Vayeishev. Rashbam Reinterpreted rather than Censored via Editorial Comment

I’m not in the mood to analyze censored commentators this week, so I’ll just link to a few. If anyone wants to comment or have a guest post here explaining “What is Bothering Eliyahu Munk” on these, similar to “What is Bothering Rashi”, you are welcome to.

Here are some interesting spans of censored commentary for Vayeishev. In Radak, it is from ויעזב בגדו אצלי which Potifar’s wife describes in 39:15 until the very end of perek 39. In Rashbam, it is two Rashbam comments in a row, לא ידע אתו on 39:6 where he had another (translated) comment on the phrase ולא ידע אתו מאומה in the pasuk, as well as the very next comment on pasuk 9, on ולא חשך ממני.

At the very start of Vayeishev, there are some fun editorial insertions. In one, Eliyahu Monk reinterprets Rashbam. In another, he fights with Rashbam. Regardless, we can be thankful, in that he makes clear where Rashbam’s words end and his own begin. We can then weigh in our own minds whether we agree. Although Eliyahu Munk does note that his presentation is “freely translated” here, so maybe we should still take some care.

The second pasuk in Vayeishev reads:

אֵ֣לֶּה ׀ תֹּלְד֣וֹת יַעֲקֹ֗ב יוֹסֵ֞ף בֶּן־שְׁבַֽע־עֶשְׂרֵ֤ה שָׁנָה֙ הָיָ֨ה רֹעֶ֤ה אֶת־אֶחָיו֙ בַּצֹּ֔אן וְה֣וּא נַ֗עַר אֶת־בְּנֵ֥י בִלְהָ֛ה וְאֶת־בְּנֵ֥י זִלְפָּ֖ה נְשֵׁ֣י אָבִ֑יו וַיָּבֵ֥א יוֹסֵ֛ף אֶת־דִּבָּתָ֥ם רָעָ֖ה אֶל־אֲבִיהֶֽם׃

This, then, is the line of Jacob: At seventeen years of age, Joseph tended the flocks with his brothers, as a helper to the sons of his father’s wives Bilhah and Zilpah. And Joseph brought bad reports of them to their father.

An extremely famous Rashbam commentary reads:

אלה תולדות יעקב - ישכילו ויבינו אוהבי שכל מה שלימדונו רבותינו, כי אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו. אף כי עיקרה של תורה באה ללמדנו ולהודיענו ברמיזת הפשט וההגדות וההלכות והדינין ועל ידי אריכות הלשון ועל ידי שלושים ושתים מידות של ר' אליעזר בנו של ר' יוסי הגלילי וע"י שלש עשרה מידות של ר' ישמעאל והראשונים מתוך חסידותם נתעסקו לנטות אחרי הדרשות שהן עיקר ומתוך כך לא הורגלו בעומק פשוטו של מקרא. ולפי שאמרו חכמים: אל תרבו בניכם בהגיון. וגם אמרו: העוסק במקרא מדה ואינה מדה, העוסק בתלמוד אין לך מדה גדולה מזו ומתוך כך לא הורגלו כל כך בפשוטן של מקראות וכדאמרינן במסכת שבת: הוינא בר תמני סרי שנין וגרסינן כולה תלמודא ולא הוה ידענא דאין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו.

אלה תולדות יעקב, intelligent people must remember that our sages taught us that in spite of all different methods of exegesis of the text of the written Torah, no verse may legitimately be explained in a manner which contradicts the plain meaning of the text. While it is true that the Torah, by means of allusions, grammatical anomalies, tone-signs, etc., teaches us far more than meets the eye when we look at the bald text, there are strict limitations even to these methods of exegesis such as the thirteen principles of Rabbi Yishmael and the 32 principles of Rabbi Yossi Haglili. Exegetes of former times, thanks to their piety, relied exclusively on the drashot i.e. allegorical and ethical interpretations of anomalies in the text of the Torah, thereby neglecting a thorough study of the text as it presents itself to the average, though not scholarly, reader. Seeing that our sages stated אל תרבו בניכם בהגיון, “do not burden your children overly with interpretation based on logic, on common sense,” and they also saidהעוסק במקרא מדה ואינו מדה, העוסק בתלמוד אין לך מדה גדולה מזו, “he who studies the written text of the Torah has accomplished something positive but has also failed to accomplish something positive, but on the other hand, he who has studied Talmud has chosen by far the best path in Torah study,” (freely translated), the result of such statements has been that students have not become used to studying the plain meaning of the text without immediately looking at exegesis. (Baba Metzia 33 and a source supposedly in Berachot 28, the correct text being מנעו בניכם מן ההגיון, prevent your children from indulging in speculative reason,” but this does not seem to have any connection with Torah exegesis in the context where the statement is made. Ed.] This principle has been illustrated in Shabbat 63; we read there in the name of Rav Kahane “I was already eighteen years old and had studied the entire Talmud, but had not ever been taught of the principle that אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו, “that the text in the written Torah must not be interpreted in a manner which completely nullifies its plain meaning.”

I have bolded the editorial insertions, which he ends with Ed.

The Rashbam actually continues, and we can pick it up below, but let us examine these two comments.

The source “supposedly in Berachot 28b reads:

אָמַר לָהֶם: הִזָּהֲרוּ בִּכְבוֹד חַבְרֵיכֶם, וּמִנְעוּ בְּנֵיכֶם מִן הַהִגָּיוֹן, וְהוֹשִׁיבוּם בֵּין בִּרְכֵּי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, וּכְשֶׁאַתֶּם מִתְפַּלְּלִים — דְּעוּ לִפְנֵי מִי אַתֶּם עוֹמְדִים. וּבִשְׁבִיל כָּךְ תִּזְכּוּ לְחַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא.

He said to them: Be vigilant in the honor of your counterparts, and prevent your children from logic when studying verses that tend toward heresy (ge’onim), and place your children, while they are still young, between the knees of Torah scholars, and when you pray, know before Whom you stand. For doing that, you will merit the life of the World-to-Come.

Meanwhile, Rashbam wrote it as אל תרבו בניכם בהגיון. And Eliyahu Munk says that that “does not have any connection with Torah exegesis in the context where the statement is made.”

That contrasts with the Steinsaltz translation in the context of Berachot, where Rav Steinsaltz quoted the Geonim that it indeed has to do with studying verses, and not just logic or speculative reason.

Also, we know Rashbam as a Talmudic commentator on Bava Batra, so he surely can decide that the pasuk does refer to plain interpretations of Biblical verses. Among other commentary

Meiri says likewise, not to take verses literally if such interpretations would have an aspect of heresy:

צריך אדם להזהר בכבוד חביריו ולגדל את בניו לתלמוד תורה ולחנכם מילדותם שלא לפתור פסוק כצורתו בכל דבר שפשוטו מוכיח איזה צד של כפירה והוא שנא' כאן מנעו בניכם מן ההגיון ר"ל מפתרון הפסוק כמו שהוא נקרא וכן צריך להשתדל להושיבם תמיד בין ברכי תלמידי חכמים וכשיתפלל צריך להזהר ולהתכוון ולהתבונן לפני מי הוא עומד

So Rashbam is certainly standing on firm ground.

Rashbam continues:

וגם רבינו שלמה אבי אמי מאיר עיני גולה שפירש תורה נביאים וכתובים, נתן לב לפרש פשוטו של מקרא. ואף אני שמואל ב"ר מאיר חתנו זצ"ל נתווכחתי עמו ולפניו והודה לי שאילו היה לו פנאי, היה צריך לעשות פירושים אחרים לפי הפשטות המתחדשים בכל יום. ועתה יראו המשכילים מה שפירשו הראשונים.

Also Rabbi Shlomoh, my mother’s father of blessed memory (Rashi) the brilliant exegete, who wrote commentaries on the entire Bible, was careful not to ignore the plain meaning of the text. I, Shmuel, son of Rabbi Meir, Rashi’s son-in-law, have argued with him, and he admitted to me that if he had the opportunity, he would compose an additional commentary in which he would concentrate on the plain meaning as it became clearer to him with each passing day. [I believe that the wording here means that Rashi meant that just as his published commentaries consisted mostly of anthologies, i.e. his quoting existing interpretations, so he would search out more commentaries based on the plain meaning to present to the reader when publishing another commentary. Ed.] I am now presenting to the reader what earlier exegetes had to say on our verse.

Rashi and Rashbam arguing

Rashbam says that Rashi would write peirushim acheirim, where acheirim might mean an alternative explanation. But, do these alternative commentaries supplement the original commentaries, or do they replace the original commentaries because the first ones were faulty / did not address Rashi’s primary purpose.

A more literal, rather than “free” translation of that sentence would be:

נתווכחתי עמו ולפניו והודה לי שאילו היה לו פנאי, היה צריך לעשות פירושים אחרים לפי הפשטות המתחדשים בכל יום.

I argued with him [Rashi] and before him, and he admitted to me that if he had the time, he would need to create alternative explanations which accord with the peshat interpretations which are innovated each day.

We should also take into consideration that Rashbam is a somewhat radical pashtan, so what he argued with Rashi and suggested as alternative explanations would not be something that we would readily find in existing explanations of Chazal. So, consider that Eliyahu Munk writes in his editorial comment:

[I believe that the wording here means that Rashi meant that just as his published commentaries consisted mostly of anthologies, i.e. his quoting existing interpretations, so he would search out more commentaries based on the plain meaning to present to the reader when publishing another commentary. Ed.]

I’d say that Rashi is not really typically an anthology, collecting multiple explanations under “davar acher”, though he sometimes does that. Rather, he often channels existing explanations / midrashim of Chazal, selecting those that align with the peshuto shel mikra, however Rashi defines that. And other times, he veers away from that and says ulefi peshuto. See this list, which starts:

We would have to go systematically through these and see if these are Rashi’s innovations or whether we can find precedent in some earlier commentary. I’m sure some are, but suspect also that many are not.

No, I don’t think Rashi would “search out more commentaries based on the plain meaning” to supplement the existing. Rashbam was saying that Rashi admitted to him that Rashi’s own commentaries were not peshat. This rereading effectively censors the uncomfortable idea that perhaps, even to Rashi the author’s own mind, Rashi’s commentary isn’t peshat / “correct”.

This was a lengthy Rashbam, so it continues, first presenting the Rishonim’s approach:

אלה תולדות יעקב - אלה המקראות ומאורעות שאירעו ליעקב. והנה זה הבל הוא, כי כל אלה תולדות האמורים בתורה ובכתובים יש מהם שמפרש בני האדם ויש מהם רבים שמפרשים בני בנים, כאשר פירשתי באלה תולדות נח. למעלה בפ' בראשית כתיב: ויהי נח בן חמש מאות שנה ויולד נח את שם את חם ואת יפת. ואחרי כן מפרש כי העולם חטאו: ונח מצא חן ואחרי כן מפרש: אלה תולדות נח בני בניו היאך כי שלשה בנים היה לו וצווה הקב"ה להכניסם בתיבה י"ב חדש ובצאתם ויולדו להם בנים אחר המבול, עד שעולים לשבעים בנים שהיו שבעים אומות, כדכתיב: מאלה נפרדו וגו'. וכן בעשו פרשה ראשונה מפרש בני עשו שנולדו לו במקום אביו ואחרי כן וילך אל ארץ וגו' וישב לו בהר שעיר וכל הפרשה. וכתיב: אלה תולדות עשו אבי אדום בהר שעיר. וכל פרשה שנייה זאת בבני עשו, וכשם שמצינו בעשו שפירש שבניו נולדו במגורי אביו קודם שהלך אל ארץ מפני יעקב, ובני בניו נולדו בהר שעיר, כן ביעקב למעלה כתיב: ויהיו בני יעקב שנים עשר וגו'. ומפרש לבסוף אלה בני יעקב אשר ילדו לו בפדן ארם ויבא אל יצחק אביו וגו' הרי פירש בניו של יעקב והיכן נולדו כאשר עשה בבני עשו. ועתה כותב אלה תולדות יעקב בני בניו שהיו שבעים והיאך נולדו. כיצד יוסף היה בן שבע עשרה שנה ונתקנאו בו אחיו ומתוך כך ירד יהודה מאת אחיו והיה לו בנים בכזיב ובעדולם שלה ופרץ וזרח ונתגלגל הדבר שיוסף הורד מצרימה ונולדו לו במצרים מנשה ואפרים ושלח יוסף בשביל אביו וביתו עד שהיו שבעים, וכל זה היה צריך משה רבנו לכתוב שעל זה הוכיחם בשבעים נפש ירדו אבותיך וגו'.

אלה תולדות יעקב, “the following describes events and problems which Yaakov encountered in his life.” [by the way, Seforno, who lived hundreds of years later than Rash’bam, also accepts the interpretation described as nonsensical by Rash’bam. Ed.] This exegesis is nonsense. Whenever the expression תולדות occurs in the Bible, sometimes this word introduces the names of the grandsons of the party referred to, such as in Genesis 6,9 where the Torah after describing the righteousness of Noach tells us that Noach had three sons and proceeds to give us their names. The names of the sons could not be the purpose of the story there, as we had been told earlier in 5,32 that Noach at the age of 500 sired three sons and we were already told their names. The Torah then continues to describe mankind’s ongoing corruption and that Noach was the only one with whom G’d was pleased. When the Torah commences a second time with the line אלה תולדות נח in 6,9, clearly the Torah does not mean to repeat itself, but it leads to the Torah telling us of Noach’s grandchildren, something that is reported in greater detail in 10,1 under the heading of “and these are the generations of the sons of Noach.” [Perhaps the reason for the repetition of אלה תולדות בני נח in chapter 10, is that if, as the author says, the grandchildren were meant already in chapter 6, now after the deluge, the task of these children to generate a new mankind began in earnest, whereas up to that point they were charged with merely surviving the deluge. Ed.] Just as the Torah reported the growth and development of mankind after the deluge until we have a total of 70 such descendants of Noach being named, so in chapter 36,6 we have been told of the descendants of Esau who have been born in the land of Canaan, i.e. the land in which his father lived. After that, the Torah reported Esau’s further development in Mount Seir, commencing with verse 9 of that chapter. The Torah reports the development of Yaakov’s family in a parallel manner, 35,23 extending through verses 26-27 and listing all his children who had been born in exile, while he was in Padan Aram with Lavan. Now the Torah continues with the words אלה תולדות יעקב, concentrating forthwith on the grandchildren who combine to make up a total of 70 prior to the descent of the family to Egypt. Details of the birth of these various grandchildren are being provided, beginning with the chronicle of what happened to Joseph, who at 17 years of age experienced traumatic events, as a result of which his older brother Yehudah separated from the other brothers and started his own family in Keziv and Adulam, siring three sons, and grandsons respectively, i.e. Shelah, Peretz and Zerach. The history of Yaakov’s family became complicated further with Joseph having been brought to Egypt as a slave where Menashe and Ephrayim were born for him. Having attained high office, Joseph invited his father and family to join him in Egypt so that ultimately 70 members of Yaakov’s family wound up in Egypt. Moses had to record all this in order to substantiate his claim in Deuteronomy 10,22 that “your fathers descended to Egypt when they numbered only 70 persons.”

Here, Eliyahu Munk takes offense on behalf of other meforshim, most notably Rashi, who wrote אלה תולדות יעקב. וְאֵלֶּה שֶׁל תּוֹלְדוֹת יַעֲקֹב, אֵלּוּ יִשּׁוּבֵיהֶם וְגִלְגּוּלֵיהֶם עַד שֶׁבָּאוּ לִכְלַל יִשּׁוּב. He knows what Seforno writes because he’s also translating Seforno’s commentary in this Chut HaMeshulash.

I don’t think that living hundreds of years later than Rashbam gives Seforno greater insight, other than perhaps a hilcheta kebatrai idea, that he could survey the evidence for one position or the other and choose. However, these two meforshim, Seforno and Rashbam have different approaches to reading Scripture, and probably to what makes for good peshat, so I don’t think Rashbam would back down from his “nonsensical” labeling.

Meanwhile, Sforno lives around 1475 - 1550, and Shadal lived 1800 to 1865 — thus hundreds of years later. He takes a middle position. He argues that Rashbam is principally right,

אלה תולדות יעקב: הנכון כדעת רשב"ם כי תולדות ענינו הבנים ובני הבנים, אמנם כדרך שמליצת הוא עשו (למעלה ל"ו מ"ג) כולל כל מה ששייך לו ומה שאירע לו, כן אלה תולדות יעקב כולל כל מה שאירע לבני יעקב, ואין ספק שאם יאמר אדם כי כוונת כל הספור הזה להודיע הבנים אשר נולדו ליהודה וליוסף אינו אלא טועה, ועיין למעל כ"ה י"ט. ומלות ואלה של תולדות יעקב אינן ברש"י כ"י שלי.

but that it extends from there to events.