Kashrut, Rules and Spirit An Interfaith Perspective

Religion can be expressed either as self-transcending and compassionate or as ritual and rules. On the fourth day of Passover, I listened to a Muslim scholar, Dr Samir Mahmoud, assert that all things are alive and sentient, that the Prophet Mohamed listened to pebbles whispering and that Halal should, more rigorously, include ethical considerations such as the conditions in which animals are kept prior to slaughter. I felt moved as I listened to him.

Our weekly Torah reading contains many mundane laws for Kosher food [1], which come across very differently from Dr Mahmoud’s talk. This begs the question: is Judaism more interested in the rules than the spirit?  

Rules!

There is no denying that there are a lot of rules in Judaism. On Passover, when my family and I performed the Seder, we read about the “clever son” who asks a question about the three types of rules of Passover [2]. The question annoyed me; it seemed so technical and to miss the awe-inspiring bigger picture of the Exodus, such that I felt like crossing out his question and replacing it with: “How can the Exodus story inspire me and our community to be better versions of ourselves and to maintain hope in trying times?”

One way of understanding the rules is that they lead to self-transcendence. This idea is expressed in this teaching, “What does God care whether one slaughters an animal from the throat or from the nape? Thus, we learn that the mitzvot were given only to refine the people” [3]. In other words, the rules are a means to an end. As we prepare and eat our food, we think about divine rules and this leads us to think about our creator, develop self-control and become better, more mindful people [4].  Indeed, the ending of the Kashrut chapter in Leviticus includes a call to holiness. [5]

 

Laws Beyond Rationale

Another way to think about Kashrut is that we do it because God commanded us to do so. When the laws are introduced in Leviticus, it says nothing about mindfulness. This animal is permitted as food because it has split hooves and chews its cud; the other one is forbidden because it does not [6]. This is the way many Jews experience Kashrut [7] and how I would usually relate to it.

Harmful Food

Two more approaches assume that the problem with unkosher food lies in the food itself, that either these foods are harmful to your health [8], or that they contain spiritual or chemical properties that dull your spiritual sensitivity [9] and they create cruelty in your heart in the case of eating the flesh of predators [10]. Hasidism teaches that there are divine sparks in all things – similar to Mahmoud’s point – but the sparks in Kosher foods can be elevated by eating with positive intention, while non-Kosher foods are “tied down” and cannot be elevated, regardless of one’s intentions [11]. 

Evidence

However, the health thesis has been strongly rejected on the basis of evidence [12]. We see non-Jewish people who eat non-Kosher food and are healthy. However, this same logic surely applies to the spiritual properties approach, one of the arguments being that if these foods are spiritually harmful, then non-Jewish people who do not keep Kosher should be of inferior character, which is manifestly untrue. Furthermore, if these foods are so inherently spiritually harmful, shouldn’t non-Jewish people be protected from them [13]? 

About the person, not the food

A careful reading of the Torah text in Leviticus suggests that the problem with these foods is more about the person eating them than about the foods alone. Sixteen (16) times in this passage, we have variations of the idea that these are a problem for you [14]. According to the Midrash, the prohibition of these foods will be reversed in the messianic era and are only forbidden now to see if we will obey the divine command [15].

Our tradition teaches us not to proclaim that we do not want to eat the flesh of the pig, but rather to say, “I want to eat it but I won’t because my heavenly Father decreed that I should not” [16]. The process of self-denial itself transforms the person who overcomes their desires [16].   Experiments by psychologist, Roy Baumeister, found that intentional eating, or eating “virtuous food”, such as radishes or celery while resisting the temptation to indulge in chocolate takes a lot out of us. The people who ate radishes “will [tend to] give up earlier than normal when faced with a difficult cognitive task” [18]. If one practices the Kosher laws as intended according to this approach, it could be a taxing, and intense but ultimately might be a rewarding effort

Chewing it over

The link between spiritual and personal growth and Kosher eating is linked symbolically to one of the signs that an animal that is “chewing the cud”, literally and figuratively, is Kosher. After the animal swallows its food, it regurgitates it and chews on it again. “… we have to constantly re-evaluate our situation – reflect and prob our conscience - and make certain that we are on the right path” [19].

Conclusion

In the interfaith encounter we must not exaggerate or understate our similarities. Dr Mahmoud’s understanding of his faith and the nature of all things and its relationship to Islamic dietary laws is different to the teachings I cited about Kosher. On the other hand, the striving for the transcendent and compassionate is expressed in both our faiths and in the strivings of people of all faiths or none. As a Hasidic Jew, I too am taught to see spiritual life in all of creation [20] and to see links between my practice, ethics [21] and spiritual growth, following the unique pathways and rules of the Torah.  

 

Thank you to Hazel Baker for editing this blog post. Her edits have made this post clearer and stronger. Thank you.

Notes

 

1)       Leviticus 11

2)       The Passover Haggada, the four sons.

3)       Bereshit Rabba, 44

4)       R Bchaya on Leviticus 11, R Haim Donin in To be A Jew.

5)       Leviticus 11:44-45

6)       Leviticus 11:3-7, according to Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, 3:46, there signs are not reasons, they are only ways of identifying which animals are Kosher or not-Kosher

7)       Orenstien, W. and Frankel, H, (1960) Torah as our Guide, Hebrew Publishing Company, p. 27, “unlike many other laws in the Torah, the reason for these [dietary] laws is not given… Learned men of every generation have tried to explain them, but to this day no one has found the reason for them. But we observe these laws because they are the will of God.

8)       Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, 3:46

9)       Talmud Yoma, 39a as interpreted by others such as Mesilas Yesharim 11, the Talmud itself is talking about sin in general rather than specifically the properties of non-kosher food. “…sin stupefies the heart of a person, as it is stated: “And do not impurify yourselves with them.””

10)    Ramban, Leviticus 11:13

11)    Tanya Chapter 8

12)    Arama, R. Yitzchak in Akeidat Yitchat, Gate 60, Abarbanel on Shemini,

13)    An internet user going by the name Maximilian asked a question along these lines on the Ask Noah forum: “Hello! Is it alright according to Torah if I [as a non-Jewish person] avoid eating ‘unclean animals’ like G-d spoke in Leviticus 11? Even before Noah was on the Ark G-d spoke about clean and unclean animals, in Genesis 7,2. I can imagine that trying to avoid these spiritually unclean animals can help to get a better relationship with G-d? I feel better eating just animals which G-d called clean, is it okay if I do so?”

14)    Leviticus 11:4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 20, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 37, 40. Rabbi David Zvi Hoffman in his commentary to Leviticus page 216, makes the point that in Judaism the animals are not intrinsically bad, unlike his understanding of Zoroastrianism. It must be said that the Torah does attribute an element of “not pure” or pure to non-Kosher and Kosher animals respectively, in Genesis 7:2, I don’t think that attribute cancels the sixteen references to “Lachem” to you, in Leviticus 11.

15)    Midrash Tehillim 146:3 (explaining the verse "He permits what is forbidden”). What is meant by permitting what is forbidden? Some say that all the animals that became impure in this world, God will purify them in the future. As it says (Ecclesiastes 1:9) “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again.” They were pure for the children of Noah. And He also said to them (Genesis 9:3) “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all.” Just as I have given you the green plants, I give you everything. Why did He forbid it? To see who accepts His words and who does not. And in the future, He will permit everything that He forbade

16)    Sifra on Leviticus 2:26.

17)    Arama, R. Yitzchak in Akeidat Yitchat, Gate 60.

18)    Buameister, R, in Kahneman, D., (2021) Thinking Fast and Slow, Penguin Books, p. 42.

19)    The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Likutei Sichos Vol 1, as reworked by Yitzi Hurwitz

20)    R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi in the Tanya, section 2, Sha’ar Hayichud V’Haemuna

21)   The problem of how animals are treated in preparation for human consumption is addressed under the laws of cruelty to animals, Tzaar Baale Chayim.

A Father’s Bat Mitzvah Speech - Bubbies, Broken and Butterflies

Fear, will and love. Three powerful feelings that reflect your three namesakes, Shifra the midwife in Egypt and your grandmothers, Golda Kastel and Brocha Stark. Feelings that I hope will drive you, dear Shifra, to grow from the child you have been into a woman who accomplishes great things.

This change can be compared to the transformation of the caterpillar. It begins by forming a chrysalis. Inside the chrysalis, the caterpillar's body breaks down and reorganises into the butterfly form.

Sometimes, people feel a little broken, disappointed, anxious, and unsettled. Things are often very different from how they should be, around us or in us.

In the Torah portion this week, we read about a sacrifice ceremony for dealing with some sins (1). The word used for sin can alternatively be translated as a lacking (2). 

Part of the ceremony involved cooking the meat of the animal that was sacrificed. If a clay pot was used for the cooking, the pot must be broken (3) in a holy place (4). This holy breaking is understood to be symbolic.  The founder of Hasidism, the Baal Shem Tov, taught that the broken pot represents a broken heart (5) that leads us to grow and improve, just like the breakdown of a caterpillar’s body allows it to become a butterfly.

Change is scary. Your namesake, the Biblical Shifra, was one of the midwives in Egypt. Pharaoh demanded that she kill all the baby boys, but she refused (6). Her refusal was based on positive fear of disappointing God, which made her fearless in disobeying a tyrant.  Fear is like having butterflies in your stomach. It is unpleasant, but the right kind of fear can motivate you to still do what is right, even when it is difficult.

Don’t ever try to eliminate your ability to feel fear but choose your fear. Make sure you are in awe of God alone and wary of not doing what is right. Never be afraid of people who behave, even temporarily, like a Pharaoh. They are not important enough.

Pharaoh was not the only one to threaten the Jewish people and frighten us.

Another of your three names, Brocha, is after your grandmother, Brocha Stark. She was a Holocaust survivor who came to Australia after unimaginable horrors and created a home for her family. Together with her husband, she helped create a new community that included the Yeshiva College, which later became your school, Kesser Torah College.

After everything she went through, Nanna Brocha found the willpower to create beautiful Yiddishkeit and family in Australia. And you, Shifra Golda Brocha, are part of the beautiful butterfly that she created.

The willpower of your namesake, Brocha can inspire you. “If someone’s desire is strong, it can crumble mountains and break stones” (7). Your mountains are waiting for you. You will smash them!

Nanna Brocha was also a giant of love. Her grandchildren would often spend time in her home. On Purim she sent us the most delicious Mishloach Manos (Purim food gifts), with the best treats that could possibly be created out of nuts, flour and sugar.

Love was also a super-power of your third namesake, your grandmother, Golda Kastel.

She was incredibly devoted to her family, supporting her husband in sustaining a Jewish school in Boston for many years. I was an anxious teenager who sometimes lacked confidence. I sometimes felt like an ordinary caterpillar. But Bobby Golda showered me with love and made me feel special.

At her 70^th birthday party in Baltimore, I spoke. I said that Bobbi’s love had magically transformed me from a caterpillar into a butterfly.

Shifra, you have been given gifts of fear, will and love. We all love you so much. You mean the world to us. Mazal Tov, dear Shifra. Be strong and be a great woman (8). Fly high and with grace, our new beautiful butterfly.

.

This a revised version of my speech to my daughter on celebrating her Bat Mitzvah

(1)    Leviticus 6:18-23

(2)    The Lubavitcher Rebbe, "חטא", מלשון חיסרון https://www.chabad.org.il/ParashotArticles/Item.asp?ArticleID=921&CategoryID=78

(3)    Leviticus 6:21

(4)    Chizkuni commentary to 6:21

(5)    The Baal Shem Tov, כש"ט ח"ב דכ"ב ע"א; בעל שם טוב, לראש השנה ויום כפור כ״ז:א׳

(6)    Exodus 1:15-17

(7)    Rabbi Shmuel of Sochotchovאין לך דבר העומד בפני הרצון,, רבי שמואל בורנשטיין זצ"ל מסוכטשוב (נפטר בשנת תרפ"ו) בספר שם משמואל (פרשת תרומה שנת תער"ב בסופו

(8)    Kings I, 2:2, paraphrasing. 

Settled Soul Practices Clarity Coherence and Calm.

It is the first week of February. Sadly, this is where New Year resolutions go to die. However, I am feeling confident that for me, this year it will be different.

In early January, I was sitting on a plane somewhere over the Pacific when I encountered, what I hope will be, life changing wisdom about “settled souls”. I used to think that a settled soul was an outcome. Instead, I learned that being a settled soul was an ethical practice. One of my commitments for 2025 is to live by “settled-soul” practices of clarity, coherence, calm and presence.

To better understand how this works, let us consider the opposite of the settled soul, “the scattered soul”[i]. An example of this state can be found in the ways of Jacob’s son Reuben. Jacob spoke harshly on his deathbed to Reuben, criticising him for being hasty, rash or impetuous, like water[ii].

The problem with haste is discussed in the teaching of the Musar (ethical development) movement[iii]. One of the leaders of this movement taught the importance of the calm mind that is not hassled. This consists of having clear direction in life, living in coherence with one’s principles and not pursuing vices and lusts that cause a person to leap from one temptation to another. A lack of moral clarity can be masked by mannerisms that appear calm on the outside, but it is the internal clarity and coherence that matters. 

Once a person has this clarity, it is then important to focus and be present to whatever she or he is doing. In contrast to the multitasker, whose attention is constantly shifting between one thing and another, the settled soul is highly intentional with their attention. When Abraham became aware of visitors in his peripheral vision, he considered whether to look up, which, when he did, is described as “Abraham lifted his eyes”[iv].  For me, this means putting my phone out of reach when studying Torah and ignoring the dinging announcements of new WhatsApp messages.

The saddest example of Reuben being unsettled was his failure to save his younger brother, Joseph, from the rest of their brothers when they were plotting to kill him. First he advocated against harming the boy, then he disappeared. During Reuben’s absence, Joseph was sold into slavery. Reuben returned too late, and was beside himself with grief. “And I, where, can I ever come [home]”.[v]

One of the key practices of the settled soul is to do one thing at a time. Yet, Reuben could not stay focused on saving Joseph. He was off doing other things but failed to come through for someone who needed him.[vi]

For the last four weeks, I have been focused on the aim of living the settled-soul way. I am doing more of what I am committed to and feeling healthier and often more energetic. Now, I am thinking about retaining this approach.

When the Hebrew slaves were liberated from Egypt, there was the very real possibility that they would go right back.[vii] For me, the Exodus from Egypt represents my personal redemption from the tyranny of more limited ways of being[viii] but, like my ancestors, I am concerned about regression.

Nutritionist, Yehudis Kluwgant stated that ‘to lose weight and change to a healthy lifestyle, a person needs to change their identity, beliefs and values.’[ix] When the Hebrews left Egypt, they were first referred to simply as ‘the people’.[x] When they agreed to trust God completely and go into the desert where nothing grows[xi], their name and identity changed.[xii] They were then called the sons of Israel[xiii], symbolic of mastery of spiritual struggles.[xiv] I feel like something has shifted in me over these last few weeks, and in a sense, I am a new person. If this is correct, I think it is likely that my New Year’s resolution will endure long past early February.

   

---

[i] Rabbi Y. Y. Schneerson, Naaseh Nuh Aliyas Kir Ktana, in Sefer Hamaamarim Kuntreisim, vol. 1, p. 332,

[ii] Genesis 49:4

[iii] ר' שמחה זיסל זיו[iii] Rabbi Simcha Zisl, known at der Alter fun Kelm, a leader of the Kelm Musar
אור רש"ז, מאמר קע"ט, עמוד רכה

[iv] Genesis 22:4

[v] Genesis 37:18-30

[vi] The Lubavitcher Rebbe in Likutei Sichos, vol. 15, p. 445.

[vii] Exodus 13:17

[viii] The Lubavitcher Rebbe

[ix] In a conversation on 3.02.2025

[x] Exodus 13:17 refers to the Hebrews as the people three times

[xi] Jeremiah 2:2

[xii] Klei Yakar on Exodus 13:17

[xiii] Exodus 13:18

[xiv] Genesis 32:29

Bullies, Patriarchy and Death of the First Born Sons

We cheer for the little guy when we see a bully making threats and throwing their weight around. It is the principle that “Might does not make right! Right makes right[i]” that is at the heart of the story in which God killed the first-born sons of Pharoah’s Egypt[ii]. This principle is also a significant aspect of the most important story of Judaism, the Exodus from Egypt, that is acknowledged twice daily by religious Jews. To explore this further, we need to consider that dangerous word, patriarchy.

I suggest we rethink the Exodus story. The common understanding of the story is that one bad man named Pharoah and his people used their power to oppress members of a powerless group of foreigners, the Hebrews. Then, like in an action movie, God was stronger than the Pharoah, so God beat up the Egyptians with 10 plagues and the Hebrews were freed by the relatively weaker Egyptians.

There is another way of reading the story, that follows the interpretation of the late Rabbi JB Soloveitchik[iii]. In considering his approach, let us not worry about the archaeological evidence about ancient Egypt, and just follow the argument in the text to understand what it might mean to us today[iv].  

Egypt was the superpower of their time and very much a patriarchal society where “might did make right”. As is often the case, the ways in which societies are organised are also reflected in the dynamics in families. The father was the head bully in the family, and the first-born male was not far behind. The first-born males cruelly dominated their siblings and were seen as being of higher status in the community, which enabled them to bully some more.

This concept of the first-born son is linked to the idea that he is the father’s “might and first manifestation of [his] vigour”[v]. In other words, the first
born son symbolised the father’s manhood and was expected to assert his manliness over others.

In the twisted society of the Pharaoh, these ruthless men brutally mistreated the Hebrew slaves. It is for this reason that they are central to the process of breaking down the oppressive system of slavery and are killed by God during the plague of the death of the first born.

The intimidation of the Pharaoh is not replaced by a scarier tyrant (despite the violent plagues). When God appointed a messenger to free the Hebrews from this society, He did not recruit a warrior. Instead, He sent Moses, a shepherd with a speech impediment.  

The Hebrews were invited to reimagine the idea of the first-born son when they were commanded to temporarily set aside such a child as “holy to God”[vi], until a ceremony when they are a month old called Pidyon Haben – “redeeming the son”. When the Torah introduced this commandment, it did not reference the father’s forcefulness; instead, the Torah highlights that the first born is the one who “opened their mother’s womb”. The word for “womb” in Hebrew is rechem, which is closely linked to the word for “mercy”, rachem, and to one of the Jewish names of God, HaRachaman, “the Merciful One”. The first-born child is met with boundless love by their mother, whose baby is her greatest joy.

May we all orient our lives around love and mercy and see these qualities prevail over violence and threats.

---

[i] T.H. White, The Once and Future King

[ii] Exodus 4:22-23, 11:4-5

[iii] David, A, (2020) Drosh Darash Yosef, Mosad Harav Kook, Jerusalem, p 108.

[iv] See Blidstein, G. J. who makes a similar point in Rabbi Soloveitchik’s Abraham, https://traditiononline.org/rabbi-soloveitchiks-abraham/

[v] Genesis, 49:3, Deuteronomy 21:17

[vi] Exodus 13:2, 12-16

Is Rebuke Degrading? The Case of Joseph’s Brothers

“A stinging rebuke” is an apt description of an experience that can be deeply hurtful. Ouch! Already in Talmudic times, observers lamented that those who were able to graciously accept such ethical criticism were rare. Equally rare were those who could deliver it well[i]. As unpleasant as getting such feedback is, it can be done in a way that preserves dignity and does not need to be degrading.

In their book The Courage To Be Disliked, Ichiro Kishimi and Fumitake Koga assert that one must not rebuke or praise. Because both create hierarchical relationships between the one praising or rebuking and the recipient of these forms of feedback, the recipient is positioned beneath the one who passes judgment [ii]. While the authors can be assumed to be responding to their Japanese context and cultural norms, they also draw heavily on the theories of Alfred Adler, one the giants of 20th-century Viennese psychology. Adler insisted that all human relationships should be horizontal rather than vertical ones, and that both paise and rebuke reinforce vertical ways of relating.

I do not agree. Rebuke is possible within a horizontal relationship. It is possible between spouses who deeply respect each other or fellow adherents of a set of teachings or principles. Equals can call each other out over their failures to live to their shared standards.

The conflation of the delivery of rebuke with status difference appears to be an error made by the brothers of Joseph, when confronted by Joseph regarding the harm they did to him and their father when they sold him into slavery [iii].

Many years after the evil deed, Joseph reminded his brothers of what they had done. “I am Joseph, your brother, whom you sold into Egypt [iv]”. Joseph asked his brothers sarcastically [v], “is my father still alive?” This rhetorical [vi] question followed a monologue by Judah, one of the brothers, about the close bond their father, Jacob, had with his children, and that if one of them was to be taken away from him, Jacob would die of grief. Following Judah’s assertion, Joseph implicitly confronted his brothers with the terrible suffering they inflicted on their father when they sold Joseph [vii]. By their own logic, the brothers had nearly killed their father, in addition to betraying their own brother.

The brothers felt terrible, stunned and overwhelmed, not just by their shock in discovering that the high Egyptian official was in fact their brother, but also by their shame and guilt viii].

Joseph reassured his brothers that although they were responsible for their deeds and for the bad thoughts about him that led them to sell him, the main outcome of their deeds turned out to be beneficial [ix]; he was now in a position to feed and save them during the famine.

For many years after this conversation, the past appeared to have been resolved. Joseph had forgiven his brothers and they, together with their father, Jacob [x], dined at his royal table.  

However, when Jacob died almost two decades later, the brothers’ guilt resurfaced. They worried that Joseph might hate them [xi], projecting their fears on to him. They were so troubled by their guilt that they half- hoped Joseph would hate them [xii]. His hatred would be easier to bear than his kindness [xiii].

The brothers assumed a vertical relationship with Joseph, with him at the top and themselves at the bottom, his rebuke from years earlier ringing in their ears as they pleaded with him - as if he were God - to bear their sins [xiv]. They then offered themselves as slaves. Joseph did not accept their characterisation of their relationship as vertical, reminding them of their shared human status. He asked them, “Am I instead of God? [xv]”  He wanted them to understand that although they had done wrong, he had long forgiven them. He also reminded them that God is the only One to whom it was appropriate to be subservient.

Perhaps it was the fact that the brothers were, in their own minds, stuck in a vertical dynamic with Joseph that prevented them from forgiving themselves and restoring a horizontal relationship with their magnanimous, but briefly critical brother.

We all fall short sometimes. It hurts to recognise it. Hopefully, it can sting less if we recognise that our shortcomings do not make us less than those who point it out to us. To err is human but to accept rebuke is somewhat divine.

---

[i] Talmud, Arachin 16b

[ii] Kishimin, I, and Koga, F, (2017), The Courage To Be Disliked, Allen & Unwin, pp. 177-180

[iii] A summary of the story as it is told in Genesis, Chapters 37-50.
Jacob had twelve sons but favoured his second youngest Joseph. He gave him a special coat. Joseph’s brothers were jealous of him and intended to kill him, but in the end sold him into slavery.

Joseph was taken to Egypt, where he was a slave. He was subsequently falsely accused of seducing his master’s wife and was thrown into prison. Directly, from prison he was surprisingly appointed to high office after interpreting troubling dreams for the Pharoah. As the second highest official in Egypt, Joseph – now with a new Egyptian name, Tzafnat Paneach - orchestrated a program of food storage to prepare for famine.

When all his brothers except for the youngest, Benjamin, travelled to Egypt to access some of the surplus food during the famine it was an opportunity for Joseph to meet his brothers. They did not recognise him but he recognised them.

Joseph-Tzafnat accused his brothers of being spies and told them that they would only prove their innocence if they brought their youngest brother Benjamin with them. After imprisoning them for three days, he released nine of them to return home with food to their hungry families. He kept one brother, Simeon, as a hostage to compel them to bring Benjamin.

When Benjamin arrived, Joseph contrived to have evidence of theft planted in Benjamin’s bag and threatened to enslave Benjamin. This presented an opportunity for the brothers to demonstrate loyalty to Benjamin in a situation that was somewhat of a reenactment of the situation of their betrayal of Joseph and opportunity for complete their repentance for their betrayal of him.

The brothers passed this test, with Judah offering himself as a slave instead of Benjamin and argued that if Benjamin were not returned to their father, Jacob, the distress would cause Jacob to die.

Joseph revealed his identity to his brothers, and reconciled with them and he forgave them, even though he had not forgotten what they had done and reminded them of them of their deed.

Joseph’s brothers and father subsequently moved to Egypt from their native Canaan and their food and other requirements were provided by Joseph.

When Jacob died, the brothers worried about Joseph taking revenge and offered themselves as slaves. Joseph reassured them that he was not in the place of God and that God made it all turn out for the best.

[iv] Genesis 45:4

[v] The suggestions that Joseph was sarcastic is made by Rabbi Yosef Dov Ber Soloveitchik, in Beis Halevi on the Torah, translated into English by Rabbi Yisroel Isser Zvi Herczeg, the Oliner edition, (2016), Feldheim, p. 168.

[vi][vi] The assumption that it is a rhetorical question is based on the fact that the brothers had told Joseph numerous times before that their father was indeed alive

[vii] Soloveitchik, Y.D.B., based on the Midrash, Bereshis Rabba, 93:10.

[viii] Midrash, Bereshis Rabba, 93:10 and as explained by Soloveitchik

[ix] Genesis 45:5-8 and 50:20

[x] Midrash, Bereshis Rabba, 100:8, cited in Rashi.  

[xi] Genesis 50:15

[xii] Ohr Hachayim and Malbim on Genesis both comment on the unusual wording in verse XX. In Biblical Hebrew, if individuals were worried about a possible event they wished to avoid, the word used was פן  (“pen”)  which translates as “lest”. If one hopes for an outcome, the words (“lou”)  לוor (“oolai”) אולי  are used. The use of לו  (“ou”) in this verse implies  that the brothers, at least on some level, hoped for hatred and/or retribution.

[xiii] Malbim

[xiv] David, Avishai, in Drosh Darash Yosef, lessons and sermons on the weekly Torah portion by Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, Hebrew Edition, Mosad HaRav Kook, p. 88-90

[xv] Genesis 50:19