Parshas Mikeitz
1. In this week's Torah portion it is related how Yosef gathered the "food" during the seven years of plenty, and the verse1 says: "ויתן אוכל בערים אוכל שדה העיר אשר סביבותיה נתן בתוכה" ("He placed food in the cities; the food of the field of the city, which was around it, he placed within it").
What do the words "the food of the field of the city, which was around it, he placed within it" add to "He placed food in the cities"?2 From "He placed food in the cities" it is understood that he placed the grain from the fields around the cities into the nearest cities — why would anyone trouble himself to bring the grain into another, more distant city?!3
Even if one were to say that we would not have understood this on our own — it is still not smooth: what difference does it make to relate this?4
The Midrash5 says on this: "נתן מה שבתחום טבריה בטבריה ומה שבתחום ציפורי בציפורי6 מפני שכל ארץ וארץ מעמדת פירותיה" ("He placed what was in the territory of Tiberias in Tiberias, and what was in the territory of Tzippori in Tzippori, because each and every land preserves its fruits"). Rabbi Nechemiah said: "נתן בהם עפר וקטמיות דברים שהן מעמידין פירות" ("He placed in them earth and ashes, things that preserve fruits").
That is to say: according to both opinions7, the words "the food of the field … he placed, etc." come to relate how Yosef ensured that the grain would keep and not rot. The difference between them is: according to the first opinion, he ensured this by placing the grain close to the field where it had grown — "because each and every land preserves its fruits" ("מעמדת" here meaning "sustains"8); and according to the second opinion, he ensured this by "placing in them earth and ashes, (which are) things that preserve fruits."
[And as the commentators9 explain, Rabbi Nechemiah derives this from the words "field … he placed" — that he "placed" (something) also from the "field … which was around it" (i.e., earth and ashes)10.]
2. Rashi, in his commentary on the Torah, dwells on the words "the food of the field of the city, which was around it, he placed within it" and explains: "שכל ארץ וארץ מעמדת פירותיה ונותנין בתבואה מעפר המקום ומעמיד את התבואה מלירקב" ("For each and every land preserves its fruits, and they place in the grain some of the earth of the place, and it preserves the grain from rotting").
Simply put, Rashi comes to resolve the above question of "what difference does it make": (1) why this was done, and (2) if, as said above, it was to save trouble — why does the Torah relate it?
However, since Rashi states both matters in one continuous statement (with the conjunctive vav — "for each and every land, etc., and they place, etc." — and does not say "another interpretation" or the like), it is understood that according to Rashi the verse means both safeguards together11: in order to "preserve" the grain, Yosef kept the grain (specifically "around it") close to the field where it had grown, and he also put into the grain "some of the earth of the place."
Does Rashi combine two disputing opinions into one and the same interpretation?!
There are commentators12 who say that according to Rashi's interpretation, Rabbi Nechemiah (does not disagree with the first Tanna, but rather) adds to the first opinion: to ensure that the grain should not rot, both things are required — and this is how Rashi understands it in his commentary.
It still remains not smooth, however: Rashi's commentary on the Torah is, after all, the plain meaning of Scripture [especially in our case, where Rashi does not say of this interpretation "our Rabbis expounded" (or the like), and does not note that the interpretation is from Bereishis Rabbah] — what compels us, in the plain meaning of Scripture, to say that Yosef did two things to protect the grain from rotting13?
Commentators say14 that both things are alluded to in the wording of the verse: from "the food of the field of the city … he placed" we know that he placed the food in the city; and from the wording "field … he placed within it" one can infer (as above) that the (earth of the) field was also placed into the grain15.
But it is difficult to give such an interpretation in the way of plain meaning: the verse, after all, says "he placed" only once. It is therefore contrary to the plain meaning of Scripture to interpret it as meaning* two different placings in separate places: placing the grain in the city, and placing the earth in the grain16!
Seemingly one could answer that Rashi does not mean to say that "he placed within it" refers to a second placing — placing the earth in the grain; rather, the meaning of "the food of the field" is: Yosef placed the "food" together with the "field" (i.e., the earth of the field) "within it," in the city (and consequently we know that he placed into the grain some of the earth of the place).
It still remains not smooth, however: what compels us17, in the plain meaning of Scripture, to say that (also) placing the food in the city around it was in order to "preserve the grain"18?
3. This will be understood by first noting several precise points in Rashi's wording (including changes from the wording of the Midrash):
a) Regarding the first matter Rashi says (as in the Midrash) "preserves its fruits," but afterward, regarding the second matter, Rashi adds the word "(and it preserves …) from rotting." Seemingly, the reverse would make more sense: if Rashi needs to clarify the meaning of "preserve" (that it means "from rotting"), he should have given this explanation right away, the first time.
b) The Midrash says "he placed in them earth and ashes, things that preserve fruits," but Rashi says "some of the earth of the place" — i.e., ordinary earth (or "ashes")19 is not enough; it must be "earth" from the place where the grain grew.
c) Rashi begins "for each and every land, etc., preserves its fruits," but afterward he changes and says "and it preserves the grain" (not "the fruits"). What is more: in the Midrash, Rabbi Nechemiah's words too indeed say "preserve fruits."
4. The explanation of this is that through these precise points and changes of wording, Rashi makes clear his intent (which differs from the intent of the Midrash)
— and, as has been discussed several times20, even in places where it appears that Rashi has not introduced a new interpretation but merely copies the interpretation (the wording) of Chazal, since Rashi comes to explain the verses to a student according to the plain meaning of Scripture (a five-year-old beginning Scripture), Rashi's wording too must be understood according to the simple sense of his words (as a five-year-old beginning Scripture understands them), even though in the Midrash something different is meant by that wording —
So too in our case: although Rashi's wording resembles the wording of the Midrash, Rashi's intent is the plain meaning of his words, namely:
"For each and every land maamedes its fruits" — "maamedes" in its plain meaning21 (as in Rashi's wording in the previous Torah portion22, "להעמיד ממנו בנים" ("to raise up children from him")): each land raises up, makes grow, its own (particular) fruits. That is, one land is suited to growing these particular fruits, and another land to other fruits — similar to what we already learned earlier23, that Egypt is a land that "מגדל פשתן" ("grows flax"),
— and moreover: within one land there can be different lands, as in "בארץ מצרים בארץ גושן" ("in the land of Egypt, in the land of Goshen")24 — and each of them "brings forth its fruits," as Rashi already brought earlier in his commentary25.
What difference does this make? Rashi continues: "and they place in the grain some of the earth of the place, and it preserves the grain from rotting": since each land brings forth its own particular fruits, it is understood that the soil of each land has specific properties that are suited26 to its fruits, and therefore "the earth of the place (and) it preserves the grain from rotting" — the grain is protected from rot by placing into it "earth" specifically from the place where it grows.
It is simply understood, however, that if he mixed in some of the earth of the place, which prevents rot, it makes no difference in which city the grain will be27.
5. Accordingly, the above question (section 2) — where does the verse state two actions — falls away of its own accord, because according to Rashi Yosef did only one thing to guard against the grain rotting: "and they place in the grain some of the earth of the place"28 (and in this lies the novelty of "the food of the field of the city, which was around it, he placed within it": that the "placing within it" was with the "field … which was around it," some of the earth of the place (as above, end of section 2)) —
whereas "for each and every land brings forth its fruits" has no connection to "preserves … from rotting"; here, in Rashi's commentary, these words are merely an introduction29 to the explanation of why "the earth of the place" "preserves the grain from rotting."
And Rashi does not need to explain why the grain was placed in the city around it, because30 it is explicit in the verse (according to Rashi's commentary): "ותעש הארץ" ("And the land made"), as the Targum renders it ("וכנשו דיירי ארעא" ("and the inhabitants of the land gathered")), "ויקבוץ וגו' ויתן אוכל בערים" ("And he gathered, etc., and he placed food in the cities") — so it is simply understood that the inhabitants of the land placed it in the cities around them.
On the other hand, however, it is not as implied by the simple wording of Rabbi Nechemiah, that earth in general is a thing that preserves fruits (as above, section 3); rather, the precise point here is "some of the earth of the place," from the place where the grain grew (and the reason for this is, as said above, because "each and every land brings forth its fruits" — its own, specifically).
This also simply explains the change of wording in Rashi: he begins "each and every land, etc., its fruits," and afterward continues "and they place in the grain … preserves the grain." For at first Rashi's intent is to state a general rule, a general matter concerning all kinds of fruits: that each land ("each and every land"31) brings forth "its fruits" (and therefore Rashi uses the word "fruits" — all kinds of produce of the earth — not only grain); whereas afterward, where Rashi explains and speaks specifically about the matter of which the verse speaks here (the placing that "preserves … from rotting"), he explains the verse's "food" as grain32.
6. A lesson in the Divine service of each and every one, from this interpretation of Rashi:
The fruits, the "grain," of a Jew is the Torah33 that he learns. When a Jew gathers much grain — an abundance of Torah (and its mitzvos) — he must know that in order for the Torah to endure with him, there is one and only one counsel: "and they place in the grain some of the earth of the place." One must put into one's study of Torah the quality of earth, the self-nullification of "ונפשי כעפר לכל תהיה" ("and let my soul be like dust to all")34, and specifically through this comes "פתח לבי בתורתך" ("open my heart to Your Torah").
Rashi adds a fundamental lesson: that this must be "from the earth of the place," from the very same place where the grain grew. When it comes to the nations of the world, to non-Jewish ways — to being a "threshold that is trampled"35 by everything, by the evil inclination — on the contrary, it must be as at the opening of the Shulchan Aruch: "הוי עז כנמר וגבור כארי" ("Be bold as a leopard and mighty as a lion").
A Jew may think: it is true that in order to have "open my heart to Your Torah," to become a vessel for Torah, he must possess the quality of self-nullification, his "soul" must be like dust; and so he fulfills this and makes himself "like dust." But where is his "dust" and self-nullification? Somewhere else — not with regard to his Torah:
When it comes to "his Torah," he demands honor of the Torah for himself: when he enters a gathering, he demands that everyone rise for him; at the Torah reading he demands the most prestigious aliyah, and so on.
Where one must have self-nullification, "dust," he does not do it "from the earth of the place (of Torah)": the Torah says "ואהבת לרעך כמוך" ("Love your fellow as yourself")36; "מצות עשה של תורה על כל חכם וחכם מישראל ללמד את כל התלמידים אף על פי שאינן יוצאי יריכיו" ("It is a positive commandment of the Torah upon each and every sage of Israel to teach all students, even though they are not his own offspring")37; the Torah says: you must be a disseminator of Torah with your soul, with your body, and with your money — and he argues "and let my soul be like dust": "What am I and who am I?" He is not strong enough spiritually to go out and engage in spreading Torah; after all, he is "like dust," the outside environment could have a bad influence on him, and so he must remain shut inside his own four cubits, and very narrow ones at that — even a handbreadth beyond them, his own family, the Jews in his neighborhood, in his city, etc. — no.
On this comes the lesson from Rashi's interpretation: the "earth" must be from the very same "place" and matter that one wishes to protect and preserve. Self-nullification in other matters is not enough; one must regard oneself "like dust" in the matter of Torah itself.
7. Torah is the wisdom of the Holy One, blessed be He, which is entirely beyond the intellect of a created being. Therefore38, in order for the Torah of the Holy One, blessed be He, to be properly absorbed by a created being, there must be "ברכו בתורה תחלה" ("they recited the blessing over the Torah first")39: when he learns Torah, he first ensures that he knows, as is required, about the Giver of the Torah; he ensures that the Torah brings about in him fear of G‑d, the Giver of the Torah (and love of Him), even more than before.
Moreover: since Torah is the wisdom of the Holy One, blessed be He, it is understood that in order to be able to hold and retain within oneself the Torah of the Holy One, blessed be He, the feeling of "and let my soul be like dust to all" before learning and during learning is not enough; rather there must be "and they place in the grain some of the earth of the place": even in the Torah already learned, already "gathered," there must be self-nullification. One must always remember that this is "נתן לנו את תורתו" ("He gave us His Torah"), and that "נותן התורה" ("Who gives the Torah") is in the present tense — when he learns a word, and "even one letter," of Torah, the Holy One, blessed be He, reads and studies opposite him40. And the Torah demands of him that at that moment he be "באימה וביראה וברתת ובזיע" ("in awe, in fear, in trembling and in quaking")41 — so how is it possible for a normal person to study it in order to taunt, or in order to gain honor through his fellow's disgrace42, or even simply in order to gain honor?
And even one who is truly great in Torah surely remembers, with proper remembrance, that however much one understands and knows of the wisdom of Torah, it is "ארוכה מארץ מדה ורחבה מני ים" ("longer than the earth in measure and wider than the sea")43; and moreover, it is longer beyond all comparison — it is the wisdom of the Holy One, blessed be He, "ואהיה אצלו וגו' שעשועים וגו'" ("And I was with Him … a delight …")44.
And then his Torah has endurance; he "preserves the grain from rotting," G‑d forbid.
8. Another general lesson, from Rashi's interpretation as a whole:
The fact that Yosef sustained "כל הארץ" ("the whole land")45 in the years of famine comes to teach that when there prevails in the world a state of spiritual hunger, a state of ignorance, etc., there lies upon every Jew (for every Jew is called "Yosef"46 in a spiritual sense) the obligation to feed the entire world, even the outside, with spiritual nourishment.
In addition, Rashi teaches that one must not only provide Jews with spiritual food; rather, more than that, one must gather within oneself an abundance of food in order to be able to provide for every Jew who will find out in the future that he needs it — and moreover:
One must seek ways to ensure that the spiritual nourishment one prepares and gives to another Jew should be something enduring — "preserving the grain from rotting" — that it will remain with the recipient and have an effect throughout all the days of his life, an effect that continues even to his children, etc. — Torah as it is with a blessing first, "Who gives the Torah" in the present tense.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Mikeitz 5743)
Notes
1) Our Torah portion, 41:48.
2) See also Devek Tov on Rashi here.
3) Be'er Mayim Chaim (by the brother of the Maharal) on Rashi; see also Meleches HaKodesh (on Rashi) here.
4) Yefeh To'ar (HaShalem) on the Bereishis Rabbah cited in the next note (also cited in Nezer HaKodesh HaShalem there). Meleches HaKodesh on Rashi here.
5) Bereishis Rabbah 90:5.
6) It is worth noting that Tiberias and Tzippori are opposites (see also Matnos Kehunah on Bereishis Rabbah there): "Tiberias is very deep, and Tzippori is on a mountain and at its top" (Shabbos 118b and Rashi there; Pesikta Rabbasi ch. 8). See Bikkurim 1:3 [OCR unclear].
7) See Rashi, Matnos Kehunah and Yefeh To'ar (HaShalem) on Bereishis Rabbah there; Radal there.
8) So according to the commentators cited below in note 10; see below, section 2. Yefeh To'ar (HaShalem) explains (in the Midrash) that Rabbi Nechemiah's statement "he placed in them earth, etc." is not an explanation of the verse but only Yosef's counsel for preserving the grain, while the explanation of the verse "the food of the field of the city, etc." is that also "the food of the field of every city around the land of Egypt he placed inside the land of Egypt."
9) Matnos Kehunah there. See Radal there, who refers to Koheles Rabbah on the verse (1:4) "והארץ לעולם עומדת" ("and the earth stands forever") (and Matnos Kehunah there).
10) Commentary of the Maharzu on Bereishis Rabbah there. See also Nachalas Yaakov on Rashi here. Other commentators (Nezer HaKodesh (HaShalem) and Radal on Bereishis Rabbah there; Maskil LeDavid and Meleches HaKodesh on Rashi here) derive it from the words "אשר סביבותיה" ("which was around it") (see there).
11) In Tzeidah LaDerech here: "Do not wonder how Rashi gives two interpretations of two Tannaim without writing 'another interpretation,' for this is his custom" (see also Divrei Dovid by the Taz here). Be'er Yitzchak on Rashi here has already raised a difficulty against him. And what Devek Tov writes here — "the Gaon was uncertain which reason is the one according to the halachah, and therefore cited both" — is seemingly very forced.
12) Yefeh To'ar (HaShalem) on Bereishis Rabbah there (also cited in Nezer HaKodesh there). Be'er Yitzchak on Rashi here. See also Meleches HaKodesh (in a somewhat different manner).
13) Be'er Yitzchak writes: "And (Rashi) did not say this on the strength of a precise reading of the verse, but only on the strength of knowledge." But it requires great investigation to explain Rashi's commentary on the Torah this way, since it is the plain meaning of Scripture, as in the text.
14) Maskil LeDavid (and Meleches HaKodesh, in a somewhat different manner) on Rashi here. See the other commentators cited in note 10.
15) In the words of the Maskil LeDavid: "'And he placed within it,' which is written in the verse, refers to both of them."
16) And in general, it requires investigation how one can explain "he placed within it" as referring to placing the earth in the grain — for the verse says "food" (and not "grain"), so it should then have said "within it" in the masculine form (besocho). See further on in the text.
*) Note Levush HaOrah and Meleches HaKodesh here on the explanation of "he placed within it" (in the field); see there.
17) Especially since, by simple logic, there is no connection between them — as below in note 28.
18) And although placing the food in the (specifically) nearby city is obvious, so that one may ask what difference it makes to make this known (as above at the beginning of the sichah) — still, if this placing was in order to preserve the grain, then two different placings were needed to preserve the grain, and it is very forced to say that the verse alludes to both of them together in a single "he placed."
19) And as in the plain wording of the Gemara (Shabbos 31a, end — cited in Yefeh To'ar HaShalem and Radal on Bereishis Rabbah there): "A person mixes a kav of chomton into a kor of grain."
20) See Likkutei Sichos vol. 20, p. 156, note 18; ibid., p. 199; and elsewhere.
21) For if Rashi's intent were "sustains," he should have explained this — all the more so since the commentators on the Midrash needed to explain it (see the sources cited in note 9).
22) Vayeishev 38:14; ibid., 26; 39:1; and in many places.
23) Rashi on Bereishis 2:11.
24) Vayigash 47:27 and Rashi there. And before that — 47:6ff.
25) Vayishlach 36:20.
26) See also Levush HaOrah on Rashi here (though he reads and explains Rashi in a different manner).
27) Note the Ibn Ezra (41:35), that all the cities of Egypt (and it is understood from him that this applies especially to a city of Egypt on the bank of the Nile) caused rot.
28) The reason Rashi adopted specifically this interpretation (and not the first opinion in Bereishis Rabbah there) is that, simply, there is no connection between the city in which the grain is kept and the prevention of rot. Furthermore, only according to this is the lengthy wording of the verse understood, as above in section 1 (and in the sources cited in note 10).
29) As is also emphasized by Rashi's omitting the word "מפני" ("because") found in the Midrash there ("because each and every land, etc."), as well as the opening words of the Midrash, "He placed what was in the territory, etc." (although regarding this one could say that Rashi did not need to write it, since it is explicit in the verse).
30) In addition to what was said above at the beginning of the sichah.
31) Accordingly, the change in Rashi's wording — "each and every land, etc." (and afterward) "some of the earth of the place" — is (even) better understood, for seemingly he should have used the same wording in both places ("land … some of the earth of the land," or "each and every place … some of the earth of the place"). See Rashi on Vayishlach there, s.v. "קנה."
32) See Rashi below (41:55), "that their grain had rotted" (and in the preceding verses, "bread … for bread").
33) See Sanhedrin 42a and Tosafos there, s.v. "ורב תבואות."
34) The text of "Elokai Netzor" (Brachos 17a) at the conclusion of the Shemoneh Esreh. See also Shabbos there: "If the fear of G‑d, etc. — a parable, etc. — you mixed a kav of chomton into them, etc."
35) An expression of the Talmud — Eruvin 98a (see there: "the feet of the public, etc. — there is disgrace," Rashi there).
36) See Tanya, ch. 32. See also Kuntres Ahavas Yisroel (Brooklyn, 5737; and elsewhere).
37) The Alter Rebbe's Laws of Torah Study 1:8.
38) See at length on all this Likkutei Sichos vol. 16, p. 326ff., and the sources cited there.
39) Nedarim 81a; Bava Metzia 85b, beginning. See also the Bach on Tur Orach Chaim, sec. 47 (s.v. "ומ"ס דאמר"); study it well.
40) Tanna DeVei Eliyahu Rabbah, beginning of ch. 18; Yalkut Shimoni, Eichah, remez 1034.
41) Brachos 22a.
42) See Brachos 28b: "On his entering, what does he say? … that I not stumble in a matter of halachah and my colleagues rejoice over me … and that my colleagues not stumble in a matter of halachah and I rejoice over them."
43) Iyov 11:9.
44) Mishlei 8:30. See also Tanya, Kuntres Acharon, discourse beginning "Dovid zemiros" (p. 161a).
45) Our Torah portion, 41:57.
46) Tehillim 80:2, with Rashi and Metzudas Dovid there. See below, p. 252ff.
Key Lesson
Just as Yosef preserved the grain specifically with earth from the very field where it grew, the Torah a Jew gathers endures only through self-nullification within his Torah itself — not by humility in other areas while demanding honor for his learning. True humility in Torah means remembering that the Giver of the Torah gives it anew each moment, and it also means going out to spread Torah to others in a way that lasts throughout their lives.