Text & Context DRAFT
Vayeishev
Rabbi Eliezer Shemtov
Regarding the verse that says, “he told Tamar: ‘Behold, your father-in-law is going up to Timnah’,”[1] Rashi cites the words “going up to Timnah” and says: “Regarding Samson, [the verse] says he went down to Timnah [2]. [It turns out that] Timnah was situated in the middle of the mountain; from one direction, one had to go down [to reach it], and from the other, one had to go up.”
We need to understand:
This is not the first time the term “going up to Timnah” appears. It already appears in the previous verse. Why does Rashi find it necessary to explain it the second time it appears in the text and not the first?
Rashi's objective is always to explain the most basic aspect of the text in such a way that a five-year-old child can understand it. In other words, Rashi explains the difficulties that might arise for a five-year-old when studying any particular verse. Why does Rashi, in this case, address a difficulty that will only arise later when one reaches the Book of Judges and encounters that Timnah is accessed by descending, rather than by ascending?
Why does Rashi elaborate so much by saying, “As for Samson, it says…” when in the very verse that he cites it already says “and Samson went down”? Wouldn’t it have sufficed to simply say: “It is written ‘and Samson went down’” for us to see the discrepancy with our verse?
The Talmud [2] offers three answers to resolve this textual discrepancy:
Regarding Samson, it says ‘went down’ because he was denigrated as a result of going to Timnah, whereas regarding Judah it says ‘he went up’ because he was elevated as a result of going to Timnah;
There were two different cities called Timnah, one of them was accessed by descending and the other was accessed by ascending;
There was only one city with that name; from one direction one had to go down in order to get there, whereas from another side one had to go up. Why does Rashi choose the last explanation rather than the first? Moreover: wouldn’t the order in which Talmud presents them imply that the first one is the most logical?
The Explanation:
The difficulty that Rashi wants to resolve here in the text is not its contradiction with the verse in the Book of Judges that speaks about Samson but something much simpler: why was it relevant to tell Tamar that her father-in-law was ascending to Timnah instead of simply saying he was “coming to Timnah”? This question only becomes relevant in this verse and not in the previous one, since in the previous verse where it says “he ascended to Timnah” it can be understood as a spiritual ascent, in contrast to the spiritual descent of Judah (due to the sale of Joseph) that Rashi refers to at the beginning of the Parashah [3]. We cannot say that in our verse, too, “going up” means ascending spiritually because this can only be said when the Torah describes Judah’s actions. In the context of this verse, however, where a local person tells Tamar “your father-in-law is going up to Timnah,” it cannot be interpreted as describing a spiritual ascent (because how would he know?) The question therefore arises: why say “going up” rather than the more simple “coming to”?
It is to answer this question that Rashi brings the contrast with the verse that appears later in the Book of Judges that speaks of Samson going down to Timnah, to explain that by saying “your father-in-law is arriving in Timnah,” Tamar would still not know by which way he was coming, since there were two options, one by which he would be arriving by going up and another by which he would be arriving by going down. That is why it needed to be specific.
One may still ask: Is it logical to build a city in the middle of a mountain slope? It makes sense to build a city at the top of a mountain, despite the extra difficulties involved, as it is easier to defend in case of war. It is also understandable why one would choose to build a city at the foot of the mountain, even though it is more exposed, as it is more accessible and offers more possibilities for trade. But, what advantage is there to building a city right in the middle of a mountain slope? Since it doesn't make much sense, wouldn't it be more logical to say that the terms “going up” and “going down” refer to “ascension” and “descent” in a spiritual sense?
It is in order to answer this question that Rashi says “Regarding Samson it says” and does not settle for simply citing a verse that mentions Samson “going down to Timnah.” In the story of Samson, there are several verses that mention the fact that Samson “went down.” It is not logical to suggest that each one of them refers to a spiritual descent. It is more logical to say that he lived at the top of the mountain, and every time he arrived at Timnah, he had to physically descend. It therefore follows that if our verse states that Judah was “coming up to Timnah”, it is because Timnah was located in the middle of the mountain, despite it not being the most logical place to build a city.
The Mystical Dimension
Our sages explain that the verse “Who will ascend the mountain of G-d?” [] also has the connotation that serving G-d is like climbing a mountain. One must always keep climbing. If you stop and do not ascend, you will not just remain where you are, you will inevitably fall. One must never settle in matters personal spiritual accomplishments and growth; one must always climb higher.
_____________________________
Génesis, 38:13
Judges, 14:1
Sotá, 10a
Génesis, 38:1
Salmos, 24:3
Synopsis of Likutei Sichos Vol. 10, pages 122-128
Comments