לקוטי שיחות חלק ל״ה - ויצא א

Parshas Vayeitzei

1. At the beginning of our parsha, at the start of the account of Yaakov's going to Charan, it says, "And Yaakov went out from Be'er Sheva…" Explaining the expression "went out" (and not "went," as in the preceding verse (twice)), Rashi explains: "(It need only have written, 'And Yaakov went toward Charan'; why does it mention his departure? But) it tells that the departure of a tzaddik from a place makes an impression: for while the tzaddik is in the city, he is its majesty, he is its radiance, he is its splendor; when he leaves there, its majesty has departed, its radiance has departed, its splendor has departed. And similarly, 'and she went out from the place,' said of Naomi and Rus."

The source of this explanation is in Bereishis Rabbah on this verse, as follows: "While the tzaddik is in the city, he is its radiance, he is its splendor; when he leaves there, its radiance has departed, its splendor has departed. And similarly, 'and she went out from the place where she was…' — 'and she went out': was she the only one who went out of the place?… While the tzaddik is in the city, he is its radiance, he is its splendor; when he leaves there, its radiance has departed, its splendor has departed. That is fine there, where there was no one there but that righteous woman alone; but here, where there were Yitzchak and Rivkah? Rabbi Azaryah said in the name of Rabbi Simon: The merit of one tzaddik is not like the merit of two tzaddikim."

This needs examination: why did Rashi not raise the question and the answer brought in the Midrash — that although the cases are not comparable, since here Yitzchak and Rivkah remained in the place Yaakov left, whereas with Naomi not even one tzaddik remained there — the merit of three tzaddikim is not like the merit of two tzaddikim? For the question and answer belong also to the plain meaning.

[It is a great stretch to explain that Rashi holds that the dwelling place of Yitzchak and Rivkah at that time was in the city of Chevron (similar to what the Midrash says there just before: "It is already written, 'And Yaakov listened to his father and his mother'; why does it say, 'And Yaakov went out from Be'er Sheva'? But he said: When my father wished to leave for outside the land, where was he given permission? Was it not in Be'er Sheva? So I too am going to Be'er Sheva; if He gives me permission I will go out, and if not I will not go out. Therefore the verse must say, 'And Yaakov went out from Be'er Sheva'"). And therefore Rashi did not explain that the merit of one tzaddik is not like…, because since Yitzchak and Rivkah were then living in Chevron, while Yaakov's departure was "from Be'er Sheva," not even one tzaddik remained in the city (exactly as with Naomi and Rus); whereas the above Midrash (the source of this comment of Rashi) holds that Yitzchak was then living in Be'er Sheva, and therefore needs to answer that it is not comparable… —

for in the plain meaning of Scripture it is stated only that "[Yitzchak] went up from there to Be'er Sheva," and it is not mentioned that Yitzchak went from Be'er Sheva to Chevron.]

2. Seemingly one may say that according to Rashi's explanation there is no room for this question, for Rashi adds to the wording of the Midrash at the beginning of his comment, writing, "it tells that the departure of a tzaddik from a place makes an impression." His intent may be explained thus: although in general the departure of a tzaddik from a city causes the removal of the majesty, radiance and splendor of the city (which is not a matter of merely making an "impression"), nevertheless, in our case, in Yaakov's departure from Be'er Sheva, this departure (only) made an impression, since Yitzchak and Rivkah were there.

But it is not smooth to explain Rashi's intent so, for he writes, "it tells that the departure of a tzaddik from a place makes an impression (and continues in the same breath), for while the tzaddik is in the city…" According to the above it would have been more fitting to say, "it tells that Yaakov's departure made an impression," and afterwards to continue in general wording (regarding tzaddikim in general), "for while the tzaddik is in the city…"

This implies that Rashi's statement, "the departure of a tzaddik from a place makes an impression," is said not only of Yaakov, but applies also when no other tzaddik remains in the city (as with Naomi) [and the reason he uses the expression "makes an impression" may be explained: majesty, radiance and splendor are only a matter of an "impression" relative to the very existence of the city].

3. Rashi brings the content of this explanation also in his commentary on Rus there, as follows: "It tells that the departure of a tzaddik from a place is noticeable and makes an impression: its radiance has departed, its splendor has departed, the praise of the city has departed. And similarly, 'And Yaakov went out from Be'er Sheva.'"

This needs examination: why here in his commentary on the Torah did Rashi need to double, "while the tzaddik is in the city, he is its majesty, he is its radiance, he is its splendor; when he leaves there, its majesty has departed…," and not write briefly (as in his commentary on Rus) that through the departure of a tzaddik from the place its radiance has departed, etc.?

It seems one may explain that there is a difference in content between Rashi's comment in our parsha and his comment on Rus. Here (in our parsha), since Rashi first says "for while the tzaddik is in the city, he is its majesty, he is its radiance, he is its splendor" (and then continues, "when he leaves there, its majesty has departed…"), the implication is that the novelty is in the positive: that the tzaddik is the entire majesty, radiance and splendor of the city (and consequently, through his departure from there, "its majesty has departed…"). But in Rus he wrote only the negative, that through "the departure of a tzaddik… its radiance has departed, its splendor has departed"; it is not emphasized that the tzaddik's being in the city brings about a fundamental change in the city, to the point that this is the city's majesty, etc. — only that his departure causes a lack in the city.

For this reason Rashi writes there "is noticeable and makes an impression," while in our parsha he writes only "makes an impression" — because there the emphasis is not that the tzaddik is the radiance and splendor of the city, only that his departure is noticeable and makes an impression; whereas in our parsha his intent is to emphasize that the tzaddik's presence in the city is the majesty of the place, etc. Accordingly one may say that his intent in the expression "makes an impression" is that it is more than "noticeable": the face of the city changes entirely (whereas the expression "makes an impression" in Rashi on Rus there, which comes after the expression "noticeable," is (as in section 2) only to lessen the force of the matter).

This requires explanation — what is the reason for the difference between his comment here and his comment on Rus?

4. All this will be understood by first explaining the definition of the tzaddik's influence on the city in Rashi's comment, where too he changed the wording of the Midrash: in the Midrash it says, "while the tzaddik is in the city, he is its radiance, he is its splendor; when he leaves there, its radiance has departed, its splendor has departed," and Rashi adds also "he is its majesty," and moreover puts "majesty" before "radiance" and "splendor" (and in our text of Rashi on Rus the words "its majesty has departed" do not appear).

There are many interpretations of these words; but since Rashi, who explains for a five-year-old beginning Scripture, did not explain and detail the meaning of these words, we must say that he holds that it is understood from the expressions of the verses in the Torah itself — and in order, from the last to the first:

Its splendor (hadarah): the expression "hadar" is explicit in a verse — "and you shall honor (vehadarta) the face of the elder," which plainly means honor. So too in our case, "while the tzaddik is in the city… he is its splendor": the honor of a city is that it has important and precious things in it, and when a tzaddik is in the city it thereby becomes an honored city, a city in which a tzaddik lives.

Its radiance (zivah): "ziv" is as in "the radiance of the sun," meaning light — not the light itself, but only the radiance and glow that spreads from it to illuminate the world. So too in our case, "while the tzaddik is in the city… he is its radiance": through his good conduct and good deeds he radiates light and radiance on all the people of the city, and they learn from his deeds, etc.

Its majesty (hodah): "hod" too means light (like ziv), as we find regarding "the rays of majesty of Moshe," and in the words of the verse, "and you shall put some of your majesty upon him," "this is the radiance of the skin of the face" ("the face of Moshe was like the sun, the face of Yehoshua like the moon"). But in "hod" there is something more than "ziv": "the skin of his face radiated" brought about that "they were afraid to come near him." From this it is understood that "hod" is not mere "ziv," but a light that causes awe and fear.

[As is also plainly understood: the radiance of the sun and the radiance of the moon do not evoke a feeling of awe and fear — on the contrary, one enjoys their light; whereas the rays of majesty of Moshe brought about that they were afraid to come near him.]

So too in our case, "while the tzaddik is in the city, he is its majesty": in addition to the "radiance" he shines on the people of the place to influence their conduct, there is also "majesty" — he radiates such a light that brings about in the people of the city a feeling of bittul and awe.

All this, however, is according to Rashi, who explains according to the plain sense of the matter that being the "majesty… radiance… splendor" of the city means his influence and effect on the inhabitants of the city (which is why Rashi begins with "majesty," as explained);

but according to the Midrash, the "radiance and splendor" the tzaddik brings about in the city ("he is its radiance, he is its splendor") refers not to the effect and change in the conduct of the people of the city, but to the merit of the tzaddik — as it concludes there, "The merit of one tzaddik is not like…" — that is, that the tzaddik protects the city, and likewise that in the merit of the tzaddik there are good influences, blessing and the like.

5. According to this the difference between the words of the Midrash and the words of Rashi is resolved: according to Rashi, the subject is the tzaddik's influence and effect on the conduct and deeds of the people of the city, and therefore there is no need to answer the fact that Yitzchak and Rivkah remained — for it is explicit in Rashi, further on in the verses here, regarding Yitzchak, "that his eyes had dimmed and he was confined to the house, and he was as though dead." Since Yitzchak was "confined to the house," he did not come into contact with the people of the city to bring about a change in their conduct, to shine on them his light and radiance and the like (although it is understood that his merit protects the city).

[And regarding Rivkah: in addition to the general principle that "all the glory of the king's daughter is within," one may say that she had to be in Yitzchak's presence all the time, since "his eyes had dimmed," to serve and assist him, etc. (which, plainly, Rivkah did).]

But when the subject is the protection of the city or influences of goodness and blessing, when Yitzchak is in the city, even in the state of "confined to the house," he exerts influence in the city; and on the contrary, since he was in the state of "his eyes had dimmed and he was confined to the house, and he was as though dead, and the evil inclination had ceased from him" — "the Holy One, blessed be He, attached His Name to Yitzchak" ("although we do not find in Scripture that He attached His Name to tzaddikim in their lifetime, to write 'the G‑d of so-and-so'") — it is obvious that Yitzchak's merit was all the greater to bring protection and every good influence to the city in which he lived.

6. According to all the above, one may explain the difference between Rashi's comment in our parsha and his comment on Rus:

In his comment on Rus, "it tells that the departure of a tzaddik from a place is noticeable and makes an impression: its radiance has departed, its splendor has departed, the praise of the city has departed," the intent is mainly the protection and influence in the city (like the Midrash's explanation here). Therefore Rashi did not put "its majesty has departed" first there; and on the other hand he adds "the praise of the city (has departed)," thereby emphasizing that the subject is not (so much) the effect and influence on the conduct of the people of the city, but the "praise" of the city — that through the departure of a tzaddik the praise of the city has departed.

But in our parsha Rashi's intent (as explained) is the tzaddik's influence on the conduct and deeds of the people of the city, and this is why he concludes here, "and similarly, 'and she went out from the place,' said of Naomi and Rus." His intent here is that the departure of Naomi together with Rus brought about that "its majesty… radiance… splendor has departed," for Rus clung to her mother-in-law (although she was the daughter of a king) and went to convert, and this influenced the people of the place; therefore through the departure of Naomi with Rus "its majesty, radiance and splendor departed."

[But in his commentary on Rus, where the plain meaning of the verse "and she went out from the place" refers to Naomi, one cannot say of her "she is its majesty…" (in a manner that brings about awe and bittul in the people of the place), for her leaving Eretz Yisrael together with her husband was not desirable, and was conduct contrary to the fear of G‑d. Nevertheless one can say that the merit of her good deeds protected and brought about an influence of blessing in the place, so that with her departure the radiance, splendor and praise of the city departed.]

7. The "wine of Torah" (the inner dimension) in Rashi's comment:

It is known what the Ohr HaChaim says, that the verse "And Yaakov went out from Be'er Sheva and went toward Charan" alludes to the descent of the soul into the body: "Be'er Sheva" refers to the root of the soul above, and "Charan" refers to this world ("Charan" after "the burning wrath (charon af) of the Omnipresent (in the world)"). And specifically through the soul's descent into the body, "and went toward Charan," it is elevated higher than it was before its descent, according to the principle "a descent for the sake of an ascent."

Rashi, in his comment on "And Yaakov went out from Be'er Sheva," alludes to a further point in this — "It need only have written, 'And Yaakov went toward Charan'; why does it mention his departure (from Be'er Sheva)?" That is: the main novelty in the soul's descent is "and went toward Charan," the soul's going to a place of "the burning wrath of the Omnipresent," where there are concealments and hindrances to the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvos, and nevertheless it overcomes all these concealments and hindrances and occupies itself with Torah and mitzvos; and more, it brings about the refinement of the animal soul, the body and its portion in the world, and makes a dwelling for G‑d in the lower realms. If so, there is room to ask why the verse mentions here also his departure from Be'er Sheva (which is not the main trial of the soul, and consequently it is understood that its ascent is not on account of this).

To this Rashi answers — "it tells that the departure of a tzaddik from a place makes an impression." One may say the allusion in this to the descent of the soul below: the very "departure" from a state of cleaving to the Holy One, blessed be He (in which it was before its descent below) "makes an impression" in a positive sense, and is a great accomplishment.

For since when the tzaddik is in the city — "the city of our G‑d" — "he is its majesty, he is its radiance, he is its splendor": the soul's entire existence is that it enjoys the radiance of the Shechinah and has love and awe of G‑dliness; and through its departure from "the city of our G‑d," "its majesty has departed, its radiance has departed, its splendor has departed" — the very departure of the soul from its root and source ("Be'er Sheva") is mesirus nefesh, and therefore it "makes an impression."

And since this is so, it is clear that in the merit of the departure itself, each and every Jew deserves that the Holy One, blessed be He, return him to his true place — "and I return in peace to my father's house, and G‑d will be a G‑d to me…" — in the true and complete Redemption through Moshiach Tzidkeinu, immediately, truly.

(From the talks of Shabbos Parshas Vayeitzei 5725 and 5748)