Parshas Vayechi
1. The blessing with which Yaakov Avinu blessed Binyamin (in our parshah) is: "בנימין זאב יטרף בבקר יאכל עד ולערב יחלק שלל" ("Binyamin is a wolf that tears [its prey]; in the morning he will eat plunder, and in the evening he will divide the spoils")1.
Rashi explains "Binyamin is a wolf that tears": "זאב הוא אשר יטרף, נבא על שיהיו עתידין להיות חטפנין וחטפתם לכם איש אשתו בפלגש בגבעה, ונבא על שאול שיהי' נוצח באויביו סביב שנאמר ושאול לכד המלוכה וילחם במואב ובאדום וגו' ובכל אשר יפנה ירשיע" ("He is a wolf that will tear. He prophesied that they would in the future be snatchers — 'and you shall snatch for yourselves each man his wife'2 — in the incident of the concubine in Givah; and he prophesied about Shaul, that he would be victorious over his enemies all around, as it says3: 'And Shaul took the kingship… and fought4* against Moav and against Edom etc., and wherever he turned he prevailed'").
This needs to be understood:
a) Here we are speaking of the blessing of Yaakov Avinu to Binyamin (and, as Rashi himself says further on5, the fact that "נתן .. לבנימין חטיפתו של זאב" ("he gave… to Binyamin the snatching of a wolf") is a blessing). This is puzzling: how is it fitting to say that the blessing to Binyamin should consist of "they would in the future be snatchers — 'and you shall snatch for yourselves each man his wife' — in the incident of the concubine in Givah"?!6
Besides the fact that the very matter of "snatching" (grabbing something away from another) is not something desirable and good7 (and especially in this matter — "and you shall snatch for yourselves each man his wife," whereas according to the Torah it must be "כי יקח איש אשה" ("When a man takes a wife")8 — with her consent9, and (certainly) not10 by way of snatching!) — the cause that led to "and you shall snatch for yourselves each man his wife" was also an event (the concubine in Givah)11 which is the utter opposite of good deeds!
b) In the overwhelming majority of the verses that Rashi brings as proof in his commentary on the Torah, he does not say on what occasion they were said. And in our case: Rashi could have sufficed with saying "they would in the future be snatchers — and you shall snatch for yourselves each man his wife"; yet he adds and emphasizes12 (that this was) "in the incident of the concubine in Givah"?
c) [This is] the addition and emphasis of a matter which is the opposite of goodness and blessing.
d) Rashi here itself immediately continues: "and he prophesied about Shaul, that he would be victorious over his enemies etc." That is, Rashi learns that "Binyamin is a wolf that tears" is a prophecy (also) about Shaul (and his victories). If so, how does the plain meaning of the verse compel saying that there is yet another explanation (that it includes) the prophecy of an undesirable matter etc. — "they would in the future be snatchers… in the incident of the concubine in Givah"?13
e) On the contrary — this comes as the first explanation, and moreover — as the main matter, as is understood from the repetition of the word "נבא" ("he prophesied")14.
2. At first glance one could say that Rashi does not want to learn that "Binyamin is a wolf that tears" is a prophecy solely about Shaul, since the subsequent, additional words (and accordingly — different in content from what precedes them, as with most verses), "בבקר יאכל עד" ("in the morning he will eat plunder"), speak about Shaul (as Rashi explains: "לשון ביזה ושלל .. ועל שאול הוא אומר שעמד בתחלת בוקרן וזריחתן של ישראל" ("an expression of plunder and spoil… and it is about Shaul that he says this, that he arose at the beginning of the morning and dawning of Israel")). Therefore Rashi learns that "Binyamin is a wolf that tears" refers first of all (the first explanation) and primarily to a different event.
But this is difficult15: if for that reason — Rashi could have chosen a different event and explanation of "Binyamin is a wolf that tears." For example, the explanation of the Targum16, that "Binyamin is a wolf that tears" refers to the Beis HaMikdash, which was (as Rashi brought earlier17 in his commentary) in the portion of Binyamin [and this is alluded to in "a wolf that tears," because (as the Midrash18 explains) "מה הזאב הזה חוטף כך הי' המזבח חוטף את הקרבנות" ("just as this wolf snatches, so did the Altar snatch the offerings")]19.
The wonder is even greater: on the words "ולערב יחלק שלל" ("and in the evening he will divide the spoils"), Rashi indeed brings (as a second explanation) "ואונקלוס תרגם על שלל הכהנים בקדשי המקדש" ("and Onkelos translated it as referring to the share of the Kohanim in the holy offerings of the Sanctuary") — yet on "Binyamin is a wolf that tears" (not only does he not bring the Targum's explanation as the first explanation, but) he does not bring the Targum's explanation at all (not even as a second explanation20)!
3. This too needs to be understood:
a) As mentioned earlier, according to Rashi there are two details in the prophecy about Shaul: "Binyamin is a wolf that tears" — "that he would be victorious over his enemies all around"; and "in the morning he will eat plunder" — concerning the plunder and spoil21 that he obtained through his victories.
In the Midrash22 too, the two details in the verse are interpreted in connection with Shaul, but there it says: "מה הזאב הזה חוטף כך חטף שאול את המלוכה שנאמר ושאול לכד את המלוכה על ישראל, בבקר יאכל עד — וילחם סביב בכל אויביו" ("Just as this wolf snatches, so did Shaul snatch the kingship, as it says: 'And Shaul took the23 kingship over Israel'; 'in the morning he will eat plunder' — 'and he fought all around against all his enemies'").
An explanation is required: why does Rashi deviate from the Midrash's explanation and learn that both parts of the verse speak about one matter — Shaul's wars with his enemies (only the first is about the victories, and the second is about the plunder and spoil)?
b) Rashi omits the first matter in the Midrash — the snatching of the kingship — which, in addition to being first in time*, is the cause that brought about and made possible the second matter, Shaul's wars etc.
c) It is seemingly not smooth that Rashi copies the end of the verse, "ובכל אשר יפנה ירשיע" ("and wherever he turned he prevailed"), for seemingly the matter of victory over his enemies all around is already understood from the words "and he fought against Moav and against Edom etc."24
d) Especially since the word "ירשיע" — from the term rasha, "wicked" — is generally not an expression of victory; on the contrary, in most places it means something undesirable (only in this verse is it an exception25 and means "he will prevail"26). Why does Rashi copy a term whose meaning here is an exception (contrary to its plain sense)?
e) The wonder is even greater when comparing Rashi's commentary with its source: the conclusion "and wherever etc." is not brought either in Bereishis Rabbah27 or in Tanchuma27!
4. Further, on the words "and in the evening he will divide the spoils," Rashi explains: "אף משתשקע שמשן של ישראל ע"י נבוכדנצר שיגלם לבבל יחלק שלל, מרדכי ואסתר שהם מבנימין יחלקו את שלל המן שנאמר הנה בית המן נתתי לאסתר" ("Even after the sun of Israel sets through Nebuchadnezzar, who will exile them to Babylon, he will divide spoils: Mordechai and Esther, who are of Binyamin, will divide the spoils of Haman, as it says28: 'Behold, the house of Haman I have given to Esther'") (and afterwards Rashi brings the Targum's explanation29, as mentioned above in section 2).
This needs to be understood:
a) Why does Rashi repeat that the "spoils" came from Haman — "Mordechai and Esther… will divide the spoils of Haman, as it says: 'Behold, the house of Haman I have given to Esther'"? Seemingly Rashi should have said, in his usual brief manner (and in keeping with the wording of the verse, "he will divide spoils"): "Mordechai and Esther… will divide spoils, as it says: 'Behold, the house of Haman I have given to Esther'"?
b) If Rashi wants to bring proof that "spoils" were taken in the days of Mordechai and Esther, why does he bring the verse "Behold, the house of Haman I have given to Esther," and not the verse where the term "spoils" is stated explicitly — "ושללם לבוז" ("and to plunder their spoils")30?
c) The question is not only from the aspect of the wording, but also from the aspect of the content: plunder and spoils pertain to war (and, as Rashi here itself brings, the matter of spoils from Shaul's wars). And in our case: the giving of Haman's house was — according to the plain meaning of the verse — (in Nissan) before the annulment of Haman's decree, and all the more so before the war (which was in the following Adar).
d) Plunder and spoils means what one takes away from the enemy; but Haman's house Mordechai and Esther (did not take from the adversary and enemy Haman, but) received from Achashverosh31.
And moreover32: it is compelled by the plain meaning of the verse that the "I have given" of Haman's house was only after "Haman's house" had become the property of Achashverosh, and Achashverosh gave it as Achashverosh's property; for, as Rashi explains at the end of Parshas Teitzei, one may not take anything belonging to Amalek.
Whereas "and to plunder their spoils" is connected (as stated explicitly in Megillas Esther) with the victory of the Jews in their war with their enemies.
And although in practice "ובביזה לא שלחו את ידם" ("but on the plunder they did not lay their hand")33, this itself emphasizes that there was plunder, only "they did not lay their hand." And as Rashi34 explains there, the reason "they did not lay their hand" was only in order to show that "לא נעשה לשם ממון" ("it was not done for the sake of money"), or so that the king should not "have a begrudging eye toward the money"; but if not for this, they would have done as Achashverosh had directed — "and to plunder their spoils" (just as he said regarding Haman's house, "I have given").
e) Even if you will say that since the Jews in practice did not take the plunder, one cannot say that "he will divide spoils" means the "and to plunder their spoils," and therefore Rashi must say that it means the giving of Haman's house to Mordechai and Esther35 — it is still difficult: why does Rashi bring the later verse, "Behold, the house of Haman I have given to Esther," and not the earlier verse36, "ביום ההוא נתן המלך אחשורוש לאסתר המלכה את בית המן" ("On that day King Achashverosh gave Queen Esther the house of Haman")?
Especially since (a) the verse "On that day etc." is the main narrative of the event, whereas "Behold, the house of Haman etc." is only Achashverosh recounting his earlier giving; and (b) in the verse "Behold, the house of Haman etc." only "Queen Esther" is mentioned (whereas in the earlier verse it states immediately afterward37, "ותשם אסתר את מרדכי על בית המן" ("And Esther set Mordechai over the house of Haman")), and Rashi himself emphasizes "Mordechai and Esther."
f) The wonder in this is even greater: both in Bereishis Rabbah and in Tanchuma the verse "On that day the king gave etc." is indeed brought, and Rashi38 deviates from the Midrash and brings specifically the verse "Behold, the house of Haman I have given to Esther"!
5. The explanation of all this:
Rashi in his commentary is precise about and emphasizes the wording of the verse, "Binyamin is a wolf that tears" — that "יטרף" ("tears") (in connection with a wolf39) denotes not only the act itself of victory and taking, but also that the wolf takes it by way of snatching40 its prey in order to eat it41 [which is why we find that the word "טרף" is also used as a description of the snatched food, and in the words of the verse42, "עד יאכל טרף" ("until he eats prey")]:
And in the matter of the blessing — that with Binyamin there will be a matter of "tearing," snatching43, just as a wolf snatches its prey; [it is called snatching] because it is against the will of the one snatched.
Accordingly, it is simply understood why Rashi cannot accept the explanation that "Binyamin is a wolf that tears" refers to the Beis HaMikdash, to the Altar (which "snatches the offerings"): because the offerings that the Altar consumes are (according to the plain meaning44) not a matter of "tearing," of snatching — something grabbed from an opponent. Furthermore, the fact that Shaul "took the kingship over Israel" was not a matter of "tearing"45: he was from the outset (chosen for the kingship46 and) anointed as king by Shmuel47, and with the will of the Jewish people48, and those who did not want [him] were called "בני בליעל" ("worthless men")49.
Accordingly, it will also be understood why Rashi cannot suffice with the explanation "and he prophesied about Shaul, that he would be victorious over his enemies all around" — because in this there is no matter of "tearing." Regarding the spoils that he took from his enemies, the verse states further on, "in the morning he will eat plunder"; and the victories themselves are not a matter of "prey," but simply ordinary warfare.
Therefore Rashi explains: "He is a wolf that will tear. He prophesied that they would in the future be snatchers — and you shall snatch for yourselves each man his wife" — and Rashi adds and emphasizes, "in the incident of the concubine in Givah." It can be said that with this Rashi wishes to indicate that "they would in the future be snatchers" is not only on account of "and you shall snatch for yourselves each man his wife" (the actual snatching), but also on account of the event as a whole:
The sin of the concubine in Givah reflects an extremely undesirable state, to such an extent that because of it the other tribes excluded the tribe of Binyamin from the community of Israel. And the fact that the tribe of Binyamin was able to tear itself out of that extremely low state etc. (through proper teshuvah etc.50) — to the point of bringing about that the other tribes should seek a way to bring the tribe of Binyamin back — is a matter of "tearing": the tribe of Binyamin itself "snatched itself out" of the undesirable state and placed itself on the level of the tribes with whom it had only just been at war.
And accordingly, the blessing in "they would in the future be snatchers"51 is also understood: they will have such inner strength and powers of soul that even when they find themselves in an extremely undesirable state, they will have within themselves the power of "tearing" and snatching — with regard to themselves.
6. Rashi, however, does not want to suffice with this, because from the continuation of the wording of the verse it is implied that "in the morning he will eat plunder" comes as a continuation of "Binyamin is a wolf that tears" (that by virtue of, and through, the "tearing" there is "he will eat plunder").
Therefore Rashi learns that "Binyamin is a wolf that tears" also includes the matter that Shaul "would be victorious over his enemies all around."
And in order to resolve (with difficulty?) the connection of Shaul's victories to the matter of "tearing" (and snatching), Rashi also copies the end of the verse, "and wherever he turned he prevailed":
The fact that the verse describes Shaul's victories with the word "ירשיע" indicates a matter of "tearing": a word (and accordingly, the thing it speaks of) which in itself indicates the opposite of good (from the term rasha, "wicked") is used for a good matter, victory and success. In other words: with Shaul it is emphasized how he used the matter of "wickedness"52, snatching it for a good purpose53 — to defeat the enemies of the Jewish people.
7. According to the above, one will also understand why Rashi explains that "in the evening he will divide the spoils" speaks of "Behold, the house of Haman I have given to Esther" (and not of "and to plunder their spoils"):
Here the emphasis is not (so much) that they obtained "spoils" ("he will divide spoils"), but that the "spoils" came through "tearing" — snatching from an opponent. And since Haman was the main opponent of Mordechai and Esther, Rashi therefore emphasizes specifically the spoils taken from Haman, for specifically in this lies the main matter of "tearing."
It can be said that, similar to what was discussed earlier — that Rashi's emphasis "in the incident of the concubine in Givah" is in order to allude to the event as a whole (which is in the manner of "tearing," as above) — so too in this matter: Rashi's emphasis "they will divide the spoils of Haman" is in order to allude to the event as a whole, which was a manner of "snatching." Notwithstanding all that had been said about Haman — that Achashverosh had elevated him above all the officials54, and with this power Haman brought about such a decree against the Jews — the very opposite came about, to the point that "the house of Haman I have given to Esther."
Accordingly, one will also understand why Rashi is precise to bring specifically the verse "Behold, the house of Haman I have given to Esther" (and not the earlier verse, "On that day Achashverosh gave etc."): because in this verse it is emphasized how the snatching came about — the utter "is'hapcha" (transformation), as Rashi explains the verse there: "ומעתה הכל רואים שאני חפץ בכם כו'" ("and now all see that I desire55 you etc."), the opposite of Achashverosh's having "promoted" Haman.
8. The explanation of this according to the "יינה של תורה" ("wine of the Torah") in Rashi's commentary:
The difference between the levels of Yosef and Binyamin is known: Yosef is called "צדיק עליון" ("a supernal tzaddik"), and Binyamin "צדיק תחתון" ("a lower tzaddik")56. Among the differences between them is57: the service of a supernal tzaddik is in the manner of from above to below — to draw G‑dliness down below; and with a lower tzaddik, it is elevation from below to above — refining the lower and elevating it.
This is why it is explained58 that the service of the "lower tzaddik" is akin to the service of teshuvah, for this is also what teshuvah accomplishes — the war with the side of unholiness, to the point of transforming and elevating the evil to good: "זדונות נעשו לו כזכיות" ("intentional sins become for him like merits")59.
And this is also the inner explanation of Yaakov's blessing to Binyamin, "Binyamin is a wolf that tears"60: it is the blessing for the service of teshuvah, which is in the manner of "tearing" and snatching. For the perfection of teshuvah, which is in the manner of "intentional sins become for him like merits" (as above), is a matter of "snatching": one "snatches"61 — one tears out the sparks of holiness that were in the domain of kelipah and elevates them to holiness.
And this is also connected with a special inner strength of the baal teshuvah62 (as is simply the case, that being able to snatch from an opponent is connected with extra strength), because the fact that a baal teshuvah has the power to "snatch" the sparks from the domain of kelipah is because63 the service of teshuvah is "בחילא יתיר" ("with greater strength")64, more than the service of the tzaddikim65.
And similarly with regard to the drawing down from Above in this: since through teshuvah one transforms darkness into light, there comes about the superiority of light over darkness, and this drawing down is called "טורף" ("tearing"), as the Tzemach Tzedek66 explains it: "שטורף" the animal soul… "ועי"ז טורף וממשיך מבחי' שלמעלה מהשתלשלות" ("that he tears the animal soul… and thereby tears and draws down from the level that is beyond the chain of worlds")6768.
9. With this, the reason is also understood — in the inner dimension of matters — why Rashi explains and interprets the blessing "Binyamin is a wolf that tears" to mean "they would in the future be snatchers… in the incident of the concubine in Givah": for specifically in this was expressed the ultimate superiority of teshuvah — that it was possible to transform to holiness even such a matter as was connected with the concubine in Givah and what resulted from it.
And therefore there came out of this the matter of "and you shall snatch for yourselves each man his wife"69: since the service of teshuvah is not in the manner of "תמידים כסדרם" ("the daily offerings in their order"), an orderly service, but specifically in the manner of "greater strength," therefore with them it was not in the manner of "When a man takes a wife" (as it is according to [the Torah] and in the usual order), but specifically in the manner of "and you shall snatch for yourselves."
[And this is also why Rashi is precise regarding Shaul, "and wherever he turned he prevailed (yarshia)": this is the matter of teshuvah, that from "wickedness" itself (sins) the victory of holiness (merits) is accomplished70. And further, he is precise regarding Mordechai and Esther, that "they will divide the spoils of Haman," to the point of "Behold, the house of Haman I have given to Esther" — the emphasis being specifically on "אתהפכא חשוכא לנהורא" ("the transformation of darkness into light"), as above, section 7.]
10. And here we see a wondrous matter:
The verse "Binyamin is a wolf that tears" is the beginning of "Shishi" (the sixth aliyah)71, and the end of Shishi is the verse that Yosef said to his brothers: "אל תיראו .. ואתם חשבתם עלי רעה אלקים חשבה לטובה למען עשה כיום הזה להחיות עם רב" ("Do not fear… Though you intended evil against me, G‑d intended it for good, in order to bring about, as on this day, the keeping alive of a numerous people")72.
Which seemingly is not understood:
a) Yosef intended thereby to comfort his brothers and to assure them that they should not be distressed (and afraid) over having sold him. How is it fitting in this context to mention "you intended evil against me," which actually brings out their evil intention73? Yosef should have spoken only about the good side: "Do not fear etc. G‑d intended it for good etc."
b) Why did Yosef use the expression "to keep alive a numerous (rav) people"? Rashi earlier74 explains the difference between Yaakov and Esav: Yaakov says "יש לי כל" ("I have everything"), and Esav says "יש לי רב" ("I have much")75 (an expression of arrogance). The expression "to keep alive all the people" (or the like) would have been more fitting.
But here we see "נעוץ תחילתן בסופן" ("their beginning is wedged in their end"): just as at the beginning of Shishi the superiority that comes about through teshuvah is emphasized — that there is the transformation of darkness into light, and specifically through this comes the superiority of light over darkness — so too is the emphasis at the end of Shishi:
Yosef explained how the evil intention itself was transformed into good — that from "you intended evil against me" came "to keep alive."
How can an evil intention be transformed into good? The reason is because76 "G‑d77 intended it for good": the "evil" in the intention is only from the human side78, but the supernal intention ("G‑d intended it") is "for good" — that from the evil, good should come out.
Why must the "good" come out specifically from something opposite? The verse continues: "to keep alive a numerous people." The sparks found in the kelipos have a lofty root; in the language of Chassidus, their root is from the World of Tohu, where there are "אורות מרובים" ("abundant lights"). And through refining the sparks and taking them out of kelipah, there comes about the "superiority of light" — "abundant lights," "to keep alive a numerous people": one receives "life" in a manner of "numerous"79.
This is similar to what was discussed earlier, that specifically in the service of teshuvah there is the superiority of "greater strength"80.
11. Service in the manner of "Binyamin is a wolf that tears" has a special connection to our time:
Known is the saying of the Rebbe (Rashab) of blessed memory81, that "לפי שעתה הוא זמן הבירורים היותר אחרונים דעקבות משיחא" ("since now is the time of the very last refinements of the 'footsteps of Moshiach'"), therefore one does not wait for an orderly sequence in the refinements; rather, it must be in the manner of "חטוף ואכול חטוף ואישתי" ("grab and eat, grab and drink")82 (akin to "tears"83). Since there is a state of such darkness, one must snatch from the darkness with extra toil and transform it into light.
And through service in the manner of "grab and eat, grab and drink," one merits the Redemption in the manner of "tearing" (snatching with speed84) — "אחישנה" ("I will hasten it")85 — speedily in our days, literally.
(From the sichos of Friday, Eve of Shabbos Parshas Vayechi (the Tenth of Teves), 5744)
Notes
1) 49:27.
2) Shoftim 21:21.
3) I Shmuel 14:47.
4) So it is in the printed editions of Rashi before us — without adding "etc." in places where there is a skip in the wording of the verse (unlike the editions of [OCR unclear], also in his first edition). In any case, it requires some examination why Rashi did not copy the words "סביב בכל אויביו" ("all around, against all his enemies") (in keeping with his own wording, "over his enemies all around"). In several Rashi manuscripts [OCR unclear] the words "all around, against all his enemies (etc.)" were copied, but not the end of the verse.
*) On the other hand, it requires examination why Rashi copies the words "took the kingship." See below, section 3 (question 1).
5) Verse 28, s.v. "ברך אותם" ("he blessed them"). And see Rashi there, s.v. "וזאת" ("and this"), regarding Reuven, Shimon and Levi: "he did not bless them but rebuked them," and they too were blessed within the general statement "and he blessed them."
6) This question was also asked by the Levush on Rashi here, and he concludes: "Therefore it seems to me that this is not from the words of Rashi of blessed memory." And the Tzeidah LaDerech already remarked that the words of the Tanchuma, from which Rashi of blessed memory took these words, escaped his notice (it is in Tanchuma on our parshah, 14; and so it is in Bereishis Rabbah, in the "new version" of Yaakov's blessing (printed after chapter 100, and in the Albeck edition — chapter 96)). But he did not resolve the main difficulty of the Levush.
7) And note that regarding Shaul — cited immediately afterward in Rashi — [OCR unclear] he did not snatch (Rashi on I Shmuel 20:30).
8) Teitzei 22:12; ibid. 24:1, 5.
9) Rashi above (Chayei Sarah 24:57).
10) And see Bava Metzia 104a (cited in Or HaTorah on our parshah, p. 417a).
11) The reason why "and you shall snatch etc." was necessary was that the Children of Israel had sworn, "Cursed is he who gives a wife to Binyamin" (Shoftim ibid., 18; and see there, 1, 7).
12) Especially since in Tanchuma and Bereishis Rabbah ibid. this emphasis is absent.
13) And see Bachye here: "According to the plain meaning, he compared Binyamin to a snatching wolf on account of… 'and you shall snatch for yourselves each man his wife.'"
14) That is, a prophecy on a level of its own.
15) Besides which it requires explanation: from where does Rashi know that "Binyamin is a wolf that tears" includes two prophecies — "he prophesied etc." and "he prophesied about Shaul etc."?
16) Onkelos, and likewise Targum Yonasan ben Uziel and Targum Yerushalmi. And see Zevachim 53b ff. (regarding the portion of the "tearer," and see Rashi there). And elsewhere. Bereishis Rabbah 99:3, at the end. And see at length Likkutei Sichos vol. 7 (p. 447; pp. 457-8; and the sources cited there).
17) Vayigash 45:14. And likewise in Rashi on Berachah 33:12.
18) Bereishis Rabbah ibid. However, according to this, "a wolf that tears" refers to the Altar* (as explained in the Zohar here — 247b; and see Tzafnas Paneach on the Torah here (and on Parshas Vayigash, p. 165); and elsewhere). But in the Targumim the "Altar" is not emphasized. And see Or HaTorah, Yisro, p. 527, that one cannot say the intention is the Altar's consuming etc. — because "regarding this it is said afterward, 'in the morning he will eat plunder,' that is, etc." See there.
*) The reason he chose (to say that "tears" refers to) the Altar specifically is that this is a principal virtue of the Beis HaMikdash, upon which the matter of atonement (through offerings) depends. And especially in light of what the Rambam writes (beginning of Laws of the Chosen House): "a House… in which to offer the offerings."
19) Seemingly it can be said that he did not explain as the Targum does because the wording "Binyamin is a wolf that tears" implies that the blessing pertains to Binyamin himself, and not only to (the Altar that was in) his portion of the Land. But besides the fact that the Targum's explanation is nevertheless (seemingly) closer to the plain meaning than explaining that it refers to the snatching of wives, daughters of Israel (in the incident of the concubine in Givah), there are yet other explanations (in Bereishis Rabbah ibid., and elsewhere) of "Binyamin is a wolf that tears."
20) With difficulty, it could be said that Rashi's intention in "Onkelos translated" refers to the Targum on the entire verse (and see Maskil LeDavid here); but the question still stands, for Rashi should have brought the Targum's explanation as the first (and main) explanation.
21) Rashi did not need to explain and specify that Shaul took plunder and spoils from his enemies, since this is understood from the continuation of his commentary. And Esther Rabbah at its end (10:13) specifies: "'In the morning he will eat plunder'… he struck Amalek and plundered all that was theirs." [Unlike Bereishis Rabbah (99, ibid.), which explains "in the morning he will eat plunder" as "and he fought all around against all his enemies" (and does not mention the matter of plunder). And see also Tanchuma ibid. And note that Rashi's style in explaining "in the morning he will eat plunder, and in the evening he will divide the spoils" corresponds to Esther Rabbah ibid. (and see Yalkut Shimoni and Midrash Lekach Tov here); unlike Bereishis Rabbah and Tanchuma ibid., which explain the whole verse both about Shaul and about Mordechai and Esther.]
22) Bereishis Rabbah ibid. And see Tanchuma ibid.
23) So it is in Bereishis Rabbah ibid. In the verse there, [the word "the" (es)] does not appear.
*) The commentators (on I Shmuel ibid.) explain: "that he held firmly to the kingship… for all Israel saw that G‑d made him successful in his wars etc." But the Midrash implies that it explains the snatching of the kingship as referring to the beginning of his reign, before his victories.
24) Especially according to the version (see above, note 4) in which Rashi also copies the words "all around, against all his enemies."
25) And see Sanhedrin (93b), also regarding this verse.
26) Bamidbar Rabbah 11:3. And see the commentators on I Shmuel ibid.
27) Ibid. And see the version in the aforementioned Rashi manuscripts, note 4. But in Rashbam [OCR unclear] only "and wherever he turned he prevailed" is brought.
28) Esther 8:7.
29) The reason Rashi needed to bring the Targum's explanation as well: because "in the evening" means the evening of that same "morning" (its continuation and conclusion), and not the opposite state of exile [whereas on the beginning of the verse he did not bring the Targum's explanation, because the verse is plain without it].
And further and principally: [the explanation regarding exile] is contrary to the content of the verse's metaphor, which speaks of the conduct of a predatory animal, which during the day tears and eats, and in the evening returns to its den and divides the day's spoils among [OCR unclear] (and so it is [OCR unclear] — Tehillim 104:20-23)* — the opposite of the state of exile. But nevertheless it is only a second explanation, because in terms of the content of the blessing as a whole, it is very forced to say that the blessing to Binyamin is that the Kohanim share in the holy offerings of the Sanctuary (and see above, note 19)! And elsewhere.
*) Except that there it speaks of those that tear at night, unlike the analogue — people.
30) Esther ibid., 11.
31) See along these lines also Likkutei Sichos vol. 14, p. 90, and note 21 there (in a different manner), and the sources cited there.
32) Ibid. 9:10; 15; 16.
33) Especially according to the explanation of Megillas Sesarim there (9:10). And elsewhere.
34) Ibid. 8:11; 9:10 (and similarly in Ibn Ezra there).
35) See also Radak here.
But this is not compelling, because the term "יחלק" ("he will divide") (unlike "יאכלו" ("they will eat")) can be explained even where the spoils did not come into his possession, as it says (Lech Lecha 14:24) "the share of the men" of Avraham, and from this came the law of dividing the spoils among David's men (Rashi there). And in the Mishnah (Sukkah 55b; ibid. 56a): the dividing of the showbread for all the generations, and likewise the offerings, etc. And in the commentary of Rabbi Yosef Bechor Shor here: that they divided the spoils to others and did not take them for themselves in the days of Mordechai and Esther, who were from Binyamin, "but on the plunder they did not lay their hand."
36) Esther 8:1. Or the verse after it — see the next note.
37) Ibid., 2. And (also) this verse is cited in Bereishis Rabbah ibid. And in Midrash Lekach Tov — only this verse.
38) And so it is in Yalkut Shimoni here.
39) For in many places it also denotes the very act of killing by a wild beast (see Vayeishev 37:33; Vayigash 44:28; Mishpatim 22:12; and see Rashi, Vayeitzei 31:39; and elsewhere).
40) See Rashi on Noach (8:11): "טרף — חטף" ("torn — snatched"). And see note 42.
41) See Taanis (8a), that a wolf "tears and eats," and Rashi there: that it carries it to its lair and eats there. And see Likkutei Sichos vol. 15, p. 455, and the sources cited in the notes there.
42) Balak 23:24. And similarly in several places. Even human food is called "טרף," as in "ותתן טרף לביתה" ("she gives food to her household") (Mishlei 31:15). And elsewhere. And see Rashi on Noach ibid., the term "מטורף" (except that there it is only "Midrash Aggadah"; and see the commentators on Rashi there; Likkutei Sichos vol. 10, p. 34, and note 36).
43) Therefore Rashi did not explain that it refers to Binyamin's might (as explained by Ibn Ezra and Radak here).
44) Unlike according to the homiletic interpretation etc. (as in Bereishis Rabbah ibid.) — see Likkutei Sichos vol. 15, p. 239ff. And according to Chassidus — Or HaTorah on our parshah, p. 467a ff.; Yisro, p. 927ff.; and elsewhere.
45) In Yefeh To'ar (HaShalem) on Bereishis Rabbah ibid. (cited also in Etz Yosef there): "Shaul snatched the kingship that belonged to Yehudah" (and similarly in the Alshich here). And see Or HaTorah, Yisro, p. 933. But according to the plain meaning, since he did so by G‑d's command (and on the contrary, he hid himself — I Shmuel 10:22), seemingly this is not "snatching."
46) I Shmuel 9:16ff.; ibid. 10:20ff.; and elsewhere.
47) Ibid. 10:1.
48) I Shmuel 10:24.
49) Ibid., 27.
50) As is understood, that "the people relented regarding Binyamin" (Shoftim 21:15) was connected with the regret and teshuvah of the remaining sons of Binyamin.
51) The Levush here writes: "It is forced to say that this too is his blessing and his good, that his tribe was permitted to enter the congregation; for better for him would have been complete silence, revealing nothing of this to him." According to what is explained in the text, in my humble opinion, the matter of the blessing in this can be explained.
52) Note also Or HaTorah (on our parshah, p. 416, beginning of side b; Yisro, p. [OCR unclear]), that "a wolf that tears" is the gevuros of holiness, akin to "לעולם ירגיז אדם יצר טוב על יצר הרע" ("a person should always incite his good inclination against his evil inclination") (Berachos 5a, beginning). And see below, sections 8-9.
53) This can be connected with his own approach — to offer sacrifices specifically from the spoils of Amalek (except that there it should have been "to hearken," "to listen" — the acceptance of the yoke [of Heaven] specifically, as in the commentators on the spot (I Shmuel 15:22) and in the discourses (Or HaTorah, Noach (vol. 3), p. 650, end of side a ff.; Ekev, p. 622; and elsewhere)).
54) Esther 3:1ff.
55) "Desire" specifically. It can be said that he learns this from the word "הנה" ("Behold") (and therefore Rashi copies it in the heading of his comment there), which denotes joy (Rashi, Korach 18:8). Accordingly, it is all the more understandable why Rashi copies it here too (although seemingly he does not explain it).
56) See Zohar I, 153b.
57) See Torah Or, Terumah 80d; Likkutei Torah, Re'eh 25d ff. (which cites Zohar I ibid.), 26d; and elsewhere. And see the sources cited in the next note.
58) See Or HaTorah, Vayeitzei, p. 220, end of side a (and see also Or HaTorah on our parshah, p. 417a: "even an explanation of another son etc."); the maamar beginning "Tik'u," 5661; the maamar beginning "Vayigash" and the maamar beginning "HaShamayim Kis'i," 5668 (in the Hemshech 5667); and elsewhere.
59) Yoma 86b.
60) (However,) see at length Or HaTorah (on our parshah, p. 415, end of side b ff.; Yisro, end of p. 928 ff.), that "tears" refers to the refining of the sparks from kelipas nogah, the refining of the animal soul. And see also the sources cited in the next note.
With this, the precision of the wording "tears… he will eat" is understood: "tears" — akin to "ולבי חלל בקרבי" ("my heart is void within me"), that he has slain it through fasting (Tanya, ch. 1); and even more — "he will eat" — that it becomes blood and flesh like his own flesh, a transformation.
61) See also Maamarei Admur HaZaken 5565, vol. 1 (pp. 369, 375). And elsewhere. And note Or HaTorah, Bo (p. 262; Likkutei Sichos vol. 20, p. 2ff.), explaining Rashi (Bereishis 1:1): "לסטים אתם שכבשתם ארצות שבעה גוים" ("You are robbers, for you conquered the lands of the seven nations").
62) And similarly the matter of speed in "tears" (see Or HaTorah on our parshah, p. 417a; Yisro, pp. 933-4), for the service of teshuvah is "in one moment and one instant" (Zohar I, 129, end of side a), and "with a thought of teshuvah one becomes a tzaddik" (Kiddushin 49b).
63) Note Tanya, ch. 7 (12a).
64) So it is in many places. And in Zohar I ibid., side b (cited in Iggeres HaTeshuvah, end of ch. 8): "ברעותא דלבא יתיר ובחילא סגיא" ("with greater desire of the heart and with great strength").
65) According to what is explained in Maamarei Admur HaZaken, Parshiyos HaTorah, on this verse (p. 219), that "wolf" here refers to "על השרש מקום שנפלו הניצוצות להיות זאב" ("the root, the place where the sparks fell to become a wolf") (see there, pp. 218-9), the connection to the service of teshuvah "with greater strength" is even better understood. As explained in the discourses on "מי יתנך" ("Who will make you") (Maamarei Admur HaZaken 5565 (vol. 1), end of p. 493ff.; Or HaTorah, Shir HaShirim (vol. 2), p. 658ff.) and elsewhere, the "greater strength" of baalei teshuvah comes from their vital soul when it is transformed to holiness, by virtue of its root in the World of Tohu. And see below, end of section 10, and the sources cited in note 79.
66) See at length Or HaTorah on our parshah, p. 416a ff.; Yisro, p. 927ff.
67) The wording of the Tzemach Tzedek, Or HaTorah on our parshah, p. 417a.
68) Accordingly, one can also explain the (inner) reason why the blessing of Binyamin is juxtaposed to "ויברך אותם איש אשר כברכתו ברך אותם" ("and he blessed them; each man according to his blessing he blessed them") (49:28), that "he included them all in all the blessings" (Rashi):
The emphasis "each man according to his blessing" is, as explained in many places (Likkutei Torah, Re'eh 19, beginning of side a; the maamar beginning "Koh Sevarchu," 5627; and elsewhere), because the drawing down of a blessing is only from the root and source of the one being blessed. If so, the matter of "each man according to his blessing he blessed them" (that the particular blessing (from its particular root and source) of each and every tribe was drawn to all the other tribes) is a matter of "tearing" and snatching — and this is not the place to elaborate — possible only through a drawing down from beyond the chain of worlds (the root and source of the blessing). And see below, end of p. 288ff.
It can be said that this is the reason (in the "wine of the Torah" in Rashi's commentary) why Rashi also brings the Targum's explanation that "he will divide the spoils" refers to "the share of the Kohanim in the holy offerings of the Sanctuary": since "a wolf that tears" pertains primarily to Binyamin, the matter of "each man according to his blessing he blessed them" is also emphasized with him, in that he effected the matter of "prey" and "spoils" also in the Beis HaMikdash (whose essential nature is specifically rest, to the extent that because "דם לרב שפכת" ("you have shed much blood"), therefore "לא תבנה בית" ("you shall not build a House") (I Divrei HaYamim 22:8)); and thereby the matter of "prey" is drawn to all Israel (who offer their sacrifices on the Altar in Binyamin's portion).
69) But see (in a different style) Or HaTorah on our parshah, p. 416a-b.
70) Akin to the wording of our Sages (Menachos 44a): "אותן מצעות שהציעה לו באיסור הציעה לו בהיתר" ("the very bedspreads she had spread for him in prohibition, she spread for him in permission").
71) It can be said that the inner reason for this is that, since Binyamin's blessing concerns teshuvah, which is incomparable to the service of the tzaddikim ("in the place where baalei teshuvah stand, perfect tzaddikim cannot stand" — Rambam, Laws of Teshuvah 7:4, from Berachos 34b; and see Zohar I ibid.; Zohar II, 106, end of side b), it was therefore said in a section of its own, after the conclusion of the blessings of the other tribes.
72) 50:19-20.
73) Note Targum Yonasan ben Uziel and Sforno there.
74) Vayishlach 33:11.
75) Ibid., 9.
76) See at length on this Likkutei Sichos vol. 5, p. 247ff.
77) In keeping with the general theme: [the Divine Name Elokim denotes] the attribute of judgment, and through tzaddikim it is transformed into the attribute of mercy, as our Sages said (Bereishis Rabbah 33:3, and the sources cited there; Rashi on Noach 8:1).
78) Nazir 23a — but see Rashbam on the verse.
79) See Torah Chaim on our parshah (105d ff.). And see also Torah Or, Vayeishev (30b-c), on the explanation of "ורב יעבוד צעיר" ("and the elder shall serve the younger"); Likkutei Torah, Re'eh (30a ff.); and elsewhere. And see Sefer HaErchim Chabad, entry "Ahavas HaShem — the addition in it through the animal soul" (p. 499ff.), and the sources cited there.
80) See above, note 65.
81) Introduction to Kuntres UMaayan, p. 22. Igros Kodesh, vol. 1, p. 266.
82) The wording of our Sages, Eruvin 54a.
83) Or HaTorah on our parshah, p. 417a.
84) See Or HaTorah ibid. (and Or HaTorah, Yisro, beginning of p. 934), that this is the matter of snatching (see there). And likewise, the fact that snatching indicates that it "comes when the one snatched is unaware" (Or HaTorah on our parshah, ibid.) pertains to the Redemption, for Moshiach comes unawares (Sanhedrin 97a, end; Or HaTorah ibid.).
85) Yeshayahu 60:22. Sanhedrin 98a.
Key Lesson
Binyamin's blessing, "a wolf that tears," is the power of teshuvah: to snatch oneself out of even the lowest state and to transform darkness itself into light, with a strength greater than that of orderly service. In our time, the final refinements before Moshiach, we cannot wait for an orderly sequence but must "grab and eat, grab and drink" — and such service brings the Redemption swiftly, "I will hasten it."