מתוך "אתר תהילים" של ד"ר בנימין גזונדהייט
תחושותיו ותחינותיו של יוסף
בכותרת המזמור נאמר "מזמור לדוד" (א), וניתן לפרשו כקשור לחיי דוד, אך יש בפסוקים רמזים לאירועים מחייו של יוסף.
חלק א' (פס' ב-ג) עוסק בשלב בו שונאים האחים את יוסף ומתנכלים אליו להמיתו. יוסף, במצוקתו, זועק אל ה' ומבקש ישועה מאלוקי הצדק. בפסוק ג הוא פונה בקריאה אל אחיו ("בני איש"!) ושואל אותם מדוע הם מכלימים את כבודו; מדוע הם פונים לשנאה שאינה אלא "ריק", ומדוע הם מבקשים את ה"כזב" בהתנכלם אליו. אפשר שהוא מצביע בכך על יחס אחיו אל חלומותיו שהיה, כידוע, יחס של זלזול וביטול, ואפשר שהוא מצביע על השנאה ששנאו אותו.
בני יעקב, אחיו של יוסף, הם האנשים היחידים בתנ"ך המכונים "בני איש":
"כולנו בני איש אחד נחנו" (בראשית מ"ב, יא),
"שנים עשר עבדיך אחים אנחנו בני איש אחד בארץ כנען" (שם מ"ב, יג).
נראה, אם כן, שהקריאה "בני איש" שבפרקנו היא פנייתו של יוסף אל אחיו המבקש מהם, כאמור, לחוס על כבודו שהגיע לכלימה.
אמנם, בפרשה המקראית המתארת את מכירת יוסף והתנכלות האחים אליו (בראשית ל"ז), לא מסופר כלל על תחנוניו של יוסף והתרפסותו לפניהם, אולם בבראשית מ"ב, בפגישת יוסף עם אחיו לראשונה במצרים, האחים אומרים: "אבל אשמים אנחנו על אחינו אשר ראינו צרת נפשו בהתחננו אלינו ולא שמענו" (בראשית מ"ב, כא).
חלק ב' (פס' ד-ה) נסוב על אותם הימים בהם נפגש יוסף עם אחיו לראשונה במצרים. הוא מכיר אותם, אך הם לא הכירוהו. בשני פסוקים אלה באים לידי ביטוי הרהוריו ותוכניותיו לקראת הבאות.
חלק ג' (פס' ו) עוסק אולי בהוראותיו של יוסף אל אחיו לאחר שהתוודע אליהם.
בחלק ד' (פס' ז-ט) יש קובץ הרהוריו של יוסף בתום כל ההתרחשויות בינו לבין אחיו.
במשך כל אותה התקופה בה היו בני יעקב בארץ מצרים יחדיו, ספק רב הוא אם היחסים ביניהם לבין יוסף באו על תיקונם, ואם אמנם שררה ביניהם האחווה והידידות.
יוסף הפיג אמנם את החששות, הוא ניחם אותם ודיבר על לבם (בראשית נ', כא), אך עדיין לא ברור אם התפתחה אהבה ואחווה אמיתית ביניהם. יוסף שהרגיש בכך ומצא עצמו בודד בין אחיו, ביטא זאת במלים: "כי אתה ה' לבדד לבטח תושיבני" (ט).
נערך ע"י צוות אתר התנ"ך
לקריאת המאמר המלא באדיבות אתר דעת
המוסיקה של מזמורי תהילים
"לַמְנַצֵּחַ בִּנְגִינוֹת מִזְמוֹר לְדָוִד" (תהילים ד', א)
והנראה, כי המנצח הוא אשר היה על המשוררים. ועל ידי המנצחים היו נאמרים המזמורים. והיו נותנים אותם למנגנים ולמשוררים, ולא תמצא בשום מקום "למשורר" ו"למנגן", אלא "למנצח".
וכן בתפלת חבקוק (ג', יט): "למנצח בנגינותי", וכן כתוב (דברי הימים א כ"ג, ד): "לְנַצֵּחַ על מלאכת בית ה'", וכתיב (שם ט"ו, כא): "בְּכִנֹּרוֹת על השמינית לְנַצֵּחַ".
ויש שהיה מנצח על כלי הנקרא "נגינות",
ויש על כלי הנקרא "שמינית".
ועם הכלים היו נאמרים השירים והניגונים והתהלות, כל אחד לפי ניגונו הידוע אצלם, כי חכמה גדולה היתה והיא תעורר הנפש הַחֲכָמָה, והיא נחלקת ונספרת בכלל החכמות החיצונות.
והכלים שהיו בבית המקדש להלל הם נבלים וכנורות ומצלתיים וחצוצרות ושופר.
והיו הכלים נחלקים על נגינות ידועות אצלם.
יש מהנגינות הנקרא "עֲלָמוֹת", כמו שכתוב (תהילים מ"ו, א): "על עלמות שיר".
ויש שנקרא "נגינות", ובו היה נאמר זה המזמור.
ויש מהם נקרא "משכיל". ויש מהם נקרא "מִכְתָּם". ויש "שגיון". ויש מהם "נחילות". ויש "שגיונות". ויש "גִּתִּית".
ויש נקרא מן הכלים "עשור". ויש "עוגב". ויש "מִנים". וכל אחד חלוק בנגינתו כמו שהוא ידוע אצל בעלי החכמה...
רד"ק - ר' דוד בן יוסף קמחי, חי בדרום צרפת בין השנים 1160-1235. התפרסם כדקדקן על ידי ספרו "מכלול", הרבה לעיין בפילוסופיה ובמדעים. כתב פירוש לתנ"ך לספרי בראשית, נביאים ראשונים, נביאים אחרונים, תהלים ודברי הימים. פירושו עוסק הרבה בענייני לשון, ניקוד, מסורה, ופירוש המילים. הוא עוסק גם בשאלת חיבור הספרים וזמנם של הנביאים, שאלות היסטוריות וגיאוגרפיות, ובויכוחים עם הפרשנות הנוצרית לכתוב.
שירי האמונה הכנים ביותר
מה נשתנה ספר תהילים מכל שאר סוגי הספרות שבמקרא? ששאר ספרי המקרא כתובים כדבר ה‘ אל האדם או כדבר האדם אל האדם, ורק ספר זה כולו דברי האדם אל ה‘. על פי רוב נאמרים הדברים במישרין, בלשון נוכח, אך גם כשהם נאמרים בעקיפין, בלשון נסתר, הם על כל פנים מכוונים אליו. הואיל ולפי תפיסת המקרא אין המתרחש ביקום – בעולם הטבע ובתולדות העמים וישראל – אלא בריאתו של בורא העולם, הרי שההלל, ההודיה, הקינה והבקשה שבמזמורי תהילים אינם אלא תשובת האדם לבריאת א-לוהיו. האדם המדבר במזמור משיב ומגיב על דבר ה‘, כפי שהוא מתגלה בסדר העולם וכפי שהוא מתבטא בחיי הפרט והכלל.
מה רב ההבדל בין המזמור לנבואה! נביא מכוון את תוכחתו למעמד מסוים ולמצב מסוים ומבקש להשפיע ולחולל שינוי כאן ועתה. בהתאם למטרתו זו מביע הנביא את דעתו על מה יש לעשות במצב זה ובשעה זו, ומשום כך דברי נבואה דברי הבאי הם: רטוריקה דידקטית שאין להבינה כמשמעה, ממש כמו התנא האומר ’אלו דברים שאין להם שיעור... ותלמוד תורה כנגד כולם‘ (משנה פאה א, א) ואינו מתכוון שיובנו דבריו כמשמעם. לדוגמה, מתבטאים נביאי ישראל בחריפות קיצונית ביחס להקרבת קורבנות, אך אין להסיק מדבריהם מהי דעתם ומהי אמונתם ביחס לעבודת ה‘, שהרי לעולם ייתכן שהשלילה שלילה רטורית, פולמוסית היא. בעל המזמור לעומתם, כדיבורו כן כוונתו. במזמורי תהילים באה לידי ביטוי התפיסה שהא-לוהים בוחן כליות ולב, ולאור זה מובן שהמובע במזמורים אינו אחד בפה ואחד בלב; בעל המזמור כפיו כן לבו. המזמור הוא הביטוי המובהק לנאמר בדברי איוב על ה‘ (י"ג, טז): "לא לפניו חנף יבוא". וכפי שכתב מרטין לותר בהקדמתו השניה לספר תהילים (1528): כאן אתה רואה ללבם של קדושים. בעל המזמור אינו כמו אלה שבאו אחריו ועד ימינו והתפללו בלשונו ובמילותיו אך לא התכוונו להן. דבריו של בעל המזמור הם ביטוי אמין לאמונותיו ודעותיו, ולמעשה מזמורי תהילים הם הביטוי האמין ביותר לאמונת ישראל בתקופת המקרא. בהם דופק לב לבה של האמונה הישראלית, כי בהם מצויות אמונותיו והשקפותיו של האדם המאמין בישראל – לא דעתו של המחוקק, של הנביא, של הכהן, של החכם או של המספר אלא דעותיהם של המאמינים, שבדברי פיהם לא ביקשו אלא לעצב את מחשבותיו של המאמין בעומדו לפני א-לוהיו.
מתוך 'אמונות ודעות במזמורי תהלים', עמ' 14, בהוצאת מוסד ביאליק
Why did the Brothers Drink?
The Torah in Parashat Miketz tells of the experiences of Yosef’s brothers after they came to Egypt to purchase grain, a process which brought them to Yosef, whom they did not recognize, as he was now the Egyptian vizier. Yosef accused them of coming as spies, and forced them to bring their youngest brother, Binyamin, who had remained in Canaan. He took Shimon prisoner and then sent the others back to bring Binyamin. When the brothers returned with Binyamin, to their astonishment, they were brought to Yosef’s home and dined with him. The Torah tells, “Va-yishtu va-yishkeru imo” – “They drank and became intoxicated with him” (43:34).
Rashi, citing the Gemara (Shabbat 139a), comments that this was the first occasion when Yosef and his brothers drank wine since he was sold as a slave. Ever since that tragic incident, both Yosef and his brothers made a point of abstaining from wine, denying themselves the joy and gratification brought by intoxication. Now, however, when they were all finally reunited, they allowed themselves to drink.
The question naturally arises as to why the brothers drank on this occasion. Yosef, understandably, drank because he was finally reunited with his brothers, but the brothers, who at this point still did not know that the vizier was Yosef, had no reason to celebrate or to end their period of abstinence from wine. Why, then, did they drink?
Rav Zalman Sorotzkin, in his Oznayim La-Torah, suggests that the brothers had no choice but to drink wine because of the company they were in. They were hosts of the vizier who was jovial and festive, and so they, too, out of courtesy, needed to act in a similar fashion. Of course, under the circumstances, they did not feel any joy. While they certainly felt some degree of relief seeing Shimon out of jail and being reassured they would not be accused of theft despite their money having been returned to their bags, they still had to be anxious and concerned. Their families were starving in Canaan during a drought which had shown no signs of ending, they still needed to travel home from Egypt, and they were at the mercy of the whims of a ruler who had proven to be insensible, unpredictable and cruel. They also knew that somebody had tampered with their luggage during their previous trip in an apparent framing attempt, and this could easily happen again. They were, undoubtedly, anxious and uneasy, but had no choice but to act as though they joyful and content, like their host. And so they drank wine in order to lift their spirits so they could at least outwardly act joyfully, even though this is not at all how they felt.
The lesson that perhaps emerges from Rav Sorotzkin’s reading of the Gemara’s comment is that we are able, and should strive, to present a positive, upbeat image even in times of anxiety and distress. While this of course is not always possible, we should endeavor not to wear our troubles on our faces, and to be upbeat out of consideration for the people around us. The Gemara, according to Rav Sorotzkin’s reading, teaches us that the brothers suspended their vow of abstinence from wine in order to put themselves in a jovial mood out of respect for their host. We, too, should try, when possible, to exude positivity and warmth even when we feel uptight or upset.
The Selling of Yosef and Yosef's Treatment of His Brothers in Egypt
We read in Parashat Miketz of Yosef’s harsh treatment of his brothers when they came to Egypt to purchase grain. Now the Egyptian vizier who presided over the distribution of grain during a time of severe drought, Yosef accused his brothers – who did not recognize him – of coming to spy, and eventually took Shimon as a prisoner. He instructed them to return to Canaan and bring to him their youngest brother, Binyamin, to prove their innocence.
Many commentators noted how Yosef’s plan was to recreate the circumstances of the brothers’ crime against him. Now, just as then, their brother was being thrown into a “pit” – in this instance, a prison – and they would have to return home to their father and report that his son is missing. Yosef has them bring Binyamin and arranges that they would have to return to Yaakov and report that the son of his most beloved wife, Rachel, is gone – just as they did after Yosef was sold into slavery. (In response to Yehuda’s impassioned plea, however, Yosef reneges and reveals his identity to his brothers.)
It has been suggested that Yosef’s accusation against his brothers was also intended as a parallel, of sorts, to the event of mekhirat Yosef. Yosef accused them of coming as spies – “to see the hidden parts of the land” (42:9) – when in truth they had come out of the perfectly innocent desire to purchase grain. This is quite similar to what happened when Yosef was sold as a slave. He had come to the brothers innocently, with the intention of inquiring about their wellbeing, as Yaakov had requested. They, however – at least from what Yosef understood – suspected that he had come to “spy,” to pry into their private affairs and then report on them to their father. This is what led them to conclude that he had to be eliminated, either by being put to death or sold as a slave.
This parallel, however, brings into focus a crucial difference between the two incidents. Yosef cast allegations against his brothers that were entirely baseless. There was no reason at all to suspect them of having come to Egypt for any reason other than to purchase grain. When Yosef came to his brothers in Dotan, however, it was not unreasonable for them to assume that he had come to spy on them. He already a record of bringing negative reports about them to Yaakov (37:2), and he had spoken to them about his dreams of ruling over the family. The brothers had moved with their flocks to the area of Shekhem, far from the family’s home in Chevron, likely in order to distance themselves from Yosef, who was seeking to undermine their standing in the family and assert his authority. Now that Yosef had come after them, it was, seemingly, understandable that they suspected Yosef of coming to spy on them as part of his effort to impose his rule and authority.
Nevertheless, Yosef thought it was appropriate to arrange this “reconstruction” of his brothers’ crime against him, because the truth is that he had not come to spy against them. His message, perhaps, was precisely that their accusation about him was baseless. Despite their past history, they had no right to assume nefarious motives before even speaking to him and inquiring into the reason for his unexpected visit. He was as innocent when he came to Dotan as the brothers were when they came to Egypt. And thus their mistreatment of him was as cruel and unjustified as his hostility towards them when they were simply trying to purchase food for their families.
Yosef’s message is that we must give people the benefit of the doubt, and a chance to prove themselves, despite past tensions and hostility. We should not necessarily assume that people who were unkind and antagonistic in the past are acting the same way now. All people are given the opportunity to change, and we must allow them the opportunity to regain our trust and friendship.
What did Reuven Really Mean?
We read in Parashat Miketz of Reuven’s startling proposal to Yaakov as he and his brothers attempted to persuade their father to allow Binyamin, the youngest brother, to join them in Egypt, as the vizier (Yosef) had demanded. Yaakov adamantly refused to allow Binyamin to join them, fearful that something might happen to Binyamin. Reuven tried to assure Yaakov by “offering” that Yaakov could kill his two sons if Binyamin did not return home safely (42:37). Yaakov, naturally, refused, and Rashi, citing the Midrash, writes that Yaakov (at least inwardly) ridiculed the suggestion that this “offer” would give him assurance of Binyamin’s safety.
The question arises as to what Reuven actually had in mind in making this proposal. Why did he think this would convince Yaaakov to allow Binyamin to travel to Egypt?
One simple possibility, perhaps, is that Reuven was merely expressing his confidence that Binyamin would return safely. He was not “offering” to Yaakov the “right” to kill his two sons if Binyamin did not return, but was rather committing to ensure Binyamin’s wellbeing to the point where he was prepared the wager his own sons’ life for it.
A different approach is taken by Rav Aryeh Nachum Lubetzky, in his Nachal Kedumim. He writes that Reuven was not “offering” to kill his sons, but was rather explaining to Yaakov that the alternative to sending Binyamin to Egypt was the death of Yaakov’s grandchildren. After all, as the Torah described several verses earlier, the famine in Canaan was dire, and the family had already consumed the rations that the brothers had brought with them from their initial trip to Egypt. They were all starving, and it would not be too long until some family members began dying from hunger. This, Rav Lubetzky writes, was the point Reuven was trying to make to Yaakov. Out of respect for his father, he did not want to come right out and say that he was killing his grandchildren. And so he instead conveyed this message in an awkward, roundabout way.
If, indeed, this was Reuven’s intent, this his comments to Yaakov perhaps serve as a warning against the tendency many of us have to obsess over one particular concern at the expense of everything else. Reuven charged that Yaakov was narrowly concerned with Binyamin’s wellbeing and thus lost sight of the broader picture, of the needs of the family at large. His preoccupation with Binyamin’s safety, at least from Reuven’s perspective, was literally putting the family’s lives at risk. Often, we stubbornly adhere to a particular matter, affording it such high priority that other, equally important concerns are neglected. We need to ensure that our concern for one “son” does not risk the entire “family”; that our passionate commitment to one issue does not lead us to neglect everything else.
The Second Haftara for Hanukka
This year, we have a unique opportunity. Usually, Chanukah includes just one Shabbat. This year it spans over two. This means that we have a haftora that is read most infrequently. Chazal have taught us that each week's haftora should be connected to the Torah reading or more specifically to the maftir, the last portions read from the Torah. The haftora for the second Shabbat of Chanukah (Kings I, 7:40-50) deals with the final acts and a brief summary of the construction of the Solomonic Temple. So, too, the maftir deals with the final gifts and a summary of the construction of the desert Tabernacle. Both of these obviously fit nicely with the idea of Chanukah, rededication of the Temple.
In the haftora, we find a very interesting change. In the beginning of Chapter 7 (verse 13), we are told that Solomon hired an expert craftsman and brought him to Jerusalem to build the Temple. Fittingly, the summary tells us that Hirom (the craftsman) built the temple and its various parts. Curiously, however, in verse 48 we are told that Solomon, not Hirom, built all of the vessels such as the golden altar and the table for the show bread. Does this mean that these items Solomon built with his own hands? This we can't say for certain. We know that he had a massive team of laborers on this project! Further, we should note that these are the vessels inside of the Temple, the home of God. Solomon wanted to be certain that it was he, not a hired craftsman, who took charge of the construction of the most central of vessels. Solomon had spent years building his palace. Now, when it came to the House of God, he would be personally in charge of the most intimate of items in the home. The golden altar, the table of God, would be built by Solomon himself. A powerful ruler, like Solomon, still gave personal attention to his intimate relationship with the home of God.
This, too, is one of the lessons of Chanukah. We are all familiar with the story of the young boy who found the one pure jug of oil. As Solomon teaches us, it is the spirit of the excited young boy that we should strive to imbue in ourselves. The spirit of personal attention, the spirit of giving and love in a renewed and rededicated relationship with God, is the lesson of Solomon's personal hand in the Temple, as well as the festival of Chanukah
The Second Yishmael
What is Yoseif doing? For anyone learning Parashat Miketz, this is the paramount question - and a perplexing one. For the first two decades of his exile, Yoseif seems to have no desire to return home; never does he contact his father, and he names his firstborn in gratitude “for God has made me forget all of my toil and all of my father’s house” (41:51). Yet when his brothers come before him, he seems anxious to reunite with them, particularly to see Binyamin and to find out if his father lives - and is so emotionally touched that he repeatedly breaks down crying while conducting his charade (43:30, 45:2). Inevitably, one must ask: what does Yoseif truly feel, and why does he feel compelled to act out the elaborate and painful drama of bringing down Binyamin?
There are two basic approaches taken by modern commentators to this problem, that of Rav Yoel bin Nun and that of Rav Yaakov Meidan. According to one, Yoseif views himself as a victim of treachery, both his brothers’ and his father’s (for sending him out to them in the first place), while he tries to isolate Binyamin. Thus, when Yehuda mentions Yaakov’s devastation in 44:28, Yoseif finally realizes the truth of the situation. This is unappealing for many reasons, not least because it supposes that Yoseif would suspect his beloved father of conspiring to kill him (despite the fact that Yaakov sends him to Sh’chem, while the brothers are in fact in Dotan); furthermore, we must wonder why Yoseif did not reveal himself the moment he saw his brother’s contrition (43:21-23), instead of carrying on a charade for the better part of a year. Indeed, if he still suspected his father, how does he know Yehuda is not lying when he reports Yaakov’s devastation? Yaakov had to at least pretend to be devastated, if only to allay Binyamin’s suspicions. The other approach is somewhat better, as it gives a convincing reason why Yoseif would not contact his father; he believed that he was the rejected son, the “nidcheh,” much as Yishmael had been to Avraham and Eisav to Yitschak. Yet the idea that the whole ruse was conducted by Yoseif as an atonement service free of charge is abhorrent; what gives Yoseif the right to do so? As Yoseif himself says, “Am I in God’s stead?” (50:19)
What is the alternative? The key lies in the middle of Parashat Miketz; when his brothers bow before him, the verse notes (42:8-9): “Yoseif recognized his brothers, but they did not recognize him. Yoseif remembered the dreams which he dreamt about them, and he said to them ‘You are spies!…’”
We may now travel back 21 years to Yoseif’s time in the pit. He had just been left there, presumably to die. At this point, Yoseif begins to doubt his arrogance. Perhaps his brothers and his father were right, and his dreams are delusions of grandeur; perhaps, like Yishmael, he has been rightly abandoned in the wilderness to die. Then perhaps, like Yishmael, he may hope for divine redemption - not to return to his father’s house, for he is nidcheh, rejected - but at least to lead a righteous life. Indeed, from the moment Yoseif is rescued, he is a new man: no longer a cocky, preening teenager, he is now pious and humble. He begins to forget his father’s house - though never his lesson.
Slowly, Yoseif’s fortunes change, and he becomes viceroy of Egypt. Then, out of the blue, his brothers are kneeling before him - fulfilling his youthful dreams! Perhaps they were not fantasies, then; perhaps they are the nidchim, while Yoseif (with Binyamin?) is the chosen one. On the other hand, perhaps neither are nidcheh; perhaps, just as Yoseif has matured, his brothers have changed as well. There is only one way to know, painful as it will be for Yoseif, wrenching as it must be for Yaakov: an experiment, recreating the conditions of Yoseif’s sale. Once again, a son of Rachel, a favorite of their father (for so Binyamin must have become, in Yoseif’s absence) and spoiled (43:34), guilty of a presumptuous crime (the theft of the goblet) will be in the pit; once again, the brothers will have the chance to abandon this favored son to his fate - or to put themselves on the line for him. This time, Yehuda rises to the challenge; and Yoseif realizes that this time, finally, there is no nidcheh, for they are all worthy of founding the Chosen Nation.
On Chanukah, when brother had to fight brother in God’s name, we all eagerly anticipate that future of “Thus says Lord God: ‘Behold I will take the branch of Yoseif… and I will put them upon it with the branch of Yehuda, and I will make them one branch, and they shall be one in My hand” (Yechezkel 37:19).
Yosef Speaks Up
In the beginning of Parashat Miketz, Pharaoh calls upon Yosef - the reputed dream-interpreter - to uncover the meaning behind his peculiar dream. As we know, Yosef does that and more. After predicting the impending years of plenty and famine, Yosef advises revamping the economic system and establishing a thorough conservation policy throughout the country. Many have wondered how did Yosef, a foreign prisoner, convicted of a most severe crime, dare open his mouth and offer unsolicited advice before the royal court? He was asked simply to interpret the dream; how did he have the gall to proceed even further and express his plans for the agricultural stability of the Egyptian empire?
Some have answered very simply, how could Yosef not have offered advice! If one finds himself in a position to help hundreds of thousands of people, he just does it. As Yosef prophetically saw the devastation of famine, this was no time to ask questions or worry about saying too much. The situation arose when he had to go ahead and speak up. Just think what would have happened if Yosef felt inhibited and refrained from presenting his plan to Pharaoh!
Although we generally do not find ourselves in a position to save thousands of lives, we often do encounter situations where our assistance could prove critical. We learn from Yosef that when these situations arise we must not question ourselves. If we can help, we have the obligation to do so.