Rabbi
Bernie Fox
Yosef Asks if His
Father Is Still Alive
And Yosef said to his
brothers, “I am Yosef. Is my father
still alive?” And they could not
respond to him for they were confused.
(Beresheit 45:3)
At the end of Parshat
Meketz, Yosef hid his goblet among Binyamin’s possessions. He then sent his officers to capture
Binyamin and accuse him of theft. Yosef’s officers carried out their master’s
orders. They brought the brothers
before Yosef. Yosef told the brothers
that they may return to their father.
However, Binyamin will be punished for his crime. He will be placed in bondage in Egypt.
In our parasha Yehudah
appeals to Yosef for Binyamin’s release.
He offers to take Binyanim’s place.
He volunteers to serve as a slave in place of Binyamin. Yehudah completes his appeal. Yosef is overcome with intense emotion. He reveals himself to his brothers. He then asks, “Is my father still
alive?” This question is difficult to
understand. Surely, Yosef knew the
answer. Yehudah had just appealed to
Yosef on behalf of Binyamin. In his
appeal, he described the deep love between Yaakov and Binyamin. He told Yosef of the unbearable anguish
Yaakov would experience if he were separated from his youngest son. It was clear that from this petition that
Yaakov was alive. Yehudah was asking
Yosef to act with compassion for Yaakov.
Why does Yosef now ask, “Is my father still alive?”?
Klee Yakar offers a
number of responses to this question. In
his first response, he explains that Yosef had listened to Yehudah’s
appeal. Yet, he remained uncertain
whether his father was alive. He reasoned
that because Yehudah was attempting to save Binyamin, he may have been
dishonest. Perhaps, his description of
the love between Yaakov and Binyamin was an invention designed to appeal to
Yosef’s compassion. In order to save
Binyamin, Yehudah may have lied about Yaakov.
After Yosef revealed
himself, he again asked whether his father was alive. He assumed that the brothers realized that Binyamin was not in
danger. They understood that Yosef
would not harm his younger brother. He
expected that his brothers would now have no reason to deceive him and their
response to his renewed inquiry would be completely true.
Klee Yakar offers a
second explanation of Yosef’s question based upon the comments of the Talmud.
The Talmud’s comments are based upon the brothers’ response to Yosef. The Torah tells us that they were confused. The brothers’ confusion can reasonably be
explained as a response to the discovery that the minister of Egypt to whom
they were appealing was their brother Yosef.
However, the Talmud suggests an alternative explanation of their
reaction. The Talmud suggests that they
detected a rebuke in Yosef’s question.
According to this explanation, their response can be better
characterized as shock.
Where was the rebuke
in Yosef’s question? Klee Yakar
explains that the rebuke is implied by Yosef’s choice of words. Yosef described Yaakov as his father. He did not ask, “Is our father alive?” The brothers sensed that this choice of
words reflected a rebuke. Yosef was
accusing them of not feeling sympathy for their father. They had allowed Yaakov to suffer the loss
of a beloved son. They had not treated
Yaakov as their father. They concluded that
Yosef was claiming that only he was faithful to Yaakov. He was the only brother that had conducted
himself as a true son.[1]
It seems that there is
a second rebuke in Yosef's words, "I am Yosef." The brothers had
judged Yosef to be corrupt beyond salvation. But had they been correct that Hashem
would have assisted them in their plans to eliminate their evil and dangerous
brother. However, Hashem had ruled against the brothers' stand. He had protected
Yosef, and even led him to prosper and become the ruler of Egypt. Yosef pointed
out the extent of their misjudgment of him with the simple but penetrating
remark, "I am your brother Yosef, whom you sold to the Egyptians!" Confronted
with this twofold rebuke the brothers were completely stunned and could not
respond.
Geshonides’ approach
to explaining Yosef’s question is similar to Klee Yakar’s first
explanation. Yosef was unsure whether
his brother’s previous assertions that Yaakov was alive were truthful. However, Gershonides suggests a different
cause for Yosef’s suspicions. In order
to understand this possibility, we must explain a previous incident.
Yosef’s brothers
originally entered Egypt in order to purchase provisions. Yosef accused them of spying. The brothers responded by describing their
family structure. They told Yosef that
they were all sons of a single father.
They told Yosef they had a younger brother who had not accompanied
them. This brother was in Canaan with
their father. Yosef asserted that their
narrative supported his accusation.
They could only clear themselves by bringing their youngest brother to
Egypt.
This entire exchange
seems bizarre! First, why did the
brothers respond to Yosef’s accusations with an account of their family
structure? What relevance did this
response have to the accusation?
Second, Yosef rejected their response.
He claimed that their reply supported his accusation. How did the brother’s description of their
family support Yosef’s charge? Third,
Yosef demanded that the brothers clear themselves of suspicion by bringing
their youngest brother to Egypt. How
would bringing Binyamin to Egypt prove the brothers’ innocence?
Gershonides offers a
comprehensive response to these questions.
Yosef accused the brothers of spying.
The brothers responded that they shared a single father. Gershonides explains this response. Their account of their family was an attempt
to persuade Yosef that they were not really spies. Spying is dangerous. A
father might allow one of his children to engage in such an endeavor. Perhaps, in a desperate situation, he would
allow a few of his children to engage in such a perilous mission. However, a father would not risk the lives
of all of his children. The brothers
argued that, on this basis, they could not be spies. They were the sons of a single father. He would not allow ten of his eleven sons to risk their lives as
spies.
Yosef responded that
their account of their family actually undermined their claim of innocence. Their father had not allowed all of his sons
to travel to Egypt. He had insisted
that one son remain home with him. If
they had come to purchase provisions, eleven sons could bring back more food
than ten. Keeping one son at home
indicated that their father perceived their mission to Egypt as dangerous. Therefore, he had insisted that one son be
spared this peril. Why was their
mission dangerous? They were spies!
Yosef demanded that the brothers demonstrate their innocence. This could be accomplished by returning with
their remaining brother. This would
prove that they had not come to Egypt on a dangerous spying mission. Their father would only allow all of his sons
to travel to Egypt if their mission was truly innocent and harmless.[2]
Based on Gershonides’
explanation of the dialogue between Yosef and his brothers, Gershonides
explains Yosef’s question in our pasuk. Yehudah told Yosef that their father was
alive. Yosef recognized that this
assertion could be a response to the test he had formulated. Bringing Binyamin to Egypt was designed to
prove that the brothers were not spies.
By allowing all of his sons to travel to Egypt, their father would prove
this. In other words, Binyamin’s
presence could only establish their innocence if Yaakov was alive. Yosef feared that Yehudah had reported that
Yaakov was alive in order to avoid undermining their defense.
Now, Yosef has
revealed himself to the brothers. They
no longer need to fear the accusation of spying. They can be honest with Yosef.
Therefore, Yosef again asks if his father is alive.
Exile in Egypt
Contributed to Creating the Nation of Israel
And He said: I am the
Hashem, the G-d of your father. Do not
fear descending to Egypt. For there I
will make you into a great nation. (Beresheit
46:3)
Hashem appears to
Yaakov and tells him that it is His will that Yaakov and his family descend to
Egypt. There, in a foreign land, the nation of Israel will be created. The
pasuk implies that the experience of Yaakov's descendants in Egypt was
essential to the creation of the nation. This goal could not be achieved in the
land of Canaan. Why was exile crucial to the creation of the Jewish people?
Sfomo explains that it
was impossible for the Yaakov's descendants to fully integrate into Egyptian
society. Custom created an impenetrable barrier between Bnei Yisrael and the
Egyptians. Egyptian custom even forbade the sharing of a meal with lvrim – the name by which Yaakov, his
family and followers were known. They would be segregated into a separate
district. Social interaction would be
limited. In this environment a small band of co-religionists could develop into
a unique nation. Segregation and
prejudice would prevent assimilation and absorption.
These conditions could
not be duplicated in Canaan. Social barriers between the lvrim and the indigenous peoples were minimal. Before Yaakov's
descendants could develop into an independent nation, assimilation would
prevail.[3]
Yaakov's descendants
would eventually return to Canaan, but only after they had developed into Klal
Yisrael – the Jewish nation. This
evolution could only take place in exile.
Yosef’s Test of His Brothers
And Yosef could not bear
all those standing in his presence. And
he called out, "Take everyone away from me!" And no one stood with
him when Yosef made himself known to his brothers.
(Beresheit 45:1)
In the previous parasha, Yosef is reunited with his
brothers. Yosef is Paroh’s prime minister
and rules over Egypt. He recognizes his
brothers but they do not recognize him.
At the close of the parasha,
Yosef instructs the head of his household to surreptitiously place his goblet
in Binyamin’s bags. Then, Yosef sends
this servant in pursuit of the brothers.
The servant and his company overtake the brothers and uncover the hidden
goblet. They accuse Binyamin of
stealing the goblet. The brothers are
returned to Yosef. Yosef tells the
brothers that they will be released to return home. But Binyamin will be kept in bondage in Egypt.
Our parasha opens with an appeal by Yehudah
to Yosef. His appeal is composed of
three components. First, he elaborately
describes the agony that their father, Yaakov, will experience if he is
separated from Binyamin. He tells Yosef
that this separation will kill their father.
Second, he explains that from among all of the brothers, he has accepted
upon himself primary responsibility for the safe return of Binyamin to his
father. If he fails to return Binyamin,
he will have irrevocably violated his pledge.
Third, Yehudah offers to take Binyamin’s place in bondage. He asks that Yosef allow Binyamin to return
to Canaan with his brothers and he will remain in bondage in Egypt.
Our passage introduces
Yosef’s reply. The passage relates that
Yosef could not bear the situation.
However, the exact translation of the passage is widely disputed. The dispute revolves around the precise
cause of Yosef’s discomfort and anxiety.
The above translation corresponds with Rashi’s interpretation of the
passage. According to Rashi, Yosef had
reached the moment at which he would reveal himself to his brothers. He knew that his revelation would summon up for
his brothers a recounting of his treatment by them. He knew his brothers would experience intense shame. He did not want the Egyptians of his
household to witness this episode.[4]
Rabbaynu Avraham ibn
Ezra offers a similar explanation. His
explanation is also consistent with the above translation. According to Ibn Ezra, Yosef was so moved by
Yehudah’s appeal that he could not wait any longer to reveal himself to his
brothers. This created a dilemma. Yosef was the prime minister of Egypt. He conducted the business of the
kingdom. He was not alone with his
brothers. Other people who had business
to conduct with him were present. Yosef
had intended to allow all those present to complete their dealings with him and
depart. Once he and his brothers were
alone, he would reveal himself.
However, he could no longer delay his reunion with his brothers. Yosef departed from his original plan to
allow all those present to complete their dealings and depart. Instead, he ordered everyone to be removed
from his and his brothers’ presence.[5]
Nachmanides offers a
very different explanation of the passage.
According to Nachmanides, Yehudah’s appeal was so moving that he had
even won the support of Yosef’s household.
Yosef was confronted with a unified and all-inclusive opposition. In the face of this opposition, he could no
longer promote his threat to imprison Binyamin. He recognized that in order to retain the respect of his own
household, he must bring this confrontation to an immediate conclusion. According to this explanation, the passage
must be translated somewhat differently than above. According to Nachmanides, the proper translation is that “Yosef
could no longer withstand all those in his presence.”[6]
Midrash Rabbah
explains that Yosef realized that Yehudah was quickly coming to the conclusion
that his appeal had failed. But Yehudah
was not willing to abandon his pledge to return Binyamin to his father. Yehudah would have no alternative but to
resort to violence. He would soon
conclude that he must attempt to physically regain control of Binyamin. Yosef was not willing to allow a physical
confrontation to take place. In order
to avert this confrontation, he revealed himself to his brothers.[7] This explanation also requires an
alternative translation of the text.
Rashi’s and Ibn Ezra’s
approaches share two common elements.
First, the first and second portions of the passage are related. Yosef’s command to remove all those present
is directly related to the source of his anxiety. According to Rashi, Yosef could not bear for the Egyptians to
witness the embarrassment of his brothers.
Therefore, he commanded for all those present to be removed. Also, according to Ibn Ezra, this connection
is preserved. Yosef intended to reveal
himself to his brothers privately – without anyone else present. He could not wait for those present to
complete their business. He commanded
that they be removed immediately.
Second, according to
Rashi and Ibn Ezra, Yosef’s strategy essentially unfolded as he had planned. According to Rashi, Yosef revealed himself
to his brothers at precisely the moment he anticipated. According to Ibn Ezra, Yosef had hoped to
avoid any unwelcome witnesses. He was
unable to achieve this objective.
Certainly, his sudden command that everyone remove themselves from his
presence attracted attention. But all
the prerequisites that Yosef had planned were in place. He expected nothing else from his
brothers. He was merely waiting for the
appropriate, confidential moment to reveal himself.
Nachmanides and
Midrash Rabbah disagree with Rashi and Ibn Ezra on both of these issues. First, according to Nachmanides and Midrash
Rabbah, the first and second portions of the passage are not related. Yosef’s instruction to remove all those
present is not directly related to the source of his anxiety. According to Nachmanides, Yosef was forced
to act before he lost the respect of his own household. This does not explain his instruction to
remove all those present. According to
Midrash Rabbah, Yosef feared that Yehudah would soon resort to violence. This concern does not explain his insistence
on being alone with his brothers.
Nachmanides addresses
this issue. He explains that Yosef’s
insistence on being alone with his brothers was not motivated by his
anxiety. Instead, he was responding to
a different concern. He did not want
the Egyptians to discover that his brothers had sold him into slavery and that
they had caused their father terrible anguish.
Yosef was prepared to appeal to Paroh to allow his father, brothers, and
their families to resettle in Egypt.
Paroh would need assurance that he could rely on the loyalty of these
immigrants. Yosef did not want Paroh to
discover that his siblings had sold their own brother into slavery and had
mercilessly tormented their own father.
If Paroh discovered that Yosef’s brothers acted with callousness and
disloyalty to their own family members, he would not trust that their loyalty
to him.[8]
Second, according to
Nachmanides and Midrash Rabbah, Yosef’s strategy did not unfold exactly as planned. According to Nachmanides and Midrash Rabbah,
there is no indication that Yosef was prepared to reveal himself at the moment
he did. He was forced to act sooner
than he planned – either to protect his own image or to avert violence. If this is correct, an obvious question
arises. What else did Yosef seek from his brothers?
In order to answer this question, we must return to Yehudah’s appeal. This appeal is essentially composed of two
themes. First, Yehudah carefully
describes the suffering his father will experience at the loss of
Binyamin. Second, Yehudah accepts upon
himself personal responsibility for Binyamin’s return.
These two themes
correspond with Yehudah and his brothers’ previous failings. First, in selling Yosef they acted with
disregard to their father and his well being.
Second, Yehudah was the brother who suggested selling Yosef into bondage
rather than killing him. Yehudah had argued
that Yosef was their flesh and blood.
They should not kill him.
However, Yehudah stopped short of confronting his brothers and rescuing
Yosef. Instead, he suggested a
compromise: selling Yosef into bondage. This suggests that Yehudah was not fully prepared to defend and
fight for his values. In order to avoid
a confrontation with his brothers, he sought a compromise between his values
and their desire to rid themselves of Yosef.
Now, Yehudah speaks to
Yosef and describes in detail the suffering his father will experience if he
loses Binyamin. Yehudah has repented
from the insensitivity he had demonstrated to his father in the past. He also accepts responsibility for Binyamin
and is prepared to sacrifice himself in order to save his brother.
Perhaps, according to
Rashi and Ibn Ezra, Yosef’s fundamental objective was to force Yehudah and his
brothers to recognize that they had betrayed their father. Yehudah’s appeal eloquently spoke to this
issue. Therefore, once Yehudah made his
appeal, Yosef was prepared to reveal himself.
However, if Yosef
wished to force Yehudah to demonstrate a willingness to sacrifice himself for
his values, the drama was not yet over.
Yehudah had offered to enter into bondage in order to save Binyamin, but
his sincerity had not been fully tested.
Was Yehudah’s offer sincere or was he hoping that Yosef would recognize
his determination to save Binyamin and therefore allow all of the brothers to
return to Canaan? One more scene was
required to test Yehudah’s sincerity.
Would Yehudah allow himself to be placed in shackles or would he attempt
to retract his offer at the last moment?
Perhaps, according to Nachmanides and Midrash Rabbah, Yosef wished to
execute this last test.
[1] Rav Shlomo Ephraim Luntshitz, Commentary Klee Yakar on Sefer Bereshiet 45:3.
[2] Rabbaynu Levi ben Gershon (Ralbag / Gershonides), Commentary on Sefer Beresheit, (Mosad HaRav Kook, 1994), pp. 235-236.
[3] Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 46:3.
[4] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 45:1.
[5] Rabbaynu Avraham ibn Ezra, Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 45:1.
[6] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 45:1.
[7] Midrash Rabba, Sefer Beresheit 93:8.
[8] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 45:1.