English translation — וישב ב

A.

In his commentary on the verse "and he told Tamar etc."¹

Rashi copies the words "going up to Timnah" and explains: "And of Samson it says²

And Samson went down etc. to Timnah — on the slope of the mountain it was situated; they go up to it from here and go down to it from here."

And one must understand:

a)

Is not this contradiction from "<b>And Samson went down </b>etc."

(Rashi resolves it in his commentary)

arises and already exists on the verse before this - that there too it says "<b>And he went up </b>etc. to Timnah"<sup>3</sup>

- and if so, should Rashi have prefaced his commentary on that verse<sup>4</sup>?

b)

Since Rashi's way is to explain according to "the plain meaning of Scripture"<sup>5</sup>

and in a manner that suits "a child of five for Scripture",

it is understood that Rashi's intention is to explain only the matters that the student,

when learning this verse,

will find difficult; but his way is not to resolve in the verse being learned

(whose interpretation in itself

It works out well,

except that there is in it)

difficulties and contradictions from other verses that the student has not yet learned.

And now,

in our case,

since in this verse itself there is no matter difficult for the student,

except that it is possible to raise a difficulty on it from a verse that the student <b>will</b> learn

(in Judges)

—if so, what is Rashi's reason in this that he resolves the contradiction in this portion,

while the place of this resolution is ostensibly in Judges

(after the student has learned both verses and knows to compare them)?

3)

Why did Rashi need to lengthen his language

(which is in utmost precision for all its details,

as is known)

and say "And of Samson it says"?

For at first glance,

this is nothing but superfluous language*: since Rashi himself brings the wording of the verse "And <b>Samson</b> went down etc.",

and with this, indeed, it is known to us <b>of whom</b>

(and where)

this language of descent is stated⁷,

it would have sufficed with a short language,

like: "And it is written, 'And Samson went down'" and the like?

2.

And behold, upon this difficulty

(that the languages of the verses regarding Timnah are hidden as mountains)

we find in the Gemara<b>*</b>⁷

three resolutions:

a)

"Samson who was degraded by it

it is written with a yud, yerirah,

Yehudah who was elevated by it

it is written with a yud, aliyah".

b)

"There were two Timnas⁸,

one for descent and one for ascent".

3)

"Chara timneh hu'i,

Ra'isi mehai gissa yerirah,

Vera'isi mehai gissa alei'."

According to this, one must further question on Rashi's commentary above:

From evil Rashi chose the third explanation

(that is in the Gemara)

And in what is he better than the two explanations that precede him,

since they too are explained ostensibly according to the plain meaning⁹?

(And especially the hint that they are preceded in the order of the explanations that are in the Gemara,

implies that they are closer to the meaning of the verses than the third explanation¹⁰

- and if so even more perplexing: only Rashi,

who interprets according to "the plain sense of Scripture",

brings and prefers the last explanation¹¹).

3.

And the explanation regarding this:

In Rashi’s commentary on the verse before us, the intention is not

(the main one)

in it to resolve the contradiction to the term “went up” stated regarding Yehuda

(from the term “vayired” in Shimshon — since the Talmud is not concerned with this contradiction),

but rather to answer what can be asked and wondered about this term itself: for what reason did the verse need to describe Yehuda’s going to Timnah with the term “going up” specifically?

That is: why does the verse emphasize that Yehuda went to Timnah because his father-in-law “<b>went up</b> to Timnah” — and is there any dif-

Kuta to the content of the story

(even if the matter is so),

in this that you know that his going is in a manner of ascent specifically and not in a way of descent or in a level path?

And as we find

(that it is not the way of the verse to describe the manner of the going in a place where there is no need)

above in the portion of the Akeidah

(that the student already learned)

that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Avraham: "And offer him up etc. upon one of the mountains"

-and nevertheless it is stated afterwards in the verse

"And he went

(and not and he ascended)

to the place etc.": "And they came to the place etc.",

even though their going was in a manner of ascent.

And the reason for this is simple: because there is no difference how he arrived "to the place",

and the verse did not come to detail a matter that does not pertain to the subject being discussed.

And the same applies

At first glance,

in our case: since there is no reason or need to explain that Yehudah "&lt;b&gt;went up &lt;/b&gt;to Timnah," it should have said in a simple expression: "going to Timnah" and the like.

4.

However, in the verse preceding this,

even though in it too it says "&lt;b&gt;And he went up &lt;/b&gt;etc. to Timnah,"

nevertheless there is no room for this difficulty,

because there it can be explained that the intention is not a physical ascent,

from a low place to a high place,

but rather a spiritual ascent — in the importance and superiority of the soul etc.

And this explanation would not depart from the plain meaning of the verse: for at the beginning of the portion it says&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;

"And Yehudah went down from his brothers,"

and Rashi explains

(in its simple meaning)

: "that his brothers brought him down from his greatness"&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;

(a descent &lt;b&gt;in spirituality&lt;/b&gt;)

— and it would be reasonable to say that following this, it says afterwards "and he went up" to teach us that in his going to Timnah

(and through the incident of Tamar that resulted from this)

he returned and was elevated

(&lt;b&gt;in spirituality &lt;/b&gt;— and like the first answer in the Gemara&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;

brought above).

Indeed,

this is possible only where it is said "and he went up",

in the hidden language in the third way of the speaker — that is, that the Torah <b>is</b> the one relating the events of Yehudah <b>and it</b> is the one that knows to hint in the language "and he went up" at his spiritual ascent that is destined to come through his going to Timnah.

But in the verse before us,

where it is said "your father-in-law is going up to Timnah" in the language of the present,

and that is that this is the wording in which the matter was told to Tamar by someone from the people of the place — then it is impossible to explain that his intention

(of that teller)

was for the spiritual ascent of Yehudah in the future,

because this matter certainly was not known to him,

and since that is so,

surely the difficulty in this verse — why the language "going up" is said regarding his going to Timnah — remains in its place¹⁹.

5.

And this difficulty Rashi resolves by saying "And regarding Samson it says 'and Samson went down etc. to Timnah'",

and that is that by first resolving this contradiction between these verses,

the difficulty in this verse is resolved incidentally: since regarding Yehudah the language "&lt;b&gt;going up &lt;/b&gt;to Timnah" is said and regarding Samson "and he went down ..

to Timnah",

behold that perforce it must be said that "on the slope of the mountain it was situated,

people go up to it from here and go down to it from here";

And now,

since two paths lead to Timnah — by way of descent from the top of the mountain and by ascent from its bottom — the difficulty with the phrase "&lt;b&gt;ascending &lt;/b&gt;to Timnah" is removed,

for this is a detail relevant to the telling of the story: through this emphasis, Tamar knew by which path Judah was going to Timnah,

namely, by the path &lt;b&gt;ascending &lt;/b&gt;from the bottom of the mountain.

And based on this, it will be understood why Rashi did not adopt that "there were two Timnahs"

(as the second resolution in the Gemara),

for his primary intention is not to resolve the contradiction in the language of the verses&lt;b&gt;*&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;

(and as above,

because this is not difficult for the student when he learns this verse)

but rather the precision in the phrase "ascending" stated here — and this matter cannot be resolved except in the manner that "they ascend to it

(Timnah)

from here and descend to it from here"

(for then there is a need to hint and inform Tamar by which of the two paths Judah is going to Timnah).

But according to the reasoning that "there were two Timnas" this question is still not resolved: for it is impossible to say that the phrase "&lt;b&gt;goes up &lt;/b&gt;to Timnah" comes to hint and to inform that Yehudah's path of travel was directed to the Timnah that is at the top of the mountain and not to the one at the bottom of the mountain - because:

a)

Not in such a manner do they mark a city and the like, but as it is stated: "Beit Horon Lower etc. Beit Horon Upper"&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.

And further.

b)

since the simple meaning of the Maggid in the name<b>*</b>"²

implies that there was no place for doubt

(because only one was adjacent or the like).

c)

behold, the two Timnas were certainly not adjacent to each other²¹,

and if so, there is no need to indicate to which of them the intention is by the precision of "<b>going up </b>Timnah".

6.

However after all the above,

the matter is not entirely settled from the aspect of the difficulty in the essence of the interpretation — that it counts "She was sitting on the slope of the mountain" — because the thing

is unusual to build a city on the slope of a mountain²²

There are those who build a city on the top of the mountain — that is, despite the fact that the building of such a city is connected with various difficulties

(great toil in bringing the building supplies up to the top of the mountain,

the working conditions there, etc.)

and also its share in the development of commerce and its various connections with other towns, etc., is diminished

(due to the difficulty of ascending the slope of the mountain,

which reduces the passersby and travelers in this city),

nevertheless, sometimes they forgo the aforementioned disadvantages and choose to build specifically on the top of the mountain because of the advantage in this regarding defense: a city situated on the top of the mountain has the upper hand in war against an enemy fighting it, since he is below²³.

On the other hand,

of course,

there are those who prefer to build a city at the foot of the mountain — although its defense is not easy — because the place is more suitable for building a city and for its success in commerce and the like.

But not so on the slope of a mountain,

that there is no complete benefit to build a city there — both regarding its building and development and regarding protection from an enemy — and furthermore the parts of the city are one above the other.

And thus one must ask²⁴

: since the existence of a city on the slope of a mountain is something unusual,

it is more possible to say that Timnah was situated at the top of the mountain and to explain the two expressions

(ascent and descent regarding Timnah)

in different directions,

and each one according to its context in the verse: the term

"ascends" in Yehudah means ascent literally,

in the physical sense — because it is impossible to explain it spiritually for the aforementioned reason, with the help of Heaven — and the term "and he descended" regarding Shimshon

(which comes in the narrative of the verse in the third person)

means a descent in importance and in level²⁵.

And in order to hint at the reason that compelled them nevertheless to explain that she is counted "sitting on the slope of the mountain,"

Rashi added "And about Samson he says": namely, that not only in this verse brought in his commentary is the term descent stated, which then it is possible to explain it in a spiritual sense; but that "about Samson

(in the entirety of his story)

he <b>says</b>",

namely, that he repeats and says this term <b>several times</b> — and it is not logical to explain <b>each and every one</b> of them as hinting at a descent in importance²⁵.

And perforce it must be said that its meaning is literal:

That the place of Samson's dwelling was on the top of the mountain, and whenever he went to Timnah it was in a manner of descent

(physical)

from the mountain²⁷.

And it is found that <b>one is compelled</b> to say that "on the slope of the mountain she was sitting" despite the difficulty in the matter.

7.

From the matters of "the judgment of the Torah" in Rashi before us,

And the lesson from this in the service of each and every one:

It is explained in M"a²⁸

On the verse "Who will ascend the mountain of Hashem etc."²⁹

That the service of man to his Creator is analogous to ascending a mountain,

And it is known that when a person climbs and ascends the mountain,

It is impossible for him to pause in the middle of his ascent and stand for some time on the slope of the mountain,

Because almost

It is impossible that he will not collapse and fall down — rather he must continue his ascent without interruption.

And so the matter regarding the ascent “to the mountain of the Lord,”

that the persistence of the ascent is necessary not only for the benefit of the ascent itself,

but also in order to ensure the negation of descent.

That is, he should not be satisfied with his level that he has reached until now,

for this satisfaction with his level and his non-ascent from level to level in the holy degrees,

its end will bring about descent³⁰.

And the matter is particularly emphasized in the mitzvah of the Chanukah light,

that “the mehadrin from the mehadrin etc. on the first day lights one,

from then on he adds and goes on”,

because “we ascend in holiness and do not descend”³¹,

and if he did not <b>add</b> a light on the second day etc.,

not only did he not add on that day and did not ascend in holiness relative to the day before it,

but he also diminished in it

(in that he did not fulfill it with hiddur)

the level of his ascent on the day before it

(on which he fulfilled this mitzvah with hiddur)³².

And if he wants to fulfill the mitzvah with the same hiddur that he fulfilled it on the day before it, he must <b>ascend</b> in holiness, as above³³.

And this matter is hinted at in Rashi's words — that what is stated "ascent and descent in Timnah" is because "she was sitting on the slope of the mountain,"

for on the slope of the mountain

(which is the matter of service to ascend in spirituality)

standing is prevented, and also walking is not in a normal manner,

but rather either ascent or descent.

And just as Yehudah's ascent "on the slope of the mountain" led to the birth of "Peretz, this is Mashiach, about whom it is said: 'The breaker ascended before them'"³⁴

Thus through the service of each and every one, ascending from level to level on his personal mountain of G‑d,

we will merit the fulfillment of the prophecy "And saviors shall ascend Mount Zion to judge the mountain of Esau, and the kingdom shall be the L‑rd's"

— with the coming of Mashiach our righteousness.

(And from the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Vayeishev 5732)