I wanted to add one other little idea from the Berdichiver to the
discussion we had yesterday about the naming of Yisachar. The Torah prefaces the birth Yisachar with
the words, “Vayishma Elokim el Le’ah…” (30:17)
What did Hashem hear – there was no tefilah on Leah’s part here? Rashi explains that Hashem “heard” the desire
that Leah demonstrated to be the mother of more of the shevatim (R’ Shteiman is
medayeik: more shevatim – not simply more children.) Leah’s tefilah was not a tefilah of words,
but a tefilah of action.
What action is Rashi talking about?
Lichorah, Rashi is referring to the fact that Leah gave up the
dudaim in order to be with Ya’akov. But
that begs the question: how do we know that Leah was in fact motivated l’shem
shamayim because she wanted to be the mother of more shevatim? Maybe she just wanted to spend more time with
her husband Ya’akov?
The proof of Leah’s sincerity, says the Berdichiver, is the reason
she gave for choosing the name Yisachar.
Leah does not give the reason as “sachor sicharticha,” her hiring of Ya’akov
with the dudaim, as that could have been done for any reason. She instead gives the reason as “nasati
shifchasi l’ishi,” her giving of her maid to Ya’akov for another wife. Had Leah been thinking only of herself, she
would never have given Ya’akov yet another wife to occupy his time. Her actions could only be explained by her being
motivated l’shem shamayim to produce more shevatim through the surrogate of her
shifcha.
The gemara (Nidah 31) darshens the pasuk “Yisachar chamor garem”
(49:15) to mean that Hashem himself helped out in Yisachar’s conception by guiding Ya’akov’s
donkey to Leah’s tent when he came home.
“Chamor garem” – his birth was caused by the chamor, the donkey. Maharal and others often interpret “chamor”
as a hint to chomriyus, materialism. I would like to suggest that Chazal are trying to teach us that where
the motivation is l’shem shamayim, your ruchniyus is already at the goal line,
Hashem will arrange for the chamor=chomriyus, for the physical means to
follow.
Perhaps one can even say that it was Leah's l'shem shamayim here that caused sheivet Yisachar to have a special bracha of success in limud haTorah.
Why do we read the name as "Yisachar" as if it is spelled with a
single letter "sin" instead of the double-letter? Why don't we read it as "Yisaschar?" Based on the hesber
we gave yesterday, that the second letter hints (see Rashbam) to “sachor
sicharticha,” it could be that Leah not only avoided giving voice to those
words, but she also avoided saying the name in a way that would reveal the
hint. The Da’as Zekeinim b’Ba’alei
haTosfos gives a different reason. In
Parshas vaYigash the Torah lists “Yov” among the children of Yisachar. In Parshas Pinchas there is no Yov
listed, but there is a “Yashuv.” The Da’as
Zekeinim explains that Yov sounds like the name of an avodah zarah, so Yisachar
gave up a letter sin/shin from his name and added it to his son’s name. (Is there is a shortage of letters? Why couldn’t he just add a letter without
borrowing it from his own name?
Tzarich iyun). Based on this
hesber, it seems that at least here, in Parshas VaYeitzei, when Yisachar is
born, the name should be read as “Yisaschar”, with the double-letter, as at this
point he had no son yet and that was his name. R’ Chaim
Kanievski in Ta’ama D’Kra affirms that this was the Chazon Ish’s practice. I have heard other ba’alei kri’ah have the minhag to read it as
Yisaschar (double-letter) through Parshas Pinchas and make the switch from that
point onward. As for those who don’t do
this, they must assume it is a kri u’kesiv.
Speaking of kri and ksiv - ninth word, first line, last paragraph "as" is kri v'lo ksiv
ReplyDeleteThe 9th word is "if?" But I see there is a double-a there that I needed to correct.
DeleteIt's hard enough to make time to write -- proofreading and editing is hidus mitzvah.
what I meant is - after the "Yisachar" there is a missing "as", as if it said "as if".
DeleteYour reply is similar to a comment printing in my old mishnayos that something is
a ta'us had'fum. I assume you meant hidur mitzvah.
Shabbat Shalom, and remember that menucha is critical - it is what was created on Shabbos.
R' Hai Gaon and R Mishael ben Uziel (Seifer haChilufin), record a machloqes beween saying "Yis-sakhar" and "Yish-sakhar".
ReplyDeleteThe Mesoretes both have "Yissakhar", but Ben Asher has the first sin degushah with a qamtatz, and the second sin without niqud -- no q'ri, just kesiv. Ben Naftali givves the first one a sheva and the second a qamatz. In both cases the q'ri ends up a doubled sin with a qamatz, although Ben Naftali's pointing violates norms by having a sheva nach between identical letters.
the other is Yish-sakhar. There is a meshubeshes copy of Ben Naftali from which is the earliest documentation of Yisaskhar. But the majority and the manuscripts are as I wrote. (H/T R/Dr David Bannet)
The idea of reading it differently once is probably related to an acharon's clever vort about one of Yissachar's sons being listed as Yov and Yishuv, and when the extra shin is freed up for his father's name. R' Shelomo Dubno, R' Wolf Heidenheim,
and R' Shelomo Netter all objected to the innovation.
(In case you couldn't guess from my quoting such sources, it is a recurring Avodah and Mesorah topic.)
I won't even ask how you pronounce the name of the munkatcher's sefer Bnei Yis...
Delete: )
I dovened for many years in a Minkatcher shtiebel, whose Rov was the world-renowed Rav Yitzchok Sternhell, ZTvK"L, and they pronounced it with a double-sin. IIRC.
DeleteRav Yoshe Ber Soloveichik said the minhag in Volozhin, based on the Daas Z'kaynim, was until Yashuv's name appears in Chumash we always read it as Yissaschar - until Parshas Pinchas (See Nefesh Harav p 308)
ReplyDelete