Parshas Vayigash
1. On the words "ויאחזו בה" ("and they took possession of it") — in the last verse of our parsha: "וישב ישראל בארץ מצרים בארץ גושן ויאחזו בה ויפרו וירבו מאד" ("And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt, in the land of Goshen; and they took possession of it, and they were fruitful and multiplied exceedingly") — there are two interpretations:
a) The interpretation of "vayei'achazu" according to the plain meaning of the verse1, as Rashi explains: "לשון אחוזה" ("an expression of achuzah, possession")2;
b) The interpretation of the Midrash3: "הארץ היתה אוחזת בהם ותופסת אותם . . כאדם שבעל כרחו (אחז) אחזו בה" ("The land held them and seized them . . like a person who, against his will, is held fast in it") (i.e., that "vayei'achazu" derives from the term achizah — holding).
[The reason pshat compels the interpretation "an expression of possession," to the exclusion of the other: from the continuation of the verse, "And Israel dwelt… and they took possession of it, and they were fruitful…," it is implied that with the words "and they took possession of it" the Torah means to underscore the manner of their settling in the land of Goshen — that it was such that it brought about "and they were fruitful and multiplied exceedingly." One therefore cannot, according to pshat, learn it like the Midrash's interpretation, that their settlement was in a manner of "against his will" (which does not lead to "and they were fruitful…"). Nor can one translate "and they took possession of it" from the term achizah — that the Jews held it (by settling it) — for then it would have had to say "vayo'chazu," the alef with a cholam, and not "vayei'achazu," the alef with a kamatz, meaning that they were held by it.]
It has already been said many times4 that when there are several interpretations by our Sages on the same word (or matter), this does not mean that they are entirely in dispute with one another; on the contrary, since they are interpretations of the very same word, one must say that they share a certain connection with each other.
However, the two interpretations mentioned above are seemingly (not only unconnected to each other, but even more so) opposite (in content) to one another: according to the plain meaning of the verse, the words "and they took possession of it" emphasize that the settlement of the Children of Israel in the land of Goshen was in a manner that it became their land, their very own possession; whereas according to the Midrash's interpretation it emerges that the emphasis is the reverse — the Children of Israel were "held fast" by the land of Egypt "against their will"?
2. This will be understood after explaining (the preceding comment of) Rashi on the beginning of the verse, which serves as an introduction to "and they took possession of it." There Rashi pauses on the words "And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt" and explains: "והיכן, בארץ גושן5 שהיא מארץ מצרים" ("And where? In the land of Goshen, which is of the land of Egypt").
The commentators6 say that Rashi comes to resolve the following question: from the wording "in the land of Egypt, in the land of Goshen" it would seem that these are two separate lands; therefore Rashi says "And where? In the land of Goshen" — it is as if the verse read: "in the land of Egypt — and where? In the land of Goshen."
This, however, is not understood:
a) Why does Rashi need to add "which is of the land of Egypt"? This is already understood from the sequence "And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt — and where? In the land of Goshen."
b) Similarly, one can ask about the verse itself: why does the verse need to say "in the land of Egypt" and then explain "in the land of Goshen"? "In the land of Goshen" alone would suffice, and one already knows that it is in the land of Egypt, since earlier in the parsha7 it states explicitly that the land of Goshen is a part of the land of Egypt?
c) If Rashi merely wishes to explain the lengthy wording of the verse, "in the land of Egypt, in the land of Goshen" — why does he also quote from the verse the words "And Israel dwelt"?
3. The explanation of this: Rashi here aims to resolve a contradiction to the content of the verse from an earlier parsha. At the Covenant Between the Parts8, G‑d said to Avraham: "כי גר יהי' זרעך בארץ לא להם גו' ואחרי כן יצאו גו'" ("Your offspring will be strangers in a land that is not theirs… and afterwards they will go out…"). That is, before the Children of Israel would go to the Land of Israel, they would first have to endure exile by being "strangers… in a land that is not theirs." But how can one say that the Children of Israel endured this exile by being in Egypt, when we see here in the verse that they settled there ("vayeishev" — from the term "toshav," a resident, the opposite of "ger," a stranger9), and moreover in the land of Goshen (which was, as stated earlier in the verse7, "מיטב הארץ" — "the best of the land"), and in a manner (as the verse concludes here) of "and they took possession of it — an expression of possession": it became their very own possession10?
[And this is why Rashi also quotes the words "And Israel dwelt" — because the difficulty in the verse lies, as stated, in the manner of Israel's "dwelling"11 in the land of Goshen.]
Rashi resolves this question (on the verse, which is what his commentary explains) by adding the words (to "in the land of Egypt") "which is of the land of Egypt": after all, the land of Goshen too is a part of the land of Egypt12, and not the land of Canaan. Therefore their settlement in the land of Goshen is reckoned as exile, because by the very fact that they were not in the land of Canaan (their "land"13), they were "strangers… in a land that is not theirs"14.
4. However, this is still not entirely smooth (at least in the inner dimension of the matters15). It is known16 that the purpose of the Egyptian exile was that the Jews should be refined there, become fit to receive the Torah, and afterwards enter the Land of Israel. How, then, was this purpose (the refinement) of the exile and the Egyptian bondage nevertheless accomplished through the matter of "And Israel dwelt…"?
The question becomes even stronger according to the way the matter of "and they took possession of it" is explained in the homiletic (derush) dimension of the Torah — with the following preface:
From what is stated in the verse, "and they took possession of it — an expression of possession," it must follow that the land of Goshen was (and consequently remained) a possession and inheritance of the Jews. This is seemingly entirely incomprehensible: how can one say of a part of the land of Egypt that it is a possession and inheritance of the Children of Israel? The land of Canaan is an inheritance for the Jews, as it states17, "לתת לך את הארץ הזאת לרשתה" ("to give you this land to inherit it") — but not the land of Egypt18!
[In the path of pshat this is indeed no question at all: since their settlement in the land of Goshen lasted (the entire duration of the Egyptian exile19) 21020 years, the term "possession" simply fits it. But according to the path of derush in Torah, which emphasizes the homiletic and inner content, it is still not smooth.]
The Radak on the Book of Yehoshua21 cites in the name of the "Derash" that what is stated there22, that Yehoshua conquered "את כל ארץ הגושן" ("all the land of Goshen"), indeed means "גושן של ארץ מצרים והיא נבלעת בתוך ערי ישראל" ("the Goshen of the land of Egypt, which was absorbed among the cities of Israel") (and that is why the verse there23 counts it among the cities of the inheritance of the tribe of Yehudah).
Accordingly, one could seemingly explain (at least according to derush) the wording "and they took possession of it": the land of Goshen became an inheritance of the Jews because it was "absorbed" among the cities of Israel in the time of Yehoshua.
It is difficult, however, to learn it this way. For what room is there to say that already at the time of the verse "And Israel dwelt…" this settlement in the land of Goshen should be called by the name "possession" because hundreds of years later the land of Goshen would be absorbed (through Yehoshua's conquest) among the cities of Israel?
The explanation of this: the Midrash24 states that Pharaoh gave Sarah "ארץ גושן לאחוזה" ("the land of Goshen as a possession"), and "לפיכך ישבו ישראל בארץ גושן שהיא של שרה אמנו" ("therefore Israel dwelt in the land of Goshen, for it belonged to Sarah our Mother"). It thus emerges that the Jews received the land of Goshen as an inheritance (from Sarah)25.
With this, however, the question becomes even stronger: how did the Children [of Israel] endure the Egyptian exile through their being in the land of Goshen, when Goshen belonged to them as an inheritance, and consequently they were not "strangers… in a land that is not theirs"?
5. This will be understood based on what is explained in Torah Or26: all the details of the labor of the Egyptian exile — "בעבודה קשה בחומר ובלבנים גו'" ("with hard labor, with mortar and with bricks…")27 — exist also in the spiritual realm, in the study of Torah, as stated in the Zohar28: "בעבודה קשה זו קושיא בחומר דא קל וחומר ובלבנים דא לבון הלכה וכו'" ("'With hard labor' — this is a kushya, a difficult question; 'with mortar' (chomer) — this is a kal vachomer, an a fortiori inference; 'and with bricks' (leveinim) — this is the clarification (libun) of halachah," etc.)29. When a Jew toils and labors in the hard labor of Torah, he thereby discharges the "hard labor…" of the Egyptian exile, and need not do so physically.
[As the Mishnah30 says: "כל המקבל עליו עול תורה" ("Whoever accepts upon himself the yoke of Torah") — the precise wording being "the yoke of Torah": he accepts upon himself the yoke of Torah (the hard labor etc., mentioned above in the Zohar) — "מעבירין ממנו עול מלכות ועול דרך ארץ" ("the yoke of government and the yoke of worldly occupation are removed from him").]
Similarly, one can explain in our case: even while in the land of Goshen, the Children of Israel endured (and accomplished what was to be achieved by) the Egyptian exile and bondage through their toil in Torah in the "house of study" that Yaakov and his sons established31.
And this is also the allusion (in the manner of "יינה של תורה" — "the wine of Torah") in Rashi's explanation "and they took possession of it — an expression of possession": the Egyptian exile, in its first period, when the Jews settled there ("And Israel dwelt"), was not bound up with physical hard labor and the like. On the contrary, at that time it was such that it was felt that this was "the best of the land," and that they were there in their own possession: everyone knew and acknowledged that the Jews were in their very own land, where they conducted themselves as they wished (not being subject to the Egyptian bondage); and the bondage of exile was expressed solely in the hard labor of Torah.
6. This, however, still requires explanation: since ultimately the Jews inherited the land of Goshen from Sarah (according to the Midrash's interpretation), how can it nevertheless be reckoned as exile "in a land that is not theirs"?
The explanation of this: although the land of Goshen belonged to the Jews by virtue of the inheritance from Sarah, it nevertheless did not possess the level of holiness32 that the Land of Israel possesses33 — "ארץ אשר גו' עיני ה' אלקיך בה וגו'" ("a land which… the eyes of the L‑rd your G‑d are upon it…")34.
And in this consisted the exile "in a land that is not theirs" during their settlement in the land of Goshen (even in the first period): the Jews were pained by the fact that they were in a place that is not "a land which… the eyes of the L‑rd your G‑d are upon it." By this very fact it was "a land that is not theirs" — lacking the importance and holiness that is "fitting for them." And through this very pain they endured part of the bondage and constraint of the Egyptian exile.
7. However, although the beginning of their exile in Egypt was in a manner of "and they took possession of it," as explained above, this itself was already a descent35 relative to their state and level36 when they were in the land of Canaan; and this gave room for their later having to go through the Egyptian exile and bondage in its literal sense.
That is, after the end of that first period, at the time when "וימת יוסף וכל אחיו וכל הדור ההוא" ("Yosef died, and all his brothers, and all that generation")37 — as a result of which the toil in Torah in the "house of study" of Yaakov and his sons began to be lacking (and the pain of being "in a land that is not theirs" began to be forgotten38) — there then began39 the Egyptian bondage40 in its literal sense, until it appeared "כאילו אותו יום נכנסו למצרים" ("as if on that day they had entered Egypt")41: people began to forget that the land belonged to the Jews, and they began to feel the bitterness of constraint and exile.
And this is what Rashi aims to emphasize in his comment, "And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt — and where? In the land of Goshen, which is of the land of Egypt": at the beginning, the Egyptian exile was indeed ("and where?") in the manner of "the land of Goshen" — the best of the land, etc. On the other hand, however, one must know "which is of the land of Egypt": the very fact that the Jews had to settle in the land of Goshen already signifies a descent into the land of Egypt. Moreover, "the land of Goshen" itself was transformed into the harshest Egyptian exile ("which is of the land of Egypt"): when the best of the land of Goshen was not utilized in the service of G‑d, and on the contrary, "וישמן" ("he grew fat") led to "ויבעט" ("he kicked")42 — then in the land of Goshen itself (where the Jews lived throughout the entire period of the exile, as mentioned above) the Egyptian bondage came about in its literal sense.
8. The interpretation of "vayei'achazu" mentioned above (section 4), as an expression of possession — that the Jews inherited the land of Goshen — is also consistent with what the Egyptian exile accomplished in the inner dimension of matters.
From this it is also understood that although, according to the path of pshat, the term "possession" need not contain the content of inheritance (that the Jews inherited the land of Goshen), Rashi nevertheless alludes (with the words "an expression of possession") to the content of inheritance — in the "wine of Torah" that is concealed in Rashi's commentary.
The explanation of this: the purpose of the exile43 in Egypt was that the Jews should refine and take with them the sparks of holiness found in Egypt. This is the inner content of "וינצלו את מצרים" ("and they emptied Egypt")44, which our Sages45 explain as "עשאוה כמצודה שאין בה דגן כו' כמצולה שאין בה דגים" ("they made it like a trap without grain… like a deep without fish") — meaning that the Jews refined and elevated the sparks of holiness from the World of Tohu that were found in the land of Egypt46.
And this is what Rashi alludes to with "and they took possession of it — an expression of possession"47: the intent and purpose of "And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt" (the Egyptian exile) was that the Jews should there (through this) inherit the (sparks of the) lights of Tohu. As is known from the maamar of the Previous Rebbe48, the order of inheritance regarding the nations of the world follows what is written49, "ובן אין לו גו' ונתתם את נחלתו לאחיו" ("And if he has no son… you shall give his inheritance to his brothers")50; and since "הלא אח עשו ליעקב" ("Is not Esav a brother to Yaakov?")51, the Jews inherit the lights of Tohu.
9. In light of all the above, the connection between the two interpretations of "and they took possession of it" is understood:
According to the plain meaning of the verse, "vayei'achazu" derives from the term achuzah, possession — because simply (and in the outward aspect of matters), at that time, in the period of Parshas Vayigash, the bondage of the Egyptian exile had not yet begun. On the contrary, at that time it still appeared that the land of Goshen was a possession of the Children of Israel, as explained above.
But according to the Midrash, which explains the derush and inner dimension of every matter52, "vayei'achazu" derives from the term achizah, holding: "the land held them and seized them . . that against their will they were held fast in it." For since, inwardly, the settlement in the land of Goshen was a matter of descent into Egypt ("which is of the land of Egypt"), and (moreover) it gave room for the Egyptian bondage in its literal sense, as explained above — consequently the descent to the land of Goshen was, in a concealed and inner manner, in the mode of "the land held them and seized them . . that against their will they were held fast in it."
And the inner intent and reason why there must be the matter of "and they took possession of it" according to the Midrash's interpretation (that "the land held them…") is alluded to in the "wine of Torah" within Rashi's commentary53: the purpose of their being held fast in the Egyptian exile (as the Midrash interprets it) is hinted at in "an expression of possession" — in order that they should inherit "כל הטוב בניצוצות דתהו שנפלו בשבירה" ("all the good in the sparks of Tohu that fell in the shattering")54 in Egypt — "ואחרי כן יצאו ברכוש גדול" ("and afterwards they will go out with great wealth")55.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Vayigash, 5725)
Notes
1) So too explained in Targum Onkelos, Targum Yonasan ben Uziel, Pesikta Zutrasa [OCR reads "Pash"i" — doubtful], Ibn Ezra, Chizkuni, and others.* See also above, 47:11 [OCR reads 46:11]: "And he gave them a possession…" It can be said that Rashi is alluding to this verse.
*) In Radak here: "that they acquired a possession there." But see his Sefer HaShorashim (entry achaz), that "achuzah" too derives from the root "achaz" (an expression of holding). See also Bachya here. And note Ibn Ezra, Chayei Sarah 23:4.
2) So it appears in most printings. In several printings (apparently in error, since there is no explanation of how this term would apply here, along the lines of the lengthy discussion of this in the Midrash) it reads: "an expression of achizah, holding." In the first and second printings of Rashi (and likewise in several manuscripts) this comment does not appear at all.
3) Midrash Tadsha (ch. 17). See similarly Bereishis Rabbah, ch. 95 (Theodor-Albeck edition, 27): "'And they took possession of it' .. the land [OCR unclear] to collect a debt from them," etc.
4) See Likutei Sichos, vol. 3, p. 782, and elsewhere; above, p. 281.
5) "In the land of Goshen" — these are the words of the verse (and they should have been printed in the same lettering as the words "And Israel dwelt…," but the one who selected and abridged [the headings] did not notice this), and Rashi's explanation lies in reading it as though the word "and where" were written before them, as is found in many places in Rashi. See in our parsha: 44:19; 45:12; 45:23; 45:28; 46:26; 46:31.
6) Gur Aryeh (and others) here. And see Re'em and Devek Tov, somewhat differently.
7) 47:6. Ibid., 11, and Rashi there.
8) Lech Lecha 15:13-14 [OCR reads 16:13-14].
9) See Rashi, Chayei Sarah 23:4.
10) And not merely as they said (47:4), "We have come to sojourn in the land" — see Rashi, Lech Lecha, ibid., 13. And note Bachya here.
11) In actual practice, also on their part — and not only (as above, 47:11): "And Yosef settled… and he gave them…"
12) Note Rashi, Lech Lecha 12:19.
13) Note Rashi (Vayeishev 37:2) on the word "Vayeishev": "Yaakov sought to dwell in tranquility; [the troubles of Yosef] sprang upon him," etc. And see Ramban, Alshich and Kli Yakar at the beginning of Parshas Vayeishev.
14) Note Kli Yakar here. But see below, end of section 6.
15) But according to pshat, what is said (Lech Lecha, ibid.), "ועבדום וענו אותם" ("and they will enslave them and afflict them"), does not refer to the span of "four hundred years," since even while they were in Egypt there was not enslavement and affliction the entire time (unlike the matter of "strangers in a land that is not theirs") — see Rashi, Va'eira 6:16; Re'em, Lech Lecha, ibid. (and on verse 15 there).
16) Torah Or 74a, end, ff., and in many places.
17) Lech Lecha, ibid., 7.
18) Note the Bereishis Rabbah cited in note 3: "Here it says 'and they took possession of it,' and further on (Metzora 14:34) it says 'which I give to you as a possession' — rather, etc. … the land [OCR unclear] .. but further on .. if you merit it, as a possession," etc.
*) In Midrash Tadsha (cited in the above note): "Once they came to the land of Canaan .. it is in your domain; you hold it and seize it," etc. And see Radak — cited in the starred note to note 1.
19) As is evident from Va'eira 8:18; 9:26; Bo 12:37.
20) Rashi, Lech Lecha, ibid., 13; Mikeitz 42:2; Bo, ibid., 40.
21) 11:16. And see also Rabboseinu Baalei HaTosafos on our parsha, 46:29.
22) And likewise earlier — 10:41.
23) 15:51.
24) Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 26 (and see Radal there). Midrash HaGadol on our parsha, 46:34; 47:11 (in explaining the verse "And he gave them a possession…"). Rabboseinu Baalei HaTosafos, cited above.
25) According to this — even if one maintains that Avraham did not actually acquire the land of Canaan (for the discussion of this, see at length Parashas Derachim, Derush 9, and the sources cited there; and see Likutei Sichos, vol. 5, p. 328; above, p. 204 ff., and the sources cited there) — it emerges that the term and concept of "inheritance" fits the inheritance of the land of Goshen from Sarah (which was an actual inheritance) more than the inheritance of the land of Canaan from Avraham. This is not the place to elaborate.
26) Beginning of Parshas Shemos. Or HaTorah there (p. 8 ff.; vol. 4, p. 2475), and in many places.
27) Shemos 1:14.
28) Vol. 3, 153a.
29) Seemingly this should be the reading in Torah Or as well (in the printings I have seen, the words "and with bricks — this is the clarification of halachah" appear out of place).
30) Avos 3:5.
31) Tanchuma, Bereishis Rabbah, Yalkut Shimoni and others — on the verse (our parsha, 46:28) "ואת יהודה שלח לפניו גו'" ("And he sent Yehudah before him…"). And note the version (Tanchuma Buber and Yalkut Shimoni; and so too in Bachya) "that they should be .. meditating in Torah" — i.e., that the toil in Torah was akin to the study of the Babylonian Talmud — see Likutei Sichos, vol. 10, p. 164, note 33.
32) Although in the land of Goshen too there was a holiness resembling the holiness of the Land of Israel — see Alshich, beginning of Parshas Vayechi.
33) See Rashi, Toldos 26:2.
34) Eikev 11:12.
35) As is known regarding the two descents (that of our parsha and that of Parshas Shemos) — Torah Or and Or HaTorah there. See at length Likutei Sichos, vol. 10, p. 28 ff.
36) Also with regard to Torah study — for our Sages said (Sifri, beginning of Eikev; Bereishis Rabbah 16:4) that there is no Torah like the Torah of the Land of Israel. And see above, note 31.
37) Shemos 1:6.
38) Note Kli Yakar here.
39) As in the conclusion of the Mishnah (Avos, ibid.): "And whoever casts off from himself the yoke of Torah," etc.
40) Shemos Rabbah 1:8 (from the time they went down to Egypt). Rashi, Va'eira 6:16 ("one of the tribes").
41) Shemos Rabbah, ibid., 4 — and this came about immediately when Yosef died (see at length Likutei Sichos, vol. 6, ibid.). And in Rashi at the beginning of Parshas Vayechi: when Yaakov our father passed away, Israel were "closed off" from the anguish of the bondage, "for they began to enslave them." And see the commentators on Rashi there.
42) Devarim 32:15. Berachos 32a.
43) For Israel was exiled only so that converts would be added to them (Pesachim 87b; and see Zohar, vol. 1, 244a, and Nitzutzei Oros there), i.e., in order to elevate the sparks, etc. (Torah Or 6a; beginning of Lech Lecha; 117b; and elsewhere).
44) Bo 12:36.
45) Berachos 9b.
46) Torah Or 56, end of column d; 60c. And see at length Likutei Sichos, vol. 3, p. 824 ff.
47) Note the commentary of the Ohr HaChaim here.
48) Maamar beginning "Im Ruach HaMoshel," 5695, ch. 6 (Sefer HaMaamarim Kuntreisim, vol. 2, 362b).
49) Pinchas 27:8-9.
50) See HaTamim, issue 4 (p. 54 [384]) and issue 6 (p. 63 [299]), an explanation according to nigleh (by Rabbi [name unclear in OCR] Kohen, may G‑d avenge his blood).
51) Malachi 1:2.
52) See the Alter Rebbe's Hilchos Talmud Torah 2:2; Iggeres HaKodesh, sec. 23.
53) See also Likutei Sichos, vol. 5, p. 1 (in note 3); p. 278.
54) The wording of the maamar "Im Ruach HaMoshel," ibid.
55) Lech Lecha 15:14.
Key Lesson
Even when a Jew finds himself in exile in comfortable, "best of the land" circumstances, he must never forget that he is "in a land not his" — and it is his toil in Torah and his yearning for the holiness of the Land of Israel that fulfill the purpose of exile. When that toil and that pain are neglected, comfort itself turns into bondage; but when exile is used properly, the Jew "takes possession" of it, inheriting and elevating the sparks of holiness hidden within it.