Parshas Vayeitzei
1. On the verse "אלקי אברהם אביך ואלקי יצחק" ("the G‑d of Avraham your father and the G‑d of Yitzchak"),1 the Midrash states2 — and Rashi brings it in his commentary on the Torah3 — that although the Al-mighty does not associate His Name with the tzaddikim during their lifetime, because even regarding them one cannot be certain "שלא יטעה אותן היצר הרע" ("that the evil inclination will not lead them astray"), nevertheless the Al-mighty said "and the G‑d of Yitzchak" (even though this was still during his lifetime), because "הואיל ונתייסם בעיניו כאילו הוא מת, לפי שהי' גנוז לתוך הבית ויצה"ר פסק ממנו" ("since his eyes had grown dim, he was considered as though dead, for he was confined within the house and the evil inclination had ceased from him").
This, however, is not understood: It is true that a blind person is considered like a dead person, as the Gemara says,4 "ארבעה חשובין כמת, עני ומצורע וסומא ומי שאין לו בנים" ("Four are considered as dead: a poor man, a metzora, a blind man, and one who has no children"); and regarding a blind person one finds an even greater comparison to a dead person: just as a dead person is exempt from the mitzvos, as it is written "במתים חפשי" ("free among the dead"),5 so too regarding a blind person there is an opinion that he is exempt from all the mitzvos.6
— But all this is still no explanation for the words of the aforementioned Midrash that "the evil inclination had ceased from him":7 one sees plainly, as an everyday occurrence, that a blind person has desire (an evil inclination) and he can sin,7 and so on. How, then, does the Midrash say "since his eyes had grown dim . . the evil inclination had ceased from him," and that because of this the Al-mighty associated His Name with Yitzchak even during his lifetime?
2. This will be understood by first introducing what the Gemara8 relates about Rav Yosef — who was "a סגי נהור" (a blind man)*8 — that when he reached the age of sixty he made "a יומא טבא לרבנן" ("a festive day for the Rabbis") and gave the reason for it: because "נפקי לי מכרת" ("I have come out of [the range of] kareis"). Abaye asked him about this: "נהי דנפק לי' מר מכרת דשני, מכרת דיומי מי נפיק מר" ("Granted that the master has come out of the kareis of years — has the master come out of the kareis of days?"), and Rav Yosef answered him: "נקוט לך מיהא פלגא בידך" ("Take hold of at least half in your hand").
In this teaching of our Sages one must understand:
a) When a Jew has a joyous occasion,9 he makes a festive meal (a "yoma tava") for all his good friends. Why, then, does the Gemara relate that Rav Yosef made a "festive day (specifically) for the Rabbis"?10
b) In the matter of kareis there is seemingly no practical difference between "the kareis of years" and "the kareis of days": when someone dies, Heaven forbid, a "מיתה חטופה" ("sudden death")11 on account of a kareis prohibition that he transgressed after he turned sixty, it is seemingly the same thing12 as when someone dies before sixty for having earlier stumbled into a kareis prohibition. This is thus not understood: since Rav Yosef had not come out of "the kareis of days," and there still remained the concern "lest he die a sudden death"13 — what reason did he have to make a "festive day" and a celebration over having come out of "the kareis of years"?
c) If Rav Yosef held that "the kareis of years" and "the kareis of days" are indeed two separate matters [which is why he made a "festive day" over having come out at least of "the kareis of years," even though he had not come out of "the kareis of days"], he should have said to Abaye "נקוט לך מיהא חדא בידך" ("take hold of at least one in your hand"),14 and not "take hold . . half in your hand." For the very expression "half" shows that "the kareis of years" and "the kareis of days" are (two halves of) one matter, and that by reaching sixty years he came out of (only) half a matter of kareis.
3. In addition to the questions in the story of Rav Yosef itself, it is also not understood:
a) Why is it not brought in the Shulchan Aruch, etc., that when one turns sixty he should make a "festive day"?
And all the more so, a fortiori: regarding a siyum of a tractate — about which Abaye said "תיתי לי" ("may [a reward] come to me") that then "עבידנא יומא טבא לרבנן" ("I make a festive day for the Rabbis"),15 where the expression "titi li" indicates a matter that one does only out of pious conduct beyond the letter of the law16 — it is nevertheless ruled in the Rema17 (based on the Gemara) that "כשמשלימים מסכת מצוה לשמוח ולעשות סעודה" ("when one completes a tractate it is a mitzvah to rejoice and make a feast"). How much more so, then, should the law (or the custom) have been ruled regarding "sixty years," that one should make a "festive day" — for the Gemara relates it as a plain matter (not as a matter of "titi li"), that "רב יוסף כי הוה בר שיתין עביד להו יומא טבא לרבנן" ("Rav Yosef, when he turned sixty, made a festive day for the Rabbis"). Yet this matter is not brought at all in the poskim.18 Why indeed?
b) Rav Yosef was in the third generation of Amoraim.19 Before him there were many Amoraim over the course of several generations, and before them many Tannaim over the course of several generations. And it is obvious that among the many Tannaim and Amoraim before Rav Yosef, there were a great many who reached sixty years.20 The question then arises: why do we not find regarding any of those Tannaim and Amoraim that they made a "festive day" upon reaching the age of sixty?
4. The explanation of all the above:
Concerning the reason why in the time of the Beis HaMikdash, when someone transgressed, Heaven forbid, a kareis prohibition he would die before fifty years, and for a prohibition punishable by death at the hands of Heaven — before sixty years21 [the punishment (like all punishments that come from Above22) being brought about by the very nature of the sin itself23] — the Alter Rebbe explains in Iggeres HaTeshuvah24 that this is because by transgressing these prohibitions "נכרת ונפסק חבל ההמשכה משם הוי' ב"ה" ("the cord of the drawing-forth from the Name Havayah, blessed be He, is cut off and severed"). And since for Jews the vitality of the body, too, comes from the G‑dly soul — which receives the flow from the Name Havayah, blessed be He — therefore, when the "cord" is "cut off and severed," the vitality of the body is automatically severed as well. (And the fact that even those liable to kareis or to death at the hands of Heaven can live until fifty or sixty years is because until then there still remains in them a "רשימו" (an impression) of the G‑dly soul.25)
And with this the Alter Rebbe answers25 the fact that in every generation there are "כמה וכמה חייבי כריתות ומיתות והאריכו ימיהם ושנותיהם בנעימים" ("many, many people liable to kareis and death who prolonged their days and their years in pleasantness")26 — because in the time of exile the flow of the Shechinah is enclothed in the ten sefiros of "Nogah." Therefore24 even one liable to kareis or to death at the hands of Heaven can live long (and even "in pleasantness") more than fifty or sixty years (even though in his case "the cord of the drawing-forth from the Name Havayah, blessed be He, was cut off and severed") — because he then receives vitality from the chambers of the sitra achra, Heaven forbid. And at that time, in the time of exile, one can live from that as well.27
5. Accordingly it is simply understood why it is not brought in the Shulchan Aruch that upon reaching the age of sixty one should make a "festive day." For [besides the fact that one is still not at all protected from "the kareis of days,"28 moreover] even when one reaches the age of sixty, there is no proof whatsoever (for many people) that he has come out even of "the kareis of years" — since in the time of exile even a person whose "cord of the drawing-forth" was indeed, Heaven forbid, cut off and severed can live longer than sixty years.
With this it is also understood why it is not related that the other Tannaim (those after the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash29) and Amoraim who lived before Rav Yosef made a "festive day" when they reached the age of sixty. Because of their great humility they were afraid — as in the well-known saying — "איני יודע באיזו דרך מוליכין אותי" ("I do not know on which path they are leading me"),30 and consequently there was room for doubt that perhaps their vitality did not come, Heaven forbid, from the chambers of holiness at all.
And the fact that Rav Yosef did make a "festive day" on that occasion31 is because regarding him there was a clear proof that his vitality came solely from the chambers of holiness, as will be explained.
6. Concerning Rav Yosef the Gemara relates32 that he was "Sinai" ("for the Mishnayos and Beraisos were arranged for him as they were given at Mount Sinai"33), and Rabbah was an "עוקר הרים" ("uprooter of mountains" — one "sharp and incisive in Torah"33). When a head of the yeshivah had to be appointed and they deliberated which of the two to appoint, they sent to Eretz Yisrael to ask "איזה מהם קודם" ("which of them takes precedence?"). And the answer came from there: "סיני עדיף . . הכל צריכין למרי חטיא" ("Sinai is preferable . . everyone needs the owner of the wheat").
Nevertheless, the Gemara relates,32 Rav Yosef did not want to accept the appointment, and Rabbah became the head of the yeshivah. And the Gemara concludes: "וכל שני דמלך רבה, רב יוסף אפילו אומנא לביתי' לא חליף" ("And all the years that Rabbah reigned, Rav Yosef did not even call a bloodletter to his house"). The Ramah explains34 that because Rav Yosef humbled himself and did not want to exercise "authority" in the presence of Rabbah, the merit of his humility protected him and the members of his household, so that throughout all those years — the twenty-two years that Rabbah reigned — no one in his household was ill, to the point that they did not even need to resort to a "bloodletter" to let blood.
This is a conduct above nature: the law is35 that a Torah scholar may not live in a city where there is no "umman" (bloodletter), because according to the nature that the Al-mighty implanted in the human body, one must resort to bloodletting. Now,
[Continued on the next page]
Notes
1) Our parsha, 28:13.
2) Tanchuma, Toldos 7.
3) Although the Holy One, blessed be He, "knows all that will be, and before it comes to be He knows that this one will be a tzaddik, etc." (in the words of the Rambam, Laws of Teshuvah, end of ch. 5; see there the reason why His knowledge does not compel, etc.), nevertheless He does not associate His Name with the tzaddikim during their lifetime in speech (to say "the G‑d of so-and-so"), because when the Supernal knowledge comes into revelation (in speech) it compels the person. As is known regarding the teaching that "whether he will be a tzaddik or a rasha He did not say" (see Torah Ohr, Toldos 13c ff., and elsewhere). Accordingly one will understand the Rambam's question there, end of ch. 6: "But is it not written in the Torah 'and they will enslave them and afflict them' . . 'and this people will rise up and go astray, etc.'?" — even though he had already written before this (end of ch. 5) that His knowledge does not compel, since His knowledge is not like our knowledge (as the Lechem Mishneh there asks). The answer is that the principle that "the Holy One, blessed be He, does not draw him (by His knowledge) and does not decree upon him" applies specifically when the knowledge does not come in speech; but "and they will enslave them and afflict them," and likewise "and this people will rise up and go astray, etc." — which are the speech of the Holy One, blessed be He — do compel the person. In the Rambam's words: "He has decreed, etc."
4) Nedarim 64b, and the sources cited there. Bereishis Rabbah 71:6, and the sources cited there.
5) Tehillim 88:6. Shabbos 30a.
6) Kiddushin 31a. Bava Kamma 87a.
7) Note Sanhedrin 91b, beginning. Responsa Pe'as HaSadeh, Kelalim 1:149 (vol. 7, p. 3084 — Kehot edition).
8) Moed Katan 28a.
*8) The reason a blind person is called "sagi nehor," which means "abundance of light" — even though this seems to be the very opposite of blindness, for a blind person does not see at all — is explained in the maamar beginning "Min HaMeitzar," 5705, ch. 4; see there.
9) This differs from "I make a festive day for the Rabbis" in tractate Shabbos (119a, beginning), and in Kiddushin and Bava Kamma there, for what is discussed there concerns the siyum of a tractate* and the reward of mitzvos; whereas "I have come out of kareis" is a celebration over life.
*) Note Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 246, sub-par. 27: "All householders have the custom . . to notify them, etc."
10) One cannot say that this is because only they were his friends, for then the Gemara would not need to emphasize "for the Rabbis." And it is a strain to say that this itself is what it comes to teach us — that all his friends were only "Rabbis."
11) The wording of the Gemara in Moed Katan there. See Rashi there, s.v. "the kareis of days."
12) As understood from Abaye's straightforward question: "Granted that the master has come out, etc., of the kareis of years — has the master come out of the kareis of days?"
13) Rashi's wording there.
14) As the Maharsha asks in Chiddushei Aggados (on the discussion at 90b, s.v. "Minayin") about the expression "half" in the discussion there.
15) Shabbos 118b, end, ff.
16) See Bach, Orach Chaim sec. 2: "and every 'titi li' there — all of them are matters of pious conduct." See also Yad Malachi, rule 646, and the sources cited in Sdei Chemed, Ma'areches Ches, §16, rule 1 (vol. 3, p. 1338).
17) Yoreh De'ah 246:26.
18) In the sefer Leket Yosher — a book of the customs of the author of Terumas HaDeshen — Yoreh De'ah, p. 40 (Berlin edition, 5664): "On the day of [turning] sixty the Gaon, of blessed memory, made a siyum on a tractate and invited two elders, in order to exempt himself also from the feast of sixty." However, besides the fact that this was a special practice of the author of Terumas HaDeshen — which is why it is not mentioned in the poskim, as stated in the main text — the author of Terumas HaDeshen too connected this matter with the siyum of a tractate. Perhaps it may be said that the author of Terumas HaDeshen also had proofs that his vitality came from holiness, similar to Rav Yosef (see below, section 6), but there remained [the concern] regarding "the kareis of days" (see below, section 7). Nevertheless, out of his great humility he connected it with the siyum of a tractate. As for the reason he invited two elders — it may be said that the thanksgiving over "I have come out of kareis" resembles the blessing of thanksgiving, Birkas HaGomel, which must be said "in the presence of ten, two of whom are Torah scholars" (the Alter Rebbe's Seder Birkas HaNehenin, 13:2).
19) See the Rambam's introduction to his "Yad." Seder HaDoros, year 4082.
20) And also in the discussion in Moed Katan there itself — Rav Huna reached "strength" [eighty years] and Rav Chisda lived ninety-two years, and Rav Huna and Rav Chisda preceded Rav Yosef (see Seder HaDoros under their entries).
21) So it is in Iggeres HaTeshuvah, beginning of ch. 4. This follows the view of the Yerushalmi, Bikkurim beginning of ch. 2 — as explained by Tosafos (Shabbos 25a, s.v. Kareis; Yevamos 2a, s.v. Eishes). And Tosafos there state that the view of the Bavli (Moed Katan 28a) is that kareis means not reaching sixty years. As for why the Alter Rebbe wrote according to the view of the Yerushalmi, it may be said: a) According to the Yerushalmi, the question "but there are found, etc." applies also to those liable to kareis who reached 60 years; he therefore adopted the Yerushalmi's view here to strengthen his question. b) Tosafos Yeshanim on Yevamos there has the reading also in the Bavli (in Moed Katan there): "when I was fifty . . I came out of kareis." And since even in the Bavli itself there are two readings of Rav Yosef's statement there (especially since Moed Katan there earlier quotes: "died at fifty years . . kareis . . sixty . . death at the hands of Heaven"), the known rule applies (see Yad Malachi, rule 94; ibid., Kelalei Shnei HaTalmudim, rule 8; Sdei Chemed, Kelalim, Ma'areches Beis, §90 (vol. 1, p. 138); ibid., Kelalei HaPoskim, sec. 2 (vol. 9, p. 1415)) that where there are differing opinions in the Bavli and the halachah has not been decided, we rely on the Yerushalmi.
22) As opposed to the punishments of the beis din (see the second starred note to note 27).
23) In the Shelah, Beis Acharon (12a–b), two opinions on this are brought. From what the Alter Rebbe wrote (Tanya, beginning of ch. 37) — "that which causes the reward of the mitzvah is the mitzvah itself" — it is reasonable that the Alter Rebbe holds that the same applies to sins.* So it is also implied in Iggeres HaTeshuvah ch. 5 (quoted below in the main text). Sha'ar HaTeshuvah (of the Mitteler Rebbe), part 1, 6c; 17d ff.; 3b, end. Derech Mitzvosecha 38b.
*) See Tanya ch. 39 (53a): "'The reward of a mitzvah is the mitzvah' — meaning that from its reward we will know its essence and its level." From this it is evident that this is also the meaning of "the reward of a sin is a sin" (for in the Mishnah (Avos ch. 2, mishnah 2) both matters are taught in one continuum) — and the fact that "from its reward we will know its essence, etc." is, simply, because the reward is brought about [by the deed itself], etc.
24) Ch. 5.
25) Ibid., ch. 6.
26) The Alter Rebbe's wording in Iggeres HaTeshuvah ch. 4. The reason he adds "in pleasantness" is that otherwise one could have explained (with a strain, at least) that [the punishment] was fulfilled through the punishment of poverty and the like, which are called "dead" in the language of "Scripture" (Shemos 4:19) and in "the words of our Sages" (cited in note 4 — brought in Rashi on the verse, Shemos there). But one cannot say that his intent with "in pleasantness" is that his question is specifically from those liable to kareis who had no sufferings, since regarding those liable to kareis who did have sufferings one could answer (why they lived long) that it is because "sufferings cleanse" (as at the beginning of ch. 1 of Iggeres HaTeshuvah, from the end of Yoma). For (a) even sufferings over a short time cleanse (similar to what they said (Makkos 23a, end): "once they were lashed, they are exempt from their kareis"), and from the fact that they lived long, etc., in pleasantness there is no proof that they did not have sufferings even for a short time. (b) Since the Alter Rebbe's question here is based on kareis and death at the hands of Heaven being brought about naturally (as in the next note), his question applies equally to the Mishnah in Makkos there (and the Beraisa at the end of Yoma): how can one be exempted from kareis through lashes (and sufferings), since by nature he cannot live?
27) The reason the Alter Rebbe needed this answer — even though "those liable to kareis, if they did teshuvah, the Heavenly court forgives them" (Makkos 13b), so that it is possible that those who lived long did teshuvah [as Tosafos answered (Kesubos 30b, beginning) regarding the statement (Kesubos there) that the law of the four [court] death penalties has not ceased,* even though "we see many sinners and idol worshippers who die in their beds"] — is that his question (in ch. 4) is about this very point: how is one exempted through teshuvah from kareis and death at the hands of Heaven? Since these punishments** are brought about naturally by the sins, how is it possible to be exempted from them through teshuvah? According to the explanation in ch. 5, that the punishment of kareis is because "the cord of the drawing-forth is cut off and severed, etc.," this question too is automatically answered, since "through his teshuvah he returns the flow of the Shechinah to its place" (end of ch. 6) — he thereby reconnects the soul with its root. See Likkutei Torah, beginning of Bamidbar (1b): "'And that soul shall be cut off,' etc. — in the analogy of a person whose body is cut off from his head, and the advised remedy for this is like, for example, if there were found*** medicines to join his body to his head; so it is, etc." [Note that there, 1a end: "regarding the matter of kareis, etc." — apparently something is missing.]
*) The reason the question of Tosafos there is on "the law of the four death penalties" introduced in the Gemara there, and not on those liable to kareis and death at the hands of Heaven, is that regarding those liable to kareis and death at the hands of Heaven one can answer as in Iggeres HaTeshuvah (quoted in the main text).
**) As opposed to lashes and the four death penalties of the beis din: since their punishment was handed over to the beis din, one must say that the Holy One, blessed be He, willed it so and nullified, in these sins, the natural process of "your own evil will chastise you." So too regarding "the law of the four death penalties" [after the court's authority ceased] — since they are in place of death by the beis din. (But this requires study in light of the statement of our Sages (Makkos 10b) on the verse "and G‑d caused it to come to his hand," which refers to one who was liable to death and there was no witness, etc.) Accordingly one will understand why the Alter Rebbe's question (in Iggeres HaTeshuvah ch. 4) is only about those liable to kareis and death at the hands of Heaven, and not about the law of the four death penalties (even though they are more severe).
***) Note Bava Metzia 106b: "those killed by the government (those killed by the sword — Rashi), etc., were it not, etc., they would make them into medicines and live." Accordingly the wording "if there were" seems difficult, for such medicine certainly exists. But see Bava Basra (74b) that it is not found at all. Accordingly the addition of the word "found" ("if there were found") is also understood. Here too one sees the great precision of the words of our Rebbeim.
28) For even on account of this reason itself, the room for making a festive day upon turning sixty is already negated, as is evident from Abaye's question (see above, note 12). Accordingly the reason is understood why we do not find that they made a festive day even before the destruction (see further in the main text). Rav Yosef is different — as explained below, section 6 ff.
29) See the previous note.
30) Berachos 28b.
31) Even though he too was utterly humble (end of tractate Sotah; Rashi there).
32) End of tractate Horayos. Similarly at the end of tractate Berachos.
33) Rashi on Horayos there.
34) Brought in Tosafos HaRosh on Horayos there. He concludes: "And this explanation seems reasonable to us."
35) Sanhedrin 17b, end. Rambam, Laws of De'os, end of ch. 4.
Key Lesson
A long life is not in itself proof that a person's vitality flows from holiness — in exile, even one cut off from his G‑dly source can draw life from the side of unholiness. This is why the great Sages, out of humility, did not celebrate reaching sixty; true assurance comes only when a person's life clearly rests on G‑dliness, as with Rav Yosef, whose humility brought him protection above nature.