Parshas Chayei Sarah
1. On the verse "And the life of Sarah was one hundred years" (at the beginning of the parshah), the Midrash says[1]: "'The L‑rd knows the days of the perfect, and their inheritance shall be forever'[2] — just as they are perfect, so are their years perfect. At twenty she was like seven in beauty; at one hundred she was like twenty years old in regard to sin" (and according to another version[3]: "At one hundred she was like twenty in beauty; at twenty she was like seven in regard to sin").
The commentators explain[4] that with this the Midrash answers why the verse says the word "years" three times — "one hundred years and twenty years and seven years" — when it would have been enough to say "one hundred and twenty and seven years"[5].
To answer this, the Midrash brings the verse "The L‑rd knows the days of the perfect," interpreting it to mean that the word "perfect" refers also to "days" — that their days themselves are also "perfect." And this, the Midrash explains, is alluded to in the fact that the verse says "years" three times: all of Sarah's years were whole and complete (comparing the "years" of "one hundred" to the "years" of "twenty," and so on[6]): when she was "twenty" she was in the same "wholeness" as when she was "seven"; and at the age of "one hundred years" she had the same wholeness as when she was[7] "twenty years"[8].
This needs to be understood:
a) From the wording of the Midrash, "just as they are perfect, so are their years perfect," it is evident that "they are perfect" and "their years are perfect" are in essence two separate matters; only the Midrash learns from the verse "The L‑rd knows the days of the perfect" that one who is himself perfect also has "perfect" years.
But according to this it is difficult: Regarding the quality of perfection in spiritual matters — which in our case is the detail "at one hundred she was like twenty in regard to sin" — it seems one cannot separate at all between "they are perfect" and "their years are perfect." For if a day of a person's life (or even only part of a day) goes by in vain, it is not only a lack in the wholeness of his years (and days), but also in his own perfection itself[9]. How, then, does the Midrash take them as two matters[10]?
And on the other hand, when one speaks of the quality "perfect" in relation to physical matters, it is not understood: How does the Midrash connect them, saying that since "they are perfect" therefore also "their years are perfect" — when there can indeed be a case where a person himself is "perfect" in a physical quality (such as "beauty," for example), and yet his years are not "whole" in this respect, because at an earlier time the quality was temporarily lacking? As we find with Sarah herself: when she was "one hundred" she was whole in "beauty" as at twenty (and seven), although earlier, in the time in between, she went through a period of "after I have become worn out"[11]!
And even if the Midrash can connect them in some manner, it remains difficult: Since one must in any case say that the comparison of "one hundred years" to "twenty years" cannot mean the perfection of the years themselves — that throughout the entire span of "one hundred years" she was whole in beauty (since in between she was in the opposite state[12]) — how is it at all relevant to bring here the verse "The L‑rd knows the days of the perfect," from which we learn that "their years" themselves are "perfect"?
b) How does the Midrash use here the expression "their years are perfect" — which signifies [as the Mishnah says[13] regarding "a perfect year" — "to include the leap month"] a perfection of the years in themselves, as a period of time — when the Midrash in fact means the human perfection (in a physical or spiritual quality) as it spreads out and encompasses the entire span of their years?
c) Since the wording of the verse is "the days of the perfect," the Midrash, accordingly, should have said "so are their days perfect." Why does it change here and say "so are their years perfect"?
And although with the teaching "so are their years perfect" the Midrash intends to explain why our verse says "years" three times — nevertheless, since the whole exposition "just as…" is learned from (and read into) the verse "the days of the perfect" (as above at the beginning of the section, that the Midrash interprets the word "perfect" as referring also to the word "days"), it would have been more fitting to use the wording of the verse from which this matter is learned, rather than the wording of our verse, which is only explained by this exposition.
2. Afterwards the Midrash gives a second interpretation: "Another explanation: 'The L‑rd knows the days of the perfect' — this is Sarah, who was perfect in her deeds. Rabbi Yochanan said: like this perfect calf."
Learning it superficially, it turns out that the difference between the first and second interpretations lies in two details: a) According to the first interpretation, the word "perfect" refers also to "days" (as above, at the beginning of section 1), whereas according to the second interpretation, "this is Sarah…," the word "perfect" is meant in its simple sense: only the perfection of the people; and the meaning of "the days of the perfect" is: the days of the perfect ones. b) According to the first interpretation, we learn that the quality "perfect" signifies a completeness in all qualities (even the quality of beauty, which is seemingly[14] not a spiritual matter); but according to the second interpretation, "this is Sarah, who was perfect in her deeds," the quality "perfect" is connected only with good deeds.
But according to this it is altogether difficult to understand:
a) It is simply understood that in its second interpretation, too, the Midrash introduces something new in explaining the verse "The L‑rd knows the days of the perfect." And seemingly: What novelty is there in the second interpretation, that only those who are whole in their deeds can be called by the title "perfect"? This is something one understands even without the Midrash.
b) What is lacking in the understanding of the words "perfect in her deeds," that because of this Rabbi Yochanan must add an illustration — "like this calf…"? And if some explanation is indeed lacking in the description "perfect in her deeds" — how is it clarified by the illustration?
c) It is clear that with the interpretation "this is Sarah…" the Midrash means to explain not only the verse "The L‑rd knows the days of the perfect," but also the verse "And the life of Sarah was one hundred years…," on which it is commenting. Seemingly: What explanation is added in the verse "And the life of Sarah…" by this interpretation ("this is Sarah…")?
3. After the Midrash answers why "years" is written three times, through its interpretations of "The L‑rd knows the days of the perfect," it goes on to explain the end of our verse — "the years of the life of Sarah" — by interpreting the end of the previously cited verse ("The L‑rd knows…"): "and their inheritance shall be forever." In its words: "'And their inheritance shall be forever' — as it is said, 'And the life of Sarah was…' Why is it necessary to say 'the years of the life of Sarah' at the end? To tell you that the life of the righteous is dear before the Omnipresent in this world and in the World to Come."
Here, too, there are difficulties:
a) It is a simple matter that the righteous have the World to Come. Why must one learn it from "and their inheritance shall be forever"? One must say that the novelty the Midrash learns from this verse lies in the fact that their life "is dear… in the World to Come." But this too requires explanation: It is also self-evident that G‑d gives the reward to the righteous willingly and with a cheerful countenance; so what is the novelty of "their life is dear… and in the World to Come"[14*]?
b) It is true that in the verse's repeating "the years of the life of Sarah" — after it has already said earlier "And the life of Sarah was" — there is an allusion to two kinds of "life" of Sarah, life in this world and life in the World to Come. But where is there an implication of the matter "their life is dear…," especially since, as said above, the novelty of the Midrash lies in "dear"?
c) It has already been discussed many times[15] that all the interpretations given on the same verse in the Torah are connected with one another. Accordingly one must understand: What is the connection between the simple interpretation of "the years of the life of Sarah," which means the years that Sarah lived in this world — as Rashi explains (according to the plain meaning of Scripture), "all of them were equal in goodness" — and the interpretation of the Midrash, that "the years of the life of Sarah" refers to life in the World to Come?
4. The explanation of all the above:
When a person, for example, finds himself in a certain environment with different or undesirable characteristics, and nevertheless he is not affected and does not change because of the surrounding environment — this can be for three different reasons:
a) Because he strengthens himself not to be influenced by the environment. But then his lack of change is not a complete one: since his being in the environment is in such a manner that it has the power to affect him were he not to strengthen himself against it — this in itself already signifies a descent[16] and a change compared with his earlier state, before he came into this environment, where he did not give any room at all to such an undesirable influence.
b) Because he is separated from and stands above his surroundings. But this manner too is not the ultimate perfection: since his remaining unchanged comes only from his being separated from the environment, it could be that were he to have dealings with his surroundings, he would then be influenced by them; this means, then, that in essence he does have within himself a susceptibility to change.
c) Because however low the surroundings may be, he affects the surroundings[16*] and raises them to his level — and this is the ultimately perfect manner of lack of change. For since he has within himself the power, wherever he finds himself, to raise the place to himself, to his level, it is already, as a matter of course, impossible that anything should be able to bring him down from his level.
5. The same applies to the unchangedness in regard to "sin" and "beauty" that is not "affected" by years and old age. Because the spirituality of the soul rules over and guards the person in every respect, including the physicality of the body[17], from changes (as in our case — Sarah — who was "at one hundred like twenty, and at twenty like seven"), this can be in the three manners mentioned above:
a) One who, by virtue of his spiritual state alone, is not free of any connection to sin; and from the standpoint of the physicality of the body even more so: he is in a condition where he is subject to the effects of age and must, according to nature, lose the beauty of youth — and despite this he overcomes himself in his spiritual service, until this affects his bodily physicality as well, so that the body remains in the same beauty as it was in youth.
But according to this manner of lack of change, "at one hundred like twenty, and at twenty like seven" is only with the kaf of comparison ("like"). For the very fact that there exists merely the possibility that he might commit a sin (were it not for his overcoming in his service) in his older years (unlike when he was "seven"), and especially that in the state of his body old age "must" bring about loss of beauty — this in itself is already a certain descent and change[18] compared with his youth (of "seven"), when he had no connection whatsoever to sin or to the cause of loss of beauty.
b) Because in him the part of the soul that is above enclothing itself in a body "shines" — and therefore he is not subject to the changes of youth and age, which come only from the body.
For just as it is in general with every Jew, that because the essence of the soul is above enclothement in a body, it therefore remains in him without any changes from the moment he is born until the last moment[19] — it can therefore be that in those in whom the essence of the soul shines openly, it should bring about a lack of change in their revealed powers and body as well (such as in beauty) — by virtue of their connection with the essence of the soul that is above enclothement[20].
But as said above, this manner too is not the ultimate perfection: since the lack of change comes from the essence of the soul, which is above enclothement in a body, it follows that from the standpoint of the matters of the body itself there is indeed[21] room for changes[22].
c) That the lack of change is not only from the standpoint of the soul, but that it is felt in the body — in all its details — that their whole purpose is to express the superiority of the soul, how it has no limitations and can therefore unite also with a physical body[23] — which is changing and perishable.
And then the lack of change is in the ultimate perfection — since in the matters of the body themselves, which change outwardly, it is revealed that their inner purpose is precisely to express the infinity of the soul's lack of change — that the unchanging nature of the soul can be found in them as well.
6. And this is the reason the Midrash does not say straight away "at one hundred like twenty, and at twenty like seven," but only after first bringing the verse "The L‑rd knows the days of the perfect" and explaining "just as they are perfect, so are their years perfect" — because only after this teaching does the meaning of "at one hundred like twenty, and at twenty like seven" become clear:
By adding to each separate sum of Sarah's years the same word "years," the verse means to compare one sum to the other — that being one hundred she was in the very same state as being twenty and seven (and as Rashi says, "all of them were equal in goodness"[24]). And since this is so, it is understood that also at one hundred and at twenty she had no connection to sin or to loss of beauty — for otherwise the comparison to "seven" would be lacking.
The question then arises: Since in between (before she became "one hundred") she had a period of "after I have become worn out" (as above, section 1), the opposite of beauty, this means that in essence her beauty was subject to the changes of time; and as a result, the beauty that returned to her was no longer of the same kind, not with the same thoroughness, as in her years of youth, when there was not yet any room for the opposite of beauty[25] — how, then, does the verse compare "one hundred" to "seven"?
To this the Midrash first says, "'The L‑rd knows the days of the perfect'… just as they are perfect, so are their years perfect": although the perfect, too, are subject to the limitations and changes of time, nevertheless this is not a change in their inwardness — because also "their years" (and one of the reasons for the name shanah, "year," is that it is from the term shinui, "change"[25*]), these changes themselves, are "perfect." That is to say, the descents and changes that occur to them from time to time later bring out and reveal the inner lack of change: despite — and through — the changes that actually occurred in the body[26], there is afterwards revealed in the very same body the essence of the soul, which is above change[27].
7. It has already been discussed many times that what is said of the righteous, "They go from strength to strength"[28], means a manner of ascents in which each level bears no comparison to the other[29]. It follows, then, that the service they performed in their youth bears no comparison at all to the level of service they reached in their old age.
According to this the question arises again, from the other direction: How can one compare the "one hundred years," "twenty years" and "seven years" and say that they are "all equal" — since the service during the earlier years bears no comparison to the service during the later years?
To this the Midrash says in its second interpretation (and in this lies the novelty, and the complement, of the second interpretation to the first): "This is Sarah, who was perfect in her deeds" — that at the time of her passing (of which the verse "And the life of Sarah was…" speaks), when she reached the ultimate elevation of her service, she was "perfect in her deeds." That is, there was then brought about in her such a "perfection" that encompassed all the deeds and the entire service of all her years[30].
— For at the time of the passing of the righteous and the perfect, the soul ascends to its root and source, up to a most lofty level, and this has an effect upon all the toil of a person in which his soul toiled during his lifetime[31]. In other words, then "the spirit returns to G‑d Who gave it" — the main teshuvah[32]; and teshuvah has the power to transform also the past (similar to teshuvah for sins[33], which brings about a change also in the past[34], to the point that "willful sins become for him like merits"[35]).
8. And this is also the explanation of why in the first interpretation the Midrash says "their years are perfect," and in the second interpretation — "(this is Sarah, who was) perfect in her deeds":
According to the first interpretation of the Midrash, the "perfection" of Sarah means — as with all other "perfect ones" (as is brought here in general terms: "The L‑rd knows the days of the perfect") — that she remained whole and unaffected by the changes that time itself, the years, bring about in people (with regard to loss of beauty and the susceptibility to sin). It follows, then, that the novelty lies in this: that despite the changes that must come about by virtue of "their years," they nevertheless remained "perfect."
Whereas in the second interpretation, the Midrash introduces the novelty that Sarah had a special and higher kind of "perfection" (and therefore the Midrash also emphasizes here "this is Sarah…"): the highest "perfection" of the time of her passing affected her younger years as well (transformed them). And since this elevation that comes in the later years is (not because of the years themselves, but) because of service and good deeds, the Midrash therefore says "perfect in her deeds" — that she brought about perfection in all her deeds (including the earlier deeds).
And this is also why Rabbi Yochanan explains the matter of "perfect in her deeds" with the illustration of "this perfect calf," the calf whose neck is broken (eglah arufah)[36]. For regarding the eglah arufah it is stated[37] that its atonement extends to the entire past, as far back as those who left Egypt, who had had no atonement through all those thousands of years. The law is that since it atones for the living (the present), it also atones for the dead (the past, which no longer exists).
9. But after all this, it is still not understood why Sarah is called by the title "perfect": When a soul descends below, the exact number of years and days (and even moments) that it will be in the body is determined from Above, in accordance with the service the soul must accomplish in the world[37*].
The question then arises: Since Sarah passed away before her time[38], as our Sages relate that "her soul flew from her" because of the tidings of the Binding of Yitzchak[39], she was not able, during the one hundred and twenty-seven years, to accomplish the service that had earlier been determined for her for a longer time — how, then, can she be called "perfect"?
And this is answered by the verse adding "the years of the life of Sarah," to teach us that "the life of the righteous is dear before the Omnipresent in this world and in the World to Come" — that [not only does G‑d give the World to Come to the righteous, but also that] "their life in the World to Come" is "dear before the Omnipresent" just as "their life in this world." That is to say, the righteous who pass away before their time are able to complete "in the World to Come" what they did not accomplish in this world.
For example: if he brought merit to the many — the merit of the many is credited to him[40] (even after a long time); a son brings merit to his father[41]; and the like[42].
And this is also the connection between the interpretation of the Midrash on "the years of the life of Sarah," that it refers to life in the World to Come, and the simple interpretation of the verse, that "the years of the life of Sarah" means the years Sarah lived in this world — because Sarah's life in the World to Come (as with all the righteous who pass away before their time) is not merely a reward for her service in this world, but also a continuation and completion of her years in this world, as explained above.
10. One must, however, understand:
The fact that a set time is determined for how long the soul is to be below means not only that this amount of time is needed for it to accomplish the service required of it, but also that the soul is to "accomplish" in that "time" itself.
And this is why the Baal Shem Tov says[43]: "One should not let a single day go by without performing a mitzvah" — although with regard to the total sum of mitzvos it makes no difference whether he performs a number of mitzvos in the course of one day or divides them over many days in such a way that every day he performs (at least) one mitzvah. For besides the (quantity of the) mitzvos themselves, it matters also that the days be whole, "complete days" — and therefore every day must be filled with a mitzvah[44].
And therefore one may ask: After the soul departs from the body, the soul seemingly no longer has the kind of time it had when it was below[45], such that it could then complete the days that it lacked below in this world?
— This matter is connected with a note[46] of my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe, of 20 MarCheshvan — the birthday of his father, the Rebbe (Rashab), of blessed memory (which was, in the year 5621, in Parshas Chayei Sarah[47], as in this year[47*]) — where he writes that on that day (20 MarCheshvan 5705 — twenty-five years after his passing), his father told him: "On this coming day, when eighty-four years will have been completed since the descent of my soul into the lower world, I will have good guests, and according to the order, each one of our holy Rebbeim and forefathers will say a discourse on a verse of the chapter 84"[48].
From this we see that also after the passing there exists not only the matter of time in general, but even more: that this time comes in continuation of the time he lived earlier in this world. Even after a person's passing, his years are counted according to the order of time as here below, and they come in continuation of the years since his birth.
And this is also the explanation of why at the end of the verse, too, where it speaks (according to the interpretation of the Midrash) of Sarah's life in the World to Come, it uses the expression "the years of the life of Sarah" (just like the expression "years" earlier, concerning her life here below); and even more: this is said in continuation of "one hundred years and twenty years and seven years," which is written earlier.
— Because besides the fact that in the life of the World to Come there is time as well, there is even more: the "years of the life of Sarah" in the World to Come (according to the interpretation of the Midrash) are counted in continuation of, and according to the number of, the "one hundred years and twenty years and seven years" that she lived in this world, as explained above.
(From a talk of Shabbos Parshas Chayei Sarah, 5726)
Key Lesson
A truly perfect person is not one who merely resists the changes and descents of life, or stands apart from them, but one in whom those very changes come to reveal the unchanging essence of the soul. Through the ascent of a righteous person's final, highest level, all his earlier years and deeds are transformed and made whole. And since even after passing a soul's years continue to be counted, the righteous complete in the World to Come what they could not finish here; for us, it means filling every single day with a mitzvah, so that our days themselves are "complete days."