‫נר לאפרים‬ ‫בס"ד‬

Miketz ‫מקץ‬

CONTENTS
Yosef the Righteous Spent 12 Years in Prison
Why Did Yosef Not Call Home
Recognition
Dreams
Tzafnas Peneiach
Slaughtering and Butchering
Eight Questions in Honor of the Parsha
King Shlomo’s Wisdom
Selections from Rabbi Baruch Epstein
Selections from Baal haTurim
Selections from Ohr haChaim
Selections from Rabeinu Bachayei
The Haftorah review
Understanding the Parsha according to the Rebbe
www.parshapages.com
For subscription to weekly emails send note to info@parshapages.com
Collection compiled hopefully for the elucidation of Torah
Year from Year in Year Yosef
Creation Yosef’s Life in Prision
17
Yosef sold when he was 17
2216 Yosef served Potiphar for one year *
18
The imprisonment of Yosef
2217 1
19
2218 2
20
2219 3
21
Yosef destined to spend 10 years in
2220 4 prison (one year each for the
22 “slander” of 10 brothers)
2221 5
23
2222 6 Yosef spent 9 years in prison prior to
24 the imprisonment of the chief
2223 7 cupbearer and of the chief baker
25
2224 8
26
2225 9
27
One year together prior to the release
2226 10 of the baker and the execution of the
28 cupbearer**
2227 11 Two years Yosef in prison prior to his
29 appearance before Paroh at the age of
2228 12 30
30
2229
* See 39:5 “and from the time the Egyptian put him in charge of the house…
“in the house” – from the effects of the heat (season of summer)
“and outside” - from the effects of the cold (season of winter)
from Seder Olam Rabbah and Be’ur ha-Gra
** See 40:4 “When they had been in custody for some time…” Rashi - Twelve months
 “CALL WHEN YOU GET THERE"
WHY DID YOSEF NOT WRITE HOME?
Taken from articles by Rav Yoel Bin-Nun and Rav Yaakov Meidan in Megadim vols. 1 and 2.

Ramban asks a very sharp question about the behavior of Yosef once he had assumed power in Egypt.
Given the fact that Yosef was in a position to do whatever he wanted to do, and given the fact that
Chevron, where Yaakov lived, was only a six-day journey from Egypt, how could Yosef have not written
a letter home to comfort his grieving father and assure him that he was still alive and well? The answer
given by the Ramban is a shocking one. He claims that all of Yosef’s actions were driven by his desire to
see his dreams (about the celestial bodies and the sheaves of wheat) carried out to their fullest, for he
knew that they would be fulfilled. Rav Yitzchak Arama, in his work Akeidas Yitzchak, questions this
explanation of Ramban. He asks how Yosef could deign to torture his father in this manner merely to see
his dreams fulfilled. What would happen if they were not fulfilled? Furthermore, he explains, dreams are
left in the hands of HaShem to fulfill, not for man to bring about their fulfillment. Given this, on what
grounds does Ramban base his interpretation?
Rav Yoel Bin-Nun points out a further problem with the view of Ramban, a problem based solely on the
text itself. When the brothers first appear before Yosef and bow down to him, the first dream, that of the
sheaves of wheat, is fulfilled. That dream referred to the brothers who were working in the fields at that
time, as Binyamin was yet a child, he was not included in the dream. The second time they come before
him, there are now eleven brothers present, parallel to the eleven stars of the second dream. When they
refer to Yaakov as "your servant," that serves as a fulfillment of the sun (representing Yaakov) bowing to
Yosef (Brachos 55a deals with the absence of Yosef’s mother, represented by the moon). At this point
both dreams are fulfilled, and yet Yosef continues to conceal his true identity. Even further, his entire ruse
of placing his goblet in Binyamin's sack occurs long after all this had occurred. Given this, how can
Ramban claim that Yosef’s entire motivation was to see his dreams fulfilled?
There is a second answer, given by Ramban, Abarbanel, and the Akeidas Yitzchak. That is that Yosef’s
entire goblet test was performed so as to restore family harmony, to make the brothers stand up for
Binyamin. The commentators argue that Yosef wanted to see that the brothers had not transferred their
hatred for him to his full brother Binyamin. However, Rav Bin-Nun points out, there are problems with
this answer as well. It would make sense that Yosef wanted to somehow isolate Binyamin from the
brothers, either to protect him or to send a message through him to Yaakov. However, to say that Yosef
actually expected his actions to create brotherly love is a bit far-fetched. While all of this did happen, it
could not have been expected or planned by Yosef. Even further, Yehuda's defense of Binyamin does not
really focus on Binyamin, but rather on the pain that will be caused to Yaakov if Binyamin does not return
home. Given this result, why do the commentators claim that Yosef is aiming for familial peace?
Rav Bin-Nun's answer begins by taking the opposite perspective. What was Yosef thinking for the twenty-
two years that had elapsed since he had been sold? He did not know about the plot made amongst the
brothers, and he did not know that they had tricked Yaakov by showing him the bloodstained coat. He was
alone in Egypt, and Yaakov, his father who had loved him more than he loved any of his other children,
had yet to send anyone out to find him! Certainly, given the proximity of the countries and the wealth and
connections of Yaakov, someone should have been able to find him over the course of two decades! Over
time, this sense that he had been abandoned built up and was compounded. Certainly, Yaakov knew that
the brothers hated Yosef. Why then did he send Yosef alone to find his brothers in the field? Was it possible
that the brothers had convinced Yaakov that Yosef was nothing more than a "tattletale" and that Yaakov
knew and had conceded to their plans to get rid of him? Recent history certainly supported this possibility
- Avraham sent away Yishmael in favor of Yitzchak, and Eisav, Yitzchak's favorite son, had lost his share
of the birthright to Yaakov. Seemingly, paternal favoritism was not enough in the face of a divine selection
of the chosen son.
The arrival of the brothers in Egypt sent Yosef’s thought-processes back to square one. When they first
appeared before him, they stated "Your servants are twelve brothers, the sons of one man in the land of
C'naan; behold the youngest is with our father and one is missing." (42:7-13) Yosef at this point began to
wonder if he had in fact been cast away. Certainly, Yaakov knew that twelve sons were needed for the
nation to be complete - Yishmael had begot twelve princes, Eisav had twelve grandchildren, and even
Nachor's descendants numbered twelve. Everyone in Yaakov's family knew that the nation could not be
built if one of its essential parts was lacking! Yet, Yosef tried to restrain himself further, hoping to hear
the details of his sale.
However, Yehuda's speech in defense of Binyamin broke Yosef down. In recounting Yaakov's misgivings
about sending Binyamin to Egypt, Yehuda states "And your servant, my father, said to us, you know that
my wife begot me two children. And one has gone out from me, and I said he was eaten, and I have not
seen him since..." (44:24-30) Yosef did not need to hear the rest of the speech. It was now apparent that
Yaakov had been misled all along and was not part of a plot to rid the household of the troublesome son.
Thus, it is at this point that Yosef is no longer able to control himself, and he thus reveals his true identity
to his brothers.
Rav Yaakov Meidan rejects this argument entirely out of hand. He asks how it was possible for Yosef to
even consider the fact that his father had turned against him. Hadn't he been Yaakov's favorite? Had not
his mother, Rachel, been Yaakov's favorite wife? Further, if Yosef really crumbled when Yehuda
mentioned Yaakov's reaction to the news of Yosef’s disappearance, then why does the next verse not state
that Yosef could no longer hold back? Instead, Yosef reveals his identity only after Yehuda offers himself
as a slave in place of Binyamin! These are among the many objections raised by Rav Meidan to the
position of Rav Bin-Nun. We will now proceed to discuss Rav Meidan's solution to the question of why
Yosef acted the way that he did toward his brothers.
Rav Meidan's suggestion is that the actions of both the brothers and of Yosef aimed for the goal of the
repentance of the brothers for the sale of Yosef. Both Reuven and Yehuda, the two leaders among the
brothers, act in ways that suggest this drive. When Yosef first deals harshly with his brothers, Reuven's
response to them is "Did I not tell you not to harm the child (Yosef), and yet you did not listen; and now
his blood is being avenged!" When the brothers return home to tell Yaakov that they must bring Binyamin
down to Egypt, Reuven offers his own two sons' lives if he fails to return Binyamin to his father. Reuven,
seeing himself culpable for the sale, focuses on the punishment for the action and accepts it upon himself.
Yehuda also sees himself as potentially responsible for the sale, and seeks to rectify the situation, offering
himself in place of Binyamin to serve as a slave to Yosef.
It is difficult to say that Yosef was blind to these actions of his brothers. He was certainly aware of the
statements that were made in his presence, and, given his high level of intellect (as proven by his ability
to interpret dreams), it is difficult to say that he did not understand the fact that his brothers were trying to
repent for their previous actions. Even further, it can be suggested that Yosef saw himself as a partner in
the repentance process of his brothers and sought to bring them to a complete repentance.
There are three instances during the course of the narrative when Yosef cries, or at least feels the need to
do so. The first is when he demands that they bring Binyamin down to Egypt. When Reuven chides his
brothers for having sold Yosef, Yosef turns away from them and weeps (42:22-24). The second time is
when Binyamin is brought down. There we are told that the sight of his full brother evoked Yosef’s mercy,
and he left the room to cry to himself (43:30-31). The third time, Yosef weeps openly in reaction to
Yehuda's offer to serve in place of Binyamin. Is there any connection between these three instances? It
appears that there is, and the connection relates to the repentance of the brothers.
When Reuven scolds his brothers for having sold Yosef, Yosef suddenly realizes that there was regret on
the part of the brothers for the sale. This realization brought him to tears but was as yet not enough to fully
convince him that the brothers had made a complete turnaround, and thus he continued to conceal his
identity. Yosef hoped that the brothers would not bring Binyamin back with them. When he saw that they
did, he experienced a sense of deja vu - once again the brothers had acted together to bring one of Rachel's
children into a potentially fatal situation (Yosef did not as yet know that Yehuda was willing to go to any
extent to save Binyamin). He saw Binyamin's descent to Egypt as a repeat of his own story, and thus he
sensed that the feelings of remorse that he had seen earlier had subsided, if they had ever really existed.
His tears this time were as a result of his sense of pity and mercy for Binyamin. However, Yosef decided
to put his brothers to the ultimate test. He tried to make Binyamin into what he himself had been - the
favorite. In place of a multi-colored coat, he gave Binyamin five times the amount of grain that he gave to
the others. Furthermore, he made Binyamin the culprit who had stolen the goblet, allowing for the
possibility that the other brothers would resent Binyamin as the one who had caused Yosef to once again
bring up the charge that they were spies.
It is at this point that the stage is set for the repentance to be complete. As Rambam writes in Hilchos
Teshuva: "What is complete repentance? When one is presented with the opportunity to perform a sin that
he has performed before, and he is capable of performing it, and he separates himself from it, not out of
fear or out of physical weakness." The brothers once again had the chance to allow one of their own to be
taken as a slave in Egypt. However, this time they acted in a way opposite to the way they had acted with
regard to Yosef. When the goblet was discovered, they tore their own garments (as opposed to having tom
those of Yosef at the time of the sale), and when Yehuda offered himself as a slave, Yosef realized that
the brothers had truly repented. It is thus at this point that he once again cries, a cry that is a continuation
of his cries in the first case, and it is at this point that he reveals his true identity.
Rav Meidan proceeds to deal with why exactly this element of Teshuva is so essential to our story line.
The answer relates to Torah as a whole and specifically with the historical progression found within
Bereishit. Until this point in history, the generations had witnessed a process of weeding out those who
were not fit to be a part of the foundation of HaShem's nation. One of the major focuses in this regard is
"Torat HaGemul" - reward and punishment. Adam, Kayin, and the generation of the flood had all been
punished for their iniquities. Yishmael and Eisav were "pushed aside" due to various actions or character
flaws. By contrast, the forefathers are presented as individuals wholly worthy of being chosen by HaShem.
On the whole, only their good deeds are stated in the Torah, and their sins are mentioned only through
textual hints. A second aspect of the forefathers is that HaShem did not appear to one while he did to
another. He appeared to Yitzchak only after the death of Avraham (25:11), and once He appeared to
Yaakov in Be'er Sheva He ceased to appear to Yitzchak (see Rashi on 28:10). The twelve tribes were
different. As the Kuzari states, they were the first generation where each and every one of them was worthy
of receiving the Divine presence. However, is it possible that there existed such a group where each one
of them was wholly righteous? Further, the stories that the Torah brings down about the tribes are almost
entirely those that relate their "darker side" - Reuven's sin with Bilhah, Shimon and Levi destroying
Shechem, Yehuda's incident with Tamar. As such, is it possible that HaShem would appear to a group
whose flaws were so glaringly obvious?
The solution to this question relies on looking at the tribes not as twelve individuals, but rather as one
collective group. Until now, individuals were judged with regard to their worthiness. Now, Jewish history
had entered a new era - one of the tzibbur, the community. The defining characteristic of this community
was to be not their absolute righteousness, but rather their ability to repent for their sins. Yehuda's conduct
with regard to Tamar and the brothers' conduct before Yosef exemplify this notion. Yosef, the one brother
about whom we are told both positive (his conduct in Potifar's house, for example) and negative (his tale-
telling with regard to his brothers) was the one who formed the bridge between the era of the forefathers
and the era of the tribes. Thus, it was Yosef who put the entire teshuva mechanism into motion,
manipulating the events and bringing his brothers to a full repentance.
 Recognition
:‫ ַו ַיכֵּר יֹוסֵּ ף אֶ ת־אֶ חָ יו וְ הֵּ ם ל ֹא הִ כִ רֻ הו‬:‫ ח‬,‫בראשית מב‬
Why didn’t the brothers recognize Yosef, yet he recognized them?
(Yevamos 88a, When Yosef left, the older brothers had full beards, but Yosef (only 17) did not have
cited by Rashi) a beard.
Yosef was sure the brothers would come to Egypt for grain due to the famine, but it
Ramban never entered the minds of the brothers that Yosef would rise to such prominence.
There are three things that cause a person’s eyesight to dim if one looks at them. One
Chagigah 16a of them is looking at a Nasi (prince). Thus, the brothers refrained from looking
directly at the Egyptian leader and thus, failed to recognize him.
Yosef spoke Egyptian to a translator and thus the brothers (not knowing the language)
Rashbam were unable to recognize the speaker as Yosef.
The same word is used in connection with Iyov (2:12) "me'rochok ve' lo hikiruhu (from
afar they could not recognize him)", only the former is missing a 'Yud', whereas the
latter is not. Just as Iyov's friends could not recognize him because he had changed
so drastically on account of his suffering, so too, could Yosef's brothers not recognize
Baal HaTurim him because of his change from a slave to a great prince.
The difference between them was that, when Iyov's friends came closer, they recognized
him, whereas Yosef's brothers did not. Why? Because Iyov's friends knew the
identity of the person they were visiting, but Yosef's brothers did not.
The verse tells us that it is quite surprising that in spite of Yosef's recognizing his
brothers and there is the nature of "k'mayim haponim l'fonim" (Mishlei 27,19),
Ohr HaChaim which should have brought about a reciprocal recognition; nevertheless, this did
haKodesh not happen. The reason they did not recognize him is because of his exalted position
and royal bearing. The possibility that the brother they sold into slavery being
raised to such a position was far from their minds.
Yosef looked like Yaacov, so it is surprising that the brothers did not recognize him.
Sifsei Tzadik However, Yaacov was 84 years old when the brothers were born. Yosef was now
only 39 years old and his current features resembled Yaacov at that age.
Peirush HaTur Yosef was introduced to the brothers under his Egyptian name Zaphenath-Paneach.
haAruch
When the brothers sold Yosef as a slave they did not recognize him as a brother. As
much as he cried and pleased, they had no pity on him. Perhaps most people in
Me’am Lo’ez Yosef’s position of power might have exacted revenge. However, Yosef
“recognized” his brothers and did not think of revenge.
Yosef began to feel deep affection and pity for his brothers. An angel spoke in his mind
denouncing the brothers. “On them you’re having mercy! What king of mercy did
Alshich then have for you? They threw you into a pit full of snakes and scorpions, and sold
you for a slave.” The angel continued in this manner so that Yosef would become
angry at them and kill them. However, Yosef did not.
Not just in his generation but in every generation, Moshiach ben Yosef recognizes his
brothers and they do not recognize him. It is an act of Satan which conceals
Moshiach ben Yosef’s attributes, such that the Jews unfortunately do not recognize
Gaon Rabbi his footsteps and in fact scoff at them, “If not for this, our troubles would already be
Eliyahu of Vilna over.” If Israel recognized Yosef, Moshiach ben Yosef’s footsteps comprising the
ingathering of the exiles, etc., we would already be completely redeemed.
The Vilna Gaon warns that the source of Israel’s troubles at the end of days stems from
our not recognizing Moshiach ben Yosef.
 DREAMS
It is impossible that a dream not have some meaningless aspects. -Berachos 55a
‫כל חלומות הולכים אחר הפה‬
All dreams follow the mouth (the import of the dream depends upon the interpretation given to it)
Dreams: Their Meaning and Their Interpretation
Various commentators find difficulty with the notion that the meaning (and possible prophetic import) of a dream
is determined by an interpretation someone inputs to that dream.
Therefore, the Maharsha presents four general categories of dreams to provide an understanding of Chaza”l’s
views on dreams (contrary to Freudian theory that dreams are only a reflection of one’s experiences):
I. The first type of dream has no single objective meaning; rather it carries a multiplicity of potential
meanings. For example, one may see a certain image in a dream (e.g., a lettuce) and that image maybe
simultaneously associated with several potential events (e.g. bitter experiences similar to the bitter
lettuce leaves; or a doubling of business profit like the doubled lettuce leaves). As long as the dream
remains uninterpreted, the actual meaning of the dream remains undetermined. In this respect the
dream remains like a letter that has not been read; its contents are meaningless to someone who ignores
them. Interpretation provides credence to that aspect of the potential meaning highlighted by the
interpreter and can now move from the potential to the actual. The interpretation does not itself create
meaning; rather it highlights latent elements of meaning already there.
II. The second type of dream consists of a vision that does have a particular portent, whether positive or
negative in nature. These dreams can also be influenced by the interpretation, mitigated or even
reversed. Thus, a person can dream of a positive symbol (like a well as a symbol of peace) that can
transmuted negatively
III. The third type of dream is one which has true prophetic import, which has an essential meaning and
cannot be influenced by interpretation. An example is the dreams of Yosef.
IV. Of course there are many dreams which have no import whatsoever, but are merely connected to events
that a person was thinking about during the day.
The Response to Troublesome Dreams
Most of our dreams today are not messages from HaShem; they're simply thoughts that are recycled from what
occupied our minds during the day. Negative dreams experienced after stressful incidents can certainly be
attributed to those incidents; they don't foretell anything bad. Even an ostensibly bad dream can be turned into a
good one. Chaza”l provided methods to assist a person troubled by a dream.
Fasting
One who has a bad dream may fast, for fasting has great power to avert potential bad decrees. The fast should be
accompanied by repentance and disbursement of charity, as well as Torah study and prayer.
This fast is not obligatory; if the person is not concerned about the dream and considers it nonsense, he doesn't
have to fast, especially today when dreams have less import than in earlier generations.
This fast is observed the day following the occurrence of the dream. In the event that the person is very distressed
by the dream, he may fast on that day even if it is Shabbat or a holiday. In such a case, however, the person must
fast again on the following day to atone for having fasted on a holy day. There are only two days a year when it's
forbidden to fast a "dream fast": The day before Yom Kippur and Purim. If one had a bad dream about someone
else, the dreamer is the one who fasts.
Please note that nowadays it is not a common custom to fast following a bad dream.
Hatavas Chalom
Another way to transform a possible bad decree implied by a dream is to do a ceremony called Hatavas Chalom
(lit. "making a dream good") on the day following the dream. The ceremony calls for the one who dreamt to go
to three friends (forming an informal Bais Din) and they recite various verses and prayers responsively. This
prayer is printed in various prayer books.
If One Doesn't Remember the Dream
If one is uncertain about the contents of one’s dream and is unsure if it is a harbinger of good tiding or bad ones,
one should employ the standard supplication during the blessing of the Cohanim (as now printed in almost all
prayer books).
In most communities it has become
customary for the entire congregation to The River, the Pot and the Bird (Positive symbols in a dream)
recite this supplication, which or not each The Midrash (Bemidbar Rabbah 11:7) clearly detects that the
individual has recently experienced a blessings of HaKadosh Baruch Hu, as delivered through the
dream. Everyone has seen an ambiguous Cohanim, reflect this three-tiered blessing. When the Cohanim
dream at some point since the last time the conclude and say, “‫ וישם לך שלום‬HaShem shall bestow the
Cohanim blessed the congregation. blessing of peace for you,” the Midrash states, “Peace when you
It has become customary for the Cohanim go in, peace when you go out, peace with every person.” This
to recite an extended, wordless chant at the statement parallels the house (when you go in), the local
last three words of the blessing. Rama community (the river), and the world at large (the bird).
(O.C. 128) writes that it is during this
chant that one ought to recite the dream supplication. One does not recite it while the Cohanim are actually reciting
the words of the blessing being pronounced on their behalf.
Torah Insights Revealed During a Dream
Many great Torah scholars had Torah insights revealed to them in their dreams. Generally one may only decide
halachic questions based on existing Torah sources, not on divine revelation; nevertheless, if the ruling received
in a dream does not contradict those sources, some consider it valid. In fact, there was a Tosafist by the name of
Rabbi Yaakov of Marosh who asked many questions via shaylas chalom, i.e., a question posed to HaShem for
which one hopes to receive a response during a dream. Rabbi Yaakov received 89 responses via dreams; he
recorded them and they are published under the title: Shailos U'teshuvos min Hashamayim ("Responsa from
Heaven").

DREAMS IN HALACHA
Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 210:2) rules that if a person makes an oath in a dream, the oath has no validity,
and it does not have to be nullified. However, there are those who say that ten men should be assembled to nullify
the oath, and it is appropriate to consider this opinion. The Sha”ch comments that even if in the dream itself the
dreamer sees that ten people nullified the oath, this is not adequate, because we have to suspect that the
nullification was the part of the dream that was worthless, and that the oath is still valid.
Pischei Teshuva cites a case which was brought before the Chasam Sofer. A person saw in his dream that he took
an oath not to eat cooked matzah during Pesach that year. According to the second opinion of the Shulchan Aruch,
the oath is binding. The question was does the dreamer have to consider the stipulation of Pesach “that year” as a
part of the dream which was null, and he was therefore prohibited from cooked matzah every year, or could it be
that he was prohibited only that year’s Pesach alone.
The Chasam Sofer answered that the dreamer was only prohibited from eating cooked matzah that year alone. He
reasoned that if we were to treat the phrase “that year” as meaningless, perhaps we might interpret the word
“Pesach” or “matzah” as worthless terms. This would put into question whether he was prohibited from cooked
matzah all year long (if we were to disregard the limitation of Pesach), or that he could not have matzah in any
shape or form (if the word cooked were to be discounted). Rather, the only element of an oath in a dream which
can be treated as superfluous is an independent aspect of the oath, such as whether the people who nullified it in
the dream itself were meaningful. However, any aspect of the oath which describes the oath itself cannot be
removed.
 TZAFNAS PANEIACH
"Pharaoh called Yosef's name Tzafnas-Paneiach" (Bereshis 41:45) ַ‫צָ ְפנַת פַ עְ נֵח‬
1. Rashi explains: "Revealer of hidden things." The sale of Yosef was hidden from all, save those who participated
and the purchasers. There was one exception, our Patriarch Yitzchak (see Rashi on 37:35 d.h. "va'yeivk"). To
all it was hidden, except it was clarified to Yitzchak )‫(יצחק‬, whose name has the same numerical value as
"paneiach." N'vei Shalom points out that that Rashi is switching the order of the words with his explanation. A
literal translation would be "the hidden he clarifies."
2. The Medrash Rabbah 90:4 brings in the name of Rabbi Yochonan that the word "Paneiach" is a composite of
"pa," as in the word form "hofia," meaning "appears," and "nach," as in the word form "noach," eases. This
means that when his explanation of a hidden matter appears, it is readily acceptable and eases the minds of
those who were previously puzzled.
3. Rabbeinu Menachem Azariah says that this composite word's first component comes from the word form "efeh"
(Yeshiyahu 42:14), - I will raise my voice. "Nach" is the same as before. Thus, Paneiach means he raises his
voice and announces (his explanation). However, this is only according to the translation of the Ibn Ezra in
Yeshiyahu. Targum translates "efeh" as "uncovers."
4. The Rada"k says that this is an Egyptian name.
5. Rabbi Sheis Harofeh (a Rishon) says that these are Egyptian words and we do not know their meaning and this
is why Targum only repeats these words. However, our Targum does translate these words like Rashi.
6. Rabbi Shlomo Ashtruk says that these words mean "governor," one who supplies the needs of the masses.
7. The Ralba"g says that this was the name of Paroh's god (a very small g).
8. It was a good thing that this idea to give another name to Yosef entered Paroh's mind because otherwise if his
name was left as Yosef, his brothers would have caught on to his identity. (Akeidas Yitzchak and Chasam Sofer)
9. The Baalei Tosfos say that this is an acronym for "Tzadik Pitpeit Neged Taavoso Ino Nafsho Chinom." (a Tzadik
fought a desirous soul; Potifar afflicted his soul, for no reason).
10. R' Machir z"l Hy"d (Spain; 14th century) writes: The Hebrew letters of this name are the initials of "Tzaddik
panah negged ta'avato; Potiphar inah nafsho chinam" / "The righteous one (Yosef) turned aside in the face of
his desire (for Potiphar's wife); Potiphar oppressed him for no reason." (Avkas Rocheil ch.56)
11. The Baal HaTurim says that this is forms the first letters of 'Tzofeh, Fodeh, Navi, Somech, Poser, Anav, Navon,
Chozeh' (One with foresight, redeemer, prophet, supporter, interpreter, humble, wise and seer). He also says
that "Tzafnas Paneiach" has the numerical value of "megaleh nistaros" revealer of hidden things.
12. The base inclinations that are hidden deep inside a person were open and evident to Yosef. (Rabbi Volf Strikiver
in Zeir Zohov)
13. There is a well-known commentary of a Rishon on the Torah called Paneiach Roza. It was authored by
Rabbeinu Yitzchak b"R' Yehudoh haLevi. Earlier editions of this work were called Paneiach Rozi, but more
recently printed in a most beautiful manner with the addition of the commentary of Rabbi Meir Horowitz z"l,
called "Roza d'Meir, by Rabbi Yoseif Dov Asia shlit"a. He writes that Roza rather than Rozi is correct and that
this name was specifically chosen by the author because each of these words )‫ (פענח רזא‬has the numerical value
of 208, equal to that of Yitzchak, the name of its author.

The Rogatchover Gaon, Rabbi Yosef Rosen (1858-1936), also known by the name of his main work Tzafnas
Paneach, was one of the prominent Talmudic scholars of the early 20th century, known as a “Gaon” (genius)
because of his photographic memory and razor sharp mind. His main work, a commentary on Maimonides,
was published during his lifetime, as well as five volumes of responsa. The remainder of his surviving writings
appeared in the United States many years after his death; all are titled Tzafnas Paneach "decipherer of secrets.”
The Rogatchover is remembered for his breadth of Torah knowledge and caustic wit. He did not suffer
inadequacy lightly. He was similarly reputed to rarely quote any rabbinic authority after the Rambam, and
avoided recent rabbinic works of the Achronim in favor of the Rishonim (those preceding the late 15th century).
His responses to queries of Jewish law could be enigmatic and cryptic.
 Slaughtering and Butchering
Based on Rabbi RC Klein
When Yosef commanded his chief of staff to prepare a banquet in honor of his brothers, he said: “Bring the men
into the house and slaughter a slaughtering (u’tevoach tevach) and prepare [it], for these men will eat with me in
the noon” (Bereshis 43:16).
We are more familiar with the word shechita which means “slaughtering”, yet here the Torah uses the somewhat
obscure word tevicha. In this essay we will discuss how the words shechita and tevicha differ from each other,
and how they differ from zevicha — a third synonym for slaughtering.
There are two more places in the Pentateuch where a cognate of tevicha is used. When a thief steals something
and is caught, the Torah levies on him a penalty of paying back to the rightful owner twice the value of that which
he stole (Ex. 22:3). But, if he stole livestock and then slaughtered or sold it, then he must pay back four (for
ovacaprines) or five (for bovines) times the value of the animal (Ex. 21:37). In this context, the word used for
“slaughtering” is a cognate of tevicha. The next place where such a cognate appears is in Deuteronomy 28, which
tells of a series of curses to befall those who fail to keep the Torah and, inter alia, reads: “Your ox will be
slaughtered (tavuach) before your eyes, and you will not eat from it” (Deut. 28:31). Basically, all other instances
of tevicha-related words in the Bible appear outside of the Pentateuch.
Returning to the synonyms at hand, the Malbim explains how they differ from one another. The
term shechita refers specifically to the halachic concept of ritual slaughtering, which requires cutting an animal’s
neck through the esophagus and trachea. In contrast, zevicha implies slaughtering an animal for a specific
purpose, whether as a ritual sacrifice or as food for a festive gathering. Finally, Malbim argues that the
word tevicha refers to killing an animal for food in a general way — even outside of the context of ritual
slaughtering.
While not offering full definitions for the words we are discussing, Gersonides (to Deut. 12:21) notes that the
word zevicha does not, per force, refer to the same act as shechita. Rather, he explains, zevicha can also
include nechira (“stabbing”), which is a halachicly unacceptable way of killing (see Targum pseudo-Jonathan to
Num. 22:40). In another context, Gersonides (to Lev. 1:1) writes that shechita and zevichaare, in fact, synonyms.
Rabbi Shlomo Pappenheim of Breslau (1740-1814), cited by Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg, offers a slightly
different approach. He explains that shechita is a general term for any action which causes the death of a living
being. What is colloquially called shechita (i.e. halachic slaughtering) is included in this term but is not its full
definition. He adduces this view from the fact that the Talmud (Chullin 17a) says that for Noahides,
“their nechira (stabbing) [of an animal] is their ‘shechita’”. Moreover, when asking of G-d’s forgiveness for the
Ten Spies debacle and begging for clemency that He not destroy the Jewish People, Moshe said that if He wipes
them out, then the Gentiles will say: “Because G-d lacked the ability to bring this people into the Land… He
slaughtered (vayishachtem) them in the desert” (Num. 14:16). This does not mean that G-d was going to literally
“slaughter” the Jews, but that He was going to somehow bring about their death. These two usages show that the
word shechita includes other forms of killing, besides the specific way of slaughtering prescribed by Jewish law.
On the other hand, Rabbi Pappenheim explains that the words zevicha and tevicharefer to types of shechita. Those
two words focus on the reason why someone would want to kill a living animal: zevicha refers to killing an animal
for the purpose of ritual sacrifice, while tevicha refers to killing an animal for regular human consumption.
Interestingly, there might be an etymological link between tevichaand zevicha. Both words differ only in the first
letter of their root, but share the letters BET-CHET at the end of their roots. The Hebrew word zevicha is rendered
in Aramaic as devicha, with the Hebrew ZAYIN morphing into an Aramaic DALET. The letter DALET, as you
may have realized, it sometimes interchangeable with the letter TET, turning devicha into tevicha. It is therefore
understandable that when the Mishnah (Eduyot 8:4) declares that liquids in the Temple are ritually pure, there is
a point of contention in the Talmud (Pesachim 17a) whether this applies to beit mitbachaya (the Temple’s
“slaughter-house”) or beit midbachaya (the Temple’s “sacrifice house”).
Based on the notion that tevicha refers to slaughtering an animal for human consumption, Rabbi Shlomo Aharon
Wertheimer (1866-1935) explains why the Torah specifically used that word when referring to the thief’s penalty.
If the Torah did not use the word tevicha, one might have otherwise thought that the penalty only applies to a
thief who slaughters the stolen animal for no good reason, or to anger its rightful owner. But if he slaughtered the
animal to eat its meat, the thief could excuse his deplorable actions by claiming because that he slaughtered the
stolen animal for the purposes of eating it (not to make a profit) and should be exempt for any penalties. For this
reason, the Torah uses the word tevicha when telling of the thief’s penalty; that is, to stress that even though he
slaughtered the animal in order to eat from its meat he is still held responsible and the penalties mentioned above
are still levied upon him.
Until this point, we have assumed that tevicha means “slaughtering”. However, Rabbi Wertheimer points to
another understanding of that word. He cites Rabbi Yonah ibn Janach (990-1050), who contends
that tevicha actually means “cooking” (as does the verb tovech in Arabic). Accordingly, Ibn Janach understood
that Joseph did not tell his chief of staff to “slaughter” meat for his banquet, but to “cook” meat. Nonetheless,
Rabbi Wertheimer points out that in many rabbinic sources, tevichacertainly refers to “slaughtering”, not
“cooking”. In later times, a person described as a tabach was a “butcher” (who cuts up meat that has already been
slaughtered), or a “cook”. The Modern Hebrew cognate, mitbach, means “kitchen”.
The occupations of two people in the Bible are described with tevicha-related words: Nebuzaradan, the
Babylonian general who destroyed the First Temple in Jerusalem, is described (in II Kings and Jer.) as rav
ha’tabachim (“chief of tabachim”); and Potiphar, the Egyptian courtier to whom Yosef was sold, as sar
ha’tabachim (“minister of tabachim”). Rashi (to Gen. 37:36) explains that Potiphar was in charge of all those
who slaughtered the king’s animals. However, Ibn Ezra and Nachmanides follow Targum Onkelos in explaining
that sar ha’tabachim refers to Potiphar’s role as Chief Executioner (or at least the Chief Warden of those on death
row). This also seems to be the meaning of Nebuzaradan’s title. The connection between tabach as an executioner
and tabach as a slaughterer is obvious: an executioner slays people in the same way that a slaughterer slays
animals. (Truth be told, Ibn Ezra seems to contradict himself, because elsewhere (to Dan. 2:14) he writes that
Potiphar was the Chief Cook at Pharaoh’s court, not his Chief Executioner.)
 EIGHT QUESTIONS IN HONOUR OF THE EIGHT DAYS OF CHANUKAH ON
PARSHAS MIKEITZ
SEDRAH SELECTIONS PARSHAS MIKEITZ - CHANUKAH 5775 BS"D
Ch. 41, v. 34: "Yaa'seh Pharoh v'yafkeid p'kidim" - Paroh should act and appoint administrators
1) The word "yaa'seh" seems to be totally superfluous, as the verse could have simply said, "Yafkid
Paroh p'kidim," as we find in Megilas Esther 2:3, "V'yafkeid ha'melech p'kidim."
2) In verse 40 we find Paroh telling Yoseif that although he was now being given a high position,
nevertheless, Paroh himself would still be above him. Would any sane person think that by virtue
of this appointment Paroh was abdicating his kingship?
3) Why was it necessary for Paroh to tell Yoseif that he, Paroh, was giving Yoseif his position (verse
41)? Isn't this obvious?
4) Why mention all the pomp and circumstance of the royal appointment through giving Yoseif a
royal signet ring, placing royal garments upon him, placing a gold necklace upon his neck (verse
42), and giving him a royal limousine (verse 43)? Would we think that Yoseif would be the
viceroy yet still be dressed in shmattes, and when he needed transportation, he would have to
hitch a ride? Why not simply state only the information in verse 41, Paroh's telling Yoseif that he
was now the viceroy?
5) Rashi on verse 42 says that the handing over of the king's signet ring was the specific ceremony
that indicated that the recipient was second-in-command. Why mention this? Rashi does not do
so by Achashveirosh's doing the same with Homon. What important information would we be
lacking if we only thought of this as a gesture of respect, or simply a handing over of some
authority?
6) In verse 43, as explained by Rashi, we see that Paroh supplied Yoseif with a royal chariot which
was specifically a "mirke'ves hamishneh," second to the king's, like a Bentley next to a Rolls
Royce Silver Cloud, and that Paroh had it travel right next to his. Why mention this at all?
7) Again, in verse 43, we find that Yoseif was called "avreich." Rashi brings the opinion of Rabbi
Yehudoh in Medrash Agodoh that this is a composite word, "av" and "rach." "Av" means an elder
(in wisdom), while "rach" means tender (young). If Yoseif's appointment was to be taken
seriously by the wide public, shouldn't only his virtue of being wise be stressed? Why add that he
is a youngster, an element that would limit his acceptance in people's eyes?
8) Verse 45 tells us that Paroh gave Yoseif a new name and a wife. Why did Paroh do these two
things?
POSSIBLE ANSWER:
It is quite possible that Yoseif, with the use of this one phrase, "yaa'seh Pharoh," appealed to Paroh
in a most ingenious manner, displaying absolute genius in dealing with Paroh's emotional needs and
offering politically sound advice at the same time. Yoseif tells Paroh that a devastating famine is
coming in 7 years, so decimating that it would wipe out all vestiges of 7 previous years of abundance,
and as mentioned earlier, in much less than 7 years. Whoever would save the day would become the
national hero and Paroh would be relegated to obscurity.
This was Yoseif's intention with the words "yaa'seh Pharoh." Make sure that whomever you appoint
will not be a threat to your maintaining the country's leadership. Make sure that the attribution is to
you. Yoseif wanted to allude to Paroh to place him in this position but could not do so overtly. After
all, there was a law etched in stone that anyone with a jail record could not become a minister. Asking
Paroh to break the law was very inadvisable. However, Paroh himself could break the law (read that
as AMEND the law). It was also extremely advantageous to give the position to a foreigner, and a
Jew to boot, not a very coveted title among the Egyptians, "v'shom itonu naar IVRI" (41:12), upon
which Rashi comments that the wine-butler was very critical of Yoseif by calling him an IVRI. This
was the perfect bait, appointing a Jew, a jailbird, a NAAR, a young person. Appointing Yoseif would
be the optimum situation for Paroh. Yoseif would be a very capable administrator who would most
likely not become the nation's idol and hero, given his background.
Paroh now had to walk a tightrope, giving Yoseif credence and esteem so that people would listen to
his edicts, and at the same time not having him run away with the leadership. This is why Paroh
stated unequivocally, "rak haki'sei egdal mi'meko" (verse 40). Make sure you realize that I will
always be above you. In the same vein in verse 41 Paroh reiterates, "R'ei nosaTI os'cho al kol eretz
Mitzroyim." Be cognizant of MY appointing you.
This also explains why the Torah mentions in much detail the coronation, and all the royal items
given to Yoseif (verse 42). Paroh did all this to show all his people and in particular his ministers,
that Yoseif was now second in command, and not just another appointee. Rashi stresses this as well,
saying that handing over the signet ring is the ceremony for installing a SECOND-IN-COMMAND.
In verse 43 we see exactly the same strategy. Yoseif is given a chariot that is one notch below Paroh's
and rides next to him, rather than with him in the same chariot, even though this was the coronation
parade, again to show that Yoseif is BELOW Paroh. He is called "avreich." Although an elder in
wisdom, this must again be tempered with knowing that he is not the top man, hence "rach," tender
in years. Lastly, by giving Yoseif a new name and by GIVING him a wife, "va'yi'ten," and Yoseif's
not TAKING a wife, Paroh was again publicly wielding his power over Yoseif, one more tactic in
"keeping him in his place." Indeed, Yoseif was very cooperative and it was abundantly clear to all
that Paroh was the top man on the totem pole. When the people suffered from the famine they came
to Paroh and not to Yoseif (41:55), and only then did Paroh send them to Yoseif. When the people
became more and more impoverished and had to sell their belongings, including their land, and
finally themselves, it was all sold to Paroh. Yoseif was a loyal trustworthy viceroy, making sure that
Paroh was recognized as the leader of the nation (see 47:14,19,20,22-26).
The relationship between Yoseif and Paroh was cordial because Paroh was not threatened by Yoseif
and the power that he held, as everyone's perception was that Yoseif was second in command. This
held true even during the years when this was greatly challenged, during the famine. It seems that
the reality of the situation, at least during the famine, was that Yoseif was truly the leader. There is
one place where Yoseif tells his brothers of his high position and describes it as even being above
Paroh's. In Breishis 45:8 Yoseif tells his brothers that it was not they who brought him to Egypt, but
rather, it was Hashem. "Va'y'si'meini l'av l'Pharoh ul'odone l'chol beiso umosheil b'chol ho'oretz."
The simple translation of "av" is father. Yoseif was like a guiding father to Paroh, master over his
household, and lord over all the land. No doubt this was only for their ears and not for Paroh's. Yoseif
likely pointed out that he was in the highest position in the land to assuage his brothers' feelings of
guilt. However, he would not lie. We thus see that he was truly the leader of Egypt, even above Paroh,
at least during the famine.
 KING SHLOMO’S WISDOM
Based on selection from Zvi Akiva Fleisher

The famous story of a most strange case brought before King Shlomo to adjudicate, taking place shortly after he
was promised great wisdom by HaShem (Melachim 1:3:12). The Navi then recounts this most difficult case and
how through his exceptional wisdom, King Shlomo brought the truth to light.

In short, two women dwelled together in one room and gave birth within three days of each other,
each to a boy. The child of one of them unfortunately died. One woman claimed that when the other
awoke at night and realized that her son was no longer among the living, she surreptitiously took her
dead child and switched it with her own live child. The other claimed that it was not so, but rather,
that the other woman's child had died, and that she was lying in an attempt to have the live child for
herself. King Shlomo said that the way to resolve this in a "clear cut" manner was to bring him a
sword. He proposed to cut the child in half and give each claimant half a child. One woman
unequivocally said that the child should not be cut asunder and she would rather give up her child to
the other woman. The second woman responded that she would go along with King Shlomo's
suggestion. King Shlomo then said that the woman who adamantly refused to have the child
physically divided was the true mother. All of Yisroel heard about the ruling of King Shlomo, and
his reputation then spread far and wide (Melachim 1:3:16-28).

There is a most difficult question that a logical person should have with this story. Although "all's well that
ends well" and "hindsight has 20/20 vision" (the false mother showed her true colors), but why did King
Shlomo think that the false mother would fall trap into his ruse? Only an exceedingly dimwitted person
would agree to have the child cut in two. Wherein lies King Shlomo's wisdom?
THREE POSSIBLE ANSWERS
LINGUISTIC
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: There is a switch in the order of the two points being claimed by
each one. In verse 22 we find, "The other woman said, 'It is not as you claim, but rather my son is the live
one, and your son is the dead one,' and this one said, 'It is not as you claim, but rather your son is the dead
one, and my son is the live one!'" In the next verse King Shlomo verbatim repeats the words of both
litigants, only adding on the word "zeh" in the beginning of the words of the first woman.
Perhaps ZEH is not part of the quote of the woman's words, but rather a prelude added by King Shlomo.
The child might have had a bit of similarity to his true mother's features and she was not afraid to
accentuate this, thus pointing to him while saying that he was her offspring. Not so with the other claimant.
She distanced herself from drawing attention to the child's appearance and did not point to him while she
claimed that he was her child.
KING SHLOMO’S WISDOM: Before King Shlomo even suggested his test he already deduced
from the words of the two women who the true mother was. When mentioning two matters, it is human
nature to express oneself with the primary weightier matter first and the secondary matter only afterwards.
The true mother had but one thing on her mind. I WANT MY CHILD! The woman who knew that her
child was dead could not bring it back to life. Her driving force was her unwillingness to see her friend
coddle, nurse, and bring up a child, while hers was dead. Her goal in appearing in front of King Shlomo
was to stop the other woman from having a child while she would be left without one. All was thus
revealed to King Shlomo and he therefore repeated these key words which revealed the truth. Only
because it was a subtle proof did he go on to suggest the "cutting edge" test. Indeed the false mother
stated, "gam li gam loch lo y'h'yeh" (verse 26), thus showing her true colors.
 YIBUM
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The M.R. Koheles 10:18, Yalkut Shimoni Melachim remez #175,
and the Medrash Shochar Tov on Tehilim 72 mention an opinion that these two women were involved in
a question of YIBUM, thus rendering them as candidates for "yibum" or "chalitzah." The law is invoked
if neither has a viable child (or grandchild). In addition, the brother-in-law to perform either "yibum" or
"chalitzah" must be at least 13 years old. Both women claimed the baby as their own, and they were a
mother-in-law and her daughter-in-law and both their husbands were no longer alive.
KING SHLOMO’S WISDOM: He realized that the only one with a compelling motive to lie was
the daughter-in-law. If it was her son who died within 30 days from his birth, she would be bound to her
husband's brother, this newborn boy, for "yibum" or "chalitzah," which requires a wait of almost 13 years
under these circumstances (no husband and no other brother)! Thus, most likely the child really belonged
to the mother-in-law. In order to confirm this conclusion he ordered that the child be cut in two. If the
baby would be killed this would accomplish a tremendous release of obligation for the daughter-in-law
since the living baby was her one and only brother-in-law. The mother-in-law would only become a
yevamah if both her husband and no other child were alive. Now we see why it was logical for King
Shlomo to think that daughter-in-law would fall for his plan and agree to have the child killed, and he
thus exposed her as the liar that she was.

NEW INTEPRETATION OF CUTTING THE BABY IN HALF

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: King Shlomo said that he could not conclude as to who was the
truthful woman and offered to dissect the baby in such a manner that each part would remain alive,
recovering from the procedure. Although no one had ever heard of such a thing taking place before, King
Shlomo with his reputation as the most knowledgeable of all men stated that he could do it, a first in the
Guinness World Book of Records.
KING SHLOMO’S WISDOM: King Shlomo said that he was capable of severing the child in two,
leaving over in each one of the children one of the above-mentioned organs, and both children would be
viable. Thus he expected the false mother to accept this offer.
The bereaved mother readily agreed, as she had no great compassion for the child who was not really the
fruit of her womb. She gullibly believed King Shlomo and felt she had nothing to lose. The true mother,
however, reacted as any true mother would. She said that she did not rely on King Shlomo's wisdom to
perform such a delicate procedure successfully, and stated that she would rather give up the child to the
other woman than to so greatly risk his life.

THE WISDOM OF SHLOMO (Sefer Melachim – Chapter 3)

Whereas David's kingship was founded on the sword of prayer and faith – he had to fight throughout his life – Shlomo's
kingship was founded on the very WISDOM and UNDERSTANDING which he had the good sense to request when G-d
offered him anything he wanted. At the tender age of 12 (Rashi and RaDaK on v 7) when many intelligent youngsters tend
to be highly arrogant, the wise young King Shlomo had the humility to understand he would need divine help in judging
the busy, quarrelsome Israelites – for kingship (MALCHUS) is founded on Judgment (MISHPAT=TIFERES, the center
column, balance) and the repair of Judgment depends upon BINAH, "understanding". Shlomo thus asked G-d to "give Your
servant a LISTENING heart" (v 9) in order to HEAR and UNDERSTAND, while G-d responded even more generously by
giving him a heart that was WISE as well as UNDERSTANDING (v 12). CHOCHMAH, "wisdom", is the ability to GRASP,
know and remember what one learns, while BINAH, "understanding", is the ability to ANALYZE what one knows in order
to make new inferences, "understanding one thing from another" (RaDaK on v 12). When Shlomo awoke from his dream
he knew that his request had been granted, because "he heard a bird chirping and understood its language, and he heard a
dog barking and he understood what it was saying" (Rashi on v 15).
YOSEF KNEW THE 70 LANGUAGES
ָ ‫יוֹּסֵ ף אֲ נִ י פַ ְרעֹּה ו ִבלְ עָ ֶד‬-‫ֹּאמר ַפ ְרעֹּה ֶאל‬
‫ ַרגְ ל ֹּו‬-‫יָד ֹּו וְ ֶאת‬-‫י ִָרים ִא ׁיש ֶאת‬-‫יך ל ֹּא‬ ֶ ‫ מד ַוי‬,‫בראשית מא‬
‫ ֶא ֶרץ ִמצְ ָריִ ם‬-‫ְבכָ ל‬
‫ב א"ר חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן בשעה שאמר לו פרעה ליוסף ובלעדיך לא‬/‫סוטה דף לו‬
‫ירים איש את ידו וגו' אמרו איצטגניני פרעה עבד שלקחו רבו בעשרים כסף תמשילהו‬
‫עלינו אמר להן גנוני מלכות אני רואה בו אמרו לו א"כ יהא יודע בשבעים לשון בא‬
‫גבריאל ולימדו שבעים לשון לא הוה קגמר הוסיף לו אות אחת משמו של הקב"ה ולמד‬
‫שנאמר (תהילים פ"א) עדות ביהוסף שמו בצאתו על ארץ מצרים שפת לא ידעתי אשמע‬
Clearly, the Gemara explains the end of the verse in Tehillim that “I did not know, I understand.” And also note
that the verse in Tehillim begins and ends with an ‫( ע‬numerical value of 70).

YOSEF RECOGNIZED THE BROTHERS, BUT THEY DID NOT RECOGNIZE HIM
‫ ֶאחָ יו וְ הֵ ם ל ֹּא ִה ִכ ֻרהו‬-‫ ח וַי ֵַכר יוֹּסֵ ף ֶאת‬,‫בראשית מב‬
‫א אמר רב חסדא מלמד שיצא בלא חתימת זקן ובא בחתימת זקן‬/‫יבמות דף פח‬
Since the older brothers already had beards when Yosef last saw them, he was able to recognize them. However,
when they last saw Yosef, he did not have a beard (too young) and now they did not recognize him. Ramban
asks what about the younger brothers, Yissachar and Zevulun who were practically the same age as Yosef,
how did Yosef recognize them? First, since Yosef recognized the older brothers and they came to him as a
group, he was able to recognize all of them. Further, Yosef had the city guardians providing him with
descriptions of all entering the city, and thus, he had more time to adjust to recognize the brothers.

REUVEN OFFERS HIS TWO SONS

‫יאנו אֵ לֶיך‬
ֶ ‫ל ֹּא אֲ ִב‬-‫ ׁ ְשנֵי בָ נַי ָת ִמית ִאם‬-‫אָ ִביו לֵאמֹּר ֶאת‬-‫ֹּאמר ְראובֵ ן ֶאל‬
ֶ ‫ לז וַי‬,‫בראשית מב‬
We need to understand Reuven’s offer of his two sons to die if he does not fulfill his mission.
We know (Bava Basra 118b) that Yehoshua and Calev were called “alive” since they took the portions of Eretz
Yisrael from the spies, who were considered dead. Also, the one that becomes rich at the expense of another
is called be enlivened by the other.
It is known that Yaacov set up for his children to inherit Eretz Yisrael (the 12 shvatim) to be explained in more
detail in Parshas VeYechi.
Thus, Reuven offered that if he failed in his mission to return Binyomin safely, he would forfeit the merit of his
two sons in the division of Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, this is what Reuven meant by offering his sons to be
“dead”, meaning without land. Similarly, the ones that did receive a portion in Eretz Yisrael were called alive.
(After many years Rabbi Epstein was in Pressburg, and was told that the Chasam Sofer wrote this same
explanation)
 ‫הַ יְ אֹּר‬-‫חלֵם וְ ִהנֵה ע ֵֹּמד עַ ל‬
ֹּ ‫ א וַיְ ִהי ִמ ֵקץ ׁ ְשנ ַָתיִ ם י ִָמים ופַ ְרעֹּה‬,‫בראשית מא‬
It is well known that since Yosef twice asked Paroh’s baker to remember him, Yosef’s redemption was pushed
off for two years. It is not explained why the punishment was for two years.
Possibly, one can explain that the time frame for remembering a person is 12 months (like the time period of
mourning for a parent, special blessing when first seeing a friend after 12 months). Thus, midah k’neged
midah, since Yosef requested twice to be remembered, the time of the “punishment” would be two periods of
12 months.
Side note: since the Torah mentions for us to remember what Amalek did to us and not to forget, Chazal
established a public reading of the Torah once a year to fulfill this concept.

‫וַי ְק ְראו לְ פָ נָיו אַ ְב ֵר ְך וְ נָתוֹּן‬

ִ ‫ל ֹּו‬-‫ מג וַי ְַר ֵכב אֹּת ֹּו ְב ִמ ְר ֶכבֶ ת הַ ִמ ׁ ְשנֶה אֲ ׁ ֶשר‬,‫בראשית מא‬
:‫ ֶא ֶרץ ִמצְ ָריִ ם‬-‫אֹּת ֹּו עַ ל ָכל‬
"‫ "אברך‬is part Hebrew and part Aramis. However, in Medrash this word is a
According to Rashi the word
‫נוטריקון אב בחכמה ורך בשנים‬. Yosef was wise like an elder, only young in years.

‫אֲ ִחיכֶ ם וְ אַ ֶתם הֵ אָ ְסרו וְ יִ ָבחֲ נו ִד ְב ֵריכֶ ם‬-‫ טז ׁ ִשלְ חו ִמ ֶכם אֶ חָ ד וְ יִ ַקח ֶאת‬,‫בראשית מב‬
:‫ל ֹּא ֵחי פַ ְרעֹּה ִכי ְמ ַר ְגלִ ים אַ ֶתם‬-‫הַ אֱ ֶמת ִא ְתכֶ ם וְ ִאם‬
It is a wonder that Yosef would swear by the life of Paroh about a matter which he knew not to be true.

First, you might say that the language of ‫ חי פרעה‬is not a language of swearing but rather an affirmation as
if saying the matter is so obvious, just as obvious as that Paroh is alive.

Second, the word "‫ "מרגלים‬is roshei taivos (acronym) for

‫מבני רחל גנבתם לאורחת ישמעאלים מכרתם‬

“From the children of Rochel you stole, you sold to a traveling group of Yishmaelim.” Thus, Yosef was addressing
the brothers and telling them “you did not say something false.”

ָ ׁ ‫וַיסֹּב ֵמ ֲעלֵיהֶ ם וַי ְֵב ְך וַי‬

-‫ָשב אֲ לֵהֶ ם וַיְ ַד ֵבר אֲ לֵהֶ ם וַ ִי ַקח ֵמ ִא ָתם ֶאת‬ ִ ‫ כד‬,‫בראשית מב‬
‫ׁ ִש ְמעוֹּן וַיֶאֱ סֹּר אֹּת ֹּו לְ עֵ ינֵיהֶ ם‬
According to the simple understanding Yosef should have taken Reuven. As the first-born, he represented all the
brothers and was the one responsible for all the others. However, Yosef overheard Reuven tell his brothers
that they should have listened to him many years earlier and returned their brother (Yosef) to his father. Thus,
he now understood that Reuven did not share the same punishment as due to the other brothers. Therefore,
he took the next oldest, Shimon.
 ָ֖ ‫ יא ו ַַנַּֽחַ לְ ָ ָ֥מה חֲל֛ ֹום בְ לַ ָ֥יְ לָה אֶ ָחָ֖ד א ֲִנִ֣י ו ָ֑הוא ִ ֛איׁש כְ פִ ְת ָ֥רֹון ח‬,‫בראשית מא‬
‫ֲֹלמֹו חָ ָ ַּֽל ְמנו׃‬
We had dreams the same night, he and I, each of us a dream with a meaning of its own.

In the introduction to this sefer, Rabbi Epstein relates that one morning the Ohr Sameach appeared
in the Bais Medrash extremely happy. When they questioned him about this, the Ohr Sameach
replied that he had a dream during the night.

In the dream he was is in the Bais Medrash in the Upper World and all the great Rabbis of Jewish
history were there. They were discussing how there did not appear to be anyone in the physical
world below that could understand the true intend of the Torah. The Rashba stood up and
declared that I am a little embarrassed to say that in my commentary on Chulin 22a on the
subject of the daily sacrifices that were made, there is an incorrect text (Shu”t part 1 siman
276), this is this one current Rabbi who was able to understand the correct intention and fixed
the text of the commentary.

If one looks into the sefer Ohr Sameach (Hilchos Maaser Sheni chapter 7, halacha 3) he writes
that after he finished declaring the correct text, he states, “I am very happy that I was able to
place (the words) of haShem in the correct manner.” Perhaps he was alluding to this dream.
Appointing Officers
‫ֲשה פַ ְרעֹה ְוי ְַפ ֵקד ְפ ִק ִדים‬
ֶׂ ‫ ַיע‬:‫לד‬,‫בראשית מא‬
The Baal HaTurim writes that the words ‫ ְויַפְ ֵקד פְ ִק ִדים‬also in Megilas Esther. The Pasuk writes (in
connection with the gathering of all the girls) "Va'yafkeid ha'Melech pekidim". Achashverosh
appointed officers to gather all the virgins. That is why he became poor, in keeping with the Pasuk
in Mishlei "Do not give your strength (incorporating wealth) to women!'.
The Pasuk writes at the end of Megilas Esther "And the King Achashverosh levied a tax" to counter
the poverty that had struck him (‫ אָ ח שֶ ָרש‬woe that he has become poor). Yosef, on the other hand,
appointed officers to gather all the corn. That is why he collected all the money and became
wealthy.
Recognition
:‫ ַו ַיכֵר יֹוסֵ ף אֶׂ ת־אֶׂ חָ יו וְהֵ ם ל ֹא ִהכִ רֻ הּו‬:‫ ח‬,‫בראשית מב‬
The Baal haTurim observes the word is used in connection with Iyov (2:12) "me'rochok ve' lo hikiruhu
(from afar they could not recognize him)", only the former is missing a 'Yud', whereas the latter is
not. Just as Iyov's friends could not recognize him because he had changed so drastically on
account of his suffering, so too, could Yosef's brothers not recognize him because of his change
from a slave to a great prince.
The difference between them was that, when Iyov's friends came closer, they recognized him,
whereas Yosef's brothers did not. Why is that? Because Iyov's friends knew the identity of the
person they were visiting, but Yosef's brothers did not.
The Ohr Hachaim Hakodosh writes that the verse tells us that it is quite surprising that in spite of
Yoseif's recognizing his brothers and there is the nature of "k'mayim haponim l'fonim" (Mishlei
27:19), which should have brought about a reciprocal recognition, nevertheless, this did not
happen. The reason they did not recognize him is because of his exalted position and royal bearing.
The possibility that the brother they sold into slavery being raised to such a position was far from
their minds.
In his Peirush HaTur haAruch, the Baal HaTurim provides four additional reasons why the brothers
did not recognize Yosef.
1. When Yosef left, the older brothers had full beards, but Yosef (only 17) did not (Yavamos
88a, cited by Rashi)
2. Yosef was sure the brothers would come to Egypt for grain due to the famine, but it never
entered the minds of the brothers that Yosef would rise to such prominence (Ramban).
3. Yosef was introduced to the brothers under his Egyptian name Zaphenath-Paneach.
4. Yosef spoke Egyptian to a translator and thus the brothers (not knowing the language) were
unable to recognize the speaker as Yosef (Rashbam).
 The Ohr Hachaim haKodesh

“And it was at the end” (Bereishis 41,1)

The Ohr HaChaim points out that the loshon of our pasuk, vayehi, indicates pain and suffering, because
now begins the Golus and the reason behind it. Although this Golus had been decreed many years before, it
was not specifically decreed at that time that the exile would take place in Mitzrayim. Egypt is known as Kur
HaBarzel – the purifying furnace that heats molten rock and removes impurities so that the strongest metal
emerges. And as Tosafos (Shabbos 10b) and the Raavad (gloss to Rambam’s Hilchos Teshuva ch. 6) indicate,
the Egyptians enslaved and subjugated the Jews more harshly than they were supposed to, as it says: “and
they forced them to labor and they caused them to suffer.”
The Ohr HaChaim gives another reason why our pasuk uses a language indicating pain and suffering: it
heralds the tidings of the upcoming famine. Hashem, so to speak, suffers with us, as Chazal say (Megilla 10b)
regarding the pasuk in Shemos (14:20).
The Ohr HaChaim adds that this also hints to the suffering of Yosef HaTzaddik, who had to suffer to
additional years in prison after interpreting the dream of the royal cupbearer – the sar hamashkim – because
he was originally supposed to be freed two years earlier (Bereishis Rabba ch. 89) and because he asked the
sar hamashkim to remember him and mention him – zechartani vehizkartani – for those two requests [that
were improper for someone of Yosef’s spiritual stature to make], he was punished with two more years of
imprisonment and suffering.
Chazal say (ibid) that Mikeitz means the end or keitz of the darkness. This alludes to the upcoming end
of the dark one, the yetzer hora, who is known as keitz kol bossor – the end of all flesh. For he, the yetzer,
caused the Tzaddik to suffer two more years. This is why Hashem prevented his freedom for two years, for
that time was on Rosh HaShana, a time of zikoron, when Hashem remembers us (Rosh HaShana is called
Yom HaZikoron) but because the yetzer caused Yosef to rely on the sar hamashkim and ask him to remember
him and mention him – zechartani…vehizkartani (Bereishis 40:14) – for those two requests he spent two more
years in prison, since Hashem held back his mention and memory for two Rosh HaShanas.

"Yosef answered Pharaoh, saying, 'This does not depend on me. But G-d may provide an answer
concerning Pharaoh's peace. " (Bereshis 41,16)
The word 'lemor/saying' here refers to Pharaoh's claim that Yosef claimed he only had to hear a dream
and he already had its interpretation ready.
Yosef corrected the impression Pharaoh entertained about him by replying, "This does not depend on
me." He explained that G-d knows the interpretations of dreams and informs certain human beings of this.
The same had taken place when Yosef had told the chief butler and the chief baker of the bakers that the
interpretations were G-d's, not his. He had invited those men to tell him their dreams in the hope that an
interpretation could be found. He had never claimed an exclusive on that knowledge. This is also why he
added: "G-d may provide the answer." He added the word 'peace' in order to warn Pharaoh not to take offence
if perchance the interpretation would not be to his liking and would presage something unpleasant. He should
not accuse Yosef on the basis of "the dreams follow the interpretation chosen by the mouth" (of the
interpreter). Even if he were to come up with an interpretation that forecast trouble, he was only G-d's
mouthpiece, the source was G-d.
Yosef may also have had something quite different in mind when he said: "G-d may provide an answer
concerning Pharaoh's peace." He emphasized that in contrast with ordinary interpreters who are able to bend
the meaning of the dream according to their choice, he, Yosef, could not do so. He could only relate the
objective meaning of what Pharaoh had seen in his dream.
[Berachos 56 lists a variety of dreams and how the interpretation which seemed to contradict the
impression left on the dreamer came true, thus proving that much depends on the person who interprets the
dream.]
 RABBEINU BACHEYA
Bereshis 43,16
‫וטבוח טבח‬, “and have meat slaughtered.”
Joseph commanded Menashe his eldest son to do the slaughtering seeing that the sons of Yaakov were careful
not to eat meat which had not been slaughtered in accordance with Jewish law.
‫והכן‬, and prepare it.” This is either a reference to the removal of forbidden fat parts of the animal (‫)חלב‬, or that he
invited the brothers on the Sabbath eve to be his guests on the Sabbath. The word ‫ הכן‬is used in such a context in
Shmos 16,5 where the Israelites are instructed to make preparation on Sabbath eve for consuming the manna
which fell on that day on the Sabbath. Bereshis Rabbah 92,4 also states that the word ‫ הכן‬is invariably used with
preparations for the Sabbath. The use of the word ‫ הכן‬here would prove that Joseph observed the Sabbath prior to
it having been legislated for the Jewish people.

Bereshis 44,12
‫וימצא הגביע באמתחת בנימין‬, “the goblet was discovered in the feeding bag of Binyamin.”
His other brothers began to shame him by calling him “thief,” and other disparaging names, referring to his mother
who had stolen the teraphim of her father Lavan (Bereshis 31,19). They also struck him on his shoulders. Seeing
that Binyamin had been unjustly suspected by his brothers of being a thief he was compensated by G’d in that the
Holy Temple was erected on his tribal territory. This is what Moses meant in his blessing of Binyamin (Devarim
33,12) when he said ‫ ובין כתיפיו ישכון‬that G’d’s Presence would reside between “the shoulders of Binyamin.” He
also became the ancestor of Mordechai, who had torn his garments in lament for the fate that threatened the Jewish
people at the hands of Haman (Esther 4,1). The brothers deserved to have to rend their garments (verse 13) seeing
they had caused their father to rend his garments (Bereshis 37,34) when he mourned the presumed death of Joseph.
Everything that befell the brothers was in the nature of the punishment fitting the crime.
Menashe, Joseph’s firstborn, acted as his father’s emissary in all these matters as the Torah describes him as “in
charge of Joseph’s palace” (verse 1) and Targum Yonatan writes that Menashe was the individual the Torah
referred to. Seeing that Menashe allowed himself to become part of this deception and caused the brothers to rend
their clothing in frustration, his tribal territory was rent, i.e. was divided, part of it being on the East Bank of the
river Jordan.

Bereshis 44,17
‫אחד ולא נדונו כולן ביחד‬.
You are acquainted with the fact that the entire Joseph tragedy began when his father Yaakov made a colored
coat for him which Joseph wore as a sign of distinction. The fact that the brothers dipped the colored coat of
Joseph in the blood of a male goat which they specially slaughtered for that purpose telling their father: “this is
what we have found,” was considered an act of great cruelty on their part. This is why their punishment which
involved their bodies commenced immediately after Joseph’s death. Eventually, during the time of the Romans
and after the destruction of the second Temple [which was destroyed due to an excess of groundless hatred
between Jew and Jew. Ed.] the ten martyrs paid the last installment of that penalty with their deaths. As a reminder
of all this, our Parshah mentions the word ‫ אנשים‬or ‫ האנשים‬a total of ten times when describing the brothers. Had
it not been for this consideration, the Torah would have called them ‫אחי יוסף‬, “Joseph’s brothers” or “the sons of
Yaakov” each time. [The author lists the ten instances.] It is important to realize that contrary to a perception that
all the ten martyrs listed in our prayers commemorating their death as martyrs occurred at one and the same time,
this is simply not so.
 The Haftorah for Parshat Mikeitz
THE HAFTORAH IS READ FROM THE BOOK OF
MELACHIM ALEPH (KINGS 1), 3:15 - 4:1
The connection of Haftorah to the Parsha: Just like Pharaoh had dreams from G-d, so too
Shlomo Hamelech. And as Joseph interpreted dreams and attributed that ability as from
Hashem, Shlomo also recognized the source of his wisdom - Hashem
The storyline of this week’s Haftorah: The Haftorah starts with Shlomo (Solomon)
awakening from the dream in which he asks for wisdom from Hashem. He goes to the
Holy Temple where he offers sacrifices to Hashem, and makes a feast for his servants. The
Haftorah continues with a test of his newfound wisdom. Two women approach Shlomo
Hamelech (The King) claiming a small baby as their own. One tells the story that she was
sleeping and that the other woman, having rolled over on her baby by accident, killing
him, came into her room and switched the dead baby with her live baby. In the
morning, she did not recognize the baby she held and she realized that the dead baby
was not her own. She then begs to have her son returned to her. The other woman
objects and claims the story is the other way around. Shlomo comes up with the solution;
he calls to his guard to fetch him a sword so that he may divide the baby in half. The true
mother cries out and says to give the baby to the other woman, she would rather he be
given away than killed. The other woman, however, says, “Neither mine nor yours shall
he be. Cut.” (3:26) The King proves his wisdom with this clever ruse for he has now
determined the baby’s true mother. Shlomo Hamelech declares the true mother as the
one who tried to save her son by giving him to someone else. When Bnei Yisroel heard
this story, they stood in awe of the wisdom bestowed on Shlomo by Hashem, and they all
accepted him as their King.
King Shlomo’s Biography:
• The meaning of his name is "peace" or "prosperity.”
• Had seven names, Shlomo, Yedidyah, Kohelet, Agur, Yakeh, Lemuel, and Ithiel.
His father was King David.
• Was crowned as king at the age of 12! Shlomo ruled for 40 years and passed
away at the age of 52. As King, he led the building of the Bait Hamikdash,
starting at 16 years of age, which lasted for 7 years.
• He was extremely wealthy; by some estimations his wealth increased by $250
million dollars a year. Shlomo was famous for his stables which housed 40,000
horses and 12,000 horsemen. King Shlomo had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
• Is quoted as the smartest man to ever live. Shlomo was able to give 3,000
explanations to every Pasuk in the Torah. He knew all 70 languages spoken in
the world at that time as well as possessing the ability to communicate with all
the living creatures in the animal kingdom. Once the Queen of Sheba traveled 7
years by caravan just to meet him and quiz him with regards to his wisdom. After
their first meeting, the Queen of Sheba remarked that the King was much wiser
than his reputation had suggested.
• Founded 3 cities; Megiddo, Hazor and Gezer in the north of Israel.
 • Instituted, among others, the two mitzvot of Eiruv and Nitelat Yadayim. The Eiruv
is a string surrounding an outer perimeter of an area thus designating it as a
permissible place to carry things on Shabbat. He also made it customary for
people to wash their hands before eating bread.
• Authored 3 books: 1) Kohelet, Ecclesiastes 2) Mishlay, Proverbs, which concludes
with the song Aishet Chayil sung on Erev Shabbat. 3) Shir Hashirim, Song of
Songs.
Famous Phrases: Mishlay, Proverbs 1:8, “Shema bini musar avicha, v’al titosh torat
imecha”, “hear, my child, the discipline of of your father, and do not forsake the
teaching of your mother”. This is recited daily upon awakening, as a continuation of the
morning prayer “Modeh ani”.
Haftorahman’s lesson of the week: We may think that there is a cause and effect with our
actions and successes. Yes, there is a concept of hishtadlut (effort); however, we must
acknowledge that G-d is the one and only source of all blessings. One of the Ten
Commandments is, “Thou shalt not be jealous.” What is so bad about jealousy? Someone
has something you like and you want it. However, when a person envies what another
has, it is showing that he is not happy with his lot. The notion that a person is not satisfied
with what Hashem has given them is an insult to Hashem. It is G-d’s decision what we
have and what others have. Do not second guess G-d. It is best to focus on being
Sameach BiChelko (Happy with what you have). From time to time, it is good to do the
following exercise. Say to yourself, “I have a lot to be grateful for!” Then make a list. Think
about your friends, your health, your family, and your livelihood. Focus on what you have
and be thankful for all of it.
Written by: Reuben Gavriel Ben Nissim Ebrahimoff
E-mail: Haftorahman@Haftorahman.com
 BEN CHAMESH L’MIKRA ‫בס"ד‬
- ‫ הענינים מלקו"ש השבועי ועוד‬-
‫לע"נ ר' אפרים ב"ר אברהם ע"ה האפמאן‬ ‫נשמת אפרים‬
▪ Resource to encourage the study of the Rebbe’s sichos ▪
Designed for use in the classroom or at the Shabbos Table

Understanding the Parsha according to the teachings of the Rebbe

QUESTION: Why didn’t Yosef (or Yitzchak) reveal to Yaacov that Yosef was still alive?
ANSWER: The brothers had a pact not to reveal to Yaacov that Yosef was still alive until all of them, plus
HaShem, wished to reveal the truth; until HaShem desired to reveal the truth for His own reasons, Yosef
(just like Yitzchak) would not reveal something that HaShem kept hidden from Yaacov.
)196 '‫ עמ‬,‫(לקוטי שיחות כרך ה‬

QUESTION: What was Yosef able to explain to Paroh about his dream that the others were not able to
explain?
ANSWER: Others had difficulty explaining why all the cows were standing together in the dream; Yosef
interpreted (and not offered advice) that someone should be appointed over Egypt to ensure that the grain
from the seven bountiful years would be stored for the coming years of famine, for in this way all the cows
would stand "together". The dream & its interpretation are a precursor for the future exile and redemption;
"good cows" (the love of G-d) and "emaciated cows" (the worldly worries) can reside in an individual at the
same time. )339 '‫ עמ‬,‫(לקוטי שיחות כרך טו‬

QUESTION: Why did Yosef break down at that point (he did not break down when he saw Binyomin earlier)?
ANSWER: Yosef had great control of his emotions till this point even after seeing Binyomin; the moving verbal
exchange between the brothers, Yosef & Binyomin, finally caused Yosef to break down. Jews (Yosef) need
to awaken the compassion on the G-dly sparks that descended into this world (level of Ben-Oni), which in
turn brings HaShem’s compassion onto us. )348 '‫ עמ‬,‫(לקוטי שיחות כרך טו‬

QUESTION: How do we understand the three explanations by Rashi of the word ‫?אברך‬
ANSWER: 1) ‫ אבא למלכא‬friend of the King; plain meaning according to the Targum
2) Rabbi Yehuda according to the general content – ‫“ אב בחכמה ורך בשנים‬Yehuda” from ‫ הודאה וביטול‬the
concept of ‫ביטול במציאות‬
3) Rabbi Yossi explains according to the specific word – ‫“ לשון ברכים‬kneeling” the name “Yossi” is the
same gematria as ‫ הטבע‬the concept of ‫ ביטול היש‬.
)202 '‫ עמ‬,‫(לקוטי שיחות כרך ה‬

QUESTION: Why did Yosef prepare a special meal for the brothers?
ANSWER: Yosef did many things that in retrospect the brothers would see as actions that Yosef had behaved
as a brother; making a special meal was one such action, which included the preparation of slaughtering of
the meat according to their custom. The mitzvah of Receiving Guests in its fullest, is to supply one’s guests
with their needs, and not to apply one’s own chumros to the guests. )118 '‫ עמ‬,‫(לקוטי שיחות כרך לה‬