Likkutei Sichos Vol. 30 – Vayechi 2
1. “And Israel saw Yosef’s sons and said, ‘Who are these?’ And Yosef said to his father, ‘They are my sons whom G‑d has given me here.’” Rashi explains the intent of Yaakov’s question, “Who are these?”
[For according to the simple meaning this is puzzling: Rashi already explained the words “And Israel saw Yosef’s sons” as “He sought to bless them,” meaning that he knew they were Yosef’s sons (and although “the eyes of Israel were heavy with age, he could not see,” it can simply be said that he recognized them by their voices and the like (especially since they were regularly with him), or that Yaakov understood that when his days drew near to die, Yosef would bring his sons with him so that Yaakov would bless them before his passing). So what is the meaning of his question, “Who are these?” Therefore Rashi explains:]
“From where did these come, who are not fit for a blessing?” (This follows from the fact that “he sought to bless them, and the Shechinah departed from him, etc.” (as Rashi writes in the preceding comment), from which Yaakov understood that Yosef’s sons were not fit for a blessing.) And to this Yosef answered, “They are my sons whom G‑d has given me here” — “he showed him a document of betrothal and a kesubah document.”
The commentators write that Yaakov suspected that Yosef’s sons “were not fit for a blessing” because perhaps they were not born in a proper manner, in accordance with halachah — perhaps Yosef had taken a wife from among the daughters of the Egyptians or from other nations (and had not converted her) — and therefore Yosef showed him the document of betrothal, etc., to prove that he had married her “in a manner in which kiddushin takes effect, and he betrothed her with full kiddushin.”
But this explanation has already been questioned: “For all seventeen years they sat and studied Torah before him... If so, he certainly knew and recognized whether there was any flaw in their lineage or not, and there was no need to show him a document of betrothal and a kesubah document for this.” Furthermore: “How is it possible to even entertain the thought... to suspect Yosef of having relations with any of the forbidden relationships, etc.... Certainly Yaakov did not suspect Yosef of having taken a wife from among the daughters of the Egyptians or from other nations while she was still a gentile, G‑d forbid; rather, she certainly converted beforehand” [as Rashi explained earlier on the verse “And Israel bowed upon the head of the bed” — “because his bed was complete... for Yosef... stood in his righteousness”].
Therefore some explain that Yaakov did not suspect a flaw in their lineage, but rather “Yaakov thought... that Yosef had taken Osnas only as a concubine, without betrothal and without a kesubah, since he had not taken her of his own choice but only by the word of the king, who gave her to him as a wife... Therefore he showed him a document of betrothal and a kesubah document as proof that she was truly his wife and not a concubine, for a kesubah is not written for a concubine.”
However, it seems that this still does not resolve the above difficulty. For even though there was nothing forbidden in a marriage to Osnas as a concubine, since Avraham too had a concubine (except that “the sons of the concubines that Avraham had” he sent away from Yitzchak his son, to the point that “he gave over to them a name of impurity”), nevertheless, if we say that these sons had some deficiency in their holiness, etc. (to the point that they were not fit for a blessing), how could Yaakov not have sensed this throughout all these seventeen years?
Furthermore: to prove that Osnas was not a concubine but truly his wife, it would have sufficed to show him a kesubah document, with no need to show a document of betrothal — since, according to Rashi, this is the distinction between wives and concubines: “wives with a kesubah, concubines without a kesubah,” and since she had a kesubah, she was certainly not a concubine.
And even more puzzling: in the words of our Sages (that we have before us) — Targum Yonasan and Maseches Kallah — only a kesubah document is indeed mentioned, not a document of betrothal. What compelled Rashi to add the document of betrothal?
2. We also need to understand Rashi’s wording, “he showed him a document of betrothal and a kesubah document.” Seemingly: granted, a kesubah document is a standard part of every marriage (and it should be noted that the nations too have a concept of a kesubah, as we find earlier regarding Shechem, who said, “Increase upon me greatly the mohar,” and Rashi explains: “kesubah”) — but what basis is there to say that Yosef betrothed Osnas specifically with a betrothal by document, such that he would have a document of betrothal in his possession?!
Some commentators explain that Yosef did this from the outset “so that he would be able to show clear proof to his father Yaakov that he had taken her as a wife and not as a concubine, for he was a wise man who foresaw what was to come.” But aside from the above question (section 1) — that Yosef did not need a document of betrothal “to show clear proof to his father Yaakov that he had taken her as a wife and not as a concubine,” since for this a kesubah document suffices — there is no hint in Rashi that Yosef did this from the outset “because he was a wise man who foresaw what was to come.” (And the reasoning itself is also difficult — that Yosef feared in advance that his father Yaakov would not believe his words, so that he had to prepare “clear proof” that he had married a wife with betrothal.)
Others have answered along halachic lines, “based on what the Rambam writes at the beginning of Hilchos Ishus, that betrothal by document and by intercourse are from the Torah, while betrothal by money is from the words of the Sages. The commentators there explain that he calls it ‘from the words of the Sages’ because betrothal by money is not explicit in the Torah, but is derived by a gezeirah shavah, ‘taking’ — ‘taking,’ from the field of Ephron. And it is known that the halachah is that a person cannot derive a gezeirah shavah on his own unless he received it from his teacher. When Yosef was separated from his father, it can be said that he had not yet learned this gezeirah shavah, and therefore could not derive it on his own (and he did not betroth by intercourse, since Rav would flog one who betroths by intercourse; therefore he was compelled to betroth by document).”
However, seemingly, all this is in the manner of pilpul and halachah, whereas Rashi on the Torah is specifically in the manner of peshat.
Therefore it seems that Rashi’s intent in “document of betrothal” is not a document by which she was betrothed, i.e., betrothal by document [especially since in the plain meaning of the verses and in Rashi on the Torah we do not find — even after the giving of the Torah, and certainly not before the giving of the Torah — that a woman is betrothed by a document], but rather a “document” in its usual and simple sense (even for a “five-year-old learning Chumash”): a document written (only) as proof of some matter, as a record of what took place. So too in our case: Yosef had a document of proof of his betrothal.
But even according to this explanation it is still puzzling: why did Yosef write a document of proof of his betrothal, something for which we find no parallel throughout all the generations, and all the more so in the time of the Patriarchs and the tribes (and, as above, it is forced to say that he wrote it only so that he would have “clear proof to his father Yaakov” that he had married a wife with betrothal)?
3. All this will be understood by first clarifying a general matter regarding betrothal and marriage before the giving of the Torah:
It is obvious, even according to the plain meaning of the verses, that Avraham our father fulfilled the entire Torah before it was given, as Rashi explains that he fulfilled even “(rabbinic) decrees... secondary prohibitions to the forbidden relationships, etc.... the Oral Torah, halachah to Moshe from Sinai.” And regarding Yaakov he writes, “and I kept the 613 mitzvos,” from which it is understood that the same applies to Yitzchak (and Rashi states explicitly that he fulfilled a number of mitzvos). Nevertheless, it is not stated (in the plain meaning of the verses) that they betrothed their wives before marrying them. On the contrary — from the plain wording of the verses regarding Yitzchak, “And Yitzchak brought her into the tent of Sarah his mother, and he took Rivkah and she became his wife,” it is implied that there was no betrothal beforehand; rather, he brought her immediately into his home.
[In the words of our Sages we do find that Yitzchak betrothed Rivkah, whether through the silver and gold vessels that Eliezer gave to Rivkah, or when she came to his home — but none of this is brought at all in Rashi’s commentary on the Torah.]
Similarly we find regarding Yaakov: when Lavan brought Leah to Yaakov in place of Rachel and he came to her, Yaakov’s only complaint was “Why have you deceived me?” — but he did not object to such a marriage without betrothal.
And since the plain meaning of the verses indicates that there was no betrothal before marriage among the Patriarchs — if Rashi held otherwise, that they did betroth their wives before marriage, he should have stated so explicitly.
4. The explanation of this may be as follows:
Regarding the manner of marriage before the giving of the Torah, the Rambam writes at the beginning of Hilchos Ishus: “Before the giving of the Torah, a man would encounter a woman in the marketplace; if he and she desired... he would bring her into his home and live with her privately, and she would become his wife.” He continues: once the Torah was given, the Jewish people were commanded that if a man wishes to marry a woman, he must first acquire her in the presence of witnesses, and afterwards she becomes his wife, as it is stated, “When a man takes a wife...” These acts of taking are what are called kiddushin or erusin everywhere... And once the woman is acquired and becomes betrothed, even though she has not been intimate with him and has not entered her husband’s home, she is a married woman, and one who is with her other than her husband is liable to death by the court.
It can be said that the reason that before the giving of the Torah these “acts of taking... called kiddushin or erusin” did not exist is not (only) because they had not yet been commanded regarding this, but because before the Divine command there is no concept at all of such “taking.” For the concept of a “married woman” (in the simple sense) is not that the woman is acquired by the husband like an object acquired by a person, but that the man and woman live together, as the verse says, “and he shall cleave to his wife.” Therefore, without the command and authority of the Torah, there is no room to say that there is a “taking” with the power to effect a bond by which the woman is called a “married woman” while she “has not been intimate with him and has not (even) entered her husband’s home.” This is purely a novelty of the Torah, that a person acquires “her first... and afterwards she becomes his wife” — meaning, the Torah innovated not only the obligation, that a person must first betroth the woman, but also the very possibility of acquiring a woman (before the actual marriage), for it is only the command of the Torah that creates such a reality (“taking”).
It can be said that this is so also according to the plain meaning of the verses. For although this matter is not brought in Rashi’s commentary on the Torah (that is, in learning in the manner of peshat) — and it has already been explained many times that Rashi’s commentary on the Torah need not accord with what is explained in the halachic portion of the Torah, since Rashi comes only to explain the plain meaning of the verses — this matter (regarding the definition of betrothal) is a matter of logic (also in the manner of learning according to peshat).
As for what Rashi writes on the verse (regarding Lot), “his sons-in-law, the takers of his daughters” — “his sons-in-law: two married daughters, etc.; the takers of his daughters: those in the house were betrothed to them” — which shows explicitly that the category of a “betrothed woman” existed even before the giving of the Torah (and even with Lot): clearly the intent is not the law of a betrothed woman after the giving of the Torah (for in any case it would be strange to say that the people of Sodom, “the takers of Lot’s daughters,” conducted themselves according to Torah law!), but rather shidduchin, an engagement. For it is obvious that even before the giving of the Torah there were shidduchin and a period of preparation before the marriage, as we find with Rivkah, whose mother and brother asked that she be given “a period of twelve months to provide herself with jewelry” — but such shidduchin have no power to effect a new status upon the woman, that of a “married woman.”
This is the reason we do not find that the Patriarchs (and the tribes) betrothed their wives before marriage. For the fact that the Patriarchs fulfilled the entire Torah before it was given refers to mitzvos that could be fulfilled even before the giving of the Torah in a manner similar to after the giving of the Torah, only that they had not yet been commanded to perform them. But mitzvos whose entire definition and fulfillment came into being only through the command — it is not fitting to say that they fulfilled them before the giving of the Torah. And so it is regarding the betrothal of a woman: since the entire concept of kiddushin was innovated by the command of the Torah, it is not applicable that they fulfilled it before the giving of the Torah.
5. Based on the above, we can explain the novelty we find regarding Yosef, that he wrote a “document of betrothal”:
From what was said above it is understood that “betrothal” here means “shidduchin,” and a “document of betrothal” is a document of proof that he had become bound in a shidduch. The reason he had a document of proof of the shidduchin is that he wished to be stringent with himself and to conduct himself, as far as possible, so that he would have at least something resembling the kiddushin that would exist after the giving of the Torah. Therefore he wrote a “document of betrothal”: not only (was his marriage not in the manner of “a man would encounter a woman in the marketplace... and bring her (immediately) into his home, etc.,” but) did he have a betrothal, meaning shidduchin, etc., and a period of preparation for the marriage [which in itself is no novelty, since certainly this was so with the Patriarchs as well (and even with Lot’s daughters), as above] — but moreover, he wrote this betrothal in a document, so that it would be proof that he had done so. Through this, special force was given to the obligation of his shidduchin, so that it could not be retracted, in the manner of, and resembling, the betrothal after the giving of the Torah, which effects and creates the status of a “married woman.”
As is simply understood: for an act that is not enduring, there is no purpose in writing a document to serve as future proof of that act; only for an enduring act does one write a document of proof, so that it cannot be denied in the future. So too in our case: in order to give force to his betrothal [which of itself (before the giving of the Torah) has no force, as above], Yosef wrote his betrothal in a document, as proof that he had betrothed his wife.
It can be said that the reason we find this enhancement only with Yosef is that since he was in Egypt, and the Egyptians were “steeped in immorality” (especially after the incident with Potiphar’s wife), there had to be special caution and added stringency and holiness in matters of marriage. Therefore he added in his marriage that there should be at least something resembling the betrothal after the giving of the Torah, whereby immediately, during the period of preparation for the marriage, the woman becomes designated for this man, etc.
Accordingly, it can be said that this was the intent of Yaakov’s words, “From where did these come?”: “came” does not mean “were born,” as if he feared that they were born of an improper marriage; rather, it is an expression of wonder: “From where did these come, etc.” — for what reason and cause did they come to be unfit for a blessing? Simply put: since they were born in a land of those “steeped in immorality,” he feared that perhaps this caused them to be unfit for a blessing.
Now we can also understand the content of Yosef’s answer to Yaakov’s wonderment (“From where did these come, who are not fit for a blessing?”): “They are my sons whom G‑d has given me here” — they are his sons (not only in the simple sense, but) “whom G‑d has given me here,” that they are children of a marriage that was in utmost perfection, even relative to the conduct of the Patriarchs themselves — and as proof of this, “he showed him a document of betrothal.”
6. It can be said that in a similar way this is Rashi’s intent in “kesubah document.” This follows a point of precision in Rashi’s wording, “and a kesubah document”: seemingly the word “document” is superfluous, and it would have sufficed to write “(a document of betrothal and) a kesubah” (as it is termed everywhere, and also in Rashi earlier).
The explanation:
The concept of a kesubah is already found earlier, even regarding Shechem: “Increase upon me greatly the mohar — a kesubah” (as above, beginning of section 2); it is stated explicitly regarding Yitzchak and Rivkah, “for so Yitzchak wrote for her in her kesubah, that she may take two kids of goats every day”; and it is also stated explicitly in Rashi earlier (as above) that “(ordinary) wives are with a kesubah, (and only) concubines are without a kesubah.”
But a kesubah in general (which we find even before the giving of the Torah) is only the husband’s obligation to provide money and all the wife’s needs; it is not connected with the essence of the marriage, and therefore it need not be in writing. After the giving of the Torah, however, the kesubah pertains to the very essence of the marriage, as the Rambam writes, “It is a positive commandment to marry a woman with a kesubah and kiddushin,” and likewise it is forbidden to live with one’s wife if her kesubah has been lost.
And this is the precision in Rashi’s wording “kesubah document”: since Yosef endeavored that his marriage should resemble marriage after the giving of the Torah, he was particular to have a “kesubah document.”
7. The “wine” of Torah in Rashi’s commentary:
The (inner) reason that before the giving of the Torah there was no concept of erusin and kiddushin is that kiddushin (after the giving of the Torah) is not merely an acquisition relating to married life, but a matter of holiness. In the words of the Gemara, explaining the name “kiddushin” — “for he forbids her to the entire world like hekdesh (consecrated property),” meaning that betrothal resembles consecration, as in the text of the blessing over betrothal, “Who sanctifies His people Israel through chuppah and kiddushin.” And our Sages said, “A man and woman — if they are worthy, the Shechinah dwells between them,” for the ultimate purpose of marriage is that “the Shechinah should dwell between them.”
Therefore the very concept of kiddushin is possible only after the giving of the Torah. For before the giving of the Torah, it was not possible for such a manifestation of holiness to rest within the physicality of the world, since it is not within the power of a man (a created being) to draw down by his own power such lofty holiness. This is accomplished only through the command of the Torah, which is the empowerment from the Creator, blessed be He, to draw down this lofty holiness into the life of a man and woman.
However, by virtue of Yosef’s distinction (even relative to the Patriarchs and the tribes) — as explained in several places — he was able to draw down at least something resembling this holiness even before the giving of the Torah. This is similar to what is explained elsewhere regarding the words of the Midrash, “Yosef kept the Shabbos before it was given”: the holiness of Shabbos in its essence is beyond the bounds of the world, and Yosef’s distinction was that even before this holiness was given below, he sensed this lofty holiness of Shabbos, which is above creation. This is the special quality of Yosef’s observance of Shabbos “before it was given” — that in his observance of Shabbos, the lofty holiness of Shabbos was felt.
And this is also the reason (according to the inner dimension of the matters) that Yosef had a “document of betrothal”: to show that his betrothal and kiddushin were in a manner that drew down the holiness of betrothal (to the extent possible before the giving of the Torah) below, into the physicality of the world, in ink on parchment — a “document of betrothal.”
(From talks of Shabbos Parshas Vayechi and Shabbos Parshas Shemos, 5747)