S.A.L.T. - Monday

Towards the beginning of his commentary to Parashat Vayeshev, Rashi, citing the Midrash, makes a statement that has puzzled many later scholars for centuries: “Yaakov sought to live in tranquillity, but the crisis involving Yosef was thrust upon him. The righteous seek to live in tranquillity, but the Almighty says, 'Is it not enough for the righteous what is prepared for them in the world to come, that they seek to live in tranquillity in this world?” The question, of course, arises, does God wish for the righteous not to live in tranquillity? Does He really prefer to bring upon righteous men such as Yaakov crisis and heartache in order to ensure their misery in this world? Do we not find throughout the Torah promises of peace, tranquillity and good fortune in exchange for Torah observance?

Although, as stated, Rashi draws this passage from the Midrash, one very significant difference exists between Rashi's citation and its origin in Bereishit Rabba (84). There the Midrash states, “When the righteous seek to live in tranquillity in this world, the Satan comes and prosecutes [against them] and says, 'It is not enough for them…'“ Thus, it is not the Almighty who denies the righteous the opportunity to live in peace and harmony, but rather the Satan. This Midrashic passage is reminiscent of the book of Iyov, where the Satan persuades the Almighty, as it were, to test the righteous Iyov by subjecting him to suffering. This Midrash tells us that the Satan similarly makes attempts to deny all righteous people happiness in this world. How and why God grants Satan the power to bring misery upon the righteous is the existential question to which the book of Iyov is devoted. But we can accept and understand this description of the Midrash far more easily than we can Rashi's citation.

For this reason, Rav Barukh ha-Levi Epstein, in his “Tosefet Berakha,” vehemently argues that the text of Rashi's commentary was corrupted by an irresponsible copy editor. The correct text should read, “the Satan says,” rather than, “the Almighty says.” Rav Epstein strongly condemns the one responsible for the error and expresses his dismay over the fact that later writers wasted so much ink trying to explain Rashi's comments, not realizing this printing error. He goes so far as to demand that this error be publicized as much as possible so as to avoid further confusion.

Rav Epstein's point is well taken, and indeed most parallel Midrashim speak of the Satan, rather than God Himself, as the one insisting on bringing hard times upon the righteous. Nevertheless, in one Midrashic source - the introduction to the Tanchuma Yashan (cited by Rav Menachem Kasher in his Torah Sheleima, Parashat Vayeshev 9) - we indeed find that the Almighty Himself tells Yaakov that he cannot live in tranquillity in this world. Therefore, we should, perhaps, uphold the text of Rashi's commentary and assume that he drew this passage from this source.

Another textual emendation of this passage in Rashi's commentary is cogently advanced by Rav Yaakov Shaul Weinfeld, in his “Mishnat Yaakov.” These remarks of Rashi appear as part his commentary to the second verse in the parasha: “These are the offspring of Yaakov: Yosef was seventeen years old…” Rashi offers two explanations of this verse. First, he suggests that “These are the offspring of Yaakov” introduces the entire story that unfolds, the chain of events that ultimately leads to the family's resettlement in Egypt. The word “toledot” (translated in our citation as “offspring”) would then mean the “occurrences” or “story” of Yaakov and his family. Rashi points to this approach as the straightforward reading of the verse. He then proceeds to cite a Midrashic interpretation, that indeed Yosef is pointed to specifically as Yaakov's offspring due to certain comparisons between these two. At this point, Rashi adds, “This verse - 'vayeshev' - was further expounded upon, that Yaakov sought… “This addition seems very awkward. Why would Rashi suddenly introduce Chazal's reading of the previous verse - “Vayeshev Yaakov” - in his commentary to this verse? Additionally, Rashi already presented for us both a straightforward reading (“peshat”) as well as Midrashic, homiletic interpretation. Why would he add more Midrashic material? Rav Weinfeld therefore concluded that this entire passage was added by later editors and was not included by Rashi himself in his commentary. He proceeds to claim that he later consulted with original editions of Rashi's commentary, and, sure enough, this passage does not appear.

When all is said and done, however, one Midrashic source, as we have seen, does, in fact, tell of God's “policy” not to allow the righteous to live in peace and tranquillity in this world, regardless of whether Rashi includes this point in his commentary, and this concept certainly requires explanation.

*****************

<<PREVIOUS DAY'S SALT     NEXT DAY'S SALT>>

Our SALT Archives house nearly two decades of divrei Torah. Click here. 
More recent SALTs can be found by searching for SALT in our Advanced Search box, along with the parsha name. See below for an example.