Likkutei Sichos Vol. 30 – Vayechi 1
1. “And as for me, when I came from Padan, Rachel died unto me on the way... and I buried her there on the way...” Rashi comments: “‘And as for me, when I came from Padan...’ Even though I am troubling you to take me to be buried in the land of Canaan, and I did not do so for your mother, for she died near Bethlehem... and I buried her there on the way, and I did not even bring her to Bethlehem to bring her into the land. I know that you have a grievance against me, but know that I buried her there by Divine command, so that she would be a help to her children when Nebuzaradan would exile them, and as they passed by there, Rachel would go out upon her grave and weep and plead for mercy on their behalf, as it is said, ‘A voice is heard in Ramah...’ and the Holy One, blessed be He, answers her, ‘There is reward for your labor, says the L‑rd... and your children shall return to their border.’”
But this is not understood:
Several of the commentators on the Torah explain the verse “And as for me, when I came...” — that in the very language of the verse itself, Yaakov’s apology for not bringing Rachel to the Cave of Machpelah is explained. For example, Ramban writes that “she died suddenly on the way, and I could not bury her there (in the Cave of Machpelah), for how could I leave my children and my livestock on the road, etc.” Or as Sforno explains, “My distress and mourning so overwhelmed me that I did not have the strength to bring her, etc.” Why, then, does Rashi leave aside these explanations, which are according to the straightforward meaning of the text, and instead bring words of Aggadah that have no hint in the verse? On the contrary, according to Rashi’s explanation, the “astonishment of the matter” (Yaakov’s conduct, that he buried Rachel on the way and did not even bring her into Bethlehem) is explicit in the verse, while the main point — the reason for this conduct — is not mentioned at all in the text!
It is also necessary to examine Rashi’s wording in the Holy One’s reply to Rachel: “There is reward for your labor, says the L‑rd... (and your children shall return to their border).” This is not understood, for there is no “labor” of Rachel mentioned here for which she would deserve reward (“There is reward for your labor”), only that she “pleads for mercy on their behalf.”
[The commentators bring the words of the Midrash, that in her plea Rachel mentioned that she brought her rival (Leah) into her home and gave her the signs, etc., and for this the Holy One answered her, “There is reward for your labor” (“for your labor and your righteousness, that you gave your signs to your sister”). But in Rashi’s commentary here, he does not mention this at all.]
And seemingly, it would have been more fitting to bring here the continuation of the Holy One’s words, “And there is hope for your future, says the L‑rd” (especially since this is said in immediate proximity to “and your children shall return to their border”)?
2. This will be understood by first adding clarification to Rashi’s words that Yaakov said to Yosef, “I know that you have something in your heart against me.” At first glance, this is not understood:
From the very fact that Yaakov did not apologize to Yosef all these years for burying Rachel on the way, it implies that Yosef’s main grievance was only aroused after Yaakov made him swear to trouble himself to bring him to the land of Canaan and bury him there.
[This is also evident from Rashi’s wording: “Even though I am troubling you to take me to be buried in the land of Canaan, and I did not do so for your mother, etc.” That is, the grievance that “I did not do so for your mother” is a result of “I am troubling you to take me, etc.”]
At first glance, this is puzzling, for this seems like a feeling of revenge, G‑d forbid — that regarding the matter itself, Yosef had no grievance against Yaakov, and only when Yaakov troubled him to bring him to the land of Canaan did Yosef’s feeling of grievance awaken, for Yaakov had not troubled himself to bury Rachel in the Cave of Machpelah. Could Yaakov have suspected Yosef of such a thing?
Therefore, it seems that Rashi’s intent in “I know that you have something in your heart against me” is not about a grievance — G‑d forbid to suspect Yosef of having a complaint against Yaakov for not burying Rachel in the Cave of Machpelah. For Yosef surely understood that Yaakov did everything in his power to bury Rachel in the Cave of Machpelah (so that she would be buried together with him), especially knowing the great love Yaakov had for Rachel. If Yaakov did not do so, it was certainly not his fault at all —
Rather, the precise meaning of “you have something in your heart against me” is as follows: Even though Yosef understands intellectually that Yaakov is not to be blamed, nevertheless, at the end of the day, Rachel is missing this special merit of being buried in the Cave of Machpelah. And since this deficiency exists, there remains “something in Yosef’s heart” toward Yaakov—the emotional pain in his heart persists: why should Rachel’s portion be diminished, that she should not be buried in the Cave of Machpelah?
The intensity of this feeling was awakened in Yosef when Yaakov told him to bring him to be buried in the land of Canaan, in the Cave of Machpelah. This request highlights the great virtue of burial in the Cave of Machpelah—so much so that Yaakov is willing to trouble Yosef (and publicly, even though he treated him with honor) to bring him there. This only magnifies Yosef’s sense of the lack that Rachel did not merit to be buried there.
And in order to remove this feeling from Yosef’s heart, Yaakov said, “And as for me, when I came… I buried her there…”—and as Rashi explains, Yaakov clarified to Yosef that “by Divine command I buried her there, so that she would be a help to her children, etc.”
This also simply explains why Rashi needed to bring these words of Aggadah, and did not explain as the earlier commentators did (as mentioned above, section 1)—for according to their explanation, Yaakov’s words are merely an apology, stating that he was not at fault. But such words are not enough to remove what is “in Yosef’s heart”; only according to these words of Aggadah is there a reason why Rachel was buried on the road—“so that she would be a help to her children, etc.” And further (and perhaps this is the main point), it emphasizes a special merit of Rachel (that it was specifically she who brought about the Holy One’s promise, “and your children shall return to their border”), as will be explained. Therefore, this provides a sufficient answer that removes this feeling from the heart.
Here is the explanation:
The fact that Yaakov buried Rachel on the road “by Divine command… so that she would be a help to her children, etc.” does not mean that something was taken away from Rachel for the sake of her children’s benefit. On the contrary, since this is the redemption of Rachel’s children, it is for Rachel’s own good and happiness. Certainly, Rachel herself would have agreed to this and demanded it.
It can be said that this is Rashi’s intent in bringing the verse “(And G‑d answers her,) ‘There is reward for your labor,’ says the L‑rd”—without mentioning any “labor” of Rachel—because his intent is precisely to the fact that she was buried on the road, which was so that “she would be a help to her children.” The reason G‑d commanded Yaakov to do this is because it was Rachel’s own will and desire. In slightly different words: it is specifically Rachel’s plea for mercy that has the power to bring about the promise “and the children shall return to their border,” in the merit of this “labor”—that she was willing to forgo the merit of burial in the Cave of Machpelah in order “to be a help to her children.”
3. Based on this, we can explain (at least in the inner dimension) the continuation of the verses, that Yaakov said this to Yosef in connection with his words about Ephraim and Menasheh.
[And the commentators have already wondered—Yaakov should have prefaced these words of apology to his earlier request, when he made Yosef swear, “Carry me out of Egypt and bury me in their burial place,” and not at this occasion, when he did not mention at all his burial in the land of Canaan (but only words of blessing, and that Ephraim and Menasheh would be counted among the other tribes to receive a portion in the land).]
It can be said that in this, Yaakov hinted to Yosef the reason why “your two sons who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt—they are mine”:
The fact that even sons who were born in the land of Egypt (“before I came to you”) are included “in the count of my other sons” is due to Rachel’s merit. Since she was willing to be buried on the road (not together with Yaakov) in order “to be a help to her children,” she merited that her children who were born “in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt” (not in proximity to Yaakov)—“they are mine.”
4. Now, it is stated in the Gemara on this verse, “And as for me, when I came from Padan, Rachel died upon me,” that “a woman dies only for her husband.” The Chiddushei Aggados of the Maharsha explains that this statement comes in continuation to what is discussed earlier in that sugya regarding “his first wife” (“the wife of his youth”), for the fact that Yaakov said “Rachel died upon me,” “even though he had other wives,” is because “he found satisfaction only with her, for she was his first wife and the mainstay of the household.” [This is also brought in Rashi on the Torah, that Rachel was “the mainstay of the house,” and so it is stated in the Midrash that “Rachel was the essence of the house,” to the extent that because of this “the Jewish people are called by her name.”]
According to the above, we can say that the two matters in this verse—(a) Yaakov’s apology for burying Rachel on the road, so that “she would be a help to her children,” and (b) the precise wording “Rachel died upon me,” which emphasizes that she was “the mainstay of the house”—are connected. For this very trait that we find in Rachel—the willingness to forgo her own advantage (to be buried with Yaakov our father in the Cave of Machpelah) in order “to be a help to her children”—is the essential quality found in every upright Jewish woman, whose role is to be “the mainstay of the house.”
The explanation of the matter:
Although the principle “I was created to serve my Creator” applies equally to men and women, nevertheless, there is a difference between man and woman: the main aspect of a man’s service of G‑d is the study of Torah and prayer and the fulfillment of all the mitzvos, and included in this (since one must engage in worldly matters and earning a livelihood) is also his service “In all your ways know Him” and “All your deeds should be for the sake of Heaven.” In contrast, regarding women—they are exempt from positive time-bound commandments (and likewise exempt from Torah study), because they must be occupied with the needs of the home (as explained by the early authorities, that for this reason a woman is exempt from positive time-bound commandments—because the needs of the home are upon her).
And perhaps it can be said that in this lies the special quality of women: for men, the main aspect of their service of G‑d is in an open and revealed manner, and therefore this service can lead to a feeling of satisfaction (“rejoicing in his portion”), and from there—to a sense of self (at least in a very subtle way); whereas for women, it is not so.
With this, we can also understand the reason for the distinction regarding lineage: the very essence and general status of being a Jew depends specifically on the mother—one born to a Jewish mother is a Jew (even if the father is not Jewish), but the particulars, the distinctions among Jews themselves—Kohen, Levi, Yisrael—depend on the father’s family:
To be a Jew depends on being a literal “part of G‑d above,” which is beyond division into particulars; whereas the distinctions of Kohen, Levi, Yisrael, which are different levels in the revelation of holiness, depend on the man, whose service of G‑d is in matters of revealed holiness.
5. And this is Yaakov’s intent in saying to Yosef, “And even though I am imposing upon you to bring me to be buried in the land of Canaan, and I did not do so for your mother, etc.”—this is the difference between Yaakov and Rachel:
By virtue of his essence and his service, Yaakov needed to be buried in the Cave of Machpelah, together with the other Patriarchs—in a state and place of revealed holiness;
Whereas Rachel’s unique greatness—“the essence of the house,” “the mainstay of the house”—is that she gives up her own completeness and advantage, to be buried in the Cave of Machpelah, in order “to be a help to her children,” and specifically for children who would be born many generations later, and children who would be in an undesirable state, to the extent that they would be exiled; and for the sake of those children who sinned and were exiled—Rachel our mother gives up the merit of being buried in the Cave of Machpelah together with Yaakov our father for hundreds and thousands of years, so that through this she can be “a help to her children.”
And this is the reason that she brought about the promise, “And the children shall return to their border”—for since she gave up her own advantage for the sake of these children, because of the essential bond between her and them (in whatever state they may be), this draws down from Above a “measure for measure” response, that despite the revealed state of the children (that they deserved exile), G‑d promised, “And the children shall return to their border,” for since they are children, they will certainly return to their border, in the true and complete Redemption, speedily in our days, literally.
(From a talk of Shabbos Parshas Vayechi, 5746)