English translation — וישלח ג

Sicha 3<pg>150</pg>

A.

"And Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she bore to Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land"<sup>1</sup>,

And in Rashi "the daughter of Leah — and not the daughter of Jacob,

but because of her going out she is called the daughter of Leah, for she too was a goer-out, as it is stated<sup>2</sup>

And Leah went out to meet him"

(And some versions read at the end of his commentary<sup>3</sup>

— "And about her they applied the proverb: Like mother, like daughter"<sup>4</sup>).

And at first glance it is necessary to understand,

why did Rashi take,

whose commentary is according to the simple meaning,

this explanation,

whose content is that the verse came to speak disparagingly of Leah — and even about an unclean animal the verse did not speak disparagingly<sup>5</sup>,

and Rashi already explained<sup>6</sup>

"The memory of the righteous is for a blessing"<sup>7</sup>.

And one cannot say that Rashi's intention is to minimize the disparagement of Dinah

(and similar to a merit-finding on her behalf),

that her going out was not through her fault,

but rather because she was "the daughter of Leah" who was also a goer-out,

that there is no place to find merit for the daughter through publicizing the disparagement of Leah.

[And if in order to settle the change and repetition of language of the verse "And Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she bore to Jacob, went out",

and not briefly "the daughter of Jacob",

behold it is possible to say according to Rashi above

(in Parshat Vayeitzei<sup>8</sup>)

that the birth of Dinah was through the prayer of Leah<sup>9</sup>,

that "Leah judged the matter in herself: if this is a male, Rachel my sister will not be like one of the maidservants, and she prayed about him and he was turned into a female"<sup>10</sup>].

And even more difficult: behold, Leah's going out to meet Jacob did not have in it anything undesirable,

and on the contrary,

it is explicit in Rashi<sup>11</sup>

"And God heard Leah — that she was desiring and seeking to increase the tribes"<sup>12</sup>

— and it is not possible to say that this going out is a deficiency and is considered "going out".

And therefore it seems to me,

that the intention of Rashi,

that in this that Dinah is called here "the daughter of Leah",

the verse informs us,

that just as it is simple

(in the simple meaning of Scripture)

that the going out of Leah was a good thing,

so was the going out of Dinah in itself a desirable thing¹³

(as will be explained later)

[Therefore Rashi did not bring the words of the Midrash¹⁴

on the verse here,

where there is explicitly the opposite of the modesty of Dinah and Leah],

and Rashi does not need to explain what good thing there is in the going out of Dinah,

because it is understood from Rashi's commentary earlier.

2.

And the explanation of this:<pg>151</pg>

Rashi already explained above in our parshah regarding this matter¹⁵

"And he took..

And his eleven children" — "And where was Dinah,

He placed her in a chest and locked it before her so that Esau would not set his eyes on her, and therefore Jacob was punished for having withheld her from his brother, perhaps she would bring him back to the good, and she fell into the hands of Shechem."

And at first glance it is perplexing: How could Jacob place Dinah in danger that Esau would take her on the chance "perhaps she would bring him back to the good,"

And even more, that because of this, that he did not let Esau see her, Jacob was punished with such a severe punishment "that she fell into the hands of Shechem"?

And therefore it seems to me,

that: a)

The virtue of Dinah was so great,

that she had the power to bring the wicked Esau back to the good.

b)

Bringing back a wicked person¹⁶

to the good has such great virtue,

that it was worthwhile to involve Dinah in this,

even on the uncertainty "perhaps she will bring him back to the good".

[And furthermore: from this that Yaakov was punished for this it seems to me,

that this is not in the category of uncertainty,

but rather it is clear that she will bring him back to the good,

and what Rashi said "perhaps she will bring him back to the good" is according to Yaakov's view — that Yaakov cannot determine with certainty that she will bring him back to the good,

because ultimately the matter depends on Esau's choice].

And according to Rashi's explanation this, it can be said,

that also Rashi's intention here is in the manner of the going out of Dinah,

is for the positive¹⁷,

that since it was in the power of Dinah to bring back to the good even Esau the wicked,

it is understood that this that "and Dinah went out etc. to see the daughters of the land",

was not, heaven forbid, a going out that is the opposite of modesty,

but rather on the contrary,

"to see the daughters of the land",

in order to bring them back to the good.

And this is what Rashi said "because of her going out she is called the daughter of Leah that she too was a goer-out",

that this good quality of Dinah,

that it was in her ability to go out to see the daughters of the land and bring them back to the good,

came to her from her mother,

that she too was such a goer-out¹⁸.

And this is what Rashi emphasizes "the daughter of Leah and not the daughter of Jacob",

for this matter Dinah inherited and received from Leah,

but not from the side of Jacob,

on the contrary,

he hid her from Esau and prevented her from actions of this type,

to the extent that Jacob was punished for this

(as above).

3.

And it is puzzling in this,

for superficially the going out of Dinah is not comparable to the going out of Leah,

for the going out of Leah was because "she was desiring and seeking to increase the tribes",

namely that through her the tribes would be born to Jacob,

whereas the content of Dinah's going out was to rectify the daughters of the land,

and what is the connection of the ability to bring back to good the wicked Esau and the daughters of the land,

to the going out of Leah whose matter was the birth of the tribes?

&lt;pg&gt;152&lt;/pg&gt;

And in particular that it is explained in Rashi above on the verse¹⁹

"And Leah's eyes were tender",

"she thought she would fall into the lot of Esau and she wept because everyone said two sons for Rivka and two daughters for Lavan the elder to the elder and the younger to the younger"²⁰,

That is, she did not want to fall into the lot of Esau,

even though by this she could return him to the good²¹.

And the explanation of this — according to the inner aspect of the matters:

Even though all three Patriarchs,

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,

are called by the name "Patriarchs"

(as our Rabbis of blessed memory said: "We do not call 'Patriarchs' except for the three"²²),

because the attributes of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob passed by inheritance to every Jewish person²³,

nevertheless,

there is an advantage in the lineage of all Israel to Jacob our father regarding the lineage to Abraham and Isaac.

For because only Jacob had "his bed complete"²⁴

(unlike Abraham from whom Ishmael came forth and Isaac from whom Esau came forth²⁴),

it is understood,

that he is the main "Patriarch" of the people of Israel,

the "collective" of all the Children of Israel until the end of all generations

(and in the language of our master, the Alter Rebbe²⁵,

that the soul of Jacob was "inclusive of all the souls in Israel"),

therefore "this nation" is called by the name "People of Israel"

(the name of Jacob).

And behold, even though all the divisions of levels in Israel have their root from the Patriarchs,

as they are in Jacob they are in the category of "collective",

and the divisions in Israel were revealed in actuality through the sons of Jacob,

the twelve tribes,

which correspond to the twelve modes and divisions of service that exist in Israel²³.

And one can say,

that the distinctions of levels in the service of the tribes,

the revelation of their source from Yaakov,

is through the matriarchs,

Rachel and Leah

(Bilhah and Zilpah),

who built the house of Israel²⁶

[And this is in accordance with the difference between the part of the father and the part of the mother in the offspring that is born,

that the existence of the son comes from the drop of the father²⁷,

and the division of the offspring into particular forms comes through its stay of nine months in the womb of the mother²⁸].

And therefore we find that the naming of the tribes,

that each name has its own meaning and explanation that indicates the particular characteristic of the bearer of the name,

was done specifically by the matriarchs Rachel and Leah,

and not by Yaakov,

as explained elsewhere²⁹.

4.

And behold, although in particular there are twelve tribes, which are twelve paths and ways in the service of G-d,

in general, however, they are divided into two modes of service — tzaddikim and baalei teshuvah

[as is known that the service of teshuvah is not only for one who sinned and blemished and transgressed the path,

but it is a unique order in the service of G-d,

and pertains also to tzaddikim&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;]

: the service of tzaddikim is in the realm of holiness,

in the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvos,

whereas the service of teshuvah indicates the work of transforming evil into good,

and in a more general sense,

to elevate the profane to the holy.

And this is the difference between the service of the children of Leah and the service of the children of Rachel,

and as understood from what is said in the Zohar&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;

regarding the reason that the main foundation of the altar was in the portion of&lt;pg&gt;153&lt;/pg&gt;

Benjamin specifically and not in the portion of Judah³²,

even though Judah is "higher than all the tribes",

because Benjamin was a tzaddik,

but not so Judah,

who was from the children of Leah who "and they hated him"³³

and participated in the sin of the selling of Joseph,

behold even though he did teshuvah,

the foundation of the altar does not stand in the portion of a baal teshuvah but in the portion of Benjamin who was a tzaddik³⁴.

And from this it is understood,

that

(the ten³⁵)

tribes that participated in the selling of Joseph,

even though they did teshuvah,

are not on the level of Joseph and Benjamin,

the sons of Rachel,

who are specifically on the level of a tzaddik from the outset³⁶.

And perhaps one could say,

that the foundation of the distinction between the service of the tribes,

that the children of Leah their matter is

(primarily)

the service of teshuvah³⁷

and Joseph³⁸

and Benjamin the service of the tzaddikim,

its root is in the matriarchs,

that Leah is connected to the service of baalei teshuvah³⁹

and Rachel to the service of the tzaddikim⁴⁰.

And based on this, we can explain what is said, "And Leah's eyes were tender, and Rachel was beautiful of form and beautiful of appearance": Rachel alludes to the service of the righteous,

a righteous person from the beginning,

"beautiful of form and beautiful of appearance,"

without blemish or defect

[for "form" is&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;

the drawn image of the limbs, that each limb is according to what is proper for it in its necessary form..

and "appearance" is&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;

the radiance of the facial features, etc.',

which refers to the perfection in the 248 positive commandments,

called the 248 limbs of the King,

and the 365 negative commandments corresponding to the 365 sinews that relate to the illumination of the face&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;]

; and Leah alludes to the service of repentance,

which is the matter of Leah's weeping,

"And Leah's eyes were tender,"

for weeping is connected with the service of repentance.

And behold, regarding Jacob it is said&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;

"And Jacob loved Rachel,"

for from Jacob's perspective, the primary service is the service of the righteous,

as it is said, "And Jacob was a simple man, dwelling in tents"&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;,

the service in "face" within the realm of holiness itself&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt;,

and not to go outside to elevate the external into holiness.

And this is the inner explanation in the words of our Rabbis, may their memory be for a blessing, "that everyone was saying, 'Two sons to Rivkah and two daughters to Lavan,

the older one for the older one and the younger one for the younger one',"

that from the aspect of the service of Leah, which is the aspect of the service of penitents,

behold she is connected⁴⁵

to bring Esau back to the good,

but not so Rachel, whose matter is the service of the righteous⁴⁶.

<pg>154</pg>

And this is what Rashi said, "Because of her going out she was called 'the daughter of Leah,'

for she too was a goer-out, as it is said, 'And Leah went out to meet him,'"

and this is because this trait of Dinah to act outside,

came to her as an inheritance from Leah,

since she is "the daughter of Leah,"

whose inner content of her service is outside,

to transform the evil that is outside into good.

But as this matter is in its source,

it is not so revealed,

and therefore Leah did not want to fall into the hand of Esau,

but not so when it comes in detail and division among the tribes,

then the content of this service of departure is revealed,

the service of making a baal teshuvah.

5.

And one may add,

that although in practice there was a mishap with Dinah,

nevertheless the reason for this is as Rashi explains

(as above)

because this was a punishment to Jacob for having withheld her from his brother,

from this itself it is understood that her departure is not an undesirable act,

for it was with intention for the sake of Heaven to bring them back to the right path.

And perhaps one could say,

that this thing — that the going out was in order to bring them back to the good and it is a good thing — was expressed in this,

that there was fulfilled something of the purpose of Dinah's going out to bring them back to the good,

for the sons of Jacob acted upon the people of Shechem that they should circumcise every male⁴⁷,

which is a matter of conversion⁴⁸

which was customary in those days in order to enter the family of Abraham,

and it is understood simply,

that this entry was not only regarding the men but also regarding the "daughters of the land",

the women and the daughters,

as is explicit in the verse⁴⁹

"In this we will consent to you etc. to be circumcised etc. and your daughters we will take for ourselves etc."

That is: even though in practice the people of Shechem were liable to death because of their sin⁵⁰,

and therefore they were killed by Shimon and Levi,

the brothers of Dinah,

nevertheless,

so that the will of that righteous woman,

"Dinah the daughter of Leah",

should be fulfilled in part at least,

behold before their killing they were circumcised⁵¹,

which is the sign of the covenant with the family of Abraham.

Moreover: the daughters of Shechem — to whom Dinah went out to bring them back to the right path — were taken captive by the sons of Jacob⁵²,

And simply, they became maidservants in the house of the sons of Jacob.

6.

And from here — a lesson for the women of Israel:

Even though "all the glory of the king's daughter is within"&lt;sup&gt;53&lt;/sup&gt;,

and women are called "the mainstay of the house"&lt;sup&gt;54&lt;/sup&gt;,

because their primary role is to build a home in Israel,

for which they need to remain in the "inside",

"within" specifically — nevertheless, those women who are graced with special qualities with which they can influence also on the outside,

upon them to utilize this quality in a manner of modesty for the sake of heaven,

to draw hearts close to the service of G-d and to bring back the daughters of Israel who are in the "outside" to the right path.

And even though it is understood and simple,

that this endeavor must be fitting for a daughter of Israel in a manner&lt;pg&gt;155&lt;/pg&gt;

Modest,

And yet when she goes out in the “outside” it must be evident upon her that “all the glory of the king’s daughter is within,”

Nevertheless,

Together with utmost caution of walking within the boundaries of modesty,

They must bring back to the right path the straying daughters of Israel.

And on the contrary,

The nature of closeness and softness of women helps them succeed in drawing hearts to the service of G‑d even more than men,

As we see tangibly,

That when one persuades the other to draw near to the Torah of G‑d and His service in pleasant ways and ways of peace,

There is much more success

(And the action is more internal and has more permanence)

Than through action by means of arguments and war etc.

(As is the nature of men,

That “a man⁵⁵

his way is to conquer”).

And since the Holy One, blessed be He, created women with this nature,

it is understood that they must utilize it to its fullest,

not only in the management of the home,

but also in influencing outside,

to bring the daughters of Israel closer to their Father in heaven⁵⁶.

(From talks of Shabbos Parshas Vayishlach and Shabbos Parshas Vayeishev 5746)