Parshas Vayeitzei
1. Regarding the blessing that came upon Lavan's livestock in the merit of Yaakov — who was his "shepherd of the sheep" — the Zohar[1] brings two opinions on how much Lavan's livestock increased[2]:
The first opinion is that Lavan "found, on account of Yaakov, a hundred sheep each month, and a hundred rams and a hundred goats, beyond his flocks"; and "Rabbi Abba said: Yaakov would bring him a thousand sheep, a thousand rams and a thousand goats more each month," and he brings proof for his words from what Yaakov said[3], "and G‑d blessed you on account of my coming (leragli), and a blessing from Above is not less than a thousand"[4].
It is understood that also according to the first opinion it was a blessing of G‑d, as is explicit in the verse[5] (on which he bases himself) (to the point that Lavan too admitted it): "and G‑d has blessed me on account of you." And so as not to enlarge their dispute, one may say that his holding that the blessing was only in the number of a hundred is not because he disagrees with the principle that "a blessing from Above is not less than a thousand," but because the blessing of G‑d can be drawn down in two ways:
a) The drawing down is such that even when it comes down below it is openly recognizable that it is "a blessing from Above," and then it brings an extraordinary abundance (of a thousand) even plainly.
b) The drawing down and descent of the blessing from G‑d below changes in that below it is not openly recognizable that it is "a blessing from Above" in full force; it descends from a thousand — to the number of a hundred.
But this is not understood:
Since also according to the first opinion it was a blessing of G‑d, what compels us to say that it changed and became the number of a hundred?
We also need to understand:
a) From the fact that Rabbi Abba brings proof for his words from the verse "and G‑d blessed you on account of my coming" (and is not satisfied with the verse "I have divined that G‑d has blessed me on account of you," which is already cited earlier in the first opinion and comes before it[6]), it is implied that specifically from this (second) verse there is proof that it was "a blessing from Above." This is not understood: how is the verse "and G‑d blessed you" more of a proof than the verse "and G‑d has blessed me on account of you"?
b) What is the reason for the change, that in the first opinion it says "he found, on account of Yaakov, a hundred" — emphasizing how Lavan received a blessing ("on account of Yaakov") — while Rabbi Abba says "Yaakov would bring him a thousand…" — how Yaakov brought blessing?
Moreover: if Rabbi Abba wants to emphasize how Yaakov brought the blessing, he should have cited the verse (cited in the first opinion) "and G‑d has blessed me on account of you," which seemingly emphasizes more that the blessing comes from Yaakov than the wording "and G‑d blessed you on account of my coming."
2. One may say the core of the explanation:
It is known[7] that the matter of a blessing (in general) is that one draws down a bestowal from the root and source of the one being blessed; that is, the blessing has from the outset a connection with him from his root and source, and one need (only) draw it down below — in the words of the verse[8], "each man according to his blessing he blessed them."
And this is the content of the difference between the two interpretations — it depends from whose root and source the blessing was drawn down:
According to the first opinion, it was a blessing of which Lavan was worthy[9] from the root and source of Lavan, only it was drawn down below through a (secondary) cause, on account of the merit of Yaakov; and therefore the blessing was in the number of a hundred — because the completeness of Lavan is connected only with the number a hundred (as will be explained in section 10);
whereas Rabbi Abba holds that the blessing was brought by Yaakov with his coming, "leragli," with the coming of his feet[10]; he brought it to Lavan, but it is Yaakov's and according to his level — it was drawn down to Yaakov from his root and source, and he brought the blessing to Lavan. And therefore the blessing was in the number of a thousand — because the completeness of Yaakov is connected with a thousand (as will be explained there).
Accordingly the changes of wording in the two opinions are also understood:
The first opinion says and emphasizes that Lavan "found" — Lavan found his blessing, only the finding is "on account of Yaakov"; and therefore he cites the verse Lavan said, "I have divined (he discovered it himself) that G‑d has blessed me (only the cause was) on account of you";
Rabbi Abba emphasizes that "Yaakov would bring him" — the blessing was Yaakov's blessing, and he brought it to Lavan; and therefore he cites the verse Yaakov said, "and G‑d blessed you on account of my coming," with the coming of my feet.
3. To understand the matter more clearly, we must first explain why (the property of) Lavan was blessed in the merit of Yaakov — which is so with tzaddikim in general: "wherever tzaddikim go, blessing is sent forth"[11]:
The world was created for the sake of the Torah and for the sake of Israel[12]. And since this is the purpose of creation, it is understood that when (the matters of) the world "serve" and help a Jew (so that he can do what he must do — "I was created to serve my Maker"[13]), they reach their purpose (and consequently their) completeness[14].
And this is why "wherever tzaddikim go, blessing is sent forth": when a "place" becomes a place where tzaddikim come and serve their Maker there, occupied in the service of G‑d, the place and its matters "help" Israel and Torah. Therefore it reaches its purpose and the aim of its creation (and consequently it becomes a place of blessing — "blessing is sent forth").
Accordingly one may say that the above two opinions in the Zohar regarding Lavan's blessing in the merit of Yaakov depend on the two ways of understanding "for the sake of the Torah and for the sake of Israel," as will be explained.
4. There is a dispute among the Tannaim[15] whether the preparations for a mitzvah override Shabbos. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the preparations for a mitzvah override Shabbos, but the halachah[16] follows the opinion that they do not override Shabbos.
The reasoning of the dispute is whether the preparation and enabling of an action has the importance of the action itself[17]:
Rabbi Eliezer holds that since the action cannot be done without the preparation and enabling, the preparation receives the status of importance of the action itself — and therefore the preparations for a mitzvah override Shabbos just like the mitzvah itself.
The other Tannaim hold that although one must have the preparation, since it is only a preparation, it does not have the status of importance of the action itself — and therefore the preparations for a mitzvah do not override Shabbos.
Although regarding overriding Shabbos the halachah does not follow Rabbi Eliezer, and the preparations for a mitzvah do not have the importance of the mitzvah itself, there are (also according to halachah) certain matters where it is said that the (seemingly) enabling element of the mitzvah receives the importance of the mitzvah.
For example — the words of the Ran on Kiddushin[18], that although a woman is not commanded in the mitzvah of being fruitful and multiplying, "nevertheless she has a mitzvah, because she helps her husband fulfill his mitzvah"; and in this itself one can learn two ways (as discussed once at length[19]): a) "she has a mitzvah (in general)" — since she helps in a matter of a mitzvah, she has a mitzvah in general, but not in the particular category of the mitzvah of being fruitful and multiplying; b) since she "helps her husband" fulfill the mitzvah of being fruitful, her mitzvah is in the category of the great mitzvah[20] of being fruitful and multiplying.
5. The difference between the above preparations for a mitzvah (which do not override Shabbos) and the case of "helping" with a woman is plainly understood[21]:
With the above preparations for a mitzvah, the preparation and the mitzvah are two separate actions, done at separate times, etc.; the first action is indeed a necessity, but only for the sake of the second action. For this reason the action of preparation does not receive the (rules and) importance of the mitzvah itself.
But with the above mitzvah of being fruitful and multiplying, the woman's help is in such a manner that it becomes part of the husband's mitzvah; it is only that the obligation of the mitzvah is on the husband;
and therefore the woman's help receives the importance of the mitzvah itself.
6. Similar to the above difference between preparation and help — whether it is merely secondary, or receives (something of) the importance of the main thing — there is room to inquire regarding creation, which was created "for the sake of the Torah and for the sake of Israel":
One can say that creation is entirely a preparation and secondary, not in the category of the importance (and quality) of Torah and Israel; or — since Torah and Israel must make use of creation, it is a help (and partner) in the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvos, and creation receives something of the importance of Torah and Israel[22].
One may say that this depends on how one "looks" at creation:
When one regards or feels creation as an existence in its own right, only that its role is to be a means and preparation "for the sake of the Torah and for the sake of Israel," then creation itself has no connection with the quality of Torah and Israel — like the above preparations for a mitzvah (section 4), which do not override Shabbos since they are not part of the (action of the) mitzvah;
but when one "sees" creation as having its entire existence in being "for the sake of the Torah and for the sake of Israel," to the point that creation is as though a "detail" of Torah and Israel — in the words of our Sages, its existence is "to serve me," so that a Jew can "serve his Maker," helping Jews in the service of Torah and mitzvos — then the quality of Torah and Israel is felt in creation itself.
[Similar to the above reasoning that a woman has a share in the mitzvah of being fruitful and multiplying, since she "helps" in the action of the mitzvah.]
7. With this one can also explain the dispute between the Rambam and the Raavad[23] regarding the law of slaughter by an idolater:
The Rambam rules, "Slaughter by an idolater is neveilah and imparts impurity by carrying… by Rabbinic law, for the impurity of idolatry and of its offerings is Rabbinic." The Raavad objects and says: "Idolaters are like animals; they neither impart nor receive impurity — 'the people that is likened to a donkey'; 'the nations are like a drop from a bucket'; 'and the wind will carry them all away'; and whoever considers them anything has gathered wind in his fists."
The Rogatchover[24] explains the Raavad's objection: when does slaughter ruin (and make into neveilah)? Only if the slaughterer is a (Torah) existence according to halachah; but idolaters are "wind," an absence, and therefore their slaughter cannot bring about (a Torah action and consequently) the law of neveilah to impart impurity [and the slaughter of an idolater is neveilah because the slaughter of an idolater is not slaughter, and consequently it is neveilah like an animal "that died by itself"];
whereas the Rambam says that "slaughter by an idolater is neveilah and imparts impurity… by Rabbinic law," because[24] he holds that an idolater is an existence according to halachah.
According to the above one may explain the reasoning of the dispute: in the Raavad's view, although the existence of the children of Noach is "for the sake of Israel…," it is in a manner in which they remain secondary and do not receive Torah importance; consequently they are not counted as an existence according to halachah. The Rambam, however, holds that their being for the sake of Israel… is in a manner in which they receive a connection with the importance of Torah and Israel, to the point that they enter the category of an existence according to halachah.
8. Accordingly one may say that the Rambam here follows his own view regarding the seven Noahide mitzvos, where he states the law[25] that among "the pious of the nations of the world" are only those who fulfill the seven Noahide mitzvos specifically "because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded them in the Torah and informed us through Moshe Rabbeinu," "but if he did them because of reasoning, he is not a ger toshav and is not among the pious of the nations of the world" —
which is seemingly puzzling: since "Moshe Rabbeinu bequeathed the Torah and mitzvos only to Israel"[26], what connection does the Giving of the Torah have with the children of Noach, to the point of saying that after the Giving of the Torah they must fulfill their mitzvos specifically "because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded them in the Torah"[27]?
One may say the explanation:
It has already been discussed a number of times[28] that the seven Noahide mitzvos are not a matter and purpose in their own right (for their own sake), but for the sake of Israel and for the sake of the Torah — for the sake of Jews' fulfillment of Torah and mitzvos: for Jews to be able to fulfill Torah and mitzvos, the world must be in a state of "to be inhabited"[29] — fit and prepared for the avodah of Jews — and this is brought about through the seven Noahide mitzvos, which establish an order of settlement of the world.
And therefore the Rambam holds that they must fulfill the seven mitzvos "because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded them in the Torah": just as regarding their very existence — because their creation is for the sake of Israel, they are therefore an existence according to halachah — so too regarding their mitzvos: since their purpose is "for the sake of the Torah," their aim, "for the sake of the Torah," must therefore be felt in them too, and consequently they are connected with the Giving of the Torah.
9. According to this explanation of the Rambam's words, we will also understand the difference between the versions of the text of the Rambam in this halachah:
The widespread version of the Rambam is: "but if he did them (the seven mitzvos) because of reasoning, he is not a ger toshav and is not among the pious of the nations of the world, nor among their wise."
But in a number of Rishonim[30] (and likewise in the Yemenite manuscripts) the version is: "and he is not among the pious of the nations of the world, but among their wise."
Seemingly it is specifically the widespread version that is puzzling: why should one say that one who fulfills the seven mitzvos "because of reasoning" is not among their wise — on the contrary, they are rational mitzvos.
According to the above one can say that the two versions in the Rambam are two ways of understanding the Rambam's view on the connection the nations of the world have with Torah:
According to the version "but among their wise": although the children of Noach are required to fulfill the seven mitzvos "because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded them in the Torah," because the matter of Torah (which is the aim of their creation) can be felt also in them —
nevertheless, since their "for the sake of the Torah," their connection with Torah, is only as a preparation and secondary, the matter of Torah can be felt in them only from the aspect of "piety," in a manner that does not permeate and is not received in their (existence, their) wisdom and intellect; therefore one cannot demand that their wisdom must accept the matter of "the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded them in the Torah." And therefore — although he does not accept it, he is "among their wise": from the aspect of their wisdom, the seven mitzvos are "because of reasoning."
According to the widespread version, that "if he did them because of reasoning" he is "not among their wise": since the entire existence of the children of Noach is "for the sake of the Torah," the matter of Torah must permeate their wisdom too; if not, the very existence of the wisdom is lacking, because what gives it life — the "for the sake of the Torah" — is lacking.
10. And this is also the explanation of the two opinions in the Zohar regarding the blessing of Lavan's livestock in the merit of Yaakov:
The difference between the number a hundred and the number a thousand:
"A hundred" (ten times ten) is the completeness of blessing (and abundance) as it is from the aspect of nature
[as we find in a number of matters in the nature of the world that their completeness is in the number a hundred; for example, "at a hundred it is as though he has died, passed away and ceased from the world"[32]; the completeness of "one who reviews his chapter" according to his nature and habit is "a hundred times"[33]; and more];
whereas "a thousand" indicates a completeness that is above nature. As is known[34], "elef" (thousand) has the same letters as "pele" (wonder), to the point that in many places[35] the number "a thousand" is used figuratively for an extraordinary abundance, etc.[36].
It is explained in many places[37] that the nations of the world (in themselves) have a connection only with natural conduct, whereas Jews (in themselves) are above the world, and G‑d conducts them with miraculous conduct[38].
And in this lies the difference between the two opinions in the Zohar:
According to the first opinion, the nations of the world have no connection with the quality of Jews; therefore even when they carry out their task (of "serving me") and help Jews in their avodah, only the completeness of blessing as it is from the aspect of nature is drawn down to them — "a hundred."
But according to the view of Rabbi Abba, the entire existence of the nations of the world is "for the sake of the Torah and for the sake of Israel," and consequently they have a connection with the quality of Israel; therefore, when they carry out their task of helping Jews, they receive something of the importance of Jews, which in blessing is expressed in the number a thousand — above the measures and limits of nature[39].
11. According to what has been said above, one can also learn a lesson regarding the relationship of Jews to the nations of the world in our time:
G‑d has arranged the order of the world so that in the time of exile the situation of Jews depends to a certain extent on the situation of the nations of the world and on their attitude toward Jews — "for in its peace you will have peace"[40].
A Jew must always remember, however, that when the non-Jew helps him and "serves" the Jew, the Jew thereby causes that in him, the non-Jew, his life-force — the "for the sake of Israel" — be revealed, and that he be blessed. He must not, G‑d forbid, be cowed by him: besides the fact that the non-Jew is like an axe in the hand of the one who chops with it, G‑d — he (the non-Jew) receives through the help and assistance his life-force and blessing.
[As the Mitteler Rebbe (whose redemption is celebrated on Yud Kislev) explains[41], we see "in every generation and at every time that the nation under which Israel is in exile is exalted above all the nations"; and as we have seen in this latter generation: as long as the majority of the Jewish people was found only in "that" country, it was exalted and cast fear on the whole world; and in recent times, when the majority of the Jewish people has moved to the United States, it has become the strongest country in the world, able to cast its fear and dread on the whole world, and even on that country.]
And more: not only does a Jew know this, but the mazal (spiritual source) of the non-Jew also senses it, to the point that his mazal says, "and G‑d has blessed me on account of you," and consequently "a great trembling has fallen"[42] upon all the peoples of the land —
[and if the non-Jew is given to divination, he too says, announces and proclaims, "I have divined that G‑d has blessed me on account of you," and explicitly asks, "Name your wages to me and I will give it" — in any case from the aspect of their mazal]
and consequently the nations of the world help Jews with joy and vitality, as one does something that brings blessing with it, to the point of "and kings shall be your nurturers and their princesses your nursing mothers," even in the time of exile[43].
And Jews have their needs in abundance, and prepare for the time when "I will turn to the peoples a clear language, that they all call upon the Name of G‑d, to serve Him with one accord"[44], in the true and complete Redemption through Moshiach Tzidkeinu.
(From the talks of Shabbos Parshas Vayeitzei 5742, and the second day of Rosh Chodesh Mar-Cheshvan 5740)