English translation — ויצא א

Sicha 1<pg>119</pg>

A.

In the beginning of our parshah,

at the start of the account of Jacob's journey to Haran,

it is said "And Jacob departed from Beersheba etc.'"

And in explanation of the word "and he departed"

(and not "and he went" — as in the previous parshah's conclusion

(twice))

Rashi explained<sup>1</sup>

"

(It should not have written anything but "and Jacob went to Haran," and why does it mention his departure? Rather)

it tells that the departure of a righteous person from a place makes an impression,

that at the time when the righteous person is in the city, he is its splendor, he is its radiance, he is its beauty,

he departed from there, its splendor departed, its radiance departed, its beauty departed,

and similarly "and she departed from the place" said of Naomi and Ruth"<sup>2</sup>.

And the source of this explanation is in Bereishis Rabbah on the verse<sup>3</sup>,

and its language: "When the righteous man is in the city, he is its glory, he is its splendor; [when] he left from there, the glory left, the splendor left,

and similarly 'And she left from the place where she was, etc.,

And she left — did not [he] leave from the place but she?..

When the righteous man is in the city, he is its glory, he is its splendor; [when] he left from there, the glory left, the splendor left,

It is understandable that there there was not there but that righteous woman alone, but here where Yitzchak and Rivkah were,

Rabbi Azariah in the name of Rabbi Simon said: The merit of one righteous man is not comparable to the merit of two righteous men."

And it requires examination,

why did Rashi not descend to ask and resolve that which is stated in the Midrash on this,

that although the case is not comparable to the proof,

that here Yitzchak and Rivkah remained in the place from which Yaakov left,

unlike by Naomi, where not even one righteous man remained there — that the merit of three<sup>4</sup>

righteous men is not comparable to the merit of two righteous men.

— For the question and the resolution are also according to the plain meaning.

And it is very forced to explain that Rashi holds that the place of dwelling of Isaac and Rebecca at that time was in the city of Hebron

(And see what is said in the Midrash there<sup>5</sup>

before this "Already it is written<sup>6</sup>

And he heard

(Jacob)

to his father and to his mother,

And what does it teach, "And Jacob departed from Beer-sheba,"

Rather he said,

Father, at the time he wanted to go out to the diaspora, where was he permitted? From Beer-sheba. Even I, I am going to Beer-sheba; if he gives me permission, I go out, and if not, I do not go out. Therefore the verse needs to say "And Jacob departed from Beer-sheba").

And therefore Rashi did not descend to explain that the merit of one righteous person is not comparable etc.,

because since Isaac and Rebecca were then dwelling in Hebron,

and Jacob's departure was "from Beer-sheba,"

behold, not even one righteous person remained in the city

(exactly like regarding Naomi and Ruth),

and the aforementioned Midrash

(the source of this Rashi)

holds that Isaac was then living in Beer-sheba, and therefore it needs to be explained that it is not comparable etc.<sup>7</sup>

—

For<sup>8</sup>

in the plain sense of the verse it is explained only<pg>120</pg>

“And he went up

[Isaac]

from there Beer-sheba”⁹

And it is not mentioned that Isaac went from Beer-sheba to Hebron¹⁰].

2.

At first glance, one could say that according to Rashi’s commentary there is no room for this question,

for Rashi adds to the language of the midrash at the beginning of his commentary,

and writes “This tells that the departure of a righteous person from a place makes an impression,”

that one can explain his intention in this,

that although generally the departure of the righteous person from the city causes the removal of the splendor and radiance and glory of the city

(which is not a matter of making an “impression” alone),

nevertheless,

in our case,

in Jacob’s departure from Beer-sheba,

this departure made

(only)

an impression,

because Isaac and Rebecca were there.

But not smooth

(part)

To explain thus the intention of Rashi,

since he writes "indicating that the departure of a tzaddik from the place makes an impression

(and continues in one breath)

that when the tzaddik is in the city etc.'",

And according to the above it would be more fitting to say "indicating that Yaakov's departure made an impression",

and afterwards to continue in a general language

(regarding tzaddikim in general)

"that when the tzaddik is in the city etc.'".

And it implies,

that also what Rashi said "that the departure of a tzaddik from the place makes an impression" was said not only about Yaakov but it is also when no other tzaddik remains in the city

(as by Naomi)

[And the reason that he writes the language "makes an impression" — is to be explained,

for splendor, radiance, and beauty are only a matter of "impression" relative to the essence of the city's existence].

3.

And behold, the content of this explanation Rashi brought also in his commentary on Ruth there,

And his language is "it tells that the departure of a righteous person from the place is noticeable and makes an impression: the splendor left, the radiance left, the glory left, the praise of the city; and likewise 'And Jacob left from Be'er Sheva'."

And it is puzzling: why here in the commentary on the Torah did Rashi need to repeat "when the righteous person is in the city, he is its glory, he is its radiance, he is its splendor,

he left from there, its glory left etc.",

and he did not write concisely

(as in the commentary on Ruth)

that through the departure of a righteous person from the place, its splendor left etc.¹¹.

And we need to explain that there is a difference in content between Rashi's commentary in our parshah and his commentary in Ruth,

here

(in our parshah)

that Rashi prefaces "that when the righteous man is in the city, he is its glory, he is its splendor, he is its beauty"

(and afterwards continues "he left from there, the glory departed etc.")

its meaning is that the innovation is in the positive,

that the righteous man is all the glory and splendor and beauty of the city

(and in a manner of consequence that by his leaving from there "the glory departed etc.")

; but not so in Ruth, where there he wrote only the negative,

that by "the departure of a righteous man..

the splendor departed, the beauty departed",

behold it is not emphasized that the presence of the righteous man in the city effects a fundamental change in the city until it is the glory etc. of the city,

and only that the departure causes a lack in the city.

And for this reason there Rashi writes "is noticeable and makes an impression",

but not so in our parshah he wrote only "makes an impression" — because there there is no emphasis that the righteous man is the splendor and beauty of the city but rather that his departure is only noticeable and makes an impression,

but not so in our parshah his intention is to emphasize that this that the righteous man is in the city is the glory of the place etc.

And according to this we can say that his intention in the language "makes an impression" is that this is more than "is noticeable",

but rather that the face of the city changed completely

(but not so the language "makes an impression" in Rashi Ruth there,

which comes in continuation of the language "is noticeable",

it is

(in the manner of the above section 2)

only to exclude the force of the matter).

And he seeks an explanation — what is the reason for the difference between his commentary here and his commentary in Ruth.

<pg>121</pg>

4.

And this will be understood by prefacing the explanation of the definition of the influence of the tzaddik on the city in Rashi's commentary,

that also in this he changed from the language of the midrash,

that in the midrash it states "that when the tzaddik is in the city, he is its splendor, he is its glory; he left from there, the splendor departed, the glory departed"<sup>12</sup>,

and in Rashi he also adds "he is its majesty",

and moreover he precedes "majesty"<sup>13</sup>

before "splendor" and "glory"<sup>14</sup>

(and likewise in Rashi on Ruth before us the word "the majesty departed" is not present<sup>15</sup>).

And behold, in the explanation of these words, the interpretations are many<sup>16</sup>,

but since Rashi,

explains to a student of five years for Scripture,

did not explain and detail the explanation of these words,

it must be said that he holds that it is understood from the languages of the verses in the Torah itself — and in order,

from the later to the earlier:

Hadar: the language "hadar" is explained in the verse — "And you shall honor the face of an elder"<sup>17</sup>,

whose explanation is — simply — a language of honor<sup>18</sup>.

And similarly in our case,

that "when the righteous is in the city..

he is its glory",

for the honor of the city is that it has important and precious things,

and when a righteous person is found in the city, the city becomes honored thereby,

a city in which a righteous person dwells.

Zivah: "Ziv" is like "the ziv of the sun,"

which means — from the term light,

except that it is not the light itself,

but only a radiance and illumination that extends from it to illuminate the world.

And likewise in our subject,

that "when the tzaddik is in the city..

he is its ziv,"

for through his good conduct and his good deeds,

he radiates light and radiance upon all the people of the city,

and they learn from his deeds etc.

Hodah: also "Hod" is from the term light

(like ziv),

as we find regarding "the rays of hod of Moshe"¹⁹,

and in the language of the verse²⁰

"and place from your hod upon him,"

"this is the shining of the skin of the face"²¹

("the face of Moshe like the sun,

the face of Yehoshua like the moon"²¹),

except that in "hod" there is an additional matter relative to "ziv" — that "the skin of his face shone" caused that "they were afraid to approach him"²²,

from which it is understood,

that "hod" is not mere "ziv,"

but light that causes awe and fear.

[And it is understood also simply: the radiance of the sun and the radiance of the moon do not produce a feeling of awe and fear,

and on the contrary — they enjoy their light,

whereas the rays of majesty of Moshe — caused that they feared to approach him].

And likewise in our subject,

that "when the tzaddik is in the city, he is its majesty" — that in addition to the "radiance" that he radiates upon the people of the place to influence their conduct,

there is also a matter of "majesty",

that he radiates a light such that it produces upon the people of the city a feeling of self-nullification and awe²³.

However, all this is according to Rashi,

who explains according to the plain sense of the matter,

that "he admitted..

her radiance..

<pg>122</pg>

the "splendor" of the city, that is, its influence and its effect on the inhabitants of the city

(and therefore Rashi begins with "splendor" as above)

;

But according to the Midrash,

that the tzaddik brings about in the city "splendor and glory"

("He is its splendor, He is its glory")

does not refer to the action and change in the conduct of the people of the city,

but rather to the merit of the tzaddik — as it concludes there "the merit of a tzaddik is not comparable, etc." — and this is that the tzaddik protects the city²⁴,

and also that through the merit of the tzaddik there are good influences and blessing and the like²⁵.

5.

And based on this the difference between the words of the Midrash and the words of Rashi is resolved: According to Rashi's commentary the discussion is about the influence and action of the tzaddik on the conduct of the people of the city and their deeds,

therefore there is no need to explain that Yitzchak and Rivkah remained — for it is explicit in Rashi's commentary on the continuation of the verses here regarding Yitzchak "that his eyes were dimmed and he was confined to the house and he is like a dead person"²⁶,

and since Yitzchak was "confined to the house",

he did not come into contact with the people of the city to bring about a change in their conduct,

to radiate upon them from his light and his splendor and the like

(even though it is understood that his merit protects the city).

[And regarding Rivkah,

behold, in addition to the general matter of "all the honor of a king's daughter is within"²⁷,

it may be said that she needed to be in the domain of Yitzchak,

for the entire time,

since "his eyes had dimmed",

in order to serve him and assist him etc.

(for simply, Rivkah did this²⁸)].

But not so when it comes to protection of the city or the influences of good and blessing,

behold, when Yitzchak is within the city,

even in a state of "confined to the house",

he influences the city,

and moreover,

since he is in a state of "his eyes had dimmed and he is confined to the house and he is like a dead person and the evil inclination ceased from him" — "the Holy One, blessed be He, attached His name to Yitzchak"²⁹

("although we do not find in Scripture that He attached His name to righteous people in their lifetimes to write 'the God of so-and-so'"²⁹)

— behold, it is obvious that Yitzchak's merit is greatly increased to bring protection and all good influence to the city in which he dwells.

6.

Based on all the above, one must explain the difference between Rashi in our parshah and Rashi in Ruth:

In his commentary on Ruth "It indicates that the departure of a righteous person from a place is noticeable and makes an impression,

its radiance departed, its beauty departed, its praise of the city departed",

the intention is primarily about the protection and influence in the city

(in the manner of the interpretation of the midrash here),

and therefore Rashi did not preface there "its splendor departed",

and on the other hand he adds "

(departed)

the praise of the city",

by which he emphasizes that it is not discussing

(so much)

the action and influence on the conduct of the city's inhabitants,

but rather the "praise" of the city,

that by the departure of a righteous person the praise of the city departed.

Not so in our parshah, Rashi's intention

(as above)

to the influence of the tzaddik on the conduct and deeds of the people of the city,

and this is what he concludes here "and likewise 'and she went out from the place' said of Naomi and Ruth",

and his intention here is to this,

that the going out of Naomi together with<pg>123</pg>

Ruth caused that "her radiance returned..

her splendor..

her beauty",

for Ruth cleaved to her mother-in-law

(even though she was the daughter of a king³⁰)

and went to convert³¹,

and this thing influenced the people of the place,

therefore through the going out of Naomi with Ruth³¹

"her radiance and splendor and beauty returned".

[But in his commentary on Ruth,

that the plain meaning of the verse "and she went out from the place" refers to Naomi,

one cannot say regarding her "he acknowledged etc."

(in a manner of action and nullification before the people of the place)³²,

since her departure from the Land of Israel together with her husband was not a desirable thing,

and it was conduct contrary to fear of Heaven.

But nevertheless it is possible to say that the merit of her good deeds protected and caused an influence of blessing in the place,

in a manner that in her departure her splendor, glory, and praise of the city departed].

7.

The essence of the Torah³³

in Rashi's commentary:

It is known what is said in Or HaChaim

that the verse "And Jacob went out from Beersheba and went to Charan" is a hint to the descent of the soul into the body

for "Beersheba" refers to the root of the soul above,

and "Charan" refers to this world

("Charan" on account of "the fierce anger of the Place

(in the world)

").

And specifically through the descent of the soul into the body,

"and he went to Charan",

it is elevated to a level higher than it was before its descent

according to the principle "a descent for the purpose of ascent".

And Rashi hints in his commentary on "And Jacob went out from Beersheba"

an additional matter in this — "It should not have needed to write except 'And Jacob went to Charan', and why does it mention his going out

(from Beersheba)

",

that is to say: the main novelty in the descent of the soul is in this that "and he went to Charan",

the going of the soul to a place of "the fierce anger of the Place",

where there are concealments and coverings regarding the fulfillment of the Torah and the commandments,

and nevertheless it overcomes all these concealments and coverings and engages in Torah and commandments,

and moreover,

it effects the refinement of the animal soul and the body and its portion in the world and makes a dwelling for Him, blessed be He, in the lower realms

— and if so, there is room to ask why does the verse mention here also his going out from Beersheba

(for this is not the main trial of the soul,

and consequently it is understood that it is not because of this that its elevation occurs).

And on this Rashi explains — "it tells that the departure of a righteous person from the place makes an impression",

one can say the hint in this regarding the matter of the descent of the soul below,

that the essence of the "departure" from a state of attachment to the Holy One, blessed be He,

(in which it was before its descent below)

"makes an impression" for superiority and a great effect.

&lt;pg&gt;124&lt;/pg&gt;

For since when the righteous person is in the city — "the city of our God" — "he is its splendor, he is its radiance, he is its glory",

that the entire existence of the soul is that it enjoys the radiance of the Divine Presence&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;

and it has love and awe of G‑dliness,

and through its departure from "the city of our God",

"its splendor departs, its radiance departs, its glory departs"&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;

— behold, that the very departure of the soul from its root and its source

("Be'er Sheva")

is self-sacrifice and therefore "makes an impression"&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;.

And since this is so,

it is clear that in the merit of the departure itself,

each and every Jew is worthy that the Holy One, blessed be He, return him to his true place,

"And I return in peace to my father's house, and the Lord will be my God etc."⁴³,

in the true and complete redemption through our righteous Mashiach,

immediately, right now.

(From sichot of Shabbat Parshat Vayetzei 5725,

5748)