Vayigash: Yosef’s Endowment to the Jewish People
Vayigash: Yosef’s Endowment to the Jewish People
HarHaBayit:
'We failed! We didn't throw of the Mountain: Amalek's descendants and their Israeli friends! The Erev Rav! We must be at war until all terrorists are dead! In and around Eretz Yisrael. The day after, we need to vote for an Elohim fearing Government. Then let us start to Pray and to talk about a new government. Every Jew and non-Jew must accept and respect Jewish Law. Voting's yes, but a new high Court system Jewish Law in all Eretz Yisrael: Including Aza, Yudea and Samaria. So that we may become a real blessing for the whole world as it was in the time of the Kingdom of HaMeleg David. Yes, real Teshuva and Study our Source: The Torah. The Sifri (a treatise on the derivation of Torah law from the exegesis of the verses of Numbers and Deuteronomy, written during the time of the Mishnah by Rav) says, "The Jewish people were commanded three mitzvos upon entering Israel: appointing for them-selves a king, building themselves a Sanctuary and wiping out the descendants of Amalek."
Look Click: https://fb.watch/r0HhSftzj1/
Shemot (Exodus) - Chapter 25
8And they shall make Me a sanctuary and I will dwell in their midst חוְעָ֥שׂוּ לִ֖י מִקְדָּ֑שׁ וְשָֽׁכַנְתִּ֖י בְּתוֹכָֽם: And they shall make Me a sanctuary: And they shall make in My name a house of sanctity. וְעָשׂוּ לִי מִקְדָּשׁ: וְעָשׂוּ לִשְׁמִי בֵּית קְדֻשָּׁה: 9according to all that I show you, the pattern of the Mishkan and the pattern of all its vessels; and so shall you do. טכְּכֹ֗ל אֲשֶׁ֤ר אֲנִי֙ מַרְאֶ֣ה אֽוֹתְךָ֔ אֵ֚ת תַּבְנִ֣ית הַמִּשְׁכָּ֔ן וְאֵ֖ת תַּבְנִ֣ית כָּל־כֵּלָ֑יו וְכֵ֖ן תַּֽעֲשֽׂוּ: according to all that I show you: here, the pattern of the Mishkan. This verse is connected to the verse above it: “And they shall make Me a sanctuary…” according to all that I show you. כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מַרְאֶה אֽוֹתְךָ: כָּאן את תבנית המשכן, הַמִּקְרָא הַזֶּה מְחֻבָּר לַמִּקְרָא שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה הֵימֶנּוּ וְעָשׂוּ לִי מִקְדָּשׁ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מַרְאֶה אוֹתְךָ:
Eretz Yisrael in Jewish Scriptures Click: 
אבינו בשמים,
מבצר סלע וגואל ישראל -
לברך את מדינת ישראל,
הנבטה הראשונית של גאולתנו.
Our father in Shamayim (Heaven),
Rock-fortress and redeemer of Yisra’el —
bless the State of Israel,
the initial sprouting of our redemption.
Source (Hebrew) Translation (English)
The Tefilah l’Shalom Medinat Yisra’el (“Prayer for the Welfare of the State of Israel”) was composed by Rabbi Yitsḥak haLevi Hertzog (1888-1959), edited by Shmuel Yosef (S.Y.) Agnon (1888-1970), and first published in the newspaper Ha-Tsofeh on 20 September 1948.
This prayer was instituted at the time by the Chief Rabbis of Israel, Rabbi Hertzog and Rabbi Ben Tsiyon Meir Ḥai Uziel. According to the custom of the Ashkenazic communities, the time for reciting the prayer was set between the end of the Torah reading and the haftara for the return of the Torah scroll to its place in the Holy Ark. In Sephardic communities, it is customary to recite the prayer at the time of the removal of the Torah scroll from the Holy Ark. (At this point in prayer, it was customary the prayer “Hanoten Tshuah”, blessing the ruler of the state and their immediate family.)
Because the State of Israel is referred to as “the beginning of the sprouting/growth of our redemption,” the prayer was not universally accepted. This expression, and the reservations about the state in general, are some of the reasons why non-Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews do not recite it in their synagogues. In fact, the recitation of this prayer and, to a lesser extent, the prayer for the safety of IDF soldiers, became one of the main differences between prayer in Ḥaredi synagogues and prayers in National Religious Zionist synagogues in Israel and in the Diaspora.
מי שברך לחיילי צה״ל | Mi sheBerakh for the Welfare of Israel Defense Forces Soldiers, by Rabbi Shlomo Goren (1956); amended by Dr. Alex Sinclair (2012)
| 8And they shall make Me a sanctuary and I will dwell in their midst | חוְעָ֥שׂוּ לִ֖י מִקְדָּ֑שׁ וְשָֽׁכַנְתִּ֖י בְּתוֹכָֽם: | |
| And they shall make Me a sanctuary: And they shall make in My name a house of sanctity. | וְעָשׂוּ לִי מִקְדָּשׁ: וְעָשׂוּ לִשְׁמִי בֵּית קְדֻשָּׁה: | |
| 9according to all that I show you, the pattern of the Mishkan and the pattern of all its vessels; and so shall you do. | טכְּכֹ֗ל אֲשֶׁ֤ר אֲנִי֙ מַרְאֶ֣ה אֽוֹתְךָ֔ אֵ֚ת תַּבְנִ֣ית הַמִּשְׁכָּ֔ן וְאֵ֖ת תַּבְנִ֣ית כָּל־כֵּלָ֑יו וְכֵ֖ן תַּֽעֲשֽׂוּ: | |
| according to all that I show you: here, the pattern of the Mishkan. This verse is connected to the verse above it: “And they shall make Me a sanctuary…” according to all that I show you. | כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מַרְאֶה אֽוֹתְךָ: כָּאן את תבנית המשכן, הַמִּקְרָא הַזֶּה מְחֻבָּר לַמִּקְרָא שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה הֵימֶנּוּ וְעָשׂוּ לִי מִקְדָּשׁ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מַרְאֶה אוֹתְךָ: |
אבינו בשמים, מבצר סלע וגואל ישראל - לברך את מדינת ישראל, הנבטה הראשונית של גאולתנו. | Our father in Shamayim (Heaven), Rock-fortress and redeemer of Yisra’el — bless the State of Israel, the initial sprouting of our redemption. |
| Source (Hebrew) | Translation (English) |
|---|
The Tefilah l’Shalom Medinat Yisra’el (“Prayer for the Welfare of the State of Israel”) was composed by Rabbi Yitsḥak haLevi Hertzog (1888-1959), edited by Shmuel Yosef (S.Y.) Agnon (1888-1970), and first published in the newspaper Ha-Tsofeh on 20 September 1948.
This prayer was instituted at the time by the Chief Rabbis of Israel, Rabbi Hertzog and Rabbi Ben Tsiyon Meir Ḥai Uziel. According to the custom of the Ashkenazic communities, the time for reciting the prayer was set between the end of the Torah reading and the haftara for the return of the Torah scroll to its place in the Holy Ark. In Sephardic communities, it is customary to recite the prayer at the time of the removal of the Torah scroll from the Holy Ark. (At this point in prayer, it was customary the prayer “Hanoten Tshuah”, blessing the ruler of the state and their immediate family.)
Because the State of Israel is referred to as “the beginning of the sprouting/growth of our redemption,” the prayer was not universally accepted. This expression, and the reservations about the state in general, are some of the reasons why non-Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews do not recite it in their synagogues. In fact, the recitation of this prayer and, to a lesser extent, the prayer for the safety of IDF soldiers, became one of the main differences between prayer in Ḥaredi synagogues and prayers in National Religious Zionist synagogues in Israel and in the Diaspora.
Source (Hebrew) Translation (English)
In recent months, thanks to the combination of cell phone cameras and YouTube, we’ve witnessed Israel Defense Force soldiers acting in deeply troubling ways. We’ve seen soldiers standing by while a civilian shoots live ammunition at Palestinian protesters, we saw Lt. Col. Shaul Eisner assault an unarmed Danish civilian with the butt of a rifle, and, before that, the killing at close range of Mustafa Tamimi, a protester in the Palestinian village Nebi Saleh. Many of these occurrences are regularly reported in Haaretz, but they don’t find their way as often, or as prominently, into other media outlets.
The most generous explanation for this phenomenon is that individuals, in a series of isolated incidents, fail to uphold the IDF code of conduct. More sobering explanations point to a widespread culture in the IDF whereby such conduct is tolerated and routine. Indeed, when the Eisner case was reported, the most shocking aspect of the YouTube video was the utter indifference to Eisner’s act by the six or seven other soldiers milling around. What we saw as a horrific, unforgiveable, outrage, they saw as boring and un-noteworthy.
I was on the receiving end of such an incident last year, while I was observing a non-violent demonstration against the occupation in the West Bank, and got caught up in tear gas that was fired indiscriminately at women, children, and observers. Since then, I’ve found it hard to say the prayer for the IDF that appears in all Israeli prayer books, and which my community, like most synagogues in Israel, reads aloud every Shabbat.
The prayer, written by Rabbi Shlomo Goren in the early years of the state, does not, to my mind, adequately respond to the ethical challenges that IDF soldiers face in exercising power over civilian communities, where things are much more complicated than state-against-state war.
But our response to troubling issues cannot simply to be cease from engagement with the issue. That’s true if the troubling issue is, say, Eishet Ḥayil (the poem traditionally sung by a husband to a wife on Friday night; while parts of it are beautiful, parts of it are also rather sexist); and it is also true if the troubling issue is inappropriate use of force by the IDF.
As engaged Jews who love the Jewish tradition but are troubled by particular aspects of it, my wife and I sing an amended version of Eishet Ḥayil on Friday nights. In doing this, we join countless other Jews who try to develop an active relationship with liturgy that more closely reflects their values.
As engaged Jewish Zionists, the time has come to do the same with the prayer for the IDF. Above is my suggested amendation. The text is the regular version of the prayer as found in the popular Rinat Israel siddur. The middle section is my suggested addition.
The Biblical verse quoted is from the story of Sodom and Gemorrah, where Abraham berates God for seeking to harm innocent people along with the wicked. To my mind, it’s an extremely appropriate analogy to much of what goes on today: there are wicked people out there who seek to harm us, and it’s good that the army protects us from them. But all too often, some soldiers (and some Israelis in general) don’t do enough to distinguish between those who are genuinely evil, and innocent people (including Palestinians, left-wing Israelis, and internationals) who are legitimately protesting the occupation. Amending the prayer for the IDF is one way to raise awareness about that uncomfortable fact, and begin a public, Jewish, Zionist conversation about it.
| Source (Hebrew) | Translation (English) |
|---|---|
In recent months, thanks to the combination of cell phone cameras and YouTube, we’ve witnessed Israel Defense Force soldiers acting in deeply troubling ways. We’ve seen soldiers standing by while a civilian shoots live ammunition at Palestinian protesters, we saw Lt. Col. Shaul Eisner assault an unarmed Danish civilian with the butt of a rifle, and, before that, the killing at close range of Mustafa Tamimi, a protester in the Palestinian village Nebi Saleh. Many of these occurrences are regularly reported in Haaretz, but they don’t find their way as often, or as prominently, into other media outlets.
The most generous explanation for this phenomenon is that individuals, in a series of isolated incidents, fail to uphold the IDF code of conduct. More sobering explanations point to a widespread culture in the IDF whereby such conduct is tolerated and routine. Indeed, when the Eisner case was reported, the most shocking aspect of the YouTube video was the utter indifference to Eisner’s act by the six or seven other soldiers milling around. What we saw as a horrific, unforgiveable, outrage, they saw as boring and un-noteworthy.
I was on the receiving end of such an incident last year, while I was observing a non-violent demonstration against the occupation in the West Bank, and got caught up in tear gas that was fired indiscriminately at women, children, and observers. Since then, I’ve found it hard to say the prayer for the IDF that appears in all Israeli prayer books, and which my community, like most synagogues in Israel, reads aloud every Shabbat.
The prayer, written by Rabbi Shlomo Goren in the early years of the state, does not, to my mind, adequately respond to the ethical challenges that IDF soldiers face in exercising power over civilian communities, where things are much more complicated than state-against-state war.
But our response to troubling issues cannot simply to be cease from engagement with the issue. That’s true if the troubling issue is, say, Eishet Ḥayil (the poem traditionally sung by a husband to a wife on Friday night; while parts of it are beautiful, parts of it are also rather sexist); and it is also true if the troubling issue is inappropriate use of force by the IDF.
As engaged Jews who love the Jewish tradition but are troubled by particular aspects of it, my wife and I sing an amended version of Eishet Ḥayil on Friday nights. In doing this, we join countless other Jews who try to develop an active relationship with liturgy that more closely reflects their values.
As engaged Jewish Zionists, the time has come to do the same with the prayer for the IDF. Above is my suggested amendation. The text is the regular version of the prayer as found in the popular Rinat Israel siddur. The middle section is my suggested addition.
The Biblical verse quoted is from the story of Sodom and Gemorrah, where Abraham berates God for seeking to harm innocent people along with the wicked. To my mind, it’s an extremely appropriate analogy to much of what goes on today: there are wicked people out there who seek to harm us, and it’s good that the army protects us from them. But all too often, some soldiers (and some Israelis in general) don’t do enough to distinguish between those who are genuinely evil, and innocent people (including Palestinians, left-wing Israelis, and internationals) who are legitimately protesting the occupation. Amending the prayer for the IDF is one way to raise awareness about that uncomfortable fact, and begin a public, Jewish, Zionist conversation about it.
תְּפִלָּה לְפִדְיוֹן שְׁבוּיִם | Prayer for the Redemption of Israelis Taken Captive [during the war begun on Shemini Atseret 5784], by Rabbi Ofer Sabath Beit Halachmi (2023)
Source (Hebrew) Translation (English)
| Source (Hebrew) | Translation (English) |
|---|---|
This prayer for the liberation of abducted Israeli citizens and military personnel was offered by Rabbi Ofer Sabath Beit Halachmi in response to the war initiated by Hamas from Gaza on Shemini Atseret 5784. The English translation was prepared by Rabbi Dr. Rachel Sabath Beit Halachmi.
Vayigash: Yosef’s Endowment to the Jewish People
Likkutei Sichos, Volume 5, Vayigash 2
Introduction
*Generally, when speaking about the progressive development of Chabad chassidic thought, the emphasis is placed on transforming the Baal Shem Tov’s lofty spiritual inspiration into a message which could be understood intellectually by wider audiences and internalized within their conduct. The Alter Rebbe brought about the transition of the fiery truths taught by the Baal Shem Tov into a form that would resonate within a person’s mind and logic. Each successive Rebbe continued the process, offering examples, metaphors, and explanations that provide conceptual “handles” that enable the ideas to be grasped and comprehended more thoroughly.
There was, however, a further and more comprehensive dimension to each of the Rebbeim’s contributions. Not only did they facilitate the understanding of the ideas, they also expanded the conceptual frontiers of Chassidism, providing explanations of loftier levels of G‑dliness and elucidating in a more encompassing manner the unity between G‑d and the world.
Two further points: For the Rebbeim, it was axiomatic that every advance in haskalah, the comprehension of G‑dliness, find expression in avodah, a Jew’s Divine service. And since ahavas Yisrael, the love of one’s fellow Jew, is fundamental to Judaism – and particularly to Chassidism – it follows that these steps forward in understanding and serving G‑d should also lead to a more encompassing bond with one’s fellow Jew.
The sichah to follow serves as a paradigm, exemplifying how the Rebbe gave expression to the above motifs. Because of the length of the sichah and the difficulty of some of the concepts, summaries were added at the end of every section to facilitate its comprehension.
Why the Jewish People are Called Yosef
The Zohar states an axiom,1 “There is no word in the Torah that does not possess sublime and holy mystic secrets and paths of conduct for men to fortify themselves thereby.” Motivated by that rationale, the Torah relates many details concerning the story of Yosef and his brothers. As part of this narrative, the Torah also relates that Yosef provided sustenance for his brothers and their households, as it is written,2 “And Yosef nurtured... his brothers... granting them bread according to the needs of their children.”
The concept that Yosef provided nurture for his brothers and their families is so important that, as the commentaries to the following verse explain,3 as a result, the Jews as a people are referred to by the name Yosef for all time, as it is written,4 “He leads Yosef like sheep.”
אצווישן די ענינים וואָס תורה דערציילט וועגן יוסף און זיינע ברידער [וואָס דער טעם אויף דער תורה׳ס דערציילן "כל הני מילי" איז ווייל "לית לך מלה באורייתא דלאו אית בה רזין עילאין וקדישין וארחין לבני נשא לאתתקפא בהו"87], ווערט אויך דערציילט אַז יוסף האָט געשפּייזט די ברידער מיט זייערע בני־בית – "ויכלכל יוסף גו׳ את אחיו גו׳ לחם לפי הטף"88. און אָט דער ענין וואָס יוסף האָט זיי געשפּייזט איז אַזוי וויכטיק, ביז אַז אידן בכלל ווערן אָנגערופן אויף שטענדיק מיטן נאָמען "יוסף״, ווי מפרשים טייטשן עס אין פּסוק89 "נוהג כצאן יוסף".
Explanation is required: The Torah calls a person by a particular name because it expresses that person’s inner character.5 Every name reflects not only specific events that transpired in that person’s life, but also conveys his true nature, i.e., who he truly is.
דאַרף מען פאַרשטיין: ווען תורה רופט אימעצן אָן מיט אַ געוויסן נאָמען, איז עס מצד דעם וואָס יענער נאָמען דריקט אויס דעם תוכן פון דעם גערופענעם מיטן באַטרעפנדן נאָמען90. ד.ה. אַז יענער נאָמען ווייזט און שטעלט פאָר [ניט בלויז געוויסע מאורעות וואָס האָבן פּאַסירט מיטן בעל השם, נאָר אויך] זיין תוכן אמתי.
The question thus arises: Why are the Jewish people called with the name Yosef for all time because Yosef nurtured them in Egypt during the few years of famine? This episode is seemingly a secondary, peripheral matter that is not associated with the essence of the Jewish people. It took place many years ago and lasted only a very short time in the span of our national history.6
איז ניט מובן: הלמאי זאָלן אידן אָנגערופן ווערן (און שטענדיק) מיטן נאָמען "יוסף" דערפאַר וואָס יוסף האָט זיי געשפּייזט אין מצרים בשני הרעב, בעת אַז אָט־די פּאַסירונג איז לכאורה בלויז אַ זייטיקער ענין וואָס איז ניט פאַרבונדן מיטן מהות פון אידן. ובפרט, אַז אָט־דער מאורע איז געשען מיט פיל יאָרן צוריק און בלויז במשך פון אַ גאָר קורצע צייט?
Moreover, even if one will find an explanation that Yosef’s nurturing his brothers during the time of famine is associated with the true nature of the Jewish people and, furthermore, associated with them for all time,7 there is still a conceptual difficulty:
אַפילו אויב מען זאָל געפינען אַ הסברה, אַז דער "ויכלכל גו׳" וואָס יוסף האָט מפרנס געווען די שבטים בשני הרעב, איז יע פאַרבונדן מיטן תוכן אמתי פון אידן און – בכל הזמנים91, איז נאָך אַלץ ניט מובן:
When we say that a name reflects the inner nature of an entity, the intent is not that the name communicates factors that result from the nature the name expresses, but that the name itself expresses the nature of the named entity. This does not seem to apply with regard to the name Yosef, for although Yosef sustained the Jewish people, he was not their sustenance. Therefore, even if one were to say that this sustenance is associated with the inner nature of the Jewish people, it is not appropriate to call the Jews Yosef, when only their sustenance came via Yosef, but was not itself Yosef.
Summary
At times, the entire Jewish people are called Yosef, as in the verse, “He leads Yosef like sheep.” They are referred to in this manner because Yosef provided sustenance for his brothers and their households during the famine in Egypt. This requires explanation, because a name does not only reflect specific events that happened to a person or a people, but also his or their true nature.
אָט דאָס וואָס אַ נאָמען באַווייזט אויפן תוכן פון דער זאַך וואָס ווערט גערופן מיטן נאָמען, מיינט דאָך, אַז דער תוכן ווערט אויסגעדריקט [ניט אין ענינים וואָס קומען אַרויס פונעם תוכן וואָס דער נאָמען טראָגט אין זיך, נאָר] אין דעם נאָמען גופא מיט וועלכן די זאַך ווערט גערופן;
אָבער בנוגע דעם שם "יוסף" איז לכאורה ניט שייך אַזוי צו זאָגן: יוסף איז דאָך געווען בלויז דער וואָס האָט מפרנס געווען די אידן, אָבער ניט אַז ער גופא איז געווען זייער פּרנסה. במילא – אַפילו אויב מען וועט אָננעמען אַז אָט־די פּרנסה איז פאַרבונדן מיטן מהות פון אידן – פּאַסט נאָך אַלץ ניט צו אָנרופן אידן מיטן נאָמען יוסף, בשעת אַז זייער פּרנסה איז [בלויז געקומען פון יוסף׳ן אָבער זי איז] ניט יוסף?
Everlasting Truth
Selections from Likkutei Sichos - Bereishit (SIE)
The above matters can be resolved by prefacing the inner meaning of the concept of the eternality of the Torah. The intent is not merely that the mitzvos of the Torah (given by G‑d at Sinai) were commanded at that time to be observed as required for all time without change, neither adding to nor detracting from them.8 Instead, the intent is that the commandments themselves are everlasting, i.e., these mitzvos are all currently being commanded.9 This is the intent of the phrases: “The word of our G‑d will endure forever,”10 and “His words are living and enduring... forever.”11 G‑d’s speech (which is recorded in the Torah)12 is eternal and endures forever.13
בוועט מען עס פאַרשטיין, בהקדים דעם פּירוש הפּנימי אין "נצחיות התורה", אַז דאָס באַשטייט ניט נאָר אין דעם וואָס די מצות התורה (וועלכע דער אויבערשטער האָט געגעבן ביי מ״ת) זיינען ציוויים בזמנם אויף מקיים זיין זיי שטענדיק "לעולם ולעולמי עולמים" און אַז אין זיי וועט קיינמאָל ניט זיין קיין שינוי גרעון און תוספות92, נאָר אויך – אַז די ציוויים גופא זיינען שטענדיק פאַראַן93. וואָס דאָס איז דער פּירוש פון "ודבר אלקינו יקום לעולם״94 און "ודבריו חיים וקיימים לעד"95, אַז די רייד פון אויבערשטן (וואָס שטייען אין תורה96) זיינען זיי גופא "לעולם" און "לעד"97.
This is the inner reason why the mitzvos of the Torah will never be changed. Since “The word of our G‑d will endure forever,” and “His words are living and enduring... forever,” therefore, “He will not change14... or modify His creed forever.”15
Summary
It is possible to understand why the Jewish people as a whole are referred to as Yosef on the basis of the idea that the Torah’s truths are eternal, existing as ongoing spiritual reality.
און דאָס גופא איז דער טעם הפּנימי וואָס די מצות התורה וועלן קיין מאָל ניט געביטן ווערן ח״ו: וויבאַלד אַז "ודבר אלקינו יקום לעולם ודבריו חיים וקיימים לעד", איז דאָך במילא "לא יחליף98 ולא ימיר דתו לעולמים"99.
On Two Planes Simultaneously
Just as the mitzvos of the Torah are eternal, so too, the stories of the Torah are timeless. Their eternality is not only expressed in the fact that they contain lessons that can and must be derived by every Jew in every generation. Instead, the very fact that the stories contain continuously relevant lessons comes about because these stories themselves – as they exist in the spiritual sphere – are ongoing.16
גפּונקט ווי דאָס איז בנוגע די מצות התורה, אַזוי איז עס אויך בנוגע די סיפּורים פון תורה, אַז זייער נצחיות באַשטייט ניט בלויז אין דעם וואָס זיי אַנטהאַלטן אין זיך הוראות וואָס יעדער איד, בכל דור ודור, קען און דאַרף אָפּלערנען פון זיי, נאָר (אויך) לאידך גיסא: אָט דאָס וואָס די סיפּורים אַנטהאַלטן אין זיך שטענדיקע הוראות, אין עס מצד דעם וואָס זיי, די סיפּורים גופא – ווי זיי זיינען ברוחניות הענינים100, זיינען דאָ שטענדיק.
Similarly, in every generation, all Jews need to learn lessons from the story of Yosef providing food for the Jewish people. This includes the fundamental17 lesson reflected in the Zohar’s insight cited by the Alter Rebbe in Tanya,18 that Yosef showered goodness upon his brothers19 despite all they had done to him. Similarly, every person should act in a like manner, emulating his example, not only not retaliating against a person who did him harm, but to “repay those who are culpable with goodness.”20
און אַזוי איז עס אויך בנוגע דעם סיפּור הנ״ל, ״ויכלכל יוסף גו׳ את אחיו גו׳": אָט דאָס וואָס בכל דור ודור דאַרף יעדער איד זיך אָפּלערנען פון אים געוויסע הוראות
– כולל, כמובן, די הוראה (עיקרית101) וואָס דער אַלטער רבי ברענגט אין תניאטו* פון זהר, אַז כשם ווי יוסף האָט געטאָן גוטס מיט זיינע ברידער טראָץ דעם אַלעם וואָס זיי האָבן געטאָן צו אים102, אַזוי דאַרף יעדער איינער זיך פירן מיט די וואָס באַגייען אַנטקעגן אים אַן עולה, אַז ניט נאָר זאָל ער זיי ניט אָפּצאָלן כפעלם ח״ו, נאָר אַדרבה ״לגמול לחייבים טובות״ –
Since the fact that Yosef sustained his brothers during the famine remains an ongoing factor in the spiritual realms, the lessons to be derived from that story are continually relevant.
Summary
The eternity of the Torah applies not only regarding the mitzvos of the Torah, but also regarding its stories. Accordingly, Yosef’s sustaining his brothers during the famine remains an ongoing factor in the spiritual realms. As a result, the lessons to be derived from that story – including the primary lesson, that one should “repay those who are culpable with goodness” – are continually relevant.
איז עס מצד דעם וואָס דער "ויכלכל יוסף גו׳״ – ווי עס איז ברוחניות הענינים, קומט פאָר שטענדיק.
Generosity Beyond the Measure of the Law
Another point must be mentioned with regard to the lessons and directives derived from the Torah. Whenever we derive a law or directive from a particular Torah concept, the context is also significant. Nothing concerning the Torah is merely coincidental. On the contrary, everything is extremely precise. Therefore, the fact that the Torah has ordained that a particular law or directive be derived from a particular matter is proof that this matter is its rationale or source.
דנאָך אַן ענין בנוגע צו די לימודים און הוראות פון תורה:
ווען מען לערנט אָפּ אַ דין צי אַ הוראה פון אַ געוויסן ענין בתורה – וויבאַלד אַז קיינע ענינים פון תורה זיינען ניט באקראי ח״ו נאָר ב(תכלית ה)דיוק – איז פון דעם וואָס תורה האָט אויסגעשטעלט אַז דעם דין אָדער די הוראה זאָל מען אָפּלערנען פון דעם ענין, איז אַ ראי׳ אַז אָט דער ענין בתורה איז דער טעם אָדער מקור וואָס פון אים לערנט מען אָפּ דעם דין און הוראה.
To apply this to the subject at hand, there are two insights gleaned from the fact that the Torah ordained that the concept of “repaying those who are culpable with goodness” is derived from a) Yosef, and b) his efforts to sustain his brothers during the years of famine:
ובנוגע לענינינו: פון דעם וואָס תורה האָט אויסגעשטעלט אַז די הוראה "לגמול לחייבים טובות" זאָל מען אָפּלערנען (א) פון יוסף׳ן, און (ב) פון דעם וואָס ער האָט געשפּייזט זיינע ברידער בשני הרעב, איז געדרונגען:
a) The potential for every Jew to “repay those who are culpable with goodness” is granted to him by Yosef.21 This attribute is identified with Yosef, and every Jew is able to emulate such conduct because of the influence Yosef grants him.22
(א) אַז דאָס וואָס יעדער איד קען זיך פירן אין דער הנהגה ״לגמול לחייבים טובות", באַקומט ער דעם כח דערויף פון יוסף׳ן. ד.ה. אַז די הנהגה "לגמול לחייבים טובות" איז ענינו של יוסףטז*, און דאָס וואָס די הנהגה קען זיין ביי יעדער אידן קומט עס דערפון וואָס יוסף איז אין זיי משפּיע זיינעם אַן ענין103.
b) The potential Yosef grants was conveyed by sustaining the Jewish people in the years of famine. By providing nurture to his brothers, he granted them (not only food in a material sense, but also) his own positive potential and spiritual quality.23 This empowered them (and their descendants in all the generations to come) to sustain other Jews in the manner that Yosef did, to “repay those who are culpable with goodness.”
(ב) אַז דער נתינת כח הנ״ל איז געקומען דורך דעם וואָס יוסף האָט געשפּייזט די אידן בשני הרעב: מיטן ״ויכלכל יוסף גו׳ את אחיו גו׳״ – האָט ער זיי געגעבן (ניט בלויז דעם גשמיות׳דיקן מזון, נאָר אויך) דעם כח ומדה טובה104, אַז אויך זיי (און זייערע קינדער וכו׳ בכל הדורות) זאָלן קענען מכלכל זיין אידן אין דעם אופן ווי ער האָט עס געטאָן – לגמול לחייבים טובות.
On this basis, we can appreciate why Jews are referred to by the name Yosef for all time, because he sustained and nurtured them during the years of famine. The positive attribute of “repaying those who are culpable with goodness” is a fundamental quality which relates to the very nature of the Jews, as will be explained below.24 Since this attribute is identified with Yosef and is drawn down to every Jew because Yosef is continuously nurturing his brothers,25 the Jewish people as a whole are called Yosef.
ועפּ״ז וועט זיין פאַרשטאַנדיק וואָס אידן ווערן שטענדיק אָנגערופן מיטן נאָמען "יוסף" דערפאַר וואָס "הוא פּרנסם וכלכלם בשני הרעב״ – ווייל די מדה טובה "לגמול לחייבים טובות" איז אַן ענין עיקרי וואָס איז נוגע צום מהות פון אידן (כדלקמן סעיף יג), און היות אַז די מדה איז ענינו של יוסף (וואָס ווערט נשפּע צו אַלע אידן, דורך דעם שטענדיקן "ויכלכל יוסף גו׳ את אחיו") דעריבער ווערן זיי אָנגערופן – יוסף.
True, the fact that the primary names for the Jewish people are Yisrael and Yaakov indicates that their principal qualities stem from receiving their influence from the attributes associated with these names.26 Nevertheless, there are several qualities that express the nature of a Jew, among them the fundamental quality of nurturing others as Yosef did. In the verse, “He leads Yosef like sheep,” the relevant feature is the quality the Jews receive from Yosef.
Summary
The potential for every Jew to “repay those who are culpable with goodness” is granted to him by Yosef. By providing nurture to the Jewish people in the years of famine, Yosef also endowed them with his own positive spiritual quality, the potential to “repay those who are culpable with goodness.” This is a fundamental quality which relates to the very nature of the Jews. Since this attribute is identified with Yosef and is drawn down to every Jew through him, the Jewish people as a whole are called by his name.
ואע״פּ אַז פון דעם וואָס בעיקר ווערן אידן גערופן "ישראל" אָדער "יעקב", איז מוכח אַז ענינם העיקרי איז פאַרבונדן דערמיט וואָס זיי זיינען מקבל ענינו של ישראל ויעקב105 – זיינען דאָך אָבער פאַראַן כמה ענינים וועלכע קומען און דריקן אויס דעם מהות פון אידן, און אין דעם פּסוק "נוהג כצאן יוסף" איז נוגע דער ענין וואָס זיי זיינען מקבל פון יוסף׳ן.
A Perplexing Midrash
Further explanation to the above, can be gained by prefacing the interpretation of the Midrash on the verse, “He leads Yosef like sheep.” (Not only is the intent of the verse that G‑d leads the Jewish people, who are called Yosef, but also that) G‑d should relate to the Jewish people in the manner exemplified by Yosef. To quote the Midrash:27
הכל הנ״ל ביתר ביאור, וועט מען פאַרשטיין בהקדים וואָס עס שטייט אין מדרש106 אויפן פּסוק הנ״ל "נוהג כצאן יוסף", אַז מיט די ווערטער מיינט דער פסוק (ניט בלויז אַז דער אויבערשטער פירט [אידן וואָס הייסן] "יוסף", נאָר) אַז דער אויבערשטער זאָל מיט זיי, די אידן, זיך פירן ווי יוסף.
Yosef assembled grain from the years of plenty for the years of famine; so too, G‑d collect our deeds for us from the life of this world to the life of the World to Come.28
Just as Yosef sustained each person according to his deeds, as it is written,29 “And Yosef sustained his father...”; so too, sustain us according to our deeds.
Rabbi Menachem said in the name of Rabbi Avin: “Just as Yosef acted generously with his brothers although they acted wrongly toward him, so too, although we have acted wrongly toward You, act generously toward us.”
וז״ל המדרש: יוסף כנס משנות השבע לשנות הרעב, אף אנו כנס לנו מחיי העולם הזה לחיי העוה״ב; מה יוסף כלכל כל אחד לפי מעשיו שנאמר ויכלכל יוסף את אביו107, אף אנו כלכלנו לפי מעשינו. אמר ר׳ מנחם בשם ר׳ אבין מה יוסף גמלוהו אחיו רעה והוא גמלם טובה, אף אנו גמלנוך רעה גמול אותנו טובות.
This passage raises several questions:
דאַרף מען אין דעם פאַרשטיין:
a) It is obvious that had not Yosef assembled and protected the grain that grew in the years of plenty so that it would remain intact in the years of famine – as it is written,30 “And he gathered all the food of the seven years... and collected the grain….” – it would have been lost entirely and no one would have been able to benefit from it. However, with regard to the good deeds that the Jewish people perform in this world, it is seemingly impossible to say that they will be lost, for good deeds are eternal. Why, then, is it necessary for G‑d to “collect our deeds for us from the life of this world to the life of the World to Come” when our good deeds would continue to exist in the World to Come in any event?
א) בנוגע דעם מזון וואָס יוסף האָט צונויפגעזאַמלט בשנות השבע בכדי ער זאָל גאַנץ זיין בשנות הרעב, איז פאַרשטאנדיק אַז עס האָט געדאַרפט זיין דער "ויקבוץ את כל אוכל שבע שנים גו' ויצבור גו' "108, ווייל ווען יוסף וואָלט די תבואה ניט צוזאַמענגעקליבן און זי ניט געהיט, וואָלט זי פאַרלוירן געגאַנגען און מ׳וואָלט פון איר שפּעטער קיין נוצן ניט געהאַט; אָבער בנוגע צו מעשים־טובים וואָס אידן טוען בעוה״ז, איז דאָך לכאורה ניט שייך אַז זיי זאָלן פאַרלוירן גיין. היינט וואָס איז די בקשה "כנס לנו מחיי העוה״ז לחיי העוה״ב" – צוליב וואָס פאָדערט זיך דאָ אַ צונויפזאַמלונג?
b) Our Sages describe our world as an “antechamber,” and the World to Come as “the hall.”31In this analogy, it appears that this world is described as “the years of plenty” and the World to Come as “the years of famine.” On the contrary, this world is merely “an antechamber” to the World to Come.
ב) עולם הזה און עולם הבא זיינען געגליכן צו אַ "פּרוזדור" און אַ "טרקלין"109. היינט ווי קען מען פאַרגלייכן עוה״ז צו "שנות השבע" און עוה״ב צו ״שנות הרעב״ – אדרבה, עוה״ז איז "דומה לפּרוזדור בפני העוה״ב״?
c) Yosef’s greatness is – as this Midrash itself quotes Rabbi Menachem in the name of Rabbi Avin – that he acted generously with his brothers despite the fact that they acted wrongly toward him. Thus, Yosef did not “sustain them according to their deeds.” Why then does the Midrash use the expression that Yosef “sustained them according to their deeds,” (instead of more accurately saying that he sustained them “according to their needs”)?
ג) די גדלות פון יוסף אין "ויכלכל גו׳" איז דאָך באַשטאַנען (ווי ר׳ מנחם זאָגט אין דעם מדרש גופא בשם ר׳ אבין) אין דעם וואָס ער האָט מיט די ברידער גומל טוב געווען טראָץ דעם וואם "גמלוהו אחיו רעה", הייסט עס דאָך, אַז ער האָט זיך געפירט מיט זיי ניט לפי זייערע מעשים. ווי־זשע זאָגט פריער דער מדרש "כלכל כל אחד לפי מעשיו" (ניט "לפי צרכיו" וכיו״ב)?
d) Were we to ask G‑d to overlook our undesirable deeds, we could appreciate that this is requesting something out of the ordinary.32 However, “sustaining us according to our deeds,” does not appear as a novelty, that G‑d would be acting in an extraordinary manner. On the contrary, simple fairness and justice require that everyone be requited according to his deeds. What is the necessity for a special request that G‑d “sustain us according to our deeds,” and why must we reinforce this request by citing Yosef’s example?
Summary
Further explanation to the above, can be gained from the explanation of the comments of the Midrash on the verse, “He leads Yosef like sheep”:
Yosef assembled grain from the years of plenty for the years of famine; so too, G‑d collect our deeds for us from the life of this world to the life of the World to Come. Just as Yosef sustained each person according to his deeds… so too, sustain us according to our deeds.
Rabbi Menachem said in the name of Rabbi Avin: “Just as Yosef acted generously with his brothers although they acted wrongly toward him, so too, although we have acted wrongly toward You, act generously toward us.”
This passage raises several questions:
a) It is seemingly impossible to say that the good deeds the Jewish people perform in this world will be lost. Why, then, is it necessary for G‑d to “collect our deeds for us from the life of this world to the life of the World to Come”?
b) Our Sages describe our world as an “antechamber,” and the World to Come as “the hall.” In this analogy, it appears that this world is described as “the years of plenty” and the World to Come as “the years of famine.”
c) Yosef’s greatness is that he acted generously with his brothers despite the fact that they acted wrongly toward him. Thus, Yosef did not “sustain them according to their deeds.” Why then does the Midrash use the expression that Yosef “sustained them according to their deeds”?
d) “Sustaining us according to our deeds” is seemingly required by simple fairness and justice. Why is it necessary for there to be a special request that G‑d do so?
ד) ווען מען בעט דעם אויבערשטן ער זאל פאַרקוקן אויף אונזערע מעשים, איז פאַרשטאַנדיק אַז אין אַזאַ הנהגה איז פאַראַן אַ חידוש. אָבער אין "כלכלנו לפי מעשינו" איז דאָך לכאורה קיין חידוש ניטאָ: אויך מצד שורת הדין דאַרף מען זיך פירן מיט יעדן איינעם לויט זיינע מעשים. וואָס איז די בקשה מיוחדת "כלכלנו לפי מעשינו", און צוליב וואָס דאַרף מען אָנקומען דערביי צו ״מה יוסף גו'״110?
Without Any Other Purpose or Intent
These questions can be resolved through prefacing the explanation of a fundamental concept regarding mitzvos. As mentioned on many occasions, mitzvos are not an intermediary leading to another purpose.33 Instead, their purpose is self-contained; they are themselves the purpose and goal. The Divine will for mitzvos is rooted in G‑d’s Essence itself, as it is said,34 “All of the mitzvos relate to G‑d’s Essence.” And it cannot be said that G‑d’s Essence and will exist for a purpose outside themselves.
ושוין גערעדט פיל מאָל בנוגע צו מצות, אַז זיי זיינען ניט קיין מיטל וואָס פירט צו אַן אַנדער ענין, נאָר דער תכלית איז אין זיי גופא. וואָרום דער רצון אויף מצות איז אין עצמות (וכמאמר111 "כל המצות מתייחסים אל העצמות"), און בנוגע צו עצמות (און זיין רצון) – איז דאָך ניט שייך צו זאָגן וועלכן־עס־איז אַנדערן תכלית ח״ו אויסער אים אַליין;
Based on this concept, the Alter Rebbe explains35 the statement of the Mishnah,36“One hour of teshuvah and good deeds in this world is preferable to the entire life of the World to Come.” The World to Come is the reward given for Divine service (teshuvah and good deeds) performed in this world. Seemingly, the reward should be greater than the service performed to attain it. Indeed, that same Mishnah37 states, “One hour of pleasure in the World to Come is preferable to the entire life of this world.”
וואָס דערמיט איז דער אַלטער רבי מבאר112 דעם מאמר המשנה113 "יפה שעה אחת בתשובה ומעשים טובים בעוה״ז מכל חיי העוה״ב״ – כאָטש עוה״ב איז דער תשלום שכר אויף דער עבודה (תשובה ומע״ט) פון עוה״ז, וואָס דער שכר מוז דאָך לכאורה זיין גרעסער ווי די עבודה, און ווי ער זאָגט אין דער משנה גופא "יפה שעה אחת של קורת רוח בעוה״ב מכל חיי העוה״ז"
The explanation is that the ultimate purpose of man’s creation is not for the sake of man himself but, as the Mishnah states,37 “I was created solely to serve my Creator.” This purpose is achieved through the observance of mitzvos in this world. This alone is the raison d’être for man. Nevertheless, a person who has brought this purpose to fruition generates great pleasure Above. Since “the Holy One, blessed be He, does not withhold reward from any created being,”38 such a person is deserving of unlimited reward. Thus, in the World to Come, a person will receive a revelation of the pleasure that he drew down through the observance of mitzvos in this world.
– ווייל דער תכלית המכוון פון בריאת האדם איז [ניט צוליב דעם מענטשן, נאָר] ווי די משנה114 זאָגט "ואני נבראתי לשמש את קוני". און אָט דער תכלית פירט זיך אויס דורך קיום המצות בעוה״ז; נאָר היות ווי "אין הקב״ה מקפח שכר כל ברי׳"115 קומט דאָך אויך דעם מענטשן (וואָס האָט דורכגעפירט דעם תכלית) אַ "שכר טוב לאין קץ", וועט דעריבער לעוה״ב אָנקומען צום מענטשן אַ גילוי פון דעם תענוג וועלכן ער האָט ממשיך געווען דורך זיין קיום המצות בעוה״ז.
The revelation of this pleasure will be experienced in the World to Come. For this reason, from a person’s perspective, “one hour of pleasure in the World to Come is preferable to the entire life of this world.”36 It is clear, however, that the revelation of this pleasure to a mortal – the reward for the mitzvah – bears no comparison to the essence of the pleasure experienced by G‑d, as it were,that being the essence of the mitzvah performed in this world.
איז בנוגע צום מענטשן, וויבאַלד אַז דער גילוי פון דעם תענוג (צו אים) וועט זיין אין עולם הבא דוקא, דערפאַר זאָגט מען אַז לגבי אים איז "יפה שעה אחת של קורת רוח בעוה״ב מכל חיי העוה״ז"; ס׳איז דאָך אָבער פאַרשטאַנדיק, אַז דער גילוי התענוג (צום מענטשן) – שכר מצוה, האָט ניט קיין ערך צום עצם התענוג (פון אויבערשטן) – די עצם המצוה וואָס מען טוט בעוה״ז.
To restate the concept using different wording:39 The reward for the mitzvah, the World to Come, reflects the pleasure and the satisfaction of a created being, while the pleasure and satisfaction of G‑d, as it were, results from the actual performance of the mitzvos. Since there is no comparison between a created being and the Creator, it is clear that “the entire life of the World to Come,” the satisfaction experienced by mortals, cannot be compared to the “teshuvah and good deeds performed by a Jew in this world,” which bring about the satisfaction experienced by the Creator.
Summary
The above questions can be resolved based on the following preface: Mitzvos are not an intermediary leading to another purpose, because the Divine will for mitzvos is rooted in G‑d’s Essence. It cannot be said that G‑d’s Essence and will exist for a purpose outside themselves.
Based on this concept, the Alter Rebbe explains the statement, “One hour of teshuvah and good deeds in this world is preferable to the entire life of the World to Come.” The World to Come is the reward given for Divine service performed in this world. However, the ultimate purpose of man’s creation is not for the sake of man or the reward he receives, but to serve G‑d, as the Mishnah states, “I was created solely to serve my Creator.” This purpose is achieved through the observance of mitzvos in this world.
This service generates pleasure for G‑d. Since “the Holy One, blessed be He, does not withhold reward from any created being,” in the World to Come, such a person will receive a revelation of the pleasure which he drew down through the observance of mitzvos in this world.
For this reason, from a person’s perspective, “one hour of pleasure in the World to Come is preferable to the entire life of this world.” It is clear, however, that the revelation of this pleasure to a mortal – the reward for the mitzvah – bears no comparison to the essence of the pleasure experienced by G‑d, resulting from the performance of the mitzvah in this world. Therefore, “One hour of teshuvah and good deeds in this world is preferable to the entire life of the World to Come.”
אין אַנדערע ווערטער116: דער שכר מצוה – עולם הבא, איז דער עונג און נח״ר פון דעם נברא, אָבער דער עונג און נח״ר פון דעם אויבערשטן כביכול, איז – דער קיום המצות גופא. און וויבאַלד אַז בין נברא לבורא איז אין ערוך, פאַרשטייט מען אַז "כל חיי העוה״ב" וואו דער נח״ר איז פון נבראים, האָט ניט קיין ערך צו "תשובה ומעשים טובים בעוה״ז" – דער נח״ר פון בורא.
Are We Being Rewarded Justly?
Based on the above, the following points require explanation:
זעפּ״י הנ״ל דאַרף מען אָבער פאַרשטיין:
a) The World to Come represents merely the satisfaction to be experienced by a created being. This cannot at all be compared to the mitzvos themselves, whose observance leads to G‑d’s satisfaction. Hence, it would appear that, by rewarding the Jews with the World to Come, G‑d will not have rewarded them fully for their observance of the mitzvos.
א) וויבאַלד אַז עוה״ב איז בלויז דער נח״ר פון נברא, וואָס איז כלל ניט בערך צו די מצות גופא – נח״ר לבורא, קומט דאָך אויס לכאורה, אַז דערמיט וואָס דער אויבערשטער גיט צו אידן עוה״ב, ווערט ח״ו ניט אָפּגעצאָלט דער פולער שכר פאַר זייער קיום המצות!
b) The fact that the World to Come follows as a continuation of this world indicates that (the matters of this world, including) the intent of the observance of the mitzvos will be consummated only in the World to Come. (As the Alter Rebbe states in Tanya,40“The ultimate goal and the consummation of the creation41 of this world for which it was originally created” is the Era of Mashiach,42 and more particularly, the Era of the Resurrection.) Nevertheless, from the above explanations,43 it appears that the ultimate intent is achieved at present, through the observance of the mitzvos, and receiving the reward in the World to Come is merely a secondary matter (coming only because “the Holy One, blessed be He, does not withhold reward from any created being”), which is seemingly not relevant to the essential intent.
Summary
The statements in the previous section raise several conceptual difficulties, among them:
a) The World to Come represents merely the satisfaction to be experienced by a created being. This cannot at all be compared to the mitzvos themselves which lead to G‑d’s satisfaction. Hence, it would appear that, by rewarding the Jews with the World to Come, G‑d will not have rewarded them fully for their observance of the mitzvos.
b) The fact that the World to Come follows as a continuation of this world indicates that the intent of the observance of the mitzvos will be consummated only in the World to Come. Nevertheless, from the above explanations, it appears that the ultimate intent is achieved at present, through the observance of the mitzvos.
ב) פון דעם גופא וואָס עוה״ב קומט נאָך ובהמשך לעוה״ז, איז משמע אַז די (עניני עוה״ז ובתוכם די) כוונה פון קיום המצות בעוה״ז ווערט נשלם ערשט אין עולם הבא [און ווי דער אַלטער רבי זאָגט אין תניא117, אַז "תכלית ושלימות בריאת118 עוה״ז" וואָס "לכך נברא מתחילתו" איז "ימות המשיח119 ובפרט כשיחיו המתים"]. אָבער ע״פּ הנ״ל (ס״ו) קומט גאָר אויס, אַז דער תכלית המכוון טוט זיך גאָר אויף איצטער בעת׳ן קיום המצות, און קבלת שכר בעוה״ב איז אַ זייטיקער ענין [ווייל "אין הקב״ה מקפח שכר כל ברי' "], וואָס איז ניט נוגע לכאורה צו דער עצם הכוונה?
Mitzvos – A Bond with G‑d’s Essence
These points can be resolved as follows: G‑d’s Essence is not subject to definition; it can neither be described as being concealed or revealed.44 This leads to two logical conclusions:
חאיז דער ביאור אין דעם:
מצד דעם וואָס עצמות איז ניט מוגדר ח״ו אין די גדרים פון "העלם" און "גילוי", קומען אַרויס צוויי ענינים:
a) Through the observance of mitzvos in this physical world – since this observance is the will of G‑d’s Essence – one bonds with, “takes,” as it were, G‑d’s Essence. Although the fact that we are now drawing down G‑d’s Essence into this world is concealed, since He is not defined, Heaven forbid, by concealment or revelation, it is not appropriate to say that the present lack of revelation detracts from His Essence being drawn down through our observance.
א) אַז דורכן קיום המצות בעוה״ז, היות אַז דאָס איז דער רצון העצמות, ״נעמט״ מען אים – "עצמות". ואע״פּ אַז די המשכת העצמות וואָס ווערט אויפגעטאָן איצט בעוה״ז איז בהעלם – וויבאַלד אָבער אַז ער איז ניט מוגדר ח״ו אין העלם וגילוי, איז דאָך ניט שייך צו זאָגן אז אָט־דער העדר הגילוי זאָל זיין אַ גרעון ח״ו אין המשכת העצמות.
On the contrary, precisely for this reason, G‑d’s Essence is drawn down in this world and not in the World to Come. The World to Come is characterized by revelation – and revelation is not a medium to express G‑d’s Essence.45 It is only in a place where the influence is concealed – in our material world – that His Essence can be drawn down. Thus, it is through the observance of mitzvos in this material realm that His Essence is drawn down.46
ואדרבה, מטעם זה איז די המשכת העצמות דוקא אין עוה״ז: עוה״ב, וואָס ענינו איז ״גילוי״ – זיינען "גילויים" קיין "כלים" ניט צו עצמות. נאָר דוקא אין אַן אָרט וואו די המשכה איז בהעלם – אין עוה״ז, איז דורך קיום המצות פאַראַן די המשכת העצמות120.
b) Since G‑d’s Essence is not bound by any limitations, Heaven forbid, we cannot say that the influence from His Essence must remain concealed.47 Certainly, it can come into revelation (although the ordinary channels of revelation bear no comparison to His Essence).48
ב) לאידך גיסא: וויבאַלד עצמות איז ניט מוגדר אין קיין שום הגדרות ח״ו, קען מען דאָך ניט זאָגן אַז ער מוז שטיין דוקא בהעלם, און ער קען אַוודאי קומען אויך בגילוי (כאָטש גילויים זיינען ניט בערך צו עצמות).
On this basis, we can appreciate how the World to Come can serve as a full reward for the Jews’ observance of the mitzvos in this world. In the World to Come, there will be revealed not only the revealed levels of G‑dliness – which lead to the satisfaction experienced by a created being, but also the satisfaction experienced, as it were, by the Creator,49 the essence which is drawn down through our observance of the mitzvos in the present era.50
ועפּ״ז איז פאַרשטאַנדיק ווי עוה״ב וועט זיין אַ "פולער" שכר אויף דעם קיום המצות בעוה״ז, ווייל דאַן וועט צו אידן נתגלה ווערן (ניט נאָר אַן ענין פון ״גילויים״ – נח״ר לנברא, נאָר) אויך דער נח״ר לבורא121, די המשכת העצמות וואָס מען טוט אויף איצטער.
This revelation is not only necessary because “the Holy One, blessed be He, does not withhold reward from any created being,” but it is also a fundamental and inherent dimension of His will and His essence that are drawn down through our observance of mitzvos at present.51
און אָט דער גילוי איז נוגע (ניט נאָר צום ענין וואָס "אין הקב״ה מקפח שכר כל ברי׳" כנ״ל, נאָר אויך) צו דעם רצון (און המשכת העצמות) פון מצות122:
The revelation of His Essence in the World to Come will manifest the essential quality that is drawn down at present through the performance of the mitzvos. (Were it necessary that the influence drawn down at present remain concealed, that itself would be an indication that G‑d’s Essence is not being drawn down.52 For with regard to G‑d’s Essence, no definitions or limitations – neither of concealment nor of revelation – are appropriate, as stated above.)53
Summary
The points raised in the previous section can be resolved as follows: G‑d’s Essence is not subject to definition; it can neither be described as being concealed or revealed. As a consequence:
a) Although the fact that we are now drawing down G‑d’s Essence into this world through our observance of mitzvos is concealed, since He is not defined, Heaven forbid, by concealment or revelation, it is not appropriate to say that the present lack of revelation detracts from His Essence being drawn down through our observance.
b) Since G‑d’s Essence is not bound by any limitations, Heaven forbid, we cannot say that the influence from His Essence must remain concealed. Certainly, it can come into revelation (although the ordinary channels of revelation bear no comparison to His Essence).
On this basis, we can appreciate how the World to Come can serve as a full reward for the Jews’ observance of the mitzvos in this world. G‑d’s Essence will be revealed in the World to Come, manifesting the essential quality that is drawn down at present through the performance of the mitzvos.
דוקא דורך דעם וואָס בעוה״ב וועט זיין דער גילוי העצמות, וועט זיך אויסדריקן די המשכת העצמות וואָס מען טוט אויף איצטער. (וואָרום ווען די המשכה פון איצטער וואָלט געמוזט בלייבן בהעלם, וואָלט דאָס גופא געווען אַ ראי׳ אז דאָס איז ניט (המשכת ה)עצמות123, היות אַז לגבי עצמות זיינען קיין שום גדרים ח״ו ניטאָ, כנ״ל124).
The Purpose Is Vested in Them
The reason why “the satisfaction of the Creator” (which is above the World to Come as it would exist on its own accord) will also be revealed to the Jews in the World to Come is that the Jews are one with G‑d, as will be explained below.
טדער טעם להנ״ל, אז בעוה״ב וועט צו אידן נתגלה ווערן אויך דער נח״ר לבורא (וועלכער איז העכער ווי דער ענין פון עוה״ב מצד עצמו), איז – ווייל אידן זיינען כביכול איין זאַך מיטן אויבערשטן, כדלקמן:
All other created beings are merely intermediaries. They were brought into being so that G‑d’s ultimate intent, the establishment of a dwelling in this world, could be carried out. G‑d’s intent is not, however, focused on them themselves.54 Were this also to be true regarding the Jewish people, then it would understandably be inappropriate that they be granted a revelation of the “satisfaction of the Creator” that transcends entirely the capacity of created beings.
The truth is, however, that “Israel, and the Holy One, blessed be He, are all one.”55 Although it is said, “I was created solely to serve my Creator,” the Jews are not an intermediary necessary for the fulfillment of G‑d’s ultimate intention; His ultimate intention is vested in their very being, as stated in Tanya, the Jewish soul is an actual part of G‑d from Above. 56
אַלע נבראים זיינען בלויז אַן אמצעי, אַ מיטל – צוליב דורכפירן די כוונה העליונה (אָבער ניט אַז זיי אַליין זיינען די כוונה). איז אויב אויך אידן וואָלטן אַזוי געווען, איז דאַן, כמובן, ניט שייך אַז אין זיי זאָל נתגלה ווערן דער נח״ר לבורא וואָס איז באין ערוך העכער פון נבראים; דער אמת איז אָבער אַז "ישראל וקוב״ה כולא חד"125, קומט דאָך אויס, אַז כאָטש "אני נבראתי לשמש את קוני", זיינען אידן אָבער ניט קיין מיטל, צוליב דער כוונה העליונה, נאָר אין זיי גופא איז פאַראַן די כוונה126,
(For this reason, we see that the Jews fulfill mitzvos that are chukim, mitzvos whose rationale transcends human understanding, with enthusiasm and derive satisfaction from their observance. Since the observance of the chukim is motivated by kabbalas ol, the acceptance of G‑d’s yoke, a quality which expresses bittul, self-nullification, one may ask: How is it possible for their observance to evoke vitality and pleasure? This appears to run contrary to a person’s understanding and self-interest.
Nevertheless, the Jews’ mission – “I was created solely to serve My Creator” – which is expressed in bittul and kabbalas ol, does not nullify the identity of a Jew. On the contrary, this is their true identity.57And therefore, the observance of the chukim brings out their energy and pleasure.)
[וואָס דעריבער האָבן אידן אַ חיות און אַ געשמאַק אויך אין די מצות פון "חוקים", כאָטש אַז דער קיום פון חוקים איז מצד קבלת עול וואָס ענינו איז ביטול – איז ווי קען מען דאָס האָבן אַ לעבעדיקייט און געשמאַק אין דעם – נאָר ווייל אויך דער "אני נבראתי לשמש את קוני", וואָס דריקט זיך אויס אין דעם ביטול פון קב״ע, איז ניט קיין ענין וואָס איז מבטל די מציאות פון אידן. אדרבה, דאָס איז זייער אמת׳ע מציאות127],
Since the Jews are at one with G‑d’s Essence, they are capable of accepting “the satisfaction of the Creator” in a revealed manner.
Summary
Since the Jews are one with G‑d, they will be able to share in the revelation of essential G‑dliness in the World to Come. This distinguishes them from all other created beings. All other created beings are merely intermediaries. They were brought into being so that G‑d’s ultimate intent, the establishment of a dwelling in this world, could be carried out. G‑d’s intent is not, however, focused on them themselves.
By contrast, the Jews are not an intermediary necessary for the fulfillment of G‑d’s ultimate intention; His ultimate intention is vested in their very being.
The Jews’ oneness with G‑d is reflected by their fulfillment of mitzvos that are chukim, whose rationale transcends human understanding, with enthusiasm and satisfaction. Since the observance of the chukim is motivated by kabbalas ol, the acceptance of G‑d’s yoke, a quality which expresses bittul, self-nullification, one might ask: How is it possible for their observance to evoke vitality and pleasure? Performing them appears to run contrary to a person’s understanding and self-interest.
Nevertheless, because the Jews are one with G‑d, the observance of the chukim brings out their true identity. Therefore, observing them brings the Jews energy and pleasure.
און דערפאַר וועלן זיי ״נעמען״ – און בגילוי – דעם נח״ר לבורא.
When the Subconscious Speaks
The above provides us with an explanation of our Sages’ comments in the Midrash concerning the verse, “He leads Yosef like sheep.”
ידערמיט וועט מען אויך האָבן אַ ביאור אין דעם מאמר המדרש הנ״ל אויפן פּסוק "נוהג כצאן יוסף".
First, the Midrash states: “Yosef assembled grain from the years of plenty for the years of famine; so, too, collect our deeds for us from the life of this world to the life of the World to Come.”
צום ערשטן זאָגט ער "יוסף כנס משנות השבע לשנות הרעב אף אנו כנס לנו מחיי העוה״ז לחיי העוה״ב":
Yosef’s achievement was that although during the years of famine grain did not grow, he nevertheless saw to it that there should be grain then as well. He did so by collecting grain during the years of plenty and preserving it for the years of famine. Similarly, we (for all Jews are referred to as Yosef, as stated above)58ask G‑d to “collect our deeds for us from the life of this world to the life of the World to Come.” Our request is that the drawing down of His essence – “the satisfaction of the Creator,” which is generated (“grown”)59 by our Divine service in this world – should also be revealed in the World to Come, even though in that era, it “does not grow,” i.e., is no longer being generated.
כשם ווי די "שנות הרעב", אע״פּ אז אין זיי וואַקסט ניט קיין תבואה האָט יוסף אויפגעטאָן אַז אויך דאַן זאָל זיין תבואה, דורך אויפזאַמלען די תבואה "בשנות השבע" און זי באַהאַלטן פאַר די "שנות הרעב";
אַזוי אויך "אנו (וואָס אַלע אידן ווערן גערופן "יוסף" כנ״ל סעיף א׳) כנס לנו מחיי העוה״ז לחיי העוה״ב" – אַז די המשכת העצמות, דער ענין פון "נח״ר לבורא", וואָס "וואַקסט אויס"128 דורך דער עבודה בעוה״ז, זאָל דאָס זיין בגילוי אויך לעוה״ב.
The attribute of judgment can challenge this argument. The reason why it is fitting that the satisfaction of the Creator be revealed to the Jews in the World to Come is (as stated above)60 because their observance of the mitzvos is characterized by pleasure and vitality, (which in turn reflects that the Divine intent is vested in them, in the Jews themselves, as stated above).60 When, however, a Jew observes mitzvos without vitality – even when he observes them with the resolve of kabbalas ol, (but without the vitality stemming from love and fear),61 certainly when he performs them merely because he was trained to do so, out of rote and habit,62 and, needless to say, when he performs the mitzvos with a self-oriented intent – it does not appear appropriate that such observance would cause G‑d’s Essence to be revealed in the World to Come.
קען דאָך אָבער מדת הדין קומען מיט אַ טענה; דער טעם וואָס דער נח״ר לבורא וועט נתגלה ווערן צו אידן לעוה״ב איז (כנ״ל סעיף ט׳) – ווייל זייער אופן קיום המצות איז מיט אַ חיות און אַ געשמאַק (וואָס ווייזט אַז די כוונה איז אין זיי, די אידן, גופא – כנ״ל שם). אָבער בעת אַ איד איז מקיים מצות אָן חיות
[אפילו ווען ער איז זיי מקיים מצד קבלת עול מלכות שמים (נאָר אָן דעם חיות פון אהבה ויראה129); און מכל־שכן ווען ער טוט עס בדרך "מצות130 אנשים מלומדה״, און ווער רעדט – אויב זיין קיום המצות איז מצד פּניות]
איז דאַן לכאורה ניט שייך אַז דורכדעם זאָל עצמות נתגלה ווערן לעוה״ב.
Certainly, “Deed is most essential,”63 and thus even such Divine service draws down G‑d’s Essence. Nevertheless, when G‑d’s Essence is drawn down in such a manner, it would seemingly not be connected to revelation at all.64 And so the attribute of judgment claims: His Essence which is drawn down through the Jews’ observance of the mitzvos should not be revealed in the World to Come.
ואע״פּ אַז "המעשה הוא העיקר"131, וואָס במילא איז אויך דורך אַזאַ סאָרט עבודה איז מען ממשיך עצמות – איז דאָך אָבער דער "עצם" וואָס ווערט נמשך דאַן אין אַזאַ אופן אַז עס האָט קיין שייכות ניט צו "גילוי״132. טענה׳ט מדת הדין אַז די המשכת העצמות זאָל טאַקע ניט נתגלה ווערן לעוה״ב
To resolve this, the Midrash states a second request: “Yosef sustained each person according to his deeds...; so too, sustain us according to our deeds.”
– אויף דעם קומט די צווייטע בקשה "מה יוסף כלכל כל אחד לפי מעשיו . . אף אנו כלכלנו לפי מעשינו״:
Yosef told his brothers:65 “You thought to do me harm; however, G‑d intended it for good, to accomplish what is before us today, that a large nation be kept alive.” Yosef was telling his brothers that they should be rewarded because their actions brought about a positive result. Even though they did not have that result in mind, Yosef promised to repay them “measure for measure;” “I will sustain you and your children,”66without considering their intentions.
יוסף האָט געזאָגט זיינע ברידער, אז כאָטש "חשבתם עלי רעה", וויבאַלד אָבער "אלקים חשבה לטובה למען עשה כיום הזה להחיות עם רב"133, קומט אייך צוליב דער פּעולה (כאָטש זיי האָבן ניט מכוון געווען די טובה וואָס איז פון דעם אַרויסגעקומען) – מדה כנגד מדה – דער שכר אַז "אנכי אכלכל אתכם ואת טפכם"134.
Just as Yosef sustained his brothers because of their actions (without concern for their intent), so too, we ask G‑d to sustain us according to our deeds. We request that He view only the positive deeds which we have performed without necessarily being concerned with their intent. And since, with regard to actual deed, “Even the sinners of Israel are filled with mitzvos like a pomegranate is filled with seeds,”67 we request that He give us the reward mentioned above.
איז כשם ווי יוסף האָט מכלכל געווען זיינע ברידער לויט זייערע מעשים (ניט רעכענענדיק זיך מיט זייערע מחשבות), "אף אנו כלכלנו לפי מעשינו", אַז דער אויבערשטער זאָל זיך רעכענען בלויז מיט אונזערע (גוטע) מעשים – וואָס אין מעשה בפּועל זיינען דאָך אפילו "פּושעי ישראל מלאים מצות כרמון״135 – און מצד דעם געבן אונז דעם שכר הנ״ל. וי״ל יתרה מזו: געבן דעם שכר כאילו ווי עס וואָלט אין דער מעשה געווען אויך די כוונה,
Moreover, there is reason to say that He should grant us the reward as if the mitzvos were actually performed with the appropriate intent. To cite a parallel: With regard to tzedakah (which is the archetype of all mitzvos),68 the Talmudstates69 that a person who says, “I am giving this sela to charity so that my son will live,” is “a completely righteous man.” Although outwardly, he is performing the mitzvah with an ulterior motive, since inwardly, his heart is directed to G‑d70 – for every Jew “desires to (wholeheartedly) perform all the mitzvos”71 – not only is the deed of tzedakah (itself) perfect, the deed also affects the person himself, and when focusing on his inner dimensions, he is deemed – through this deed – a complete tzaddik.
Summary
The above explanations facilitate the understanding of the first clause of the Midrash cited above: “Yosef assembled grain from the years of plenty for the years of famine; so, too, collect our deeds for us from the life of this world to the life of the World to Come.”
Yosef collected grain during the years of plenty and preserved it for the years of famine. By doing so, he saw to it that there would be grain during the years of famine when sufficient grain did not grow. Similarly, we ask G‑d to “collect our deeds for us from the life of this world to the life of the World to Come.” We are asking that “the satisfaction of the Creator,” which is generated (“grown”) by our Divine service in this world also be revealed in the World to Come, an era when it can no long be generated.
To this, the attribute of judgment can come with a complaint: The reason why it is fitting that the satisfaction of the Creator be revealed to the Jews in the World to Come is that their observance of the mitzvos is characterized by pleasure and vitality. When, however, a Jew observes mitzvos without vitality, it does not appear appropriate that such observance would cause G‑d’s Essence to be revealed in the World to Come.
Certainly, even such Divine service draws down G‑d’s Essence. Nevertheless, when G‑d’s Essence is drawn down in such a manner, it would appear that this essential quality not be revealed.
To resolve this, the Midrash states a second request: “Yosef sustained each person according to his deeds...; so too, sustain us according to our deeds.” Yosef told his brothers: “You thought to do me harm; however, G‑d intended it for good.” Yosef was telling his brothers that they should be rewarded because their actions brought about a positive result. Therefore, he promised to repay them “measure for measure,” regardless of their intentions.
In a similar manner, we ask G‑d to sustain us according to our deeds. We request that He view only the positive deeds which we have performed without necessarily being concerned with their intent.
Moreover, there is reason to say that He should grant us the reward as if the mitzvos were actually performed with the appropriate intent. To cite a parallel: The Talmudstates that a person who says, “I am giving this sela to charity so that my son will live,” is deemed “a completely righteous man.” Although outwardly, he is performing the mitzvah with an ulterior motive, since inwardly, his heart is directed to G‑d – for every Jew “desires to perform all the mitzvos” – not only is the deed of tzedakah perfect, the deed also affects the person himself, and he is deemed – because of this deed – a complete tzaddik.
און ע״ד ווי די גמרא136 זאָגט בנוגע לצדקה (וואָס צדקה איז עיקר המצות137): "האומר סלע זו לצדקה בשביל שיחי׳ בני . . הרי זה צדיק גמור", אַז כאָטש בחיצוניות טוט ער די מצוה מיט אַ פּני׳, וויבאַלד אָבער בפּנימיות איז ״לבו לשמים״138 [וואָרום יעדער איד איז "רוצה הוא לעשות כל המצות״139] – איז ניט נאָר וואָס די מעשה הצדקה (כשלעצמה) איז בשלימות, נאָר נאָך מער, זי טוט אויף אויך אין דעם מענטשן, ובפּנימיותו – הרי זה (דורך דער מעשה) צדיק גמור.
Wearing a Mask
Despite the above explanations, there is still room for the attribute of judgment to protest: When a Jew observes a mitzvah, but he does so lacking the proper intent, it is possible to say that although the inner will and desire of the soul are functioning in a hidden manner, they can be joined to and enclothed within the observance of the mitzvos,72 as explained above.73 When, by contrast, a person transgresses, Heaven forbid, this motif does not seem appropriate. It is true that through teshuvah (motivated by love), a person transforms his willful sins into merits,74 and these merits will also earn a Jew a portion in the World to Come.75 It is, however, seemingly not appropriate to say that these deeds were carried out with the inner desire of the soul.
יאלאחרי כל זה האָט מדת הדין נאָך אַלץ אַ טענה:
ווען אַ איד אין מקיים מצות, נאָר וואָס דען – שלא לשמה, איז דאַן שייך צו זאָגן אַז דער רצון און כוונה פּנימית פון דער נשמה, כאָטש זיי זיינען בהעלם, זאָלן זיי פונדעסטוועגן נצטרף און נתלבש ווערן אין דער קיום המצוה140, כנ״ל סעיף יו״ד.
בעת מען איז אָבער עובר אַן עבירה ר״ל – איז כאָטש אַז דורך תשובה (מאהבה) ווערן דערנאָך די זדונות נהפך צו זכיות141 און אויך מצד אָט־די ״זכיות״ קומט אַ אידן עולם הבא142
On the contrary, the desire of the soul is “to distance itself from sin.”71 The reason that the person stumbled and transgressed is that “his natural inclination overpowered him,”71 and compelled him to act against his own inner will.
Since our request to “collect our deeds for us from the life of this world to the life of the World to Come” is based on the concept that the reward in the World to Come results from the fact that the good deeds the person performs in this world express his soul’s inner pleasure and will, as stated above,76it is difficult to understand: How is this motif apropos to the merits stemming from the transformation of willful transgressions that are directly opposite the will of the soul?
– איז דאָך אָבער ניט שייך צו זאָגן אויף דעם אַז דאָס איז געטאָן געוואָרן ברצונה (הפּנימי) של הנשמה [וואָרום אדרבה: מצד הנשמה איז דאָך דער מענטש רוצה "להתרחק מן העבירות"נג. און דאָס וואָס ער איז דורכגעפאַלן, איז עם גאָר מצד דעם וואָס ״יצרו הוא שתקפו״נג – היפך פון זיין רצון]. און וויבאַלד אַז דער "כנס לנו מחיי העוה״ז לחיי העוה״ב" איז מצד דעם וואָס די מע״ט שבעוה״ז זיינען פאַרבונדן מיט דעם געשמאַק און רצון פון דעם מענטשן (כנ״ל ס״ט), היינט ווי איז שייך אַזוי צו זאָגן בנוגע די "זכיות" וועלכע קומען אַרויס פון "זדונות" וואָס זיינען היפך רצון הנשמה?
To resolve this difficulty, the Midrash continues and introduces a novel concept: “Rabbi Menachem said in the name of Rabbi Avin:77 ‘Just as Yosef acted generously with his brothers although they acted wrongly toward him, so too, although we have acted wrongly toward You, act generously toward us.’ ” Yosef sustained his brothers because they performed a deed that ultimately brought about good, although beforehand, at the time of their actions, “they acted wrongly toward him.” Similarly, we are asking G‑d, “Although we have acted wrongly toward You, act generously toward us.” Since ultimately, “acting wrongly toward You,” will result in good because of the positive virtue that will come from the Divine service of teshuvah (which is “performed with greater intensity”78than ordinary Divine service),we ask G‑d to “act generously toward us,” and consider it as if at the outset, at the time the person performed the sins, his intent was solely to bring about that ascent.79
Summary
Despite the above explanations, there is still room for the attribute of judgment to protest: When a Jew observes a mitzvah, but he does so lacking the proper intent, it is possible to say that although the inner will and desire of the soul are functioning in a hidden manner, they can be joined to and enclothed within the observance of the mitzvos. When, by contrast, a person transgresses, Heaven forbid, this motif does not seem appropriate. True, through teshuvah motivated by love, a person transforms his willful sins into merits. Seemingly, however, it is not appropriate to say that these deeds were carried out with the inner desire of the soul.
Our request to “collect our deeds for us from the life of this world to the life of the World to Come” is based on the concept that the reward in the World to Come results from the fact that the good deeds the person performs in this world express his soul’s inner will. It is therefore difficult to understand how this motif is apropos to the merits that stem from the transformation of willful transgressions that are directly opposite the will of the soul.
To resolve this difficulty, the Midrash introduces a novel concept: “Rabbi Menachem said in the name of Rabbi Avin: ‘Just as Yosef acted generously with his brothers although they acted wrongly toward him, so too, although we have acted wrongly toward You, act generously toward us.’” Yosef sustained his brothers because they performed a deed that ultimately brought about good, although, at the time of their actions, “they acted wrongly toward him.” Similarly, we are asking G‑d, “Although we have acted wrongly toward You, act generously toward us.” Since ultimately, the “wrong we have brought upon You,” will result in good because of the positive virtue that will come from teshuvah, we ask G‑d to “act generously toward us,” and consider it as if at the outset, at the time the person performed the sins, his intent was positive.
אויף דעם איז דער מדרש ממשיך (און דאָ איז עס בתורת חידוש – אמר ר׳ מנחם כו׳143) "מה יוסף גמלוהו אחיו רעה והוא גמלם טובה, אף אנו גמלנוך רעה גמול אותנו טובות":
כשם ווי יוסף האָט מכלכל געווען זיינע ברידער דערפאַר וואָס זיי האָבן געטאָן אַזאַ פּעולה וואָס פון איר איז אַרויסגעקומען אַ ״טובה״ – הגם אַז פריער, בעת זיי האָבן זי געטאָן, איז עס געווען אַן ענין פון ״גמלוהו רעה״;
"אף אנו גמלנוך רעה גמול אותנו טובות״ – וויבאַלד אַז פון דעם "גמלנוך רעה" קומט אַרויס סוכ״ס אַ ״טובה״ – דער עילוי פון עבודת התשובה (בחילא יתיר144), איז "גמול אותנו טובות", כאילו ווי די כוונה פון מענטשן וואָלט מלכתחלה (בעת׳ן טאָן די עבירות) געווען נאָר בכדי זיי זאָלן צוברענגען צו דעם עילוי145.
Yosef’s Achievement
There is a connection between these three requests – “collect our deeds for us from the life of this world to the life of the World to Come... sustain us according to our deeds... and although we have acted wrongly toward You, act generously toward us” – and Yosef. Indeed, because of this connection, Yosef’s conduct is referred to as the paradigm for all of these qualities.
יבדער ביאור השייכות פון די אַלע דריי בקשות ["כנס לנו מחיי העוה״ז לחיי העוה״ב"; "כלכלנו לפי מעשינו"; און "גמלנוך רעות גמול אותנו טובות״] צו יוסף׳ן – וואָס צוליב אָט דער שייכות איז דער לשון אין די אַלע דריי בקשות "מה יוסף כו׳":
To explain: From an inner perspective, the difference between Yaakov and Yosef is80 that Yaakov’s spiritual level (as he exists for himself) reflects the world of Atzilus, while Yosef’s level involves bringing Yaakov’s spiritual qualities into the worlds of Beriah, Yetzirah, and Asiyah, and even into this material world which is “filled with kelipah and sitra achra.”81Yosef’s Divine service involves making Yaakov’s spiritual attribute – Atzilus, i.e., overt G‑dliness – appreciated even within these lower levels.
דער חילוק צווישן יעקב׳ן און יוסף׳ן בפּנימיות הענינים באַשטייט אין דעם146 וואָס מדריגת יעקב (מצד עצמו) איז אין אצילות; מדריגת יוסף איז אָבער אַראָפּצוטראָגן עניני יעקב אין עולמות בי״ע, ביז אין עולם הזה הגשמי, "המלא קליפות וסט״א"147, אַז אויך דאָרט זאָל זיך דערהערן בחינת יעקב – אצילות.
To explain this in terms of our own Divine service: The essence of the soul (the levels of chayah and yechidah) reflects the level of Atzilus. The dimension of the soul that descends into the worlds of Beriah, Yetzirah, and Asiyah represents merely a ray of the soul, the levels of nefesh, ruach, and neshamah.
דער ענין דערפון אין עבודת האדם: עצם הנשמה (חי׳ יחידה) איז בחי׳ אצילות, און דאָס וואָס קומט אַראָפּ פון דער נשמה אין בי״ע איז בלויז א הארה – בחי׳ נר"נ.
On this basis, we can appreciate the achievement of Yosef. He made it possible for the essence of the soul to be felt and to have an effect also on a person’s intellectual comprehension (which parallels the level of neshamah, equivalent to Beriah), his emotional qualities of love and fear (which parallel the level of ruach, equivalent to Yetzirah), and even his actual deed (which parallels the level of nefesh, equivalent to Asiyah). Moreover, the soul’s essence can even express itself in the fulfillment of mitzvos performed out of self-interest82 that is motivated by the animal soul (which parallels our material world which is filled with kelipah and sitra achra).
און דאָס איז דער אויפטו פון יוסף׳ן, וואָס ער גיט דעם כח אַז דער עצם הנשמה זאל זיך אָנהערן און פּועל זיין אויך אין השגת השכל (בחי׳ נשמה – בריאה), און אין מדות אהוי״ר (בחי׳ רוח – יצירה), ביז אפילו אין מעשה בפּועל (בחי׳ נפש – עשי׳), ביז אפילו אין דעם קיום המצות ווי ער איז מצד פּניות וואָס קומען פון נה״ב (עוה״ז הגשמי המלא קליפות וסט״א).
This reflects the connection between Yosef and the three requests mentioned above. Yosef made it possible for the essence of the soul to be manifest in this material world as it is manifest in the higher realms.83 This generates the satisfaction of the Creator, influence from G‑d’s Essence – for the essence of the soul is connected with G‑d’s Essence – and enables it to be drawn down and manifest within our Divine service in this material realm. This in turn brings about G‑d’s “collecting our deeds for us from the life of this world to the life of the World to Come,” as explained above.84
און דאָס איז די שייכות פון "מה יוסף כו׳" צו די אַלע דריי בקשות הנ״ל, ווייל אָט דאָס וואָס יוסף האָט גע׳פּועל׳ט אַז אויך למטה זאָל זיך הערן דער עצם הנשמה אַזוי ווי זי איז למעלה148 – דאָס איז גורם אַז דער נח״ר לבורא, די המשכת העצמות [וואָס עצם הנשמה איז פאַרבונדן מיט עצמות], זאָל זיין אויך אין עבודת האדם דאָ למטה – וואָס ברענגט צום "כנס לנו מחיי העוה״ז לחיי העוה״ב" (כנ״ל סעיף ט־י),
Through Yosef drawing down the essence of the soul even into the world of Asiyah, the “satisfaction of the Creator” is drawn down into our observance of the mitzvos, even when they are performed without vitality, as mentioned with regard to the request, “Sustain us according to our deeds.”
און דורך דעם וואָס יוסף האָט ממשיך געווען דעם עצם הנשמה אויך אין עולם העשי׳, ווערט נמשך דער נח״ר לבורא אויך אין קיום המצות במעשה, אפילו ווען אין זיי איז ניטאָ קיין חיות – "כלכלנו לפי מעשינו",
Through drawing down the essence of the soul even into this physical world, which is filled with kelipah and sitra achra, G‑d’s Essence is drawn down even in the merits that result from the transformation of willful sins, as mentioned with regard to the request, “although we have acted wrongly toward You, act generously toward us.”
Summary
There is a connection between these three requests – “collect our deeds for us from the life of this world to the life of the World to Come... sustain us according to our deeds... and although we have acted wrongly toward You, act generously toward us” – and Yosef.
Yosef’s Divine service involves enabling overt G‑dliness to be appreciated even within the lower realms of Beriah, Yetzirah, and Asiyah, and even into this material world which is “filled with kelipah and sitra achra.”
There is a parallel to the above within our souls. The essence of the soul (the levels of chayah and yechidah) reflects the level of Atzilus. The dimension of the soul that descends into the worlds of Beriah, Yetzirah, and Asiyah represents merely a ray of the soul, the levels of nefesh, ruach, and neshamah.
Yosef made it possible for the essence of the soul to be felt and to have an effect also on a person’s intellectual comprehension (which parallels the level of neshamah, equivalent to Beriah), his emotional qualities (which parallel the level of ruach, equivalent to Yetzirah) and even his actual deed (which parallels the level of nefesh, equivalent to Asiyah). Moreover, the soul’s essence can even express itself in the fulfillment of mitzvos performed out of self-interest (which parallels our material world, which is filled with kelipah and sitra achra).
This reflects the connection between Yosef and the three requests mentioned above. Yosef made it possible for the essence of the soul to be manifest in this material world as it is manifest in the higher realms. This generates influence from G‑d’s Essence – for the essence of the soul is connected with G‑d’s Essence – and enables it to be drawn down and manifest within our Divine service in this material realm. This in turn brings about G‑d’s “collecting our deeds for us from the life of this world to the life of the World to Come.”
Through Yosef drawing down the essence of the soul even into the world of Asiyah, this essential G‑dliness is drawn down into our observance of the mitzvos, even when they are performed without vitality, as mentioned with regard to the request, “Sustain us according to our deeds.”
Through drawing down the essence of the soul even into this physical world, which is filled with kelipah and sitra achra, G‑d’s Essence is drawn down even in the merits that result from the transformation of willful sins, as mentioned with regard to the request, “although we have acted wrongly toward You, act generously toward us.”
און דורך זיין ממשיך זיין דעם עצם הנשמה אפילו אין עוה״ז הגשמי המלא קליפות וסט״א, קומט די המשכת העצמות אויך אין די "זכיות" וואָס ווערן נהפך פון ״זדונות״ – "גמלנוך רעה גמול אותנו טובות".
To Live as Yosef Lived
On this basis, we can appreciate the inner meaning of Yosef sustaining his brothers as it applies in a spiritual context.85 Through Yosef sustaining his brothers according to their deeds and treating them favorably although they did him harm, he blazed a path and empowered all Jews for all time. He granted them the potential to look at another Jew, not as he appears externally, but rather as he exists from the standpoint of his essence, that he is “an actual part of G‑d.” Therefore, one should “sustain him according to his deeds” and “repay those who are culpable with goodness.”86
יגאון דאָס איז דער תוכן הפּנימי פון ״ויכלכל יוסף גו׳ את אחיו״149 ווי ער איז ברוחניות הענינים:
דורך דעם וואָס יוסף האָט מכלכל געווען די שבטים לפי מעשיהם און גומל געווען צו זיי טוב טראָץ דעם וואָס "גמלוהו רעות", האָט ער באַוויזן דעם וועג און געגעבן דעם כח צו אַלע אידן עד סוף כל הדורות, אַז אויך יעדערער פון זיי זאָל קוקן אויף אַ צווייטן אידן (ניט ווי ער איז אין זיין חיצוניות, נאָר) ווי ער איז מצד זיין עצם, און במילא וועט ער אים מכלכל זיין לפי מעשיו און גומל זיין לחייבים טובות,
Viewing another Jew with such an outlook has a reciprocal effect. By doing so, a person arouses similar potentials within his own being, and facilitates the shining of the essence of his soul in all of his matters. {This is why the trait of “repaying those who are culpable with goodness” is such a fundamental quality and reflects the essence of a Jew.}
און דורך דעם וואָס מען קוקט אַזוי אויף אַ צווייטן אידן, איז מען מעורר אַזוי אויך ביי זיך, אַז אין אַלע ענינים זאָל מאיר זיין דער עצם הנשמה [וואָס דערפאַר איז די הנהגה "לגמול לחייבים טובות" אַן ענין עיקרי וואָס איז נוגע צום מהות פון אידן]
Conduct of this kind will lead to the fulfillment of our requests: to “collect our deeds for us from the life of this world to the life of the World to Come... sustain us according to our deeds... and although we have acted wrongly toward You, act generously with us.”
Summary
Yosef’s conduct toward his brothers blazed a path and empowered all Jews for all time. He granted them the potential to look at another Jew, not as he appears externally, but rather as he exists from the standpoint of his essence, that he is “an actual part of G‑d.” Therefore, one should “sustain him according to his deeds” and “repay those who are culpable with goodness.”
Viewing another Jew with such an outlook has a reciprocal effect. By doing so, a person arouses similar potentials within his own being, and facilitates the shining of the essence of his soul in all of his matters.
און דאָס ברענגט דעם מילוי הבקשה כנס לנו כו׳ כלכלנו לפי מעשינו כו׳ גמלנוך רעות גמול עמנו טובות.
Likkutei Sichos, Volume 5, P. 239ff. (Adapted from a sichah delivered on Shabbos Parshas Chukas-Balak, Yud-Beis Tammuz, 5719 [1959];* and other sources)
(משיחת ש״פ חו״ב – יב תמוז תשי״ט*. ועוד)
12 Tammuz, 5719, the day on which the sichah was delivered marked the beginning of the eightieth year after the birth of the Rebbe Rayatz, at which time, according to the custom of saying the chapter of Tehillim which corresponds to the year of a person’s life, the recitation of ch. 80 was begun (see also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 5, p. 103-4, and notes). That chapter contains the verse, “He led Yosef like sheep.” It must be noted that Yosef was the first name of the Rebbe Rayatz. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 3, p. 835; Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 30, p. 228ff., translated below, p. 665ff.
Zohar, Vol. I, p. 201a.
Bereishis 47:12.
The commentaries of Rashi and Metzudos David to the verse cited in the following footnote.
Tehillim 80:2.
See Yoma 83b which relates that Rabbi Meir would discern aspects of people’s character based on their name. See also Tanya, Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, ch. 1, which relates that an object’s name represents its fundamental life-energy. {See also Teshuvos U’Biurim, sec. 1 (Igros Kodesh of the Rebbe, Vol. I, p. 288ff.), Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 6, p. 35ff., and notes, which dwell on this concept at length.}
Less than two years, according to Rashi, Bereishis 47:19.
For example, Yishmael’s daughter, Bosmas, is described as “the sister of Nevayos,”* because he arranged her marriage (Rashi, Bereishis 36:3). Since marriage is a fundamental element of a person’s life, even after marriage she is referred to in this manner.
Nevertheless, this instance cannot be compared to the case at hand because:
a)Bosmas was not called Nevayos; she was called “the sister of Nevayos.” Although marriage is fundamental to a person, her marriage was only arranged by Nevayos; it does not reflect Nevayos himself. (See the explanation later in the text why, for this reason, it is difficult to understand why the Jews are called Yosef.)
b) The phrase, “the sister of Nevayos” is used as an adjective to describe Bosmas. However, she is called by her own name. By contrast, the Jews are not referred to as “the family of Yosef,” but are instead referred to with the name Yosef.
* The fact that the Torah (Bereishis 34:25) refers to Shimon and Levi as “the brothers of Dinah” because they risked their lives for her sake (Rashi to the above verse), is not relevant in this context. There the Torah is obviously speaking about a specific instance: “They took… their swords... and they rescued Dinah.” In contrast, the Jewish people are called Yosef even afterwards, many years after he ceased to nurture them. Similarly, Bosmas was called “the sister of Nevayos” even after her wedding.
One might say that the term “the sister of Nevayos” is also used only in the context of Esav’s marrying Bosmas. There is, however, a distinction. Esav’s marriage is primarily mentioned in Parshas Toldos, but Bosmas is also described as “the sister of Nevayos” later in Parshas Vayishlach. In that source, the emphasis is not on the wedding per se, but rather on the description of Esav’s descendants. (See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 5, pp. 164, 168.)
See also Rashi’s commentary to Shmos 15:20, which speaks about the description of Miriam as “Aharon’s sister.” This is not the place for further discussion of this matter.
Rambam, Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 9:1; the ninth of Rambam’s “Thirteen Principles of Faith” (Commentary on the Mishnah, Sanhedrin, ch. 10); Rambam’s Introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah at length.
To quote the Rogatchover Gaon, “It is a factor that remains an active factor continuously” (Tzafnas Panei’ach, Makkos 11a, taken from Tzafnas Panei’ach, Hilchos Terumos, Hashmatos, p. 120). Similar concepts are found in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 8, p. 151 and the sources mentioned there.
Yeshayahu 40:8.
The blessings following the Shema in the daily liturgy.
The commentary of the Radak (and similarly, Metzudas David) to Yeshayahu, loc. cit. explain that the verse refers to, “ ‘The word of our G‑d’ which He spoke through His prophets.” (This appears to include words of prophecy that are not written in the Torah.)
Tanya, ch. 25 (p. 32a) quotes this verse with regard to “the revelation of G‑d’s will through His speech, i.e., the Torah.” This appears to indicate that this concept also refers to the Oral Law, for the essential revelation of G‑d’s will is in the Oral Law (Tanya, Iggeres HaKodesh, the end of Epistle 29). See the following note.
This concept can be understood from the Tanya’s statement (ibid.) that the reason the unity with G‑d established through the performance of the mitzvos “is everlasting,” is because “the revelation of G‑d’s will through His speech, i.e., the Torah, is everlasting.”*
* See also the beginning of Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah which explains that the meaning of the phrases, “The word of our G‑d will endure forever,” and “His words are living and enduring... forever,” is that the words and letters (of His speech) themselves stand and endure forever.
The hymn Yigdal, which restates Rambam’s Thirteen Principles of Faith.
This is also evident from the statements of the Tanya, ch. 25, which associate the fact that the mitzvos are unchanging with the phrases, “The word of our G‑d will endure forever,” and “His words are living and enduring... forever.”
A further point is evident from Tzafnas Panei’ach (loc. cit.): Since the Torah relates the story (Shmos 2:21) that Moshe took an oath to Yisro, that oath is a continuously active force. Although the oath was absolved, it is still a relevant factor even in the present age. See Nedarim 10a-b.
Indeed, the Zohar, Vol. I, p. 201a, b, cites only this lesson when speaking about this narrative.
Tanya, the conclusion of ch. 12.
The reason he caused them some hardship at the outset is explained in Or HaTorah, Bereishis, Vol. 2, p. 340b ff.
Cf. the wording of the blessing Hagomeil, cited in Tanya, loc. cit.
The fact that every Jew receives influence from Yosef raises a question, for Torah Or, p. 55a, states that the reason “we call only three – Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov – Patriarchs” (Berachos 16b) is because only “the attributes of the Patriarchs must be present within every individual, for they are the root and source of the entire Jewish people.” With regard to Yaakov’s sons, the progenitors of the tribes, by contrast, “there are those who do not possess these qualities at all.”
This, however, does not represent a contradiction to the above statements made on the basis of the commentaries mentioned previously, because Yosef is “the potential which brings the essential influence of Yaakov into revelation among the recipients”; “all of the progeny of Yaakov are brought into revelation by Yosef” (Biurei HaZohar LeAdmur HaEmtzaei, p. 30a-b). Thus, since the attribute of Yaakov possessed by each individual (see footnote 26, below) is brought out by Yosef, every person must also possess an attribute of Yosef.
Nevertheless, it is still appropriate to say that “we call only three – Patriarchs.” For the influence of Yosef that every person possesses is not the attribute of Yosef himself – that quality is indeed possessed only by those who are from the tribes of Ephraim and Menasheh* – but is Yosef’s power to communicate the influence from Yaakov.
See the section entitled “Yosef’s Achievement,” which explains that the attribute to “repay those who are culpable with goodness” stems from Yosef because he is the one who draws down the essence of the soul (as it exists within the realm of Atzilus), i.e., the level of Yaakov, even to those who are culpable.
* To note: Ephraim and Menasheh also possess a certain universal quality, as reflected in the fact that the entire Jewish people are blessed, “May G‑d make you as Ephraim and Menasheh,” as Bereishis 48:20 states, “With you, Israel will be blessed.” See Targum Yonason ben Uziel, which interprets “With you” as referring to “Yosef my son,” i.e., this universal quality stems from Yosef.
On this basis, we can appreciate our Sages’ statement (Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, ch. 39) that Yosef was also called chalkol, “nurturer,” as it is written: vayichalkail Yosef: “And Yosef nurtured.”
Though Yosef was identified with this quality, it is referred to as the attribute of the Holy One, blessed be He, Who “repays those who are culpable with goodness.” (G‑d is praised in this manner in the blessing HaGomel; see Rif to Berachos, the beginning of ch. 9.)
See the section entitled “To Live as Yosef Lived.”
For, as stated above, every story in the Torah is a reflection of an ongoing spiritual pattern.
The reason why – although every Jew must possess the spiritual qualities of all three Patriarchs – the Jewish people share a greater connection with Yaakov than with Avraham and Yitzchak, is explained in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 3, p. 787ff.; Vol. 4, p. 1051, footnote 18.
Yalkut Shimoni on Tehillim 80:2.
In this sichah, “the World to Come” refers to the Era of the Redemption and, more particularly, the Era of the Resurrection, although there are sources which apply this term to Gan Eden, the afterlife, i.e., the non-corporeal world of souls.
Bereishis 47:12. This is the wording in the passage from the Yalkut Shimoni cited above. Seemingly, the focus of the Midrash is also on the conclusion of the verse, “and his brothers, granting them bread according to the needs of their children.” See also Midrash Tehillim (Buber edition) on the verse. That text, however, differs from the text of the Yalkut in several particulars.
The text in the Yalkut HaMachiri reads: “Yosef sustained his brothers according to their deeds, as it is written, ‘bread according to the needs of their children,’ so too, sustain us according to our deeds.” According to this version, the emphasis is – and this is the point developed below – regarding Yosef sustaining his brothers, not only his father, as stated in the passage in Yalkut Shimoni.
Bereishis 41:48-49.
Avos 4:16.
G‑d is referred to (Berachos 9:3) as the “True Judge” and the Torah teaches (Devarim 32:4) that “all of His ways are judgment.” Therefore, for Him to manifest kindness and generosity and overlook our undesirable deeds is a departure from the norm.
There are some who explain that mitzvos were given to enable the Jewish people to refine and shape their characters, show their devotion to G‑d, attain the love and fear of G‑d, and earn reward in this world and/or the World to Come, etc. While the observance of mitzvos can facilitate all these purposes, none of these are the ultimate reason why G‑d gave the Jews the mitzvos. Instead, as the main text explains, the mitzvos have a self-contained purpose. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 15, p. 310ff. (translated above, p. 457ff.) and Vol. 19, p. 182ff., which focuses on this concept.
See Toras Shalom, p. 190ff.
Likkutei Torah, Devarim, p. 28d ff.
Avos 4:17.
The conclusion of Tractate Kiddushin.
Mechilta, Rashi, commenting on Shmos 22:30. the Mechilta concludes, “And if this holds true for an animal, certainly, He will not withhold the reward due a human.”
See the series of maamarim entitled VeKachah. 5637, ch. 12.
Ch. 36 (p. 46a).
It appears that the Hebrew text of Tanya should read בריאת and not בריאות. This version is found in many of the printings of Tanya.
With regard to “the Era of Mashiach,” it could be explained (albeit with some difficulty) that the mitzvos will also be observed in that era as well. Hence, there would also be a connection to G‑d’s essential will at that time. (Our Sages’ statement (Nidah 61b) that “In the future, the observance of mitzvos will be nullified” applies only in the Era of Resurrection, (as it appears from the straightforward understanding of that Talmudic passage) but in the Era of Mashiach preceding the resurrection, their observance will not be nullified* (Tanya, Iggeres HaKodesh, Epistle 26, p. 145a ff).**)
Indeed, the essence of the charge, “Today to perform them” and the ultimate consummation of our deeds will be in the Era of Mashiach (Torah Or, p. 46a ff., the series of maamarim entitled VeKachah 5637, ch. 17ff.). With regard to the Era of the Resurrection, however, the resolution to be offered in the main text is necessary. See also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 24, p. 93, footnote 50.
* It appears that the Hebrew text should read בטלות and not בטלים, as we find in the previous phrase.
** See also S’dei Chemed: Klallim, Os Mem, sec. 218 (Vol. 3, p. 561c ff.); Divrei Chachamim, sec. 53 (Vol. 9, p. 1862b ff), nd the sources mentioned there.
See the section entitled “Without Any Other Purpose or Intent,” above.
A created entity – be it physical or spiritual – was brought into being from nothingness and is necessarily defined by the characteristics and qualities with which it was created. It is therefore fitting to speak of these characteristics and qualities – and even the entity itself – as being revealed or hidden, for its being depends on it existing in a manner that is perceptible or recognizable in some manner within the frame of reference in which it was brought into being. G‑d’s existence is of an entirely different type. As R. Yosef Albo states when listing the fundamental principles of faith in his Sefer HaIkkarim, “His existence must be, i.e., His existence is from Himself, and is not the result of any other cause which preceded it.” G‑d’s Essence is not defined by any characteristics whatsoever. He just is – beyond all definitions. Accordingly, His existence is neither dependent on nor defined by being concealed or revealed.
Revelation, by definition, involves a specific – and therefore limited – entity. If something is revealed, it can be described and delineated, and therefore has its own boundaries. Even a transcendent revelation, though unbounded by the limitations of existence as we know them, is defined as being transcendent and above limits. Thus, it is not truly unbounded; it has its set scope. As such, none of the revealed levels within the Spiritual Cosmos are appropriate mediums for G‑d’s Essence, for G‑d’s Essence is entirely unbounded, knowing no limitation whatsoever. It is only our world where G‑dliness is not at all revealed that is a fit place for His Essence to be manifest.
See a similar concept in Tanya, ch. 36 (p. 45b) which states that, in contrast to our material world, the spiritual realms represent a descent from the radiance of His presence. As they existed in potentia, before they were emanated, they existed in a loftier state than afterwards. Hence, their coming into existence constitutes a descent for them. See also the maamar entitled Basi LeGani 5711 (published in Sefer HaMaamarim Basi LeGani, Vol. 1, and Sefer HaMaamarim Melukat, Vol. 1.), sec. 4, and the sources cited there.
For that would be a limitation, that His Essence must remain concealed and cannot be revealed.
When the essence is revealed, its revelation transcends the ordinary mediums for revelation. For example, when a person’s life is threatened, he will run and jump in a manner far surpassing his ordinary capacities. Because the essence of his life-energy is revealed at that time, it is expressed in a manner entirely above the limits of what is normal and ordinary. Similarly, the revelation of G‑d’s Essence will redefine the prevailing limited patterns of revelation.
See the series of maamarim entitled VeKachah, the end of sec. 12, and the beginning of sec. 15. (At the end of sec. 12, it is stated that, in the Future, all existence will be elevated to G‑d’s Essence, not that G‑d’s Essence will be revealed through the ordinary patterns of revelation.)
Despite the fact that the World to Come will also involve the satisfaction of the Creator, G‑d’s Essence, it is still appropriate to say“One moment of teshuvah and good deeds in this world is more desirable than the entire life of the World to Come,” because the possibility for man to experience that satisfaction in the Ultimate Future is generated by the observance of mitzvos in the present era, as explained in sec. 15 of that source.
As mentioned, in footnote 48, the revelation in the World to Come will be a revelation of G‑d’s Essence, which redefines the ordinary channels of revelation.
See also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 4, p. 1054, which explains that the concept of a “dwelling in the lower worlds” implies that not only is the entire essence present there, but also that it is manifest and revealed. To cite an analogy: It is in a person’s own home where he expresses himself without constraints or inhibitions.
Since the intent in saying “a dwelling in the lower worlds” is a dwelling for His Essence, which transcends all levels of revelation, for even G‑d’s light, which is a revelation from His Essence, was emanated solely for the sake of establishing this dwelling {see the maamar entitled Anochi Havayah E-lokecha, 5703, sec. 3 (Sefer HaMaamarim 5703, p. 124 ff.), et al.}, it is not appropriate to say that it is a composite of two elements. Therefore, it is necessary to say that the revelation of His Essence in the Ultimate Future, is not an incremental factor, but rather intrinsic to His Essence itself. There are not two elements: His Essence and its revelation. Instead, the revelation of G‑d’s Essence is a fundamental and inherent element of His Essence being drawn down, as will be explained in the main text. See also the following note.
On this basis, we can comprehend the statement (Pesachim 50b; see also the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch, Hilchos Talmud Torah 4:3, and the Kuntreis Acharon to that source), “A person should always occupy himself in the Torah and its mitzvos, even when lacking the proper intent, for from Divine service without the proper intent will come Divine service with the proper intent.”
On the surface, since “deed is of primary importance” (Avos 1:17), what is the necessity for the rationale, “From Divine service without the proper intent will come Divine service with the proper intent”? Seemingly, even if the person will ultimately continue to serve G‑d without the proper intentions, as long as he is performing mitzvos, his deeds would be acceptable, because it would be drawing down G‑d’s Essence.
The resolution is that if these deeds would not ultimately lead to Divine service with the proper intent, not only would the revelation of G‑d’s Essence drawn down by the Divine service be lacking, but the manner in which His Essence was drawn down would also be lacking, as evident from the previous note. If the person’s Divine service would never reflect the proper intent, that would show that the mitzvos he performs are not G‑dly acts, for if they were truly G‑dly, their inner G‑dliness would ultimately be revealed.
See the explanation of similar concepts in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 9, p. 157ff., in the interpretation of our Sages’ statement (cf. Zohar, Vol. III, p. 5a ), “When is He great? When He is in the city of our G‑d.” Consult that text.
To cite an analogy: Consider the scenery and settings for a play. They are important and desired only because they create the background for the play, not because there is an intrinsic desire for them in their own right.
See the Zohar, Vol. III, pp. 73a and 93b. See also our Sages’ interpretation of the description (Shir HaShirim 5:2) of the Jewish people as “My perfect one,” which Shir HaShirim Rabbah on the verse renders as “My twin.” See also Likkutei Torah, Shir HaShirim, pp. 34d, 39a.
See the distinction made in Iggeres HaTeshuvah, ch. 4, between the Jewish souls and all other created beings; that all existence derives from G‑d’s speech, while the souls of the Jewish people derive from His innermost vitality. See footnote 54, above. See the elucidation of the statement from Kiddushin, loc cit., Tanya, ch. 2. concept in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 2, p. 604, which explains the reason why the quote uses the expression Koni for Creator {and not Bori (although it begins with the term nivreisi which means “created”) or the like}.
It employs the term Koni, because Koni uses the same root letters as the word kinyan, meaning “acquisition.” What is an acquisition in a complete sense? Not merely the purchase of a property solely for the sake of benefitting from its produce or a servant solely for the sake of benefitting from his labor in which instance, the ownership of the land itself or the servant himself is not transferred. Instead, a kinyan brings about the complete and total transfer of an entity to the purchaser, to the extent that the acquired object no longer exists as a separate entity, and its entire existence is defined by the fact that it is owned by the person who acquired it. Similarly, the entire existence of the Jewish people is defined by their being the possession of G‑d, their Koneh. It is not only their Divine service that is significant to Him, but their very being. See also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 24, p. 163, and footnote 44 in that source.
See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 8, p. 131ff., where this concept is explained at length.
When speaking within the context of a person’s individual identity and self-concern, kabbalas ol and bittul definitely demand that a person sacrifice his self-interest and give up immediate gratification. From that perspective, it does not appear logical that kabbalas ol wouldlead to satisfaction. Nevertheless, a Jew’s individual identity and self-concern do not define who he is. Beyond his “I” of wants and desires, he possesses a G‑dly soul which defines his true self, the core of His being. And it is bittul and kabbalas ol which give his G‑dly soul expression and satisfaction.
See the section entitled “Why the Jewish People are Called Yosef,” above.
See the maamar entitled Habayim Yasreish Yaakov and its explanation in Torah Or, p. 53b ff.
See the section entitled “The Purpose is Vested in Them,” above.
See Tanya, the beginning of ch. 4; Kuntreis HaAvodah, ch. 2, p. 15.
See Yeshayahu 29:13 which states, “And your fear of Me has become like a mortal precept, habitually performed”; see also Tanya, the conclusion of ch. 39.
Cf. Avos 1:17; see also Torah Or, p. 90a ff.
In general, the ordinary pattern of revelation of the essential G‑dliness generated by the observance of the mitzvos does not result from the actual performance of the mitzvos itself, but comes as a result of the love and fear which motivate and accompany the observance of the mitzvos (see Likkutei Sichos, Vol. III, p. 956; Vol. IV, p. 1054).* Aside from this, the revelation of “the satisfaction of the Creator” generated by the observance of the mitzvos (which transcends ordinary revelation) comes only when the kabbalas ol which transcends intellect is also internalized and therefore expressed in the Jews’ vitality and pleasure, as stated above, in the section entitled “The Purpose is Vested in Them.”
* It is the actual deed of the mitzvah that draws down essential G‑dliness. However, it is the intent with which the person performs the mitzvos that leads to this G‑dliness being revealed within the world.
Bereishis 50:20.
Ibid.:21. Note the commentary of the Or HaChayim to the aforementioned verse: “This can be compared to a person who intended to give a colleague a cup of deadly poison to drink, but instead gave him a cup of wine.” (The Or HaChayim concludes that, for this reason, the person is absolved from intending to serve poison. The same logic can, however, be extended to explain why “I will sustain you and your children.”)
Based on the above, we can also appreciate the explanation in Tanya, the conclusion of ch. 12, which states that “Instead of repaying a person who caused one harm according to his deeds, on the contrary, one should repay those who are culpable with goodness.” On the surface, one might ask: Why should goodness be granted to those who are culpable?*
The resolution to this question is that whatever harm the colleague brought upon the person ultimately resulted from G‑d’s wish that this occur (see Tanya, Iggeres HaKodesh, Epistle 25). Since “Everything that G‑d does is for the good” (Berachos 60b), the person who was harmed should repay the other person with good. Whatever that person did was done as an agent of the Holy One, blessed be He, Who decreed this for his benefit,** as was the case regarding Yosef’s brothers.*** See Bereishis 45:8, and the commentary of Seforno to Bereishis 50:19.
* Note Bava Metzia 32b which, when speaking about the mitzvah of unloading and reloading a fallen animal, states that when there is a choice between unloading an animal belonging to a friend and reloading one belonging to one who hates you, it is a mitzvah to first deal with the animal belonging to one’s enemy, to curb one’s natural inclination. See the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch, Hilchos Ovrei Derachim ViTzaar Baalei Chayim, law 10.
** To cite a parallel, note our Sages’ statement (Bava Kama 92b), “The wine belongs to its owner, but the one who serves it deserves appreciation.” See also Derech Mitzvosecha, Mitzvas Milah, sec. I, the conclusion of ch. 3; and Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 7, p. 14, note 22.
*** On this basis, we can appreciate why the Tanya instructs us to learn from Yosef and his brothers. For in this instance, they saw in an overt manner how “G‑d intended it for good.” This serves as an explanation why each person must repay the culpable with kindness.
See Berachos 57a, Eruvin 19a and Chagigah 27awhich describe these individuals as “the empty ones among you.” Nevertheless, those sources state that these individuals are “are filled with mitzvos like a pomegranate is filled with seeds.” See also Likkutei Torah, Shir HaShirim, p. 37a.
Tanya, ch. 37 (p. 48b).
Rosh HaShanah 4a, Bava Basra 10b.
Rashi, Rosh HaShanah, loc. cit. In his commentary to Bava Basra, loc. cit., Rashi states “his mind is directed to G‑d.
Rambam, Hilchos Geirushin 2:20.
It can be explained that this is the rationale why “the observance of the mitzvos does not require intent” (see Berachos 13a; Eruvin 95b; the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch, 60:5, 489:12), i.e., that when a person performs the act of a mitzvah without intending to observe it, it is nevertheless considered as if he fulfilled his obligation and performed the mitzvah. Even though he does not have a conscious intent, nevertheless, his soul inwardly intends to perform the mitzvah, as explained in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 4, p. 1130. See Tanya, the conclusion of ch. 39. Further analysis is, nevertheless, still warranted.
See the section entitled “When the Subconscious Speaks.”
Yoma 86b.
See Likkutei Torah, Vayikra, p. 26c.
See the section entitled “The Purpose is Vested in Them.”
The fact that the Midrash introduces a concept authored by a different Sage points to the concept’s novelty.
On the basis of the statements in the main text, we can appreciate the connection of this statement with its authors, Rabbi Menachem and Rabbi Avin. The name Menachem (מנחם) shares the same root as the word nechamah (נחמה), which also connotes regret, and thus is associated with teshuvah.
A connection can also be made with the name Avin based on the explanation in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 4, p. 1080, with regard to the month named Menachem Av. That source explains that Av, “the father,” possesses an advantage of over Menachem, one who offers comfort. With regard to Menachem, offering comfort, the lack associated with hardship is still felt; {it is only that just as one must bless G‑d for goodness, one must also bless Him for bad” (Berachos 60b)}. In contrast, the level of Av – alluding to G‑d as our Father – allows for the good that the evil itself contains to be revealed.
It is possible to say that this teaching is cited by Rabbi Menachem in the name of Rabbi Avin to allude to the concept that through teshuvah motivated by love, willful transgressions can be transformed into merits.
See Zohar, Vol. I, p. 129b.
See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 5, p. 66ff., and notes there, which explain that the concept that “there is nothing else aside from Him” (Devarim 4:39) holds true even when, G‑d forbid, a person sins, performing an act that is against His will. Even such acts reveal how “there is nothing else aside from Him.”
{Teshuvah (which comes after the performance of a sin) reveals the infinite dimension of G‑dliness, that even the sparks of holiness which are found in purposeful sins can be elevated and transformed into merits.}
Furthermore, even through the sins themselves, a unique dimension of G‑dliness is revealed. The sins show that “there is nothing else aside from Him.” This revelation comes, however, {not through the sins themselves, Heaven forbid, but rather} from the fact that they are of no consequence before G‑d and He pays them no heed. Unlike other dimensions of Divine service which themselves express G‑d’s qualities, this dimension of the cycle of sin and teshuvah does not express a positive attribute of G‑dliness. It does, however, show that nothing – not even something that is against His will – can prevent the soul’s connection with Him, since despite the barriers sins cause, the sins will ultimately be nullified. This demonstrates that their very existence – i.e., an existence estranged from G‑d – is ultimately of no consequence whatsoever. See the detailed explanation in the above source.
Similar concepts apply with regard to the essence of the Jewish soul (which is united with G‑d’s Essence). Even sin reveals the power of the soul’s connection to G‑d, demonstrating:
a) that despite having committed a sin, the soul can – and will – still turn to G‑d in teshuvah. Indeed, ultimately, every Jew will definitely do teshuvah (Tanya, the conclusion of ch. 39);
b) that even at the time of the sin itself, the soul remains faithful to Him. For on that level of the soul the sin is of no consequence and cannot detract from the connection the essence of the soul shares with G‑d.
See Biurei HaZohar LeAdmur HaEmtzaei, p. 30a ff.; Or HaTorah, Bereishis, Vol. 2, p. 386a, b. That source also explains that Yosef’s Divine service is expressed through the verse (Bereishis 30:24), “May G‑d grant me another son,” i.e., that Yosef transforms another – the sitra achra and the animal soul, which are “others,” estranged from G‑d, into a “son.”
As explained in the maamar entitled Ben Poras (Or HaTorah, Bereishis, Vol. 2, p. 385b ff.), Yaakov, represents the middle vector, which is sourced in pnimiyus hakesser, the inner dimension of kessef, in which is vested the Ein Sof, G‑d’s infinity.
Yosef, as the extension of Yaakov taps, this infinite dimension and is able to reveal it even within entities and individuals who feel estranged from G‑d, calling the G‑dly spark within them to the surface.
Tanya, ch. 36 (p. 45b); see also ch. 7 (p. 11b).
See the explanation of this concept in the section titled “When the Subconscious Speaks.”
See Biurei HaZohar, loc. cit., which states that Yosef’s Divine service causes Atzilus to be manifest in this material world “without a change in its nature, existing in this material world as it exists in the higher realms.” Similarly, it could be said that Yosef enables the essence of the soul to be manifest in this realm as above.
See the above sections entitled “The Purpose is Vested in Them” and “When the Subconscious Speaks”.
See Biurei HaZohar, loc. cit., which explains that the influence which Yosef drew down from Atzilus to Beriah, Yetzirah, and Asiyah represents the sustenance which Yosef gave to his brothers. In several sources, it is explained that the spiritual level of Yosef’s brothers was identified with the world of Beriah. Here, the Rebbe is emphasizing that by providing them with nourishment, Yosef was conveying nurture from the realm of Atzilus to them.
The impetus to “repay those who are culpable with goodness” is the awareness of the essential G‑dliness that lies at the core of the other person’s being and in a larger sense, within everything that transpires within the world. Since whatever happens is an expression of G‑dliness, even if on the surface it looks unfavorable, it is ultimately positive, and deserves to be repaid with kindness. The ability to appreciate this is an essential quality of the Jewish people.
זח״א רא, א.
פרשתנו מז, יב.
תהלים פ, ב. רש״י ומצו״ד שם.
ראה יומא פג, ב: ר׳ מאיר הוה דייק בשמא. וראה שעהיוה״א פ״א. (וראה בארוכה "תשובות וביאורים" סי׳ א*. לקו״ש ח״ו ע׳ 35 ואילך ובהערות שם).
*) ס׳ אגרות קודש כ״ק אדמו״ר שליט״א ח"א ס״ע רפח ואילך. המו״ל.
ובדוגמת "אחות נביות"* שנקראת על שמו לפי שהוא השיאה (רש״י וישלח לו, ג) – כי מכיון שנשואין הוא ענין עיקרי, לכן נקראת על שמו גם לאחרי הנשואין.
אבל אי״ז דומה לנדו״ד. כי [נוסף למה שאינה נקראת "נביות" כ״א ״אחות נביות" – כי הנשואין (עם היותם דבר עיקרי, הרי) רק בא ע״י נביות ואינו ענין לנביות עצמו (וראה לקמן בפנים, שמטעם זה קשה זה שישראל נקראים יוסף)] "אחות נביות" מתאר את זו שנקראת בשמת – שהיתה אחותו של נביות. משא"כ השם יוסף.
*) מה שהכתוב קורא את שמעון ולוי ״אחי דינה – לפי שמסרו עצמן עלי׳" (רש״י וישלח לד, כה) – אינו שייך לעניננו, כי הכתוב שם מדבר בנוגע ל"ויקחו גו׳ איש חרבו גו׳ ויקחו את דינה", משא״כ מה שישראל נקראים על שם יוסף הוא גם לאחרי זמן – כשאינו מפרנסם. ועד״ז הוא ב״אחות נביות". ואף שגם ב״אחות נביות" מדבר בנוגע ל״עשו לקח גו׳״ – הרי הסיפור ד״ויקח את מחלת" הוא רק בפ׳ תולדות, ובפ׳ וישלח נשנה דרך אגב בנוגע ל״תולדות עשו״ (ראה בארוכה לקו״ש ח״ה ע׳ 164. וע׳ 168). ולהעיר מפרש״י בשלח טו, כ. ואכ״מ.
רמב״ם הל׳ יסוה״ת רפ״ט. יסוד התשיעי בי״ג עיקרים (פיה״מ פ׳ חלק). ובארוכה – בהקדמה לפיה״מ ד״ה החלק הראשון שיתנבא כו׳ ואילך.
ובלשון הרגצובי "הוא דבר הנמשך ופועל תמיד״ (צפע״נ למכות יא, א מצפע״נ השמטות להל׳ תרומות ס, ג). וראה עד״ז לקו״ש ח״ח ע׳ 151. וש״נ.
ישעי׳ מ, ח.
נוסח התפלה (ברכות ק״ש).
ברד״ק (וכ״ה במצו״ד) לישעי׳ שם ״ודבר אלקינו – שדיבר ע״י נביאיו" (ובפשטות נכלל בזה גם דברי הנביאים שלא נכתבו בתורה). ובתניא פכ״ה (לב, א) מובא פּסוק זה לענין "גילוי רצונו שבדיבורו שהוא התורה״ – משמע שגם תורה שבע״פ בכלל זה (ובפרט שגילוי רצונו – עיקרו בתושבע״פ (אגה״ק סו״ס כ״ט)). וראה הערה הבאה.
כמובן ממ״ש בתניא שם שזה שהיחוד שנעשה ע״י המצות "הוא נצחי לעולם ועד", הוא מפני ש״גילוי רצונו שבדיבורו שהיא התורה הוא נצחי״*.
*) ראה גם שעהיוה״א בתחלתו, שפּירוש "ודבר אלקינו יקום לעולם ודבריו חיים וקיימים לעד" הוא, שהתיבות ואותיות (של הדיבור) עצמן הן נצבות ועומדות לעולם.
פיוט יגדל.
וכן משמע ג״כ ממה שמקשר בתניא שם פכ״ה הענין ד״לא יחליף כו׳" ל״ודבר אלקינו יקום לעולם ודבריו חיים וקיימים כו׳".
יתרה מזה בצפע״נ שם דהספור דויואל משה שנשבע כו׳ הוא פועל תמיד ולכן גם עתה (אף דהתירו השבועה) מתפיסים בהשבועה!
ועד שבזהר ח״א רא, א־ב – מובא רק הוראה זו.
ספי״ב.
ומה שציער אותם בתחלה – נתבאר באוה״ת מקץ שמ, סע״ב ואילך. וש״נ.
ועפ״ז יומתק מארז״ל (פרדר״א פל״ט) לפיכך נקרא שמו כלכל, שנאמר ויכלכל יוסף.
בתו״א ר״פ וארא, שמה שאין קורין אבות אלא לשלשה (ברכות טז, ב) הוא כי רק "בחי׳ האבות צריך להיות בכל אדם, שהם שרש ומקור כל נש״י״, אבל בחי׳ השבטים "יש לך אדם שאין בו כלל בחי׳ ומדריגות אלו״. אבל אין מזה סתירה למש״כ בפנים ע״פּ מפרשים הנ״ל – כי יוסף "הוא בחי׳ כח המביא ההשפעה שביעקב בעצם לידי גילוי למקבלים" ו״כל תולדות דיעקב בא לגילוי ע״י יוסף דוקא" (ביאוה״ז ל, סע״א ואילך), ומכיון שבחי׳ יעקב שישנו בכל אדם (וראה לקמן הערה 19) נמשכת ע״י יוסף, הרי בהכרח שבכ״א ישנו גם בחי׳ יוסף.
אלא שמ״מ "אין קורין אבות אלא לשלשה" כי מה שצ״ל בכ״א מבחי׳ יוסף הוא [לא בחי׳ יוסף עצמו (שענין זה ישנו רק באלו שהם משבט אפרים ומנשה*) כ״א] לפי שהוא כח המביא ההשפעה דיעקב. וראה לקמן סעיף יב שהמדה ד״לגמול לחייבים טובות" הבאה מצד יוסף, זהו לפי שהוא הוא הממשיך עצם הנשמה (דאצי'), בחי׳ יעקב, גם לחייבים.
*) ולהעיר ממה שהברכה לכל ישראל היא כמש״נ: "בך (יוסף ברי) יברך ישראל לאמר ישימך אלקים כאפרים וכמנשה" (ויחי מח, כ ובתיב״ע).
מדתו של הקב״ה "הגומל לחייבים טובות" (ברכת הגומל. רי״ף ברכות רפ״ט).
זה ששייכותם של כל ישראל ליעקב היא יותר משייכותם לאברהם ויצחק – אף שבכל אחד צ״ל מבחי׳ כל האבות – מובן ע״פ המבואר בלקו״ש ח״ג ר״פ ויצא: ח״ד ע׳ 1051 הערה 18.
ילקו״ש עה"פ.
כ״ה בילקוט שם. ולכאורה הכוונה גם לסיום הכתוב. וראה מדרש תהלים (באבער) עה״פ, אלא ששם הוא בכמה שינויים מהילקוט.
הגירסא בילקוט המכירי היא: "ומה יוסף כלכל את אחיו לפי מעשיהם שנאמר לחם לפי הטף אף אתה כלכל אותנו לפי מעשינו". ובגירסא זו מפורש "כלכל את אחיו כו' ".
מקץ מא, מח־ט.
אבות פ״ד מט״ז.
ראה ד״ה אגורה באהלך עולמים תרצ״ה (סה״מ קונט׳ ח״ב) פ״ג (ובהנסמן שם) בפירוש הכתוב (תהלים סב, יג) "ולך אד' חסד כי אתה תשלם לאיש כמעשהו״ [שגם שם א״מ: מהו החסד ב״תשלם לאיש כמעשהו". ועיי״ש התירוץ בזה. וראה גם שם פ״א בשם העיקרים]. אבל הפירוש שנתבאר שם, אין לאמרו ב״כלכלנו לפי מעשינו״ – כי א״כ אין צורך לבקש על זה, ובפרט שתוכן מזמורי תהלים היא בקשה תמידית [שהרי סדר ההנהגה מצד חסדו של הקב״ה היא ג״כ באופן זה], ומכ״ש שלא הי׳ צורך להקדמת "מה יוסף כו׳".
ראה בארוכה תורת שלום ס״ע 190 ואילך.
לקו״ת ראה כח, ד ואילך.
אבות שם מי״ז.
סוף מס׳ קידושין.
מכילתא (ורש״י) משפטים כב, ל. ומסיים שם: אם חי׳ כך אדם לא כ״ש שאינו מקפח שכרו.
ראה המשך וככה תרל״ז פי״ב.
פל״ו (מו, א).
לכאורה כצ״ל. וכ״ה בכמה דפוסים.
בנוגע ל״ימות המשיח״ אפשר לתרץ (בדוחק עכ״פ) כי גם אז יהי׳ קיום המצות [דמה שאמרו (נדה סא, ב) מצות בטילות לע״ל הוא בתחה״מ (כפשטות הסוגיא שם), אבל לימוה״מ קודם תחה״מ אין בטלים* – אגה״ק סכ״ו (קמה סע״א ואילך)**], ואדרבה, ״עיקר היום לעשותם ותכלית השלימות של המעשה יהי׳ בימות המשיח״ (תו״א מו, א ואילך. המשך וככה שם פי״ז ואילך). אבל בנוגע לתחה״מ מוכרח לומר כבפנים. – וראה לקו״ש חכ״ד ע׳ 93 הערה 50.
*) לכאורה צ״ל "בטלות" – כמש"כ לפני זה.
**) ראה שד״ח: כללים מ' ס"ק ריח (ח״ג תקסא, ג ואילך – הוצאת קה״ת). דברי חכמים סנ״ג (ח״ט א׳תתקסב, סע״ב ואילך) וש״נ.
ראה עד״ז תניא פל״ו (מה, סע״ב) שעולמות העליונים הם ירידה מאור פניו ית׳, משא״כ עוה"ז. וראה ד׳׳ה באתי לגני תשי״א (בם ה׳׳מ באתי לגני ח״א וסה״מ מלוקט ח״א) פ״ד ובהנסמן שם.
המשך וככה שם ספי״ב ורפט״ו. (ושם ספי״ב, שזהו רק מה שיתעלו לשם, ולא בדרך גילוי).
ומה שמ״מ יפה שעה אחת בתשובה ומע״ט בעוה״ז דוקא – מבואר שם פט״ו. עיי"ש.
ראה גם לקו״ש ח״ד ע׳ 1054 בפירוש "דירה בתחתונים", שענין ה״דירה" הוא [לא רק שנמצא בה כל העצם, אלא גם] שהעצם נמצא בה בגילוי. עיי״ש.
ומובן שמכיון שהכוונה ד״דירה בתחתונים" היא בעצמותו ית׳ שלמעלה מכל הגילויים [שהרי גם האור שבבחי׳ גילוי מן העצם הוא בשביל כוונה זו (ד״ה אנכי ה״א תש״ג פ״ג. ובכ״מ)], אין שייך לומר שהיא מורכבת ח״ו מב׳ ענינים – וע״כ צ״ל, שמה שהעצם יהי' בגילוי (הוא לא ענין נוסף, כ״א שזה) נוגע להמשכת העצמות, כדלקמן בפנים. וראה הערה הבאה.
ועפ״ז יומתק מה שאמרו (פסחים נ, ב. וש״נ. וראה הל׳ ת״ת לאדה״ז פ״ד ה״ג ובקו״א שם) "לעולם יעסוק אדם בתומ״צ אע״פ שלא לשמה שמתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה״ – דלכאורה: מכיון שהמעשה הוא העיקר, למה צריך להטעם ד״שמתוך כו׳ בא לשמה״ – כי באם גם אח״כ לא הי׳ בא ה״לשמה", חסר לא רק בה״גילוי״ כ״א גם בהמשכת העצמות, כבהערה הקודמת.
ראה עד״ז לקו״ש ח״ט ע׳ 157 ואילך בפירוש אימתי הוא גדול כשהוא בעיר אלקינו. עיי"ש.
ראה זח״ג עג, א. וראה שם צג, ב. וראה גם דחז״ל עה״פ תמתי (שה״ש ה, ב) תאומתי ובלק״ת שה״ש (לד, ד. לט, א).
ראה עד״ז בארוכה לקו״ש ח״ב ע׳ 604. ושם, שמטעם זה אמרו "לשמש את קוני" (ולא "בוראי" (ובפרט שמתחיל "ואני נבראתי") וכיו״ב), כי "קנין" – אמתי (בשלימות) ולא רק לפירות ולמעשי ידיו וכו׳ – היינו שהנקנה אינו מציאות לעצמו וכל ענינו הוא מה שהוא קנוי להקונה אותו. – וראה לקו״ש חכ״ד ע׳ 163 ובהערה 44 שם.
ראה בארוכה לקו״ש ח״ח ע׳ 131 ואילך.
להעיר מתו״א ד״ה הבאים ישרש יעקב וביאורו.
ראה תניא רפ״ד ובקונט׳ העבודה פ"ב (ע' 15).
ישעי׳ כט, יג. תניא ספל״ט.
ראה אבות פ״א מי״ז. וראה תו״א צ, א ואילך.
ונוסף לזה שכללות ענין הגילוי א״א להיות מצד המעשה עצמה כ״א ע״י האהוי״ר דוקא (ראה לקו״ש ח״ג ע׳ 956. ח״ד שם), הרי הגילוי דבחי׳ נח״ר לבורא (שלמעלה מענין הגילויים), הוא דוקא עי״ז שהקב״ע שלמעלה מהשכל כו׳ נמשך גם בפנימיות כו׳ כנ״ל סעיף ט׳.
ויחי נ, כ.
שם, כא. וראה אוה״ח שם: "וה״ז דומה למתכוין להשקות לחבירו כוס מות והשקהו כוס יין" (אלא שבאוה״ח שם, שמטעם זה "אינו מתחייב כלום", אבל יש לומר שזהו גם טעם ל״אנכי אכלכל אתכם גו׳", כבפנים).
ועפ״ז יובן גם מ״ש בתניא ספי״ב “שלא לשלם לו כפעלו ח״ו אלא אדרבה לגמול לחייבים טובות״ – דלכאורה: למה צריך לגמול טובות “לחייבים”*
– כי מכיון שמה שגמלוהו כו’, הרי “מאת ה׳ היתה זאת לו” (אגה״ק רסכ״ה), וכל מה דעביד רחמנא לטב עביד, לכן צריך לגמול להם טובות, כי עשו זאת בשליחותו של הקב״ה שגזר עליו ה״טב דעביד”** – כמו אחיו של יוסף*** (ראה ויגש מה, ח. ספורנו ויחי נ, יט).
*) ולהעיר מב״מ (לב, סע״ב) דאוהב ושונא מצוה בשונא כדי לכוף את יצרו. ובשו״ע אדה״ז הל׳ עוברי דרכים וצבע״ח ס״י.
**) ע״ד חמרא למרא טיבותא לשקי׳ (ב״ק צב, ב. דרמ״צ מצות מילה ח״א ספ״ג. וראה לקו״ש ח״ז ע׳ 14 הערה 22).
***) ועפ״ז יומתק מה שמסיים בתניא שם ״ללמוד מיוסף עם אחיו״ – כי שם ראו בגילוי ש״אלקים חשבה לטובה", וזוהי ההסברה על זה שכ״א צריך לגמול לחייבים טובות.
עירובין יט, א. סוף חגיגה. ובברכות נג, א: ריקנין שבך. וראה לקו״ת שה״ש לז, א.
ר״ה ד, א. ב״ב י, ב.
תניא פל״ז (מח, ב).
רש״י ר״ה שם. וברש״י ב״ב שם: דעתן לשמים.
רמב״ם הל׳ גירושין ספ״ב.
וי״ל שמטעם זה “מצות אין צריכות כוונה”, כי גם כשאינו מכוון בגילוי, יש לו כוונה מצד נפשו, כמבואר בלקו״ש ח״ד ע׳ 1130. עיי״ש. ועיין תניא ספל״ט. וצ״ע.
יומא פו, ב.
ראה לקו״ת אחרי כו, ג.
ויש לומר שזוהי ג״כ השייכות של מאמר זה לר׳ מנחם – כי ענינו של ״מנחם״ הוא נחמה וחרטה – בחי׳ תשובה.
וע״פּ המבואר בלקו״ש ח״ד ע׳ 1080 במעלת “אב״ על ״מנחם״ – שבנחמה ד”מנחם” נרגש עדיין החסרון שבהיסורים (ורק שמ״מ “כשם שמברך על הטובה כך מברך על הרעה”) משא״כ מצד בחי׳ “אב” מתגלה הטוב שבהם עצמם – אולי יש לומר, שזהו ג״כ מה שמאמר זה אמרו “ר׳ מנחם בשם ר׳ אבין”, כי המדובר כאן הוא בנוגע לתשובה מאהבה שהזדונות עצמם נהפכים לזכיות.
ראה זח״א קכט, ב.
ראה לקו״ש ח״ה ע׳ 66 ובהערות לשם, שהענין ד״אין עוד מלבדו” אינו משתנה ח״ו גם ע״י החטאים אף שהם היפך רצונו ית’, כי אדרבה, גם בזה נתגלה ש״אין עוד מלבדו” [דנוסף לזה שהתשובה (שלאחרי עשיית החטא) מגלה את ה״אין סוף” שבו, שגם ניצוצות הקדושה שנמצאו לפנ״ז בה״זדונות” יכולים להתעלות וליעשות ל״זכיות”, הנה] גם ע״י הזדונות עצמם מתגלה שאין עוד מלבדו, אלא שגילוי זה הוא [לא מצד מציאותם ח״ו, כ״א אדרבה] שאינם תופסים מקום לגבי׳ ית׳ ואין מתחשבים עמהם. עיי״ש בארוכה.
ויש לומר, שעד״ז הוא גם בנוגע עצם הנשמה (שמיוחדת בעצמותו ית׳) שגם ע״י החטאים מתגלה תוקף התקשרותה באלקות, והוא: א) למרות החטאים וכו׳ יכולה היא לשוב אליו ית׳, ועד שכאו״א מישראל בודאי סופו לעשות תשובה (תניא ספל״ט). ב) גם בשעת החטא עצמו היא באמנה אתו ית׳ – כי שם אין החטא תופס מקום ואין ביכלתו לגרוע ח״ו בהתקשרותה של עצם הנשמה לאלקות.
ראה ביאוה״ז ל, סע״א ואילך. אוה״ת ויחי שפו, א־ב (ושם שענין “יוסף הוי׳ לי בן אחר״ הוא שמבחי׳ ״אחר״ – סט״א ונה״ב נהפך להיות בחי׳ “בן”).
תניא פל״ו (מה, ב). וראה גם שם פ״ז (יא, ב).
ראה ביאוה״ז שם: ובלא שינוי המהות אלא כמו שהוא למעלה כו׳.
ראה ביאוה״ז שם שההמשכה שהמשיך יוסף מאצי׳ לבי״ע הוא ענין “ויכלכל יוסף גו׳”. עיי״ש.
*) התחלת שנת השמונים לכ״ק אדמו״ר (מהוריי״צ) נ״ע – שאז הותחל הקאפיטל (פ׳ שבתהלים – ראה לקו״ש ח״ה ע׳ 103 ואילך ובהערות שם) בו נאמר "נוהג כצאן יוסף". ולהעיר מזה ששמו הראשון של כ״ק אדמו״ר נ״ע הוא – יוסף. ועיין לקו״ש ח״ג ע׳ 855.
Source: https://rebrand.ly/7tyur35
The Repetition of a Commandment
As is his practice in many Halachos in the Mishneh Torah, the Rambam begins Hilchos Beis HaBechirah, “The Laws of [G‑d’s] Chosen House,” by stating the fundamental mitzvah upon which the entire collection of laws which follow is based:
It is a positive commandment to construct a house for G‑d, prepared to have sacrifices offered within.... as it is written,1 “And you shall make Me a Sanctuary.”
Significantly, the Rambam also mentions the mitzvah of constructing the Beis HaMikdash elsewhere in the Mishneh Torah, in Hilchos Melachim, “The Laws of Kings.” There, however, he focuses on the mitzvah in a different context, stating:2
The Jews were commanded regarding the observance of three mitzvos when they entered Eretz Yisrael: to appoint a king over them.... to wipe out the descendants of Amalek.... and to build [G‑d’s] Chosen House; as it is written,3 “You shall seek out His presence and come to that place.”
The commentaries question: What is the Rambam’s purpose in repeating the commandment to build a Sanctuary in Hilchos Melachim and why in that source does he link together the three mitzvos he mentions?4
The Bond Between These Three Mitzvos
In regard to the latter question, it can be explained that there is an intrinsic connection between these three mitzvos.5 Although they are three separate commandments, the fulfillment of one contributes a measure of perfection to the others. To cite a parallel: The arm tefillin and the head tefillin are two separate mitzvos.6 Nevertheless, when both of these mitzvos are performed together, each one is elevated to a higher level.
Similarly, in regard to the three mitzvos mentioned by the Rambam: The intent is not merely that the mitzvos are to be fulfilled in the chronological order mentioned by the Rambam.7 Instead, the linkage of three mitzvos teaches that the mitzvah of building the Sanctuary can be fulfilled in the most perfect manner, only when first, a king is appointed and then Amalek is destroyed. Similarly, the fulfillment of the mitzvos of destroying Amalek and building a Sanctuary enhance the mitzvah of appointing a king, and the fulfillment of the mitzvah of wiping out Amalek is enhanced by the mitzvos of appointing a king and building the Beis HaMikdash.
This concept is supported by the verses8 cited by the Rambam in the halachah which follows in Hilchos Melachim:9 “And it came to pass, when the king dwelt in his house, and G‑d brought him peace from all the enemies which surrounded him, the king said to the prophet, Natan, ‘Behold, I am sitting in a palace of cedar, [while the Ark of G‑d dwells in curtains].’ ”
These verses indicate how the secure establishment of the monarchy, [“the king dwelt in his house”,] the destruction of Amalek, [“And G‑d brought him peace from all the enemies which surrounded him,”10] and the building of the Beis HaMikdash [David’s request from the prophet Natan] are interrelated.11
Based on the above, we can appreciate a further point: The Rambam’s statements in Hilchos Melachim are based on the Midrash Tanchuma. Nevertheless, he alters the text of that Midrashic passage, choosing a different prooftext. In the Midrash Tanchuma, the prooftext cited for the commandment to build the Beis HaMikdash is the verse: “And you shall make Me a Sanctuary.”12 The Rambam, by contrast, substitutes the verse: “You shall seek out His presence...,” because the context of this verse in the Book of Devarim describes the Jews’ entry into Eretz Yisrael and their progress to a state when “G‑d will grant you peace from all your enemies around you and you will dwell in security.”13
Fulfilling a Mitzvah in Stages
The above concepts also shed light on another related point which has aroused the attention of the commentaries: As mentioned above, the Rambam uses the verse, “And you shall make Me a Sanctuary,” as the prooftext for the mitzvah to build the Beis HaMikdash. This is problematic, for seemingly, this command refers to the construction of the Sanctuary in the desert and not to the construction of the Beis HaMikdash. The passage cited by the Rambam in Hilchos Melachim, by contrast, refers specifically to the construction of the Beis HaMikdash, and indeed, is cited as the source for the commandment to build the Beis HaMikdash by our Sages14 and by our Rabbis.15
It is possible to explain16 that the commandment, “And you shall make Me a Sanctuary,” is general in scope, applying to all the structures which were “a house for G‑d” [i.e., a place where G‑d’s presence was revealed] and “prepared to have sacrifices offered within” [a place for the service of the Jewish people].17 Throughout their history, the Jews fulfilled this commandment in several different ways, beginning with the construction of the Sanctuary in the desert.
In this context, we can resolve a problematic point in Hilchos Beis HaBechirah. Directly after stating the mitzvah to build a Sanctuary, the Rambam continues:
The Sanctuary which Moshe our teacher built is already described in the Torah. It was, however, only temporary in nature....
When [the Jewish people] entered Eretz [Yisrael], they erected the Sanctuary in Gilgal for the fourteen years in which they conquered and divided [the land]. Afterwards, they came to Shiloh and built a structure of stone....
When Eli died, it was destroyed and they came to Nov and built a Sanctuary.18 When Shmuel died, it was destroyed and they came to Givon and built a Sanctuary. From Givon, they came to the [Divine Presence’s] eternal home.
The place of such statements in the Mishneh Torah is problematic. Unlike the Talmud or the Midrashim which are general in content, the Mishneh Torah is exclusively a text of Halachah, Torah law. Points of ethics, philosophy, and history are mentioned only when they are themselves halachos, specific directives governing our conduct. Thus the question can be raised: What halachic points can be derived from the historical background to the construction of the Beis HaMikdash?19
On the basis of the explanation given above, we can, however, appreciate the sequence of these halachos: After the Rambam uses a prooftext which implies that the mitzvah of building a Sanctuary is not confined to one specific structure, he illustrates this point by citing the various different intermediate stages through which our people’s observance of this mitzvah underwent.
Intermediate Way-Stations On the Path to Jerusalem
To return to the concept explained at the outset: The linkage of the mitzvah of constructing a Sanctuary with the mitzvos of appointing a king and wiping out Amalek is also relevant with regard to the other structures mentioned by the Rambam.20 Our Rabbis state that “Moshe Rabbeinu served as a king,”21 and the construction of the Sanctuary followed the war in which Yehoshua defeated Amalek.22
The title “king” was also applied to Yehoshua23 who constructed the Sanctuary at Shiloh, and to Shmuel,24 who constructed the Sanctuary at Nov. We are unsure of the exact time of the construction of the Sanctuary at Givon. We may, however, assume that one of the following — Shaul, David, or Shmuel, all of whom either served, or were described, as kings — was involved in its construction. Similarly, at the time these structures were built, the people had reached progressively more developed stages of being “at peace from the enemies around them.” Nevertheless, just as the monarchy and Israel’s peace had not been established in a complete manner at the time of these structures, these structures did not represent a complete manifestation of the indwelling of the Divine Presence, nor did they fulfill the ideal conception of a center for the sacrificial worship of the Jewish people.
It was not until “the king dwelt in his house, and G‑d brought him peace from all the enemies which surrounded him,” i.e., David had securely established the monarchy and brought peace to the land, that it was possible to build the Beis HaMikdash.
The Ultimate Beis HaMikdash
Based on the above, we can appreciate one of the positive dimensions that will be possessed by the Third Beis HaMikdash. That structure will be built by Mashiach,25 the ultimate Jewish monarch, and will be constructed after he “wages the wars of G‑d, defeating all the nations around him.”26 Among these wars will be the total annihilation of Amalek.27 Thus, since in the Era of the Redemption, the other two mitzvos, the appointment of a king and the destruction of Amalek, will have been fulfilled in a perfect matter, this will contribute an added dimension of perfection to the mitzvah of constructing the Beis HaMikdash.
We can hasten the coming of this era through our divine service. To explain: In chassidic thought,28 the appointment of a king is associated with developing inner bittul, nullifying oneself to G‑d. This in turn allows a person to “drive out” Amalek from his being, to free himself from pride, egotism, and other undesirable character traits. Such personal refinement allows him to proceed further and transform his person, his home, and his surroundings into a “sanctuary in microcosm,” in which the Divine Presence can rest.29
This will serve as a catalyst for change in the world at large. For each particular manifestation of the Divine Presence within the world hastens the coming of the time when the Divine Presence will again be revealed, and not merely in microcosm. At that time, “the world will be filled with the knowledge of G‑d as the waters cover the ocean bed.”30 May this take place in the immediate future.
Adapted from Likkutei Sichos, Vol. VI, Terumah
The Repetition of a Commandment
As is his practice in many Halachos in the Mishneh Torah, the Rambam begins Hilchos Beis HaBechirah, “The Laws of [G‑d’s] Chosen House,” by stating the fundamental mitzvah upon which the entire collection of laws which follow is based:
It is a positive commandment to construct a house for G‑d, prepared to have sacrifices offered within.... as it is written,1 “And you shall make Me a Sanctuary.”
Significantly, the Rambam also mentions the mitzvah of constructing the Beis HaMikdash elsewhere in the Mishneh Torah, in Hilchos Melachim, “The Laws of Kings.” There, however, he focuses on the mitzvah in a different context, stating:2
The Jews were commanded regarding the observance of three mitzvos when they entered Eretz Yisrael: to appoint a king over them.... to wipe out the descendants of Amalek.... and to build [G‑d’s] Chosen House; as it is written,3 “You shall seek out His presence and come to that place.”
The commentaries question: What is the Rambam’s purpose in repeating the commandment to build a Sanctuary in Hilchos Melachim and why in that source does he link together the three mitzvos he mentions?4
The Bond Between These Three Mitzvos
In regard to the latter question, it can be explained that there is an intrinsic connection between these three mitzvos.5 Although they are three separate commandments, the fulfillment of one contributes a measure of perfection to the others. To cite a parallel: The arm tefillin and the head tefillin are two separate mitzvos.6 Nevertheless, when both of these mitzvos are performed together, each one is elevated to a higher level.
Similarly, in regard to the three mitzvos mentioned by the Rambam: The intent is not merely that the mitzvos are to be fulfilled in the chronological order mentioned by the Rambam.7 Instead, the linkage of three mitzvos teaches that the mitzvah of building the Sanctuary can be fulfilled in the most perfect manner, only when first, a king is appointed and then Amalek is destroyed. Similarly, the fulfillment of the mitzvos of destroying Amalek and building a Sanctuary enhance the mitzvah of appointing a king, and the fulfillment of the mitzvah of wiping out Amalek is enhanced by the mitzvos of appointing a king and building the Beis HaMikdash.
This concept is supported by the verses8 cited by the Rambam in the halachah which follows in Hilchos Melachim:9 “And it came to pass, when the king dwelt in his house, and G‑d brought him peace from all the enemies which surrounded him, the king said to the prophet, Natan, ‘Behold, I am sitting in a palace of cedar, [while the Ark of G‑d dwells in curtains].’ ”
These verses indicate how the secure establishment of the monarchy, [“the king dwelt in his house”,] the destruction of Amalek, [“And G‑d brought him peace from all the enemies which surrounded him,”10] and the building of the Beis HaMikdash [David’s request from the prophet Natan] are interrelated.11
Based on the above, we can appreciate a further point: The Rambam’s statements in Hilchos Melachim are based on the Midrash Tanchuma. Nevertheless, he alters the text of that Midrashic passage, choosing a different prooftext. In the Midrash Tanchuma, the prooftext cited for the commandment to build the Beis HaMikdash is the verse: “And you shall make Me a Sanctuary.”12 The Rambam, by contrast, substitutes the verse: “You shall seek out His presence...,” because the context of this verse in the Book of Devarim describes the Jews’ entry into Eretz Yisrael and their progress to a state when “G‑d will grant you peace from all your enemies around you and you will dwell in security.”13
Fulfilling a Mitzvah in Stages
The above concepts also shed light on another related point which has aroused the attention of the commentaries: As mentioned above, the Rambam uses the verse, “And you shall make Me a Sanctuary,” as the prooftext for the mitzvah to build the Beis HaMikdash. This is problematic, for seemingly, this command refers to the construction of the Sanctuary in the desert and not to the construction of the Beis HaMikdash. The passage cited by the Rambam in Hilchos Melachim, by contrast, refers specifically to the construction of the Beis HaMikdash, and indeed, is cited as the source for the commandment to build the Beis HaMikdash by our Sages14 and by our Rabbis.15
It is possible to explain16 that the commandment, “And you shall make Me a Sanctuary,” is general in scope, applying to all the structures which were “a house for G‑d” [i.e., a place where G‑d’s presence was revealed] and “prepared to have sacrifices offered within” [a place for the service of the Jewish people].17 Throughout their history, the Jews fulfilled this commandment in several different ways, beginning with the construction of the Sanctuary in the desert.
In this context, we can resolve a problematic point in Hilchos Beis HaBechirah. Directly after stating the mitzvah to build a Sanctuary, the Rambam continues:
The Sanctuary which Moshe our teacher built is already described in the Torah. It was, however, only temporary in nature....
When [the Jewish people] entered Eretz [Yisrael], they erected the Sanctuary in Gilgal for the fourteen years in which they conquered and divided [the land]. Afterwards, they came to Shiloh and built a structure of stone....
When Eli died, it was destroyed and they came to Nov and built a Sanctuary.18 When Shmuel died, it was destroyed and they came to Givon and built a Sanctuary. From Givon, they came to the [Divine Presence’s] eternal home.
The place of such statements in the Mishneh Torah is problematic. Unlike the Talmud or the Midrashim which are general in content, the Mishneh Torah is exclusively a text of Halachah, Torah law. Points of ethics, philosophy, and history are mentioned only when they are themselves halachos, specific directives governing our conduct. Thus the question can be raised: What halachic points can be derived from the historical background to the construction of the Beis HaMikdash?19
On the basis of the explanation given above, we can, however, appreciate the sequence of these halachos: After the Rambam uses a prooftext which implies that the mitzvah of building a Sanctuary is not confined to one specific structure, he illustrates this point by citing the various different intermediate stages through which our people’s observance of this mitzvah underwent.
Intermediate Way-Stations On the Path to Jerusalem
To return to the concept explained at the outset: The linkage of the mitzvah of constructing a Sanctuary with the mitzvos of appointing a king and wiping out Amalek is also relevant with regard to the other structures mentioned by the Rambam.20 Our Rabbis state that “Moshe Rabbeinu served as a king,”21 and the construction of the Sanctuary followed the war in which Yehoshua defeated Amalek.22
The title “king” was also applied to Yehoshua23 who constructed the Sanctuary at Shiloh, and to Shmuel,24 who constructed the Sanctuary at Nov. We are unsure of the exact time of the construction of the Sanctuary at Givon. We may, however, assume that one of the following — Shaul, David, or Shmuel, all of whom either served, or were described, as kings — was involved in its construction. Similarly, at the time these structures were built, the people had reached progressively more developed stages of being “at peace from the enemies around them.” Nevertheless, just as the monarchy and Israel’s peace had not been established in a complete manner at the time of these structures, these structures did not represent a complete manifestation of the indwelling of the Divine Presence, nor did they fulfill the ideal conception of a center for the sacrificial worship of the Jewish people.
It was not until “the king dwelt in his house, and G‑d brought him peace from all the enemies which surrounded him,” i.e., David had securely established the monarchy and brought peace to the land, that it was possible to build the Beis HaMikdash.
The Ultimate Beis HaMikdash
Based on the above, we can appreciate one of the positive dimensions that will be possessed by the Third Beis HaMikdash. That structure will be built by Mashiach,25 the ultimate Jewish monarch, and will be constructed after he “wages the wars of G‑d, defeating all the nations around him.”26 Among these wars will be the total annihilation of Amalek.27 Thus, since in the Era of the Redemption, the other two mitzvos, the appointment of a king and the destruction of Amalek, will have been fulfilled in a perfect matter, this will contribute an added dimension of perfection to the mitzvah of constructing the Beis HaMikdash.
We can hasten the coming of this era through our divine service. To explain: In chassidic thought,28 the appointment of a king is associated with developing inner bittul, nullifying oneself to G‑d. This in turn allows a person to “drive out” Amalek from his being, to free himself from pride, egotism, and other undesirable character traits. Such personal refinement allows him to proceed further and transform his person, his home, and his surroundings into a “sanctuary in microcosm,” in which the Divine Presence can rest.29
This will serve as a catalyst for change in the world at large. For each particular manifestation of the Divine Presence within the world hastens the coming of the time when the Divine Presence will again be revealed, and not merely in microcosm. At that time, “the world will be filled with the knowledge of G‑d as the waters cover the ocean bed.”30 May this take place in the immediate future.
Adapted from Likkutei Sichos, Vol. VI, Terumah
Beit Yisrael International.Become a member.Get the MemberShip from Beit Yisrael! ‘How to become a Righteous of the Nations (Ultra-Orthodox Chassidic/Lost Tribes of Efrayim/‘Ger Toshav‘: Israelite by accepting the Shulchan Aruch and Chasidut, the teachings of CHaBaD, hearing and doing.)
Click: Beit yisrael international
Until........:
Isa 11:9 – 16 They do no evil nor destroy in all My set-apart mountain, for the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of Adonai as the waters cover the sea.Rashi: knowledge of the Lord: [lit.] to know the Lord.10 And on that day, there shall be a Root of Yishai, standing as a banner to the people. Unto Him the nations shall seek, and His rest shall be esteem.Rashi: as a banner for peoples: that peoples should raise a banner to gather to him.11 And it shall be in that day that Adonai sets His hand again a second time to recover the remnant of His people who are left, from Ashshur and from Mitsrayim, from Pathros and from Kush, from Ěylam and from Shin‛ar, from Ḥamath and from the islands of the sea.Rashi: a second time: Just as he acquired them from Egypt, when their redemption was absolute, without subjugation, but the redemption preceding the building of the Second Temple is not counted, since they were subjugated to Cyrus.and from the islands of the sea: the islands of the Kittim, the Romans, the descendants of Esau.And he shall raise a banner: Perka, perche in O.F. [i.e., the verse is literally referring to the pole upon which the banner is attached.] And it shall be for a sign to gather to him and to bring the exiles of Israel to Him as a present.12 And He shall raise a banner for the nations, and gather the outcasts of Yisra’ěl, and assemble the dispersed of Yehuḏa from the four corners of the earth.13 And the envy of Ephrayim shall turn aside, and the adversaries of Yehuḏa be cut off. Ephrayim shall not envy Yehuḏa, and Yehuḏa not trouble Ephrayim.Rashi: Ephraim shall not envy Judah: The Messiah, the son of David, and the Messiah, the son of Joseph, shall not envy each other.14 But they shall fly down upon the shoulder of the Philistines toward the west; together they plunder the people of the east, their hand stretching forth on Eḏom and Mo’aḇ, and the children of Ammon shall be subject to them.Rashi: And they shall fly of one accord against the Philistines in the west: Heb. בְכָתֵף. Israel will fly and run of one accord against the Philistines who are in the west of Eretz Israel and conquer their land. [כָּתֵף, lit. a shoulder, is used in this case to denote unity. The word שֶׁכֶם, also lit. a shoulder, is used in a similar sense.] Comp. (Hoshea 6:9) “They murder on the way in unison (שֶׁכְמָה) ”; (Zeph. 3:9) “One accord (שְׁכֶם אֶחָד).” And so did Jonathan rendered it: And they shall join in one accord to smite the Philistines who are in the west.and the children of Ammon shall obey them: As the Targum states: Will hearken to them. They will accept their commandments over them.15 And Adonai shall put under the ban the tongue of the Sea of Mitsrayim, and He shall wave His hand over the River with the might of His Spirit, and shall strike it in the seven streams, and shall cause men to tread it in sandals.Rashi: And… shall dry up: [lit. shall cut off] to dry it, so that the exiles of Israel will pass through it from Egypt.over the river: The Euphrates River, for the exiles from Assyria to cross.with the strength of His wind: Heb. בַּעְיָם. This is hapax legomenon in Scripture, and according to the context it can be interpreted as “with the strength of His wind.”into seven streams: into seven segments, for the aforementioned seven exiles: from Assyria and from Egypt, etc. Those from the islands of the sea are not from that side.and He shall lead: the exiles within it.with shoes: on dry land.16 And there shall be a highway for the remnant of His people, those left from Ashshur, as it was for Yisra’ěl in the day when he came up from the land of Mitsrayim.Rashi: And there shall be a highway: in the midst of the water for the remnant of His people.
Together we Triumphby Gal Einai February 28, 2024
"And they shall fly down upon the shoulder of the Philistines on the west; together shall they spoil the children of the east; they shall put forth their hand upon Edom and Moav; and the children of Amon shall obey them."(Isaiah 11:14)This verse refers to the days of Mashiach, when the Nation of Israel will defeat all its surrounding enemies. The verse is particularly relevant to us today, while we are fighting in Gaza. The Gaza Strip is the ancient “land of the Philistines.” Today’s “Palestinians” are the Arabs who live in Gaza, on Israel’s western flank, on the sea.To defeat the Philistines, we have to be united, as is written in the same prophecy about the ingathering of the distant members of the Nation of Israel and the unity between Judah and Efraim. “And they shall fly down upon the shoulder of the Philistines on the west.” Rashi explains: “Israel will fly and run with one shoulder upon the Philistines who are in the west of the Land of Israel and will conquer their land.” We have to be “with one shoulder” – united, shoulder-to-shoulder. Today, we can also add that “And they shall fly down” can be understood literally as the defeat of the Palestinians with Israel’s air force. Our soldiers will spread their wings and fly to destroy the enemy and assist the ground forces in their conquest of Gaza.We receive the power of “one shoulder” from Joseph, who is buried in Shechem (In Hebrew, Shechem is both the name of the city and means “shoulder”). Shechem is the city of the covenant, as we say in Psalms 80:2 “The shepherd of Israel, listen, He Who leads Joseph like a flock – appear, He Who is enthroned upon the cherubs.” (And in gematriah, עפו = יוסף: “shall fly” equals “Joseph”).The concept of “one shoulder” is connected to the ultimate Messianic purpose of rectification of the world, when all people will recognize God and the Torah of Moses: “For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language that they may all call upon the name of God, to serve Him with one shoulder.”[1] The current war in the land of the Philistines in the west, on the shores of the Great Sea, is particularly associated with the clarification and rectification of the Western world and Western culture, reaching to the US on the other side of the world.Triumph in the land of the Philistines is the realization of the promise in the Torah, “And I will place your border from the Red Sea until the Sea of the Philistines and from the desert to the river, for I will give the dwellers of the land into your hands and you shall expel them from before you.”[2] This is our map of the “New Middle East’: “From the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines” including the entire Sinai Peninsula. (Surrendering Sinai to Egypt 45 years ago was the root of all further surrenders and retreats). “From the desert to the river” – From the Sinai desert in the southwest until the Euphrates in the northeast. This includes the elimination of the combined threat from Syria-Iraq-Iran. And so in Isaiah’s prophecy, “together shall they spoil the children of the east” – the defeat of the enemies to the east (such as the hostile nations on the Arabian Peninsula). “…for I will give the dwellers of the land into your hands and you shall expel them from before you.” This is the directive and our mission: to create a new Middle East, to expel Israel’s enemies from the Land of Israel – and to extend Israeli rule and benevolence to those non-Jews who desire the status of foreign resident in Israel.[1] Tzephania 3:9.[2] Exodus 23:31.
We like to invite you to join our new social network where you shall find good Torah and News Updates from Yisrael even translated Israeli Newspapers articles click picture:
Blessings
Bet Yisrael International From Gaddi and Ariel, Many Blessings to all the ShneymAsarHaShevatim (Twelve Tribes) in the Golus, Shalom!
Comments
Post a Comment