Crown Jewels: Parshas Vayigash

Likkutei Sichos, Vol. V, p. 239ff.

I. {“There is no word in the Torah that does not possess sublime [mystic] secrets and paths [of conduct] for men to follow.”1} For this reason, the Torah relates [many details] concerning [the story of] Yosef and his brothers. Among the concepts [from which we can learn] is the fact that Yosef provided sustenance for his brothers and their households, as it is written:2 “And Yosef nurtured... his brothers... [granting them] bread according to [the needs of] their children.”

The concept that Yosef provided nurture for his brothers is so important that because of this, the Jews as a people are referred to with the name Yosef for all time, as it is written:3 “He leads Yosef like sheep.”

Explanation is required: When the Torah calls a person by a particular name, that is because that name expresses the inner meaning of the person given that particular name.4 Every name reflects and manifests {not only particular events which happened to the person with that name,} but also his true nature, [i.e., who he really is].

The question thus arises: Why are the Jewish people called (for all time) with the name Yosef — because Yosef nurtured them in Egypt during the years of the famine? This occurrence is seemingly a secondary matter which is not associated with the essence of the Jewish people. It took place many years ago and for [only] a short time [in the span of our national history].5

Moreover, even if one will accept the supposition that Yosef’s nurturing his brothers during the time of the famine is associated with the true nature of the Jewish people at all times,6 there is still a conceptual difficulty. When we say that a name reflects the inner nature of an entity, the intent is {not that the name communicates factors that come about as a result of the nature which that name expresses}, but that the name itself expresses the nature of the named entity. This does not seem to apply with regard to the name Yosef, for although Yosef sustained the Jewish people, he was not their sustenance. Therefore even if this sustenance is associated with the inner nature of the Jewish people, it is not appropriate to call the Jews Yosef, when their sustenance {only came via Yosef, but} was not itself Yosef.

II. The above matters can be resolved through the preface of the inner meaning of the concept of the eternality of the Torah. The intent is not merely that the mitzvos of the Torah (given by G‑d at Sinai) are [everlasting], to be observed when required for all time without change, neither adding to them or detracting from them.7 Instead, the intent is that the commands themselves are everlasting.8 This is the intent of the verses: “The word of our G‑d will endure forever,”9 and “His words are living and enduring... forever.”10 G‑d’s words (which are written in the Torah11) are themselves eternal and endure forever. 12

This is the inner reason why the mitzvos of the Torah will never be changed. For since “the word of our G‑d will endure forever,” and “His words are living and enduring... forever,” therefore, “He will not change13... or modify His faith forever.”14

III. The concept that applies to the mitzvos of the Torah also applies to the stories of the Torah. Their eternality is not only expressed in the fact that they contain lessons which can be derived by every Jew in every generation. Instead, the very fact that the stories contain continuously relevant lessons comes about because the stories themselves are — as they exist in the spiritual sphere — ongoing.15

Similarly, Jews from every generation can [certainly] learn lessons from the story of Yosef providing food for [the Jewish people]. For example, the (fundamental16) [lesson] is reflected in the Zohar’s [insight] cited by the Alter Rebbe in Tanya17 that Yosef showered goodness upon his brothers18 despite what they had done to him. Similarly, every person should emulate his example; instead of retaliating against a person who did him harm, he should “repay those who are culpable with goodness.”

Over and above this and any other lessons that can be derived from the story, the fact that Yosef sustained his brothers during the famine remains an ongoing event in the spiritual realms.

IV. Another point must be mentioned with regard to the lessons and directives that can be derived from the Torah. Whenever we derive a law or a directive from a particular Torah concept, [the context is also significant]. Nothing concerning the Torah is merely coincidental. On the contrary, everything is very precise. Therefore the fact that [the Torah] has ordained that this law or directive be derived from this concept is proof that this concept is the rationale or source for this particular law or directive.

To apply this concept to the subject at hand: [Two concepts] can be derived from the fact that the Torah ordained that the concept of “repay[ing] those who are culpable with goodness” from a) Yosef and b) his [efforts] to sustain his brothers during the years of famine:

a) The potential for every Jew to “repay those who are culpable with goodness” is granted to him19 by Yosef.20 This attribute is identified with Yosef and it is within the power of every Jew to emulate it because of the influence Yosef grants him.

b) The potential which [Yosef grants] was conveyed by sustaining the Jewish people in the years of famine. By giving nurture to his brothers, he granted them (not only food in a material sense, but also) [his own] potential and positive [spiritual] quality.21 This empowered them (and their descendants in all the generations to come) to sustain other Jews in the manner which Yosef did, to “repay those who are culpable with goodness.”

On this basis, we can appreciate why Jews are continually referred to with the name Yosef, because he sustained and nurtured them during the years of famine: The positive attribute of “repaying those who are culpable with goodness” is a fundamental quality which relates to the very essence of the Jews (as will be explained in sec. XIII). Since this attribute is identified with Yosef (and is drawn down to every Jew because Yosef is continually nurturing his brothers22), the Jewish people as a whole are called Yosef.

From the fact that the primary names for the Jewish people are Yisrael and Yaakov, it is obvious that their principal qualities stem from receiving the influence of these names.23 Nevertheless, there are several qualities which express the fundamental nature of a Jew. In the verse, “He leads Yosef like sheep,” what is relevant is the quality which the Jews receive from Yosef.

V. To offer greater explanation to the above, it is necessary to preface the interpretation of the Midrash on the verse: “He leads Yosef like sheep.” (Not only is the intent of the verse that G‑d leads the Jewish people who are called Yosef, but also that) G‑d should relate to the Jewish people in the manner exemplified by Yosef. To quote the Midrash:24

Yosef brought [grain] from the years of plenty to the years of famine, so, too, bring us from the life of this world to the life of the World to Come.25

Yosef sustained each person according to his deeds, as it is written:26 “And Yosef sustained his father....” For us as well, sustain us according to our deeds.

Rabbi Menachem said in the name of Rabbi Avin: “Just as Yosef acted generously with his brothers although they brought evil upon him, so, too, although we have brought evil upon You, act generously with us.”

This passage raises several questions:

a) It is obvious that had not Yosef collected and protected the grain which grew in the years of plenty, as it is written:27 “And he gathered all the food of the seven years... and collected it,” it would have been lost entirely, and would have been of no use later. With regard to the good deeds that the Jewish people perform in this world, it is seemingly not appropriate to say that they will be lost. Why then is it necessary for there to be a special request: that G‑d “bring us from the life of this world to the life of the World to Come”?

b) Our Sages describe our world as an “antechamber,” and the World to Come as “the hall.”28 [In the analogy, it appears that] this world is described as “the years of plenty” and the World to Come as “the years of famine.” How is that appropriate? On the contrary, this world is merely “an antechamber” for the World to Come.

c) Yosef’s greatness is (— as this Midrash itself quotes Rabbi Menachem who said it in the name of Rabbi Avin —) that he acted generously with his brothers despite the fact that they brought evil upon him. Thus he did not “sustain them according to their deeds,” why then does the Midrash use this expression to describe Yosef’s positive attributes (instead of saying “according to their needs”)?

d) Were we to ask G‑d to take notice of our deeds, we could appreciate that this is a new development. “Sustaining us according to our deeds,” however, does not appear to be a new matter. On the contrary, fairness would require that everyone be requited according to his deeds. What is the necessity for a special request that G‑d “sustain us according to our deeds” and why must we reinforce this request by citing Yosef’s example?29

VI. [These questions can be resolved through the explanation of a fundamental concept which applies to mitzvos.] As mentioned on several occasions, mitzvos are not an intermediary which leads to another purpose. Instead, the purpose is within [the mitzvos] themselves. For the [Divine] will for mitzvos is rooted in G‑d’s essence itself (as it is said:30 “All of the mitzvos relate to G‑d’s essence”). And with regard to G‑d’s essence (and His will), it is not appropriate to say that it exists for a purpose outside itself.

Based on this concept, the Alter Rebbe explains31 the statement of the Mishnah:32 “One moment of teshuvah and good deeds in this world is more desirable than the entire life of the World to Come.” The World to Come is the reward given for Divine service in this world, and seemingly, the reward should be greater than the service performed to attain it. Indeed, the Mishnah31 itself states: “One moment of pleasure in the World to Come is greater than the entire life of this world.”

[The explanation is] that the purpose of man’s creation is {not for man himself, but}as the Mishnah states:33 “I was created solely to serve my Creator.” This purpose is achieved through the observance of mitzvos in this world. [This alone is the raison d’être for man and for the entire creation.] Nevertheless, because “the Holy One, blessed be He, does not withhold reward from any created being,”34 a person who has brought this purpose to fruition is deserving of an unlimited reward. And thus in the World to Come, a person receives a revelation of the pleasure which he drew down through the observance of mitzvos in this world.

The person will experience the revelation of this pleasure in the World to Come. For this reason, we are told that: “One moment of pleasure in the World to Come is greater than the entire life of this world.” It is clear, however, that the revelation of this pleasure (to a mortal) — the reward for the mitzvah — cannot be compared to the essence of the pleasure (experienced by G‑d, as it were) which is the essence of the mitzvah performed in this world.

To restate the concept using different wording:35 The reward for the mitzvah, the World to Come, reflects the pleasure and the satisfaction of a created being, while the pleasure and satisfaction of G‑d comes, as it were, from the actual performance of the mitzvos. Since there is no comparison between a created being and the Creator, it is clear that “the entire life of the World to Come,” the satisfaction experienced by mortals, cannot be compared with “teshuvah and good deeds in this world,” the satisfaction experienced by the Creator.

VII. Based on the above, the following points require explanation:

a) The World to Come represents merely the satisfaction to be experienced by a created being. This cannot be compared to the mitzvah itself, the satisfaction experienced by G‑d. Hence, it would appear that, by giving them the World to Come, G‑d has not rewarded the Jews fairly for their observance of the mitzvos.

b) The fact that the World to Come follows this world indicates that (the matters of this world including) the intent of the observance of the mitzvos will be consummated only in the World to Come. {As the Alter Rebbe states in Tanya:36 “The ultimate goal and the consummation of the creation37 of this world” for which “it was originally created” is the Era of Mashiach,38 and more particularly, the Era of the Resurrection.} Nevertheless, from the above explanations (sec. VI), it appears that the ultimate intent is achieved at present, through the observance of the mitzvos, and receiving the reward in the World to Come is a secondary factor {coming only because “the Holy One, blessed be He, does not withhold reward from any created being”) which is not relevant to the essential intent.

VIII. These points can be resolved as follows: G‑d’s essence is not defined; it cannot be classified as concealment or revelation. This leads to two factors:

a) Through the observance of mitzvos in this physical world — since this is the will of G‑d’s essence — one [bonds with], “takes,” [as it were,] G‑d’s essence. Although the fact that we are now drawing down G‑d’s essence into this world is concealed, since He is not defined, Heaven forbid, by concealment and revelation, it is not appropriate to say that [the present] lack of revelation detracts from His essence which is being drawn down.

On the contrary, precisely for this reason, G‑d’s essence is drawn down in this world [and not in the World to Come]. The World to Come is characterized by revelation — and revelation is not a medium which to express G‑d’s essence. It is only in a place where the influence is concealed — in our material world — that His essence can be drawn down. Thus it is through the observance of mitzvos [in this material realm] that His essence is drawn down.39

b) Since G‑d’s essence is not bound by any limitations, Heaven forbid, we cannot say that it must remain concealed.40 Certainly, it can come into revelation (although [the ordinary channels of] revelation cannot be compared to His essence).41

On this basis, we can appreciate how the World to Come can serve as a fair reward for the Jews’ observance of the mitzvos in this world. For in [the World to Come], there will be revealed, {not only the revealed level of G‑dliness — [which lead to] the satisfaction experienced by a created being, but also} the satisfaction experienced by the Creator,42 as it were, the essence which is drawn down [through our observance of the mitzvos] in the present era.

This revelation is necessary, (not only because “the Holy One, blessed be He, does not withhold reward from any created being,” but also) because His will and His essence are drawn down through [our observance of] the mitzvos.43

The revelation of His essence in the World to Come will manifest this essential quality, the essence that is drawn down at present [through the performance of the mitzvos]. {For were it necessary that the influence drawn down at present remain concealed, that itself would be a sign that G‑d’s essence is not (being drawn down).44 For with regard to G‑d’s essence, no limitations [— neither of concealment nor of revelation —] are appropriate, as stated above.45

IX. The reason why “the satisfaction of the Creator” (which is above the World to Come as it would exist on its own accord) will also be revealed to the Jews is that the Jews are one with G‑d, as will be explained.

All of the other created beings are merely intermediaries [brought into being] to carry out G‑d’s ultimate intent. (G‑d’s intent is not, however, focused on them themselves).46 Were this also to be said with regard to the Jewish people, it would not be appropriate that they be granted a revelation of the “satisfaction of the Creator” which transcends entirely the set of created beings.” The truth, however, is that “Israel, and the Holy One, blessed be He, are all one.”47 Although it is said: “I was created solely to serve my Creator,” the Jews are not an intermediary [necessary] for G‑d’s ultimate intention; His ultimate intention encompasses them themselves.48

{For this reason, we see that the Jews derive satisfaction from mitzvos which are chukim. Since the observance of the chukim is motivated by kabbalas ol, the acceptance of G‑d’s yoke, a quality which expresses bittul, self-nullification, [one may ask:] How is it possible for them to evoke vitality and pleasure? [They appear to run contrary to a person’s self-interest.]

Nevertheless, [the Jews’ mission] — “I was created solely to serve My Creator” — which is expressed in bittul and kabbalas ol, does not nullify the identity of a Jew. On the contrary, this is their true identity.49 [And therefore, the observance of the chukim brings them pleasure.]}

[Since the Jews are at one with G‑d’s essence,] they can accept “the satisfaction of the Creator” in a revealed manner.

X. The above provides us with an explanation of our Sages’ comments in the Midrash concerning the phrase: “He leads Yosef like sheep.”

First the Midrash states: “Yosef brought grain from the years of plenty to the years of famine; so, too, bring us from the life of this world to the life of the World to Come.” [The years of famine are used as an analogy for the World to Come, because just] as grain does not grow in years of famine, [mitzvos as we know them will not be performed in the World to Come].

Yosef’s [achievement] was that he collected the grain from the years of plenty and preserved it for the years of famine. Similarly, we ([for] all Jews are referred to as Yosef as stated in section 1) [ask G‑d] to “bring us from the life of this world to the life of the World to Come.” [Our request is that] the essence [of G‑d], the satisfaction of the Creator, which flourishes50 through our Divine service in this world, should also be revealed in the World to Come.

To this, the attribute of judgment will come with a complaint: The reason why the satisfaction of the Creator is revealed to the Jews in the World to Come is that (as stated in section IX) their observance of the mitzvos is characterized by pleasure and vitality (which in turn reflect that the Divine intent is in them, in the Jews themselves, as stated above). When, however, a Jew observes mitzvos without vitality {—;even when he observes them with [the resolve of] kabbalas ol, (but without the vitality of love and fear51), certainly when he performs them [merely] out of rote and habit,52 and needless to say, when he performs the mitzvos with a selfish intent —} it does not appear appropriate that [such observance] would cause G‑d’s essence to be revealed in the World to Come. [Certainly,] “Deed is most essential,”53 and thus even such Divine service can draw down G‑d’s essence. Nevertheless, when it is drawn down in such a manner, it is not at all connected to revelation.54 And so the attribute of judgment claims: This essential influence should not be revealed in the World to Come.”

To resolve this, the Midrash states a second request: “Yosef sustained each person according to his deeds.... For us as well, sustain us according to our deeds.”

Yosef told his brothers:55 “You thought to do me harm, [but] G‑d intended it for good, to accomplish [what is before us] today, that a large nation be kept alive.” Thus [— he emphasized to his brothers —] because of your deeds (although you did not have in mind the positive result that stemmed from it), I will repay you “measure for measure”; “I will sustain you and your children.”56

Just as Yosef sustained his brothers because of their deeds (without concern for their intent); so, too, we ask G‑d to sustain us according to our deeds. We request that He view only the positive deeds which we have performed [without necessarily being concerned with their intent]. And since with regard to actual deed, “Even the sinners of Israel are filled with mitzvos, like a pomegranate is filled with seeds,”57 we request that He gives us the reward mentioned above.

Indeed, it is appropriate that He grant us the reward as if the deed was performed with the appropriate intent. To cite a parallel: With regard to tzedakah (which is the paradigm of all mitzvos58), the Talmud states59 that a person who says: “[I am giving] this sela to charity so that my son will live,” is “a completely righteous man.” Although outwardly, he is performing the mitzvah for a personal intent, since inwardly, his heart is directed to G‑d [— for every Jew “desires to perform all the mitzvos”60], not only is the deed of tzedakah (itself) perfect, the deed affects the person himself, and [when examining] his inner dimensions, he is
(— through this deed —) a complete tzaddik.

XI. Despite the above explanations, there is still room for the attribute of judgment to protest: When a Jew observes a mitzvah, but he does so for a personal intent, it is possible to say that the will and the inner desire of the soul can, although they are [functioning] in a hidden manner, combine and enclothe themselves within the observance of the mitzvos,61 as explained in section X. When, by contrast, a person transgresses, Heaven forbid, [this motif does not seem appropriate]. It is true that through teshuvah (motivated by love), a person can transform his willful sins into merits,62 and these merits will also earn a Jew a portion in the World to Come.63 It is however, [seemingly] not appropriate, to say that these deeds were carried out with (the inner) desire of the soul.

{On the contrary, the desire of the soul is “to distance oneself from sin.”60 The reason that the person stumbled and transgressed that “his natural inclination overpowered him,”60 [and compelled him to act] against his [own inner] will.}

Since our request to “bring us from the life of this world to the life of the World to Come” is based on the concept that the good deeds which are performed in this world are associated with the person’s pleasure and will, as stated in section IX, it is difficult to understand: How is this motif appropriate with regard to the merits that come from willful transgressions that are directly opposite to the will of the soul?

To resolve this difficulty, the Midrash continues (introducing this as a new concept: “Rabbi Menachem64 said) in the name of Rabbi Avin: ‘Just as Yosef acted generously with his brothers although they brought evil upon him,’ so, too, although we have brought evil upon You, act generously with us.’”

Yosef sustained his brothers because they performed a deed which ultimately brought about good, although beforehand, at the time of their actions, “they brought evil upon him.” Similarly, [we are asking G‑d]: “Although we have brought evil upon You, act generously with us.” Since ultimately, from the “evil we have brought upon You,” will come good, because of the advantage that will result from the Divine service of teshuvah (which is more powerful65 [than ordinary Divine service]), [we ask G‑d] to “act generously with us,” and [consider it] as if at the outset, (at the time a person performed the sins), his intent was to bring about that ascent.66

XII. There is a connection between these three requests
{— bring us from the life of this world to the life of the World to Come... sustain us according to our deeds... [and] although we have brought evil upon You, act generously with us” —} and Yosef. Indeed, because of this connection, Yosef’s conduct is referred to as a paradigm of these qualities.

[To explain:] From an inner perspective, the difference between Yaakov and Yosef is67 that Yaakov’s spiritual level (as he exists for himself) reflects the world of Atzilus, while Yosef’s level involves bringing Yaakov’s spiritual qualities into the worlds of Beriah, Yetzirah, and Asiyah, and even into this material world which is “filled with kelipah and sitra achra.”68 [Yosef’s Divine service involves] making Yaakov’s spiritual qualities — Atzilus [i.e., overt G‑dliness] — appreciated even within these lower levels.

To explain this in terms of our own Divine service: The essence of the soul (the levels of chayah and yechidah) reflect the level of Atzilus. The dimensions of the soul which descend into the worlds of Beriah, Yetzirah, and Asiyah represent merely a ray of the soul, the levels of nefesh, ruach, and neshamah.

[On this basis, we can appreciate] the achievement of Yosef. He made it possible for the essence of the soul to be felt and to have an effect with [a person’s] intellectual comprehension ([which parallels the level of] neshamah, equivalent to Beriah), in his emotional qualities of love and fear ([which parallel the level of] ruach, equivalent to Yetzirah) and even in actual deed ([which parallels the level of] nefesh, equivalent to Asiyah). Moreover, it will even come into expression in the fulfillment of mitzvos for self-interest that is motivated by the animal soul ([which parallels] our material world which is filled with kelipah and sitra achra.

This reflects the connection between Yosef and the three requests mentioned above. Yosef made it possible for the essence of the soul to be manifest in this material world as it is manifest in the higher realms.69 This makes it possible for the satisfaction of the Creator, the influence from G‑d’s essence {for the essence of the soul is connected with G‑d’s essence}, to be manifest within our Divine service in this material realm. This in turn brings about [G‑d’s] bringing us “from the life of this world to the life of the World to Come.”

Through Yosef drawing down the essence of the soul even into the world of Asiyah, the “satisfaction of the Creator” is drawn down into our observance of the mitzvos, even when they are performed without vitality, [as mentioned with regard to the request,] “Sustain us according to our deeds.”

Through drawing down the essence of the soul even into this physical world which is filled with kelipah and sitra achra, G‑d’s essence is drawn down even in the merits which result from the transformation of purposeful sins, [as mentioned with regard to the request,] “although we have brought evil upon You, act generously with us.”

XIII. On this basis, we can appreciate the inner meaning of Yosef sustaining his brothers as it applies in a spiritual context. Through Yosef sustaining his brothers70 according to their deeds and treating them favorably although they did him harm, he blazed a path and empowered all Jews for all time. He granted them the potential to look at another Jew (not as he appears externally, but) rather as he exists from the standpoint of his essence, [that he is “an actual part of G‑d”]. Therefore, he will reward him according to his deeds and “repay those who are culpable with goodness.”

And through looking at another Jew with such an outlook, each person will arouse similar potentials within his own being, and the essence of his soul will shine in all of his matters. {This is why the trait of “repaying those who are culpable with goodness” is such a fundamental quality, and affects the essence of a Jew.}71

[Conduct of this kind} will lead to the fulfillment of our requests: to “bring us from the life of this world to the life of the World to Come... sustain us according to our deeds... [and] although we have brought evil upon You, act generously with us.”

Adapted from Sichos Shabbos Parshas Chukas-Balak,
Yud-Beis Tammuz, 5719;72 and others

Footnotes

Zohar, Vol. I, p. 201a.

Bereishis 47:12.

Tehillim 80:2. Note the commentaries of Rashi and Metzudos David.

See Yoma 83b which relates that Rabbi Meir would explain [certain aspects of people’s character] based on their name. See also Tanya, Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, ch. 1, [which relates that an object’s name represents its fundamental life-energy]. See also Teshuvos U’Biurim, Kovetz Lubavitch, Vol. II; Igros Kodesh of the Rebbe, Vol. I, p. 288ff., which dwells on this concept at length.

[Less than two years, according to Rashi.]

For example, [Yishmael’s daughter Bosmas] is described as “the sister of Nevios,”* because he arranged her marriage (Rashi, Bereishis 36:3). Since marriage is a fundamental element of a person’s life, even after marriage, she is referred to in this manner.
Nevertheless, this instance cannot be compared to the case at hand because {a) [Bosmas] was not called Nevios. She was called “the sister of Nevios.” For although marriage is fundamental to a person, her marriage was only arranged by Nevios, it does not reflect Nevios himself. (See the explanation later in the text why, for this reason, it is difficult to understand why the Jews are called Yosef.) [and,]}
b) the phrase “the sister of Nevios” is used to describe Bosmas, while [the Jews are not referred to as “the family of Yosef,” but] are instead named Yosef.
* The fact that the Torah refers to Shimon and Levi as “the brothers of Dinah” [in one verse] because they risked their lives for her sake (Rashi, Bereishis 34:25), is not relevant in this context. For there the Torah is obviously speaking about a specific instance: “They took their swords... and they rescued Dinah.” In contrast, the Jewish people are called Yosef even afterwards, [years] after he [ceased to nurture them]. Similarly, [Bosmas] was called “the sister of Nevios” [even after her wedding].
One might say that the term “the sister of Nevios” is also used only in the context of Esav’s marrying [Bosmas]. [There is, however, a distinction.] Esav’s marriage is first mentioned in Parshas Toldos, [Bosmas is described as “the sister of Nevios” later] in Parshas Vayishlach. [Moreover, the emphasis is not on the wedding per se,] but rather on the description of Esav’s descendants. (See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. V, p. 164.)]
See also Rashi’s commentary to Shmos 15:20 [which speaks about the description of Miriam as “Aharon’s sister”]. This is not the place for further discussion of this matter.

Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 9:1; the ninth of the Rambam’s “Thirteen Principles of Faith” (Commentary to the Mishnah, Sanhedrin, ch. 10); Introduction to Pirush HaMishnayos of the Rambam.

To use the wording of the Rogatchover Gaon: “It is a factor that is drawn down continuously and [is always] active” (Tzafnas Paneach, Makkos 11a; Tzafnas Paneach LiHilchos Terumos, Vol. I, p. 120), see also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. VIII, p. 151.

Yeshayahu 40:8.

10.

Daily liturgy (Siddur Tehillat HaShem, p. 48).

11.

The commentary of the Radak (and similarly, Metzudas David) to Yeshayahu, loc. cit. states: “‘The word of our G‑d’ which He spoke through His prophets.” (This appears to include words of prophecy that are not written in the Torah.) Tanya, ch. 25 (p. 32a) quotes this verse with regard to the revelation of His will through His speech, i.e., the Torah.” This appears to indicate that this also refers to the Oral Law. {For the essential revelation of G‑d’s will which was spoken is in the Oral Law, (Tanya, Iggeres HaKodesh, Epistle 29). See the following note.}

12.

It can be understood from the Tanya’s statement that the reason the unity with G‑d established through [the performance of] the mitzvos “is everlasting,” is that “the revelation of His will through His speech, which is the Torah, is everlasting.”*
* See also the beginning of Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah which explains that “The word of our G‑d will endure forever,” and “His words are living and enduring... forever,” is that the words and letters (of [His] speech) themselves stand and endure forever.

13.

The hymn Yigdal.

14.

This is also evident from the statements of the Tanya, ch. 25, which associate the fact that the mitzvos are unchanging with the phrases: “The word of our G‑d will endure forever,” and “His words are living and enduring... forever.”

15.

A further point is evident from the Tzafnas Paneach (loc. cit.) that since the Torah relates the story (Shmos 2:21) that Moshe took an oath to Yisro, that oath is a continuously active force. Even in the present age (although the oath was absolved), it is still a relevant force. [See Nedarim 10a-b.]

16.

Indeed, [when speaking about the narrative,] the Zohar, Vol. I, p. 201a,b cites only this lesson.

17.

The conclusion of ch. 12.

18.

The fact that at the outset, he caused them some hardship is explained in Or HaTorah, Mikeitz, p. 340b ff.

19.

[The fact that every Jew receives influence from Yosef raises a question, for] Torah Or, beginning of Parshas Va’eira, states that “we call only three — Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov — Patriarchs” (Berachos 16b) because “the attributes of the Patriarchs alone must be present within every individual, for they are the root and source of the entire Jewish people.” With regard to the tribes, by contrast, “there are individuals who do not possess these qualities at all.”
This, however, does not represent a contradiction to the above, because Yosef is “the potential which brings the essential influence of Yaakov into revelation among the recipients”; “all of the offspring of Yaakov are brought into revelation by Yosef” (Biurei HaZohar LeAdmur HaEmtzaei, p. 30a). Thus since the attribute of Yaakov is possessed by each individual (see note 23), and this attribute is brought out by Yosef, every person must also possess an attribute of Yosef.
Nevertheless, it is still appropriate to say that “we call only three — Patriarchs.” For the influence of Yosef that every person must possess is {not the attribute of Yosef himself (— that quality is indeed possessed only by those who are from the tribes of Ephraim and Menasheh* —), but} is the power which communicates influence from Yaakov.
See sec. XII which explains that the attribute to “repay those who are culpable with goodness” stems from Yosef, for he is the one who draws down the essence of the soul (as it exists within the realm of Atzilus), i.e., the level of Yaakov, even to those who are culpable.
* It must be noted [that there is a certain universal quality] to Ephraim and Menasheh as well, as reflected in the fact that the entire Jewish people are blessed: “May G‑d make you as Ephraim and Menasheh,” as Bereishis 48:20 states (see Targum ben Uziel): “Through you, (Yosef my son) Israel will be blessed.”

20.

On this basis, we can appreciate our Sages’ statement (Pirkei d’R. Eliezer, ch. 39) that Yosef was also called kfkf, as it is written: ;xuh kfkfhu, “And Yosef nurtured.”

21.

[This quality is referred to] as the attribute of the Holy One, blessed be He, who “repays those who are culpable with goodness.” ([For this reason, G‑d is praised in this manner in] Bircas HaGomel; see the comments of the Rif to Berachos, the beginning of ch. 9.)

22.

[Trans. Note: For as stated above, every story in the Torah is a reflection of an ongoing spiritual pattern.]

23.

The reason why although every Jew must possess the spiritual qualities of all three Patriarchs, the Jewish people share a greater connection with Yaakov than with Avraham and Yitzchak, is explained in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. III, p. 787ff.; Vol. IV, p. 1051, note 18.

24.

Yalkut Shimoni on the verse from Tehillim cited above.

25.

[Trans. Note: In this sichah, the term, the World to Come, is used to refer to the Era of the Redemption and more particularly, the Era of the Resurrection. Although there are sources which apply this term to Gan Eden, the non-corporeal world of souls, in Chassidus, it is used primarily in the context mentioned here. See the maamar entitled Kol Yisrael Yesh La’Hem Cheilek L’Olam HaBah translated in Anticipating the Redemption, Vol. I, p. 40ff., which discusses this subject.]

26.

Bereishis 47:12. This is the wording in the passage from the Yalkut Shimoni cited above. Seemingly, the focus of the Midrash is also on the conclusion of the verse. See also the Midrash Tehillim (Buber edition) on the verse. That text, however, differs from the text of the Yalkut in several particulars.
The text in the Yalkut HaMachiri reads: “Yosef sustained his brothers according to their deeds, as it is written: ‘bread according to [the needs of] their children,’ so too, sustain us according to our deeds.” According to this version, the emphasis is on his sustaining his brothers.

27.

Bereishis 41:48-49.

28.

Avos 4:16.

29.

See the maamar entitled Agura BiOholecho Olamim 5695, sec. 3 (and the sources cited there) and the interpretation of the verse (Tehillim 62:13): “And kindness is Yours, O G‑d, for You reward each man according to his deeds.” {There a similar question is raised: What “kindness” is it to “reward each man according to his deeds?” Note the resolution offered there. See also the explanation given in sec. 1 of that source based on the Ikkarim.}
The interpretation offered in that source is not appropriate to explain the request “sustain us according to our deeds.” For seemingly, a request is not necessary for this. In particular, this applies because the psalms of Tehillim are continuous requests {for this reflects the ordinary pattern that results from G‑d’s kindness}. Certainly, there is no need to preface the matter by citing Yosef’s example.

30.

See Toras Shalom, p. 190ff.

31.

Likkutei Torah, Devarim 28d ff.

32.

Avos 4:17.

33.

The conclusion of Tractate Kiddushin.

34.

Mechilta, Rashi, commenting on Shmos 22:30. Our Sages conclude: “And if this holds true for an animal, certainly, He will not withhold the reward due a human.”

35.

See the series of maamarim entitled VeKachah 5637, ch. 12.

36.

Ch. 36 (p. 46a).

37.

It appears that the Hebrew text should read ,thrc and not ,uthrc. This version is found in several printings of the Tanya.

38.

With regard to “the Era of Mashiach,” it could be explained (albeit with a somewhat forced argument), that the mitzvos will also be observed in that Era as well. [Hence, there is a connection to G‑d’s essential will also at that time.] {Our Sages’ statement (Niddah 61b) that “In the future, [the observance of] mitzvos will be nullified” applies only in the Era of Resurrection, but in the Era of Mashiach, before the resurrection, their [observance] will not be nullified* (Tanya, Iggeres HaKodesh, Epistle XXVI, p. 145a).**}
Indeed, the essence of the charge “Today to perform them” and the ultimate consummation of [our] deeds will be in the Era of Mashiach (Torah Or, p. 46a;ff., the series of maamarim entitled VeKachah 5637, ch. 17ff.). With regard to the Era of the Resurrection, however, the resolution offered in the text above is necessary.
* It appears that the Hebrew text should read ,ukyc and not ohkyc, as we find in the previous phrase.
** See also S’dei Chemed: K’lallim, Os Mem, sec. 28 (Vol. III, p. 561c ff.); Divrei Chachamim, sec. 53 (Vol. IX, p. 1862b), et al.

39.

See a similar concept in Tanya, ch. 36 (p. 45b) which states that, in contrast to our material world, the spiritual realms represent a descent from the radiance of His presence. See also the maamar entitled Basi LeGani 5711, sec. IV, and the sources cited there.
[Trans. Note: The intent appears to be that revelation, by definition, involves a specific — and therefore limited — entity. If something is revealed, it can be described and delineated and therefore has its own boundaries. Even a transcendent revelation is defined as being transcendent. Although it is unbounded by the limitations of existence as we know it, it is defined — it is not truly unbounded; it has its set scope. As such, it is not an appropriate medium for G‑d’s essence, for G‑d’s essence is entirely unbounded, knowing no limitation whatsoever. And since there is no way that a limited entity can be a medium for the expression of G‑d’s essence, which is totally above limitation, all of the revealed levels are inappropriate. It is only our world which is characterized by concealment that is a fit medium.]

40.

[Trans. Note: For that would be a limitation, that His essence can only be concealed, and it cannot be revealed.]

41.

[Trans. Note: When the essence is revealed, its revelation transcends the ordinary mediums for revelation. For example, when a person’s life is threatened, he will run and jump in a manner which surpasses the skills of professional athletes. Because the essence of his life-energy is revealed at that time, it will be expressed in a manner which is entirely above the limits of what is normal and ordinary.]

42.

See the series of maamarim entitled VeKachah, sec. XII, and sec. XV. (Sec. XII states that [in the Future, all existence] will be elevated [to G‑d’s essence], not that G‑d’s essence will be revealed.)
[Despite the fact that the World to Come will also involve the satisfaction of the Creator, G‑d’s essence,] it is still appropriate to say “One moment of teshuvah and good deeds in this world is more desirable than the entire life of the World to Come,” as explained in sec. XIII of that source.

43.

See also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. IV, p. 1054, which explains the concept of a dwelling in the lower worlds, stating that a “dwelling” is a place, {not only where the entire essence is found, but that} the essence is found in a state of revelation. [To cite an analogy: It is in a person’s own home where he relaxes his constraints and reveals his personality traits without inhibition.]
Since the intent of the expression “a dwelling in the lower worlds” is a dwelling for His essence, a rung which transcends all revealed levels {for even G‑d’s light, which is a revelation from His essence, [was emanated] for the sake of this purpose (the maamar entitled Anochi Havayah E‑lohecha 5703, sec. 3),} it is not appropriate to say that it is a composite of two elements. Therefore, it is necessary to say that the revelation of the essence (is not incremental, but rather [intrinsic],) a [fundamental element] of G‑d’s essence being drawn down, as will be explained above. See also the following note.

44.

On this basis, we can comprehend the statement (Pesachim 50b; see also Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Hilchos Talmud Torah 4:3, and in the Kuntres Acharon to that source): “A person should always occupy himself in the Torah and its mitzvos, even when lacking the proper intent, for from [Divine service] without the proper intent comes Divine service with the proper intent.”
On the surface, since “deed is of primary importance” (Avos 1:17), what is the necessity for the rationale: “From [Divine service] without the proper intent comes Divine service with the proper intent”? [Seemingly, even if ultimately, the person will continue to serve G‑d without the proper intentions, as long as he is performing mitzvos, his deeds would be acceptable.]
[The resolution is that] if [Divine service] for the proper intent would not ultimately come, there would be a lack, not only in the revelation [of G‑d’s essence drawn down by the Divine service], but in the drawing down of the essence itself, as evident from the previous note. [For if the person’s Divine service would never reflect the proper intent, that would show that the mitzvos he performs are not G‑dly acts. For if they are G‑dly, their inner G‑dliness must ultimately be revealed.]

45.

See the explanation of similar concepts in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. IX, p. 156ff., in the interpretation of our Sages’ statement (cf. Zohar, Vol. III, p. 5a ): “When is He great? When He is in the city of our G‑d.”

46.

[Trans. Note: To cite an analogy: the scenery and settings for a play. They are important only because they create the background for the play, not because there is an intrinsic desire for them in their own right.]

47.

See the Zohar, Vol. III, pp. 73a and 93b. See also our Sages’ interpretation of the description (Shir HaShirim 5:2 of the Jewish people as “My perfect one.” [Shir HaShirim Rabbah renders that term as] “My twin.” See also Likkutei Torah, Shir HaShirim, pp. 34d, 39a).

48.

See the elucidation of this concept in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. II, p. 604, which explains the reason why the quote uses the expression hbue for Creator {and not htruc (although it uses the term h,trcb for the term “created” ) or the like}. [hbue relates to the term ihbe, meaning “transaction.”]
When is a transaction completed? When it involves not only the produce [grown on land] or the benefit from [a person’s] labor, [but the complete and total transfer of an entity to another domain, to the extent that] the object no longer exists as a separate entity, and its entire existence is encompassed by the fact that it is owned by the person who acquired it.

49.

See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. VIII, p. 131ff., where this concept is explained.
[Trans. Note: When speaking within the context of a person’s individual identity and self-concern, kabbalas ol and bittul definitely demand that a person sacrifice his self-interest and give up immediate gratification. But a person’s individual identity and self-concern do not define who he is. Beyond his “I” of wants and desires, he possesses a G‑dly soul which defines his true self, the core of His being. And it is bittul and kabbalas ol which give his G‑dly soul expression and satisfaction.]

50.

See the maamar entitled HaBayim Yasrish Yaakov and its explanation in Torah Or.

51.

See Tanya, the beginning of ch. 4; Kuntres HaAvodah, ch. 2, p. 15.

52.

See Yeshayahu 29:13 [which states: “And your fear of Me shall be like a habitual mortal precept”]; see also Tanya, the conclusion of ch. 39.

53.

Cf. Avos 1:17; see also Torah Or, p. 90a ff.

54.

In general, revelation does not result from the deed [of the mitzvos] itself, but comes as a result of the love and fear [which motivate the observance of the mitzvos] (see Likkutei Sichos, Vol. III, p. 956; Vol. IV, p. 1054). Aside from this, the revelation of “the satisfaction of the Creator” (which transcends [ordinary] revelation) comes when the kabbalas ol which transcends intellect is drawn down within our internal powers, as stated above, sec. IX.

55.

Bereishis 50:20.

56.

Ibid.:21. Note the commentary of the Or HaChayim to the previous verse: “This can be compared to a person who desired to give a colleague a cup of deadly poison to drink, but instead, gave him wine.” (The Or HaChayim concludes that for this reason, the person is not culpable. The same logic can, however, be used as the rationale why “I will sustain you and your children.”)
Based on the above, we can also appreciate the explanation in Tanya, the conclusion of ch. 12, which states that “Instead of repaying [a person who caused one harm] according to his deeds, one should repay those who are culpable with goodness.” On the surface, one might ask: Why should goodness be granted to people who are culpable?*
[The resolution to this question is that] whatever the colleague brought upon the person ultimately stems from G‑d (see Tanya, Iggeres HaKodesh, Epistle XXV). Since “Everything that G‑d does is for the good” (Berachos 60b), he must repay him with good. For what he did to him was done as an agent of the Holy One, blessed be He, who decreed this for his benefit,** as was the case with regard to Yosef’s brothers.*** See Bereishis 45:8, and the commentary of Seforno to Bereishis 50:19.
* Note Bava Metzia 32b which, when speaking about the mitzvah of unloading a fallen animal, states that when there is a choice between unloading an animal belonging to a friend and one belonging to an enemy, it is a mitzvah to deal with the animal belonging to one’s enemy, to curb one’s natural inclination. See Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Hilchos Ovrei Derachim Vitzaar Baalei Chayim, law 10.
** To cite a parallel, note our Sages’ statement (Bava Kamma 92b): “The wine belongs to its owner, but the agent deserves a favor.” See also Derech Mitzvosecha, Mitzvas Milah, sec. I, the conclusion of ch. 3; and Likkutei Sichos, Vol. VII, p. 14, note 22.
*** On this basis, we can appreciate why the Tanya instructs us to learn from Yosef and his brothers. For in this instance, they saw in an overt manner how “G‑d intended it for good.” And this serves as an explanation why each person must repay the culpable with kindness.

57.

Eruvin 19a; the conclusion of Chagigah; Berachos 53a which speaks of “the empty ones among you.” See also Likkutei Torah, Shir HaShirim, p. 37a.

58.

Tanya, ch. 37 (p. 48b).

59.

Rosh HaShanah 4a, Bava Basra 10b.

60.

Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Geirushin 2:20.

61.

It can be explained that this is the rationale why “[the observance of] the mitzvos does not require intent” (See Berachos 13a; Eruvin 95b), [i.e., that when a person observes a mitzvah without focusing on its intent, it is nevertheless considered as if he performed the mitzvah]. Even though he does not have a conscious intent, there is, nevertheless, the inner intent of his soul, as explained in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. IV, p. 1130. See Tanya, the conclusion of ch. 39. Explanation is, nevertheless, still required.

62.

Yoma 86b.

63.

Likkutei Torah, Vayikra, p. 26c.

64.

On this basis, we can appreciate the connection of this statement [with its authors], Rabbi Menachem [and Rabbi Avin]. The name Menachem shares the same root as the word nechamah (vnjb), which also has the connotation of regret, and thus is associated with teshuvah.
[A connection can also be made with] the name Avin based on the explanations in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. IV, p. 1080, with regard to the advantage of Av, “the father,” over Menachem, i.e., that with regard to Menachem, the lack associated with hardship is felt. {And yet, just as one must bless [G‑d] for good, one must also bless [Him] for bad” (Berachos 60b).} From the level of Av, in contrast, the good that the evil contains is revealed. Thus it is possible to say that the name of Rabbi Avin is cited to allude to the concept that, through teshuvah motivated by love, willful transgressions can be transformed into merits.

65.

See Zohar, Vol. I, p. 129b.

66.

See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. V, p. 66ff. [translated in this series] and notes which explain that the concept that “there is nothing else aside from Him” (Devarim 4:39) is not affected by sins although they are against His will. For on the contrary, even they reveal how “there is nothing else aside from Him.”
{In addition to the fact that the teshuvah (which comes after the performance of a sin) reveals the infinite dimension of G‑dliness, that even the sparks of holiness which are found in purposeful sins can be elevated and transformed into merits,} through the sins themselves it is revealed that “there is nothing else aside from Him.”
This revelation comes, however, {not through the sins themselves, but rather} from the fact that they are of no consequence before Him and He is not concerned with them. [Trans. Note: Unlike other dimensions of Divine service which themselves express G‑d’s qualities, the cycle of sin and teshuvah does not express a positive attribute of G‑dliness. It does, however, show that nothing — even something that is against His will — can prevent His expression. For despite the barriers sins cause, the sins will ultimately be nullified. This demonstrates that their existence — i.e., an existence apart from G‑d — is of no genuine importance.]
Similar concepts apply with regard to the essence of the Jewish soul (which is united with G‑d’s essence). Sin reveals the power of [the soul’s] connection to G‑d, showing:
a) that despite having committed a sin, it can still turn to G‑d in teshuvah. Indeed, ultimately, every Jew will do teshuvah (Tanya, the conclusion of ch. 39);
b) that even at the time of the sin itself, it remained faithful to Him. For the sin is of no consequence and cannot detract from the connection of the essence of the soul to G‑d.

67.

See Biurei HaZohar LeAdmur HaEmtzaei, p. 30a ff.; Or HaTorah, Vayechi 386a,b. {That source [also explains that Yosef’s Divine service is expressed through the verse (Bereishis 30:25):] “May G‑d grant me another son,” i.e., that Yosef transforms another — the sitra achra and the animal soul which are others [— estranged from G‑d;—] into a “son.”}

68.

Tanya, ch. 36 (p. 45b); see also ch. 7 (p. 11b).

69.

See Biurei HaZohar, loc. cit., which states that [Yosef’s Divine service causes the soul to be manifest in this material world] “without a change in its nature, as it exists in the higher realms.”

70.

See ibid., loc. cit., which explains that the influence which Yosef drew down from Atzilus to Beriah, Yetzirah, and Asiyah represents the sustenance which Yosef gave to his brothers, [i.e., the spiritual level of the brothers was the world of Beriah and Yosef brought them nurture from Atzilus].

71.

[Trans. Note: The impetus to “repay those who are culpable with goodness” is the awareness of the essential G‑dliness that lies at the core of the other person’s being and in a larger sense, within everything that transpires within the world. Since whatever happens is an expression of G‑dliness, even if on the surface it looks unfavorable, it is ultimately positive, and deserves to be repaid with kindness. The ability to appreciate this is an essential quality of the Jewish people.]

72.

This was the beginning of the eightieth year [after the birth] of the Rebbe Rayatz, at which time, [according to the custom of saying the chapter of Tehillim which corresponds to the year,] the recitation of ch. 80 was begun (see also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. V, p. 103, and notes). That chapter contains the verse: “He led Yosef like sheep.” It must be emphasized that Yosef was the first name of the Previous Rebbe. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. III, p. 835.

From the talks of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson

From the talks of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson; translated by Eli Touger

Browse Book

Crown Jewels »

From the talks of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson

Buy Book

Selected from the Rebbe`s voluminous Likkutei Sichot, these "Crown Jewels" expound the most profound of Chasidic concepts, presented according to the Torah portions in which they originally appeared.

In this Book

About the Publisher

SIE »

Sichos in English has published hundreds of volumes on Chassidism and its way of life.

Visit Site

Crown Jewels: Parshas Vayigash

More in this section

Start a Discussion

More in this section

You may also be interested in...

Start a Discussion