English translation — ויחי ג

Talk 3<pg>223</pg>

A.

It is stated in the Gemara<sup>1</sup>

: "Rav Nachman and Rav Yitzchak were sitting at a meal,

Rav Nachman said to Rav Yitzchak: Let the master say something,

He said to him: Thus said Rabbi Yochanan: One does not converse during a meal, lest the windpipe precede the esophagus and he come to danger

(When the voice comes out, that lid which is on top of the windpipe opens, and the food enters it, and he is endangered..

Food and drink go through the esophagus<sup>2</sup>),

After he had eaten<sup>3</sup>

He said to him: Thus said Rabbi Yochanan: Yaakov our father did not die

(Rather<sup>2</sup>

He is alive forever<sup>4</sup>),

He said to him: Was it for nothing that the mourners mourned, and the embalmers embalmed, and the buriers buried?<sup>5</sup>,

He said to him: I interpret a verse, as it is said<sup>6</sup>

And you, fear not, My servant Yaakov, says the Lord, and be not dismayed, O Israel, for behold, I will save you from afar, and your seed from the land of their captivity,

He compares him to his seed: just as his seed is alive, so too he is alive."

And already commentators have stood

on several precise points in this:

a)

What did Rav Yitzchak gain by saying "one does not converse during a meal",

for seemingly also regarding this statement the rule "one does not converse during a meal" applies,

and on the contrary,

since he wanted to say to him "Yaakov our father did not die",

which is a shorter statement than the statement "one does not converse during a meal lest the windpipe precede the esophagus and he come to danger",

he should have said this statement

("Yaakov our father did not die")

immediately when they asked "let the master say something"?

There are commentators⁹,

that in his saying "one does not converse during a meal" his intention was not to explain why he

(Rabbi Yitzchak)

cannot "say something"¹⁰,

but rather to rebuke him for having spoken to him during the meal¹¹,

and according to the known principle that to prevent someone from transgression has precedence¹²

over other words of Torah¹³

<pg>224</pg>

[And on the other hand,

the statement "Yaakov our father did not die" has no practical implication nor for halacha¹⁴,

therefore there is no need to say it in the middle of the meal].

But this explanation is difficult, at first glance,

for according to this, he should have only made heard to him the ruling of the law "one does not converse during a meal",

and not have lengthened in his speech

(during the meal)

and also explained the reason of the law "lest the windpipe precede the esophagus and he come to danger".

And even though it is understood that this increases the severity of the matter,

for danger is more stringent than prohibition&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;,

behold on the contrary,

for this very reason he should not lengthen in his speech now

(in the middle of the meal),

but rather shorten as much as possible,

and since to actually separate him from danger, saying the law itself "one does not converse during a meal" suffices,

why did he not wait with the addition of the reason of the law until after he ate.

2)

Since all matters of Torah are with utmost precision,

it stands to reason to say,

that the statement of R' Yitzchak

("thus said R' Yitzchak")

that he said "after he ate",

"Yaakov our father did not die",

has a connection and relevance to the speech

("thus said R' Yitzchak")

that was during the meal "one does not converse during a meal"&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;.

3)

In the continuation of the Gemara,

"He said to him: Was it for nothing that the mourners mourned and the embalmers embalmed and the buriers buried? He said to him: I am interpreting a verse..

Just as his offspring are alive, so too he is alive" — why did he ask "Was it for nothing that they mourned etc.",

seemingly it would have been better for him to ask,

How did "the mourners mourn and the embalmers embalm and the buriers bury",

and behold "he did not die"¹⁷?

4)

What did he answer him from the verse "Fear not, My servant Jacob etc.",

behold this does not resolve the question "Was it for nothing..

the embalmers embalmed etc."¹⁸?

Some commentators¹⁹,

that according to his explanation that its source is from the verse "Do not fear, etc." and he expounds "Just as his seed is alive, so too he is alive",

he is explaining his intention in his first words,

that this that Jacob our father did not die does not mean physical life,

for in that there was death,

but it speaks of the soul.

But

(In addition to this that according to this it is not understood what is the novelty that specifically regarding Jacob it is said that he did not die,

for the life of the soul of all the righteous is eternal life)

: In Rashi's commentary on the Gemara there it says "I expound a verse,

and that which they embalmed, the embalmers thought that he had died",

and so he wrote afterwards²⁰

"And that they embalmed, the embalmers it appeared to them that he had died but he was alive",

and from this it is proven²¹

that Rashi holds that the intention of the Gemara "Jacob our father did not die" is,

that his body did not die,

and as the plain meaning of his language "did not die,

but he is alive forever".

ה)

At first glance,

According to Rashi, the main point is missing from the text²²,

That the answer to the question "And is it for naught etc." is that "it only seemed to them that he died"

(And this is not mentioned in the Gemara),

Whereas that "I expound a verse" is only a proof

(From the verse)

That our father Jacob did not die.

B.

And one can say the explanation of this,

And with an introduction: This story in the Gemara

(About Rav Nachman and Rav Yitzchak who were sitting at a meal),

Comes in continuation of several discourses before this,

That there too Rav Nachman asked Rav Yitzchak,

And Rav Yitzchak answered him "Thus said Rabbi<pg>225</pg>

Yochanan",

And the content of several statements of Rabbi Yochanan these is in the manner of miraculous conduct of the Holy One, blessed be He, with the children of Israel,

And for example

(The first statement in the sugya there&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;)

: "Said Rav Nachman to Rav Yitzchak: The early rain in Nisan is the early rain in Marcheshvan, etc. He said to him: Thus said Rabbi Yochanan: In the days of Yoel ben Petuel this verse was fulfilled, as it is written, etc. That year Adar ended and no rains fell. The first rainfall descended for them on the first of Nisan. The prophet said to Israel: Go out and sow. They said to him: One who has kavs of wheat or kavs of barley, should he eat it and live, or sow it and die? He said to them: Nevertheless, go out and sow. A miracle was performed for them, and what was in the walls was revealed to them, etc. They went out and sowed, second, third, and fourth, and the second rainfall descended for them on the fifth of Nisan. They offered the omer on the sixteenth of Nisan. It was found that the grain grew in six months, it grew in eleven days, etc.".

And in continuation of these statements of Rabbi Yochanan

(which were said in his name to Rav Nachman by Rav Yitzchak)

the Talmud brings our story,

that they were sitting at a meal,

and Rav Nachman requested from Rav Yitzchak "Let the master say something",

it can be said,

that also Rav Nachman knew the law "One does not converse at a meal"

(because of concern for danger),

rather the intention of his request "Let the master say something" was for words of Torah&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;,

and he holds that this law is only regarding mundane conversation&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;,

but regarding words of Torah there is no concern for danger,

because Torah protects and saves&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;,

and on the contrary,

from the statement of the Mishnah&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;

that a table "upon which they have not spoken words of Torah, it is as if they ate from sacrifices of the dead" it is understood that there is an obligation to say words of Torah at a meal,

and since that is so, there is no concern for danger,

for when Israel engage in Torah

(according to the command of the Name),

the Holy One, blessed be He, protects them even if according to nature there is a concern for danger.

And based on this, the reason is understood that R. Yitzchak answered him "Did R. Yochanan say thus: One does not converse at a meal, lest the windpipe precede the esophagus and he come to danger",

and he did not suffice with the notification of the essence of the law "One does not converse at a meal",

for in this he intended to explain and emphasize that this law applies&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;

also to words of Torah&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;.

And it is in the manner of the halachah regarding a matter of a mitzvah,

that even though "He who guards a mitzvah will know no evil thing"&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;

and agents of a mitzvah are not harmed&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;,

nevertheless,

"where harm is common&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;

it is different,

for it is said&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;

And Samuel said, How can I go

(to anoint David,

and even though he was an agent of the Omnipresent, he was afraid — Rashi&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;)

and Saul will hear and kill me? And the Lord said, Take a heifer in your hand etc."&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;,

and similarly in our matter,

for since the reason of the law is "lest the windpipe precede the esophagus and he come to danger"&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;,

behold the concern of danger is in a &lt;pg&gt;226&lt;/pg&gt;

manner of "harm is common",

and therefore one does not converse at a meal even in words of Torah.

3.

And with this we can explain also the continuation of the story,

that "after he finished, he said to him: Thus said Rabbi Yochanan: Yaakov our father did not die":

According to the explanation above, it is found,

that in the response of Rabbi Yitzchak "We do not interrupt etc. and it will come to danger",

a general principle was hinted regarding the nature of the action of Torah and mitzvot upon worldly matters,

that although Rabbi Yochanan said that there are several times and manners that the Holy One, blessed be He, performs miracles for Israel,

not according to nature entirely,

nevertheless,

the action of Torah and mitzvot of a person must be within the nature of the world.

And therefore,

even though the Torah has a segulah of protection and rescue,

one should not rely on this in a place where danger is common and one is in need of miraculous conduct.

But this matter itself

(that the action of Torah and mitzvos must be in the nature of the world)

can be explained in two ways:

a)

This is because of the boundaries of nature,

for the laws of nature themselves are the creation of the Holy One, blessed be He,

and as explained in the Ran³⁵

"that the desire of the blessed Name and His will is to maintain the custom of the world in everything possible, and nature is precious in His eyes, and He does not change it except for a necessary need"³⁶,

therefore,

it is not the will of the Holy One, blessed be He, that the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvos should be in a manner that nullifies the laws of nature.

b)

This is from the definition of Torah and mitzvos themselves,

that is,

the essence of Torah and mitzvos is to act within the nature of the world

(and not to change it).

That is to say: according to the first manner,

the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvos must be within the nature of the world, because also Torah and mitzvos

(as they were given below)

are

(as it were)

under the definition of the laws of nature

(from the aspect of "the desire of the Holy One, blessed be He, and His will to maintain the custom of the world"),

and therefore the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvos by man is limited to those situations in which it is possible to fulfill them according to nature; unlike the second manner,

it is not that the laws of nature have the power in themselves to prevent and limit the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvos by man,

but rather because it must be so from the definition of Torah and mitzvos themselves,

that their activity must be within the nature of the world itself³⁷

(and not in a manner that the laws of nature are nullified).

4.

And one must say,

that in this they disagree, R. Yosi and R. Nachman:

"After he ate, he said to him: Thus said Rabbi Yochanan: Yaakov our father did not die",

that one must say,

that the intention of R. Yitzchak in this is to emphasize,

that the reason of the matter that the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvos must be in the nature of the world

(as emphasized in this that one does not converse during a meal even about words of Torah)

is not because the laws of nature have control, heaven forbid, over Torah and mitzvos,

for on the contrary,

"Yaakov our father did not die",

that is to say,

not only is he not defined in the nature of the world,

but furthermore,

that he is above the boundaries of creation,

for from the aspect of the boundary of creation death must be in the world,

for it is impossible for a limited creature subject to change to exist in eternal existence³⁸,

and yet "Yaakov our father did not die",

and this is because Yaakov our father, who is the chosen among the patriarchs³⁹,

whose entire existence is Torah⁴⁰,

as it is said⁴¹

and Yaakov was a wholesome man, dwelling in tents,

therefore there is for him no place for the limitations of the nature of the world

(like the Torah itself)⁴².

<pg>227</pg>

But R. Nachman,

after he heard the discourse of R. Yochanan "one does not converse at a meal etc. and it will lead to danger",

held

(the explanation of the words of R. Yochanan,

that he holds)

according to the first way above,

that the commandments as they were given below are defined in the category of nature,

and it can be said that this is what he questioned "Was it for naught that the mourners mourned and the embalmers embalmed and the buriers buried"

(and he did not question him simply,

how they did these things),

that his main intention was to question from that which is recounted in the Torah that "the mourners mourned and the embalmers embalmed and the buriers buried",

and also it was done by the command of Joseph⁴³

(and especially the burial which is a commandment,

and was done by the command of Jacob and Joseph),

and it is proven from this that also according to Torah there is a definition of the nature of the world,

for if you say that "Jacob our father did not die",

it follows,

that all that is recounted in the Torah regarding the actions that were done with Jacob's body is not a true description according to Torah

(but only "for naught",

according to the opinion of the Egyptians who did not know that he did not die).

And to this he answered him "I expound a verse etc. 'As his seed is alive, so he is alive'":

The intention of Rabbi Yochanan's statement "Yaakov did not die" is not regarding Yaakov's existence as it appeared to the Egyptians,

but rather regarding the true essence of his existence

(also of his physical life),

that this is his existence as it is in the Torah,

from which perspective specifically he is not defined by the boundaries of nature of creation,

"the living G-d".

And this is what he says "I expound a verse... 'Just as his offspring are alive, so too he is alive'",

that this that "so too he is alive" is not a matter that is seen by the eyes of flesh

(to the Egyptians),

but rather requires "a verse

(and in this itself)

I expound".

And based on this it is understood that there is no contradiction between the matters

("did not die",

and on the other hand it is related in the Torah that "they eulogized..."),

because this that "they eulogized, and they embalmed, and they buried" is because "it appeared to them that he died",

namely, from the perspective of the Egyptians,

according to what they saw — from their standpoint this is a true matter

(according to Torah)⁴⁴

— they performed these actions on Yaakov's body,

because even the action of the commandments as it is in worldly matters is a true matter from the perspective of the boundary of Torah.

And it is found,

that according to Torah, both are present in Him: from their own perspective, the children of Israel and the existence of the Torah are not defined by the nature of creation,

but on the other hand,

the Holy One, blessed be He, desired that the effect of fulfilling Torah and mitzvot below should be specifically in the nature of the world.

5.

And behold, just as it is regarding our father Jacob,

"Israel the Elder"⁴⁵,

so too is it with his seed,

"his seed lives",

that even when they are in Egypt,

the nakedness of the land,

and so too in all the exiles,

for all the kingdoms are called by the name of Egypt⁴⁶,

and behold, "you are the fewest of all peoples"⁴⁷,

and they are like one sheep among seventy wolves⁴⁸,

and thus it is in the category of "damage is common",

whether in the physical,

and even more so in the spiritual — nevertheless, it is said of them "And you, fear not, My servant Jacob, says the Lord, and be not dismayed, O Israel, for behold, I will save you from afar, and your seed from the land of their captivity,

he compares his seed, just as his seed lives etc.'",

that even when they are in captivity and exile,

they remain alive,

"And you who cling to the Lord your God are all alive today"⁴⁹,

even though according to the nature of the world there is no place for this,

for the nature of the world does not rule over them.

<pg>228</pg>

And they are the two matters of Torah and mitzvos and Israel: as they are in the state of "sitting at the meal,"

namely, as they are in connection with worldly matters,

that then their activity according to Torah is within the limitations of the nature of the world

(and one does not interrupt with words of Torah in a place where danger is common),

and as they are "after the meal,"

above worldly matters,

after the completion of the clarifications in worldly matters,

that then the superiority of the Children of Israel is revealed,

as they are above creation,

in a manner of "he does not die,"

"Just as his offspring live, so he lives."

6.

And behold, the definition of eternity

(also)

regarding the life of the body,

even though explicitly this is said only regarding Yaakov himself,

nevertheless, in inwardness it applies to all Israel,

according to the ruling of the Mishnah⁵⁰

"All Israel have a share in the World to Come,"

that the meaning of the World to Come here is the World of Resurrection⁵¹,

and the reason for this

(continues in the Mishnah)

"as it is stated⁵²

And Your people, all of them righteous, shall inherit the land forever, a branch of My planting, the work of My hands, to be glorified,"

that from the aspect of their essential existence,

that they are "a branch of My planting, the work of My hands" of the Holy One, blessed be He,

all Israel will rise for the resurrection of the dead,

that then even their body will endure with an eternal existence⁵³.

And this matter passed as an inheritance from Yaakov our father,

who "did not die",

and in particular that Yaakov is the chosen one among the Patriarchs³⁹,

by virtue of the Holy One's choice,

for His choice, blessed be He, regarding all of Israel is

(not only in the soul,

which is truly a part of G-d above⁵⁴,

but)

(mainly)

in the body,

as it is stated in Tanya⁵⁵.

And from this that "they eulogized the eulogizers etc. and buried the buriers",

that this too was according to Torah,

because "it seemed to them that he died",

came and was drawn the power to each one,

that the way to reach the resurrection of the dead is through the work of refining and clarifying the body,

the nullification of the body "to dust you shall return"⁵⁶,

that through this nullification

(as explained elsewhere⁵⁷

that one fulfills this through the spiritual work of "and may my soul be like dust to all"⁵⁸

and it does not return to actual dust)

they come afterwards to the resurrection of the dead,

in the true and complete redemption.

(From the talk of 20 Menachem Av 5731)