פרשה: וישב · עלייה: שני (גבורה)

לכה ואשלחך אליהם, "come let me send you to them;" The word לכה implied that Joseph should go visit his brothers. In the event he had qualms, however, Jacob added that he would make him a שליח של מצוה, a messenger on a divine mission, i..e fulfilling the commandment of obeying his father. This would protect him against harm (compare Pessachim 8).

לך נא ראה, "Please go and have a look, etc." Now Jacob spelled out the details of the commandment Joseph was to fulfil including bringing back a report to his father. This would make him his father's messenger both on the outward journey and on the return journey. If the bringing back of the report became a separate commandment this would act as protection for Joseph even according to the view in the Talmud that such messengers are enjoying divine protection only until they reach their destination. Jacob made sure that Joseph had two destinations. Joseph could now rest assured that he would return safely.

Jacob believed that despite the fact that the brothers hated Joseph and it was therefore not unlikely that he would be in danger, the מצוה he performed by obeying his father would protect him. He based himself on the following discussion in Pesachim 8. We are taught in a Baraita: When there is a hole in a wall dividing the property of a Jew from that of a Gentile, one needs to search for possible chametz as far as one's arm can reach. Plymo says that one does not have to endanger oneself in order to locate such chametz. The Talmud counters that Rabbi Eleazar has said that when one is engaged in the performance of a מצוה one is not liable to suffer harm. So why should considerations of danger prevent someone from searching for chametz? The Talmud answers that the rule of Rabbi Eleazar holds true only where danger is not likely to be encountered. The other rabbis who disagree with Plymo hold that the two situations are not alike. When danger is apparent, such as certain hornets having their lairs inside the holes of a wall, one endangers one's life frivolously by putting in one's arm searching for chametz. When the danger consists of the Gentile possibly accusing the Jew of engaging in sorcery because he performs an act such as looking for chametz, something that seems non-sensical to the Gentile this is no reason to desist and to rely on miracles instead. The Talmud cites the incident of Samuel enquiring of G'd how he could endanger himself carying out his command to anoint David when there was a price on David's head? G'd told him to pretend to go to Hebron to slaughter an animal for G'd (Samuel I 16,2). Samuel was in very real danger, as the chances that king Saul would hear about his trip to Hebron were close to 100% and he would be very suspect. Such danger could not be compared with that of searching for chametz in a wall and the Gentile neighbour jumping to the wrong conclusion. Joseph's brothers had never been suspected of planning to actually harm him physically. Plymo might also not have considered Joseph's danger at the hands of his brothers as real enough for him not to rely on Rabbi Eleazar's dictum that the performance of the מצוה would act as his shield.

In view of the above you may well ask how it was that Joseph wound up being sold as a slave, etc.? The answer is that when Rabbi Eleazar said that שלוחי מצוה אינן ניזקין, people on a מצוה mission would not come to harm, he meant permanent harm. Joseph wound up as the ruler of Egypt as a result of having been sent to his brothers. The fact that he experienced degradation on the way was merely a preparation for his eventual elevation.

There is another aspect to all this. When Jacob despatched Joseph he was very careful to refer to the location where the brothers were supposed to be tending the sheep. He asked: "are not your brothers tending the flocks at Shechem?" He had therefore made it plain that Joseph was supposed to go to Shechem. When Joseph went to Shechem and failed to find the brothers his mission was completed. If he decided nonetheless to go to Dothan to locate them there he was no longer his father's messenger. This is why he was no longer protected by performing a commandment of his father. Jacob was convinced that no harm would befall Joseph at Shechem. Joseph thought that his father had mentioned Shechem only as a likely place where he would find his brothers but that his mission was not restricted to Shechem.

ויבא שכמה, He arrived at Shechem. The place to which his father had sent him; however, he did not find his brothers. He searched for them, something the Torah did not need to spell out as otherwise the first words in the next verse, i.e. "A man found him," would not make sense. By now Joseph was lost.

הגידה נא לי, "PLease tell me!" How did Joseph know that the stranger knew where his brothers were to be found? He did not ask the man if he knew; he only asked him to reveal his knowledge! Perhaps Joseph concluded from the word לאמור which the stranger used that he had some information that was useful for Joseph. Since there was no one else around, why would the stranger have used the word לאמור, to say, before asking "what do you seek?"

נסעו מזה, כי שמעתי אומרים, "They have moved away from here, for I have heard them say, etc." Why did the stranger have to preface his information by saying: "they have moved away from here?" It would have sufficed for him to say: "I have heard them say: 'let us go to Dothan!'" Rashi explains that the words mean that the brothers had abandoned the path of brotherliness (and devised legal schemes to kill him). If so, why was Joseph not worried enough to turn around and to return to his father's home? What greater degree of danger could there be? In fact, was Joseph not guilty of almost committing suicide by continuing to search for his brothers?

Perhaps Joseph did not understand the warning properly. Our sages who had the benefit of hindsight were able to interpret the words of the "man" as a warning. Joseph who was not blessed with such hindsight had no reason to see a dire warning in these harmless sounding words. He merely understood that his brothers had not only left Shechem but the whole district. The reason the "man" added "I have heard the brothers say: 'let us go to Dothan,' was to explain what he meant by "they have moved from here.'" He could not say with certainty that the brothers had actually arrived at Dothan. He only had knowledge of their intention. It did not occur to Joseph that the man with whom he talked was an angel; therefore he did not try to read any more into the man's words than appeared obvious. When the Torah writes: "Joseph went after his brothers and he found them in Dothan," this is in order then. Had Joseph understood the veiled warning of the "man," the Torah should have written: "Joseph followed his brothers to Dothan and found them." Joseph searched for his brothers seeing that the man had not been precise about their present location. As a result of his search, Joseph found his brothers in Dothan. Our sages' interpretation of what occurred is perfectly in order, i.e. that the Torah reveals that the angel who spoke to Joseph had given him a veiled warning.

Proof that Joseph had not understood this is that the Torah reports Joseph as searching for his brothers. He was under the impression that they still considered him their brother.

The question we must all ask is that if the angel remained deliberately so vague that Joseph did not understand his warning, why did he direct him to a location which was so fraught with danger for Joseph? Perhaps, after having become aware that Joseph's intention was to find brotherliness, i.e. את אחי אנכי מבקש, the angel wanted to increase the merit Joseph would accumulate by persisting in such a worthwhile endeavour. For all we know this is how Joseph acquired the merit necessary to qualify ultimately as the ruler of Egypt and the provider for his family.

"And they saw him afar off" It is necessary to know, when saying "and before" (Gen. 37:18), whether it applies to what was before it, as follows: 'And they saw him afar off before he came near to them' or if it [namely, the word "before"] is the beginning of what comes afterwards, as follows: 'Before he came near to them they conspired regarding him...' Both interpretations are difficult: if it applies to what was before it, it should have said 'before he came near' [not AND before he came near], and if it is the beginning of what comes afterwards, it should have said 'and before...they conspired' [not AND they conspired]. Maybe the addition of the vav was meant to increase distance, meaning that you shouldn't say that the distance implies that he [Joseph] has not yet approached them [his brothers], rather "and before he came near to them" means they saw him at an exaggerated distance.

We could say further that "and they saw him from afar off" refers to the distance of their hearts, because they did not see him as brothers see their brothers, rather, they saw him like a man distant from them; "and before he came near..." means that this seeing was also "before..." and if it hadn't said "And before" with a vav it would have implied the reading of distance above [namely that they saw Joseph at a great physical distance], therefore the vav was added, to show that the matter was different [namely that the distance was emotional]. One could also offer a different explanation of the text, but it appears that this is the best reading.

ועתה לכו ונהרגהו, "Come now let us kill him!" They planned to kill him before he had a chance to actually reach them; they went towards him. This is why the Torah emphasises the word ועתה. They were so upset emotionally that they could not even contain their anger until he would reach them. What the brothers did is best described in Baba Kama 26 where the Talmud rules that when ten people kill one person simultaneously they cannot be held responsible by a human court. The brothers' main concern was to escape a trial by a human court.

ונשליכהו באחד הבורות, "and let us throw him into one of the pits." When the brothers mentioned how they would explain Joseph's disappearance, i.e. ואמרנו, they meant that as a rule anyone found in one of these pits would be consumed by a variety of rodents which abound in them. They would then be telling the truth when they described him as having fallen victim to wild beasts. By not saying the rodents had killed him they would refrain from uttering an outright lie.

Naturally, we must explore by whose authority the brothers imagined that they were entitled to kill a human being, and such a righteous human being at that? Even allowing for the fact that the manner in which they planned to kill Joseph would not have made them liable to a human tribunal, how did they expect to escape retribution at the hands of G'd?

Perhaps the brothers applied to Joseph the laws pertaining to עד זומם, someone who testifies to a crime he did not really see and who thereby intended to have the accused convicted of the death penalty. In such a situation the Torah demands that the עד זומם himself will be executed by the same death penalty he intended for his victim. Joseph had accused his brothers of eating אבר מן החי, tissue from a living animal. A fitting penalty would be for Joseph himself to be consumed by wild animals before he was dead. Joseph had also claimed that the brothers engaged in sex with partners forbidden to them. All these accusations, if true, carry the death penalty when committed by Gentiles. Moreover, a Gentile may be convicted by the testimony of a single witness without corroboration and without the victim having been warned of the consequences of his behaviour. Even next of kin may testify against the accused (Maimonides Hilchot Melachim chapter 9). Accordingly, the brothers applied to Joseph the law of an עד זומם thus exonerating themselves in the eyes of heaven. However, if so, they would not be considered innocent before a human tribunal because they had no הזמה, evidence of an alibi placing the witness Joseph in a different location at the time that he claimed that the brothers had committed the crimes he had accused them of. This is why they had to resort to the ruse of ganging up on him simultaneously. No human court could then prove that either one of them had administered a lethal blow. They felt quite at ease vis-a-vis heaven, being convinced that Joseph wanted to kill them. All of these considerations helped G'd carry out what He had planned without interfering with the freedom of will of the brothers or of Joseph. Perhaps the brothers even alluded to the fact that they would eventually repent what they were about to do and this is why they said ועתה, i.e. "for now this is what we are going to do." Bereshit Rabbah 21,6 claims that whenever the expression ועתה is used it refers to repentance.

ונראה מה יהיו חלומותיו, "and we shall see what becomes of his dreams." They were at pains to prove that his dreams contained false information, or that the dreams were merely reflections of what he had been thinking by day. If they would kill him now this would prove that the dreams only reflected Joseph's own aspirations.

ויצילהו מידם. "He saved him from harm at their hands. This action was applauded by the Torah as man is a free creature possessing freedom of choice and able to kill people who are not guilty or have not been convicted, as distinct from wild beasts which do not kill humans unless the latter are guilty of death in the eyes of G'd. The words ויצילהו מידם mean that he saved them from the evil consequences of carrying out their freedom of choice to kill. By doing what he did Reuben nullified the brothers' statement: "we shall see what happens to his dreams."

לא נכנו נפש. "Let us not kill him." What Reuben meant was "let us not kill him outright ourselves but only cause his death indirectly." When he said later: "do not shed blood, throw him into the pit," this was his argument to his brothers. He only pretended to agree that Joseph's death should be caused because he could think of no other way of saving Joseph's life and restoring him to his father. He was quite certain in his own mind that no wild beast would harm Joseph, or any other of Jacob's sons for that matter. He himself would also not allow Joseph to remain in the pit long enough to die of hunger. Proof of Reubens' intention is that the Torah reports that he returned to the pit shortly after the brothers had sold Joseph in his absence. He had planned to take Joseph out of the pit.