Yaakov's Mourning: Yosef v Fighting Children (did he know Yosef was alive?)

Parshat Vayigash

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Today we’re going to explore a very simple question. In all the time Yosef was away, did his father Yaakov know that he was alive?

Many midrashic works and many commentaries note that Yitzchak was still alive, and that he knew through his own divine inspiration that Yosef was alive. Yet he didn’t tell Yaakov because he figured, “If God didn’t tell Yaakov, why should I?”

And yet, when we examine the evidence, the possibility that Yosef was alive might be apparent in Yaakov’s own behavior, even if he did not know of Yosef’s specific fate.

Let us consider the evidence:
After hearing of Yosef’s dream of the sun, moon, and stars bowing to him, the Torah gives us Yaakov’s reaction. 37:10 – “When he told it to his father and brothers, his father scolded him and said, 'What kind of dream did you have? Do you want me, your mother, and your brothers to come and prostrate ourselves on the ground to you?'”

Obviously this interpretation of the dream was incorrect (assuming Yaakov was interpreting) because neither Yaakov nor Rachel (who was dead) ever bowed to Yosef along with the 11 brothers. [Yaakov bows in 47:31 but virtually everyone agrees that he was bowing before God.] But he did think Yosef would be a ruler one day.

Shortly thereafter, Yaakov sent Yosef to find his brothers in Shechem. After Yosef is sold, the brothers present Yosef’s coat to their father who cries (37:33) 'It is my son's coat!' he cried. 'A wild beast must have eaten him! My Joseph has been torn to pieces!' Rashi, Targum Yonatan (and others) and a number of midrashim tell us that in referencing an animal tearing him up, Yaakov was referring to the wife of Potiphar who tried to seduce Yosef.

If we think about it, it makes sense. The brothers only produced a torn coat, but no piece of a body. Not even a leftover bone. It stands to reason that Yaakov considered the possibility that Yosef was not dead, and if the interpretation mentioned is a reflection of reality, it could only be true if Yosef is alive in Egypt!

The simplest question that can be asked is, what about the next two verses? In 37:34-35, we are told that Yaakov “tore his robes in grief and put on sackcloth. He mourned for his son many days. All his sons and daughters tried to console him, but he refused to be comforted. 'I will go down to the grave mourning for my son,' he said…”

However, using a principle of “Al tikrei,” (read the word with vowelization b instead of vowelization a) which is employed in the Talmud over 100 times, we can suggest that when it says “he mourned for his son” (b’no - בנו) the term could mean “for his sons” (banav - בנו) and when he says “I’ll go down to the grave mourning for my son” (b’ni - בני) it could mean “for my sons” (banai - בני). And why might he be mourning for his sons? For the rift between them, and their hubris in getting rid of their brother, and their lying to their father to cover up their shameful deed.

In this light, we can understand why his “sons and daughters” (possibly daughters-in-law or granddaughters) could not comfort him, because until they were able to face the devils in their hearts, he could never be comforted by them.

Recall, by the way, that all players involved in transferring Yosef down to Egypt were direct descendants of Avraham (Radak). Whether it was Yishmaelites (37:28, 39:1), Midianites (37:28), Medanites (37:36), they came from Avraham’s wife Hagar/Keturah (see 25:2). Kli Yakar suggests that when the brothers said “Let’s sell him to the Yishmaelites and our hand will not be upon him for he is our brother” that the point of “he is our brother” was referring to the Yishmaelites, who would certainly not harm their second cousin. Might they not also report to Cousin Yaakov that they had safely delivered Yosef to Egypt?

Which leads us to the next piece of evidence. In 37:25, we are told what the Yishmaelites were carrying down to Egypt - n’khot, tzri and lot - Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan translates these items to be gum, balsam, and resin, though their absolute identification is subject to dispute. In any case, when Yaakov sends the brothers to Egypt with Binyamin, he sends them with a peace-offering gift for the ruler in Egypt – tzri, d’vash, n’khot, lot, botnim and shkeidim – which Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan translates to “a little balsam, a little honey, and some gum, resin, pistachio nuts and almonds.” If they did report to Yaakov that Yosef was brought to Egypt accompanied by these spices, he might use that information to his benefit when Binyamin goes down to Egypt as well.

There is a much broader discussion to be had about what Yosef was trying to accomplish through getting Binyamin down to Egypt. Was he trying to save Binyamin from the dangerous brothers? Was he trying to reenact what happened to him, when a son of Rachel was brought down to Egypt potentially to be a slave (another purpose for the spices connection?), and would the brothers protect him?

Which brings us to Yaakov. Did he know Yosef was alive, even if he had been sold as a slave? Perhaps Yaakov understood that Yosef needed to be away for a long time, because he (Yaakov) had been away from his own parents for a long time.

Was Yaakov in on the plot to see his sons reunited in peace? Why, for example, does Yaakov not accept the offer of Reuven to protect Binyamin, but jumps at accepting Yehuda’s offer? Who was more responsible for Yosef’s being sold – Reuven (who wasn’t present at the sale) or Yehuda (who had raised the idea, and was likely the broker for the exchange, if the brothers in fact sold him)? Yehuda needs to prove that he is a uniter now, and not a divider.

Even his conversation with the brothers before agreeing to send Binyamin is instructive. You have betrayed me. “Yosef is gone and Shimon is gone, and now you want to take Binyamin.” (42:36) The way Yosef’s disappearance is described is equivalent to how Shimon is depicted, Shimon who is languishing in a prison in Egypt. Is Yaakov suggesting that Yosef's (original) fate paralleled Shimon's current situation?

Two verses later, Yaakov says “My son will not go with you, for his brother is dead and he is left alone…” Dead could mean “dead to me” because he has been missing for so long. Or that Yosef was "dead to you brothers" until you find him and patch up old rifts. It might not mean that Yaakov actually thinks Yosef is dead.

And the last piece of evidence is that when the brothers return after their reunion with Yosef, what gives Yaakov a new lease on life? The news brought to him by his sons, the ones who had been divided so long ago, a. that Yosef was alive, and b. that he was a “moshel” (ruler) in Egypt.

Recall that the word “moshel” was one of the first sources for the breach of trust between the brothers and Yosef. 37:8 - 'Do you intend to rule (timshol) over us?'

Now that Yosef indeed “rules” in Egypt, and the brothers are clearly OK with it, Yaakov sees that what he mourned over – the breach in the family relationships at home that caused him so much pain – are behind them.

It’s a fascinating vantage point to consider, that what caused more pain to Yaakov than the possible loss of his child is the deceit and friction that existed between his children. Anyone who suffers from a lack of communication from living children, or who sees siblings who do not get along or talk to one another, knows how painful such a reality can be.

May we all be blessed to find that familial peace, in much less time than the 22 years it took for Yaakov’s children to be reunited.