וַיֶּאֱהַב יַעֲקֹב אֶת-רָחֵל וַיֹּאמֶר אֶעֱבָדְךָ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים בְּרָחֵל בִּתְּךָ הַקְּטַנָּה
וַיַּעֲבֹד יַעֲקֹב בְּרָחֵל שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים וַיִּהְיוּ בְעֵינָיו כְּיָמִים אֲחָדִים בְּאַהֲבָתוֹ אֹתָהּ:
Yaakov loved Rachel and offered Lavan that he would workd seven years in exchange for the right to marry her. And Yaakov worked for Rachel 7 years and they were in his eyes like 'a mere number' of years because of his love for her.

The famous question that is asked is how did time go slowly when in fact Yaakov loved her so much each day should have been agonizing.

The simple answer I think lies in Rashi who translates the words 'a mere number' as הם ימים אחדים שאמרה לו אמו (לעיל כז מד) וישבת עמו ימים אחדים.
ותדע שכן הוא, שהרי כתיב (להלן פסוק כ) ויהיו בעיניו כימים אחדים

Rashi I think is trying to get round this seemingly psychological untruth by saying it did not in fact seem like a short time to Yaakov, rather it seemed to Yaakov that his mother had hinted that he spend 7 years at Lavan's house until Esav calmed down from his anger at having the brachos stolen from him. The 7 years that Yaakov offered to work for Lavan corresponded to those seven years he had committede to spending there anyway.

I think another answer is as follows: Yaakov actually did view the 7 years as 'a mere number' not because the time didn't pass agonizingly slowly, it did pass far too slowly for Yaakov's liking, hence, וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב אֶל-לָבָן הָבָה אֶת-אִשְׁתִּי כִּי מָלְאוּ יָמָי וְאָבוֹאָה אֵלֶיהָ. Yaakov actually showed impatience when the 7 years were up, demanding from Lavan, 'bring me my wife'. However, what the Torah means when it says that Yaakov viewed the 7 years as 'a mere number' refers to the value he placed on Rachel. Seven years just seemed to him a very reasonable price to pay for such a commodity and he was willing to pay this price willingly as a result, despite the pyschological difficulty.

An example of this kind of approach would be some ben torah would be offered that if he stays in Kolell for 5 years and learns 10 hours each day, and during that time earns no more than $400 a week, he will at the completion of the 5 years be guaranted a top position in one of the largest Shuls in the world at a salary of $700,000 a year. Lots of people would jump at this opportunity despite the difficulties involved of waiting the five years through and see it as a small price to pay for such future rewards.

In summary: The meaning of 'and it was in his eyes like a mere few years' means that it was a small amount of time to work for something so valuable. I think this is poshut peshat.

וְאֶת-גְּבִיעִי גְּבִיעַ הַכֶּסֶף תָּשִׂים בְּפִי אַמְתַּחַת הַקָּטֹן וְאֵת כֶּסֶף שִׁבְרוֹ וַיַּעַשׂ כִּדְבַר יוֹסֵף אֲשֶׁר דִּבֵּר:
ג הַבֹּקֶר אוֹר וְהָאֲנָשִׁים שֻׁלְּחוּ הֵמָּה וַחֲמֹרֵיהֶם:
ד הֵם יָצְאוּ אֶת-הָעִיר לֹא הִרְחִיקוּ וְיוֹסֵף אָמַר לַאֲשֶׁר עַל-בֵּיתוֹ קוּם רְדֹף אַחֲרֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים וְהִשַּׂגְתָּם וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם לָמָּה שִׁלַּמְתֶּם רָעָה תַּחַת טוֹבָה:
ה הֲלוֹא זֶה אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁתֶּה אֲדֹנִי בּוֹ וְהוּא נַחֵשׁ יְנַחֵשׁ בּוֹ הֲרֵעֹתֶם אֲשֶׁר עֲשִׂיתֶם:
ו וַיַּשִּׂגֵם וַיְדַבֵּר אֲלֵהֶם אֶת-הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה:
ז וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו לָמָּה יְדַבֵּר אֲדֹנִי כַּדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה חָלִילָה לַעֲבָדֶיךָ מֵעֲשׂוֹת כַּדָּבָר הַזֶּה:
ח הֵן כֶּסֶף אֲשֶׁר מָצָאנוּ בְּפִי אַמְתְּחֹתֵינוּ הֱשִׁיבֹנוּ אֵלֶיךָ מֵאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן וְאֵיךְ נִגְנֹב מִבֵּית אֲדֹנֶיךָ כֶּסֶף אוֹ זָהָב:

Yosef commands that the silver goblet be placed in Binyomin's sack, has horsemen run after the brothers to search for the 'stolen' goblet. The brothers hear the accusation but immediately refute it with one of the ten kal vachomers in the Torah. 'If we in the past showed our honesty by returning money we found in our sacks how could we possibly be accused of being thiefs?'

I believe that Rashi and Daas Zekeinim of Baali Tosefos, have a difference of pshat earlier on in Bereishis based (partly) on this kal vechomer. In simple terms, one could ask how is this a valid kal vochomer? After all, Rashi said earlier on the possuk describing the Yosef's behavior at the meal he invited his brothers to share with him before he had revealed his true identity -
לג וַיֵּשְׁבוּ לְפָנָיו הַבְּכֹר כִּבְכֹרָתוֹ וְהַצָּעִיר כִּצְעִרָתוֹ וַיִּתְמְהוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים אִישׁ אֶל-רֵעֵהוּ

and Rashi's interpertation below,
(לג) הבכור כבכורתו - מכה בגביע וקורא ראובן שמעון לוי ויהודה יששכר וזבולון, בני אם אחת, הסבו כסדר הזה שהיא סדר תולדותיכם וכן כולם, כיון שהגיע לבנימין אמר זה אין לו אם ואני אין לי אם ישב אצלי:

that Yosef sat them down in order of their age by ostensibly knocking on the goblet and 'hearing' magic codes telling him the order of their birth and thus causing a sense of wonder and surprise in his brothers at his prowess with magic.

According to Rashi they would have had good reason from Yosef's perspective to steal the goblet as it was 'telling' on them. The fact that they had been honest with money in the past was no proof that would not seek to eliminate the hammer that was hitting them. This was self-defence. Therefore, the kal vochomer seems weak at best.

However the Daas Zekeinim learns this possuk differently he learns that since the possuk says 'va'yeishvu' rather than 'vayoshivu' the brothers actually sat down in order of age on their own accord and were not 'sat down'. The 'surprise' the brothers felt was nothing to do with Yosef's prowess with magic but rather entirely due to the fact that Yosef ate neither with the Mitzriyim nor with them as the possuk before says לב וַיָּשִׂימוּ לוֹ לְבַדּוֹ וְלָהֶם לְבַדָּם וְלַמִּצְרִים הָאֹכְלִים אִתּוֹ לְבַדָּם כִּי לֹא יוּכְלוּן הַמִּצְרִים לֶאֱכֹל אֶת-הָעִבְרִים לֶחֶם כִּי-תוֹעֵבָה הִוא לְמִצְרָיִם:
לג וַיֵּשְׁבוּ לְפָנָיו הַבְּכֹר כִּבְכֹרָתוֹ וְהַצָּעִיר כִּצְעִרָתוֹ וַיִּתְמְהוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים אִישׁ אֶל-רֵעֵהוּ:

they therefore couldn't make this Yosef out, what was his identity? His eating manner casused them to feel a sense of wonder and surprise.

According to this peshat, the goblet had no special quality it was just an object of monetary worth not of magic worth. The kal vochomer is therefore very valid. If they had proven their honesty in the past by returning the money in their sacks why should they be accused of being thiefs.

Thank you. I enjoy reading your divrei Torah.

How did they know he didn't eat with the Mitzrim? Does that mean he didn't eat with Paroh either?

Btw- just along the lines of most meforshim. They accused him of trying to be the bechor- "Hamaloch timloch aleinu, im mashol timshol banu?". Just as he was telling them the dream to reassure them he wasn't, (as explained by R Eisemann in the other Dvar Torah) and they not only misunderstood him but suspected the opposite of what he intended, so too, even though his brothers had previously returned to him his money so he had no reason to suspect them of intending to steal, he accused them of trying to steal his "bechor". Maybe it's to teach us that that we call a "gevia" a "becher".

Thank you for your reply. The possuk says this specifically in Bereishes Chapter 43 verse 32

לב וַיָּשִׂימוּ לוֹ לְבַדּוֹ וְלָהֶם לְבַדָּם וְלַמִּצְרִים הָאֹכְלִים אִתּוֹ לְבַדָּם כִּי לֹא יוּכְלוּן הַמִּצְרִים לֶאֱכֹל אֶת-הָעִבְרִים לֶחֶם כִּי-תוֹעֵבָה הִוא לְמִצְרָיִם:
which translates as 'they served him separately, them (the brothers) separately and the Egyptians who were dining with him separately because the Egyptians are not able to eat with the Hebrews a meal for (eating lamb) it is an abomination to Egypt.'

looks like the mitzrim ate with him separately



(I know the second thing didn't make sense, forgot the word "geviah" was used in the passuk but wanted to fit it in.)

Actually, I think 'with him' refers equally to the brothers and the Mitzrim i.e. they all ate with him (at his banquet) but separately, not partaking of the same culinary.

What's "culinary"?

(Although I am impressed at your way with words.)

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
cu·li·nar·y - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kyoo-luh-ner-ee, kuhl-uh-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective of, pertaining to, or used in cooking or the kitchen.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1630–40; < L culīnārius of the kitchen, equiv. to culīn(a) kitchen, food + -ārius -ary]

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

You are using an adjective as a noun.