Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses the situation under which one incurs an obligation to bring a penitentiary sacrifice if one denied knowing testimony under oath. The denial must relate to actual monetary loss if he withheld his testimony. Therefore, if there are two potential witnesses and both swear they do not have testimony, only the first one incurs an obligation for this penitentiary sacrifice because his denial broke the case. Once he would not testify, there is only one witness. Therefore, when the second witness also swears that he knows of no testimony, he’s not causing any financial harm any longer and thus does not incur an obligation for a sacrifice.
The Gemara discusses the possibility of whether it is ascertainable and possible for two actions to occur simultaneously. In other words, if both witnesses sound to the ears of the judges as simultaneously denying that they know testimony, since it is simultaneous, will they both incur an obligation for the penitentiary sacrifice? This depends on a Talmud-wide dispute regarding whether human measurement can correctly ascertain a perfectly even or simultaneous physical situation.
For example, in Bechoros (17a), there is a dispute as to whether, if two animals appear to be born simultaneously, both are sanctified as firstborn and must be given to the Cohen. Similarly, in Gemara Sotah (45b), there is a dispute about whether, if a murder victim with no known perpetrator is found equidistant from two cities, each city is obligated to undergo a separate eglah arufa ritual because both are obligated, or do they undergo one ritual with conditional partnership, such that whichever city is truly obligated is the one performing the ritual?
The eglah arufa ritual involves a repentance ritual performed by the elders of the city where a murder victim was found, and there is no identification of the murderer, as described in Devarim 21. Part of the ritual involves breaking the neck of a calf that has not been worked, in an uncultivated area, while declaring their overall innocence and asking for forgiveness, and literally washing their hands over the calf. This is clearly a soteriological step to acknowledge and process that violence was committed and to undergo introspection to ensure they have not negligently turned a blind eye, which would allow murderers and those with murderous or negligent mentalities to thrive in their city (see Rashi, ibid., v. 7).
Returning to this Talmudic debate about whether one can ascertain and accurately determine if an action occurred simultaneously, we find this midrashically appearing as an exchange between Yosef and his father. From the context of the verse, Yaakov has difficulty believing that his long-lost son is truly alive until he sees the “wagons,” agalos, that Yosef sent (Bereishis 45:27). Rashi (ibid.) quotes a Midrash that Yosef sent his father a coded message so his father would know it was really him. The last sugya they were studying was the laws of eglah arufa, and so the “agalos” that Yosef sent were a message that he remembered where they were holding in their learning. This is why the verse states he saw the agalos sent by Yosef, even though, arguably, they were sent by pharaoh.
Maskil Ledovid goes further, noting the plural, agalos, and not eglah, to imply that they were involved in the deep Talmudic debate about simultaneous perception and whether two cities with an equidistant corpse would have to bring one calf or two.
Upon learning this Midrash as a yeshiva boy in third grade, one of my sons cleverly suggested that this was Yosef’s subtle rebuke to Yaakov for having been negligent and turning a blind eye to his sons’ murderous rivalry. Yosef was the eglah arufa! Aside from being a brilliant peshat, psychoanalytically speaking, I think my son was subtly rebuking ME for not being an attentive enough father, about which he was absolutely correct.
If we continue with my son’s idea and add Maskil Ledovid’s peshat, Yosef’s message is even sharper. Yosef is suggesting to Yaakov that there is simultaneous liability between his father and his brothers or, who knows, maybe even humbly suggesting that Yosef himself also shared some liability in the family rivalry.
Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation
Free resource for couples/families:
Over 80 lectures on heathy communication, marriage and sexuality from a Torah perspective Click here
If you liked this, you might enjoy my Relationship Communications Guide. Click on the link above.
Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, LCSW-R, LMFT, DHL is a psychotherapist who works with high conflict couples and families. He can be reached via email at simchafeuerman@gmail.com