English translation — שיחת ש"פ וישב, מבה"ח טבת, א' דחנוכה ה'תשמ"ז.

The first two sichos were reviewed by the Rebbe shlita,

and published in the booklet in print.

In the aforementioned service there is a special emphasis for Jewish women and girls

[which this Shabbos,

the first day of Chanukah,

Jewish women and girls gathered together].

And as an introduction:

It is known the dispute of opinions in the interpretation of the Gemara¹ that "women are obligated in the Chanukah light, for they too were part of that miracle"

[and likewise regarding what is stated "they too were part of that miracle" regarding the miracle of the Exodus from Egypt² and the miracle of Purim³]:

One opinion⁴ –

that "through a woman the miracle was performed

(the main part⁵)

of the miracle",

and a second opinion⁶ –

that "they too implies that they are not the main part

(that they are secondary)"

[as it was regarding the miracle of Purim,

"and Esther fulfilled the word of Mordechai"⁷,

and likewise "Esther sent to the Sages: Write me for future generations"⁸,

only that they were in the danger together with all Jews and were saved together with them.

And it can be said that one master says one thing and another master says another thing, and they do not disagree

(because one cannot say that there is a dispute about reality in this):

The miracle of Chanukah

(and likewise the miracle of the Exodus and the miracle of Purim)

did not happen in one moment and in one event and in one miracle,

but rather it took time and consisted of several events, miracles, and details.

And based on this one can say simply:

In one part

(time)

and miracle the

(main part)

was through a woman,

and in a second part

(time)

and miracle –

the women were together with the men:

Regarding Chanukah:

Also after the miracle that was performed through the woman,

they needed to reach additional miracles in the victory of the war,

and certainly the second miracle of the flask of oil

[not only according to the view of the Alter Rebbe⁹ that the victory of the war was on the 24th of Kislev¹⁰,

and the miracle of the flask of oil was the next day on the 25th of Kislev,

but also according to the view of the Rambam¹¹ that the victory of the war was on the 25th of Kislev –

this was nevertheless a different matter and at a different time (on the 25th of Kislev itself) than the miracle of the flask of oil¹²],

in which other miracles the women were together with the men.

Regarding the Exodus:

Also after this that the women raised children

(in whose merit they were redeemed¹³),

there were many miracles,

over the course of many years,

until they left Egypt

(many years after the women raised the "hosts of Hashem" etc.).

And in these miracles the women were together with the men.

Regarding Purim:

Also after the efforts of Esther there were additional miracles in the salvation of the Jewish people,

in which the women

(and Esther)

were together with the men.

From this we have the lesson regarding the aforementioned service of Chanukah, from the word chinuch (education).

And especially since "a generation goes and a generation comes"¹⁴. The virtue of Jewish women in the generation of Egypt and the generation of Purim and the generation of Chanukah is transmitted from generation to generation,

until our generation. And especially according to what is explained in Kabbalah¹⁵

(and brought in a number of places in Chassidus¹⁶)

that most souls now are old souls,

reincarnations from previous generations.

We see in practice that in this matter of education, Jewish women and girls have a primary role,

and especially the education of very young children,

which depends

(almost)

entirely on women and girls –

that is, this is in the category of "through a woman the miracle was performed".

Afterwards, when the children grow up,

then education depends on the man and woman together;

the woman is then in the category of "they too",

together with the men.

But since holiness does not move from its place¹⁷,

one must say,

that also after children grow up, the superiority of the woman over the man remains

("through a woman the miracle was performed") –

as is known that the woman is the "mainstay of the home"¹⁸,

in her hands is the cleanliness and completeness of the home in spirituality,

and from this it follows that in her

(primarily)

hands is the cleanliness of the home in physicality.

And especially –

in the three mitzvos that were specifically given to Jewish women and girls –

acronym "Chanah" and "hachein"¹⁹ – Challah

(kashrus of eating and drinking), Niddah

(family purity),

and lighting the Shabbos and Yom Tov candle,

which is also connected to the Chanukah light²⁰.

And this also applies to education in the broad sense –

the dissemination of Judaism and the spreading of the wellsprings outward

(the content of Yud-Tes Kislev and Chanukah,

as elaborated above).

As we see,

that in several matters a woman can be more successful than a man in influencing others in matters of Judaism and the spreading of the wellsprings outward

[and of course –

in a manner of modesty,

mehadrin min hamehadrin].

From this it is understood,

that when we stand during the days of Chanukah, from the language of "and they instituted" and the matter of education²¹ –

the emphasis on the matter of education is renewed each and every year,

and the special role in this of the women and daughters of Israel

("through a woman the miracle was wrought",

"they too were involved in that miracle").

It is known that all matters of Torah and mitzvos must be in a manner of "each day they shall be as new in your eyes"²². And it is known the teaching of the Baal Shem Tov²³ regarding "one who reads the Megillah backwards has not fulfilled his obligation"²⁴,

that one must celebrate Purim not as if it is a thing of the past

("backwards"),

but as if it is a new thing today.

And likewise regarding Chanukah,

it is known the connection between Chanukah and Purim.

And as is also emphasized

(the renewal of all matters of Chanukah from year to year)

in that every Jew

[and also women²⁵],

cannot fulfill his obligation with the lighting of the Chanukah light of the past

(in the previous year and the like),

rather he has the obligation of lighting the Chanukah light each day of the days of Chanukah in every year,

also in this year.

[And although one recites the blessing only on the first night of Chanukah,

this is not because it has no connection to the other days,

but because the blessing on the first night extends also to the fulfillment of the mitzvah on the remaining days,

as each and every one of the days is obligated in the blessing of Shehecheyanu. As is understood from this law²⁶,

that "if one did not recite the blessing of Shehecheyanu on the first night, he recites it on the second night or when he remembers"].

And he recites the blessings over it,

and also the blessing of Shehecheyanu

(on the first night) –

"Blessed are You, Hashem, our G-d, King of the universe, who has granted us life, sustained us, and enabled us to reach this season",

one thanks the Almighty not for the past fulfillment of the mitzvah of the Chanukah light,

but also for having merited to fulfill the mitzvah of the Chanukah light in Brooklyn

(and likewise in every place)

in the year 5747!

Here is the place to note –

and fortunate is their portion of those who have aroused this –

that in places where a menorah is lit in a central location,

as a "publicization of the miracle"²⁷,

and with the advantage of "in a multitude of people is the King's glory"²⁸ –

one should then announce,

that all Jews who are present there have not thereby fulfilled the mitzvah of lighting the Chanukah light,

rather afterwards each one of them must himself light the candles,

"at the entrance of his house on the outside"²⁹,

and in a manner of "mehadrin min hamehadrin"³⁰

(and as the Rema writes³¹ "and so is the simple custom").

And may it be His will that this be a proximate preparation for the matter of "You are my lamp, Hashem, and Hashem will light up my darkness"³²,

as explained in the discourses of Chanukah³³,

that here it states the Name Hashem twice,

which are a total of eight letters

(the four letters of the Name Hashem twice),

corresponding to the eight lights of Chanukah

(and also regarding the eight torches that came at the Simchas Beis HaShoevah³⁴),

until the second Name Hashem effects "and will light up my darkness",

until the darkness itself shines,

"the night shines like the day"³⁵,

as it will be in completeness in the future to come –

"and Hashem will be for you an everlasting light"³⁶,

Both the menorah of seven lights in the Third Beis HaMikdash,

and the menorah of eight lights of Chanukah,

and also the advantage of ten that will then be in all matters

(the harp of the days of Mashiach of eight strings and of the World to Come ten, as it is said "upon the ten-stringed instrument"³⁷,

the tenth song³⁸ etc.),

And speedily, in our very own days.

Discourse (in the manner of a talk)

Beginning with "The Rabbis taught: What is Chanukah? etc."

It is also customary to study a matter in the weekly Torah portion together with Rashi's commentary,

and a matter in the notes of the Tatte on the Zohar of our parshah,

and a matter in today's lesson of the Rambam.

Regarding Rashi, we succeeded with the commentary at the beginning of our parshah on the verse³⁹ "These are the generations of Yaakov: Yosef, being seventeen years old, was shepherding the flock with his brothers, and he was a lad with the sons of Bilhah etc."

Rashi quotes the words "and he was a lad" and explains:

"that he would do childish things, fixing his hair, touching his eyes, so that he would appear handsome." Then he quotes the words "the sons of Bilhah" and explains:

"That is to say,

and he was accustomed to the sons of Bilhah because his brothers would degrade them and he would draw them close."

A superficial question was asked:

a) Why does Rashi bring two matters

(on "maaseh nearim")

"fixing his hair" and "touching his eyes". b) On the other hand:

If Rashi already brings more than one matter,

why does he not bring the third matter that is brought in the Midrash ⁴⁰ "lifting his heel",

"meaning walking gently and proudly, and the heel appears to be hanging high in his walk" ⁴¹,

"heel next to big toe" ⁴².

However, there is an even greater question,

and a "major question":

How can one say at all that Yosef "was doing maaseh nearim" –

something that is entirely unfitting for Yosef HaTzaddik,

the son of Yaakov,

and "the image of Yosef resembled" Yaakov ⁴³,

and he was already seventeen years old?!

The question becomes even stronger:

What is difficult in the verse that Rashi needs to explain at all that "naar" means "that he was doing maaseh nearim"?!

Furthermore:

"And he was a naar with the sons of Bilhah" can be interpreted simply and literally –

that Yosef associated with the sons of Bilhah

(as other commentators indeed interpret ⁴⁴).

So why does Rashi come and take it out of its simple meaning of the verse,

and a) divides the two matters

("naar" and "with the sons of Bilhah"),

so that they do not come in one sequence

(as it seemingly appears from the simple meaning of the text),

but rather they speak about two separate things,

and b) explains "naar" means "that he was doing maaseh nearim",

a thing that does not fit into simple logic regarding Yosef HaTzaddik,

and c) gives a whole explanation on "with the sons of Bilhah"

("meaning, and he was accustomed, etc."),

which is not entirely smooth in any case

("meaning, and he was accustomed, etc." is not smooth,

as is known in the rules of the Talmud and in the rules of Rashi,

that when one says "meaning" it does not mean the simple interpretation,

but rather as if it were written in the verse.

Commentators say ⁴⁵,

that Rashi was troubled:

How can one call Yosef a "naar" when he was already seventeen years old. This compels Rashi to explain that "naar" comes to teach "that he was doing maaseh nearim".

But this does not hold up in the simple meaning of the verse:

We already learned earlier in the portion of the Akeidah "And Avraham arose early in the morning, etc., and he took his two nearim" ⁴⁶.

And Rashi explains that "his two nearim" refers to "Yishmael and Eliezer",

both of whom were then older:

Yishmael was then fifty years old

(thirteen years older than Yitzchak,

and Yitzchak was then (at the time of the Akeidah) thirty-seven years old ⁴⁷).

We see already from earlier that according to the simple meaning "naar" can refer to an older person

(much older than seventeen years).

[One need not come to the term "naar" that appears regarding Yehoshua later in the Chumash ⁴⁸,

and so too the proofs that one can use the term "naar" for an older person –

as the commentators on Rashi bring].

And the explanation of why an adult is called "naar" is –

from the term servant,

like the content of "and he took his two nearim",

that they were his servants.

And accordingly, the explanation of "naar" that appears regarding Yosef is seemingly also simple,

that even though he was already seventeen years old,

he is called "naar"

("and he was a naar with the sons of Bilhah"),

because he was a servant to the sons of Bilhah,

due to the fact that he associated with them, or

(even if one accepts Rashi's explanation on the verse) –

he was their servant

("accustomed to be with the sons of Bilhah"),

through his "drawing them close" and encouraging them

("because his brothers were degrading them").

Thus the question becomes:

What is lacking here in the word "naar" that Rashi needs to come and say an explanation at all,

and moreover an astonishing explanation "that he was doing maaseh nearim",

something that is entirely unfitting for Yosef HaTzaddik?!

And furthermore:

What is lacking in the continuation "with the sons of Bilhah" that Rashi needs to say there an explanation that is not entirely smooth

("meaning, etc.") –

when one could have interpreted simply,

that "and he was a naar with the sons of Bilhah" means that he associated with the sons of Bilhah.

After a "knock of a difficulty" in this Rashi on which one did not dwell –

even though this is a very superficial "knock of a difficulty",

and nevertheless one does not see that one dwells on it. And even worse:

In this matter I also could not get a word in with my teacher!

What connection does "rubbing his eyes" have with "so that he would appear handsome"?!

[The Rebbe of blessed memory looked at the audience,

and said:

Let them ask those present here,

among whom there are children –

how can one make oneself appear handsome by rubbing one's eyes?!

If yes –

one will only get eye pain from it!...]

And although it is also written thus in the Midrash – (a)

truly one must understand it there as well (b)

the words of our Sages in the Midrash can be according to the way of the secret, homily, allusion, and plain meaning.

Another simple difficulty on which one did not dwell:

Later in the portion there is a similar Rashi that jumps out at the eyes,

but with several differences regarding our Rashi:

On the verse "And Joseph was handsome of form" Rashi explains:

"Since he saw himself as ruler, he began to eat and drink and curl his hair,

the Holy One, blessed be He said: 'His father is mourning and you curl your hair? I will incite the bear against you etc.'"

One must understand the differences between these two commentaries of Rashi:

¹) There Rashi writes "eat and drink",

but here he does not write it. ²) Here he writes "rubbing his eyes",

but there he does not write it. ³) Here he writes "fixing his hair",

but there he writes "curling his hair".

And even though all these aforementioned difficulties are simple difficulties,

one did not dwell on them,

and only dwelt on the difficulty,

why Rashi brings two matters,

and why he does not bring the third matter from the Midrash,

"lifting his heel".

What actually is not a difficulty at all

(why he does not bring "lifting his heel") –

because for a five-year-old studying Scripture it is not reasonable that "lifting his heel" contributes to beauty,

since his nature is to run around,

and he does not see on himself that this is a matter opposite to beauty. Therefore Rashi does not bring the matter of "lifting his heel" in the plain meaning of Scripture for a five-year-old studying Scripture.

But in the Midrash where it is brought –

because there matters are brought according to the way of homily,

allusion,

secret, and so forth.

In addition to what also in the Midrash one must understand the explanation in this.

In the notes of my father⁵⁰ on the Zohar he dwells on what is written in the Zohar⁵¹ "One who toils in Torah, may he have life in this world and in the world to come, he merits two worlds",

and he explains:

"At first glance it is a repetition of language,

for he already said previously 'in this world and in the world to come'.

It can be explained: 'two worlds' –

that is, in each world itself, of this world and the world to come, there are two worlds,

this world is the final Hei and its fullness is also Hei,

the world to come is the first Hei and its fullness is Hei."

But he does not explain:

a) What does the Zohar come to innovate by saying that "One who toils in Torah, may he have life in this world and in the world to come, he merits two worlds" –

what does it come to teach us?!

Even according to the revealed aspect, the advantage of Torah is understandable,

all the more so in the Zohar –

the inner dimension of the Torah. Does the inner dimension of the Torah need to come and innovate that "One who toils in Torah, may he have life in this world and in the world to come, he merits two worlds"?!

Furthermore:

Is this indeed a wonder of Torah, that "One who toils in Torah, may he have life in this world and in the world to come, he merits two worlds" –

Torah is incomparably more than this. And to such an extent,

that it is known that King David was punished for that which "you call them songs"⁵²,

because Torah is incomparably higher than this,

as explained in Tanya, Kuntres Acharon⁵³,

in Likkutei Torah⁵⁴,

and in many places.

b) What is the lesson from this in the service of Hashem.

What my father did not explain,

relying that since one studies Chassidus one will be able to understand it on one's own.

And as will be explained further.

In today's lesson the Rambam writes⁵⁵:

"One who pressures the poor person when he knows that he has nothing to repay him, transgresses a negative commandment, as it is said⁵⁶ 'Do not be to him as a creditor',

and it is a positive commandment to pressure the gentile and to distress him, as it is said⁵⁷ 'You shall pressure the foreigner' – from tradition they learned that this is a positive commandment."

And thus the Rambam rules in the laws of interest⁵⁸:

"The nations of the world etc. one may borrow from them and lend to them with interest, as it is said⁵⁹ 'You shall not lend with interest to your brother,'

to your brother it is forbidden, but to the rest of the world it is permitted,

and it is a positive commandment to lend with interest to a gentile, as it is said⁶⁰ 'To a gentile you may lend with interest,'

from the oral tradition they learned that this is a positive commandment and this is the law of the Torah."

[And the Rambam enumerates these two commandments also in the "chapter" (heading) at the beginning of the Laws of Lender and Borrower:

"To press the gentile,"

"To borrow from a gentile and to lend to him with interest."]

The stormy question arises:

How does this accord with the fact that a Jew must conduct himself with righteousness, justice, and mercy towards all creatures,

"and His mercies are upon all His works"⁶¹,

and not to cause them pain,

as an explicit prohibition in the Torah regarding the suffering of living creatures⁶²)?!

[The question is known why the Rambam does not bring this in the Book of the Hand,

but only in his book Guide for the Perplexed⁶³. And one cannot say that this is included in the commandment of "When you see the donkey of your enemy lying under its burden etc. you shall surely help him"⁶⁴ (which the Rambam does bring in the Book of the Hand⁶⁵),

because that is a commandment in relation to the owner of the donkey,

not in relation to the donkey itself,

like the prohibition of causing suffering to living creatures,

which is in relation to the living creature itself].

All the more so regarding the righteous among the nations of the world

(as the Rambam writes further regarding the Seven Noachide commandments⁶⁶;

but one need not go further in the Rambam,

because from many places it is understood that one must conduct oneself according to righteousness and justice with all people,

and all living creatures. So how does this accord with what the Rambam writes that "it is a positive commandment to press the gentile and to cause him distress,"

"it is a positive commandment to lend with interest to a gentile"?!

And one must also understand the lesson from this in "to correct the opinions and to straighten all deeds"⁶⁷ –

for seemingly this is exactly the opposite for the correction of opinions and the straightening of deeds!

And as will be explained below.

The two levels in the letter Hei,

the first Hei

(the World to Come)

and the final Hei

(this world) –

are also connected to the matter of houses,

as is known that the aspect of house is both in Binah

(the first Hei)

⁶⁸ and also in Malchut

(the final Hei)⁶⁸,

"the tent of Shem and the tent of Ever"⁶⁹,

the Written Torah⁷⁰

(Binah⁷¹)

and the Oral Torah⁷⁰

(Malchut⁷¹),

or more generally – Torah

(Binah)

and prayer

(Malchut).

And here is the place to arouse once again about establishing

(or expanding)

a "Chabad House" in every place,

as discussed above at length.

Just as there are those who have provided drink for new "Chabad Houses,"

or for various farbrengens

[which is also like a "house" –

a gathering of many of Israel,

who are like letters that form a house⁷²] –

they should go up and themselves say "L'chaim,"

and afterwards distribute a portion of it to those assembled here,

and the rest –

at their own gatherings,

and also announce and publicize to the world,

"In a multitude of people is the King's glory."

And from them, many will see and do likewise,

both those who have not yet done anything at all regarding Chabad Houses,

and also those who have begun to do,

but afterwards lay down to sleep,

and in the manner of "and you shall lie down and your sleep shall be sweet"⁷² –

one must awaken them from sleep,

"Awaken, you sleepers from your sleep, and you who slumber, arise from your slumber"

(as the Rambam writes⁷³,

brought and explained in the continuation of 5666 at its beginning⁷⁴)!

As was once the custom in small towns,

and would that it were instituted in large cities where one needs to reach even more –

that every morning a shul-klopper would go around and knock on the shutters and announce:

"Arise, Jews, for the service of the Creator"!

And would that it were so now as well,

that one should knock on the shutters of the houses,

and awaken Jews to the service of the Creator. And this will also help regarding one who rouses himself from sleep,

but afterwards turns over to the other side and goes back to sleep anew –

for when one knocks strongly on the shutter,

he will see that it is worthwhile to get up because they will not let him continue sleeping anyway!

And furthermore, the main point:

He will be ashamed before his wife,

that here they knock for him to get up for the service of the Creator,

and here he turns over to the other side and continues sleeping! And we have the principle that fear of flesh and blood is stronger than fear of Heaven,

as is known the statement of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai to his students⁷⁵ "May it be His will that the fear of Heaven be upon you like the fear of flesh and blood."

[The Rebbe, may he live for many good years, smiled,

and said:]

The prayer is "that the fear of Heaven be upon you like the fear of flesh and blood" –

but regarding fear of flesh and blood

(which is stronger than fear of Heaven)

one does not need to have a prayer,

this comes from the nature of man,

to the extent that the Shulchan Aruch warns immediately at its beginning "Do not be ashamed before those who mock; be bold as a leopard, mighty as a lion, swift as a deer, and light as an eagle!"..

And regarding our matter –

all those who provided mashke should now come forward and say "L'Chaim" and distribute from it and announce,

as above.

And also those who did not provide mashke in connection with a Chabad House or farbrengen etc.,

can go into the "Mazkirut" after Shabbat and take mashke there from the farbrengen.

And here is the place to remark on a matter that one should have grasped on his own or another should have aroused about it,

but...

it remains that I must arouse about everything:

It is understood and simple that those who provide "mashke" must provide such "mashke" that has a kashrut certification and in which there are no questions and doubts.

Therefore the custom is that all provide the same type of "mashke" that is straightforwardly kosher and has a kashrut certification.

But there is no place for one to provide a different type of "mashke" that one is not accustomed to providing,

because then a doubt is immediately aroused whether this has a kashrut certification etc.

And therefore,

when someone provided a different type of "mashke" this time,

it was not taken out and distributed at the farbrengen,

in order not to enter into any questions and doubts,

and in order not to give an "as if" kashrut certification on that mashke.

I do not give any kashrut certifications,

for that one must go to a rabbi and mashgiach etc.;

even if I were to give a kashrut certification –

this is not the place and function of a Chassidic farbrengen:

a Chassidic farbrengen was not made for giving kashrut certifications on "mashke";

a Chassidic farbrengen is for adding in the service of the Creator!

Therefore it was a simple thing by me,

that before one provides "mashke",

one clarifies with a rabbi and mashgiach whether this is kosher without any question. And if there is a doubt –

then even a doubt of rabbinic law is treated stringently;

and even better –

in order to safeguard all matters –

to provide the same type of "mashke" that everyone provides.

And certainly one should not provide a "mashke" from the Land of Israel,

because then one enters into additional questions –

regarding tithes and terumot,

and in this year –

regarding the Sabbatical year etc.

Therefore it was a wonder to me when on the eve of Shabbat someone provided a different type of "mashke"

(not like that which everyone provides),

and others knew about it and did not arouse about it.

Even if the mashke is straightforwardly kosher and everything is smooth –

instead of troubling oneself to buy and bring here "mashke" from another place –

which is after all connected with trouble,

and regarding bringing "mashke" from the Land of Israel,

there is generally a discussion whether one may export items of eating and drinking from the Land of Israel –

it is better ab initio to buy the "mashke" here in the Diaspora,

the same "mashke" that everyone provides,

and to provide that.

And all this is understood and simple by itself. Does one need to come to me for this that I should arouse about it;

there is an "organizing committee" and others around who should have aroused about this –

do I need to arouse about this?

Granted, regarding arousing about a "sharp question" in Rashi –

I need to do something about it,

for whatever reason,

because essentially this is also not understandable,

but this can still be explained,

because others have convinced themselves that studying Rashi is for children,

unlike them, they study "Ketzos" or at least Rambam,

but when one says they study and immerse themselves in Chumash with Rashi –

oh! That is a disgrace for them! Therefore I need to arouse about this,

and hit upon what our Nesi'im said that in Rashi there is "the wine of Torah"⁷⁶ and "wondrous matters".⁷⁷

But regarding the aforementioned matter about the "drink" –

this should have aroused a second time.

May it be His will that very soon we should come to the time when it will be "entirely drink",

as the well-known saying and story of the Alter Rebbe,⁷⁸

and in the language of the verse⁷⁹ –

"And it shall be on that day that living waters will go out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea",

half there and half here,

the main thing is that there should be "living waters will go out from Jerusalem",

and in the future Jerusalem will spread throughout all the land of Israel,

and the land of Israel will spread throughout all the lands,⁸⁰

in the true and complete redemption through our righteous Mashiach,

and speedily in our days, literally.

[After distributing the drink to several –

the Rebbe shlita began to sing "And I will empty out for you a blessing".]

The explanation in Rashi:

The question in the verse is:

Why does it say "lad" at all?

Granted, that which it says "a son of seventeen years" is in order that one should know the calculation of twenty-two years

(from when Joseph separated from Jacob until Jacob came to Egypt)⁸¹.

And likewise that which it says "he was shepherding with his brothers among the flock",

is relevant to the continuation of how Jacob could say to Joseph "Are not your brothers shepherding in Shechem? Come and I will send you to them, etc. Go now, see the welfare of your brothers and the welfare of the flock".⁸²

But why does it say here that he was a "lad"? Seemingly this is superfluous:

It could have said "These are the generations of Jacob, Joseph, a son of seventeen years, was shepherding with his brothers among the flock, with the sons of Bilhah, etc.",

and seemingly nothing would be missing.

One cannot say

(according to the simple meaning)

that "lad" comes to teach that Joseph was a

(lad in its meaning)

servant to the sons of Bilhah,

because Joseph was after all the son of Rachel,

and Jacob had given precedence to Rachel even over Leah,⁸³

all the more so over the handmaids.

Therefore Rashi explains that "lad" comes here to teach,

"that he was doing youthful acts, fixing his hair and touching his eyes, in order that he should appear handsome".

And there is no question how it is fitting to say about Joseph the Righteous:

The very matter of doing actions "in order that he should appear handsome" is not a matter of deficiency

(it does not say here that this is a deficiency),

as will follow,

only relative to the study of Torah and fulfillment of mitzvos there is a matter of "youthful acts";

but the very matter of doing actions "in order that he should appear handsome" holds up in holiness:

A five-year-old for Scripture sees by himself and by other children,

that parents have nachas when their child looks beautiful. Therefore Joseph also did actions "in order that he should appear handsome" –

in order that his father Jacob and Bilhah "who raised him as her own mother"⁸⁴ should have nachas from him,

as parents have when their child looks beautiful.

Furthermore:

Beauty is a perfection in the creation of the Holy One, blessed be He.

As we learned earlier regarding Rachel –

"beautiful of form and beautiful of appearance".⁸⁵

And likewise Abraham said about Sarah "you are a woman of beautiful appearance".⁸⁶

[Even though because of this he hid her,

but in practice one sees from this that beauty is a virtue].

And even before this, the five-year-old for Scripture learned⁸⁷ "And Hashem God caused to sprout from the ground

(in the Garden of Eden –

where certainly everything was in the ultimate perfection)

every tree desirable to look at, etc.",

including also the Tree of Knowledge which "the tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes and the tree was desirable, etc.",⁸⁸

until this had an effect on Eve to eat from the tree.

Consequently, the five-year-old understands that what Joseph did "in order that he should appear handsome" is a virtue in holiness,

in the creation of the Holy One, blessed be He.

What does one do "in order that he should appear handsome"? Rashi says "fixing his hair" and "touching his eyes":

"He would arrange his hair" – a five-year-old studying Scripture understands simply on his own that this means "so that he would appear handsome,"

and one does not need any proofs for this

[in the well-known expression –

"Why do I need a verse,

it is logical"⁸⁹].

Because when he gets up from sleep and his hair is disheveled,

he does not look handsome;

but when he "arranges his hair,"

he smooths his hair,

he "appears handsome."

"He would touch his eyes" –

as the five-year-old had previously learned⁸⁵ "And Leah's eyes were tender, but Rachel was beautiful of form and beautiful of appearance." From this it is understood that "and her eyes were tender" is the opposite of beauty,

and from this it is understood in the positive aspect –

that the eyes have a connection to the beauty of the face.

[And there is no question why Rashi does not also list the matter of wearing fine garments (which makes a person appear handsome,

as the five-year-old understands simply) –

because this is not dependent on Joseph,

it is dependent on the garments that his father (parents) make and give him (as the five-year-old knows from himself);

for example:

"And he made him a coat of many colors"⁹⁰. Joseph does not create garments for himself;

but "he would arrange his hair" and "he would touch his eyes" are dependent on him].

Based on this, one will also understand the difference between what Rashi writes here "he would arrange his hair" and what he writes later

(on the verse "And Joseph was handsome of form")

"he would curl his hair":

In our verse

("a youth",

"who would do youthful deeds")

it speaks only about beauty as necessary due to the perfection of creation and due to pleasure for his parents. For this, "he would arrange his hair" is sufficient,

that he should smooth his disheveled hair,

but no more than that;

but there the verse states "And Joseph was handsome of form",

"he saw himself as ruler",

more than it says in our verse,

it emphasizes that there was an additional action

(since "he saw himself as ruler"),

not merely the negation of the absence of beauty

("he would arrange his hair"),

but "he would curl his hair."

Since we are already speaking about that Rashi –

there are there additional matters that require explanation:

a) Granted, "he would curl his hair" has an understandable connection to "handsome of form",

but what connection does "eating and drinking" have to this?!

And b) what is the deficiency in it? b) At the beginning of the commentary Rashi writes "Since he saw himself as ruler, he began eating and drinking and curling his hair";

but at the end of the commentary Rashi writes "The Holy One, blessed be He, said: Your father is mourning and you curl your hair

(I will incite the bear against you),"

and he does not bring the matter of "eating and drinking" as at the beginning of the commentary?!

And the wise will become even wiser⁹¹ –

surely one will endeavor to answer this.

The explanation of this matter in the Zohar:

This itself is the novelty here in the Zohar –

that even though Torah is higher than all matters,

above all worlds,

Torah also acts in "the world",

and not only in "the World to Come"

(the first Hei),

but also in "this world"

(the last Hei),

and not only in the inwardness of the world,

but also in the externality of the world

(the Hei in its fullness).

The lesson from this is in the service of Hashem:

A Jew should not lock himself away with Torah and isolate himself from the entire world,

as long as he learns Torah, what happens in the world does not concern him –

rather, he must draw down the Torah as it is above, above, into the world,

even into the externality of the world.

And this is like the teaching of the Alter Rebbe⁹² on the Sages' statement⁹³ "One who prays should place his eyes downward and his heart upward":

It must indeed be "his heart upward",

but together with this he may not isolate himself from the world. Rather, it must be "his eyes downward" in the world,

in requesting his material needs

(in the Shemoneh Esrei prayer).

Which is a positive commandment from the Torah

(according to the ruling of the Rambam⁹⁴);

and just as "his heart" is "upward", it must come down into "his eyes downward". And just as "his eyes" are "downward", they must be connected to "his heart upward".

In today's lesson of Rambam

(at the beginning of the Laws of Lender and Borrower)

the Rambam begins:

"It is a positive commandment to lend to the poor of Israel, etc."

And as was discussed orally⁹⁵ the wondrous thing about this –

why does the Rambam not also mention the wealthy,

as the Gemara says⁹⁶ that the commandment of bestowing kindness is also for the wealthy? And as was discussed yesterday at length.

Regarding our matter –

concerning the "positive commandment to oppress the gentile and cause him distress" and "the positive commandment to lend with interest to a gentile" –

how does this accord with the fact that a Jew must conduct himself with righteousness and honesty with all people.

By rabbinic law, indeed, "the Sages forbade a Jew to lend to a gentile with interest that is fixed, except for his livelihood, lest he learn from his actions due to his frequent dwelling with him"⁹⁷ but,

according to the essential law of the Torah, "it is a positive commandment to lend with interest to a gentile."

The explanation of this is:

The novelty is not that one may lend with interest to a gentile,

but on the contrary,

that one may not do so with a Jew. For lending with interest is a regular order and conduct in the way of the world,

and gentiles do it among themselves in the usual manner,

and this is not considered a matter of the opposite of justice and fairness. Because everyone understands that when one lends money to another, the lender can thereby earn

(by lending with interest),

and it is done with the good will of the borrower.

Now, since this is the order of the world and gentiles conduct themselves thus among themselves

(and this is not a matter of oppression),

a Jew also conducts himself with a gentile according to the conduct accepted in the world.

And⁹⁴ since a Jew may do this—

the Rambam holds that "it is a positive commandment to lend with interest to a gentile,"

because since this is an accepted and fair way to make a livelihood,

"the Torah has pity on the money of Israel"⁹⁵,

and he must lend with interest. For if not, it is as if he throws away his own money.

And this is similar to the prohibition of bal tashchit⁹⁶.

But regarding a Jew—

the Torah innovated that with a Jew one should not conduct oneself according to the conduct of the rest of the world

(even though this is conduct in the way of fairness),

and one may not lend with interest to a Jew.

And likewise, this is also the explanation of why "it is a positive commandment to press the gentile,"

because the Torah has pity on the money of Israel, etc.

But one must still understand the language of the Rambam in this: "a positive commandment

(to press the gentile)

and to cause him distress."

Regarding the aforementioned question

(above) –

how does beauty come about through "rubbing his eyes" –

it is understood from this very thing that since Rashi writes thus simply

(without any explanation of this),

this is the strongest proof,

that in Rashi's time, "rubbing his eyes" meant a thing that adds to beauty.

And may it be His will that it be fulfilled among Jews: "You are entirely beautiful, my beloved, and there is no blemish in you"⁹⁷:

Jews stand "entirely,"

all together,

and through this it becomes

(comes to be)

"beautiful, my beloved,"

until also "and there is no blemish in you,"

only "you shall be wholehearted with Hashem your God"⁹⁸,

with all 248 limbs and 365 sinews⁹⁹,

corresponding to the 248 positive commandments¹⁰⁰ and 365 negative commandments¹⁰¹,

as explained in Likkutei Torah⁹⁹.

And from Jews, wholeness and perfection

(and no blemish in you)

is drawn forth to the entire world:

It is explained in the books¹⁰² that "blemish" has the gematria of Elokim

(86),

and the explanation of the connection:

"Elokim" has the gematria of nature¹⁰³,

for the name Elokim is the attribute of contraction and might,

like the shield and sheath upon the sun¹⁰⁴,

which is the root of the conduct of nature,

a matter of concealment and hiding,

which covers the true essence of things,

"nature" from the term "they sank"¹⁰⁵ in the Sea of Reeds"¹⁰⁶,

which allows the possibility

(due to choice,

"and you shall choose life"¹⁰⁷)

that after many descents, etc., there should be a matter of "blemish."

But in the future to come, the true essence of the name Elokim will be revealed,

and the shield and sheath of the name Elokim will be nullified

(the source of the matter of "blemish"),

and all the more so from "and darkness shall be light."

And Jews add even more in this and hasten it even more –

through our deeds and service during the time of exile,

including in this the matter of "the Chanukah campaign,"

seeing that every Jew should kindle the Chanukah lights,

and give charity and fulfill the other commandments of Chanukah.

Which will add even more to the revelation of the light of the future to come,

in a manner of oil,

which also alludes to David, the king, the Mashiach,

who is called Mashiach because of the anointing,

"I have found David My servant; with My holy oil I have anointed him"¹⁰⁸,

and "David and Solomon, who were anointed with a horn, their kingship endured"¹⁰⁹.

And all this –

in the most simple and literal sense,

and speedily, in our very own days.

The Rebbe, of blessed memory, commanded to play "He will build the Holy Temple, etc." "He has redeemed my soul in peace."

Afterward he said:

Those who need to make a final blessing,

will certainly make a final blessing.