Parshas Vayechi
1. On "וישאו אותו בניו" ("His sons carried him")1 Rashi comments: "ולא בני בניו" ("but not his sons' sons"), etc., "שהם מבנות כנען" ("for they are from the daughters of Canaan"), etc. (that is, the sons of Yaakov had married Canaanite women).
However, in Parshas Vayeishev,2 in his commentary on "וכל בנותיו" ("and all his daughters"), Rashi teaches that there is a dispute on this matter:3 "R. Yehudah says: Twin sisters were born with each and every tribe, and they married them. R. Nechemiah says: They were Canaanite women. What, then, is the meaning of 'and all his daughters'? His daughters-in-law, for a person does not refrain4 from calling his son-in-law his son and his daughter-in-law his daughter."
It emerges, then, that Rashi learns the plain meaning of our verse according to the view of R. Nechemiah, that "they were Canaanite women."5
This is not understood: The inference "his sons, but not his sons' sons" lies in the very wording of the verse. It must therefore hold true according to all the views in the Oral Torah, including the view of R. Yehudah that the tribes married their "twin sisters" and no Canaanite women [especially since R. Yehudah's explanation is the first in Rashi, that is, the principal one of Rashi's two explanations in Parshas Vayeishev]. That being so, why does Rashi not explain what the reason for "but not his sons' sons" consists of according to R. Yehudah?
We must say that this itself teaches us that the words "His sons carried him" require an explanation only according to R. Nechemiah;6 whereas according to R. Yehudah no explanation at all is necessary, since the plain meaning is already understood from an earlier comment of Rashi (in Parshas Vayeishev).
2. When one studies Rashi's commentary in Parshas Vayeishev, it appears at first glance that the advantage of the first explanation, "אחיות תאומות נולדו" ("twin sisters were born"), etc., is that according to it the word "his daughters" is translated in its plain sense, his actual daughters. And the merit of the second explanation, "his daughters, meaning his daughters-in-law," is that according to it one need not arrive at the great novelty that Yaakov had many daughters, something mentioned nowhere in all of Chumash, Prophets and Writings!
[This is especially so since we find that in similar cases the Torah offers at least a hint of it. The three twin sisters born with Kayin and Hevel are hinted at by the verse through the addition (three times) of the word "את";7 likewise the twin sister of Binyamin (according to "ורבותינו דרשו", "our Rabbis expounded") is hinted at by the word "גם" ("also")8 that the verse adds there. And since with all the other tribes we find no hint of this at all (other than Shimon, of whom it is written9 "ויתן לי גם את זה" ("and He gave me this one, too")),10 this itself gives us proof that they did not have twin sisters with them.11]
According to this plain understanding, however, the following is not understood:
a) It has already been discussed12 regarding the difference between the approach of Rashi and the approach of Ramban, that Rashi places the main emphasis on the overall subject: he explains the verse in keeping with the overall matter under discussion, even though the explanation is for this reason not so well suited to the detailed rendering of the word. Ramban, by contrast, seeks principally that the explanation fit the individual word in detail, even though it will thereby not be entirely consistent with the overall subject of the parsha.
But according to the above explanation it would emerge that in our case the difference between them is the very reverse: Rashi's explanation fits better with the meaning of the word "his daughters," and Ramban's explanation is more in keeping with the overall content of the parsha (in the sidrah of Vayeitzei), where there is no hint that Yaakov had any further children.13
b) In Parshas Vayishlach, on "כי גם זה" ("for this one, too") (regarding the birth of Binyamin), Rashi says (in his explanation "ורבותינו דרשו"): "With each tribe a twin sister was born, and with Binyamin an additional twin sister was born." This is not understood: Since Rashi holds, in Parshas Vayeishev, that "twin sisters were born" is very far from smooth [to the point that he considers it proper for this reason, by adding a second explanation, to remove the word "his daughters" from its plain meaning], then all the more so in Parshas Vayishlach [where there is seemingly no compelling reason to introduce the novelty that Yaakov had further children besides those mentioned in the Torah14] he should have explained (at least as a second explanation) that only with Binyamin was a (single) twin sister born, and not with the other brothers!
c) Why does Rashi need, in explaining "and all his daughters," to add the word "ונשאום" ("and they married them") to his first explanation? The plain meaning of "his daughters" is already accounted for by "twin sisters were born," etc. And so too the words "they were Canaanite women" seem superfluous in the second explanation: if "daughters-in-law" are called "daughters," what does it matter who the "daughters-in-law" were, Canaanite women or not?
d) Since the entire reason that the second explanation disputes the first is the difficulty with the novelty that "twin sisters were born," the second explanation should have rejected this novelty explicitly, and said that no twin sisters were born with the sons of Yaakov!15
3. The explanation is as follows:
In the words "and all his daughters," on which Rashi comments, two things are difficult: (a) the plain meaning of the words themselves. Yaakov had only one (two16) daughter (and even according to "our Rabbis expounded" only two (or three16) daughters). How, then, does the expression "and all his daughters," which denotes a greater number,17 fit here? And (b) why is only "all his daughters" mentioned, with nothing told about Yaakov's daughters-in-law, who surely also came to console him?18
Rashi answers both questions in his commentary: a) "Twin sisters were born with each and every tribe," which accounts for the expression "and all his daughters"; b) "and they married them," which makes it understandable why only ("his sons" and) "his daughters" are mentioned, and not (his sons-in-law19 and) his daughters-in-law.
Rashi's adding a second explanation afterward is not because of the difficulty in the first matter (that we find no hint regarding the twin sisters of the tribes, as we do with the twin sisters of Kayin and Hevel), for this is not yet so strong a question as to warrant translating the word "his daughters" (as in the second explanation) not in its plain sense. Rather, it is because the second matter, "and they married them," is difficult for him:
It is known20 that the Avos observed all the mitzvos of the Torah, even though they had not been commanded to do so. And since it is written21 (regarding Avraham) "למען אשר יצוה את בניו ואת ביתו אחריו" ("so that he will command his children and his household after him"), reason dictates that with Yaakov too there was "he will command his children," and that the sons of Yaakov, at least while they were in close proximity to Yaakov,22 observed all the mitzvos.23 It is therefore difficult to say that they married a sister from the same father, since sisters from the same father also became forbidden at the Giving of the Torah.24
Rashi therefore brings a second explanation, "they were Canaanite women," that the tribes married not their sisters but "Canaanite women."25 But according to this it becomes difficult: why does the verse say only "his daughters" and not mention his daughters-in-law? To this Rashi says that "his daughters" means (also26) his daughters-in-law.
This will also explain the consistency in yet another detail27 of the explanations of R. Yehudah and R. Nechemiah in our case with their approach in several places in the interpretation of Scripture: We find in several places28 that R. Yehudah interprets the plain meaning of a verse according to what is implied by the parsha itself, even when the explanation expresses a diminution of "the honor of Israel." So too he learns here, according to what is evident from the continuation of the parsha, even though this means that the tribes did not observe the later prohibition of sisters. R. Nechemiah, by contrast, does not refrain from reading a strained interpretation into a verse in order to preserve the honor of Israel. For this very reason he learns "his daughters, meaning his daughters-in-law," so that it will not emerge that the sons of Yaakov fell short in the observance of the 613 mitzvos.
4. Yet this still requires explanation:29 It is plainly understood that Rashi's statement in Parshas Vayishlach, "With each tribe a twin sister was born, and with Binyamin," etc., as far as "each tribe" is concerned, is not derived from "for this one, too," on which he comments, since these words relate exclusively to the birth of Binyamin and have nothing to do with the birth of each tribe. We must therefore accept that "with each tribe a twin sister was born" is already a known matter, and that Rashi mentions here "with each tribe," etc., only in order to clarify that the "also" written (only) regarding Binyamin includes an "additional twin sister," that one more twin sister was born with him than at the birth of the other tribes.
This is not understood:
a) From where, indeed, is it so obvious (even before one has come to study the matter of "and all his daughters" and the necessity that arises from there, as above) that "with each tribe a twin sister was born"?
b) And if it is indeed obvious, then at the words "and all his daughters" Rashi should have spoken only of the detail he introduces, that the tribes married the twin sisters (in order to answer why only "and all his daughters" is written)? Moreover, from Rashi's wording "twin sisters were born," etc., it is evident that this is said here as a novelty, a new teaching.
5. The explanation is as follows:
When the time came for Yitzchak to marry, Avraham made Eliezer swear: "לא תקח אשה לבני מבנות הכנעני" ("You shall not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanite").30 Afterward Yitzchak gave Yaakov the same instruction: "לא תקח אשה מבנות כנען" ("You shall not take a wife from the daughters of Canaan"),31 and Rivkah emphasized this even more strongly: "קצתי בחיי" ("I am disgusted with my life"), etc.: "If Yaakov takes a wife from the daughters of Ches, etc., why do I need life?"32
Regarding the sons of Yaakov, however, we find nowhere in the Torah that they went for this purpose from Canaan, where they then lived, to another land, or that they sent emissaries for this purpose (as the Torah relates concerning Avraham and Yaakov). Accordingly, one must assume in the plain sense that their wives were from the daughters of Canaan.33
But it is difficult to say so: How can one maintain that the tribes married the daughters of Canaan, when this was so strongly rejected by the Avos?34 It is therefore implied in the plain sense that the tribes had sisters and married them.35 This means that the straightforward narrative of events teaches and informs us of the essential matter, that they must have had sisters whom they married.36
[A parallel to this (though not exactly the same matter): neither the verse nor even Rashi mentions whom the "sons and daughters" of Adam HaRishon married.]
Nevertheless, when we reach the verse "and all his daughters," Rashi must say "twin sisters were born . . . and they married them" (although it is an obvious matter, as above). Moreover, he also brings a second explanation, "they were Canaanite women," because the wording of the verse "and all his daughters" implies that the tribes married other women (as will be explained in section 6).
6. The wording of the verse "and all his daughters" implies that it comes to include daughters who would not have been included had it said only "his daughters": there was more than one category of daughters. The question then is: What different categories can there be among daughters?37
The expression "all his sons" is understood: it means that all the sons, including those who sold Yosef, came to console Yaakov. But why is the expression "and all" used regarding the daughters?
We must therefore say that "his daughters" here also means "his daughters-in-law," meaning those who are not his daughters (that is, the tribes married Canaanite women,38 not their sisters), and the verse hints at them and includes them in "and all his daughters": two categories of daughters, actual daughters and those who are like daughters, his daughters-in-law.
That is why Rashi learns two explanations in "and all his daughters": "R. Yehudah says: Twin sisters were born, etc., and they married them; R. Nechemiah says: They were Canaanite women." For R. Yehudah, whose method of study is to dwell principally on the overall subject, therefore learns that the tribes married their sisters, since from the overall content of the parshiyos (which relate twice, explicitly and at length, that one should go and search in another land as long as it is not "the daughters of the land") it is difficult to accept the other possibility (that they married Canaanite women). And R. Nechemiah, since he dwells principally on the detail, on the individual word, learns "they were Canaanite women," for thereby the wording of the detailed words "and all his daughters" is precisely accounted for.39
7. According to the above we will also understand why "His sons carried him" requires an explanation only according to R. Nechemiah and not according to R. Yehudah:
Rashi's inference "his sons, and not his sons' sons" does not come from the word "his sons" itself, since the meaning of "sons" can also encompass sons' sons,40 and as is also understood41 from Rashi's statement in this very place that Menashe and Ephraim also carried Yaakov's coffin, and they were, after all, the sons of Yaakov's sons. Rashi's compelling reason is rather that the word "his sons" is altogether superfluous: After the verse has already related "ויעשו בניו לו כן כאשר צום" ("His sons did for him just as he had commanded them"), this would already have sufficed for us to understand that "they carried him to the land of Canaan," etc., means "his sons" (even without the word "his sons").
Since, however, the verse repeats the word "his sons" once more, Rashi infers that this is said for emphasis: specifically his sons, thereby intending to exclude "his sons' sons," who are the children of the daughters of Canaan.
This inference, however, applies only according to R. Nechemiah, who dwells principally on the individual word. According to R. Yehudah, by contrast, since he places the main emphasis on the matter as a whole, no explanation is required (to such an extent) for the repetition of the word "his sons." And since from the overall matter it emerges that his sons' sons also carried the coffin, for according to his view (that the sons' sons were born of Yaakov's daughters) there is no reason to exclude them, he therefore learns that the repetition of "his sons" is for added clarity or the like, as at the beginning of the chapter: "ויפול יוסף" ("And Yosef fell"), etc., "ויצו יוסף" ("And Yosef commanded"), and in several other places.
8. We must, however, still understand: Since after the Giving of the Torah sisters from the same father also became forbidden,42 one could seemingly say even according to R. Yehudah that Yaakov's instruction "אל ישאו מטתי לא אחד מבניכם" ("Let none of your sons carry my bier") was for this reason, that they were children of a union which he, Yaakov, had taken upon himself as a prohibition (of forbidden relations)!
True, as regards the tribes themselves, since they had not taken upon themselves the observance of the entire Torah before it was given, this does not mean that they committed a transgression by marrying their sisters; consequently, there was also no deficiency in their children on this account. But this still does not suffice to answer according to the view of R. Yehudah, for even according to R. Nechemiah the sons of Yaakov committed no transgression by marrying the Canaanite women, and nevertheless Rashi learns (according to R. Nechemiah) that Yaakov instructed "Let none of your sons carry my bier, for they are from the daughters of Canaan." We must accept, then, that although in itself the marriage with the Canaanite women involved no prohibition, it was nonetheless a reason for Yaakov that their children should not be fit to carry his coffin.
One could say the same (and all the more so43) according to the view of R. Yehudah, that being children of a brother and sister could certainly have been regarded as a deficiency in Yaakov's eyes. The question therefore remains: Why does Rashi not wish to learn that according to R. Yehudah too Yaakov insisted that only "his sons" be the bearers of the bier?
But in truth, according to the plain meaning, this is no question at all, for where there is no prohibition against the marriage, neither with Canaanite women nor with sisters, they cannot be compared at all. And the difference between them is the reverse of the above: specifically the marriage with the daughters of Canaan is a blemish, a deficiency, because the Canaanites in themselves are not fit to marry into, on account of "ארור כנען" ("Cursed be Canaan")44 (even without any prohibition being involved45). A brother and sister, by contrast, are rejected only because the Torah forbade it, and therefore in essence there was no blemish or deficiency whatsoever in this in the time before the Giving of the Torah,46 when this command had not yet come.
9. And from the "wine of Torah" contained in Rashi's commentary:
In the inner dimension of these matters something still remains not understood: From the very fact that the Avos observed all the 613 mitzvos even before the Giving of the Torah, it is seemingly understood that even then the later prohibitions had a place, at least a trace, in the subtlest of subtleties. Consequently there is again room to say (even according to R. Yehudah) that for this reason Yaakov would wish to exclude the children of a brother and sister from the bearers of his coffin, and the question returns to its place.
In addition: How is such a thing possible at all, that the majority of the Jewish people (other than the tribes of Yehudah, Menashe and Ephraim) should descend from those whose union, after the Giving of the Torah, belongs to the forbidden relations?!47
The explanation of this: It is discussed in Chassidus,48 based on the Zohar and the books of Kabbalah, that the reason for the prohibition of forbidden relations is that spiritually these are extremely lofty unions [such as the union of Zeir Anpin and Malchus, which are also called brother and sister49], which because of their loftiness the world here below cannot receive. And when these extremely lofty lights are revealed here below, harm can result from it (in matters of holiness, as is said of Ben Zoma:50 "הציץ ונפגע" ("he gazed and was harmed"), for, being unable to grasp such an abundance of light, the "gazing" harmed him; or even lower than that, as in the well-known example of someone who looks at the sun without a screen). Therefore, at the Giving of the Torah, which is in the manner of "there shall be one Torah for you," these matters were forbidden here below for everyone equally.
From this it is understood that before the Giving of the Torah, before they became forbidden, such unions were no deficiency for those who could receive these extremely lofty lights. On the contrary, it was actually a virtue (similar to R. Shimon bar Yochai, whom entering the Pardes did not harm; on the contrary, it brought him to an extremely lofty elevation).
It is therefore no wonder how the Jewish people could descend through the marriages of the twin sisters. On the contrary, since the tribes could receive the lofty lights, it was to their advantage, that the Jewish people come forth through extremely lofty unions.51
(From the sichos of the winter of 5728 and Shabbos Parshas Vayeishev 5729)
Notes
1) Our parsha, 50:13.
2) 37:35.
3) Tanchuma (Buber edition), Vayeishev 10. Yalkut Shimoni on the verse. See also Bereishis Rabbah 84:21 and the commentaries there.
4) From Rashi's wording, "a person does not refrain from calling" (as in Bereishis Rabbah and the Yalkut there), and not "for it is a person's way to call" (as in Daas Zekeinim of the Baalei HaTosafos; similarly in Midrash Sechel Tov and Midrash Aggadah), it is implied that there is some concern in this form of address, yet nevertheless a person does not refrain, etc. The explanation of this is simple: When a person calls his son-in-law his son and his daughter-in-law his daughter, there is room to err and think that he means his actual "son" and "daughter," and consequently people will say that so-and-so married his sister. Rashi therefore writes that (even so) a person does not refrain, etc.
Accordingly it is simply understood why Rashi brings no proof from Naomi's calling her daughters-in-law "my daughters" (as in Ramban here, and as in Mattenos Kehunah on Bereishis Rabbah there): there it was after the death of their husbands, and the concern applies only to those who remember that they had been married to her sons; and the main novelty, that a person does not refrain from calling (his son-in-law his son and) his daughter-in-law his daughter, is during the lifetime of (his daughter and) his son.
5) Ramban in Parshas Vayeishev (38:2) explains Rashi's "and not his sons' sons" as follows: The reason is that Shaul son of Shimon and Shelah son of Yehudah were from the daughters of Canaan, and therefore he excluded all of them. Accordingly (one can say that) Rashi in our parsha is (also) according to the view of R. Yehudah. But [in addition to what needs explanation: why should he exclude all of them because of Shaul and Shelah], (a) the plain sense of Rashi's words, "and not one of your sons, for they are from the daughters of Canaan," implies that it refers to all the sons of the tribes (except Menashe and Ephraim, as Rashi continues). (b) According to Rashi (according to R. Yehudah, whose view Ramban uses to explain Rashi's words in our parsha) in Parshas Vayeishev (there) and Parshas Vayigash (46:10), Shaul and Shelah were not from the daughters of Canaan (unlike according to R. Nechemiah, in Rashi's approach, for which reason Shaul and Shelah too did not carry his coffin (see above, p. 228, note 3)).
6) Re'em here. Gur Aryeh, Vayeishev there.
In Ramban, Parshas Vayeishev there (and see also "שו"ת" [as printed] there): R. Nechemiah's intent with "Canaanite women" is not actual Canaanites (he comes only to reject the view of R. Yehudah that they married their sisters), but rather the women who came to the land of Canaan from other lands; see there. But a) this is not the plain sense of Rashi's wording; b) from Rashi in our parsha it is evident that actual Canaanite women are meant, as written in Gur Aryeh there. See below, note 33.
7) Bereishis 4:1-2 and Rashi there. (So too in Bereishis Rabbah 22:3 and Rashi there.)
8) Vayishlach 35:17 and Rashi there. (So too in Bereishis Rabbah 82:8 and Rashi and Mattenos Kehunah there.)
9) Vayeitzei 29:33 (for the word "את" is superfluous*). It may be said that even according to the view of R. Nechemiah a twin sister was born with Shimon (and according to the view of R. Yehudah an additional twin sister was born with him). Rashi did not explain this regarding Shimon because he relies on what he explained regarding Kayin and Hevel (4:2).
According to this we can better appreciate:
a) Why Rashi (in Parshas Vayeishev) writes his explanation on "and all his daughters," although seemingly the word "his daughters" alone is also not understood without Rashi's explanation, since it is in the plural. Rather, the plural is understood, for (in addition to the fact that according to the explanation "our Rabbis expounded" a twin sister was born with Binyamin even according to R. Nechemiah) even according to the plain meaning a twin sister was born with Shimon. (See below, section 6, in a different manner.)
b) The precise wording of Rashi, "twin sisters were born with each and every tribe," in order to emphasize that he means literally each tribe.** Seemingly, for what reason would it enter one's mind to differentiate among the tribes? And if you say there is a reason to differentiate, what is the proof not to differentiate? According to the above it is understood: There is room to say that the novelty suffices that twin sisters were born with the sons of Leah and Rachel, for at least it is hinted in Scripture that they bore twin sisters (with Shimon and Binyamin); but from where do we know this regarding Bilhah and Zilpah? And the proof not to differentiate: it is compelling that all the tribes married their sisters, as below in section 3 and section 5, and without Bilhah and Zilpah (a) there are only eight (or nine***) twin sisters, (b) how could the sons of Leah marry their sister from the same mother?
*) Seemingly one could say that this is the Scriptural style, as in Chayei Sarah 24:36; 25:5, and elsewhere. [And so too one could say regarding Rashi on "ותלד את קין" ("and she bore Kayin"), that this is the style following "and she bore," as is written there (4:18, and in all the generations from Adam to Avraham), for it is impossible to say that twin sisters were born with Shem, Cham and Yefes. Nevertheless, Rashi explains that this "Kayin," etc., includes twin sisters: a) in that same verse it concludes "את ה'" and he explains this as "with"; b) in the following verse, with the word "את" twice, all this compels saying that "the three instances of "את" are inclusions, etc., with Kayin and with Hevel," etc. Accordingly the following in Rashi there is answered: 1) why he delays the explanation of "את קין" until after the explanation of "את ה'"; 2) why he emphasizes that there are three instances of "את".] And one can say that from the very fact that it is written in this style (and not "ויוסיף לי בן" ("may He add for me a son"), as in 30:24, or the like), it is implied that the "את" here is an inclusion, similar to the above regarding Kayin and Hevel.
**) And the fact that in Parshas Vayishlach (35:17) Rashi writes "with each tribe," and not "with each and every tribe," is because his explanation in Parshas Vayishlach also applies to the view (below in the body of the note) that twin sisters were born only with the sons of Leah and Rachel.
It can further be said: Even if we say that according to this view only one twin sister was born with Binyamin (as below in the third marginal note (following this one)), Rashi after all writes an additional twin sister. It is understood from this that his explanation here follows the view that twin sisters were born also with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah (as below there, and see also below, note 36). If so (according to the above) he should have written "each and every tribe"! The answer: Since the view that "with each tribe a twin sister was born" is self-evident, even without Rashi's explanation, as below in section 5 (and Rashi writes this only in passing, in order to conclude that with Binyamin an additional twin sister was born, as below in section 4), he need not emphasize (or caution) that he means literally each tribe. This is not so in Parshas Vayeishev (where this view is explained in its place, not in passing, and further), where from the precise wording "and all his daughters" the view of R. Nechemiah is proven (as below in section 6), and included in this Rashi introduces (in his first explanation) that twin sisters were born, etc.; he must therefore emphasize explicitly that he means literally each tribe.
***) For the novelty that twin sisters were born with all the sons of Leah and Rachel can be learned in two ways:
a) From what is hinted in Scripture regarding Shimon and Binyamin. According to this one could say that with each of them (including Shimon and Binyamin, regarding whom Scripture hints) only one twin sister was born. Accordingly there were only eight twin sisters. (According to this approach, Rashi's statement "and with Binyamin an additional twin sister was born" follows the view of R. Yehudah that twin sisters were born also with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah (as below in sections 4 and 5).)
b) That even if it were hinted only regarding a son of one of them (Leah or Rachel), we would learn that twin sisters were born with all the sons of Leah and Rachel, since they were sisters entirely similar to one another, to the point that without signs it was impossible to distinguish between them at night (Vayeitzei 29:25 and in Rashi). [This explains: (a) what is written (29:31): "And G‑d saw that," etc. (and therefore specifically) "He opened," etc. (for without this she would have been equal to her sister Rachel), "and Rachel was barren." (This is so simply understood that Rashi need not explain it.) (b) Rachel's confession that Leah needed good deeds in order to merit sons (Rashi on 30:1).] And since from the twin sister hinted regarding Shimon we would also know that twin sisters were born with the sons of Rachel, it must be (even according to R. Nechemiah) that the intent of Scripture with "also" regarding Binyamin is that an additional twin sister was born with him (and accordingly it is also understood why the midwife reassured her, "Fear not, for this one, too, is a son for you": the difficulty, "and she had hard labor," was because an additional twin sister was born with him (beyond that of Yosef)). Accordingly there were nine twin sisters.
10) What is written (Mikeitz 43:29; Vayigash 46:15) regarding Binyamin and Dinah with the word "את": one can say that it does not include a twin sister, because the verse there is not speaking of their birth (see Chiddushei Aggados of Maharsha, Bava Basra 123, end of side a).
"ואת אחד עשר ילדיו" ("and his eleven children") is different, for it includes the twin sisters as well (as below, end of note 11), for since it is already known that twin sisters were born, one can properly say that the intent of "and he took," etc., "and his eleven children" is that he also took the twin sisters born with them.
11) Accordingly it will be understood what Rashi writes (Vayishlach 32:23): "And where was Dinah? He placed her in a chest, etc., and therefore he was punished." For seemingly, according to the explanation that twin sisters were born with each tribe, he should have asked also regarding the rest of his daughters, "and where were they?" (and according to what is written in note 9, regarding the twin sister born with Shimon even according to R. Nechemiah).
[And even if we say that Rashi's question is specifically about Dinah, because from the verse "and his eleven children" the student does not yet know that with each tribe a twin sister was born (unlike below in section 5), and we also explain differently the "את" written regarding Shimon, it would still be difficult: Why does Rashi not explain the reason for what is written, "his eleven (and no more) children," after he introduces that with each tribe a twin sister was born? (And one cannot say that he also placed them in the chest, for if so, why was he punished specifically over Dinah?)]
For since it is written there "and his eleven children," the word "את" includes also the twin sisters born with "his eleven children."
12) In the explanation of Rashi on Eikev (11:6) and Haazinu (32:43). See below, note 28.
13) Seemingly one could say that Rashi explains "twin sisters," etc., on account of the overall content of the verse, namely the extent of Yaakov's mourning, in that "he refused to be consoled" even when "all his sons and all his daughters" consoled him; he therefore explains "his daughters" in its plain sense and not as his daughters-in-law. And R. Nechemiah explains that no twin sisters were born, because he infers from the fact that at the birth of the tribes (except Shimon) the word "את" is not written, and this is an inference from an individual word.
But this is not so (though see below, note 36). For a) sons are stronger and more influential than daughters. Accordingly the addition of the phrase "and all his daughters" after "all his sons" failed to console him is not understandable. It must be that the novelty lies in the fact that even the consolation of those not so close (his daughters-in-law), who nevertheless came to console him, and still he refused to be consoled. If so, on the contrary: according to the explanation "his daughters, meaning his daughters-in-law," the extent of Yaakov's mourning is emphasized all the more.
b) If R. Nechemiah's proof is from the fact that "את" is not written (regarding the birth of the tribes), why does Rashi state without qualification in Parshas Vayishlach (35:17, according to "it can further be said" above in the second marginal note to note 9) like the view of R. Yehudah [especially since there this inference is more relevant, since the discussion there concerns the birth of Binyamin]? From what, then, is it proven that the proof for the second explanation is specifically from "and all his daughters"?
14) Especially since the proof for this [that twin sisters were not born, since they are not hinted at in Scripture at all] is more relevant there than here, since the discussion there concerns the birth of Binyamin [as in the previous note].
15) Seemingly one could add a further question: The words "they were Canaanite women" seemingly reject only "and they married them" and not "twin sisters were born," etc. (and "and all his daughters" refers to them. And we cannot say that according to the second view "and all his daughters" is explained as "they were Canaanite women," for this cannot be said, since according to all, Dinah is here and is included in "his daughters," and according to the above also the twin sisters of Shimon and Binyamin). Since he does not reject twin sisters, what is his question, "what, then, is 'and all his daughters'"?
But this is not so. For one can say that "they were Canaanite women" refers to the words "and all his daughters," which Rashi quotes and explains. According to the first view this is fine, since according to this view it refers (also) to the twin sisters. But according to R. Nechemiah, for whom it refers (also) to [his daughters-in-law, the] Canaanite women, there is the difficulty "what, then, is 'and all his daughters,'" for it should have said "his daughters and his daughters-in-law." See further below on this.
16) See above, note 9.
17) In Ibn Ezra there: that "and all his daughters" means his daughter and his son's daughter (Serach bas Asher). But (a) according to Rashi in Parshas Pinchas (26:46), that Serach was alive in the fortieth year after the Exodus from Egypt (and according to Rashi on II Shmuel (20:19) from "Midrash Aggadah," also in the days of David and Yoav), it is reasonable to place her birth as late as possible and to say that she was born close to the entry into Egypt. (b) Even if we say that she was born several years before the sale of Yosef (so that she was already capable of consoling), in which case she must be included in "his daughters" (see the next note), the principal meaning of "his daughters" is his actual daughters (and note Parshas Vayigash 46:7: "his daughters and his sons' daughters"). It is therefore unreasonable that the expression "and all his daughters" (two inclusions) is because Serach is included in "his daughters," which would be only secondary.
18) The fact that the Torah does not relate that his grandsons also came to console him: one can say that this is because they are included in "his sons," for grandsons are as sons (Rashi, Vayeira 20:12) (in addition to which one could say that they were still small).
19) Accordingly it is understood why Rashi writes (in the words of R. Nechemiah) "his son-in-law his son," which is seemingly superfluous: to answer why it is not said that his sons-in-law also came to console him.
Nevertheless, Rashi quotes only the words "and all his daughters" and not also "all his sons," for the entire question (why Scripture does not mention his sons-in-law as well) arises specifically after Rashi introduces that "twin sisters were born," etc. And since R. Nechemiah also does not dispute this (and disputes only "and they married them"),* he therefore needed to add "his son-in-law his son" (for it is more comfortable to say that at least the older ones were married).
*) According to what is written below in note 38, that R. Nechemiah also disputes "twin sisters were born," one can say that the need to add "his son-in-law his son" is in order to answer why Scripture does not mention the husband of Dinah (who according to R. Nechemiah is not "the Canaanite woman," mother of Shaul, as above at the end of note 5; see also below, note 34), and likewise the husband of the twin sister of Shimon (and Binyamin).
Nevertheless, Rashi quotes only "all his daughters" and not "all his sons," for it is not compelling that they were already married at that time (especially since according to R. Nechemiah there were only two older ones (Dinah and the twin sister of Shimon, whereas the twin sisters of Binyamin were then only about nine years old)) so as to pose a question on the verse (unlike when it is resolved in passing, through "his daughters-in-law").
20) See Rashi, Toldos 26:5 (regarding Avraham (and see also Vayeira 19:3 regarding Lot; see there, end of verse 1)); ibid., 12; 26:3, 9 (regarding Yitzchak); Vayishlach 32:5 (regarding Yaakov).
21) Vayeira 18:19.
22) See along these lines, in the manner of Chassidus, below, pp. 373-4, regarding the Avos (each of whom served in a different line): even if we say that Yitzchak's conduct followed the line of Gevurah also during Avraham's lifetime, it is nevertheless simple that in Avraham's place he conducted himself in the line of Chessed, Avraham's attribute. Likewise regarding Yaakov's conduct in the place of Yitzchak. See there at length and in the notes there. And similar to the ruling that in the place of Rav one must act like Rav (Shabbos 19b).
23) Although the generations after them did not keep all the mitzvos before they were commanded, for Amram married Yocheved his aunt (Va'eira 6:20). And the tribes too (when they were far from Yaakov) did not observe the entire Torah, as is implied by what is written (Mikeitz 43:16): "וטבוח טבח" ("and slaughter an animal"), etc., "for the men will eat with me," etc., and they assumed that the slaughterer was a non-Jew.*
One can say, however (at least in a strained way), that the tribes did not eat the meat, because they assumed it was neveilah.
(And one cannot prove that the tribes ate meat at this meal from what is written in Targum Onkelos (43:32), brought in Rashi: "for the animal that the Egyptians worship,** the Hebrews eat," for this explains the conduct of those setting the table, why "they set for him by himself and for them by themselves," and it is no proof either of the tribes' conduct in general or of their conduct in this matter in particular.)
And the fact that Yosef commanded that an animal be slaughtered for the tribes, "for the men will eat with me," is because, since he suspected them even in what they were commanded (Rashi, Vayeishev 37:2), he did not assume that his brothers were stringent to observe the mitzvos they had not been commanded. And this does not involve "before the blind," etc., for they had not been commanded at all.***
See at length on all this Likkutei Sichos vol. 35, p. 181 ff.
*) In Chullin 91a: he exposed the place of slaughter to them. But from the fact that Rashi does not bring this explanation (even according to R. Nechemiah), it is proven that (this is not the plain meaning of the verse and also) they were not careful about this.
And the fact that Rashi did not explain "and prepare: remove the gid hanasheh in front of them" (as in Chullin there), although "the children of Israel shall not eat" the gid hanasheh (Vayishlach 32:33), is because each person could remove it while eating.
On the Midrash, etc., whether the tribes too observed the entire Torah, see Parashas Derachim (at the beginning); Beis HaOtzar (at the beginning); and sources cited there, and elsewhere.
**) And although "they worship it," Yosef nevertheless told "the one over his house" to slaughter an animal, for there were also animals that they did not worship (see Rashi, Vayeishev 37:36: "slaughterers of the king's animals"; and from what Rashi writes on Vayigash 47:6, "over my flocks," it is proven that even among sheep there were such that they did not worship. And what is written (Vayigash 46:34), "for every shepherd of flocks is an abomination to Egypt," must be explained as being because the tribes herded all flocks, including those that were worshipped. See Rashi on Bo (11, end of verse 5), that they worshipped only the firstborn (and although it says there "and every firstborn animal," so it was with all species, including "flocks"). See Rashi, Bereishis 7:20 [as printed]: "to the shepherds of animals . . . the pasture of his flock"). This is not the place to elaborate.
***) Moreover, one can say that if they had been commanded regarding the prohibition of neveilah, then even if the meat had been slaughtered properly, according to the explanation of Targum Yonasan that "the one over his house" was Menashe (though one cannot prove this from what is written, "for they will eat with me," that Yosef said he would eat of this slaughter, for the plain meaning of the verse (43:16) is that "the one over his house" was commanded something new, pertaining to "the men," etc., and not the regular matter pertaining to "with me," to Yosef), since the tribes assumed it was neveilah they would require atonement (see Nazir 23a: one who intended to bring up pig meat in his hand, etc.; and this is also the plain meaning of the verse, as in Rashi, Matos 30:6: "Of what is the verse speaking?" etc.). If so, this would involve the prohibition of "before the blind."
24) Acharei 18:9.
25) In this there was no prohibition, for the prohibition of "לא תתחתן בם" ("You shall not intermarry with them") (Va'eschanan 7:3) is because "for he will turn away," etc., "and they will worship other deities" (ibid., 4). Consequently, where this reason does not apply [and it is simple that the women who married the tribes did not turn them away, etc.], the prohibition does not apply (similar to what Rashi writes on Shoftim 20:18; see also Gur Aryeh, Vayeishev 38:2). This is also compelled by Rashi on Chayei Sarah (24:8): "and take a wife for him from the daughters of Aner, Eshkol and Mamre," although they were Emorites (Lech Lecha 14:13).
26) For Dinah (and the twin sisters of Shimon and Binyamin) certainly came to console him.
27) In addition to the above in section 2.
28) See Rashi on Eikev (11:6) and Haazinu (32:43), that R. Nechemiah strives (although it is strained in explaining the matter) for the honor of Israel: that there was no change in the territory of Israel that has no connection to Korach; "סדום היינו ארי'ה" [OCR unclear]. And R. Yehudah explains the verses according to their plain meaning, although this runs contrary to striving for the honor of Israel.
But this is still not understood: From Rashi on Eikev there, "R. Nechemiah said to him . . . 'her mouth' and not 'her mouths,'" it is proven that the main reason R. Nechemiah disputes R. Yehudah is because of the precise wording of the word "her mouth," but on account of striving for the honor of Israel alone he would not have disputed R. Yehudah so as to remove "in the midst of all Israel" from its plain meaning (even though R. Nechemiah is more precise in details, and "in the midst of all Israel" bears on the overall content of the verse and not on the precision of an individual word, as explained at length in the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Eikev 5726). Yet in the body of the text it is explained that because of striving for the honor of Israel he explains the word "his daughters" [a precision in an individual word, which according to R. Nechemiah is the main thing] not in its plain sense? We must therefore say as below in section 6.
29) In addition to this:
(a) According to the above, that "they were Canaanite women" rejects only "and they married them,"* we must say that Rashi's intent in "what, then, is 'and all his daughters'" is: why is only "and all his daughters" written and "his daughters-in-law" not added as well (as above). But the plain sense of Rashi's wording implies that his question, "what, then, is 'and all his daughters,'" concerns the words "and all his daughters" themselves. Further: If his intent were to ask why only "his daughters" is written, he should have written "what, then, is 'his daughters'"; from his writing "what is 'and all his daughters'" it is proven that this phrase was difficult for him, because "and all his daughters" indicates that he had many (kinds of) daughters, as below in the body of the text.
(b) If his intent were only to reject "and they married them," he should have said "they were foreign women" [although, in a strained way, one can say that he used "Canaanite women" only in passing (for since they lived in the land of Canaan it stands to reason that they took Canaanite women, "from the daughters of the land" (Toldos 26:46 [as printed])), while his main intent is that they did not marry their sisters].
*) And from the fact that R. Nechemiah does not say explicitly that twin sisters were not born (as in the fourth question above in section 2), it must be so, that R. Nechemiah rejects only "and they married them" (see above, note 15).
30) Chayei Sarah 24:3.
31) Toldos 28:1.
32) Ibid., 27:46.
33) And one cannot say that they married women not of the nations but of those who came to the land of Canaan from other lands (see Ramban and ש"ח (Vayeishev 38:2), who explained thus according to R. Nechemiah), for according to the plain meaning there were none such there. This is proven by the fact that Avraham needed to send Eliezer to Charan so that "you shall not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanite among whom I dwell" [and also if "the woman does not wish," etc., "take a wife for him from the daughters of Aner, Eshkol and Mamre" (Chayei Sarah 24:8 and Rashi there), although they were Emorites (Lech Lecha 14:13) and these are included in "Cursed be Canaan," and he did not tell him to take a wife for Yitzchak from women who are not of the seven nations]. And likewise regarding Yaakov, Yitzchak sent him to Paddan Aram so that "you shall not take a wife from the daughters of Canaan."
34) And the question of the Gemara (Pesachim 50a, on the verse (Vayeishev there) "and Yehudah saw there the daughter of a Canaanite man"): Is it possible that Avraham came and warned Yitzchak, Yitzchak came and warned Yaakov, and Yehudah went and married her?
This question applies also according to the plain meaning, which is why Rashi needed to explain in Parshas Vayeishev there (as in the Gemara there): "Canaanite: a merchant"
[except that this explanation (in the Gemara (see Gur Aryeh 38:2; Daas Zekeinim of the Baalei HaTosafos 37:35) and likewise in Rashi) is specifically according to R. Yehudah and not according to R. Nechemiah, for (in addition to the fact that according to R. Nechemiah one can explain it as actually Canaanite and there is no need to explain it as "merchant"*) according to R. Nechemiah it is necessarily so that Shelah too was from the daughters of Canaan, as above, p. 228, note 3, unlike what the Re'em writes at the end of our parsha].
*) Perhaps one can say that even according to R. Nechemiah one must say that the word "Canaanite" in this verse means "merchant" (although he was also actually Canaanite), in order to answer (see Ramban and Gur Aryeh there): (a) Why did Scripture need to say that he was a Canaanite, when all the people of that land were Canaanites? (b) Why is it said "the daughter of a Canaanite man" and not "a Canaanite woman" (and it also adds "and his name was Shua")? We must therefore say that the word "Canaanite" here means "merchant," and therefore Scripture calls her "the daughter of a Canaanite man" because of her father's prominence (as in Ramban; see also Bereishis Rabbah 85:7 and the commentaries there).
According to this the verse is also answered (38:12): "ותמת בת שוע אשת יהודה" ("and the daughter of Shua, Yehudah's wife, died"), although through marriage the connection to her father's house is severed (see above, p. 192 and note 54), especially since she bore three sons and Shelah was alive, so that she does not return to her father's house even for eating terumah (Emor 22:13 and Rashi; see the above note above, there): because of her father's great prominence she was called by his name, "the daughter of Shua," even after her marriage, etc.
35) According to what is explained in the body of the text, it is compelling that according to R. Yehudah the tribes married only their sisters and did not marry other women. And what is written (Vayigash 46:26), "besides the wives of Yaakov's sons," refers to their sisters and not to other women.
There is no contradiction to this from what Rashi writes there: "And according to the one who says twin sisters were born with the tribes, we must say that they died before they went down to Egypt." For Rashi's intent in "according to the one who says" includes (as below) also R. Yehudah, only if we say that according to him not all the twin sisters were married (to the tribes).* But if we explain Rashi's words (Vayeishev 37:35), "and they married them," as meaning specifically all of them, then the explanation (in Vayigash) is not according to R. Yehudah,** for (a) Rashi's proof there that they died before they went down to Egypt is "for they are not counted here," and according to R. Yehudah, that the twin sisters married the tribes, they are counted in what is written "besides the wives of Yaakov's sons," as Ramban (there, 15) and the commentators on Rashi there asked.*** (b) According to R. Yehudah it is impossible to say that they died before they went down to Egypt, for from what is written (there, 7), "his daughters, etc., he brought with him to Egypt," it is compelling that he then had several daughters ["his daughters" is plural, as Rashi explains regarding "his sons' daughters"; see also Ramban there], and according to R. Yehudah "his daughters" means his actual daughters and not his daughters-in-law.
Rather, it is according to the one who says that twin sisters were born but were not married to the tribes (at least not all of them), that is, all who expound the inclusions stated regarding Shimon and Binyamin (and R. Nechemiah among them). Therefore Rashi is precise, "twin sisters were born with the tribes," and not "with all the tribes" (as he says in Parshas Vayishlach (35:17) and in Parshas Vayeishev (37:35)). (And according to R. Nechemiah in particular, that the twin sisters did not marry (as above, section 3; see below, note 39), the twin sisters are not counted in "besides the wives of Yaakov's sons" (and "the wives of Yaakov's sons," according to R. Nechemiah, are not descendants of Yaakov****)); therefore we must say according to him that they died before they went down to Egypt.
*) For although R. Yehudah's entire proof that twin sisters were born with each tribe (not only with the sons of Leah and Rachel) is because he holds that they did not marry Canaanite women, nevertheless, since an additional twin sister was born with Binyamin (Rashi, Vayishlach 35:17), there were thirteen twin sisters, and Yosef married Osnas, and regarding Yehudah we find among his sons only sons of "the daughter of a Canaanite man" (a merchant*) and Tamar (regarding Shimon: from what is written regarding Shaul, "son of the Canaanite woman," it is proven that his other sons were sons of another woman).
And although according to R. Yehudah Yaakov's daughters also did not marry Canaanites, they died unmarried. And the daughters of Tzelofchad (according to Rashi, Pinchas 27:3) did not marry until close to age forty (at least), and the twin sisters of Yosef and Binyamin (and perhaps of more of the tribes) were younger than this at the time of the descent to Egypt. In any event, however, one of Rachel's daughters married one of the five sons of Leah, for they did not marry their twin sisters from the same mother.
**) It is understood that it is strained to say that with "according to the one who says" he rejects the one about whom he writes "R. Yehudah says twin sisters were born."
***) In Gur Aryeh (46:26) and in Chiddushei Aggados of Maharsha (Bava Basra 123b) he answers that "besides the wives of Yaakov's sons" comes to include only those who are not Yaakov's offspring, but Yaakov's offspring Scripture counts explicitly, as is proven from the fact that it counts Dinah, although she married Shimon (Rashi, 46:10 [as printed: 17]). But according to the plain meaning it is compelling that according to R. Yehudah the tribes did not marry other women, as above in the body of the note, and "the wives of Yaakov's sons" refers to the twin sisters.
And one cannot ask why Scripture did not count them explicitly as it counted Dinah, for their birth too is not mentioned in Scripture (see Ramban there, 15; Gur Aryeh there).
****) And the question of the Rashbatz (there, 15), "What is the reason to say 'besides the wives of Yaakov's sons, the Canaanite women,' after saying 'descendants of his loins'?" has already been answered in Gur Aryeh (there, 26): Scripture wishes to count also the wives of Yaakov's sons (who are not descendants of his loins), and in this regard it counts them by saying "besides the wives of Yaakov's sons."
36) In a strained way one can say that his intent in "with each tribe a twin sister was born" is only to the sons of Leah and Rachel (as above in the first approach in the second marginal note to note 9). But since "twin sisters were born with each and every tribe" is not proven from "and all his daughters," but rather because this is proven from the plain narrative of the preceding parshiyos, as above
[and the reason Rashi chose to mention that a twin sister was born with each and every tribe in the explanation of "and all his daughters" is simply understood, for this is the explanation of these words (and not because we learn it from here). (And for the sake of sharpness) one can add: According to this, "all his daughters" are greater in number (and consequently also in the effect of the consolation) than "all his sons." And R. Yehudah and R. Nechemiah follow their respective approaches, unlike above in note 13. See note 18],
it is more reasonable that in the explanation in Vayishlach too his intent is literally each tribe (and why he does not emphasize this explicitly, see the second approach in the above marginal note).
37) The fact that Scripture specifies "his sons and his daughters" and does not say "all his children" is because these too are two categories in the consolation (except that the order in the verse is difficult). See notes 13 and 36.
38) Since the entire source for the novelty "with each tribe a twin sister was born" is that it is not reasonable that they married Canaanite women, R. Nechemiah, who holds "they were Canaanite women," must hold according to the plain sense of the verses, that twin sisters were not born with each tribe, since there is no source for this novelty.
39) See above, note 28, that in the disputes of R. Yehudah and R. Nechemiah, the view of R. Nechemiah contains greater striving for the honor of Israel. It is therefore reasonable that R. Nechemiah's reason for disputing R. Yehudah everywhere [also in Parshas Vayeishev] is not only that he is more precise in details, but also that he strives for the honor of Israel.
It therefore appears that in our case too, R. Nechemiah's reason is [not only the precision of the words "and all his daughters," but] also that he holds that the tribes observed the entire Torah before it was given, as above in section 3 and above, pp. 186-7.
This is also implied by what Rashi writes, that according to the one who says, etc. (without qualification and not only R. Nechemiah, but R. Nechemiah included), we must say that the twin sisters (of Shimon, etc.) died before they went down to Egypt (as above, note 35), and he does not answer that they were included in "the wives of Yaakov's sons" as according to R. Yehudah. For among the reasons that R. Nechemiah disputes R. Yehudah is that he holds that the tribes did not marry their sisters, as above. And since according to R. Nechemiah this (that they died) must be said, there is no need to seek another answer for the others who say that twin sisters were born, etc.
40) Rashi, Vayeira 20:12. And regarding halachah, see also Yevamos 62, beginning of side b.
41) This is not proven from here, however, for one can say that it is because they too (Ephraim and Menashe) are counted among the other sons: "Ephraim and Menashe shall be mine like Reuven and Shimon" (our parsha, 48:5 and Rashi there).
42) Acharei 18:9. See also Rashi, Teitzei 23:1.
43) For it is simple that the Canaanite women who married the tribes were such that did not turn them away, etc., and consequently there is no prohibition in this even after the Giving of the Torah (see above, note 25). "His sister," by contrast, became forbidden after the Giving of the Torah, and consequently, for Yaakov, who observed the entire Torah before it was given, this was a deficiency.
44) Noach 9:25. See also Ramban, Vayeishev 38:2.
45) That is why Avraham made him swear "you shall not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanite," including from the daughters of Aner, Eshkol and Mamre (and only "if she does not wish," etc., then specifically "you will be clear of my oath," etc., "and take a wife for him from the daughters of Aner, Eshkol and Mamre").
46) Nevertheless, R. Nechemiah, who strives for the honor of Israel, holds that they married Canaanite women and not their sisters, for as above (note 25), with the Canaanite women who married the tribes there was no prohibition [and even Avraham said regarding Yitzchak, "if she does not wish," etc., "take a wife for him from the daughters of Aner," etc. (as above, there)], whereas "his sister" became forbidden after the Giving of the Torah, and to say that the tribes did not observe the entire Torah is a greater fault.
47) The same question applies regarding Moshe Rabbeinu, who was born from "Amram took Yocheved his aunt." See Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, beginning of ch. 39: "And all the seed of Yaakov took their sisters and their close relatives." Seemingly, what is the praise in this? On the contrary!
48) Siddur 102b-c, 105d ff. Derech Mitzvosecha 29b ff.
49) Derech Mitzvosecha 30, end of side b, ff.
50) Chagigah 14b.
51) In the Siddur and Derech Mitzvosecha there, that for this reason Yaakov married two sisters; see there at length. But according to the plain meaning, Yaakov observed all 613 mitzvos, including the prohibition of sisters (see at length above, sicha 2 of Parshas Vayeitzei and sicha 1 of Parshas Vayigash), although Yaakov could certainly receive the lights (and all the more so compared to the tribes). Perhaps one can say that this is because the Avos gave the power for the observance of the mitzvos after the Giving of the Torah (see at length above, p. 70 and p. 88 ff. and sources cited there), and therefore they needed to observe all 613 mitzvos.
Key Lesson
The two views on whom the tribes married reflect two ways of learning Torah: R. Yehudah reads from the overall narrative, and R. Nechemiah from the precise word and the honor of Israel. This Sicha also teaches that what the Torah later forbade is not a flaw in itself before the command; those who could receive the highest lights were elevated by what would later have to be withheld from a world that cannot contain it.