English translation — ויחי ג

A.

At the conclusion of the series¹

Rashi stands on “

(Also the sons of Machir etc. were born)

on Joseph’s knees” and explains: “As the Targum,

they were raised between his knees.”

Simply, one learns,

that by Rashi the wording “were born on Joseph’s knees” is difficult — how can one say that “the sons of Machir” were <b>born</b> “on Joseph’s knees”?

Therefore Rashi explains,

that the intention of the verse is

(not that they were born “on Joseph’s knees”,

but)

that — “they were <b>raised</b> between his knees.”

One must however understand: this itself

(that the verse means "his greatness etc.")

can be learned in two ways:

a)

as the Ibn Ezra teaches,

that the meaning of "yoldu" &lt;b&gt;here&lt;/b&gt; is — "his greatness".

b)

as the Targum says on "yuldu al birchei Yosef" — "itilidu verabi Yosef",

from which it is understood&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;,

that "verabi Yosef" is related and is the translation

(not of "yuldu",

but)

of "al birchei Yosef"&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;

and like a concise verse

(and afterwards)

vayihyu al birchei

("verabi")

Yosef"

(— he raised them)].

and Rashi assumes

(not like the Ibn Ezra&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;,

but as he says explicitly)

"KeTargumo" — and therefore

(a)

he does <b>not</b> copy in the opening discourse the word "Yuladu"

(because he only explains the words "al birchei Yosef")

(b)

he says "Gedlan"

(not "Gudlu" — which corresponds to "Yuladu")

is perplexing: why does Rashi teach "KeTargumo"

(which, according to this, one must strain that the verse is as if it is a "Mikra Katar"),

and does not teach that "Yuladu" here means "Gudlu"?

And one cannot answer,

that according to the plain meaning it is difficult to learn that "yoldu" means "gidlu" — because we find that Rashi himself

(in parshas Bamidbar⁵)

explains "V'eileh toldos Aharon u'Moshe" — "and the offspring of Moshe are called because he taught them Torah ...

whoever teaches his friend's son Torah, Scripture considers it as if he gave birth to him";

one sees,

that

(also)

according to the plain meaning "leidah" can mean "taught him Torah"

(birth in spirituality),

and all the more so in our case that he <b>raised </b>them⁶

(not only regarding Torah,

one detail,

but)

in all details of raising children.

2.

The explanation in this:

In parshas Vayeitzei⁷

it says "And she said

(Rachel)

etc. come to me

(Bilhah)

and she gave birth on my knees".

Rashi translates: "on my knees — as its Targum: and I will raise"; there one cannot learn that the translation of "and she gave birth" is

(And I will build)

“I will be built” — because the word “ותלד”

(she will give birth)

can certainly not refer to Rachel.

One must say,

that the concept of “And I will be built” is in the words “על ברכי” by itself; i.e.

that

“ותלד” means birth literally

(as the Targum indeed translates there “ותלד — ותליד”)

— Bilhah will give birth to a child that will be “על ברכי”

(“I will be built”).

And since in our parshah there is a similar expression — "

(were born)

upon [Joseph's] knees",

there is no place to say,

that <b>here</b> should "and [Joseph]

(Joseph)

" be the interpretation

(not of "upon [Joseph's] knees

(Joseph)

" alone,

but)

of the word "were born".

Therefore Rashi says,

that here

(as in parshas Vayeitzei)

the interpretation of "were born" is <b>literally</b>,

and "upon Joseph's knees" is — "according to its Targum".

3.

One must, however, understand the lengthiness in Rashi's language in his commentary here:

a)

Rashi's way⁸

in every place is,

that when he says "like its Targum,"

he is satisfied with that and relies that one will look up the Targum on one's own; and even when he also copies the language of the Targum,

he

(generally)

does not explain the Targum

(and as we see in his commentary above on "upon the knees" in parshas Vayeitzei where he says "like its Targum, and I raised")

It is not understood: why does Rashi here in our parshah need to interpret the translation of Targum in the Holy Language — "Gedlan etc."?

Furthermore: if the interpretation of Targum requires an explanation in the Holy Language — should Rashi have done it earlier in Parshas Vayeitzei⁹?

b)

Even if one finds an explanation why Rashi needs to interpret the word "V'Rabbi"

("Gadlan")

— it is not understood: why does he need to copy — add the words "between his knees"?

c)

The difficulty in this is even stronger: the addition of "between his knees" is seemingly in contradiction to "Targumo":

When interpreting "on the knees of Yosef" the Targum does not say "and Yosef upon my riders"

(and the like).

From this it is understood,

that according to the Targum the explanation of "on the knees" is not literally in a physical sense,

rather this is an expression that means that he raised them —

It comes out,

that by adding the words "between his knees" — which the addition

(in the language of the Targum)

emphasizes that the "raiser" was "between his knees" is in Rashi according to his method,

literally — not "like his Targum"

At first glance one could answer,

that this itself is Rashi’s intention to protect — that also according to “his Targum” the meaning of “upon the knees of Yosef” <b>literally</b> and in accordance with “and Rabbi”,

because when one raises a child one often holds him “upon his knees”

(as one sees tangibly).

With this would also be justified what Rashi <b>changes</b> from the language of the verse “<b>upon</b> the knees of Yosef”,

and says “<b>between</b> his knees”¹³

— because raising a child includes not only the age when one holds him “upon his knees”,

but also later and for a longer period when he is “between his knees”.

It remains, however, not understood,

as above: if Rashi needs to safeguard,

that

(a)

also according to his Targum one must interpret "al birkhav" <b>physically</b>,

and

(b)

that "al" here means "between" — Rashi should have done this <b>earlier</b>,

in parshas Vayeitzei,

and not only here in parshas Vayechi.

d.

The explanation in this:

By adding the words "raised upon his knees" Rashi wants to negate the interpretation of Targum Yonatan "when they were born they were circumcised by Yosef",

(according to the interpretation¹⁴)

that their circumcision was upon the knees of Yosef

(he was their sandek)

— at first glance this interpretation has a place

(also)

according to the plain meaning,

because:

a)

According to this, the words "upon the knees of Yosef" are interpreted in their most literal sense — he held them upon his knees.

b)

also the word “yuladu” is smoother according to <b>the </b>interpretation.

According to Targum Onkelos one can ask: how does it fit to mention here the matter of birth

(“itilidu”)

— here it is only relevant that Joseph had <b>raised </b>them

where there it does not say that Joseph “saw” that they were <b>born </b>“to Ephraim, sons of thirty”,

but simply that he saw them].

However according to Targum Yonatan,

where “upon the knees of Joseph” speaks about the time of the covenant,

is

(more)

fitting the word “yuladu”,

because the covenant is quite in proximity to the time of birth¹⁵.

3)

And the main point: it is more plausible to learn that Yosef was the sandek at "Bnei Machir",

than to say that being a viceroy and occupied with the governance of the state and without him "no man could lift his hand or his foot"¹⁶,

he himself occupied himself with raising his grandchildren.

And therefore,

even though in parshas Vayeitzei Rashi translates "al birchai — like its Targum v'ana arebi",

one might have thought,

that here one must translate "yuldu al birchai Yosef" like the explanation of Targum Yonasan.

And in order to negate this interpretation,

Rashi does not suffice with saying only

"like its Targum,"

but adds to explain the <b>content</b> of the interpretation of "its Targum" — "they raised him etc.,"

to emphasize,

that the necessity to translate here "like its Targum" is

(not

(only)

due to the Targum and translation of the words "upon the knees of Joseph,"

but)

from the <b>content</b> of the verse,

as follows.

5.

In the verse it says, “And Joseph saw Ephraim’s children of the third generation,

also the children of Machir the son of Manasseh were born upon Joseph’s knees.”

From the fact that the verse says “<b>also</b> the children of Machir etc.” it is proven,

that in this lies a novelty regarding “And Joseph saw Ephraim’s children of the third generation” —

It is not understood: That which Joseph merited to see “children of the <b>third generation</b>” from Ephraim indicates a longer span of time than that which “the children of Machir the son of Manasseh” were born in his lifetime — because

(a)

they are only “second-generation children”¹⁷,

and

(b)

from <b>Manasseh</b>,

who was older than Ephraim¹⁸?

According to Targum Onkelos, however, it is understandable: the "thirty-year-olds" of Ephraim, Yosef only <b>saw</b>

(when they were very small)

; but the "children of Machir son of Menashe" was the novelty,

that

Yosef <b>raised</b> them¹⁹

(which means until an older age).

And in order to emphasize even more,

that this speaks about raising one's children until an older age

(not like the "thirty-year-olds" of Ephraim),

Rashi adds that "on the knees of Joseph" means "between his knees" — which means,

as above,

the raising to an older age"²⁰.

6.

From the verse "were born on the knees of Joseph" — both according to the interpretation of Targum Yonatan and according to the interpretation of Targum Onkelos and Rashi — one can also derive matters in the halachic part of the Torah,

and among them:

The Alter Rebbe says in Shulchan Aruch²¹,

that the beginning of the entry of the holy soul into the body is at the time of circumcision

(which is why — "one who is careful from touching the minor from the day of circumcision onward, holy shall he be called").

On this law in the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch it is not marked

(on the margin)

the source.

Once it was explained²²,

that it can be said that the source is in the book Seder HaYom²³

and before this in Menorat HaMaor²⁴

(by Rabbi Yisrael Alnakawa)

and Reishit Chochmah,

which

He rules

(like the opinion²⁵)

that "a minor from when does he come to the World to Come etc. from the time he is circumcised."

According to what was said above, one can say,

that this is connected to a much earlier source — Targum Yonatan mentioned above on "were born on the knees of Joseph" — "when they were born, their circumcision was by Joseph" — it turns out,

that the covenant

("their circumcision")

is the time of "they were born."

And at first glance,

the time of the covenant is indeed in proximity to birth,

but not "when they were born"?

And according to the words of the Alter Rebbe mentioned above, it is understandable — then is the <b>entry</b> of the holy soul into the body,

which is analogous to birth.

7.

Another matter in halachah that one can derive from the Targum Yonasan mentioned above:

It is a Jewish custom²⁶

that one should not honor the same person with sandeka'ut (being sandek) for two brothers.

And the reason for this: circumcision is compared to the service of the incense-offering,

and regarding the incense-offering it says²⁷

"Never did a person repeat in it"²⁶.

One asks²⁸

on this from Targum Yonatan: it states here that "the sons of Machir" "Yosef circumcised them",

that Yosef was the sandek for the sons of Machir — plural?

And one could say,

that from this there is a support to the words of the Chasam Sofer²⁹,

that a mara d'asra

can be sandak for several children of the same parents — and similar to the burning of the incense,

that the law of "new [ingredients] for the incense"³⁰

is only regarding other kohanim,

but not in relation to a Kohen Gadol,

who could offer the incense whenever he wanted³¹.

And likewise Yosef,

since he was "the ruler over the land"³²

(like)

a master of the place.

Ch.

From Targum Onkelos and Rashi one can learn from this verse a law in the laws of Talmud Torah:

From the verse³³

"And you shall make them known to your children and your children's children" we learn³⁴

an obligation to teach Torah not only with his son but also with his son's son.

Regarding a son's son's son

(a great-grandson)

But the law is³⁵,

that he is obligated to teach them only in a case when he is

(a "wise man" that is)

obligated to teach with students <b>in general</b>

(in which case he must give precedence to "his own offspring over other students").

But not so if in the city there are "greater in wisdom than him" in which case he is not obligated to teach with students

(in general),

then upon the elder grandfather there is no obligation that he should teach with his great-grandson.

According to Targum Onkelos and Rashi however,

that Joseph raised the children of Machir son of Menashe — which simply means also

(and primarily³⁶)

that he taught them Torah³⁷

— it implies not so:

Simply, it is implied,

that Yosef was not obligated to teach students at all,

because

(a)

Yehudah led a yeshivah there — "and Yehudah he sent etc. to instruct before him in Goshen"³⁸,

and it is logical that Yehudah

(who led a yeshivah all those years)

was "greater in wisdom than him"³⁹.

(b)

Since Yosef was viceroy and occupied with the affairs of state of the land of Egypt including also Yaakov and his household — and in the language of halachah, engaged in communal needs faithfully — he is exempt⁴⁰

from teaching students⁴¹

Why then did Yosef himself teach the children of Machir⁴²,

the children of his grandson⁴³?

One sees from this,

that Rashi — in his commentary on the Torah — holds,

that also upon a great-grandfather there is an obligation to teach Torah to his great-grandchildren

(like a grandfather with grandchildren)⁴⁴.

And therefore Yosef himself taught them Torah.

T.

From this there is also a directive for practice⁴⁵,

that when a Jew merits to live to see great-grandchildren, he must himself teach them Torah.

And if he himself cannot teach them — because he does not have the strength,

or he is not suited for this and the like — he must give a large sum⁴⁶

to support the yeshivah in which his great-grandchildren study.

And in particular according to the words of our sages, may their memory be blessed&lt;sup&gt;47&lt;/sup&gt;

(Regarding

Jacob)

: "Just as his seed is in life, so he is in life"

(That "his seed" means here not only sons and sons' sons,

but all who came from his loins,

also the son of his son)

— he must do all that depends on him so that those who came from his loins should be

In the true life,

learning Torah — also because in this consists his own vitality — "he too is in life".

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Vayechi 5725)