English translation — מקץ א

A.

In this week's parshah it is told how Yosef gathered the "food" in the seven years of plenty,

and the verse¹

says: "And he placed food in the cities, the food of the field of the city which was around it he placed within it."

What do the words "the food of the field of the city which was around it he placed within it" add to "and he placed food in the cities"²?

From "and he placed food in the cities" it is understood that he gave the produce from the fields around the cities into the nearest cities — why should one trouble to bring the produce to another, farther city³?

Even if one would say that we would not understand it ourselves — it is still not smooth

: What is the practical difference to tell this?

In the Midrash

it states about this: "He gave what is in the territory of Tiberias to Tiberias

and what is in the territory of Tzippori to Tzippori, because each land produces its fruits.

Rabbi Nechemya said: He placed in them earth and potter's clay

That is: according to both opinions<sup>8</sup>

the words "food of the field — he gave etc." come to tell how Joseph had warned that the grain should preserve itself and not become rotten.

The difference between them is: according to the first opinion he warned this by placing the grain in proximity to the field where it had grown — "because each land and land preserves its fruits"

("preserves" here — means sustains<sup>9</sup>)

; and according to the second opinion he warned this by "he put in them earth and potter's clay"

(which are)

things that preserve fruits."

things that preserve fruits".

explain,

that R' Nechemya learns this from the words "field ..

he gave" — that "he gave" also

(something)

from the "field ..

which surrounds it"

(i.e.

that is

earth and potter's clay)].

2.

Rashi in his commentary on the Torah¹

addresses the words "the food of the field of the city which is around it He placed within it" and explains: "that each and every land produces its fruits and they put into the grain from the dust of the place and it preserves the grain from rotting".

Simply — Rashi comes to answer the aforementioned question "what is the practical difference" 1)

they did it — and 2)

if as above the trouble is spared — why does the Torah relate it —

But Rashi says both matters in one sequence

(with a vav hachibur — "that all the land etc. and they put into it" and he does not say "davar acher" etc.)

It is understood,

that according to Rashi the verse means both preservations together — in order to "establish" the grain, Joseph kept the grain

(specifically in its vicinity)

near the field where it grew and he also put into the grain "from the dust of the place."

Rashi combines two differing opinions into one and the same commentary?

There are commentators

who say,

that R. Nechemya is — according to Rashi

(not disputing the first Tanna,

but he is)

adding to the first opinion: in order to ensure that the grain should not rot, both things are required — thus Rashi assumes in his commentary.

But it does not remain smooth: Rashi on the Torah is indeed the plain meaning of Scripture

where Rashi does not say on this interpretation "our Rabbis expounded"

(and the like),

and does not indicate that the interpretation is from Bereishit Rabbah]

— what is the necessity in the plain meaning of Scripture that Joseph did two things to prevent the grain from rotting?

Commentators say¹⁴,

that both matters are hinted in the language of the verse: from "the food of the field of the city ..

he gave" one knows,

that he placed the food into the city; and from the language "field ..

he gave into it" one can infer

(as above)

that they also put the

(earth of)

field into the grain.

But it is difficult to say such an interpretation in the plain sense: in the verse it only says once "he gave".

So it is contrary to the plain meaning of Scripture to interpret that this means¹⁵

two different givings in separate places: the giving of the grain in the city,

and the giving of the earth in the grain¹⁶

At first glance one can answer,

that Rashi does not mean to say that

"he put into it" means a second giving — the giving of the earth into the grain,

rather the meaning of "food of the field" is: Joseph put the "food" together with the "field"

(— the earth of the field)

into "it",

into the city

(and consequently one knows that he put into the grain from the earth of the place).

But it does not remain smooth: what is the necessity in the plain meaning<sup>17</sup>

of the verse that

(also)

the putting of the food into the city that was around it was for the sake of preserving the grain<sup>18</sup>?

3.

One will understand this by prefacing several precise points in the language of Rashi

(including — changes from the language of the Midrash)

a)

At the first matter Rashi says

(as in the Midrash)

"makes its fruits stand",

but afterwards at the second matter Rashi adds the word "

(and makes stand..)

from drying".

And at first glance,

the opposite is logical: if Rashi needs to clarify the explanation of "makes stand"

(that it means "from drying")

— he should have said the explanation immediately the first time.

b)

In the Midrash it says "He placed in them earth and ashes, things that preserve fruits,"

But Rashi says "from the earth of the place" — d.

h.

It is not enough mere earth

(or

"ashes")¹⁹,

Rather it must be an "earth" from the place where the grain grew.

3)

Rashi begins "that all land stands [producing] its fruits",

but afterwards he changes and says "and makes the grain stand"

(not — "the fruits").

Even more: in the Midrash it indeed also stands in the words of R' Nechemya "they make fruits stand".

4.

And one can explain the explanation in this,

that with these precise and variant wordings Rashi clarifies his intention

(which is different from the intention of the Midrash)

— and as discussed several times²⁰,

that even in the places where it appears that Rashi did not innovate a commentary — but is merely copying the commentary

(language)

of Chazal,

is since Rashi comes to explain the verses to a student according to the plain meaning of Scripture

(a five-year-old studying Scripture),

must also Rashi's language be interpreted according to the simple meaning of his words

(as they are understood by a five-year-old studying Scripture),

even though in the Midrash this language means otherwise;

And likewise in our matter: even though Rashi's language is similar to the language of the Midrash,

but Rashi's intention is according to the simple explanation of his words — namely:

"Each and every land brings forth its fruits" — "brings forth" in its simple sense²¹

(as the language

Rashi in the portion before this one²²

"to bring forth from him children")

Each land sets up,

makes grow its

(special)

fruits.

That

is,

that one land is suited for the growth of these and these fruits,

and another land — for other fruits.

In the manner that we already learned earlier²³

that Egypt is a land that is "a grower of flax",

— and furthermore: in one land there can be various lands,

as in "in the land of Egypt, in the land of Goshen"²⁴

— each one of them "sustains its fruits",

as Rashi already brought earlier in his commentary²⁵.

What is the practical difference? — Rashi continues: "and they put into the grain from the soil of the place and preserve the grain from rotting": since each land produces its special fruits,

it is understandable,

that the soil of each land has specific properties which are suited²⁶

to its fruits,

and therefore the "soil of the place

(and)

preserves the -grain from rotting",

that the grain is prevented from rotting by putting into it "soil" specifically from the place where it grows.

It is, however, understood simply — that if he mixed in earth of the place which is free from decay — then there is no difference in which city the grain will be²⁷.

H.

Based on this, the aforementioned question falls away automatically

(section b)

— where do two actions stand in the verse — because according to Rashi, Joseph did only one thing to prevent decay of the grain: "and they put into the grain earth of the place"²⁸

which is around it",

earth of the place

(as above at the end of the section)

Not so “each land and land produces its fruits” has no connection to “preserves ..

from rotting”,

here in Rashi — they are merely an introduction²⁹

to the explanation why the “earth of the place” “preserves the grain from rotting”.

And Rashi does not need to explain why they gave the grain in the city of its surroundings — because³⁰

it is explicit in the verse

(according to Rashi)

: And the earth produced according to its Targum

(And the inhabitants of the land gathered)

And he gathered etc. and gave food in the cities — it is understood simply that the inhabitants of the land gave it in the surroundings,

in their city.

But on the other hand,

this is not as is implied from the plain sense of the language of R' Nechemya that earth in general is a thing that produces fruits

(as above sec. 3),

rather the precise point here is —

"from the earth of the place",

from the place where the grain grew

(and the reason of the matter is,

as above,

because "each land and land produces its fruits" — specifically its own).

And with this is also explained simply the change of language in Rashi: he begins "Every land etc. its fruits" and then continues "and they give in grain ...

establishes the grain" — because earlier Rashi's intention is to say a general principle,

a general matter regarding all kinds of fruits,

that every land

("each and every land"<sup>31</sup>)

brings forth "its fruits"

(and therefore Rashi uses the expression "fruits" — all kinds of fruit of the land — not only grain)

; but afterwards,

where Rashi explains and speaks in detail about the matter about which the verse speaks here

(the giving which "establishes ...

from rot"),

he explains the "food" of the verse — grain<sup>32</sup>?

6.

A lesson in the service of each and every one — from this explanation of Rashi:

The fruits,

the "produce" of a Jew is Torah³³

that he learns.

When a Jew gathers a lot of produce — an abundance in Torah

(and His commandments)

— he must know that in order for the Torah to remain with him,

there is one and only advice — "and they put into the produce from the dust of the place": one must put into the study of Torah the aspect of dust,

the self-nullification of

"and my soul³⁴

as dust to all shall be",

and specifically through this becomes the "open³⁴

my heart in Your Torah".

Rashi adds a fundamental teaching — that this must be "from the dust of the place",

from the same place where the grain grew: regarding the nations of the world,

gentile-ness,

the threshold that is trampled³⁵

in every respect,

the evil inclination — on the contrary — must be as the beginning of the Shulchan Aruch: Be bold as a leopard and mighty as a lion.

A Jew may think: It is true that in order for there to be the "Open my heart to Your Torah",

to become a vessel for Torah,

there must be in him the matter of self-nullification,

that his "soul" should be like dust,

and consequently he fulfills and makes himself "like dust",

but where is his "dust" and self-nullification — somewhere else,

not regarding his Torah:

When it comes to "his Torah" — he demands for himself honor of the Torah — when he comes into a gathering he demands that everyone must stand up for him,

at the reading of the Torah he demands the most important aliyah etc.

One must have self-nullification,

earth — but he does not [take] from him "from the dust of the place

(the Torah)

": Torah says: And you shall love your neighbor as yourself³⁶,

It is a positive commandment of the Torah upon every wise man from Israel to teach all the students even if they are not his offspring³⁷,

Torah says: you

Must be a disseminator of Torah in his soul,

in his body,

in his money — he claims "and my soul is as dust: what am I and who am I,"

he is not strong enough in spirituality to go out to occupy himself with disseminating Torah,

he is after all "as dust,"

so the external environment can have upon him a not good influence,

he must therefore remain enclosed in his own four cubits and specifically constricted — even a handbreadth beyond this,

his own family,

Jews in his neighborhood,

in his city etc. — no.

About this there is the instruction from Rashi's commentary,

that the "dust" must be from the same "place" and subject itself which one wants to guard and preserve — it is not enough the self-nullification in other matters, rather one must hold oneself "as dust" in the matter of the Torah itself.

7.

Torah is the wisdom of the Holy One, blessed be He,

which is entirely higher than the intellect of a created being.

And therefore³⁸,

in order that His Torah sh?

the Holy One, blessed be He, should be absorbed by a created being properly,

must be His blessing in the Torah first³⁹

— when he learns Torah he first ensures that he should know as necessary about the Giver of the Torah,

he ensures that the Torah works on him the fear of the L-rd Giver of the Torah

(and His love)

more than before.

And further: since Torah is the wisdom of the Holy One, blessed be He, it is understandable,

that in order to be able to hold and maintain within oneself the Torah of the Holy One, blessed be He,

the feeling of "and let my soul be like dust to all" that is before study and during study is not enough,

but it

Must be "and they shall give of the dust of the place for the produce": air in the already "gathered" learned Torah must be the matter of nullification — one must constantly remember that this is "He gave us His Torah",

and that "the Giver of the Torah" is in the present tense — at the time he learns a word,

and "even one letter",

in Torah the Holy One, blessed be He, reads and reviews opposite him⁴⁰

— and Torah demands of him⁴¹

he should be at the time of action "with awe and fear and trembling and sweat" — so how is it possible in a normal person that he should learn it in order to provoke,

or in order to honor himself through his friend's disgrace⁴²,

or even to honor himself simply.

And even the truly great in Torah — he certainly remembers,

proper recollection that however much one understands and one delves into the wisdom of the Torah is — longer than the measure of the earth and broader than the sea⁴³,

and moreover: longer — incomparably — it is the wisdom of the Holy One, blessed be He,

and I was with Him etc. delights etc.⁴⁴

And then his Torah has a permanence, he is "causes the grain not to rot" G‑d forbid.

8.

Another general instruction — from the generalities of Rashi's commentary:

The thing that Joseph sustained all the land⁴⁵

in the years of famine comes to teach,

that when there rules in

the world a situation of hunger in spiritual matters,

a situation of ignoramuses etc.,

lies upon every Jew

(that every Jew is called "Joseph"⁴⁶

in spiritual matters)

the obligation to feed the entire world,

even outside,

with spiritual nourishment.

Thereby Rashi teaches,

that one must not only provide Jews with spiritual food,

but moreover — one must gather for oneself a multitude of food

in order to be able to provide every Jew that which will be discovered in the future that he needs to come to — and moreover:

One must seek advice on how to ensure that the spiritual nourishment that one prepares and gives to another Jew should be a thing of permanence — "that which makes the grain stand from rotting."

That it will remain with the recipient and be effective for the entire duration of his life,

an ongoing effect also in his children etc. — Torah as it is with a blessing at the beginning,

the Giver of the Torah is in the present tense.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Miketz 5743)