8/3/2019 fl_4ef3192ce4d8a

1/3

"" In honor of the birth of Esther bas Chana Golda

1

Parsha PotpourriParshas Mikeitz Vol. 7, Issue 10

Compiled by Ozer Alport

))41:39After Yosef was freed from prison to interpret Pharaohs dreams, he explained that they foretold

seven years of abundance to be followed by seven years of famine. Therefore, he recommended the

appointment of a wise advisor to oversee the project of storing for the famine during the years of plenty.Upon hearing this proposal, Pharaoh responded that there was nobody more fitting for the role than Yosef

himself, who demonstrated great insight by suggesting this idea.

Rav Eliyahu Lopian asks an obvious question: what intelligence do we see on the part of Yosef?

Any rational person should realize that if one anticipates good years followed by bad years, the obvioussolution is to save for the future during the good years. Rav Lopian explains that from the fact that Yosef

is praised for his wisdom, the Torah is revealing to us a deep insight into human nature: the prevalence of

short-sightedness. Even though our minds recognize the need to prepare for the future, we have greatdifficulty looking past the affluent present. Therefore, Chazal tell us (Tamid 32a)

- a wise person is one who sees the future and plans for it accordingly.

The time we have in this world is analogous to the years of plenty. When we are young, the time

we have left in this world seems abundant, almost infinite, and it is quite easy and natural to let it go to

waste. Americans even have a concept called killing time. However, there inevitably comes a time

when we must leave this world and enter the next. In that world, we wont have any more time available

to perform mitzvos and continue our spiritual growth. Let us learn from Yosef what it means to be wiseand save by studying Torah and doing mitzvos during our time in this world so that we will have them

to take with us when we pass on to the next world.

))44:17Rav Zev Leff questions how Parshas Mikeitz could end at this dramatic point in the action.

Yaakov had been terrified to send Binyomin to Egypt as Yosef demanded, as he represented the last

vestige of his beloved wife Rochel. As the food supply began to be depleted, Yaakov had no alternative

but to rely on Yehudas personal guarantee to ensure Binyomins safe return. Although the brothers were

confused and frightened by Yosefs accusation that they were spies and his subsequent invitation for them

to be his guests at a banquet, they thought that the coast was clear when they were finally able to departon their return journey, armed with Binyomin, Shimon, and a new supply of food.

Much to their chagrin, shortly after setting out on their return trip, the brothers were accosted and

Binyomin was discovered to have stolen Yosefs divining goblet, which would presumably require the

brothers to leave him in Egypt and return empty-handed to their heart-broken father. Could there be a

worse place in the plot line to interrupt with To be continued than at this climactic moment?Rav Leff answers that this was done intentionally to teach that no matter how bad things may

seem at any point in our lives, we must always remember that there is another chapter waiting to beturned just around the corner. However long it may take us to ultimately realize it, there will finally come

a time when we will be able to retroactively understand the Divine Providence and the good which were

germinating in what seemed to be lifes darkest moments.

Rav Meir Shapiro points out that Dovid HaMelech writes (Tehillim 116:13)

' The cup of salvation I will raise, and I will call out in the name of Hashem in one verse, for

when positive things occur, we have no problem seeing the good and praising Hashem immediately.

When it comes to the bad, however, Dovid writes (116:3-4) ' I will findtroubles and suffering, and I will call out in the name of Hashem spread out over two verses.

8/3/2019 fl_4ef3192ce4d8a

2/3

2

Dovid expressed that regardless of whether he will raise the cup of salvation or whether he finds

troubles and suffering, he will ultimately call out in Hashems name just the same. The only difference is

that when things seem difficult, we sometimes have to patiently wait until the next verse, or in the case of

Parshas Mikeitz, until the next parsha, until we are able to recognize the good that will ultimately make usexpress our praise and gratitude to Hashem. Even if we arent there yet and arent able to see the good

that currently lies hidden, the knowledge that it is there and we will eventually understand it should give

us the strength to persevere with faith and trust until it is revealed.

)3:25(The Haftorah for Parshas Mikeitz, which is often pushed aside by the Haftorah for Shabbos

Chanuka, contains the famous demonstration of Shlomo HaMelechs wisdom. Two women had recently

given birth, but one of their babies died. Each woman argued that the dead baby belonged to the other

woman. Shlomo brilliantly discerned the truth by suggesting that the baby be cut in half.

In his commentary on Yevamos (17b), the Meiri provides a most fascinating insight and legal

background into the case that was brought before Shlomo. The Medrash relates that these two womenwerent strangers, but a mother-in-law and her daughter-in-law. Both of their husbands had recently died

without leaving any offspring other than these two babies. The Torah forbids a woman whose husband

has died without any offspring to remarry until she either marries her deceased husbands brother in a

procedure known as yibum or performs with him a process called chalitzah (Devorim 25:5-10).

In the case brought before Shlomo, the women werent arguing just because of a womans natural

love for her newborn. There was much more at stake. If the live child belonged to the daughter-in-law,she would be permitted to remarry immediately for two reasons. Firstly, her husband didnt die without

children. Secondly, even if he did, there would be nobody with whom she was obligated to perform

yibum or chalitzah, as the dead baby was her husbands only brother. On the other hand, if the live child

belonged to the mother-in-law, the daughter-in-law had a tremendous amount to lose. Because a baby

which dies within 30 days isnt legally considered a viable child, it would be as if her husband died

without any offspring. At the same time, an acknowledgment that the live child belonged to her mother-in-law would mean that her husband had a brother with whom she must perform yibum or chalitzah.

However, that brother was a newborn baby who was presently incapable of doing so. In other

words, if Shlomo ruled against the daughter-in-law, she would have to remain single for almost 13 years

while she waited for her brother-in-law to become a Jewish adult eligible to perform yibum or chalitzah.

Recognizing her biases and suspecting her motivations, Shlomo came up with a brilliant test. If thedaughter-in-law was telling the truth, she would be appalled at the idea of cutting her beloved son in half.

She would also gain nothing from it vis--vis her legal status.

If she was lying to save herself from 13 years of loneliness, she would happily allow the baby to

be killed. Although her husband died without any children, there would no longer be a baby brother-in-

law in the picture preventing her from remarrying immediately. When she agreed to the proposed

compromise, Shlomo revealed her faade and rightfully awarded the child to the mother-in-law,

condemning the scheming daughter-in-law to wait 13 years for him to become an adult.

Parsha Points to Ponder (and sources which discuss them):

1) Rashi writes (40:23) that the additional two years of jail time Yosef served (41:1) was his

punishment for the sin of asking the cupbearer twice (40:14) to intercede with Pharaoh and secure

his release instead of placing his trust in Hashem. Had Yosef asked him only one time, what

would have been his punishment? (Chaim Sheyeish Bahem Vol. 2 Parshas Vayeishev)

2) On Chanuka we add a paragraph, known as Al HaNissim, to the Shemoneh Esrei prayers and to

Birkas HaMazon in which we thank Hashem for the miracles which He performed in the days of

8/3/2019 fl_4ef3192ce4d8a

3/3

3

Mattisyahu ben Yochanan Kohen Gadol. To whom does the appellation Kohen Gadol refer:

Mattisyahu or Yochanan? (Megillah 11a with Dikdukei Sofrim, Peirush Mishnayos LRambam

Introduction to Zeraim, Meiri Introduction to Avos, Shut Tashbatz 3:135, Rabbeinu Yerucham,

Sefer HaIkkarim, Maharsha Pesachim 57b, Boruch SheAmar, KMotzei Shalal Rav pg. 147-9)3) The Gemora in Shabbos (21b) teaches that the primary obligation on Chanuka is to light one

flame on each night. The mehadrin more preferable level is to light one flame for each

member of the household on each night, and the mehadrin min hamehadrin most preferred

level is to light an additional flame on each successive night. Why did Chazal specifically enact alevel of mehadrin min hamehadrin on Chanuka, a concept not found in conjunction with any

other mitzvah? (Bnei Yissochar Kislev 3:19, Imrei Emes Shabbos 21b, Shut Divrei Yisroel

3:38, KMotzei Shalal Rav Chanuka pg. 109-111, Peninei Teshuvos Chanuka pg. 49)

Answers to Points to Ponder:

1) Rav Chaim Soloveitchik asked this question to Rav Shimon Shkop. Rav Shimon responded that ifYosef was punished with two years of additional incarceration for two requests that the cupbearer

remember him, it seems logical that if he had asked only once, his punishment would have been one extra

year in jail. Rav Chaim disagreed and explained that we are expected to live within the natural world and

make reasonable efforts to achieve our objectives. Therefore, if Yosef had asked only once, it would have

been considered appropriate and he would not have been punished at all. However, because only one

request was necessary for this purpose, when Yosef asked the second time, he revealed that even his

initial request was not properly motivated, and he was punished for both of them.

2) Several Rishonim, including the Rambam, Meiri, and Tashbatz, maintain that the term "Kohen

Gadol" refers to Yochanan, the father of Mattisyahu. On the other hand, Rabbeinu Yerucham and the

Sefer HaIkkarim both write that it refers to Mattisyahu. Interestingly, the standard text of the Gemora

states explicitly that Mattisyahu was a Kohen Gadol; however, the Dikdukei Sofrim notes that someeditions of the Gemora have a different wording, which says that Yochanan was the Kohen Gadol. Rav

Boruch Epstein argues that a historical study of the time period makes it clear that Mattisyahu never

served as Kohen Gadol. However, he suggests that because Mattisyahu acted bravely for the sake ofHashem in successfully leading the battle against the Greeks, he earned the title "Kohen Gadol" as a way

of saying that he was a great and respected Kohen, although only his father Yochanan was a Kohen Gadol

in the traditional usage of the term.

3) The Chiddushei HaRim notes that there were numerous ways that the Chashmonaim could have

avoided the need for the miracle of the 1-day supply of oil burning for 8 days, such as making extremely

thin wicks which would need less oil to burn. In other words, the entire miracle only occurred becausethey refused to seek out legal loopholes and insisted on performing the mitzvah in the ideal manner. To

commemorate this, Chazal created multiple levels in the mitzvah of lighting the menorah so that we canalso enhance our performance of the mitzvah. The B'nei Yissachar explains that the menorah symbolizes

the light of Torah. Therefore, Chazal enacted several levels of beautifying the mitzvah to teach that a

person is never finished with his Torah study and can always improve it by reviewing it again and again.

Rav Yosef Tzvi Salant answers that Chazal were concerned that people may transgress the prohibition

against adding to the Torah's mitzvos by thinking that Chanuka is Biblical in nature. Therefore, they took

the unusual step of enacting different levels in this mitzvah, just as they decreed that some Jews should

observe Purim on 14 Adar and some on 15 Adar, in order to remind us that it is only Rabbinical in nature.

2011 by Ozer Alport. To subscribe, send comments, or sponsor an issue, email oalport@optonline.net