Parshas Mikeitz — 2
1. On the verse "ויקראו לפניו אברך" ("And they called out before him, Avrech"),1 Rashi pauses on the word "Avrech" and explains: "כתרגומו דין אבא למלכא" ("As the Targum renders it: this one is a father to the king"). That is, the meaning of Avrech is as the Targum translates it, "a father to the king" (a companion and patron of the king2). For "Avrech" is composed of two words, "av" and "rach," and "רך בלשון ארמי מלך" ("rach in the Aramaic language means king").3
The question then arises: The Targum is itself in Aramaic, and right here the Targum says [as Rashi himself quotes it] "a father lemalka" (and not "a father lerecha"). We see, then, that in Aramaic too a king is called "malka" and not "recha"! Therefore,4 Rashi continues and adds: "בהשותפין לא ריכא ולא בר ריכא" ("In Perek HaShutafin: neither a king [reicha] nor the son of a king"). In other words, in Perek HaShutafin5 the Gemara, which is written in Aramaic, calls a king by the name "reicha." (And the fact that the Targum says "lemalka" is because in Aramaic itself there are two names for a king,6 "malka" and "reicha.")
Rashi then continues: "ובדברי אגדה" ("And in the words of Aggadah"). In the words of Aggadah7 as well there are explanations of Avrech. One explanation is "דרש ר' יהודה" ("Rabbi Yehudah expounded"), that Rabbi Yehudah expounds: "אברך זה יוסף שהוא אב בחכמה ורך בשנים" ("Avrech: this is Yosef, who is a father in wisdom and tender in years"). That is, the meaning of "Avrech" [which is composed of the words "av" and "rach" (just as according to the explanation "as the Targum renders it")] is "av," a father, in wisdom, and "rach," tender and young, in years.
A second explanation is: "אמר לו ר' יוסי בן דורמסקית" ("Rabbi Yosi ben Durmaskis said to him"). Rabbi Yosi said to Rabbi Yehudah:8 "עד מתי אתה מעוות עלינו את הכתובים, אין אברך אלא לשון ברכים,9 שהכל היו נכנסין לפניו ויוצאין תחת ידו כענין שנאמר ונתון אותו וגו'" ("How long will you distort the verses for us? Avrech is nothing but an expression of knees, for all would come in before him and go out under his authority, in the manner of what is said, 'And he placed him,' etc."). The one and only meaning of Avrech is simply an expression of knees [and the explanation "a father in wisdom and tender in years" is a distortion of the verses]. Therefore they proclaimed "Avrech" before Yosef, because all were subordinate to him, as it says, "And he placed him [over all the land of Egypt]." Consequently they proclaimed: he makes people kneel (or: I will kneel) before him.10
Here, in Rashi, the following is not understood:
a) Why does Rashi accept that the explanation "a father in wisdom and tender in years" is a distortion of the verses? As regards Rabbi Yosi's having said "How long will you distort the verses for us," one could still somehow explain that he holds that one cannot, on one's own, say of a single word of Torah that it is composed of two words.11 But in Rashi12 this cannot be said, for if so, the explanation "this one is a father to the king" would also be a distortion of the verses. Since Rashi raises no such question on that explanation, it follows that he accepts that one may indeed explain a single word as composed of two.13 Why, then, does he say of the explanation "a father in wisdom and tender in years" that it is a distortion of the verses?
b) When Rashi states (in the explanation of Avrech as an expression of knees) that "all would come in before him and go out under his authority," he brings a proof for this from a verse: "in the manner of what is said, 'And he placed him,' etc."14 This is not understood: In the explanation "a father in wisdom and tender in years," Rashi does not bring a proof from the verses "אין נבון וחכם כמוך" ("There is none as understanding and wise as you") and "ויוסף בן שלשים שנה בעמדו לפני פרעה" ("And Yosef was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh").15 Why, then, for "all would come in before him," etc., must he bring a proof?
The question is even greater: "And he placed him over all the land of Egypt" appears right in the same verse as the word "Avrech" that Rashi is explaining. Now, if Rashi need not bring the verses "There is none as understanding and wise as you" and "And Yosef was thirty years old," etc., because he relies on the student to remember what he learned a few verses earlier, or to know it when he learns it a few verses later, then all the more will the student know the words "And he placed him," etc., which stand right in the same verse. So why must Rashi bring them?
c) According to the plain understanding that Rashi wishes to bring a proof from the verse "And he placed him," etc., he should have written "שנאמר" ("as it is said"). Why does he write "כענין שנאמר" ("in the manner of what is said")?14
d) As has been discussed many times, Rashi does not mention the name of the author of a statement unless it adds some further explanation and understanding to the matter he is bringing. We must therefore understand: what further understanding is added to the explanations "a father in wisdom," etc., and "an expression of knees," etc., by knowing that Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Yosi said these explanations?
2. In addition to the above questions, there are many further difficulties regarding the advantage found in each explanation individually:
a) It has already been discussed many times that wherever Rashi brings two explanations, it is because each of the explanations has a certain difficulty that is not found in the other. (And where Rashi brings more than two explanations, it is because every two of the explanations share the same difficulty (or at least a similar one), which is not found in the third explanation.)
This is so even when both explanations are the plain meaning of the verse. All the more so when one of the explanations is not the plain meaning, as in our Rashi, where the other two explanations are [as Rashi himself says] words of Aggadah. It must be that in the explanation that is the plain meaning
[which in our Rashi is the explanation "this one is a father to the king"; for although Rashi's phrase "as the Targum renders it" implies that it is not the actual plain explanation, it is obvious that relative to words of Aggadah it is the plain meaning]
there is a strong difficulty,16 so much so that one must resort to "words of Aggadah" (or "its Midrash," and the like), where this difficulty does not exist.
We must understand: What is difficult about the explanation "this one is a father to the king," and so difficult that Rashi finds it necessary to bring explanations from words of Aggadah?
One cannot say that what troubles Rashi in the first explanation is that the verse uses Aramaic, for we find in several places (including in our own parsha17) that the verse uses Aramaic words and the like.
b) The explanations Rashi brings from words of Aggadah both seem to be quite smooth explanations. They both also have the advantage that according to them no other language is mixed in: the word "rach," meaning young, already appears in an earlier parsha, "הילדים רכים" ("the children are tender")18 (and it goes without saying that the word "av" is a pure Hebrew word that appears many times in the Torah). The explanation of Avrech as an expression of knees is also already found in an earlier verse: "ויברך הגמלים" ("and he made the camels kneel"),19 which Rashi translates as "הרביצן", he made them kneel. Why, then, are both explanations "words of Aggadah"?
c) We must say that within the two explanations of "words of Aggadah" themselves, each has a difficulty [and one that is considered a difficulty even in "words of Aggadah"] that is not found in the other, and therefore Rashi brings both explanations, because of the advantage in each of them. And although both explanations are difficult, the explanation "a father in wisdom and tender in years" is nevertheless the smoother, and therefore Rashi places it first, as the first and principal explanation (among the words of Aggadah). We must understand: What is difficult in both explanations, and in what way is the difficulty in the explanation "an expression of knees" greater than the difficulty in the explanation "a father in wisdom," etc.?
d) The question is even greater: On the explanation "a father in wisdom," etc., Rashi says14 "Rabbi Yehudah expounded," meaning that it is merely a homiletical exposition. That is, it is further from the plain meaning than Rabbi Yosi's explanation, even though that too is words of Aggadah. Rashi also brings Rabbi Yosi's words about this explanation, that it is a distortion of the verses. And nevertheless he places it before the explanation of Avrech as an expression of knees. Seemingly, Rashi contradicts himself: on the one hand he accepts that the explanation "a father in wisdom," etc., is merely a homiletical exposition and a distortion of the verses, and at the same time he accepts that this explanation is smoother than the explanation of Avrech as an expression of knees?
3. The explanation of this is:
The verse "And they called out before him, Avrech" speaks of the Egyptians, that they proclaimed "Avrech" before Yosef. Since they spoke in the Egyptian language, it is self-evident that they did not say the word Avrech, which is Aramaic (according to Rashi's first explanation) or the Holy Tongue (according to the other explanations). Rather, they said the content of the word Avrech in their own language, Egyptian, and the verse relates the story in its own language.
It is therefore difficult to explain that the verse uses Aramaic here. True, the Torah sometimes also uses Aramaic, but that is only when the verse itself says a certain matter (or when the verse relates how an Aramean said something in his own language, as for example "ויקרא לו לבן יגר שהדותא" ("And Lavan called it Yegar Sahadusa")). But that the verse should translate from Egyptian into Aramaic makes no sense. In such a case it would be fitting for the verse to translate the words of the Egyptians into the Holy Tongue,20 or to relate it as the Egyptians said it, in their own language.
It is this difficulty that compels Rashi to bring further explanations of "Avrech," even though they are words of Aggadah. But since these explanations are also difficult, and their difficulty is much greater (so much so that they are words of Aggadah), Rashi takes the explanation "this one is a father to the king" as the first and principal explanation.
4. The difficulties in the explanation "a father in wisdom and tender in years" are of two kinds: a) The wording "Avrech" is difficult. For this reason Rabbi Yosi holds that this explanation is a distortion of the verses, as is evident from his next words (which follow from "How long will you distort the verses for us"): "Avrech is nothing but an expression of knees." b) The content of the verse and the parsha, because of which Rashi writes of this explanation that it is words of Aggadah. Rabbi Yehudah too takes this explanation as an exposition [as the wording "Rabbi Yehudah expounded" implies, that Rabbi Yehudah himself said it by way of exposition], because of the difficulty in the content of the matter in the verse.21
The difficulty in the wording Avrech: The expression "rach" fits someone quite young, a child (for his bones are soft, and so on). So, for example, in "the children are tender," there it is a reason why they cannot walk quickly. One cannot say, then, that Yosef should be called "rach" because of his years when he was already thirty years old at the time (for "בן שלשים לכח" ("thirty is the age of strength"),22 and at twenty one already goes out with the army.23 And especially among the sons of Yaakov, at thirteen already "ויקחו איש חרבו" ("each man took his sword"), etc.24).
We must therefore explain that the title "tender in years" for Yosef is relative to his wisdom. The title "rach" (in years) comes in connection with, and in relation to, the title "av" (in wisdom), which is why both titles were placed in the same word. Relative to his wisdom, that is, he was still quite young,25 like a "rach," a young child whose bones are still soft.26
It is understood, however, that this explanation is far from smooth, for in order to express the great wonder of Yosef's wisdom, that while still young he was already an outstanding sage, one would not call him by the name "rach" when he was already thirty years old and no "rach."
The difficulty in the content of the verse and the parsha: The verses are speaking of Yosef becoming viceroy to the king: "And Pharaoh removed his signet ring from his hand and placed it on Yosef's hand," a sign that he was making him second to him in greatness; "and he dressed him in garments of fine linen, and placed the gold chain on his neck, and had him ride in his second chariot." After "And they called out before him, Avrech" as well, the verse speaks of Yosef's role in the kingship: "And he placed him over all the land of Egypt," and "without you no man shall lift his hand or his foot," etc. From this it is understood that "And they called out before him, Avrech," placed in the middle, also relates to the matter of kingship [especially since "they called out" took place while Yosef was riding in the second chariot]. The difficulty consequently arises according to the explanation of Avrech as "a father in wisdom," etc.: wisdom and kingship are two separate matters (it is true that Yosef came to his greatness because "there is none as understanding and wise as you," but that is merely a cause that brought him to his greatness). What connection, then, does the praise "Avrech: a father in wisdom," etc., have to the matter of kingship?
Therefore Rashi brings another explanation, that "Avrech" is an expression of knees. According to this explanation the wording Avrech is fine, and it also fits the content of the verse, for the fact that "all would come in before him and go out under his authority," and especially that "Avrech is an expression of knees," that people knelt before him, follows well from Yosef's greatness as viceroy to the king.
5. The difficulty in the explanation of Avrech as an expression of knees is understood from Rashi's own words, when he concludes "in the manner of what is said, 'And he placed him,' etc." With these words Rashi addresses the difficulty in this explanation.
On the verse "רק הכסא אגדל ממך" ("Only by the throne will I be greater than you"),27 Rashi explains: "שיהיו קורין לי מלך" ("that they will call me king"). That is, the only difference28 between Pharaoh and Yosef was only (in the verse's word, "only") that Yosef was not called king.29 The question then arises: Why did they proclaim "Avrech" (an expression of knees) before Yosef, which means that "all would come in before him and go out under his authority," or also that people knelt before him? Before a king one prostrates with outstretched arms and legs (as indeed it says later30 regarding Yosef: "וישתחוו לו אפים ארצה" ("And they prostrated themselves to him, faces to the ground")), and does not merely bow on one's knees. So why did they praise Yosef only with the title "Avrech," which at most means that they knelt before him?
Therefore Rashi says "in the manner of what is said, 'And he placed him,' etc.," meaning by this that Yosef's greatness was only by virtue of "And he placed him": Pharaoh had appointed him, and he did not have it on his own account.31 Therefore his greatness was not like the greatness of the king; he was only "Avrech."
[And this is no contradiction to what is written later, "And they prostrated themselves to him, faces to the ground," for that speaks of the tribes, who came from the land of Canaan many years after "they called out," etc., and "he placed him," etc. Seeing how Yosef was running all of Egypt, they appraised his greatness as "כמוך כפרעה" ("you are like Pharaoh"), "you are as important in my eyes as a king."32 Therefore: "And they prostrated themselves to him, faces to the ground."]
But even after Rashi's qualification, "in the manner of what is said, 'And he placed him,' etc.," the above difficulty still remains. From the wording of the verse, "Only by the throne will I be greater than you," it appears clear that the only difference between Pharaoh and Yosef was only that Yosef was not called king.
Therefore Rashi returns to the earlier explanations: that Avrech means "a father to the king" (and they praised him with the greatest praise, for he was indeed not called "king," as above, and consequently his greatest praise was "a father to the king"), or that "Avrech" means "a father in wisdom and tender in years," which is praise of his wisdom.33
6. The difference between the difficulty in the first explanation and the difficulties in the other two explanations: In the explanation "this one is a father to the king," only a side matter is difficult (that the verse translates from Egyptian into Aramaic), but the content of the verse itself, "And they called out before him, Avrech," is not difficult. By contrast, according to the other two explanations the content of the verse is difficult: according to the explanation "a father in wisdom and tender in years," that they praised him with wisdom and not with kingship; and according to the explanation of an expression of knees, that they praised him with too small a praise.
Therefore Rashi says of the other two explanations that they are "in the words of Aggadah." By contrast, on the first explanation Rashi does not say "our Rabbis expounded," even though that explanation too is built on a Gemara,5 because despite the fact that this explanation too is not entirely smooth, it is nevertheless the plain meaning of the verse.
Between the two explanations themselves (which are words of Aggadah), the difficulty in the explanation "a father in wisdom and tender in years" is not equal to the difficulty in the explanation "an expression of knees." According to the explanation "a father in wisdom and tender in years," what is difficult (relative to the explanation "an expression of knees") is only the wording of the verse34 (that it calls Yosef, when he was already thirty years old, by the expression "rach"). By contrast, according to the explanation "an expression of knees," the entire content of the verse is difficult: why did they praise him as "Avrech" when he was much greater than that? And the difficulty is even greater: relative to Yosef's greatness, "Avrech, an expression of knees," is no virtue at all, and consequently it is actually a disgrace for him.35 Therefore Rashi places the explanation "a father in wisdom," etc., before the explanation "an expression of knees."
7. Rashi himself indicates the particular advantage in each of the two explanations (among the words of Aggadah) by bringing the names of the authors of the statements, Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Yosi.
When Rashi brings a dispute between two Tannaim or two Amoraim and brings the names of the disputants (not as he writes in most places, "some say … and some say," and the like), he thereby indicates the reason of the disputants:36 that the reason one Tanna learns this explanation and the other Tanna the other explanation is that each follows his own approach. According to the approach of this Tanna his explanation is better, and according to the approach of the second Tanna the other explanation is better.
And therefore Rashi brings the names of the Tannaim and Amoraim (although he does not set out to explain the reason of the Tannaim and Amoraim, for his concern is only to explain the plain meaning of the verses), because in this way he consequently hints at the advantage of each individual explanation: that the advantage in each of the explanations accords with the approach of the Tanna who said that explanation.
So it is in our Rashi too: by indicating the names of the authors of the statements with the explanations, he makes clear that the advantage in the explanation "a father in wisdom," etc., accords with the approach of Rabbi Yehudah, and the advantage in the explanation "an expression of knees" accords with the approach of Rabbi Yosi.
8. In the Sifri, from which Rashi quotes the dispute between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Yosi, there are further disputes between these two Tannaim. In those disputes too Rabbi Yosi argues to Rabbi Yehudah: "למה אתה מעוות עלינו את הכתובים" ("Why do you distort the verses for us?"). From this it is clear that in all three disputes each one, both Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Yosi, follows his own consistent approach:
Rabbi Yehudah does not dwell so much on the individual word. He looks more, and principally, at the general matter: if the explanation fits the general matter, he reads it into the verse, even though it does not fit the individual word so strongly. (For example, "ודי זהב" ("and Di Zahav"), which Rabbi Yehudah explains (in the Sifri there) as referring to the Golden Calf, and "חדרך" ("Chadrach"), as referring to Moshiach, because that is how it fits the general content of the verse, even though on the basis of the words themselves it would be better to say that they are names of places.) And Rabbi Yosi argues: "Why do you distort the verses for us?" Such explanations are a distortion of the verses, because from the words themselves it appears that "they are places." (This is similar to the disputes between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Nechemiah, where Rabbi Yehudah consistently dwells on the general matter and Rabbi Nechemiah on the detail, as has been discussed in several examples of this.)
So too regarding the explanation of "Avrech": Rabbi Yehudah learns that it means "a father in wisdom," etc., so that the content of the matter should fit better (and although the content of the matter is not so smooth according to this explanation either, which is why Rabbi Yehudah takes this explanation as an "exposition" (as above, section 4), it is still better than the explanation "an expression of knees"37). And Rabbi Yosi learns that it means "an expression of knees," so that the translation of the word should fit better.38
9. Rashi's commentary also contains "the wine of Torah,"39 and especially the "words of Aggadah" that are brought in Rashi, since in Aggadah most of the secrets of the Torah are concealed.40 Thus in the two explanations from words of Aggadah that Rashi brings [according to the approach of Rabbi Yehudah, who looks principally at the general matter, it emerges that they prostrated themselves to Yosef with outstretched arms and legs, because "only by the throne will I be greater than you," as above; according to the approach of Rabbi Yosi, who looks principally at the individual word, it emerges that they merely bowed to him] a matter of the inner dimension of the Torah is alluded to.
The difference between bowing and prostration is that prostration is bittul bemetzius (self-nullification in one's very existence), and bowing is bittul hayesh (nullification of one's sense of self).41 And this is the substance of the dispute: what level of self-nullification did Yosef draw down in Egypt? By virtue of Yosef's level (for he was a soul of Atzilus, above the tribes42), he could bring about bittul bemetzius. The question, however, is whether this drawing down from Yosef, the supernal tzaddik, could be received by the people of Egypt, "the nakedness of the land," so that they too would reach bittul bemetzius. (Therefore, according to Rabbi Yosi's approach as well, that they merely bowed to Yosef, it is a simple matter, explicit in the verse, that the tribes prostrated themselves before him, faces to the ground. The question is only regarding Egypt.)
Therefore Rabbi Yehudah, who looks principally at the general, that is, at the level of the giver, speaks of the matter as it was drawn down from Yosef's side. Rabbi Yosi, however, who looks principally at the details, at how the drawing down is contracted and divided into details until it can be grasped by the recipient, speaks of the matter as it was received by the Egyptians, and as they took it in, it was only bittul hayesh.43
10. Another matter: According to the view that they prostrated themselves to him, the meaning of Avrech is "a father in wisdom and tender in years." (And the main point is "a father in wisdom," for "tender in years" comes only to bring out the wonder of his wisdom, as above, section 4.) And according to the view that they merely bowed to him, the meaning of Avrech is an expression of knees.
This too alludes to a matter of the inner dimension of the Torah: From the level of Chochmah, Abba, where it is sensed that "הוא לבדו הוא ואין זולתו" ("He alone is, and there is nothing besides Him"),44 bittul bemetzius results. And from the knees, the level of Netzach, Hod and Yesod, comes bittul hayesh.45
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Mikeitz 5727)
Notes
1) Mikeitz 41:43.
2) As Rashi explains on the verse (Vayigash 45:8), "and He made me a father to Pharaoh." See also Rashi, s.v. abba, Shabbos 53a.
3) And not as in the Holy Tongue; and regarding what is written (II Shmuel 3:39), "And I am today tender [rach] and anointed king," Rashi there explains: a commoner. The other commentators on Tanach there likewise explain so. And in the Talmud too (Bava Basra 4a) it is not obvious that "rach" in II Shmuel there means king, which is why it needed to add "and if you wish, say like Rabbi …"
4) Likewise, wherever Rashi cites "the Aramaic language" and not the Targum, it is for some reason. This is also evident from Rashi in our parsha, 43:20. See there.
5) Bava Basra 4a.
6) This is especially appreciated in light of Rashi earlier, that in the Holy Tongue too there are several names for a king, also nasi and katzin (14:17).
7) It is in the Sifri, beginning of Devarim; Yalkut Shimoni there, remez 792.
8) So it is in manuscripts and in accurate printed editions.
9) In the Sifri before us: "Avrech is nothing but lebirkayim [to the knees]." But in the Yalkut there (and some emend the Sifri there this way as well) the reading is "an expression of knees," as in Rashi.
Another difference between Rashi's wording and the wording of the Sifri: In the Sifri: "Why do you distort" (and not "How long"). It is possible that (a) Rashi's reading in the Sifri is "How long." (But this is forced, since the wording there just before is "Why." It therefore stands to reason that) (b) Rashi changes the wording of the Sifri (as we find in many places, where Rashi in his commentary on the Torah changes the wording of our Sages in order to make the explanation fit the plain meaning of the verses). See below, note 38.
10) Some commentators explain that "for all would come in," etc., is the explanation of "Avrech," and they read "Avrech: eparchos" and the like (see the references in Torah Sheleimah here). But according to the reading "an expression of knees," one must explain as in the text. So too in the commentary of Rabbeinu Hillel on the Sifri there. See also Ibn Ezra and Sforno here.
11) Unlike "Gal'ed" (Vayeitzei 31:46 [as printed]) and the like, which the verse itself explains, so that it is not a "distortion of the verse." One may further say that Rabbi Yosi's intent in "Why do you distort," etc., is also as below in the text, section 4.
12) For the fact that Rashi quotes this in his commentary shows that Rashi holds that this applies also according to the approach of the commentary on the Torah.
13) Likewise the word "shamayim" is composed of two words, as in Rashi on Bereishis 1:8. And elsewhere.
14) Although this is also in the Sifri, nevertheless (besides the fact that the words of the Sifri also require explanation), as has been said several times, everything that Rashi writes in his commentary on the Torah (even when he quotes the words of our Sages) is part of Rashi's explanation, the plain meaning of the verse.
15) Our parsha, 41:39; ibid., 46.
16) And sometimes the difficulty in the plain explanation is so severe that Rashi places "its Midrash" before "its plain meaning."
17) 41:8; ibid., 23; 43:20 [the OCR reads "מא, ח. שם, כג מג. כ."].
18) Vayishlach 33:13.
19) Chayei Sarah 24:11.
20) See Ibn Ezra on Shemos (2:17).
21) One cannot say that "Rabbi Yehudah expounded" is on account of the precise wording of Avrech, for according to Rabbi Yehudah the plain meaning is that the content of the matter overrides the precise wording of the verse on the spot (as below, section 8).
22) Avos 5:22.
23) Note Rashi on Shemos (30:12).
24) Bereishis 34:25; and according to Rashi at the end of Toldos.
25) For only at forty is one fit for understanding (Avos there).
26) In a lighter vein, one may note the connection between "av" and bones, [OCR unclear] (31:1). Biurei HaZohar on Zohar III, beginning of Shoftim.
27) Our parsha, 41:40.
28) In the matter of kingship over Egypt; although as regards Pharaoh and Yosef themselves, Pharaoh was greater than he and ruled over him (like "king of kings"), which is why Yosef had to ask Pharaoh's permission to go up and bury his father (Vayechi 50:4–5).
29) But not that anything was lacking for him in the matter of kingship itself. See Rashi, Vayechi 47:31: "for Yosef is a king."
30) Our parsha, 42:6; 43:26.
31) This also resolves why Rashi brings only the words "And he placed him" (and alludes to the end of the verse only with "etc."). For according to the explanation that Rashi's intent is to bring a proof that "all would come in before him," etc., he would have needed to bring also the words "over all the land of Egypt." For Rashi's intent is to emphasize that Yosef's being "over all the land of Egypt," the matter alluded to by "etc.," was only by virtue of "And he placed him."
32) Vayigash 44:18 and Rashi there.
33) The reason Rashi needs all three explanations and is not satisfied with two of them is that every two explanations share a common aspect that is not smooth:
In the explanations "this one is a father to the king" and "a father in wisdom and tender in years," the word Avrech is difficult in both (in "this one is a father to the king," why is it written in Aramaic; and in "a father in wisdom and tender in years," that someone of [such] years is not called "rach").
In the explanations "a father in wisdom," etc., and "an expression of knees," the content of the verse is difficult in both, namely the virtue for which they praised Yosef (for it has no bearing on the matter of kingship, or it is relatively small praise), which is why both are words of Aggadah.
In the explanations "this one is a father to the king" and "an expression of knees": the calling out of "Avrech" took place when he was riding in the second chariot, which shows that he was viceroy to the king. Consequently it is difficult: What did the call of "Avrech" add, since the riding itself shows that he was viceroy to the king? (And all the more so according to the explanation "an expression of knees," where the call of "Avrech" is a lessening (and a disgrace) relative to the distinction expressed in his riding in the second chariot.) And here is the advantage of the explanation "a father in wisdom," etc.: they added another distinction and praise of Yosef, the distinction of wisdom, which has no bearing on, and is not visible in, his riding in the second chariot.
One may say that this is also why Rashi quotes in this explanation "Avrech: this is Yosef," which seemingly is superfluous: to emphasize that the title Avrech (according to this explanation) refers to Yosef and is on his own account (unlike the other explanations, where the title "Avrech" comes from the connection to Pharaoh and Egypt and from riding in the second chariot, which is not connected specifically with Yosef).
34) For as to the difficulty regarding the praise (above, section 4), on the contrary: on the explanation "an expression of knees" the difficulty is greater, for it is no praise at all (and on the contrary, it is a disgrace) for Yosef. (By contrast, on the explanation "a father in wisdom," etc., the difficulty (regarding the praise) is only that this praise does not relate to the continuation of the verses. (Especially since it is preferable to explain that the praise of Avrech concerns wisdom, as in the previous note.) Therefore the advantage of the explanation "an expression of knees" over this explanation is only in the wording of Avrech, as in the text.)
35) See similarly Berachos 33b: "A king of flesh and blood who had a thousand thousand gold dinars, and they would praise him for silver ones … it is a disgrace to him."
36) And although it is not the way of plain meaning, the way of Rashi on the Torah, to hint at the plain meaning, in this case it serves only to give reason for the explanation (should a five-year-old beginning Scripture be prompted to ask about it), in the manner in which Rashi does not explain (even by hint) his reason when he brings more than one explanation, and the like.
37) See above, note 34.
38) And from the fact that Rashi emphasizes "Rabbi Yehudah expounded … Rabbi Yosi ben Durmaskis said to him: How long will you distort the verses for us," even a five-year-old beginning Scripture who has not studied the Sifri knows the approach of Rabbi Yehudah and of Rabbi Yosi ben Durmaskis.
One may say that for this reason Rashi writes "How long will you distort," etc. (changing the wording of the Sifri, "Why do you distort," etc.), to emphasize that this is their approach everywhere.
39) HaYom Yom, p. 24.
40) Hilchos Talmud Torah of the Alter Rebbe, ch. 2, halachah 2; Iggeres HaKodesh, ch. 22; Torah Or, Mikeitz 43d (in the name of the Arizal); and elsewhere. See also the Zohar (I:234b; cited in Ohr HaTorah, Bo, p. 320) on "and Aggadah," which is the secret of wisdom.
41) See Likkutei Torah, Sukkos 82b; maamar beginning "Kol Dodi" 5719, section 3.
42) Torah Or, maamar beginning "VeHinei Anachnu Me'almim Alumim"; Toras Chaim there; and elsewhere.
43) One may say that this matter is also alluded to in their names: Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Yosi ben Durmaskis. For Yehudah, from the word hoda'ah, is the level of actual self-nullification, the prostration in the Shemoneh Esrei prayer (Torah Or 45c), bittul bemetzius. And Yosi is numerically equal to Elokim (Zohar III:223a (see Sanhedrin 57, top of side a, and Rashi there); maamar beginning "VeChachah" 5637, ch. 9), which is numerically equal to hateva (nature) [especially since he was from Damascus* and not from the Land of Israel (as in the Sifri, beginning of Devarim), which is why he is called "ben Durmaskis" (Seder HaDoros, Seder Tannaim VeAmoraim, under his entry). And since this was established in his name, by which he is called, it is evident that this is his theme (see Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, ch. 1)]: bittul hayesh.**
*) Note Etz Chaim at its end.
**) See the maamar "VeChachah" there and Likkutei Sichos vol. 4, p. 1106, that the dispute between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Yosi on several matters is for this reason. And although there it concerns Rabbi Yosi unqualified, it is understood (and similar to what was explained at length elsewhere, Likkutei Sichos vol. 7, p. 358 ff., regarding Rabbi Shimon) that all the Tannaim called "Yosi" (in all of whom the numerical value is that of Elokim, hateva) have a connection with Rabbi Yosi unqualified (especially since he is "ben Durmaskis," as in this note in the text).
44) Tanya, [OCR: של"ה], in the gloss.
45) See Likkutei Torah, Sukkos there: that one bows on his knees, which are "outside the body." And regarding what the Zohar says (I:43b), that in the chamber of Netzach there is prostration, although Netzach too is "outside the body," Likkutei Torah explains there ["it appears more likely"] that this prostration is only an external prostration. By contrast, prostration of the inner level [which is the prostration that took place in the Holy Temple (as understood from the citation there to the maamar beginning "Mizmor Shir Chanukas HaBayis" (98b)), for the prostration explained here, "And they prostrated themselves before him, faces to the ground," is like the prostration in the Holy Temple, with outstretched arms and legs] is above the level of Netzach, Hod and Yesod. (And according to the first answer in Likkutei Torah there, that the prostration in Netzach is because it is a branch of Chochmah, one may say that the intent is that within Netzach itself there are two levels: by virtue of Netzach itself, being "outside the body," bowing; and by virtue of the radiance of Chochmah [the matter of "a father in wisdom," etc.] in Netzach, prostration (except that this prostration, by virtue of the radiance of Chochmah in Netzach, is an external prostration, as explained in the second answer; and prostration of the inner level is by virtue of the revelation of Chochmah itself).)
Key Lesson
This Sicha shows that Rashi's three explanations of "Avrech" each answer a difficulty the others leave, and that the dispute between Rabbi Yehudah, who looks to the general matter, and Rabbi Yosi, who looks to the individual word, reflects two approaches: how a light is given and how it is received. Yosef could bring about complete self-nullification, yet the recipient's capacity also matters, so one who influences others must attend both to the height of what he draws down and to what those before him can truly take in.