English translation — מקץ ב

Talk b<pg>181</pg>

A.

We learned in tractate Chullin<sup>1</sup>

"What is the meaning of that which is written<sup>2</sup>

And slaughter the slaughter and prepare<sup>3</sup>

Uncover for them the house of slaughter,

And prepare: remove the sciatic nerve in their presence."

And in Rashi's commentary: "Uncover for them the house of slaughter — so that they should not say, 'I eat the meat of the stabbed animal'<sup>4</sup>,

because the sons of Jacob were observers of commandments<sup>5</sup>,

for even though the Torah was not given, they were recipients from their fathers."

And in Rashi on the Torah he writes "וטבוח טבח והכן — like ולטבוח טבח ולהכן,

and טבוח is not an imperative form because it would have to say וטבח",

and he did not even hint that the intention is for kosher slaughter⁶.

And likewise he did not explain or hint earlier⁷

what is said

(regarding Yaakov and Lavan)

"ויזבח יעקב זבח בהר ויקרא לאחיו לאכל לחם" that it was kosher slaughter⁸.

And simply, it can be said that only above⁹

regarding Yitzchak, where it is emphasized "take now your vessels",

that "take" is an expression of sharpening..

sharpen your knife and slaughter properly so that you do not feed me neveilah"

(as Rashi explains there),

that this is the explanation of the term slaughter and butchery,

we know that by the Patriarchs

(including Yaakov)

the slaughter was kosher.

But not so

(in the manner of simple meaning of the matter)

by the tribes,

as below section 5.

And in our case, Yosef said to "the one over his house" to slaughter,

and thus this is the slaughter of a non-Jew¹⁰,

that even if it was done according to law

(and a Jew stands over him)

his slaughter is neveilah¹¹.

And to note that in Targum Yonatan it explains that the one appointed over his house was Menasheh,

And in Bechayei it is explained "he commanded this to Menasheh his son, for the sons of Yaakov were careful about shechitah",

But Rashi according to his approach that there was no valid shechitah and did not explain that the one appointed over his house

(in this verse)

is Menasheh¹²

(in the manner that he explained above¹³

"the interpreter between them — this is Menasheh his son"),

for simply it was an Egyptian,

as the simple meaning of the matter.

2.

At first glance there is place to say that it was a kosher slaughter

(even though the slaughterer was an Egyptian),

In the introduction of what is explained in M”A<sup>14</sup>

regarding that the Patriarchs fulfilled the <pg>182</pg>

the entire Torah before it was given,

about which the commentators disagree<sup>15</sup>

whether the Patriarchs left the category of Bnei Noach or did not leave the category of B”N — that according to the simple explanation it seems to say that the fulfillment of the entire Torah by the Patriarchs was a stringency that they accepted upon themselves,

and it is not within the scope

(and in the power)

of this acceptance to remove them from the law of B”N

(and the term “conversion” that we find regarding the Patriarchs is only regarding adding to the conduct of B”N — in the manner of a borrowed term<sup>16</sup>).

And based on this, one can say that the disqualification of slaughter by a non-Jew

(when done according to law)

did not apply before the giving of the Torah,

since the Patriarchs were not excluded from the category of the children of Noah¹⁷.

And thus, Joseph who commanded "the one over his house" to slaughter according to law,

his slaughter is valid even though he was an Egyptian.

But it is somewhat forced to say that the Egyptian man who was over Joseph's house was knowledgeable in the laws of slaughter and accustomed to slaughter without pressing, etc.

And additionally: according to several opinions,

the essential disqualification of slaughter by a non-Jew is that it is the slaughter of an idolater

(and the disqualification of slaughter by a non-Jew who does not worship idols is only rabbinic),

and this disqualification also applies before the giving of the Torah,

for the Egyptians were idolaters.

3.

Moreover: according to the simple meaning — there is no place to interpret that Joseph commanded to slaughter according to law

(and the one appointed over his house was Manasseh)

— for in any case his brothers could not eat from this slaughter,

for they did not know that he was Joseph,

and in their opinion

(Joseph and)

the slaughterer were idolaters.

[And in one novella of the Maharsha<sup>22</sup>

he explains that this is the precise wording of the Gemara "he uncovered for them the place of slaughter",

that "if one of the house of Joseph had slaughtered even before them it would not have helped because the slaughter of a non-Jew is invalid even if a Jew stands over him,

and 'he uncovered for them the place of slaughter' means that he let them uncover for themselves",

and he refers to his words in the novellae on Halachah,

where there he distinguishes between the term "and slaughter" and the term "and prepare",

that "and slaughter is not a term of command"<sup>23</sup>,

and this means that he did not command the one over his house to slaughter,

but rather that he let them slaughter.

But in Rashi's commentary on the Torah there is no hint of this,

and this is not at all according to the plain meaning of the verse,

for Joseph's brothers are the ones who slaughtered this feast].

And one could say, even more than this,

that even to Yosef it is forbidden to feed his brothers from this slaughter.

For even though it was slaughtered according to law,

nevertheless,

since they think it is neveilah,

behold, if they eat it they require atonement

(as explained in the Gemara²⁴

"One who intended to have in his hand pig meat and had in his hand lamb meat requires atonement and forgiveness",

and also according to the simple meaning of the verse it is so,

as Rashi explains on the verse²⁵

"And Hashem will forgive her" — "Of what does the verse speak?

Of a woman who vowed to be a nazirite and her husband heard and annulled it for her and she did not know and transgresses her vow etc. This is one who requires forgiveness")

— and thus also<pg>183</pg>

Yosef is forbidden to feed them this meat from the aspect of "before a blind person"²⁶.

And it can be said that also for this reason Rashi did not explain that there was here a kosher slaughter,

since this does not help at all to permit slaughter for the tribes.

4.

And seemingly, how did the tribes eat this meat?

And it can be said that there was no prohibition in eating the meat because they were compelled in this due to fear of the kingdom

(and according to what is said in the Maharsha²⁷

regarding "and they drank and became drunk with him"²⁸,

that on that day they drank wine with Joseph — even though they considered him a gentile and it would be their stam yeinam which is forbidden

(rabbinically)

— except that "because of fear of the kingdom" it was permitted).

Also it is possible to say

(with difficulty at any rate)

that in practice the tribes did not eat from the feast that was placed before them²⁹.

And in the verse it is only stated³⁰

"And they set etc." and it is not mentioned that they ate, except only "and they drank and became drunk with him."

[And even though it is stated³⁰

"And they set etc. and to the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves, because the Egyptians could not eat bread with the Hebrews, for it is an abomination to the Egyptians,"

and in Rashi "and Onkelos gave a reason for the matter,"

and this is the language of the Targum: "Because the animal that the Egyptians worship,

the Hebrews eat"

(that the Hebrews eat sheep, which is the object of worship of the Egyptians³¹)

— and from this it implies,

that Joseph's brothers ate then³²

the meat of sheep — with difficulty at any rate it is possible to say that in practice they did not eat,

and the Targum comes only to explain the conduct of the table-setters,

the reason for "and they set etc. and to the Egyptians etc. by themselves"

(that they did not sit to eat with the Hebrews),

and it does not speak about the actual eating of the tribes³³].

But still this does not resolve the conduct of Yosef — how was it permitted for him to place before them non-kosher meat,

is there not in this [a violation of] "before a blind person"?

5.

And therefore it seems to me that in the simple meaning of Scripture we do not find that also the tribes,

the sons of Yaakov,

observed the entire Torah in its entirety before it was given.

Regarding the Patriarchs, Rashi brings that they fulfilled the entire Torah,

and as it is said that Avraham fulfilled&lt;pg&gt;184&lt;/pg&gt;

even Rabbinic decrees&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;,

and likewise with Yaakov&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;

it says "and I have kept the 613 commandments"&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;

— but regarding the tribes, it is not mentioned in Rashi's commentary on the Torah anywhere&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;

that they were careful in observing the 613 commandments.

And on the contrary: Rashi brings in his commentary on the Torah³⁸

(the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda)

that "twin sisters were born with each and every tribe and they married them",

according to this opinion they were not careful regarding all 613 commandments since they married their sister³⁹

; and even according to the opinion of Rabbi Nechemya

(which Rashi brings as a second interpretation)

that the wives of the sons of Jacob "were Canaanites",

and elsewhere⁴⁰

it is explained that one of the reasons of Rabbi Nechemya who disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda is because he seeks the honor of Israel and it did not seem proper to him to say that the tribes were not careful regarding the prohibition of a sister — nevertheless,

it is not mentioned explicitly in Rashi's commentary that they were careful in keeping the entire Torah as a whole.

And although logic dictates,

that since Jacob kept all the 613 commandments like Abraham, certainly also he "commanded his sons and his household after him" to keep "the way of the Lord"⁴¹,

and the tribes kept the 613 commandments — perhaps one could say,

that this was only while they were in the house of Jacob

(in proximity to him)⁴².

That is: according to the simple explanation,

the definition that the Patriarchs fulfilled the entire Torah before it was given is a stringency that the Patriarchs accepted upon themselves

(as above),

and this does not obligate⁴³

the tribes

(and their descendants after them⁴⁴)

to conduct themselves like them.

And therefore Rashi did not mention this at all

(regarding the tribes).

And based on this it is simply resolved how Joseph prepared for them this slaughter that was not slaughtered according to law,

because Joseph thought that they were not careful about meat from an animal torn by a wild beast⁴⁵.

And especially according to Rashi's commentary above⁴⁶

that Joseph suspected his brothers of [eating] a limb from a living animal,

and if so, if he suspected them regarding what they were commanded,

all the more so that they are not careful regarding what they were not commanded.

6.

And behold, all this only answers the question of how the tribes ate from this slaughter

(and how Joseph prepared for them)

— but still the difficulty of the explanation of "slaughter slaughter and prepare" —

And we find many times in the Torah regarding the arrangement of meals,

and the details of the preparations for the meal were not specified,

as by Lot "and he made for them a feast<pg>185</pg>

Go. etc.⁴⁷,

and also after the birth of Yitzchak "And Avraham made a great feast"⁴⁸

and more.

[And it is not comparable to the lengthy account at the beginning of Parshat Vayeira⁴⁹

"And Avraham hastened etc. Hurry, three se'ahs of fine flour etc. And he took a calf etc. And he took butter etc." — because there the intent of the verse is to emphasize the greatness of Avraham Avinu's hospitality and his exertion in this,

and also that he gave them of the choicest etc.,

as Rashi explains there⁵⁰

"three calves etc. to feed them three tongues with mustard"].

And what is written regarding Jacob and Laban⁷

"And Jacob offered a sacrifice on the mountain and called to his brothers to eat bread"

(And in Rashi "And Jacob offered a sacrifice,

he slaughtered animals for a feast")

— And it was not said concisely "And Jacob called to his brothers to eat bread"

("Any food item is called bread".

Rashi there)

— It can be said simply,

that since Jacob observed all 613 commandments,

the verse needed to emphasize that Jacob slaughtered the animals,

for otherwise he would not eat from sacrifices that "his brothers" slaughtered

("his friends who were with Laban".

Rashi there).

At first glance it can be said that he needed this because otherwise they would not eat the meat due to concern for a limb from a living animal,

and therefore he said⁵¹

"And slaughter",

which is meat from severing the neck⁵².

But it is a bit difficult,

because the tribes also knew about the chief of the slaughterers of Pharaoh⁵³,

whose meaning is the chief of "slaughterers of the king's animals"⁵⁴,

and if so, certainly also by Joseph it was so,

that they slaughtered the animals

(and there was no meat from a living animal).

7.

And one can say the explanation of this:

In Joseph's conduct with his brothers,

we find contradictory things: it is said⁵⁵

"And he made himself strange to them and spoke harshly to them",

that the reason in simple sense for this conduct was⁵⁶

in order to test them if they regret selling him

(And as we find that through the speaking with them he brought them to this that they said "But we are guilty etc. and Reuben answered etc."⁵⁷)

;

But on the other hand we find that although initially Joseph imprisoned Simeon,

it was only "before their eyes,

and when they went out they brought out and fed and gave him drink"⁵⁸

(And certainly when they returned to Egypt Simeon told them all this),

and also now he brought them to his house to eat with him

(And when it entered their mind that this is only "to roll upon us and to fall upon us and to take us as slaves etc."⁵⁹,

the man who was over his house assured them that it is not so,

but rather "Peace to you"⁶⁰),

and Joseph himself ate with them,

until "they drank and became drunk with him"²⁸.

And it must be said that Yosef wanted that when he would be revealed to his brothers they would believe him,

and therefore he did several things so that afterwards it would become clear to them that all his actions were to hint to them that he is Yosef and he conducts himself with them as a brother.

&lt;pg&gt;186&lt;/pg&gt;

And this is also the reason that he said "and slaughter a slaughter and prepare",

that they prepare for them a special meal,

that this is a sign of extra affection.

And one may add further: In addition to the conduct in a manner of drawing close,

we find that Yosef did several things that his brothers would suspect that he knows who they are.

And like this that he seated them before him "the firstborn according to his birthright etc."⁶¹

(And he counted them according to the order of their generations,

according to Rashi's commentary)

until "and the men marveled, each to his brother"⁶¹.

And this is also the reason for the saying "and slaughter a slaughter and prepare",

that he emphasized the matter of "and slaughter": the matter of slaughtering as preparation for eating is an important conduct that has details that the shechitah should be proper,

unlike by a Ben Noach where there is no place to emphasize the slaughtering in itself,

because it is only a preparation for feeding it.

And this was the intention of Yosef in his saying "and slaughter a slaughter and prepare",

that he used such language to hint to them&lt;sup&gt;51&lt;/sup&gt;

that he knows of the custom in the house of Yaakov that there is need to warn especially about the manner of slaughtering the animal.

8.

And along the lines of mussar it can be said,

that in this itself that the verse emphasizes "and slaughter a slaughter and prepare" — that according to Rashi he prepared for his brothers meat of the trachea — it comes to teach us the desirable way in the effort of hospitality:

Hospitality properly is that the host toils with all his strength to provide for his guests all their needs.

And even if it is doubtful to him whether they will take their portion from all that he prepared for them — nevertheless he provides them all good generously.

And furthermore — that he should not mix his stringencies in his effort in hospitality,

if thereby their needs will be diminished^*61.

And furthermore: It is possible that his guests will be stringent upon themselves like him,

but it is not his role to force them regarding this, only to prepare a meal with abundance,

and the choice is in their hand whether to be stringent upon themselves and to what extent.

And through increase in love of Israel, one nullifies the cause of the exile⁶²,

and the true and complete redemption comes through our righteous Mashiach,

speedily in our days, literally.

(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Mikeitz 5728)