English translation — וישלח ב

1.

In today's parshah it is told,

that when Jacob came to "Shechem which is in the land of Canaan¹,

he bought "the portion of the field where he had pitched his tent..

for a hundred kesitahs"².

Rashi stands on the word "kesitah" and explains: a ma'ah.

Said³

Rabbi Akiva: When I went to the cities of the sea they would call a ma'ah "kesitah"

(and afterwards it says in a semicircle⁴

: and its Targum is "churfan",

sharp ones everywhere, such as "over"⁵

to a merchant.

The reason why Rashi needs to explain the word "kesitah" is understood simply — since "kesitah" is not a regular word at all.

where the verse repeats what is stated in our parshah that "the portion of the field which Yaakov bought

(was)

for a hundred kesitah",

only once,

in Sefer Iyov⁷

— "and each gave him one kesitah"],

must therefore Rashi interpret for the "ben chamesh lamikra" that "kesitah" means "ma'ah",

and he brings on this the proof from "amar R' Akiva when I went etc."

One must however understand: true that in "the coastal cities they would call a ma'ah kesitah" — one finds however in Chazal another [unclear]

Rashi on the word "kesitah",

like: a)

In Targum Yonatan

(and Targum Yerushalmi)

(margaliyot),

"kesitah" is from the language of ornaments<sup>8</sup>

; b)

The Ibn Ezra

(in Iyov<sup>9</sup>)

says that "kesitah" means "kevesah ketanah"; and according to several commentators<sup>10</sup>

this is the intention in Targum Onkelos here which translates "kesitah" — "churfan",

as we find earlier

(in parshas Vayeira)

that "sheva <b>kevesot</b> hatzon..

sheva <b>kevesot"</b><sup>11</sup>

<b> </b>Onkelos translates "churfan"<sup>12</sup>

What is the compulsion

(in the <b>pshuto</b> shel mikra)

to explain "kesitah — me'ah"<sup>13</sup>,

as it is called <b&gt>becharchai hayam,</b>

and not like the targumim of Eretz Yisrael

(and Shechem included)

— "margeloyn"

"margeloyn"<sup>14</sup>,

or "kevesah" —

Like Targum Yonatan

(Yerushalmi),

or Targum Onkelos?

it is brought

(according to the version of the Arukh¹⁶)

that Chazal derived from a woman <b>in the market</b> of Arabs

(literally — <b>in the city</b> of Chazal)

that "kesitah" means either pearls or a lamb

(and not like the language of the seaports — as the proof of Rebbe Akiva)].

And even though that <b>in general</b>¹⁷

<b> </b>one buys an item with money¹⁸,

coins¹⁹

— is: a)

in their times was indeed the custom of barter,

the price of a dog²⁰

and the like — b)

in our case when one speaks about a sum of one hundred ma'ot <b>and the like</b> is the way of the verse <b>in every place</b> to give the number in <b>shekels.</b>

And not in smaller coins.

And in our matter: since that a shekel has twenty ma'ah

(in the language of the verse²¹

"twenty gerah the shekel",

and as Rashi²²

explains that "gerah" is "the language of ma'ah")

— should the verse instead of "one hundred kesitah" have said "five²³

shekels"²⁴

Also, moreover: since that "ma'ah" in the language of the Torah is <b>"gerah"</b>

(as above)

— should the verse have said "in one hundred <b>gerah"?</b>

is from this forced apparently,

that "in a hundred kesitah" does not mean "ma'ah",

but rather pearls,

lambs or the like.

2.

The wonder is even greater: further on the verse²⁵

"And he spoke

(Shechem)

upon the heart of the maiden

(Dinah)

" Rashi explains: "words that settle upon the heart 'See your father in a small field plot <b>how much money he spent</b> etc.'" — so if "kesitah" means "ma'ah" and Yaakov paid in total five shekels for the field — how does Shechem say "how much money he spent"²⁶?

— but in Bereishis Rabbah²⁸

there are twenty-two interpretations

(according to the homiletic interpretation)

the word "kesitah",

which according to all the interpretations turns out that it was indeed "a certain amount of money": unlike according to Rashi,

that "kesitah" is "ma'ah",

it is then not a large sum,

as above].

And it is a great difficulty to answer²⁹,

that with "the portion of the field where he had pitched his tent",

for which Yaakov paid five shekels,

is meant only the limited area where Yaakov had placed his personal tent — but for the entire area that he bought for his entire camp

(which was a multitude

Great — the tents of his wives and his sons and his servants,

in addition to all his livestock etc.)

he indeed paid a lot of money —

because it is not plausible that the verse should tell about the purchase of that small area

(where the tent of Jacob was)

and not mention about the purchase of a large area for his entire camp.

And therefore it is added to say,

that "he pitched his tent there" refers not only to the private tent of Yaakov,

but to his entire camp.

And although it says "his tent" — in the singular,

Rashi already warned at the beginning of the parshah,

on the verse³⁰

"I had an ox",

Rashi explains "it is the way of the world to say 'ox' about many oxen."

And as one indeed sees several times earlier in Chumash where the verse says "and he pitched his tent"

(and the like)³¹

and the intention is not to one tent,

but to an entire camp.

3.

There are several precise points in the language of Rashi:

a)

Rashi should have said in his commentary briefly

(as in several places in Rashi's commentary)

"a ma'ah as it is stated in Rosh Hashanah"³²

— but Rashi copies the details of the statement "when I went to the seaports etc."?

b)

In the Gemara before us³³

is the language "when I went &lt;b&gt;to Africa"&lt;/b&gt;³⁴.

Rashi says however "to the coastal cities of the sea"³⁵.

So even though

One must say that Rashi had such a version &lt;b&gt;in the Gemara,&lt;/b&gt;

it is nevertheless not possible &lt;b&gt;to innovate &lt;/b&gt;such a mea — one must however have a rationale,

Why does Rashi specifically bring the version "to the coastal cities of the sea",

and not the version &lt;b&gt;widespread &lt;/b&gt;— "to Africa"?

3)

Rashi cites over the name of the author of the maamar — Rabbi Akiva?

Not like most of the great ones of our Sages, may their memory be blessed, whom he brings in his commentary without the name of their sayer.

The wonder becomes greater when one compares Rashi here with the similar same Rashi on the word "tachru"

(in parshas Devarim)

— "language of purchase ..

for in the coastal cities they call a sale 'kira'"

he says: said Rabbi

"when I went to the coastal cities they would call a sale 'kira'"],

And likewise in Rashi on the word "totafos"

— "tat in the shoulder two, pat in Africa two"

4)

4.

Regarding the conclusion in Rashi

(which stands in a semicircle)

— "And its translation etc.",

there are commentators⁴²

who want

to say that these words are not from Rashi — and as one indeed sees that in the first

(and second)

printing of Rashi these words are not present⁴³

— rather they are an addition by a student

(who erred).

For how can one say that the intent of "churfan" in the Targum is "sharp ones everywhere",

when the Targum brings <b>"churfan"</b> as a translation of <b>"kivshot"</b>

(in Vayeira — as above section a)?

But nevertheless,

From the fact that the words remained in the common editions of Rashi,

it is plausible to say,

that also the interpretation in the Targum has a place.

Moreover — with the introduction of the question: <b>Unetus </b>is Onkelos translating "keves" — "imra" and why will "kevasot" from parshas Vayeira be different?

— For which one must learn,

that the simple meaning in the Targum on "kevasot hatzon" — "churfan de'an",

is not that "churfan" <b>means </b>"kevasim"*⁴³

Rather kevasim means <b>"an" </b>as in the Targum there and Targum Yonatan

(as is his way in several places)

adds explanation <b>in the matter,</b>

that they are sharp — <b>good — </b>sheep⁴⁴,

through which will be understood the matter that they were "ledah" etc. —

One comes to in the understanding of &lt;b&gt;the plain meaning &lt;/b&gt;of Scripture through the addition of Targum "Churfan".

One must however have an explanation in Rashi here: What did the student

(Rashi?)

want to add in the understanding of Rashi

(that "Keshita" means "Ma'ah")

by adding "and its Targum etc."?

ה.

And it can be explained the explanation in all this:

The compulsion to say that "kesitah" means "ma'ah" is

(thus)

but a proof,

rather

(mainly)

but an addition of explanation,

as below section 6 — rather]

from the content of the verses:

Learning the story,

that when Jacob arrived in Shechem he bought "the portion of the field where he had spread his tent" without any details,

it lies simply to say,

that he therefore paid the regular price,

because it was a regular purchase

(they did not haggle with him etc.)

and certainly it is the opposite of the simple meaning to say that he paid "great money"⁴⁵

: Abraham paid "four hundred shekels of silver, current with the merchant"⁴⁶

for the Cave of Machpelah because he needed to have the Cave of Machpelah <b>"for a burial possession"</b>⁴⁷

; but in our case,

was indeed Jacob in the midst of going "to come to Isaac his father"⁴⁸

(in

Hebron⁴⁹),

and as Jacob initially,

at the departure from his father's house,

said in his prayer — "and I will return in peace to the house of <b>my father"</b>⁵⁰

— and the reason that Yaakov the "Chelek Hasadeh" &lt;b&gt;bought &lt;/b&gt;

(and specifically here by the city of Shechem where he was for some months,

and not earlier in Sukkos where he was for some months&lt;sup&gt;51&lt;/sup&gt;),

was not in order to settle there — because he was going to Chevron,

as above — but only to show his love for the Land,

that immediately upon arriving in "the city of Shechem &lt;b&gt;which is in the land of Canaan"&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;52&lt;/sup&gt;

he bought a portion in the land&lt;sup&gt;54&lt;/sup&gt;

And since the purchase of the "Chelek Hasadeh" was not in order to make there his permanent dwelling,

but only a temporary&lt;sup&gt;55&lt;/sup&gt;

dwelling,

it is not plausible that he would want to pay for it more than its worth&lt;sup&gt;56&lt;/sup&gt;

and certainly not "great sums of money"&lt;sup&gt;57&lt;/sup&gt;.

And therefore Rashi cannot accept

(according to the plain meaning)

the interpretation of Targum Yonatan that "kesitah" means <b>pearls — </b>according to which it would turn out that Yaakov paid a very great price <b></b>

(one hundred pearls,

and especially since simply this is even more than "four hundred shekels of silver")

for a temporary dwelling.

Rashi says that "kesitah" means "ma'ah".

Yaakov paid for that parcel of the field only one hundred ma'ah

(five shekels)⁵⁸.

6.

Based on this, however,

the question is turned around: what is the practical difference at all in

telling how much Yaakov paid for the field?

By Avraham's,

what counted "many monies",

is this understood — because the Torah wants thereby to let hear:

(a)

Greatness of endearment of the possession of a grave in the Land of Israel.

(b)

The quality in the manner of his conduct,

that it was worthwhile for him to pay such a high price — "four hundred shekels of silver

(and in addition)

current with the merchant" — only to negate utterly the ownership of Ephron&lt;sup&gt;59&lt;/sup&gt;,

or in the manner of the negation of a statement of "I have enriched Abram"60 and the like.

But in our case — what does it come to teach us to relate that Yaakov bought the "portion of the field" for — a hundred kesitahs&lt;sup&gt;61&lt;/sup&gt;?

One must say,

that even though he only counted a hundred ma'ah,

the payment nevertheless possessed an importance

(which indicates the affection of the heart),

and therefore the Torah relates about it.

And to explain what kind of importance can be in such a payment,

Rashi brings the statement of R. Akiva: "When I went to the coastal cities they would call a ma'ah 'kesitah'": as mentioned earlier,

the word "kesitah" is from the language of ornaments.

How does it come that one should call a ma'ah — the smallest coin — by the name "kesitah"

(from the language of ornaments)⁶²?

One sees,

that there is a case,

that even when the <b>equivalence</b> of the coins themselves is not great,

they become however

used as <b>ornaments</b>

(and they are therefore called "kesitah").

And this the verse says,

that from the side of the love of the land in the eyes of Yaakov,

he paid for a plot in the land with specially important coins⁶³

— "one hundred &lt;b&gt;kesitahs,"&lt;/b&gt;

such coins that are used as ornaments"

And for this reason Rashi chooses specifically the version "when I went in the cities of the sea" — and not "to Africa": that which one uses coins for ornaments in "Africa" is no proof about the

(greatness)

of their importance.

One does not know details about Africa*⁶⁴

and in which place in Africa that was.

It could be,

that "Africa" was a place of poverty and therefore also a coin is used as an ornament.

— Rashi says that in &lt;b&gt;"the cities of the sea &lt;/b&gt;they would call" a ma'ah kesitah".

Even in cities — large

(commerce)

towns — they would call a ma'ah an ornament.

Is

From this a proof of their true,

"big city" importance.

7.

Based on this, it is also answered:

A)

Why Rashi does not accept the explanation that "kesitah" means "keves" — because from such a payment there is no particular lesson

(a special importance,

or the like),

and consequently there is no reason that the verse should recount about this.

b)

<b>In its simple meaning</b> of Scripture — when there is room to interpret that he paid five shekels — there is no room to interpret that

(the field is worth and)

he paid one hundred shekels⁶⁶,

or one hundred pearls etc.

c)

Why does the verse not say

(the total)

— five shekels

but rather "one hundred kesitah"⁶⁷

— because the emphasis here is <b>not</b> on the <b>value,</b>

but rather that Jacob paid for the field

with something that is used as <b>ornaments — </b>"kesitah".

4)

The intention of the Baal Chatzi Iggul

(student of Rashi?)

Who added "and its Targum is churfan,

good sharp ones in every place such as over to a merchant":

With this is further brought out the importance of the coins with which Yaakov paid for the field — that they were especially good coins,

<b>"sharp in every place".</b>

And one could say,

then with adding the proof "such as 'passing to a merchant'" the intention is not

Only an example and proof for the explanation,

but also to the content of the matter: exactly as the Torah emphasizes the importance of Abraham's payment,

that he gave coins that were "passing to a merchant",

similarly Jacob paid with coins that were "sharp ..

sharp in every place".

5)

The thing that Rashi says further that Shechem said to Dinah "how much money he squandered" — even though Yaakov paid in total five shekels for the parcel of the field: the precision in Rashi is — <b>"squandered",</b>

that the meaning of squandering is not specifically when it is about a large sum,

but when it is — <b>squandering• </b>even a small sum⁶⁸,

if only it is entirely <b>unnecessary </b>

(one pays not according to the value of the <b>necessity </b>of the thing),

it is squandering.

And likewise in our matter: since Yaakov was there only in a temporary manner,

it seemed to Shechem

(who did not understand the preciousness of the land in the eyes of Yaakov)

to be,

that the paying of "one hundred <b>kesitahs" — </b>special valuable coins etc.,

for "a small parcel of field",

it is squandering.

where he speaks about the merit of the Patriarchs who did not think critically about the attribute of the Holy One, blessed be He,

that not looking at the covenant that the Almighty made with them "to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their sojournings, etc."⁶⁹

— is "when Abraham sought

to bury Sarah, he did not find ground until he bought it <b>at a great price.</b>

And likewise with Jacob, 'And he bought the parcel of the field to pitch his tent.'"⁷⁰

— By Yaakov, Rashi does not say "with much blood" and does not even add "etc."⁷¹

(to hint at the words "with a hundred kesitah"⁷²).

Because Yaakov indeed did <b>not</b> pay "precious blood" — it was only five shekels].

Ch.

By a "sharp" student, however, it is still not smooth:

After the entire explanation that the coins were specially important coins — "kesitah" — they were nevertheless only &lt;b&gt;ma'ot,&lt;/b&gt;

and it is understood,

that regarding Yaakov's wealth, it had no importance.

It is therefore understood,

that the &lt;b&gt;main &lt;/b&gt;emphasis in the verse is on the word &lt;b&gt;"vayikn &lt;/b&gt;et chelkat hasadeh" — that Eretz Yisrael was so precious to Yaakov that he specifically bought a portion of the land,

even though his dwelling was in the place of "Beit Avi",

Chevron.

And since so,

is the difficulty returns to its place: what is so relevant to the counting that he bought it "for a hundred kesitah"?

How much addition in "love of the land" is expressed in this,

that therefore the verse should emphasize this?

Rashi guards it by copying the name of the author of the maamar — R. Akiva:

About R. Akiva the Gemara relates in Sanhedrin&lt;sup&gt;73&lt;/sup&gt;,

that he conducted himself in a manner of "piety",

he was &lt;b&gt;"accustomed to acquit &lt;/b&gt;Israel"&lt;sup&gt;74&lt;/sup&gt;.

And with this it is understandable what the verse adds "with a hundred kesitah" — because according to the view of R. Akiva — &lt;b&gt;"who is accustomed &lt;/b&gt;to acquit Israel" — one must seek in every thing,

even a &lt;b&gt;habitual,&lt;/b&gt;

merits for Jews.

And therefore,

although the number "one hundred kesitah" is not a great novelty,

one must relate also &lt;b&gt;this &lt;/b&gt;

(small)

merit,

because habit becomes nature,

to speak in merit of Israel.

9.

Based on this, we can explain

(in the manner of a hint)

that Rashi also copies the detail that R. Akiva went <b>alone </b>"to the cities of the sea" <b></b>

("When I went⁷⁵

<b> </b>to the cities of the sea, etc.")

The Gemara says there⁷⁶

: "What is his piety

(of R. Akiva)..

The little ones of the children of the wicked of Israel ..

R. Akiva says: They come to the World to Come, as it is said⁷⁷

The Lord protects the simple, for they call in the cities of the sea⁷⁸

a child "patya".

And one can say — in a manner of a hint — that the "Chassidus" of Rebbe Akiva is not only in the general matter,

but also in the

that he⁷⁹

says "since it is called <b>in the cities of the sea</b> linuka patya": with this the Gemara emphasizes,

that for so much was the Chassidus of Rebbe Akiva to give merit to Jews,

that it was for him worthwhile the journey to the <b>"cities of the sea",</b>

if only to be able to give merit to the Jewish people and to rule that the minor children of the wicked of Israel will come to the World to Come.

And this is also what Rashi hints at — "said &lt;b&gt;R' Akiva when I went&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;80&lt;/sup&gt;

&lt;b&gt; to the coastal cities &lt;/b&gt;etc." — this is the same journey to the coastal cities during which R' Akiva heard that "they call a child 'patya'" and with this he

he issued the ruling in favor of Israel — "the little ones etc. they come to the World to Come" —

Is by the same journey to the cities of the sea also came out another matter &lt;b&gt;"accustomed &lt;/b&gt;to merit",

in the merit of Israel — the endearment of the land by Jacob,

that he paid for the portion of the field,

which was by him not the place of his dwelling — "one hundred kesitah"&lt;sup&gt;81&lt;/sup&gt;,

coins that are &lt;b&gt;ornaments.&lt;/b&gt;

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Vayishlach 5731)