The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

PARASHAT VAYIGASH

By Rav David Silverberg

            The Gemara in Masekhet Shabbat (21a-b) cites a famous debate as to whether one is permitted to make personal use of the light of the Chanukah candles.  Halakha, of course, follows the stringent position which forbids deriving any personal benefit from the light of the candles (see Shulchan Arukh, O.C. 673:1).  Rashi (21b) explains this prohibition as serving to ensure that the Chanukah candles would be easily recognizable as candles lit specifically for this mitzva.  If one would use his Chanukah candles just as he uses the other lights in his home, there would be no indication that these lights were lit for Chanukah, effectively undermining the basic purpose of this mitzva.  The Ran, by contrast, explains that since we light Chanukah candles to commemorate the candles in the Beit Ha-mikdash, we do not make any personal use of their light, just as one may not derive personal benefit from the light of the menora in the Mikdash.

            The Beit Ha-levi ("al ha-Torah") discusses this debate and suggests that it would yield practical ramifications concerning the scope of this prohibition.  He claims that according to Rashi's position, viewing this prohibition as intended to preserve the unique identity of the Chanukah candles, it would apply only to the members of the household.  If passersby use the light of the Chanukah candles, this would not, seemingly, result in the loss of the candles' identity.  Since the members of the household make a point of deriving no benefit from the light, the candles are immediately recognizable as special lights kindled to commemorate the Chanukah miracle.  It would therefore be permissible for others to use the light.  The Ran, however, attributes this prohibition to the desired resemblance between the Chanukah candles and the candles of the menora in the Mikdash.  According to this view, the prohibition would presumably apply to all people, not merely the members of the household.

            The Beit Ha-levi applies his theory concerning Rashi's position to resolve a difficulty addressed by many Rishonim.  The Gemara later (22a) forbids counting money by the light of the Chanukah candles on the grounds of bizuy mitzva (disrespectful treatment of a mitzva object).  Seemingly, the Rishonim ask, once the Gemara has established (according to one view) a prohibition against deriving any sort of benefit from the Chanukah candles, it is unnecessary to specifically proscribe this form of use and invoke a different factor, of bizuy mitzva.  According to the Beit Ha-levi's theory, however, the answer is clear: the Gemara refers to people other than the members of the household.  They may, generally speaking, derive benefit from the light of the Chanukah candles, and the Gemara must therefore specify that disrespectful use of the light is forbidden.

            The Rosh suggested a different explanation for the need to specify the prohibition against counting money by the Chanukah candles.  He posits that the general prohibition against deriving benefit applies only to tashmishei keva – long activities, such as reading a book, knitting, paperwork, and so on.  Counting money would be considered a tashmish ara'i – a quick activity, and is therefore forbidden only on the grounds of bizuy mitzva, and not due to the general prohibition against making use of the Chanukah candles.  The Beit Ha-levi notes that this distinction would be possible only according to Rashi's approach, which views the prohibition as a means of ensuring the candles' distinction.  According to the Ran, who claimed that we must treat Chanukah candles in a manner resembling the candles of the menora in the Temple, we would forbid all forms of use, including tashmishei ara'i.

******

            The Rambam, in one of his teshuvot (Pe'er Ha-dor, 111), was asked about somebody who lit Chanukah candles with the required berakhot "and then afterward came upon another one," whether he should light again with a berakha.  The case under discussion is not altogether clear, and the Rambam's response is likewise ambiguous: "If he had in mind that this berakha should apply to other houses, a single berakha for all of them, and if he recited the berakha and lit and then came upon another home, he recites a berakha again, even a hundred times."  The Avudraham cites this teshuva somewhat differently, as referring to a person who came upon not "another home," but rather "more candles."  In any event, the Rambam's comments require some explanation.

            The Magen Avraham (651:25) suggested that the Rambam speaks of a person who had only a single candle, which suffices for the essential obligation of Chanukah candles, but not for the higher standard of mehadrin min ha-mehadrin which requires lighting an additional candle incrementally each night.  The person therefore lit just his lone candle with the berakhot, but then found additional candles for the obligation of mehadrin min ha-mehadrin.  The Magen Avraham understood the Rambam as positing that the individual should light these candles with the berakhot, even though he had already recited the berakhot when lighting the original candle, with which he fulfilled the essential obligation.

Rav Asher Zelig Weiss, in his Minchat Asher (Sefer Bereishit, 54), observes an interesting conclusion one might reach on the basis of the Magen Avraham's reading.  The Rambam requires lighting with a berakha in the case he addresses "each and every time" ("be-khol pa'am u-fa'am").  According to the Magen Avraham, this would mean that in the Rambam's view, a person who, for example, has but one candle on the fourth night of Chanukah, should light that candle with the berakhot, and if he then came upon an additional candle, he should recite a berakha over that candle, as well.  And if he would later discover a third candle, he once again lights with a berakha.  Presumably, the same would apply to a person who from the outset has only three candles, let's say, on the fourth night: he should light all those candles with a berakha, and then light a fourth candle with a berakha should he discover or gain access to one.  This is in contradistinction to the accepted halakha that if a person does not have enough candles for the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin obligation on a given night, he should light only a single candle, to fulfill the essential obligation.  The additional candles are lit only if one has all the candles necessary for the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin requirement for that night.  (See Mishna Berura 671:5.)

In any event, the Magen Avraham's reading – though perhaps plausible within the text cited by the Avudraham – most certainly does not accommodate the text as it appears in the original text of the Rambam's responsum (in Pe'er Ha-dor).  The Rambam there clearly speaks about one who comes upon "another house," rather than "more candles," and also mentions lighting with a berakha "even a hundred times."  If he was referring to a person who discovers more candles, he obviously would not sanction lighting one hundred times; at most, the individual would light an additional seven times.

The Nishmat Adam (148:1) suggests a different explanation of the Rambam's comments, claiming that the Rambam refers to a person who, after lighting his Chanukah candles, is invited to light in someone else's house on his behalf.  The Rambam rules that a person recites a berakha each time he lights for another, even though he has already lit his own candles with the berakhot, and even though he does this "one hundred times."  As the Minchat Asher notes, however, this explanation, too, seems less than satisfactory.  For one thing, the Rambam should have made it clearer that he refers to a person lighting in somebody else's home, and, secondly, a general principle in Halakha dictates that one who does a mitzva on someone else's behalf recites the berakha, even if he has already fulfilled that mitzva for himself.  There seems to be little reason, then, for the Rambam to make this point in the context of Chanukah candles.

Rav Weiss therefore suggests following the straightforward reading of the Rambam, as sanctioning the lighting of Chanukah candles with the berakhot in many different homes or buildings on the nights of Chanukah.  The Rambam appears to have held that wherever a person goes, he may – and perhaps is encouraged to – light Chanukah candles repeatedly with the berakhot for additional pirsumei nisa (publicizing of the miracle).  All later authorities very clearly oppose reciting berakhot over the lighting of additional Chanukah candles in public places, as is commonly done today in malls and public squares, and at social functions held during Chanukah.  The Rambam, however, seems to have sanctioned such a practice.

******

            Yesterday, we discussed an ambiguous teshuva of the Rambam (Pe'er Ha-dor, 111), in which he rules that one who lit Chanukah candles with the berakhot and later came upon "another house" lights candles again with the berakhot.  We cited three different possible explanations of this ruling, the third of which being that of Rav Asher Zelig Weiss, in his Minchat Asher.  Rav Weiss suggested – in accordance with the straightforward reading of the Rambam's comments – that the Rambam allows – or perhaps encourages – lighting Chanukah candles with a berakha wherever a person happens to go on the night of Chanukah.  Practically speaking, halakhic authorities forbid reciting berakhot over the candles lit in public places on Chanukah, but the Rambam seems to have allowed doing so.

            Rav Weiss notes that this view would run consistent with another, more famous ruling of the Rambam concerning the lighting of Chanukah candles.  The Gemara (Shabbat 21b) delineates the three levels of fulfilling this obligation.  The essential mitzva requires the lighting of a single candle each night per household.  The higher standard, referred to as mehadrin, requires lighting a candle for each member of the household, whereas the highest standard, known as mehadrin min ha-mehadrin, is the lighting of an additional candle each night.  (Beit Shammai, of course, held that the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin obligation entails lighting eight candles on the first night and then one less candle on each successive night.)  The Rishonim famously debate the issue of whether the third and highest standard – of mehadrin min ha-mehadrin – includes as well the second level, of mehadrin.  Meaning, does the mehadrin min ha-mahedrin standard require lighting four candles for the entire household on the forth night, for example, or lighting four candles for each member of the household, taking into account the mehadrin standard, as well?  Tosefot comment that the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin lighting exists independently of the mehadrin standard, and thus only four candles would be lit on the fourth night, regardless of the number of family members.  The reason, Tosefot explain, is that the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin standard is intended to publicize the number of days of Chanukah that have passed.  If on the fourth night a family of five would light twenty candles, there is obviously no indication of how many days of Chanukah have gone by.  The Rambam (Hilkhot Chanukah 4:1-2), by contrast, implies that at the highest standard of mehadrin min ha-mehadrin, one must light the number of candles of that day for each member of the household.  Thus, a family of five would, indeed, light twenty candles on the fourth night of Chanukah.

            Tosefot and the Rambam likely argue as to the fundamental nature of the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin obligation.  Tosefot, as mentioned, believed that this requirement is intended to publicize the number of days of Chanukah.  The Rambam, however, viewed the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin as simply requiring the lighting of additional candles.  Chazal wanted to enhance our performance of the mitzva and the publicizing of the miracle and thus required lighting more candles than strictly mandated by the essential mitzva.  But rather than leave it to each person to decide how many candles to light, they established a system whereby each household would light numerous candles every night.  One result of this position would perhaps relate to a point we briefly mentioned yesterday, concerning a person who does not have enough candles for the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin lighting.  As we mentioned, the poskim generally maintain that a person in this situation should light just a single candle; no purpose is served in adding more candles if the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin standard cannot be achieved.  But the Rambam, Rav Weiss claimed, might have held differently, and would require this individual to light as many candles as he has, even if they will fall short of the amount mandated by the mehadrin min ha-mehadrin standard.  In his view, the purpose of mehadrin min ha-mehadrin is simply to have more candles lit, and therefore one should light what he can, even if this does not suffice for the ideal number prescribed by Chazal.

            The Rambam's comments in the aforementioned teshuva, then, might perhaps be yet another reflection of this perspective.  Since the higher standard of mehadrin min ha-mehadrin is defined as adding more candles, it might perhaps be extended to lighting in other areas, as well, besides one's home.

            It should be emphasized once again, however, that conventional practice is not to recite berakhot over Chanukah candles lit in public places and social gatherings during Chanukah.

******

            In Parashat Vayigash, Yosef reveals his identity to his brothers and instructs them to return to Canaan and bring Yaakov to Egypt, where Yosef – who had risen to the position of viceroy – will support him and his family during the remainder of the famine years.  Just before they leave, Yosef gives one final instruction: "Al tirgezu ba-darekh."  This difficult phrase has earned many different interpretations.  Rashi begins by citing two Midrashic interpretations from the Gemara (Masekhet Ta'anit 10b).  One view explains this instruction to mean that the brothers should not engage in complex halakhic discussion and debate during travel.  Another opinion recorded in the Gemara claims that Yosef advises them to travel patiently and ensure to stop over for lodging before nightfall.

            Rashi himself suggests that Yosef warned his brothers to refrain from discussing the matter of his sale twenty-two years earlier.  The brothers were understandably humiliated upon discovering that they were speaking face-to-face with the brother whom they had tried to eliminate.  These feelings of shame could have easily erupted in the form of bitter mutual allegations and finger-pointing as the brothers made their way back to Chevron.  Yosef therefore advised them to drop the issue altogether.  This instruction would then be seen in light of his earlier emphasis after revealing his identity (45:5) that the brothers had no reason to dwell on their past injustices, since in the end it served to save them and their families from hunger.  Here, too, Yosef urges the brothers to leave past events in the past, rather than harboring resentment towards one another over this matter.  Ibn Ezra suggests this interpretation, as well.

            This verse would then perhaps teach a simple lesson in the area of interpersonal relations: to be able to let go of hurtful events of the past.  More often than not, friends, siblings, spouses, and parents-children who have fought in the past and have since rehabilitated their relationship are best advised to simply forget and let go and set their sights on the future, rather than dwelling on the painful experiences of the past.

            Several other commentators, including the Ramban, Peirush Ha-Tur, Rashbam and Chzikuni, explain this verse to mean, "Do not be afraid of the trip."  The previous verses describe the gifts with which Yosef showered his brothers to bring to Yaakov in Canaan.  They had good reason to fear traveling during a period of severe drought with ten donkeys loaded with food and grain.  Yosef therefore reassured them that they would not come under the attack of roadside bandits.

            A particularly fascinating interpretation is suggested by the Ba'al Ha-Turim.  He writes that despite the brothers' newly-discovered royal connection, they should not assume the right to trample on other people's property and damage their crops.  Their recent discovery that their brother is the leader of the wealthiest country in the region was a situation of "rags to riches"; after experiencing two years of hunger and hardship, they were suddenly guaranteed complete financial security and royal treatment.  Yosef warned them that their sudden transformation must not allow them to neglect those who still suffer the ravages of famine.  They must continue to respect the property of the poor, struggling peasants along their travel route, even as they make their way to a future of financial security.

******

            We read in Parashat Vayigash of Yaakov's descent from Canaan to Egypt, where he settled to escape the famine that devastated the region.  The Torah tells (beginning of chapter 46) that Yaakov stopped along his journey in the city of Be'er Sheva.  According to the Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 94:4), in Be'er Sheva Yaakov cut wood from the sycamore trees that his grandfather, Avraham, had planted in that city many years earlier.  Yaakov brought this wood with him to Egypt in anticipation of his descendants' construction of the Mishkan from sycamore wood after their departure from Egypt.

            Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky, in Emet Le-Yaakov, explains that Yaakov found it necessary to take this wood with him to serve as a constant reminder to his descendants of their heritage and roots.  God appears to Yaakov in Be'er Sheva and declares, "Do not be afraid to go down to Egypt, for I will make you a great nation there" (46:3), implying that Yaakov had been concerned.  Seforno explains that Yaakov feared his descendants' assimilation among the Egyptians and gradual disinterest in their origins.  The sycamore wood from Be'er Sheva served as a tangible vestige of Benei Yisrael's roots, and of their future destiny to return to Eretz Yisrael.  Yaakov therefore made it a priority to bring this wood with him as he brought his family to Egypt.

            Rav Yaakov returns to this Midrash in his comments to Parashat Vayakhel, in the context of the verse, "And anyone who had with him blue dye and purple…brought [them for the construction of the Mishkan]" (Shemot 35:23).  As Rashi comments in Parashat Teruma (25:4), the terms tekhelet (blue dye) and argaman (purple) refer not merely to the colored dyes, but to wool dyed in these colors.  Accordingly, it emerges from this verse that anyone who happened to have with him wool dyed in the appropriate colors donated it for the Mishkan.  Accordingly, Rav Yaakov infers from this verse that the wool used for the various accessories in the Mishkan, including the garments of the kohanim, did not have to be dyed li-shma – with the specific intent for the mitzva.  The Torah tells that anyone who "had with him" dyed wool could donate it to the Mishkan, even though it was obviously not dyed with this mitzva in mind.  The bigdei kehuna (priestly garments) would then differ from tzitzit, in that the tekhelet strings of the tzitzit – at least according to the Rambam (Hilkhot Tzitzit 2:33) – had to be dyed specifically for the purpose of the mitzva.

            But Rav Yaakov then dismisses this proof, in light of the aforementioned Midrash.  That Yaakov brought wood for the Mishkan with him to Egypt, and this wood was preserved for 210 years and used in the construction of the Mishkan (see Rashi, Shemot 25:5), might indicate that at least some members of Benei Yisrael were cognizant of and concerned about the needs of the Mishkan throughout this period.  One might therefore contend that some among Benei Yisrael prepared other materials, as well, in anticipation of the Mishkan's construction.  If so, then the dyed wools donated for the Mishkan may have indeed been dyed with the Mishkan and bigdei kehuna in mind, thus meeting the criterion of li-shma.  Accordingly, Rav Yaakov concludes, this verse provides no proof that the dyeing process did not require li-shma.

******

            Parashat Vayigash presents a listing of the seventy members of Yaakov's family who descended to Egypt to escape the famine in Canaan (chapter 46).  This list introduces us for the first time to the mysterious figure of Serach, listed here as a daughter of Yaakov's son Asher (46:17).  Serach is the only female – other than Yaakov's daughter Dina – mentioned in this list, and she appears as well in the Torah's genealogical record in Sefer Bamidbar (Parashat Pinchas, 26:46).  Rashi (there in Bamidbar) comments that Serach lived a very long life and was still alive when Benei Yisrael entered the Land of Israel.  What more, some Midrashim identify her as the "wise woman" commissioned by Yoav to persuade King David to bring back his son Avshalom (Sefer Shemuel II chapter 14).

            The Ramban, in his commentary to Sefer Bamidbar, cites Targum Onkelos as identifying Serach not as Asher's daughter, but rather as "the daughter of the wife of Asher."  Meaning, as the Ramban explains, Serach was born to Asher's wife from a previous marriage.  Although biologically Serach was not Asher's daughter, she is listed as part of his family by virtue of his marriage to her mother.  In prevalent versions of Onkelos' translation, the verse is translated literally, as identifying Serach as Asher's biological daughter.  The Da'at Zekeinim Mi-Ba'alei Ha-Tosefot, however, likewise cite the version of Onkelos' translation discussed by the Ramban.

            The Chatam Sofer (responsa, E.H. 41) raises the possibility of enlisting this identification of Serach as proof for a ruling of the Rama (C.M. 42:15) concerning the laws of shetarot (legal documents).  Litigants are generally referred to in shetarot by their name and the name of their father (e.g. "Shelomo Ben David").  According to the Rama, a litigant can choose to be known by his adopted father's name, rather than by his biological father.  The Chatam Sofer mulls drawing support for this halakha from the Torah's inclusion of Serach among the family of Asher, even though he was not her biological father, because she was raised in his home.

            In any event, as several writers note, this theory, that Serach was Asher's stepdaughter, seems difficult to accept in light of the verses here in Parashat Vayigash.  The Torah concludes this list by summarizing, "All the souls that came with Yaakov to Egypt, the issue of his loins, besides Yaakov's sons' wives – all the souls number sixty-six" (46:26).  It appears that all the people listed in this chapter are "the issue of his loins," or biological children of Yaakov, and therefore Serach, who is listed here, must be Yaakov's biological granddaughter.  One might counter that Serach's mother had been married to one of Yaakov's other sons who divorced her after Serach's birth, and her mother later married Asher.  If so, then she would be a biological grandchild of Yaakov without being Asher's biological daughter.  This, of course, raises several questions, primarily the issue of whether Yaakov's sons were permitted to marry their sisters-in-law – a union strictly forbidden by the Torah.  There are views in the Midrash that Yaakov's sons married their sisters, in which case we may assume they were entitled to marry divorced sisters-in-law, as well.

The Da'at Zekeinim raises this possibility – that Serach was born from a different son of Yaakov – and immediately dismisses it, claiming that had Serach been born from another son of Yaakov she should be listed among that son's family, rather than Asher's.  We might answer based on the aforementioned ruling of the Rama, that a stepchild can, indeed, be formally identified as part of the new family, and therefore Serach is justifiably included among the family of Asher.

******

            Parashat Vayigash tells of Yaakov's descent with his family to Egypt, where they were fed and sustained by Yosef during the harsh famine that struck the region.  After describing Yaakov and his family's arrival in Egypt and their meetings with Pharaoh, the Torah suddenly shifts onto an entirely different topic – Yosef's handling of the Egyptian economy during the famine.  The Egyptian citizens spent all their money, and then their animals, in exchange for grain, until all that remained was their land and bodies.  Yosef therefore "purchased" the Egyptians' lands and selves, arranging that they would work the land and give a percentage to the government.  He made an exception for the Egyptian clergy, exempting them from this produce tax.  In addition, Yosef transferred the Egyptian population from one region to another.  Chizkuni (47:21) explains that he did this so that nobody could lay claim to his land, which had become the property of the monarchy.  Rashi, based on the Midrash, explains that this was done for the sake of Yosef's brothers; by transferring the population, Yosef ensured that the entire citizenry would feel a sense of disorientation, and not merely his brothers.  After this section, the Torah, in the beginning of Parashat Vayechi, returns to the story of Yaakov and his sons' experiences in Egypt.

            The question arises as to the intent and purpose of the Torah's description of Yosef's economic policies in Egypt, a section that glaringly disrupts the narrative of Yosef and his brothers.  What more, this section does not begin with a new parasha – or paragraph break – in the Torah scroll, perhaps suggesting that it is somehow part of the story of Yaakov and his sons, and does not comprise an independent textual unit.  In what way does the narrative of Yosef's management of Egypt form part of the story of Yaakov's family's resettlement in Egypt?

            Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky discusses this issue in his Emet Le-Ya'akov, and posits a theory that the measures Yosef undertook in governing Egypt were all intended to prevent Benei Yisrael's sense of permanence in their new place of residence.  We already mentioned Rashi's view that the transfer of populations from one region to the next was geared towards generating a feeling of disorientation among the entire citizenry, so that his brothers would not be the only foreigners.  Nobody in Egypt would feel a sense of being rooted, and thus naturally his brothers would likewise not become too entrenched in Egyptian society.  And the tax exemption for the clergy was also intended to help Benei Yisrael, as it ensured that a learned class among the nation would be able to devote itself to Torah study unencumbered by other responsibilities.  Indeed, as Rashi writes in his commentary to Sefer Shemot (5:4), the family – and then tribe – of Levi was exempt from the slave labor imposed upon the rest of Benei Yisrael.  Rav Yaakov explained this exemption as based on the clerical tax exemption instituted many years earlier by Yosef.  In this way, Yosef ensured that at least one group among Benei Yisrael would retain the nation's connection to its roots and spiritual heritage, which would remind the people that they are foreigners in their current country of residence.

            Rav Yaakov adds that Yosef felt compelled to enact these measures after his brothers' meeting with Yosef.  When his brothers stood before the Egyptian king, they told him, "La-gur ba-aretz banu" – "We have come to live in the land" (47:4).  As we know from the Haggadah, this verse is understood as an indication that the brothers had intended to stay in Egypt for only a brief period, until conditions improved in Canaan.  After this meeting, however, Pharaoh says to Yosef, "…hosheiv et avikha ve-et achekha" – "settle your father and your brothers" (47:5).  Pharaoh ordered that Yosef's family establish permanent residence in Egypt, rather than staying as temporary visitors.  The reason, presumably, was that Pharaoh wanted his second-in-command to renounce all and any ties to his previous country.  This is best accomplished by having his family establish permanent residence in Egypt.

            Yosef naturally feared the consequences of his family's sense of permanence in Egypt, and therefore enacted the aforementioned measures to ensure that they would always remember their origins and continue to aspire to their return to their ancestral homeland.