לקוטי שיחות חלק ט״ו - ויצא ב

Parshas Vayeitzei

1. In connection with the verse (in our parsha)^[1], "And he called the name of that place (the site of the Beis HaMikdash) Beis-El," the Gemara says^[2]: "Not like Avraham, of whom 'mountain' is written, as it says^[3], 'As it is said to this day, on the mountain of G‑d it will be seen'; and not like Yitzchak, of whom 'field' is written, as it says^[4], 'And Yitzchak went out to meditate in the field'; but like Yaakov, who called it 'house,' as it says, 'And he called the name of that place^[5] Beis-El'" — and therefore it says in Yeshayahu^[7], "the house of the G‑d of Yaakov," and not "the G‑d of Avraham" or "the G‑d of Yitzchak"^[8] (as will be explained below).

The commentators^[9] explain that the three names "mountain," "field" and "house" denote the three Batei Mikdash, and that specifically the Third Mikdash is called "house," which indicates a settled "place of dwelling" (not "mountain" or "field"), because this is the novelty and advantage of the Third Beis HaMikdash: only it will be a permanent and eternal building, unlike the First and Second Batei Mikdash, which were destroyed.

And this is also why specifically "Yaakov called it house": because "the inheritance of Yaakov" is "an inheritance without boundaries"^[10], as it says earlier in the parsha^[*10], "And you shall burst forth westward, eastward, northward and southward."

We need to understand, however: since it was specifically "Yaakov who called it house," the idea of "house" (a settled, permanent dwelling) should seemingly have been expressed in the conduct and course of life of Yaakov Avinu (especially in comparison with Avraham and Yitzchak, who called it "mountain" and "field"). In fact it is the opposite: it is specifically with Yaakov that we find the opposite of settledness and permanence (especially compared with Avraham and Yitzchak, who lived a very large part of their years in tranquility and permanence, in one place). All his days Yaakov was like "a stranger in the land" — "few and bad have been the days of the years of my life"^[12]: first his flight from Esav, as told at the beginning of our parsha, "And Yaakov went out from Be'er Sheva"; then his stay in Charan — "I have sojourned (with Lavan)"; and after that, when at last "Yaakov wished to dwell in tranquility, the trouble of Yosef sprang upon him"^[13*], to the point that it is said that "Yaakov lived" only the seventeen years (and those too were) in Egypt^[*13].

2. This will be understood by first explaining the above-mentioned verse in Yeshayahu^[14] (on which the Gemara bases itself), "And many peoples shall go and say, 'Come, let us go up to the mountain of G‑d, to the house of the G‑d of Yaakov, and He will teach us of His ways and we will walk in His paths…'" At first glance this is not understood: the verse indeed speaks of the Third Beis HaMikdash^[15], which is called "house," as explained above — but what bearing does this emphasis (that it is "the house of the G‑d of Yaakov") have on the content of the verse, that "many peoples shall go and say, 'Come, let us go up to the mountain of G‑d… and He will teach us of His ways…'"?

We also need to understand why the verse ("And many peoples shall go… Come, let us go up…") ends with "for" — giving a reason: "For from Zion will go forth Torah, and the word of G‑d from Yerushalayim"^[16]: a) In its plain meaning the verse does not mean to say that the peoples will come "to the house of the G‑d of Yaakov" in order to convert and learn Torah and the word of G‑d (as is also clear from the continuation of the following verse^[17]) — so how is "from Zion will go forth Torah, and the word of G‑d from Yerushalayim" a cause and reason for "Come, let us go up…"?

b) What is the double expression "from Zion will go forth Torah, and the word of G‑d from Yerushalayim," which seemingly have one intent and content? And likewise the earlier doubling, "He will teach us of His ways and we will walk in His paths"?

Although, plainly, the verse repeats itself for emphasis, merely changing the wording for poetic beauty — "Yerushalayim" instead of "Zion," "the word of G‑d" instead of "Torah," and likewise in "He will teach us of His ways and we will walk in His paths," as the commentators on Tanach explain in many places —

on the other hand, in Torah, and especially in the Written Torah, everything is precise in the extreme, to the point that a number of halachos are derived from a superfluous word or a change of wording in the Torah; and even in the plain meaning of Scripture, and even in a song, Rashi^[18] explains doubled expressions, etc. —

and similarly here, this is not a doubled expression with exactly the same content; rather, it speaks of two matters: a) "He will teach us of His ways," b) "and we will walk in His paths"; and likewise in the reason given for it: a) "from Zion will go forth Torah," b) "and the word of G‑d from Yerushalayim," as will be explained below.

3. The difference between "Torah" and "the word of G‑d": the Gemara^[19] says, "'The word of G‑d' — this is halachah," a clear word of halachah; whereas "Torah" (especially when it comes together with "the word of G‑d") includes also matters of argumentation^[20], initial suppositions (hava amina) that are then refuted, and so on^[21].

More particularly:

We find regarding customs that the Torah says one should conduct oneself in each place according to the customs of the place — "in a place where it is customary"^[22], and so on.

In matters of halachah, too, there can be a difference from place to place; in the language of the Talmud, in the locality of Rav^[23] the halachah follows Rav, and in the locality of Shmuel the halachah follows Shmuel. Similarly, even in a dispute between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel, before it was decided that the halachah follows Beis Hillel^[24], each of them conducted himself according to his view.

Even more: even after it was decided that the halachah follows Beis Hillel, and "Beis Shammai in the place of Beis Hillel is of no account"^[25] — "these and these are the words of the living G‑d"^[26]. And G‑d forbid, G‑d forbid, to say that the view of Beis Shammai is not part of Torah — for then he would have no connection with the whole Torah^[27] (similar to the ruling of the Rambam^[28] regarding one who says of a matter of the Oral Torah that it is not from G‑d, G‑d forbid).

And more than that: even an initial supposition and a question in the Gemara are also part of the Torah given from the mouth of the Almighty^[29]. And even when someone learns only the initial supposition and the question in Torah (without studying at that time the conclusion and the answer), he is obligated in the blessing over the Torah, and he says over that supposition and question — and likewise over the view that is not the halachah — "and He gave us His Torah."

4. Although all the differing opinions and disputes in the Gemara, and likewise the initial suppositions and questions in Torah, are part of Torah — "these and these are the words of the living G‑d" — the halachah is decided according to one opinion only; in the language of the Gemara^[30], "and G‑d (Havayah) was with him^[31], so that the halachah follows him." Halachah and differing opinions are like the difference between the Name "Havayah" and the Name "(these and these are the words of the) living Elokim," both of which are among the seven Names that may not be erased^[32].

The explanation of this is known^[33]: "Elokim" — even "the living Elokim," which is higher than plain "Elokim"^[34] — is a plural form^[35], which indicates, as it were, a multiplicity of levels and division. Therefore it is so in Torah too: from the aspect of "the living Elokim" there is room for the division of "these and these"; but "Havayah" is the explicit Name^[36], the Name of the Essence^[37], the unique Name^[38], above division; therefore from the Name Havayah comes the decided halachah in Torah — specifically one opinion.

5. The same is the difference between "Torah" and "the word of Havayah":

Torah includes also the lines of reasoning and the opinions that are not the halachah (as well as the lessons that can be learned from them elsewhere); whereas "the word of Havayah" is (as the Gemara says) "'the word of Havayah' — this is halachah."

And this is the intent of the verse, "from Zion will go forth Torah, and the word of Havayah from Yerushalayim": Torah is connected with "Zion," and "the word of Havayah" with "Yerushalayim":

It is known^[39] that the content and essence of every thing is expressed in its name; so it is in our case: the names "Zion" and "Yerushalayim"^[40] — although both designate the same city^[41] — each name points to a particular matter and quality in the city. The name "Zion" (meaning "sign"^[42], as in "set up road-markers [tziyunim] for yourself"^[43]) expresses that it is (only) a "sign" of a spiritual loftiness, as is known that "Yerushalayim below" is aligned opposite "Yerushalayim above." The name "Yerushalayim" points to the quality of the fear of Heaven that is found in it, as it says in the Midrash^[44]: "It is called Yerushalayim on account of yirah (awe) and on account of shalem (complete)," that is, in "Yerushalayim" there is the level of yirah in completeness^[45].

And as is explained^[47] on the verse^[48] said regarding maaser sheni, "so that you may learn to fear G‑d your G‑d all the days," that seeing "the place of the Shechinah, the Kohanim at their service, the Levi'im on their platform and Israel at their station" taught and brought one "to fear G‑d."

6. These two levels — "Zion" and "Yerushalayim" — are found also in the levels of the avodah of Jews^[49]. For just as (G‑d) "chose Eretz Yisrael," so "He chose Israel as His portion"^[50] — they resemble each other: just as in Yerushalayim (the "choicest" part of Eretz Yisrael) there are the two levels "Zion" and "Yerushalayim," so too with Jews, in their avodah, there are these two levels:

"Yerushalayim" — "on account of yirah and on account of shalem" — is, in avodah, the level of the ultimate and complete awe and bittul: one toils and works on oneself so that one's entire being is awe — utter bittul.

"Zion," meaning "sign," is the manner of a Jew's avodah through which he comes to be a "tziyun," a sign, of lofty matters of G‑dliness above: he is still in the form of an existence and not in utter bittul, but his existence is so worked upon (and refined) that it is a sign of the matters above.

And since he is an existence, in this state — also regarding his intellect — he toils to understand Torah and "takes" Torah also according to his powers of understanding and comprehension.

And therefore "from Zion will go forth Torah": "Zion" (a "sign," while still within the bounds of some existence) is connected with the level of "Torah," in which multiplicity and division have a place (as explained above, section 4). Since study and comprehension of Torah accord with his existence, it is naturally in a manner of multiplicity and division, etc., each one according to his comprehension and according to the root of his soul above^[51].

Nevertheless, since his existence is a "tziyun" and sign of the matters above, his reasonings, etc., are parts of the Torah of truth, and "these and these are the words of the living G‑d" — that is, the many reasonings descend from — and are therefore a "tziyun" and sign of — the multiplicity of levels that exist, as it were, in "the living Elokim" (plural).

But^[52] all this is only with regard to the comprehension of Torah, which is not connected with practical halachah; for this the level of "Zion" suffices, and it is not necessary to reach the level of "Yerushalayim"^[53].

When it comes to "(the word of Havayah — this is) halachah," however, the level of "Zion" is not enough^[54]; one must have complete awe — "and the word of Havayah^[55] from Yerushalayim." As explained in the hemshech of 5666^[56], one can decide a halachah in its absolute truth only through complete awe: he is afraid lest, G‑d forbid, his halachic ruling not accord with the Supreme Will, or even be — Heaven forbid — contrary to the Supreme Will.

[Even when it concerns a light detail of the words of the Sofrim, and even "merely" what a seasoned student will innovate — since we are speaking here of what "was said to Moshe at Sinai," of the Supreme Will, it makes no difference whether it is something the Supreme Will wanted to be Scriptural or Rabbinic^[57] — he is afraid lest his practical halachic ruling (through which a Jew will perform an actual deed) be, G‑d forbid, contrary to the Supreme Will.]

This awe calls forth in him still greater and stronger toil and depth in Torah, until he arrives at the halachah in its absolute truth.

And this is the meaning of "and the word of G‑d from Yerushalayim" — complete awe: to arrive at the true halachah, ordinary awe, such as fear of punishment or even a higher level of awe, is not enough; what is needed here is complete awe (lest one not accord with the Supreme Will), which brings the complete conclusion of the halachah in its absolute truth.

7. In light of the above we will understand another matter: the order of the verses of "Atah Horeisa," said before the hakafos, ends with "For from Zion will go forth Torah, and the word of G‑d from Yerushalayim." This is seemingly not understood: granted, the fact that only this part of the verse in Yeshayahu (and Michah) is said and not the whole verse can be explained simply — only that part of the verse, in its content, is relevant to (the verses for) the hakafos. But why is the word "for" also said — which connects the end of the verse, as a reason, with the beginning of the verse — since the beginning of the verse is not said (it is not relevant here, as explained)?

We must say that the (reason given by the) word "for" in the verses of Atah Horeisa refers (not to the beginning of that verse in Yeshayahu (and Michah), but) to the verse^[58] said before it ahead of hakafos, "Your kingship is a kingship over all worlds, and Your dominion is throughout every generation."

[There is no contradiction in the fact that in its source, in Yeshayahu (and Michah), "from Zion will go forth Torah" is a reason for the beginning of the verse there (which is seemingly not the subject of "Your kingship is a kingship…"), for we find in a number of matters that from the same cause come several results^[59].]

But together with this we must say that since the same matter, "from Zion will go forth Torah…," is a reason for two things, these two must have a connection between them (in their content, as will be explained).

8. Plainly it would seem that the two expressions, "Your kingship is a kingship over all worlds" and "Your dominion is throughout every generation," contain the same content and are repeated only for emphasis (with a change of wording for poetic beauty). But in light of the above (section 2) it is understood that according to the inner meaning of the verse (as in the verse "For from Zion… from Yerushalayim") these are (also) two separate matters:

The difference between "kingship" and "dominion"^[60]: kingship is accepted willingly, as in the expression "and they accepted His kingship willingly…"; dominion is a manner of rule (imposed) against one's will.

These two modes — "kingship" and "dominion" — come from the two matters of "from Zion will go forth Torah" and "and the word of G‑d from Yerushalayim," both in the avodah of each and every Jew (and also in the levels of Zion and Yerushalayim in general, as will be explained):

From the aspect of "Torah," which is the study of Torah according to one's understanding and comprehension as explained above, the manner of study is with vitality and relish; and "great is study, for it leads to action," so his fulfillment of the mitzvos in general is also out of desire and delight. That is, from the aspect of "Zion" and "Torah," the acceptance of the yoke of the kingship of Heaven is in the manner of "Your kingship is a kingship over all worlds" — willingly.

When it comes to "the word of G‑d," however — deciding a practical halachah and then fulfilling it in actual deed — understanding and comprehension according to his intellect (in the manner of "Zion") is not enough. On the contrary: with his perceptible intellect he may sometimes reach a conclusion that is not the halachah in its absolute truth; and only through the level of "Yerushalayim" — complete awe and bittul — when he compels himself and nullifies himself entirely^[61], does he come to hear the Supreme Will, the level of Havayah, and arrive at the halachah in its absolute truth (and he acts accordingly — even when it is contrary to his own reasoning).

That is, the study of the Torah of "the word of Havayah," of practical halachah, and consequently also the keeping of the mitzvos in general as they should be, comes through the compulsion and bittul of one's existence — like the idea of dominion^[62].

9. Since Jews in general (and each Jew in particular) must strive to attain not only their own completeness but also to bring the whole world to its completeness — and also, as the Rambam^[63] rules, "Moshe Rabbeinu was commanded by the Almighty to compel all the inhabitants of the world to accept the mitzvos commanded to the children of Noach," and the manner of fulfillment must be "that he accept them and do them because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded them in the Torah and informed us through Moshe Rabbeinu" — it is not enough that among Jews there be "Torah" and "the word of Havayah" in their two levels; rather, "from Zion must go forth Torah, and the word of G‑d must go forth from Yerushalayim":

Through "from Zion will go forth Torah," one brings about also among "many peoples" the movement of "Come, let us go… and He will teach us of His ways" — study^[*63] of the matters of their seven mitzvos, which, although it too is a matter of bittul, is connected with their existence, understanding and comprehension;

and through "the word of G‑d" going forth "from Yerushalayim," one brings about in them "we will walk in His paths" — actual walking^[64] (related also to the word halachah), which is a movement of utter bittul — obeying and doing the seven mitzvos as they are according to "the word of G‑d."

And so too regarding the two matters of kingship and dominion: their reason and cause ("for") are the two modes, "from Zion" and "from Yerushalayim." Through "from Zion will go forth Torah," "Your kingship is a kingship over all worlds" is accomplished — the world too ("all worlds") accepts the kingship willingly; and through "the word of G‑d from Yerushalayim," complete awe and bittul, "Your dominion is throughout every generation" is accomplished — the world ("throughout every generation") stands in the movement of utter bittul, from the aspect of "dominion"^[65].

10. Every matter exists as it comes in general and as it is expressed in particular. So too in our case: although in general the verse in Yeshayahu speaks of the time to come, in the Third Beis HaMikdash, when "from Zion will go forth Torah and the word of G‑d from Yerushalayim" will be in ultimate completeness, and consequently also the completeness of "Your kingship is a kingship… and Your dominion… every generation," in particular these two matters (though not in their completeness) are established in separate times:

Just as there is a difference in this between the time of the Beis HaMikdash and the time of exile^[66] — in the time of the Beis HaMikdash G‑dliness shone openly, and consequently the avodah of Jews was then (mainly) in the movement of love and desire, which gave them relish in their avodah; whereas in the time of exile, when G‑dliness does not shine openly, the avodah is (mainly) from acceptance of the yoke — awe and bittul^[67] —

so too within the avodah of the time of the Beis HaMikdash itself there is a difference between the time of the First Beis HaMikdash and the time of the Second^[68]:

The First Beis HaMikdash was built by King Shlomo at the time when "the moon stood in its fullness"^[69] — the complete revelation of G‑dliness from the level of Binah, "the world of freedom," which is why Jews were then free from subjugation to the nations — and the revelation of the Mikdash in the world was in a lofty manner, and the avodah of Jews was then also in a manner of revelation, of love, which is the level of "Zion" from which "will go forth Torah," as explained above. But in the time of the Second Beis HaMikdash, when the revelation was not in such a manner — as the Gemara says^[70], "'and I will be glorified' (ve'ekabdah) is written without the hei: five things were lacking in the Second Beis HaMikdash: the Ark, the cover…" — and the Jews were under the rule of the kings of the nations, the avodah was then (mainly) with awe and bittul — the level of "Yerushalayim"^[72], as explained above.

Accordingly, the difference between "Your kingship is a kingship over all worlds" and "Your dominion is throughout every generation" was also expressed in the difference between these two times^[73]: in the time of the First Beis HaMikdash the order of G‑d's conduct was in the mode of "kingship" — both regarding Jews, whose avodah was in the manner of "they accepted His kingship willingly," and in the world in general, which was a time of rest and tranquility^[74];

in the Second Beis HaMikdash there was (mainly) the mode of "dominion": both in the avodah of Israel — avodah with awe, through compulsion and necessity; and in the world, which was a time of wars, when many peoples ruled over Jews, and consequently it was necessary that the dominion of the Holy One, blessed be He, be felt^[75].

11. In light of the above we will understand the connection of the three Batei Mikdash with Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov^[76]:

Avraham's avodah is in the line of chesed, the attribute of love^[77] — "Avraham who loved Me"^[78]; therefore his avodah was (mainly) in publicizing and revealing G‑dliness from above to below, like the avodah in the First Beis HaMikdash^[79], as explained above.

Therefore it has a (special) connection with the level of "Zion" and "Torah"^[80]: Avraham's role is to be a "tziyun" and sign of the level of chesed in Atzilus^[81]; but since, from the aspect of chesed, he stands toward G‑dliness with love and delight — and love of G‑d, even at its highest level, means "there is someone who loves"^[82].

Yitzchak's avodah is in the line of gevurah — the level of awe and bittul^[83], as it says^[84], "and the Fear of Yitzchak was with me" — which is like the level and avodah of the Second Beis HaMikdash^[85]; and in this lies his connection with "and the word of G‑d from Yerushalayim," for complete awe and bittul were found in Yitzchak more than^[86] in Avraham^[87].

The avodah of Yaakov, the choicest of the Avos^[88], is in the middle line, Tiferes, which includes both lines — both the avodah of Avraham (the line of chesed and love) and the avodah of Yitzchak (the line of gevurah and awe)^[89]; therefore he corresponds to the Third Beis HaMikdash^[90], when both qualities will be combined: the ultimate completeness of the revelation of G‑dliness (even more than in the First Beis HaMikdash) — the level of "Zion" and "Torah" — and together with it bittul in its ultimate completeness — "and the word of G‑d from Yerushalayim"^[91].

12. In light of the above we will understand why the eternal permanence of the Third Mikdash is connected specifically with Yaakov (specifically Yaakov "called it house"), and also how this concerns the many peoples who will say, "Come, let us go up… to the house of the G‑d of Yaakov…":

Against^[92] every attribute in holiness there is an attribute in the opposite side that opposes it: alien love is the attribute that can oppose love of G‑d; against fear of G‑d there can be the opposite of "bad fear or anger." In the words of our Sages^[93], "From Avraham came forth Yishmael" (love of the opposite side), and "from Yitzchak came forth Esav" (fear of the opposite side). Therefore in a person's avodah it is possible that each of the attributes on its own will not endure (as seen in the result and effect of "the attribute": the converts Avraham Avinu made^[94] did not endure^[95]).

And so it was with the First and Second Batei Mikdash: each of them was (mainly) in one level and attribute, and therefore the opposite side could gain dominion over them, and they were destroyed.

The attribute of Yaakov, however, which includes both lines, chesed and gevurah, can therefore have no opposite; and therefore it was specifically Yaakov whose "bed was complete," with no unworthy offspring coming from him^[96].

And so it is regarding the Third Beis HaMikdash: since both qualities, "Zion" and "Yerushalayim," will be in it, it will therefore be a permanent and eternal house.

13. This is also the reason for the emphasis in the verse, "And many peoples shall go and say, 'Come, let us go up to the mountain of G‑d, to the house of the G‑d of Yaakov,'" and the "for," as it comes from the reason "(for) from Zion will go forth Torah and the word of G‑d from Yerushalayim":

Just as we see in physical matters that one can influence another when the other sees that the one making the demand means it truthfully,

so too in our case: for Jews to have an effect on the world, it is not enough that Jews have only one line (the level of "Zion" alone, or the level of "Yerushalayim" alone); they must have both lines together^[97] (in the level of "Zion" and "Torah," "Yerushalayim" and "the word of G‑d" must be felt — which in a person's avodah means that in avodah out of love, intellect and delight, complete bittul must be felt; and likewise the reverse: in the level of "Yerushalayim" and "the word of G‑d" there must also be intellect, delight and vitality^[98]).

And when there is the combination of both matters, "Zion and Yerushalayim," it is a matter of truth — "the attribute of Yaakov" — it is his entire being, and consequently there is no interruption or change in it;

and therefore this is the reason for "And many peoples shall go and say, 'Come, let us go up to the mountain of G‑d, to the house of the G‑d of Yaakov, and He will teach us of His ways and we will walk in His paths'": because this arouses the peoples to the study of Torah (in the matters of the seven mitzvos of the children of Noach) and to completeness in their fulfillment — "we will walk in His paths."

(From the talks of the night and day of Simchas Torah, 5736)