Reuven's Harsh Exchange

Parashat Miketz tells the story of Yosef's rise to power in Egypt, followed by the famine that ravages the region and brings Yosef's own brothers before him to ask to purchase grain. Yosef, whose true identity remains a secret even to his brothers, accuses them of working as spies, takes Shimon hostage, and orders them to return to Canaan and bring back the youngest brother, Binyamin. The brothers, not suspecting that the Egyptian viceroy understands their language, attribute their travails to their mistreatment of Yosef: "Alas, we are bring punished on account of our brother, because we looked on in his anguish… " (42:21). At this point, the eldest brother, Reuven, makes a puzzling and even disturbing comment: "Then Reuven spoke up and said to them, 'Did I not tell you: Do no wrong to the boy? But you paid no heed. Now comes the reckoning for his blood."

Two questions immediately arise from Reuven's remark. First and foremost, what did Reuven possibly think he could contribute with such a statement? Does this not sound like a childish, "I told you so"? Secondly, Reuven appears to speak dishonestly. He did not, according to the Torah's account (37:21-22), urge his brothers to "do no wrong." He advised them to cast Yosef into a pit and let him perish there rather than actively killing him. True, his intentions, as the Torah itself emphasizes, were to later save Yosef from the pit. But, as far as we know from the Torah's account, he never tells this to the brothers.

Regarding the second question, we might explain that the narrative in Parashat Vayeshev omitted details of the brothers' discussion in decidingwhat to do with Yosef. It is very likely that Reuven lobbied on Yosef's behalf and urged his brothers not to do him harm; in the end, he managed to persuade them to at least refrain from killing him directly, which he had hoped would allow him to save Yosef later.

But why would specifically Reuven come to Yosef's defense? In fact, if any brothers had a "score to settle" with Yosef, it was Reuven. As the firstborn, he deserved the honor and distinction his father bestowed upon Yosef. Why, then, was it Reuven who argued on Yosef's behalf?

The answer to this question is given by Rabbi Nechemya, cited by the Midrash Bereishit Rabba in Parashat Vayeshev (84). According to Rabbi Nechemya, Reuven had vested interest, so-to-speak, in the fulfillment of Yosef's dreams of leadership. As we know from Sefer Divrei Ha-yamim I (5:1), Reuven forfeited his right to the birthright as a result of his sin with his stepmother, Bilha (according to Chazal, he moved his father's bed out of Bilha's tent), and Yaakov transferred the birthright to Yosef. Reuven thought that perhaps he was ousted not only from the birthright, but from the developing Nation of Israel, as well. Yosef, however, dreamt of twelve sheaves of grain and twelve stars bowing down to him – indicating that Reuven retains his membership in the family.

We may speculate, then, that Reuven disagreed on fundamental grounds with his brothers as to how they should respond to Yosef's dreams of leadership, and how they should deal with Yosef in general. The brothers were appalled by Yosef's aspirations and saw his dreams as a threat to the family and the nation in the process of formation. Reuven, by contrast, pinned his hopes on Yosef's dreams, as their fulfillment would mean his eternal inclusion within the family of Israel despite his grave transgression. Indeed, when Reuven returns to the pit and discovers that Yosef is gone, he declares, "What am I to do" (37:30) – which Chazal (Midrash Lekach Tov) explain to mean, "I thought I had found a remedy to the incident of Bilha, but now, what am I to do?" Yosef's absence meant for Reuven the loss of hope for his future membership in the family. Reuven therefore argued all along that the brothers should accept Yosef, and that his dreams are indeed prophetic, whereas they insisted that his dreams pose a threat to the family and he must be eliminated.

With this in mind, we may now return to the harsh exchange between Reuven and his brothers in our parasha. As the brothers recognize the fact that they are now punished for their mistreatment of Yosef, Reuven sees this as an opportunity for vindication, to prove to his brothers the correctness of his stance in his fundamental dispute with his brothers. True, Reuven does, in effect, say, "I told you so," but this relates to a longstanding difference of opinion on the crucial issue as to whether Yosef's dreams were to be seen as prophecy or as just his megalomaniac aspirations of power. The brothers' travails in Egyptproved that Reuven was correct in his opposition to the other brothers' position, they should not have persecuted Yosef, and that somehow, Yosef's dreams may yet be fulfilled.

Volver al capítulo

The Weak Overpowering the Mighty - and Pharaoh's Worries

Parashat Miketz begins with an account of Pharaoh's dreams that, in his mind, urgently required interpretation. He dreams first of seven lean, emaciated cows devouring seven large, hardy cows, and then beholds a similar vision of seven beaten sheaves of grain consuming seven fresh, healthy sheaves. The Torah tells that when Pharaoh awoke, "his spirit was agitated" (41:8); so troubled he was by these dreams that he immediately summoned his advisors and magicians in an attempt to uncover the dream's meaning. Only once he invited Yosef to interpret the dream did the Pharaoh feel that the dream's true meaning had been revealed.

What about Pharaoh's dream caused him such grief, and why did only Yosef's interpretation satisfy him?

Rav Shimon Schwab suggests that Pharaoh, to his credit, understood the symbolic significance of the meek and feeble overpowering the strong and mighty. Egypt was the unquestioned superpower of its day, the strongest empire with the most stable economy and most impressive cultural achievements. Perhaps most importantly, Egypt enjoyed the constant supply of water provided by the Nile River, which would regularly overflow its banks and fill the streams and brooks dug all around it, allowing for easy and reliable irrigation. (See Rashi to the first verse of Parashat Miketz.) Egypt always felt confident in its power and stability as a result of this water supply. Many centuries later, the prophet Yechezkel mocks the Pharaoh for his arrogant self-confidence in the Nile's waters: "Thus said the Lord God: I am going to deal with you, O Pharaoh king of Egypt, mighty monster, sprawling in its channels, who said, my Nile is my own; I made if for myself" (29:3). Yechzekel then conveys God's warning to Pharaoh: "I will put hooks in your jaws, and make the fish of your channels cling to your scales; I will haul you up from your channels… And I will fling you into the desert" (29:4-5).

The dream of the cows and sheaves indicated to Pharaoh that his strength and power would soon diminish. Like the sturdy cows and healthy sheaves, he is now threatened by a force he always felt capable of controlling and subduing. This is why Pharaoh awoke in panic. He was suddenly shown that his strength and power mean nothing, that regardless of one's stature and might, he can easily fall prey to even those far weaker than he. Pharaoh was frightened and begged his advisors to tell him precisely who or what threatens him and how to confront the danger.

But Pharaoh could not accept any of the interpretations. Chazal (cited by Rashi to 41:8) claim that Pharaoh's advisors suggested that the dream indicated the birth and subsequent death of seven daughters. But Pharaoh understood that the true interpretation involved the particular message of the weak overpowering the mighty, the feeble destroying the stalwart. He therefore accepted and found comfort only in Yosef's interpretation, which spoke of Egypt's legendary agriculture crumbling into pieces by the ravages of famine. Yosef pinpointed precisely the danger confronting the empire and informed Pharaoh specifically how he should prepare, thereby raising himself to the position of viceroy, and saving Egypt and the entire region from starvation.

Volver al capítulo

Rashi on the Healthy Cows

Parashat Miketz begins with a description of Pharaoh's dreams, which Yosef will ultimately interpret as heralding the onset of seven years of surplus, which will be followed by seven years of drought. Pharaoh dreams of seven lean, emaciated cows devouring seven sturdy, healthy cows, as well as seven withered sheaves of grain "eating" seven robust sheaves. This vision, Yosef explains to the king, symbolizes the "lean" years of famine that will overtake and "devour" the seven years of surplus. The Torah describes the seven healthy cows in Pharaoh's dream as "yefot mar'eh u-vri'ot basar" – "handsome and sturdy" (41:2). Rashi, commenting on the first of these two terms ("yefot mar'eh"), explains that the cows' comely appearance represented the seven years of plenty, during which people appear healthy and content and are able to act generously towards one another, rather than competing over the limited food resources.

Rav David Pardo, in his work on Rashi's commentary, "Maskil Le-David," takes note of Rashi's comments to this verse and quips, "Yosef Ha-tzadik already preceded him in interpreting this dream!" Meaning, why did Rashi find it necessary to inform us already at this point of the symbolic meaning behind the healthy appearance of the first set of cows in Pharaoh's dream? Why didn't Rashi let the reader wait another several verses until he hears from Yosef himself the underlying symbolism of the healthy cows?

Professor Nechama Leibowitz z"l resolves this difficulty by carefully reading Rashi's interpretation of a previous instance of this expression, "yefei mar'eh." Earlier, in Parashat Vayetze (29:17), the Torah describes the matriarch Rachel with two expressions – "yefat to'ar" and "yefat mar'eh." Rashi there (in most editions of Rashi's commentary) explains the difference between these two descriptions: "'To'ar' refers to the form of the face… 'mar'eh' is a radiant countenance." Rashi appears to distinguish here between two different features of appearance: physical features, and a more general, abstract form of attractiveness and charm. "Yefei to'ar" refers to comely physical features, whereas "yefei mar'eh" denotes a less tangible aura of beauty and radiance.

Based on this distinction, Professor Leibowitz explained, we can easily understand why Rashi found it necessary to comment upon the Torah's description of the seven healthy cows. The Torah employs in reference to these cows the term, "yefot mar'eh," which, according to the rule Rashi established in Parashat Vayetze, refers to a "radiant countenance," as opposed to fine physical features. How could the Torah describe cows with such a term? This question demands an immediate response, and therefore Rashi resolves this difficulty by explaining that the "countenance" here alludes to the look of contentment upon the faces of people living in a time of economic prosperity. Thus, Rashi here is not trying to interpret the dream – after all, Yosef had already done that many centuries earlier – but rather seeks to justify the use of the expression "yefot mar'eh" as part of the Torah's description of the seven cows in Pharaoh's dream.

Volver al capítulo

The Saba of Kelm on the Brothers and Wealth

Yesterday, we discussed Yosef's harsh treatment of his brothers when they came to Egypt to purchase grain, as told in Parashat Miketz, and we focused on the purpose of his returning their money to their bags. Recall that Yosef imprisons Shimon and orders the remaining brothers to return to Canaan to bring to Egypt their youngest brother, Binyamin. Before their departure from Egypt, Yosef has his servant return the money with which they had purchased grain to their bags. Upon discovering the money in their bags, the brothers shuddered in fright: "Their hearts sank; and, trembling, they turned to one another, saying: What is this that God has done to us?" (42:28).

The "Saba" of Kelm, among the foremost personalities of the Musar movement, noted the glaring irony of this scene. Generally speaking, when a person suddenly discovers that he has received money he does not deserve, he responds with joy and exhilaration. In this instance, the brothers react to their windfall with panic, wondering, "What is this that God has done to us?" In context, of course, their response is easy to understand. They naturally assumed that since the Egyptian viceroy accuses them – for whatever reason – of spying the land, he – or perhaps some other Egyptian – sought to frame them with theft to substantiate the accusation. Indeed, upon their return to Egypt, they are brought to Yosef's house, which they initially assumed to mean that they will be arrested for allegedly stealing money from the country: "It must be because of the money replaced in our bags the first time that we have been brought, as a pretext to attack us and seize us as slaves" (43:18). Quite understandably, they reacted to the sight of their money not with celebration, but with panic.

Nevertheless, the "Saba" of Kelm suggested that this reaction provides us with a subtle lesson regarding the proper approach to monetary gain and material success. Our response to the acquisition of wealth, he claimed, must include a degree of anxiety, similar to the fear experienced by Yosef's brothers. For one thing, wealth is not always a blessing; the affect it has on its owner can often turn around and ruin him. But in addition, a person who enjoys material success must ask himself, as the brothers did, "What is this that God has done to us?" or, to phrase the question a bit differently, "Why has God done this for us?" Blessings of wealth and comfort cast upon a person enormous responsibility; one's resources come to him so that he can utilize them in the pursuit of spiritual goals and for the betterment of the world. Therefore, when one looks into his "bag" and finds resources that he hadn't expected to see there, he must immediately ask, "What is this that God has done to me" – what purpose am I to serve with these new, unexpected resources?

Volver al capítulo

Why Does Yosef Return the Money to the Sacks of the Brothers?

We discussed Yosef's harsh treatment of his brothers when they come before him, as he serves as Egyptian viceroy and supervises the distribution of the country's grain. Yosef accuses them of coming to spy the country and demands that they bring their youngest brother, Binyamin, to Egypt as proof of their innocence. Over the course of yesterday's discussion, we encountered the two classic approaches taken in understanding Yosef's intent. The Ramban claims that Yosef feels himself obligated to bring to fruition his childhood dreams of leadership, which foresaw that all his brothers - including Binyamin - would bow before him. Others, including Abarbanel and "Akeidat Yitzchak," explain that Yosef wanted to ensure his brothers' repentance for their mistreatment of him. He places them in a situation where they must exert themselves on behalf of their father's favorite son, Binyamin, thus demonstrating their complete teshuva for having jealously sought the elimination of Yosef - their father's previous favorite son.

In any event, according to both approaches, Yosef's primary objective is bringing Binyamin to him in Egypt. While this explains the general contour of Yosef's scheme, one component remains unclear. When Yosef sends his brothers home and orders that they bring Binyamin (keeping Shimon in an Egyptian prison as "collateral" to ensure their return), he has his servant place in their bags the money they had brought and used to purchase grain (42:25). Later, upon discovering that their money was returned, the brothers are terribly frightened, presuming that they will now be accused of theft (see 42:28,35). Why did Yosef have their money returned to their bags? What purpose did this serve within his overall scheme to bring Binyamin to Egypt?

Professor Shulamit Elitzur, in her work, "Shira Shel Parasha," shows how the answer to this question emerges clearly from a poem composed by the poet Shimon Ha-kohen Birebi, in which he describes the final scene of Parashat Miketz. After Binyamin comes to Egypt and the brothers prepare to return home, Yosef orders that his royal goblet be placed in Binyamin's bag, so that he could be accused of stealing from Yosef. Yosef then demands that Binyamin stay in Egypt as a slave, prompting Yehuda's impassioned appeal on Binyamin's behalf in the opening section of Parashat Vayigash. The poem tells that the brothers, upon seeing the goblet in Binyamin's bag, immediately declare, "Just as his mother stole - so has Binyamin stole!" Recall that earlier, in Parashat Vayetze (31:19), Rachel steals the "terafim" (idols, or oracles) of her father, Lavan. Now, as the brothers see the goblet in Binyamin's bag, they assume - initially - that he has inherited his mother's proclivity to theft. Meaning, the brothers accuse Binyamin of having actually stolen the royal goblet from Yosef. The poem adds that the brothers then begin wondering, "This one father protected like the pupil [of his eye]?!" As Binyamin is caught "red-handed" stealing the property of the Egyptian viceroy, the brothers cannot help but ridicule Yaakov's initial, adamant refusal to allow Binyamin to join his brothers in Egypt, his concern "that he might meet with disaster" (42:4). The brothers scoff at Yaakov's almost obsessive protection of Binyamin, who has now been exposed as a crook.

Very quickly, however, the brothers realize their error. As the poem continues, "They muttered: What shall we say about the first money, and what shall we whisper about the second money?" Yosef had instructed his servant not only to place his goblet in Binyamin's bag, but also to once again return the brothers' money, just as he had before their previous departure from Egypt. Thus, as Yosef's servant now rummages through their bags in search of the goblet, he - and the brothers - once again see their money returned to their bags, which obviously reminds them of their money's return when they left Egypt the first time. Now Binyamin, of course, was not with them the first time they came to Egypt. Clearly, then, somebody in Egypt was placing things in their bags when they weren't looking. This made the brothers realize that they cannot accuse Binyamin of actually stealing the goblet. The money that was placed in their bags before their previous departure from Egypt proved that somebody is framing them, and it thus stands to reason, then, that here, too, they are being framed, and Binyamin did not steal anything.

This then explains why Yosef had their money returned before they left Egypt the first time. Already at this stage Yosef knew that he would plant his goblet in Binyamin's bag in order to test his brothers' willingness to come to Binyamin's rescue. But what if they would believe Yosef's accusation, that Binyamin stole the goblet? They would most certainly not feel any obligation to lobby for his release if they felt that he tried stealing the viceroy's goblet! Yosef therefore had to show them that somebody is tampering with their bags in Egypt, in order that they would not accuse Binyamin of theft, and thus he has their money returned to their bags before their departure from Egypt the first time.

Volver al capítulo

Yosef's Dreams and Treatment of his Brothers in Egypt

Parashat Miketz tells of Yosef's harsh treatment of his brothers when they come to purchase grain from Egypt due to the famine that had struck Canaan. Yosef serves as the Egyptian viceroy and oversees the sale and distribution of the enormous quantities of grain that the country had stored during the previous seven years of surplus. The brothers, therefore, obviously do not recognize him. Yosef accuses his brothers of coming to spy the land and demands that they bring him their younger brother, Binyamin, as proof of their family background.

The fundamental question that has been addressed concerning this parasha is, quite simply, what is Yosef's objective in all this? Why does he find it necessary to torment his brothers - not to mention his father - who are already languishing from hunger? Why is it so important that Binyamin join him in Egypt?

Among the more famous explanations offered to explain Yosef's conduct is that of Abarbanel and Rav Yitzchak Arama (the "Akeidat Yitzchak"), who suggest that Yosef seeks to lead his brothers to complete repentance for their crime. The brothers had resented Yaakov's preferential treatment towards Yosef, as the son of his favorite wife, Rachel, and therefore decided to eliminate him. Now, Yosef devises a plan by which he places them in a situation where they have no choice but to commit themselves to the safety and protection of Binyamin - Rachel's other son, who, after Yosef's alleged death, had taken Yosef's place as Yaakov's preferred son. The famine that ravages Canaan affords Yosef the opportunity to force their brothers to treat Binyamin kindly and disregard his preferred status at home. Many years earlier, Yosef and his brothers were alone and they sold him into slavery; by the end of our story, Yehuda - the one who suggested selling Yosef - offers to remain in Egypt permanently as a slave in order to allow Binyamin's safe return to his father in Canaan.

The Ramban employs a similar approach in explaining the final stage of Yosef's plot, when he has his goblet placed in Binyamin's bag to frame him as a thief. According to the Ramban, Yosef wanted to ensure that the brothers harbor no ill will towards Binyamin as they had towards him. The hiding of the goblet thus served to test the brothers' loyalty to their youngest brother, to see if they would indifferently return home and let Binyamin remain as a slave in Egypt, or if they would exert themselves on his behalf. (As we will see a bit later, the Ramban adopts a different approach in explaining the first stage of Yosef's scheme - the demand that the brothers bring Binyamin to Egypt.)

The obvious question arises, what right did Yosef have to cause his brothers - not to mention his father - so much grief and anguish in order to lead them along the path of teshuva? Is anybody entitled to play the role of God and torment his fellow in order to cause him to repent?

Rav Soloveitchik zt"l (see http://shamash.org/listarchives/mj-ravtorah/miketz.96.ravtorah.96) explained Yosef's conduct by focusing on his initial response upon realizing that his brothers stood before him: "Yosef remembered the dreams that he had dreamt about them… " (42:9). The Torah here indicates that this situation reminded Yosef of his childhood dreams of leadership and authority over his brothers (see 37:5-9). Indeed, the Ramban claims that Yosef's scheme was motivated by these dreams, which he felt obligated to bring to fruition, thus necessitating that all his brothers - including Binyamin - come to Egypt and bow before him. But according to the approach of Abarbanel and Akeidat Yitzchak, that Yosef's aim is to lead his brothers to teshuva, of what relevance are his dreams to his scheme? Rav Soloveitchik explains that Yosef's dreams gave him the right - and the obligation - to ensure his brother's repentance. After all, what did the dreams mean? They meant that Yosef was to serve as the family's leader in preparation for the long and bitter exile that awaited them. Yosef understood the long-term implications of the current situation. The unbearable conditions in Canaan, the fact that Egypt was the only source of sustenance for the inhabitants of Canaan, and Yosef's position of authority in Egypt, all led to the inescapable conclusion that Yaakov and his sons must now settle in Egypt and begin an era of exile. This era, Yosef correctly realized, could not begin with a rupture between Yaakov's sons. If Yaakov's children are to retain their identity and preserve their tradition and heritage in Egypt, they must work together, rather than harbor mutual feelings of resentment and animosity.

Yosef, who correctly interprets several dreams throughout this story, interprets his own dreams as foreseeing his seminal role in leading the family in preparation for the long and difficult period that lay ahead. Rightfully so, then, he assumes the right and the responsibility to guarantee that his brothers will feel genuine remorse for their mistreatment of him, so that the twelve sons of Yaakov can come together once again and join forces to withstand the years of hardship and suffering that await them.

Volver al capítulo

Yehuda's Responsibility for Binyamin - and Yehuda's Sin

Parashat Miketz tells of the devastating famine that ravaged Egypt and its surrounding countries, including Canaan. Egypt had prepared for the crisis during the previous seven years of surplus, and was thus able to feed its own population and even sell grain to the peoples of Canaan. Yaakov therefore sends his sons from Chevron to purchase grain in Egypt, and when they come before Yosef, who served as the Egyptian viceroy and managed the distribution of grain, he accuses them of coming to spy the land. He demands that they bring the only brother who remained home - Binyamin - as proof that they are all part of one family in Canaan, and did not come as spies. Yaakov, however, refuses to allow Binyamin to join his brothers in Egypt. But as the family's food rations begin to dwindle, Yehuda urges his father to permit Binyamin to join them. He declares, "I myself will be surety for him; you may hold me responsible: if I do not bring him back to you and set him before you, I will have sinned before you forever" (43:9). Yaakov accepts Yehuda's "offer" and allows Binyamin to join his brother on their way to Egypt.

What kind of "sin" would Yehuda have committed had Binyamin not returned safely to Canaan? Had, for example, Binyamin suddenly taken ill or been captured by kidnappers, why would Binyamin's absence render Yehuda a "sinner"? True, he accepted responsibility for his younger brother's safety, but responsibility only goes so far. What did Yehuda mean when he accepted upon himself the status of a "sinner" if Binyamin would not return safely to Canaan?

This question led Rav Yaakov Medan to a particularly novel interpretation of this verse, as part of a lengthy discussion of the entire narrative concerning Yosef and his brothers (in his rather famous article in "Megadim," vol. 2). Rav Medan suggests that Yehuda sees this situation as an opportunity to rectify and achieve full atonement for his decisive role in the selling of Yosef. After all, it was he who suggested that Yosef be sold as a slave, after Reuven had attempted to save Yosef. The contention between the brothers and Yosef revolved around the question of which of Yaakov's wives is to be considered his primary wife, such that her eldest qualified son would lead the twelve brothers. After Leah's three eldest children forfeited their rights to leadership (Reuven through his sin involving Bilha, and Shimon and Levi as a result of their violent assault on Shekhem), Yehuda would emerge as leader if Leah would be granted primary status. Yosef, of course, the firstborn of Rachel, would assume leadership if Rachel were given this status. Now, after Yosef's presumed death, Binyamin becomes the candidate for the family leadership as Rachel's only remaining son. By assuming responsibility for Binyamin's welfare, Yehuda thereby completes his process of teshuva. He now commits himself to look after and protect his "competitor," so-to-speak, as opposed to his efforts to eliminate his previous contender, Yosef.

Rav Medan thus boldly suggests that the "sin" of which Yehuda speaks refers not to his culpability for any harm befalling Binyamin, but rather to his actual sin of selling Yosef to slavery. Yehuda sees his protection of Binyamin as the litmus test of his repentance for the wrong he committed against Yosef. Thus, by ensuring Binyamin's safe return to Canaan, Yehuda sees to it that he would not have "sinned before you forever."

It is worth noting that Rashi, in his commentary several verses earlier (42:36), writes (based on the Midrash in Bereishit Rabba) that Yaakov at this point began suspecting his sons of killing Yosef. This explains Yaakov's adamant refusal to trust the brothers with Binyamin as they return to Egypt, and may also shed light on Yehuda's guarantee. Yehuda tells his father that should he return from Egypt without Binyamin, this will confirm Yaakov's suspicions of his - as leader of the brothers - involvement in Yosef's presumed death, and he will thus be considered as having sinned against Yaakov forever, with regard to both Yosef and Binyamin.

Volver al capítulo

Yosef's Job Requirements: Intelligence and Wisdom

Parashat Miketz continues the story of Yosef's experiences in Egypt, telling of his sudden appointment as the country's viceroy after successfully interpreting Pharaoh's dreams that had baffled his team of experts. Yosef informed Pharaoh that the seven shriveled cows and lean sheaves of grain, which he envisioned in his dream, symbolized seven years of famine that will follow seven years of surplus. He then added, "Accordingly, let Pharaoh find a man who is intelligent and wise, and set him over the land of Egypt" (41:33). Yosef recommends that Pharaoh assign a qualified individual to oversee the storage of grain during the years of surplus so that the country could survive the seven harsh years of drought.

Yosef mentioned two qualifications required of such a person: he must be "navon" ("intelligent") and "chakham" ("wise"). The word "chakham," of course, is far more common and generally refers to general intellectual capability. Clearly, the person entrusted with Egypt's economic future must be a "chakham," a talented administrator with organizational and industrial skills, so that he can organize this major operation of storing enormous quantities of grain. But to what does the adjective "navon" refer? What kind of a person does Yosef have in mind, and why is this quality necessary for the job of storing grain?

The Ramban explains that "chokhma" in this verse refers to knowledge concerning healthy storage of different grains. Yosef emphasizes that the official in charge must have familiarity with the different species in grain prevalent in Egypt and understand how to best preserve them for an extended period of time. "Navon," on the other hand, refers to handling the distribution, the mathematical skills required to fairly and efficiently divide the limited amounts of grain to the different sectors of the population.

The Rashbam, however, explains differently. In his view, "chakham" refers to accumulated knowledge, whereas "navon" means, in the Rashbam's words, "that he understands the future and anticipates what will transpire." Why would Yosef require this particular quality of foresight in the person assigned to oversee the storage of grain?

Several writers, including Rav Eliyahu Lopian, suggested that it takes a considerable degree of foresight to undertake during a time of agricultural surplus a major operation to prepare for famine. When things are going well, people generally do not anticipate - let alone prepare for - the time when the tide will turn. True, people might have some awareness of the fact that good times are very often followed by hard times. But very few people would be prepared during periods of prosperity to exert themselves to the utmost in anticipation of crisis.

This, perhaps, at least according to the Rashbam, is what Yosef had in mind when he recommended that Pharaoh hire an "ish navon." In order for the person to take his job seriously, he must truly believe in and sense the disaster that will strike only several years later. This is not easy for people to do during times of prosperity. Understandably, then, Pharaoh selected Yosef. Only he, who prophetically foresaw the impending catastrophe, truly sensed the gravity of the situation and the dire need to prepare accordingly. Therefore, as Pharaoh, declares, "Since God has made all this known to you, there is no one 'navon' or 'chakham' as you" (41:39).

Volver al capítulo

The Cupbearer's Description of Yosef

Towards the beginning of Parashat Miketz we read that Pharaoh summons his advisors to interpret his perplexing dream, and the cupbearer mentions to Pharaoh that during his term in prison, a Hebrew slave, Yosef, had correctly interpreted his and the baker's dreams. The cupbearer recalls, "And it was indeed as he [Yosef] interpreted for us: I was reinstated in my post, and he [the baker] was hung" (41:13). One might wonder why the cupbearer found it necessary to specify Yosef's interpretation of the dreams. Seemingly, his point here is to attest to Yosef's talent in dream interpretation, and for this purpose it would have sufficed to inform Pharaoh that his interpretations proved accurate. Why did the cupbearer specifically mention that he was reinstated and the baker was executed?

Rav Yehuda Leib Ginsburg, in his Yalkut Yehuda, suggests that the cupbearer wanted to emphasize Yosef's "versatility" in dream interpretation, that he was capable of deciphering both dreams that foretold doom and those that heralded good tidings. His power lay in his sheer objectivity, which enabled him to decipher all dreams accurately, without approaching them with preconceived notions regarding their outcome. The fact that Yosef predicted both the cupbearer's reinstatement and the baker's execution demonstrated that his talents were genuine and he would not intentionally divert a dream in any preconceived direction. Indeed, Yosef's interpretation of Pharaoh's dream entailed both blessing and calamity. He predicted both seven years of plenty and the seven years of famine, just as he had foreseen both the cupbearer's freedom and the baker's death.

We might extend this theory just a bit further to draw a general lesson from the cupbearer's description of Yosef's talents. In all areas of life, it would do us well to "interpret" events and issues with pure objectivity and reach conclusions based on actual facts, rather than on our preconceived notions. All too often, people tend to mold the hard data to suit their intuitive sense and a priori conclusions, rather than molding their intuitive sense in accordance with the hard data. Yosef's interpretations of dreams perhaps teaches that in interpreting events around us, we should be theoretically prepared to reach conclusions in either direction, depending on the objective information before us.

Volver al capítulo

The King's Dream Agitation

The opening verses of Parashat Miketz tell of Pharaoh's dream of the lean cows devouring the robust cows, and lean sheaves devouring the healthy sheaves. The Torah (41:8) tells that in the morning, "Va-tipa'em rucho" – Pharaoh's "spirit was agitated" (from the JPS translation) – and he immediately summoned his advisors and sorcerers to decipher the encoded message embodied in the dream.

Among the questions that arise from this incident is the issue of Pharaoh's "agitation" and the desperately urgent – almost compulsive – need he felt to arrive at the correct interpretation of the dream. This question becomes even more troubling in light of the approximate parallel detected by Chazal (as cited by Rashi, 41:8) between Pharaoh's response to his dream and that of Nevukhadnetzar, as recorded in Sefer Daniel - "Va-titpa'em rucho" (2:1). As we learn later in that chapter, Nevukhadnetzar dreamt a frightening dream of an imposing statue suddenly being struck and collapsing. That Pharaoh would react to his seemingly innocuous dream with somewhat similar fright requires some explanation.

This question perhaps prompted a comment by the Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 89) to the parasha's opening verse. Commenting on the phrase, "U-Pharaoh cholem" ("And Pharaoh dreamt"), the Midrash rhetorically asks, "And all other people do not dream?" It then answers, "Rather, a king's dream is that of the entire world." The Midrash is perhaps asking why Pharaoh responded to his dream with such urgency, and it explains that he did so because of his regal stature. A dream shown to a king likely has relevance to the entire kingdom – and, in the case of the ancient Egyptian empire, the entire inhabited world – and he therefore felt an urgent need to decipher its encoded message.

Rav Shimon Schwab, in Ma'ayan Beit Ha-sho'eiva, suggests a different reason why Pharaoh reacted as he did, pointing to the common theme underlying the two components of the dream. Pharaoh dreamt of lean cows and sheaves devouring robust cows and sheaves, clearly symbolic of the phenomenon of – to borrow from this season's liturgy – giborim be-yad chalashim, rabim be-yad me'atim – the weak triumphing over the mighty, and the few defeating the many. The Egyptian king had all along relied on his country's military might and economic prowess as the source of his nation's security and the stability of his monarchy. Now he was suddenly shown the prospect of even the mightiest and most secure suffering defeat at the hands of the feeble. This image shook the foundations of his sense of security, and he understandably responded with horror and an urgent need to discover the true meaning underlying this dream.

Volver al capítulo

Reuven's Harsh Exchange

The Weak Overpowering the Mighty - and Pharaoh's Worries

Rashi on the Healthy Cows

The Saba of Kelm on the Brothers and Wealth

Why Does Yosef Return the Money to the Sacks of the Brothers?

Yosef's Dreams and Treatment of his Brothers in Egypt

Yehuda's Responsibility for Binyamin - and Yehuda's Sin

Yosef's Job Requirements: Intelligence and Wisdom

The Cupbearer's Description of Yosef

The King's Dream Agitation

Pages

📲 Instala nuestra App