hasn’t really caused them a loss.
However, the question is: What happens if someone accidently kills a young child and the father must now tear kriyah, is the accidental killer obligated to pay the father money for the clothes – as generally speaking a father doesn’t tear kriyah for a son?
R’ Zilberstein writes: When tearing kriyah for a dead relative one fulfills a mitzvah, therefore, perhaps we can’t consider it a loss, on the contrary he has gained a mitzvah. With Yosef and the brothers, however, he caused them to tear kriyah and there was no mitzvah, therefore, he reimbursed them.
4) Did Yosef and Ya’akov recite the berachos of “she’hechayanu” and “mechayeh hameisim” when reunited? Do we recite these berachos today?
The Gemara in Berachos (58b) writes: If one sees a friend after thirty days he should recite “she’hechayanu” and if he hasn’t seen him for twelve months, he should recite “mechayeh hameisim”.
This halachah is ruled in Shulchan Aruch (225:1): “If one sees a friend after thirty days he should recite “she’hechayanu”, and if it has been twelve months he should recite “mechayeh hameisim”. This is provided he is very beloved, and he is happy to see him.”
What’s the halachah if one sees a friend after twelve months, does he recite both “she’hechayanu” and “mechayeh hameisim”, or just “mechayeh hameisim”?
The Bach (Orach Chaim 225) writes, that one recites just “mechayeh hameisim”. He says: Just like we find that “she’hechayanu” is included in the berachah of “hatov v’hamativ”, similarly, “she’hechayanu” is included in “mechayeh hameisim”. He then writes, that the Maharshal says this explicitly. This is also the ruling of the Mishnah Berurah (225:4).
Does one recite these berachos on someone greater than him?
The Birkay Yosef (Orach Chaim 225:1) writes: It’s obvious that if one sees someone greater than him, either a father or a rebbe, he should recite the berachos of “she’hechayanu” and “mechayeh hameisim”. He explains that the reason behind the mitzvah is one enjoys and is happy to see his friend, therefore, it doesn’t make a difference if he is older, younger, a rebbe or a talmid.
Based on the above, it’s logical to say that when Yosef was reunited with his father he recited the berachah of “mechayeh hameisim”, and so did Ya’akov upon seeing his son.
The question is, why does the Torah not mention this? The Shu”t Beis Yisroel (Vol. 1, siman 33) asks: Why don’t we find that when Yosef and Ya’akov were reunited that they recited “she’hechayanu”?
He answers: Yosef and Ya’akov knew, that this meeting was the start of galus Mitzrayim, therefore, just like the halachah is that during the Three Weeks it is best to avoid making “she’hechayanu”, similarly, Yaakov and Yosef avoided making the berachah. (This answer helps for “she’hechayanu” not for the berachah of “mechayeh hameisim”).
However, the Nachlas Avraham writes that Ya’akov did in fact recite the berachah of “mechayeh hameisim” when he saw Yosef.
The Sefer Pelois HaTorah brings that he asked R’ Chaim Kanievsky, and he told him that it’s logical that Ya’akov made a berachah of “mechayeh hameisim” upon seeing Yosef.
The question is, however, if Ya’akov and Yosef made the berachah of “mechayeh hameisim”, why don’t we do it today, it’s a clear halachah in Shulchan Aruch?
The Shu”t Afraska D’Anya (Vol. 2, Orach Chaim 36) writes: The reason we no longer do it today, is because the Shulchan Aruch writes, the friend has to be, חביב עליו הרבה ושמח בראייתו – “Very beloved, and one is very happy to see him”, and today unfortunately our levels of bein adam lechaveiro have much to be desired.
Similarly, the Chesed L’Alofim (225, ois 15) writes: Nowadays, there is lots of flattery in the world, and people may appear to be friends but inside they really hate you, therefore, we no longer make this berachah with Shem U’Malchus.
The Ben Ish Chai (Parshas Eikev, ois 14) writes: “Nowadays, the minhag is that we don’t recite “she’hechayanu” with Shem U’Malchus, and there is reasoning behind this minhag.” Earlier (ois 13) he writes: “It could be that the reason we don’t recite the berachah of “mechayeh hameisim”, is because people don’t appreciate such a berachah being said on them.”
R’ Shlomah Zalman (Halichos Shlomah, Perek 23, s.k. 12) writes: “Nowadays, we don’t make berachos upon seeing friends. It is possible that the reason is, that this berachah is only said when there is a real simcha, and nowadays we are worried that people pretend, or that people are scared and they will make a berachah on someone they don’t really like in order not to offend him, and the berachah will be in vain. Consequently, we no longer recite the berachah, as who can say he isn’t affected by flattery, or scared of what people think of him.”
The Shu”t Yechaveh Da’as (Vol. 4 siman 17), brings from the Halachos Ketanos and the Chida that if one receives a letter from his friend within twelve months, one doesn’t make a berachah upon seeing his friend. Then he says, since today we have phones, mail and easy ways to contact each other, and it’s easy to find out how someone is, and whether he is well or something may have happened, therefore, we no longer recite the berachah. (The above riddle is based on Madanay Asher)
5) Why did Egyptians hate shepherds?
The Sifsei Chochomim answers that because shepherds are constantly around sheep, they see everything that the sheep do. By observing that they engage in the same activities as all other creatures, they realize that sheep are not deities and do not possess any special powers. The Egyptians therefore hated the shepherds because of their insight into the true nature of their gods. (It’s amazing how even though they realized this, they still believe that the sheep are deities.)
The Ibn Ezra writes that because of their frequent exposure to the sheep, the shepherds drink their milk. The Egyptians viewed this as insulting and degrading conduct toward their gods and therefore hated them. (R’ Ozer Alport, Parsha Potpourri)
