The Great Impediment

מָה הַדָּגִים הַלָּלוּ אֵין נִתְפָּסִים אֶלָּא בִּגְרוֹנָם, כָּךְ בָּנֶיךָ אֵין נִתְפָּסִין אֶלָּא בִּגְרוֹנָם

The Pesuskim of Parshas Vayechi include many Brachos that were given by Yaakov Avinu to his offspring before his Petirah . Although meaningful Brachos were bestowed upon each of the Shevatim , perhaps none are as familiar to us as the one given to Menashe and Ephraim: הַמַּלְאָךְ הַגֹּאֵל אֹתִי מִכׇּל־רָע יְבָרֵךְ אֶת־הַנְּעָרִים וְיִקָּרֵא בָהֶם שְׁמִי וְשֵׁם אֲבֹתַי אַבְרָהָם וְיִצְחָק וְיִדְגּוּ לָרֹב בְּקֶרֶב הָאָרֶץ. Although most of the words in this Passuk, and certainly the emotional implication of the Bracha, are understood, the term וְיִדְגּוּ לָרֹב is not immediately familiar.

Rashi explains these words as follows: כַּדָּגִים הַלָּלוּ שֶׁפָּרִים וְרָבִים וְאֵין עַיִן הָרָע שׁוֹלֶטֶת בָּהֶם. The term וְיִדְגּוּ comes from the word דָּג , and the Bracha therefore relates to the quality of fish. Specifically, fish multiply in numbers, and are free from עַיִן הָרָע, and so the Bracha that Yaakov Avinu gave to Yosef’s sons was that they too should have many descendants and be immune to עַיִן הָרָע.

It is interesting to note that while the Medrash here mentions the aspect of אֵין עַיִן הָרָע שׁוֹלֶטֶת בָּהֶם, the comparison to fish in terms of כַּדָּגִים הַלָּלוּ שֶׁפָּרִים וְרָבִים is not found. There is, however, another Drasha explaining the word וְיִדְגּוּ as it relates to דָּגִים.

The Medrash tells us: מָה הַדָּגִים הַלָּלוּ אֵין נִתְפָּסִים אֶלָּא בִּגְרוֹנָם, כָּךְ בָּנֶיךָ אֵין נִתְפָּסִין אֶלָּא בִּגְרוֹנָם. Taken literally, this Drasha is difficult to understand: what does it mean that just like a hook can catch a fish in its throat, the Bnei Yosef will also be caught in their throats? The Medrash continues, however, quoting a Passuk in Sefer Shoftim that helps us understand this Memra : וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ אֱמָר נָא שִׁבֹּלֶת וַיֹּאמֶר סִבֹּלֶת.

These words appear in the Pessukim that describe a disagreement that arose after Yiftach HaGilaadi was victorious against the Bnei Amon. Upon returning from battle, Yiftach was challenged by the Bnei Ephraim who asked: מַדּוּעַ  עָבַרְתָּ לְהִלָּחֵם בִּבְנֵי־עַמּוֹן וְלָנוּ לֹא קָרָאתָ לָלֶכֶת עִמָּךְ. The Bnei Ephraim felt that they should have taken part in the battle but Yiftach, who was from Shevet Menashe, disagreed. A period of strife ensued, during which Yiftach and the Bnei Gilad seized the waterways, preventing the Bnei Ephraim from crossing.

The Navi, explains how the Anshei Gilad knew if a person who wished to cross the water was from Ephraim: וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ אֱמָר נָא שִׁבֹּלֶת. They would ask the person to say the word שִׁבֹּלֶת, and if the person responded by saying סִבֹּלֶת, it was clear that they were from Bnei Ephraim. Anyone who was caught this way was killed, and the Pessukim tell us that 42,000 members of Shevet Epraim perished in this way.

This is the example of כָּךְ בָּנֶיךָ אֵין נִתְפָּסִין אֶלָּא בִּגְרוֹנָם to which the Medrash refers. Rashi, there, explains that the descendants of Ephraim were מְגַמְגְּמִים בִּלְשׁוֹנָם, and therefore could not say שִׁבֹּלֶת, and this led to their demise. In this way, they are like דָּגִים that are נִתְפָּסִים בִּגְרוֹנָם.

How can we understand this Medrash? Why would Yaakov Avinu refer to this most unfortunate episode in his Bracha? The events that would unfold centuries later, are hardly a highlight of the relationship between the two Shevatim whose forefathers stood before him—why allude to them with the words וְיִדְגּוּ לָרֹב בְּקֶרֶב הָאָרֶץ?

This question is highlighted by the context in which this Medrash appears.

There are other Drashos brought to explain the connection between Shevet Ephraim and the דָּגִים, all of which seem complimentary. For example, the Medrash relates that although fish spend their entire lives submerged in water, כֵּיוָן שֶׁיּוֹרֶדֶת טִפָּה אַחַת מִלְּמַעְלָה מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתָהּ בְּצִמָּאוֹן, they relish each drop as though they have never before tasted it. A similar statement can be made about Bnei Yisroel and Torah: כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֵן שׁוֹמְעִין דָּבָר חָדָשׁ מִן הַתּוֹרָה הֵן מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתוֹ בְּצִמָאוֹן.

If the words וְיִדְגּוּ לָרֹב בְּקֶרֶב הָאָרֶץ can be understood in this positive way—which would seem appropriate given that they are part of a Bracha—why would we explain them as relating to the story in Sefer Shoftim ?

The focus on a shortcoming of Bnei Ephraim, who were מְגַמְגְּמִים בִּלְשׁוֹנָם, is also surprising given the way that Yaakov Avinu saw the sons of Yosef.

As we know, when he saw that Yaakov had crossed his hands, placing his right hand on the head of Ephraim, Yosef assumed that his father was not aware of the order in which his sons were born, and said לֹא־כֵן אָבִי כִּי־זֶה הַבְּכֹר שִׂים יְמִינְךָ עַל־רֹאשׁוֹ. Yaakov, however, assured Yosef that he was indeed aware of their relative ages, יָדַעְתִּי בְנִי יָדַעְתִּי, but that he also understood how the two would develop: yes, Menashe would be great, but he would be surpassed by his younger brother: אוּלָם אָחִיו הַקָּטֹן יִגְדַּל מִמֶּנּוּ וְזַרְעוֹ יִהְיֶה מְלֹא־הַגּוֹיִם.

It seems that Yaakov wished for the eventual greatness of Shevet Ephraim to be made known at this time, for he not only crossed his hands when giving the Bracha, but also reiterated this reality afterward: וַיְבָרְכֵם בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא...וַיָּשֶׂם אֶת־אֶפְרַיִם לִפְנֵי מְנַשֶּׁה. In addition, when Yosef, asked his father to switch his hands, the Torah describes Yaakov’s reaction using the word וַיְמָאֵן, meaning he refused. This seems to further indicate that Yaakov was intent on conveying the message of אָחִיו הַקָּטֹן יִגְדַּל מִמֶּנּוּ.

If this is the case, why would Yaakov have used the words וְיִדְגּוּ לָרֹב בְּקֶרֶב הָאָרֶץ to allude to the story of Yiftach and the Bnei Ephraim, which is less than flattering to the Bnei Ephraim at the very least?

The truth is that there is an even more general question that should be asked here: why did the entire Shevet have a speech impediment? While there are certainly nationalities that pronounce words differently from others, that is usually due to geographic or cultural differences. In the case of Bnei Ephraim, however, it seems hereditary: they did not live far from other Shevatim , and they entire Klal Yisroel had a shared language—why was it only Shevet מְגַמְגְּמִים בִּלְשׁוֹנָם?

To answer these questions and explain the message of the Medrash, and Yaakov Avinu , it may be helpful to understand the concept of מְגַמְגְּמִים בִּלְשׁוֹנָם on a different level. Perhaps we can do so by understanding the prime example of one whose Koach HaDibur was adversely affected.

The Medrash Rabbah at the very beginning of Sefer Devarim quotes a Passuk in Mishlei, מַרְפֵּא לָשׁוֹן עֵץ חַיִּים, and speaks about the power that Divrei Torah have to heal. The Medrash continues, telling us: הֲרֵי משֶׁה עַד שֶׁלֹא זָכָה לַתּוֹרָה כְּתִיב בּוֹ לֹא אִישׁ דְּבָרִים אָנֹכִי, Moshe Rabbeinu did not have the ability to speak clearly before he had the Torah. That changed later in his life however: כֵּיוָן שֶׁזָּכָה לַתּוֹרָה נִתְרַפֵּא לְשׁוֹנוֹ. The Torah itself improved Moshe’s speech, to the point that the last days of his life were dedicated to public oration, introduced with the words אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר מֹשֶׁה

We know that Moshe Rabbeinu described himself variously as כְבַד־פֶּה וּכְבַד לָשׁוֹן and עֲרַל שְׂפָתָיִם, but the Medrash suggests that this condition was repaired through his connection to Torah. How can we understand this? Do the Divrei Torah have a power to heal? If so, does this relate specifically to difficulties in speech, or other ailments as well? Was it the Zechus of the Torah that allowed Moshe to speak more clearly towards the end of his life? What is the Medrash telling us?

The Shem M’Shmuel , in Parshas Chukas , asks another question on the Medrash, based on the teaching of the Maharl in Gevuros Hashem.

Maharal explains that the Koach HaDibur comes from a fusion of physical and intellectual abilities, a combination of the Guf and Sechel , which represents the Neshama. This can be seen from the fact that a child has all the physical abilities to speak, but until he reaches a certain level of Sechel no words can be formed. Speech, then, is not a Davar Ruchani , but a manifestation of both the Ruchni and Gashmi, working in Tandam .

If so, asks the Shem M’Shmuel , should the fact that Moshe Rabbeinu was כְבַד־פֶּה וּכְבַד לָשׁוֹן a praise? Why does the Medrash suggest that he started out with a flaw, represented by the words לֹא אִישׁ דְּבָרִים אָנֹכִי, and was healed by the Torah? An inability to speak should signify a disconnect from the Guf , a life that is limited to the Neshama.

Although Shem M’Shmuel does not mention this, Maharal , in Gevros Hahsem , specifically writes that Moshe Rabbeinu was disconnected from Dibur , which is a most physical act. This only enhances the question: why does the Medrash suggest that the existence of לֹא אִישׁ דְּבָרִים אָנֹכִי was one that required healing?

Shem M’Shmuel explains that the Madreigah on which Moshe Rebbeinu existed, the disconnect between his lofty Neshama and his physical existence, was indeed represented by the fact that he was כְבַד־פֶּה וּכְבַד לָשׁוֹן , as the Medrash tells us. TheTorah , had an effect on him, however, to the extent that his Guf was elevated to a Madreigah that allowed it to fuse with his already elevated Neshama. At that point, the Koach HaDibur of Moshe Rabbeinu was restored, allowing him once again to speak clearly, as the Medrash tells us.

The concept of כֵּיוָן שֶׁזָּכָה לַתּוֹרָה נִתְרַפֵּא לְשׁוֹנוֹ is not esoteric, it does not symbolize a Segulah or even a Zechus . Rather, the Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu elevated him to the point that he was no longer a כְבַד־פֶּה וּכְבַד לָשׁוֹן because even his Guf existed in a world of Ruchni .

Perhaps we can explain the Medrash in Parshas Vayechi based on this idea.

When Yaakov Avinu gave the Brachos to Menashe and Ephraim, he had specific intent to highlight the way the two Shevatim would develop: אוּלָם אָחִיו הַקָּטֹן יִגְדַּל מִמֶּנּוּ וְזַרְעוֹ יִהְיֶה מְלֹא־הַגּוֹיִם. We can now understand the words וְיִדְגּוּ לָרֹב בְּקֶרֶב ,הָאָרֶץ with their implication of מָה הַדָּגִים הַלָּלוּ אֵין נִתְפָּסִים אֶלָּא בִּגְרוֹנָם, כָּךְ בָּנֶיךָ אֵין נִתְפָּסִין אֶלָּא בִּגְרוֹנָם, in this light.

The reason Bnei Ephraim were מְגַמְגְּמִים בִּלְשׁוֹנָם was that they lived on a higher plane—they were greater in Torah, and their Neshamos were therefore slightly disconnected from their Guf . Their inability to clearly enunciate the word שִׁבֹּלֶת when challenged by the Anshei Gilad was indicative of this Madreigah . Like Moshe Rabbienu , they had an element of עֲרַל שְׂפָתָיִם that stemmed from their elevated Ruchnias , an indication of their stature. They had not reached the pinnacle of Gadlus , as Moshe Rabbeinu did, and so their speech was still unclear, but they were elevated nonetheless.

The two Medrashim related to דָּגִים are can now be understood in tandem. If one leads a life of כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֵן שׁוֹמְעִין דָּבָר חָדָשׁ מִן הַתּוֹרָה הֵן מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתוֹ בְּצִמָאוֹן, living a life in which Torah is his life source, drinking each drop with great thirst, his Neshama will be elevated to a point where his Guf and Neshama do not exist on the same plane. One who achieves this Madreigah may even be Zoche to be counted among the מְגַמְגְּמִים בִּלְשׁוֹנָם, his speech impeded due to his disconnect from Gashmi.

This is why Yaakov Avinu alluded to this story, which would not take place for hundreds of years. He was telling Yosef of the Madreigah that Bnei Ephraim would achieve, of their destiny as אָחִיו הַקָּטֹן יִגְדַּל מִמֶּנּוּ. The fact that Bnei Ephraim were נִתְפָּסִים בִּגְרוֹנָם like fish was not a criticism—it was an indication of the Madreigah one can reach through Torah, which is described as מַרְפֵּא לָשׁוֹן עֵץ חַיִּים. This was the heritage of Bnei Ephraim, an example for which we can all strive in our own way, through an approach of כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֵן שׁוֹמְעִין דָּבָר חָדָשׁ מִן הַתּוֹרָה הֵן מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתוֹ בְּצִמָאוֹן.