English translation — ויחי ב

Sicha on page 241

A.

"And Israel saw the sons of Joseph and said, Who are these,

And Joseph said to his father, They are my sons whom God has given me here"¹.

And Rashi explains the intention of Jacob's question "Who are these"

[According to the simple meaning it is perplexing: behold Rashi explained the words "And Israel saw the sons of Joseph" — "he sought to bless them",

7.

1.

that he knew that they were the sons of Joseph

(And although "the eyes of Israel were heavy from age he could not see"<sup>2</sup>

— one can say simply that he recognized them from their voice and the like

(And especially that they were accustomed to him<sup>3</sup>),

or that Jacob understood that when his days drew near to die Joseph would bring his sons with him so that Jacob would bless them before his death<sup>4</sup>)

— and what is his question "Who are these?"

— and therefore he explained]

"From where did these come who are not worthy of blessing"

(And it follows from this that "he sought to bless them and the Shechinah departed from him etc."

(as Rashi wrote in the passage before this),

from which Jacob understood that the sons of Joseph are not worthy of blessing<sup>5</sup>)

; and to this Joseph answered "They are my sons whom God has given me here" — "he showed him the document of betrothal and the document of marriage".

And it is written in the commentaries<sup>6</sup>,

that Jacob suspected that Joseph's sons "are not worthy of blessing" because they were not born in kashrus according to law and halacha — perhaps Joseph took a wife from the daughters of the Egyptians or from other nations

(and did not convert her)

— and about this Joseph showed him a document of betrothal etc.,

to prove that he married her as a wife "in a manner that betrothal would take effect with her and he betrothed her with a complete betrothal"<sup>7</sup>.

And they have already wondered about this interpretation<sup>8</sup>

— "Behold<sup>9</sup>

all seventeen years they were sitting and engaging in Torah before him..

if so, then certainly he knew and recognized if there was in them a blemish of lineage or not, and he would not have needed to show him for this a document of betrothal and a document of marriage",

and further — "How<sup>9</sup>

is it possible to raise on the heart..

to suspect Joseph that he came upon one of all the forbidden relations etc.<sup>10</sup>..

And surely Jacob did not suspect Joseph that he took a wife from the daughters of the Egyptians or from other nations in her gentile state, heaven forbid, but rather certainly she converted beforehand"

[And as Rashi explained above on the verse<sup>11</sup>

<pg>242</pg>

"And Israel bowed down upon the head of the bed" — "because his bed was complete..

since Joseph..

stands in his righteousness"].

And therefore they explained¹²

that Jacob did not suspect that perhaps there was in them a flaw of lineage,

but "that Jacob thought..

that Joseph did not take Osnat only as a concubine without betrothal and without a marriage contract because he did not take her of his own choice but by the king who gave her to him as a wife..

therefore he showed him the betrothal document and the marriage contract as proof that she is his actual wife and not a concubine, for they do not write a marriage contract for a concubine"¹³.

But superficially they still did not provide a remedy for the aforementioned difficulty — because even though there was no prohibition in the marriage of Asenath, since even Abraham had a concubine

(And only that "the sons of the concubines which were to Abraham" he sent away from Isaac his son,

And until that "a name of impurity he gave to them"¹⁴)

— Nevertheless,

If you will say that in these sons there is some deficiency in their holiness etc.

(Until they are not worthy of blessing)

How did Jacob not sense this during all these seventeen years?

And furthermore: In order to prove that Asenath was not a concubine but his actual wife, it would have been sufficient to show him a marriage contract, and there is no need to show a betrothal document — because according to Rashi¹⁵

This is the difference between wives and concubines,

"Wives with a marriage contract, concubines without a marriage contract",

And since she has a marriage contract, certainly she is not a concubine.

And even more perplexing: in our Sages, may their memory be blessed,

(that is before us)

— Targum Yonatan¹⁶

and tractate Kallah¹⁷

— indeed only a marriage contract is mentioned, but not a betrothal document; and what compelled Rashi to add a betrothal document?

2.

Also one must understand what Rashi said: "He showed him a betrothal document and a marriage contract" — for at first glance: granted, a marriage contract is a thing common in every marriage

(and it is noteworthy that also among the nations there is a matter of a marriage contract,

and as we find above regarding Shechem¹⁸,

that he said "Increase upon me very much the dowry",

and Rashi explained "marriage contract")

— but from where would it occur to say that Joseph betrothed Asenath specifically with a betrothal by document,

so that a betrothal document would be in his hand¹⁹?

!

There are commentators²⁰,

that Joseph did so from the outset "in order that he could show a clear proof to his father Jacob that he took her as a wife and not as a concubine, because he was wise, foreseeing the outcome."

But aside from the above difficulty

(Section<pg>243</pg>

A)

that Joseph did not need a betrothal document "to show a clear proof to his father Jacob that he took her as a wife and not as a concubine",

because for this a marriage contract is sufficient — for there is no hint in Rashi that Joseph did so from the outset "because he was wise, foreseeing the outcome"

(And also it is puzzling regarding the very reasoning,

that Joseph feared from the start that his father Jacob would not believe his words, therefore he had to prepare a "clear proof" that he married a woman with betrothal).

And there are those who answered²¹

regarding the law "with what the Rambam wrote at the beginning of Hilchot Ishut that kiddushin by document and by intercourse are from the Torah and kiddushin by money are from the words of the Sages and the commentators there explained that they call it from the words of the Sages because money kiddushin is not explicit in the Torah but from a gezerah shavah we derive them, a taking a taking from the field of Ephron and it is known that we hold that a person does not derive a gezerah shavah on his own unless he received it from his teacher and Yosef when he separated from his father it can be said that he had not yet learned this gezerah shavah and therefore he could not learn it on his own

(And he did not betroth by intercourse, for Rav would curse one who betroths by intercourse²²,

and therefore he was compelled to betroth by document)

.

But,

at first glance,

all this is in the manner of pilpul and halachah,

but not Rashi on the Torah, which is specifically in the manner of peshat.

And therefore it seems,

that Rashi's intention in "document of betrothal" is not a document with which she was betrothed,

for betrothal by document

[And particularly in the simple readings of the verses and in Rashi on the Torah we do not find — even after the giving of the Torah²³,

and all the more so before the giving of the Torah — that a woman is betrothed by a document²⁴]

— but rather "document" in its ordinary and simple meaning

(also for "a child of five for Scripture")

: a document written

(only)

as evidence for some matter,

as a memorandum of things.

And so in our case,

that there was by Joseph a document of evidence about his betrothal²⁵.

But even according to this explanation it is puzzling,

why did Joseph write a document of evidence about his betrothal,

a thing for which we do not find a parallel throughout all the generations²⁶,

and all the more so and how much more so in the time of the Patriarchs and the tribes

(and as above,

it is forced to say that he wrote this only so that there would be for him "clear evidence for his father Jacob" that he married a woman with betrothal)?

3.

And this will be understood by prefacing a general clarification regarding the matter of betrothal and marriage before the Giving of the Torah:

It is simple,

also according to the plain meaning of Scripture,

that our forefather Avraham fulfilled the entire Torah before it was given,

and as Rashi²⁷ explains

that he fulfilled even "the decrees

(of the Sages)..

secondary [prohibitions] regarding forbidden relations etc..

the Oral Torah, a law [given] to Moshe at Sinai",

and regarding Yaakov it is written²⁸

"and the 613 commandments I have kept",

from which it is understood that the same applies regarding Yitzchak

(and it is explicit in Rashi²⁹

that he fulfilled so-and-so many commandments)

— and nevertheless it is not explained<pg>244</pg>

(in simple meaning of Scripture)

that they sanctified their wives before they married them; and on the contrary — from the simple language of the verses regarding Isaac³⁰,

"And Isaac brought her into the tent of Sarah his mother, and he took Rebecca and she became his wife",

it implies,

that there was no betrothal beforehand,

but he brought her immediately into his house.

[In the words of our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, we indeed find that Isaac betrothed Rebecca,

whether through the silver and gold vessels that Eliezer gave to Rebecca³¹,

or when she came to his house³²

— but all this is not brought at all in Rashi on the Torah].

And so we find by Yaakov,

that when Lavan brought Leah to Yaakov in place of Rachel and he came to her,

Yaakov's claim was only "why have you deceived me"³³,

but he did not protest such marriages without betrothal³⁴.

And since the plain meaning of the verses indicates that there were no betrothals before marriage by the Patriarchs — it is possible to say that Rashi holds that it is not so,

but rather that they betrothed their wives before marriage,

he should have written so explicitly.

4.

And one must say the explanation in this:

Regarding the manner of marriage before the Giving of the Torah, the Rambam wrote at the beginning of the Laws of Ishut: "Before the Giving of the Torah, a man would meet a woman in the market; if he and she desired...

he would bring her into his house and have intercourse with her in private, and she would be his wife,"

and he continues: "Once the Torah was given, Israel was commanded that if a man wishes to marry a woman, he must first acquire her in the presence of witnesses, and afterward she will be his wife, as it is stated³⁵

When a man takes a woman...

And these 'taking' acts are called Kiddushin or Erusin in every place...

And once the woman is acquired and becomes betrothed, even though she has not been had intercourse with and has not entered her husband's house, she is a married woman, and one who has intercourse with her other than her husband is liable for the death penalty by the court.

And one could say,

that this that before the Giving of the Torah there did not exist "these betrothals..

which are called kiddushin or erusin" is not

(only)

because they were not yet commanded regarding this,

but rather because before the speaking there is no concept of these "betrothals."

For the concept of "a married woman"

(simply)

is not that the woman is acquired to the husband as an object acquired to a person,

but rather that the man and woman live together,

in the manner of the verse&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;

"and cleaves to his wife."

Therefore,

were it not for the command and force of the Torah,

there is no place to say that there are "betrothals" that have the power to effect a connection that applies to the woman the name "married woman" when she has not yet been "consummated nor entered

(even)

into her husband's house."

And this is nothing other than a novelty of the Torah,

that a person acquires "her first..

and afterward she will be to him as a wife",

namely that the Torah innovated not only the obligation,

that a person must betroth the woman first,

&lt;pg&gt;245&lt;/pg&gt;

but also the very possibility of acquiring a woman

(before actual marriage),

that only the command of the Torah itself constitutes the reality

("betrothals")

such as this&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;.

And it can be said,

that even according to the simple meaning of the verse it is so — for even though this matter is not brought in Rashi's commentary on the Torah^*37

(namely — study in the way of the simple meaning),

and it has already been stated many times that Rashi's commentaries on the Torah are not necessarily consistent with what is explained in the halachic part of the Torah,

for Rashi came in his commentary only to explain the simple meaning of the verse³⁸

— behold, this matter

(regarding the definition of betrothal)

is a matter of logic

(also in the way of study according to the simple meaning).

And what Rashi wrote on the verse³⁹

(regarding Lot)

"his sons-in-law, the takers of his daughters" — "his sons-in-law,

two married daughters etc.; the takers of his daughters,

those who were in the house were betrothed to them",

behold explicitly that there was a definition of "betrothed" also before the giving of the Torah

(and even regarding Lot)

— it is clear that the intention here is not to the law of a betrothed woman after the giving of the Torah

(which, without this, it would be perplexing to say that the men of Sodom, "the takers of his daughters" of Lot, conducted themselves according to Torah law!),

rather the intention is to matchmaking.

For it is simple that also before the giving of the Torah there was the matter of matchmaking and a time of preparation before the marriage,

and similar to what we find regarding Rivkah⁴⁰,

that her mother and her brothers requested that she be given "a period of twelve months to provide for herself with jewelry" — but these matchmakings do not have the power to effect a new matter,

"a married woman", upon the woman.

And this is the reason that we do not find that the Patriarchs

(and the Tribes)

sanctified their wives before the marriage⁴¹

— because this that the Patriarchs fulfilled the entire Torah before it was given,

was in commandments such as these that even before the giving of the Torah their fulfillment is possible in a manner similar to after the giving of the Torah,

except that they had not yet been commanded regarding their performance; but regarding commandments whose entire definition of fulfillment comes into being only through the commandment — it is not appropriate to say that they fulfilled them before the giving of the Torah.

And so it is with the matter of the betrothal of a woman,

since the entire definition of betrothal was innovated through the commandment of the Torah,

it does not apply that they fulfilled this before the giving of the Torah⁴².

5.

Based on the above, there is to explain the content of the innovation that we find by Joseph,

that he wrote "a document of betrothal":

Based on the above, it is understood that "betrothal" here means "engagement",

and "document of betrothal" means a document of proof that he became bound in an engagement.

And the reason for this that he had in his hand a document as proof of engagement is because he wanted to be stringent with himself and to conduct himself as much as possible that there should be for him at least a semblance of the kiddushin after the giving of the Torah.

And therefore he wrote "document of betrothal" — not only

(that his marriage was not in the manner of "a man meeting a woman in the market..

brings her

(immediately)

into his house etc.",

but rather)

that there was for him betrothal,

i.e., engagement<pg>246</pg>

etc. and a time of preparation for the marriage

[for in this alone there is no novelty,

for certainly also by the Patriarchs it was so⁴³

(and even by the daughters of Lot),

and as above]

— but rather this,

that he wrote these betrothals in a document,

to be as proof that he did so,

by which a special validity was given to the commitment of his engagement,

so that they could not retract from it,

in the manner and semblance of the betrothals after the giving of the Torah,

which effect and constitute the matter of "a married woman".

And it is understood simply: in an action that is not sustainable,

there is no benefit in writing a document as evidence in the future for this action; and only in a sustainable action does one write a document as evidence,

so that they cannot deny it in the future.

And so in our matter: in order to give validity to his betrothal

[which in themselves, indeed

(before the Giving of the Torah)

have no validity as above]

— Joseph wrote his betrothal in a document,

as evidence that he betrothed his wife⁴⁴.

And one can say the reason that only by Joseph do we find this embellishment — because since he was in Egypt,

the Egyptians being "steeped in lewdness"⁴⁵

(and especially after the incident with Potiphar's wife),

there needed to be special caution and additional stringency and holiness in matters of marriage,

therefore he added in his marriage that there should be at least something of the betrothal after the Giving of the Torah,

that immediately,

at the time of preparation for marriage,

the woman becomes designated for this man etc.

And based on this we can say,

that this was the intention in Jacob's words "from where did these come out": the intention is not in "came out" — were born,

to suspect that they were born from a marriage not in accordance with the law,

but this is an expression of astonishment: "from where did they come out etc." — from what reason and cause did they come out from being worthy of blessing; and simply: since they were born in a land of "steeped in licentiousness",

he feared that perhaps this caused that they would not be worthy of blessing.

And now will also be understood the content of Joseph's response to Jacob's astonishment

("from where did these come out who are not worthy of blessing")

— "They are my sons whom God has given me here",

my sons

(not only simply,

but)

"whom God has given me here",

that they are sons of such a marriage that was in the utmost perfection,

even regarding the conduct of the patriarchs themselves — and proof of this "he showed him the marriage document".

6.

And one can say,

that regarding this is the intention of Rashi in "the document of a marriage contract" — and with the preface of what there is to be precise in Rashi's language "and the document of a marriage contract" — for seemingly the word "and the document" is superfluous,

and it would have been sufficient to write "

(a document of betrothal and)

a marriage contract"

(as it is called everywhere,

and also in Rashi above)⁴⁶.

And the explanation:

The matter of the ketubah we have already before this, and ev­<pg>247</pg>

Regarding Shechem,

"They pressed me very much about the dowry — ketubah"

(as above, beginning of section 62),

and it is explicit regarding Yitzchak and Rivkah "that so wrote to her Yitzchak in her ketubah to take two young goats every day"⁴⁷,

and also explicit in Rashi above

(as above)

that "women

(ordinary)

with a ketubah

(and only)

concubines without a ketubah."

But a kesubah in general

(that we find also before the Giving of the Torah)

is only the obligation of the husband regarding giving money and all needs to the wife,

but it is not connected with the essence of the marriage,

therefore there is no necessity that it be in writing; unlike after the Giving of the Torah,

behold the matter of the kesubah pertains to the essence of the marriage,

and as the Rambam wrote⁴⁸

"It is a positive commandment to marry a woman with a kesubah and kiddushin",

and likewise it is forbidden to dwell with his wife if her kesubah is lost⁴⁹.

And this is the precise language of Rashi "shtar kesubah" — since Yosef strove that his marriage be similar to the marriage after the Giving of the Torah,

therefore he was precise that he have a "shtar kesubah"⁵⁰.

7.

The meaning of the Torah in Rashi's commentary:

The reason

(the inner)

for this that before the Giving of the Torah there was no matter of betrothal and marriage — is because the matter of marriage

(after the Giving of the Torah)

is not only an acquisition in connection with marital life,

but it is a matter of holiness,

and in the language of the Gemara⁵¹

in the reason for the name "marriage" — "that it prohibits her to all the world like consecrated property",

that betrothal is analogous to consecration⁵²,

and as the wording of the betrothal blessing "Who sanctifies His people Israel through chuppah and marriage".

And our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said⁵³

"A man and a woman, if they merit, the Divine Presence dwells between them",

for the ultimate purpose of the matter of marriage is that there be "the Divine Presence dwelling between them".

And therefore the essential concept of kiddushin is not possible except after the giving of the Torah,

because before the giving of the Torah it was not possible that there should be an indwelling of such holiness in the physicality of the world,

for this is not within the capability of a human

(a created being)

to draw down by his own power such supernal holiness,

and this is done only through the command of the Torah,

that this is a giving of power from the Creator, blessed be He, to draw down this supernal holiness into the life of a man and woman.

However, from the aspect of the greatness of Joseph

(even relative to the Patriarchs and the tribes)

— as explained in many places⁵⁴

— it was within his ability to draw down at least a semblance of this holiness even before the giving of the Torah.

And along the lines of what was explained elsewhere⁵⁵

in the words of the Midrash⁵⁶

"that Joseph observed the Sabbath before it was given" — that the holiness of the Sabbath in its essence is above the framework of the world,

and the greatness of Joseph is,

that even before this holiness was given below he would feel this supernal holiness of the Sabbath,

which is above creation,

and this is the unique quality in the observance of the Sabbath<pg>248</pg>

Of Yosef "before it was given" — that in his Shabbat observance the supernal holiness of Shabbat was felt.

And this is also the reason

(according to the inwardness of the matters)

that by Yosef there was a "document of betrothal" — to indicate,

that his betrothal and kiddushin were in a manner that he drew down the holiness that is in the matter of betrothal

(to the extent that it was possible before the giving of the Torah)

down into the physicality of the world,

in ink on parchment — "document of betrothal"⁵⁷.

(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Vayechi and Shabbos Parshas Shemos 5747)