Commento su Genesi 43:38

והרעב, Yehudah said to his brothers not to argue with their aged father until there would be no more bread in the house at which time he would agree to send his son Binyamin with the brothers.

כאשר כלו לאכל WHEN THEY HAD EATEN UP — Judah said to them: Leave the old man alone until the house will run short of bread (Midrash Tanchuma, Miketz 8).

שובו שברו לנו, for he thought that their intent in wanting to take Binyamin with them was in order to lose him as they had lost Joseph. He had previously accused them of bereaving him (deliberately) when he had said (42,36) אותי שכלתם, “you have bereaved me,” (transitive active conjugation). He meant to deny that what they had told him at the time had been the truth.

כאשר כלו לאכול, when they had finished eating, etc. Perhaps the Torah mentions this fact to indicate that they had just enough grain left to last them for a journey to and from Egypt. The reason the Torah describes the supply as if it had already come to an end is that now there was a need to bring more grain. It could also be that the Torah considered the food consumed by the brothers while journeying back and forth as part of the supply that Jacob had stored in anticipation of the famine as we have learned in Taanit 10 based on the words למה תתראו in 42,1. This is the reason why the Torah emphasises that what had been eaten up was the "grain they had brought from Egypt" as distinct from their total store.

Yehudah had told them, “Wait...” Otherwise, why did only Yehudah reply to, “Go back and buy a little food,” when this was said to them all? Perforce, [it is as Rashi explained].

When they had finished. See Rashi — if waiting was not a stratagem on Yehudah’s part he should have spoken up as soon as Yaakov rejected Reuvein’s offer.

כאשר כלו WHEN THEY HAD FINISHED [EATING THE GRAIN] — The Targum renders it by כד שציאו which means “when they finished” in the sense of making an end of doing an action. He who has the reading in the Targum כד ספיקו “when they had enough” is in error. The words (24:22) כאשר כלו הגמלים לשתות “when the camels had finished drinking” are rightly rendered in the Targum כד ספיקו which means “when they had drunk sufficient for their needs”, for that was the end of their drinking. Here, however, this phrase “when they had finished eating” refers to the time when the food came to an end, and we should render it in the Targum by כד שציאו when they had finished (which means finishing in the sense of nothing being left over).

העד העד [THE MAN] DID SOLEMNLY PROTEST UNTO US — The Hebrew is an expression signifying warning and it is derived from the root עוד to bear witness, because a warning is, as a rule, given in the presence of witnesses. Other examples are (Jeremiah 11:7) “I earnestly forewarned (העדותי) your fathers”, and (Exodus 19:21) “Go, warn (העד) the people.

ויאמר אליו יהודה לאמור, Yehudah said to him, saying, etc. The word לאמור here seems to mean that Yehudah made a variety of suggestions to Jacob all of which were in the nature of a reply to Jacob's arguments against sending Benjamin to Egypt. The most important of these was the reference to the Egyptian ruler's warning that the brothers would not be able to see him (and buy grain) unless they had their younger brother with them. The Torah implies that the brothers did not resort to another reply, namely that they would take Benjamin with them regardless of whether Jacob approved or not. The word לאמור then means they waited for Jacob's word, i.e. permission.

העד העיד, when a caution is issued to people in the presence of witnesses, the caution is not called התראה, “warning,” but עדות, “testimony.”

“You will not see me without your brother with you.” Rashi is answering the question: In all of Scripture, בלתי means “rather.” So why is it not written בלתי כאשר אחיכם אתכם (rather, you will see me when your brother is with you)? Therefore Rashi says that here, בלתי means “without.” (Re’m) [Rashi is saying] that we should not think it means, “You will not see me; rather, your brother alone will see me.” Thus he explains that it means: “You will not see me without your brother with you.” (Maharshal)

עור .העד העיר: dauern, העיר machen, dass etwas dauere, daher Zeuge sein, d. i. etwas, das sonst dem Bewusstsein der Menschen entschwinden würde, im Geiste auffassen, festhalten, und zur entsprechenden Zeit aussagen, somit: dem Vergänglichen Dauer gewähren. Daher עד auch Denkmal. Das Geschäft der nichtjüdischen Zeugen besteht bloß in dieser Aussage nach geschehener Tat. Der jüdische Zeuge hat auch im Augenblick der Tat dem beginnenden Verbrecher das ihm entschwundene Gesetz zu vergegenwärtigen, welches wiederum ein Dauer-geben dem Entschwindenden ist, also: warnen. העיר ב־ also: a. wider jemanden zeugen nach der Tat, oder b. warnen vor der Tat. Dies letztere hier. Und zwar liegt darin, dass Josef ihnen dies gleich anfangs gesagt hatte, sie aber beim Fortgehen nochmals ernstlich erinnerte, dass sie es nicht wagen sollten, ohne Benjamin zu kommen.

“לא תראו מני בלתי אחיכם אתכם means YE SHALL NOT SEE ME IF YOUR BROTHER BE NOT WITH YOU — Onkelos renders it by אלהין כד אחוכון עמכון ,“except when your brother is with you” adding the word כד when, to which there is no corresponding word in the Hebrew text. He gave the explanation of the word (בלתי) correctly, but he was not particular to translate according to the exact expression used in the text.

Explained the thing so that it fits, but was not meticulous to translate it literally. I.e., Onkelos translates בלתי as “rather,” and he adds כד, which means “that.” This is non-literal, because [if Onkelos is translating literally,] the word כד is added to the verse — and that is a forced explanation.

Alternatively, one could read the words העד…לאמור together. It would mean that Joseph had not only warned them but had done so in the presence of witnesses in order to make his threat more potent. Yehudah may also have challenged Jacob to give him another answer if he had one. After all they also had to consider the very real danger to Shimon who was being held as a hostage in a spy case. How did Jacob suggest that the brothers clear themselves of the suspicion of being spies?

לא תראו פני "you will not see me." Yehudah thereby denied Jacob's claims that he had adequate proofs to convince any king or royal adviser that the brothers could not be considered spies, and that this would suffice to neutralise Joseph's accusation against them. Yehudah told his father that Joseph had made it plain that the brothers would not even be able to present their case unless Benjamin appeared at their side. How then could they buy grain if they could not even secure an audience with the ruler who was in charge of the grain sales? Yehudah repeated the words העד העיד to convince his father that Benjamin's presence in Egypt was the key to any success of their trip.

נרדה ונשברה, “let us go down and buy grain, etc.” The extra letters ה at the end of נרדה and נשברה respectively, are meant to indicate that the brothers were willing to travel to Egypt repeatedly in order to buy supplies, but that they would not even go a single time unless Yaakov now sent Binyamin with them.

Damit war Jakob die zwingende Notwendigkeit dargetan.

ויאמר ישראל. Bis dahin, seit Josefs Verlust, immer יעקב Denn יעקב bezeichnet den gedrückten Gemütszustand, in welchem der Mensch sich abhängig, sinkend, und den Verhältnissen "nachhinkend" fühlt, ihnen nicht vorangehen kann, sondern sich von ihnen ins Schlepptau nehmen lässt. Der wahre Jude fühlt sich aber nur so lange gedrückt, als er nicht weiß, was er tun soll. Nur zwei Dinge drücken den rechtschaffenen Juden: 1) Schuld, 2) Zweifel über das, was er zu tun habe, nicht über das, was kommen könne. So lange Jakob im Zweifel war und glaubte, Benjamin nicht schicken zu dürfen, so lange erscheint er als יעקב. Von dem Augenblick aber, wo er die zwingende Notwendigkeit klar vor Augen hatte — Benjamins Leben war ebenso in Gefahr, wenn er dableiben, als wenn er mitgehen sollte — richtet er sich auf und ist ישראל. Sobald der Jude weiß, dass er mit menschlichen Kräften nicht mehr helfen kann, also- bald heißt es ihm: גול על ד׳ וגו׳, was dir zu schwer ist, "wälze" Gott zu. Eben das Schwere, aber Unabweisliche, übt er mit frischem gehobenen Mute; denn eben da, wo der Mensch nicht ausreicht, beginnt ihm die "Herrschaft Gottes" die ihm sein Name verbürgt. Er hat darum auch ferner keine Klage mehr, sondern nur noch den "ישראל" Vorwurf, dass sie unnötiger Weise ihres jüngeren Bruders gegen den ägyptischen Gewalthaber erwähnt.

לנו ולמולדתנו CONCERNING OURSELVES AND CONCERNING OUR KINDRED — concerning our families. A Midrashic comment based upon the meaning of מולדת, “birth” — He asked of us concerning the circumstances of our birth — is: he could even tell us of what kind of wood our cradles were made (Genesis Rabbah 91:10).

Even the type of wood of our childhood cradles he revealed to us. I.e., even the small children lying in a cradle. [Rashi knows this] because it is written מולדתנו, which alludes to the cradles in which the children (ילדים) lie.

ה׳ השאלה ,הידוע נדע. Das הי hat eine dreifache Modulierung. Der Laut an sich ist belebter Atem, deshalb ist er Träger des Seins in הוה ,היה usw. Wo ein Dasein unselbständig, fast als nicht daseiend erscheinen soll, da erscheint das ׳ה ruhend, verschwindend für das Gehör. So auch ׳ה fem.: so auch das ׳ה optativum wie נרדה, das Hinuntergehen ist noch nicht positiv entschieden, sondern nur im Wunsch herandämmernd. Eine positiv vorliegende Wirklichkeit ist: הַסֵפֶר ,הַ, dann liegt es da. Ist die Existenz noch schwankend zwischen Sein und Nichtsein, so schwankt auch der Laut: ?הְַסֵפֶר הזה הְַ־ das fragende und staunende ה.

הידוע נדע, “were we supposed to have known?

ונגד לו AND WE TOLD HIM that we had a father and a brother.

That we have a father and a brother. [Rashi inserts these words into the verse] because על פי הדברים האלה means, “According to his questions.” It follows that ונגד לו means, “We told him such and such, according to his questions.” However, if the verse meant, “We told him the questions he asked, ‘Do you have a father and a brother?’” then it should simply say ונגד לו את הדברים האלה.

על פי הדברים האלה ACCORDING TO THE TENOR OF THESE WORDS — we were forced to tell him according to the tenor of the questions he put to us.

כי יאמר THAT HE WOULD SAY — The word כי is used here in the sense of אשר “that”. The word כי may be used in the sense of אם and אם may be used in the sense of אשר; therefore this (i.e. אשר) is one of the four meanings in which כי, according to the Rabbis, is used, viz., אם (Rosh Hashanah 3a), for the word כי here has the same meaning as אם, as in (24:33) עד אם דברתי דברי “until that I have spoken my words” (where אם is the same as כי or אשר).

ונחיה THAT WE MAY LIVE — (literally, and we shall live). The spirit of prophecy was enkindled within him. He said: owing to this journey your spirit will live again, which indeed happened, as it is said, (Genesis 45:27) “And the spirit of Jacob, their father, revived”.

ונחיה, a reference to the food.

ונחיה ולא נמות, "so that we may live and not die." In order that we may live a life without anguish, or so that we may at least not die even if we have to live with anguish.

גם אנחנו גן אתה גם טפנו, each one in addition to the one already mentioned. What Yehudah meant was it was better that one Binyamin should come along with them although his safe return was subject to some doubt, than they should all die, something which would be a certainty.

He had a spark of Divine prophecy... Since Yehudah said, “And not die,” obviously he means they will live. So why did he say, “Let us live”? Perforce, [it is as Rashi explained].

Zu diesem seinem Vater "Israel" sprach Juda. So lange der Vater die Notwendigkeit nicht eingesehen, hatte Juda nichts versprochen, er hatte eingesehen, sein Vater habe Recht, er durfte ihn nicht schicken. Es hätten ja da auch seine Worte nichts genützt, denn was er nicht glaubte tun zu dürfen, darin durfte er sich auch nicht auf die Redlichkeit eines andern verlassen.

ולא נמות AND THAT WE MAY NOT DIE of hunger. As for Benjamin it is doubtful whether he will be seized or whether he will not be seized, but as for us, we shall certainly all die of hunger if we do not go. It is better that you should let go what is doubtful and snatch at what is certain (Genesis Rabbah 91:6).

ולא נמות, as a result of actions taken by the ruler of Egypt who had told us “so that the truth of your words can be established and you will not die.” (42,20)

Whereas, we will certainly die of hunger if we do not go. Rashi is answering the question: Why did Yehudah reply, “Let us... not die”? That is why Yaakov is sending them — to buy grain! Thus Rashi explains that “Let us... not die” conveys: “Concerning Binyamin, it is doubtful ... we will certainly die of hunger...” (Maharshal)

Alternatively, the words ולא נמות were intended to tell his father that he could not claim that by not travelling to Egypt they would only find themselves deprived of life's comforts; rather, it would positively cause the death of their families. They would not even live a life of deprivations.

Alternatively, Yehudah meant that if they would not now travel to Egypt with Benjamin they would eventually be called to answer for this in the Hereafter and would be guilty of not having made every effort to stay alive in this world.

גם אנחנו, גם אתה, גם טפנו, "both we, and you, and our children." Yehudah referred to all the people whose lives depended on this trip in addition to Benjamin. If they did not travel with Benjamin, all of them including Benjamin were liable to die of starvation. All of this because of the possible danger to Benjamin in Egypt. It simply was not fair that they all should be condemned to death because of what might happen to Benjamin.

The reason that Yehudah included Jacob's own survival last when he said גם אתה, was in line with the ruling that preservation of one's own life takes precedence even over saving one's father's life ( Yoreh Dey-ah 251). Or, the brothers used the exegetical rule of לא זו אף זו, "not only this but even this," i.e. the most important factor of the argument is presented last. They accorded their father the compliment of presenting preservation of his life as even more important than preservation of their own lives.

According to this principle they mentioned their children last, as those represented the future and as such deserved the highest priority in their considerations (compare David rating Absalom's life as more important than his own even while Absalom sought to kill his father (Samuel II 19,1).

והצגתיו לפניך AND SET HIM BEFORE THEE — for I will not bring him back to you dead but alive.

אנכי אערבנו…וחטאתי לך כל הימים "I will remain liable to you forever." The reason Yehudah said "forever" is explained by our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 91,10. The Hereafter is called "כל הימים," as it lasts forever.

וחטאתי לך, Yehudah did not really man that if he did not bring Binyamin back this would automatically be a sin in the objective meaning of the word. He meant that he would consider himself as a sinner against his father forever in the unlikely event that this would happen. He would guarantee his brother’s return under such conditions. These considerations prompted our sages in Makkot 11 to characterise Yehudah as placing himself in the position of a conditional outcast, מנודה, they derive the halachah that someone who places himself in such a state requires the court to annul his conditional vow, status. Needless to say that ostracising oneself from the Jewish community even conditionally is forbidden, and we have a tradition that the bones inside Yehudah’s coffin were rattling for the entire 40 years the Jewish people carried the coffins of the 12 founding leaders of the tribes with them through the desert. This stopped only at the request of Moses who asked mercy for Yehudah in his final blessing in Deuteronomy 33,7, וזאת 'ליהודה וגו

אנכי אערבנו מידי תבקשנו...וחטאתי לך כל הימים, “I will guarantee him, from me you can demand him;....or I will have sinned against you for all the days.” He meant that as long as he would live on earth he would consider himself as having sinned against his father. Solomon describes someone who steals from his parents as being a thief (although he stands to inherit his parents’ property) — compare Proverbs 25,24. Such a person is described there as a sinner against his parents.

Es soll dann der schwankende Verdacht, der jetzt auf uns allen lastet, in betreff Benjamins in konzentrierter Gestalt auf mir ruhen.

וחטאתי לך כל הימים THEN SHALL I HAVE SINNED AGAINST THEE ALL THE DAYS — also in the world to come (Genesis Rabbah 91:10).

Rav Yehudah in Makkot 11 teaches the rule that if someone is excommunicated, even conditionally, [i.e. he has been warned he would be put in ban if he did not conform to certain rules of conduct, Ed.] the conditional ban is not considered as having been lifted unless a collegium of laymen or judges has released such a person from such a conditional excommunication. The Talmud cites Yehudah's statement "if I do not bring him back to you" as proof. We have a tradition quoted by Rabbi Shemuel bar Nachmeni in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that the reason Yehudah and Reuben are linked in Moses' blessing in Deuteronomy 33,6 "may Reuben live and not die" followed by the statement "וזאת ליהודה," is that during all the forty years the Jewish people travelled through the desert with the coffin of Yehudah, the bones in his coffin still kept turning over. If you were to say that perhaps Yehudah's fault had been that he had not spelled out what would happen if he fulfilled his guarantee as did the tribe of Gad and Reuben in Numbers 32,29-30 [something known as תנאי כפול in halachah, Ed.], the fact remains that he did deliver on his promise, so why should he be guilty of anything?

According to Tossaphot the whole rule that one needs a release from a conditional excommunication applies only when the person who makes the undertaking is able to carry it out, and no part of the execution depends on someone else's goodwill. In the case of Yehudah, he had no control over what Joseph would or would not do. As a result the conditional excommunication that Yehudah was prepared to endure never became effective legally.

It is no more than reasonable that when someone makes an undertaking to endure excommunication in the event that he will not fulfil his undertaking (such as that of Yehudah, who was unable to know if he would be able to make good on it), he would require that such an undertaking be cancelled by the appropriate religious authority. It does not matter whether one phrased such an undertaking as a תנאי כפול, spelling out the alternative, or not. The very fact that one ties one's fate to something over which one has no control is frivolous. Yehudah's bones rattling in his coffin is quite plausible then, seeing he did not have his undertaking voided by his father or some other religious authority.

[I have condensed the author's treatment of this problem considerably. A reader who will peruse it in the original will see why. Ed.]

לולא התמהמהנו EXCEPT WE HAD LINGERED — through you, we would have already come back with Simeon and you would not have had this anxiety all these days.

כי לולא התמהמנו, the reason I volunteered to consider myself as having sinned against you forever if I fail to bring back Binyamin is only because it is absolutely clear to me that if we had not procrastinated ever since we told you what the man had said to us, or since we ran out of food,

כי לולא התמהמהנו, “for if we had not delayed, etc.” According to Rabbeinu Chananel the brothers made do with eating as little as possible until their father would raise the subject of a return trip to Egypt. The sons of Yaakov were very sensitive in their respect for the feelings of their father and did not brow beat him with their arguments, preferring to wait until Yaakov made the first move. Once Yaakov had shown willingness to let Binyamin travel, he also suggested five ways to help that trip become successful. First, he prepared a gift for the ruler of such a mighty country. Secondly, he told his sons to return the money which they had found in their sacks. It could have been an oversight on the part of a manager in Joseph’s household. Thirdly, he insisted that the money be returned for reasons of establishing their integrity as G’d-fearing people even if Joseph had never missed that money. Fourth, he authorised the brothers to take Binyamin with them. Fifth and last, he prayed that the Almighty would grant the brothers mercy when they would face the ruler of Egypt.

You would not have had to suffer all these days. Otherwise, what difference does it make that they could have returned twice? Perforce, it means we would have returned with Shimon and you would have been spared all your suffering until now.

כי לולא התמהמנו, the verse teaches us that in the interval the sons had all severely restricted the amount of food that they had been consuming without raising objections to their father’s ruling not to take Binyamin with them. They waited until their father would himself realise that he had to change his attitude and would agree for Binyamin to accompany his brothers. Once he had become agreeable, he suggested five steps to increase their chances of success. They were: 1) “take a gift along for the ruler of that land.” 2) “take twice the amount of money you had taken the first time.” 3) the amount of money found in their bags they should return as independent of any money taken to pay for purchases. Joseph’s official might have made a mistake. It would be a sanctification of the Lord’s name for people believing in Him being seen as so honest. 4) take along your younger brother. 5). Prayer. He told the brothers that he had prayed to G’d that He should exercise His mercy toward them when they would confront the Egyptian ruler. (as quoted by Rabbeinu Bachya)

Hätten wir nur nicht gezögert, so könntest du schon längst aus dieser quälenden Ungewissheit sein. Die Reise ist gar nicht so groß. לולא von לול, ein verschlungener Aufgang, und לולאות zusammenhaltende Schleifen. Unsere Zögerung war die לולאות, war das, was uns zurückgehalten; unser ganzes Unrecht und Unglück war das התמהמה, die Unentschlossenheit; sonst wäre schon alles heiter gelöst.

כי עתה שבנו זה פעמים, we could have been back already twice for the man would not have detained us at all, seeing that he described himself as G’d-fearing. He would not continue to harass us once he realised that we had told him the truth.

התמהמה von מהה, rad von מה: was; das unentschiedene Sachliche. מי: das unentschiedene Persönliche, von מגג ,מיי usw die ein ins Unbestimmte übergehendes Zerfließen bedeuten. Ebenso התמהמה ,מהה sich unentschieden, unentschlossen halten; zögern, sich in dem Zustand des מה halten, wo man noch nicht weiß, ob rechts oder links.

אפוא NOW — This is really a redundant word used in Hebrew for stylistic purposes. If it be so that I am compelled to do this — that I must send him with you — I must endeavour to seek where (אי) there is here (פה) some measure and plan to propose to you and therefore, I say: “Do this”.

אם כן, if the matter is indeed as you have said that although the man harassed you he is a G’d-fearing individual,

אם כן אפוא, if the situation is such that I cannot detain Binyamin here,

מעט צרי ומעט דבש, “a little balsam and a little honey.” In order that you should not give the impression that you are wealthy.

Take an offering. This would demonstrate their innocence because ordinarily a person is embarrassed to bring gifts to one whom he has injured. A little balsam. He instructed them not to bring too costly an offering lest it appear that they were trying to bribe him.

Was בטנים sind, ist unbestimmt. Warum schickte Jakob nichts von den bilden? Einfach זמרת הארץ hier ,שבח הארץ die doch eigentlich das ,שבעה מינים wohl darum, weil nichts gewachsen war. Was er sendet, sind lauter Dinge, die sich lange halten und schon aus früheren Jahren stammten. Daher man auch im Midrasch בטנים ושקדי׳ auf das Öl aus diesen Früchten bezieht, die Früchte waren schon lange aufgezehrt.

מעט צרי, “a little balsam;” something not available in Egypt. We have read that caravans used to transport this material to Egypt in Genesis 37.25.

מזמרת הארץ OF THE CHOICE PRODUCTS OF THE LAND — This is rendered in the Targum by “Take of that which is praised in the land” — that about which people sing its praise (מזמרים) when it comes into existence (Genesis Rabbah 91:11).

איפוא, then it is quite clear what you have to do;

זאת עשו, in order to curry favour with the ruler of the land;

צרי von צרה, verwandt mit זרח ,זרע ,צרע, hinaussetzen, streuen usw. Das ausschwitzende Balsamharz, dasselbe wie זמרת — .נטף. Höchst eigentümlich ist es, dass unsere Sprache, Gesang und Rebe mit derselben Wurzel bezeichnet. Wir haben drei Ausdrücke in Beziehung auf Gesang und Lied, שיר — .זמר שיר ,נגן ist das Lied im Gedichte. נגן ist die Instrumentalmusik. Möglich, dass נגן gerade Instrument heißt. Im Midrasch heißt מנגיניך: deine Machinationen. Ebenso heißt die Maschinerie an Salomos Thron: תרג׳ שני) מנגנון zu Esther 1, 2). Man leitet dies gewöhnlich aus dem Griechischen ab. Es ist jedoch möglich, dass נגן zu Grunde liegt. זמרה heißt die Melodie, der natürliche Gesang ohne Worte. Ist dies wahr, wie denkt sich unsere Sprache das Verhältnis der Melodie zum Lied, wenn sie die Melodie: "Rebe" nennt? Dass überhaupt Erscheinungen des Gedankens und der Rede durch Pflanzenerscheinungen ihren Ausdruck finden, ist unserer Sprache nicht fremd. So סעיף: Zweig und Ge dankenreihe. מלל: ubpflücken und מלה: ein einzelnes Wort, sowie מַלל: einzelne Worte sprechen. Vergegenwärtigen wir uns die Verwandtschaft von זמר mit צמר ,שמר, so ergibt sich die Bedeutung für זמרה, Rebe, als derjenige Pflanzenteil am Weinstock, in welchem die im Stamme aufsteigenden Säfte bewahrt, zusammengehalten und geläutert werden, bis sie die Frucht des Weines zu erzeugen fähig sind. Es wächst nicht die Frucht unmittelbar am Stamme, in weiten, sich schlängelnden Ranken strömen erst die Säfte hin, bis sie sich in der Beere zur Frucht gestalten. Ganz in demselben Verhältnis steht der Gesang, die Melodie, zum Worte des Liedes. Gefühle und Empfindungen, die in des Menschen Geist noch nicht zur völligen Gedankenklarheit für den Wortausdruck gereift sind, gewinnen auf den Flügeln des Gesanges diese Klarheit und Reife, um dann auf der Höhe der Begeisterung das Wort zu finden. Der natürliche Mensch spricht für andere, singt für sich, und in der wahren, der Natur nicht entfremdeten Kunst wird die Melodie nur Trägerin des Wortes sein wollen, wird die Melodie um des Wortes willen, nicht umgekehrt — wie in den meisten Operntexten — das Wort um der Melodie willen da sein. Die Melodie ist die sanft sich hinwindende Rebe, die auf ihrem Tongewinde das begeisterte Wort als Frucht darreicht. Die Richtigkeit dieser Auffassung dürfte auch in weiteren Sprachformen eine nicht unwillkommene Bestätigung finden. Das begeisterte Wort, die Frucht des Gesanges heißt: שיר .שיר ist aber — wie bereits (zu Kapitel 9, 21) entwickelt — nur ein Glied der Familie שכר ,שקר ,שגר. Alle vier, ,שכר ,שגר שיר ,שקר bedeuten ein Produzieren von innen heraus. שגר: die tierische Geburt. שקר die logische, absichtliche Produzierung, der in der äußeren Wirklichkeit nichts entspricht: die Lüge. שכר, die unabsichtliche geistige Produzierung der Phantasie, welcher ebenso nichts in der äußeren Wirklichkeit entspricht: der Rausch. שיר ist die wahre edle Pro- duzierung, die nicht die konkrete Wirklichkeit, sondern das derselben zu Grunde liegende, nur von des Menschen Innern wahrgenommene Unsichtbare zum Ausdruck bringt. Das wahre שיר besingt immer Gott in der konkreten Erscheinung der Natur und Geschichte. Nun ergibt sich die einfache Parallele: wie sich זְמרָה, die Rebe, zu שֵכָר, dem berauschenden Saft, verhält, also verhält sich זִמְרָה, der Gesang, zu שִיר, dem begeisterten Liedeswort.

בטנים, “pistachios;” the letter ב is vocalised with a chataf kametz, an abbreviated vowel kametz.

נכאת is WAX (Genesis Rabbah 91:11; cf. 37:25).

קחו מזמרת הארץ מעט צרי, although when one presents a gift to an ordinary person it is important to impress him with the quantity of the gift so that he can feast his eyes on it, this man who has everything will only be impressed with the quality of the gift instead of the quantity; therefore take rare items but only in appropriately small quantities to emphasise their rareness. All the items sent to Joseph were of this nature, as opposed to the gift Yaakov had sent to his brother Esau on a previous occasion.

מזמרת הארץ, of the produce which this land is especially famous for;

מנחה wahrscheinlich eine solche Gabe, die נחה, die jemanden den Weg zu einem andern bahnen soll. Sollte die Wurzel מנה, verwandt mit מנה, sein, so wäre es eine Gabe ganz anderer Art, die nämlich den Nutzen des Empfängers beabsichtigt, während -vielmehr ein Geschenk im Interesse des Gebers bedeutet. — Mit ungemeiner Fein מנהה heit hebt Jakob wiederholt das מעט hervor. Bei einem so großen Herrn wäre es eine Beleidigung, viel zu schenken, es soll ja nur Ausdruck einer Huldigung sein.

בטנים PISTACHIO-NUTS — I do not know what these are. but in the definitions given in the Dictionary of R. Machir I have read that they are Pistachios; I think that they are peaches.

הורידוהו לאיש מנחה, before you will actually meet him face to face again. This will enable you to judge if he receives your gift with goodwill. If he does, you will have reason to be confident that he will receive you also with goodwill. This thought has also been expressed in Judges 13,23 when the wife of Manoach, in trying to calm her husband’s fears, said to him: “if G’d had wanted to kill us He would not have accepted our burnt-offering and our gift-offering first.” After this conversation,

מעט צרי ומעט דבש, both of these products were known as exports from the land of Canaan. as is spelled out specifically in Ezekiel 27,17 יהודה וארץ ישראל המה רוכליך בחטי מנית ופגג ודבש ושמן וצרי, Yehudah and the Land of Israel, they were your peddlers. With wheat from Minis, balsam oil, honey, oil and balm, etc.” צרי is known as “balsam” nowadays.

נכאת, according to Bereshit Rabbah 91,11 this is wax. In the same paragraph there דבש is understood as “hard as stone.” Rabbi Saadyah Gaon explains the word צרי, as Triaki, and נכאת as some kind of cabbage (cauliflower), and לוט as lotononis, something better known today as armon, chestnut.

בטנים, which are known in Arabic as piniulash. Apparently this nut was known in Spain as tzenuvar.

ושקדים, almonds, something familiar to all of us. In Bereshit Rabbah 91,11 both the words בטנים and שקדים are understood as referring to an ointment based on the oil of these nuts. [why would Yaakov send something as common as peanuts and almonds? Ed.]

וכסף משנה AND DOUBLE MONEY — twice as much as at first.

וכסף משנה, to use for purchases.

וכסף משנה, and a second amount of money. The word משנה occurs in the same sense as here in Jeremiah 17,18 ומשנה שברון, “and shatter them with double destruction.” The vowel segol instead of tzeyreh in שני, indicates that the word is not in a construct mode.

Twice as much as the first time. I.e., it does not mean a second sum of money, besides what was returned, [and equal to it. For if so, it should first say, “The money that was returned,”] and then say, “Double the money.”

משנה, entweder: noch einmal Geld, d. i. das Wiedermitgebrachte und euer Geld zum Einkauf, oder: außer dem wieder zurückzugebenden, doppelt so viel zum Einkauf als das erste Mal; versehet euch mit doppelt so viel Geld als ihr brauchet. שנה: wiederholen. צנה ,סנה ,זנה bedeuten alle ein Anderssein, aber ein Anderssein des Gegensatzes. שנה aber nur ein individuelles Anderssein, d. h. eine Wiederholung desselben Begriffes, dieselbe Erscheinung in einer anderen Individualität wiederholt. So spricht schon das Wort שנה, mit welchem die Weisen ihre Gesetzeslehren bezeichneten, aus, dass sie nur tradierten, d. h. wiederholten, was sie selbst lernend gehört und empfangen, daher auch שמעתתא, das Gehörte, im Gegensatz zu אגדתא, dem Selbstproduzierten. Es kommt jedoch שנה auch als das Anderssein des Gegensatzes: sich verändern, vor. — משגה: Irrtum aus zu großer Intensität des Geistes, im Gegensatz zu שגגה, dem Irrtum aus Nachläsigkeit (siehe Kapitel 8, 1). Es kann ein Versehen aus zu großem Geschäftsdrange sein. Der Empfänger hat geglaubt, es in die Kasse zu tun, und hat es wieder in den Sack gelegt. Aus dieser zu großen Geschäftigkeit kann aber auch das Umgekehrte entstehen, dass empfangene Zahlung irrtümlich abgeleugnet wird. Sehet euch deshalb mit doppeltem Gelde zum Einkauf vor.

קחו בידכם TAKE IN YOUR HAND to buy food: perhaps the market-price has risen (Genesis Rabbah 91:11).

אולי משגה הוא, perhaps the money had been placed in one of the fodder bags to help the official identify to whom the bag belonged, and when he filled it with grain he had forgotten to remove the cash.

אולי משגה הוא, perhaps one of the people selling the grain and filling the sacks of the buyers had mistakenly and temporarily put a bag of coins in the bag of the brothers forgetting about it and had not retrieved it. At the time when they counted the money to tally it with the quantity of grain sold, it had already been mixed up in the grain and there was no knowing where it had disappeared to. When you now bring it back, you will establish your reputation as being trustworthy by doing this.

אולי משגה הוא PERADVENTURE IT WAS AN OVERSIGHT — perhaps the man in charge of the house forgot it inadvertently).

וקומו שובו אל האיש, you will have to face the man on the strength of the gift which has preceded you. The matter is as stated in Proverbs 17,8 אבן חן השחד בעיני בעליו אל כל אשר יפנה ישכיל, “a bribe seems like charm to its owner. Wherever he turns he seems to prosper

ואל שדי AND GOD ALMIGHTY — Now you lack nothing except prayer, and therefore I pray for you (Genesis Rabbah 91:11).

THAT HE MAY SEND AWAY YOUR OTHER BROTHER, AND BENJAMIN. In line with the literal interpretation of Scripture, it would seem that Simeon was not a favorite of his father because of the Shechem affair.¹⁷⁷Above, 34:25-30. This was why he did not say, “My son Simeon, and Benjamin,” as he would not mention him by name, and as he left him in Egypt for a long time. Indeed, had there been food in his house, he would not yet have sent Benjamin, and he would have left him [Simeon] in Egypt.
Now Rashi wrote, “The other one: the spirit of prophecy was enkindled within Jacob so as to include Joseph.” In Bereshith Rabbah¹⁷⁸92:3. they also said: “That he may send away your brother: this refers to Joseph. The other one: this refers to Simeon.” This is correct, for at the moment of prayer, Jacob directed his heart to pray in a general manner for the other one [Joseph] also, for perhaps he is still alive.
There in Bereshith Rabbah,¹⁷⁸92:3. the Rabbis expounded on the verse in yet another way, saying, “Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi interpreted the verse as alluding to the exiles: And G-d Almighty give you compassion before the man — this is a reference to the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is said, The Eternal is a man of war,¹⁷⁹Exodus 15:3. and it is written, And He gave them compassion before their captors.¹⁸⁰Psalms 106:46. That he may send away your brother — this alludes to the Ten Tribes exiled by the Assyrians.¹⁸¹II Kings 17:6. The other one, and Benjamin — this refers to the exile of Judah and Benjamin. And as for me, bereaved by the First Destruction [brought about by the Babylonians], I am bereaved by the Second Destruction [caused by the Romans], but no more will I be bereaved.”¹⁸²Following the redemption from the Roman exile, there will no longer be a destruction. See Ramban’s work, Sefer Hage’ulah (Book of Redemption) in my Kitvei Haramban, Vol. I, where he expounds this theme at great length. This is the language of the Rabbis, may their memory be blessed.
The intent of this text is to suggest that Jacob’s going down to Egypt alludes to our present exile at the hand of Edom, as I will explain,¹⁸³See the beginning of Seder Vayechi. and the prophet [Jacob] saw this matter at its very inception, and so he prayed about it in a general way, which was applicable to the moment as well as to the future.¹⁸⁴See Ramban above, 12:6. This verse, according to their interpretation, contains a great mystic thought. Jacob was saying: “And G-d Almighty, by the Divine attribute of justice, give you the compassion that is before Him,” meaning that “He should direct you upward from the Divine attribute of justice to that of compassion.” The student versed in the mystic teachings of the Torah will understand.

כאשר שכולתי שכלתי, an expression parallel to Esther’s saying when she risked her life appearing uninvited before the king, saying: כאשר אבדתי אבדתי, “if I have forfeited my life, so be it.” (Esther 4,16)

ושלח, he will release Shimon to you from his imprisonment.

ושלח לכם את אחיכם אחר, “so that he will release your other brother to you.” According to Bereshit Rabbah, 82 the word אחיכם in our verse refers to Joseph, whereas the word אחר refers to Shimon, seeing that while praying, Yaakov had avoided concentrating on a specific one of the brothers, thus leaving open the possibility that Joseph might still be alive. Nachmanides, approaching the verse by concentrating on the plain text, פשט, writes that the words are all meant to apply to Shimon. The reason that Yaakov did not refer to him by name was that he was out of favour on account of his having initiated the killing of the male population of the city of Shechem and the plundering of it. It seems clear that if Shimon’s family had not needed bread desperately, Yaakov would not have allowed Binyamin to travel to Egypt and he would have made no attempt to obtain his release at this time. Bereshit Rabbah 82 also sees allusions to the eventual exile in this verse, and when Yaakov speaks about the “G’d Shaddai invoking the attribute of mercy when the brothers would face the האיש,” this is a veiled reference to the Almighty. After all, one of the attributes of G’d is that He is איש מלחמה, “a Man of war.” The words ושלח לכם את אחיכם would refer to the return from exile of the lost Ten Tribes, whereas the words אחר ואת בנימיןrefer to the tribes of Binyamin and Yehudah. The words ואני כאשר שכולתי שכלתיrefer to the destruction of the first and the second Temple, respectively. The thrust of the whole episode, according to the Midrash, is that what is being narrated here is a preview of the Jewish historical experience in years to come, i.e. מעשה אבות סימן לבנים, the experiences of our forefathers, the patriarchs and their families, foreshadow the course of Jewish history, and their exile, especially by the descendants of the Edomites.

ושלח לכם את אחיכם אחר ואת בנימין, “and so that he may release to you your other brother as well as Binyamin.” The reason that Yaakov did not mention Shimon by name may have been that he was out of favour with his father ever since the killing of the males in Shechem. Otherwise he would have said “so that he will release your brother Shimon.”
Bereshit Rabbah 92,3 understands the word אחיכם, “your brother” as a reference to Joseph, whereas the word אחר, is understood as a reference to Shimon. When Yaakov offered the prayer he also had in mind Joseph in case the latter was still alive.

Now you are lacking nothing except prayer... I.e., Yaakov said to them: If on his own he grows angry and harasses you, it is a natural occurrence. Appease him with these fruits which are the best of the land. And if this does not appease him, it is surely caused by Hashem. Then, prayer alone is lacking — and “I, hereby, pray for you...” (Maharshal)

לפני האיש. Gehet nur hin, im Vertrauen auf den Allgenügenden, allem, und auch meinen Leiden zur rechten Zeit das Ziel setzenden Gott; in dem Momente der Gefahr, in dem Augenblicke, wo ihr euch לפני האיש befinden werdet, wird Gott euch Erbarmen zuwenden. — רחמים bezeichnet jene Zuneigung Gottes zu seinen Geschöpfen die die allgemeinste und unverlierbarste ist, und die ebenso den Grundzug im Verhältnisse der Geschöpfe zu einander bilden soll. Es ist die Verwandtenliebe, die Liebe des Vaters zum Kinde, die Liebe der Kinder zu einander um des gemeinsamen רהם willen, aus dem sie stammen. Man ist geneigt, רחמים mit dem populären רחמנות zu verwechseln und Mitleid darunter zu verstehen. Und doch ist Mitleid noch tief unter dem, was das wahre רחמים bedeutet. Was ist seltener, was adelt den Menschen mehr, Mitleid, oder Mitfreude? Sehr wenige Menschen gibt es, die nicht mit den Schmerzen des andern Mitleid empfinden. Allein bei weitem nicht alle, die heute einen Armen bemitteiden, werden sich in gleichem Maße mit ihm freuen, wenn er über Nacht das große Los gewinnt und morgen in einer Karosse mit den Seinen an ihnen vorüberfährt. רחמים, das Gefühl, das wir ererbt haben sollen, bedeutet mehr als Mitleid. Es stammt von רֶחֶם, mit welchem die tiefste, aufopferungsreichste Energie eines Wesens für die Entstehung eines anderen Wesens, die Hingebung alles Blutes und aller Kraft, um ein anderes Wesen entstehen und sich vollenden zu sehen, bezeichnet wird; 1־ֶnֶö ist der Herd der tiefsten Hingebung. Und auch nachher, wenn das Wesen da ist, entstammt dem רחם nicht bloß Mitleid mit dem Weinenden, sondern noch innigere Mitfreude mit dem Lächelnden. Ein Lächeln des Kindes auf dem Schoße entschädigt für jahrelangen Kummer und schlaflose Nächte. Von diesem רחם ist רחמים gebildet und leidet somit nicht nur mit dem andern, sondern ruht nicht, bis es ihn glücklich sieht. — ואני und ich — ich will mich inzwischen auch darauf vorbereiten, dass, wenn ich mit eurem Fortgange meiner Kinder beraubt sein sollte, ich auch darauf im vorhinein gefasst bin.

ואל שדי יתן לכם רחמים לפני האיש, “and may G–d Almighty give you mercy before the man what prompted Yaakov to single out the attribute of G–d known as shadday when blessing his sons before they commenced this journey? It teaches you that Yaakov had already endured many trials in his life. These had commenced already when he was still in his mother’s womb and Esau fought with him to become the firstborn. (Compare Genesis 25,22, when his mother was distraught and asked G–d what was going on inside her womb.) The sages concluded that the two as yet unborn children had already struggled for possession of two worlds. Esau tried to kill Yaakov already as soon as he was born as is evident from Amos 1,11, על רדפו בחרב אחיו, “when he pursued his brother with the sword (simile for trying to kill him). He had to flee to Lavan to save his life, and had endured many problems while with his “uncle” for 20 years. As soon as he left there Lavan pursued him. He lists them during the encounter with Lavan. (Genesis 31,40) Esau then came towards him in order to attack him, As a result he lost a great deal of the wealth he had acquired by buying him off with a gift. Next his best loved wife died on the way and he could not even bury her in the ancestral gravesite. Next his daughter Dinah was raped, and then his beloved son Joseph was lost. When he felt that finally he could settle down to a normal life in one place, (Genesis 37,1) the problems with Joseph began. During the brothers’ first trip to Egypt Shimon, his second oldest son was incarcerated and he now had to Shimon being incarcerated and his sons forced him to allow Binyamin to travel to Egypt in order to secure the release of Shimon. He could have said, as did Job in Job 3,26: “I had no repose, no quiet no rest; trouble came.” (Based on Tanchuma on our portion, section 10.) In light of all this, Yaakov now called on that attribute of G–d to signal that he felt he had undergone sufficient tribulations, i.e. די, to warrant a favourite response to his blessing/prayer.

אל שדי God שֶׁ-דַּי who gives plenteous mercy and in whose hand is sufficient power to give — may He give you mercy. This is the real meaning of the words. A Midrashic explanation is: He who said to the Universe, “Enough!”, may He say “Enough!” to my troubles. I have had no rest since my youth — trouble through Laban, trouble through Esau, the trouble of Rachel, the trouble of Dinah, the trouble of Joseph, the trouble of Simeon, the trouble of Benjamin (Genesis Rabbah 92:1).

AND AS FOR ME, AS I AM BEREAVED, I AM BEREAVED. “And as for me, until you return I shall be bereaved because of doubt. As I am bereaved of Joseph and Simeon, I am bereaved of Benjamin.” These are the words of Rashi.
The correct interpretation is that Jacob is saying that “you can no longer add to my bereavement as I am already bereaved.” He thus consoled himself about everything that came upon him by his great suffering for Joseph. In a similar sense is the verse, And as I perish, I perish,¹⁸⁵Esther 4:16. meaning “I have already perished,¹⁸⁶By being separated from my people. (Abraham ibn Ezra, ibid). and if the king will slay me he will not add to my destruction.”

כאשר שכלתי שכלתי, seeing the subject matter is being repeated, Yaakov changed the wording he used, something that is standard procedure in Scriptures, as we pointed out previously. (21,1) The first word shakolti is from a passive mode, whereas the second word shakalti is an active mode. What he meant was: “what can I do if some mishap will befall one of you, just as I have already had to endure the bereavement of Joseph having been lost. I may have to make peace with the idea of losing anyone of you due to whatever mishap will befall him. [The first word refers to the past, when it had never occurred to Yaakov that something might happen to Joseph; hence it is described as something in which Yaakov views himself as having been totally passive. If something were to happen now, he could not view himself as a totally passive bystander, seeing he had agonised about the very fact that it might happen. Therefore, according to the author, the active mode is justified here. Ed.]

אני כאשר שכולתי שכלתי, “and as for me, as I have been bereaved, I shall be bereaved.” Rashi comments that what Yaakov meant was that he would feel conditionally bereaved of Binyamin until the brothers’ safe return from Egypt just as he was feeling bereaved concerning Joseph and Shimon. Nachmanides writes that Yaakov, resignedly, said that the brothers could not make him feel any more bereaved than the feelings of bereavement he had already experienced and suffered. If fate were to cause him further bereavement, he would not have to come to terms with it as a novel experience.

Until your return, I will possibly be bereft of children. [This is how Rashi knew that] it does not mean, “Now I am bereft of children”: because if so, why did he say, “May the Almighty, Shaddai, grant you compassion...”?

ושלח לכם means AND MAY HE RELEASE UNTO YOU, as the Targum renders it — may He release him from his bonds. It has the same meaning as (Exodus 21:26) “He shall let him go, יְשַׁלְּחֶנוּ (Piel) free”. It would not have been correct to translate it in the Targum by “and may he send to you your other brother”, because, as a matter of fact, they were going there where he was.

את אחיכם YOUR BROTHER — This refers to Simeon.

אחר THE OTHER ONE — The spirit of prophecy was diffused upon him so that he included Joseph also (Genesis Rabbah 92:3).

ואני AND AS FOR ME — until you return I shall feel myself bereaved of my children being in constant suspense.

כאשר שכלתי means EVEN AS I AM BEREAVED of Joseph and of Simeon

שכלתי I SHALL BE BEREAVED of Benjamin.

ואת בנימין [AND THEY TOOK DOUBLE MONEY] AND BENJAMIN — We render this in the Targum by ודברו ית בנימן “and they led Benjamin away”, because the same expression cannot be used in Aramaic for taking money and for taking a person. In the case of a thing that can be taken in the hand the Targum uses ונסיב “and he carried” for the Hebrew verb לקח, whilst in the case of a person who is taken by persuasion (literally, by leading him with words) the Targum uses ודבר and he led away.

ויעמדו לפני יוסף. This was before the gift had been presented to Joseph. Therefore they were afraid when they were being brought into his palace.

ויעמדו לפני יוסף, they encountered Joseph in the public square while on their way to the hotel. When Joseph saw them he did not offer any kind of greeting in public until they would be in his house. However, as soon as he saw them he instructed his servant, the one in charge of his household, to bring them to his private residence.

ויעמדו לפני יוסף, “they stood facing Joseph.” They did not speak to him at all at that time, but they saw him from a distance. Joseph did not speak to them as he was emotionally overcome with compassion when seeing Binyamin. The brothers mistakenly interpreted Joseph’s silence as anger over the money which had been found in their bags (and which would have been interpreted as having been stolen from him or his servants.) This is why they were frightened and interpreted Joseph’s behaviour as a prelude to new accusations and worse, as spelled out with the words: להתגולל עלינו ולהתנפל עלינו, “to turn it against us and to attack us.”

וטבח טבח והכן AND SLAUGHTER THE BEASTS AND MAKE READY — The Hebrew is the same as ולטבח טבח ולהכין (infinitives) “and to slaughter… and to prepare”. The word וּטְבֹחַ is not an imperative, for this should be וּטְבַח (as from שָׁלַח the imperative is שְׁלַח).

ויאמר לאשר על ביתו, he himself did not want to speak to his brothers until all the other people present had left the room, in order for him to have more time to speak to them.

בצהרים. At midday, the hour of day at which princes, judges, the nobility, all people who look after public affairs consume their main meal, as we know from Kohelet 10,17 ושריך בעת יאכלו, “and your ministers eat at a proper time.” Joseph belonged to this category of people, seeing that all public affairs were under his control.

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.

טבוח is not an imperative for then it should have said וטבח. And then it would be like (Shemos 4:4): שלח ידך (Stretch out your hand), and (Shemos 9:19): שלח העז (Now send word and gather), which are imperatives.

Dass Josef sich nicht sogleich zu erkennen gab, war um so motivierter, als er Benjamin sah und nicht wissen konnte, ob er dem Vater nicht vielleicht geraubt worden. Er musste sie vielmehr erst durch Benjamins Zurückhaltung auf die Probe stellen.

בצהרים AT NOON — This word is rendered in the Targum by בשירותא which in Aramaic denotes the first meal during the day ; in old French disner. It occurs frequently in the Talmud: (Taanit 11a, lib) “He threw the dog שירותיה his meal; (Berakhot 39b) “he cut bread for the whole of שירותא his meal.” But wherever צהרים means noon it is translated in the Targum by טיהרא.

הבא את האנשים הביתה, into the living quarters as opposed to the offices reserved for official functions. Up until now Joseph had been in a location where he conducted state business.

Which, in Aramaic, means the first meal... I.e., in the morning. Onkelos does not explain צהרים here as he does elsewhere because people usually eat at the fourth hour, [the middle of the morning]. Even Torah scholars, [who wait the longest,] usually eat at the beginning of the sixth hour, [an hour before noon] — as it says in Shabbos 10a.

צהר .צהרים eigentümlich verwandt mit צער, gering, beschränkt sein. Daher viel ,- leicht צהר nicht Glanz, Schein, Strahl, sondern vielleicht jene Helle, in welcher jedes Wesen in den schärfsten Umrissen, somit in den beschränktesten, engsten Grenzen seiner Gestalt dasteht, wo auch das Kleinste in seiner Geschiedenheit sichtbar ist. Nach der Verschiedenheit dieser Erkennbarkeit der Gegenstände werden ja die verschiedenen Tageszeiten ערב ,בקר ,ליל genannt. Daher denn auch הנהר, sich klar der Grenzen seiner Befugnisse bewusst halten, sich in schärfstem Lichte sehen; sich warnen lassen, sich in acht nehmen. צהרים eine verständigere Bezeichnung als Mittag; Mittag ist nur ein Punkt. Kein Mensch speist zu Mittag. Allein bis zum Mittag überwindet das Licht immer mehr die Nacht, von da immer mehr die Nacht das Licht. צהרים ist die Stunde, die zur Hälfte von dem aufsteigenden, zur anderen Hälfte von dem absteigenden Lichte ausgefüllt wird.

כי אתי יאכלו, he invited them to a meal in order to observe how they related to Binyamin, and to test them how they would react when he would shower gifts of so much greater value on Binyamin

ויעש האיש כאשר אמר יוסף, “the man did as Joseph had said. According to our sages, the “man” was his older son Menashe, [who could not have been more than nine years old at the time. Ed.] This is difficult in light of Rashi’s commentary in the Talmud Avot chapter 5, that the rule that men have to observe the Torah’s commandments from the age of 13, is derived from Shimon and Levi, Joseph’s brothers when we calculate their ages at the time when they took their swords and killed the male population of the town of Sh’chem. (Genesis 34,25) If they were 13 at the time, it is clear that Menashe at this time could not have been older than nine years old. The Torah had spelled out that Joseph’s sons had been born before the onset of the famine. Seven years had elapsed since Joseph had married, seven good years and 2 years of famine. How could the Torah refer to Menashe as a “man” then? (Attributed to Rav Chayim who quoted Rabbi Eliezer avi ha-ezri.) The problem deserves further study.

וייראו האנשים AND THE MEN WERE AFRAID — The word ויראו is written with two yods and its translation in the Targum is ודחילו and they were afraid.

THAT HE MAY DEVISE SOME PRETEXT (‘L’HITHGOLEIL’) AGAINST US. The word l’hithgoleil is of the same root as: And Amasa lay wallowing (‘mithgoleil’) in blood?¹⁸⁷II Samuel 20:12. And every cloak rolled (‘m’golalah’) in blood.¹⁸⁸Isaiah 9:4. [Its meaning is] as a man who turns from side to side upon his fellow.

להתגולל עלינו, the reason he brought us to his private palace was in order to subject us to accusations concerning the money we were supposed to have stolen, something which he will use as a pretext להתנפל עלנו, to attack us seeing that he had been ill disposed against us from the beginning, when he had treated us as suspected spies. Now he will use the trumped up charges in order to keep us as slaves, a traditional punishment for thieves. He probably also wants to confiscate our donkeys What other reason could possibly account for his taking us to his private residence!

ולקחת אותנו לעבדים ואת חמורינו, “and you may take us and our donkeys as servants.” They were worried- apparently disproportionately so, about their donkeys, as without their donkeys they had no means of transporting the grain they had bought to the land of Canaan.

על דבר הכסף השב באמתחותינו, “on account of the money he had put back into our feeding bags.” They reasoned that it certainly was not the norm that the people who came to Egypt to buy grain would all be entertained overnight at the palace of the ruler. They would find their lodgings in different parts of the city, at various inns, etc. They assumed therefore that Joseph’s gesture in inviting them served only as an excuse to attack them. They were afraid of a trumped up charge, and this is also the way Onkelos translates the words ולהתנפל עלינו not as a physical assault but as עלילת דברים, “false accusations.”

According to Onkelos who translates as ולאסתקפא עלנא... I.e., this translation is for ולהתנפל.

— sich auf uns wälzen, d. h. uns wiederholt zu drücken, zu miß handeln; "über uns herzufallen" d. i. uns als Leibeigene zu nehmen und unsere Tiere zu konfiszieren.

.להתגולל, an expression similar to: בגלל, i.e. “to turn around” the fact that our money had been found in our bags as a pretext to attack us.

כי הובאו בית יוסף BECAUSE THEY WERE BROUGHT INTO JOSEPH S HOUSE, and it was not usual for other people who came to buy corn to stay overnight in Joseph’s house but in the inns of the city. וייראו AND THEY WERE AFRAID, because this could be only for the purpose of putting them in prison.

AND TO FALL UPON US. I.e., as a man who intentionally throws his full stature upon his fellow.
Now Onkelos translated l’hithgoleil as meaning “to play the lord over us,” meaning that he will elevate himself above us, as the sea raises its waves.¹⁸⁹See Ezekiel 26:3. Onkelos rendered the expression, and to fall upon us, as le’istakapha, meaning “to accuse us of things which did not occur,” since things which did not occur are expressed by the Hebrew word nopheil (falling), just as it says, Not one thing failed (‘naphal’).¹⁹⁰Joshua 23:14. Similarly did Onkelos translate Wanton charges (‘aliloth d’varim’)¹⁹¹Deuteronomy 22:14. as taskophei milin (intrigues). Jonathan too translated to’einah¹⁹²Judges 14:4. (pretext) as thuskapha.

ולקחת אותנו לעבדים ואת חמורינו, “and to keep us as slaves as well as our donkeys.” At first glance the brothers’ concern about their donkeys appears disproportionate to their fear of becoming slaves. In this instance, not only did they worry about being deprived of their donkeys, animals which represented a lifeline, but they were even more concerned about these animals not carrying grain back to their families in Canaan. Their concern over their donkeys then was only a veiled form of their real worry about their families starving to death if they did not return. We find something similar in Exodus 17,3 when the Jewish people accused Moses of having taken them into the desert להמית אותי ואת בני ואת מקני בצמא, ”to kill me, my children and my cattle by thirst.” Normal people would not worry about their cattle in such a context seeing their own and their children’s lives were in jeopardy. But the Israelites mentioned the cattle (beasts of burden) as in their trek through the desert these animals were a lifeline for them.

ולהתגולל, which he translates as לאתרברבא... The word לאתרברבא denotes “lordship.” You might ask: Is this translation not contrary to the [simple] meaning of להתגולל? And why does he translate [להתנפל] as “to libel,” which is not in accordance with the plain meaning of the verse? The answer is: Onkelos started by explaining להתגולל as “lordship,” based on the verse גלת הזהב. As a result, להתנפל is understandable only if we explain it as “to libel.” Had להתגולל meant “to turn things against,” following its plain meaning, then להתנפל could mean “to come down upon.” But since להתגולל means “lordship,” להתנפל must mean “libel.” (Maharshal)

ואת חמורינו, “together with our donkeys.” They reasoned that if only we had been brought to Joseph’s private residence we would not be so worried; but the fact that we were brought here together with our donkeys, is proof that something else is afoot, i.e. an accusation.

אנחנו מובאים WE HAVE BEEN BROUGHT inside this house.

AND TO TAKE US FOR SERVANTS, AND OUR ASSES. The reason why they mention their asses in the verse is that they would feel apprehensive about them, saying, “Now they will also take our asses with their sacks, and we will not be able to send grain to our families, and thus they will all perish of famine.”

להתגלל means THAT THERE MAY BE ROLLED UPON US an accusation regarding the money AND THAT THIS MAY FALL UPON US. And according to Onkelos who rendered ולהתנפל עלינו by ולאסתקפא עלנא, it signifies seeking an occasion — just as we render in the Targum the words (Deuteronomy 12:17) עלילת דברים, which mean a pretext, by תסקופי מלין “intrigues” — but he did not translate it literally. The word ולהתגלל which he translated by לאתרברבא “to play the lord over us” he takes as connected in meaning with (Ecclesiastes 12:6) “the bowl of (גלת) gold”, and (Nahum 2:8) “And Huzzab the queen (גלתה) is carried away”, where these words from the root גלל denote symbolically royal rank.

וידברו אליו פתח הבית, before they entered the palace.

פתח הבית, in order that the people of Joseph’s household should not overhear them.

Am Eingang des Hauses... Sie fürchteten sich, hineinzufolgen.

בי אדני O, MY LORD — The word בי is an expression of entreaty (בעיא) and supplication. In Aramaic we have בייא בייא “woe, woe!” (Yoma 69b).

‘BI ADONI’ (O, MY LORD). The word bi is an expression of entreaty and supplication. In Aramaic, we have bai bai. Thus the language of Rashi.
Now it is a very strange thing to associate the Hebrew word bi with a word from the Tarsian¹⁹³A dialect of Aramaic. Ramban probably uses the word Tarsi here in a derogatory sense to emphasize the difficulty of associating a word of the sacred Hebrew language with a “Tarsian” root. language, which is unlike it, for the word bai is all one root; it cannot be changed, nor can you obtain the form of the word bi from this Aramaic root.
Moreover, this word bai does not connote entreaty and supplication, as the Rabbi [Rashi] states. Rather it is an expression of distress and affliction over a tragedy and mishap, similar to the word avoi in the Sacred Language. This is well known in the Arabic language, where the poets customarily use it in their elegies, always with a patach under the beth: bai. In the Greek language the word is bia — the beth having a shva — and is used to express distress and grief. Thus you find in Bereshith Rabbah, Seder Bereshith,¹⁹⁴12:10. that the Sages say: “What is the meaning of the verse, Extol Him that rideth upon the skies, the Eternal (‘bayah’) is His Name?¹⁹⁵Psalms 68:5. There is no place whatever that does not have an officer in charge of its grievances. Agricus¹⁹⁶A type of public official. is in charge of grievances in his state; Agratus¹⁹⁶A type of public official. is in charge of grievances in his state. In the same way, who is in charge of the grievances (baya) in His world? [It is] the Holy One, blessed be He.” That is to say, every place has someone in charge of hearing complaints of distress and injustice, and the Holy One, blessed be He, is in charge of the cries of the oppressed, who cry, baya.
Again, before us in the Midrash Bereshith Rabbah of the Parshath (section of) Vayigash Eilav:¹⁹⁷Further, 44:18. Bereshith Rabbah 93:5. “Judah said to Joseph, ‘You do baya (violence)¹⁹⁸You are treating us unjustly. against us. You had said to us thus: That I May set mine eyes upon him.¹⁹⁹Further 44:21. Is this “casting an eye” upon him?’”
And in the Parshath Vay’hi B’shalach,²⁰⁰Exodus 13:17. you find in Shmoth Rabbah:²⁰¹2:8. “Do I ever baya (wrong) any creature?” And in the Parshath Vayishma Yithro,²⁰²Exodus 18:1. we find in Shmoth Rabbah:²⁰³27:8. “Once a man has been appointed and he has put on the mantle of leadership, all communal burdens are upon him. If he sees a man doing baya against his fellow, or committing some transgression, and he fails to protest it, he is punished on account thereof.” And in the Parshath Isha Ki Thazria²⁰⁴Leviticus 12:2. we find:²⁰⁵This Midrash is quoted in Aruch Hashalem, under the root baya. “I raise a cry of violence (baya) against you.” And so also in many places.
Now Onkelos, who translated Bi Adoni here as b’va’u riboni (O please, my lord), did not intend to suggest that the Hebrew word bi is a derivative of the Aramaic ba’u, but he merely translated it in accordance with its context, for the word bi is always found as an expression of supplication.
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra says that bi adoni is a shortened form in the Sacred Language, and its meaning is as in the verse, Upon me, my lord, upon me be the iniquity,²⁰⁶I Samuel 25:24. thus meaning, “do to me whatever you wish, but listen to me.” But if this interpretation of Ibn Ezra is correct, it should follow that a person should also be able to say in Hebrew, “‘bi’ my brother,” or “‘bi,’ listen to me.” And yet nowhere do we find the word bi except in conjunction with the word adoni (my lord), or with the Honored Name of G-d when it is written with the letters aleph, daleth,²⁰⁷Such as in Exodus 4:10. which is also an expression of lordship. It is for this reason that I say that the meaning of the word bi is “by myself”: “By my life! you are lord and ruler.” The two pronouns²⁰⁸Bi (by my self) and adoni (my lord). The use of the double first person pronoun when one would be sufficient is for the purpose of emphasis, and it is found in many places in Scripture, as Ramban proceeds to demonstrate. serve for the purpose of emphasis, just as: But me, even me thy servant;²⁰⁹I Kings 1:26. Upon me, my lord, upon me.²¹⁰I Samuel 25:24. Similar to this is the verse, That thou art against Me, against thy help,²¹¹Hosea 13:9. Here the letter beth appears twice: bi be’ezracha, when one would be sufficient: bi ezracha (in Me is thy help). The double beth is for emphasis. meaning “I serve as your help.”

ויאמרו בי אדוני, we have a request; they then proceeded to explain to him what they had experienced with the money, and why they had brought this extra amount with them now.

בי אדוני, “please Sir;” Rashi understands the word בי as introducing a plea, an entreaty. Nachmanides disagrees, and considers the word as an outcry at being dealt with unjustly. He therefore understands the words as repeating the brother’s viewing the man in charge of Joseph’s residence as his master both in his personal estimation as well as in the estimation of that official himself vis-à-vis others. He describes his own station as well as that of the official; just as the official’s status is after all the king’s servant, so are they.. Ibn Ezra claims that the Torah chose to record an abbreviated version of the conversation, similar to Samuel ! 25,24 בי אני אדוני העון ותדבר נא, “let the blame be mine, my lord, but let me speak, etc.” Here too, the brothers said: ‘you may do with what you like, etc., but please hear us out.”

A “come down” for us... Rashi deduces this from the repetitious ירד ירדנו and not because it is written “coming down” instead of “going,” as he explained on רדו שמה (42:2), see there. Although [the repetition could be explained simply because] the Torah speaks as people do, however we expound the verse when we have the opportunity to do so. (Re’m)

בי ist zweifelhafter Abstammung. Es ist in der Regel Ausdruck einer Bitte in schmerzlichem, verlegenen Zustande, um Anhörung und Entschuldigung. Die Wurzel kann entweder בהה sein, analog wie von נהי ,נהה und ני, die Klage, und bezeichnete somit, der Bedeutung von בהה, der Wurzel von בהו, zufolge, eben einen unklaren, verlegenen Zustand eines hin- und hergeworfenen Gemütes. Oder es wäre die Wurzel ביה, die sich jedoch nur in den verwandten בקע ,בכה wiederfindet, und bezeichnet dann den Ausdruck eines schmerzlichen Gefühles.

לשבר אוכל, “to buy food;” the letter ב here is vocalised with the vowel chataf kametz, an abbreviated vowel kametz.

ירד ירדנו WE CAME INDEED DOWN — This is a “come down” (degradation) for us. We have been accustomed to give food to others and now we are dependent upon you (Genesis Rabbah 92:4).

כספנו במשקלו, not only the same amount of money, but the identical coins which we had brought here. This is why we did not think that there had been a mix up with other people’s money.

ונפתחה, wir öffneten ganz arglos, ohne etwas zu ahnen.

אלהיכם YOUR GOD — your God because of your own merits: and if your own merits do not suffice, then ואלהי אביכם THE GOD OF YOUR FATHER — because of your father’s merits HE HAS GIVEN YOU A TREASURE (Genesis Rabbah 92:4).

HE HATH GIVEN YOU A HIDDEN TREASURE (‘MATMON’) IN YOUR BAGS. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that Joseph told them that “it is possible that some one had a hidden treasure in his house which he forgot,²¹²It was inadvertently placed in the grain which was collected during the years of plenty, and it happened to be hidden in the grain purchased by Joseph’s brothers. and it fell to your lot for your money came to me.”
Now these are but words of consolation, for how did it happen that each one of the brothers received the precise amount of money²¹³Above, Verse 21. which he paid for the grain! Rather, the correct interpretation is that all matter which is hidden is called matmon in Hebrew: The lazy man hides (‘taman’) his hand in the dish;²¹⁴Proverbs 19:24. We have stores hidden (‘matmonim’) in the field.²¹⁵Jeremiah 41:8. Thus Joseph told them that it is customary for ass-drivers who buy grain that each one put his money in his sack, and the attendant in charge of the sales took the sacks from those who came and filled ten sacks with grain, and the money remained hidden under the grain. Then the attendant’s master came and commanded him to pour these ten bags into the vessels of Jacob’s sons as he wanted to send them away in a hurry or because he was not in charge of taking money.²¹⁶The officer who commanded the sacks to be transferred to the brothers’ vessels in order to load them on the asses was not in charge of taking money from the buyers. Neither did he know that the attendant who was supposed to have received the money had not received it. Thus the mistake occurred. Thus it happened that each one found his exact amount of money at the opening of the sack, as each one had brought the amount of money for a donkey’s load worth of bread. This constantly occurs in market-places and store-houses where sales take place in a great confusion of people.

ואלוקי אביכם, it was public knowledge that the brothers were well trained in miracles, matters metaphysical.

שלום לכם, אל תיראו, "all is well with you, do not fear." Joseph's adjutant volunteered this statement without having consulted with his master first. According to Midrash Tanchuma on this verse Joseph's adjutant was his son Menashe, and we have an example here of the power of the son exceeding that of his father. Menashe was certain that his father would concur with his remarks. The reason Menashe added: "do not fear" was because he could see fear expressed on the brothers' faces. The Torah confirms this (verse 18) when it wrote: וייראו האנשים, "The men were afraid."

מטמון, if you found this money in your sacks it was a gift from heaven, comparable to if a human being had given you a treasure. But as far as the money you owed for your purchases is concerned, כספכם בא אלי, “I did receive your money.”

נתן לכם מטמון, “has given you a treasure;” possibly someone had hidden a treasure in the cushion of his sack, and he kept this in the cellar of his house with other sacks. When he left the house he forgot it so that you have become the beneficiaries. Nachmanides writes that Joseph’s official’s words, were intended only to reconcile the brothers to the fact that they had found their original money. Nobody in his right mind could ascribe the fact that all ten brothers had found precisely the same amount of money in each of their sacks to fate. Clearly, someone had deliberately placed those sums of money there. The truth is that anything hidden, concealed, unaccounted for, is called מטמון, the root of the word deriving from טמן, hide, secrete. All the grain buyers kept their money at the bottom of their sacks, and when the seller filled the sacks with grain he would first empty these sacks of the money at the bottom. This was an everyday occurrence at all the markets. Since the grain was sold in units of so many bushels per sack, every sack contained an equal amount of money at the bottom. The seller did not pour the grain into the sacks in the presence of the purchaser, every transaction being based on mutual trust. The queues of purchasers were long, the confusion and pressure considerable, so that the fastest most efficient way had to be devised to serve as many customers per day as was possible. Keeping all this in mind, what the official said to the brothers did not sound quite so implausible. When there were so many people to whom this money could have belonged, and there were no identifying marks on the money, the rule was: “finders keepers.”

Um sie ganz zu beruhigen, damit sie in Gemütsruhe speisen möchten, gab er ihnen sofort Simeon heraus.

Immediately after saying this, ויוצא, he gave instructions to have Shimon brought out to join them. He did this so promptly in order to allay their fears and suspicions and to comfort them.

נתן לכם מטמון. "He has given you a treasure." He meant that some person has hidden his money in your sacks and G'd has given it to you seeing the original owners have given up hope of retrieving it, and Gentiles are not required to make public announcements when they find something valuable. He led Shimon out to them in order to lift their spirits by proving his positive attitude towards them.

ויבא האיש AND THE MAN BROUGHT [THE MEN] — There is here a mention of bringing in after bringing in has been mentioned in Genesis 43:17, because then they hustled him outside so that they spoke to him at the door of the house (cf. Genesis 43:18 and Genesis 43:19 where they said אנחנו מובאים “we are being brought”), but as soon as he said to them “Peace be with you” they followed and went after him, into the house (Genesis Rabbah 92:4).

ויבא האיש את האנשים ביתה יוסף. The man (adjutant) brought the men into Joseph's home. Why has the Torah repeated the fact that the brothers were brought to the home of Joseph? We have already been told about this in verse 18? Apparently they were interrupted before they entered Joseph's home when they stopped in front of the house. The reason was that the brothers first wanted to explain that they had found their money in their bags when they had arrived back in Canaan. They wanted to know why they were being brought to Joseph's home. They were not sure whether this bode them good or ill. After Shimon had been released they realised that they were to be made welcome. This is why the Torah had to repeat the fact that they were brought to Joseph's palace, i.e. as guests not as prisoners.

ויבא, he escorted them inside from the entrance where they had been having the conversation.

ויכינו means AND THEY MADE READY — they laid it out ornately in fine vessels.

ויכינו את המנחה, while the produce had been wrapped in the sacks on the way, it had suffered somewhat, and the brothers now tried to restore these items to the appearance of freshness.

ויכינו, they arranged the gifts they had brought in a manner that would look appropriately impressive by the time Joseph would come home.

ויכינו את המנחה, “they set about to arrange the gift in a presentable fashion.”

כי שמעו, from the official in charge of Joseph’s palace that they were preparing the meal.

לחם, a term which is inclusive, meaning the entire meal.

הביתה [THEY BROUGHT THE PRESENT] INTO THE HOUSE — from the outer hall into the reception hall.

ויביאו לו את המנחה, They brought him the gift, etc. They had prepared this gift in a room which was especially set aside for such gifts, whereas they themselves proceeded to a different room, a room exclusively Joseph's. The Torah tells us that the brothers had entered a room in which Joseph was present in order to present their gift.

ויבא...ויביאו, the letter א in the word ויביאו has a dagesh.

They brought (vayavi’u) the offering. Uncharacteristically, the alef of vayavi’u has an emphasizing dot in it, indicating that the brothers strove to find favor as they presented their offering, in fulfillment of the dream in which their sheaves bowed down to his.

הביתה, wahrscheinlich in das innerste Gemach, wo Josef sie erwartete.

הביתה, to the house where they were being dined, for although they were also in the same “house,” they were not in the same compound. In the house or palace of an important personage there are many smaller separate buildings. The brothers at this time had been in one of the outer buildings, whereas Joseph occupied the inner palace, so that the line “they brought the gift they carried with them to the inner palace to him,” is quite justified.

השלום? is he well (healthy) in body? Physical health consists of opposite forces in the body being in perfect balance with one another. [hence the word שלום, “being at peace, being in perfect harmony,” is an acceptable word for describing physical health. Ed.]

וישאל להם לשלום. He asked them how they were, etc. Joseph first enquired how the brothers were before he enquired after their father's wellbeing. One first greets the people present before enquiring after those who are not present.

השלום אביכם?, “is your father well?” Joseph referred to Yaakov.

השלום אביכם ist viel mehr als השלום לאביכם, welches nur die Frage nach dem harmonischen Zustimmen der äußeren Verhältnisse ausdrückt, wobei noch ein inneres Zerknicktsein möglich wäre. Die Frage העודנו חי nach der Frage nach seinem Wohlsein, verrät so ganz das ängstliche Sohnesherz. Indem er sich nach des Vaters Wohlsein erkundigt, überfällt ihn die Angst: Gott, wenn er inzwischen gestorben wäre! und rasch fügt er hinzu: er lebt doch noch?

?השלום אביכם הזקן אשר אצרתם, העודנו חי “is your aged father of whom you have spoken well, is he still alive?” From the order in which Joseph asked, it is clear that the “old father” whom he spoke of was a reference to his grandfather, to Yitzchok. The brothers, answering about their father being alive did not want to mention the negative event of their grandfather having died. We find something similar in the Talmud, tractate Pessachim, folio 4, where when Rav was asked if his father was still alive he responded by saying that his mother was alive. He avoided having to spell out that the person he had been asked about had actually died.

אביכם הזקן אשר אמרתם, I am asking, seeing that it is not frequent that aged people are in physically good health. Our sages already stated that “the lips of the aged have a tendency to become worn out and their ears to become hard of hearing.”

הזקן, “the old man?” This was a reference to Yitzchok [who had been alive when Joseph had been abducted. Ed.]

השלום אביכם הזקן, is your aged father well? How could Joseph enquire after the wellbeing of the brothers' father before he had even ascertained that Jacob was still alive as he did at the end of the verse? If the enquiry after their father's wellbeing meant if he was still alive , why did Joseph ask about this twice? The brothers' reply is difficult also. They too first answered that their father was well and then added that he was alive. What news did they add by confirming that their father was still alive?

Perhaps Joseph wanted to know if Jacob's wellbeing had been affected by his aging or whether he was as spry as ever. Perhaps this is why he added the word עודנו, i.e. is he as well as when you came here the last time? This is why Joseph was clever in asking first about their father's welfare before asking if he was still alive. The question then was not whether Jacob was actually alive, but whether he was as alive as the last time. An aging father could have been described as being well even if his mental and physical alertness had declined somewhat with age.

ויקדו וישתחו AND THEY BOWED THE HEAD AND PROSTRATED THEMSELVES — in recognition of his enquiry regarding their welfare. The root קדד denotes bowing the head: the verb שחה in the Hiphil denotes prostration upon the ground (Megillah 22b).

שלום לעבדך לאבינו עודנו חי, also your servant our father is well. He does not enjoy the serenity of the dead but he is still very much alive.

ויקדו וישתחוו, when they prostrated themselves this was with the intention of making an obeisance to their father after whom Joseph had inquired (although outwardly, this was not noticeable).

שלום לעבדך לאבינו, “your servant, our father, is well.” They spoke only about Yaakov seeing that “הזקן” Yitzchok had died during the many years Joseph had been away from home. One does not answer a question dealing with something distressing.

Prostration upon the ground. [Rashi knows this] because it is written in 42:6, “And they prostrated themselves (וישתחוו) to him with their faces to the ground.”

Sie konnten nur antworten שלום לאבינו, ihm war שלום, er war es nicht, ihm fehlte ja Josef und Simeon und Benjamin. — קדה ,ויקדו וישתחוו von קדר, der Wurzel von קדקוד, heißt: mit aufrechtstehendem Unterkörper den Scheitel bis zur Erde neigen, eine Verbeugung, die uns wohl kaum möglich ist. השתחויה aber heißt: sich ganz flach zu Boden werfen, und drückt somit völlige Untertänigkeit und Hingebung aus. Auch bittend wirft man sich also hin קידה ,הכל בזכות השתחויה steht aber stets beim Dank und dann folgt השתחויה. Die alte Welt war auch in solchen Kleinigkeiten gedankenvoll. Dadurch, dass der andere uns Wohlwollen erwiesen hat, fühlen wir uns aufgerichtet, er hat uns stehende Stellung gegönnt und bereitet, deshalb neigen wir uns stehend, erkennen unsere Stellung als seine Gewährung an und dann השתחויה: versprechen, mit gänzlicher Hingebung die Verpflichtung für den Dank zu lösen. Im Anfang, Raw Hirsch on Genesis 43: 26, heißt es nur וישתחוו; jetzt aber, wo er sie wohlwollend aufgenommen und sich teilnehmend nach ihrem Vater erkundigt hatte: ויקדו וישתחוו, und hier steht auch das חסר וישתחו! das Gefühl der קידה überwog bereits! (Siehe Sucka 53 a.)

וישתחו, “they prostrated themselves;” the word is written as if in the singular mode, with the last letter ו missing. (Actually it is missing in our editions of the Torah, but is meant to be read as if it were not missing.) [Compare comment by minchat shay according to whom it is spelled in the singular mode, but is to be read in the plural mode. Ed.]

ויקדו וישתחוו, in acknowledgement of the kind inquiry after their father’s well being.

אלהים יחנך בני GOD BE GRACIOUS UNTO THEE, MY SON — With regard of the other sons of Jacob we have heard the expression “grace” used — viz., (33:5) “[The children] whom God hath graciously given (חנן) to thy servant”. But Benjamin had not then been born and therefore was not included amongst the children of whom Jacob used this term; on this account Joseph used the term “grace” in blessing him (Genesis Rabbah 92:5).

Elokim be gracious. Since you are the only remaining son of your mother, as the brother’s had told him (see 44:20), may Hashem give you grace so that your brothers will feel affection towards you.

וישא עיניו, seeing that they all surrounded him without any specific order of seniority, Joseph looked up in order to recognise his brother Binyamin, [who had only been about 10 years old at the time he had last seen him. Ed.]

וירא את בנימין אחיו בן אמו, “when he saw Binyamin, brother by his mother, etc.” Binyamin’s features reminded him of the looks of his mother sufficiently to recognise him by the resemblance. [Binyamin had only been 6-7 years old when Joseph had been sold. Ed.].

אלו-הים יחנך בני, “may G’d be gracious to you my son.” The expression is similar to the one used by Yaakov when he referred to his children as the ones whom חנן אלו-הים “G’d was gracious enough to grant him.” (Genesis 33,5). Binyamin had not yet been born at the time so Joseph used the expression here to include him in that blessing.

חנן ,יחנך eine Fülle von Segnungen niederströmen lassen, verwandt mit ענן.

אלוהים יחנך בני, ”may G-d show you favour my son!” the letter י is vocalised with a kametz, and the letter ח with a sh’va.

יחנך בני; the word יחנך has the same meaning as if the Torah had written yechancha with a dagesh in the letter נ avoiding the doubling of the letter נ. The word has been written in the conjugation kal, something that occurs quite frequently when the root contains a dual consonant, i.e. חנן. We find exactly the same construction with our root in Isaiah 30,19 חנון יחנך.

כי נכמרו רחמיו FOR HIS COMPASSION WAS EXCITED — He asked him, “Have you a brother of the same mother as yourself?” — He replied, “I had a brother but I know not where he is”. — “Have you sons?” He replied, “I have ten”. Joseph asked him, “And what are their names?” Benjamin replied, “Bela, Becher etc.” (cf. 46:21). Joseph then enquired, “What are the ideas underlying these names?” He replied, “They all have some reference to my brother and the troubles that have befallen him. I called them Bela (בלע) because he disappeared (נבלע) amongst alien nations; Becher (בכר) because he was the firstborn (בכור) of his mother; Ashbel (אשבאל) because God sent him into captivity (שבאו אל), Gera (גרא) because he had to live (גר) in a foreign country; Naaman (נעמן) because he was exceedingly pleasant (נעים); Ahi (אחי) and Rosh (ראש) because he was my brother (אח) and my superior (ראש) ; Muppim (מופים) because he learned from the mouth (מפי) of my father; Huppim (חופים) because he did not witness my marriage (חופה —marriage canopy) and I did not witness his marriage; and Ard (ארד) because he went down (ירד) amongst the nations” — just as it related in Treatise Sotah 36b. When he heard all this immediately his affection was enkindled.

ויבך שמה, while he was thinking of the anguish his father and his brothers had experienced all these years

נכמרו, as translated by Onkelos “his feelings of mercy had been aroused.”

כי נכמרו רחמיו, “for his compassion had been stirred.” This is a common feeling between people who share the same father and mother. [Seeing Binyamin was the only one of the brothers who was a full brother to Joseph, his feelings were more tender towards him. Ed.]
According to Bereshit Rabbah 94,5 the words כי נכמרו רחמיו אל אחיו allude to the following conversation between Joseph and Binyamin. Joseph asked: “do you have a full brother, one that has both the same father and mother as you?” Binyamin answered that he used to have such a brother but that he did not know what had become of him. When Joseph probed further, asking him if he had any children, Binyamin replied that indeed he had ten sons. To Joseph’s inquiry after the names of his sons, Binyamin told him the names. Joseph wanted to know the meaning of these names. Binyamin explained that they all represented his grief over his missing brother. The name Bela, for instance, represented the fact that apparently his missing brother had been “swallowed” up amongst the other nations so that his identity no longer could be determined. (The Midrash continues to elaborate on similar meanings of all of Binyamin’s sons.) Having heard all this, Joseph was so close to weeping that he had to leave the room in order not to give himself away.

נכמרו רחמיו, er wusste ja, was er noch mit ihm vorhatte, und welch eine schmerzliche Lage er ihm, wenngleich vorübergehend, nicht ersparen konnte. כמר: Regewerden heftiger Gefühle, auch Wurzel von מכמרת, Netz. כמר: Priester der heidnischen Welt. Rabbinisch heißt כמר של זתים Früchte übereinander legen, dass sie warm und mürbe werden, oder sie zu diesem Ende in die Erde vergraben, weich und mürbe durch Absperrung machen. מכמר בשרא (Peßachim 58 b.): Anfang der Fäulnis beim Fleisch. ביב שהוא קמור ,קמר תחת הבית ein versteckter Kanal. Grundbedeutung: etwas, was sich eigentlich Luft machen möchte, durch Sperrung zurückhalten, und so in Gährung geraten lassen. Daher einerseits: Netz, andererseits: Gährungsprozess. Auf Gefühle übertragen, sind es eben verschwiegene, mit sich herumgetragene Gefühle, die in um so heftigere Gährung geraten, vergl. כי יתחמץ לבבי, sie gähren und ertragen die Sperre der sie verschließenden Brust nicht mehr. Also ein starkes Regewerden von Gefühlen. Wahrscheinlich heißen davon die heidnischen Pfaffen כמרים, im Gegensatz zu כהנים. Der jüdische כהן spekuliert nicht auf Andacht, Gefühle. Der jüdische Gottesdienst ist nicht darauf berechnet, dunkle Gefühle rege zu machen. Das jüdische Heiligtum wendet sich zunächst an den Verstand: התפלל, sein Urteil berichtigen, sich klar machen über alle seine Beziehungen und Obliegenheiten. Gefühle sind ungemein billig. "Hat andächtig vor Gott geweint" und steht auf — und ist um kein Haar breit besser, als er gewesen! Darauf spekuliert der כמר, der heidnische Pfaffe. Der כהֵן aber soll selbst כן und andern מכין sein, feste Grundlage und Richtung geben. Im Heidentum wirkt man auf Empfindungen, um durch sie den Verstand zu fesseln. Empfindungen aber sind ein Uhrwerk ohne Weiser, eine "Unruhe", die an sich nicht weiß woher, wohin, die man dann beliebig benutzen kann. Man macht die Hölle heiß oder fanatisiert das Gemüt; feiert seinen Triumph, wenn נכמרו מעים, die inneren Eingeweide der Gläubigen recht in Gährung kommen. — Verwandt damit auch גמר wenn der Gedanke so reif geworden, dass er nun zu Wort und Tat übergeht, גמר אומר und dergleichen. Was כמו für Gefühle, das ist גמר für Gedanken. גמר חסיר, er fühlte sich beengt, hat hier nichts mehr zu schaffen, muss entweder ins Irrenhaus oder sterben. יגמר נא רע רשעים: mögen die Verhältnisse sich so gestalten, dass der רשע sagt, meines Bleibens ist nicht mehr, mein רע hat hier nichts mehr zu schaffen. — ויבקש לבכות, er fühlte das Bedürfnis zu weinen. (פגש: etwas finden, בקש: etwas suchen, in מצא liegt beides). — בוא Grundbedeutung: in einen Raum hineingehen. — חדר ,עדר ,הדר ,אדר, alle diese Wurzeln bedeuten einen Kreis bilden um einen Gegenstand. עֵדר die zusammengehaltene Herde. אדר und הדר der Kreis physischer oder geistig sittlicher Wirkungen, der von der dem Mittelpunkt innewohnenden Kraft und Größe zeigt. Heißt אדרת ja auch ganz konkret eine prächtige Umhüllung.

נכמרו means WAS ENKINDLED, BECAME HOT — In Mishnaic Hebrew we have (Bava Metzia 74a) “upon (כומר) a mass of heated olives”; in Aramaic (Pesachim 58a) “because of the (מכמר) drying up (through heat of the weather) of the meat”. And in Biblical Hebrew we have (Lamentations 5:10) “Our skin is hot (נכמרו) as though by an oven” — i.e. it became hot and full of wrinkles “because of the burning heat of the famine”, for it is the nature of any skin to wrinkle and shrink together when it becomes hot.

ויתאפק AND HE REFRAINED HIMSELF — He made a strong effort. The root in this sense occurs in (Job 41:7) אפיקי “the strong parts of the shields”. Similar also is (Job 12:21) “And He looseth the belt of the (אפיקים) strong”.

וירחץ...ויתאפק; he managed to gain control of himself and to stop himself from weeping anymore.

אפק ,ויתאפק Quellenbehälter. Eine bildreiche Bezeichnung für: an sich halten von Gefühlen. Als er hinauskam, erneute der Anblick die Gefühle und machte eine neue Anstrengung notwendig.

וירחץ פניו, “he washed his face;” seeing that he had to sit with them and to stand up after the meal, and they would otherwise see that he had been crying, unless he washed his face immediately. But earlier, in 42,24, where he did not have to face his brothers except very briefly, he did not feel the need to wash his face.

כי תועבה היא FOR THAT IS AN ABOMINATION — it is a hateful thing to the Egyptians to eat together with the Hebrews. Onkelos states a reason for this.

כי תועבה, something so abhorrent to the Egyptians that they would spit out when observing such a “barbaric” way of eating meat. We know from other sources also that the Egyptians were of a very haughty disposition as mentioned for instance by Isaiah 30,7 קראתי לזאת רהב הם שבת, “truly, I call this, ‘they are a threat that has ceased.’” [the prophet calls Egypt a ‘paper tiger’ in his time. Ed.] The Egyptians’ attitude to people whose vocation was to tend flocks was one of utter disdain, as we know from 46,34. They had contempt for sheep and goats, hence their contempt transferred itself to the people raising such animals. This attitude to sheep and goats is mirrored when Moses asks Pharaoh how he could expect the Israelites to slaughter such animals while in Egypt without running the risk of the local populace stoning them to death for doing this. (Exodus 8,22) Stoning someone to express one’s disgust with his conduct is nothing new; we encounter it in Samuel II 16,5-6 when Shimi ben Geyrah, not only cursed (king) David publicly, but also threw stones at him.

וישימו לו לבדו, in order that his brothers should not notice that he too was a Hebrew.

וישימו לו לבדו, they served him separately as a symbol of his exalted position.

Josef speiste auch nicht mit den Mizrim. Er hat also selbst als Fürst seine ibrische Herkunft nicht verleugnet. — עברים war doch nur die charakteristische Bezeichnung der Nachkommen Abrahams. Es ist daher sehr eigentümlich, dass schon damals, wo sie noch aus kaum siebenzig Personen bestanden, sie schon so charakteristisch hervortraten, dass sie einen besonderen nationalen Namen hatten und ja Josef schon früher auch das Land Kanaan ארץ העברים nennen konnte! — תועבה. Eine auffallende Erscheinung bietet die Wurzel תעב. Sie ist augenscheinlich verwandt mit תאב, und beide sind aus דאב, Schmerz haben, erwachsen. Beide bedeuten eine heftige Schmerzempfindung, תעב durch die Gegenwart, תאב durch die Abwesenheit des betreffenden Gegenstandes. Da indes תעב verabscheuen, nur im Piel, תאב, nach etwas schmachten, nur im Kal vorkommt, einmal תאב im Piel erscheint, מְתָאֵב אנכי את גאון יעקב (Amos 6, 8) und dort auch verabscheuen bedeutet: so dürfte sich wohl die ganze Erscheinung aus der umwandelnden Bedeutung des Piel erklären, wie גָאל und גָאֵל, dort aber ist געל auch im Kal das Gegenteil von גאל.—

כי תועבה למצרים, “for it was something detestable for Egyptians;” Egyptians detested eating at the same table as aliens, as they felt that they were a superior race and everyone else was way inferior. We have an example of this in Isaiah 30,7 as well as in verse 39(?) here, i.e. ומצרים הבל וריק יעזרו לכן קראתי לזאת רהב לשבת, the help of Egypt I call empty and vain, I call this a disgrace and chagrin to dwell alongside them.”

כי לא יוכלון המצרים, this is why he did not eat together with his brothers, and neither he nor his brothers ate with the Egyptians.

ולהם לבדם, ולמצרים לבדם, and the brothers separately, and the Egyptians separately again, כי לא יוכלון, for the Hebrews were eating meat, as we know from the instructions to slaughter meat which had been issued in verse 15. Egyptians did not eat sheep or goats, and the only reason they raised these animals was for their wool and their milk. [According to Rashi and evidence cited in Torah Shleymah 92,5, the reason why the Egyptians did not eat sheep was that they considered sheep a deity, and it was inconceivable for them to consume their deities.]

הבכור כבכרתו THE FIRST-BORN ACCORDING TO HIS BIRTHRIGHT — He struck the goblet and called aloud: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar and Zebulon, sons of one mother, take your seats at the table in this order which is the order in which you were born — and similarly in the case of them all. When he reached Benjamin’s name he said, “This one has no mother and I have no mother — let him sit beside me” (Genesis Rabbah 92:5).

וישבו לפניו, Joseph had given instructions to arrange the seating order in order of their birth.

וישבו לפניו, in the order in which Joseph had given instructions to seat them.

הבכור כבכורתו, “the firstborn in accordance with his birthright.” Joseph would strike his goblet and pronounce: ”Reuven, Shimon, Levi, Yehudah, Issachar and Zevulun are all sons of one mother.” He proceeded to seat them in the order of their birth. He repeated the same procedure with the other sons also. When he came to Binyamin, he said: “this one does not have a mother; I do not have a mother either.” He therefore placed Binyamin next to himself. This caused ויתמהו האנשים איש אל רעהו, “the men were looking at each other in astonishment.”

נתמה .ויתמהו: Gefühl einer Vorstellung, über die wir uns nicht klar werden, also eine unklare Vorstellung: Staunen. Verwandt mit דמה, etwas vorstellen, und zwar liegt auch in דמה die doppelte Richtung: a. דמה אל, die Vorstellung von etwas anderem in uns anregen, einem andern ähnlich sein, also immerhin eine nicht so klare Vorstellung wie die Vorstellung des Gegenstandes selbst. Dann b. דמה absolut, eine unklare Vorstellung haben: meinen, sich einbilden. Hiervon das rabbinische דמאי: das, worüber man keine klare Vorstellung hat, דמי מתוקן דמי אינו מתוקן (Jeruschalmi); ferner דמוע, das Gemischte; ebenso טמע von einer Menschen-Familien-Rassenmischung. Daher denn auch טמא, das Unklare, Getrübte, im Gegensatz zu טהור, das Reine, Klare.

ויתמהו האנשים, “the men (Joseph’s brothers) were astounded;” their amazement did not concern the order in which they had been seated- as might be understood- but it concerned the separation of Egyptians, themselves and Joseph, the Torah indicating this to us when stating that the separation had to do with the different eating habits of the Egyptians on the one hand and the Hebrews on the other. They wondered which race Joseph belonged to, seeing that he appeared to be neither Hebrew nor Egyptian.

הבכור כבכורתו, “the firstborn according to the mother he was the firstborn of.” Rashi explains: when it came to seating Binyamin, seeing that he did no longer have a mother, he seated him according to his being the youngest as the brothers had told him on their first visit. Joseph thought that the mothers of the others were still alive, [although we know from Yaakov’s remarks on his deathbed that Leah had already been buried by him in the cave of Machpelah (Genesis 49,31). The brothers who were not firstborns seated themselves in the order of their seniority, seeing that it does not say concerning them that ויושיב אותם, “he seated them.”. Ed.]

ויתמהו, they were utterly amazed, seeing that they had all been born within a space of seven years and they could not understand how their ages had become known to Joseph.

הבכור כבכורתו ויתמהו, the oldest in accordance with his seniority etc. They were amazed. They could not explain to themselves how Joseph had known their respective ages seeing that only seven years separated all of them from the oldest except for Binyamin, whom they had described as the youngest so that Joseph knew about him. According to Bereshit Rabbah 92,5 Joseph had made a great pretense of consulting the goblet he used to drink from to determine the seating arrangement to correspond with their importance. He would claim that seeing that Yehudah was destined to become a king, he should sit at the head of the brothers. Reuven who was the biological senior of the brothers should sit next to Yehudah. He would continue in this fashion, explaining the reason why he had chosen to seat the brothers in the sequence he assigned to them. When he came to Binyamin, he said: “seeing that I have no mother and he has no mother let him sit closest to me.” No wonder that the brothers were utterly confused by this.

The previous passage was taken from Bereshit Rabbah 92,5. At this point, the brothers began to wonder about the hidden properties of Joseph’s goblet. The problem with this interpretation of the words: “they were astonished,” is that if indeed the goblet possessed magic properties, Egypt was the country in which the magic arts had been perfected and the brothers should not have had any special reason to wonder about this. It appears that there was an element of vocal communication involved here, something other than the known varieties of Egyptian magic. Whereas normally, the people practicing the art of sorcery, magic, could hear only by means of living creatures which themselves possess a mouth, i.e. an organ by means of which they emit sounds which may be interpreted as words, in this instance an inert object such as Joseph’s goblet appeared to communicate such words to its owner. Our sages who are on record as saying that even the ears of corn proclaim their song of praise to G’d, have described the times the ears of corn as doing this as being when the wind blows, i.e. when there are sound vibrations, some of which the ears of corn exploit in order to communicate their feeling to G’d. (compare Rashi on Rosh Hashanah 8 where these ears of corn are described as singing their song during the month of Nissan). At any rate, experts are able to discern more than just sounds when the wind blows through the corn fields. Joseph’s brothers (mistakenly) believed that the sound of Joseph striking the goblet translated to him into words, into an intelligent message. It was something they had never heard of.

ויתמהו האנשים, “the men were amazed;” clearly this does not refer to the line: וישבו לפניו, “they sat before him;” their amazement was at the separation between the separate seating arrangement between 1) himself, 2) the Egyptians, and 3) themselves, the Hebrews. What they could not understand was why Joseph was seated by himself seeing that in their opinion he was also an Egyptian. They concluded that he must be of a different people or religion altogether.

משאת means PORTIONS OF FOOD.

ותרב, as if the Torah had written ותרבה. The meaning is that Binyamin’s gift from Joseph was far greater than the gift received by his brothers. A parallel construction to the word vaterev appears in connection with the construction of the Tabernacle ותכל, vatechel, where it means that the construction had been completed (Exodus 39,32).

ותרב משאת בנימין, to see if the brothers would display signs of jealousy.

וישא, the person who handed out the gifts. We find a similar construction where the subject is presumed without being named or being specifically referred to in 48,2 when Yaakov is informed that Joseph is about to visit him. The Torah there also uses the impersonal ויגד, “someone told,” without bothering to inform the reader who it was that informed Yaakov. All this friendliness which Joseph displayed during the meal was intended to contrast with the manner in which they, the brothers would do everything in their power to cause him anguish and discomfort prior to the time when they had sold him. He displayed especial fondness for Binyamin because he had been forced to come to Egypt on account of what must have seemed like his caprice, and to compensate him for having been separated from his father for no apparent reason. At least, these were some of the thoughts which the brothers thought of to explain Joseph’s strange behaviour.

וישתו וישכרו עמו, “they drank with him and became drunk.” Joseph had planned to make them drunk so that they would not examine their sacks and bags before leaving, as they would be bound to do so as not have anything planted on them as had happened the first time. When they awoke late in the morning, he urged them to make haste and leave.

חמש ידות, “five times as great,” How did Joseph arrive at this amount? He gave Binyamin his share, plus the share of his wife Ossnat and his two sons making a total of five shares.

And became intoxicated. See Rashi. They believed he was testing them to see what they would reveal when drunk; therefore if they thought that if they refused, his suspicions would be strengthened.

חמש ידות. In dieser ägyptischen Geschichte finden wir auffallend die Fünfzahl, wo wir im jüdischen Kreise die Siebenzahl erwarten; hier, bei der Vorstellung der Brüder, bei den Abgaben. Es kann das tief in der verschiedenen Weltanschauung liegen. Fünf ist wohl aus zehn entstanden; zehn ist nach menschlicher Anschauung ein Ganzes. Nach heidnischer Anschauung ist die Welt uranfänglich ein Ganzes, Fertiges: Zehn. Nach jüdischer Anschauung ist sie noch nicht fertig, ist erst sieben, auf dem Wege zu zehn. Gott schafft sie noch immer fort, wenn nicht physisch, so doch sozial. Die die Weltanschauung besingende Harfe, lehren die Weisen, hatte zuerst nur sieben Saiten, durch David war die Harmonie achtsaitig, und erst zu 8׳משיה Zeit wird sie mit zehn Saiten vollbesaitet werden. — וישתו וישכרו עמו, "bei ihm" haben sie sich berauscht, haben gewiss nicht unmäßig getrunken, tranken ganz gewöhnlich (וישתו), waren aber auch das Wenige nicht gewöhnt. Hatten sie sich auch bis dahin keine Gewissensbisse gemacht, der Schmerz hatte sie nicht verlassen, haben wohl, so lange Josef weg war, gar keinen Wein getrunken. Dass es vielleicht in Josefs Absicht lag, sie ein wenig zu berauschen, ist auch wohl denkbar, sonst hätten sie sich schwerlich zum zweitenmal ihr Geld in ihre Säcke legen lassen.

וישא משאת מאת פניו, “portions were brought from him to them;” they were all served portions approved by Joseph as appropriate;ותרב משאת בנימין, “it turned out that Binyamin’s portion was greater than that of the other brothers as Joseph had so instructed the waiters.”

חמש ידות FIVE TIMES — His own portion that was due to him alike with his brothers and additional portions given to him by Joseph, Asenath, Manasseh and Ephraim (Genesis Rabbah 92.5).

חמש ידות, five fold; the brothers would be served one serving each for every two of them, whereas Binyamin was given a portion equal in size to the portions served to each set of two brothers. This was Joseph’s way of showing that he considered Binyamin as equal to all of them combined. [the author was at pains to justify why Joseph gave Binyamin five times as much, not 4 times or 6 times, for instance. Ed.]

וישתו וישכרו עמו, “they drank and became drunk together with him.” This was the first time the brothers had drunk intoxicating drinks since the day they had sold Joseph some twenty years previously. Joseph too had not touched intoxicating drink since that day. This is alluded to in Genesis 49,26 where Yaakov described Joseph as נזיר אחיו, “a Nazirite with his brothers.”

וישכרו עמו, “they drank wine with him and got drunk;” at that time drinking wine with gentiles if that wine had not specifically been prepared for idolatrous purposes was not yet forbidden for Hebrews.

וישכרו עמו AND THEY DRANK WITH HIM — but from the day they sold him they had not drunk wine nor had he drunk wine. That day, however, they drank wine (Genesis Rabbah 92:5).

וישכרו עמו, they were being served the kind of wines drunk by Royalty, something they were not used to, so that it made them drunk. They were careless in not leaving over some of the first kind of wine served them as was the custom for anyone invited to dine with Royalty. Compare Proverbs 23,1 כי תשב ללחום את מושל בין תבין את אשר לפניך, “when you sit down to dine with a ruler, consider well who is before you.”