.
Parshas Vayeishev – Chanukah
1. An explanation of the verse1 "והבור רק אין בו מים" ("The pit was empty; there was no water in it") is found in the Gemara2 (in the discussion of Chanukah): "ואמר רב כהנא דרש רב נתן בר מניומי משמי׳ דרבי תנחום מאי דכתיב והבור רק אין בו מים, ממשמע שנאמר והבור רק איני יודע שאין בו מים, אלא מה ת״ל אין בו מים, מים אין בו אבל נחשים ועקרבים יש בו" ("Rav Kahana said: Rav Nosson bar Minyomi expounded in the name of Rabbi Tanchum: What is the meaning of the verse, 'The pit was empty; there was no water in it'? From the implication of the words 'the pit was empty,' do I not know that there was no water in it? Rather, why does the verse say 'there was no water in it'? Water there was not in it, but snakes and scorpions there were in it").
The simple reason the Gemara brings this exposition (on "The pit was empty…") in the discussion of Chanukah is that it was said by the same author who said the preceding exposition ("אמר רב כהנא דרש רב נתן בר מניומי משמי׳ דרבי תנחום נר של חנוכה כו׳" — "Rav Kahana said: Rav Nosson bar Minyomi expounded in the name of Rabbi Tanchum: A Chanukah lamp…")3. However, as has been discussed many times, every matter in the Torah is absolutely precise. Therefore, when the Gemara brings an exposition in a particular discussion, it is not (only) because of an incidental matter (the same author of the statement), but because the exposition has a connection in content to the discussion in which it is brought.
From this it is also understood in our case that there is a connection in content between the above statement and the theme of Chanukah — especially in light of what the Shelah writes at the beginning of our parsha, that the parshiyos Vayeishev, Mikeitz and Vayigash are connected to Chanukah — and the verse "The pit was empty; there was no water in it" is, after all, in Parshas Vayeishev.
2. Our Sages say4: "אין מים אלא תורה" ("'Water' refers to nothing other than Torah"). From this it is understood that when the Torah says "water," it (also) alludes to "Torah." This is especially so in the verse "The pit was empty; there was no water in it," regarding which the Midrash5 states explicitly that it speaks of Torah: "בור רק נתרוקן בורו של יעקב, אין בו מים אין בו דברי תורה שנמשלו למים וכו׳" ("'The pit was empty' — Yaakov's pit was emptied; 'there was no water in it' — there were no words of Torah in it, which are likened to water, etc.").
And this is also the inner meaning of the saying of our Sages, "Water there was not in it, but snakes and scorpions there were in it" [especially since the Midrash5 brings both explanations — (a) "Water there was not in it, but snakes and scorpions there were in it," and (b) "there was no water in it — there were no words of Torah in it" — one right after the other]:
When a person is in a state of "there are no words of Torah in him" ("there was no water in it"), the automatic result is "snakes and scorpions there were in it" — and there is no middle ground. That is, the deficiency of "there are no words of Torah in him" is not only that he is empty of Torah (while he could remain "full" of permissible, mundane matters); rather, in his "pit" there automatically come to be "snakes and scorpions" — things that are the opposite of, and opposed to, holiness*5.
This is similar to the Baal Shem Tov's explanation6 of the verse7 "וסרתם ועבדתם" ("You will turn away and serve [other gods]"): "כאשר האדם מפריד א״ע מהשי״ת מיד הוא עובד עבודה זרה, ולא יש דבר ממוצע" ("When a person separates himself from G‑d, blessed be He, he immediately serves idolatry; there is no middle ground").
This explains why the Torah does not state explicitly that "snakes and scorpions there were in it," but rather it is derived (as a consequence) from "there was no water in it": this is something that need not be spelled out — "snakes and scorpions there were in it" is an automatic consequence of "water there was not in it."
And this is why the Midrash brings the two explanations in one continuous passage: one explanation depends upon and is explained by the other. The fact that "snakes and scorpions there were in it" came about automatically from "there was no water in it — there were no words of Torah in it," and for this reason it led to something contrary to the Torah — to the sale of Yosef.
3. Seemingly, one could ask: It is understandable regarding the Baal Shem Tov's explanation of "You will turn away and serve," which speaks of the essential bond and attachment of Jews with G‑d — that as soon as ("you will turn away") one turns away from (attachment to) G‑d, this is already something opposite — "and serve" — "he immediately serves idolatry" (at least idolatry in a subtle sense8).
But in our case, which speaks of the absence of Torah ("water") — why is it necessarily so that, since there is no Torah, there must automatically come into being "snakes and scorpions," something opposed to Torah?
We also need to understand: It is known that Yosef's brothers held that according to Torah law Yosef was liable to death (assuming that Yosef was "נוכל ומתנקש בנפשם להמיתם" ("a schemer plotting against their lives to kill them"), and consequently he had the legal status of a pursuer9; or for other reasons, as explained in the commentators on the Torah10).
If so, why does the Midrash say that through their wanting to kill Yosef, "Yaakov's pit was emptied … there were no words of Torah in it" (which implies that the tribes, heaven forbid, did not take "words of Torah" into account — whereas in their view, it was according to Torah law)?
4. This will be understood by first explaining the reason why our Sages compare Torah to "water":
Torah is compared to several things — "ללחם ויין ושמן" ("to bread, wine and oil"), etc. — each of which describes a different definition and quality in Torah11. Regarding the aspect of "water" in Torah, our Sages say12: "למה נמשלו דברי תורה למים .. לומר לך מה מים מניחין מקום גבוה והולכין למקום נמוך אף דברי תורה אין מתקיימין אלא במי שדעתו שפלה" ("Why are words of Torah likened to water? … To tell you: just as water leaves a high place and flows to a low place, so too words of Torah endure only in one whose mind is humble"). That is, "water" is not an analogy for the essence of Torah itself13, but for the self-nullification (bittul) and humility of the person that is required when learning Torah14.
According to this, the statement of the above Midrash, "Yaakov's pit was emptied … there were no words of Torah in it," is resolved: for they did have Torah and the laws of the Torah; only the "water" aspect of the Torah was lacking ("The pit was empty; there was no water in it," as will be explained below in Section 8) — the bittul appropriate relative to their great stature. This is understood from the bows (and the emphasized bittul) in the Amidah prayer: the order is that one bows at "Baruch" and straightens up at the Name; but "המלך כיון שכרע שוב אינו זוקף" ("a king, once he has bowed, does not straighten up again")15.
But according to this, the question raised above becomes even stronger: How is it that if only "there was no water in it," automatically "snakes and scorpions there were in it" — that merely because in one's learning only bittul and humility are lacking, there should come about in him the existence of "snakes and scorpions," something opposed to Torah?
5. The explanation of this: The essence of Torah is that through it (through learning it) one becomes bound with the Giver of the Torah. Therefore, bittul and humility are a fundamental condition. As long as a person is an entity unto himself, he is still defined within the limitations of a created being, and therefore he is incapable of binding himself with the Giver of the Torah, Who is infinite. Only when the learner stands in a mode of utter bittul — through which he goes out of his own definitions and limitations — can he bind himself with the infinity of the Giver of the Torah.
This also explains the sequence in the request16: "ונפשי כעפר לכל תהי׳, פתח לבי בתורתך" ("Let my soul be like dust to all; open my heart to Your Torah"). Seemingly: learning Torah ("open my heart to Your Torah") must be done with a head, with understanding and comprehension (which is possible when his intellect, and his faculties in general, stand as an existing entity), whereas "let my soul be like dust to all" negates and nullifies his existence — a contradiction to immersing oneself in, and understanding, etc., Torah? —
The answer: When can there be "open my heart to Your Torah" — Your Torah; when can he be a vessel for the Torah of the Holy One, blessed be He, which is unlimited? Precisely when there is first in him total bittul — (not ordinary bittul, but) "like dust to all," upon which "everyone treads"17. Through this bittul he becomes fit to receive "the Torah of the Holy One, blessed be He"18, and afterwards (there comes "יגעת" ("you have toiled") — through a person's toil with the power of his intellect) he takes the Torah of the Holy One, blessed be He, through his inner faculties — "open my heart to Your Torah."
6. With this we will also understand a puzzling matter found regarding Torah study, namely, that speaking words of Torah has an advantage over understanding Torah19:
The law20 is that "המהרהר בד״ת א״צ לברך" ("one who merely thinks words of Torah need not recite a blessing") (the blessings over the Torah), because "הרהור לאו כדיבור הוא" ("thought is not like speech"); and "כל מה שלומד בהרהור לבד ואפשר לו להוציא בשפתיו ואינו מוציא אינו יוצא בלימוד זה י״ח מצות ולמדתם אותם" ("whatever one learns in thought alone, when he is able to articulate it with his lips but does not, he does not fulfill through this learning the obligation of the mitzvah 'and you shall learn them'")21. Moreover, the understanding of Torah is connected with speaking the Torah, as our Sages22 say on the verse23 "חיים הם למוצאיהם" ("They are life to those who find them"): "אל תקרי למוצאיהם אלא למוציאיהם בפה" ("Do not read 'to those who find them,' but 'to those who express them with the mouth'"); and "אם ערוכה ברמ״ח אברים שלך משתמרת ואם לאו אינה משתמרת" ("If it is arranged [not only 'in the mouth,' but] in all your 248 limbs, it is preserved; and if not, it is not preserved")24.
Seemingly: when someone speaks words of Torah (of the Oral Torah) and does not understand what he is saying, the ruling in Shulchan Aruch25 is that "אינו נחשב לימוד כלל" ("it is not considered learning at all"). That is, the essence of learning (the Oral Torah) consists in understanding what one learns. If so, why is speech in Torah so crucial — to the extent that if it is lacking, (not only does he "not need to recite a blessing" and does not fulfill "the obligation of the mitzvah 'and you shall learn them,'" but also) "it is not preserved" — even his understanding of the Torah is not preserved?
7. The explanation of this is as above: the essence of Torah is the bond that one has, through Torah, with the Giver of the Torah. Therefore, the study of Torah must also be such that the understanding and comprehension of the subject is (not as it is from the perspective of the intellect of a created being, but) as it is from the perspective of the Holy One, blessed be He ("My Torah" — of the Holy One, blessed be He).
From this it is understood that the mode of bittul (merely) as a preparation for Torah study is not sufficient; rather, the learning itself must be in a manner of bittul26. Therefore, the learning must be in a manner of "to those who express them with the mouth," up to "arranged in all 248 limbs":
When a Jew learns Torah only with his intellect — the highest quality of a human being — he still remains within his own "existence" (as a human being) and cannot absorb the Torah of the Holy One, blessed be He. This follows all the more so from "פילא דעייל בקופא דמחטא" ("an elephant passing through the eye of a needle")27: If an "elephant," which, though limited, nevertheless — since the "eye of a needle" is smaller than it — is entirely out of the question that it should be able to enter the "eye of a needle" (to the extent that one is not shown it even in a dream), how much more so the Torah, which is bound up with the Holy One, blessed be He (the King's delight in His very Essence), the true Infinite, surely cannot enter and be grasped in the intellect of a measured and limited person.
Therefore "it is not preserved" — it cannot endure with him (as he stands within his limitations); and as the Gemara there27 relates, "תלמיד אחד .. שהי׳ שונה בלחש .. שכח תלמודו" ("A certain student … who would study in a whisper … forgot his learning").
In contrast, when one connects the learning with the "mouth," and (even lower) with the "248 limbs," which are lower than the intellect, the distinctive quality of man — that is, the learning is such that he "descends" from his stature and engages it through all his 248 limbs, nullifying his own existence28 — precisely then can the unlimited "Torah of the Holy One, blessed be He" be absorbed within him inwardly — his Torah "is preserved."
8. In light of this, the saying of our Sages "Water there was not in it, but snakes and scorpions there were in it" is well understood (and as explained above, its meaning is that if only "water there was not in it," automatically "snakes and scorpions there were in it"):
Since the essence of Torah is the bond with the Giver of the Torah, which comes through the bittul of the learner, there is no room here for a "middle ground": Either he has bittul to the Giver of the Torah, and then in his learning he arrives at the truth of Torah (as it is the will of the Giver of the Torah); or, if, heaven forbid, the "water" (the bittul) of Torah is lacking, then he lacks a connection to the Giver of the Torah (all the more so from "an elephant passing through the eye of a needle," as above). Consequently (similar to "you will turn away — [and immediately] — serve"), "snakes and scorpions there were in it": not only does he have no connection to Torah (as our Sages say29, "לא תמצא בגסי רוח כו׳" ("You will not find it among the arrogant, etc.")), but he is thereby also opposed to holiness, as our Sages say30, "אין אני והוא יכולין לדור בעולם" ("I and he cannot dwell together in the world"), and even more — "כאילו עובד עבודת כוכבים .. כפר בעיקר" ("it is as if he worships idols … he has denied the fundamental principle")31 ("and serve").
And this is also what the Midrash explains regarding Yosef's brothers, as above, that "Yaakov's pit was emptied … there were no words of Torah in it": they did not lack, heaven forbid, (the actual study of) Torah (and they held that according to law Yosef deserved death); but what they lacked, relative to their great stature, was the "water" aspect of Torah — bittul. Therefore their ruling regarding Yosef's punishment was not correct.
9. The narratives of our parsha concerning the events of Yosef with his brothers are a preface to the exile in Egypt and the Exodus (for the sale of Yosef led to the descent of Yaakov and his sons to Egypt), whose purpose is the Giving of the Torah32.
And so it is also regarding "Water there was not in it, but snakes and scorpions there were in it," which the Torah teaches us in this parsha: it relates to the Giving of the Torah in general. For the "water" aspect of Torah — the bittul required of the learner in order to bind himself with the Giver of the Torah — was accomplished primarily33 at the Giving of the Torah:
The difference between the Torah study of the Patriarchs before the Giving of the Torah and the Torah study of the children after the Giving of the Torah is this: before the Giving of the Torah, learning was "with one's own power" — one comprehended as much of the Torah as a created being is capable of grasping and understanding. The innovation of the Giving of the Torah is "ונתן לנו את תורתו" ("and He gave us His Torah"): the Torah as it is "His Torah" (of the Holy One, blessed be He — the King's delight in His very Essence) was given by the Holy One, blessed be He, to every Jew (as is also understood from the halachic ruling that every Jew — and every day — is obligated to recite the blessings over the Torah).
This also explains the saying of our Sages34: "בתחלה הי׳ משה לומד תורה ומשכחה עד שניתנה לו במתנה כו׳" ("At first Moshe would learn Torah and forget it, until it was given to him as a gift, etc."). Seemingly this is puzzling: Torah was learned before the Giving of the Torah as well, as our Sages35 say, "מימיהן של אבותינו לא פרשה ישיבה מהם" ("From the days of our forefathers, the yeshivah never departed from them"), and it is obvious that they did not forget what they learned (especially since otherwise learning in the manner of a "yeshivah" would not be applicable). How, then, is it that specifically after the Giving of the Torah "Moshe would learn … and forget it"?!
The explanation of this: Learning before the Giving of the Torah was on the level of Torah as it relates to creation, and therefore it could be absorbed inwardly. Whereas at the Giving of the Torah, G‑d gave Moshe "His Torah," as it is entirely above creation, which a created being cannot absorb by his own power. Therefore "Moshe would learn Torah and forget it" (similar to what was discussed above (Section 7) regarding "it is not preserved") —
"until it was given to him as a gift": G‑d, Who is omnipotent and can join the infinite and the finite, "gave him" His unlimited Torah — "וכל הנותן בעין יפה נותן" ("and whoever gives, gives generously")*35 — handing it over by way of a gift (which comes not because he pays its value) to a limited created being.
And so it is also with every Jew: the Torah of the Holy One, blessed be He, is absorbed in him inwardly ("is preserved") because "He gave us His Torah" — because G‑d gave it to him as a gift.
[On the other hand, although Jews "take" the Torah by virtue of the power of the "Giver (of the Torah)," there must nevertheless be the bittul of the person, in order that the Torah be "preserved" with him (as explained above at length). For since the intention is that Jews should receive all lofty matters specifically through their own avodah (and not in the manner of "נהמא דכסופא" ("bread of shame"))36, the person must therefore do something on his part that makes him fit (to a certain extent) to absorb the Torah of the Holy One, blessed be He*36 — and this is through bittul, through which he "goes out" of his own existence and limitations, as above37.]
10. Based on all the above, the connection between the saying of our Sages "Water there was not in it, etc." and the theme of Chanukah is also understood (which is (also) why the Gemara brings it in the discussion of Chanukah):
The explanation is known38 of the precise wording (in the text of "ועל הנסים" ("V'al HaNissim")): "כשעמדה מלכות יון הרשעה כו׳ להשכיחם תורתך וכו׳" ("When the wicked Greek kingdom rose up … to make them forget Your Torah, etc.") — that the Greeks wanted to make the Jews forget (not the actual wisdom and intellect of Torah — tearing them away from Torah study altogether — but) the fact that the Torah is "Your Torah," the Torah of G‑d.
Therefore they defiled "כל השמנים שבהיכל" ("all the oils in the Sanctuary")39 (and did not destroy the oils)40, for "oil" is the level of Chochmah (wisdom)41.
The Greeks agreed that the Jews should retain the "oil" — wisdom and the study of Torah — but they wanted it to be impure oil, heaven forbid: that it should not be connected with the holiness of the Torah, with the Giver of the Torah ("Your Torah").
And this is one of the reasons why G‑d performed the miracle that a cruse of pure oil was found — even though, since "טומאה הותרה בציבור" ("impurity is permitted for the community")42, it would have been permissible to light the Menorah with impure oil — because the victory of Chanukah consists in there being "Your Torah" — pure oil.
And similar to what was discussed above (regarding "Water there was not in it, etc."), that precisely through the "water" aspect of Torah — bittul to the Giver of the Torah — one is protected from "snakes and scorpions there were in it,"
so it is with Chanukah: precisely through lighting the Chanukah lights (pure oil) "כליא ריגלא דתרמודאי" ("the foot of the Tarmodite ceases")43 — "תרמוד" ("Tarmod")44 has the same letters as "מורדת" ("rebelling")45. As long as the matter of pure oil ("Your Torah") is lacking, there is still room for rebellion ("rebelling") against G‑d ("you will turn away — and serve").
And through lighting the Chanukah lights "על פתח ביתו מבחוץ" ("at the entrance of one's house, on the outside"), so that they illuminate the "outside," "the foot of the Tarmodite ceases" also "מן השוק" ("from the marketplace") in complete perfection — the matter of "rebelling" is entirely eliminated (even the "foot of the Tarmodite," the very lowest level), until one illuminates the darkness of the exile and brings down the true and complete Redemption, speedily, in the very near future.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Vayeishev 5736, and the second day of Shavuos 5732)
Notes
1) Our parsha, 37:24.
2) Shabbos 22a, beginning (and similarly in Chagigah 3a). Cited in Rashi on the verse.
3) Similar to Rashi, Chagigah ibid.
4) Bava Kamma 17a [the OCR reads "Vayikra 17:1"]. See the sources cited there.
5) Bereishis Rabbah on our parsha, ch. 84:16.
*5) Note the maamar beginning "Basi LeGani" 5699, beginning of ch. 9; the series of maamarim "Basi LeGani" 5710, end of ch. 8.
6) Tzava'as HaRivash, end of sec. 76 (Kehot, 5735). See the notes and references there.
7) Eikev 11:16.
8) See Tanya, ch. 20 ff.
9) Sforno on our parsha, ibid., v. 18.
10) Ohr HaChaim, ibid., v. 20. The commentators on Rashi on our parsha. Parshas Derachim, at the beginning. And elsewhere.
11) Likkutei Torah, Shir HaShirim, beginning of the second maamar beginning "Tze'ena U're'ena."
12) Taanis 7a.
13) According to this teaching of our Sages [OCR wording unclear].
14) And similarly Above, as it were: the level of "water" is the "humility" of the Holy One, blessed be He, in that the Torah descended "from its place of glory … and from there it journeyed and descended, etc." (Tanya, ch. 4).
15) Berachos 34b, beginning.
16) Berachos 17a: "Elokai Netzor, etc."
17) See Eruvin 54a: "If a person makes himself like this wilderness, which everyone treads upon, his learning endures in his hand." Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar 15c, beginning. And elsewhere.
18) As our Sages say (Berachos 22a): "Just as there [at Sinai it was] with awe and fear, etc., so too here, etc."
19) On the benefit of "speech" in Torah study, see Tanya, beginning of ch. 37 (for the refinement of the animal soul, etc.); the maamar beginning "Yardu" of Rosh Hashanah 5659 (through this an advantage and addition is brought about in the intellect — see there in detail). And elsewhere.
20) Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, Orach Chaim 47:2.
21) Hilchos Talmud Torah of the Alter Rebbe, ch. 2, sec. 2.
22) Eruvin ibid., 54a, beginning.
23) Mishlei 4:22.
24) Eruvin ibid. Hilchos Talmud Torah of the Alter Rebbe, ch. 4, sec. 9.
25) Hilchos Talmud Torah, ch. 2, sec. 3.
26) Note Shabbos 30b: "Any Torah scholar who sits before his teacher and his lips do not drip with bitterness …"; "he sat in awe and opened with the halachah."
27) Berachos 55b, end.
28) See Sefer HaMaamarim 5659, p. 148; Sefer HaMaamarim 5704, p. 76. And note what is explained in Likkutei Sichos vol. 6 (p. 116), that man is called "medaber" ("one who speaks") because in speech there is expressed the true spirituality and simplicity of the soul, which is above the person's own "existence" — see there at length.
29) Eruvin 55a, beginning.
30) Sotah 5a.
31) Ibid. 4b. Rambam, Hilchos De'os 2:3. Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, 156:3.
32) See at length Torah Or, Shemos (the maamar beginning "V'eileh Shemos"; end of the maamar beginning "HaBa'im Yashresh Yaakov").
33) For something similar to this was needed before the Giving of the Torah as well (as a preparation for it).
34) Nedarim 38a.
35) Yoma 28b.
*35) Bava Basra 53a. See the sources cited there.
36) See at length above, end of p. 94 ff.
*36) It may be said that this is an additional matter, besides the reason for giving the gift: "If he had not received satisfaction from him, he would not have given him a gift" (see Megillah 26b; Gittin 50b; Bava Metzia 16a; Bava Basra 156a).
37) Based on this one can also explain why most of the commands in the Ten Commandments "are simple matters that even human intellect requires" (Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar 12c): for precisely through the person's "descent" into these matters, which indicates his bittul and the absence of his own existence, the Giving of the Torah could take place (similar to what was explained above regarding speech in Torah).
38) See the maamar beginning "Mai Chanukah" 5701. And elsewhere. And at length — Likkutei Sichos vol. 3, p. 815.
39) Shabbos 21b.
40) See also Likkutei Sichos ibid.; vol. 2, p. 481 ff. And elsewhere.
41) See the glosses of Rabbi Chaim Vital on Zohar II, 147b; Torah Or 40c. And elsewhere. And see Menachos 85b.
42) Yoma 6b. And elsewhere.
43) Shabbos ibid.
44) See Likkutei Sichos vol. 5, p. 448, in the marginal note.
45) Emek HaMelech, Shaar Kiryas Arba, beginning of ch. 111; Kehillas Yaakov, entry "Tarmod." And elsewhere (see Likkutei Sichos ibid., in the notes). And see Likkutei Sichos vol. 3, p. 811, note 3 (an allusion to this in the revealed part of Torah).
Key Lesson
Torah study binds a person to the Giver of the Torah only when it is accompanied by bittul – the "water" of Torah – since a limited intellect on its own cannot hold G‑d's infinite Torah. Without that humility there is no neutral ground: "no water" brings "snakes and scorpions." Like the pure oil of Chanukah, our learning must stay "Your Torah," bound to G‑d; this is what drives away all rebellion and brings the true and complete Redemption.