Loading...
 

Vol 35.18 - Vayetze 1                  Spanish French Audio  Video

Hebrew Text:

Page 119   Page120   Page121   Page122   Page123   Page124  

Chumash-Vayeitzei     Tanach-Ruth     Midrash Rabbah-Bereshit

Summary:

(5750) Rashi (Gen. 28:10): "the departure of a righteous man from a place makes an impression etc its majesty has departed."; And the differences to Gen. Rabbah (68:7) and also to Rashi (Ruth 1:7).

Explanation of the three aspects of "beauty", "splendor" and "majesty" according to Pshat

(Vol  35 XXXV 119)

Translation:

Note: This Sicha makes many references to the words Hod, Ziv and Hadar. The translation of these words is from the Judaica Press Chumash- in Chabad.org. The alternative translation, cited in the Davis Chumash is in parenthesis.

  • Hod/  הודה    - beauty  (glory),
  • Ziv/  זיוה    - splendor  (brilliance),
  • Hadar/ הדרה    - majesty (splendor)

1. In the beginning of our Parsha (Gen. 28:10), in the beginning of Yaakov’s travel to Charan it states:

“And Jacob left Beer Sheva, etc.”

In explaining the wording, Yaakov left (ויצא יעקב) (and not “and he went” (וילך יעקב) – like in the conclusion of the previous Parsha (where it is said twice),

Rashi explains:

“(Scripture had only to write: “And Jacob went to Charan.” Why did it mention his departure? )

However, this tells (us) that the departure of a Tzaddik from a place makes an impression, for while the Tzaddik is in the city, he is its beauty, he is its splendor, he is its majesty. When he departs from there, its beauty has departed, its splendor has departed, its majesty has departed. And likewise (Ruth 1:7): “And she went forth from the place,” stated in reference to Naomi and Ruth”.

ויצא יעקב מבאר שבע: לא היה צריך לכתוב אלא וילך יעקב חרנה, ולמה הזכיר יציאתו, אלא מגיד שיציאת צדיק מן המקום עושה רושם, שבזמן שהצדיק בעיר הוא הודה הוא זיוה הוא הדרה, יצא משם פנה הודה פנה זיוה פנה הדרה וכן (רות א ז) ותצא מן המקום, האמור בנעמי ורות

The source of this explanation is from Midrash Bereshit Rabba on the verse.

It states there:

“While the Tzaddik is in the city, he is its splendor, he is its majesty. When he departs from there, its splendor has departed, its majesty has departed. Likewise (Ruth 1:7) it states: “And she went forth from the place where she was etc.”. . When a Tzaddik is in the city, he is its splendor, he is its majesty (הוא זיוה הוא הדרה). If he departs from there, its splendor has departed, its majesty has departed. Therefore, it is good, for there, there was no one there except for that righteous woman. However, here, there was Yitzchak and Rivka. R’ Azaria in the name of R’ Simon says, the merit of one Tzaddik is not similar to the merit of two Tzaddikim”.

One must examine this:

Why did Rashi not deem to ask and answer like what is written in the Midrash on this. For although the case is not exactly similar. For here, Yitzchak and Rivka remained in the place where Yaakov left. Whereas regarding Naomi, not even one Tzaddik remained there. Nevertheless, Rashi could have answered, “the merit of three Tzaddikim is not similar to the merit of two Tzaddikim” – For the question and answer are also according to Pshat.

(It is extremely difficult to explain that Rashi maintains that the place where Yitzchak and Rivka lived, at that time, was in the city of Chevron -

(Similar to what is written in the Midrash there, previously that,

“It already wrote ‘And (Jacob) listened to his father and his mother’. Therefore, what is being taught by, ‘And Jacob left Beer Sheva’? However, he (Yaakov) said when my father wanted to leave for the diaspora, where did he go for permission – was it not Beer Sheva? I also will go to Beer Sheva. If He gives me permission I will leave, and if not I will not leave. Therefore, it was necessary for Scripture to state, ‘And Jacob left from Beer Sheva’”.

Therefore, Rashi did not deem to explain that the merit of one Tzaddik etc. is similar etc. For since Yitzchak and Rivka dwelt at that time in Chevron, whereas Yitzchak was in “Beer Sheva”, not even one Tzaddik remained in the city (exactly like Naomi and Ruth). Whereas the previous Midrash (the source of this Rashi) maintains that Yitzchak dwelt at that time in “Beer Sheva”. Therefore, he needs to answer that ‘It is not similar etc.”) -

for according to the simple meaning of the verse, it just explains that “(Yitzchak) went up from there to Beer Sheva” and it does not mention that Yitzchak went from “Beer Sheva” to Chevron,

2. Seemingly, one could answer that according to Rashi, there is no place for this question. For Rashi adds to the wording of the Midrash in the beginning of his comment,

“This tells (us) that the departure of a Tzaddik from a place makes an impression”

One could explain that his intent with this is that even though, in general, the departure of a Tzaddik from the city causes the departure of the beauty, splendor and majesty of the city,

(for this is not an aspect of just making “an impression”)

nevertheless, in our case, regarding Yaakov’s departure from “Beer Sheva”, this departure made (just) an impression, for Yitzchak and Rivka were there.

However, it is not straightforward (חלק) to explain that this is Rashi’s intent.

For he writes,

“This tells (us) that the departure of a Tzaddik from a place makes an impression”

(and he continues in the same section (בחדא מחתא))

“for while the Tzaddik is in the city etc.”

According to the aforementioned, it would have been more fitting to say,

“This tells (us) that the departure of Yaakov made an impression”,

and then later continue in a plain language (בלשון סתמי) (with regard to Tzaddikim, in general) that,

“While the Tzaddik is in the city etc.”

Therefore, it appears that even Rashi’s writing,

“This tells (us) that the departure of a Tzaddik from a place makes an impression”

 was not said just with regard to Yaakov but rather this applies even when no other Tzaddik remains in the city (like Naomi).

(And one could explain that the reason that he writes the words “makes an impression” is that the “beauty, splendor, and majesty” are just an aspect of an “impression” compared to the essential being of the city (עצם מציאות העיר)).

3. The gist of this explanation is cited by Rashi also in his commentary to Ruth, there.

Rashi writes:

“Scripture wishes to tell (us) that the departure of a righteous person from a place is conspicuous, and makes an impression. Its splendor has departed; its majesty has departed; the praise (שבחה) of a city has departed, and likewise (Gen. 28:10): “And Jacob went forth from Beer Sheva.”

One must examine, why here, in his commentary on Torah, Rashi needs to repeat,

While the Tzaddik is in the city, he is its beauty, he is its splendor, he is its majesty. When he departs from there, its beauty has departed, its splendor has departed etc.”

and he does not write concisely (like his comment of the verse in Ruth) that through the departure of a Tzaddik from a place, its splendor departs etc.?

One could apparently explain, that there is an essential difference (שינוי תוכני) between Rashi’s explanation in our Parsha compared to his explanation on Ruth.

  • For here (in our Parsha) where Rashi prefaces, “While the Tzaddik is in the city, he is its beauty, he is its splendor, he is its majesty” (and then continues, “When he departs from there, its beauty has departed etc.”), he is informing us that the innovation is in the positive. Namely, that the Tzaddik is all the “beauty, splendor, and majesty” of the city.

(And therefore, automatically, when he leaves, all the “majesty etc.” departs).

  • Whereas in Ruth, he writes just the negative. Namely, that through the “departure of a Tzaddik . . its splendor has departed; its majesty has departed”. It is not emphasized that when the Tzaddik is in the city, it effects a foundational change (שינוי יסודי) in the city. So much so that this is the “beauty etc.” of the city, and just that the departure causes a deficiency in the city.

For this reason, Rashi writes there, “is conspicuous, and makes an impression”.

Whereas in our Parsha he just writes that it, “makes an impression”.

For there, the emphasis is not that the Tzaddik is the “splendor and majesty” of the city, but rather that his departure is just recognizable and makes an impression. Whereas in our Parsha, his intent is to emphasize that the Tzaddik being in the city is the majesty of the place etc.

According to this, one could say that Rashi’s intent with the words, “makes an impression” is that this is more than just being “conspicuous”. Rather the face of the city is completely changed.

(Whereas the wording, “makes an impression” in Rashi’s comment in Ruth there, that comes in continuation to the wording “conspicuous” is (similar to the aforementioned in Par. 2). Namely, it is just to reduce from the strength of the matter) (רק למעט מתוקף הדבר).

This requires explanation:

What is the reason for the change between Rashi’s comment here versus his comment on Ruth?

4. All this can be understood by prefacing an explanation of the scope of the influence of a Tzaddik on the city, in Rashi’s comment. For even with this, he deviated from the wording of the Midrash.

For the Midrash states,

“While the Tzaddik is in the city, he is its splendor, he is its majesty. When he departs from there, its splendor has departed, its majesty has departed”

Whereas Rashi also adds “its beauty (הודה)”

 Moreover, he prefaces “beauty” before “splendor” and “majesty”.

(Also in Rashi’s comment on Ruth, that is published, it is missing the words “its beauty departs”)

There are many explanations in the translation of these words. However, although Rashi is explaining this for a five-year-old Chumash student, he does not explain and detail the translation of these words. Therefore, one must say that he maintains that this is self-understood from the words that are written in the Torah itself – and in order from the latter to the former (מן המאוחר אל המוקדם):

  • Majesty/הדרה: The word “Hadar” is explained in the verse, “you shall respect the elderly” (וְהָֽדַרְתָּ֖ פְּנֵ֣י זָקֵ֑ן). The simple explanation of this is “honor” (כבוד). Similarly in our case it states that, “while the Tzaddik is in the city, he is its . . majesty/honor”. For the honor of the city is when it contains important and valuable things (דברים חשובים ויקרים). Therefore, when a Tzaddik is found in the city, it makes it an honorable city (עיר מכובדת) – a city where a Tzaddik lives.

 

  • Splendor/זיוה: “Splendor/”Ziv” is like the expression the “rays of the sun”, whose meaning is from the word light. However, this is not the light itself, but just the ray and radiance that spreads from it to illuminate the world. Similarly in our case, namely that “while the Tzaddik is in the city, he is its splendor”. For though his good conduct and good deeds, it shines light and radiance over all the inhabitants of the city, and they learn from his deeds etc.

 

  • Beauty/הודה: Even the word “Beauty/Hod” is from the word light (like splendor), as we find regarding to the “rays of splendor of Moshe”. As it states in the verse “Bestow some of your radiance on him”, “This refers to radiance of the facial skin. Rashi” (“the face of Moshe is like the sun, the face of Yehoshua is like the moon”).

However, in “beauty” there is an additional aspect compared to “splendor”. For the “radiance of his facial skin” effects that “they were afraid to come close to him”. From this, it is understood that “beauty/Hod” is not just plain “splendor/Ziv”, but rather a light that causes fear and awe.

(This is understood plainly. The rays of the sun and the rays of the moon do not effect a feeling of fear and awe. On the contrary – one enjoys their light. Whereas the “rays of splendor of Moshe” – effected that they feared approaching him).

Similarly, in our case regarding, “while the Tzaddik is in the city, he is its beauty”. For in addition to the “splendor” that shines on the people of the place to influence their conduct, there is also the aspect of “beauty”, that such a light effects on the people of the city, a feeling of bitul and fear.

However, all this is according to Rashi who explains according to the simple meaning of the matter. Namely that “he is its beauty, he is its splendor, he is its majesty” of the city. In other words, his influence and effect on the inhabitants of the city (Therefore, Rashi begins with “beauty/Hod”, as aforementioned).

However, according to the Midrash, the reason that a Tzaddik effects on the city “splendor and majesty” (זיו והדר). (“He is its beauty, he is its majesty”) does not refer to the deed and change in the conduct of the people of the city, but rather on the merit of the Tzaddik (זכות הצדיק). As it concludes there, “the merit of one Tzaddik is not similar etc.” In other words, it is referring to that which the Tzaddik protects the city. Additionally that in the merit of the Tzaddik there are good effluences and blessing (השפעות טובות וברכה), and so forth.

5. According to this, the difference between the words of the Midrash and the Rashi’s words are resolved:

According to Rashi, it is referring to the effluence and influence of the Tzaddik on the conduct of the people of the city, and their deeds. Therefore, there is no need to answer that Yitzchak and Rivka remained. For it is clearly explained in Rashi, in the flow of the verses here regarding Yitzchak that, “his eyes had become dim, and he was confined in the house, and he was like a dead person”. Therefore, since Yitzchak was “confined in the house”, he did not have contact with the people of the city, to influence them in their conduct – to shine upon them from his light and splendor, and so forth (even though it is understood that his merit protected the city).

(Regarding Rivka, in addition to the general aspect of “All honor (awaits) the King's daughter who is within” (כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה), one could say that she needed to be in the proximity of Yitzchak, the entire time. For since, “his eyes were weak” she needed to attend to him and aid him etc. (for plainly Rivka was the one who did this)).

Whereas, when it is speaking of the protection of the city or the good influence and blessing, when Yitzchak is in the city, even in a condition that he is “confined in the house”, he influences the city. Moreover, on the contrary, since he is in a condition where “his eyes had become dim, and he was confined in the house, and he was like a dead person, the evil inclination having ceased from him”. Therefore, “He associated His name with Isaac”,

(“Even though we do not find in Scripture that the Holy One, blessed be He, associates His name with that of the righteous during their lifetimes by writing “the G-d of so-and-so”. Rashi)

Thus, it is simple that the merit of Yitzchak increased extremely, to bring protection and all good effluences to the city where he resided.

6. According to all the aforementioned, one can explain the difference between Rashi in our Parsha and Rashi’s comment in Rashi in Ruth:

In his comment on Ruth

“Scripture wishes to tell (us) that the departure of a righteous person from a place is conspicuous, and makes an impression. Its splendor has departed; its majesty has departed; the praise (שבחה) of a city has departed”,

the main intent is on the protection and influence over the city (similar to the explanation of the Midrash here).

Therefore, Rashi does not preface there “When he departs from there, its beauty has departed”. On the other hand, Rashi adds “the praise (שבחה) of a city (has departed)”.

With this, he emphasizes that it is not speaking (so much) regarding the deed and effect on the conduct of the people of the city, but in the “praise (שבחה)” of the city. Namely, that through the departure of the Tzaddik, the praise of the city departs.

Whereas in our Parsha, Rashi’s intent (as aforementioned) is with regard to the influence of the Tzaddik on the conduct and the deeds of the people of the city. This why he concludes here,

“And likewise: ‘And she went forth from the place’ stated in reference to Naomi and Ruth”.

His intent here is that the departure of Naomi together with Ruth effected that the “beauty, splendor, and majesty” departed. For Ruth was attached to her mother-in-law (despite her being the daughter of the king), and she went to convert. This had an effect on the people of the place. Therefore, through Naomi‘s departure with Ruth the “beauty, splendor, and majesty” departed.

(However, in his comment on Ruth, where the plain meaning of “And she went forth from the place” refers solely to Naomi, one should not say regarding her that she is “its beauty”.

(In a manner that engenders fear and bitul on the people).

For her departure from Eretz Yisroel, together with her husband, was not a desirable thing. It was conduct that is the opposite of the fear of G-d. Nevertheless, it is applicable to say that the merit of her good deeds protected and caused the effect of blessing in the place, in a manner that with her departure, the “splendor has departed; its majesty has departed; the praise (שבחה) of a city has departed”.)

7. From the homiletic style of Torah in Rashi's commentary (Yayina shel Torah):

It is known what the Or HaChaim states, namely that the verse,

“And Jacob left Beer Sheva, and he went to Charan”

is an allusion to the descent of the soul into the body. For “Beer Sheva” refers to the root of the soul, Above. And “Charan” refers to this world (“Charan” according to, “anger from G-d against the world”).

Specifically through the descent of the soul into the body, as it states “and he went to Charan”, can it ascend much higher than it was before its descent. This is like the maxim “descent - necessary for the purpose of ascent”.

Rashi, in his comment on “And Jacob left Beer Sheva”, alludes to an additional aspect. Namely,

“Scripture had only to write: “And Jacob went to Charan.” Why did it mention his departure (from Beer Sheva)?”

In other words:

The main innovation of the descent of the soul is in that which “he went to Charan”. In other words, the leaving of the soul to a place of “anger from G-d”, where there are concealments and cloakings (העלמות והסתרים) preventing the fulfillment of Torah and Mitzvot. Nevertheless, the soul overcomes all these concealments and cloakings - and engages in Torah and Mitzvot. Moreover, it has an extreme effect on the Animalistic Soul (נה"ב) and the body and its portion in the world, and makes an abode for G-d in the lower realms.

If so, there is a place to ask, why the verse also mention here the leaving from “Beer Sheva” (which is not the main test of the soul, and therefore, understood that its ascent is not due to it)?

To this, Rashi answers

“This tells (us) that the departure of a Tzaddik from a place makes an impression”

One could say that the allusion in this is to the descent of the soul below. For the essential “departure” from a condition of attachment to G-d (as it had before its descent below) “makes an impression”, in the positive sense (למעליותא) and has a great effect.

For when the Tzaddik is in the city – the city of G-d (עיר אלקינו)  (Note: a reference to Gan Eden) – it is “its beauty, its splendor, its majesty”. For the whole being of the soul is its enjoyment from the rays of the Shechinah (נהנית מזיו השכינה). In addition, it has love and fear from G-dliness. Therefore, through its leaving “G-d’s city”, “its beauty has departed, its splendor has departed, its majesty has departed”. In other words, the essential leaving of the soul from its root and source (“Beer Sheva”) is Mesirat Nefesh. Therefore, it “makes an impression”.

Since this is so, it is clear that in the merit of the leaving itself, each and every one of Yisroel is fitting that G-d will return him to his true place. As it states,

“And I return in peace to my father's house, and the L-rd will be my G-d etc.”.

With the true and complete Geulah through our righteous Moshiach, immediately and now, mamosh.

MSichas Shabbat Parshat Vayetze, 5725, 5748

Links:

Gutnick Chumash
 Date Delivered:   Reviewer:       
Date Modified:    Date Reviewed:  
Contributor: