Parshas Mikeitz
1. On the verse "וימהר יוסף כי נכמרו רחמיו אל אחיו" ("And Yosef hurried, for his compassion was stirred toward his brother")1, Rashi pauses (in the second comment) on the word "נכמרו" ("was stirred")2 and explains: "נתחממו" ("they became heated"). "And in the language of the Mishnah3: 'על הכומר של זתים' ('upon the heating-vat of olives'); and in Aramaic: 'משום מכמר בישרא' ('because of the heating of the meat')4; and in Scripture5: 'עורנו כתנור נכמרו' ('Our skin was heated like an oven') — they became heated and shriveled into wrinkles upon wrinkles, 'מפני זלעפות רעב' ('because of the burning blasts of famine'). Such is the way of all skin: when it is heated, it shrivels and contracts."
That Rashi needs at all to bring a proof for his translation — that "נכמרו" means "they became heated" — is understandable: since the "five-year-old beginning Scripture" encounters the word "נכמרו" here for the first time in the Torah5*, it is necessary to explain the translation of the word with a proof and demonstration.
We must, however, understand:
a) Why does Rashi need three proofs? For, as is simply understood (and as has been discussed many times), several proofs are brought when each one of them on its own is insufficient and the others complete it. In what way is each proof, taken individually, insufficient in our case?
b) The order of the three proofs in Rashi's commentary — first "in the language of the Mishnah," then "in Aramaic," and only afterwards "and in Scripture" — is not at all understood. Seemingly, the first proof should have been from Scripture (especially since the proof from "Scripture" has an additional advantage: there the wording is exactly the same as in our verse — "נכמרו"); after that (if necessary) the proof from "the language of the Mishnah," and only after that — (from the Gemara) "Aramaic."
c) Why does Rashi bring the proof "in the language of the Mishnah" from "כומר של זתים" ("a heating-vat of olives") — in Bava Metzia — and not from "כומר של ענבים" ("a heating-vat of grapes")6, which is mentioned in an earlier place7 in Shas — in Tractate Yevamos8?
d) Similarly regarding "Aramaic" itself — instead of the phrase "מכמר בשרא" from Tractate Pesachim, Rashi should seemingly have brought the phrase "בושלי כמרא" ("ripened dates") which is found earlier, in Tractate Berachos9.
e) Even less understood is the proof from "Scripture": Rashi brings a verse in Eichah, whereas the expression "נכמרו" is already found in Melachim10 and in Hoshea11. Not only do these come earlier in the order of the books of Tanach12, but they are also more fitting as proofs because of the content of those expressions, which resembles the content of the expression in our verse: both "נכמרו רחמי" ("my compassion was stirred") in Melachim and "נכמרו נחומי" ("My consolations are kindled") in Hoshea relate to a feeling of the heart, just like "his compassion was stirred" in our parsha. It is different, however, with the expression "Our skin was heated like an oven" in Eichah, where the subject is skin — something else entirely.
f) In bringing the proof from "Our skin was heated like an oven," Rashi copies the continuation of the verse: "because of the burning blasts of famine" — which seemingly is not relevant and (consequently) superfluous for explaining the proof13. And as we indeed see with the other proofs (from the language of "Mishnah" and "Aramaic"), Rashi does not14 bring the further continuation of the matter being discussed.
g) Even harder to understand is Rashi's explanation at the conclusion of his comment: "Such is the way of all skin: when it is heated, it shrivels and contracts" — how is this relevant to our matter here15?
h) In any event, this ("Such … contracts") should have stood immediately after "wrinkles," and not interrupt the middle of the explanation and subject of Rashi's comment with the continuation of the verse, "because of the burning blasts of famine."
2. All this will be understood by explaining Rashi's commentary in the preceding comment, on the words "כי נכמרו רחמיו" ("for his compassion was stirred"): "He asked him, 'Do you have a brother from your mother?' He said to him, 'I had a brother, and I do not know where he is.' 'Do you have sons?' He said to him, 'I have ten.' He said to him, 'And what are their names?' He said to him, 'Bela and Becher, etc.' He said to him, 'What is the nature of these names?' He said to him, 'They are all named after my brother and the troubles that befell him. Bela — that he was swallowed up among the nations; Becher — that he was the firstborn of my mother'" (and Rashi continues to explain the meaning of all ten names, adding at the end the source of his explanation: "as is found in Tractate Sotah"16, and he concludes:) "immediately his compassion was stirred."
Here it is immediately difficult to understand: why does Rashi first (in the first comment) explain (and at length) the cause that brought about "his compassion was stirred," before he translates (in the second comment) the very meaning of "נכמרו"?
Simply, the order should have been the reverse: first one needs to know (what happened here —) what the word "נכמרו" means, and only afterwards is it fitting to speak about the cause of the occurrence.
It is also difficult: a) What is difficult here in the explanation of the verse according to the plain meaning of Scripture, on account of which Rashi brings here the lengthy words of our Sages? Seemingly everything here is simple: when Yosef, after a separation of many years, saw Binyamin, his only brother "from my mother" (who had no connection to his sale, etc.), it aroused in him the emotion of "his compassion was stirred."
b) Even if one were to accept that Rashi has some compelling reason to [say] that together with this there also took place an exchange of words between Yosef and Binyamin, as our Sages relate — it would have been enough to bring only the beginning of the story ("He asked him, 'Do you have a brother, etc.'")17 and to conclude with the source18 ("as is found in Tractate Sotah")19 — where one can see all the details20. What does the entire lengthy account (especially the explanation of all the names, etc.) add to understanding the plain meaning of the verse21? In other words: where is all this stated in "the plain meaning of Scripture," which alone is what Rashi explains?
c) And mainly: how do the sons of Binyamin come in here at all? They are spoken of in Parshas Vayigash!
d) What is Rashi adding and being precise about with "מיד" ("immediately [his compassion was stirred]"), and what is the source for this (since Rashi does not copy the word "וימהר" ["and he hurried"] from the verse)?
3. The explanation of this:
One cannot say, as it appears at a superficial glance, that the cause of "his compassion was stirred … and he sought to weep" was that Yosef saw Binyamin. For if so, all this should have happened immediately, in continuation of "וירא יוסף אתם את בנימין" ("And Yosef saw Binyamin with them") (at the beginning of the parsha)22, especially since it says that this was in the manner of "and Yosef hurried";
or at least — in proximity to and continuation of "וישא עיניו וירא את בנימין אחיו בן אמו" ("And he lifted his eyes and saw Binyamin his brother, his mother's son")23 (near the end of the parsha, when the tribes had gathered with Yosef in his house).
Since, however, the Torah relates that even after the second "and he saw," he first exclaimed "הזה אחיכם" ("Is this your brother?") and afterwards said "אלקים יחנך בני" ("May G‑d be gracious to you, my son"), and only afterwards — "his compassion was stirred," this is proof that it was not the "seeing" that brought about "his compassion was stirred," to the point of "and he sought to weep."
The reason for this is understood and compelling in plain terms: Yosef, having been viceroy for so long a time, and in such a manner that "ובלעדיך לא ירים איש את ידו ואת רגלו" ("without you no man shall lift his hand or his foot"), "רק הכסא אגדל ממך" ("only by the throne will I be greater than you")24, certainly conducted himself with a bearing of authority and pride (and especially toward the brothers he deliberately displayed an attitude of power and severity). Therefore, although upon seeing Binyamin, "my brother, son of my mother," a powerful emotion was certainly aroused in him, it is also certain that before he revealed himself to the brothers — and especially in the presence of the people around him — Yosef (as viceroy) mastered the emotion, etc., and did not display it outwardly. As we also see that even afterwards — when "he sought to weep" — "ויבוא החדרה ויבך שמה" ("he entered the chamber and wept there").
[And this is indeed why we do not find in the entire sidrah that Yosef openly expressed an emotion of excitement, etc., and especially weeping and the like25 — even though in the course of his meetings and conversations with the brothers he saw and heard several things which certainly aroused emotion, etc.26: the anguish of his father, etc. — but [he did not express it] because of his conduct of authority27.]
4. Since this is what one must say — from the sequence and implication of the verses — that after "And (Yosef) saw Binyamin … and he said, 'G‑d …'" something took place whose effect was even stronger than the effect of "and he saw Binyamin";
and since the verse does not explain what this was — one must say that it comes in continuation of "May G‑d be gracious to you, my son" — blessings that Binyamin has from the Al-mighty, which have a connection to (and consequently also an effect upon) Yosef, and especially upon his connection to Binyamin as "his brother" (since it brought about that "his compassion was stirred toward his brother"). Therefore Rashi must bring the entire lengthy account beginning with "Do you have a brother from your mother?" (just as the verse states by way of introduction, "his brother, his mother's son," specifically).
However, it must also have a connection to the children of Binyamin, since it comes in continuation of "May G‑d be gracious to you, my son," which, as Rashi explains, is similar to "חנן אלקים את עבדך" ("G‑d has graciously given your servant") — of Yaakov — which refers to "the children"28. But it is not the children in themselves; rather, how this arouses the emotion of brotherhood between Yosef and Binyamin, which is why it brought about specifically "his compassion was stirred toward his brother." Therefore Rashi says that words passed between Yosef and Binyamin which touched the feelings of brotherhood29 in an extraordinary way, until it had to bring about in Yosef (despite his conduct of authority) the matter of "and he sought to weep."
With this it is understood, as mentioned above, why Rashi must bring the entire lengthy account of "He asked him, etc. He said to him, etc."30 and the explanation of each name separately: because "May He be gracious to you" in general — in its entirety, with all its details — comes as the cause of "his compassion was stirred," and every detail is relevant in bringing out the extraordinary brotherhood and feeling of Binyamin toward Yosef31. Although at the time of the sale of Yosef Binyamin was only about nine (ten) years old32, nevertheless throughout all those years he did not stop thinking about his brother, his mother's son, Yosef, and his troubles — to the point of expressing his anguish in such a matter as the names of his children; and even more, in the names of all ten children, and in each name with a distinct content of longing, anguish33, and the like — "named after my brother and the troubles that befell him," so that whenever he would mention any one of the children, it would remind him of his brother, his mother's son34.
And only after all this can one understand why Yosef could no longer hold back his authority, and as Rashi concludes and is precise: "immediately his compassion was stirred."
5. With this it is also explained why Rashi first explains (and at length) the cause of "נכמרו" before he translates the word "נכמרו" itself: for it is specifically this explanation (which is compelled by the plain meaning of Scripture) that explains and decides the translation of the word "נכמרו"35. Since an extraordinary emotion had to take place here in Yosef, much stronger than the feeling aroused by "and (Yosef) saw Binyamin his brother," as mentioned above, it is consequently understood that the translation of "נכמרו" is "נתחממו" — a hot and powerful emotion — and not as Targum Onkelos translates, "נכמרו: אתגוללו" ("were aroused")36 (an ordinary arousal)37.
6. Rashi, however, is not satisfied with this. For although from the implication of the verses it is understood that "his compassion was stirred" means a stronger arousal than "were aroused" — this is still no proof that "נכמרו" carries specifically the meaning of "became heated" (and not another, similar meaning). Therefore Rashi brings a proof for the translation of the word.
According to this, it is understood simply why Rashi does not bring a proof from "my compassion was stirred" in Melachim, or from "My consolations are kindled" in Hoshea: precisely because there the subject is a feeling of the heart, as in our verse, there is no compelling proof from there — no clear demonstration — that "נכמרו" there means "became heated"38 (even if one were to say that there too it is necessary from the overall context that it speaks of a great arousal)39. For in what way is the translation there more compelling than in our case? [And the proof: the Targum40 translates there too, exactly as here: "were aroused."]41
Therefore Rashi must bring a proof from the same expression where it stands in connection with a different matter — whose content indicates specifically the translation "became heated."
The first proof he brings is from "the language of the Mishnah (which is the Holy Tongue, similar to the language of the verses): 'upon the heating-vat of olives,'" for "כומר" is the name of the vessel in which the olives are heated; and from this one understands that "כומר" — "נכמרו" — has the meaning of warmth.
7. The proof from "כומר" alone, however, is not a complete proof. One can still ask: if we do not find anywhere clearly that "כומר" is an expression of warmth, who is to say that the vessel is called "כומר" because of the action of heating? Perhaps it is simply the name of a vessel (without the meaning of the action of heating)?
Therefore Rashi brings another proof, from "Aramaic" — "מכמר בשרא"42 — where one sees clearly that "מכמר" denotes the action of heating43. And "Aramaic" demonstrates regarding "the language of the Mishnah" (similar to how the Gemara in general explains the Mishnah), which resembles the language of Scripture, that "כומר" too is from the same root of warmth44, since that, after all, is the purpose of the vessel.
8. According to this, it is also understood why Rashi does not bring the proof from the expression "כומר" that appears in earlier places in Shas45:
The expression "כומר של ענבים" ("a heating-vat of grapes") (in Tractate Yevamos) comes in continuation of what the Gemara says there: "'דובב שפתי ישנים' ('He causes the lips of those asleep to murmur') — like a heating-vat of grapes: just as with a heating-vat of grapes, as soon as a person places his finger on it, it immediately murmurs [i.e., trickles], so too a Torah scholar, etc." Therefore (even with the support of "מכמר בשרא") "a heating-vat of grapes" is not a strong proof that it is an expression of warmth, since the content of the matter leaves room to say that the "vessel" is called "כומר" (not because of the action of heating, but) because in the vessel the grapes are pressed, and consequently the wine ferments and moves from the grapes46 (one could have accepted that this is the meaning of "כומר")47.
Likewise, from the Aramaic expression "ripened dates" in Tractate Berachos there is no proof that the expression is used in connection with the action of heating specifically, since there it refers to a description of dates48; and there is no proof that the expression "כמרא" (even if it is a descriptive term of warmth)49 can be used in the active and passive forms50.
9. Since the word here is "נכמרו," Rashi also wants a proof from exactly the same expression in a verse — and therefore he also brings the proof "and in Scripture: 'Our skin was heated like an oven,'" which (in Rashi's view) also means "they became heated."
Since, however, the word "נכמרו" there can be translated as "נשחרו" ("they became blackened") (and indeed other commentators translate it so51), Rashi brings as a demonstration of his translation the continuation of the verse, "because of the burning blasts of famine":
It is indeed true that famine can cause the "skin" to become "blackened"; but since the verse connects it once more at its end (in addition to the earlier comparison — "like an oven") with "זלעפות," with fire and heat52, reason dictates that "נכמרו" here means "became heated."
10. But if "Our skin was heated like an oven" means "became heated" — that the "skin" merely becomes warmed (because of the famine) — a question arises: how is the great suffering, which the prophet laments, expressed here? Rashi explains that "נכמרו" here carries and means not only "became heated," but also the meaning of "shriveled into wrinkles upon wrinkles"53, because "such is the way of all skin: when it is heated, it shrivels and contracts." Consequently, when the verse says that the skin became heated, it need not spell out the tremendous suffering this causes, because "such is the way of all skin: when it is heated, it shrivels and contracts," and one already understands on one's own how great the torment in this is.
According to this it is understood why Rashi brings this proof only at the end, although it is "the language of Scripture" and is also the very same expression "נכמרו" as in our parsha: since the meaning of this expression "נכמרו" is also "they shriveled, etc." — and on the contrary, this is in fact the main intent in the verse54 — consequently there is no proof from it that "נכמרו" has the explicit translation (and meaning) of "became heated."
11. From the "wine of Torah" in Rashi's commentary:
It is explained in Chassidus55 on the verse "And Yosef hurried, for his compassion was stirred toward his brother," that Jews are called by the name Yosef, as it is written56: "נוהג כצאן יוסף" ("Who leads Yosef like a flock"). Jews ("Yosef") must arouse great compassion upon the level of Binyamin, "Ben Oni" ("son of my affliction") — to reflect on how great is the descent of the soul, which has descended lower and lower, and to arouse compassion upon the G‑dly spark within his soul.
This is alluded to in the details of Rashi's commentary on "for his compassion was stirred," and the order is also precise, in that this explanation comes before the translation "נכמרו — became heated": first there must be contemplation of "his brother and the troubles that befell him." First one contemplates the virtue of the soul in itself, that it is on the level of "my brother" — it is always bound up with G‑dliness; and afterwards, "the troubles that befell him" — contemplation of its descent, to the point that it "was swallowed up among the nations, etc." — in the body and the animal soul, and even lower.
And when the contemplation is in such a manner (in all ten levels — which are alluded to in the ten names according to their meanings), one then comes to "נכמרו — became heated": "his heart becomes heated" with the warmth of fiery flames, with a true bitterness over his standing and state57.
And this also arouses Above the matter of compassion, whose advantage over the attribute of kindness is the matter of warmth.
As it is below: the attribute of kindness in itself bestows good and kindness, because "it is the nature of the Good to do good," yet it is called "water" — the bestowal is with coolness. Severity (Gevurah), by contrast, is the matter of warmth and fiery flames, and therefore anger and wrath, etc., come from it. The attribute of compassion, however, although its matter is good and kindness, has added to it the warmth of the attribute of severity. For seeing the pain of another, "his heart becomes heated with the warmth of fiery flames," and he is aroused with compassion for the other, which causes the bestowal of kindness with warmth, with a stronger desire than kindness alone (and therefore compassion is an intermediary between kindness and severity, because it includes both)58.
12. The arousal of compassion, and the effect accomplished through it, is alluded to in "the heating-vat of olives," which means (as discussed earlier) that the olives are heated and the oil comes out of them.
In the service of G‑d this means59: olives are bitter60, which is the bitterness of his soul that comes from contemplating his standing and state, as mentioned above. And when this is in the manner of "the heating-vat of olives" — that is, the bitterness is with warmth, in that he truly feels how bad and bitter it is for him, and he arouses compassion upon his soul (which is also the matter of the crushing of the olive) —
then there is revealed also from Above the level of "the good oil" (supernal Chochmah), the supernal compassion61:
And this brings about a revelation of G‑dliness in his soul — that is, the revelation of "Ahavah Rabbah" ("great love") in a person, in the emotional attributes of the heart62, which is alluded to in "מכמר בשרי" ("the heating of my flesh")63.
Afterwards it descends even into the "skin," which is a garment64 — that is, even into the faculties and matters that are far from the essence of the person — so that there too "they become heated," from the revelation of light65.
And since it derives from compassion, which is on the middle line, it also accomplishes and transforms, so that instead of the "becoming heated" from "famine" mentioned above, it should be in holiness — and in the words of the prophet66: "לא רעב ללחם ולא צמא למים כי אם לשמוע את דברי ה'" ("not a hunger for bread nor a thirst for water, but to hear the words of the L‑rd").
(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Mikeitz, 5735)
Notes
1) Our parsha, 43:30.
2) So in the second edition of Rashi. In the Rashi manuscript he does not copy the word "נכמרו" again as a new heading, but continues directly from the preceding comment: "immediately his compassion was stirred, (that is,) they became heated." See below, note 35.
3) Bava Metzia 74a. [In the first edition and in the Rashi manuscript: "and in the language of the Mishnah there is." In the Rashi manuscript the explanation of "כומר של זתים" is also given in the vernacular.] As for his writing "in the language of the Mishnah," although it is in the Gemara there — see below, note 6.
4) Pesachim 58a, end. In the Gemara the word "משום" ("because of") does not appear, and it also does not appear in several editions of Rashi (including the first edition). See below, note 42.
5) Eichah 5:10.
5*) Although it is found earlier in Rashi's commentary — Vayishlach (33:4), in the statement of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, "that his compassion was stirred" — even there Rashi needs to explain it (which is why he departs from Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai's wording and writes), at the beginning of the comment, "נתגלגלו" ("were aroused"). Based on this: a) the explanation (in the text, section 5) is even more fitting — that Rashi's introduction states the reason why Yosef's compassion was stirred, and only afterwards explains the word "נכמרו" — for without the introduction, the explanation of "נכמרו" would be (as in Rashi on Vayishlach) "were aroused." b) [This shows] the necessity that regarding Yosef one cannot explain "were aroused," for even Esav's compassion "was aroused" immediately when he saw him bowing to him. c) Rashi does not reject the rendering of Targum Onkelos (for the word "נכמרו"), "אתגוללו" ("were aroused") (similar to above 43:18; below 44:7; and in many places), only that here it means "became heated."
6) Simply, it can be said that Rashi brings it from "the language of the Mishnah," and this is only in Bava Metzia, because: a) there it says "Rabbi Chiya taught," which is a Baraisa, and a Baraisa too was written in the language of the Mishnah (unlike Gemara). [See the beginning of chapter 6 of Avos, "The Sages taught in the language of the Mishnah," and the commentators there. See also Rabbi Shmuel Strashun (on Bava Basra 6a), who cites several places where Rashi calls a Baraisa (Tosefta) "the language of the Mishnah."] b) Mainly: the explanation in Bava Metzia is that (Rabbi Chiya taught that) this is how the Mishnah there must read. And it can be said that this is why Rashi also writes the word "על" ("upon [the heating-vat]"), for his intent is to say that so it is in the Mishnah, in place of "על המעטן" ("upon the olive vat"). This is unlike Yevamos, where it is a statement in the Gemara. — But this itself requires examination: why is it precise to bring specifically from "the language of the Mishnah"? Note the reading in the second edition of Rashi: "and in the language of the Talmud, etc." (instead of "in the language of the Mishnah").
7) At the beginning of chapter 4 of Maasros, too, it says "המכמר באדמה" ("one who heats [produce] in the ground"), which means that he hides produce so that it will ripen. But most readings in our Mishnayos (and so in the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rash, the Bartenura, and others) are "המכמך" — with a "ך" in place of the "ר" — and it speaks of other fruits as well (Rambam's Commentary and Bartenura there; but in the Rashash there: olives), regarding which the matter of heating is not relevant. See Meleches Shlomo. For the reading "המכמר," see below, note 44.
8) 96a. And it is even more difficult — for in Eichah there, Rashi brings from "כומר של ענבים," and not from Bava Metzia. And it requires slight examination in Rashi there, who writes "על (הכומר של ענבים)" ("upon [the heating-vat of grapes]"), which is not [the wording] in Yevamos but in Bava Metzia. See below, note 47.
9) 40b.
10) I Melachim 3:26.
11) 11:8.
12) See Bava Basra (14b): "The order of the Prophets, etc.; the order of the Writings, etc."
13) As Ibn Ezra here brings only the beginning of the verse.
14) But see above, note 6, and below, note 42.
15) Seemingly it would be possible to say that [OCR unclear] Rashi explains the connection of "נכמרו — became heated" to the continuation "ויבקש לבכות" ("and he sought to weep"): through becoming heated, "the heart shrivels and contracts and brings to weeping." [See Aruch HaShalem, which writes that Rashi explained well in our parsha, "נכמרו — they became heated and shriveled into wrinkles upon wrinkles," and brought proof from "כומר של זתים" and "מכמר בשרא" (and based on this he asks: but in Bava Metzia and Pesachim, etc., Rashi explains "heated, a heating, etc.").] But this is very forced, since Rashi states explicitly "such is the way of all skin" (and not the feeling of the heart). It is obvious that in Rashi's words here the main point is: "נכמרו — became heated" (and nothing more). Had his intent in writing "such is the way, etc." been to explain this regarding our parsha, he would not have brought it within the explanation of the verse in Eichah (which speaks of skin) and at the end of his comment; rather, he would have written it at the beginning of his explanation.
16) 36b (with variations).
17) Indeed, in the first edition of Rashi, after the words "and the troubles that befell him," it concludes "as is found in Sotah," and omits the explanation of the names. In the Rashi manuscript, the explanation of the first two names is brought, and it concludes "etc., as is found in Tractate Sotah."
18) See below, note 21.
19) Similar to Rashi at the end of Parshas Chukas, who brings only the beginning of the Gemara, "He uprooted a mountain three parsaos [in size], etc.," and refers (before this) to "Perek HaRo'eh (in Berachos)."
20) Or Rashi could have brought it in Vayigash (46:21), where the verse enumerates the names of Binyamin's sons.
21) It also requires explanation: why does Rashi bring and specify "as is found in Tractate Sotah"? As has been discussed several times, when Rashi notes and specifies a particular source and sefer, his intent is to emphasize "as stated in that place specifically," and to exclude the teachings of our Sages elsewhere. In our case, the interpretation of the names is found in several places in the teachings of our Sages: Targum Yonasan, Vayigash there; Tanchuma there, 4 (and Tanchuma Buber there); Bereishis Rabbah there (94:8); Yalkut Shimoni on our parsha, remez 150. Furthermore: in Tractate Sotah only the interpretation of the names is brought, whereas in the aforementioned Midrashim the interpretation of the names is brought in continuation of the event here and the dialogue between Binyamin and Yosef, as in Rashi's commentary (albeit with variations).
22) Our parsha, 43:16.
23) Ibid., 29.
24) Our parsha, 41:44; 41:40.
25) Except for the weeping (42:24), "ויסב מעליהם ויבך" ("He turned away from them and wept") — because he heard that they were regretting [what they had done] (Rashi). But there: a) his compassion was not stirred, and therefore b) he did not need to go "into the chamber" and wash his face, as here. Rather, only "He turned away from them — he distanced himself from them so that they would not see him weeping" (Rashi), "and he returned to them." See similarly Abarbanel here.
26) Such as immediately when his brothers came "and bowed to him with their faces to the ground … and Yosef remembered, etc." (42:6–9); what they told him (ibid., 13), "We, your servants, are twelve brothers … and behold, the youngest …"; that Yaakov is still alive (43:28); and the like.
27) And privately, between him and himself, it is possible to say that [OCR unclear], and the verse need not relate it.
28) Vayishlach 33:5.
29) For this is what [the verse] emphasizes: "for his compassion was stirred toward his brother."
30) According to what is explained in the text, it is also understood why Rashi did not write regarding this "and our Rabbis expounded" or the like; and also that the reference "as is found in Tractate Sotah" at the end of his comment applies only to the interpretation of the names (and not to the beginning of his comment). For the details of the dialogue* also explain the plain meaning, as does the opening "Do you have a brother from your mother?"** — "and Binyamin said to him, 'I had a brother, etc.'"
*) With difficulty, it could be said that the details are not necessitated by the plain meaning; rather, since it is proven that there was a special conversation here about brotherhood, etc., Rashi brings what our Sages said (with variations — see the next marginal note), and he need not preface "our Rabbis expounded" or the like, since the matter at least is necessitated by the plain meaning. But in such a case, where the details are not necessitated by the plain meaning, he should have noted the source for his explanation; and further, and mainly — he should have abridged them, as above.
**) In Midrash Rabbah and Tanchuma this opening is not found; rather, he began by asking "Do you have sons?" (Bereishis Rabbah), or "Do you have a wife?" (Tanchuma), and only after he asked him "What are their names, etc." did Binyamin say to him, "They are all [named] after my brother, the son of my mother, etc." (Tanchuma; in Bereishis Rabbah with a variation in wording). (In Yalkut Shimoni there it is brought with the question "Yosef: Do you have a brother?" [and similarly in a manuscript (Albeck edition) in the variant readings]. But there it begins, "And he was questioning him until he reached the matter of his brother" — and the discussion whether Rashi saw the Yalkut Shimoni is well known.) But since the conversation was about brotherhood ("his compassion was stirred toward his brother") — [OCR unclear: the note breaks off here].
31) See his explanation (cited below, note 58): "His heart becomes heated … so that he feels bitter in his heart upon seeing the pain of another, as it is written, 'for his compassion was stirred.'"
32) For Yosef was sold at the age of seventeen, and Yosef was born before Yaakov worked six years with Lavan's flock (Rashi, Toldos 28:9), and Binyamin was born in Eretz Yisrael (Vayishlach 35:16 ff., and Rashi there, 18) after those six years, and after [Yaakov] had been on the road eighteen months (Rashi there, 33:17; and in the old Rashi (Toldos there): two years that he spent on the road).
33) Therefore Rashi brings specifically from Tractate Sotah, because since it is proven from the verse that "his compassion was stirred toward his brother," only in Tractate Sotah is it explained how each name is either after his brother and his virtues, or after "the troubles that befell him"; unlike Tanchuma and Bereishis Rabbah, where one or two of the names are not for this reason (see also below, note 37). Likewise, specifically in Sotah the order of the matter is first about his brother, his mother's son, and afterwards about the sons alluded to in "May He be gracious to you" — as is the order in the verse, as mentioned above. It can further be said (though this is not in the manner of the plain meaning) that since in Tractate Sotah it is explained that these ten sons of Binyamin pertain to Yosef, etc., it is even more fitting according to the plain meaning to say that the conversation also followed the order in the verse: first "his brother, his mother's son" — asking "Do you have a brother, etc." — and afterwards "May He be gracious to you" — "Do you have sons, etc.," as in the text: "Yosef was fit to have twelve tribes descend from him … yet they came from Binyamin his brother, and they were all named after him." And it is even more fitting in that they especially emphasized the brotherhood of Binyamin and Yosef. As for the differences in the interpretation of the names between Rashi and Tractate Sotah (Gera: in Rashi — "that he became a stranger in a lodging place," and in Sotah — "that he dwelt, etc."; Muppim: in Rashi — "he learned from the mouth of his father," and in Sotah this is absent) — it can be said that this was his reading of Tractate Sotah, or that this is how he interprets the words of the Gemara. In the second edition of Rashi it is brought according to our reading of the Gemara, as well as the "some say" regarding the name "Ard." This is not the place [to elaborate].
34) According to this — Binyamin and his ten sons — all of them recall Yosef his brother. Based on this, one can explain (at least in the manner of "an allusion that fits the plain meaning of Scripture"): a) why Rashi also copies the lengthy "He said to him, 'Do you have … their names,'" whereas he should have said briefly, "'Do you have sons?' He said to him, 'Bela and Becher, etc.'" b) In the comment on "אלקים" (preceding this), why he copies from the verse also the word "בני" ("my son"), and in his explanation also the words "את עבדך" ("your servant"). The point of the explanation: since it is written "your servant," it is emphasized that Yaakov is not included, and "graciously given" applies only to the eleven tribes; since it is written "May He be gracious to you, my son," it includes (and according to the plain meaning, on the contrary, it refers mainly to) Binyamin — only that the expression of blessing "May He be gracious to you" relates to a blessing for children, as in the text. Therefore, when he specified "I have ten," here too Yosef's "May He be gracious to you" resembles Yaakov's "graciously given" — eleven people. Based on this it is also more fitting: a) seemingly "my son" is superfluous; b) the choice of the term of endearment here — "my son."
35) Based on this, it is understood and more fitting that all of this can be in continuation, in one comment, as in the reading (cited in note 2) that has no new heading for "נכמרו."
36) So too it is explained in Midrash Sechel Tov. In Targum Yonasan: "רחשו רחמוי" ("his compassion stirred"); and in the commentary on Yonasan: "that its meaning is moving and swaying, etc." — although in the Targum on Melachim and Hoshea it is "were aroused," as below in the text.
37) Therefore he did not bring the interpretation of the names from Midrash Tanchuma, where it concludes "At that moment Yosef's compassion was aroused." Moreover, that conclusion does not at all [state] that the above conversation brought about "his compassion was stirred, etc."
38) And Rashi on Hoshea there: "they became heated, etc.," because he explained according to his approach (relying on what he had already proven) here.
39) The Radak on Hoshea there explains: "were aroused … and so Targum Yonasan and Onkelos; and some explain 'became heated.'" In his Sefer HaShorashim (entry כמר) he brings the verse of our parsha and that of Hoshea, and writes: "meaning 'were aroused' and 'stirred,' as its Targum, or meaning 'became heated.'" In the Sefer HaShorashim of Rabbi Yonah ibn Janach, he brings the verses of our parsha, Melachim and Hoshea, and explains only "like 'המו' ('stirred')." This is not the place [to elaborate].
40) In Melachim and in Hoshea.
41) But once he has already explained it here, he need not explain it again in Melachim, since there it is the same wording and matter, "his compassion was stirred"; unlike in Hoshea, where: a) the wording is "My consolations are kindled"; b) it speaks of the Holy One, blessed be He. Note that the Radak too, in his commentary on Tanach, explains only in Hoshea (cited above, note 39) and not in Melachim before it — but it requires clarification which of them the Radak explained first in time.
42) Furthermore: here Rashi explains "they became heated," in the passive, and "מכמר בשרא" too is that the meat is acted upon — the heating of the meat (unlike "כומר"). And it can be said that this is why (according to several readings) Rashi also brings the word "משום" ("because of"): for "מכמר בשרא" on its own could be explained as one who brings about the heating of the meat, but the word "because of" implies that it alludes (also) to the content of the Gemara there — that the dispute is whether we are concerned that the meat will become heated (by itself) or not; see there and in Rashi.
43) Based on this it is more fitting that in Hoshea Rashi explains only "they became heated, in Aramaic" (and does not bring also the language of the Mishnah), because (in addition to the fact that it can be said that he relies on his explanation in our parsha and need not repeat all the details) in Aramaic "מכמר" means "became heated," as in the text. Therefore in Yevamos there, in his commentary (heading "כומר"), he explains "like מכמר בשרא" (that is, this explains the meaning of "כומר" there)*, and in Pesachim, on "מכמר בשרא," [he writes] only "and similar to it, 'upon the heating-vat of olives.'" Based on this it is understood why in the discourses (cited below, note 55) on the verse "for his compassion was stirred," where it is explained that "נכמרו" is warmth, only "נכמרו, from the expression מכמר בשרא" is brought.
*) The reason that in Bava Metzia, on "the heating-vat of olives," he did not bring "מכמר בשרא" as a source for the explanation of "כומר" is that the word "מכמר" was already brought there in the Gemara before this.
44) Based on this, one can give another reason why Rashi brought "the heating-vat of olives" and not the beginning of chapter 4 of Maasros: for even if we read there "המכמר" (as in the Yerushalmi, and so in the Aruch and elsewhere) and it speaks of olives — there it refers to the active, meaning one who hides olives so that they become heated, etc. (Rashi; the commentary of Rabbi Yitzchak ben Malki Tzedek there; and see Pnei Moshe on the Yerushalmi). This is unlike "the heating-vat of olives" in Bava Metzia, where Rabbi Chiya taught "in the Mishnah the expression 'כומר,' to say that they had already been heated" (Rashi, Bava Metzia there, heading "על הכומר etc."). See below, note 50.
45) It can be said: a) that Bava Metzia is the main place of the subject and the discussion, unlike Yevamos, where it is only incidental — "just as a heating-vat of grapes, etc." b) The main reality of a heating-vat is with olives, unlike grapes, since it is not usual to heat grapes (Tosafos, heading "Tani" — Bava Metzia there). See Rashi on Bechoros in the next note.
46) See Rashi there, heading "כומר." Note Rashi on Bechoros (31b), heading "כומר ענבים": "that he gathers them into a vessel … so that they are pressed and ripen" (and he did not write "so that they become heated," as in his commentary in Yevamos and in Bava Metzia on the Mishnah (72b)).
47) As for Rashi bringing there [in Eichah], "And similarly, 'for his compassion was stirred'; and in the language of the Gemara there are many: 'upon the heating-vat of grapes,' 'מכמר בשרא'" — that is because there he does not come to prove his explanation; therefore his wording there is "and similarly," not as he wrote here. And therefore he wrote there "there are many: upon the heating-vat of grapes, etc." — because after having already proven his explanation here, he brings there the first example in Shas. But the word "upon" requires slight examination (as above, note 8), and therefore what is explained in note 54 is more plausible.
48) That is, this is their name.
49) See Rashi there, heading "בישלי כמרא."
50) The Aruch brings all the above places — of Maasros, of Berachos, etc. But in each place he explains differently: in Maasros, etc., he explains "hides, etc."; in Pesachim — "מכמר, like withering, etc." The Aruch HaShalem writes that the view of the Aruch is that "כומר" means hiding, and the view of Rashi is that it means heating and burning; see there. Note that also regarding the expression "לא יכמר באדמה" ("he may not heat [them] in the ground") in Bava Metzia (89b), the Aruch explains "hides the olives, etc." (like the Rash, etc., in note 44), and Rashi there: "olives that he hides in hot earth."
51) For example, in the Radak's Sefer HaShorashim. He brings it in continuation of the explanation of "his compassion was stirred": "And it may be close in meaning to 'Our skin was heated like an oven,' which means 'they became blackened.'"
*) Note that in Midrash Eichah there: "One said: like these heating-vats," and in Matnos Kehunah there: "like this heating-vat of grapes, which is hot, etc." — but see Yefeh Anaf there.
52) Rashi on Eichah there. In the Radak's Sefer HaShorashim — entry זלעפה — (and so in his commentary on Tehillim 11:6), [he writes] that their meaning is terror and trembling, or burning. But even according to the explanation of trembling, this has no special connection to causing the blackening of the skin. Note the Ibn Ezra's commentary on Eichah there, that "נכמרו" means "like 'they will burn and blaze,' and 'נכמרו' as in 'for his compassion was stirred'" (similar to the explanation in our parsha). He explains "זלעפות" like "ורוח זלעפות" ("and a burning wind"), in the sense of a storm.
53) In the Targum there: "Our skin, like an oven, became blackened, etc."
54) Based on this, it is understood why Rashi there brought "upon the heating-vat of grapes" (and not olives): because the main thing with grapes is the pressing, etc., similar to the matter of shriveling and contraction, as in Rashi on Bechoros.
55) Likkutei Torah, Behar 40d. Or HaTorah, Bereishis (vol. 6), 1108a.
56) Tehillim 80:2. Rashi and Metzudos there.
57) In Likkutei Torah and Or HaTorah there: "for compassion comes from warmth, for his heart grows warm within him." Likkutei Torah notes: "as explained elsewhere on the Zohar, Bamidbar, etc.," (and in Or HaTorah:) "and see its explanation, Parshas Bamidbar, on the matter of Tiferes, which is called 'Ruach.'" This is the Biurei HaZohar in the next note.
58) Biurei HaZohar (of the Mitteler Rebbe), Bamidbar 86a ff. See also Biurei HaZohar of the Tzemach Tzedek, p. 451 ff. (where "for his compassion was stirred" of our parsha is also cited, as above, note 31). See also Likkutei Torah, Behaaloscha (35b), cited in the next note. Sefer HaMaamarim 5568, end of p. 498.
59) See Likkutei Torah, Behaaloscha 30b–31a; end of 31a–b; 35a–b; 36b. See also Torah Or on our parsha, 35d; Tetzaveh 81, end of column c, ff.; 110d. Sefer HaMaamarim 5568, p. 508 ff.
60) See Eruvin 18b (cited in Rashi, Noach 8:11).
61) It is understood and obvious that there is no contradiction from this to what is explained at the end of the previous section from Biurei HaZohar — as explained in Likkutei Torah, Behaaloscha there, that through the crushing, the bitterness of soul, etc., mentioned above, there is drawn down from the level of Chochmah — "bitter" — and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy (see there, 35b), and as it is drawn down in the Sefiros, it is the warmth of the attribute of compassion (Tiferes).
*) Note that there he refers: "and see what is written … on the matter of 'for his compassion was stirred,' etc."
62) See Likkutei Torah, Behaaloscha there (30b; 31a–b), that from the level of the hidden Mind and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy mentioned above, there is drawn down the level of "Ahavah Rabbah," and [OCR unclear], so that "עין בעין יראו" ("they will see eye to eye").
63) See Likkutei Torah, Pinchas (77d, and elsewhere), that flesh comes into being from the blood, whose seat is in the heart, and therefore flesh indicates the emotional attributes of the heart. [In Likkutei Torah, Behaaloscha (31c ff., and the sources cited there), [it is explained] that flesh is from the level of the Gevuros and the element of fire, and is included in the Gevuros of holiness — meaning that through this there is drawn down the fervor and fiery flames of love, etc.] Based on this it is understood why in Likkutei Torah and Or HaTorah (in note 55), where it is explained that "his compassion was stirred" is an expression of warmth, it is brought that "his compassion was stirred" is from the expression "מכמר בשרי" ("the heating of my flesh") (see above, note 42, for the explanation of this according to the plain meaning): because the main matter of "they became heated" is in the emotional attributes of the heart.
64) See Likkutei Torah, Pinchas there; Shir HaShirim 43d; and elsewhere.
65) Note, by way of homily, that (the order in Rashi's commentary) — language of the Mishnah, Aramaic (Talmud), language of Scripture — also alludes to (the order of) the drawing down: Mishnah — the emotional attributes and their beginning, the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy; Talmud — the intellect; and Scripture — in Asiyah (Tanya, ch. 40, gloss (55b) — from Pri Etz Chaim; see also there, ch. 52; Iggeres HaKodesh, section 26 (144a ff.)). Therefore Rashi concludes with "in Scripture," which is in Asiyah.
66) Amos 8:11.
Key Lesson
True compassion for one's own G‑dly soul comes from contemplation: first of its lofty bond with G‑dliness ("my brother"), then of how far it has descended ("the troubles that befell him"). When this contemplation is felt with genuine warmth and bitterness, it arouses supernal compassion, reveals great love for G‑d in the heart, and transforms even the outermost "skin" of a person, until his hunger becomes "to hear the words of the L‑rd."