English translation — ויחי ב

A.

The blessing that Yaakov Avinu blessed Binyamin

(in our parshah¹)

Is: Binyamin is a wolf that tears; in the morning he devours prey, and in the evening he divides the spoil.

Rashi explains "Binyamin is a wolf that tears" — "He is a wolf that tears,

he prophesied that they would in the future be snatchers, and you will snatch for yourselves each man his wife²

in the matter of the concubine at Gibeah,

and he prophesied about Shaul that he would be victorious over his enemies around, as it is said³

And Shaul seized the kingdom and fought⁴

against Moav and against Edom, etc., and wherever he turned he caused evil."

One must understand:

a)

Here it speaks about the <b>blessing</b> of our father Jacob to Benjamin

(and as <b>Rashi</b> himself says further⁵

that what "He gave ..

to Benjamin the snatching of a wolf" is a <b>blessing</b>).

It is perplexing⁶

: how does it fit to say,

that the blessing to Benjamin should consist in this "that they will in the future be snatchers

"And you seized for yourselves, each man his wife, with the concubine in Gibeah"?

In addition to this, that the very matter of "seizing"

(snatching something from another)

is not a desirable and good thing

(and especially in this matter — "and you seized for yourselves, each man his wife",

which according to Torah must be "for* a man takes a woman" — with her consent⁹,

and

(certainly)

not"^,

in a manner of "seizing")

— also the reason that led to "and you seized for yourselves, each man his wife" was an event

(the concubine in Gibeah)

which is the absolute opposite of good deeds!

b)

In the vast majority of the verses which Rashi brings as proof in his commentary on the Torah, he does not say on which occasion they were said; and in our matter: Rashi could have sufficed with saying "They are destined to be snatchers and you will snatch for yourselves each man his wife" — but he adds and emphasizes

(that this was)

d.

That Rashi teaches that "Binyamin is a wolf that tears" is a prophecy

(also)

about Shaul

(and his &lt;b&gt;victories&lt;/b&gt;)

— how does the &lt;b&gt;plain meaning&lt;/b&gt; of Scripture compel one to say that there is another interpretation

(that this includes)

the prophecy of an undesirable matter etc. "They are destined to be snatchers...

"in the Concubine at Gibeah"?

in the Concubine at Gibeah"?

e.

e)

And on the contrary — this comes as the first explanation¹³

and moreover — as the main matter,

as understood from the <b>repeating</b> of the word "niba"¹⁴.

b.

At first glance one could say that Rashi does not want to teach that "Binyamin is a wolf that tears" is a prophecy only about Shaul — since the further added

(and consequently — different in content from the preceding,

as most of the verses)

words "in the morning he will devour prey" speak about Shaul

(as Rashi explains: language of plunder and spoil ..

and about <b>Shaul</b> he says that he stood at the beginning of their morning and their rising of Israel),

therefore Rashi teaches that "Binyamin is a wolf that tears" is first and foremost

(first explanation)

and mainly that it is a different event.

It is, however, difficult¹⁵

: Either because of this — Rashi could have chosen another event and interpretation of "Binyamin is a wolf that preys",

For example — the interpretation of Targum¹⁶

that

"Binyamin is a wolf that preys" refers to the Holy Temple that was

(As <b>Rashi</b> brought earlier¹⁷

in his commentary)

in the portion of Binyamin

because

(As the Midrash¹⁸

explains there)

"Just as this wolf snatches, so did the altar snatch the offerings"]¹⁹.

The wonder is even greater: on the words "and in the evening he divides the spoil" Rashi indeed brings

(as a second explanation)

"And Onkelos translated on the spoil of the priests in the sanctities of the Temple" — and on "Benjamin is a wolf that tears" is

(not only that he does not bring the explanation of the Targum as the first explanation,

but)

he does not bring at all the explanation of the Targum

(even not as a second explanation&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;)

3.

Also one must understand:

א)

As mentioned earlier,

there are according to Rashi two details in the prophecy about Saul: "Binyamin is a wolf that tears"

— "that he will be victorious over his enemies around",

and "in the morning he will devour prey" — regarding the spoils and plunder²¹

that he received through his victories.

It is explained in the Midrash²²

the two details in the verse regarding Saul are interpreted,

but there it says: "What is this wolf that snatches, so Saul snatched the kingdom, as it is said³

And Saul captured the²³

kingdom over Israel,

In the morning he devours prey — and he fought³

against all his enemies around."

An explanation is required: Why did Rashi <b>change</b> from the interpretation of the Midrash and teach,

that <b>both</b> cases in the verse speak about one matter — the wars of Saul with his enemies

(only the first — about the victories,

and the second — about the spoils and plunder)?

b)

Rashi <b>omits</b> the a)

The first matter in the Midrash — the seizure of the kingdom,

b)

In addition that he is first in time•²³

— he is the cause that brought about and made possible the second matter,

the wars of Saul etc.

c)

It is not smooth at first glance,

that Rashi quotes the end of the verse "and in all that he turns he will condemn" — for at first glance,

The matter of the victory over his enemies around is already understood from the words "and he fought against Moab and against Edom <b>etc.</b>'"²⁴.

d)

And in particular, that the word “<b>yarshia</b>” — from the word rasha,

is generally <b>not</b> an expression of victory,

and on the contrary: in most places it means a matter opposite to the desired

(only in <b>this</b> verse is it an exception²⁵

and means “yanetzach”²⁶).

Why does Rashi cite an expression whose meaning here is an exception

(its plain meaning proves it).

e)

The difficulty is even greater — comparing Rashi with his source — the ending “and in all that etc.”,

is both in Bereishit Rabbah²⁷

and in Tanchuma²⁷

the ending is not brought!

4.

Further,

on the words "ולערב יחלק שלל",

Rashi explains: "Even after the sun of Israel sets through Nebuchadnezzar who exiled them to Babylon, Mordechai and Esther who are from Benjamin will divide the spoils of Haman, as it is said*&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;

Behold, I have given the house of Haman to Esther"

(And afterwards Rashi brings the explanation of the Targum&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;,

as above section 2).

One must understand:

a)

Why does Rashi repeat that the "spoils" came from &lt;b&gt;Haman&lt;/b&gt; — "Mordechai and Esther ..

will divide the spoils of Haman, as it is said, 'Behold, the house of Haman I have given to Esther'"; at first glance Rashi should have said in his manner &lt;b&gt;briefly&lt;/b&gt;

(and in accordance with the language of the verse "he will divide spoils")

: "Mordechai and Esther ..

will divide spoils, as it is said, 'Behold, the house of Haman I have given to Esther'"?

b)

Since Rashi wants to bring a proof that they took "spoils" 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 word &lt;b&gt;spoils&lt;/b&gt; is stated explicitly — "and their spoils for plunder"&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;.

3)

The question is not only from the language but also from the &lt;b&gt;content&lt;/b&gt; of the matter: spoils and plunder are relevant in &lt;b&gt;war&lt;/b&gt;

(and as Rashi brings here itself the matter of plunder from the wars of Saul).

And in our case: the giving of Haman's house was — according to the simple meaning of the text —

(in Nisan)

&lt;b&gt;before&lt;/b&gt; the nullification of Haman's decree,

and all the more so before the war

(which was in Adar that followed it).

4)

Spoils and plunder means that which one takes from the enemy,

but Haman's house Mordechai and Esther

(did not take

from the distress and enemy Haman,

only)

<b>received</b> from Achashverosh;

and furthermore³¹

: it is forced in the plain sense of Scripture that the "I gave" of the house of Haman was only after the "house of Haman" became the property of Achashverosh and Achashverosh gave it to him as the property of Achashverosh,

because,

as Rashi explains in the end of parshas Ki Teitzei,

one may not take from that which belongs to Amalek.

Mashma"b "their plunder for spoiling" is connected

(as explained in the Scroll of Esther)

with the victory of the Jews in their war with their enemies.

And af"p that in practice "in the spoils <b>not</b> they sent their hand"³²

— is nevertheless this itself emphasizing that there was spoils,

only "they did not send their hand".

And as Rashi³³

explains there³⁴

that the reason that "they did not send their hand" is <b>only</b> in order to demon- strate that "it was not done for the sake of money",

or so that the king should not have an "evil eye regarding money" — but lulei ze they would have done as Achashverosh commanded "and their plunder for spoiling"

(exactly as he said regarding the house of Haman "I have given").

e)

Even if you say that since the Jews did not actually take the spoils,

one cannot say that "&lt;b&gt;yechalek&lt;/b&gt; shalal" means "and their spoils to be plundered",

and therefore Rashi must say that it means the giving of Haman's house to Mordechai and Esther&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;

— is only a difficulty:

Why does Rashi bring the later verse "Behold, the house of Haman I have given to Esther",

and not the &lt;b&gt;earlier&lt;/b&gt; verse&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;

"On that day, King Achashverosh gave to Queen Esther the house of Haman"?

And in particular,

when

(a)

in the verse "On that day etc." the <b>main</b> account of the event is,

unlike "Behold, the house of Haman etc." is only what Achashverosh tells about his <b>previous</b> gift; and

(b)

in the verse "Behold, the house of Haman etc." only "Esther the queen" is mentioned

(unlike in the previous verse it says immediately after^"

"And Esther set <b>Mordechai</b> over the house of Haman"),

and Rashi himself emphasizes "Mordechai and Esther".

6)

The difficulty 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 specifically brings the verse "Behold, the house of Haman I have given to Esther"!

5.

And one can say the explanation of all this:

Rashi in his commentary is precise and emphasizes the wording of the verse "Binyamin <b>wolf</b> <b>will tear</b>",

that "will tear"

(in relation to a

<b>Wolf</b>³⁹)

Indicates not only the actual action of victory and taking,

But also that the wolf takes it in a manner of <b>snatching</b> the prey to eat⁴¹

And in the language of Scripture⁴²

"Until he eats prey"]

And regarding the blessing — that by Benjamin there will be a matter of "he will snatch" — <b>snatching</b>⁴⁵,

In the manner like a <b>wolf</b> <b>snatches</b> its prey because this is against the will of the one being snatched.

Based on this, it is understandable simply why Rashi cannot accept the explanation that "Binyamin is a wolf that tears" refers to the Beis HaMikdash,

to the altar

(which "snatches the sacrifices")

— because the sacrifices that the altar consumes are

(according to the simple meaning⁴⁴)

not a matter of "yitrof",

snatching,

a thing that one grabs from an "opponent".

And likewise that which Shaul "took hold of the kingdom over Israel" — this was not a matter

of "yitrof"⁴⁵

; he was from the outset

(chosen for this from above⁴⁶

and was)

anointed for kingship by Shmuel⁴⁷,

&lt;b&gt;and with the will&lt;/b&gt; of Israel⁴⁸,

and those who did not want to be called "sons of Belial"⁴⁹.

Based on this, it will also be understood why Rashi cannot be satisfied with the explanation "and he prophesied about Saul that he would be victorious over his enemies all around" — because in <b>that</b> there is no matter of "will tear."

Regarding the <b>spoils</b>,

which he took from his enemies,

it says there further in the verse — "In the morning he will devour prey",

and the victories themselves are not a matter of "prey"⁴³,

but merely war,

ordinary.

Therefore Rashi explains: "A wolf is he who will tear,

he prophesied that they would in the future be snatchers and you will snatch for yourselves each man his wife" — and Rashi adds and emphasizes "in the concubine at Gibeah",

which one can say,

that with this Rashi intends to indicate that this "future snatchers" is not only from the aspect of "and you will snatch for yourselves each man his wife"

(the snatching in actuality),

but also from the aspect of the entirety of the event:

The sin of "Pilegesh in Giv'ah" points to a most undesirable situation,

and to such an extent that because of this the other tribes had excluded the tribe of Benjamin

from the entirety of Israel.

And that the tribe of Benjamin was able to extricate itself from that lowly situation etc. most

(through proper repentance etc.⁵⁰)

— until to effect that the other tribes should <b>seek</b> a counsel how to bring back the tribe of Benjamin - this is a matter of "yitaref": the tribe of Benjamin had <b>itself</b> "snatched itself out" from the undesirable situation and transferred itself into the level of the tribes with which it had just now warred.

And based on this it is also understood the &lt;b&gt;blessing&lt;/b&gt; in that "they will be destined to snatch"&lt;sup&gt;51&lt;/sup&gt;

: by them there will be such a strength of soul and spiritual powers,

that even when they will find themselves in a most undesirable state,

they will have in themselves the power of "he will tear" and snatching — regarding themselves.

6.

Rashi, however, does not want to be satisfied with this,

because from the continuation of the language of the verse it is implied,

that "in the morning he will devour prey" comes in continuation to "Benjamin is a wolf that tears"

(that on the one hand,

through this "he will tear" is "he will devour prey").

Therefore Rashi teaches that "Binyamin is a wolf that tears" is <b>also</b> including the matter that Saul "will be victorious over his enemies around."

And in order to answer

(with difficulty?)

the connection of the <b>victories</b> of Saul to the matter of "tears"

(and the drop)

— is Rashi

Also copying the end of the verse "and in all that he turns &lt;b&gt;he will succeed&lt;/b&gt;":

That which the verse characterizes the victories of Saul with the word "yarshia" indicates a matter of "yitaraf" — that a word

(and consequently — the thing about which he speaks)

which in itself indicates the &lt;b&gt;opposite&lt;/b&gt; of good

(from the term &lt;b&gt;rasha&lt;/b&gt;)

is

(used)

said regarding a matter of good,

victory and success.

In other words: by Saul it is emphasized how he used the matter of "rasha"&lt;sup&gt;52&lt;/sup&gt;,

which was snatched for a matter of good&lt;sup&gt;53&lt;/sup&gt;

— to defeat the enemies of Israel.

7.

According to the above, one will also understand why Rashi explains that "to divide the spoil" speaks about "the house of Haman I gave to Esther"

(and not — "and their spoil for plunder")

Here it is not

(so)

the emphasis that one received "spoil"

("divide the spoil"),

but that the "spoil" came through "he will tear" — snatching from the opponent.

And since Haman was the primary opponent of Mordechai and Esther,

therefore Rashi emphasizes specifically the spoil that was taken from Haman,

for specifically in this is the main concept of "he will tear."

And one could say,

that in the manner as discussed earlier, that what Rashi emphasizes "in the concubine

in Gibeah" is in order to hint at the <b>totality</b> of the event

(which is in the manner of "he will tear prey",

as above)

— likewise is in this matter: that what Rashi emphasizes "they will divide the spoil of <b>Haman</b>" is in order to hint at the totality of the event,

which was a manner of "snatching": not looking at that which it was speaking about Haman,

whom Achashverosh had elevated over all the ministers⁵⁴

and by this power Haman brought such a decree upon the Jews,

it became the opposite,

until that "the house of Haman I gave to Esther".

And based on this, one will also understand why Rashi is precise to bring specifically this 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 happened,

the "transformation" to the utmost,

as Rashi there explains the verse — "And now all see that I desire

in you etc.",

the opposite of "Achashverosh magnified Haman."

Ch.

The explanation in this according to "the wine of Torah" in Rashi's commentary:

It is known the difference between the levels of Yosef and Binyamin,

that Yosef is called "Tzadik Elyon" and Binyamin — "Tzadik Tachton"⁵⁶.

And one of the distinctions between them is⁵⁷

: Tzadik

Elyon is his service in the manner from above to below — to draw down Elokus below; and by a Tzadik Tachton — elevation from below to above,

refinement of the lower and the elevation.

And therefore it is explained⁵⁸,

that the service of "righteous you shall cut down" is in the manner of the service of teshuvah,

because that is also the function of teshuvah — the war with the evil inclination,

until transforming and elevating the evil to good,

intentional sins become for him like merits⁵⁹.

And this is also the inner explanation in Jacob's blessing to Benjamin — "Benjamin is a wolf that tears⁶⁰

: the blessing on the service of teshuvah,

which is in the manner of "he tears" &lt;b&gt;and snatching&lt;/b&gt;.

Because 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 extracts the holy sparks which were in the domain of the husk and elevates them to holiness.

And this is also connected with a special spiritual strength of the baal teshuvah⁶²

that in order to

be able to "snatch" from an opponent it is connected with supernal might)

— because that which a baal teshuvah has the power to "snatch" the sparks from the domain of the kelipah,

is therefore⁶³

that the service of teshuvah is "with <b>supernal</b> strength"⁶⁴,

more than the service of the tzaddikim⁶⁵.

And likewise from the side of the drawing down in this from above: since through repentance one transforms <b>darkness</b> into light,

the <b>advantage</b> of light from darkness becomes,

and this drawing down is called "toref",

as the Tzemach Tzedek⁶⁶

explains this as "shturef⁶⁷

the animal soul ..

and through this he tears and draws down from the level that is above the chain of descent"⁶⁸.

9.

With this is also understood the reason — in the inwardness of the matters — that Rashi explains and interprets the blessing of "Binyamin is a wolf that tears",

that this means "they are destined to be plunderers ..

in the concubine at Givah",

because specifically in this was expressed the superiority of repentance to the ultimate,

that they could transform into holiness even such a matter that was connected with the concubine at Givah and caused by the people.

And therefore from this came out the matter of "and you shall seize for yourselves each man his wife"

: Since the service of teshuvah is not a power greater — therefore it was not with them a manner of "Tamidim as their order",

an ordered service,

but specifically in a manner of "when in a manner of 'for a man takes a wife'"

(as it is according to and in the regular order),

but specifically in the manner of "and you shall seize for yourselves".

which this is the matter of teshuvah,

that from the wicked itself

(sins)

is brought about the victory of

holiness

(merits)⁷⁰.

And likewise he is precise regarding Mordechai and Esther,

that "they will divide the spoils of &lt;b&gt;Haman&lt;/b&gt;",

until in a manner of "Behold, the house of Haman I have given to Esther" — the emphasis &lt;b&gt;in the transformation&lt;/b&gt; of darkness to light specifically,

and as above sec. 67].

Yud.

And here one sees a wondrous matter:

The verse "Binyamin Ze'ev yitrof" is the beginning of "Shishi"⁷¹,

and the conclusion of Shishi is with the verse that Yosef said to his brothers: "Al tira'u ..

Ve'atem chashavtem alai ra'ah Elokim chashvah letovah lema'an gur lehachayot am rav"⁷².

Which superficially is not understandable:

A)

Joseph was thereby outside to <b>comfort</b> his brothers and assure them that they should not be distressed

(and be afraid)

from this that they sold him — how does it fit thereby to remind them that "and you intended evil against me",

which brings out their evil thought⁷³?

Joseph should have spoken only about the <b>good</b> side: "Do not fear... God intended it for good...".

B)

Why did Joseph use the expression "to preserve a <b>great</b> people"?

— Rashi is there earlier⁷⁴

explains the difference between Jacob and Esau,

that Jacob says "I have

etc."⁷⁴

and <b>Esav</b> says "I have much"^5,

; would it not be more fitting the expression "to give life to <b>all</b> the people"

(and the like).

But here one sees the "interweaving of their beginning in their end" — just as in the <b>beginning</b> of the sixth [portion] the virtue that comes out through repentance is emphasized,

that darkness is transformed into light,

that specifically through this comes the advantage of light from darkness — so too is the emphasis at the end of the sixth [portion]:

Yosef explained,

how the evil thought itself was transformed into good,

that from "you intended evil against me" became "<b>to give life</b>".

How can an evil thought be transformed into good?

The reason is because⁷⁶

"<b>God</b>⁷⁷

intended it for good": the "evil" in the intention is only from the human side⁷⁸,

but the supernal intention

("God intended it")

is "for good",

that from the evil should come forth a good.

Why must one have that the "good" should come out specifically from an opposite matter — the verse continues: "to revive a &lt;b&gt;great&lt;/b&gt; people": the sparks that are found in the shells have a high root,

in the language of Chassidus — their root is from the world of Tohu where there are "&lt;b&gt;abundant&lt;/b&gt; lights"; and through the fact that one refines the sparks and takes them out of the shell,

becomes the "&lt;b&gt;advantage&lt;/b&gt; of the light" — "&lt;b&gt;abundant&lt;/b&gt; lights" "to revive a people

&lt;b&gt;great&lt;/b&gt;",

that one receives "life" in a manner of "great"&lt;sup&gt;79.&lt;/sup&gt;

In the example as discussed earlier,

that specifically in the service of teshuvah there is the superiority of "with very great strength"⁸⁰.

Yes.

The service in a manner of "Binyamin is a ravenous wolf" has a special connection to our time:

It is known the saying of the Rebbe

(the Rebbe Rashab)

of blessed memory⁸¹,

that "for the present it is the time of the very last clarifications of the footsteps of Mashiach",

therefore one does not wait for an order in the manner of the clarifications,

rather it must be in a manner of "<b>snatch</b> and eat, <b>snatch</b> and drink"⁸²

When there is a situation of such darkness,

one must <b>snatch</b> with great effort from the darkness and transform it to light.

And through the service in a manner of "snatch and eat, snatch and drink" — one merits the redemption in a manner of "will tear"

(snatching <b>with speed</b>⁸⁴)

— "I will hasten it"⁸⁵,

<b>and speedily</b> in our days, literally.

And the sicha of the day and Shabbos Kodesh Parshas Vayechi and Asara B'Teves)

5744)