Parshas Mikeitz
1. On the verse1 "ויאמרו אליו גו' חלילה לעבדיך מעשות כדבר הזה" ("And they said to him… Far be it from your servants to do such a thing"), Rashi gives two explanations of the words "חלילה לעבדיך" ("Far be it from your servants"): "חולין הוא לנו" ("It is profane for us") — an expression of disgrace. "And the Targum renders it 'חס לעבדך' — 'May there be mercy from the Holy One, blessed be He, upon us, [that we not] do this'; and there are many [instances] in the Gemara of 'חס ושלום' ('mercy and peace' — Heaven forfend)."
Earlier, in Parshas Vayeira, in Avraham's plea to G‑d, "האף תספה צדיק עם רשע" ("Will You even destroy the righteous with the wicked?"),2 the same expression appears: "חלילה לך מעשות כדבר הזה" ("Far be it from You to do such a thing"),3 and there Rashi explains the words "חלילה לך" ("Far be it from You"): "It is profane for You; they will say: such is His trade, etc."
We must understand:
a) Why is it that in Parshas Vayeira, where the expression "chalilah" appears for the first time, Rashi is satisfied with the explanation "It is profane for You," while in our parsha he is not content with saying "It is profane for us," and adds: "an expression of disgrace"? If "profane" requires explanation, Rashi should have explained it the first time!
b) Moreover: here Rashi not only adds the words "an expression of disgrace," but he also gives a second interpretation — "And the Targum renders it, etc." Why is the explanation "It is profane for You" sufficient in Parshas Vayeira, while here it does not suffice and a second interpretation is needed?
2. The explanation of this is as follows:
In Parshas Vayeira, the expression "chalilah" was said regarding G‑d, to Whom the concept of "chullin" (the profane) and the mundane is entirely inapplicable. It is therefore enough to say that "to do such a thing" (posed as a rhetorical question) is [impossible] because "it is profane for You" — and by this alone it is already clear that for G‑d this is completely out of the question.
In our parsha, however, which speaks of human beings who do occupy themselves with "chullin" — mundane, weekday matters — for them (merely) "It is profane for us" is not a sufficient reason to rule out "doing such a thing" (taking the silver goblet). For what is so terrible if human beings have done something that is "profane"?4
Therefore Rashi must add here that "It is profane for us" is "an expression of disgrace": "chullin" here5 is (not limited to the meaning of mundaneness, but is also) a term indicating that the thing is disgraceful, and consequently out of the question.
3. But this explanation is not smooth. For when is it fitting to say that "It is profane for us" is an "expression of disgrace"? When speaking of a person who, by virtue of his stature and importance, has absolutely nothing to do with mundane matters. Therefore, when he describes a certain thing as "chullin," it is an "expression of disgrace" — for him the thing (being mundane) is something disgraceful.6
[On the contrary: with this expression he rejects the thing even more than with an explicit expression of disgrace — since it shows that something not in keeping with his level and stature is so out of the question for him, that a "mundane" matter is no less a "disgrace" to him than something truly disgraceful (theft and the like).]
Here, however, the Shevatim (the brothers) needed to refute the claim that they were capable of theft.7 It is difficult to say that they wanted to prove this with the argument "It is profane for us" — that would be "תלי תניא בדלא תניא" ("hanging what is taught on what is not taught")8 (i.e., that theft is unthinkable for them because even the mundane is something disgraceful to them). And all the more so is it difficult to say that they wanted thereby to convince a gentile (Yosef's messenger) — and moreover a gentile from the land of Egypt, "the nakedness of the land," for whom "mundane" matters are certainly no disgrace at all.
And since that is so, it would (at any rate) have been more fitting to express how unthinkable theft was for them (not by saying "It is profane for us," but) with a clear expression of disgrace.
Therefore Rashi brings the Targum's interpretation, that "חלילה לעבדיך" means "חס לעבדיך" — "May there be mercy from the Holy One, blessed be He, etc.": they said — "Heaven forfend" that there should be with them any matter of theft. (And even more:) "May there be mercy from the Holy One, blessed be He, upon us, [that we not] do this, etc.": G‑d has mercy on us and does not let us stumble in such a thing even (inadvertently).
However, since we do not find in Tanach that "chalilah" has the meaning of "chas" (mercy) — (Rashi must point out that at least in the Gemara it is found often, and) therefore Rashi brings it only as a second interpretation,9 and the first and primary interpretation is that "chalilah" means "It is profane for us."
4. The lesson of this explanation of Rashi in the service of G‑d:
The Alter Rebbe explains in Torah Or10 that "בחי' האבות צריך להיות בכל אדם, אבל שאר בחינות .. כגון השבטים .. יש לך אדם שאין בו כלל בחי' ומדריגות אלו" ("the level of the Patriarchs must be present in every person, but the other levels… such as the Tribes… there may be a person who has none of these levels and rungs at all"). The meaning of this is: not every Jew must have within himself all the particular levels and qualities by which one tribe was distinguished from the others; but the general levels and qualities that were present in all the tribes (as children of the Patriarchs) must be present in every Jew.11
And similarly in our matter: since the argument "It is profane for us — an expression of disgrace" came not from one particular tribe but from the tribes as a whole, it is understood that the matter of "It is profane for us" applies to every Jew:
A Jew must know that his entire being and essence is holiness — he and "chullin" (materiality) are separate worlds, to the point that having to do with materiality as "chullin" is a "disgrace" for him; it must be entirely out of the question for him.
And this feeling must be not only in the inwardness of his soul, but also openly, and in such a way that even the nations of the world recognize that he has no connection to "chullin" — similar to what was said earlier, that with the Shevatim it was simply understood that the argument "It is profane for us" alone was sufficient proof for a gentile from Egypt that such a thing had no application to them. That is, even a gentile recognizes and knows that "chullin" is as foreign to them as theft is to others.
And [OCR unclear — a portion of the text is missing here, including the places of notes 12–16] … to the point that he actually sanctifies them — they become kodashim kalim (offerings of lesser holiness), and even higher, kodshei kodashim (most holy offerings).17
5. The fact that a Jew can attain such a level — that even when he is occupied (with the Torah's permission) with "mundane" matters, he is entirely separate from them, to the point that they (as mundane matters) are a "disgrace" to him —
derives from the fact that so it is, as it were, with G‑d: even the G‑dly light that relates to the worlds is not, Heaven forfend, grasped within the worlds,18 and "chullin," Heaven forfend, has no application to Him.
[This explains the emphasis and repetition in Avraham's plea — "(חלילה לך מעשות גו') חלילה לך השופט כל הארץ גו'" ("(Far be it from You to do…) Far be it from You! Shall the Judge of all the earth…")*
— For seemingly: even if it were possible to say that G‑d, Heaven forfend, is not on the level of uprightness and justice of "the Judge of all the earth," it is nevertheless entirely unthinkable to do "כדבר הזה להמית צדיק עם רשע" ("such a thing, to kill the righteous with the wicked")?! So what is added by "Far be it from You! Shall the Judge of all the earth…"? — Rather,
With this Avraham emphasized that even at the level of "the Judge of all the earth,"19 the level of G‑dliness at which the deeds of the lower beings do have a place — they are judged there, and from there the matter of reward and punishment is drawn down20 — even there "chullin" has no connection whatsoever.21]
And therefore so it is also with a Jew, who is "חלק אלוקה ממעל ממש" ("truly a part of G‑d above"):22 even when he occupies himself with mundane matters, he is not grasped by them;23 in his inner self he remains "separate" from them, to the point that their mundaneness is something disgraceful to him;
and this itself is the reason that a Jew has the power to transform the mundane until it becomes "(חולין שנעשו על) טהרת הקודש" ("(mundane food prepared in) the purity of holiness") — because in his inner self he is entirely above "chullin."
6. The above lesson is also connected with the general content of our parsha, which speaks of the "end" (keitz) and the final causes and events that led to the (actual) descent of Yaakov and his sons to Egypt, and into the Egyptian exile, which is "the head of all exiles":24
Well known25 is the saying of our Rebbeim: "Only our bodies were handed over into exile and subjugation to the nations; but our souls were not driven into exile, and were not handed over to subjugation to the nations."
Therefore exile can have dominion over a Jew only when his body and material matters hold a place for him. But when they hold no place for him (on the contrary — "chullin… an expression of disgrace"), because his soul, which has absolutely no connection to mundane matters, shines openly in him — then exile has no dominion over him.26
It can be said that this is also the inner reason why the final event that brought about the descent of Yaakov and his sons to Egypt was the finding of the "silver goblet" with the Shevatim. For exile and subjugation to the nations can rule over Jews only when there is in them (at least) some deficiency in the feeling of "chullin… an expression of disgrace." The fact that they stumbled into having the "silver goblet" with them, even unknowingly, is evidence of a certain deficiency27 in their feeling of rejection of "chullin" — similar to the well-known teaching28 that from the standpoint of a Jew's soul it is not possible for him to commit a transgression even inadvertently.
7. Just as this is so regarding a Jew — that the entire matter of exile is only external, from the standpoint of the body, but inwardly, from the standpoint of the soul, he is in a state of freedom and redemption — so it is also regarding exile itself:
The intent for which G‑d sends Jews into exile is for the sake of the ascent and redemption that come afterwards. Consequently, it is a descent and exile only externally; but in its inner essence and intent it is a matter of ascent and redemption.29
This is also the inner explanation of the well-known statement of our Sages30 that immediately after the Destruction, the savior and redeemer of Israel was born — that is, right at the beginning of the exile, the redemption began, since this is the entire inner content of the exile.
And in this, too, lies the service of a Jew: by bringing about that his inner essence — the soul, which is above being in exile — is felt in his conduct, he (also) reveals the inner essence and intent of exile — the revelation of the redemption.
8. As has been discussed many times, Rashi's commentary on the Torah contains "ענינים מופלאים" ("wondrous matters")31 from all parts of the Torah, including by way of hint and secret —
We also find a hint to the above matter of exile and redemption in Rashi at the conclusion of our parsha:
On the words32 "ומה נצטדק" ("and how shall we justify ourselves"), Rashi explains: "An expression of 'tzedek' (righteousness). And so every word whose root begins with tzadi, and which comes to speak in the reflexive or passive form, places a tes in place of a tav, and it is not placed before the first letter of the root, but in the middle of the root letters (and Rashi brings several examples of this)… And a word beginning with samech or shin, when it is reflexive — the tav separates the root letters… [and Rashi brings examples: first of words beginning with a samech ('סבל', 'סכל'), and afterwards of words beginning with a shin ('שמר', 'שולל'), and he concludes:] 'מסתולל בעמי' ('you tread upon My people'),33 from the root of 'דרך לא סלולה' ('a way not trodden')."34
We must understand:
a) According to the order in Rashi — first he brings examples of words beginning with a samech, and afterwards of words beginning with a shin — he should have brought the example of "misolel" (which begins with a samech) (1) together with all the examples of words beginning with a samech, and (2) before the examples of words beginning with a shin?
b) Why does Rashi say here that "misolel" is "from the root of 'a way not trodden'" — unlike what he himself says on the verse "עודך מסתולל" ("You still tread") in its own place (in Parshas Va'eira), that "misolel" is "from the root35 'מסלה' ('a highway')"?36
c) Why does Rashi say here "from the root of 'a way not trodden'," and not briefly "from the root 'סלולה' ('trodden')" (similar to what he says in Parshas Va'eira: "from the root 'mesillah'")?
9. The explanation of this (by way of the hint in Rashi's commentary) is as follows:
The difference between our parsha and Parshas Va'eira is: Parshas Mikeitz speaks, as mentioned, about (the end of) the period of preparation for the Egyptian exile; whereas Parshas Va'eira speaks about the first plagues that G‑d brought upon the Egyptians — the beginning of the redemption37 — especially according to the statement of our Sages38 that (already) on Rosh Hashanah the servitude ceased from our forefathers in Egypt.
This explains why in Parshas Va'eira, at the beginning of the redemption, Rashi says that "misolel" is "from the root 'mesillah'": although Pharaoh "מסתולל בעמי לבלתי שלחם" ("treads upon My people, not to send them out"), this is only because he did not perceive that it was already the beginning of the redemption; but in truth it is "from the root 'mesillah'" — it is already a well-trodden road to the redemption.39 For the very fact that "you still tread upon My people, not to send them out" was "בעבור הראותך את כחי ולמען ספר שמי בכל הארץ" ("in order to show you My strength, and so that My Name be declared throughout the earth")40 and "למען רבות מופתי בארץ מצרים" ("so that My wonders be multiplied in the land of Egypt").41
Whereas in our parsha, whose content is (the beginning of) the exile, the "treading upon My people" is in the manner of "a way not trodden": it appears as though it were a true exile.
Nevertheless, since both interpretations in Rashi — "from the root of 'a way not trodden'" and "from the root 'mesillah'" — are on the same word, this is proof that they share a content binding them together:42 the "way not trodden," too, is a "way" — a "way" ("mesillah") that leads to the redemption.43 It is only that at the beginning of the exile it is "a (way) not trodden" — not a well-trodden road, because externally it looks like a true exile. Inwardly, however, the "way (of) 'not'" is — trodden;44 exile itself is a matter of "מסלה לשאר עמו גו'" ("a highway for the remnant of His people…")36 — a "highway" to the redemption, because the intent and inner content of the Egyptian exile is the Exodus from Egypt and the Giving of the Torah.
And therefore Rashi brings the example of "treading upon My people" (which is stated regarding the plagues with which the redemption began, as mentioned above) in our parsha, which still speaks of the preparation for and the beginning of the exile — because right at the beginning of the exile, the redemption from that exile is already present in intent and in inner essence.
10. Based on the above it is also understood why Rashi places the example of "misolel" at the end of his commentary: because with this he hints that the "conclusion" and purpose of the events related in Parshas Vayeishev and Mikeitz, which led to the Egyptian exile, is already bound up with the redemption — it is already present within the exile, inwardly.
And so it is also regarding this last exile: when a Jew perceives that the entire matter of exile is only an external matter, but inwardly he stands above exile and the matter of the Future to Come is already present — this itself brings out the inner essence of the exile from concealment to revelation,45 and the true and complete redemption comes through Moshiach Tzidkeinu, very soon indeed.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Mikeitz, 5725)
Notes
1) Our parsha, 44:7.
2) 18:23.
3) Ibid., 25.
4) Note the change in Targum Yonasan ben Uziel: in Parshas Vayeira it translates "chullin," and here — "chas."
5) Unlike Rashi on Noach (9:20), "Vayachel — he made himself chullin (profane)" — for there it is not a disgrace but merely mundane, as Rashi continues: "for he should first have occupied himself with planting something else."
6) Therefore Yosef (the viceroy) said "חלילה לי מעשות זאת" ("Far be it from me to do this") (end of our parsha).
7) See Yerios Shlomo (Maharshal) here (on why the Targum did not interpret it as an expression of disgrace).
8) Shabbos 22a, and sources cited there.
9) Re'em and Gur Aryeh here.
10) Beginning of Parshas Va'eira.
11) See also Likkutei Sichos vol. 6, p. 11, note 39; vol. 10, p. 97 (and the notes there).
12–16) [OCR unclear — these notes are missing from the source.]
17) See Likkutei Torah, Matos 83b, and elsewhere.
18) Hemshech Basi LeGani 5710, ch. 4, and elsewhere.
*) [OCR unclear — the starred note is missing from the source.]
19) See Rashi, Vayeira 19:24 (from Bereishis Rabbah 51:2, and sources cited there): "[OCR unclear] wherever it says 'and G‑d,' it means He and His court."
20) See Torah Or, the maamar "Eirdah Na"; Toras Chaim there.
21) Note Or HaTorah, Devarim, p. 8.
22) Tanya, beginning of ch. 2.
23) That is, even the radiance of the soul that is enclothed in the body (by virtue of which enclothement "in every single thing that a person does and makes, he introduces G‑dly powers, etc." — Hemshech 5672, at its beginning) is not grasped by it. See the maamar "Zos Toras HaBayis" 5689, ch. 4 ff. (Sefer HaMaamarim Kuntreisim vol. 1, 40b ff.), and the maamar "Az Yashir" 5710, ch. 3 ff. — that even the radiance of the soul is essential; see there at length. And see Tanya, beginning of ch. 9: "So too the soul of man, and likewise the levels of ruach and nefesh, desire and yearn… to separate… and to cleave…"
24) For all the kingdoms are called by the name of Egypt (Bereishis Rabbah 16:4; and see the maamar "Kol Dodi" 5709, at its beginning).
25) Printed at the beginning of Kuntres 14 (Sefer HaMaamarim Kuntreisim vol. 1, 175b); Likkutei Dibburim vol. 4, 692a.
26) See Pelach HaRimon, Shemos, p. 6, in the name of the Alter Rebbe: that before the lofty souls… the Temple was not destroyed at all, etc.
27) See Likkutei Sichos vol. 5 (p. 64) regarding the sins of the Patriarchs, which are "sin" only in the sense of a deficiency, such that from the external and simple aspect of the matter it appears as a sin; see there. And see there, note 56 (and note 62), that this "deficiency" gives room for an actual sin, etc.
28) See Iggeres HaKodesh, end of section 28. At length — Likkutei Sichos vol. 3, p. 944 ff.
29) See at length on all this — Likkutei Sichos vol. 5, p. 61 ff.
30) Eichah Rabbah 1:51.
31) The expression of the Shelah in his Tractate Shevuos (181a).
32) Our parsha, 44:16.
33) Va'eira 9:17.
34) Yirmiyahu 18:15.
35) In several manuscripts of Rashi: "From the root 'סלולה' — 'and there shall be a highway.'"
36) Yeshayahu 11:16.
37) See at length Likkutei Sichos vol. 15, p. 34, and the notes there.
38) Rosh Hashanah 11a, top.
39) Accordingly one can understand why in Parshas Va'eira Rashi adds the example "כי תשתרר עלינו" ("that you lord it over us") — "from the root 'sar' (prince) and 'nagid' (ruler)."
40) Va'eira, ibid., 16.
41) Bo 11:9.
42) See Likkutei Sichos vol. 3, p. 782, and elsewhere.
43) Biurei HaZohar, beginning of Parshas Vayishlach. And see the commentators on Bereishis Rabbah, ch. 80, sec. 4.
44) Similar to the teaching of our Sages on the verse "לכתך אחרי במדבר בארץ לא זרועה" ("your following Me in the wilderness, in a land not sown") (Likkutei Torah, Pekudei 3b, 6d; Or HaTorah, Yirmiyahu, at the beginning).
45) Note Iggeres HaKodesh, end of section 11.
Key Lesson
A Jew's essence is holiness, so that even while engaged in permitted mundane matters he remains inwardly above them, to the point that the mundane is a "disgrace" to him — and this is what gives him the power to elevate it. Exile rules only over the external, bodily dimension; when a Jew's soul is openly felt in his conduct, he reveals the inner purpose of exile itself — the redemption, through Moshiach, very soon.