Parshas Mikeitz
1. At the beginning of the parsha, Rashi comments on the words "ויהי מקץ" ("And it came to pass at the end") and explains: "כתרגומו מסוף. וכל לשון קץ סוף הוא" ("As the Targum renders it: 'at the end.' And every usage of the word keitz means 'end'")1.
We need to understand:
a) Rashi explains only the word "mikeitz" — why then does he also copy the word "vayehi"?
b) What is so difficult about translating "mikeitz" as "at the end," that Rashi must not only explain the word but must also bring proofs for it? First he says "as the Targum renders it," meaning that the Targum too (Onkelos2, which is close to the plain meaning of Scripture) translates it this way3; and then he adds a second proof, from the fact that "every usage of the word keitz means 'end'"4. Seemingly his explanation is perfectly straightforward and needs no proofs at all?
c) The question is even stronger: the word "mikeitz" appears earlier in the Chumash as well — "ויהי מקץ ימים" ("And it came to pass at the end of days")5, "ויהי מקץ ארבעים יום" ("And it came to pass at the end of forty days")6, and "מקץ עשר שנים" ("at the end of ten years")7. If the word "mikeitz" requires explanation, Rashi should have explained it the first time it appears. Why does he wait to explain the word until our verse, and only here need to bring proofs for it8?
It must therefore be that although it is simple that in general the meaning of the word "mikeitz" is "at the end" — and for that reason Rashi indeed does not need to explain it in the earlier places where the word appears — in our verse, however, there is plainly a certain difficulty in how to translate it, and because of that one would seemingly have done better to learn "mikeitz" in our verse in a different way. Therefore Rashi must establish that in our verse too the meaning of "mikeitz" is the same as everywhere else, and he must also bring proofs for this.
But this itself needs to be understood: in what way is the word "mikeitz" in our verse different from the same word in the other places?
2. The explanation is as follows:
When the Torah says about a certain event that it came "mikeitz" (at the end of a set time) of an earlier event, this shows that the second occurrence came [not only after the first in time, but also] as a result of the first occurrence; that is, the first event brings about the second
[as can be seen in the term "mikeitz" in all of the verses mentioned above: "וקין היה עובד אדמה" ("And Kayin was a tiller of the ground") led to "ויבא קין מפרי האדמה מנחה לה׳" ("Kayin brought of the fruit of the ground an offering to G‑d"); "ויראו ראשי ההרים" ("The tops of the mountains became visible") brought about "ויפתח נח את חלון התבה" ("Noach opened the window of the ark"); and the fact that Avraham Avinu had been "עשר שנים בארץ כנען" ("ten years in the land of Canaan") was the cause of his taking Hagar9]
— which is why it says "mikeitz": the subsequent event is the keitz — the end and the outcome — of the preceding one.
In our verse, however, it seemingly cannot be said that the "keitz" and conclusion of the previously related matter is the fact that "ופרעה חולם גו׳" ("And Pharaoh dreamed…") and "וידבר שר המשקים גו׳" ("And the chief butler spoke…")10. On the contrary: since the preceding event ends with "ולא זכר שר המשקים את יוסף וישכחהו" ("Yet the chief butler did not remember Yosef, and he forgot him")11, this means that what happened with the chief butler had already come to a complete end earlier, and brought about no further consequences12 (except that after "And Pharaoh dreamed…", and he related his dream to all the magicians and wise men of Egypt, "ואין פותר אותם לפרעה" ("but there was none who could interpret them for Pharaoh"), this brought about "And the chief butler spoke…"13. But the matter itself did not lead to any further consequences).
Because of this, one would seemingly have had to learn that the meaning of "mikeitz" in our verse is not "at the end" [but rather "at the beginning," as will be explained below in section 3]. Therefore Rashi must explain, and must also bring proofs for it, that "mikeitz" in our verse too means "at the end."
Accordingly it is also understood why Rashi places his comment on the words "vayehi mikeitz" — although his explanation concerns only the word "mikeitz" — because the whole thing that compels the explanation of "mikeitz" in our verse is (not the word "mikeitz" itself, but) the difficulty in "vayehi mikeitz": the entire event of "And Pharaoh dreamed…" which then took place — "vayehi" — is seemingly not the "keitz" of the matter related earlier.
3. The Ibn Ezra [who also explains the plain meaning of Scripture] says14 that the word "keitz" can mean not only "end" but also "beginning." Accordingly, one could have learned that "מקץ שנתים ימים" ("at the end of two full years") means (not the end, but) the beginning of the "two full years"15. The meaning of the verse would then be: at the beginning of the two years came Pharaoh's dream; afterwards Pharaoh summoned Yosef, etc.; and after the two years the seven years of plenty and the seven years of famine began.
And although this interpretation is, of course, very forced (especially since the verse "וממהר האלקים לעשותו" ("and G‑d is hastening to do it")16 implies that the seven years of plenty began speedily — immediately after Pharaoh's dream), it is nevertheless smoother than learning that "mikeitz" here means "at the end," when "And Pharaoh dreamed…" is not the "keitz" and outcome of what is related earlier. That is why Rashi must bring a proof for his explanation that "mikeitz" here means "at the end."
4. But we still need to understand:
True, in our verse it is difficult to learn that "mikeitz" means "at the end." But since according to Rashi's view "every usage of the word keitz means 'end'," it automatically follows that one cannot say that "mikeitz" in our verse means "beginning," differently from "mikeitz" everywhere else. Why then does Rashi need to bring a proof from the Targum as well?
The explanation is as follows:
The reason that according to the Ibn Ezra the word "keitz" can mean "פעם ראש פעם סוף" ("sometimes the beginning, sometimes the end")17 is that he holds that the word "keitz" comes from katzeh, an edge. Therefore it can mean both "beginning" and "end," since both are "edges."
From this it is understood that even according to Rashi's view, that the word "keitz" means "end" everywhere, this is not a compelling proof18 that it cannot also mean "beginning." For one could say that the fact that "keitz" signifies "end" everywhere does not mean that the meaning of "keitz" is "end," but only that the end is an edge — and if so, it can also mean "beginning." Therefore Rashi needs to come to "as the Targum renders it"19.
5. From the matters of the "יינה של תורה" ("wine of the Torah") in Rashi's comment here:
In "ויהי מקץ שנתים ימים" there are two opposite matters:
a) On the one hand, it is the keitz — the end and conclusion — of the period when Yosef was in prison (Yosef's exile), which is the hardest and lowest time of Yosef's being in exile. This is along the lines of the well-known statement20 of my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe [the Previous Rebbe], regarding the time of ikvesa diMeshicha (the "footsteps of Moshiach"), that just before dawn the darkness is greater.
b) On the other hand, it is precisely at that time that the "keitz" and beginning of Yosef's redemption takes place21.
And because of these two matters, there are also two interpretations22 in Pnimiyus HaTorah (the inner dimension of the Torah): whether the "keitz" of our verse refers to the "קץ דשמאלא" ("the end of the left")23 or to the "קץ הימין" ("the end of the right")2425.
6. And Rashi alludes to this matter in his comment on "vayehi mikeitz":
As said above (sections 2–3), one can learn two interpretations of "mikeitz shnasayim yamim":
a) The beginning (and head26) of the "two full years" that come afterwards — meaning that at that point Yosef's redemption began. This corresponds to the inner interpretation — the "end of the right"27.
b) The end of the two full years that had come before — meaning that at that point was the end of the exile; and in the inner dimension — the "end of the left"28.
And Rashi alludes to this as well by saying "as the Targum renders it: 'at the end'" — because the Targum (the Aramaic language) alludes29 to the matter of exile.
7. Rashi alludes to one more matter in his comment:
Since all the interpretations of one and the same verse are connected with one another30, it is understood that the two interpretations mentioned (although they are two opposites) are connected with each other:
Through the birur (refinement) and elevation of the sparks of holiness that are found in the "end of the left," one arrives at the "end of the right"31.
And Rashi alludes to this at the close of his comment, "and every usage of the word keitz means 'end'": within the "end" there is "every usage of keitz" [which also includes the concept of "beginning," as in the Ibn Ezra's interpretation (for "אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים" ("these and these are the words of the living G‑d")32)] — up to the "end of the right" stated at the end of Daniel. For through the "end," through the refinement of the "end of the left," we will come to the "end of the right," in the future Redemption through Moshiach Tzidkeinu — may he come and redeem us very soon indeed.
(From the sichah of Shabbos Parshas Mikeitz, 5728)
Notes
1) This is the reading in most printings, and so it is cited in the Levush here.
2) Therefore, when Rashi brings proofs for his interpretation from the Targum, it is from Targum Onkelos.
3) For this proof alone is not sufficient, since in many places Rashi interprets not according to the Targum — beginning with Rashi's comment on the verse "Bereishis." (And even in the places where Rashi writes "as the Targum renders it," that is because even without this Rashi finds it reasonable that this is the meaning of the verse; but nevertheless, because of a difficulty in the interpretation (and the like), he brings an additional proof from the Targum.)
4) Also: since "every usage of keitz means 'end'," this is seemingly a powerful proof that, on the contrary, it is impossible to interpret the word "mikeitz" in any other way — so why does Rashi need to prove it from the Targum?
5) Bereishis 4:3.
6) Noach 8:6.
7) Lech Lecha 16:3.
8) The Gur Aryeh here says that Rashi comes to explain that the word "keitz" means "end" and not "edge" [and his proof of this from "every usage of keitz means 'end'" is: "If it meant 'edge,' it would also be found referring to the beginning" (since the "beginning" too is an "edge" — as below, section 4)]. Therefore Rashi does not explain this in the earlier verses — because there it makes no difference whether it means "edge" or "end." Here, however, if "mikeitz" meant "edge" — an edge is part of the thing, meaning that the thing has not been completed (as in "ועשה כרוב אחד מקצה מזה" ("make one cherub at the end on one side"), which means: on the Kapores itself, at its edge) — then "And Pharaoh dreamed…" would mean before the two years were completed, "and this cannot be, etc." Therefore Rashi explains "as the Targum renders it: 'at the end'" — that this was at the end of the two years.* But this is not understood: a) In many places Rashi explains the meaning of a word even when the plain meaning does not change through it [see Rashi on Bereishis 2:5 (even though there too the plain meaning of "terem" is like "ad lo," etc.); Vayeitzei 30:8 (even though there too, regarding "a crooked expression," Rashi concludes [OCR unclear]); and elsewhere]. If so, Rashi should have explained the word "keitz" the first time. b) In "at the end of ten years…" there is also a practical difference in substance, since it bears on law — the time at which one is obligated to marry another wife (see Rashi there). c) In Yirmiyahu 34:14: "At the end of seven years you shall release each man his Hebrew brother…" And according to the plain meaning** one must seemingly explain that the intent is the beginning of the seventh year (as it explains there: "and he has served you six years"). From this it is proven that Rashi's intent in "every usage of keitz means 'end'" includes also something that has not been completed (and see Ramban on the verse "at the end of seven years" (Re'eh 15:1), that the entire seventh year, even its beginning, is the end of the count). Accordingly, from "every usage, etc." there is no proof that "at the end of two full years" means after the two years were completed.
*) See along these lines the Levush here, that Rashi's intent is that we should not say that "mikeitz shnasayim yamim" means the beginning of the second year. And note the Rashbam here (who also explains according to the plain meaning — see his commentary at the beginning of Parshas Vayeishev), that "'mikeitz shnasayim' without the word 'yamim' would imply at the end of a year and one day."
**) As opposed to the halachic approach — see Arachin 33, beginning of side a. And note the Sifri (Re'eh 15:1): "'At the end of seven years' — one might think from the beginning of the year" — from which it is proven that even in the halachic approach, the word "mikeitz" (were it not for the gezeirah shavah) applies even to something that has not been completed (and see Ramban cited above). But in the Gemara (Arachin 28b) they said simply: "Shemittah [cancels debts] at its end, as it is written 'at the end of seven years.'" Accordingly the question of the Gemara there, 33a, is understood.
9) See Rashi, Lech Lecha there.
10) Our parsha, 41:9 ff.
11) End of Parshas Vayeishev.
12) In Rashi there: "he was required to be imprisoned for two years." Accordingly one could seemingly interpret "mikeitz shnasayim yamim" as: when the two years decreed for Yosef to be imprisoned were completed (like "at the end of four hundred and thirty years" in Parshas Bo, 12:41 — see Rashi there, verse 40). But since the verse does not mention at all how long he was required to be imprisoned — then [in addition to the fact that by the plain sense of the verse "And Pharaoh dreamed…" is not the "keitz" of the event preceding it, which is why Rashi needed to establish that nevertheless "mikeitz" in this verse too means "at the end" (and not "at the beginning")], even after Rashi establishes this, from which it is understood that Yosef was required to be imprisoned for two years* — since the entire source for the period of the decree is in this verse itself and it is not mentioned in the preceding verses, it is impossible to interpret "mikeitz" here as the conclusion and completion of some matter, referring to the completion of the period of the decree, since the verse does not mention this decree at all (unlike in Parshas Bo there). Therefore Rashi explains that "mikeitz" here means "at the end" — and it is not a conclusion and outcome of what preceded it (see below, note 19).
*) As for Rashi writing "two years" in the preceding verse — it is understood that his explanation there is based on what is stated explicitly in the verse that follows it: mikeitz — at the end. And see the Levush here: "Rashi intended here to complete his explanation at the end of Parshas Vayeishev."
13) Our parsha, 41:8–9. And even then he said "a Hebrew lad, a slave" (ibid., verse 12; and see Rashi there).
14) Shelach 13:25; Re'eh 15:1; Vayeilech 31:10; Tehillim 119:96. And see also Maharsha, Niddah 58b.
15) Like "at the end of forty days" in Parshas Shelach there, that "it may be the beginning of the forty" (Ibn Ezra, Shelach there). And it can be said that according to this, the meaning of "and they returned" is that they began to return from Eretz Yisrael at the beginning of the forty days. His intent in this is to answer Rashi's question there. This is not the place to elaborate.
16) Our parsha, 41:32.
17) Ibn Ezra, Tehillim there.
18) But from this too there is a proof that "keitz" does not mean "edge," because if it meant "edge" it would also be found referring to the beginning (as the Gur Aryeh writes here, cited above in note 8). Nevertheless this is not a compelling proof, and therefore Rashi needed to bring a proof from "as the Targum renders it." And see the next note.
19) Except that this proof by itself is not sufficient — for although Onkelos generally translates the verses according to their plain meaning, in many places Rashi interprets differently from the Targum (as above, note 3). Therefore he brings a proof from "every usage of keitz," from which it is proven (although it is not a compelling proof) that "keitz" does not mean "edge," as in the previous note. It can also be said that with "every usage of keitz means 'end'," Rashi also comes to explain that the term "mikeitz" applies even to something that is not the outcome of what was mentioned before it. For according to the interpretation that "keitz" means "edge," it is reasonable to say that "mikeitz" refers to the completion and conclusion of the matter before it; whereas according to the interpretation that "keitz" means "end," the term "end" applies even when the "end" is outside the thing (see Ramban, Re'eh there).
20) Likkutei Dibburim vol. 1, 68a–b. And see also the letter for 12–13 Tammuz 5725 (Likkutei Sichos vol. 23, p. 435).
21) See Bereishis Rabbah here. And see Or HaTorah on our parsha (vol. 2), 340a.
22) Both are cited and explained in Or HaTorah (ibid.), at the beginning of our parsha.
23) Zohar on our parsha, 193b; 194a.
24) The wording of the verse at the end of Daniel. And see Zohar I, 54, end of side a; 62b; and elsewhere.
25) Likkutei Torah of the Arizal on the verse.
26) The wording of the Ibn Ezra on Tehillim there (and see also his commentary on Parshas Shelach there); and see the next note.
27) And although the "end of the right" too is the level of Malchus of Atzilus, which is called "acharis" (the latter end) and "end" — nevertheless "in holiness, even the end is the level of a head," which is why "acharis (together with the kollel) is numerically equal to Kesser" (Or HaTorah there).
28) Note that the Zohar there, 193b, explains that "mikeitz" is "a place in which there is no remembrance," and "shnasayim yamim" — "that returns from level to level in which there is remembrance." Accordingly, according to the Zohar — the "end of the left" — "mikeitz" does not extend into the "two full years," unlike according to the interpretation of the Arizal — the "end of the right." In this too these two interpretations correspond to the two interpretations of "mikeitz" in the plain meaning: for according to the interpretation that "mikeitz" means "from the beginning," "mikeitz" is the beginning and edge of the two full years; whereas according to the interpretation "at the end," "vayehi mikeitz" is not the completion (and outcome) of the "two full years" before it, as above, section 2.
29) For the translation of the Torah into Aramaic came about because in the time of exile not everyone understood the Holy Tongue. And note Torah Or [?] 97d; 98, beginning of column c.
30) See at length Likkutei Sichos vol. 3, p. 782.
31) See also Or HaTorah there [on the saying of our Sages (Shabbos 21b), "until the foot ceases from the marketplace"]: "to elevate the aspect of the left foot that is enclothed in the end of the left, and then there will be the end of the right" (except that in Or HaTorah there this is explained according to the interpretation of the Arizal, and is not connected with the interpretation of the Zohar).
32) Eruvin 13b, and the sources cited there. And this rule applies also to "everything that a seasoned student will innovate in the future (for it) was given to Moshe at Sinai" (cited in Likkutei Sichos vol. 4, p. 1088).
Key Lesson
The darkest moment of exile — the very "end" of Yosef's imprisonment — is itself the beginning of redemption. By refining the sparks of holiness hidden within the "end of the left," the lowest point of exile, we bring about the "end of the right," the true and complete Redemption through Moshiach.