Genesis:  35:22 – And it came to pass when Israel sojourned in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah, his father’s concubine, and Israel heard [of it], and so, the sons of Jacob were twelve.

Gemora Shabbat – 55b – Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: Anyone who says that Reuven sinned is completed in totally mistaken. This is shown in the verse itself when it states that the sons of Jacob were twelve. This phrase means that the brothers were all equal to each other.

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #16:

Regarding the apparent contradiction of Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani statement and the plain meaning of the verse, I already commented in the previous note.

Further, the phrase “is completely mistaken” informs us that one who says that Reuben sinned makes an error. However, there is no prohibition or punishment for making such a statement.

Even though we have a general principle that “one who tells over the very intimate matters of a scholar will suffer purgatory”, one must say that this does not apply to Reuben since the Torah itself does not cover up it up. Rather the Torah describes the event in a manner that would indicate a sin. Also, there is an opinion that there was an actual sin. Therefore, Rabbi Shmuel says only that one is mistaken in explaining this matter, but nothing more than that.

[On a separate matter], it is appropriate to comment on verse 20 where it states that Jacob built a monument to mark Rachel’s grave. Yet in the Gemora, in Moed Katan 5a, there is an extensive discussion regarding whether marking graves is a rabbinic decree or whether its source is from the Torah. It is astounding that in the discussion this verse is not mentioned showing that in the Torah, Jacob built a monument at Rachel’s grave. Further, in Midrash Rabba, this monument is explicitly described as a marker.

Nor would it be accurate to say that we do not learn halachos from the Torah prior to the Giving at Mount Sinai. We already know that we derive many matters from the conduct of our forefathers [Abraham, Isaac and Jacob]. For example, we derive the times for prayer, the seven days of mourning and various other matters. The difficulty is further emphasized by the fact that in Gemora Nidda 57a, the conclusion is reached that marking graves is actually a rabbinic law. There also it does not mention our verse.

A possible answer is that in these sections of the Gemora, the sages are trying to find the source of marking graves not only in the case where there is a burial of a complete, known person, but also even where there is just a limb or a single bone.  This would include a situation where it is not known who the dead person was. Even in such a case, the law is that a marker should be put up in order to mark the place and for people to avoid ritual impurity. The source for this law is not from our verse. [The rabbis concluded that this law is a rabbinic decree.] Indeed we find that this whole section of the Gemora deals with ritual impurity.]  Consequently, it makes sense that the rabbis found a source for this law from the verse in Ezekiel 39:15: “And when they that pass through shall pass and see a human bone, they shall build a sign next to it until the buriers bury it in the Valley of Hamon Gog.“ This verse would apply even to a single bone. See also what is explained in the verse in Exodus 18:20 “…and you shall make known to them the way they shall go…”

See also what it says in Jerusalem Talmud Tractate Shekalim 2:5 where is states as follows: “Rabbi Shimon Ben Gamliel said ‘one does not build a monuments for righteous people because their deeds are their remembrance.’”  Apparently this contradicts the verse where Jacob built a monument for Rachel. Further we find that, in fact, we do build monuments for righteous people who have died. See also Midrash Rabba where this same general principle of not building monuments for the righteous is mentioned. Also there it does not address this apparent contradiction. Some have written that this general principle was only the opinion of an individual person and we do not follow this ruling.

In my opinion, however, we don’t need to state that perhaps it is only a single person’s opinion. Rather, it is possible that the intent of this general principle is to state that if the intent of the monument is so that people will remember the name of the righteous person and his greatness, then truly there is not need for such a monument. It is the righteous person’s words and deeds that are their memorial. If, however, the intent of the memorial is for those who are still alive so that they will know the place of his[/her] physical burial so that they may go there to says prayers at a propitious time or so that they may go there to ask for forgiveness from him/her for any wrong that they may have done to him/her. This would be similar to what is written in Tractate Chagiga 22b: “Rabbi Yehoshua went and prostrated himself at the graves of the House of Shammai and said, I crave your pardon, bones of Beth Shammai. If your unexplained teachings are so [excellent], how much more so the explained teachings.’”  In the intent of marking the grave is for these types of purposes, certainly this is done. Thus, we can understand why Jacob built a monument for Rachel. Jacob saw through the divine spirit that in the future travelers on the way to exile would pass through the place where she was buried so Jacob built a memorial there so that they would see it and pray there.

 The important distinction is whether the memorial is being built for the deceased person or for the living.  Therefore, one can say that one who commands [in his will, etc.] that no monument be erected for him, then this distinction would be pertinent. If the monument is, essentially, for the deceased person then one would have to comply with his command that no monument be built.

This is similar to the teaching in Tractate Sanhedrin 46b where it discusses the situation of one who has commanded that there be no eulogy. There, in the discussion, it mentions that if the purpose of the eulogy is for the deceased person, then one must comply with his command.  If, on the other hand, the eulogy is for the sake of the living, then then there is no obligation to comply.

So too we find a case where the inheritors would be called upon to pay for something for the honor of the deceased.  Let us say, for example, the deceased was not so profoundly righteous that his deeds by themselves would be ample honor for him. This person set forth in his will that the family should erect some monument in his memory.  If this monument is for his personal honor, his benefit,  the inheritors must pay for it, as they must give honor to their father.  If, however, the deceased’s request was for the family’s benefit–so that they would easily recognize his burial place–they may counter that they do not need a monument.  Perhaps they can easily find the spot, or perhaps they do not intend to visit the burial place.  In any event since the expense would be for their own benefit, they may refuse to build a monument.

Translator’s  Note: In this long note, I appreciated the observation in the beginning taking a lenient view of one who says that Reuben did, in fact, sin. The second part of this note reflects the Torah Temimah’s determination to understand and clearly explain questions that he has faced on sections in the Gemora. Thank you to Rabbi Chanoch Slatin for helping me on the part I was stuck on!

Genesis:  37:2 – These are the generations of Jacob: when Joseph was seventeen years old, being a shepherd, he was with his brothers with the flocks, and he was a lad, [and was] with the sons of Bilhah and with the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives; and Joseph brought evil tales about them to their father.

Jerusalem Talmud: Peah Chapter 1, Section 1 – What evil tales did Yosef bring? Rabbi Yosi said that Yosef suspected them of eating the limb that was detached from a living animal. Rabbi Yehudah said that Yosef suspected them of belittling the sons of the secondary wives [by calling them servants] Rabbi Shimon said that Yosef suspected them of casting their eyes (lustfully) on the daughters of the Land. Rabbi Yehudah the son of Pazi observed from the verse in Proverbs (16:11) The balance and scales of justice are the Lord’s, that Yosef was punished in a precise way for each sin that he accused his brothers of committing as follows:

• For accusing them of eating the limb of a living animal (without slaughtering the animal)
  • The verse states (Genesis 37:31) “and they slaughtered the goat and they dipped the coat in its blood”.
• For accusing them of belittling the sons of the secondary wives and calling them ‘servants’
  • The verse states (Psalms 105: 17) – “Yosef was sold as a slave”
• For accusing them of casting their eyes on the daughters of the Land
  • The verse states (Genesis 39:7) “Now it came to pass after these events that his master’s wife lifted up her eyes to Joseph, and she said, ‘Lie with me.’”

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #9:

In the Midrash Rabba, the phrasing of this midrash is slightly different, but the meaning is the same; namely that Yosef was punished exactly according to what he had said about his brothers. In the Sifri it explains that Yosef had seen his brothers acting in ways that made him suspect them of these sins. [Thus Yosef’s mistake was in not judging his brother’s favorably.] This explains the use of the verb  “bring” a report to his father than the verb “bring out” which is more commonly used for “tale-bearing” false, evil speech. The reason for the use of the verb “bring out” for false evil speech is because the person saying the negative things is creating the falsehood and bringing it out from his own heart. On the other hand, to just “bring” an evil report implies that, essentially, there is some truth to the matter. That is why, in our verse, the verb “bring” is used; to indicate that there was some element of truth to the matter. However, Yosef had not investigated the issues fully and he merely suspected that they were acting improperly. Check the Nemukei Ramban where he discusses the use of these two verbs – what I have said above will cast light on his comments.

In general though, this midrash requires further clarification. In what way did the sages detect in the wording of the verse that it was these exact issues that Yosef suspected his brothers of transgressing? Perhaps one can say that the hint lies in the phraseology of verse (37:14) “go please, see to your brothers’ welfare and the welfare of the flocks, and bring me back word”. Also the meaning of the phrase (37:13) “aren’t your brothers pasturing the flocks on Shechem?” is not clear. The lack of clarity is from the phrase “aren’t” which would normally reference a previous verse stating a given fact. Here, however, the phase does not reference any previous mention of the brothers being in Shechem. It should have just said “Behold, your brothers are pasturing their sheep in Shechem, please go and see after their welfare.” Additionally, if it was merely the welfare of the brothers that Jacob wanted to find out, he could have just sent anyone. [Why did he send Yosef for this?] Furthermore, this verse makes no sense according to the midrashim that mention that every day one of the brother would come from the field to be a servant to Jacob. If this is the case, then Jacob already knew the welfare of the brothers.

For all the above reasons, the rabbis deduced that the verse alludes, in effect, to a report that Yosef has already brought to Jacob. Now, at this point, Jacob is saying to Yosef, “you said to me this and that about your brothers, aren’t they at this moment pasturing their sheep in Shechem? Go now to them and report to me. Think about what you said and how they are conducting themselves.” The verb that Jacob uses here of “seeing” is similarly used in Ecclesiastes 1:16 “my heart saw much wisdom and knowledge.”

Thus Jacob is asking Yosef [in the phrase in the verse to see the welfare of his brothers] to understand [on a more than superficial level] the relationship between the brothers amongst themselves. (This would correspond to the accusation of brothers making fun of the sons of the ‘secondary wives’.)  

Then, in the phrase to see the welfare of the sheep, Jacob is asking Yosef seek the welfare [literally ‘whole-ness’} of the sheep if they are complete whole in their body or are missing limbs. This would correspond to the accusation of eating a limb that was detached from a living animal.

Lastly in the verse in 37:14, Jacob asks Yosef to bring him back “a word” [דבר]. This alludes to the word “word” often being used as an oblique reference to sexual immorality. This can be seen from the verses Deuteronomy 22:17 “And behold he made libelous charges” as well as the verse in Deuteronomy 23:15: “So that He should not see anything unseemly amongst you.”   Thus this last phrase in 37:14 is a request from Jacob to Yosef to inquire as to the truthfulness of his accusation against the brothers regarding sexual immorality.

Translator’s  Note: I chose to translate this note because of its reference to the false accusations that Yosef made against his brothers. Further, Yosef is punished in a subtly precise way for each false accusation. God does not like spreading false accusations against people.

Bereishis 25:21 – And Isaac prayed to the Lord opposite his wife because she was barren, and the Lord accepted his prayer, and Rebecca his wife conceived.

Gemora Yevamos 64a: It should have said that the Lord accepted “their” prayer. Why does it say that the Lord accepted “his” prayer? To teach that the prayer of a “righteous person” who is the child of a “righteous person” is more listened to than the prayer of a “righteous person” who is the child of an “evil person”.

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #14

See what is written in the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Hayim Section 53 and also in the Taz sub-section 3 in the name of the Bach; and in the Maharshal who deduced from this teaching that it is better to look for a prayer leader who is the son of a righteous person. Note that the Taz disagrees with this because of the general principle that “God desires the heart.” It is amazing that the Taz does not reply at all to the above teaching from the Gemora that [indeed] the prayer of a righteous person, the son of a righteous person is preferable.

Rather, it seems to me, that a person who has better personal qualities is more preferable even if he may be the son of an evil person. Therefore, it is better to give such a person preference [in choosing a prayer leader] over a “righteous person the son of a righteous person” who doesn’t have as many good personal qualities.

It appears that a proof to this opinion can be brought from the Gemora Taanis 25b where it relates a story about Rabbi Eliezer who led the congregation is prayers, but nevertheless rain did not fall. Rabbi Akiva then led the prayers and subsequently it rained. The [other] rabbis were murmuring concerning the slight that had occurred to the honor of Rabbi Eliezer since his prayers were not answered. Suddenly a voice rang out from heaven and stated: “It was not because this person (Rabbi Akiva) is greater than this person (Rabbi Eliezer) but rather it is due to the fact that Rabbi Akiva has conquered his natural tendencies while Rabbi Eliezer has not needed to conquer his natural tendencies.”

Behold, it is well known that Rabbi Akiva is the son of converts. Thus, in relation to him, Rabbi Eliezer is a “righteous person, the son of righteous people”. Nevertheless, it was Rabbi Akiva’s prayer that was answered because of the personal characteristics that he had which Rabbi Eliezer did not have.   

Editor’s Note: I think many people instinctively respond the same way as the Torah Temimah to the idea that “the prayer of a righteous person the child of a righteous person is more listened to than the prayer of a righteous person the child of an evil person”. Our instinctive response is that “God desires the heart” and it should not matter who a person’s parents were. The Torah Temimah then goes on to prove that this is a view supported by our tradition by citing the Gemora Taanis 25b.

Deuteronomy 32:46 – For it is not an empty thing for you, for it is your life, and through this thing, you will lengthen your days upon the land to which you are crossing over the Jordan, to possess it.

Gemora Yerushalmi Peah – 1:1 – Rabbi Mana said: “It is not an empty thing, and if it is empty, from you it is empty”. Why is this so? Because if you had worked hard in it [you would have understood it.] This teaches that any issue that a Court works hard at to understand, [the issue] will ultimately be fulfilled through them.

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #91:

The reason for this interpretation of the verse is clearly the extra word “from you”, this word seems to be superfluous. It could have simply said “For it is not an empty thing.” That is the reason why the rabbis deduced this additional teaching from the verse. That is, if you find that an issue cannot be understood, know that it is just ‘empty’ [not understood] from you; you have not toiled sufficiently to delve into the matter to find the explanation. However, if you do toil [put forth the effort], you will find [the explanation.] answer. This is according to the expression [in Chapters of the Fathers]: “if one says he has toiled but not found, don’t believe him.”.

Therefore, it is clear from this that any issue that the Court exerts much effort [puts their soul into] in clarifying and searching for the truth, that issue will ultimately be clarified and fulfilled through that Court. That is to say, according to their intent will it be understood. In the Jerusalem Talmud it uses the phrase “as though it had been given on Mount Sinai”. That phrase though is an exaggeration just meant to emphasize their intent to arrive at the true truth of the matter.

The specific phrase used “puts their soul into” finding out the truth of the matter, is used because all Courts desire to delve into the source and central issue for any given topic and they metaphorically give over their souls through their effort and toil. This fulfills the well-known expression: Torah cannot be  [totally] fulfilled except by someone who [metaphorically] kills himself over it. Look over at my note in the beginning of Parshat Pekudei for a similar observation on the verse “As God had commanded Moshe”.

Editor’s Note: It seems to me that the central lesson of this note is: “no pain, no gain”. If something in the Torah is inexplicable to you, spend significant effort seeking to understand it. The rabbis are teaching that if you put in the effort, you will learn the wisdom that you need to know.