Vayeitzei: The Censored Radak - Customary Celebratory Week, and Romantic Kisses
Last week, I discussed a censored Radak on Toledot. Let us follow up with some censored Radaks on sidrat Vayeitzei.
There are a few in Eliyahu Munk’s translation, available at Sefaria. These are:
The very next comment of Radak, on 29:22.
The very next three comments of Radak, all on 30:35.
The very next comment of Radak, on 31:33.
That a Radak doesn’t appear in the purely English translation doesn’t mean that there is necessarily something that the translator feels is heretical in all of these. It could be that it was too much work to translate, and would make for too lengthy of an English commentary. However, I suspect that for juxtaposed untranslated Radaks, one might be censored for ideological reasons, and one the immediate context gets dragged along to be censored. Perhaps occasionally because the two comments are intertwined in some way. Regardless, a pattern emerges.
Let us examine the first Radak listed.
The pasuk:
וַיַּעֲבֹ֧ד יַעֲקֹ֛ב בְּרָחֵ֖ל שֶׁ֣בַע שָׁנִ֑ים וַיִּהְי֤וּ בְעֵינָיו֙ כְּיָמִ֣ים אֲחָדִ֔ים בְּאַהֲבָת֖וֹ אֹתָֽהּ׃
So Jacob served seven years for Rachel and they seemed to him but a few days because of his love for her.
Radak writes:
כימים אחדים, מעטים, כמו שפירשנו. אמר כל כך היה אוהב אותה, כי אחר שעבד בעבורה שבע שנים היה קל בעיניו כאלו עבד שבעה ימים:
That is, keyamim achadim — {from root echad; and yamim as days } few, as we have explained. He {effectively} said that he loved her so much, that after he labored for her seven years, it was as light in his eyes as if he had labored for seven days.
It is unclear why Eliyahu Munk didn’t translate it. I am unsure where to point when Radak wrote כמו שפירשנו? I think what Radak meant was his comment at the start of the story, that there was a setup. On the verse 29:16:
וּלְלָבָ֖ן שְׁתֵּ֣י בָנ֑וֹת שֵׁ֤ם הַגְּדֹלָה֙ לֵאָ֔ה וְשֵׁ֥ם הַקְּטַנָּ֖ה רָחֵֽל׃
Now Laban had two daughters; the name of the older one was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel.
and then contrasted the two and their beauty, Radak had written:
וללבן, ספר זה בתחלה בעבור מה שעתיד לספר באהבת יעקב את רחל, ושעבד בעבורה שבע שנים, כי לא היה עובד מה שעבד בעבור לאה אלא שרמה לו לבן:
וללבן שתי בנות, the fact that Lavan had two daughters, etc., is mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph in order for us to understand what is reported later about Yaakov having fallen in love with Rachel and offering to serve Lavan for 7 years for her hand in marriage. The Torah wants us to understand that Yaakov would never have agreed to work for Leah’s hand in marriage for even a fraction of such a long period.
(with elements of that last sentence expanded in Munk’s translation.)
[Edit: Rabbi Aryeh Sklar pointed out that Radak is referring to his earlier comment on Bereishit 27:44:
ימים אחדים, מעטים, ולפי שהאחד הוא תחלת המספרים והוא המעט שבמספרים יכנה הדבר המועט באחד, וכן כימים אחדים (כ"ט):
וישבת...אחדים, a few; since the number אחד is the lowest of the numbers it is no more than natural to describe a small number in terms of a multiple of “one.”
And indeed, that comment on that earlier verse has a forward reference to our pasuk under discussion.
]
Moving on to the adjoining untranslated commentary, this is on two verses hence. So 29:21 and 29:22 read:
וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יַעֲקֹ֤ב אֶל־לָבָן֙ הָבָ֣ה אֶת־אִשְׁתִּ֔י כִּ֥י מָלְא֖וּ יָמָ֑י וְאָב֖וֹאָה אֵלֶֽיהָ׃
Then Jacob said to Laban, “Give me my wife, for my time is fulfilled, that I may cohabit with her.”
וַיֶּאֱסֹ֥ף לָבָ֛ן אֶת־כׇּל־אַנְשֵׁ֥י הַמָּק֖וֹם וַיַּ֥עַשׂ מִשְׁתֶּֽה׃
And Laban gathered all the people of the place and made a feast.
Radak comments:
ויאסוף, להודיע כי מנהג נהוג היה מעולם, והוא עדיין, לעשות משתה ושמחה לנשואין, יעשה החתן או אבי החתן או הכלה, וכן סמכו חכמים סעודת נשואין ושבעת ימי שמחה, שהרי אמר מלא שבוע זאת:
I will translate:
“And [Lavan] gathered” - to inform that this was an ancient custom, and it persists today, to make a feast and rejoicing for nuptials, which the groom or the groom’s or bride’s father make. And so did the Chazal support the idea of the nuptial meal and seven days of rejoicing, for behold [Lavan] stated מַלֵּ֖א שְׁבֻ֣עַ זֹ֑את, finish this [bridal] week (in verse 27).”
This also seems innocuous, and even connects it to a takana of Chazal. But I can imagine a sensitivity here. What is the status of the seudat nisuin and the shivat yemei hamishteh. Is Radak transforming it into logical secular custom, thus stripping it of its status as a Biblical or Rabbinic institution?
We can compare to other local meforshim on Bereishit 29:27, as well as the Rambam. The pasuk states:
מַלֵּ֖א שְׁבֻ֣עַ זֹ֑את וְנִתְּנָ֨ה לְךָ֜ גַּם־אֶת־זֹ֗את בַּעֲבֹדָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר תַּעֲבֹ֣ד עִמָּדִ֔י ע֖וֹד שֶֽׁבַע־שָׁנִ֥ים אֲחֵרֽוֹת׃
Wait until the bridal week of this one is over and we will give you that one too, provided you serve me another seven years.”
Rashi first said shavua means a set of seven days, rather than finishing out the week, and points to Yerushalmi Moed Katan that it is the seven days of the marriage feast.
מלא שבע זאת. דָּבוּק הוּא, שֶׁהֲרֵי נָקוּד בַּחֲטָף, שָׁבוּעַ שֶׁל זֹאת, וְהֵן שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַמִּשְׁתֶּה, בְּתַלְמוּד יְרוּשׁ' בְּמוֹעֵד קָטָן (וְאִ"אֶ לוֹמַר שָׁבוּעַ מַמָּשׁ, שֶׁאִם כֵּן הָיָה צָרִיךְ לְהִנָּקֵד בְּפַתָּח הַשִּׁי"ן; וְעוֹד שֶׁשָּׁבוּעַ לְשׁוֹן זָכָר, כְּדִכְתִיב שִׁבְעָה שָׁבֻעֹת תִּסְפָּר לָךְ, לְפִיכָךְ אֵין מַשְׁמַע שָׁבוּעַ אֶלָּא שִׁבְעָה, שטיי"נא בְּלַעַז):
מלא שבע זאת FULFIL THE WEEK OF THIS ONE — The word is in the construct state for it is punctuated with Sheva, so that the meaning is “the seven days of this woman”, referring to the seven days of the marriage feast. Such is the statement in the Talmud Yerushalmi Moed Katan 1:7. It is impossible to say that it means an actual week, (i. e. a calendar week), so that it would mean “finish this week” in the sense “wait until this week be ended”) — for, if so, the ש should be punctuated with Patach (Rashi terms our Kametz a Patach) for the noun must be in the absolute state. Then, again, the word שָׁבֻעַ is masculine — as it is written (Deuteronomy 16:9) “Seven (שבעה) weeks shalt thou number unto thyself” (and here we should have had שָׁבֻעַ זֶה). Consequently the word שבוע can only mean “a period of seven days” old French septaine (cf. Rashi on Exodus 10:22).
(The Yerushalmi had the Mishnah state אֵין נוֹשְׂאִין נָשִׁים בַּמּוֹעֵד לֹא בְּתוּלוֹת וְלֹא אַלְמָנוֹת, וְלֹא מְייַבְּמִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשִּׂמְחָה הִיא לוֹ. Then in the gemara, ׃ רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא שָׁמַע לָהּ מִן הָדָא מַלֵּ֖א שְׁבוּעַ זֹ֑את.)
Then Rashi writes:
גם את זאת. מִיָּד לְאַחַר שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַמִּשְׁתֶּה, וְתַעֲבֹד לְאַחַר נִשּׂוּאֶיהָ:
גם את זאת THIS ONE ALSO we shall give to you immediately after the seven days of the marriage-feast and you may serve for her after marriage with her.
While Ramban also cites Rashi, he gives the alternative that מלא שבע זאת means fulfill the time you had initially promised to fulfill for Leah, because Yaakov had approached him before the seven years had elapsed. If so, any pointing to this verse would be either a derasha or an asmachta.
Now, see Rambam in Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Ishut 10:12:
וְכֵן תִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁכָּל הַנּוֹשֵׂא בְּתוּלָה יִהְיֶה שָׂמֵחַ עִמָּהּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים. אֵינוֹ עוֹסֵק בִּמְלַאכְתּוֹ וְלֹא נוֹשֵׂא וְנוֹתֵן בַּשּׁוּק אֶלָּא אוֹכֵל וְשׁוֹתֶה וְשָׂמֵחַ. בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה בָּחוּר בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה אַלְמוֹן. וְאִם הָיְתָה בְּעוּלָה אֵין פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים. שֶׁתַּקָּנַת חֲכָמִים הִיא לִבְנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיִּהְיֶה שָׂמֵחַ עִם הַבְּעוּלָה שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים בֵּין בָּחוּר בֵּין אַלְמוֹן:
Similarly, our Sages ordained that whoever weds a virgin should celebrate with her for seven days. He should not pursue his occupation, nor should he involve himself in commercial dealings; he should eat, drink and celebrate. [This ruling applies] regardless of whether the groom had been married before or not.
If the bride is not a virgin, [he should celebrate with her] for no less than three days. For it is an ordinance of our Sages that a husband - regardless of whether he was married before or not - should celebrate with a non-virgin bride for three days.
Compare with Rambam, Hilchot Aveilut, 1:1:
מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה לְהִתְאַבֵּל עַל הַקְּרוֹבִים. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא י יט) "וְאָכַלְתִּי חַטָּאת הַיּוֹם הַיִּיטַב בְּעֵינֵי ה'". וְאֵין אֲבֵלוּת מִן הַתּוֹרָה אֶלָּא בְּיוֹם רִאשׁוֹן בִּלְבַד שֶׁהוּא יוֹם הַמִּיתָה וְיוֹם הַקְּבוּרָה. אֲבָל שְׁאָר הַשִּׁבְעָה יָמִים אֵינוֹ דִּין תּוֹרָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה (בראשית נ י) "וַיַּעַשׂ לְאָבִיו אֵבֶל שִׁבְעַת יָמִים" נִתְּנָה תּוֹרָה וְנִתְחַדְּשָׁה הֲלָכָה. וּמשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ תִּקֵּן לָהֶם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי אֲבֵלוּת וְשִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַמִּשְׁתֶּה:
It is a positive commandment to mourn for one's close relatives,1 as implied by Leviticus 10:20: "Were I to partake of a sin offering today, would it find favor in God's eyes?" According to Scriptural Law, the obligation to mourn is only on the first day which is the day of the person's death and burial. The remainder of the seven days of mourning are not required by Scriptural Law. Although the Torah states Genesis 50:10: "And he instituted mourning for his father for seven days," when the Torah was given, the laws were renewed.
Moses our teacher ordained for the Jewish people the seven days of mourning and the seven days of wedding celebrations.
where Rambam makes this something Moshe ordained. Though there was a practice recorded at the end of Bereishit (50:10) about Yosef’s mourning of Yaakov, נִתְּנָה תּוֹרָה וְנִתְחַדְּשָׁה הֲלָכָה, so once the Torah was given, that erased the prior institution, and so while the first day of mourning is Biblical, the remainder of the days of mourning, and the seven days of wedding celebrations are Rabbinic. That is, Rabbinic, but really early, enacted by Moshe. (See also 5:1 where Rambam elaborates on this Biblical / Rabbinic divide between the first and remaining days of mourning.)
Last week’s censored Radak, about the efficacy of curses, aligned with Rambam’s approach. Perhaps the same is true here, about the nature of these Chazalic practices. Or perhaps it is slightly different. We don’t know how the translator feels about the Rambam’s position about the institution.
What might make the translator uncomfortable about this Radak is that he’s making what seems like a Jewish practice enacted by Chazal into something that was practiced by secular society in general for a rational reason, with the pasuk describing that practice. And then Chazal were motivated by that practice to say that we should do the same. But really, this was a long-standing cultural practice. That might strip it of its religious / spiritual nature.
I am not going to go through the other censored Radak on this parasha today.
But I do want to point out a different Radak, where Munk seems to add to the commentary. There is a principle that kol hamosif gore’a, whoever adds (what shouldn’t be there) effectively subtracts. So we might also want to watch out for translated commentary which is longer than the original Hebrew.
On Bereishit 29:11:
וַיִּשַּׁ֥ק יַעֲקֹ֖ב לְרָחֵ֑ל וַיִּשָּׂ֥א אֶת־קֹל֖וֹ וַיֵּֽבְךְּ׃
Then Jacob kissed Rachel, and broke into tears.
Radak writes:
וישק, כיון שראתה שעשה כל זה בעבורה קבלה נשיקתו.
וישק, since she had realised that Yaakov had done all this on her account, she accepted his kiss. Furthermore, he had told them כי אחי אביה הוא, i.e. a son of her father’s sister, a son of Rivkah, who was known to all the people of Charan to have become married to Yitzchok.
Also, on the last word in the pasuk:
ויבך, זו היא בכיה של שמחה ומרוב אהבה המית הלב:
ויבך, he wept for joy. When close relatives meet after not having seen each other for a while, their emotional cup runs over so that they find it hard to control their feelings and they give way to them by crying for joy.
The English text from these two comments that I bolded in Eliyahu Munk’s translation does not seem to match what is written in the Hebrew. Maybe he worked from a variant text of Radak, but I am already suspicious of ideological warping of Radak’s position. Also, that text does occur in Radak, just a bit later.
That is, the very next pasuk, 29:12, reads:
וַיַּגֵּ֨ד יַעֲקֹ֜ב לְרָחֵ֗ל כִּ֣י אֲחִ֤י אָבִ֙יהָ֙ ה֔וּא וְכִ֥י בֶן־רִבְקָ֖ה ה֑וּא וַתָּ֖רׇץ וַתַּגֵּ֥ד לְאָבִֽיהָ׃
Jacob told Rachel that he was her father’s kinsman, that he was Rebekah’s son; and she ran and told her father.
and Radak explains:
כי אחי אביה הוא, ר"ל בן אחות אביה. וכי בן רבקה הוא, שהיה ידוע לכל שנשאת ליצחק:
כי אחי אביה הוא, i.e. a son of her father’s sister, a son of Rivkah, who was known to all the people of Charan to have become married to Yitzchok.
Note that the translation of this comment is exactly the words that he spuriously inserted into the translation of the first comment on the earlier pasuk.
That insertion was transformative and IMHO a bit sneaky. Without the insertion, Radak is making Rachel’s reaction romantic. She sees everything Yaakov did for her, such as lifting the stone off the cistern by himself and watering all of Lavan’s flocks, and therefore she accepts his kiss. This is perhaps a kiss between lovers, from a man she has just met. That is far different from a greeting kiss from a relative to another, such as Yaakov and Esav kissing.
Eliyahu Munk does not want the reader to come away with a negative attitude towards Yaakov and Rachel, that they were not frum. So how can he add that this was a greet-relative kiss? By performing some surgery, cutting and pasting Radak’s later comment about informing that they were relatives into Radak’s earlier comment. And also editorializing (without his typical explicit [Ed:] notation about close relatives meeting.
I rather disagree with this approach, as it seems sneaky and a ziyuf haTorah. Others from a different ideological background may feel free to disagree. Regardless, it means that even the commentary that does appear in translation is not above suspicion.