Parshas Vayechi
1. "ויחי יעקב בארץ מצרים שבע עשרה שנה ויהי ימי יעקב גו'" ("And Yaakov lived in the land of Egypt seventeen years, and the days of Yaakov were…"). The question is asked1: Why does the Torah need to state explicitly the number of years that Yaakov lived in Egypt? It is already stated in the previous sedra2 that when he came to Egypt, "ימי שני מגורי שלשים ומאת שנה" ("the days of the years of my sojournings are one hundred and thirty years"), and in this very verse the Torah says, "ויהי ימי יעקב שני חייו שבע שנים וארבעים ומאת שנה" ("and the days of Yaakov, the years of his life, were one hundred and forty-seven years"). It is therefore self-evident that he lived in Egypt seventeen years. What difference does it make to single out Yaakov's years in Egypt separately?
Conversely, if for whatever reason the Torah wishes to single out the years he lived in Egypt, then, since this follows the previous sedra, which states that he was 130 years old, it is seemingly superfluous to give the total of his years. The calculation is self-evident.
The commentators3 answer that the Torah singles out the number of years Yaakov dwelt in Egypt, and says about them "ויחי" ("and he lived"), because the 130 years until then were not counted for Yaakov as years of living. The reason is that "רעים היו ימי שני חיי" ("the days of the years of my life have been bad"), full of toil and sighing4: first his flight from Esav; then his stay with Lavan, where "ביום אכלני חורב וקרח בלילה ותדד שנתי מעיני" ("by day the heat consumed me, and the frost by night, and my sleep wandered from my eyes")5, and so on, up to the sale of Yosef. But once he came to Egypt, he suffered no troubles. On the contrary, he lived there a life of peace and tranquility, settled in the best of the land, seeing that all his children were whole, and Yosef serving as viceroy to the king. Therefore only then was there "Vayechi Yaakov" ("and Yaakov lived").
And the Torah includes all his years together in the total of 147 years in order to intimate that the last seventeen good years, the years of "Vayechi"6, made him forget the pain and anguish of all his earlier years, until they all appeared as good years: "כולן שוין לטובה" ("all of them equal for good").
But this is still not entirely smooth. True, since the last years were "for good," they so soothed Yaakov as to make him forget the sufferings of all his earlier years. But how can the Torah add a total, which is already known, for no other purpose than to emphasize that "all of them are equal," and even more, "all of them equal for good"7, when 130 years were "מעט ורעים" ("few and bad," the opposite of good), and the 17 years were "Vayechi" (the ultimate of life and goodness)?
2. This will be understood by explaining the words of the Midrash8 and Rashi's commentary at the beginning of our sedra. The Midrash says: "למה פרשה זו סתומה מכל הפרשיות של תורה? אלא כיון שנפטר אבינו יעקב התחילה שעבוד מצרים על ישראל. ד"א למה היא סתומה? מפני שבקש יעקב אבינו לגלות את הקץ ונסתם ממנו. ד"א למה היא סתומה? מפני שסתם ממנו כל צרות שבעולם" ("Why is this section 'closed' more than all the sections of the Torah? Because once our father Yaakov passed away, the subjugation of Egypt began upon Israel. Another explanation: Why is it closed? Because our father Yaakov wished to reveal the End, and it was closed off from him. Another explanation: Why is it closed? Because all the troubles of the world were closed off from him").
The question "Why is this section closed?" simply means, according to the plain meaning of Scripture, that there is no space before the words "Vayechi Yaakov"9. Since a new sedra begins here, it is understood that here, as with all the other sedros of the Torah10, there should be a break before the beginning of the section of "Vayechi Yaakov."
According to the above, the following is not understood: The closing before the words "Vayechi Yaakov" should seemingly, first and foremost, have alluded to a "closing" in a positive sense that "Vayechi Yaakov" brought about, namely that at that time "all the troubles of the world were closed off from him." The question is even stronger: The text before the closing, the conclusion of Parshas Vayigash, tells of the good situation of the Children of Israel in the land of Goshen; it was in a manner of "ויפרו וירבו מאד" ("they were fruitful and multiplied greatly"). Since immediately afterward (without any break) the verse relates, "Vayechi Yaakov in the land of Egypt…", logic dictates that by the closing the Torah means to emphasize that "Vayechi Yaakov…" comes juxtaposed, without any break in its content (the good), to the conclusion of the previous section11. So why does the reason "all the troubles of the world were closed off from him" come in the Midrash as the last of the reasons, while the first (that is, the principal) reasons for the closing of the section are matters that are the very opposite of "they were fruitful… Vayechi Yaakov in the land of Egypt"?
Even more difficult is Rashi's commentary on the Torah. Since his way is to explain the plain meaning of Scripture, he should seemingly have adopted as primary the reason for the closing at "Vayechi Yaakov" that expresses something good, connected with "they were fruitful" and with Yaakov's life (as above), and not a matter that is the opposite of good, which was brought about by his passing, the opposite of "Vayechi Yaakov."
It is thus not understood: a) Precisely this third reason in the Midrash, "all the troubles were closed off from him, etc." (the one closest to the plain meaning of the verse), Rashi does not cite. b) Also the two reasons of the Midrash that Rashi does cite, he should seemingly have placed in the reverse order12. According to the second reason, the closing is connected with Yaakov's life (although the cause of Yaakov's wish to reveal the End was that it was close to his passing13, it nevertheless took place during his lifetime), whereas the first reason speaks of a time after Yaakov's passing (especially since the "not good" here is even harsher than according to the second reason)14.
3. This will be understood in light of how the commentators15 answer the question on the two reasons. If the reason for the closing of the section is "because once our father Yaakov passed away, [their eyes] were closed, etc.," or because "he wished to reveal the End to his children and it was closed off, etc.," then the closing should have been later, in the verses that speak of the closing off of the End or of Yaakov's passing. And they answer that a closing in the middle of a sedra is not noticeable, whereas at the beginning of a sedra it is16.
Now, since the closing is at the beginning of a sedra, and with a new sedra17 a distinct subject begins18, there ought to be a break with more space than usual. So when there is no space at all (it is closed), and the matters stand in two separate sedros, it is reasonable to say that the closing does not point to a closing-off related to the particular verses and words where the closing is found, but is connected with the general content of the sedra (and therefore it is alluded to as an introduction to the content of the sedra, as will be explained).
And the main content of the sedra of "Vayechi" is not about events connected with the manner of life of our father Yaakov in the land of Egypt (that is related in Parshas Vayigash: that Yaakov and his sons were in the best of the land, up to the conclusion, "they were fruitful and multiplied greatly"), but about events connected with his passing, up to his actual passing: from "ויקרבו ימי ישראל למות" ("the days of Israel drew near to die") at the beginning of the section, and the continuation concerning our father Yaakov's blessings to Yosef and his sons and afterwards the blessing to his sons, matters that belong to the time before the passing. And especially since right at the very beginning of the sedra19, in the first verse, the total of all the years of Yaakov's life is given.
It is therefore understood that by the "closed section" the Torah means to point to a closing connected with the general content of the section: the passing of Yaakov.
4. With this, both questions mentioned above are answered (why Rashi omits the third reason, and the order of the two reasons he cites):
Since the closing is connected with Yaakov's passing and with the events related to the passing, there is consequently no place in the plain meaning of Scripture for the closing of the sedra that speaks of Yaakov's passing to allude to "that all troubles were closed off from him." This is so both in time, since "that [troubles] were closed off from him" took place as soon as he came to Egypt, seventeen years before his passing; and in content, since the matter of "all the troubles of the world were closed off from him," which is the ultimate of vitality, stands in contrast to the matter of Yaakov's passing. Therefore Rashi omits the third reason entirely20. For the same reason there is also no difficulty in Rashi's placing "that he wished to reveal" as the second reason, because with respect to Yaakov's passing, the reason "that he passed away, etc." is closer to the plain meaning of Scripture (since the passing itself was the cause of the closing, which is not so with "he wished to reveal, etc.")21.
5. However, it still remains not understood (in the inner dimension of the matter): Why indeed does the sedra begin with "Vayechi Yaakov," since the entire sedra speaks of Yaakov's passing and the events connected with it? True, the total of the years of Yaakov's life comes in connection with his passing, as said earlier, but this justifies only the connection of the second half of the verse, "and the days of Yaakov were…". But the first half of the verse, "Yaakov lived in the land of Egypt seventeen years," which tells of Yaakov's best years, what connection does it have with Yaakov's passing? Accordingly, the division of the sedros should rather have been as follows: "Yaakov lived in the land of Egypt seventeen years" should have been the conclusion of Parshas Vayigash, where it is related, "ותחי רוח יעקב אביהם" ("the spirit of Yaakov their father was revived")22, and "וישב ישראל גו' ויפרו וירבו מאד" ("Israel dwelt… and they were fruitful and multiplied greatly"); and "and the days of Yaakov were…" should have been the beginning of Parshas Vayechi.
One must also understand: As has been discussed several times23, the name of a sedra is connected with the content of the entire sedra. How, then, is the sedra called by the name "Vayechi" ("and he lived"), when the content of the sedra is Yaakov's passing, the opposite of the matter of "Vayechi"24?
6. The explanation of this: The true meaning of life is a life that is always alive, that has eternal existence without change25. Therefore the true reality of life exists only with G‑d, the Source of life. As it is written26, "וה' אלקים אמת הוא אלקים חיים" ("But the L‑rd G‑d is truth; He is the living G‑d"). "Emes" (truth) is something that is not interrupted (does not change); but if there is an interruption in it, it is called "kazav" (falsehood). [This is why we find that rivers which dry up once in seven years are called "נהרות המכזבין" ("failing rivers"), and they are invalid for sanctifying the water of purification, because they are not "מים חיים" ("living water")27.]
And this is why our Sages say28 that "חותמו של הקב"ה אמת" ("the seal of the Holy One, blessed be He, is truth"). For "Emes" is composed of three letters: alef, the first letter of the alphabet; mem, the middle letter; and tav, the last letter. This shows that He is without any change, as it is written29, "אני ראשון ואני אחרון ומבלעדי אין אלקים" ("I am the first and I am the last, and besides Me there is no G‑d").
And this is the meaning of the verse: "The L‑rd G‑d is truth." Since His essence is "truth," which is never interrupted or changed, heaven forfend, "He is the living G‑d"; He is the true reality of life.
Created beings, however, are not a true reality of themselves: they were brought into being, and in essence they are coming into being and passing away. Consequently, the true reality of life does not apply to them of themselves either, unless the created being is attached and connected to G‑dliness. For this reason the Jewish people are called "life"30, because of their attachment to G‑dliness, as it is written31, "ואתם הדבקים בה' אלקיכם חיים כולכם היום" ("But you who cleave to the L‑rd your G‑d are all alive today"), meaning that they too live and endure forever, with an existence of their own32.
But in order that this true "life" of a Jew, his attachment to G‑dliness, should become manifest in this physical world, which conceals the truth of G‑dly matters, it must come specifically through his passing through trials, confusions and obstacles to his attachment, while nevertheless remaining whole and unchanged in his observance of Torah and mitzvos. Then his (true) vitality is revealed with full clarity, since his attachment to G‑dliness cannot be changed.
7. Accordingly, we can understand the connection of "Vayechi Yaakov" to the sedra as a whole (whose main subject is Yaakov's passing), and also the reason why the entire sedra is called "Vayechi." Throughout all the earlier years, one could not see with certainty whether they were years of (true) "Vayechi," of "you who cleave to the L‑rd your G‑d are alive…"33, and especially an attachment and life befitting the level of "האבות הן הן המרכבה" ("the Patriarchs are themselves the [Divine] chariot")34. For the rule "אל תאמין בעצמך עד יום מותך" ("Do not trust in yourself until the day of your death")35 was said also with regard to tzaddikim36 (and especially since our father Yaakov explicitly feared "שמא יגרום החטא" ("lest sin cause [harm]")37). Therefore his level of attachment throughout all the years, even in the Land of Israel, and his passing through so many troubles and sufferings, were still not sufficient proof of his true "Vayechi." Not even the fact that he saw that his children and grandchildren were also tzaddikim [was sufficient], since they were in the Land of Israel, and one could not know what their state might be in a coarser land.
When, however, Yaakov reached the time close to his passing, and especially since in the meantime he had come to Egypt and had become convinced that even while living in "ערות הארץ" ("the nakedness of the land") he remained in the loftiest perfection in fulfilling Torah and mitzvos until the last moment of his life; and especially upon seeing there that "מטתו שלימה" ("his bed was complete"), that all his children were whole in their righteousness [including Yosef, who, although "he is a king" and "was captured among the gentiles," "stands in his righteousness"38], to the point that Menasheh and Efraim too, who were born in Egypt, the "nakedness of the land," were worthy of blessing, and to such an extent that Jews in all generations would bless themselves by them: "ישימך אלקים כאפרים וכמנשה" ("May G‑d make you like Efraim and like Menasheh")39,
this is what first revealed Yaakov's true vitality40: that all his earlier years too, although outwardly full of suffering and anguish, were inwardly "Vayechi Yaakov." Therefore the last seventeen years in Egypt are clear proof that "all of them are equal for good."
8. With this it is understood why the sedra is called "Vayechi," even though it speaks not only of Yaakov's experiences close to his passing, but also of Yaakov's passing and of the time afterwards:
The Gemara41 says that "יעקב אבינו לא מת, מה זרעו בחיים אף הוא בחיים" ("Our father Yaakov did not die; just as his descendants are alive, so too he is alive"), and therefore the expression of death is not used regarding Yaakov42. The meaning of this is43 that Yaakov's true life consists in the fact that "his descendants are alive."
That is to say: since the true meaning of life is that it is eternal and endures forever25 [as it is, so to speak, with G‑d, the Source of life, to Whom the Jewish people are attached]44, Yaakov's true life is evident specifically when its eternity is seen even after the soul departs from the body. This means that not only do the vitality and attachment remain eternal in the life of the soul, but also below, in this world45, Yaakov's true vitality remains: in his children, in that they live the true life of our father Yaakov.
According to this, the reason the sedra is called "Vayechi" is all the more fitting. It emphasizes not only that even after Yaakov's passing it is still appropriate to say "Vayechi Yaakov," but more: specifically then, after his passing, is the true, eternal "Vayechi Yaakov" first evident.
9. It was said earlier that since the closing of the section is connected (not with the words "Vayechi Yaakov," but) with the (beginning of the) sedra, whose content is Yaakov's passing and the matters connected with it, Rashi omits the third reason of the Midrash, "that all the troubles of the world were closed off from him," and cites only the two reasons, "that Yaakov passed away, etc." and "that he wished to reveal the End to his children and it was closed off from him," which are connected with Yaakov's passing.
According to the above, this also fits, in the inner dimension of the matter, with the fact that specifically the sedra of Yaakov's passing is called "Vayechi." For specifically through these two explanations it is brought out and emphasized that the truth of life was drawn down also into his children, that their true, revealed life was the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvos, attachment to G‑dliness:
That Jews study Torah and fulfill mitzvos at a time when there is no subjugation and exile is no great novelty. Moreover, even when Jews keep Torah and mitzvos while in exile, but the state of exile is such that the "End," the Redemption, is openly felt, when one knows with comprehension the End and the "end of exile," being redeemed and going out of exile, even then the complete "Vayechi" of the Jewish people is not yet expressed. But when the subjugation and the anguish of exile are so great that by human intellect one cannot see at all how one could be redeemed from it ("the End is closed off"), and nevertheless one believes with complete faith that the Redemption will come, to the point of "אחכה לו בכל יום שיבוא" ("I await him every day, that he will come")46, and in these straits and sufferings of exile one studies Torah and fulfills the mitzvos, then it is openly revealed that Torah and mitzvos are the true vitality of the Jewish people47.
Consequently, it is understood that specifically through this the true vitality of Yaakov is expressed (as above, "he is alive" through "his descendants are alive"): "Vayechi Yaakov."
This further clarifies why Rashi cites only the first two reasons and not the reason "that all the troubles of the world were closed off from him." The fulfillment of Torah and mitzvos at a time when "all troubles were closed off" is not yet proof that this is a vitality without change; the true "Vayechi" is revealed in the Divine service at a time of the anguish of subjugation and the closing-off of the End.
And then, when the "Vayechi" of Torah and mitzvos is accomplished even at a time of exile and subjugation, the inner intent and purpose of the exile and the anguish of subjugation are revealed: that specifically through it one attains the revelations of the Redemption in their utmost perfection.
10. With this, the inner reason why the End was closed off from him48 is also understood. Had the End been revealed, something would have been lacking in the intensity of the exile, and consequently also in the perfection of the Redemption that comes through the exile.
On this basis one can also explain why Rashi says, "שביקש לגלות את הקץ לבניו ונסתם ממנו" ("that he wished to reveal the End to his children, and it was closed off from him"). Seemingly, Rashi comes to explain the reason why "this section is closed"; it would have been enough for him to say "that the End was closed off from him." What relevance is there in relating that "he wished to reveal the End"?
But this alludes to the fact that, on the contrary, precisely through "it was closed off from him" his request "to reveal the End to his children" was fulfilled. The closing-off of the End is not a concealment for the sake of concealment, heaven forfend; rather, its purpose is that through it the revelation of the End will later emerge, as explained above.
And this is the meaning of "he wished to reveal the End to his children and it was closed off from him": When Yaakov wished to draw down and reveal the Redemption to his children, then, in order that his children should have it in perfection, there came the closing-off of the End. This was the preparation so that afterwards they would receive what Yaakov wished to reveal: the revelations of the future Redemption49.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Vayechi, 5725)
Notes
1) See the Alshich and the Ohr HaChaim here.
2) Vayigash 47:9.
3) See also Tanna Devei Eliyahu Rabbah (ch. 5); Pesikta Zutrasa (Lekach Tov); Midrash HaGadol; Likkutei Torah of the Arizal; Baal HaTurim (the last comment); Kli Yakar (the third interpretation), at the beginning of our parsha.
4) Vayigash, ibid., and Ramban there. See also Rashi, Vayishlach 32:5; Vayeshev 37:2.
5) Vayeitzei 31:40. Note the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, Laws of Bodily Damage, par. 2 [OCR unclear].
6) So it is in the Alshich. And in Tanna Devei Eliyahu: "From here they said: Whoever is granted one good year close to his old age, it is a good sign for him… Our father Yaakov was in good fortune for the seventeen years that he was in Egypt, and the Holy One, blessed be He, considered it for him as if all his days had been in good fortune, as it is said, 'And Yaakov lived…'." And in Pesikta Zutrasa (and similarly in Midrash Sechel Tov (end of Parshas Vayigash) and the Ohr HaChaim): "This is what people say: if your end is good, all of you is good. Fortunate are the righteous, whom the Holy One, blessed be He, chastises with sufferings at their beginning, and at the end has mercy on them… and concerning this it is said, 'The end of a matter is better than its beginning.'"
7) In contrast with Sarah, regarding whom it is fitting to say "all of them equal for good" (Rashi, beginning of Parshas Chayei Sarah), because at one hundred she was like twenty with regard to sin, and at twenty like seven with regard to beauty (Rashi there, from Bereishis Rabbah there). And in Bereishis Rabbah: "Just as they are whole, so are their years whole." See the commentators on the Midrash and on Rashi. And in the Gra there: each unit is one, undivided.
8) Bereishis Rabbah and Tanchuma (Buber), at the beginning of the parsha.
9) Re'em and Gur Aryeh on Rashi; and the commentary of the Maharzu on the Midrash.
10) For even a five-year-old studying Scripture knows this, just as he knows about the inverted nun at the end of Parshas Noach, the dots over several words, etc. That is, this is how their study books were written (unlike the crowns [tagin]; and it may be said that this is why the subject of the tagin is not found in Rashi's commentary on the Torah). Seemingly, if this is so, it would be worthwhile to restore the former practice and print it so in our Chumashim (just as is done with the markers [inverted nuns] in Parshas Behaalos'cha). And if [this is not done] in order not to enter into a dispute, in Behaalos'cha too there is a dispute regarding the form of the markers; see Ohr Torah (by R. Menachem di Lonzano), Behaalos'cha 10:35; Minchas Shai there.
11) So it is in the Zohar on our parsha, 216b (the opinion of R. Sh[imon]? [OCR unclear]), and in the Alshich here. And in the Chizkuni: "Another explanation: it is closed because the subject is connected to what precedes, for it began counting the years of Yaakov and had not completed the calculation until now" (and so in the Tur HaAruch). And the Kli Yakar explains that all three explanations of the closing of the parsha are learned from the fact that "Vayechi Yaakov" is juxtaposed to the preceding section.
12) Although this is the order in the Midrash, what Rashi cites is the plain meaning of Scripture; especially since here he does not preface, etc., "our Rabbis expounded." Note that in several printings (so in the first and second printings, and in Rashi manuscripts) the words "as in Bereishis Rabbah" appear at the end of Rashi's comment itself, and so it is cited in the Re'em and Gur Aryeh. But in several printings it is evident that this is an addition of the copyists (printers).
13) As below, 49:1, and in Rashi.
14) In Rashi there are further differences from the Midrash. He omits from the question the words "of all the sections of the Torah," which appear in the Midrash. He adds: a) "the eyes and heart of Israel were closed"*; b) "from the anguish of the subjugation"; c) (to reveal the End) "to his children." Now the additions are understandable: besides the main point, Rashi must explain everything required for a five-year-old studying Scripture. a) "Their eyes were closed, etc.," because this emphasizes the connection to the closing of the section. b) "From the anguish of the subjugation," for even when they were in the land of the Philistines and in Canaan they were in subjugation to Avimelech, etc., and in a manner of "strangers," etc. (see Rashi, Vayishlach 36:7). Even more difficult would be Rashi's earlier comment, where it is explicit that they were subjugated for 210 years (Mikeitz 42:2). Therefore Rashi must add "from the anguish." See also Rashi, Va'eira 6:16, and the commentators on Rashi here (Re'em, Gur Aryeh, Divrei David, Maskil LeDavid, and others). c) "To his children," as is explicit in the verse: "And Yaakov called to his sons… and I will tell you." However, why he omits "of all the sections of the Torah" requires investigation, since this is the basis of the question. One cannot say that Rashi holds that Parshas Vayeitzei is also entirely closed (as the opinion cited in Kiryas Sefer (by the Meiri), beginning of Parshas Vayeitzei; Hagahos Maimoniyos, ch. 8 of the Laws of Sefer Torah (par. 3); Minchas Shai, beginning of Parshas Vayeitzei), for if so he should have said so and explained the reason for the closing also at the beginning of Vayeitzei (as the Hagahos Maimoniyos writes there). It may be said simply: a) At the commentary on Vayechi there is still no necessity that he [the student] knows about all the sections of the Torah, since he has studied only one Chumash. b) There is no necessity to inform him yet, since it is simply understood that between one sedra and another there must be a greater break than between one word and another; and so right here the difficulty arises: why is this section closed?
*) Also: In the Zohar there, the opinion of R. Yaakov [OCR uncertain] is that "the eyes of Israel were closed." But it does not say that this was from the anguish of the subjugation, but rather "at the time that Yaakov died" (which implies, as in the Nitzutzei Zohar [OCR uncertain], that the wellsprings of wisdom that Yaakov had been revealing were closed off from Israel). But according to the words of R. Yehudah there, the closing of the section is because "then they went down into exile and were subjugated by them."
15) See Re'em, Gur Aryeh, Devek Tov, and others.
16) The Re'em writes this regarding the second reason, that he wished to reveal the End: there it is impossible to close (that is, with no space at all), because the matter would not be noticeable as it is at the beginning of the parsha. But the Devek Tov and the Sifsei Chachamim raise the question also according to the first reason, that the closing should have been at the section in which Yaakov's death is written (and so writes the Maharzu's commentary on the Midrash, that according to the first reason it would have been more correct to place the closing at "Vayigva" ("and he expired")).
17) And although only the division into sections (open and closed) is from Moshe at Sinai (see Berachos 12b: "Every section that Moshe divided, etc."; and see Toras Kohanim and Rashi at the beginning of Vayikra: "And what purpose did the breaks serve, etc."), which is not so with the division into sedros; and there are indeed those who completed the Torah in three or three and a half years (Megillah 29b; Rambam, Laws of Prayer, beginning of ch. 13; Chilluf Minhagim between the people of Eretz Yisrael and the people of Bavel, sec. 48); nevertheless, the division of the sedros according to completing the Torah reading each year, it may be said, exists also for those who complete it in three years, except that they divide each sedra into three, etc. Accordingly it can be reconciled that according to all opinions there are 53 sedros from the Torah (although each one is divided into three, [for] the Levi, those called up, etc.). In any case, it is simple that the fact that it was divided into sedros, even if we say that this is not from the Torah like the division into open and closed sections, is because they are separate subjects. See the Re'em here: "because Ezra, peace be upon him, did not establish the beginning of this section from 'Vayechi Yaakov,' etc." (and see Gur Aryeh). Note that in Kiryas Sefer by the Meiri (Maamar 5, part 1) he writes that even in the time of the Prophets they would complete the entire Torah each year. And in the Ohr Zarua, Laws of Shabbos, sec. 45: "From the days of Moshe Rabbeinu it was instituted to read the Torah in its sections and to complete it each year." And see the Zohar in several places (Midrash HaNe'elam, Vayeira 104b; vol. 2, 206b; Tikkunei Zohar, Tikkun 13 (29a, end); and the sources cited in Nitzutzei Zohar on the above) the inference that the 53 sedros are from the Torah*.
*) See Tanchuma, Ki Sisa 3: "And so Moshe taught Torah to Israel… and gave them the orders of the Torah and the sections that they read every Shabbos."
18) However, according to this (and according to the previous note), this requires slight investigation. For Bereishis Rabbah is an Aggadah of Eretz Yisrael (Rashi, Vayigash 46:2), and for the people of the West [Eretz Yisrael], who complete the Torah in three years, there is a more detailed division of the Torah, not the 53 sedros that we have. Accordingly, seemingly it is not necessary to say that "this section is closed" refers to the entire sedra of Vayechi. But even so it is reasonable to say so, since the discussion is at its beginning: [the section beginning] "and bury me in their burial place, and he said, I will do as you have said" ends at the end of the sedra, after Yaakov's death. Furthermore: also according to the division into sedarim as in the Masorah, 154 (or 155) (see the Pesichta to Esther 3), 43 sedarim for Bereishis, etc. (cited at the end of several Chumashim), or the 167 "sedarim of the early ones" enumerated in Kiryas Sefer by the Meiri, which according to several opinions is the division of the people of Eretz Yisrael* (see the Radal in the introduction to Pesikta DeRav Kahana, note 2; Even Sapir, vol. 2, p. 228ff.), Vayechi is also not the beginning of a seder**, but comes in the middle of the seder "ואת יהודה שלח" ("And he sent Yehudah") in Parshas Vayigash (see Kiryas Sefer, end of Parshas Vayigash and beginning of our parsha; and similarly the Rashbam's commentary, even according to our division, that the beginning of this section is from "וישב ישראל בארץ מצרים" ("And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt") in Parshas Vayigash). And according to several opinions, Midrash Rabbah is arranged according to the beginnings of the sedarim of Eretz Yisrael (see the sources cited in Torah Shleimah, in the marginal note)***. One must therefore say that the Midrash Rabbah here follows the view that Vayechi is the beginning of a section, as is explicit in its wording. According to Rashi, this is not relevant at all, as above and in the previous note, since a five-year-old studying Scripture from Rashi's time onward knows only of completing the Torah each year. This is simple.
*) Or for the people of Eretz Yisrael who complete it in three and a half years (Chilluf Minhagim between the people of Eretz Yisrael and the people of Bavel, sec. 48; and see there sec. 47, in the Levin edition); and then, some say, there are 175 sedarim. As in Tractate Soferim 16:10: "175 sections that are written in the Torah… therefore they established 175 sedarim in the Torah for every Shabbos, etc." See Nachalas Yaakov there. And see regarding all the above (concerning the sedarim of the people of Eretz Yisrael) [OCR unclear] HaMikra VeHaMesorah by R. R. Margolios, ch. 11; Torah Shleimah, vol. 9, p. 308ff.
**) But in the commentary of the Ri"ch [abbreviation as in OCR] (Megillah there): that the people of the West divide each section into three sections.
***) But note that several have proven that the exposition "Why is this section closed, etc." is not from Bereishis Rabbah but was added into Bereishis Rabbah from the Tanchuma, and in several manuscripts it is absent (see Buber's introduction to the Tanchuma, beginning of the parsha; Minchas Yehudah (Albeck), beginning of sec. 95; and the introduction to Bereishis Rabbah, ch. 9).
19) Similarly the Re'em writes: "Since here it counts all his years, this is the place of his death." But this is not sufficient (at least according to Rashi; unlike the Midrash, see the next note), for according to this he should have put the second answer first, since here, after all, it still speaks of his lifetime. One must therefore say as in the text, that here is the beginning of the entire sedra. And see further in the text.
20) Unlike the Midrash, which is, as its name indicates, according to derush; [there] it also fits [to say] "that all troubles were closed off from him, etc." (at least as the third answer), which came about by reason of "Yaakov lived in the land of Egypt," as in the text, section 2.
21) As for why the first reason alone is not sufficient, it may be said: Since, after all, the closing is at the words "Vayechi Yaakov," and most of the verses of the sedra (in number) speak of the time of Yaakov's life, it is reasonable that the closing (although it is before his passing) concerns a matter that pertains also to his life. Therefore [Rashi] explains "that he wished to reveal the End, etc.," which was still during his lifetime. However, a) since the subject and content of the sedra is the passing, as in the text; and b) according to the second reason, the section of "And Yaakov called to his sons" (in which it is explained that Yaakov wished, etc.) should at least have been a closed section (a break of nine letters) and not an entirely open section; therefore the principal reason is the first answer. See the commentators cited in note 16.
22) 45:27.
23) See Likkutei Sichos, vol. 5, p. 57ff.
24) It is even less understood in Parshas Chayei Sarah, where immediately at the beginning of the sedra the death of Sarah is discussed, and in the continuation of the sedra other matters are discussed. This was explained at length above, in the first sicha on Parshas Chayei Sarah, and elsewhere.
25) On all that follows, see the maamar beginning "Uvayom Simchaschem" 5657; the glosses to the maamar "Pasach Eliyahu" 5658; Kuntres Umaayan, Maamar 2, ch. 2; the maamar "Reishis Goyim" 5680; the maamar "Kol HaMerachem" 5709, ch. 1 (where this is cited with regard to Yaakov specifically, whose attribute is the attribute of truth); and elsewhere.
26) Yirmeyahu 10:10.
27) Parah 8:9. The reason that when they are interrupted "for more than seven years" they are not "failing waters" (Rambam, Laws of the Red Heifer, ch. 6 [halachah number unclear in OCR]; and see Tosafos Yom Tov on the Mishnah there) may be explained as follows: Since the entire existence of the world is "falsehood" (for it endures only six thousand years), one must say that the intent of the verse in "living waters" is "life" relative to creation itself. And since each Shemittah cycle is a period unto itself (see the commentators on the Torah at the beginning of Parshas Behar, on the reason why the "royal annulment" occurs once in seven years), an interruption "for more than seven years" is not called "falsehood" relative to the existence within creation. [Similarly it may be said according to the interpretation (Bartenura, Rash and Rosh on the Mishnah there) that when they are interrupted once in a Yovel they are called living waters, for Yovel is "forever" (as our Sages said on the verse "and he shall serve him forever," Mishpatim 21:6; Kiddushin 15a, end; Rashi on the verse).]
28) Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 1:1; Devarim Rabbah 1:10; Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1:9:1.
29) Yeshayahu 44:6.
30) Avos DeRabbi Nasan, end of ch. 34: "Ten are called 'life': the Holy One, blessed be He, the Torah, and Israel, etc."
31) Va'eschanan (4:4). Cited in Avos DeRabbi Nasan there.
32) For although there is the concept of eternity also in created beings (the hosts of heaven endure as individuals and the hosts of the earth endure as species), this is due to the infinite power acting [in them] so that they themselves should endure eternally, to the point that their ceasing to exist would be only due to the will of the Creator (see at length Sefer HaChakirah of the Tzemach Tzedek, at the beginning; ibid., p. 101ff.; the maamar "Tik'u" 5707; and elsewhere). Nevertheless, the infinite power in created beings is "outside of them, not united with them" (the maamar "Tzohar Taaseh" 5673 (in the series 5672, vol. 1); and see Moreh Nevuchim, part 2, introduction 12), and of themselves they are perishable; to the point that even now they are coming into being and passing away in their essential nature, only this is not noticeable and they appear strong, and when the Creator wills it, the perishability that was in them throughout their existence will be evident (the maamar "Atah Hu Havayah Levadecha" 5701, at the beginning). See on all this Likkutei Sichos, vol. 5, p. 98, notes 19 and 21. Accordingly, it will be understood why in the maamarim "Uvayom Simchaschem" and "Pasach Eliyahu" there it is cited regarding light, that it endures with an existence of its own because it is attached to the luminary, that through it there is creation ex nihilo, and that it possesses the power of the Essence, Whose existence is from His essence; and in "Pasach Eliyahu" there it is cited also with regard to the souls of Israel: "Just as the Holy One, blessed be He, creates worlds, so too your father, etc." For in addition to the fact that the true meaning of existence and eternity is specifically from the aspect of "His existence is from His essence," as explained there (and see the maamar "Tik'u" there), whereas in created beings it is only from the infinite power, the proof that this is due to their attachment, and that it has become their inner nature that they themselves endure eternally, is specifically when they too act and bring into being; it is not sufficient that eternity is seen in them themselves. This is not the place to elaborate.
33) See the Zohar on our parsha (267a [folio as in OCR]): "Vayechi Yaakov… 'And Your people are all righteous'… Why? Because they cleave to the body of the King, as it is written, 'But you who cleave to the L‑rd… are alive'" (cited in Ohr HaTorah on our parsha, p. 354).
34) Bereishis Rabbah 47:6; 82:6.
35) Avos 2:4; Berachos 29a.
36) See Berachos there; Zohar vol. 3, 285a.
37) Berachos 4a; Rashi, Vayishlach 32:11.
38) See the Zohar on our parsha there, end of side a and onward.
39) 48:20, and Rashi there.
40) Note that it is similar with Sarah; see Zohar vol. 1, 122b (cited in Ohr HaTorah there): "Sarah merited supernal life, etc.," that is, through having gone down to Egypt: "she went down and came up, and did not cleave to it."
41) Taanis 5b; Zohar on our parsha, 235b, top; 248b; and elsewhere.
42) Zohar there, 248b; Rashi on our parsha, 49:33; Tosafos, Taanis there, s.v. "Yaakov."
43) See the Rashba on Taanis there; and elsewhere.
44) This indicates that they are true life, as explained in the text. And Yaakov's attribute is the attribute of truth, as it is written, "תתן אמת ליעקב" ("Grant truth to Yaakov"). And this relates to "Yaakov did not die"; see the Rashba there, and at length Toras Levi Yitzchak, p. 200ff. (Likkutei Levi Yitzchak on the Zohar, vol. 1, p. 130; vol. 2, p. 11). And in Toras Levi Yitzchak there (end of p. 7): "Emes LeYaakov" ("truth to Yaakov") [has the letters of] the words "Yaakov lo mes" ("Yaakov did not die").
45) Note Rashi, Taanis there, s.v. "Vechi Bechedi" (and Chiddushei Aggados there), that he did not die even in body. And see Likkutei Sichos, vol. 4, p. 1260ff.; vol. 27 [volume number unclear in OCR], p. 7ff.
46) Similar to the interpretation [of "await"] in the sense of "those who wait for words of wisdom" (Zohar vol. 1, 130b; the maamar "VeAvraham Zaken" 5666).
47) And as is known (the maamar "Ani Yesheinah" 5709; and see Likkutei Sichos, vol. 15, p. 36ff.) that specifically during the time of exile the level of yechidah of the soul shines (in which a small spark of the Creator is enclosed (Eitz Chaim, Shaar 42, ch. 1)), concerning which we say, "חבוקה ודבוקה בך… יחידה לייחדך" ("embraced and attached to You… the single one to unify You"), which is always attached to the Essence of the Infinite. And there, ch. 1: "And with this power the Jewish people stood faithful to G‑d in the exile of Egypt."
48) Note the Kli Yakar here.
49) See Rabbeinu Bachya (and the Tur HaAruch), that all the matters of Yaakov and his experiences are an allusion to our third exile.
Key Lesson
Yaakov's true life was revealed not by his years of ease but by his remaining unchanged in his bond with G‑d through every trial, and by his descendants carrying that life forward after his passing. Likewise, when a Jew studies Torah and keeps mitzvos even when the exile is darkest and the End seems closed off, that steadfastness reveals true, unchanging life, and it is precisely this that brings the complete Redemption.