Shorter version
Parshas Vayeshev
1. In his commentary on the verse "ויגד לתמר וגו׳" ("And it was told to Tamar, etc.")1, Rashi quotes the words "עולה תמנתה" ("is going up to Timnah") and explains: "And regarding Shimshon it says2, 'וירד שמשון וגו׳ תמנתה' ('And Shimshon went down, etc., to Timnah') — it was situated on the slope of the mountain; one would go up to it from this side and go down to it from that side."
This needs to be understood:
a) This contradiction from "And Shimshon went down, etc."3 (which Rashi resolves in his commentary) already arises and exists regarding the wording of the preceding verse — for there too it says "ויעל וגו׳ תמנתה" ("And he went up, etc., to Timnah")4. If so, Rashi should have offered this explanation earlier, on that verse!
b) Since Rashi's approach is to explain according to "פשוטו של מקרא" ("the plain meaning of Scripture")5, and in a manner suited to "בן חמש למקרא" ("a five-year-old beginning Scripture"), it is understood that Rashi's intention is to explain only those matters that the student, while learning this verse, will find difficult. It is not his way, however, to resolve in the verse being learned (whose meaning in itself is perfectly clear, except that it raises) questions and contradictions from other verses which the student has not yet learned.
Accordingly, in our case, since in this verse itself there is nothing difficult for the student, and one can only raise a question on it from a verse that the student will learn in the future (in Shoftim) — what is Rashi's reason for resolving the contradiction in this parsha, when the place for this resolution would seemingly be in Shoftim (after the student has learned both verses and knows to compare them)?
c) Why does Rashi need to lengthen his wording (which, as is known, is utterly precise in all its details) and say "And regarding Shimshon it says"6? Seemingly this is merely superfluous language: since Rashi himself quotes the wording of the verse, "And Shimshon went down, etc.," and from this we already know about whom (and where) this expression of going down is said7, a brief wording would have sufficed, such as "And it is written, 'And Shimshon went down,'" or the like.
2. Now, regarding this question (that the wordings of the verses concerning Timnah contradict each other), we find in the Gemara7* three answers:
a) "Shimshon, who was disgraced through it [and Rashi explains: 'for he married from the daughters of the Philistines, who were forbidden to him'] — going down is written regarding him; Yehudah, who was elevated through it [and Rashi explains: 'for from there were born Peretz and Zerach, who produced kings and prophets in Israel'] — going up is written regarding him."
b) "There were two Timnahs, one reached by going down and one reached by going up."8
c) "There was one Timnah; one who came from this side went down, and one who came from that side went up."
Accordingly, there is a further question on Rashi's explanation cited above:
Why did Rashi choose the third answer (of the Gemara), and in what way is it preferable to the two answers that precede it, since they too can seemingly be explained according to the plain meaning?9
(Especially since, from the fact that they come first in the order of answers in the Gemara, it is implied that they are closer to the meaning of the verses than the third answer10 — and so it is even more puzzling: precisely Rashi, who explains according to the plain meaning of Scripture, cites and prefers the last answer11!)
3. The explanation of all this:
In Rashi's commentary on the verse before us, the (main) intention is not to resolve the contradiction between the expression "עולה" ("going up") said regarding Yehudah (and the expression "וירד" ("went down") regarding Shimshon — since the student does not yet know of this contradiction). Rather, it is to answer what one could ask and wonder about this very expression: for what reason did the verse need to describe Yehudah's journey to Timnah specifically with the expression of going up? That is: why is the verse precise that Tamar was told that her father-in-law was "going up to Timnah" — what difference does it make to the content of the story (even if it was indeed so) that you should know that his journey was specifically by way of ascent, and not by way of descent or along a level road?
As we find (that it is not the way of the verse to describe the manner of travel where there is no need) earlier, in the parsha of the Akeidah (which the student has already learned), that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Avraham: "והעלהו וגו׳ על אחד ההרים" ("And bring him up, etc., on one of the mountains")12 — and nevertheless the verse afterwards says13, "וילך" ("And he went") (and not "and he went up") "אל המקום גו׳" ("to the place, etc."); "ויבואו אל המקום וגו׳" ("And they came to the place, etc."), even though their journey was by way of ascent14. The reason for this is simple: since it makes no difference how he arrived "at the place," and the verse does not come to detail something that does not bear on the matter being discussed15. The same seemingly applies in our case: since there is no reason or need to specify that Yehudah was "going up to Timnah," it should have said it in neutral language: "is going to Timnah," or the like.
4. However, in the verse preceding this one, even though it too says "And he went up, etc., to Timnah," there is nevertheless no room for this question, because there one can explain that the intention is not a physical ascent, from a low place to a high place, but a spiritual ascent — in importance and elevation of the soul, etc. And this explanation would not depart from the plain meaning of Scripture: for at the beginning of the parsha it says16, "וירד יהודה מאת אחיו" ("And Yehudah went down from his brothers"), and Rashi explains (as the plain meaning of his commentary): "His brothers lowered him from his greatness"17 (a descent in spirituality). So it would be reasonable to say that, continuing from this, it afterwards says of him "And he went up," to teach us that through his journey to Timnah (and through the episode of Tamar that resulted from it) he was elevated again (spiritually — like the first answer of the Gemara18 cited above).
This is possible, however, only where it says "And he went up," in the third person, as narration — that is, it is the Torah that relates the events of Yehudah, and it knows to allude, through the expression "And he went up," to his spiritual elevation that would come about in the future through his journey to Timnah. In the verse before us, however, which says "your father-in-law is going up to Timnah" in the second person — meaning that this is the wording in which the matter was told to Tamar by someone from among the people of the place — it is impossible to explain that his intention (that of that informant) was Yehudah's future spiritual elevation, for this was certainly not known to him. That being so, the question on this verse — why the expression "going up" was used for his journey to Timnah — remains in place19.
5. This question Rashi answers by saying "And regarding Shimshon it says, 'And Shimshon went down, etc., to Timnah.'" That is, by first resolving this contradiction between these verses, the question on this verse is answered automatically: since regarding Yehudah it says "going up to Timnah" and regarding Shimshon "went down . . to Timnah," we are compelled to say that "it was situated on the slope of the mountain; one would go up to it from this side and go down to it from that side."
Now, since two roads lead to Timnah — by way of descent from the top of the mountain and by way of ascent from its foot — the puzzlement about the expression "going up to Timnah" is removed, for this is a detail that bears on the story: through this emphasis Tamar knew by which road Yehudah was going to Timnah, namely, by the road that ascends from the foot of the mountain.
Based on this, one can understand why Rashi did not adopt "there were two Timnahs" (like the second answer of the Gemara). For his main intention is not to resolve the contradiction between the wordings of the verses in different places*19 (as explained above, because this is not difficult for the student while learning this verse), but rather the precision in the expression "going up" said here — and this can be resolved only in a way that "one would go up to it (to Timnah) from this side and go down to it from that side" (for then there is a need to hint and inform Tamar by which of the two roads Yehudah was going to Timnah).
According to the reasoning that "there were two Timnahs," however, this question would still not be resolved: for one cannot say that the expression "going up to Timnah" comes to hint and inform that Yehudah's route was directed to the Timnah located at the top of the mountain and not to the one at the foot of the mountain — because:
a) This is not how one designates a city and the like; rather, it is as is said: "Lower Beis Choron . . Upper Beis Choron"20, and more.
b) Since the informant stated the name without qualification*20, it is implied that there was no room for doubt (because only one was nearby, or the like).
c) The two Timnahs were certainly not close to each other21, and if so there is no need to inform which of them was intended by the precision of "going up to Timnah."
6. However, even after all the above, the matter is not fully resolved, due to the difficulty in the explanation itself — that Timnah "was situated on the slope of the mountain" — because it is unusual to build a city on the slope of a mountain22:
Sometimes a city is built on the top of a mountain — that is, even though building such a city involves various difficulties (great effort in bringing the building materials up to the mountaintop, the working conditions there, etc.), and its share in the development of commerce and in its various connections with other towns, etc., will also be diminished (due to the difficulty of ascending the slope of the mountain, which reduces the number of people passing through this city), nevertheless people sometimes forgo these disadvantages and choose to build specifically on the mountaintop because of its advantage in matters of defense: a city situated on a mountaintop has the upper hand in war against an enemy fighting it, since he is below23.
On the other hand, of course, some prefer to build a city at the foot of the mountain — even though its defense is not easy — because the place is more suitable for building a city and for its success in commerce, and the like.
On the slope of a mountain, however, there is no complete benefit in building a city there — neither with regard to its construction and development, nor with regard to defense against an enemy — and furthermore, the parts of the city are one above the other.
If so, one can ask24: since the existence of a city on the slope of a mountain is something unusual, it would be more plausible to say that Timnah was situated on the top of the mountain, and to explain the two expressions (going up and going down concerning Timnah) in different directions, each according to its context in the verse: the expression "going up" regarding Yehudah means ascent in its plain sense, physically — since it cannot be explained spiritually, for the reason stated above in section 4 — while the expression "went down" regarding Shimshon (which comes in the verse's narrative, in the third person) means a descent in importance and stature25.
To hint at the reason that nevertheless compelled him to explain that Timnah "was situated on the slope of the mountain," Rashi added "And regarding Shimshon it says": that is, not only in this verse cited in his commentary is the expression of going down said, in which case it could be explained in a spiritual sense; rather, "regarding Shimshon (in his story as a whole) it says" — meaning that it repeats this expression several times — and there is no reason to explain each and every one of them as alluding to a descent in importance26. We are therefore compelled to say that its meaning is literal: that Shimshon's place of residence was on the top of the mountain, and each time he went to Timnah it was by way of (physical) descent from the mountain27. It follows that one is compelled to say that "it was situated on the slope of the mountain," despite the difficulty involved.
7. Among the matters of the "יינה של תורה" ("wine of Torah") in Rashi's commentary before us, and the lesson from it in the Divine service of each and every person:
It is explained elsewhere28, on the verse "מי יעלה בהר הוי׳ וגו׳" ("Who shall ascend the mountain of the L‑rd, etc.")29, that a person's service of his Creator is comparable to climbing a mountain. And it is known that when a person climbs up a mountain, he cannot stop in the middle of his ascent and stand for a while on the slope of the mountain, for it is almost impossible that he will not slip and fall down — rather, he must continue his ascent without interruption. The same applies to ascending "the mountain of the L‑rd": persistence in ascent is necessary not only for the benefit of the ascent itself, but also to ensure the prevention of descent. That is, he must not be satisfied with the level he has reached so far, for this complacency with his level, and not rising from level to level in matters of holiness, will in the end bring about a descent30.
This is emphasized especially in the mitzvah of the Chanukah lights, where "המהדרין מן המהדרין כו׳ יום ראשון מדליק אחד, מכאן ואילך מוסיף והולך" ("those who are most meticulous, etc. — on the first day one lights one; from then on one continues to add"), because "מעלין בקודש ואין מורידין" ("one ascends in holiness and does not descend")31. If he did not add a light on the second day, etc., not only did he not add and rise in holiness on that day relative to the day before, but he also diminished on it (by not fulfilling it in the meticulous manner) the level of his ascent on the previous day (on which he fulfilled this mitzvah meticulously)32. And if he wishes to fulfill the mitzvah with the same meticulousness with which he fulfilled it on the previous day, he must rise in holiness, as explained above33.
This matter is alluded to in Rashi's words — that the reason the expressions of going up and going down are said regarding Timnah is that "it was situated on the slope of the mountain": for on the slope of the mountain (which represents the service of rising spiritually), standing still is impossible, and even walking is not done in an ordinary manner, but either by ascent or by descent.
And just as Yehudah's ascent "on the slope of the mountain" brought about the birth of "Peretz — this is Moshiach, as it says: 'עלה הפורץ לפניהם' ('The one who breaks through has gone up before them')"34; so too, through the service of each and every person in ascending from level to level on his own personal mountain of the L‑rd, we will merit the fulfillment of the prophecy "ועלו מושיעים בהר ציון לשפוט את הר עשו והיתה לה׳ המלוכה" ("And saviors shall go up on Mount Zion to judge the mountain of Esav, and the kingship shall be the L‑rd's")35 — with the coming of our righteous Moshiach.
(From the sichah of Shabbos Parshas Vayeshev, 5732)
Notes
1) Our parsha, 38:13.
2) Shoftim 14:1.
3) See Rashi there, that "And he went up" refers to "to Timnah" — unlike the explanation of the Ibn Ezra, etc.
4) The Sifsei Chachamim writes that in the first verse we would explain that "And he went up" refers to what is said, "to his sheep-shearers" (and although Rashi wrote that it refers to "to Timnah," as above in note 3, his intention is that in order to answer the question from what is said about Shimshon we would explain it differently). But it is understood that this is not according to the plain explanation (which is why Rashi wrote, according to the truth, that "And he went up" refers to "to Timnah"). If so, it is obvious that had Rashi raised the question there from what is said about Shimshon, he would have answered that it was situated on the slope of the mountain, as he explains here.
5) See Likkutei Sichos, vol. 5, at its beginning, at length.
6) Especially since in the Gemara (see below, section 2) these words do not appear*.
*) The reason the answer in the Gemara begins with descent ("one who came from this side went down, and one who came from that side went up"), whereas Rashi in his answer begins with ascent ("one would go up to it from this side and go down to it from that side"), is that the Gemara is dealing with Shimshon (descent) and asks from what is said elsewhere (regarding Yehudah — ascent), while in Rashi's commentary it is the reverse.
7) Unlike later in Rashi's commentary (38:26) — it is understood why he says "And regarding Rivkah it says, 'And her days to give birth were fulfilled,'" since there the verse that Rashi quotes does not mention of whom it speaks.
7*) Sotah 10a. See also the Yerushalmi there, ch. 1, halachah 8.
8) Only sometimes (where there is doubt?) is a distinguishing sign added to the name, such as Aram Naharayim and Aram Tzovah. — One can say that for this reason this explanation comes only as a second explanation and not as the main one.
9) The first answer in the Gemara — it is proven that it can be said according to the plain meaning of Scripture from the fact that Rashi in several places explains ascent and descent as referring to stature and importance (see below, section 4; and see Rashi, Shemos 32:7; 33:1; Bamidbar 16:12; Devarim 1:42).
And the second answer — in addition to what is simply understood, that it is possible to say so according to the plain meaning of Scripture, there is proof for it from the plain meaning of Scripture, from what is explicit in Yehoshua (15:10; ibid. 57; 19:43), that there were two Timnahs, one in the portion of Yehudah and one in the portion of Dan [and Shimshon was of the family of the Danites (Shoftim 13:2) and was in the camp of Dan (ibid. 25)]. Now, it is implied in Yehoshua (ibid.) that the one in the portion of Yehudah was called "Timnah," and the one in the portion of Dan was called "Timnasah," and this fits the meaning of the verses in our parsha and in Shoftim: for each time "Timnasah" is mentioned in our parsha, its meaning is seemingly "to Timnah," and the name of the city was Timnah, whereas regarding Shimshon this is not so (see Shoftim 14:2; ibid. 5, "the vineyards of Timnasah"). Accordingly, the answer that there were two Timnahs is proven all the more. — But according to Rashi's commentary here, we are compelled to say that there was one Timnah, since such a change in names is common (and simply put — that is why Rashi does not need to point this out). One can say that the student already knows this on his own from his learning: Peniel, Penuel (Vayishlach 32:31; ibid. 32).
It is seemingly obvious that one cannot bring a proof from "Midyanim" and "Medanim" in our parsha (37:28; ibid. 36) — for according to the plain meaning (unlike the Talmud, Sotah 13a [OCR unclear]) they are two nations (Chayei Sarah 25:2), and Rashi did not need to explain this since he had already explained before this (our parsha, ibid. 28) that he was sold many times. But it is explicit in Rashi's commentary (ibid.) that the Medanim sold him to Egypt, and so from here too there is a proof.
10) For although the learning in the Gemara is by way of derush and remez, etc., it is understood that by way of derush too, one should place first the explanation that is more plausible according to the meaning of the verse.
11) It is also the last in the Yerushalmi (ibid.), whereas the first answers are there in reverse order.
12) Vayeira 22:2. See Rashi there, that "And bring him up" means that he should bring him up the mountain.
13) Vayeira, ibid. 3, 9.
14) And what is said [OCR unclear — the rest of this note is missing in the source].
15) [OCR unclear — the beginning of this note is missing in the source] . . . Accordingly, perhaps one can say that when Yaakov wanted his sons to agree to go to Egypt, he should not have said "Go down," and therefore Rashi is precise: "And he did not say 'Go,'" etc. See along these lines in the commentary of the Maharzu on Bereishis Rabbah on this verse.
16) Our parsha, 38:1.
17) The reason Rashi did not quote the word "And he went down" in his commentary (even though he seemingly explains the word "And he went down") is: because he did not come there to explain "And he went down," and also the proof for the explanation is not from what is said, "And he went down, etc."; rather, once we know that "his brothers lowered him from his greatness," it is self-understood that this is the meaning of "And Yehudah went down from his brothers."
18) According to the Bavli in Sotah (ibid.). But according to the explanation of the Yerushalmi (ibid.), that because it was for the sake of Heaven, therefore ascent is written regarding it — meaning that Tamar intended it for the sake of Heaven (see the commentaries Korban HaEdah and Pnei Moshe there) — it is not possible to explain thus the expression of ascent said regarding Yehudah according to the plain meaning.
19) Therefore Rashi did not explain here like the first answer of the Gemara, since according to the plain meaning of Scripture it is impossible to explain "going up to Timnah" as a spiritual ascent, unlike in the Gemara, where the learning is by way of derush, etc. See also the Maskil LeDavid.
*19) However, even though this is not Rashi's main intention here, nevertheless, since he needed to resolve the contradiction for the sake of explaining the expression of ascent, he no longer needed to resolve it in Shoftim.
20) Yehoshua 16:3; 16:5.
*20) See above, note 8.
21) See above, note 9, that the two Timnahs mentioned in Yehoshua were one in the portion of Yehudah and one in the portion of Dan.
22) Based on this, one can explain what the Gemara adds after the answer ("one who came from this side went down, and one who came from that side went up"): "such as Vardunia, Bei Bari and the market of Naresh." For seemingly, what does this teach us? According to what is explained in the text, it is well understood: since it is something unusual and not understood at all, therefore it was necessary to bring a proof that such places exist.
23) See Koheles 5:1.
24) Along the lines of the question of the Maharsha in Chiddushei Aggados, Sotah (ibid.); see there what he answered. But according to what is explained here, it is impossible to say so, [OCR unclear] we have a decisive proof, as explained in the text at length.
25) One cannot say that Rashi was compelled to explain that it was situated on the slope and not on the top in order that through this the expression "going up" said here would be resolved — since this is the main intention of Rashi in his commentary, as explained above in section 5 (and just as for this reason Rashi did not answer like the second answer of the Gemara, that there were two Timnahs, as explained there). — This is not so, for to resolve the expression "going up" it would have been possible to say that Timnah was not on a mountain slope, and "going up" comes to exclude a second road that is on level ground (for example, that Yehudah went up from a valley, and the second road to Timnah was on level ground, or that there was another road on level ground around the mountain and along its breadth, etc., and the like).
26) See the Maharsha (ibid.), who asks from what is said in Shoftim (ibid. 2), "And he went up and told his father and his mother, etc." And his answer, "that he returned from there and separated himself from idol worship," etc., is the opposite of what is compelled by the plain meaning of the verses there, and this is not the place to elaborate; at any rate, according to Rashi this is not so. Similarly, what is said (ibid. 5), "And Shimshon went down, and his father and his mother, etc." — for the Maharsha's explanation that "the verse returns to speak in disparagement of them all" is also difficult to say according to the plain meaning of Scripture there. Nor is this implied by what is explained in the Yerushalmi (ibid., on the verse "And they came to the vineyards of Timnasah, etc."): "that his father and mother, etc., would say to him, 'My son, etc., their daughters are sown with kilayim.'" See further in Shoftim (ibid. 7, 10).
27) Based on this, one can explain what is said in the Yerushalmi (ibid.) in the third answer: "Such as this Beis Ma'on, which one goes down to from Paltasa and goes up to from Tiberias." That is, it brings an example not only of a city located on a mountain slope (see above, note 22), but one where together with this there are towns at the top of this same mountain and at its foot. For it emphasizes by this that the descent (and the ascent — see Ramban, our parsha, 38:12) was regular, since it came from a city located at the top of the mountain (and at its foot), and this is a proof for this explanation, as explained in the text.
One can further say in explanation of the Yerushalmi (and this is the main point): the example explains why it departed from the usual and was built on a mountain slope — because it was between two cities, and it is understood that for anyone who does business with both of them, and likewise in all the business between one of them and the other (which must be by way of "going down and going up"), it is convenient to meet in the middle. And when the business is regular, a gathering place (a city) is built there.
28) See the maamar beginning "Zeh HaYom," 5695.
29) Tehillim 24:3. See the commentary Mikdash Me'at there.
30) In addition: our Sages, of blessed memory, said (Sotah 49a), "Each day's curse is greater than that of the day before." If so, it is understood all the more so regarding the good attribute, that in holiness there must be constant ascent — and even more than in the opposite of holiness.
31) Like Beis Hillel, Shabbos 21b.
32) And this meticulousness applies to everyone, as ruled in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim, siman 671, se'if 2; and the Rema there: "the custom is widespread"). See Likkutei Sichos, vol. 1, p. 92; vol. 4, p. 1258.
33) One can say that there are two explanations of the expression "one ascends in holiness and does not descend": a) one ascends, and at least one does not descend; b) one ascends (and it repeats itself — to strengthen the command that one ascends) and does not descend. This is similar to the two explanations of "they make him swear: be righteous and do not be wicked" (see Tanya, ch. 1; Kitzurim VeHe'aros LeTanya, p. 67 [OCR unclear]; and see also Zohar I, 233b).
34) Aggadas Bereishis, end of ch. 43. See Bereishis Rabbah, ch. 85, sec. 14, and Rashi there.
35) Ovadiah 1:21.
Key Lesson
Rashi's explanation that Timnah sat on a mountain slope, reached by going up from one side and down from the other, also hints at a lesson for a person's Divine service: on the slope of "the mountain of the L‑rd" one cannot stand still; one either rises or falls. As with the Chanukah lights, which increase each night, a Jew must keep rising from level to level, and this steady ascent brings the coming of Moshiach.