English translation — מקץ א

A.

On the verse¹

"And to Joseph were born two sons <b>before </b>the year of famine came" Rashi says in his commentary

(from the Gemara²)

"From here that it is forbidden for a man to have marital relations in a time of famine."

Tosafot asks³

: Jochebed was indeed born "between the walls"⁴

(when Jacob and his sons arrived in Egypt),

that "at that time it was a time of famine"⁵,

how can one say,

that Levi

(father of Jochebed)

transgressed a prohibition, heaven forbid?

About this one asks&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;

from that which stands&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;

"And he saw etc. Isaac playing" — "he saw him serving his bed"&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;

— was there not then a "famine in the land"&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;?

Commentators elaborate on this&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;,

and answer the aforementioned questions in several ways,

and among them:

a)

This is not a literal prohibition,

but only a measure of piety¹¹

and Yitzchak and Levi

were not careful in this measure of piety¹²

(or,

that before the Giving of the Torah this was not forbidden¹³,

and the proof from Yosef is only an asmachta¹⁴).

2)

Those who are "darkened of¹⁵

children"¹⁶

-one has not yet fulfilled the commandment of pru urvu¹⁷

(like

(Yitzchak and

Levi¹⁸

in that

time),

or¹⁹

"on the night of immersion"²⁰,

for them the prohibition does not exist²¹.

3)

The prohibition is only when "Israel are in distress"²²,

and therefore it was not a prohibition regarding

(Isaac²³

and)

Levi²⁴

since Jacob and his sons were not in distress because they then had grain²⁵

; and that which Joseph refrained,

is because he did not know that they had grain and thought that they were in distress²⁶.

B.

According to this, a great question arises in Rashi's commentary: why does he not address the aforementioned difficulties from Isaac and Levi?

(also)

in study of the &lt;b&gt;simple meaning&lt;/b&gt;: on “And Avimelech looked etc.”&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;

Rashi explains “that he saw him serving his bed”,

and Rashi says explicitly that then there was

(not only a “famine &lt;b&gt;in the land&lt;/b&gt;”,

but)

a “&lt;b&gt;year of &lt;/b&gt;famine”&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;

: and about this Rashi brings down in his commentary on the Torah&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;

that Yocheved “was born between the walls”&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;,

which was in the years of famine &lt;b&gt;as explicitly stated &lt;/b&gt;in the Torah&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;].

And one cannot say that Rashi relies on one of the above answers — because in addition to the various difficulties that exist in each of the answers

(that there is no place here to elaborate on them&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;),

the same question is in all of them: — they are &lt;b&gt;not at all &lt;/b&gt;

(even)

&lt;b&gt;hinted &lt;/b&gt;in Rashi’s commentary,

Rashi wrote his commentary on the Torah in a

style,

that even a "five-year-old studying Scripture" should be able to understand Rashi's intent from his

(few)

words,

without needing to seek any additional explanation on this].

From that which Rashi says <b>here simply</b>—without any distinctions and conditions: "It is forbidden for a man to use his bed during a famine,"

it is proven,

that

(a)

this is a prohibition,

literally³²

(b)

the prohibition is for everyone without distinction — also for Joseph

(before the giving of the Torah)

and for "those bereft of children"³³

(and on the night of immersion)

it is not connected specifically with the suffering of Jews,

but if there is only a situation of "two famines" in the world, it is forbidden.

(c)

3.

Another wonder in this Rashi commentary:

Rashi says "&lt;b&gt;From here &lt;/b&gt;that it is forbidden for a person etc." — that this prohibition is derived from &lt;b&gt;this&lt;/b&gt; verse.

From Rashi's emphasis "From here" it is understood,

that Rashi intends to exclude a second place from which one could seemingly have derived the prohibition — Rashi emphasizes that the derivation is &lt;b&gt;from here&lt;/b&gt; specifically.

One indeed finds in the Yerushalmi&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;

and Midrash&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;,

that together with the aforementioned lesson from Joseph,

the verse that is by Noah is brought down&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;

"And you shall come to

The phrase "You and your sons and your wife and your sons' wives with you",

from which we learn that "upon his entry into the ark, marital relations were forbidden to him"; which is ostensibly the same prohibition as "during two years of famine"³⁷

— that in a time when the world is in distress³⁸

one is forbidden in marital relations.

It is most perplexing: Rashi himself in his commentary on the Torah³⁹

says that Noah was forbidden to engage in marital relations "upon his entry into the ark",

"because the world was in distress"⁴⁰

Today, as Rashi says "from here that it is forbidden etc.",

that this is learned specifically "from here",

whereas one could learn it from the verse earlier by Noah?

D.

The explanation in this,

and this is what proves it: by adding

(to the language of the Gemara)

the word "from here" Rashi makes clear that here is

(according to the simple meaning)

not the same prohibition as by Noah,

because here there is altogether not that reason,

"the world is in distress"⁴¹

"the world is in distress"

(by the flood)

means the world &lt;b&gt;in general&lt;/b&gt;.

And on the contrary — not people.

Animals etc. — about which one cannot say that they were then "in distress" — they are &lt;b&gt;all &lt;/b&gt;not in existence,

as it is written &lt;b&gt;and He blotted out &lt;/b&gt;all existence*&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;.

If one were to explain that this means those of "world" who were saved in the ark

(that their being there is a manner of "in distress")

— then Noah and his sons and their wives are &lt;b&gt;included among them&lt;/b&gt;,

also "in distress"

And not like the prohibition derived — that a number

(majority)

of people are in distress is <b>others</b> must also participate in their distress⁴²

And consequently one cannot learn from this that by "two famines" there is a prohibition on those who suffer <b>not</b> from any famine⁴³

— as in our case regarding Joseph,

who⁴⁴

did not lack any grain⁴⁵.

5.

And the explanation, with a preliminary precision in Rashi's wording "

(It is forbidden for a man to have marital relations)

<b>in a time of famine</b>" — for at first glance: indeed, this is the language of the Gemara,

but Rashi is here to interpret the

<b>verse </b>

(He does not even <b>note</b> that the explanation is from the Gemara)

; he would not have needed to <b>change</b> it,

but rather say "It is forbidden etc. <b>in the year of famine</b>",

like the language of the verse which he is <b>explaining</b> "before the <b>year of famine</b> comes"?

And in particular, since there is a difference in plain meaning: "year of the famine" means that <b>the </b>year there is a famine; as opposed to "two famines" — plural — indicates,

that this is a situation that extends over a duration of time.

It is not only a difference in the length of time

(whether the famine lasts only one year,

or more),

but there is room to say that there is a difference in quality: when a thing happens one time

(year)

it could be that this is only a passing occurrence; as opposed to when it repeats itself several times

(and one says that this is two famines)

— it is a period of famine,

not a coincidental matter,

but a thing of "chazakah" (established status).

Regarding this, as Rashi already explained

that Yehuda was afraid "lest he also die

(Shelah)

like his brothers",

because "it is established that his men die"].

And similarly in our case: if it is only a "year of famine" — one year is a novelty,

no grain grew — then there is no [comparison] except its novelty,

this is a temporary and novel thing for its time,

through

Natural causes of &lt;b&gt;this year &lt;/b&gt;which caused that the produce should not grow; but since this is “&lt;b&gt;two [years of] &lt;/b&gt;famine”,

this is a proof of a continuation,

an entire period,

a special conduct,

The Most High brings a period of “famine” in the world&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;.

And this is the reason &lt;b&gt;simply &lt;/b&gt;of Scripture — of the prohibition to have marital relations during two [years of] famine for one who is not in famine

(and consequently — not immersed in distress)

— because in a time of “two [years of] famine”,

when the conduct from Above is not in a manner of “all the days of the earth, seed and harvest etc. shall not cease”&lt;sup&gt;49&lt;/sup&gt;,

but the opposite of settlement of the world,

there is no place to occupy oneself with be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth&lt;sup&gt;50&lt;/sup&gt;

— settlement of the world&lt;sup&gt;51&lt;/sup&gt;.

6.

Since the prohibition is because it is a situation of “two famines” — a “chazakah”,

which indicates a special conduct — it is understood,

that as long as there is no chazakah,

the prohibition does not exist;

And on the contrary: since there is the command of “be fruitful and multiply”,

as long as it is not clear that it is a situation of “two famines”,

it is according to the simple understanding that one may not refrain from pru urvu,

it is forbidden to nullify a positive commandment because of a doubt that perhaps these are “two famines”.

And based on this, the above question of Yitzchak and Levi is automatically answered — by Yitzchak it was

(as per the precise wording of Rashi²⁷)

only a “&lt;b&gt;year of &lt;/b&gt;famine”

(not “&lt;b&gt;years of &lt;/b&gt;famine”)

; and likewise by Levi,

this was at the &lt;b&gt;beginning &lt;/b&gt;

(three months)

of the second year of famine

(for Yocheved was born at the end of the second year of famine)

— before there was the chazakah⁵³

of “&lt;b&gt;years of &lt;/b&gt;famine”.

However, Yosef indeed knew &lt;b&gt;clearly &lt;/b&gt;that the famine is a special providence,

that “seven years of famine” are coming — as related earlier and at length in the parshah that Yosef interpreted,

“that which &lt;b&gt;God is doing &lt;/b&gt;..

will be &lt;b&gt;seven years of famine&lt;/b&gt;"⁵⁴

— therefore by him the prohibition was from the first day onward⁵⁵.

And from "Mikan" one learns,

that in every case where one knows with certainty that these are "two [years of] famine"

(it has already become a chazakah),

it is "forbidden for a man to have marital relations."

7.

At first glance one can ask: Surely by then Yosef's interpretation of Pharaoh's dream had already been publicized,

that there will be "seven years of famine",

and especially since they also saw how this was being fulfilled in practice — so why was Levi not concerned about the prohibition?

So the simple answer: Levi did not then know that the interpreter of the dream is <b>Joseph</b>⁵⁶,

And on the contrary — they knew that it was a youth,

a slave⁵⁷,

they knew that the magicians of Pharaoh,

the <b>regular </b>interpreters of dreams of the king of Egypt did not say this etc. — he must not rely on <b>Pharaoh's dream </b>and on the interpretation of a youth, slave, and <b>nullify </b>the <b>command </b>of the Lord of "be fruitful and multiply."

And especially since even regarding a dream of a <b>Jew </b>there is the rule

(as <b>Rashi </b><b>already </b>brought in his commentary on the Torah⁵⁸)

: "<b>There is </b>no dream <b>without </b>vain matters" — it could therefore be,

that even if the entirety of the dream is true,

but <b>the </b>detail that there will be "<b>seven </b>years of famine"

("<b>years </b>of famine")

is from the "vain matters" therein.

8.

Based on this, one will also understand the precision of the language in the Tur&lt;sup&gt;59&lt;/sup&gt;

and Shulchan Aruch&lt;sup&gt;60&lt;/sup&gt;

-that they changed from the language of the Talmud

("in two famines")

and say "in a year of famine":

In the Gemara&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;,

right before the statement "It is forbidden for a person etc.",

it brings regarding the reward of "one who starves himself in times of famine",

which is

(as Rashi explains there)

"for the reward that he afflicts himself,

when Israel is in distress"; and likewise right after the statement "It is forbidden for a person etc.",

it brings the statement "When Israel are in distress and one separates himself from them etc.".

From which it is proven,

that according to the law the reason for the prohibition is

(not as according to the simple explanation,

as above,

but)

because of the fact that "Israel are in distress"&lt;sup&gt;61&lt;/sup&gt;.

And consequently one cannot say that the prohibition applies only "in a &lt;b&gt;two-year &lt;/b&gt;famine" — because also in a "&lt;b&gt;year of &lt;/b&gt;famine" indeed "Israel is in distress".

9.

According to this explanation above in Rashi,

will also be explained another precise point in this matter:

In the verse it says "And to Joseph <b>were born two sons</b> before the year of famine came,"

from which, from the fact that the verse speaks about <b>birth</b>, it is understood,

that not only in the years of famine themselves is there the prohibition of marital relations etc.,

but also nine months earlier,

so that the <b>birth</b> should not be in the years of famine — and at first glance,

the language of our Sages is indeed "to have marital relations in the years of famine"⁶²?

Based on the above, it is understood: Since the reason is

(not because "Israel is in distress",

in which case it would be appropriate to be careful only in the years of famine themselves

(when the distress exists)

from performing an action that is contrary⁶³

— but rather)

because of the <b>time</b>,

when the conduct opposite to the settlement of the world prevails,

therefore it is not fitting that in that time children should be <b>born</b>

(settlement of the world <b>in actuality</b>).

who knew <b>beforehand</b> with certainty that "two famines" are coming; however, the lesson "from here" for <b>everyone</b> to nullify the mitzvah of "her conjugal rights you shall not diminish,"

from the verse "her food, her clothing, and her conjugal rights"

(who are not relevant to know <b>with certainty</b> that these are "two famines"),

is for them the prohibition only "

(to sleep with his wife)

during two famines"].

Yud.

Here one sees how Rashi's commentary on the Torah,

which "I did not come except

&lt;b&gt;To its simple meaning&lt;/b&gt;”&lt;sup&gt;64&lt;/sup&gt;,

is connected with “&lt;b&gt;the wine &lt;/b&gt;of Torah”&lt;sup&gt;65&lt;/sup&gt;,

the secret part of Torah

— as we have already spoken at length once&lt;sup&gt;66&lt;/sup&gt;

that just as in the four worlds, the world of Atzilus relates specifically to the world of Asiyah&lt;sup&gt;67&lt;/sup&gt;,

so too is the secret part of Torah

(which is corresponding to the world of Atzilus)

connected specifically with the part of the simple meaning&lt;sup&gt;68&lt;/sup&gt;

(the world of Asiyah)

In the Zohar of today's sedra⁶⁹

it is explained,

that the years of famine are "years of evil" and therefore Joseph is "he seals the springs in the year of famine"

(because the children who are born from that which "I open the springs at that time",

are called "foreign children"⁷⁰)

; and afterwards the Zohar concludes,

that Joseph guarded even more — "that he does not give children to the side of impurity",

which means — as the father explains in his notes on the Zohar⁷¹

— that he also guarded "that the birth should not be in the year of famine

(even when "the children are from the drops that are entirely before the year of famine")

that if ..

their birth is in the year of famine, behold they are born in a place of impurity, at any rate".

Which corresponds with the above explanation in Rashi's commentary,

that the reason is

(not because "Israel are in distress",

but)

From the aspect of the <b>time</b>,

that it is a situation

(and conduct)

of "two famines",

and as above at length.

And here one sees,

again,

the "wonders" in Rashi's commentary on the Torah — that when one learns Rashi's commentary with the assumption that it was written

(also)

for a child of five years of age for Scripture,

and consequently one translates Rashi's words <b>according to their plain meaning</b>

— until,

that even when Rashi is

copying the language of the Gemara,

is however <b>his </b>intention thereby like the interpretation <b>the simple </b>of the words,

as they are interpreted by a five-year-old to Mikra —

become in a manner of automatically etc. etc. times — answered questions and discussions of commentators,

and one takes out from this wondrous topics also in "the wine of Torah".

(From the talk of Motzaei Shabbat Kodesh Parshat Miketz 5739)

17