Parshas Toldos
1. On the verse "ויזרע יצחק גו' מאה שערים" ("Yitzchak sowed … a hundred measures")1, Rashi cites at the end2 the words "מאה שערים" ("a hundred measures") and explains them: "שאמדוה כמה ראויה לעשות ועשתה על אחת שאמדוה מאה. ורבותינו אמרו3 אומד זה למעשרות היה" ("They estimated how much it was fit to produce, and it produced a hundred for each one they had estimated. And our Rabbis said: this estimate was for tithes").
Studying this Rashi at first glance, it would seem that "And our Rabbis said etc." is [not a second explanation of "a hundred measures," but] merely an explanation of the preceding interpretation, "They estimated how much it was fit to produce": the reason the field was appraised was in order to know how much tithe would have to be given.
According to this, however, it is puzzling: what is difficult for Rashi in the plain meaning that he must address it with the statement of our Rabbis, "this estimate was for tithes"? It is an ordinary thing4, and even a child knows it: when one buys a field, one appraises it in order to know whether it is worth the price one is paying for it; and likewise when a field needs to be plowed, sown and so on, it is customary to appraise how much grain it can yield, in order to know whether it is worthwhile and how much it pays to invest in it in labor and effort. So why must Rashi say that the estimate was for tithes?
[Commentators explain5 that Rashi is troubled here by the question that the Midrash6 asks: "והלא אין הברכה שורה על דבר שהוא במשקל כו', ומפני מה מדד אותה" ("But surely blessing does not rest on something that is weighed etc.; so why did he measure it?"), and therefore he explains (in line with the Midrash's answer) that the estimate was for tithes. In Rashi's commentary, however, it is difficult to explain it this way7, because in his commentary on the Torah Rashi addresses only such questions as arise according to the plain meaning; and in the plain meaning of the verses it is nowhere mentioned that the blessing does not rest on something that is measured.]
It must therefore be that with "And our Rabbis said: this estimate was for tithes," Rashi indeed intends to give a different explanation of "a hundred measures," one that disagrees with the explanation "They estimated how much it was fit to produce, and it produced etc."
And this is also proven from Rashi's wording "And our Rabbis said": had Rashi intended the statement of our Rabbis merely to explain his preceding words, he would have written "ואמרו רבותינו" ("and our Rabbis said," with the word "said" first), which then means a continuation of the preceding: and on this our Rabbis said. By contrast, the wording "ורבותינו אמרו" (with "our Rabbis" first) means that our Rabbis disagree and say something different from what was stated before.
2. The difference between the two explanations is understood quite simply:
According to the first explanation, "They estimated how much it was fit to produce etc.," that the appraisal was of how much it was fit to yield, it is clear that the field was appraised before it yielded the grain. Consequently, the meaning of "a hundred measures" is, as Rashi concludes: "and it produced a hundred for each one they had estimated," that the field produced (grew) a hundred times as much as it had been appraised. Whereas according to the explanation "this estimate was for tithes," the estimate took place after the grain had already grown
[for as long as the grain is not finished, there is no sense in appraising the field with regard to tithes (since these take effect only after the grain is finished and harvested, etc.), because during the time until the grain is finished, various changes can occur in the grain-field — for better or for worse — and with that the appraised amount of tithe would also change].
Accordingly, the meaning of "a hundred measures" is that after the grain was already finished, and also after it had been appraised (and not only appraised but also precisely measured8) how much grain there was, it suddenly increased a hundred times as much — already after it had grown9.
3. The reason Rashi is not satisfied with the plain explanation that "a hundred measures" means "They estimated how much it was fit etc.," and must also bring the explanation of "our Rabbis," that the estimate of "measures" was for tithes, is because according to the plain explanation something does not sit smoothly:
Before the words "a hundred measures" the verse says "בארץ ההיא גו' בשנה ההיא" ("in that land … in that year"). Rashi explains that it was a hard land and a hard year10. And since, when the field was appraised for "how much it was fit to produce," the conditions of "a hard land" and "a hard year" were of course taken into account
[which, in addition to the deficiency in each of them separately, also affect one another: a year of famine also causes the land to be not only "not as important as the Land of Israel," but to become "a hard land"; and likewise the reverse — "that land" brings about a worsening of the year, so that it is not merely "not as it should be," but becomes "a hard year"11.
(This makes it understandable why, after Rashi explains both deficiencies separately — "In that land — although it was not as important etc. In that year — although it was not as it should be etc." — he then brings them together once again: "In that land, in that year, etc., for the land was hard and the year was hard." With this Rashi adds (to what he said before) that when both deficiencies come together, the results are far more severe, through their mutual effect12.)]
it is understood that because of both deficiencies the estimate from the outset amounted to a very small quantity of grain, and when it grew "a hundred for each one," it was only a hundred times more than that small quantity.
The question then arises: since the field yielded grain only a hundred times as much "for each one," the emphasis on "in that land, in that year" does not express any addition to the greatness of the blessing: the blessing of "a hundred measures" relative to the small estimate of "a hard land" and "a hard year" seemingly carries no greater wonder than if the same blessing of a hundredfold had come relative to a larger estimate of a good year and a good land — yet the plain sense is that "in that land, in that year" also emphasizes the blessing?
Even if one were to argue that the very fact that the land and the year were hard is itself a cause that makes the field not a vessel for G‑d's blessing that is above nature (similar to how the hardness of the land affects another matter — the "year," and the hardness of the year — the "land"), and nevertheless the blessing took effect in the wondrous manner of a hundred measures;
the content of the verses, however, implies that with "and he found … a hundred measures" the intent is to underscore the quantity, the tangible abundance of bounty that the Al-mighty gave Yitzchak (not only the wonder that was involved). And as is proven from what the verse says further: "ויגדל האיש גו' עד כי גדל מאד" ("The man became great … until he became very great"). It is therefore difficult to say that the "hundred measures" were a hundred times more than what grows in a hard land and a hard year, for despite the great wonder in this, it is still, all in all, not a great bounty — and it is quite possible that the quantity of "a hundred measures" from a hard land and year would be less than a single measure from a good land and year.
Therefore Rashi brings the explanation "this estimate was for tithes." According to this explanation, it emerges that there was a twofold blessing here: first, there was a blessing in the growth of the grain, that although it was a hard land and a hard year, the growth was as though it had been a good land and a good year; and only after the great yield, as from a good land and a good year, did the finished grain suddenly multiply a hundredfold.
4. But on this explanation too one can ask: since the Al-mighty wanted to bring such a very great bounty into the grain of Yitzchak's field — a hundred times more even than the quantity of grain from a good land and a good year — this whole great blessing could have come during the growth of the grain, so that the field would yield of itself the great sum in full from the very outset. Why was the yield of the grain itself limited to one measure (the blessing in this being only that, though it was a hard land and a hard year, it grew as in a good land and year), and only after it had grown did the grain suddenly multiply a hundredfold?
Moreover: it is understood even simply that since the Al-mighty established — by His will — that the world should conduct itself according to the laws of nature (to the extent that regarding several of the laws of nature the Al-mighty made a covenant that "לא ישבותו" ("they shall not cease")13), He will not perform a miracle that breaks the laws of nature in a case where the same bestowal can also come about naturally14; and even when one must (so to speak) resort to a miracle, if it can be brought about through a miracle close to the bounds of nature, a miracle that completely breaks the laws of nature is not performed15.
Consequently, the question in our case is even stronger: this entire double blessing could have come right at the growth of the grain (that from the outset it should grow "in that land" and "in that year" a hundred times as much as in a good land and a good year), and then the miracle would have had a certain foothold in the bounds of nature. So why did the blessing come here through such a miracle ("a hundred measures" [after] the growing and measuring of the grain) that has no foothold whatsoever in nature and is "conspicuous" ("tears open the eyes")?
5. In truth, Rashi himself addresses this: when he wants to say that the estimate of "measures" was [after] the growth, he expresses it with the words "this estimate was for tithes." Seemingly, if Rashi here only wants to convey the time of the estimate, he should have said explicitly that the estimate was after the growth, and not merely allude to it through the hint of "for tithes"?
The explanation, however, is that by saying "was for tithes," Rashi also addresses the above-mentioned question: why indeed did the miracle occur only after the growth? Because the blessing of "a hundred measures" came in the merit of the mitzvah of tithing16, which comes only later. Therefore, it was specifically after the grain was already finished and Yitzchak had measured it for tithes that, in this merit — "and he found … a hundred measures."
Nevertheless, this explanation is still difficult: if the Al-mighty wanted to reward Yitzchak for the mitzvah of tithing with the profit of "a hundred measures," it could still have been in a manner in which the reward had a foothold in nature: for example, that he should sell the grain for such a high price that it amounted to a hundred times more than its value17, or the like. Why specifically the reward of "a hundred measures," which is entirely outside the bounds of nature?
Therefore Rashi emphasizes that this explanation of "a hundred measures" (that the grain suddenly multiplied of itself) is a statement of "our Rabbis" (i.e., connected with study in the way of halachah, the way of derush), and not the entirely plain explanation. The explanation according to the plain meaning is that the blessing was during the growth of the grain, when there is a foothold in nature; and for this very reason Rashi places the explanation "and it produced a hundred for each one they had estimated" before the explanation "this estimate was for tithes," because he takes it as the principal explanation.
6. In Rashi's commentary there is also "the wine of Torah"18 —
On the verse "Yitzchak sowed … a hundred measures," the Tzemach Tzedek explains19 that in general there are only fifty gates (she'arim), but within the gates themselves there are two general levels and modes: as they stand in the movement of drawing down from above to below, and as they stand in the movement of ascent from below to above. And from both modes of the fifty gates, "a hundred she'arim" are composed.
One of the differences between the two levels mentioned: the level of "fifty gates" as they are in the movement of drawing down — since its essence is to be drawn down and descend below, the lower realm necessarily has some standing in relation to this level. Therefore, even when a miracle above nature is drawn down from this light, the miracle must have some foothold in nature. Whereas the level of the "fifty gates" as they are in the movement of ascent is not bound up with the measures of the world; on the contrary, the matter of "ascent" is to rise up and go out of the world. Therefore the miracles drawn down from this level are specifically in a manner that overrides nature20.
And this is the explanation of the two interpretations in Rashi of "a hundred measures" as they are in the inner dimension of the matters:
From the perspective of the fifty gates (which are among the "hundred she'arim") that are in the movement of drawing down, one must explain that the blessing was during the growth of the grain — within the bounds of nature21. Whereas from the perspective of the second fifty gates, it emerges that the blessing was after the growth and the precise measuring of the grain, because the miracles that come from this level are in a manner that overrides nature.
And the level of ascent was drawn down through Yitzchak's measuring the grain for the sake of tithes — because tithing too is in essence an ascent from below to above22, and therefore the light drawn down through this service was also in the movement of ascent.
7. In Rashi's saying "this estimate was for tithes" there is yet another point: since the mitzvah of tithing is set up so that halachah requires the grain to be measured and a tenth part to become tithe — it emerges that the "estimate" itself becomes a Torah-reality, a Torah measure: the Torah rules and determines that the quantity of the grain is such-and-such. And yet the grain went beyond this very estimate and multiplied a hundredfold; even the measurement of Torah was nullified.
The question then arises: granted, when this relates to the measurement of the world, it can be understood; but how can one say that changes should occur even in the measurement determined by the Torah of truth? To this Rashi says "And our Rabbis said": the meaning of "rav" is great one, master. And this is the meaning of "And our Rabbis said": this was said by "our Rabbis," by those who are great, masters over everything — they can change even the measurement of Torah.
When a Jew studies Torah in such a manner that the Torah becomes one with him in essence, to the point that it has become "תורתו" ("his Torah")23 — which, of course, also in the plain sense, only then can he become one of "our Rabbis" — he is then, so to speak, a master over Torah. And about him our Sages said24: "מאן מלכי רבנן" ("Who are kings? The Rabbis"), that the Rabbis are the masters and kings — and as he rules, so reality becomes.
As our Sages said on the verse25 "לא תסור מן הדבר אשר יגידו לך ימין ושמאל" ("You shall not deviate from the word that they tell you, right or left"), that this applies even when the Rabbis "אומרים לך על ימין שהוא שמאל ועל שמאל שהוא ימין" ("tell you of right that it is left and of left that it is right"). That is: even a matter that the Torah of truth calls left26, and the Rabbis say of it that it is right, the Torah itself rules: "You shall not deviate etc." — one must obey them.
And one can say even more than this — that through the saying of the "kings, the Rabbis," of left that it is right — it becomes right. For when the Torah, the Torah of truth, rules "you shall not deviate," it surely does not mean that the thing itself remains "left" and that nevertheless the Torah commanded that in practice one should say the opposite because the Sages say it is "right"; it is not possible that the Torah of truth should command one to say something other than the truth. Rather, it means that although the thing is called "left" from the perspective of the Torah of truth, the Torah itself gave the Rabbis the power to bring about that through their ruling the thing, which (before the ruling) was left, should truly become "right."
Similar to what the Jerusalem Talmud says27 on the verse "לא-ל גומר עלי" ("to G‑d Who completes for me"), that through a ruling of the Beis Din regarding the sanctification of the month and the intercalation of the year, nature is changed28; and [likewise with] reality — for the ruling can also come about through the nullification of testimony that had earlier been accepted and ruled upon otherwise (a Torah-reality), and the like.
And this is also what the Gemara says29: "כמה טפשאי שאר אינשי דקיימי מקמי ספר תורה ולא קיימי מקמי גברא רבה, דאילו בספר תורה כתיב30 ארבעים ואתו רבנן בצרו חדא" ("How foolish are other people who stand up before a Torah scroll but do not stand up before a great man! For in the Torah scroll it is written 'forty,' and the Rabbis came and reduced one") — that the Rabbis have a mastery over Torah; the Torah gave them the power to nullify31 (so to speak) the measures of Torah.
And just as the Gemara says this there regarding the matter of "turn away from evil," that the Rabbis have the power to remove suffering (the fortieth lash) from a Jew, even suffering that is stated in the Torah, so too regarding "do good": "our Rabbis" have the power to call forth the bestowal from Above in a superabundance of good, nullifying all measures, even the measures of Torah in the blessing32 — so that there be drawn down abundant good in children, life and sustenance, and in all of them — in ample measure.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Toldos 5727)
Notes
1) Our parsha, 26:12.
2) See below, section 3, regarding the Rashi comment preceding it.
3) Bereishis Rabbah 64:6.
4) Although it is not obligatory, and one can buy on mere estimation [especially a field, which is why land is not subject to the law of overcharging (ona'ah) (Bava Metzia 56a, end), since "land is something worth any amount of money" (Hagahos Maimoniyos, Hilchos Mechirah ch. 3, sub-par. 4)], as is felt in the life of a child, that something he greatly desires — "כל חפציך לא ישוו בה" ("all your desires cannot compare to it") — nevertheless it is a common practice that when one buys a field one measures it, and this needs no explanation.
5) Gur Aryeh and Sifsei Chachamim. See also the Re'em.
6) See also Taanis 8b, and the sources cited there.
7) In the Midrash too one can say that the question "why did he measure it?" is not about the estimation of the field before it produced the grain — for although blessing does not rest on something that is measured, they needed to estimate the field in order to know whether it is worthwhile to buy it and sow it* — but rather about the measuring of the grain after the growth. [For from "and he found … a hundred measures" it is seemingly proven that in addition to the estimation of the field before it produced the grain — "measures" — he measured the grain and found that it produced a hundred times as much as they had estimated.] And about this measuring it asks: "But surely blessing does not rest etc.; why did he measure it?" (This explains: (a) the precise wording of the Midrash, "why did he measure it," and not "why did he estimate it"; (b) the Midrash's answer, "because of the tithes," whereas an estimate made before the growth is of no use at all for tithes, as below in section 2.) But in Rashi's commentary** it is impossible to explain it so, for: (a) from Rashi's wording "this estimate was for tithes" it necessarily refers to what immediately precedes it (the estimate of "measures," and not "and he found"); (b) Rashi heads his comment with the words "a hundred measures" and does not cite the word "and he found" at all (as the Midrash there does); (c) in the plain meaning, "and he found" does not mean measuring. Moreover, there is no need for measuring in order to "find" etc., for when he saw that the smallest part of the field produced a hundred times more than they had estimated (and from the earlier measuring the size of the field was known), he automatically knew the total of the grain — "and he found" — and there was no need for a second measuring.
*) In addition: the fact that blessing does not rest applies specifically to something that is measured (in the Talmud's words: "a measured thing"), but not to something estimated; consequently there is no room to ask about the estimation of the field, "But surely blessing does not rest on something that is measured" (see also Or HaChaim here: "Although it was measured, so that the amount of a hundred measures became known, nevertheless G‑d blessed him." Thus the wonder in "G‑d blessed him" is that the blessing rested after the amount of a hundred measures became known (that even after this there was blessing, as below in the text, end of section 2), but not in the blessing resting after they had estimated).
**) In addition to the fact that in the plain meaning no explanation is needed for the measuring after the growth either, since in the plain meaning of the verses the matter that "blessing does not rest on something that is measured" is not found, and the entire question in the Midrash, "why did he measure it," is for this reason.
8) For one does not tithe by estimation (Rambam, Hilchos Maaser 1:14; this is also understood simply from the name "maaser" [a tenth]). And Rashi writes "estimate" — and not measuring — because he comes to explain the word "she'arim" (measures) in the verse.
9) In the Midrash there it is impossible to explain that "why did he measure it? Because of the tithes" refers to "measures" (so that the meaning of "a hundred measures" would be that after the measuring for tithes it increased a hundredfold), retracting what it said earlier, "and it produced a hundred as they had estimated" — for then it would have had to say "but rather because of the tithes." It must therefore be explained as referring to "and he found," as in note 7 above. But Rashi's intent with "And our Rabbis said etc." is to explain the words "a hundred measures," as in the text. See above, p. 51, note 28.
10) And the reason the verse interrupts with the word "and he found" between "in that land" and "in that year" is that the main success of the "sowing" depends immediately on the nature of the land, whereas that of "and he found" (at the completion of the growth) depends on the course and nature of the time from the sowing until the completion of the growth.
11) Accordingly it is simply understood why Rashi writes "hard," changing from what he wrote earlier: "not important"; "not as it should be."
12) Rashi's proof for explaining it so is from the fact that "that" is said twice (for seemingly it should have said "in the land and in that year he found etc."*). And perhaps one can explain that Rashi's intent in "why say both of them?" refers to the fact that "that" is said twice.
*) Even then, what was said above in note 10 would have been understood, for from the fact that "and he sowed" is written at the beginning and "and he found" at the end, it is understood that each one refers to what is adjacent to it: "and he sowed" to "in the land," and "and he found" to "in the year" (and there would be no need for this to write "that" twice. Only after "that" was said twice (for the reason mentioned above) is "and he found" said before "in that year," in order to emphasize further that "and he found" refers to "in the year").
13) Noach 8:22.
14) See Derashos HaRan, the discourse beginning "Hakdamah" (first) — cited in Likkutei Sichos vol. 3, p. 966. See there.
15) And as in the making of the Ark with pitch — "because of the strength of the waters" etc. (Rashi, Noach 6:14), and elsewhere.
16) See similarly also Sforno here.
17) In the words of Sforno: that he sold his grain at high prices.
18) Hayom Yom, p. 24.
19) In Or HaTorah on our parsha, 139b.
20) See Ramban, beginning of Parshas Va'eira; Ibn Ezra there, 6:3; Or HaTorah, Re'eh, p. 789. See also Biurei HaZohar 63a, end; the maamar beginning "Pasach Eliyahu" and "Baruch She'asah Nissim" 5715; and elsewhere.
21) And in "a thing hidden from the eye" (see the gloss on note 7, that as long as it has not been measured — even after it has been estimated — the blessing rests on it as on a thing hidden from the eye). This too is one matter with what is said in the text, for the blessing in a thing hidden from the eye is in the manner of a hidden miracle clothed in the ways of nature (Rabbeinu Bachaye, beginning of Ki Sisa, cited in Or HaTorah, Tavo, p. 1091).
22) See at length above, p. 70 ff.
23) Kiddushin 32b; Avodah Zarah 19a.
24) See Gittin 62a, end; Zohar III, 253b. And note the sanctification of the month — on which all the festivals and the mitzvos in them depend — which depends on the Beis Din, even when they act deliberately [in error] (Rosh Hashanah 25a).
25) Shoftim 17:11; Sifri there; Rashi there. The text above is even sweeter in light of what is written in the Responsa of the Rashba, Toldos Adam, vol. 2, sec. 322; the Responsa of the Rosh; Sefer HaChinuch, mitzvah 496; Sefer Zichronos, ch. 1, etc., that "you shall not deviate" is said about all generations (and not specifically about the Great Beis Din — as is the view of Sefer Yeraim, sec. 31 (398); Torah Temimah on Shoftim).
26) In the Sifri there: "they show [it] to your eyes [as right]." Several commentators on Rashi hold that this is the intent in Rashi's commentary too. Accordingly they reconcile the contradiction from the Jerusalem Talmud, Horayos (1:1), [which states that one obeys] only when they say of right that it is right, and that the sanctification of the month is different, since there is a verse, "you" — even deliberately. But from Rashi's wording "of right … and of left …" (Rashi's commentary being also for a five-year-old beginning Scripture, with no room for hints) — especially since he omits the words "they show [it] to your eyes" found in the Sifri — it is proven that he means "right" and "left" literally, as in the text. See also Gur Aryeh there: "Right and left as it means, that even if they err in law etc." See there. And so it is proven from the Ramban here and in Sefer HaMitzvos cited below, especially as he writes that this is like the matter of sanctifying the month. (But see Pesach Einayim on Rosh Hashanah 25a, and Sdei Chemed vol. 2, Klal "Lo Sasur" (from Maseches Taharas Mayim), that these are simple matters!) And the contradiction from the Jerusalem Talmud — they reconcile that the Yerushalmi refers to before the Sanhedrin deliberated on the matter, but after they deliberated, "he is obligated to accept their view after the consensus, at any rate" (and in light of what the Ramban writes in Sefer HaMitzvos, Shoresh 1 (and so writes the Chinuch, mitzvah 496) — see Tzafnas Pa'neach (by the Rogatchover) on Horayos (2b), on the Yerushalmi there, and on Parshas Shoftim. The Rishonim and Acharonim have already discussed this matter at length, in general and in reconciling the Sifri and the Yerushalmi in particular. See (in addition to the above) the works: Chiddushei R. David Bonfil on Sanhedrin 87a (reprinted in Sefer Sanhedri Gedolah — Jerusalem 5728); Sefer Yeraim, mitzvah 31 (398); Yad HaMelech (Mamrim ch. 1); Be'er Sheva on Horayos; Chafetz Hashem there; Sha'ar Yosef (by the Chida) there; Kikar LaAden on Yerushalmi Horayos; Amudei Yerushalayim there; Riva, Rosh, Taz, Toras Moshe (by the Chasam Sofer) — on the Torah; Divrei Sofrim (by R. Elchonon Wasserman), sec. 3–4; Torah Sheleimah on Mishpatim (vol. 18, 693); notes to Chiddushei R. David Bonfil mentioned above.
27) Nedarim 6:8, and elsewhere.
28) Accordingly one can say that "right and left" in our case is not only right and left in the laws of the Torah (see Ramban on the Torah: "How can I eat the fat … kill the innocent man"), but also with regard to nature. This still requires study.
29) Makkos 22b.
30) Teitzei 25:3.
31) As in the wording "the Rabbis came and reduced one." And in Rambam, beginning of ch. 17 of Hilchos Sanhedrin: "The Sages said … thirty-nine, so that if he adds one, it turns out that he struck him only the forty due to him" (and the second explanation of the Rambam's words in the Kesef Mishneh — I have not merited to understand). And in the Commentary on the Mishnah: "he did not merit forty … by way of safeguard" (a fence). And Rashi, Ritva, Meiri and the Rosh at the end of Kiddushin — it is like the plain wording of the Talmud, and so in Targum Yonasan ben Uziel. The Rambam's view is proven from the Tosefta, ch. 4, halachah 6 (see Tzafnas Pa'neach on Makkos). But what is written in Bamidbar Rabbah (18:21) and in Tanchuma, end of Korach — can be explained also according to Rashi etc., and like the view of Targum Yonasan. This is not the place to elaborate.
32) One can say that this is the meaning of "יתן ויחזור ויתן" ("He will give and give again") (Rashi below, 27:28).
Key Lesson
Yitzchak's field multiplied a hundredfold only after it had been measured for tithes, beyond even the measure the Torah itself had set. When a Jew studies Torah until it truly becomes "his Torah," he becomes, so to speak, a master over it, and through him G‑d's blessing can be drawn down beyond every limit, in children, life and ample sustenance.