Vayigash, Breishis 46:29. Yakov's Krias Shema at the First Sight of Yosef.

ויאסור יוסף מרכבתו ויעל לקראת ישראל אביו גושנה. וירא אליו ויפל על צוארו ויבך על צוארו עוד

 רש״י - אבל יעקב לא נפל על צוארי יוסף ולא נשקו. ואמרו רבותינו: שהיה קורא קריאת שמע.

When Yosef first saw Yaakov, he fell on him and cried, but it doesn't say that Yaakov cried or reacted in any way.  Rashi brings that Yaakov was saying Krias Shema.  Chazal intended this peirush to elicit innumerable peshatim, but they all focus on this one idea: that while a human being under these circumstances would have reacted with love and flowing tears and celebration, Yaakov said Kerias Shema.  In some way, he saw that the most important thing at that moment was to be mekabel ol malchus shamayim, so he used a superhuman spiritual strength, and he put his emotions to the side and said Kerias Shema.

Some people have trouble understanding what was happening there.  Even if you accept that Yaakov was so far beyond Human that we can't expect to understand his spiritual power and choices, you would think that this kind of behavior could not exist in our times. But I have no trouble understanding the story.

I was raised by a father, who learned in Slabodka for thirteen years, and slept on the floor so that it would be easier to wake up early, and kept his feet in cold water at night so he could learn later, and told me that until he was twenty years old, he didn't understand what it meant to "forget," because he remembered everything he ever learned, and the Rogatchover said that he knew Maseches Shabbos well because he immediately answered and told him how many times the name of Abayei appears in that masechta.  My mother grew up in the Talmud Torah in Kelm (and was the only child that was allowed in the courtyard to pick raspberries,) and she says that the men in her family were in the Talmud Torah from Thursday until Friday afternoon, and then they learned all night on Shabbos until after Shachris, and she was famous in the yeshiva world for her knowledge of Tanach and Medrashim.  So I can understand this kind of life.

Along these lines is a story about Reb Akiva Eiger.  This is the kind of story I grew up hearing.  But other people might not believe it or understand it, so I point out that a story that is written by Rav Sternbuch, who says he heard from Ponovezher Rov, who heard it from his father in law, Vilkomirer Rov, is reliable.

ושמעתי מהגאון רבי יוסף כהנמן זצ"ל בשם חמיו הגאון מוילקומיר זצ"ל דבעת שנפטרה זוגתו של ‏"החתם סופר" זצ"ל,‏ בתו של הגרע"א זצ"ל,‏ לא ספרו הדבר לאביה הגרע"א , וארע שהגרע"א נזדמן סמוך לפרסבורג והודיע שרצונו לשבות השבת בבית "החתם סופר" שלא ראו זה את זה שנים הרבה, וה"חתם סופר" לא ידע היאך לנהוג שכבר נשא אשה שניה, והתיעץ עם אשתו והיא מצידה היתה מוכנה לעזוב את הבית לשבת, אבל "החתם סופר" התישב בדעתו ואמר שתשאר בבית. בערב שבת הגיע הגרע"א זצ"ל לבית "החתם סופר" ומסרו לו ש"החתם סופר" נמצא בבית דין , הלך לשם ומיד שאל אותו "החם סופר" בענין גט שהגיע לפניו , ודנו ופלפלו עד סמוך לכניסת השבת, ואחרי רחיצה וטבילה קיבלו השבת, ובסעודה המשיכו ופלפלו עוד , ושקועים היו בדברי תורה כל השבת, ומיד לאחר הבדלה פנה הגרע"א ללכת ואמר שאין לו פנאי אפילו לדבר עם בתו ורק מבקש למסור לה דרישת שלום.

The story is that when Reb Akiva Eiger's daughter, who had married the Chasam Sofer, died, they did not tell him.  It then transpired that Reb Akiva Eiger was near Frankfurt, and he wanted to see his son in law and daughter, and many years of not seeing them.  The Chasam Sofer had by that time remarried, and he didn't know what to do.  His wife offered to leave home for Shabbos, but he told her he had a plan.  When Reb Akiva Eiger arrived, he was told that his son in law was sitting in his Beis Din.  When Reb Akiva Eiger came in to the court, the Chasam Sofer told him about a difficult case of a get he was involved in.  They discussed the issues until before Shabbos, bathed and went to the Mikva, davenned, and at the meal they continued their discussion, and the same occurred the next day.  When Shabbos was over, Reb Akiva said that he had to leave immediately, and he asked his son in law to please give his regards to his daughter.

There are two ways to read the story.  Either Reb Akiva Eiger was misled, or he figured out what was going on.  In any case, the lesson of the story is the same: if the former, that his total involvement in learning took precedence over his desire to see or talk to his daughter, or, if the latter, that his distress did not diminish an iota his total focus and immersion in learning.

The next story is from Rav Dovid Singer and Rav Nachman Klein, Talmidim Muvhakim of my rebbi, Rav Rudderman.  I copied it almost verbatim from an article in Mishpacha magazine (without seeking permission, because it's just the words of the talmidim, not the work of the article's author.)

“By the time (Rav Rudderman) turned 14, he knew all of Shas with Rashi, and on Simchas Torah of that year, he accepted upon himself to chazer Shas between then and Pesach. But not long after, tragedy struck — his father passed away. Fearing the tragic news would affect his talmid’s ability to accomplish this major goal, the Alter [the “Alter of Slabodka,” Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel] withheld word of Reb Yehuda Leib’s petirah until his son had finished Shas shortly after Purim. Rav Ruderman once told me that the first time he sat a full shivah was for his rebbetzin, because his mother had passed away when he was an infant and for his father he only sat a short time because he only found out later.”
Rabbi Klein interjects: “But you missed an important point, which is that the family had sent a letter to Slabodka, informing him of the sad news and asking him to say Kaddish, but the Alter intercepted it and decided not to give it to him. I once saw it printed that the Alter himself said Kaddish for Reb Yehuda Leib, but I don’t believe it. In any event, after the Alter told him, he asked his rebbi ‘hayitachein? — How could it be you didn’t tell me?’ That’s when the Alter told him the story about Rav Chaim Volozhiner, who had similarly withheld letters sent to his prized talmid Rav Yossele Slutzker by Rav Yossele’s family requesting that he leave Volozhin after their store burned down and their father passed away. Only years later, after Rav Yossele had achieved his great Torah stature, did Rav Chaim show him the letters, exclaiming, ‘Der yetzer hara hut geharget ah mentch just to take you away from learning, and I didn't let him!’ ”

I personally heard this story from both my father zatzal and from Rav Rudderman himself, but I quoted it from Reb Dovid Singer because he is better known than I am and his eidus would be more effective than mine.

Of course, there is the Rambam in 10 Teshuva 13:

 וכיצד היא ה אהבה הראויה? כאילו חלה חולי האהבה. שאין דעתו פנויה מאהבת אותה אשה והוא שוגה בה תמיד בין בשבתו בין בקומו, בין בשעה שהוא אוכל ושותה, יתר מזה תהיה אהבת ה׳ בלב אוהביו — שוגים בה תמיד, כמו שציוונו: ״בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך״, והוא ששלמה אומר דרך משל: ״כי חולת אהבה אני״, וכל שיר השירים משל לענין זה״.

In any case, I know that some people don't like these stories.  I once worked in an office with a descendant of the Gaon.  He wasn't frum, and his family mesora was pride in their brilliant ancestor and resentment of the Gaon's lack of involvement with his children.  I can't help that.  I listen quietly when people say idiotic mofsim stories about Rebbes and their malachim and resurrections, so it's only fair to accept that there is a part of klal Yisrael that has a very different kind of Rebbishe maisim.

R' Avi Lencz showed me an article in Yeshurun (18:890) that describes the relationship of the Gaon with his children.  The beginning of the article is amazing, but like all the Gaon's Torah, it's not simple at all.

Vayigash. In Retropect, It Wasn't So Bad

I will post this quickly, and try to come back and fix it up later.  My youngest son's aufruf is this Shabbos, and you'll have to forgive me for being a little hasty.  But it happens to be a good observation.

Rav Solomon, in his Ma'amarim, cites the Medrash  (91:10) that says that Yaakov, the paragon of human spirituality, only once in his life said a ill-considered thing:   

והרעב כבד וגו' ויהי כאשר כלו וגו' ויאמר אליו יהודה וגו' אם ישך משלח וגו' ואם אינך משלח וגו' אמרו לו מה הוא אומר לנו דברים של אמת ואנו משיבים אותו דברים של בטלה ויאמר ישראל למה הרעותם לי וגו' רבי לוי בשם רבי חמא בר חנינא מעולם לא אמר יעקב אבינו דבר של בטלה אלא כך אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא אני עוסק להמליך את בנו במצרים והוא אומר למה הרעותם לי היא דהוא אמר (ישעיה מ) נסתרה דרכי מה' ומאלהי וגו' ויאמרו שאול שאל האיש וגו' אמר רבי אבא בר כהנא אפילו עצי עריסותינו גלה לנו ויאמר יהודה אל ישראל אביו מוטב תהא נפש אחת בספק ולא כולם בודאי אנכי אערבנו כל הימים זה העולם הבא שכולו יום:

When the brothers told Yaakov that they had told the Egyptian that they had a brother in Canaan, Yaakov angrily accusing his sons of doing him an evil by revealing what they didn't have to.  The point of the Medrash is that Yaakov shouldn't have reacted to this unpleasant news so negatively.  He should have realized that a baal bitachon must accept what happens more calmly, since Hashem orders all events, and all that we experience is purposeful and ultimately fulfills the will of Hashem.  The Medrash says that Yaakov's words were davar shel batalah, empty words, because Hashem was doing all of this to ensure the survival of Klal Yisrael, and it was not right for Yaakov to call the events "Ra."

In our parsha, too, Yaakov tells Pharaoh that his life was short and "Ra."  47:9- מעט ורעים, היו ימי שני חיי,

Rav Solomon points out that in Parshas Vayechi, from the perspective of his penultimate hour, Yaakov looked back and saw that Hashem had shepherded him from his earliest youth till that very day.  Yaakov used the words הרועה אותי.  These words, which echo the word הרעותם, indicate that Yaakov realized that while the event elicited despair in the moment of experience, in retrospect he saw that he had spoken hastily, that he now realizes that he was a sheep, and Hashem was his shepherd, and he was being lovingly guided by Hashem toward an ultimate good that required that he experience all those frightening and frustrating moments.

This is exactly the same idea the Beis Halevi says in Parshas Beshalach, when Moshe Rabbeinu said Oz Yashir.  He brings a Medrash (Shemos 23:3)

 אז ישיר משה. איתא במדרש (שמו"ר כג ג) אמר משה באז חטאתי שאמרתי (שמות ה) ומאז באתי לדבר אל פרעה הרע לעם הזה באז אני אומר שירה.

that Moshe said "I sinned when I complained "mei'oz bosi el Pharaoh": Moshe had said "from the moment (Me'Oz) I came before Pharaoh, he has made it bad for this people," and I do teshuva by singing to Hashem with the word Oz, that I now realize that all the apparent hardship was necessary to bring us to the point of this great Kiddush Hashem of Krias Yam Suf.  Please note that in Moshe Rabbeinu's precipitous words he also said Ra,  הרע לעם הזה.  Later, in retrospect, he realized that what seems like Ra in the moment might actually be the foundation of a great good.  Same vort, same words used by the Yaakov Avinu and Moshe Rabbeinu, same ultimate realization.

A Guest Post on Vayigash by Rav Dr. Baruch Fox: The Baal Teshuva and the Tzadik Gamur

Earlier Posts on Vayigash:


Respecting another’s opinion even when it is horribly wrong

Yesurim that do not come from Schar ve’Onesh

Davenning in a dance hall

Honoring your Grandfather

The following is a dvar Torah from Rav Pinchas Friedman, which was translated by my friend, Rav Doctor Baruch Fox, who resides in Maaleh Adumim.  I copied it from a pdf and there might be little quirks, but it is generally in good order. 

Yehudah and Yosef Pave the Way for All of Klal Yisroel:
Yehudah the Path of Teshuvah and Yosef the Path of the Tzaddik

In this week's parsha, Vayigash, we read of two crucial confrontations between two royal figures - Yehudah and Yosef. The first encounter described at the beginning of the parsha occurs before Yosef reveals his identity to his brothers (Bereishis 44,18): "ויגש אליו יהודה ויאמר בי אדוני ידבר נא עבדך דבר באזני אדוני" - “Yehudah approached him and said, 'If you please, my lord, may your servant speak a word in my lord's ears"... The second encounter, after Yosef has revealed his identity to his brothers and has made peace with them, occurs when Yaakov sends Yehudah to Yosef (ibid. 46,28): "ואת יהודה שלח לפניו אל יוסף להורות לפניו גשנה" - "He sent Yehudah before him to Yosef, to instruct ahead of him in Goshen". Here Rashi comments: "To clear a place for him, and to instruct how to settle in it. Ahead of him: before he would arrive there". Rashi adds from an aggadic Midrash: "To establish for him a house of study from which instruction shall go forth."

When we examine the difference between these two encounters, we find that the first was dramatic and intense; Yehudah approached Yosef with grave concerns, prepared for battle, if necessary. Rashi (44,18) comments that he was prepared to kill Yosef and Pharaoh, quoting the Midrash: "כי כמוך כפרעה, אם תקניטני אהרוג אותך ואת אדוניך",". In contrast, their second meeting was calm, peaceful, friendly and brotherly. This encounter is discussed by our blessed sages in the Midrash Tanchuma (6):

"ואת יהודה שלח לפניו, זה שאמר הכתוב (איוב כה) המשל ופחד עמו עושה שלום במרומיו, המשל זה מיכאל ופחד זה גבריאל, מיכאל מן המים וגבריאל מן האש, והן עומדין לפני השכינה ואינן מזיקין זה את זה, הוי אומר עושה שלום במרומיו. אמר רבי שמעון, כל הרקיע של מים והמלאכים של אש ומשרתיו אש לוהט, ואין המים מכבין את האש ולא האש שורף את המים, יהודה ויוסף, זה ארי וזה שור, אתמול מתנגחין זה עם זה, ועכשיו הוא משלחו אצלו, שנאמר ואת יהודה שלח לפניו, הוי עושה שלום במרומיו".

The Kings Confronted One Another With Antagonism

In this article, we wish to examine an astonishing elucidation by our sages concerning the first encounter between Yehudah and Yosef based on the verses (Tehillim 48,5-7):

"כי הנה המלכים נועדו, זה יהודה ויוסף, עברו יחדיו, זה נתמלא עברה על זה וזה נתמלא עברה על זה, המה ראו כן תמהו, ויתמהו האנשים איש אל רעהו, נבהלו נחפזו, ולא יכלו אחיו לענות אותו כי נבהלו מפניו, רעדה אחזתם שם, אלו השבטים, אמרו מלכים מדיינים אלו עם אלו אנו מה איכפת לנו, יאי למלך מדיין עם מלך".

The kings assembled refers to Yehuda and Yosef; ""עברו יחדיו, they each filled with rage against the other; "המה ראו כן תמהו" ,the spectators were bewildered; ""נבהלו נחפזו, his brothers were unable to respond to him because they were in shock; ""רעדה אחזתם שם, this refers to the Shevatim who said: “kings are debating one another, what concern is it of ours, it is fitting for a king to confront a king.”

We must endeavor to decipher our sage's enigmatic words: (a) Surely, Yehudah was enraged and furious towards Yosef who held Binyamin captive; however, why should Yosef have borne any antagonism toward Yehudah, who was merely fulfilling his promise to Yaakov? (b) What did the Shevatim mean when they said: “kings are debating kings, what concern is it of ours”? There is undoubtedly a hidden lesson here regarding this royal confrontation; it is incumbent upon us to unravel our sages riddle. Lastly, Rashi adds in his commentary (46,28) in the name of a midrash aggadah that Yaakov sent them to establish a beis midrash, a house of study; why, davka, did Yaakov choose Yehudah and Yosef out of all of the twelve shevatim for this task?

Yehudah represents the ""בעל תשובה, Yosef the ""צדיק גמור. Let us introduce an important principle that should clarify and shed light on this entire parsha. We shall expand on an illuminating concept of the holy, gaon Rav Tzaddok hakohen, zy”a, presented in his Pri Tzaddik (Vayigash,3): the two kings, Yehudah and Yosef are in essence the source of two distinct approaches to the service of Hashem - that of the tzaddik and that of the baal teshuvah.

Yosef hatzaddik merited the title צדיק יסוד עולם"" due to his withstanding the difficult test in matters of kedushah in Mitzrayim. He is emblematic of the perfect tzaddik who has defeated his yetzer harah. In contrast, Yehudah- who admitted publicly to Tamar (Bereishis 38,26): "ויכר יהודה ויאמר צדקה ממני" “Yehudah recognized, and he said, 'she is right, it is from me', . . .” - is emblematic of the baal teshuvah. It is true, however, that Rashi comments (ibid.) based on Sotah 10: that a heavenly voice went forth and proclaimed that it was I, Hashem, who brought about these events (involving Yehudah and Tamar). The point being that it was heavenly ordained that -the element of choice was withdrawn from Yehudah, so that he would repent as serve as a beacon for teshuvah for all of Klal Yisroel.

It is stated in Sefer Yetzirah (chapt. 6): "לב בנפש כמלך במלחמה" – the king represents the heart of the people. The Rambam (Hilchot melochim, chapt.3, halachah 6) comments, in a similar fashion, that the king is the heart of the congregation of Yisrael ; just as the heart is the central, gathering place of the blood, so, too, the king is the focus and heartbeat of the nation.

Anatomically, the heart is comprised of right and left chambers. Spiritually, the right heart houses the yetzer hotov, while the left heart houses the yetzer horah. This is taught in the Midrash (Bamidbar R.,22,8) on the verse (Koheles 10,2):

"לב חכם לימינו ולב כסיל לשמאלו - לב חכם לימינו, זה יצר טוב שהוא נתון בימינו, ולב כסיל לשמאלו, זה יצר הרע שנתון בשמאלו".

In this vein, Rav Tzaddok explains that the two kings, Yehudah and Yosef, correspond to the two chambers of the heart. Yosef, the complete, ultimate tzaddik represents the right chamber, the abode of the yetzer hotov and, thus, was able to overcome his yetzer harah - an illustration of (Avos 4,1): “who is mighty, he who conquers his personal inclination.” Yehudah, however, represents the left cavity of the heart, the abode of the yetzer harah; this is why it was arranged from shamayim that he fall prey to this yetzer, so that he would pave the road for the baal teshuvah.

Thus, our two kings, Yehudah and Yosef, blazed the paths for all of Yisroel . Yosef, the complete tzaddik, is credited by the Midrash (Vayikrah R. 32,5) as being the reason the children of Yisrael were able to sanctify themselves and refrain from immorality during their exile in Mitzroyim; he is also credited with their redemption. Yaakov avinu, in his wisdom, realized that it would be impossible for everyone to be like Yosef hatzaddik - as stated by the wisest of all men (Koheles 7,20): "כי אדם אין צדיק בארץ אשר יעשה טוב ולא יחטא", i.e. there doesn't exist such a righteous man that never commits a sin.
Therefore, he devised to send Yehudah, representative of the baal teshuvah, to Yosef hatzaddik, to integrate these two forces. Thus, an appropriate path was provided for all members of klal Yisroel. This is the meaning of the possuk: "ואת יהודה שלח לפניו אל יוסף להורות לפניו גשנה", and Rashi's commentary"לתקן לו בית תלמוד שמשם תצא הוראה". In other words, a place was designated to provide instruction in both methods of service to Hashem - that of Yehudah and that of Yosef.

The Two Moshiachs

In this manner, Rav Tzadok continues to weave the golden threads of this fascinating tapestry. It is for this same reason that Dovid Hamelech, also from shevet Yehudah, was also designated from above to set an example and lead the way for baalei teshuvah. The gemorah (Avodah Zarah 4:) states:

"לא דוד ראוי לאותו מעשה דכתיב ולבי חלל בקרבי... אלא לומר לך שאם חטא יחיד אומרים לו כלך אצל יחיד... והיינו דרבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יונתן, מאי דכתיב (שמואל ב כג א) נאום דוד בן ישי ונאום הגבר הוקם על, נאם דוד בן ישי שהקים עולה של תשובה".

We see that it was arranged from above that Dovid Hamelech would fail and sin in the matter of Bat Sheva. Being that he was the king of Yisrael , and, in the words of the Rambam, the heart of the people, he was obliged to follow in the footsteps of Yehudah, the father of his tribe. He committed what appeared to be a sin on his part, in order to carve out a path of teshuvah for all of Yisrael .

Based on the above, we find many references from Rav Tzaddok to the concept found in the gemorah (Succah 52:) that the Almighty will redeem Yisroel by means of two mashiachs - משיח בן יוסף from the line of Yosef and משיח בן דוד from shevet Yehudah. Mashiach ben Yosef will guide the people of Yisroel to be kadosh and follow the ways of the tzaddik. Mashiach ben David will guide the people of Yisrael to correct all of their transgressions through teshuvah.

The Philosophical Debate Between Yehudah and Yosef

With this background and understanding, we can begin to fathom why it was so crucial in the heavenly scheme that this royal confrontation takes place in Mitzroyim. Yehudah and Yosef represented very different philosophies; Yehudah was ready to wage war against Yosef in order to retrieve Binyomin and return him to his father Yaakov. Yet, in the end, they made peace, and Yaakov, with his entire household, were brought to Mitzroyim.

There is a well-known dispute in the gemorah (Berachos 34:) as to who is greater, the צדיק גמור or the בעל תשובה:

"אמר רבי יוחנן, כל הנביאים כולן לא נתנבאו אלא לבעלי תשובה, אבל צדיקים גמורים (ישעיה סד ג) עין לא ראתה אלהים זולתך, ופליגא דרבי אבהו, דאמר רבי אבהו מקום שבעלי תשובה עומדין צדיקים גמורים אינם עומדין".

In matters of dispute among the righteous, there is an important principle (Eruvin 13:):"אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים" i.e. both sides represent divine Truth. So too, in our discussion, both doctrines hold true. In certain aspects, the baal teshuvah is greater; in other aspects, the tzaddik gomur stands out. Furthermore, it all depends on each's spiritual level and madreigah. Not every tzaddik is greater than his baal teshuvah counterpart, and not every baal teshuvah is greater than his tzaddik counterpart.
This explains why the initial confrontation in our parsha was so fiery and antagonistic. Both Yosef and Yehudah wished to defend their holy doctrines and guide the people of Yisroel appropriately. They ultimately saw eye to eye and were able to establish a paradigm for future generations to follow. Their message is that both ways are valid and necessary; both are invaluable; therefore, both Yosef and Yehudah, together, were required to pave the way.

We can now suggest an interesting interpretation of the possuk: ""ויגש אליו יהודה ויאמר בי אדוני ידבר נא עבדך דבר באזני אדוני".

In the sefer Lev Aryeh (Vayigash 5), he writes in the name of Rabbi Leib Darshen from Ostrah, based on what we've learned (Sotah 10:): Yosef who performed an act of kiddush Hashem in private merited the addition of one letter from Hahem's name to his own name - as it is written "עדות ביהוסף שמו" ; Yehudah, who performed an act of kiddush Hashem in public merited to be named entirely after Hashem's name. Rashi explains that this is telling us that all four letters of Hashem's name are contained in the name יהודה.

So, when Yehudah says "בי אדוני", he his making the point that his name contains all the letters of the shem havaya, as opposed to יהוסף which only contains the single addition of the letter “ה" from Hashem's name. Yehudah's intention was not to prove to Yosef that he was the greater of the two of them, but rather to prove that the halachah accords with Rabbi Abahu that "מקום שבעלי תשובה עומדין צדיקים גמורים אינם עומדין".

“What Concern Is It of Ours Both of them are Right”

In the final analysis, we see that these two kings made a peaceful alliance, they were joined by all twelve shevatim and the result was that Yaakov and his entire household went down to Mitzrayim. Hashem is teaching us the lesson that: ""אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים; we required the approaches of both Yehudah and Yosef - the baal teshuvah and the tzaddik - in order to survive the exile in Mitzrayim. Similarly, in the merit of these two approaches, we will realize the future redemption facilitated by ""משיח בן יוסף - emblematic of the tzaddik gamur and ""משיח בן דוד - emblematic of the baal teshuvah.

The meaning of the Midrash now becomes clear: "כי הנה המלכים נועדו, זה יהודה ויוסף, עברו יחדיו, זה נתמלא עברה על זה וזה נתמלא עברה על זה",. Each wished to fortify his own doctrine, being of the opinion that his way was the correct and direct path to pave on behalf of all of Yisroel .

"המה ראו כן תמהו, ויתמהו האנשים איש אל רעהו, נבהלו נחפזו, ולא יכלו אחיו לענות אותו כי נבהלו מפניו", The brothers were shocked by Yosef's kedushoh and their realization that he epitomized the "צדיק יסוד עולם".

"רעדה אחזתם שם, אלו השבטים, אמרו מלכים מדיינים אלו עם אלו אנו מה איכפת לנו, יאי למלך מדיין עם מלך".

The brothers perceived through divine inspiration that Hashem devised this scenario, pitting the kings, Yehudah and Yosef, head to head, in one locale, to teach that both paths are correct and essential in order to serve Hashem. At that point, they proclaimed: "מלכים מדיינים אלו עם אלו אנו מה איכפת לנו" - what difference does it make to us that these two kings are debating one another; we require a combination of the two approaches. A deal was finally struck when Yaakov sent Yehudah to Yosef to establish a house of learning where both doctrines of service of Hashem would be taught.

Vayigash, Breishis 45:28. Rav! Ohd Yosef Beni Chai.

On the word Rav: See Medrash here- Yakov said "When I suffered, I sinned by saying that I was out of Hashem’s vision, but my son Yosef is greater than I, and had never said any such thing."

How did Yakov know that Yosef never said such a thing? The Sheim Mishmuel says (5672) that Yakov held that if Yosef had even a tiny flaw in emunah, his sufferings would have taken him off the path; Yosef's sufferings were so terrible that if there were any imperfection in his faith, he would have rejected Judaism entirely.

In what sense is that true? What sufferings of Yosef were worse than those of Yakov, who said "me'aht ve'ra'im" to Pharaoh? And how did Yaakov know that these experiences would have destroyed anything less than a perfect faith?

Here’s what I think.
Yaakov's tribulations pit him against enemies of his faith. Yosef, on the other hand, had to survive the hatred of his fellow Jews, his brothers, who believed in all the same things he believed in. One can remain faithful despite feeling that God has turned His back on His people. It is far more traumatic when your own faith has created antagonists who attempt to destroy you because of what you believe. Yaakov knew that if Yosef had ever had a crisis of faith, or even a small flaw in his faith, then if he were faced with this challenge, he couldn't have survived it.

Or to put it in Yeshivish, once the roiv of the Shvotim paskened that he was chayev misseh, that became the halocheh. But Yosef knew it was wrong, and the greatest beis din cannot make what’s wrong right (see the first mishneh in Hoiryois, not like Rebbi Eliezer). So the bottom line was that the halocheh of Klal Yisroel, the psak of Sanhedrin, was wrong, and Yoisef was right. He would be justified in withdrawing from Klal Yisroyel, deciding there was an essential flaw in the religious beliefs of the Shvotim, and that his job was to create an alternative and better Klal Yisroel. Either he was disenfranchised from Klal Yisroel, or Klal Yisroel was disenfranchised from him. The great gevura of Yoisef was accepting in his heart and in his mind that despite the behavior and beliefs of the Jews, Judaism, the mesoireh of Yaakov, is absolutely true.

The private wound is deepest. O time most accurst, 'Mongst all foes that a friend should be the worst!
-William Shakespeare The Two Gentlemen of Verona

Sometimes we see fellow Jews doing, in the name of our religion, things that are abhorrent to us. This was Yosef's experience as well. And it is hurtful and confusing to us. But the proper response is to accept that we are human, and humans make mistakes. This is why Chazal say in the beginning of Bava Kamma that Mav'eh is Man, because to avoid errors, one must pray to Hashem to help us. The Diplomat and Writer George Kennan wrote an article in 1968, in which he makes the following point:
....it lies within the power as well as the duty of all of us to recognize not only the possibility that we might be wrong but the virtual certainty that on some occasions we are bound to be. The fact that this is so does not absolve us from the duty of having views and putting them forward. But it does make it incumbent upon us to recognize the element of doubt that still surrounds the correctness of these views. And if we do that, we will not be able to lose ourselves in the transports of moral indignation against those who are of opposite opinion and follow a different line, we will put our views forward only with a prayer for forgiveness for the event that we prove to be mistaken."

The only thing I would add to Mr. Kennan's thought is this: One must bear in mind that he may be mistaken, and additionally, one must bear in mind that his opponent may be right, that even if I am right, my opponent may be right as well. That I am right does not necessarily mean that my opponent is wrong. There are many ways of looking at life, and of making complex decisions. Truth is admissive of variety. As Chazal say, Shivim panim laTorah, all of which are emes. Sometimes, Reuven's emes is that Yosef is Chayav Missah, while Yosef's emes is that Reuven is a Rodef who is attempting murder.

Have you ever thought about the difference between Rav Kook and the Satmerer Rov? How one felt that the creation of Medinas Yisrael was a tanchumin for the Holocaust, which was Chevlei Mashiach, while the other felt that the Holocaust was caused by the Zionist movement, that the creation of the Medinah was the cause of the Holocaust? That is a big difference of opinion, and it tends to make all of our talk of ACHDUS! and AHAVAS CHINAM! kind of foolish, doesn't it? Each side accuses the other of either aiding and abetting murder or of spitting at the great gift given by the Ribono shel Olam to His people.

The fact, not the hope, is that the Jews are hopelessly splintered. Does anyone really think that Satmar and Mercaz Harav have much in common? I'm not talking about Neturei Karta. Everyone hates them, and with good reason. A traitor deserves contempt and earns hatred, no matter how well-meaning he might be. But Satmar is a functional group with a heritage of talmidei chachamim and long history. Do members of the two sects/groups/camps have anything to do with each other? Would they feel comfortable walking in to the other's shul to daven? And what about the Satmar Dayan in Antwerp who publicly and vociferously railed against a community-wide tehillim gathering for the safety of the soldiers of Tzahal during the Gaza war? And, speaking of the Satmarers, it is not easy to like a group that proclaims that Zionism and the movement to found the State of Israel was the proximate cause of the Holocaust. Did the endless Inquisitions and pogroms escape their attention?

This is not a new problem. Our history tells us of men who were great scholars and talmidei chachamim whose behavior was horrifying. Think about what the Shvatim wanted to happen to Yosef. Think about Shimi ben Geira and Avner, about other tzadikim gemurim, as the Chassam Sofer says in Parshas Shmos, who murdered Jews because they paskened that this was the halacha, but who, we are told, were wrong. Of course, who are we to judge? We are not even chamorim compared to these great men. Even Korach, compared to us, was a malach. Remember what Menasheh said to Rav Ashi in a dream, as brought in Sanhedrin 102b?
But all that does not matter at all. The point I'm making is this; you can have a great talmid chacham, a great tzadik, even what the Chasam Sofer calls a tzadik gamur. And this person is capable of paskening that someone is chayav misah: he is capable of personally killing a person; and we, the rest of Klal Yisrael, the ones who follow other poskim, hold that they are wrong. That means that there can be a tzadik gamur on one side who holds that we should go out and kill a certain Jew, and other poskim hold that whoever kills that Jew is a Rotzei'ach and is chayav missah. So what you have is a tzadik gamur and talmid chacham - who is a rotzei'ach.

So if being a talmid chacham is not proof against being a murderer, what kind of a farce is it to say that Klal Yisrael has to aspire to achdus. This is not an exercise. It is a very good question. When there is nothing in the sincere study of Torah and the honest adherence to our mesorah that prevents the rise of absolutely incompatible groups, what do we mean when we say we need achdus? What on earth does achdus mean when we are at each other's throats?

Don't tell me that such extreme polarization is rare. It isn't. It happens all the time and every day.

As far as I can tell, achdus is only possible in a secular democracy with strict division between religion and the state. Obviously, this is not a guarantee of peace. Conflict about the form and direction and purpose of government can be as bloody as religious wars, as evidenced by most of the wars of the twentieth century, both hot and cold. But it seems to me that this kind of arrangement holds the most promise, while religion is fundamentally incompatible with compromise and mutual respect.

So what is this constant talk about achdus? Are we so naive that we think it's possible, or, as is more likely, are we just saying it when we know, in our hearts, that it's impossible? Are we just going through the motions because we think that it's a religious obligation to hahk a tchainik about achdus?

To accept that eilu ve'eilu applies even when the two sides are diametrically opposed is hard to do, and this was indeed the great achievement of Yosef.

Vayigash, Breishis 44:18. Vayigash eilov Yehuda.

Rashi says that the Vayigash of Yehuda was confrontational– he approached with a threat that if Yosef did not let Binyomin go, he and the brothers would attack and kill both Yosef and Pharaoh. Reb Elchonon asks, where was this brave and aggressive talk until now? Why were they so timid when they were accused of being spies and Shimon was imprisoned? 

Reb Elchonon answers, that when a person has yesurim, but he understands that these yesurim are coming because of a specific aveira, he must not struggle against the apparent cause of the yesurim, but should instead deal with it on a metaphysical level, by addressing the root cause of the yesurim through teshuva for the aveira, and be mekabel the yesurim with ahava. But when Binyomin was threatened, they realized that what they were experiencing could not stem from what they had done to Yosef, since Binyomin was not involved with the mechira, and there was no reason for him to suffer. (They thought that Binyomin was in danger; in truth, Binyomin would have been treated like a king when they left.) From what they saw, it was a threat to Binyamin’s welfare, so they decided that this episode could not have been a direct punishment for the mechira, and so they were justified- indeed, obligated- to use whatever means were in their power to defeat the threat, including violence. 

I saw a Ksav Sofer in Vayigash 45:28 that brings a Ramban that is exactly on point: the Ramban allegedly says that only suffering that comes 'behashgacha' is memareik an aveirah, but suffering that comes ‘bemikreh’ is not memareik. I’m not an expert in Ramban, but I have to say that the distinction between hashgacha and mikreh is perplexing, and I have not yet found such a Ramban. But if it exists, it supports Reb Elchonon’s vort. 

But I still think that Reb Elchonon’s vort needs work. People have, רחמנא ליצלן,  yesurim all the time, and it is impossible to know what they come from, and people go to doctors all the time, and according to most Rishonim, this is fine (see the machlokes as brought by R' Yaakov in Mishpotim, Shmos 21:19, Rak shivto yitein verapo yerapei, whether it's a reshus or a chiyuv.) 

But with the addition of R Berel Povarsky’s derech in his Bahd Kodesh here, it works better. He says that Yosef’s intention, and the Shvotim’s intention in their regret and guarding of Binyomin, was that once they realized that Yosef, as a Ben Rochel, was entitled to some malchus, they realized that the basis of their decision to get rid of Yosef for his attempt to achieve malchus was flawed, and so they needed to do Tshuvas Hamishkol. Mishkol means balance; Tshuvas Hamishkol is a specifically designed experience that has to speak directly to the aveirah. It has to balance the aveirah in all respects– it should counter balance the benefit from the aveirah, the enjoyment of the aveirah, and the chillul hashem of the aveirah. So until Binyomin was endangered, they decided that what they were experiencing could serve as a real tshuvas hamishkol, and they were mikabeil quietly. But once the circumstances showed ramifications that did not fit into that rubric, the Teshuvas Hamishkol concept no longer was valid, and so they were entitled to, and expected to, resist.

Vayigash, 46:1. Be’er Shova; Davenning in a Dance Hall

Yaakov intentionally went to to be makriv korbonos specifically in Be’er Shova . Evidently he felt that there was some special advantage in doing the hakrovoh there.

Reb Moshe, in OC I : 31, regarding renting a building for the yomim noro’im that is used as a dance hall, says: The same way that we see according to Tosfos that it is better to daven alone in a Beis Medrash instead of with a minyan in a Beis Knesses, (and even according to the Rambam that the precedence of a Beis Medrash is only to be machri’a over rov om in the Beis Knesses but not if there is no minyon at all in the Beis Knesses,) it is clear that the place makes a difference in whether the tefilla will be accepted. So, he says, a person that davens in a place that is a makom tiflus like a dance hall, even if he davens with a minyan, the Shechina will not come there, and his tefillos will not be accepted.

This is a tremendous ho’ora, because it says, le’halocho, that the place that you daven affects whether your tefillos will be accepted, and certainly the degree of rotzon with which they will be viewed by Hashem. And even though tfilla with a minyan is niskabel, it will not be miskabel if you are davenning in a mokom tiflus, and you’re better off davenning alone, without a minyon.

It is worth remembering that Chazal refer to the city of Shchem as being a place that is muchon l’pur’onus ever since the events that took place with Dinah. Rav Shimon Krasner in his Nachlas Shimon, Melochim I page 255 brings from R Chaim Falagi that it was the sin of Shchem that made a permanent and indelible roshem that spoiled everything that took place there in the future, as we find that it was from there that Yosef was sold and Malchus Beis Dovid was cut in half.

R’ Moshe makes several additional points:
•That this psak is specific to the case of renting a place that remains kovu’a for tiflus. If, however, you are buying the place and changing its kvius, then there is no problem. Even according to the Mogen Avrohom in 154 that prohibits a place that was once kovu’ah for avodah zoroh that’s because of “m’issi,” it retains a stigma, that’s only AZ, not tiflus.
•That this is only a problem if it is kovu’a for tiflus, not if it is an occasional use.
•That this is only a problem if the kvius was done by the owners/legal users. On the other hand, if the tiflus was a hidden and illicit activity that was not approved of by the regular users or owners, it does not have an effect. He supports this from the B’er Heiteiv in 151:1 from the R’eim, where the shamosh was caught with a young lady in shul, it does not affect the kedusha of the shul.
•There is also a teshuva in YD where he says that one may not make a separate minyan to accommodate two chiyuvim, because of the din of rov om. If the place where they make the separate minyan is not a mokom tefilla kovu’a, ein tzorich lomar it would not be muttar.
And the tfillos of Avrohom and Yitzchok definitely make a difference in the place, because their tfilla was the proper and authorized use of the place. Also, kedusha has more kvius than tum’ah, so a single event can leave a permanent roshem.

So the people who go to a yeshiva on Yomim Nora’im are right, and the ma’alo of a yeshiva is definitely greater than the inyon of makom kavu’a or rov om.

So, now that we know that the mokom is important in the ritzui of the tefilla, we understand how it showed kibbud av when Yakov went to Be’er Shova. As noted below here in the discussion about Kibud of a Grandfather, from Rabbi Zupnik, Yakov could have passed through the place where Avrohom brought korbonos, but instead he went through Be’er Shova where Yitzchok had built a mizbeiyach. This showed respect for the hechsher makom that Yitzchok accomplished.



People like to say it doesn’t matter where you daven, as long as you have a minyon the Shchina comes, so what else matters. But we see from here that it does matter. It’s not black and white. Davenning in a place with more kedusha is a better davenning and it is accepted more readily by Hashem.

Now, it is always entertaining, but usually futile, to try to figure out which shul has better people, because we have no way of assessing people’s madreigah. And it probably is not helpful to say that you won’t daven in a certain place because “so-and-so the sheigitz davens there.” But we can safely say that just as davening alone in your house is better than davening with a minyon in a dance hall, a yeshiva beis medrash is probably a better place to daven than most shuls, and we probably can make even closer distinctions, like not davening where there is wanton and unprotested talking during davening.

The main lesson is that it is not only your davening that matters. You tefila does not stand in isolation. It is a private conversation between you and God, but it is also a part of a whole group of tfillos. It is also the tfilla of the tzibur, the tfilla of the building, the ground underneath you, and the echoes of the tfillos that you davenned there in the past, and even whatever else happened there in the past. As it says in Chabakuk 2:11, Ki even mikir tiz’ok, v’chofis mei’eitz ya’anenoh.

Vayigash, 46:1. Honoring One's Grandfather

Leilokei oviv Yitzchok. Rashi says that a person is chayov more to be me’chabed his father than his grandfather. See the Torah Temimah, who brings the machlokes of the Ramoh and the Maharik as to whether there is any chiyuv of Kibud at all to the grandfather, and the shittah of the Gaon as to ben habas, and the Torah Temimah’s sevoro to be mechayev in kvod z’kaino.

The question remains, though, why couldn’t Ya’akov have been mispallel in the name of both his father and his grandfather. Just because he had a greater chiyuv for his father does not mean that he may not be mechabed his grandfather, and certainly doesn’t mean that he should not invoke his grandfather’s zechus. Why did he davka say Elokei Yitzchok?

Harav Dovid Zupnik (shlitah) zatzal, niftar Erev Shavuos tof shin samach zayin, a talmid of Mir in Europe, has an excellent pshat in this possuk. He points out that in Bereishis 12:8 and 13:4 we find that Avrohom was makriv on a mizbeyach between Bais El and Ai. Yitzchok, on the other hand, as we see in 26:25, was makriv in Be’er Sheva. More importantly, not only was Yitzchok makriv there, it also says that “vah’yiven”. When Ya’akov went to Mitzrayim, if you will look at a map, you will see that he could have passed Avrohom’s mizbay’ach, but he davka went to Yitzchok’s and was makriv there. Since it was Yitzchok’s mizbay’ach, it was proper that when he was makriv there that he call Hashem in the name of the one who established the mizbay’ach there, Yitzchok.

Harav Ahron Eisenberg (shlita) Zatzal, HKM, niftar Rosh Hashanna tof shin samach ches, of the gedolei talmidei Slabodkeh, pointed out that the Yerushalmi in Yevomos (2:6) says that the reason Bilodon had a din of a meyuchos was that he was mechabed his grandfather. [This means that Yichus only matters if the m’yuchos is mechabeid his past, if the m’yuchos is mis’yacheis.. If a m’yuchos is indifferent to his history, then he is not a m’yuchos at all.