Parshas Vayechi*
1. The words of the verse "בנימין זאב יטרף" ("Binyamin is a wolf that devours")1 are rendered by Targum Onkelos: "בנימין בארעיה תשרי שכינתא ובאחסנתיה יתבני מקדשא" ("Binyamin — in his land the Shechinah will rest, and in his inheritance the Mikdash will be built"). Targum Yonasan ben Uziel says on it: "Binyamin is a mighty tribe, like a wolf that devours; in his land the Shechinah of the Master of the world will rest, and in his inheritance the Beis Mikdasha (the House of the Sanctuary) will be built."
At first glance, both Targumim mean the same matter and content. The Rogatchover2, however, explains that there is a difference between them: "In his inheritance the Mikdash will be built" means "a place sanctified for blood"3 — the altar (in line with the view of Levi in the Gemara4, that the part of the base of the altar upon which "blood is placed" is in the portion of Binyamin (the portion of the "devourer")6, whereas upon the part of the base that is in the portion of Yehudah "blood is not placed"5); whereas "in his inheritance the Beis Mikdasha will be built" refers to the Beis HaMikdash in general7, which is in the portion of the "devourer" (Binyamin)7*.
We need to understand: What is the substance of their dispute, and what are their reasons — especially since both Targumim open with the same thing, "in his land the Shechinah will rest"?
2. This will be understood by first explaining the general intent behind several of the tribes being compared to animals ("גור אריה יהודה" — "Yehudah is a lion's cub"8; "Dan is a serpent"9; "Naftali is a swift hind"10; until the conclusion, "Binyamin is a wolf that devours"): What is added to our understanding of the matter by knowing that, because of a particular trait or activity of a tribe, it is described (not as "mighty" or "a devourer" and the like, but) as a "lion" or a "wolf"11? That is to say: this trait is the nature of that animal, and the fact that it is present in this tribe is (not because of the human traits within him, but) because he possesses within himself the trait of that particular animal.
It is also understood that (although each one of the tribes, because of a particular trait, resembles a particular animal) the common denominator of the beasts of the earth in general is connected with the common denominator of the tribes in general12.
3. Regarding the traits of several animals, the Gemara at the conclusion of Tractate Kiddushin states: "It was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: In all my days I have never seen a deer as a fig-dryer (kayatz), a lion as a porter (sabal), or a fox as a shopkeeper (chenvani); yet they earn their livelihood without distress. And they were created only to serve me, while I was created to serve my Maker. If these, who were created only to serve me, earn their livelihood without distress, then I, who was created to serve my Maker — is it not right that I should earn my livelihood without distress? But I have corrupted my deeds and forfeited my livelihood, as it is said, 'עונותיכם הטו' ('Your iniquities have turned these away')."
The commentators13 explain that the various kinds of crafts14 enumerated here — "fig-dryer," "porter," and "shopkeeper" — correspond to the natural traits of these animals: the trait of the deer, which while sleeping keeps "one eye open," suits the craft of a "fig-dryer" — to guard figs drying in the field. The lion, the mightiest of beasts, is suited to be a "porter" — a "carrier of loads." The fox, because of its cleverness, is fit to be a shopkeeper, who earns from buying and selling.
But this requires explanation: Why are precisely these types of crafts listed here, and not (also) other crafts that would match the traits of other animals15 (for example, saying that "אילה שלוחה" ("a swift hind"), because of its nature of speed and alacrity16, is suited to be a messenger — and nevertheless we do not find that this is its craft, etc.)17?
The above saying of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar (however, in the name of Rabbi Meir, with a change in order and with an addition) is also cited in the Yerushalmi: "Have you ever in your days seen a lion as a porter, a deer18 as a fig-dryer, a fox as a shopkeeper, a wolf as a seller of pots?"19 This requires explanation:
a) He places20 "porter" before "fig-dryer." This is especially puzzling since it stands to reason that the proper order is (as they appear in the Bavli): a deer as fig-dryer, a lion as porter (and a fox as shopkeeper), because that is the usual order of these crafts with dried figs (and the like): first they are dried — (the deer) the "fig-dryer"; afterwards, when they are already dried and are in barrels and the like, one needs (the lion) the "porter," who carries them (afterwards) to (the fox) the shopkeeper.
And it is very forced to say that he reverses the order in order to put "lion (porter)" first because it is the king of the beasts21.
Especially since, according to this, the fox (shopkeeper) should have come immediately after the lion, etc., since it too has the quality of leadership — the quality of being the cleverest of the beasts. It is also, in general, closer to the lion than the deer is, for it is its way to eat meat22, and the like.
b) The Yerushalmi adds "a wolf as a seller of pots."
c) Seemingly, what does "a wolf as a seller, etc." add to "a fox as a shopkeeper"? In their content they are the same category (the whole business of a shopkeeper is to sell, etc.)!
d) What is the connection of a wolf to selling pots23?
[There are commentators24 who explain that since selling pots is a simple craft, the seller need not be a (clever) fox; anyone is fit for it. However, from the flow of the matters it is implied that here too the craft (selling pots) is connected with a quality of the wolf — similar to the preceding examples, "porter," "fig-dryer," and "shopkeeper," which are connected with the qualities of the lion, the deer and the fox25.]
4. This will be understood by first noting a precise point in the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar: Since he states explicitly further on (in the kal vachomer), "If these, who were created only to serve me, earn their livelihood without distress, then I, who was created to serve my Maker — is it not right, etc." — why does he need to repeat the same point earlier26 and say, "And they were created only to serve me, while I was created to serve my Maker"?
The explanation of this: The intent and purpose of all the created beings in the world is for the sake of the Jewish people27, who are the purpose of all matters and created beings in the world — vegetable, animal and human. As the Rambam elaborates in his Introduction to the Commentary on the Mishnah28: "All the beings beneath the sphere of the moon exist for the sake of man alone. Of all the kinds of animals, some are for his food, such as sheep, cattle and others; and some are for his benefit other than food, such as the donkey, to carry upon it what he cannot carry by hand, and horses, to cover great distances, etc." (and similarly regarding trees and plants)29. And so too regarding the human species: in order for the perfect man to be able to occupy himself with (G‑dly) wisdom and (good) deeds, there must be an entire world of people who provide him with all the necessities of life, so that he will have the time and the opportunity to study and acquire wisdom (as the Rambam explains there at length).
That is to say: the role of all kinds of created beings, including the children of Noach30, is to supply a Jew with his needs, so that consequently he will be able to occupy himself with Torah and fulfill mitzvos.
And Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar adds a novel point: "(the fact that) they were created only to serve me (is for the sake of) and I (that is, as I) was created to serve my Maker." The fact that the deer, the lion and the fox were created with the trait of being a fig-dryer, a porter and a shopkeeper is not simply "to serve me," with which their role is complete; rather, their "to serve me" is specifically in such a manner that through it "I" will have "to serve my Maker" — (through) the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvos.
For in order that a Jew be able to transform an object of the world — to make it a cheftza shel mitzvah and holiness (through fulfilling the mitzvah) — the three activities of "fig-dryer," "porter," and "shopkeeper" are first required: they prepare and make fit the objects of the world for the fulfillment of the mitzvah.
[The reason why, in actual practice, the craft of "fig-dryer," etc., is not carried out by the deer, etc. — "I have never seen a deer, etc." — can be explained as follows: Because (as Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar concludes his statement) "I have corrupted my deeds." Just as this caused him to earn his livelihood "with distress," to the point of "I have forfeited my livelihood," and moreover, that he should need to resort to labor at all (similar to the statement of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai31: "When Israel does the will of the Omnipresent, their work is done by others, etc., and when Israel does not do the will of the Omnipresent, their work is done by themselves"32), so too (and all the more so) did it prevent the preparation and making-fit for the fulfillment of the mitzvah from being done by others — by "a deer as fig-dryer, a lion as porter, and a fox as shopkeeper"33 (or at least by the nations of the world, who are likened to beasts)34.]
5. The content of these three crafts, which are a preparation and making-fit for "serving my Maker," will be understood by first explaining these three matters in their plain sense:
The three types of crafts are arranged in an order of ascending degree (from the lighter to the weightier): "A deer as a fig-dryer" — one who "dries dried figs in the field"35 — his task is to bring the dried figs into the field, to an open place where the light of the sun shines, and to guard them so that they remain there until they dry out and reach their completion. "A lion as a porter" — a "carrier of loads"35 — his task is to transfer them from one place to another. The task of "a fox as a shopkeeper" is not changing the location of the dried figs but changing their domain and ownership: that the dried figs pass from one domain and ownership into another.
In short: a change of the substance, of the place, and of the ownership36.
Their spiritual meaning in the preparation for the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvos:
"A deer as a fig-dryer": There are many cases in which a Jew cannot carry out an act of fulfilling Torah and mitzvos because:
a) He lacks the knowledge of what the thing is. For example, there are mitzvos connected with saving lives — he must first ask a doctor whether this is (within the definition of) danger to life. Or, along the lines of what Rav said37: "For eighteen months I apprenticed myself to a shepherd, to know which blemish is permanent and which blemish is temporary"38.
b) The thing must be prepared for it, in its completeness. For example, parchment for making tefillin — and "the entire Torah is compared to tefillin"39 — first requires the flaying and separation39* of the hide from the animal, and the tanning of the hide by one who flays and tans hides, and so on.
Similarly, the craft and task of "(a deer as) a fig-dryer" is that the existence of the thing (the fig) should be found not in concealment and darkness, but in a state of illumination and openness, in order to have clear knowledge of it — and that it be prepared in its completeness. Only then can one learn and know when and how to fulfill the Torah and its mitzvos — as will be explained further at length.
"A lion as a porter": the change of place — the object must arrive at the place where the Jew is found, so that he can fulfill the mitzvah with it.
Especially when a permitted thing with which a Jew can and must perform a mitzvah is located in a place where a Jew cannot go — for example40, in a marketplace of idolatry, or a marketplace of harlots, and the like — one must resort to the craft of a (lion) "porter," who has the "strength" to carry the thing over to another place, where the Jew can come and fulfill a mitzvah with it, or make of it a holy thing.
"A fox as a shopkeeper": Sometimes there can be even more: in order for a Jew to be able to fulfill a mitzvah with the thing, the thing must undergo a change of domain41 even before it comes into his domain; along the lines of41* "עמון ומואב טיהרו בסיחון" ("Ammon and Moav were purified through Sichon"): in order that the land of Ammon and Moav become an inhabited land belonging to Jews, where they would fulfill mitzvos, it first had to undergo the conquest by Sichon42.
6. The first point regarding "a deer as a fig-dryer" — that the craft is connected with uncovering and guarding the thing (the figs) — is not sufficient according to the interpretation of "kayatz" as meaning, as Rashi explains, "one who dries dried figs in the field" — the accomplishment of a change in the substance of the thing itself.
Therefore comes the second point mentioned above — that "a deer as a fig-dryer" (and likewise "a lion as a porter") are (also) general matters in mitzvos: in order for a Jew to be able to fulfill a mitzvah with a physical thing, as (mentioned above with tefillin, or) taking the esrog and lulav, etc., they must first of all be separated from their attachment to the tree — a change in the object of the esrog and lulav, in that they no longer have growth and nourishment from the tree (similar to "fig-dryer" — the drying of figs); and after this change in the substance of the thing, there must be "(a lion as) a porter" — the change of place — as mentioned above.
Similarly, there are these two details with wool for tzitzis: shearing the wool from the body of the animal ("a deer as a fig-dryer"), and its being brought to the Jew ("a lion as a porter"). And so too with a horn for a shofar, s'chach and walls for a sukkah, and several similar mitzvos.
Even more so with a hide for tefillin (mezuzah and a Sefer Torah): first flaying the hide from the flesh of the animal and tanning it43 — a real and great change43* in the substance of the hide — and afterwards transferring the hide, etc., to the place of a Jew.
[Accordingly, the two details "a deer as a fig-dryer and a lion as a porter" are matters that are necessary in very many mitzvos (and therefore we find a difference between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi regarding them, as will be explained below), whereas "a fox as a shopkeeper" — the change of domain and ownership before the thing comes into the domain of Jews — is a matter that applies to certain matters of holiness and mitzvos, which are not so common.]
7. Based on the above, we can explain the reason why it was specifically Yaakov who called the tribes by the names of animals: Just as the role of the animals is (in general, as mentioned above) to prepare and make fit the things of the world for the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvos by Jews (which divides into the three types of fig-dryer, porter, shopkeeper)4444*, so too the general task of the service of (Yaakov and) the tribes45 was to accomplish, within themselves and in the world, the preparation and making-fit46 for the Giving of the Torah:
Among the reasons why the Jews had to go through the exile of Egypt before the Giving of the Torah, it is explained in many places that before that, the Jews — and consequently also the world — were not fit and prepared for physical things and objects to be made into a cheftza shel mitzvah and holiness. Egypt was the "כור הברזל" ("iron furnace") that brought about refinement and clarification in the Jews and in the world in general — preparing the things of the world so that Jews would be able to fulfill Torah and mitzvos with them.
The exile of Egypt began with the descent of the tribes to Egypt together with Yaakov47; but the main "hardship of Egypt"48 began only after the passing of Yaakov and after the passing of Yosef, while "all his brothers and all that generation"49 were still alive in Egypt.
It follows that these crafts (activities) of the "deer," "lion," and "fox" mentioned above — preparing the things of the world for (the Giving of the Torah, that is, for) the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvos by Jews — began to be accomplished through the tribes when they were in Egypt.
8. It has already been discussed at length on another occasion50, in explaining several differences found between the approaches of the Bavli and the Yerushalmi: The approach of the Bavli is that in every matter where one weighs the present situation against the future situation, the accomplishment and advantage of the present is decisive, even though this may cause something to be lacking in the completeness of the matter later on. According to the approach of the Yerushalmi, one must judge by the future situation, and if an advantage will be added in the future, the advantage of the future outweighs the present situation.
An example of this: the well-known discussion51 whether the principle "זריזין מקדימין למצות" ("the zealous perform mitzvos at the earliest opportunity") is decisive, to do the mitzvah immediately, even though as a result it will not be a mitzvah in the choicest manner (with "ברוב עם הדרת מלך" — "in the multitude of people is the King's glory," which is possible specifically later); or whether the advantage and superiority of a mitzvah in the choicest manner in the future is decisive, so that it is better to wait and perform the mitzvah with a multitude of people, even though then the advantage of "the zealous perform mitzvos at the earliest opportunity" of the present will be lacking.
[Or, for example, when someone has now (early in the morning of a day of Sukkos) the four kinds which are not choice, and at a later time of the day he will receive choice four kinds — whether it is better that he fulfill the mitzvah immediately with the kinds that he has, or that he wait until he receives the choice kinds.]
9. Just as this applies to the fulfillment of the mitzvah itself, so too does the question arise regarding the preparation for the fulfillment of the mitzvah — and this is alluded to in the two matters of "a deer as a fig-dryer" and "a lion as a porter":
With figs, "they are not picked all at once; rather, on this tree there is what ripened today and there is on it what will ripen after several days"52.
When a fig becomes ripe, there are two possibilities: either to take the individual figs immediately to dry in the field — "a deer as a fig-dryer"; or to wait until many figs ripen and only then take them to dry — with "a lion as a porter"52*, a "carrier of loads."
Similarly, the question arises regarding preparing and making fit for a mitzvah: whether one must perform the earliest possible act to make the object fit for a mitzvah purpose — "a deer as a fig-dryer" — even when this is only a single piece of hide (in quantity), or a hide that is not of the choicest kind (in quality); or whether it is worthwhile to wait until one can make fit and prepare several and better things for the mitzvos — a larger and better hide for tefillin and the like — "a lion as a porter." For in the preparation and making-fit of the object of the mitzvah as well (even before the actual fulfillment), the quality of completeness and beauty is relevant53; already then there applies a semblance of "הקריבהו נא לפחתך" ("Offer it now to your governor")54 and "כל חלב לה׳" ("All the fat is to the L‑rd")55. Consequently, even then it makes a difference whether one prepares and makes fit for the fulfillment of a mitzvah a great deal in quantity and of better quality, or not.
It can be said that this is the practical difference between the approach of the Bavli and the approach of the Yerushalmi: According to the Bavli, since the "present" is decisive, the principle of "the zealous perform mitzvos at the earliest opportunity" must apply also at the beginning of the preparation and making-fit for the mitzvah; consequently, "a deer as a fig-dryer" comes first, even though the prepared thing is only a small quantity and also not complete in quality, and the like.
According to the Yerushalmi, for which "in the multitude of people," etc., and the completeness and advantage of the future are decisive over the advantage of zealousness in the present, so too regarding the preparation and making-fit for a mitzvah: what will be done later with more and better objects, etc., outweighs; consequently, "a lion as a porter" comes before "a deer as a fig-dryer"55*.
10. Based on this we can explain why it is specifically in the Yerushalmi that he adds "a wolf as a seller of pots." The connection of a "wolf" to selling pots is understood in light of the Gemara's56 distinction between a lion and a wolf: a lion "tramples and eats" — "immediately"57 — while a wolf "tears and eats" ("it carries it to its den and eats there"58). "And all of them have enjoyment"59.
From this it is understood that in the conduct of a lion there is no place for the matter of a "pot" (in which one waits with the raw thing until it is cooked), since it "tramples and eats (immediately)"; whereas a wolf, since it eats later — after it has torn its prey "and carries it to its den" — is suited to (cooking in) a "pot"60, so that the torn food will be in a manner of "greater enjoyment," tastier.
Its inner content and meaning in the preparation for a mitzvah: specifically after all the earlier preparations and makings-fit for the mitzvah are already in place — "fig-dryer," "porter," and (when also needed) "shopkeeper" — only then comes an additional preparation of the "wolf" through the "pot," so that the mitzvah will be performed with greater beauty and completeness.
Accordingly it is understood that the Bavli and the Yerushalmi each follow their own approach: According to the approach of the Bavli, since the advantage of "the zealous perform mitzvos at the earliest opportunity" in the present is decisive over an enhancement of "in the multitude of people is the King's glory" in the future and the like, therefore the Bavli does not include the case of "a wolf as a seller of pots" — this preparation is not (necessary) according to its approach. Whereas according to the view of the Yerushalmi60*, that the enhancement in the future prevails and is decisive over the matter of "the zealous perform mitzvos at the earliest opportunity," it adds that there is also the preparation of "a wolf as a seller of pots"61, whose content is the enhancement in the future.
The above difference between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi is found (almost) explicitly in a Mishnah61*: "If (Yom Kippur) fell on Erev Shabbos, the goat of Yom Kippur is eaten in the evening" (on Friday night, even though they cannot cook it on Shabbos62), "and the Babylonians"63 (Kohanim from outside the Land of Israel64) "eat it raw." Although eating the goat raw lacks the complete fulfillment of the mitzvah of eating sacred offerings — "למשחה" ("for greatness") (which is specifically when the meat is roasted, boiled or cooked65) — the Mishnah nevertheless specifies that (specifically) "the Kohanim eat it raw," in order to fulfill the mitzvah66 at the first opportunity. Whereas the Kohanim of the Land of Israel — since it is not a mitzvah performed in a choice manner67 — we do not find68 that they were zealous about it69.
11. Based on all the above, we can explain the difference between Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan ben Uziel regarding the translation of the verse "Binyamin is a wolf that devours":
The difference between the two Targumim is this: Targum Onkelos is a translation of the Bavli70, whereas Targum Yonasan ben Uziel is a translation of the Land of Israel (Yerushalmi)71. Therefore, each follows its own approach regarding "Binyamin is a wolf that devours" — whether the "wolf" is a matter that is relevant to the preparation and making-fit for a mitzvah or not (as mentioned above, section 10):
According to Targum Yonasan — a translation of Yerushalmi — "Binyamin is a wolf that devours" is the preparation and making-fit for the continuation of the verse, "בבקר יאכל עד ולערב יחלק שלל" ("In the morning he will devour prey, and in the evening he will divide the spoil") — the offering and eating of the sacrifices72. Therefore he translates "in his inheritance the Beis Mikdasha will be built" — for the Beis HaMikdash is a "preparation and making-fit"73 for the service of the sacrifices; in the words of the Rambam74, the Beis HaMikdash is "a House for G‑d, prepared for offering sacrifices in it."
And just as was said earlier, that the matter of the "wolf" indicates the beauty and completeness in the preparation and making-fit, so it is in this matter: the offering of sacrifices can take place even when there is no House75, as the halachic ruling states, "מקריבין אף על פי שאין בית" ("We may offer sacrifices even though there is no House")76; but it is understood that when one offers on an altar that is part of the Beis HaMikdash, this is a completeness in the matter of the altar and the sacrifices77.
Whereas according to Targum Onkelos — a translation of Babylonia — the matter of the "wolf" is not necessary in the preparation and making-fit for the mitzvah. Therefore he translates that the matter of the "wolf" indicates the main purpose of the mitzvah of offering the sacrifices (which is alluded to in the continuation of the verse, "In the morning he will devour prey," etc., as mentioned above78) — and that is the meaning of "in his inheritance the Mikdash will be built," which means a place sanctified for blood79 — the matter of the sprinkling of the blood80 (for atonement is through the blood81).
Based on the above, it seemingly follows that this is also a practical difference in halachah — in a case where there is a possibility to build only an altar on which to offer sacrifices, and not the entire Beis HaMikdash82: According to the Bavli — Targum Onkelos — there is room to say that one should build an altar on which to offer sacrifices, since one can immediately fulfill the mitzvah of offering the sacrifices (although it is not a complete fulfillment of the mitzvah, since there is no House). Whereas according to the Yerushalmi — Targum Yonasan ben Uziel — one must wait with offering the sacrifices until one will build83 the Mikdash84, because the offering of the sacrifices on the altar must be in a more complete manner (similar to what was said above, section 10 — that it is specifically the Babylonians who "eat it raw").
(From the sichos of 19 Kislev and the subsequent farbrengens, 5739)
Notes
*) And the conclusion of Tractate Kiddushin.
1) Our Parshah, 49:27.
2) Tzafnas Paneach on the Torah, on this verse.
3) And so it is in Tosafos, s.v. "Shissin," Zevachim 62b.
4) The wording of the Gemara is cited below in the text.
5) Zevachim 54a. See also the Bartenura on the Mishnah, Zevachim 5:4; Tosafos Yom Tov there. See also Or HaTorah on our Parshah, 416a; Or HaTorah, Yisro, p. 967, in the gloss; and the wording of the Tzafnas Paneach there. This is not the place to elaborate.
6) Rashi there, 54a, s.v. "Levi."
7) And so it is in the Targum Yerushalmi from manuscript (Ginsburger, Berlin 5658; Jerusalem 5729) — cited in Torah Shleimah on this verse. In the Targum Yerushalmi before us: "in his borders the Mikdash will be built" (manuscript), except that it places this before "in his inheritance the main Shechinah will rest," unlike the Targumim cited above.
7*) See Zevachim there, b; 118b; Yoma 12a and Rashi there, and the sources cited there; Sifri, Berachah 33:12; and in many places.
8) Our Parshah, 49:9.
9) Ibid., 49:17.
10) 49:21.
11) At length in the Midrashim of our Sages on these verses.
12) As in Bereishis Rabbah (99:4; see also Rashi on our Parshah, 49:28), that he included all of them together and made them like lions, etc. And in Sotah (11b; Shemos Rabbah 1:15; and similarly in Rashi, Shemos 1:19): "This nation is likened to a beast, etc., as it is written of it (Yechezkel 19:2), 'What a lioness was your mother; among lions she crouched.'"
13) Iyun Yaakov on Ein Yaakov; Chasdei David on the Tosefta, ch. 5, 13; Hagahos HaRadal on Kiddushin there; and elsewhere.
14) As in the wording of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar in the Mishnah, Kiddushin there.
15) The reason he did not also mention a kind of domestic animal: because generally, on the contrary, with domestic animals "I have seen" — we do find among them crafts, serving man: the ox for the yoke and the donkey for burdens, etc. (see Chiddushei Aggados of the Maharsha on the Mishnah, Kiddushin there). And although we do find kinds of domestic animals that have no craft (and do not serve man), since we find that the ox has a craft, etc., and it is the king of the domestic animals (Chagigah 13b), the rest are secondary and subordinate to it. Therefore one cannot say, neither in the Mishnah nor in the Baraisa, "Have you (rhetorically) ever in your days seen a domestic animal that has a craft."
This requires further study in light of the Tosefta, Kiddushin there, which continues, "domestic animal, beast and bird, etc." It can be said that the above matters with the ox, etc., are not in the category of a craft that they have — which they do by nature — but rather that they are domesticated creatures, which people rule over, compel and train (from the expression "the trainer of the cow" — Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10:1), and accustom them to various kinds of work (see Ein Yaakov on the Mishnah). Accordingly, we also resolve the fact that we find several beasts that have a craft, such as the elephant, which is used to carry loads — for this is not in the category of a craft. See also below, note 17.
However, the domestication of beasts is not comparable to that of domestic animals (see Bava Kamma 15b, a dispute of Tanna'im; see Sanhedrin 15b; Tosafos s.v. "Rabbi Elazar," Bava Kamma 15b; s.v. "VeRabbi Yochanan," Sanhedrin there). On this the Tosefta and the Talmud disagree.
16) And although this is not a trait specifically belonging to it, since it is also found in the deer (which is listed here) — see Kesubos 112a; Shemos Rabbah 32:2; and the Rashash there; see also the sources cited below, note 22 — nevertheless, the deer here is listed only as a "fig-dryer" and not as a messenger.
17) The fact that we find the equivalent of a shopkeeper among beasts (for example, a small creature that eats the insects, flies and worms on the elephant, through which both benefit), and similarly with other crafts, is not a difficulty:
a) Since the fox is "the cleverest of the beasts" (Berachos 61b) and nevertheless is not a shopkeeper, it is evident that although it is most suited for this, it does not trouble itself to engage in it (and it is irrelevant to the fig-dryer that creatures smaller than the fox engage in it).
b) And mainly: the intent of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar's words in the Mishnah was not that there is no beast or bird at all that has a craft, but that this is generally the case. Accordingly, we also resolve the fact that "the bee… gathers for its owner" (Devarim Rabbah 1:6), especially since it is implied from this that this is its nature.
Accordingly, we also understand the wording of the Mishnah, "Have you ever in your days seen a beast or bird that has a craft," even though we find among several of them that they have one, as mentioned above.
18) In the Yerushalmi before us: "a lion as a fig-dryer." But in the variant readings there, "a deer as a fig-dryer" is cited, as in the Bavli. And so it is in the Tosefta — where too "a lion as a porter" is placed before "a deer as a fig-dryer," and "a wolf as a seller of pots" is added, as in the Yerushalmi. However, since this reading, "a lion as a fig-dryer," is widespread in the printed editions of the Yerushalmi, it must be said that this too is in line with the difference between the Yerushalmi and the Bavli, and this was explained at the farbrengen.
19) And so it is in the Tosefta cited in the previous note, except that there it adds: "domestic animal, beast and bird," etc. (as mentioned above, note 15).
20) Other differences in wording between the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar in the Bavli and his statement in the Yerushalmi: in the Bavli, "In all my days I have never seen" (i.e., that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar did not see, etc.), and in the Yerushalmi, "Have you ever in your days seen" (which he says to others). This wording is also in the Mishnah, and similarly in the Tosefta* (except that there it is "Have you seen" — without a question). Note also that in the Bavli the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is in his own name, whereas in the Yerushalmi it is in the name of Rabbi Meir, as in the text.
20*) In the gloss of the Gra there: "In all my days I have never seen" (as in the Bavli). But this reading is not cited from manuscripts and printed editions of the Tosefta (see the Lieberman edition, New York 5715 [OCR unclear]).
21) Chagigah 13b.
22) Bava Kamma 19b, end, and Rashi there. Note also the Rashba, Kiddushin 3a, s.v. "Lo LeChai," that the goat and the deer resemble each other. See also Kilayim 1:6, and Tosefos Anshei Shem there.
23) Note the reading (cited in the variant readings of the Mishnayos, Kiddushin), "a wolf as a builder of fences."
24) Hagahos HaRadal on Kiddushin there.
25) In Chasdei David on the Tosefta: "It is possible, with difficulty, to say that sellers of earthenware pots commonly profit at every moment, since these are things that are constantly needed and break easily; and the wolf is a glutton and needs to have food available at all times; therefore it was fitting for it to sell pots."
26) And so it is in the Mishnah in Ein Yaakov, the Yerushalmi and the Tosefta; unlike the Mishnah before us in the Gemara. Note also the reading in the variant readings of the Mishnayos there.
27) See Berachos 6b, end; Sanhedrin 37a, end; and in many places.
28) In the section beginning "Afterwards, see to delve" [OCR unclear].
29) And there: "And whatever exists among the beasts and plants that has no benefit as food, and in which, to your thinking, there is no benefit at all — know that the matter is due to the weakness of our intellect."
30) See Likkutei Sichos vol. 5, p. 159 ff., where it can be explained that this is also the goal and purpose of the fulfillment of the seven mitzvos of the children of Noach.
31) Berachos 35b.
32) See Pnei Yehoshua, Kiddushin there. Note also Chiddushei Aggados of the Maharal at the end of Kiddushin; Tiferes Yisrael, ch. 1.
33) Similar to the saying of our Sages regarding the serpent (Sanhedrin 59b): "Woe for a great servant that was lost from the world, for had it not been cursed, etc." See also Chiddushei Aggados of the Maharsha there. But see Rashi there, s.v. "UveChol Chai": "Beasts are fit for work (rhetorically)." Chiddushei Aggados of the Maharsha at the end of Kiddushin, on the Mishnah.
34) See Rambam, Hilchos Melachim, beginning of ch. 2.
35) The wording of Rashi at the end of Kiddushin.
36) It can be said that this is similar to inner light, encompassing light, and the encompassing of the encompassing. And there is more to add.
37) Sanhedrin 5b, beginning.
38) See the above in detail in Likkutei Sichos vol. 10, p. 197 ff. According to what is explained there, this example is not always appropriate, since in many cases it is in the category of a mitzvah. And similar to the science of astronomy [OCR unclear] (Rambam, Hilchos Kiddush HaChodesh 1:6; see also Likkutei Sichos vol. 10, p. 183, end — a mitzvah incumbent upon a person); see there at length.
39) Kiddushin 35a.
39*) See below in the text, end of the section.
40) See Avodah Zarah 11b; 17a, end, ff.; Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, beginning of siman 149; Even HaEzer, beginning of siman 21.
41) Note Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, beginning of siman 649 [OCR unclear]. The nullification of an idol by a non-Jew (Avodah Zarah 52b; 64b; Rambam, Hilchos Avodah Zarah 8:9 [OCR unclear]; Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, beginning of siman 146). And elsewhere.
41*) Chullin 60b. See also Rashi, Chukas 21:26.
42) Perhaps something similar can be said regarding living creatures, for example: when a domestic animal or a deer eats something forbidden (orlah, kilayim and the like), in order that a Jew should afterwards fulfill the mitzvah of delighting in Shabbos by eating the animal or the deer (and the like).
Note also regarding a Jew, when forbidden food was permitted because of danger to life. See Tanya, Iggeres HaKodesh, sec. 26 (144a, beginning), "complete" in a half-square [OCR unclear]. Or even in a forbidden manner, when he ate forbidden food and then did teshuvah out of love, so that his willful sins became for him like merits and a mitzvah (see Tanya, ch. 7; and see in detail on all the above in the letters printed in Likkutei Sichos vol. 12, p. 196 ff.).
43) According to the views that tanning need not be done for its sake for the hide of the housings and the straps, or even for the parchment of Sifrei Torah, tefillin and mezuzos (see Sanhedrin 48b and sources cited there; Rashi, Tosafos and the Rishonim there; cited in Encyclopedia Talmudis, s.v. "Hazmanah" (1), sec. 3, and sources cited there) — it is not necessary that the tanning be done specifically by a Jew. And this is obvious regarding the flaying that precedes it.
43*) Note Torah Or, Mishpatim (76a ff.): "'He shall serve' (ya'avod) is an expression of tanning (ibbud) hides, etc."
44) For the meaning is not that only these animals have these traits and are suited to be fig-dryers, etc., since this is also so with very many animals; but that it is principally in these animals. See above, note 17.
44*) Note the Rambam's Introduction to the Commentary on the Mishnah there: "Each kind of living creature, etc., has only one activity or two activities, etc."
45) And as mentioned above, note 12, that all of them are likened to a beast. Note also that in Sotah and Shemos Rabbah there, regarding "as it is not written," the verse (Yechezkel 19:2) "What a lioness was your mother; among lions," etc., is cited. See also Rashi, Sotah there, s.v. "Dichsiv" (and similarly in Rashi, Shemos there): "The entire Congregation of Israel is called a lioness."
46) Although their being likened to animals is not because of the matter of fig-drying, carrying, etc., within them, these matters (which were to be found in the animals) stem from their traits — the might of the lion, etc. And indeed, "He gave Yehudah the might of a lion and Binyamin the snatching of a wolf, etc." (Rashi on our Parshah, 49:28).
47) Torah Or 77a ff.; and in many places.
48) For from then the count of 210 years began — see Seder Olam, ch. 48 [OCR unclear]; Shemos Rabbah 18:11; Targum Yonasan ben Uziel, Bo 12:40; Rashi on the Torah, Lech Lecha 15:13; Shemos 2:1.
49) Shemos Rabbah 1:4. See also the commentary of the Maharzu there.
50) See Likkutei Sichos vol. 4, p. 1338; vol. 24, p. 173 ff.; p. 243.
51) Regarding what follows, see Sdei Chemed, Kelalim, Ma'areches Zayin, kelal 1–3; Ma'areches Samech, kelal 36 [OCR unclear]; Encyclopedia Talmudis, s.v. "Zerizin Makdimin," and sources cited there; Likkutei Sichos vol. 9, p. 73 ff., and sources cited there.
52) Rambam, Hilchos Matnos Aniyim 2:2. See also the Commentary on the Mishnah and the Bartenura, Pe'ah 1:4.
52*) However, one cannot explain the difference between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi — that the Bavli puts "fig-dryer" before "porter" and the Yerushalmi "porter" before "fig-dryer" — according to the two reasonings (Shabbos 126a) whether "reducing the walking is preferable" — "fig-dryer" — or "reducing the load is preferable" — "porter, carrier of loads"; for in the Bavli it concludes there that "reducing the walking is preferable," and if so, it should have put "porter" first.
53) Note Likkutei Sichos vol. 11, p. 131, the explanation of the dispute between Rashi and the Raavad.
54) Malachi 1:8.
55) Vayikra 3:16. Rambam, end of Hilchos Issurei Mizbe'ach. Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, end of siman 244 [OCR unclear].
55*) One may add to this (based on what was explained above regarding the figs) that in the Land of Israel — Yerushalmi — "porter" must come before "fig-dryer," because its fruits are larger and heavier (Kesubos 112a). If so, it can be said that "a lion as a porter" is needed even for a small number, and perhaps even for a single fruit, while the "deer as a fig-dryer" is only for the guarding that comes (only) afterwards, and not for the bringing. Whereas in the Bavli, the question arises immediately with the first fruit — whether to bring it to the place of the sun immediately or [to wait for] a multitude, etc. (and according to the Bavli, zealousness (the present) is decisive).
56) Taanis 8a; Arachin 15b.
57) Rashi, Taanis there. See also Bava Kamma 16b, beginning; Rashi and Tosafos there, s.v. "Daras." And in the Gemara there, that "and he filled his holes with prey" (Nachum 2:13) means "for the sake of his holes," i.e., "to store away; but to eat immediately after killing, etc., is not its way" (Rashi there, s.v. "VeHaChsiv").
58) Rashi, Taanis there. See also Rashi, Bava Metzia 93b, s.v. "Ari Dores."
59) The conclusion of Rashi's wording, Taanis there. It is worth noting that Rashi wrote this in the comment s.v. "Toref VeOchel" — even though it refers to both, the lion and the wolf — for thereby he teaches us that although the reason the wolf "carries it to its den and eats" is because it "is afraid of people" (Rashi there), it nevertheless has enjoyment from this manner of eating.
60) And the reason it sells pots: since it craves them for itself — and for its fellow wolves — it becomes an expert and takes an interest, etc.
60*) Note the special emphasis we find, according to the view of the Yerushalmi, regarding the preparation and making-fit for a mitzvah: it holds (Berachos 9:3) that one must recite a blessing upon making a sukkah, lulav, mezuzah, tefillin and tzitzis; whereas according to the view of the Bavli (Menachos 42b; see also Tosafos s.v. "HaOseh Sukkah," Sukkah 46a; and in many places), this is not so. See also Likkutei Sichos vol. 10, p. 187 ff.; vol. 8, p. 180, in the gloss to note 46.
61) Accordingly, one can explain the reason why the Yerushalmi says "a wolf as a seller of pots" and not a "maker of pots": because these matters in the preparation for a mitzvah speak of the state and situation that precedes "your iniquities have turned these away" (as mentioned above, end of section 4)*, and therefore one cannot [OCR unclear] say "a maker of pots," for making pots is a "craft of robbers"** (see the Mishnah at the end of Kiddushin according to the reading of the Talmud, and see there): for pots are made from earth, and when one takes earth from the field of others it is robbery; however, taking earth (and even clay) from another's land is not considered real robbery in people's eyes [along the lines of the expression of our Sages, "ownerless like the dust of the earth"***. And also in halachah — only a large quantity of earth is worth a perutah; it is likely that the owner forgives, since the one robbed owns down to the depths; and more].
Therefore people stumble in this (note Sedom, where they took less than the value of a perutah (see Sanhedrin 109b, and Chiddushei Aggados of the Maharsha there), and their punishment was terrible — except that there it was by agreement and with all of them joining together, etc.).
And although in the Gemara it says "a fox as a shopkeeper," and it is stated explicitly in the Mishnah that a shopkeeper is a "craft of robbers" — accustomed to deceit, etc. (Rashi there) — that applies after "your iniquities have turned these away," that he is accustomed to deceit, even though he could easily conduct business honestly, and the halachah is that the shopkeeper is believed regarding his ledger (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, beginning of siman 91 [OCR unclear]), etc.;
whereas with earth in a field — where we are speaking of one whose livelihood is as a potter and not a farmer, who has no field of his own — since he would need to search for the owner of the field, it is not considered robbery in his eyes, as mentioned above, etc.
*) Although "tears and eats" came about after the sin, when it became the nature [of the beasts] to tear and to harm, and before the sin (and before the Flood) eating meat was not permitted, etc. — nevertheless, the difference of nature in the manner of eating, "tears and eats" immediately or "tears and eats" afterwards (carrying it to its den), applies also to eating green grass.
Furthermore, and mainly: it is obvious that the intent of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar's "your iniquities have turned these away" is not to the sin of the Tree of Knowledge (from which time livelihood must come with distress), nor in general to the state of the Jewish people as a whole, but rather to each individual in particular who serves his Maker as he should, as our Sages say, that when they do the will of the Omnipresent, their work is done by others (Berachos 35b).
**) This requires further study in Rashi there, that the donkey-driver, etc., and the potter are a "craft of robbers" because "they are masters of capital," etc. Even without this, it requires study: he quotes "potter" not in the place of their reading in the Mishnah (which puts the potter first); and why specifically a potter travels the roads, and not a seller of any item — for his second reason does not apply to a potter. And more.
***) Accordingly, we will understand why Pinchas the dredger (Taanis 21a) exchanged them for earth (and not for plain stones, which would be easier to make look alike) — the opposite of the preciousness of a precious stone.
61*) Menachos 99b.
62) Rashi there.
63) In the Gemara there (100a): "They were not Babylonians, but Alexandrians, and because they hated the Babylonians, etc." But in any case they were Kohanim from outside the Land of Israel (Egypt — Rashi there), and not from the Land of Israel.
64) Korach 18:8; Sifri and Rashi there; Zevachim 91a, and sources cited there. See also Responsa Chacham Tzvi, siman 62, that it is a complete obligation.
65) Zevachim 90b, in the Mishnah.
66) See Tosafos s.v. "SheSonin" (Menachos there), that they were performing a mitzvah, so as not to come to nossar (leftover sacrificial meat).
67) See Likkutei Sichos vol. 3 (p. 949, and note 11 there), that in eating it raw one fulfills only the mitzvah of not coming to nossar, and not the positive commandment upon the person to eat the sacrifice.
68) Note the wording in the Yerushalmi, Pe'ah (8:4): "The Babylonians eat it raw because their minds are corrupt," while in the Mishnah before us in Menachos: "because their minds are good" (and similarly in the Yerushalmi, Eruvin 3:1).
69) And accordingly, there is a novel point in the case at hand: since it is impossible to eat it after Shabbos, it follows that by not eating it on Friday night they do not fulfill the mitzvah at all — except that this mitzvah, "that they not come to nossar," is not a personal obligation.
70) Aruch, s.v. "Chilazon" (1); Musaf HeAruch, s.v. "Ashun" (2) [OCR unclear]; Tosafos s.v. "Kol," Menachos 44a; and elsewhere.
71) See Musaf HeAruch there; Shem HaGedolim, Ma'areches Sefarim, s.v. "Targum Yonasan," at the end. See also Likkutei Sichos vol. 9, pp. 135–6. And in the Tzafnas Paneach on this verse: "not Beis Mikdasha, as the Targum Yerushalmi."
72) As in the continuation in Targum Yonasan ben Uziel (and the Targum Yerushalmi), and similarly in Targum Onkelos. See also below, note 78.
73) Although it is not only a preparation for a mitzvah, since building the Beis HaMikdash is itself a positive commandment, its main point and purpose is for the sake of the service of the sacrifices, as in the text. See also Likkutei Sichos vol. 11, p. 120 ff., and sources cited there.
74) Beginning of Hilchos Beis HaBechirah. And in Sefer HaMitzvos, positive commandment 20: "That He commanded us to build a chosen House for service, in which the offering will be, etc." See also Likkutei Sichos there.
75) Note also the offering on a bamah (private altar) before the building of the Beis HaMikdash (Mishnah, Zevachim 112b, and elsewhere).
76) Eduyos 8:6; Zevachim 62a, and sources cited there; Rambam, Hilchos Beis HaBechirah 6:15. However, this is stated according to the view that the first sanctity (of the First Beis HaMikdash) sanctified it for the future as well.
77) See below in the text.
78) Note also the difference between Targum Yonasan ben Uziel (and the Targum Yerushalmi) and Targum Onkelos in the continuation of the verse, "In the morning he will devour prey," etc.: Targum Yonasan ben Uziel (and the Targum Yerushalmi) (a) explains the morning tamid offering (and its meal-offering) and the afternoon tamid offering (and its meal-offering) each separately, whereas Targum Onkelos includes them together: "In the morning and in the evening the Kohanim will offer the sacrifices"; (b) adds (in explaining "and in the evening he will divide the spoil") "and each man eats his portion," which is absent in Targum Onkelos (and also in the Targum Yerushalmi).
It can be said that this depends on the above difference in the text: according to Targum Yonasan ben Uziel — Yerushalmi — for which beauty and completeness are essential, the matter (the detailing) of each detail is relevant, and so it adds and emphasizes the completeness of the matter. Whereas for Targum Onkelos — Bavli — what is relevant is the main purpose of the mitzvah, and therefore it wrote the main content of the mitzvah*.
*) And perhaps this is also the reason for the difference between Targum Yonasan ben Uziel (and the Targum Yerushalmi), "In the morning the Kohanim will offer, etc.," and Targum Onkelos, "will offer the Kohanim, etc.": Targum Yonasan ben Uziel (and the Targum Yerushalmi) puts first (to emphasize also the detail of) "the Kohanim" (who are the ones offering), while Targum Onkelos puts first (to emphasize the essential point) "will offer."
79) See Zevachim 53b (in the Mishnah): "provided that he places it opposite the base." And also "a burnt-offering requires the base" (ibid., 53b).
80) And also (the conclusion —) the pouring of the blood onto the base.
81) See Toras Kohanim, Vayikra 1:4; Zevachim 6a, and sources cited there. See also Rashi, Pesachim 76b [OCR unclear], s.v. "Dam"; and in many places.
82) As in the well-known discussion regarding offering sacrifices in the present time, according to the view of Rabbi Yechiel of Paris (cited in Kaftor VaFerach, ch. 6), in the sources cited in Sdei Chemed, Kelalim, end of Ma'areches Kuf; [OCR unclear] 21 (vol. 2, p. 155); Likkutei Sichos vol. 2, p. 220.
83) See Yerushalmi, Pesachim 9:1, that the dispute whether one may offer the Pesach offering [in the present time] applies specifically if "the Jews are permitted to build the Beis HaBechirah" (and not "an altar").
84) Based on what is written in Bereishis Rabbah (end of parshah 64) that in the days of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananiah they wanted to build the Beis HaMikdash (see Minchas Chinuch, mitzvah 95) — even in the present time.
Key Lesson
Every created thing exists so that a Jew can make it into a vessel for a mitzvah, and preparing for a mitzvah is itself part of serving G‑d. This Sicha teaches that we should be zealous to begin that preparation at once, while also caring for its beauty and completeness — like the wolf that prepares its food to be enjoyed, and like the Beis HaMikdash, the complete "House" prepared for G‑d's service.