The plain meaning of the Pasuk is that Moshe should speak to the Jews and they should take (from their possessions) a donation from every man who generously offers that gift, you should take My donation.
Questions:
1 – the last three words of תִּקְח֖וּ אֶת־תְּרוּמָתִֽי are redundant.
2 – The Alsich and many others ask why does is say וְיִקְחוּ and not ויתנו?
These are answered by the אפּריון. See details below.
Both answered
3 – Rashi says on the word לִ֖י – the word לִשְׁמִי. What does Rashi exactly mean? I do not have a good answer for Rashi. I did see somewhere that rashi means do not give donations to the Mishkan because of social pressures or for other reasons, give only to serve God.
The Seifsei Chacomin explains why Rashi says לִשְׁמִי because לִ֖י cannot mean “take
from your possessions for me” because everything in the world is His, [therefore it
cannot mean, “so it will be Mine.”] This is difficult because in this world people
have ownership rights and people have a right to make decisions on their property.
Translations of this Pasuk:
Almost all of the English translations translate it with the plain meaning. Only Rabbi Kahane brings in Rashi.
JPS 2006
Tell the Israelite people to bring Me gifts; you shall accept gifts for Me from every person whose heart is so moved.
Mesudah:
Speak to the B’nei Yisrael and have them take for Me a terumah-offering. From every man whose heart impels him to generosity shall you take My terumah-offering.
Rabbi Charles Kahane:
Tell the Children of Israel to appoint collectors for taking a voluntary gift for My Name’s sake; you shall take My voluntary gift from every man whose heart willingly offers the donation.
Only one who brings in Rashi.
Artscroll
Speak to the children of Israel and they shall take for Me a portion, from every man whose heart will motivate him you shall take My portion.
The אפּריון based on the Tanna Dvei Eliyahu:
Speak to the children of Israel. And they will take My gifts; (this is done) by Moshe taking donations from all people whose heart will motivate him.
My Torah:
I want to start off something I read in Paul Newman’s autobiography this Shabbos morning, how coincidental.
Last year and today, I learned and analyzed the following אפּריון. See my blog post from last year.
Tell the Israelite people to bring Me gifts; you shall accept gifts for Me from every person whose heart is so moved.
The plain meaning is that the Jews in the desert were to give donations to build the Mishkan.
The אפּריון starts by bringing down a Tanna Dvei Eliyahu that says that when the Jewish people said we will do and we will listen, immediately Hashem said וְיִקְחוּ־לִ֖י תְּרוּמָ֑ה. What is the connection?
By explaining the connection in the Tanna Dvei Eliyahu we can answer the Alshich’s question of why didn’t the Torah say, give me a gift.
Answer:
First Step:
Chana and Eli, the High Priest. Eli misunderstood Chana.
The following verses in Shmuel 1:13-15 are explained.
And Hannah replied, “Oh no, my lord! I am a very unhappy woman. I have drunk no wine or other strong drink, but I have been pouring out my heart to the LORD.
Step 2:
Describing people through their actions and why the purpose and result of their actions is the true definition of that person, not the action itself in a vacuum.
Step 3 – Just like Chazal says that if the Omer is brought on the second day of Pesach Hashem will bless the crops, so too the Mishkan and its vessels bring down “Shefah” – goodness
Step 4: The Gemara in Shabbos:
The Gemara relates that a heretic saw that Rava was immersed in studying halakha, and his fingers were beneath his leg and he was squeezing them, and his fingers were spurting blood. Rava did not notice that he was bleeding because he was engrossed in study. The heretic said to Rava: You impulsive nation, who accorded precedence to your mouths over your ears. You still bear your impulsiveness, as you act without thinking. You should listen first. Then, if you are capable of fulfilling the commands, accept them. And if not, do not accept them. He said to him: About us,
88b
who proceed wholeheartedly and with integrity, it is written: “The integrity of the upright will guide them” (Proverbs 11:3), whereas about those people who walk in deceit, it is written at the end of the same verse: “And the perverseness of the faithless will destroy them.”
Step 5 – As it says in the Gemara in Shabbos, when the Jews said “we will do and we will listen”, we understood that everything God does for us is good and we do not hesitate to say, we will do before we will listen.
Step 6 – so too the idea of giving the donations to the Miskan was to receive blessings, so it was appropriate for the Torah to use the language of taking. Had the Jews not said “we will do and we will listen” then the appropriate language would have been “ויתנו”.
The language of the Aperion:
Although the Jews were giving money for the Mishkan, the ultimate goal was to take blessings from God.
The אפּריון based on the Tanna Dvei Eliyahu is translating the Pasuk, וְיִקְחוּ־לִ֖י תְּרוּמָ֑ה, that the Jewish people are to take gifts from God. They do this by giving donations for the construction of the Mishkan.
Speak to the children of Israel. And they will take my gifts; (this is done) by Moshe taking donations from all people whose heart will motivate him.
Analysis of Tanna Dvei Eliyahu:
Chapter 17:
כיון שקבלו ישראל עול מלכות שמים בשמחה ואמרו כל אשר דבר ה’ נעשה ונשמע מיד אמר הקב”ה למשה שיאמר לישראל
שיעשו לו משכן שנאמר (שמות כה) דבר אל בנ”י וגו’ ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם וגו’.
This Tanna Dvei Eliyahu is the source for the following Daas Zekeinim:
ויקחו לי תרומה. פרשה זו נאמרה בתוך ארבעים יום שהיה ממתן תורה וצוהו הקב”ה להיכן מניח’ שיעשו משכן ובית קדשי הקדשים ובתוכו ארון ובתוך הארון לוחות ושם תשרה שכינה וישראל סביב כמו המלאכים סביב כסא הכבוד ושכינה ביניהם וכן כתוב ושכנתי בתוכם כמו בתוך המלאכים ועל זה נאמר אמרתי אלהים אתם ובני עליון כלכם להיות שכינתי ביניהם:
The Oz Vehadar Chumash in their Perush of the Da’as Zekanimu says that the source of the above Da’s Zekanim is this very Tanna Dvei Eliyahu:
Da’as Zekanm translate into English:
ויקחו לי תרומה, “they shall take for Me a contribution;” this portion had been told to Moses during the forty days that Moses was on Mount Sinai, immediately after the revelation at that Mountain, [In other words, before the smashing of the Tablets, and the golden calf episode. Ed.] G–d, at that time, had already told Moses where to erect the Tabernacle, and that it would house the Holy Ark, inside the Holy of Holies, symbolizing G–d’s presence on earth. He told him that it would contain the Tablets, and that the Israelites would be encamped around the Tabernacle. This is what is meant in verse eight of our verse where G–d described Himself as residing in the midst of the people, i.e. as if surrounded by angels as He had been in heaven. Concerning this state of affairs, David had said in Psalms 82,6: אמרתי אלוהים אתם ובני עליון כולכם, “I had said: ‘you are the children of G–d all of you children of the Supreme Being.” [David bemoans the demotion of the Jewish people that followed the golden calf episode in the verse following. Ed.]
Continuation of the Tanna Dvei Eliyahu:
באותה שעה אמר הקב”ה בלבבו שמא לא יביאו בנ”י נדבתם לפני ושמא יהיו אומרים כלפי מעלה וכי לכסף וזהב הוא צריך והלא כל כסף וזהב ואבנים טובות ומרגליות וכל כלי חמדה שלו הוא שנאמר (חגי ב) לי הכסף ולי הזהב נאם ה’ צבאות. ומפני מה אומר לבני אדם הביאו לי נדבה ועשו לי מקדש אבל מה שביקש הקב”ה מישראל נתנו לו ישראל והוא עושה לישראל מה שאמר להן. וכשעשו ישראל רצון הקב”ה במדבר והקב”ה מצא בהן קורת רוח כמה שנאמר בהן (שמות לה) ויבואו כל איש אשר נשאו לבו וכל אשר נדבה רוחו אותו וגו’. ו
Thursday February 1, 2024 – 165th yahrzeit of the Kotzker Rebbe.
We drove to Toronto on Wednesday, January 23, 2024. We stayed at Chani Janowski’s house which was an 8 minute walk to the Shul, Aish Hatorah of Thornhill. The Rabbi is the grandfather of the Bar Mitzvah boy. The Rabbi spoke beautifully. Friday night at Shul Rabbi Rothman spoke the Kotzker on the Verse וַיָּבֹ֣אוּ מָרָ֔תָה וְלֹ֣א יָֽכְל֗וּ לִשְׁתֹּ֥ת מַ֙יִם֙ מִמָּרָ֔ה כִּ֥י מָרִ֖ים הֵ֑ם עַל־כֵּ֥ן קָרָֽא־שְׁמָ֖הּ מָרָֽה׃. The Kotzker on כִּ֥י מָרִ֖ים הֵ֑ם says that it does not go on the waters but on the people. The people were bitter.
Shabbos morning Rabbi Rothman spoke about the need to be awed. He started his speech about the piano of Beethoven.
I did not speak and it bothered me. I did not feel it was appropriate for me to ask.
Alesha’s oldest son, Shimi, came in from Israel. Joany Noble-Shokiet came in from Miami. Joany was very close with my mother in law and Joany comes in for every Simcha. Her father was my mother in law’s twin brother.
It is always a shame when the Simchas are over and on Sunday we drove back to Chicago.
If I had spoken, I would have spoken the below Vort in the Sefer Emes Ve Emunah, page 56 in the new addition
BeShalach Verse 14:15 says “And the Lord said to Moshe, Why dost thou cry to me? speak to the children of Yisrael, that they go forward”.
“The Goan, Chosid Reb Yaakov Dovid, the head of the Bais Din in Koshnitz was a
student of Reb Shlomo Leib from Lentshna and he came to Kotzk. The Kotzker
asked Reb Yakov Dovid, he is your teacher, I love him very much. But what can I do?
He cries to God in prayer to send the Mosiach, why can’t he cry to the Jews to repent.
The Kotzker ends by saying that this is the explanation of the verse. Things are dependent
on man. Inspire the people to make themsleves better and this is the way to bring Moshiach.
Two comments on the Kotkzer.
First Comment:
Reb Yaakov Dovid was the community leader in Koshnitz. When we say Koshnitz we tremble. The holy Koshnitzer Magid lived in Kozhnitz. Koshnitz is the name of a Hasidicdynasty founded by the Kozhnitzer Maggid, RebbeYisroel Hopsztajn. Kozhnitz is the Yiddish name of Kozienice, a town in Poland. Rebbe Yisroel Hopsztajn, the Maggid and founder of the Kozhnitz dynasty, and one of the three “patriarchs” of Polish hasidism, was a disciple of Rebbe Elimelech of Lizhensk (Rabbi Elimelech Lipman of Lizhensk), author of Noam Elimelech. The Rebbe Elimelech was a disciple of the Rebbe Dovber, the Maggid (“preacher”) of Mezeritch, the primary disciple of the Baal Shem Tov, the founder of Hasidism.
What is the Kotzker saying with his Vort? Is it just a cute Vort?. I think the answer is no. This Vort tells us how the Kotzker advised people and how he looked at the world. He had confidence in humans that with proper teaching and inspiration they will do the right thing. We do not have to pray to Hashem as leaders, we have to lead and the Jews will do the right thing and bring Moshiach. This is the Kotzke’s life outlook. This is the Kotzker’s message to Reb Shlomo Leib from Lentshna. Inspire people and you can bring them to the mountain of God.
Thursday February 1, 2024 – 165th Yahrzeit of the Kotzker Rebbe.
I had a zoom with my family to discuss the Kotzker and his legacy. I started with the above Vort. I then played Avrohom Fried’s cappella, I Am I. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-HvhT8OPs0. The words are:
“If I am I because I am I, and you are you because you are you, then I am I and you are you. But if I am I because you are you and you are you because I am I, then I am not I and you are not you!”
This theme is consistent with many sayings of the Kotzker.
Serka, Debbi Janowski – grandmother of the bar Mitzvah boy, and Joany Noble-Shokit – our cousin.
Serka Morgenstern and Alesha Rothman – mother of Isaac.
Robert Rosen writes about why Jews supported the Confederacy. The Jewish leaders of the Confederacy, the Jewish fighters, antisemitism, and how the Jews reacted to the defeat of the South. On January 16, 2024 I finished the book.
There were 20,000 Jews in the South and 100,000 Jews in the North. Roughly 2,000 Jewish men fought for the South.
The Jews in the South felt welcome. Many were Jewish immigrants from Germany. They went from oppression in their home countries to freedom in America. They breathed fresh air and not the putrid air of repression in Germany and eastern Europe. They became part of the culture of the South and some had slaves. They supported the Southern cause and hated the Yankees. The Jewish women equally supported the Southern cause. They looked up to Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis.
It is true that in Europe the ghetto walls fell down in Vienna in 1848 and in Germany around the same time; however, it did not approach the freedom the Jews felt in America, especially the South.
Page 14 states:
Thus, overwhelmingly, almost unanimously, some with fear and trepidation, others with courage and enthusiasm, some with reservations, other with a firm unflinching resolve, Southern Jewry cast its lot with the Confederate State of America. Many like “Ike” Hermannn, had found the land of Canaan. Othrs, like Gustavus Poznanski, had found their Jerusalem, their Pastime. Still others, l Marcus Baum, Jacob Samuels, Adolph Proskenaur, and Herschel Kempner had found finally their fatherland.
Pages 15 and 16:
Southern Jews had been breathing the free air of Dixie for two hundred years.
The Jews arriving from Eastern Europe, and the German states such as Prussies and particularly Bavaria, which stood first in the row of intolerant states.” infamous for “its Pharaoh-like registration laws,” its restriction of trade, marriage, and even the Jew;s right to reside in the place of his choice.
The Jews of the South lived in a slaveholding society, and they accepted the institution as part of everyday life.
There was some anti-semitism in the South before and during the civil war but by and large the Jews were accepted as part of Southern society.
Many Jews married out of the faith. Judah Benjamin, considered the most successful Jewish man in the South became a confidant of President Jefferosn Davis and in his war cabinet, married out of the faith. Nonetheless he was known as a Jew. Per Wikipedia:
Why did Judah Benjamin’s memory survive? “Without a question,” Rabbi Korn wrote, “he achieved greater political power than any other Jew in American history.” Rabbi Calisch of Richmond explained his meaning for Southern Jewry in 1902: “I stand here in the name of the Jeiwsh community of this city . Judah P. Benjamin was born of Jeiwsh parents and reared as a Jeiwsh child. I have not yet been able to discover if he was an observing Jew or not. But this I know, had he been a traitor we would have had to bear the ignominy of his wrong doing – but as he was a hero, a statement. a gentleman and a partrit, we claim the privilege of sharing in the reflection of his glory.”
The cover of the book depicts Major Adolph Proskauer at Gettysburg. Major Proskauer, a n immigrant from Prussia to Mobile, led the 12th Alabama Infantry at Culp’s Hill during the Battle of Gettysburg. This 1999 painting re-creates the moment described in the history of the regiment by Capt. Robert E Ory Park, “Our gallant Jew Major smoked his cigars calmly and cooly in the thichest of the fight.” (Painting by Dan nance of Charlotte, North Caroline. Author’s collections.) Page 360 details life for Adolph Proskauer after the civil war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolph_Proskauer
Another prominent Jew in the south was David Yulee. He was born David Levy, but he changed his name to Yulee and became a Presbyterian. Pages 60 and 61 discusses Yulle’s life.
It appears that the Jews of the South were assimilating. My guess is that this was also happening in the North and probably by the early early to mid 1900s most of the jews in America at the time of the Civil war assimilated and there are few of their descendants identifying as Jewish.
There were some anti-semitci outbursts but they were short lived and the Jews were defended. Pages 266 through 272 in the book. There is little evidence of anti-semitism in the Army. To restate, overall the Jews had it good in the South.
Robert N. Rosen concludes in his last three pages of the book.
My questions:
1 – how many Jews in the South and for that matter in the North trace their ancestry back to the Civil war?
2 – what was the intermarriage rate both in the South and the North?
3 – what changed in the south after the Civil War that the South is/was considered to be heavily anit-semetic?
4 – were the Jews less accepted in the south after the Civil War and did intermarriage go down.
My answer is that because of the Civil War the South became impoverished. People having troubles blame outsiders and they blamed the Jews. Before the war, the south was a wealthy country. Throughout history when times are hard, jews are blamed.
Spiegel was born in the hamlet of Abenheim, Germany, near the city of Worms, on December 8, 1829, to a Jewish family that had lived in Germany since the sixteenth century.[2] While peddling in Ohio he met Caroline Hamlin, daughter of a prominent Quaker. They married and moved to Chicago, Illinois where she studied Judaism and German-Jewish cooking. She converted to Judaism in 1853 in Chicago.[3] He was the older brother of Joseph Spiegel, founder of Spiegel Catalog.[4]
Spiegel volunteered for the Union Army and soon rose through its ranks. He wrote over 150 letters to his wife Caroline during the course of the war, most of which still survive. In one of his letters wrote:
I am [in] favor of doing away with the institution of Slavery…never hereafter will I either speak or vote in favor of Slavery; this is no hasty conclusion but a deep conviction.[5]
In late 1862 Spiegel was transferred to the recently formed 120th Ohio Volunteer infantry, and was promoted to lieutenant colonel. He was officially commissioned colonel on March 20, 1863, and took formal command of the regiment.[6]
He served at the Battle of Vicksburg (May 18 – July 4, 1863). Soon after the fall of Vicksburg, he was badly wounded by an exploding shell. Spiegel survived the incident and was sent home to recuperate, and in March 1864 he returned to front line duties.[6] Several weeks after his return, Confederate forces succeeded in ambushing the Union transport ship City Belle, at a location near Snaggy Point on the Red River, during the Red River Campaign in Louisiana. The result of the ambush was a disaster for the Ohioans; most of the 120th infantry were taken prisoner. Spiegel was again wounded by a shell burst; this time fatally.[6] He died of his wounds on May 4, 1864.
Rabbi Mark Dratch – Beverley Javasky-Lyons Bar Mitzvah
Sunday the 24th is Aliza Feiga Siegal’s Bas Mitzvah. Shoshabana came in from Boynton Beach with Tovah and Tehillah. Friday night Eli ate over and Nechaman and Itamer stayed over to be with their cousins. Shabbos, Mordy, Rivky and the Bas Mitzvah girl came over for lunch.
I had too much cake Friday night and it was hard to wake up Shabbos morning. I got up a 6:30 AM and work on the Parsha.
Torah Chiddush:
This year I am not really saying Torah Chidushim. I am more focused on reading the dialogue in the Chumash with what I feel is to read the Chumash with the correct emotions and words in English..
I worked extensively on the first Pasuk, Verse 44:18
Yehudah approached him [Yoseif] and said, Please my master, let your servant speak [now] a word in my master’s ears [before my master], and do not be angry with your servant; for you are equal to Pharaoh.
2 – Artscroll, Gutnick, JPS translations based on Onkelys:
Then Yehuda approached him and said “If you please my Lord may your servant speak a word in my Lord’s ears and let not your anger flare up at your servant, for you are like Pharaoh.
3 – Charles Kahanah – Toras Yesharah translates it differently based on the Malbim
And Judah approached him (Joseph), and said: “I cannot base this case on arguments of justice. But I beg you, master, allow me to plead in the hearing of my master for mercy, and be not angry at your servant thinking that I ask you to debase justice, for as governor you have the power, like Pharaoh, to grant a pardon.
What does בִּ֣י אֲדֹנִי֒ mean? Most translators translate as Onkelys and Artscroll “Please my Master”
There is no Rashi here but there is a Rashi in Berseshis 43:20 on בִּ֣י אֲדֹנִי֒ that also tranlates it as “Please my Master”. There is a Ramban in Bereshis 43:20 that translates it differently than Rashi and an Ibn Ezra.
I want to say first bring down the Kotzker and my Chidush. Then go back to discuss Rashi’s translation in Miketz 43:20.
The Kotzker says on וַיִּגַּ֨שׁ אֵלָ֜יו יְהוּדָ֗ה that the אֵלָ֜יו is extra. Therefore the Kotzker says that it means שנגש אל עצמו. Yehuda approached himself, he looked inwards. I believe the Kotzker means that Yehuda paused for a few seconds, steeled himself and searched for the right argument. The viceroy who was effectively the most powerful man in the world spoke and said Binyamin is staying here. No one debates a viceroy. just responding to the viceroy may mean death to Yehuda. Picture the scene. Yosef as viceroy was sitting on his throne, around him were his minister, the captains of the army and it was very frightful. Yehuda had to argue correctly to free Binyamin. Yehdua had to pause for a few seconds and gather himself for the future depended on what he said..
I want to add to the Kotzker that Yehuda thought or uttered under his breath the next two words, בִּ֣י אֲדֹנִי֒. “In me Hashem”. Harshem – speak through me the proper words to the viceroy so he may free Binyamin. I am translating בִּ֣י as “in me”. Artscoll on verse 43:20m footnote 7 says that the word בִּ֣י normally means in me however, this translation does not work in the Passuk. I am arguing that this is precisely the definition and the word אֲדֹנִי֒ refers to hashem. Just like we find in Parshas Vayera that the word אֲדֹנִי֒ can be Chol – referring to man or Kodesh – referring to Hashem.
Perhaps you can say it means both. He uttered it to himself and also spoke it to Josef as “please my lord”.
I first heard this Kotzker in the late 1980s from Rabbi Mark Dratch at a cousin’s, (Beverly and Eliot Javasky-Lyons), kid’s Bar Mitzvah at the Shaarei Shamayim Shul in Toronto As I recall Rabbi Dratch said the Kotzker slightly different. I recall Rabbi Dratch said that Yehuda did an introspection; he asked himself, where do I stand, do I have the moral courage to defend Binyomin.
The Rosh Yeshiva of HTC Skokie Yeshiva, Rabbi Moshe Revah, liked it and shook my hand. At the Baral wedding on December 28, 2023 I told over my Torah to Rabbi Doivd Zucker, Rabbi Eliyahu Millen and Rabbi Efraim Twerski. Rabbi Twerski said that he say in two Chassidic Seforim The אֲדֹנִי֒ of thjis Pasuk is a reference to the opening of the Shemonei Esra words of אֲדֹנָי שְׂפָתַי תִּפְתָּח וּפִי יַגִּיד תְּהִלָּתֶֽךָ.
Boruch hashem that I found my source for my Torah.
This is an expression of beseeching and supplication, In the Aramaic language (we find a related word with the same meaning) בַּיָּא בַּיָּא. This is Arscroll and they do not translate בַּיָּא בַּיָּא.
We have three places where the Gemora has the words בייא בייא and all three are translated by Seferia and Artscroll as woe, woe. Yuma 59B, Sanhedrin 64A and Yevamos 97A,
Yuma 69B and Sanhedrin 64A are the same Gemora and Rashi in each location are slightly different. The Rashi on the third Gemora in Yevamos is also slightly different from the other two. .
The Gemara recounts the event described in the verses: The verse states: And they cried with a loud voice to the Lord their God (Nehemiah 9:4). What was said? Rav said, and some say it was Rabbi Yoḥanan who said: Woe, woe.
Rashi in Yuma – בייא בייא – לשון זעקה וקובלנא: The word קובלנה in the Hebrew English dictionary is complaint.
The Gemora in Sanhedrin 64A is the same Gemora but Rashi is slightly different.
ת”ש (נחמיה ט, ד) ויזעקו בקול גדול אל ה’ אלהיהם מאי אמור אמר רב יהודה ואיתימא ר’ יונתן בייא בייא
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof, from the verse: “And they cried in a loud voice to the Lord their God” (Nehemiah 9:4). What did they say in that prayer? Rav Yehuda says, and some say it is Rav Yonatan who says: Woe, woe [baya, baya],
Rashi in Sanhedrin 64A
בייא בייא – בלשון ארמי הוי לשון גנחה וצעקה כמו אהבה בלשון הקודש:
The Gemara cites another riddle: Woe, woe [baya, baya] for my brother, who is my father, and who is my husband, and who is the son of my husband, and who is the husband of my mother, and I am the daughter of his wife; and he does not provide bread for his brothers, who are orphans, the sons of me, his daughter.
Rashi in Yevomos – בייא מאח – קובלת אני על אחי שהוא אבי ובעלי ובן בעלי והוא בעלה דאם הולידי מאמי והיינו נמי דהוא אב אלא לאפושי מילי הוא:
Here Rashi translates בייא as קבלת – as a complaint
The problem is that Rashi in quoting בַּיָּא בַּיָּא – woe, woe seems to be more like the Ramban who says that בי אדני is an expression of distress and affliction over a tragedy and mishap, similar to the word avoi in Hebrew. It does not seem that the source of Rashi is the Gemora in Yuma. The standard Chumash I have does not put in brackets any source of Rashi. Look below for the Rambam and Ibn Ezra.
Continuation of Pasuk 44:18
There are three other Rashi’s in the first Pasuk on VaYigash:
ויגש אליו וגומר … דבר באזני אדני. יִכָּנְסוּ דְּבָרַי בְּאָזְנֶיךָ:
ואל יחר אפך. מִכָּאן אַתָּה לָמֵד שֶׁדִּבֵּר אֵלָיו קָשׁוֹת:
How do you read the above Pasuk? Do you read it that Yehuda was meek and asking in a begging tone change his mind as the Malbim seems to says or was he speaking harshly, demanding in his words, but still telling Yosef that he – Yehuda – will become a servant to Yosef like Rashi suggests
Ibn Ezra – בי. לשון בקשה. ולפי דעתי שהוא דרך קצרה. כמו בי אדני העון. והטעם עון במקום הזה כטעם גדול עוני מנשוא והטעם עשה בי מה שתרצה ותשמעני:
OH. Bi adoni (Oh, my lord) is a supplicatory expression. I believe it is an abridged statement. It is like, bi ani adoni he-avon (upon me, my lord, upon me be the iniquity) (I Sam. 25:24). Avon (iniquity) here has the same meaning as avon in My iniquity (avoni) is greater than I can bear (Gen. 4:13). The meaning of bi adoni he-avon is, do to me as you wish but first listen to me.
Ramban:
בי אדוני לשון בעיא ותחנונים הוא ובלשון ארמית בייא בייא לשון רש”י (רש”י על בראשית מ״ג:כ׳) וזה דבר זר מאד לסמכו אל מלת לשון טורסי ואינה דומה אליה כי בייא כולה מלה לא תשתנה ולא יאמר ממנה בי ועוד שהמלה ההיא אינה לשון בעיא ותחנונים כמו שאמר הרב אבל היא לשון צעקה ותרעומת על שבר ועל עוות דבר כגון מלת אבוי בלשון קדש והיא ידועה בלשון ערב ירגילו אותה בקינותיהם כולן בפתחות הבי”ת ובלשון יון בייא הבי”ת רפא בשו”א יאמרו אותה על הדוחק והצער ובבראשית רבה סדר בראשית (יב ו) מהו סלו לרוכב בערבות ביה שמו (תהלים סח ה) אין לך כל מקום ומקום שאין לו ממונה על בייא שלו אגריקוס במדינה ממונה על בייא שלו אגרטוס במדינה ממונה על בייא שלו כך מי ממונה על בייא של עולמו הקב”ה רוצה לומר שבכל מקום יש איש ממונה על הצעקה ועל העוות והקב”ה ממונה על צעקת העשוקים בעולם הצועקים בייא ועוד לפנינו בפרשת ויגש אליו (ב”ר צג ו) אמר לו יהודה בייא אתה מעביר עלינו שכך אמרת לנו ואשימה עיני עליו זו היא השמת עין ובפרשת ויהי בשלח (כ י) שמא אני מעביר בייא על בריה ובפרשת וישמע יתרו (כז ט) נתמנה אדם ונטל טלית כל טורח ציבור עליו אם ראה אדם מעביר בייא על חברו או עובר עבירה ולא מיחה בו הוא נענש עליו ובפרשת אשה כי תזריע (עיין ערוך ערך ביאה) צווח אנא בייא עליכון וכן במקומות הרבה ואונקלוס (תרגום אונקלוס על בראשית מ״ג:כ׳) שתרגם בי אדני בבעו רבוני לא שהוציא מלת בי מן בעו אבל רדף הענין שהוא בא בכל מקום בענין הבקשה ורבי אברהם אמר כי בי אדני דרך קצרה בלשון הקדש והוא כמו בי אני אדני העון והטעם עשה בי מה שתרצה ותשמעני ואם כן נכון הוא שיאמר אדם בי אחי או בי שמעני ולא מצאתי שתבא מלת בי רק עם אדני או עם השם הנכבד הנכתב באל”ף דלי”ת שגם הוא לשון אדון ולכן אני אומר שפירושו בי בעצמי אתה אדון ומושל ובאו שני כנויים לחזוק כמו ולי אני עבדך (מלכים א א כו) בי אני אדני (שמואל א כה כד) ודומה לזה כי בי בעזרך (הושע יג ט) בי עזרך בעזרך אני:
‘BI ADONI’ (O, MY LORD). The word bi is an expression of entreaty and supplication. In Aramaic, we have bai bai. Thus the language of Rashi.
Now it is a very strange thing to associate the Hebrew word bi with a word from the Tarsian language, which is unlike it, for the word bai is all one root; it cannot be changed, nor can you obtain the form of the word bi from this Aramaic root.
Moreover, this word bai does not connote entreaty and supplication, as the Rabbi [Rashi] states. Rather it is an expression of distress and affliction over a tragedy and mishap, similar to the word avoir in the Sacred Language. This is well known in the Arabic language, where the poets customarily use it in their elegies, always with a patach under the beth: bai. In the Greek language the word is bia — the beth having a shva — and is used to express distress and grief. Thus you find in Bereshith Rabbah, Seder Bereshith, that the Sages say: “What is the meaning of the verse, Extol Him that rideth upon the skies, the Eternal (‘bayah’) is His Name? There is no place whatever that does not have an officer in charge of its grievances. Agricus is in charge of grievances in his state; Agratus is in charge of grievances in his state. In the same way, who is in charge of the grievances (baya) in His world? [It is] the Holy One, blessed be He.” That is to say, every place has someone in charge of hearing complaints of distress and injustice, and the Holy One, blessed be He, is in charge of the cries of the oppressed, who cry, baya.
Again, before us in the Midrash Bereshith Rabbah of the Parshath (section of) Vayigash Eilav: “Judah said to Joseph, ‘You do baya (violence) against us. You had said to us thus: That I May set mine eyes upon him. Is this “casting an eye” upon him?’”
And in the Parshath Vay’hi B’shalach, you find in Shmoth Rabbah: “Do I ever baya (wrong) any creature?” And in the Parshath Vayishma Yitro, we find in Shmoth Rabbah: “Once a man has been appointed and he has put on the mantle of leadership, all communal burdens are upon him. If he sees a man doing baya against his fellow, or committing some transgression, and he fails to protest it, he is punished on account thereof.” And in the Parshath Isha Ki Thazria we find: “I raise a cry of violence (baya) against you.” And so also in many places.
\
Now Onkelos, who translated Bi Adoni here as b’va’u riboni (O please, my lord), did not intend to suggest that the Hebrew word bi is a derivative of the Aramaic ba’u, but he merely translated it in accordance with its context, for the word bi is always found as an expression of supplication.
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra says that bi adoni is a shortened form in the Sacred Language, and its meaning is as in the verse, Upon me, my lord, upon me be the iniquity, thus meaning, “do to me whatever you wish, but listen to me.” But if this interpretation of Ibn Ezra is correct, it should follow that a person should also be able to say in Hebrew, “‘bi’ my brother,” or “‘bi,’ listen to me.” And yet nowhere do we find the word bi except in conjunction with the word adoni (my lord), or with the Honored Name of G-d when it is written with the letters aleph, daleth, which is also an expression of lordship. It is for this reason that I say that the meaning of the word bi is “by myself”: “By my life! you are lord and ruler.” The two pronouns serve for the purpose of emphasis, just as: But me, even me thy servant;Upon me, my lord, upon me. Similar to this is the verse, That thou art against Me, against thy help, meaning “I serve as your help.”
Sefaria’s English translation of this Rashi is — The word בי is an expression of entreaty (בעיא) and supplication. In Aramaic we have בייא בייא “woe, woe!” (Yoma 69b).
Their Hebrew version says ( בי אדני. לְשׁוֹן בַּעְיָא וְתַחֲנוּנִים הוּא, בְלָשׁוֹן אֲרַמִּי בַּיָּא בַּיָּא (יבמות צ”ז, סנהדרין ס”ד:
Rashi starts by saying that בי means please and then uses the Aramaic words of בִּיָּיא בִּיָּיא. Seemingly everyone translates this as woe, woe. Aren’t please and woe two different expressions.
Artscroll, Oz Vehadar and Gutnick put in brackets in this Rashi that Rashi’s source for the Aramaic meaning is the Gemora on Yuma 69B. Seferia also links it to the Gemara in Sanhedrin 64A and Yevomos 97B.
We drove back from Toronto to Chicago this past Sunday. December 28th. My mother-in-law came back from Baycrest where she was rehabbing from surgery for a broken hip. She has not changed. Serka came down with Covid and we decided to head back to Chicago. Serka still has a loss of smell and taste. She finished her quarantine since she got Covid and tested positive. I have to quarantine for another week. I am listening to Carlbach as I am writing this.
On Shabbos, I read about 100 pages of the book, April 1865 – The Month that Saved America by Jay Winik written in 2001.
Rabbi Sacks has a 7 page Torah Vort in his book Covenant and Conversation titled, The Future of the Past. Rabbi Sacks focuses on Bereshis 50:19-20 – Pages 341-342:
The brothers told Joseph the following in Verse 50:15- 16
So shall you say to Joseph, ‘Forgive, I urge you, the offense and guilt of your brothers who treated you so harshly.’ Therefore, please forgive the offense of the servants of the God of your father.” And Joseph was in tears as they spoke to him (see what I wrote from Rabbi Bitterman who explains why Yosef cried. Blog Post Parshas Vayechi December 18, 2021.)
Joseph probably knew that his father never told his brothers what they claimed. Rabbi Sacks says ”Yet Joseph takes his brothers seriously – not because he believes them but because the very fact that they say this indicates that they are still feeling anxious and guilty. His response is majestic in its generosity, as follows:
Besides, although you intended me harm, God intended it for good, so as to bring about the present result—the survival of many people.
Rabbi Sacks writes in page 342 of his book, “As we have already discussed, this final scene is the resolution of one of the central problems of the book of Genesis: the continuing theme of sibling rivalry. A book replete with tensions, hatred and competition ends with forgiveness. This closing is essential to the biblical drama of redemption, for if brothers cannot live together, how can nations? And if nations cannot live together, how can the human world survive? Only now with the reconciliation of Joseph and his brothers, can the story move on to the birth of Israel as a nation, passing from the crucible of slavery to the constitution of freedom as a people under the sovereignty of God.”
How appropriate that over Shabbos I read about 100 pages from Jay Winik’s book, April 1865. The Civil War pitted brother against brother. It is the same theme that Rabbi Sacks talks about, the need to heal the rupture so that the future can move forward. President Abraham understood that just like he won the war, he had to win the peace.
I quote from page 208 of Jay Winik’s book, “After four bloody years of reaching for the Confederacy’s jugular, Lincoln’s humanity is unchanged, This avatar of total war is a staunch advocate of a soft peace, a generous peace, a magnanimous peace, just as Grant has carried out at Appomattox. It is his River Queen doctrine writ large. So passionately does he feel about this matter that he will directly tell his cabinet today, in no uncertain words, there is “no greater or more important [issue] before us, or any future Cabinet” than Reconstruction.”
Jay Winik writes on page 193. “Appomattox was not preordained. There were no established rules or well-worn script. If anything, retribution had been the larger and longer precedent. So, if these moments teemed with hope — and they did — it was largely due to two men, who rose to the occasion, to Grant’s and Lee’s respective actions; one general, magnanimous in victory, the other, gracious and equally dignified in defeat, the two of them, for their own reasons and in their ways, fervently interested in beginning the process to bind up the wounds of the last four years. And yes. If, paradoxically, these were among Lee’s finest hours, and they were, so, too, were they Grant’s greatest moments.”
General Ulysses S. Grant treated General Robert E. Lee and the surrender of Lee’s army with dignity and tenderness. The Union allowed General Lee’s men to surrender with dignity. There was a stacking of the arms and acknowledgment that the men who were surrendering were honorable and deserving of respect. General Grant carried out President Abraham Lincoln’s orders at City Point (General Grant’s command post) that there will be no bloody work and no hangings. This was atypical of war where the victors exact punishment on the defeated army with hangings, killings, and brutality.
The second half of Rabbi Jonathan Sack’s Torah is what I want to explain and is what animates me.
Yoma 86B states in the name of Resh Lakish:
אמר ריש לקיש גדולה תשובה שזדונות נעשות לו כשגגות שנאמר (הושע יד, ב) שובה ישראל עד ה’ אלהיך כי כשלת בעונך הא עון מזיד הוא וקא קרי ליה מכשול איני והאמר ריש לקיש גדולה תשובה שזדונות נעשות לו כזכיות שנאמר (יחזקאל לג, יט) ובשוב רשע מרשעתו ועשה משפט וצדקה עליהם (חיה) יחיה לא קשיא כאן מאהבה כאן מיראה
Reish Lakish said: Great is repentance, as the penitent’s intentional sins are counted for him as unwitting transgressions, as it is stated: “Return, Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have stumbled in your iniquity” (Hosea 14:2). The Gemara analyzes this: Doesn’t “iniquity” mean an intentional sin? Yet the prophet calls it stumbling, implying that one who repents is considered as though he only stumbled accidentally in his transgression. The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Reish Lakish himself say: Great is repentance, as one’s intentional sins are counted for him as merits, as it is stated: “And when the wicked turns from his wickedness, and does that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby” (Ezekiel 33:19), and all his deeds, even his transgressions, will become praiseworthy? The Gemara reconciles: This is not difficult: Here, when one repents out of love, his sins become like merits; there, when one repents out of fear, his sins are counted as unwitting transgressions.
Rabbi Sacks asks – we understand that repentance can change your intent from intentional sins to unwitting transgressions. However, how does your deliberate sin count as merits? How do you change the reality of what you did? It has been done, it is part of the past. Even the Pasuk that Resh Lakish brings down in Ezekial does not support what Resh Lakish says. The Pasuk says that he will live in the future but not that his past wrongdoing is a merit.
Rabbi Sacks answered that “once the brothers had undergone complete repentance, their original intent was canceled out. It was now possible to see the good, as well as the bad consequences of their act – and to attribute the former (good acts) to them. Strpped of their initial aim, the act could instead be defined by what part it played in a providential drama whose outcome was only now fully apparent in retrospect.” God wanted Joseph to be sold down to Egypt. If the brothers had not sold Joseph perhaps on his way back home, Joseph would have been kidnapped. What the brothers did was wrong, however, now since they regretted their actions, their original intent is canceled out and their sale of Joseph is part of God’s divine plan. This is what Yosef told the brothers in Verses 50:19-20.
This is the story of my mother’s life. She made major mistakes in her life. She had to pick herself off the mat, fight for everything, suffer setbacks, and in the end this humble person whose prospects for a good life initially seemed unattainable, became the matriarch of a glorious family. Her children and grandchildren flourished, raised beautiful families, found success in America, and lived the American dream. When my mother died in late 2017 she had over 140 living children, grandchildren, great grandchildren. The number is now approaching 150. My mother’s mistakes ended up becoming the foundation for a great and glorious family. Her mistakes became merits. This is what my sister Karen told my mother after my mother got sick. My mother was confined to the house and no longer able to come and go. All she did was sit and replay her life in her mind. She expressed her anguish to Karen about her mistakes. Karen responded, Ma look what your mistakes produced, a Pesach and an Arela and their families. Look at Lisa and Mitch. We should only be so lucky.
I must add that my grandparents Sholem and Chana Feigal Sklar came to America and stayed Orthodox. They did not change. My grandfather did not change in America, kept his beard, and lived his life as he lived in Europe. Zedi had 6 brothers and sisters in America that came before him and none remained Orthodox. They told him that here in America you have to become American and shave your beard. Initially, his siblings did have success with Esther Diamond brothers getting PHDs from the University of Chicago and working on the Manhattan project. However, in 2020 all his 6 brothers and sisters may have 50 descendants, only two Orthodox. However in terms of success in America Zedi and Bubi’s kids have succeeded beyond expectations in 1923 living on Maxwell Street. They now have over 250 descendents including Torah scholars, doctors, lawyers, businessmen and of course myself.
ויחי יעקב בארץ מצרים שבע עשרה שנה כבר הזכרתי (לעיל מג יד) כי רדת יעקב למצרים הוא גלותינו היום ביד החיה הרביעית (דניאל ז ז) רומי הרשעה כי בני יעקב הם עצמם סבבו רדתם שם במכירת יוסף אחיהם ויעקב ירד שם מפני הרעב וחשב להנצל עם בנו בבית אוהב לו כי פרעה אוהב את יוסף וכבן* לו והיו סבורים לעלות משם ככלות הרעב מארץ כנען כמו שאמרו (לעיל מז ד) לגור בארץ באנו כי אין מרעה לצאן אשר לעבדיך כי כבד הרעב בארץ כנען והנה לא עלו אבל ארך עליהם הגלות ומת שם ועלו עצמותיו וזקני פרעה ושריו העלוהו ועשו עמו אבל כבד וכן אנחנו עם רומי ואדום אחינו הסיבונו ביאתינו בידם כי כרתו ברית עם הרומיים ואגריפס המלך האחרון לבית שני ברח אליהם לעזרה ומפני הרעב נלכדו אנשי ירושלים והגלות ארך עלינו מאד לא נודע קצו כשאר הגליות ואנחנו בו כמתים אומרים יבשו עצמותינו נגזרנו לנו ויעלו אותנו מכל העמים מנחה לה’** ויהיה להם אבל כבד בראותם כבודנו*** ואנחנו נראה בנקמת ה’ יקימנו ונחיה לפניו****:
*I thought this was not true. I have written that Pharaoh viewed Yosef as his hatchet man based on a Pasuk in Miktaz. Perhaps both are true that he did love Yoseph. At the same time when needed, he made Yoseph a scapegoat and his hatchet man.
** I believe this was fulfilled in the first half of the 20th century starting with the Balfour Declaration and ending with 1948 when the State of Israel was declared.
*** Perhaps this is what has and is what is happening over the last 50 years starting with the UN and spreading to the EU. They cannot accept Israel’s great success and use it to better the Arab world and the entire world. Rather than harnessing the entrepreneurship and energy of Israel, they choose to attempt to hurt and destroy Israel, keeping over 1 Billion people enslaved to poverty, religious fanatics, megalomaniacs, without hope for the future.
**** We want the world to be a partner with the Jews and Israel, and not face retribution.
ויחי יעקב בארץ מצרים וגו’. למה פרשה זו סתומה, אלא כיון שנפטר יעקב התחיל השעבוד ד״א שבקש לגלות הקץ ונסתם ממנו. ד״א שנסתמו ממנו כל צרות שבעולם. כך היא הנוסחא בב״ר (צו א) כפי הנראה שאין סמך מן המקרא לכל הדרשות האלו וכולם כמתנבאים. ואשר נראה לי בזה לפי שמצינו כאן סתימה שלא כדרך הפרשיות הסתומות שבתורה שיש בהם ריוח לפחות כשיעור פרשה סתומה, וכאן אין ריוח כלל ודאי שכונת עזרא הסופר להסמיך פסוק ויחי לפסוק שלפניו וישב ישראל בארץ גושן ויאחזו בה ויפרו וירבו מאד ויחי יעקב וגו’. כאילו היה הכל פסוק אחד, ע״כ נחלקו ג’ לשונות אלו במשמעות דורשין.
כי ללשון ראשון הדורש, שכיון שנפטר יעקב התחיל השיעבוד יהיה קישור שני פסוקים אלו על זה האופן, כי מתחילה אמר וישב ישראל בארץ גושן הורה בלשון ישיבה שהיה להם ישיבה של שלוה ומנוחה, ויאחזו שהיה להם גם אחוזה בארץ ויפרו וירבו מאד, וכל זה היה בזמן ויחי יעקב כי בחייו עמד להם זכות יעקב שזכו לכל אלה, מכלל שבמותו פסק זכותו ופסק הכל, כי לא היה להם עוד ישיבה של שלום מצד השעבוד, וכ״ש שלא היחה להם אחוזה בארץ כי עבדים המה, וכן לא ניתן להם לפרות ולרבות כי בקשו להמעיטם ע״י העינוי באמרם פן ירבה, ולפי זה היתה מיתת יעקב סבת השעבוד.
ונוכל לומר בהפך זה, שהתחלת השעבוד היה סבת מיתתו כי קיצר הקדוש ברוך הוא שנותיו שלא הגיע לימי אבותיו שלא יראה בשעבוד בניו, כי בא הזמן של ועבדום וענו אותם. לכך נאמר ויקרבו ימי ישראל למות ואמרו רבותינו ז״ל (בר״ר צו ד) כל מי שנאמר בו קריבה לא הגיע לימי אבותיו, ובדרך זה יהיה הסמיכות מבואר ג״כ כמו בדרך ראשון, ומספר י״ז שנה דנקט לומר שמכירתו של יוסף שהיה בן י״ז שנה, גרם להם שלא ישבו בשלום במצרים כ״א י״ז שנה.
וללשון שלישי הדורש, לפי שנסתמו ממנו כל צרות שבעולם יאמר הכתוב אע״פ שהיה כל ימיו בצרה וגרות כמ״ש ימי מגורי ק״ל שנה מעט ורעים, מ״מ לגודל השלוה שהיה לו תוך י״ז שנים שראה ישיבת בניו בשלום ויאחזו בארץ ויפרו וירבו נשכחו ממנו כל הצרות הראשונות שעברו עליו והיו כלא היו, לכך נאמר ויהי ימי יעקב שני חייו קמ״ז שנה כי אותן ק״ל שנים לא היו נחשבים מכלל ימי חייו לגודל צרותיו, ועכשיו למפרע נחשבו כולם שני חייו, וזה לפי שנסתמו ממנו כל הצרות שעברו וכאילו היה חי חיים נעימים ועריבים בכל שנותיו, שהרי באמת יוסף היה חי, לכך סמך ויחי יעקב אל הפסוק הקודם, ומה שהשמיט רש״י לשון זה לפי שנראה לו שהיינו הך הלשון ראשון כאשר הוא מבואר למבין בהתבוננות מעט.
ואולם הלשון השני הדורש, שבקש לגלות הקץ ונסתלקה ממנו השכינה, לפי שבא לתרץ מהו שאמר ויחי יעקב בארץ מצרים י״ז שנה מאי קמ״ל, וכי עדיין לא ידענו שהיה במצרים י״ז שנה, שהרי בבואו לפני פרעה אמר ימי מגורי ק״ל שנה, וא״כ למה הוצרך לומר שהיה חי במצרים י״ז שנה, ועוד למה לא הזכיר לשון זה באברהם ויצחק או אמהות, אלא ודאי שבא להורות שפרשה השכינה ממנו, לפי שנאמר למעלה ותחי רוח יעקב אביהם, שפירושו ששרתה עליו השכינה מדקאמר רוח יעקב, וסד״א ששרתה עליו רוח הקודש כל הימים עד יום מותו, קמ״ל ויחי יעקב בארץ מצרים כי בבואו למצרים חי יעקב אבל לא רוח יעקב שנסתלקה ממנו השכינה מיד, לפי שאמר אמותה הפעם אחרי ראותי את פניך, וא״כ מיד היה מוכן אל הצואה לצוות מחמת מיתה והיה חושש הקב״ה פן יגלה הקץ על כן נסתלקה ממנו השכינה, ועדיין לא ידענו מאיזו טעם נסתלקה שכינה ממנו, ע״כ באה פרשה זו סתומה לסמכה לפסוק וישב ישראל בארץ גושן, לפי שמהידוע שימשך נזק גדול מן ידיעת הקץ, כי הדורות הקודמים היודעים שהגאולה לא תהיה בימיהם לא ידרשו את פני ה’ לבקש על הגאולה ועל התמורה.
וכן פירש בעקידה, על המדרש (ילקו״ש קנז מט) האומר כשבקש יעקב לגלות הקץ אמר הקב״ה ולא אותי קראת יעקב (ישעיה מג כב) ר״ל שלא היית חס על כבודי, כי מידיעה זו ימשך נזק זה שלא יקראו אותי ולא יבקשו פני הדורות הקודמים ויבקשו לישב וכמתיאשים מן הגאולה, על כן סתם וחתם ה’ הקץ האחרון כדי שבכל דור ודור יבקשו את פני ה’ ואת דוד מלכם ויהיו מחכים קץ ישועתו תמיד, כאשר בעונינו מדה זו מצוייה בינינו אפילו בזמן שאין הקץ נודע מ״מ רבים המה עמי הארץ המתישבים בארצות העמים ובונין להם בתים ספונים וחשובים ושל אבנים בנין הקיום, ובסבה זו לעולם אינן דורשין את פני ה’ בכל לב להביאם אל ארצם, וע״כ הקב״ה מניחם שמה,
ולהנחה זו פסוק וישב ישראל בארץ גושן. מדבר באשמת ישראל, שבקשו להיות חושבים ולהיות להם אחוזה בארץ לא להם, ונזק זה בא להם לפי שקץ גלות מצרים היה נודע להם, על כן הדורות הראשונים אשר ידעו בבירור כי לא בימיהם תהיה הגאולה ההוא בקשו להם ישיבה של קבע ואחוזה בארץ מצרים, על כן סמך לפסוק זה פסוק ויחי יעקב דלהורות שנזק זה הנמשך לאותן הדורות מחמת שהיה קצם נודע גרם לויחי יעקב אבל לא רוח יעקב, כי אם יעקב לבדו היה חי כדי שלא יגלה הקץ לאחרון ושלא יתפשט נזק זה לדורות.
Why is this section (Sidra) totally closed? Because, comprising as it does an account of the death of Jacob, as soon as our father Jacob departed this life the hearts and eyes of Israel were closed (their eyes became dim and their hearts troubled) because of the misery of the bondage which they then began to impose upon them. Another reason is: because he (Jacob) wished to reveal to his sons the date of the End of Days (i.e. when Israel’s exile would finally end; cf. Rashi on Genesis 49:1), but the vision was closed (concealed) from him (Genesis Rabbah 96:1).
Chabad from Mesudah:
And Jacob lived: Why is this section [completely] closed? Because, as soon as our father Jacob passed away, the eyes and the heart of Israel were “closed,” (i.e., it became “dark” for them) because of the misery of the slavery, for they (the Egyptians) commenced to subjugate them.
These three English translations say that the Jews in Egypt walked around with a cloud over their heads. They were depressed because they saw slavery starting. It was like being in America for the Jews in 1935
I was shocked. This is not the way I understood this Rashi and this Medresh for the first 70 years of my life. I understood מִצָּרַת הַשִּׁעְבּוּד as “from the misery of the enslavement”, not “because of the misery of enslavement.” Meaning the slavery is some fashion started and they did not realize it, consciously or subconsciously. After all, Yosef lived for another 54 years after Yaakov died so they were doing quite well.
Everyone asks that after Yaakov dies Joseph was viceroy for another 54 years and the slavery did not start for over 20 years after Joseph’s death to when Levi died at 137 years. What does Rashi who quotes the Medresh mean that the slavery started at Yaakov’s death.
Explanations are given but I love Rabbi Riskin’s Vort based on the Rov’s Torah in Rabbi Riskin’s Sefer, Torah Lights, quoted below.
Everyone asks why couldn’t Yoseph speak to Pharaoh directly? Why did he have to ask בֵּ֥ית פַּרְעֹ֖ה? I assume that בֵּ֥ית פַּרְעֹ֖ה were high ranking offcials.
There are three answers.
1 – Sferno and Tur HaAruch both say that Yosef could not speak to Pharaoh directly because he was in mourning and wearing sackcloth.
Meshech Chochma says the same thing:
וידבר יוסף אל בית פרעה כו’ כו’ לשיטת רמב”ן אונן כ”ז שלא נקבר אסור לסוך ולרחוץ ולקשט וגם לרמב”ם דאונן שרי אין זה מדרך הנימוס וכבוד אביו לסוך וללבוש בגדי שררות כפי הראוי להיות בבואו אל המלך בעוד אביו מת מוטל לפניו לכן לא היה יכול לכנס אל פרעה לדבר עמו.
This is the simple answer. We see that although Achasverosh loved Esther, she could not approach him unless he called her. There is protocol. You just do not go into the king unless you are summoned or dressed in mourning clothes.
When Yaakov died Joseph’s profile in Egypt was lowered and he no longer had direct access to Pharaoh.
ונלע״ד דמ״מ מיד אחר מיתת יעקב אע״ג דהוה יוסף קיים מיד ראו סימני שעבוד וכדאמרי׳ נמי בפ״ק דסוטה מ״ש מעיקרא דכתיב ויעל יוסף לקבור וכו׳ ויעלו אתו כל עבדי פרעה וכו׳ והדר וכל בית יוסף ואחיו וכו׳ ומ״ש לבסוף דכתיב וישב יוסף מצרימה הוא ואחיו והדר וכו׳ אר״י בתחלה עד שלא ראו בכבודן של ישראל לא נהגו בהן כבוד וכו׳ הרי דמיד אחר מיתת יעקב התחיל סימן לשעבוד שהיו המצריים רוצים להשתרר עליהם ובר מן דין חזי׳ נמי שיוסף עצמו לא היתה גדולתו כ״כ כמו אביו שהוצרך לדבר עם בית פרעה ולחלות פניהם שיתחננו לפרעה שיניחהו לילך לקבור את אביו שכן כתיב אם נא מצאתי חן וכו׳ והיכן גדולתו וקורבתו עם המלך אלא שמיתת הזקן עשתה רושם ולפי׳ זה דייקי שפיר דברי רש״י שכתב מצרת השעבוד וכו׳ ולא קאמר מן השעבוד שלא היה שעבוד ממש אלא סימן המורה צרת השעבוד שהיה עתיד לבוא
3 – Rabbi Shlomo Riskin based on the Rov – Reb Yosef Ber Solovecihik. Gevaldig. The Pshat is as written in the following pages and is that Yosef was asking Pharaoh to bury Yaakov in Israel.This was a very tough ask and Yosef could not ask Pharoh directly. Read Rabbi Yosef Ber Soloveichik’s and Rabbi Shlomo Riskin’s words of Torah.
Rabbi Soloveichik says his Pshat on verse 50:5 on the first two words of the Pasuk אָבִ֞י הִשְׁבִּיעַ֣נִי .
Rabbi Risken beautifully uses the above to explain verse 50:4 of why Joseph could not ask Pharoh directly.
He then uses his explanation of verse 50:4 to understand the first explanation of Rashi in verse 48:28
Pages (bottom of) 309, 310, and 311 from Rabbi Riskin’s Sefer, Torah Lights – Bereshis.
“Joseph may have reached the top of the social ladder in Egypt. He speaks Egyptian, dresses as an Egyptian, has become named Egyption (Tzanat – Pane’ah), and is married to a native Egyptoins (perhaps even to his previous master’s daughter). From slave to Prime Minister, Joseph has certainly lived out the great Egyptian dream. Now, however, he is forced to face the precariousness and vulnerability of his position.”
“Ordinately a person wants to be buried in his own homeland where his body will become part of the earth to which he feels most deeply connected. Indeed, in the ancient world the most criticall right of citizenship was he right of burial. The wise Jacob understands that Pharaoh expects Joseph to completely identify with Egypt, to bring up generations of faithful and committed Egyptians after all that his adopted country has given to him. But this was impossible for Jacob- and the pariah hoped that it would also be impossible for his children and grandchildren as well. They were in Egypt but not of Egypt. They might contribute to Egyptian society and economy, but they never become Egyptionas. Jacob understood that his burial in Canaan would be the greatest test of Joseph’ career, and would define the character of his descendants forever. Hence he makes his beloved son solemnly swear not to bury him in Egypt.”
Joseph , too, understood that Pharaoh would be shocked at the request, a petition expressing the Hebrew rejection of the most powerful and civilized nation on earth. Indeed, it is such a difficult and sensitive matter that Joseph could not face his patron Pharaoh directly with it. At that moment Joseph understands an even deeper truth: were he, his brothers, his children and grandchildren to make the choice to live as Egyptians and to die as Egyptians, the chances are that they would be totally accepted in the mainstream of the land and life in that country. However,were they to choose to live as Jews, with their own concept of life and death, they would never be accepted and would probably be persecuted. It is this realization in the aftermath of Jacob;’s death which Rashi correctly sees as the beginning of the slavery of the Israelites. In Egypt, Joseph’s kinsman may have everything: Goshen Heights and Gopshen Green, progeny and patrimony. But as long as they are determined to remain Jews, servitude and persecution are inevitable. They may rejoice in the preferred Egyption status, where they ‘took possession of it and were fruitful and multiplied exceedingly’, but they cannot ever pause to enjoy the good fortune. The realization upon Jacob’s death of the transient and illusory nature of their good fortune comes upon them inexorably and imperceptibly, as in the blink of an eye, as in the following sentence without a change of paragraph.”
“And so this portion is closed just as Egypt will soon be closed to their children. Such is the ultimate fate of the children of Israel in every exile.”
Got up at 4:15 AM Shabbos morning to prepare for my Shiur at Chabad of East Lakeview. Left for the Shiur at 8:30 AM and arrived at Chabad at 10:30 AM. There was no minyan when I arrived as many people were away for Thanksgiving. About 15 minutes later, the Minyan came. Kiddush was great as always. The Cholent is phenomenal. Davened Mincha.
Gave my Shiur at 2:00 PM. It was a smaller Shiur than usual. I went through Perek 29 which starts with Yakov arriving in Haran, meeting Rochel, their mg B arriage, and the birth of their kids. . I read the rich dialogue and explained it using Rashi. I explained the deception, what is like for Yakov to wake up the next morning thinking he married the love of his life and it was someone else; Leah’s prayers changed history, what she must have felt like during the seven years that Yaakov worked for the family, Yakov before he introduced himself kissed Rochel, was she wearing a veil or not, he knew that Rochel is my life mate, but there will be problems, etc, etc.
I said that tragedy and hardships in life produces greatness. I mentioned my mother and June chimed in about her life.
Walked back home at 3:55 PM and got home at 5:40 PM.
Then Jacob said to Laban, “Give me my wife, for my time is fulfilled, that I may cohabit with her.”
Fulfilled is an okay word but completed would probably be a better word. In Hebrew כִּ֥י כלו יָמָ֑י .
There seems to be a Machlokes in how to translate Yakov’s statement כִּ֥י מָלְא֖וּ יָמָ֑י. Onkleys and Rashbam says that it means I worked for you for seven years, I fulfilled my end of the bargain. Rashi does not say this but rather it means two things 1) that I have completed the days that my mother told me to stay in Haran and then come back home. 2) It is time for me to get married and raise my family.
I will end up saying that Rashi agrees with Onkelys and the Rashbam, but adds depth to Yaakov’s words.
MY DAYS ARE FULFILLED — which my mother told me to remain with you. And another explanation is: MY DAYS ARE FULFILLED for I am now eighty-four years old and when shall I beget twelve tribes? That is what he meant by adding “that I may go in unto her”; for surely even the commonest of people would not use such an expression. But he said this because his mind was intent upon having issue (to fulfill his mission of rearing children who would carry on the religious traditions of his fathers) (Genesis Rabbah 70:18).
Rashi is Difficult:
The question on Rashi is that the simple meaning is clearly like Onkelys and Rashbam. Why does Rashi come up with two other reasons and does not say the simple meaning. Is Rashi saying that Yakov’s words of כִּ֥י מָלְא֖וּ יָמָ֑י is not telling Lavan that I have finished my years of service., but rather the two other things. Yes, says the Maskil L’Dovid. Yakov wasn’t saying that I Completed my service because Lavan knew that Yakov completed the seven years and he did not have to tell Lavan this fact.. The Maskil L’Dovid as quoted by Artscroll page 324, note 2. “Rashi does not understand ‘my days are filled” as referring to Jacob’s term of labor, as Targum Onkelos does, because that would have been obvious to Laban and Jacob would not have needed to mention it.”
I do not agree with the Maskil L’Dovid. There is no question in my mind that Yakov told Lavan, I fulfilled my end of the bargain, now I want you to fulfill your end of the bargain. This is how people talk and especially to an evil person. This Sedra is rich with dialogue and I am sure this is the dialogue between Yakov and Lavan. There was no need for Rashi to explain that Yakov said I have completed my days because this is obvious from the context of the words and anyone reading the Torah would understand this. Rashi does not come to tell us the obvious. Onkelys is a translation so he translates it as we read it.
Why does Rashi then come up with two other explanations for כִּ֥י מָלְא֖וּ יָמָ֑י. The answer is that while the reason for Yaakov saying כִּ֥י מָלְא֖וּ יָמָ֑י is the obvious reason and Rashi agrees to this, Yakov had other emotions and motivations which he expressed to Lavan. Rashi is speaking to these deeper emotions of Yakov. Yakov told Lavan that it has been 21 years since I left my parents and I want to go back home. Rashi also expresses Yakov’s second motivation, that I am 84 years old and when will I establish twelve tribes if I do not get married now.
(I am not sure if he actually expressed this to Lavan. As I thought about it Yakov who was an Ish Tam did express it. Lavan, who was a Rasha, did not want Yakov to leave because he and his town were blessed because of Yakov. There is a medresh on this that the townspeople did not want to trick Yakov but Lavan convinced them that they had to trick Yaokv to get Yakov to stay in Haran.)
When I told my Torah to Rabbi Revah he disagreed and said just because I feel this way does not make it so. The answer to Rabbi Revah is as follows. How did Rashi know that Yakov expressed these other reasons? The language Yakov used is כִּ֥י מָלְא֖וּ יָמָ֑י . The language Yakov should have used is כִּ֥י כלו יָמָ֑י , meaning I ended/completed the terms of our agreement. By using כִּ֥י מָלְא֖וּ יָמָ֑י, Yakov is saying other reasons. Yakov is saying I have fulfilled my mother’s statement that you will stay in Haran for יָמִ֣ים אֲחָדִ֑ים . Verse 27:44. The reason of fathering twelve tribes is in Rashi itself and learning from the end of the Pasuk, וְאָב֖וֹאָה אֵלֶֽיהָ.
Rabbi Mayer Twersky in his Sefer, Insights and Attitudes, adds depth to Yakov’s last reason. He says, page 44, “Upon reflection, there is a remarkable message in Yakov Avinu’s words. On the one hand, he knows through Ruach Hakodesh that he is destined to father twelve tribes. Yet, on the other hand he is very concerned that he may not do so. The message is clear: Hashem may prepare a destiny for us, but he does not not decree fulfillment of that destiny. We must, with alacrity and determination, apply ourselves to realize that destiny. Hashem may assign us a role in history, but we must carry out that assignment. Otherwise, our destiny will remain unfulfilled and Hashem will find other means to guide history according to His will.
Rabbi Mayer Twersky is saying that כִּ֥י מָלְא֖וּ יָמָ֑י – I have to complete my days that I was put on this earth to accomplish, I have live my destiny which is to have twelve tribes and create a nation. I cannot lose it.
I compare this to myself. Everything I do has a primary reason and secondary reasons embedded into my primary reason. For example – I love going to Tel Aviv Pizza to eat. What are my reasons?
Primary reason:
The primary reason is to have lunch
Secondary reasons:
When I was a kid, there were no restaurants in Chicago and even if there were, my parents would not have spent the money going to restaurants. Going to restaurants and having someone serve me food without having to prepare the meal is a treat for me. I still feel that deprivation and the subsequent joy of going to restaurants to this day.
To give the owner business
To schmooze with people.
I have an open line of credit and look around to pay for people’s meals.
I love pizza stores and they are needed in the frum world. Frum people need relatively inexpensive places to feed their families. Pizza stores are places of Chesed.
Additional Information:
Maskil L’Dovid – Rav Dovid Pardo (1718-1790)
מלאו ימי שאמרה וכו׳ לא ניחא ליה לרבינו לפ׳ כי מלאו ימי יומי פולחני וכדתרגם אונקלוס דהא הוה ידע לבן שעברו הז׳ שנים ולא הול״ל אלא הבה את אשתי ותו לא.
ומה שהוצרך לפרש עוד שהרי אני בן פ״ד שנה וכו׳ משום שגם בפי׳ ימים שאמרה לי אמי יש בו דוחק דהא לא חזי׳ עד השתא שהזכיר יעקב מידי מהימים אחדים שאמר׳ לו אמו ואיך שייך לומר לו סתם מלאו ימי מהיכן יבין לבן כוונתו
I do not understand what Reb Dovid Pardo means that how would Lavan know. According to Rashi, Yakov told him that he missed his parents and wanted to go back home.
ועל פי׳ הב׳ ג״כ ק״ק דלא שייך בזה לשון מלאו דמשמע נשלמו ומ״ש רש״י על ואבואה אליה והלא קל שבקלים אינו אומר כן וכו׳ ק׳ דמאי נ״מ שלהוליד תולדות אמר כן והלא הקו׳ במקומה עומדת והלא קל שבקלים וכו׳ שהרי יכול להוליד תולדות מבלי שיאמר כן. ונר׳ שכוונת יעקב באומרו ואבואה אליה משום דידוע שיעקב לא הו״ל כסף מידי ולא שוה כסף לקדש את רחל ואם בדמי העבודה הו״ל מלוה וקי״ל המקדש במלוה אינה מקודשת ולכך א״ל ללבן דאפ״ה יקדישנה בביאה ועל זה מקשי רבינו והלא קל שבקלים וכו׳ אינו אומר כן דאפילו דיבור אסור דהויא פריצותא דאמרי׳ רב מנגיד אמאן דמקדש בביאה דפריצות׳ היא ולכך משני שהוצרך לומר כן כדי שלא ידחהו לבן עד שיהיה לו כסף לקדש והוא היה צריך להוליד תולדות לכך הוצרך לומר לו כן
There is a Ramban that discusses this Rashi and I am not sure I understand the Ramban.
Ramban
כי מלאו ימי שאמרה לי אמי ועוד כי מלאו ימי הריני בן פ”ד שנה ואימתי אעמיד י”ב שבטים לשון רש”י (רש”י על בראשית כ״ט:כ״א):
FOR MY DAYS ARE FULFILLED. This means “the time which my mother told me to remain away from home.” Another explanation is: For my days are fulfilled — “I am now eighty-four years old and when shall I beget twelve tribes?” These are the words of Rashi.
29:27
מלא שבוע זאת דבק הוא בחטף שבוע של זאת והן ז’ ימי המשתה גם זה לשון רש”י (רש”י על בראשית כ״ט:כ״ז) ואם כן למה לא פירש הרב מלאו ימי על שני העבודה והתנאי ששלמו כדברי אונקלוס (תרגום אונקלוס על בראשית כ״ט:כ״ז) והוא משמעות הכתוב באמת ובשביל הימים שאמרה לו אמו גם מפני זקנתו לא יתן לו לבן בתו קודם זמנו אשר התנו שניהם ודי שיקיים תנאו וכדברי אונקלוס הוא שנצטרך לפרש מלא שבוע זאת על ימי המשתה כי ימי העבודה שלמים היו כאשר אמר לו יעקב וכן פירש רבי אברהם (אבן עזרא על בראשית כ״ט:כ״ז) ואני לא ידעתי כי שבעת ימי המשתה תקנת משה רבינו לישראל (ירושלמי כתובות פ”א ה”א) ואולי נאמר שנהגו בהם מתחלה נכבדי האומות כענין באבילות דכתיב (בראשית נ׳:י׳) ויעש לאביו אבל שבעת ימים ומה שלמדו כאן בירושלמי (מו”ק פ”א ה”ז) ובבראשית רבה (בראשית רבה ע׳:י״ט) שאין מערבין שמחה בשמחה סמך בעלמא ממנהגי הקדמונים קודם התורה אבל בגמרא שלנו (מו”ק ט) לא למדוה מכאן ודרשוה מויעש שלמה את החג (מלכים א ח סה) ויתכן לומר כי היה זה מחלוף משכורתו עשרת מונים (בראשית ל״א:מ״א) כי יעקב אמר לו מתחלה כי מלאו הימים ולבן שתק ונתן לו לאה ואחר כן אמר לו לבן מלא שבוע זאת כי עדיין לא מלאו ימי עבודת לאה וקודם זמני נתתיה לך ויעקב שמע אליו וימלא אותם כדברי לבן כי מה יוכל לעשות והוא ברחל יחפוץ ולכן לא אמר הכתוב בתחילה “ויהי במלאת הימים ויאמר יעקב וגו'” ועוד יתכן לומר כי כאשר היה בשנה השביעית אמר יעקב ללבן הבה את אשתי כי מלאו ימי שזו שנת מלאת הימים וכן זקן עם מלא ימים (ירמיהו ו יא) הוא אשר הגיעו לשנת סופו וכן עד יום מלאת ימי מלואיכם (ויקרא ח לג) עד יום השביעי שבו ימלאו ימי המלואים או שאמר “מלאו” בעבור שהיו קרובים להמלא וחשובים כמלאים וכמוהו רבים וכן בסדר האחר (בראשית ל״ה:י״ח) בצאת נפשה כי מתה בהיותה קרובה לכך וחשובה כאילו מתה וזה טעם ואבואה אליה כלומר לא שתתן אותה ואלכה אבל שאשאנה ואשלים מעט הימים אשר עלי כי מעתה לא תירא ממני שאעזבך ורבותינו עשו מדרש (ב”ר ע יח) בלשון “ואבואה אליה” בעבור שאיננו דרך מוסר להזכיר כן אף כי בצדיקים אבל הכוונה היא מה שאמרתי ואחרי כן אמר לו לבן מלא שבוע השנים של לאה זאת כי אולי בעבור שעברתי על דעתך לא תשלים אותן או כדי שיהיה ידוע מתי התחילו ימי עבודת רחל ואז אתן לך האחרת בעבודה אשר תעבוד עמדי לאחר הנישואין:
FULFILL ‘SHVUA’ (THE WEEK OF) THIS ONE. The word shvua is in the construct state for it is punctuated with a sheva. It thus means the seven days of this wife, referring to the seven days of the wedding feast. These too are the words of Rashi.
But if so, [i.e., if Rashi interprets shvua as referring to the seven days of the wedding feast rather than, more simply, the seven years of labor, thus implying that the seven years of work had been completed], why did not the Rabbi [Rashi] explain the verse above, my days are fulfilled, as referring to the years of work and the condition which were completed, as Onkelos has it, and which is the true sense of the verse, [instead of explaining it as referring to the length of time his mother told him to remain there or to his advanced age]? For merely because the days his mother told him to remain with him were completed or because of his advanced age, Laban would not give him his daughter before the mutually agreed time, and it is enough to expect of Laban that he fulfill his condition. It is according to Onkelos, [who says that Jacob’s seven years of work had been completed], that we are bound to explain, fulfill ‘shvua’ this one, as referring to the seven days of the wedding feast for as Jacob had told him, the days of work had already been completed. So also did Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explain it.
And I do not know [how the reference here could be to “the seven days of the marriage feast,” as Rashi claims], for “the seven days of the wedding feast” is an ordinance established for Israel by our teacher Moses. Perhaps we may say that the dignitaries of the nations had already practiced this custom of old, just as was the case with mourning, as it is written, And he made a mourning for his father seven days. And that which the Rabbis have deduced from here in the Yerushalmi and in Bereshith Rabbah, “One must not mix one rejoicing with another,” that is merely a Scriptural intimation based upon the customary practices of the ancient ones prior to the giving of the Torah. But in our Gemara, the Rabbis did not derive it from here, [i.e., from Laban’s statement], but instead they deduced it from the verse, And Solomon held the feast etc.
Now it is possible to say that this was part of “the changing of the hire ten times” of which Jacob accused Laban. For Jacob told Laban originally that the days were fulfilled, and Laban kept quiet and gave him Leah. Later, Laban told him, “Fulfill ‘shvua’ this one, for the work period for Leah has not been fulfilled, and I gave her to you before the time I had agreed upon.” And Jacob listened to Laban and completed the days as defined by Laban, for he desired Rachel, and what could he do? Therefore, Scripture does not say at first, “And it came to pass when the days were fulfilled, and Jacob said, etc.,” [for this would have indicated mutual agreement concerning the completion of the work period, whereas Laban, as explained, claimed that that time had not yet arrived].
It is also possible to say that when the seventh year arrived, Jacob said to Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, meaning that this is the year in which the days will be fulfilled. Similarly, The aged with him that is full of days, which means, “he who is attaining his final year.” Similarly, Until the day of your consecration be fulfilled, which means, “until the seventh day in which the days of your consecration will be fulfilled.” It is possible that Jacob said, My days are fulfilled, because they were about to be fulfilled and are considered as if fulfilled. There are many similar examples in Scripture. Likewise, in the next Seder (portion of the Torah), As her soul was departing, for she died, which means, “when she was near death, and was considered as if she had already died.” And this is the meaning of the expression, that I may come unto her, that is to say, Jacob said, “My request is not that you give her to me and I will then leave, but rather that I marry her and complete the few days which are still obligatory upon me for now that the period is almost over, you will not be afraid that I might leave you.” Our Rabbis have given a Midrashic interpretation to the words, that I may come unto her, because it is not the ethical way to mention it in this manner, the more so with righteous people, but the intent is as I have said.
Laban then told Jacob, “Fulfill the seven years of this one, Leah, for perhaps since I transgressed your will by giving you Leah instead of Rachel you will not fulfill them.” Perhaps he mentioned it in order that it be known when the days of work for Rachel begin, and then he told him, “I will give you the other daughter, Rachel, for the service which thou shalt serve with me after the wedding.”
History of the Maskil L’Dovid – Rabbi Dovid Pardo
The twelfth of Sivan is the yahrzeit of Rav Dovid Pardo (1718-1790). Born into a rabbinical family in Venice, he was orphaned at a young age. He and his sister were raised by a wealthy, childless relative named Shmuel Ashkenazi. Mr. Ashkenazi left his fortune to the sister, Rachel, as she had helped him with household chores, with the stipulation that she marry a worthy young man. Unfortunately, she died before she had a chance to marry.
The executors of the estate refused to allow the fortune to pass to Rav Dovid because they felt that since it had never passed to his sister, he had no rights to it. Instead, they gave it to nephews of Mr. Ashkenazi. Desperate for funds and upset at the outcome of the inheritance, Rav Dovid moved to Croatia where he took a position as a tutor. There he became a student of Rav Avraham Dovid Papo, who was the rav of Split, and after his passing Rav Dovid was appointed as rabbi.
Halachic queries from all over the Balkans were sent to Rav Dovid and he opened a yeshiva in which a number of leaders of the next generation were educated. In 1761 Rav Shlomo Shalem, the rav of Belgrade, moved to Amsterdam to take up a position. Rav Dovid went to Belgrade with the understanding that the position would be given to him, but then found out that Rav Shlomo was refusing to relinquish the title despite his moving to Amsterdam. In 1773 Rav Dovid was appointed rav of Sarajevo where he spent nine years. His student Rav Shabsi Ventura took his place in Split. Most of Rav Dovid’s seforim and piyyutim were authored while he was in Sarajevo. He also opened a yeshiva there and founded Torah study initiatives for the lay people and created welfare institutions for the community.
In 1775 Rav Dovid traveled to Livorno to publish a sefer and met the Chida who was there raising funds for Chevron Kollel. The two immediately became close friends (although they often argued about interpretations of Chumash) and Rav Dovid’s son Avraham married Simcha, the daughter of the Chida. While in Livorno, Rav Dovid also met Rav Yom Tov Elgazi and Rav Yaakov Chazan who were also traveling to raise funds for the community in Yerushalayim. They wrote approbations for his seforim and ignited within him a desire to move to Eretz Yisrael. He also met Rav Chaim HaKohen Dwek in Belgrade while Rav Dwek was there raising funds for the community in Teveriah.
Rav Dovid arrived in Yerushalayim in 1782 and was immediately invited by the Ri”t Elgazi to join the Bais Din. Shortly thereafter he was invited to serve as rosh yeshiva in Yeshivas Chesed L’Avraham. He lived in Yerushalayim until his passing.
Rav Dovid was a prolific writer. Among his more well-known seforim are Chasdei Dovid a Rashi-like commentary on the Tosefta and Maskil L’Dovid a super-commentary to Rashi’s commentary on Chumash. He also wrote on mishna and halacha.
Had a pretty good Rosh Hashana. Friday night’s meal was with Serka, myself and Sholem. Shabbaos, Rosh Hashanah morning go up at 7:00 AM, read the Mizrachi magazine doing a retrospective on the 50th year anniversary of the Yom Kippur war Davening was called for 8:45 AM and I got there at 9:15 AM, still at the beginning of Pesukei D’Zimra. Beautiful davening. Ari Grebel davened Shacharis and Avrohom Morgenstern davened Musaf. I learned little during the davening, rather focusing on the davening itself. Very inspirational.
For the Shabbos meal, we had Rivkie, Mordy, and their three kids, Eli and Xi, Sholem, Hudi and Atara Greenbaum. Atara is Dr. Laura and Avi Greeenbaum’s kid, granddaughter of Zlat and David Gross.
Saturday night was just Serka and myself.
Sunday morning was a carbon copy of the day before except for Shofar blowing by Ben Adlar. However, during Musaf I was putting together some Torah that occurred to me. Sunday lunch, Serka, myself, and Sholem walked to Rivkie and Mordy’s house for the Rosh Hashanah meal.
My Torah for Rosh Hashanah 2023
The Torah Leining for Rosh Hashanah Day 1 is from Genesis Chapter 21 covering the story God remembering Sara, giving birth, Yitzchok’s circumcision, Sara kicking out Hagar and Yismael, God saving them, and lastly the story of Avimelech the king of the Pelishtim approaching Avrohom to make a peace treaty. The Leining of Day 2 is Chapter 22 which is the next Chapter in the Chumosh. It is the story of the Akidah, which ends with Avrohom being told that his brother Nachar had a granddaughter Rivka.
I listened to the last Verse in the story of Sarah kicking out Hagar and Yismael, Pasuk 21:21 – וַיֵּ֖שֶׁב בְּמִדְבַּ֣ר פָּארָ֑ן וַתִּֽקַּֽח־ל֥וֹ אִמּ֛וֹ אִשָּׁ֖ה מֵאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם. It struck me as odd. Why is Yishmael’s mother finding him a wife? He is 27 and can find a wife for himself. I thought about this Pasuk some more and asked what is this Pasuk telling us? Is it just a concluding Pasuk to let us know what happened after Yismael was saved? Similar to “and they lived happily ever after”. Rashi focused on Yishmael’s wife being from Egypt says:
מארץ מצרים. מִמְּקוֹם גִּדּוּלֶיהָ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְלָהּ שִׁפְחָה מִצְרִית וְגוֹ’ (בראשית ט״ז:א׳), הַיְנוּ דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי זְרֹק חוּטְרָא לַאֲוִירָא, אֲעִיקְּרֵיהּ קָאֵי: This Rashi raises a major question. If a person always goes back home, to its source, why didn’t Hagar go back to Egypt and settle there? Why did she and Yishmael live in the desert of Paran? Clearly she went back to Egypt to find a wife for his son.
Insights and issues: A – It is amazing that Yishmael at age 27 follows the advice of his mother. B – She did go back to Egypt to find a wife for his son, however, did not stay there. She stayed in the desert of Paran and did not go back to Egypt. C – What is this Pasuk telling us?
To understand this Pasuk we have to bring in a number of other Pesukim and Midrashim.
Number #1: What did happen to Hagar? In Bereshis Pasuk 25:1 it says וַיֹּ֧סֶף אַבְרָהָ֛ם וַיִּקַּ֥ח אִשָּׁ֖ה וּשְׁמָ֥הּ קְטוּרָֽה׃. Rashi says that Keturah is Hagar and she is called Keturah for two reasons – קטורה. זוֹ הָגָר, וְנִקְרֵאת קְטוּרָה עַל שֶׁנָּאִים מַעֲשֶׁיהָ כִּקְטֹרֶת (בראשית רבה), וְשֶׁקָּשְׁרָה פִּתְחָהּ, שֶֶׁלֹא נִזְדַּוְּגָה לְאָדָם מִיּוֹם שֶׁפֵּרְשָׁה מֵאַבְרָהָם: She was a good person and performed good deeds. Put in other words, she lived an Abrahamic life, perhaps even setting up an Eshel to provide meals for travelers. She did not marry anyone else from when she left Avrohom. I would expand Rashi and say that she hoped one day to reunite with Avrohom as a wife. This is despite the rejection she must have felt twice. She was actually one her way back to Egypt after both times, and at least at the second time started to worship idols. Both times she saw the hand of God, God saved her and Yishmael, and made Yishmael into a great nation. She decided not to go back to Egypt because she was part of the Abrahamic peoplehood and did not want to marry anyone else and stay “loyal to Avrohom” which paid of at the end, when she remarried Avrohom.
Who brought Hagar back to marry Avrohom? Pasuk 24:62 וְיִצְחָק֙ בָּ֣א מִבּ֔וֹא בְּאֵ֥ר לַחַ֖י רֹאִ֑י וְה֥וּא יוֹשֵׁ֖ב בְּאֶ֥רֶץ הַנֶּֽגֶב׃. Rashi explains (מבוא באר לחי רואי. שֶׁהָלַךְ לְהָבִיא הָגָר לְאַבְרָהָם אָבִיו שֶׁיִּשָּׂאֶנָּה (בראשית רבה. It was Yitzchok and per Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Yitzchok wanted to reunite the family and bring not only Hagar back but also Yishmael, hopefully he would do Tshuva. Yishmael did do Tshuva as the Torah testifies to this twice, once when Avrohom died and the second time when Yisnael himself died.
Number #2: Yonasan ben Uziel brings down the Perkei D’Rabbi Eliezer that Yismael was married twice. וְיָתִיב בְּמַדְבְּרָא דְפָּארָן וּנְסֵיב אִתְּתָא יַת עֲדִישָׁא וְתֵרְכָהּ וּנְסִיבַת לֵיהּ אִמֵיהּ יַת פְּטִימָא אִתְּתָא מֵאַרְעָא דְמִצְרָיִם And he dwelt in the wilderness of Pharan, and took for a wife Adisha, but put her away. And his mother took for him Phatima to wife, from the land of Mizraim.
The Perkie D’Rav Eliezer is more expansive and tells us that Avrohom went to visit Yishmael three years later and a second time 3 years later. Avrohom left a coded message to Yishmael that his first wife was not good. Yishmael understood the message, divorced his wife, and remarried Phatima, the wife his mother found for him in Egypt. The Chizkuni confirms that the Pasuk’s statement that Hagar took a wife for Yishmael was the second wife.
It appears that despite Yishmael following evil ways, there was some goodness to him. He listened to his mother and felt the love of his father (וידע ישמעאל שעד עכשו רחמי אביו עליו כרחם אב על בנים) . Yishmael had a strong support system. His mother was a good person and she selected a good wife for him. There was a core of goodness in Yismael held that would later lead to his Tshuva and becoming a Tzaddik.
Pasuk 21:21 is telling us that Hagar lived in the desert of Paran and did not go back to live in Egypt, her birthplace. This is because she no longer lived the life of an idol worshiping Egyptian. She was a moral person, believing in Avrohom’s God, and a kind and generous person. She only went back to Egypt to tap her family network, and find a good wife for her son.
Sources:
Perkei D’Rav Eliezer – Chapter 30: Chzikuni
Perkei D’Rav Eliezer – Chapter 30:
הנסיון התשיעי, נולד ישמעאל בקשת ונתרבה בקשת שנ’ ויהי אלהים את הנער ויגדל ונטל קשת וחצים והיה יורה אחר הפנות וראה את יצחק יושב לבדו וירה חץ להרגו וראה זה הדבר שרה והגיד לאברהם ואמרה לו כזה וכזה עשה ישמעאל ליצחק אלא עמוד וכתוב ליצחק כל מה שנשבע הב”ה לך ולזרעך שאין בן האמה יורש עם בני עם יצחק שנ’ ותאמר לאברהם גרש את האמה הזאת ואת בנה כי לא יירש בן האמה הזאת עם בני עם יצחק. יהודה בן תימא אומר, אמרה שרה לאברהם כתוב גט גרושין לאמה ושלח את האמה הזאת מעלי ומעל יצחק בני מן העולם הזה ומן העולם הבא. ומכל הרעות שבאו על אברהם הרע בעיניו הדבר הזה מאד, שנאמר (בראשית כא, יא) וַיֵּרַע הַדָּבָר מְאֹד בְּעֵינֵי אַבְרָהָם עַל אוֹדֹת בְּנוֹ. ר’ יהודה אומר, נגלה הב”ה עליו אמ’ לו אברהם אין אתה יודע שהיתה שרה ראויה לך לאשה ממעי אמה והיא חברתך ואשת בריתך לא נקראת שרה שפחה אלא אשתך לא נקראת הגר אשתך אלא שפחתך כל מה שדברה שרה באמת הגידה אל ירע בעיניך. השכים אברהם וכתב גט גירושין ונתן להגר ושלח אותה ואת בנה מעליו ומעל יצחק בנו מהעולם הזה ומהעולם הבא שנ’ וישכם אברהם בבקר ויקח וכו’ וישלחהו בגט גירושין ולקח בגד אחד וקשר במתניה כדי שיהא שוחף אחריה לידע שהיא שפחה ולא עוד אלא שעמד אברהם אבינו לראות את ישמעאל בנו ולראות את הדרך שהלכו בה.
ובזכות אברהם לא חסרו המים מן החמת, וכיון שהגיע לפתח המדבר התחילה תועה אחרי ע”ז של בית אביה ומיד חסרו המים מן החמת לפיכך ותשלך את הילד. ובן כ”ז (י”ג כ”ד) שנה היה ישמעאל כשיצא מבית אביו ויצחק בן עשר שנים היה.
ותלך ותתע וכו’, אין ותתע אלא ע”ז דכתיב בה (ירמיה י טו) הבל המה מעשה תעתועים. ועייפה נפשו של ישמעאל בצמא והלך והשליך את עצמו תחת חרולי המדבר להיות חרשן עליו ואמ’ אלהי אברהם אבי יש לפניך תוצאות מים קח את נפשי ממני ואל אמות בצמא ויעתר לו שנ’ כי שמע אלהים את קול הנער באשר הוא שם ושם נפתחו להם הבאר שנבראת בין השמשות והלכו ושתו ומלאו את החמת מים שנ’ ויפתח אלהים את עיניה ושם הניחו הבאר ומשם נשאו את רגליהם והלכו אל המדבר כלו עד שהגיעו למדבר פארן ומצאו שם מוצאי מים וישבו שם שנ’ וישב במדבר פארן שלח ישמעאל ולקח לו אשה מבנות מואב ועישה שמה. לאחר שלש שנים הלך אברהם לראות את ישמעאל בנו, ונשבע לשרה שלא ירד מעל הגמל במקום שישמעאל שרוי תמן, והגיע לשם בחצי היום ומצא שם את אשתו של ישמעאל. אמ’ לה, היכן הוא ישמעאל. אמרה לו, הלך הוא ואמו להביא פירות ותמרים מן המדבר. אמ’ לה, תני לי מעט לחם ומים כי עייפה נפשי מדרך המדבר. אמרה לו, אין לי לחם ולא מים. אמ’ לה, כשיבא ישמעאל הגידי לו את הדברים הללו ואמרי לו זקן אחד מארץ כנען בא לראותך ואמר חלף מפתן ביתך שאינה טובה לך. וכשבא ישמעאל מן המדבר הגידה לו את הדברים הללו, ובן חכם כחצי חכם, והבין ישמעאל ושלחה אמו ולקחה לו אשה מבית אביה, ופטימה שמה.
ועוד אחר שלש שנים הלך אברהם לראות את ישמעאל בנו ונשבע לשרה כפעם ראשונה שאינו יורד מן הגמל במקום שישמעאל שרוי שם והגיע לשם בחצי היום ומצא שם אשתו של ישמעאל ואמ’ לה היכן הוא ישמעאל אמרה לו הוא ואמו הלכו לרעות את הגמלים במדבר אמ’ לה תני לי מעט לחם ומים כי עייפה נפשי מדרך המדבר והוציאה לחם ומים ונתנה לו עמד אברהם והיה מתפלל לפני הב”ה על בנו ונתמלא ביתו של ישמעאל מכל טוב ממין הברכות וכשבא ישמעאל הגידה לו את הדבר וידע ישמעאל שעד עכשו רחמי אביו עליו כרחם אב על בנים.
לאחר מיתתה של שרה חזר אברהם ולקח את גרושתו שנ’ ויוסף אברהם ויקח אשה ומדקאמר ויוסף משמע שפעם ראשונה היתה אשתו ועוד לא הוסיף לבא עליה ושמה קטורה שהיתה מקוטרת מכל מיני בשמים. ד”א, קטורה — שהיו נאים מעשיה כקטרת. ילדה לו ששה בנים וכלם נקראו על שמו של ישמעאל, שנ’ ותלד לו את זמרן ואת יקשן.
וכאשה שהיא מתגרשת מן בעלה, כך עמד אברהם ושלחן מעל יצחק בנו מן העה”ז ומן העה”ב, שנ’ ולבני הפלגשים אשר לאברהם וכו’ וישלחם בגט גירושין.
פרקי דרבי אליעזר ל׳:ו׳ Perkei D’Rav Eliezer in English THE TRIALS OF ABRAHAM (continued) THE ninth trial (was as follows): Ishmael was born with (the prophecy of the) bow, and he grew up with the bow, as it is said, “And God was with the lad, and he grew … and he became an archer” (Gen. 21:20). He took bow and arrows and began to shoot at the birds. He saw Isaac sitting by himself, and he shot an arrow at him to slay him. Sarah saw (this), and told Abraham. She said to him: Thus and thus has Ishmael done to Isaac, but (now) arise and write (a will in favour) of Isaac, (giving him) all that the Holy One has sworn to give || to thee and to thy seed. The son of this handmaid shall not inherit with my son, with Isaac, as it is said, “And she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son” (Gen. 21:10). Ben Tema said: Sarah said to Abraham, Write a bill of divorce, and send away this handmaid and her son from me and from Isaac my son, in this world and from the world to come. More than all the misfortunes which overtook Abraham, this matter was exceedingly evil in his eyes, as it is said, “And the thing was very grievous in Abraham’s sight on account of his son” (Gen. 21:11). Rabbi Jehudah said: In that night the Holy One, blessed be He, was revealed unto him. He said to him: Abraham ! Dost thou not know that Sarah was appointed to thee for a wife from her mother’s womb? She is thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant; Sarah is not called thy handmaid, but thy wife; neither is Hagar called thy wife, but thy handmaid; and all that Sarah has spoken she has uttered truthfully. Let it not be grievous in thine eyes, as it is said, “And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight” (Gen. 21:12).
Abraham rose up early, and wrote a bill of divorce, and gave it to Hagar, and he sent her and her son away from himself, and from Isaac his son, from this world and from the world to come, as it is said, “And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread and a bottle of water” (Gen. 21:14). He sent her away || with a bill of divorcement, and he took the veil, and he bound it around her waist, so that it should drag behind her to disclose (the fact) that she was a bondwoman. Not only this, but also because Abraham desired to see Ishmael, his son, and to see the way whereon they went. By the merit of our father Abraham the water did not fail in the bottle, but when she reached the entrance to the wilderness, she began to go astray after the idolatry of her father’s house; and forthwith the water in the bottle was spent, as it is said, “And she departed and wandered” (ibid.), Ishmael was twenty seven years old (when) he went forth from the house of Abraham, and Isaac was forty years old. By the merit of our father Abraham the water did not fail in the bottle, but when she reached the entrance to the wilderness, she began to go astray after the idolatry of her father’s house; the water in the bottle was spent, and the soul of Ishmael was faint with thirst.
“And she departed and wandered” (ibid.). The meaning of “and she wandered” is merely idolatry, because it is written, concerning (this root), “They are vanity, a work of delusion” (Jer. 10:15). He went and cast himself beneath the thorns of the wilderness, so that the moisture might be upon him, and he said: O God of my father Abraham ! Thine are the issues of death; take away from me my soul, for I would not die of thirst. And He was entreated of him, as it is said, “For God hath heard the || voice of the lad where he is” (Gen. 21:17). The well which was created at twilight was opened for them there, and they went and drank and filled the bottle with water, as it is said, “And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water” (Gen. 21:19). And there they left the well, and thence they started on their way, and went through all the wilderness until they came to the wilderness of Paran, and they found there streams of water, and they dwelt there, as it is said, “And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran” (Gen. 21:21). Ishmael sent for a wife from among the daughters of Moab, and ‘Ayeshah was her name. After three years Abraham went to see Ishmael his son, having sworn to Sarah that he would not descend from the camel in the place where Ishmael dwelt. He arrived there at midday and found there the wife of Ishmael. He said to her: Where is Ishmael? She said to him: He has gone with his mother to fetch the fruit of the palms from the wilderness. He said to her: Give me a little bread and a little water, for my soul is faint after the journey in the desert. She said to him: I have neither bread nor water. He said to her: When Ishmael comes (home) tell him this || story, and say to him: A certain old man came from the land of Canaan to see thee, and he said, Exchange the threshold of thy house, for it is not good for thee. When Ishmael came (home) his wife told him the story. A son of a wise man is like half a wise man. Ishmael understood. His mother sent and took for him a wife from her father’s house, and her name was Fatimah.
Again after three years Abraham went to see his son Ishmael, having sworn to Sarah as on the first occasion that he would not descend from the camel in the place where Ishmael dwelt. He came there at midday, and found there Ishmael’s wife. He said to her: Where is Ishmael? She replied to him: He has gone with his mother to feed the camels in the desert. He said to her: Give me a little bread and water, for my soul is faint after the journey of the desert. She fetched it and gave it to him. Abraham arose and prayed before the Holy One, blessed be He, for his son, and (thereupon) Ishmael’s house was filled with all good things of the various blessings. When Ishmael came (home) his wife told him what had happened, and Ishmael knew that his father’s love was still extended to him, as it is said, || “Like as a father pitieth his sons” (Ps. 103:13). After the death of Sarah, Abraham again took (Hagar) his divorced (wife), as it is said, “And Abraham again took a wife, and her name was Keturah” (Gen. 25:1). Why does it say “And he again”? Because on the first occasion she was his wife, and he again betook himself to her. Her name was Keturah, because she was perfumed with all kinds of scents. Another explanation of Keturah (is): because her actions were beautiful like incense, and she bare him six sons, and they were all called according to the name of Ishmael, as it is said, “And she bare him Zimran (Gen. 25:2).
Like a woman sent away from her husband, so likewise Abraham arose and sent them away from Isaac his son, from this world and from the world to come, as it is said, “But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and he sent them away from Isaac his son” (Gen. 25:6), by a deed of divorcement. Corresponding to the name of Ishmael’s son Kedar, the sons of Kedar were so called, as it is said, “Of Kedar, and of the kingdoms of Hazor” (Jer. 49:28). Corresponding to the name of Ishmael’s son “Kedemah” (Gen. 25:15), the “sons of Ḳedem” were so called. Because they dwelt in the territory belonging to Cain, his children were called “sons of Cain,” as it is said, “Now Heber the Kenite had separated himself from Cain” (Judg. 4:11). Were not all the sons of Cain cut off by the waters of the Flood? But because they dwelt in the territory of the children of Cain, his children were called “sons of Cain,” as it is said, “Nevertheless || Cain shall be wasted, as long as Asshur shall dwell in thy place” (Num. 24:22). “Nevertheless Cain shall be wasted away” by fire, through the seed of Ishmael, the latter shall cause the kingdom of Assyria to cease. Balaam said: Of the seventy nations that the Holy One, blessed be He, created in His world, He did not put His name on any one of them except on Israel; and since the Holy One, blessed be He, made the name of Ishmael similar to the name of Israel, woe to him who shall live in his days, as it is said, “Alas, who shall live when God establisheth him?” (Num. 24:23). Rabbi Ishmael said: In the future the children of Ishmael will do fifteen things in the land (of Israel) in the latter days, and they are: They will measure the land with ropes; they will change a cemetery into a resting-place for sheep (and) a dunghill; they will measure with them and from them upon the tops of the mountains; falsehood will multiply and truth will be hidden; the statutes will be removed far from Israel; sins will be multiplied in Israel; worm-crimson will be in the wool, and he will cover with insects paper and pen; he will hew down the rock of the kingdom, and they will rebuild the desolated cities and sweep the ways; and they will plant gardens and parks, and fence in the broken walls of the Temple; and they will build a building in the Holy Place; and two brothers will arise over them, princes at the end; and in their days the Branch, the Son of David, will arise, as it is said, || “And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed” (Dan. 2:44). Rabbi Ishmael also said: Three wars of trouble will the sons of Ishmael in the future wage on the earth in the latter days, as it is said, “For they fled away from the swords” (Isa. 21:15). “Swords” signify only wars, one in the forest of Arabia, as it is said, “From the drawn sword” (ibid.); another on the sea, as it is said, “From the bent bow” (ibid.); and one in the great city which is in Rome, which will be more grievous than the other two, as it is said, “And from the grievousness of the war” (ibid.). From there the Son of David shall flourish and see the destruction of these and these, and thence will He come to the land of Israel, as it is said, “Who is this that cometh from Edom, with crimsoned garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, marching in the greatness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save” (Isa. 63:1).
Chizkuni: The Chizkuni also picks up on this: ותקח לו אמו אשה מארץ מצרים ממקום משפחתה וגדוליה. שבתחלה נשא אשה מבנות מואב ולא היתה הגונה ושלח לו אברהם אביו רמזים ע״י אותה עצמה שהיתה אשתו, שיגרשנה, כי לא היתה רחמנית והגונה ולקחה לו אמו אשה אחרת רחמנית כדאיתא בפרקי דרבי אליעזר והיינו ותקח לו אמו וגו’. ותקח לו אמו אשה מארץ מצרים, “His mother took an Egyptian woman to become his wife.” the place where she grew up and where her family still live. Ishmael first married a Moabite woman but she was not a proper wife for him. He divorced her after his father Abraham sent a message to who had been his wife (Hagar) that this woman was bereft of all virtues. Then his mother took a woman from Egypt for his wife. According to Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer, chapter 30, Yishmael first married a Moabite woman, and when that marriage did not work out, his mother intervened and chose a second wife for him. This is why the Torah had to report that his mother took a wife for him. His Moabite wife had lacked the Abrahamitic virtue of offering hospitality (even to his father).
September 21 and 22, 2023 Trip to Florida September 25, 2023 Yom Kippur Generosity of Sarah and Joel Miller Open Heart Surgery of Joel Miller Rabbi Zev Saunders, Rabbi of Delray Orthodox Synagogue Purchasing Hoshanos from Rabbi Ben Sugerman Doing Tzadakkah on behalf of Joel Miller Shemini Atzeres and Simchas Torah
Sarah and Joel Miller graciously let us use their condo in Delray Beach, FL. My kids in Boynton need our help and in desperation I asked Sarah Miller for use of her condo. She said yes. On September 21st, loaded up the car and drove down to Florida. We spent the night at a Quality Inn at Monteagle, TN. We made it to the condo in Delray Beach at 10:00 PM. The next morning I drove Tiferet to school. It worked out beautifully. My son in law’s auto needed repairs and was at the mechanic for a week. I did almost all of the driving. We also took the kids out for lunch and dinner. We also had them over the condo to relax and for swimming.
For Yom Kippur I was at the Delray Orthodox Synagogue. The Rabbi, Zev Saunders is excellent. He learned at Gateshead and is also a student of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, TZL. A rare combination. Speaks very inspired.
The first days of Succos we were also in Delray Beach. The second day of Succos, I left the condo at 5:45 AM and walked 5.5 miles to Chabad of Boynton Beach, arriving there at 7:30 AM. I davened and walked over to my kids house. I had the Yom Tov meal there. In the afternoon I walked the six miles back to the condo. My two grandchildren, Tovan and Aryeh Moshe walked with me. I did not tell them how grueling it would be. We all made it. They had a great time with us.
On Yom Kippur Joel Miller was having chest pains and was taken to the hospital. He needed open heart surgery and it was done on Monday October 9, 2023. It went well and he is recovering.
On Thursday, October 4, 2023, I went to Rabbi Sugerman’s house to purchase Hoshanos. After purchasing my own, I emailed Rabbi Saunders to see if he needed more Hoshanyos. There was someone in his Shul who was worried he would not have Hoshanos. He wanted 10. I purchased and dropped it off at his home. B’Zchos the upcoming open heart surgery of Joel Miller, I paid for the Hoshanos. The next day, as I was entering the elevator at the condo and a Mrs. Ritter asked if she could have one of my Hoshanyos. I gave her one and she told me that it was a miracle that she was able to obtain Hoshanyos for Hosahna Rabah.
Friday October 5, 2023. Joel Miller had his surgery and it went well. He is recovering.
October 6 and 7, 20223 – Shemini Atzeres and Simchas Torah We stayed by the Levys for the last days of the holiday, Shemini Atseres and Simchas Torah. I made a decision Friday night of Shemini Atzeres not to eat in the Succah. It was too hard for the kids. The next day I made Kiddush and made Hamotzi in the Succah. The night of Simchas Torah we all went first to Rabbi Billet;s Shul and then went to Chabad of Boynton Beach with Rabbi Viment, the Rov. It was nice. They had a meal after the sixth Hakafah which was cold cuts. Perfect. My grandkids also ate. The next morning I went to Chabad and about 11:30 AM my grandkids came along with my wife and Chani, my daughter. MY grandkids and I davened with Rabbi Ciment and I hugged Rabbi Ciment. We left at 2:00 PM after Aryeh Moshe and Zechariah received their Aliyos.
On the morning of Simchas Torah, we heard the news about the massacre in Israel. Rabbi Ciment spoke beautifully. He received a call that morning from his kids in Israel as to whether or not they should leave Israel. He told them that the safest place is in Israel. Hashem always watches over Israel and the Israeli people.
Rabbi Zev Saunders and myself. I am so not photogenic.
Rabbi Ben Sugerman and myself while I was purchasing Hoshanos.
In the Sefaria copy they also copied a personal note dated March 13, 1978 written in the book’s inset, a personal note to Boruch from his grandmother, Sonia Kahane. Sonia was the wife of Charles Kahane and when she gave the Chumosh to her grandson, Charles Kahane had just passed away. It is touching. Bourch Kahane is the son of Meir Kahane. Shmuel Weissman is Manager of Text Acquisition & Text Quality. Rabbi Weissman told me that the text of the Sefer came from Boruch Kahane. It is appreciated that Seferia kept this personal note from a Bubi to a grandson.
In 1963 there were basically three translations of the Chumash. JPS 1917, Soncino 1935, and Silberman/Rosenbaum. There was the very popular Linear Chumash Rashi translation copyrighted in 1950. However, Jay Orlinsky told me that if you look in the opening pages of the Chumash it says, In cooperation with Dr. Harry Orlinsky, who was the editor in Chief of the JPS. The linear translation follows JPS 1917.
I saw Rabbi Chalres Kahane’s translation and asked myself who was this Rabbi Charles Kahane, why would he translate the Torah, and why didn’t I know about this work. I discovered a Blog post for Yosef Lindell dated March 2023. Read Yosef Lindell’s fascinating article about the Torah Yesharah in a March 13, 2023 blog post answers these questions.. When Rabbi Meir Kahane’s Father Translated the Torah – The Seforim Blog
WHEN RABBI MEIR KAHANE’S FATHER TRANSLATED THE TORAH
When Rabbi Meir Kahane’s Father Translated the Torah
By Yosef Lindell
Yosef Lindell is a lawyer, writer, and lecturer living in Silver Spring, MD. He has a JD from NYU Law and an MA in Jewish history from Yeshiva University. He is one of the editors of the Lehrhaus and has published more than 30 articles on Jewish history and thought in a variety of venues. His website is yoseflindell.wordpress.com.
In 1962, the Jewish Publication Society published a new translation of the Torah. The product of nearly a decade of work, the new edition was the first major English translation to cast off the shackles of the 1611 King James Bible. Dr. Harry Orlinsky, the primary force behind the new translation and a professor of Bible at the merged Reform Hebrew Union College and Jewish Institute of Religion, explained that even JPS’ celebrated 1917 translation was merely a King James lookalike, a modest revision of the Revised Standard Version that “did not exceed more than a very few percent of the whole.”[1] This new edition was different. As the editors wrote in the preface, the King James not only “had an archaic flavor,” but it rendered the Hebrew “word for word rather than idiomatically,” resulting in “quaintness or awkwardness and not infrequently in obscurity.”[2] Now, for the first time, the editors translated wholly anew, jettisoning literalism for maximum intelligibility. More than sixty years later, JPS’ work remains one of the definitive English translations of the Torah.
The new JPS may have left the King James behind, but it didn’t satisfy everyone. In addition to making the Torah more intelligible, the editors incorporated the insights of modern biblical scholarship, both from “biblical archeology and in the recovery of the languages and civilizations of the peoples among whom the Israelites lived and whose modes of living and thinking they largely shared.”[3] So when asked by Rabbi Theodore Adams, the president of the Rabbinical Council of America, whether the RCA could accept an invitation from Dr. Solomon Grayzel, JPS’ publisher, to participate in the new translation, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik demurred. He wrote in a 1953 letter to Adams, “I am afraid that the purpose of this undertaking is not to infuse the spirit of Torah she-be-al peh into the new English version but, on the contrary, … to satisfy the so-called modern ‘scientific’ demands for a more exact rendition in accordance with the latest archeological and philological discoveries.”[4]
Just one year after JPS released its volume, in 1963, R. Soloveitchik’s wish for a more “Torah-true” translation was answered, but likely not in the way he expected. The two-volume Torah Yesharah published by Rabbi Charles Kahane (1905-1978) relies heavily on traditional Jewish commentary in its translation.[5] But as we’ll explore, because of its lack of fidelity to the Hebrew text, it can hardly be called a translation at all.
The strategically placed dots on the title page indicate that Yesharah is an acronym for the author’s Hebrew name—Yechezkel Shraga Hakohen. R. Charles Kahane was born in Safed and received semichah from the Pressburg Yeshiva in Hungary. After immigrating to the United States in 1925 and receiving a second semichah from Yeshiva University’s Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, he served as rabbi of Congregation Shaarei Tefiloh in Brooklyn for most of his professional career, a shul which drew over 2,000 worshippers for the High Holidays.[6] He was a founding member of the Vaad Harabbanim of Flatbush and helped Rabbi Avraham Kalmanowitz re-establish the Mir Yeshiva in Brooklyn. Today, however, he is known as the father of Meir Kahane, the radical and controversial Jewish power activist and politician who needs no further introduction. The father does not seem to have been directly involved in his son’s activities, but he took pride in Meir’s accomplishments and was a staunch supporter of the Irgun in Palestine, Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s Revisionist Zionist movement, and Jabotinsky’s youth group, Betar.[7]
R. Kahane told the New York Times that Torah Yesharah was inspired by Bible classes he gave to his adult congregants where many people did not understand the text even in translation.[8] (Recall that the new JPS translation was not yet available, and other English translations relied on the archaic King James.) He wanted to rectify this problem; indeed, the title page states that the work is a “traditional interpretive translation,” suggesting that it was intended to be more user-friendly. But calling it user-friendly does not do justice to what Kahane did. Here is most of Bereishit 22—the passage of Akedat Yitzchak:
Most translators try to approximate the meaning of the Hebrew. Not so R. Kahane. Nearly every single English verse here contains significant additions not found in the original. The first verse, for example, which states that the Akedah was meant to punish Avraham for making a treaty with Avimelech, follows the opinion of the medieval commentator Rashbam, who, notes that the words “and it was after these things” connect the Akedah to the previous episode—the treaty with Avimelech (Rashbam, Bereishit 22:1). But it’s hard to imagine that Rashbam, famous for his devotion to peshat—plain meaning—would have been comfortable with his explanation being substituted for the translation itself. Many other verses on this page provide additions from Rashi and other commentators.
Pretty much every page of R. Kahane’s translation looks similar: Hebrew on one side and an expansive interpretive translation drawn from the classical commentators on the other. Kahane makes no effort to distinguish between the literal meaning of the Hebrew and his interpretive gloss.[9] Dr. Philip Birnbaum, the famed siddur and machzor translator, criticizes this aspect of the work in his (Hebrew) review, noting that Kahane’s interpretations are written “as if they are an inseparable part of the Hebrew source, and the simple reader who doesn’t know the Holy Tongue will end up mistakenly thinking that everything written in ‘Torah Yesharah’ is written in ‘Torat Moshe.’”[10]
To be fair, R. Kahane cites sources for his interpretations, but only at the back of each book of the Torah and only in Hebrew shorthand:
Thus, a reader not already fluent in Hebrew and the traditional commentaries would have little idea where Kahane was drawing his “translation” from and might not grasp how much the translation departed from the Hebrew original.[11]
Yet perhaps this was the point. R. Kahane considered literal translation to be illegitimate. In the preface to Torah Yesharah, Kahane contrasts Targum Onkelos, which is celebrated by the Sages, with the Septuagint translation of the Torah into Greek, which the Sages mourned. Kahane suggests that a Targum, which is an interpretation or commentary, is superior to a direct translation. Targum Onkelos, he writes, was composed under the guidance of the Sages and based on the Oral Law, and therefore it was “sanctified.” According to Kahane, “The Torah cannot and must never be translated literally, without following the Oral interpretation as given to Moses on Sinai. … It is in this spirit that the present translation-interpretation has been written.”[12]
Kahane was not the only Orthodox rabbi of his time to criticize translation unfaithful to rabbinic interpretation. We’ve already noted R. Soloveitchik’s concerns about the new JPS.[13] Similarly, the encyclopedist Rabbi Judah David Eisenstein reported that in 1913, when JPS was preparing its initial translation, Rabbi Chaim Hirschenson of Hoboken, NJ, convinced the Agudath Harabbanim to protest JPS’ efforts so the new work should not become the “official” translation of English-speaking Jewry the way the King James had become the official translation of the Church of England. The Agudath Harabbanim noted the Sages’ disapproval of the Septuagint and explained that only Targum Onkelos and traditional commentators that based themselves on the Talmud were officially sanctioned.[14]
R. Kahane’s approach also harks back to a series of articles in Jewish Forum composed in 1928 by Rabbi Samuel Gerstenfeld, a rosh yeshiva at RIETS (a young Rabbi Gerstenfeld is pictured below), attacking the original 1917 JPS translation. Gerstenfeld labeled the JPS translation Conservative and sought to demonstrate its departure from Orthodoxy by comprehensively cataloging all the places where the translation departed from the halakhic understanding of the verse. So, for example, he criticizes JPS for translating the tachash skins used in the construction of the Mishkan as “seal skins,” because according to halachic authorities, non-kosher animal hides cannot be used for a sacred purpose.[15] He believed that the word tachash should be transliterated, but not translated.[16] Gerstenfeld concludes that the JPS translators “missed a Moses—a Rabbi well versed in Talmud and Posekim, who would have been vigilant against violence to the Oral Law.”[17]
Still, R. Kahane’s interpretive translation with additions goes far beyond what R. Gerstenfeld was suggesting. To give one example: Gerstenfeld quibbles with JPS’ translation of the words ve-yarka befanav in the chalitzah ceremony (Devarim 25:9). The 1917 JPS translates that the woman should “spit in his face” (referring to the man who refuses to perform yibbum). Gerstenfeld notes that rabbinic tradition unanimously holds that the woman spits on the ground. He suggests that “and spit in his presence” would be a better translation.[18] Gerstenfeld’s suggestion is reasonably elegant—it gives space for the rabbinic reading without negating the meaning of the Hebrew. Kahane makes no such attempt to be literal, instead translating that she will “spit on the ground in front of his face.”[19] As we’ve seen, Kahane had no compunctions about adding words.
Thus, there is no English-language precedent for Torah Yesharah of which I am aware. As the preface suggests, R. Kahane was inspired by the Aramaic targumim, but it would seem more by Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel than Targum Onkelos. Onkelos translates word-for-word in most circumstances, typically departing from the Hebrew’s literal meaning to address theological concerns, such as a discomfort with anthropomorphism. Targum Yonatan, on the other hand, seamlessly weaves many midrashic additions into its translation and looks more like Torah Yesharah. For example, at the beginning of the Akedah passage, Targum Yonatan goes on a lengthy excursus suggesting that God’s command to sacrifice Yitzchak was in response to a debate between Yitzchak and Yishmael where Yitzchak boasted that he would be willing to offer himself to God. This digression is akin to Kahane’s addition of the Rashbam into his translation. If anything, Targum Yonatan is more expansive than Torah Yesharah.
Torah Yesharah received a fair amount of press upon its publication. It was even reviewed by the New York Times, which called it “[a] new and unusual translation” that was intended to make the Torah “more meaningful to Americans.” The article quoted Rabbi Dr. Immanuel Jakobovits, then the rabbi of the Fifth Avenue Synagogue in Manhattan (before he became Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom), as calling it “an original enterprise” and “a most specifically Jewish rendering of the Torah.” While the Times was noncommittal about the work, a critical review in the Detroit Jewish News found Kahane’s language confusing and inferior to the new JPS translation published the prior year.[20] As for Dr. Birnbaum, he praised Torah Yesharah’s reliance on traditional Jewish interpretations and lamented the fact that most other biblical translations “were borrowed from the Christians from the time of Shakespeare,” but criticized the format (as noted above) and some of Kahane’s more tendentious translations.[21]
Despite the interest Torah Yesharah generated, its unique approach was not replicated. One might see echoes of R. Kahane in a better known translation—ArtScroll’s 1993 Stone Edition Chumash. As its editors explained in its preface, the “volume attempts to render the text as our Sages understood it.”[22] To this end, ArtScroll famously follows Rashi when translating “because the study of Chumash has been synonymous with Chumash-Rashi for nine centuries,”[23] even when Rashi is at variance with more straightforward readings of the text. Thus, for example, ArtScroll translates az huchal likro be-shem hashem (Genesis 4:26) based on Rashi as, “Then to call in the name of Hashem became profaned”—a reference to the beginnings of idol worship.[24] However, a more literal translation would run, “Then people began to call in the name of God,” which sounds like a reference to sincere prayer—the opposite of idolatry. It’s also well-known that ArtScroll declines to translate Shir Ha-Shirim literally, adapting Rashi’s allegorical commentary in place of translation.
On the other hand, ArtScroll’s overall approach is different than Torah Yesharah’s. ArtScroll is typically quite literal, translating word-for-word even when the syntax of the verse suffers as a result. An example from the Akedah is again relevant: va-yar ve-hinei ayil achar ne’echaz ba-sevach be-karnav (Genesis 22:13). ArtScroll’s translation, that Abraham “saw—behold, a ram!—afterwards, caught in the thicket,”[25] is awkward, but it preserves the word achar in the precise location that it appears in the Hebrew. When ArtScroll wants to highlight more traditional interpretations of the text in line with Chazal and others, it does so in the commentary, not in the translation itself.[26]
Two recent works—the Koren Steinsaltz Humash (2018) and the Chabad Kehot Chumash (2015)—are much closer to Torah Yesharah in that they insert commentary directly into the English translation. But they still differ in an important respect. Both the Steinsaltz—which is a translation of a Hebrew Humash based on the classes of Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz—and the Kehot “interpolate” a good deal of commentary into the translation (the former is more peshat based and the latter leans more on Rashi and Midrash). Nevertheless, they distinguish between what’s literal and what’s added by using bold font for the literal translation. This approach still has its downsides, as it can still be hard to read the English cleanly without the added gloss getting in the way of the literal meaning.[27] But it’s preferable to Torah Yesharah, where R. Kahane did not provide the reader any means of distinguishing between the text and his additions.
Today, Torah Yesharah is but a historical curiosity. Yet its existence highlights the fact that some mid-20th century Orthodox Jews felt a real need for a translation that followed in the footsteps of Chazal and other traditional commentators. To them, JPS’ translation did not embrace an authentic Torah approach. Before ArtScroll came on the scene, Torah Yesharah filled that niche for a time, but its unusual format blurred the line between the Word of God and the words of His interpreters.
Yosef Lindell is a lawyer, writer, and lecturer living in Silver Spring, MD. He has a JD from NYU Law and an MA in Jewish history from Yeshiva University. He is one of the editors of the Lehrhaus and has published more than 30 articles on Jewish history and thought in a variety of venues. His website is yoseflindell.wordpress.com.
[1] Harry M. Orlinsky, “The New Jewish Version of the Torah: Toward a New Philosophy of Bible Translation,” Journal of Biblical Literature 82:3 (1963): 251. [2] The Torah: The Five Books of Moses (The Jewish Publication Society, 1962), Preface. [3] Ibid. [4] Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Community, Covenant, and Commitment: Selected Letters and Communications (Nathaniel Helfgot, ed., KTAV, 2005), 110. [5] Charles Kahane, ed., Torah Yesharah (Torah Yesharah Publication: Solomon Rabinowitz Book Concern, NY, 1963). [6] To the New York Times, Kahane described the shul as “progressive Orthodox,” and it likely lacked a mechitzah. See Robert I. Friedman, The False Prophet: Rabbi Meir Kahane (Lawrence Hill Books, 1990), 20. That, however, was not unusual for those times. [7] The biographical information in this paragraph is drawn from Friedman (see previous note) and Libby Kahane, Rabbi Meir Kahane: His Life and Thought (Institute for the Publication of the Writings of Rabbi Meir Kahane, 2008). [8] Richard F. Shepard, “Rabbi Publishes New Bible Study; Works on Early Scholars Are Reinterpreted,” New York Times (June 21, 1964), 88. [9] Here is another example of a large interpretive insertion concerning God’s decision that Moshe and Aharon would not lead the people into Israel because of their sin regarding the rock (Bamidbar 20:12):
That’s quite a few more words than are found in the Hebrew! [10] Paltiel Birnbaum, “Targum Angli be-Ruah ha-Masoret,” in Pleitat Sofrim: Iyyunim ve-Ha’arakhot be-Hakhmat Yisrael ve-Safrutah (Mossad Harav Kook, 1971), 75. [11] Of note, Kahane’s translation is available on Sefaria, but with modifications that obscure its radicalness. For one, the format is different: the Hebrew and English are not juxtaposed in the same way. Second, the sources for each verse are cited directly below the translation in parentheses. This is not the way Kahane presented his sources in the original. [12] Torah Yesharah, xviii-ix. [13] Among the most intriguing critics of the new JPS was Avram Davidson, who wrote in Jewish Life in 1957 that because the translation was being prepared by non-Orthodox scholars who intended to depart occasionally from the Masoretic text in light of new archaeological discoveries, it was not “being prepared on the Torah’s terms” and was unacceptable. A.A. Davidson, “A ‘Modern’ Bible Translation,” Orthodox Jewish Life 24:5 (1957): 7-11. Davidson later became a science fiction writer of some renown but by the end of his life had become enamored with a modern Japanese religion called Tenrikyo. [14] J.D. Eisenstein, ed., Otzar Yisrael vol. 10 (New York, 1913), 309. See also the criticism of the 1962 JPS translation and the discussion of Eisenstein and R. Gerstenfeld’s article in Sidney B. Hoenig, “Notes on the New Translation of the Torah – A Preliminary Inquiry,” Tradition 5:2 (1963): 172-205. [15] Samuel Gerstenfeld, “The Conservative Halacha,” The Jewish Forum 11:10 (Oct. 1928): 533. [16] Indeed, ArtScroll’s Stone Chumash leaves tachash untranslated. Interestingly, R. Kahane just translates “sealskins” like JPS. [17] Samuel Gerstenfeld, “The Conservative Halacha,” The Jewish Forum 11:11 (Nov. 1928): 576. [18] Ibid., 575-76. [19] Torah Yesharah, 331. [20] Philip Slomovitz, “Purely Commentary,” Detroit Jewish News (Aug. 21, 1964), 2. [21] Birnbaum, 76. It’s interesting that Birnbaum was far more critical of non-literal translations of the siddur. When the RCA incorporated the poetic translations of the British novelist Israel Zangwill into its 1960 siddur edited by Rabbi Dr. David de Sola Pool, Birnbaum wrote a scathing review in Hadoar, accusing Zangwill’s efforts as being “free imitations,” not translations, and of having Christian influence. Paltiel Birnbaum, “Siddur Chadash Ba le-Medinah,” Hadoar 40:6 (Dec. 9, 1960): 85. Birnbaum may have been jealous of the RCA’s siddur, which was a direct competitor to his 1949 edition. Also, he was unimpressed with Zangwill in particular, who had married a non-Jew and was not halakhically observant. For more about this, see my article in Lehrhaushere. [22] Nosson Scherman, ed., The Stone Edition Chumash (Mesorah Publications, 1993), xvi. [23] Ibid. [24] Ibid., 23. [25] Ibid., 103. [26] Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s 1981 Living Torah translation also bears some resemblance to Torah Yesharah in its tendency to follow Chazal, but it too, despite its exceedingly colloquial approach to translation, does not insert large interpretive glosses into the text. [27] R. Steinsaltz calls the commentary “transparent” and “one whose explanations should go almost unnoticed and serve only to give the reader and student the sense that there is no barrier between him or her and the text,” but I am not sure I agree. See The Steinsaltz Humash (Koren Publishers, 2015), ix.
I found this statement from the Agudas Harabonim in the February , 1963 edition of the Jewish Press The Audusath Harabonim put out a statement about the JPS translation. In bold letters at the end of their statement they write , “ THE NEW ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE PENTATEUCH IS A FALSE TRANSLATION.
When the 1962 version came out, the JPS put out a marketing sheet with praise from various scholars and Rabbis. Dr. Samuel Belkin, President of YU, is listed with the following statement:
“The translators have faithfully flawed the Masoritic text and at the same time have made full use of the latest results of Hebraic scholarship and research in their work. This Is a significant contribution to Jewish scholarship and the Jewish community.”
Rabbi Kahane’s preface to his Sefer talks about his motivations and indirectly refers to JPS 1962: It lays out what we Frum Jews believe in.
PREFACE TO THE INTERPRETATIVE TRANSLATION OF THE TORAH
WHEN the Eternal Almighty revealed Himself to Israel on Mount Sinai, giving them the Torah, the people heard His Words pronounced in the Holy Tongue — Hebrew. Forty years later Moses and the people Israel reached the borders of Israel; there, in the land of Moab, Moses expounded the Torah also in languages other than Hebrew. Likewise, when Joshua brought the people into the Holy Land he fulfilled Moses’ instruction to inscribe the words of the Torah in various languages on tablets of stone set up on Mount Ebal.1 Later, when Ezra the Scribe, whom the Sages honored with a dignity and praise like that of Moses in Jewish history, led the exiles, in Return from Babylonia into the Land of Israel, in the year 458 B.C.E. the Torah was again promulgated to the people. Ezra introduced the custom of publicly reading the Torah in Aramaic, the vernacular of the Jews in Babylonia; this was recited side by side with the text in the Holy Tongue.2
The best known and most sanctified Torah translation extant and accepted is that which was edited by the pious and aristocratic proselyte Onkelos. This translation was commonly read in the Synagogue for centuries by a specially appointed official after the reading of the Hebrew text by the rabbi had been rendered.3 Yet, we find that the rabbis looked askance at the translation of the Bible. Very harsh criticism is recorded in the Talmud against translations. Thus “the world shook when Jonathan Ben Uziel translated the Books of the Prophets.”4 About the year 275 b.c.e. Ptolemy II, the Egyptian Hellenistic King, summoned seventy Jewish elders to translate the Torah into Greek. Hence, this translation is known as the Septuagint, “the Seventy.” The Jews traditionally rejected it, and the Talmud compared the day of this translation to the day of the worship of the Golden Calf; the sages also tell us that immediately after the completion of this translation, darkness came upon the world for three days, and that day was to be observed as a fast day.5
Superficially, there appears to be a contradiction in the talmudic passages. Was the translation acceptable or detested? After close examination of the texts we find a true interpretation based on the terminology. The talmudic word “Targum” is erroneously explained by many as “translation.” In reality, this word means: expounding, interpretation, or commenting. Translation in Hebrew is Ha-atakah.6 Thus when it is related that Moses conveyed to the young generation the Torah in languages other than Hebrew, it does not mean that he recited it thus or as a verbatim, literal translation. Rather, it means that he interpreted the Written Torah, i.e. he expounded the Oral Torah which he had received on Sinai fully unto the people. Concerning Ezra’s reading of the Torah to the returnees from the Exile, it is said: “And they (Ezra and the Levites) read in the Torah of the Almighty Meforesh, expounding.” The Talmud translates the word Meforesh, as Targum, meaning Perush, interpretation. The Torah cannot and must never be translated literally, without following the Oral interpretation as given to Moses on Sinai.7 Jewish tradition therefore is opposed to translations of the Torah for the purposes of displaying to other nations that we, too, possess a literature… Likewise a translation done because of fear, as in the case of the Ptolemy incident, results in unnecessary and erroneous renditions. Also, a translation which is done with the intent to please the Bible critics is not acceptable. To us the Torah is not solely a book of wisdom, a work of art or a philosophical treatise. To the Jew Torah is the guide and the direction for life. Jewish generations therefore recognized and sanctified the Onkelos translation; for it was definitely based on traditional Oral Law and was done under the guidance and direction of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua, the exponents of the Oral Law — based on the teachings which they received from their teachers, traced back to Moses.8
The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uziel is still another translation-interpretation venerated by our people, for it too was traditionally received from the Latter Prophets. Moreover, because of Jonathan’s piety and sanctity it was acceptable.9 Jewry only accepts as authoritative that translation which is done by a faithful believer in Revelation. We believe in perfect faith that the Torah was given to us directly from the Eternal, — He who had revealed Himself on Sinai; consequently, to us the Torah is divine. Just as the Eternal had created the sun, the moon and the stars, which can never be removed or changed, so, too, the laws of the Torah, given to us from Heaven, cannot be removed or changed. No rabbi, nor group of rabbis, nor any founder of a new religion can dismiss the sanctity of the seventh day as the Sabbath, for we believe faithfully that the Eternal created the world in six days, and desisted from work on the seventh day. Similarly, no one can reject the dietary laws, for we believe implicitly in the sanctity of the people of Israel, and therefore abstain from the food the Torah has forbidden. Likewise no one can discard circumcision, which is the basic sign of a covenant between the Eternal and the people of Israel. All this is also true of the other laws of the Torah, as well as of the historical facts contained therein. We believe in the story of Creation as interpreted in the Talmud; in the prophecy of Moses as explained by our sages; in the coming of a Messiah as enunciated by the Talmud but founded on the words of the Torah; and finally we believe in resurrection as expounded by the sages of the Oral Law.
Therefore, only that person or persons who believe in these fundamental principles can be authorized to translate the Torah for those who do not understand it in the original Hebrew. Every Hebrew word is impregnated with implications, and is imbued with the connotations setting forth the traditional Oral Law, as given to Moses on Sinai by the Almighty.
In short, Judaism holds a Bible translation sacred only when it is interpreted according to the spirit of the Talmud which is the Oral Law. This must be in the spirit of the devotion and holiness and recognition of the sanctity of the Divine Word.
It is in this spirit that the present translation-interpretation has been written. The translator has probed into the commentaries, ancient and medieval, as printed in the Rabbinic Bible and has culled much from them. Onkelos, Jonathan Ben Uziel, Rashi, Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, Rarnban, Sforno and others speak through these pages; he consulted also the modern commentators: Dr. J. H. Hertz and Rev. Dr. A. Cohen. It is recordted that “everything which a diligent pupil may teach is derived from Sinai through Moses.” As one who has devoted his life to the study of Torah, I respectfully present this work to the Jewish public with the hope that it will serve to teach all who thirst for “the word of the Eternal” that sacred heritage which is “our life and the length of our days.”
Finally I wish to express my appreciation for the kind and devoted assistance of my dear wife Sonia Kahane who has borne the burden of typing, re-typing and re-typing yet again with patience, intelligence and loyalty, while at the same time encouraging me in this holy work.
Rabbi Chas. Kahane
Note: The English used in the translation is of modern usage so that it should flow smoothly. It is prepared for all — the average reader as well as the student and scholar.
The Divine Name of the four Hebrew letters — the Tetragammaton — is translated “The Eternal” throughout, since it is derived from the Hebrew words, meaning: He was, He is, He will be.
The name “Elokim,” which denotes the Divine attribute of might, is translated throughout as “Almighty.”
The Author
1 Sotah 35b, 36a.
2 Nehemiah 8; Yerushalmi Megillah 1.11. B. Megillah 3a. (See Gilyon ha-Shas where apparently an error occurs).
3 Megillah 3a; Yer. Meg. 4.1.
4 Megillah 3a.
5 Soferim 1.10; Tur Orach Chayim, 580.
6 Rashi Sotah 36b.
7 Rashi Deut. 1.5 “in seventy languages it was expounded”.
Exploring Kotzk 