shorter review
Parshas Vayeitzei
1. On the verse1 "ותהר לאה ותלד בן ותקרא שמו ראובן כי אמרה כי ראה ה' בעניי כי עתה יאהבני אישי" ("And Leah conceived and bore a son, and she called his name Reuven, for she said, 'Because the L‑rd has seen my affliction; for now my husband will love me'"), Rashi quotes the words "ותקרא שמו ראובן" ("And she called his name Reuven") and explains2: "רבותינו פירשו אמרה ראו מה בין בני לבן חמי" ("Our Sages explained: She said, 'See (re'u) what the difference is between my son (bein beni) and the son of my father-in-law, who sold the birthright to Yaakov; whereas this one did not sell it to Yosef, and did not contest him; and not only did he not contest him, but he sought to take him out of the pit'").
This must be understood:
a) Rashi announced a fundamental rule of his commentary: "אני לא באתי לפרש אלא פשוטו של מקרא" ("I have come only to explain the plain meaning of Scripture")3, meaning that his intention is to explain and clarify (only) something that is not understood and sufficiently explained in the plain meaning of the verses. What, then, is difficult here in the plain meaning of the verse, that Rashi needs to explain it?
b) Moreover: Rashi explains that the reason for calling him Reuven is because "she said, 'See what the difference is between my son, etc.'" — the opposite of the plain meaning of the verse: "And she called his name Reuven" — "because the L‑rd has seen my affliction; for now my husband will love me"!
And although this explanation of Rashi has, in general terms, its source in the Gemara4, the rule that Rashi adopted in his commentary is well known (and he repeated it several times)3: "I have come only to explain the plain meaning of Scripture, and such Aggadah as settles the words of Scripture, 'דבר דבור על אופניו' ('a word fitly spoken')"5. That is, there must be a need for settling the verse, and the settling must be "fitting" (in accordance with the proper setting and order6) of the verse.
2. Now, some commentators explain6* that the reason stated explicitly in the verse, "Because the L‑rd has seen my affliction, etc."7, is not sufficient, because it explains only part of the name Reuven — the word "re'u" ("see") in it — but not the "ben" ("son") in it. Therefore our Sages expounded an additional7* reason, that "she said, 'See what the difference is between my son and the son of my father-in-law, etc.'"8, the content of which is alluded to in the entire name "Reuven."
But in Rashi's commentary it is impossible to explain this way, because [in addition to the fact that if this is what compelled Rashi to bring a reason for the name Reuven other than the one stated explicitly in the verse9, Rashi should have explained this8] in the plain meaning of Scripture there is no difficulty to begin with. For one can say that the letters "ben" in the name Reuven allude to the "beis" and the "nun" of "be'onyi" ("my affliction")10. And although the name (Reu)ven lacks the "ayin" and the "yud" of be'onyi11, and the vowel of the "beis" is also different, we have already learned something similar elsewhere in Rashi12: "שמים" (shamayim, "heaven") is an acronym of "שא מים" ("carry water"), "שם מים" ("there is water"), and "אש ומים" ("fire and water") — even though the "alef" of "sa" and of "eish" is absent from the word shamayim, and the vowel of the "shin" of eish is different. Rather, the letter "shin" in shamayim suffices for us (especially since this letter is the one mainly perceptible in the pronunciation of the words sa and eish). The same is understood regarding the word be'onyi (in which the letters "beis" and "nun" — ben — are the most perceptible13), and therefore the absence of the remaining letters does not concern us14. If so, the question returns to its place: Why do we need Rashi's explanation here15?
3. It is also necessary to understand:
a) Regarding the reason that she said "See what the difference is between my son, etc.": Why did Rashi explain in the plain meaning of the verse (like our Sages in the Gemara) that the difference "between my son and the son of my father-in-law" lies in the fact that "the son of my father-in-law sold the birthright, whereas this one did not sell it, and did not contest him, and not only did he not contest him, etc." — (1) an event that would occur only after many, many years, and consequently (2) a distant prophecy16, and (3) one connected with Reuven's discredit: the taking of the birthright from Reuven because of his sin17, and the lowering of Yosef into the pit? One could explain it instead in terms of the praise of "my son," and regarding something that would happen at a nearer time: "See what the difference is between my son and the son of my father-in-law, who robbed and plundered18, etc., whereas my son did not stretch out his hand to robbery"19 (as Rashi explains on the verse20 "וילך ראובן בימי קציר חטים" ("And Reuven went in the days of the wheat harvest")).
b) Rashi's explanation itself is also not understood, for its content differs from the explanation in the Gemara. The Gemara states: "Whereas the son of my father-in-law, even though he sold his birthright of his own will, as it is written, etc. — see what is written about him: 'וישטם עשו את יעקב' ('And Esav hated Yaakov')21, etc., 'ויעקבני זה פעמים' ('and he has supplanted me these two times')22, etc. Whereas my son, even though Yosef took his birthright from him against his will, as it is written, etc. — even so he was not jealous of him, as it is written, etc." That is, the difference between Esav and Reuven is that Esav hated Yaakov because of the birthright that was transferred to him (even though he had sold it to him of his own will), whereas Reuven was not jealous of Yosef. According to Rashi's explanation, however, the content of the distinction between them is (not with regard to jealousy and hatred — and their absence — over the birthright, but) with regard to the sale itself (for only this is mentioned regarding the son of the father-in-law): Esav sold the birthright, and Reuven's superiority in contrast is that he did not sell the birthright — something not mentioned at all in the Gemara as Reuven's virtue.
c) Rashi adds "and he did not contest him; and not only did he not contest him, but he sought to take him out of the pit." Seemingly, just as he emphasized regarding the virtue of "my son" that it was of the utmost goodness, so too he should have mentioned regarding the deficiency of the son of the father-in-law that Esav contested the birthright23 (as stated in the aforementioned Gemara), "and not only that, but he wanted to kill Yaakov"24.
4. The explanation of all this:
The reason stated explicitly in the verse for naming Reuven, "Because the L‑rd has seen my affliction; for now my husband will love me," is in general simply understood: it is human nature that the birth of a son to a woman arouses in her husband a feeling of closeness and added love toward her.
In our case, however, it is not so clear-cut:
a) The emphasis "for now my husband will love me" is because Leah was "hated"25 even after he married her. If so, it is possible that even "now," when Leah bore Yaakov a son, his feeling would not change to the extent that "my husband will love me" — especially since Rachel (Yaakov's principal wife) was also destined26 to bear him a son27.
b) How did Leah know that this firstborn son of hers would follow the good and upright path (for specifically such a son would arouse in Yaakov our father a feeling of closeness to his mother28)? It is possible that he would not turn out as Yaakov wished! All the more so since regarding this son there was particular reason for concern: the first son of his father Yitzchak (Esav), and likewise the first son of his grandfather Avraham (Yishmael29), did not conduct themselves properly (and such a son not only is unfit to bring about the father's closeness to the mother, but is liable to produce the opposite inclination30).
Therefore Rashi explains: "Our Sages explained: See what the difference is between my son and the son of my father-in-law, who sold the birthright to Yaakov, whereas this one did not sell it to Yosef." That is, the fact that she called him Reuven for the reason "for she said, because the L‑rd has seen my affliction (and given her a son)" is understood in light of what "our Sages explained." For without this, it does not necessarily follow that "now my husband will love me" (for the birth of a son alone is not enough to arouse Yaakov's love for Leah, as explained above). The verse thus says "דרשוני" ("Expound me") — that there is a prior reason for this in the naming of Reuven, which clarifies the son's virtue: "See what the difference is between my son and the son of my father-in-law," and consequently it is understood31 that "now my husband will love me"32.
Accordingly one can understand why Rashi quotes, from Leah's words, Reuven's virtue regarding the birthright — "whereas this one did not sell it" — and not some other virtue: for this emphasizes his superiority in accordance with, and as a completion of, the content of Leah's words in the verse — namely, the birth of a firstborn son to Yaakov, through which "my husband will love me" — (since) in that very matter, the birthright was also the son's virtue: "whereas this one did not sell it." For the birthright — being Yaakov's first son — is something very beloved and precious to him.
Rashi continues: "and he did not contest him; and not only did he not contest him, but he sought to take him out of the pit." This explains that although Yaakov loved Rachel and wished to have children from her, nevertheless, since such an elevated son was born to Leah — who, although he was Yaakov's firstborn and this birthright was very precious and beloved to him, nevertheless, when Yaakov took the birthright from him and gave it to Rachel's son Yosef, "did not contest" Rachel's son, who was dearer to Yaakov than all the other sons, "and not only that, but he sought to take him out of the pit"33 — then because of this great virtue of the son who was born, certainly "now my husband will love me."
This also explains why Rashi did not elaborate on the great deficiency of "the son of my father-in-law" (that he contested Yaakov's birthright, and not only that, but wanted to kill him): since his intention here is to emphasize the great virtue of "my son" (to establish that "my husband will love me"), and not the opposite trait of "the son of my father-in-law."
Accordingly, Rashi's wording "Our Sages explained," and not "Our Sages said" or the like, is all the more apt. For Rashi's intention is not to negate the reason stated explicitly in the verse, but to explain it — to explain (and resolve) what requires clarification in the reason given in the verse: how through the birth of Reuven it is certain that "my husband will love me." For this he brings "Our Sages explained" that "she said, 'See what the difference is between my son and the son of my father-in-law'" — that such an elevated son was born to her, as above34.
5. From the "יינה של תורה" ("wine of Torah") in Rashi's commentary:
We find a difference between the naming of the Tribes and the naming of the Patriarchs — Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov: a) The names of the Tribes were given by the Matriarchs35, unlike the names of the Patriarchs36 Yitzchak37 and Yaakov38; b) for each of the Tribes a reason is given for the name by which he was called, unlike the names of the Patriarchs, for which no reason39 is stated explicitly in the Torah40 ("therefore he called," etc.).
This will be understood by first explaining the concept of a name: It is known41 that the name by which a person is called is not "a mere convention"42; rather, the name has a real connection with the essence of the thing43. However, the name does not relate to the soul as it is by itself, for "the soul itself, before it enters the body, is not called by any name at all"44; rather, when it comes to vivify the body, "the name binds the soul to the body, and the vitality that is drawn from the soul and vivifies the body is rooted in the name"45.
Within the concept of the name itself — which comes through the drawing of vitality into the body — there are two levels: a) as it effects the general bond of the soul with the body (similar to the name of the species — "man"41); b) as it is revealed as a particular form in each individual body according to its nature (the personal name that each one has)45.
Now it is explained in Torah Or46: "The level of the Patriarchs exists at all times in every person, for 'אין קורין אבות אלא לשלשה' ('only three are called Patriarchs')47. The idea is that the level of the Patriarchs is an inheritance to their children after them in every generation... but the other levels and virtues of the tzaddikim, such as the Tribes Reuven, Shimon, Levi... you may find a person who has none of these levels and degrees at all, whereas the level of the Patriarchs must be present in every person, for they are the root and source of all the souls of Israel."
What is understood from this is that the difference between the level of the Patriarchs and the level of the Tribes is [not only that the level of the Patriarchs — of all three Patriarchs — is present in every Jew, whereas the level of the Tribes is not necessarily present in each one, except for the level of his own tribe48; rather, the meaning is] that since the Patriarchs are the root and source of all the souls of Israel, the level of the Patriarchs is present in every Jew by virtue of his very essence as part of the entire Jewish people, and this is a general level in which all Jews are equal. But the level of the Tribes in Israel (including the level of one's own particular tribe49) is a level that comes with division among the Jewish people50, and it is the particular level and Divine service of each individual51.
Accordingly, one can explain the difference between the names of the Patriarchs and the names of the Tribes: the names of the Patriarchs are the general flow of vitality present in every Jew, while the names of the Tribes mean that the flow comes as a particular form suited to the particular nature of each individual. Since the content of these names is the division of the flow according to particular levels and forms, therefore each of them is given a revealed and specific reason that suits his level and Divine service51*.
This is also the reason the names of the Tribes were given by the Matriarchs. The difference between a father and a mother with regard to the birth of a child is known: the essential existence of the child comes from the father's drop52, while its revelation and its division into the form of particular limbs come about through its nine months in the mother's womb53 (and there is a similar difference between them even after birth: the father's inner bond with the child is more essential, but in a revealed way the mother's bond and closeness to the child is more felt54). Therefore Chochmah and Binah are called father and mother (of the emotional attributes), for Chochmah is the point of intellect (the "father" of the attributes), and Binah is the comprehension that comes in details (the "mother" of the attributes)55. The same is understood here regarding the Tribes: the division of the Tribes into different particulars comes, simply speaking, through the Matriarchs, Rachel and Leah, etc. — and therefore through them also came the naming of the Tribes56, i.e., the division of the Jewish people into particular levels and degrees.
However, it still needs to be clarified: the reasons for the names explained in our parsha do not indicate the connection of the names to the level and Divine service of the Tribes themselves who are called by these names, but rather their connection to the Matriarchs who gave the name: "Because the L‑rd has seen my affliction; for now my husband will love me, etc.," "כי שמע ה' כי שנואה אנכי" ("Because the L‑rd has heard that I am hated"), and the like?
Therefore Rashi explains56*, regarding the first name, Reuven (and from it we learn about all the Tribes): "Our Sages explained — she said, 'See what the difference is between my son and the son of my father-in-law, etc.'" That is, the connection is (not only to the mother, but also, and mainly) to the son called by this name, by virtue of his level and Divine service57.
6. Based on the above, one can allude, as a possible homiletic interpretation, to the connection between Parshas Vayeitzei and 9 Kislev58 — the birthday59 and the day of passing (hilula)60 of the Mitteler Rebbe (which often falls in the week of Parshas Vayeitzei, or at least in the days close to Shabbos Parshas Vayeitzei, as this year, and is blessed61 from Shabbos Parshas Vayeitzei). For:
The difference between the Alter Rebbe and the Mitteler Rebbe is explained:
The Alter Rebbe embodies the Sefirah of Chochmah62, which is the level of a point, while the Mitteler Rebbe embodies the Sefirah of Binah63, i.e., the revelation as it comes in details and in expansion. As is known, through him the teachings of Chassidus came into great revelation, in a manner of expansion and breadth — "רחובות הנהר" ("the broad expanses of the river") of Binah64. This is analogous to the naming65 of the Tribes discussed above.
And by virtue of the expansion of Binah (it becomes a "shevet" ("tribe"), a term denoting drawing down66, and) the revelation is drawn down even below67. This was the desire and will of the Mitteler Rebbe, as is known from his saying68 that his wish was that when two young men meet, they should discuss the concepts of Arich and Atik. This is the spreading of the wellsprings outward, and through this we merit "קאתי מר" ("the coming of the Master") — "this is King Moshiach"69 — very soon indeed.
(From the sichos (and from the maamar beginning "Atah Echad"*) of Shabbos Parshas Vayeitzei, 9 Kislev 5732)
Notes
1) Our parsha, 29:32.
2) This entire Rashi is absent in the first and second printings. In Rashi's manuscript there is a further explanation in this Rashi: "Another explanation: He was a man of good appearance and wise, and she said: See the son that the Holy One, blessed be He, has given me, etc.' — in the Baraisa of R. Eliezer" (apparently referring to Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 36). But it is not in any of the printed editions.
3) Bereishis 3:8. Similarly ibid. 3:24. And in many places.
4) Berachos 7b. See below, Section 3.
5) See also Rashi, Bereishis ibid., 22; 4:8; 6:3; Vayeira 19:15; 20:16.
6) See Rashi on Mishlei 25:11.
6*) Chiddushei Aggados of the Maharsha, Berachos ibid. In Dibek Tov he writes that this is Rashi's reason for citing "Our Sages explained."
7) One cannot ask: if so, why is the reason in the verse needed? For we find several names that contain two (or more) allusions — such as "shamayim" (discussed below in the text), where "sa mayim" is understood from the verse and the rest from the words of our Sages. Especially in this case, where the reason in the verse is revealed to all, whereas that of our Sages is prophecy.
7*) "Even according to this it is still difficult, the other way around, regarding the wording of the verse itself, which states 'for she said, because the L‑rd has seen my affliction,' since this is not the main element of the name Reuven" (Pnei Yehoshua on Berachos ibid.).
8) Although it is not Rashi's way to cite the difficulty in the verse that compels his explanation, in this case, where Rashi explains contrary to what is explicit in the verse, Rashi should have explained it.
9) In general: apparently their main difficulty is with the "beis" and not with the "nun," since it is common to add a nun in several names, such as Pishon and Gichon (Bereishis 2:11-13), and in our case the name Shimon, which is named for "כי שמע ה'" ("for the L‑rd has heard"), which has no nun (although according to the Zohar one may say that the "nun" in the name Shimon is the nun of "senuah" ["hated"]). See the commentary Be'er Yitzchak on Rashi, who writes that the difficulty in the verse is that it should have said "Re'iyon."
10) See Chiddushei HaRashash on Bereishis Rabbah 91:3.
11) See the commentary of the Maharzu (Bereishis Rabbah ibid.): "For if it were because 'He has seen my affliction,' she should have called him 'Re'u Ba'an.'" And in the commentary of the Radal on Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer ibid.: "For if so (according to the reason in the verse), she should have called him 'Re'u Ani.'"
12) Bereishis 1:8.
13) Although the "beis" of be'onyi is not part of the root of the word "oni," nevertheless, since in practice she needed to say "because the L‑rd has seen be'onyi," it is fitting that the name contain the beginning of the word, so that one knows what it refers to.
14) In general, it is not necessary according to the plain meaning* that the letters of the name be exactly like the letters of the reason for the name, but only that the name correspond to the content of the reason. Similarly with the name "Bavel," which is "כי שם בלל ה' שפת כל הארץ" ("for there the L‑rd confounded the language of all the earth") (Noach 11:9). And in many other places. As for why Rashi needed to explain on the verse (Bereishis 5:29) "And he called his name Noach, saying, This one will comfort us from our work and from the toil of our hands, etc." — "He will ease our toil... before Noach came... and in the days of Noach it rested, and this is yenachameinu; if you do not explain it thus, the meaning of the word does not fit the name, etc." — that is because we would have erred in the meaning of the word yenachameinu (see Bereishis Rabbah 25:2 and the commentators on the Midrash).
*) Unlike the way of allusion and homily, in which one can allude to and expound many things from the letters of the name.
15) One cannot say that Rashi needed to cite the explanation of our Sages because, according to the reason in the verse, "for the L‑rd has seen," it should have said "Re'ah Ben" in the singular, not "Reuven" in the plural (as in Yefeh To'ar and Nezer HaKodesh on Bereishis Rabbah, end of ch. 71; see also HaKoseiv in Ein Yaakov); or because of the difficulty that "Reuven" is in the future tense, and it should have said "Ra'ah Ben" in the past tense (see Alshich on the verse). For a) according to the above, the name Shimon would also still be difficult (see Yefeh To'ar and Nezer HaKodesh ibid.), and since Rashi explains nothing about the name Shimon, it is understood that this is not a difficulty in the plain meaning of Scripture, as in the previous note; b) Rashi should then also have quoted the words "for the L‑rd has seen," or at least alluded to them with "etc.," since that would be the difficulty in the verse that compels Rashi to explain otherwise.
In Maskil LeDavid here (and likewise in Mera Dachya), the reason Rashi cited the explanation of our Sages is "because in all the others the verse first writes the reason and then the name, etc., unlike here regarding Reuven, where first it is written 'and she called his name Reuven' and afterward 'for she said' — from which we learn that it means: she called his name Reuven even without the reason clarified in the verse, and this is what the Sages are saying"*. However, this too is insufficient, for at this point we do not yet know that with the other names** the reason is stated first, and from the order of the verse here (without the contrast with the other names) there is no implication at all that "she called his name Reuven" even without a reason. Furthermore, and mainly: it is stated explicitly, "And she called his name Reuven, for she said, because the L‑rd has seen, etc." And it is obvious that a change of order is not a sufficient reason for Rashi to explain a reason other than the one explicit in the verse.
*) Similarly, Iyun Yaakov writes (in Ein Yaakov on Berachos ibid.; see also Moshav Zekeinim on the Torah) regarding why our Sages in the Gemara (Berachos) expounded an additional reason (the one cited above) for naming him Reuven. See also the commentary of the Radal on the exposition "re'u ben" in Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer (cited above, note 2).
**) In Toldos (25:30): "And he said... red... therefore he called his name [Edom]" — this is not relevant to our case, since there the reason indeed preceded in time.
16) In Chiddushei Aggados of the Maharsha ibid. (and similarly in HaKoseiv in Ein Yaakov ibid., and in Nezer HaKodesh on Bereishis Rabbah ibid., regarding the Midrash's reason "see the son among the sons"): "that without her knowledge, G‑d placed in her mouth this future prediction, 'See what the difference is between my son'" — and he needed this because it was difficult for him that Leah is not counted among the prophetesses in Megillah (14a). But in Rashi it is explicit, "she (Leah) said," and Rashi (on the following verse) writes also regarding Leah, "because the Matriarchs were prophetesses," as something already known; and one may say that this is the source of our Rashi, which cites "she said: See what the difference is between my son, etc." See the commentators on Rashi there. See also Torah Temimah on our parsha, 29:35.
17) As it is written (I Divrei HaYamim 5:1), "ובחללו יצועי אביו נתנה בכורתו לבני יוסף" ("and because he defiled his father's couch, his birthright was given to the sons of Yosef"). Regarding the time when it was taken from him and given to Yosef, see Bava Basra 123a, and Chiddushei Aggados of the Maharsha there.
18) See Rashi, Toldos 26:34.
19) Note that this exposition is found in Midrash HaGadol.
20) Our parsha, 30:14.
21) Toldos 27:41.
22) Ibid., 36.
23) In Rashi's manuscript: "that the son of my father-in-law sold the birthright and contested it," but it is not in any of the printed editions.
24) Ibid., 41.
25) As stated explicitly in the verse (29:31), "וירא ה' כי שנואה לאה" ("And the L‑rd saw that Leah was hated"); "for the L‑rd heard that I am hated" (ibid., 33). As for what is said (ibid., 30), "and he loved Rachel more than Leah," which implies that he also loved Leah — see the commentaries of the Rashbam, Kli Yakar and Ohr HaChaim, that this is not the meaning there.
26) Especially since Leah married Yaakov before Rachel, so it is no novelty that she gave birth before Rachel. And although "Rachel was barren," simply speaking Yaakov and Leah did not yet know of this. See the commentary of the Rashbam.
27) See similarly the Pnei Yehoshua on the Gemara, Berachos (ibid.), that this is the difficulty in the reason stated explicitly in the verse; however, his explanation of the Gemara's exposition differs from what is explained below in the text.
28) See the end of Rashi, Vayishlach 35:8.
29) Although this is not exactly comparable to the son of his grandfather, since Yishmael was his son from Hagar, his maidservant.
30) See similarly, in the homiletic approach, the Alshich on the Torah.
31) See also Iyun Yaakov in Ein Yaakov ibid., at the end of the passage. One may further say that it is all one reason, etc.
32) As for why Rashi quotes from the verse only "And she called his name Reuven," and not the reason explained in the verse, "for she said... for now my husband will love me": because (a) nevertheless, the explanation of our Sages is an explanation of the name Reuven; (b) this explanation is like a preface: since such an elevated son was born to her, it will therefore bring about "now my husband will love me."
33) For thereby there remained the possibility that the birthright would be given to Yosef, unlike if he had left him in the pit (which would have been a passive non-action).
34) Rashi's writing on this "Our Sages (explained)," i.e., that it is not entirely according to the plain meaning, is a) because of the explanation of the name Reuven as "See what the difference is between my son," which is a reason other than the one in the verse; b) because of the exposition itself, that Reuven did not sell the birthright, etc., since this prophecy, etc., is not mentioned in the verse.
35) Except for Binyamin: "And it came to pass, as her soul was departing, for she died, that she called his name Ben Oni, but his father called him Binyamin" (Vayishlach 35:18). However, Binyamin is different also with regard to his birth, for only he was born in the Land of Israel (see above, p. 74, note 21), unlike the other Tribes.
36) With Avraham it was not possible for the name to be given by the Matriarchs. And the name Avraham (with a "hei") was given by the Holy One, blessed be He (Lech Lecha 17:5).
37) The Holy One, blessed be He, commanded, "and you shall call his name Yitzchak" (ibid., 19). And the actual naming was done by Avraham (Vayeira 21:3), not by Sarah. See also Jerusalem Talmud, Berachos 1:6.
38) The Holy One, blessed be He, called him. Another explanation: his father called him Yaakov (Rashi, Toldos 25:26).
39) In the "name" given at the time they were born — unlike the name Avraham (Lech Lecha 17:5) and the name Yisrael (Vayishlach 32:29). Moreover, regarding the name Yisrael, a reason is stated only in the words of the angel, and not in the words of the Holy One, blessed be He (ibid. 35:10). One may also say that Yisrael is not the essential name but a name of distinction (see the maamar beginning "Yivchar Lanu," 5703).
40) Only cited in Rashi are two reasons regarding Yitzchak (Lech Lecha ibid., 19) — [in Parshas Vayeira (21:6): "And Sarah said, G‑d has made laughter for me; whoever hears will laugh with me," but it is not stated as a reason for the naming] — and regarding Yaakov (Rashi, Toldos ibid.).
41) Or Torah of the Maggid of Mezritch, end of Bereishis (p. 4, end of col. b ff.). Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, ch. 1. Likkutei Torah, Behar 41c (and the sources cited there). Or HaTorah, Shemos, p. 103 ff. The maamar beginning "Amar R. Yehoshua... Lo Avo," 5700 (in Sefer HaMaamarim Kuntreisim), ch. 1-2. The maamar beginning "Atah Echad," 5702. And elsewhere.
*) Note that in Likkutei Torah ibid. the above concept is cited with regard to the name Reuven: "That is, Reuven — his vitality is in the letters reish-alef, for he is from the level of sight (re'iyah)... and Leah, because she saw the deed — 'See what the difference is between my son, etc.' — knew that the root of his soul is in the letters of his name, Reuven."
42) Likkutei Torah ibid.
43) Likkutei Torah ibid. Likkutei Torah, Balak 67c. Or HaTorah ibid.
44) See the sources cited in note 41.
45) Therefore one soul, while in this body, is called by the name Moshe, and while in another body, by the name Shimon, for the change of names follows the change in the bond of the soul with the body (Or HaTorah ibid.).
46) Beginning of Parshas Va'eira.
47) Berachos 16b.
48) Accordingly, it emerges that each person has four "fathers": the three Patriarchs, Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, and the level of the tribe from which he descends (in addition to his fathers in the literal sense). But only three are called "Patriarchs" (without qualification — i.e., for every Jew). Similarly, Hillel and Shammai are called "fathers of the world" (and not "fathers" without qualification — see Eduyos 1:4; Devash LePi (letter alef, sec. 7); Amudei Eish (by R. Y. Eisenstein), sec. 2, end of subsec. 26).
49) For it is understood that the levels of several tribes can exist in one person, as understood from what is explained regarding Reuven, Shimon, Levi and Yehudah in the Divine service of each person (Torah Or, beginning of Vayechi).
50) See also Likkutei Sichos, vol. 6, p. 304.
51) Note that the Patriarchs are the level of the higher Chariot of Atzilus, whereas the twelve Tribes are the lower Chariot of Beriah (see Torah Or, end of our parsha (24a); Likkutei Torah, Tzav 17a and end of col. b). And in general, Atzilus is the level of the essence of the soul, which transcends division, while Beriah and Yetzirah are the level of division within the soul — [OCR unclear] in the soul.
51*) Perhaps one may say that this is why Likkutei Torah, Behar ibid., gives as an example of the drawing of vitality through a personal name, and of how it is seen in the reason for the name, specifically the name Reuven (see the gloss on note 41) — and not a name that preceded it — because the purpose of creation (and of the name) is for the sake of Israel, and "He placed the world in their heart" (Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar 5b). Therefore the particulars too must be found in the Jewish people, and this particular is the concept of the names of the Tribes, as explained at length in the text.
52) See Sefer HaMaamarim of the Mitteler Rebbe, sec. 111.
53) See Tanya, ch. 2.
54) See Sefer HaMaamarim ibid. Likkutei Sichos, vol. 4, p. 1067.
55) Tanya, ch. 3. Biurei HaZohar, Balak 103b.
56) See also Likkutei Levi Yitzchak, Likkutim on Sayings of our Sages, p. 147.
56*) Similarly in Likkutei Torah, cited in the gloss on note 41.
57) Note Torah Or (Vayechi 45, end of col. d), that there is a level of Reuven from below to above, and through it he draws down a revelation of the supernal level of sight from above to below — "Because the L‑rd has seen my affliction," a level of drawing close — "for now my husband will love me."
58) See... [OCR unclear: the rest of this note is missing in the source].
59) [OCR unclear: note text missing in the source.]
60) [OCR unclear: note text missing in the source.]
61) [OCR unclear: note text missing in the source.]
62) [OCR unclear: note text missing in the source.]
63) [OCR unclear: note text missing in the source.]
64) [OCR unclear: note text missing in the source.]
65) [OCR unclear: the beginning of this note is missing in the source] ... and in several of them the virtue of the name (even a personal name) is explained — see the maamar beginning "Atah Echad," 5702.
66) See Torah Or, end of Vayeitzei.
67) See Torah Or, beginning of Lech Lecha; Toras Chaim there.
68) Beis Rebbi, part 2, ch. 1, note 5 (the second one). Sefer HaSichos 5701, p. 52 (the wording there: "When two Chassidim meet, they should speak about Chassidus"). See also Sefer HaSichos 5703, p. 13: "If young men understand Kesser like their five fingers, he will be satisfied."
69) The Baal Shem Tov, in his well-known letter about the ascent of his soul on Rosh Hashanah 5507 (printed at the end of the book Ben Poras Yosef, and elsewhere).
*) Printed at the end of the maamar "Atem Nitzavim Hayom" of the Mitteler Rebbe (Kehot, 5732). See also above, note 65.
Key Lesson
Reuven's name points to his own virtue: he did not resent losing his birthright and even tried to save Yosef. So the names of the Tribes express each Jew's particular path in serving G‑d, while the Patriarchs are the root that every Jew shares. Like the Mitteler Rebbe, who spread Chassidus in breadth and detail, each person should carry the teachings into his own particular life, and spread the wellsprings outward until Moshiach comes.