Hashgacha & Bechira Chofshis

After Yosef reveals himself to his brothers, so Yosef says,

ואתה אל תעצבו ואל יחר בעיניכם כי מכרתם אותי הנה כי למחיה שלחני אלוקים לפניכם.

Don't be sad, al yichar be'eineichem, don't be agitated. Right? There's a difference between yichar af and yichar. Yichar af means anger. Yichar without the af means agitation. V'al yichar be'eineichem, don't be agitated כי מכרתם אותי הנה that you, you sold me into slavery that I ended up here in Mitzrayim. כי למחיה שלחני אלוקים לפניכם. Skipping one pasuk, vayishlachani Elokim lifneichem, HaKadosh Baruch Hu dispatched me before you, לשום לכם שארית בארץ to establish for you a, a means of survival in the land ולהחיות לכם לפליטה גדולה. The simple reading of the pesukim would suggest that that Yosef is attributing his entire odyssey to hashgacha, to HaKadosh Baruch Hu, and therefore telling the brothers they have nothing to be concerned about. Nothing to feel bad about. אל תעצבו ואל יחר בעיניכם. What do you mean אל תעצבו ואל יחר בעיניכם, you sell your brother into slavery? So the impression you have from these pesukim is, is that Yosef HaTzaddik is saying, no, you didn't have any bechira. HaKadosh Baruch Hu was, was pulling the strings and, and this was HaKadosh Baruch Hu's plan, and and that's why you're, you're don't have to be concerned, apparently because you are absolved of responsibility. Yet clearly according to Chazal, that's not the right reading on the pesukim, because right before Yosef said the al te'atzvu and vayishlachani Elokim lifneichem, so Yosef says in, in his very, in his initial self-revelation:

ויאמר יוסף אל אחיו אני יוסף העוד אבי חי ולא יכלו אחיו לענות אותו כי נבהלו מפניו.

Chazal say in the Gemara Chagiga that אוי לנו מיום הדין אוי לנו מיום התוכחה, that here the brothers couldn't even respond to the tochacha of basar vadam. How much more so when a person's going to have to respond to the tochacha of HaKadosh Baruch Hu? Where's the tochacha? So the Beis HaLevi famously explains that what seems like an innocent question of ha'od avi chai is not that at all. Because at the end of Parshas Mikeitz, Yosef had asked the brothers about Yaakov Avinu: השלום אביכם הזקן אשר אמרתם העודנו חי and they had, and they had given him an update on Yaakov Avinu's status and health. And they haven't been back yet, because they were arrested before they got back. So they don't know anything more than they told him last time. So the ha'od avi chai is not an innocent question about, about Yaakov Avinu. I don't remember whether, so the Beis HaLevi says no, ha'od avi chai is Yosef's way of saying is it possible that Yaakov Avinu is still alive after all the incredible, indescribable, unimaginable agmas nefesh that you subjected him to these past 22 years thinking that that I had been, that I had been killed? I don't remember if the Beis HaLevi adds this or not, but lichora if he doesn't add it, he, he means it as well. So it's also very precise that that he doesn't say ha'od avinu chai. He says ha'od avi chai. Right? Yosef HaTzaddik doesn't say is our father alive? I mean he's talking to his brothers, so what do you mean is my father alive? I mean he's Yosef's father, not their father. He should say ha'od avinu chai. Is our, is our father still alive? No. Ela mah? That, that fits exactly with the pshat that Chazal learn in the pasuk, that it's not, it's not an innocent question. Yosef is saying: is my father alive? Meaning my father, he's my father in the sense of the agmas nefesh that he must have experienced over, over what you did to me. So clearly Yosef is rebuking them. So how do you sort of reconcile Yosef's rebuking them There's a very, very important yesod here as follows. One of the wonders of hashgacha is that Hakadosh Baruch Hu coordinates, this is how the Sfas Emes learns pshat in the psukim. Hakadosh Baruch Hu coordinates people's bechira with what he wants to happen to people. Meaning what? On the one hand, anything we do, we do out of our own free will as subjects, as actors. So we're free agents. Whatever we do, we do out of our bechira. Whatever happens to us as objects, as being acted upon, only happens, the Sfas Emes says, if it's nigzar min hashamayim. How does that how does that work? Lema'aseh, let's say, let's say I want to punch you in the nose. Okay, that's a less threatening example on Zoom than it would be in person. So everyone can be grateful for the Zoom forum. Let's say I want, let's say I want to punch you in the nose. So then basically what the Sfas Emes is saying, to sort of just oversimplify so we get a handle on it, is if it's nigzar min hashamayim that that person should be subjected to this pain and injury, so then I will be successful in carrying out my bechira. But if it's not, so then I'll miss. I'll miss. So that means that if I was successful, that was my bechira. It wasn't that the gezeirah forced me to do it. But on the other hand, if I was successful, so then the object, the one acted upon, he sees it and experiences it as something which was nigzar min hashamayim. Okay, obviously there's a certain havana of hashgacha pratis which is reflected here, but that's how the Sfas Emes in in one line, two lines, suggests pshat in the psukim. So it's a very, very big yesod, very, very big yesod. So that means that that we're supposed to see things on two different levels. Again, as subjects, we we see things as what we do we have total and complete responsibility for it because we acted out of our own bechira. And and there's no way to avoid or evade responsibility. Me'idach gisa, as objects, so then it should awaken within us the cheshbon hanefesh of something providential that happened to us, not something which is just accidental. And that's how Yosef is telling them, Yosef is telling them he sees ki nivhalu mipanav. He sees that they're afraid of him. So Yosef says no, he says af al pi, although, agam that you did something terrible for which I rebuked you, but I'm not going to take revenge because taking revenge would mean that I think you're the cause of what happened to me. I recognize that what happened to me was nigzar min hashamayim. So that makes the the seeking revenge, it it makes that nonsensical. So therefore mitzidi Yosef says as the object, as the acted upon, it was all nigzar min hashamayim which means that mitzidi I have no no no inclination, no no desire for for revenge. So you have nothing to to fear about. But mitzidchem Yosef is saying from your vantage point, so you acted as free agents. In general, you know, in there is a yetzer hara that I don't know, some of us have, most of us have, all of us have, I don't know, some of us definitely have a yetzer hara. There is a yetzer hara that we have to To sort of shift blame and thereby absolve ourselves of of dealing with the situation. It can be in in such a such a scenario as someone wrongs us. So we can see it as a product of just that person's maliciousness, of that person's insensitivity, in which case it's not mechayev anything from us. Right, if if what I experienced at his hands is just a reflection on him, so it's not mechayev anything for me. Or another case where where there's a yetzer hara, a strong yetzer hara, to to sort of just shift responsibility. Sometimes some people have to deal with disadvantaged circumstances. I don't know what are the disadvantaged circumstances? It can be not having had the the easiest upbringing or or the the most secure or stable home to grow up in. It can be any one of of a number of of such challenges. And here too there's a yetzer hara to to sort of say I'm blameless in that. And and because of that to sort of just play the role of a victim and and sort of passively wait for things to be improved and and to passively wait as it were for compensation. And and I don't mean that this example is comparable to the other example in the sense of of of necessarily being designed to to trigger cheshbon hanefesh, but it is like the other example in that that's never supposed to be our response. Our response is always supposed to be okay, this is what I have to deal with, how do I deal with it, as opposed to it's so-and-so's fault that I'm in this situation and and what and what can I possibly do about it? And and to again sort of just retreat into that passivity. Oversimplifying again, there are sort of two two options that are always available when when we find ourselves in challenging circumstances. One option is that there's adequate reason to shift blame or and or feel sorry for ourselves and or and or think that I didn't make this mess, it's certainly not my responsibility to get out of the mess. And and you can make a cogent argument for for those positions. Alternatively, a person can say okay, so given that this is the situation, what's my avoda? What what does this situation, what response does it call for from me? Religiously, the response we're supposed to have is the second one. And not surprisingly, and maybe this gives us added chizuk, emotionally the second one is is much more rewarding as well. There's nothing ultimately in the short run it seems it seems satisfying, but there's nothing emotionally fulfilling about just sort of holding on to a grievance, holding on to to to shifting blame. Aderaba, one one just sinks in it. So Yosef HaTzaddik doesn't allow the the fault which accrues to the brothers, he never allows it to, he never he never engaged in in he never sees it as as a way of evading responsibility. You know you know Chazal say back in Parshat Vayeishev after the Mechira, so so the pasuk says ויהי בעת ההיא וירד יהודה מאת אחיו. So what does Vayehi ba'eis hahi mean? At that time. What do you mean at that time? So the Torah is trying to place the events of Yehuda in a broader historical context. It would sort of like be saying in the midst of the second if I want to tell you a story about something that happened in 1942 and and it's relevant to know that it was in the middle of the war, so I'll say in the midst of the Second World War and then that means with with America at at and the and the allies at war with all the Axis powers etc. So Vayehi ba'eis hahi is is placing something in a broader historical context. So what's the broader context? So Chazal say that that Reuven was עוסק בשקו ובתעניתו על שבלבל יצועי אביו and that Yosef was osuk besako betaniso because he was nimkar and that Hakadosh Baruch Hu was Hakadosh Baruch Hu was also busy, he was busy being בורא אורו של משיח, fascinating Midrash. He was creating the light of of of the Melech HaMashiach. But what was Yosef osuk besako betaniso because the brothers so committed a terrible aveira so Yosef was osuk besako betaniso? No, that's exactly it. Yosef says no, I realize, Yosef could have sat there, you know, sort of stewing in his anger at the brothers, or he could say what is this mechaiev for me? What is it mechaiev for me? He says if this happened to me, so it's mechaiev tshuva for me. So again it's not always it's not always the point that that it's tshuva that's required, sometimes it is, but the point is always this to look at what response does this suppose to evince, elicit from us as opposed to just pointing a finger. It's not that the finger of blame sometimes is correct, or even the analysis of of of difficult and and adverse situation and disadvantage is correct, but where does that get a person in life? It doesn't get a person anywhere. A person assumes responsibility of what is this situation call for for me? If it's tshuva, then it's tshuva. Sometimes it's not tshuva, sometimes it's again just a hisgavrus. That that's the that's the limud. Okay, so בלי נדר אם ירצה השם we'll we'll reconvene around 12:45 for a little bit more in avos. Have a very good and productive morning of avos. Everyone should be well be safe im yirtzeh Hashem.