אֵלֶּה תֹּלְדוֹת יַעֲקֹב יוֹסֵף בֶּן שְׁבַע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה הָיָה רֹעֶה אֶת אֶחָיו בַּצֹּאן וְהוּא נַעַר אֶת בְּנֵי בִלְהָה וְאֶת בְּנֵי זִלְפָּה נְשֵׁי אָבִיו וַיָּבֵא יוֹסֵף אֶת דִּבָּתָם רָעָה אֶל אֲבִיהֶם:
(בראשית לז:ב)
“These are the generations of Yaakov: when Yosef was 17 years old, being a shepherd, he was with his brothers with the flocks, and he was a young man, and was with the sons of Bilhah and with the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives; and Yosef brought evil tales about them to their father.”
Rashi explains that one of the bad tales that Yosef reported to his father was that his brothers ate flesh cut off from a living animal—“aiver min hachai.” Hashem eventually punished Yosef for this, midah keneged midah: right when the brothers sold Yosef, they slaughtered a goat in front of him, and they did not eat its flesh while the animal was still living.
Zera Shimshon raises two questions on Rashi’s commentary: The first one is why did the brothers choose to shecht the goat right away, before they actually needed its blood to stain Yosef’s clothes? This act was intended to deceive Yaakov into believing that Yosef had been devoured by a wild animal, thereby absolving the brothers of guilt. Zera Shimshon, therefore, asks: What was the reason behind their haste in shechting the goat immediately?
Zera Shimshon explains, referencing two midrashim: The first—as cited by Rashi in parshas Vayishlach (30:25)—mentions a teaching of Chazal which states that Yosef is the brother who was destined to fight and defeat Eisav. The second midrash likens Eisav to a goat.
In light of these midrashim, Zera Shimshon explains that Yosef—being the one prophesied to triumph over Eisav—might have boasted to his brothers about his essential role in this future victory. Therefore, when the brothers sold Yosef, they slaughtered a goat in his presence. This act served as a symbolic gesture to remind Yosef not to feel superior and to think that he, alone, has the power to subdue Eisav. There are many ways that Hashem can accomplish the destruction of Eisav. Therefore you, Yosef, are not indispensable. The act of shechting the goat was a message to Yosef that through the performance of mitzvos—such as shechita—the brothers also possessed the capability to overcome and annihilate Eisav, who is metaphorically represented as a goat. Therefore, there is no place for you to feel superior to us and boast.
The second question Zera Shimshon poses regarding Rashi’s interpretation: How is the act of slaughtering a goat considered a punishment for Yosef? How could the slaughtering of the goat—an act seemingly unrelated to Yosef’s personal experience—have had such a significant impact on him that it would be deemed a form of punishment?
Zera Shimshon opens his answer by referring to mefarshim—who suggest that the prohibition against consuming a limb from a living animal (aiver min hachai) stems from its inherent cruelty—which, in turn, has the potential to instill cruelty in the person performing the act; it is the impactful and changing effect actions have on an individual’s character. Engaging in cruel acts—even towards animals—can desensitize a person to suffering and lead to a general hardening of the heart. In contrast, refraining from cruelty in our interactions with animals helps cultivate a character of compassion and sensitivity. In the words of Sefer HaChinuch, a person’s heart follows his actions.
Zera Shimshon then delves into Yosef’s reasoning for informing his father, Yaakov, that his brothers consumed aiver min hachai. Yosef was aware that Yaakov knew of his brothers’ animosity towards him, but it was unclear to Yosef how Yaakov interpreted this hatred. How did Yaakov understand the root of this hatred? He had two ideas: One possibility was that the brothers’ disdain was justified due to Yosef’s sins—as the Gemara in Pesachim states that hating a wicked person can even be a mitzvah!
The second possibility was that Yaakov believed the brothers’ dislike of Yosef was due to their own deficiencies—such as feeling inferior to him or that they were simply jealous of him. This distinction was crucial for Yosef; if it was the former, Yaakov might also harbor hatred towards him, but if it was the latter, Yaakov would not.
To persuade Yaakov that the brothers’ hatred was not a result of Yosef’s actions, but because of their deficiencies, Yosef reported their eating of aiver min hachai, suggesting their cruelty was the root of their animosity towards him—not any wrongdoing on Yosef’s part.
The brothers also understood this was Yosef’s intention and to counter this accusation, the brothers sent to Yaakov the blood-stained garment of Yosef. Yaakov was led to believe that Yosef had been devoured by a wild animal. This was intended not only to absolve the brothers of guilt, but also to support their claim that their aversion to Yosef was due to his lashon hara—aligning with the mitzvah to despise sinners. They based this argument on the teaching in the Gemara in Shabbos 151b—as stated by Rami bar Abba—that an animal only attacks a person perceived as spiritually deficient.
In this interpretation, the true nature of the punishment Yosef faced—as a result of his brothers’ action of shechting the goat—transcends physical suffering. It delves into the realm of emotional and psychological pain. This anguish was rooted in the knowledge that his father, Yaakov—when he saw that a wild animal ate him—would perceive him as a sinner. The emotional weight of this situation for Yosef is profound. Being favored by his father, the thought of losing this esteemed position and being thought of as someone who engages in such a morally reprehensible act like lashon hora would have been deeply distressing. It’s not just about being misunderstood; it’s about being misjudged in a deeply personal and moral context by someone as significant as his father, Yaakov Avinu. This mental and emotional turmoil represents a form of punishment that is very severe, even though nothing happened to him in a physical sense.
Two significant lessons emerge from the Zera Shimshon’s explanation: Firstly, while individuals play an active role in their own lives and in the lives of others—making choices and putting forth effort—it may seem like they are solely responsible for the outcomes. This is not true; the ultimate results of one’s actions are under Hashem’s control and direction and a part of a previous plan that Hashem made.
In Yosef’s situation, even though he was meant to be actively involved in the process of overcoming Eisav, the mitzvos performed by his brothers could achieve the exact same effect. Practically, this concept teaches us that although we have to actively participate in our lives—making decisions and taking actions based on our knowledge, skills and ethical values—it’s crucial to remember and acknowledge that we are, ultimately, enacting Hashem’s plan. We must accept that the final outcomes are determined by Hashem, and thus, they may not always align with our own efforts or expectations.
The second lesson revolves around the nature of punishment, extending beyond the physical realm. As seen in Yosef’s case, the emotional anguish of knowing his father would view him negatively constituted real and genuine suffering. This understanding reminds us to be mindful not just of causing physical harm, but also of the emotional impact our actions and words can have. It challenges the notion that only physical actions can cause harm, emphasizing that emotional and psychological hurt is equally or even more real and potent.
HaRav Shimshon Nachmani—author of Zera Shimshon—lived in Italy, about 300 years ago, in the time of the Or HaChaim HaKodesh. He had one child who died in his lifetime and, in the preface, he promises that those who learn his sefarim, “will see children and grandchildren like the offshoots of an olive tree around your tables.”
