Komentarz do Rodzaju 37:33

ויאמר כתנת בני AND HE SAID, MY SON’S COAT —is this (i.e. supply the words היא זו after בני).

טרוף טורף יוסף, "Joseph has been torn to shreds!" Jacob meant that Joseph had endured a twofold tearing (this is why Jacob said טרף twice). 1) A wild beast had torn him and killed him. 2) That animal had dragged him to its lair; as a result of this even a search for his remains was futile and he, Jacob, could not even bury his body. Were it not for this interpretation why did Jacob not organise a search for Joseph's remains? The brothers were clever enough to stress: "this we have found, examine please, etc." They made it plain to Jacob that they had not even found any bones.

חיה רעה אכלתהו, “a wild beast has devoured him.” He did not say that robbers had slain him, for if so they would have robbed him of his precious tunic.

Is this. It is an abbreviated verse. For without [adding] “is this,” it is not understandable.

אכלתהו vergegenwärtigt ihm den Verlust, טרוף טורף das Entsetzliche des Vorgangs, — er sieht den Sohn, das geliebte Kind, den blühenden Jüngling in den fletschenden Zähnen des Raubtieres: zerrissen, zerrissen ist Josef worden! Siehe jedoch zu 2. B. M. 22, 30 eigentlich: zum Fraß genommen.

חיה רעה אכלתהו, “a wild beast has eaten him;” for if he had fallen into the hands of robbers they would not have left the striped coat behind.

חיה רעה אכלתהו AN EVIL BEAST HATH EATEN HIM — The spirit of prophecy was enkindled within him, for these words may be taken to mean that at some future time Potiphar’s wife would attack him (Genesis Rabbah 84:19). Why did not the Holy One, blessed be He, make known to him (Jacob) that he was still living? Because they had placed under a ban and a curse anyone of them who would make it known, and they made the Holy One, blessed be He, a party with them to this agreement (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 2) Isaac, however, knew that he was living, but he thought, “How dare I reveal it since the Holy One, blessed be He does not wish to reveal it” (Genesis Rabbah 84:21).

It is his destiny that Potiphar’s wife would provoke him... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise Scripture should have written, “Yoseif has been torn to pieces,” [omitting “evil beast had devoured him”]. Furthermore, Rashi is answering the question: How would Yaakov know that a wild animal tore him up? Perhaps bandits attacked him.

Because they banned and cursed anyone who would reveal it and they included God with them... Hashem surely was not “forced” [as it were]. But He willingly agreed with the ban for a number of reasons. First, so that [the decree of] “Your descendants will be foreigners in a land not theirs...” (15:13) could be fulfilled. If Yaakov had known that Yoseif was brought to Egypt, he would have given all the money in the world to redeem him! Second, if Yaakov had known [what the brothers did] he would have cursed them that their names be blotted out, and the seed of Yisrael would have perished — whereas Hashem wanted them to be fruitful and multiply. As Rashi proceeds to explain, “Hashem does not wish to reveal it to him,” implying that He was not forced. Had He wished, He could have revealed it, but He agreed with them in order to fulfill the decree, “...They will enslave them and oppress them” (ibid). Third, it says: “He mourned his son for many days” (v. 24), and Rashi explains that it was twenty-two years. Why did Rashi say specifically twenty-two? He must have been answering the question: Why did Hashem put Yaakov in anguish for twenty-two years, and not tell him [that Yoseif was alive]? Perforce, it was for the twenty-two years that Yaakov did not honor his parents. Whereas if Hashem would tell Yaakov, he would repent, nullifying the twentytwo year decree of anguish. But because Hashem wished to punish him for not having honored his parents, He agreed to the brothers’ ban on revealing it. A ban (חרם) is like an oath, and when Hashem takes an oath [over a decree of punishment], repentance cannot nullify it. For it says [about Moshe’s punishment]: “Therefore, you will not bring this congregation into the land that I have given them” (Bamidbar 20:12). And Rashi there explains: “This was said as an oath... He swore precipitously, so that he should not pray at length about it [to nullify the decree].” Here as well, the ban was like an oath; thus Hashem agreed with them.