tomorrow is י״ט כסלו, so we're going to have after we finish the שיחה, we're going to have a פארברענגען. So באמת you could consider the learning of the שיחה also part of the פארברענגען, because what's better than learning a שיחה of פארברענגען? So therefore, the first thing I'm going to do, I'm going to say לחיים even before we start. ברוך אתה ה׳ אלקינו מלך העולם שהכל נהיה בדברו. נו, לחיים לחיים. Second thing, בכלל I usually choose the smaller שיחה, but this time I chose a longer one, because after all, it is not a סתם a regular day. It is ט׳ כסלו and י״ט כסלו, so ממילא we could do a little bit more in the שיחה, and there's half of the שיחה actually is חסידות, so it fits the ט׳ כסלו and י״ט כסלו. So we'll start right now. The שיחה is on a פסוק in פרשת ויצא obviously, and the פסוק comes after it says that יעקב wanted to marry רחל, he loved רחל more than לאה, but לבן cheated him, so he married לאה, and then he married רחל, and then the פסוק says: וירא ה׳ כי שנואה לאה, ה׳ saw that לאה is hated, so therefore ויפתח את רחמה, He opened her womb and she had a child. Just want to mention דרך אגב, has nothing to do with the שיחה, that it doesn't mean he actually hated her. First of all, you're not allowed to hate a איד, ואהבת לרעך כמוך, but besides that, there's a הלכה that if it's a wife that you hate, you're not allowed to live with her. So what's the פשט he hated? So the רבי said it means לפי ערך, according to the comparison to the level that he loved רחל, he, we call it hate, but he didn't hate her, I mean he didn't love her as much. Anyway, that's just דרך אגב. And then the פסוק continues, and that's where we're going to start the שיחה. The פסוק, and the פסוק continues and says: ותהר לאה, לאה became pregnant, ותלד בן, she gave birth to a son, ותקרא שמו ראובן, she called him ראובן, כי אמרה, כי means because, the פסוק is giving a reason why she called him ראובן, because אמרה, she said: כי ראה ה׳ בעניי, ה׳ saw my suffering, suffering that she's not liked, כי עתה יאהבני אישי, and now my husband will love me. Now that I gave birth to a son for him, and not only a son, to a firstborn son, now he is going to love me. That's what the פסוק says, that's why she called his name ראובן. So

from that פסוק רש״י brings down the דיבור המתחיל, copies from the פסוק the words: ותקרא שמו ראובן. The פסוק says she called his name ראובן, ומפרש, and רש״י explains it like this: רבותינו פירשו, our חכמים explained that, in other words the חכמים explained what was the reason why she gave him a name ראובן. So they explained like this: אמרה, she said: ראו מה בין בני לבן חמי. The word ראובן is made up of two words: ראו, see, see, בן, see a son. So the reason she called him ראובן the חכמים say, because she said, look at my son, and look at the difference between my son and my father-in-law's son. Her father-in-law was יצחק, יצחק's son was עשו, so basically look at the difference between my son and my father-in-law's son, which is her brother-in-law actually, look at the difference: שמכר הבכורה ליעקב, עשו sold the בכורה. He was firstborn and he has the firstborn rights, and he sold those rights to יעקב. וזה, and this one, this son, she says: לא מכרה, didn't sell it, which shows that he held this בכורה in high esteem, ליוסף, he didn't sell it to יוסף, even though it was given to יוסף, but he didn't sell it. It was taken away from him, it doesn't say here that לשון, but that's what, taken away, but he didn't sell it to יוסף, יעקב gave it, ולא עירער עליו, but he didn't complain against it. ולא עוד שלא עירער עליו, not only didn't he complain against it, that why they gave it to יוסף, אלא שביקש להוציאו מן הבור, he wanted to take him out of the pit, when they threw him in the pit, he was ready to save him. So רש״י gives a reason on the פסוק, on the words ותקרא שמו ראובן, she called his name ראובן, why did she call his name ראובן? For this reason. Because she ראובן means ראו בן, look at my son. וצריך להבין, so the

רבי says we have to understand, number one, א׳: רש״י הודיע כלל יסודי בפירושו, רש״י told us a rule, a fundamental rule in his commentary: אני לא באתי לפרש אלא פשוטו של מקרא, I only came to explain the simple פשט in the פסוק, פשוטו של מקרא. היינו, that means שכוונתו לפרש ולבאר, רש״י's purpose is to explain רק דבר שאינו מובן ומוסבר כל צורכו בפשט הכתובים, something that's not clear, something not understood in the simple meaning of the פסוק. But if the פסוק is clear, רש״י doesn't say, even though there are many מאמרי חז״ל, many פשטים you could say on all kinds of פסוקים, רש״י doesn't bring them, he only only explains when something is not clear in פשט, רש"י comes to answer it. So, therefore, the problem here is, מה קשה כאן בפשוטו של מקרא שרש"י צריך לפרש? What is hard to understand in the simple פשט of the פסוק that רש"י has to explain? What is not understood in the פסוק? It's a very simple פסוק, and רש"י comes to explain. It must be something not so clear. That's one קשיא. יתירה מזו, the קשיא is even more. Not only does רש"י have no reason to explain because the פסוק, the פשט, is understood, רש"י מפרש אף טעם לקריאת השם ראובן הוא משום, רש"י says the reason she called him ראובן was because שאמרה, because the reason she said ראו מה בין בני, look at my son, etc., etc., היפך פשוטו של מקרא. Not only does רש"י not רש"י has not the same פשט. What רש"י does say is against the simple פשט. The simple פשט the פסוק says, why did she call his name ראובן? ותקרא שמו ראובן כי ראה ה' בעניי, because ה' saw my suffering, כי עתה יאהבני אישי, my husband will love me. And רש"י comes and says a different פשט, which is against what it says the simple פשט. ואף שפירושו של רש"י בכללות מקורו בגמרא, even though generally, it's only generally, but it it's in הגמרא, so ממילא רש"י brings it from the גמרא.

Later, the רבי says that if you look in the details, it's not exactly like the גמרא, but בכללות, it's like the גמרא. So לכאורה you could answer that's why רש"י says it, because the גמרא says that פשט. But הרי ידוע הכלל שנקט ליה רש"י בפירושו, we know the rule that רש"י says in this פשט, וחוזר עליו כמה פעמים, he repeats it many times. This is the לשון he says, ואני לא באתי אלא פשוטו של מקרא, I only came only for simple פשט, ולאגדה המיישבת דברי המקרא דבר דבור על אופניו. Sometimes רש"י said, I bring אגדתא. I bring, like, a different thing that the חז"ל say, which is not written simply in the פסוק, but I only bring it, things that answer, explain, פשט of the פסוק. דבר דבור על אופניו means as it should fit according to the פשט. היינו שצריך להיות צורך ביישוב. It's a פסוק that needs explanation. That's why he says so I bring an אגדה that will explain, והיישוב צריך להיות סדור לפניו, and the explanation that he brings from the חז"ל, from the חכמים, has to be on the proper אופן, meaning what does אופניו mean? כנהוג ביסודות יישוב של משלי that he brings on its proper base. The brace of the מקרא, של המקרא, of the פסוק. So, even though this is in גמרא, that's not a reason for רש"י to bring it, because בעצם, if רש"י would bring every דרוש in the גמרא on the פסוקים, you'll have hundreds of thousands of things that רש"י doesn't bring. So רש"י says bring פשוטו של מקרא. In פשוטו של מקרא, there's nothing to say here. And רש"י is the top. The פסוק says why she called his name ראובן. Comes רש"י and add something which is no need for it. Everything, the פסוק is clear, and says something against the פשט, that's not like the פשט. There's a different thing that she had in mind when she called it. So, that's not understood. והנה יש מפרשים, there are some מפרשים that say like this, דהטעם המפורש בקרא כי ראה ה' בעניי, גומר, אינו מספיק. Why does רש"י say what he says? Because looking at the פסוק, and the reason the פסוק gives why she called his name ראובן because she said, כי ראה ה' בעניי, ה' saw my suffering, that is not enough, כי בזה מוסבר רק חלק משם ראובן, that only explains part of ראובן's name, תיבת ראו שבו. ראובן is made up of of ראו בן. So if you connect ראובן's name to ראה ה' בעניי, so it's only connected the first word of his name. אבל לא בן שבו, the word בן in ראובן has nothing to do with ראה ה' בעניי. לכן דרשו רבותינו טעם, so they say there must be another reason, שאמרה, that she said ראו מה בין בני לבין בן חמי. That other reason does fit to ראובן, see what how great my son was compared to my father-in-law's son. So the words ראו בן fits, ששני העניינים מרומזים בשם ראובן כולו, because that is hinted in the complete name of ראובן, both things. So לכאורה maybe that's the reason, that's what the מפרשים say רש"י why he adds to the פסוק. אבל בפירוש רש"י אי אפשר לפרש כן, but in רש"י you can't say that כי, for like this, נוסף על זה, besides the fact, שאיזהו הכרחו של רש"י לרווחא דמילתא טעם אחר על שם ראובן מהמפורש בקרא, if רש"י is trying to add a new reason why she called him ראובן, in addition to what the תורה says, הווה ליה לרש"י לפרש, רש"י should explain. רש"י doesn't explain why is he answering why is he adding another name. He should've said a קשיא that the name that's written in the תורה is not enough. הגם the רבי in הערה ח' says that we know the the דרך of רש"י בכלל is not to write the קשיות. Most שטיקלאך רש"י piece of רש"י, he quotes the לשון of the פסוק, and says the פשט. Doesn't explain what the קשיא is, and he expects that we'll figure out why he's saying it. So why do we say here that רש"י, if he meant this, he should have said what the קשיא is why he's saying it? So the רבי says that's only when רש"י explains, he says you'll figure out yourself what's the problem. But when he's saying something against the פסוק, then obviously he should have to explain it. He should have to explain himself, and רש"י didn't. So that makes it hard to say that that's what רש"י meant. But besides that, בפשוטו של מקרא איזה קושיא מעיקרא דמילתא, in simple פשט, it's no קשיא that the word ראובן doesn't fit exactly to the reason, which is ראה ה׳ בעניי, because it only fits to part of the word ראובן. שהרי אפשר לומר,

you could say, שהאותיות ב׳ נ׳, you could say that the letters ב׳ נ׳ שבשם ראובן, in the name ראובן, מרמזות להב׳ והנ׳ של בעניי. It does, ראה ה׳ בעניי, בעניי has a ב׳ and a נ׳. So ראה ה׳ is ראו, and the word בעניי is the ב׳ and the נ׳. ואף שבשם ראובן אין בה את הע׳ והי׳ של בעניי, even though in the name ראובן, which means in the ב׳ נ׳, it's only a ב׳ נ׳ that doesn't have the ע׳ and doesn't have the י׳ of בעניי, וגם ניקוד הב׳ הוא באופן אחר, and also the ניקודות, the the the vowels, the way you pronounce the word is different than the word בעניי. בעניי is one way and בן is a different ניקודות. So לכאורה maybe that's why you can't say that that is hinted in the name ראובן, so it's not a problem. הרי כבר למדנו כיוצא בזה במקום אחר בפירוש רש״י, we find in other places where רש״י says that there's a רמז of some ענין in a word, even though it doesn't fit exactly to every word. Where does he say it? He says in בראשית. רש״י says שמים, why is the heaven called שמים? הוא ראשי תיבות שא מים. שא מים is it carries water. שם מים, it's ראשי תיבות of there is water. אש ומים, it's made up of fire and water. אף שהאלף של שא ושל אש ליתא בתיבת שמים. The א׳ of the word שא and the א׳ of the word אש is not there in the word שמים. וגם ניקוד השי״ן של אש הוא באופן אחר, the ניקודות of the ש׳ of אש is not the same as שמים. So nevertheless, רש״י says that could be hinted, that's it's called שמים because of that. אלא שדיו לנו באות שי״ן שבשמים, it's enough with the אות, the letter ש׳ of the word שמים. ובפרט שאות זו היא המורגשת בעיקר בביטוים של התיבות שא ואש, especially that the ש׳ is the one that's heard, that's felt the most. So ממילא you could say that it's hinted in that. על דרך זה מובן גם בעניננו בתיבת בעניי, so the same thing could say here, in the word בעניי, שהאותיות ב׳ ונ׳, בן, הן המורגשות בה בעיקר. The the word the ב׳ and the נ׳ is felt in the word בעניי, even though there's another ע׳ and a י׳, but what's felt when you're when you when you pronounce it is the ב׳ and the נ׳. So ראו is כי ראה, ה׳ בעניי you feel the ב׳ נ׳, and that's the reason for the for the name ראובן. ולכן לא איכפת לן החסרון של שאר האותיות, we don't care that the other letters are not there. אם כן הדרא קושיא לדוכתא, so the קשיא comes back, פירושו של רש״י כאן למה לי? Why does רש״י have to tell us a new פשט in why she called him ראובן? They say that the reason is because what the פסוק׳s פשט, the reason is not hinted in the words, and the רבי explained that according to פשוטו של מקרא, according to רש״י, it does fit. So then we're back to the שאלה,

why does רש״י say a different reason? גם צריך להבין, we also have to understand, see, before the questions were, generally speaking, why does he have to give that reason? Now he's going to, in the reason itself, ask certain קשיות. בטעם השם שאמרה ראו מה בין בני, in this reason that רש״י gives, that reason she called him ראובן, saying, look, the difference between my son and the son of my father-in-law, in עשו. So they're like this: למה פירש רש״י בפשט הכתוב כדברי הגמרא? Why does רש״י say like the גמרא says, but again רש״י is not limited to what the גמרא says, רש״י says what fits more to פשט. So why does רש״י say in דרך הפשט, in חומש, like the גמרא says שההפרש בין בני לבין חמי הוא בזה, that the difference between my son and my father-in-law's son is, שבן חמי מכר הבכורה וזה לא מכרה. My the son of my father-in-law sold the בכורה. וזה לא מכרה, and he, this boy, didn't sell it, in the future will not sell it. ולא עירער עליה, and not only he didn't sell it, it was taken away and he didn't argue. ולא עוד אלא ש, not only ולא עוד אלא שלא עוד אלא ש, not only he didn't argue, he took him out of the pit. Why does רש״י brings this? Number one, what's the problem is? Number one, במאורע העתיד לבוא לאחר כמה וכמה שנים, רש״י says that the name had to do with something that happened after many, many years. וממילא, and ממילא another problem, it's a נבואה רחוקה, it's a far נבואה from far. Usually if a נבואה would be something close, why would she say something, give him a name on based something that's going to happen later which is a נבואה רחוקה? A third thing, ג׳, ובשייכות לגנותו של ראובן, in the reason that that רש״י gives that she gave, it brings out something negative about ראובן. She's trying to bring out the מעלה of ראובן, she's mentioning there נטילת הבכורה מראובן עבור חטאו, mentions that the בכורה was taken away from ראובן. And why was it taking taken away? Because ראובן sinned, whatever he did, and what the whatever he brings here where it is בחללו יצועי אביו. So it it mentions that, it reminds us of that. And it reminds us of ובירידתו של יוסף לבור, it reminds also something else negative, that יוסף was thrown into a pit. So why if רש״י wants to say that מעלה of ראובן, הרי אפשר לפרש באופן דשבחו של בני ובדבר שהיה בזמן קרוב ליוסף, she could have brought out that the מעלה of ראובן, look at my son, my son, and a מעלה in him, something that happened very soon. ראו מה בין בני לבין חמי. Look at the difference between my son and my father-in-law's son, that my father-in-law's son, עשו, גזל וחמס וכולי, he stole and he robbed, etc., etc. ואילו בני לא פשט ידו בגזל, and my son did not steal, כמו שפירש רש"י, like רש"י says right a little bit later on the פסוק וילך ראובן בימי קציר חטים, ראובן went at the time they were cutting the חטים, and he found the דודאים, so רש"י says, what's נפקא מינה to tell you when it was? The פסוק trying to tell you, even though it's קציר חטים, so he could have taken more valuable things from the different fields, but he didn't want to take something that's valuable to steal. So, he didn't steal, so he could have said the difference between my son and עשו, my son, עשו stole, my son didn't steal. Then, that's בכללות, why did he have to pick the בכורה? Why couldn't he pick something closer and something which doesn't mention anything that has to do with any negative thing? ב', another thing, גם בפירושו של רש"י גופא אינו מובן. Even רש"י's פשט itself is not understood. שתוכן פירושו הוא שונה מהפירוש שבגמרא. רש"י's פשט is different than the פשט of the גמרא. בגמרא איתא, the גמרא it says like this, also says that she meant to say the difference between my son and the son of my father-in-law of עשו, but the גמרא says it like this: ואילו בן חמי, the son of my father-in-law, אף על גב דמדעתיה זבניה לבכירותיה, even though he sold the בכורה willingly, we learned it, דכתיב, like it says, that he asked for נזיד עדשים, asked for the lentils and he's ready to, he sold it, he sold the בכורה. Nevertheless, so לכאורה, what kind of a complaint can he have if he sold it? He sold it willingly. חזו מה כתיב ביה, look what happened: וישטום עשו את יעקב, עשו hated יעקב. And it says he said, ויעקבני זה פעמיים. He told יצחק that he tricked me. And he said that when I, he took the בכורה, he tricked me into it. He did it willingly, and nevertheless, look what happened. ואילו בני, but my son, אף על גב דעל כרחיה שקליה יוסף לבכירותיה מיניה, even though the בכורה was taken of him by force, דכתיב, like it says, he brings the פסוק for it, אפילו הכי לא איקני ביה, he wasn't jealous of him. And he quotes the פסוק, דכתיב it says, etc. היינו, it means, according to the גמרא, ההפרש בין עשו לראובן, what's the difference between עשו and ראובן? עשו שנא את יעקב בעבור הבכורה שעברה לו. עשו hated יעקב because he got, יעקב got the בכורה, אף על גב דמדעתיה זבניה ליה, even though he sold it to him willingly, nevertheless, he hated him. ראובן לא איקני ביוסף, ראובן was not jealous of יוסף. That's the way the גמרא makes that what לאה said to show the difference between her son, ראובן, and עשו. מה שאין כן לפי פירוש רש"י, but according to רש"י, which also says that she made a difference, but what? תוכן החילוק ביניהם הוא לא בשייכות הקנאה והשנאה, the difference is not concerning whether you were hate, hated him or not, and had on or you didn't hate, עשו did hate him, and and ראובן didn't, מצד הבכורה, כי אם בנוגע לגוף המכירה. Our גמרא seems to be saying, we're talking about the sale itself, שרק זה נזכר בנוגע לבן חמי, when he says, look at my father-in-law's son, it says that he sold the בכורה. So it looks like the עיקר difference between עשו and ראובן is בנוגע the sale of the בכורה, שעשו מכר הבכורה, עשו sold the בכורה, והאילו שראובן לא מעסיק, and the other side, ראובן's מעלה, שלא הוא מכר הבכורה, ראובן didn't sell it. דבר שלא נזכר כלל בגמרא במעלתו של ראובן. The גמרא doesn't mention at all, when we talk about the מעלה of ראובן, that the מעלה that ראובן did not sell the בכורה. But the גמרא doesn't say, but רש"י is משמע, because רש"י says, look, עשו sold the בכורה, נו, obviously, he did not sell the בכורה. That's So why does רש"י change from the גמרא? Another thing, רש"י מוסיף ולא עירער עליו. רש"י like this: he didn't sell the בכורה. That's one thing. Then it continues: and he didn't argue when it was taken away. ולא עוד שלא עירער עליו, not only didn't he argue, didn't he complain, אלא שביקש להוציאו מן הבור, he wanted to take him out of the pit. ולכאורה, כשם שהודגש בנוגע למעלתו של בני, just like when it talks the מעלה of ראובן, שהייתה בתכלית הטוב, and he says oh how great he was, so he mentions a few מעלות. Number one, he didn't didn't sell the בכורה. Number two, when it was taken away, he didn't complain. Number three, not only he didn't complain, but he tried to save יוסף. כמו כן היה לו להזכיר בגריעותא של בן חמי, so too, when he sees on the the חסרון, the negativity of עשו, שעשו עירער על הבכורה, that עשו argued against the בכורה. That's what he brings. על דרך מה דאיתא בגמרא הנ"ל, he should have said that the other side by עשו is, but the לשון of רש"י is by עשו, he says, all it says here שמכר הבכורה ליעקב, that he sold the בכורה to יעקב. So should have also mentioned that he argued against against it. The גמרא says that, that he complained against it. רש״י doesn't bring that. Just says that he sold the בכורה. But he should have brought another חסרון, just like by יעקב by ראובן, you have a חסרון, a מעלה, that he didn't argue. By עשו, you have a חסרון, not only that he sold it, which is a problem, he argued against, like the גמרא says. ולא עוד אלא שרצה להרוג את יעקב, and he also wanted to kill... the

opposite of ראובן. ראובן wanted to save יוסף, who was the one that got his בכורה. And here, he sold his בכורה, argued against, wanted to kill יעקב. Why doesn't the גמרא say that? והביאור בכל זה, the רבי says the פשט in all this is like this: הטעם המפורש בקרא לקריאת שמו של ראובן, the reason that the תורה said the פסוק says clearly, מפורש, is כי ראה ה׳ בעניי כי עתה יאהבני אישי, that ה׳ saw my punish my my my suffering, and now my husband will love me. בכלל מובן בפשטות. That's simple. We understand it. It makes a lot of sense. This makes sense that what she was saying, because מטבע בני אדם, it's natural by people, שיולדת בן לאישה, that when a woman, a wife, gives birth to a son, מעורר בבעלה רגש של קירוב ואהבה יתירה לה. Awakens within the husband a feeling of closeness and a feeling of extra love. So that's what she and that's בפשטות what she said. So לכאורה the פסוק seems to be very simple, needs no explanation. אומנם, בנידון דידן אין הדבר כל כך, but in our case, it's not so straight, not so smooth. The רבי would say, נישט אזוי גלאטיק. It's not so smooth. In other words, there is something to look into this is this so.

Number one: ההדגשה כי עתה, עתה יאהבני אישי, when she said, "Now my husband will love me," who what was the reason she said now? What's What happens now? מפני שלאה היתה שנואה גם לאחר שנשאת לאישה. We see like this: she was hated. We'll use the word שנואה, as the תורה says, meaning she didn't like her so much. And this happened even after he married her, which is a חידוש, that after you marry a wife, usually you love her more. He still didn't love her so much, she's still שנואה. אם כן, if that if you see that even after he married her, he still didn't love her, so יתכן, it's possible, כי גם עתה, כשיולדה לאה בן לאחר מכן, maybe now, even though she gave birth to a son, לא ישתנה בהרגש עד כדי כך שיאהבני אישי. That now he should love her? It'll change? If he didn't change when he married her, how is she so sure it'll change when she has a child? ובפרט שגם רחל אשתו העיקרית של יעקב עתידה לילד לו בן, especially that says in in the נביאות, רש״י says that the the אמהות were נביאות, so they knew that רחל was going to have a child, too. So why does she think that now that I had a son, and they knew that she's also going to have eventually, now it's going to change so much, עתה, because he had a son? It didn't change before. He married her, it didn't change. Why does she think it changed? So that's one question.

Second thing: מנא לה ללאה שבנה זה הבכור ילך בדרך הטוב והיושר? How did she know that this son, who's the firstborn, will go in the proper path? כי דווקא בן כזה יעורר ביעקב וגו׳ רגש של קירוב לאמו. When she said that this might this will bring out a love, a feeling of closeness from יעקב to me, obviously, is only if the son is going to be a good son. He's going to go in the right way. How did she know it's going to happen? הרי אפשר ולא יהיה כפי רצונו של יעקב, maybe he'll grow up and won't be like the רצון of יעקב. ומה גם, especially, שבנידון בן זה יש בפרט לחשוש, in this case, there is a real reason why to suspect that חס ושלום, he will not be a proper son. Because בנו הראשון של יצחק אביו, which is עשו, the first son of יצחק, יעקב's father, was עשו. So we see the first son was no good. וכן בנו הראשון של זקנו אברהם was ישמעאל. The son the first son of the grandfather אברהם was ישמעאל. לא היתה הנהגתם באופן טוב, they didn't behave good. ובן כזה, a son who's not going to behave good, לא זו בלבד שאינו ראוי לגרם קירוב בין אביו לאמו, not only will not bring a closeness between the father and the mother, אלא שעלול לפעול נטיה הופכית, it might cause an opposite feeling. So how was he sure how is she so sure by saying this, "Now he will love me"? So the main question is, how do you know he will love her because of this? First of all, we see it didn't change really, but especially that we don't know what's going to happen later. רבותינו... Do you hear me? Because it says that you're Oh, you're on, yes. לכן מפרש רש״י, that's why

רש״י says, רבותינו פירשו, that our רבי'ס, the חכמים, added another thing here. And I'll give you a go ahead a little outside before we learn. What the חכמים added was not a new a new פשט in the פסוק. The פסוק says a different reason, explaining the reason of the פסוק, how it's a good reason. The פסוק's reason is that she felt this is going to make יעקב love me. But the קשיא is, how is she so sure? So that רש״י so רש״י brings what the חכמים said, and based on what they said, we understand why she felt that by having ראובן, יעקב is going to love her. Let's learn inside. So he says in the פירוש: ראו מה בין בני לבין בן חמי, look, difference between my son and the son of my father-in-law, שמכר הבכורה ליעקב וזה לא מכרה ליוסף. עשו sold it, yeah, עשו sold it, and my son is not going to sell it. היינו, means like this: וזה שקראה לו ראובן, this that she called him ראובן, מטעם כי אמרה כי ראה ה' בעניי, she called him ראובן for the reason the תורה says, cuz she said ה' saw my suffering, that's hinted in the word ראובן, and now he will love me. נסב על בנה, gave her a son, so we said before, how do you know that this is going to make him love, this son? So רש"י says that will be מובן על פי זה דרבותינו פירשו. Based on what the חכמים said, we'll understand פשט in what the פסוק says. כי לולי זאת, if not for what the חכמים said, אינו מוכרח שעתה יאהבני אישי. Not clear that he's going to love her now. כי מלידת בן לבד אין די להרבות אהבתו של יעקב ללאה כעת, cuz just why she had a son is not enough to make him love, because maybe the son is not going to be good. והכתוב אומר דרשני, so the פסוק itself tells me you have, cuz רש"י only explains when something missing in פשט, there's something missing in פשט here. The פסוק itself, זו לשון רש"י, the פסוק says you gotta find something more than what it says, cuz based on what it says the פסוק is not clear. He's going to love her because she had a son? Who knows? So there must be, the פסוק itself, the פשט of the פסוק tells you, שיש טעם מוקדם לזה בקריאת השם ראובן, there must be a reason before what the פסוק says, why she called him ראובן, המבאר מעלתו של הבן, which brings out the greatness of the son. And what that is ראו מה בין בני לבין בן חמי, look at my son, difference between my son and חמי. Now if the פסוק is hinting also that he's going to be a special son, oh, ממילא מובן שעתה יאהבני אישי. So now we understand why she said, "Now he's going to love me," because she already is hinted in the פסוק in the name ראובן something before what she said. She said he's going to be a great son, and now you understand what the פסוק says. ועל פי זה יובן מה שהעתיק רש"י מדברי לאה, and now we understand why רש"י brings from לאה's words as מעלתו של ראובן בענין הבכורה, concerning בכורה. לכאורה, she could have brought other מעלות. We said before, she could have brought the מעלה of ראובן over עשו that he didn't steal, עשו stole. Why did she bring up something that has to do with the בכורה? That וזה לא מכרה, he didn't sell the בכורה, he kept, ראובן kept the בכורה חשוב, ולא מעלה אחרת, why not another מעלה? כי בזה מודגש יתרונו של ראובן, this brings out the מעלה of ראובן, בהסכם ובהשלמה עם תוכן דברי לאה בהכתוב, which fits to what the פסוק is saying. היינו, what is the פסוק saying? The מעלה of ראובן that she was saying is ענין לידת בכור ליעקב. She said, "I gave birth now to a first son to יעקב, שעל ידי זה יאהבני אישי, because of that my husband will love me." But we said before, how is this a ראיה that her husband will love? So he says, להיות כי בעצם ענין הבכורה היתה גם מעלתו של הבן. She gave birth to a firstborn to יעקב, and in the בכורה, in the ענין of being a firstborn, in there there is the מעלה of ראובן: וזה לא מכרה, he would not sell the בכורה, שהבכורה להיות, שהבכורה להיות בנו יורש ראשון של יעקב הוא דבר החביב וביוקר למאוד. He didn't sell it, he wanted to keep, he best wanted it. That shows that being a firstborn to יעקב was very special to ראובן. So she said, "Oh, I'm going to have a son that cares really about being the firstborn to יעקב, that son will make יעקב happy and love me." וממשיך רש"י, רש"י continues, ולא עירער עליו. First he didn't sell it, then he said, and he didn't argue when it was taken away. ולא עוד שלא עירער עליו אלא שביקש להוציאו מן הבור. Not only didn't he argue, he wanted to take him out of the pit. Why is רש"י add that? שבזה מבואר, that explains, שאף על פי שיעקב אהב את רחל, even though יעקב loved רחל, וממנה רצה לילד בנים, and really wanted to have children from her, עכ"פ, and still, מכיון שנולד ללאה בן נעלה כזה, but since לאה had such a great son, דעם היותו בכורו של יעקב ובכורה זו יקרה וחביבה עליו מאד, and he and he was very happy, he loved the concept of being a בכור, as we see, he didn't sell it. ובכל זה, still, כשלקח יעקב את הבכורה ממנו ונתנה לבנה של רחל יוסף, when יעקב took the בכורה away and gave it to רחל's son, to יוסף, לא עירער על בנה של רחל. He didn't argue against רחל's son. What does that show? שהיה חביב על יעקב יותר מכל הבנים. He didn't argue because he knew that יוסף is loved by his father. So that's so to have a son that cares so much about his father that he didn't argue against giving the taking יעקב giving the בכורה to יוסף. He didn't argue against it even though he loved it. He didn't sell the בכורה, he loved the בכורה, and יעקב took it away, gave it to יוסף, he didn't care. I mean he didn't argue, because he knew יעקב wanted it, and יוסף יעקב loved, so he was happy. And not only that, ולא עוד אלא שביקש להוציאו מן הבור, and not only that, he wanted to take him out of the pit. ובעבור גודל מעלתו הלזו של בן הנולד שנולד, and because of the great מעלות of this son that's born, הרי בוודאי שעתה יאהבני אישי, now for sure my husband will love me. So now we understand what the פסוק means, that the reason she gave, because now my husband will love me, is because she also said, based on what the חכמים say, we understand because she said, "Look at the greatness of my son לגבי the בכורה." וזהו שפיר מה שלא האריך לפרט גודל הגריעות של בן חמי. Now we understand, one of the קושיות was, he brings great מעלות of ראובן לגבי עשו. Why doesn't he bring all the חסרונות of עשו? שערער על הבכורה, not only he sold the בכורה, it's one problem. He argued against the בכורה, ולא עוד אלא שרצה להרגו, wanted to kill him. Just like he brings these מעלות by ראובן, should have brought the חסרונות by עשו. Because there's no reason to bring it, דכיון שכוונתו כאן להדגיש גודל מעלתו של בנה, all the point that רש״י wants to say, the חכמים said that she wanted to bring out the מעלות of her son להכריח שיאהבנה אישה, to prove that for sure because I have such a son, my husband will love me. ולא במידות הרעות של בן חמי, it's not that it's important to go into the חסרונות. She did bring in עשו to show the מעלות of ראובן, she had to show a parallel, but it's not important to go into all the different חסרונות of עשו. על פי זה יומתק מה שכתב רש״י, now we know something else, why רש״י writes רבותינו פירשו. Our חכמים, פירשו means were מפרש, explain, ולא אמרו רבותינו כיוצא בזה. לכאורה, simple פשט could be, all the מפרשים who learn פשט in רש״י, the פסוק gives one reason why she called him ראובן, רש״י adds another reason. So רש״י should have said the פסוק says this and this reason, אמרו רבותינו, our חכמים said another reason. רש״י doesn't say that. רש״י says פירשו רבותינו. What does פירשו mean? פירשו mean they explained. כי אין כוונת רש״י לשלול טעמא המפורש בכתוב. When he brings this second פשט from the חכמים, he didn't mean to say they go another פשט, a different פשט, not like the תורה says, not like the פסוק says, כי אם לפרשו, he's going to explain what the פסוק says, לפרש ולתרץ הדרוש ביאור בטעם הכתוב, to explain and to answer what the פשט in the פסוק is. The פסוק says that she called him that because, "Now my husband will love me." So the קושיא is: איך שבוודאי על ידי הולדת ראובן יאהבנה אישה? How is it for sure that now he's going to love her? על זה מביא רבותינו פירשו, the חכמים explained פשט in the פסוק, שאמרה, she says, "ראו מה בין בני לבין בן חמי." שנולד, and it means look at the difference. שנולד לו בן like we said, that he has such a great son, ממילא if such a great son, now we understand why she was so sure that he will start loving her. So רש״י bringing something that the קושיא was, what's wrong with the פסוק? This is wrong with the פסוק, we don't understand it. So רש״י says that is מוכרח. When something is not understood in the פסוק, it forces us to say in דרך הפשט there must be something else, and when we find the חכמים say this, and that's all fits, all fits together what רש״י says. This is the simple פשוטו של מקרא of the פסוק. Then the רבי continues: יינה של תורה שבפירוש רש״י. Every רש״י has יינה של תורה, which means has חסידות, has ענינים פנימיות התורה. So what's there is יינה של תורה here? In this נקודה, בנוגע what רש״י says here. מצינו הפרש בין קריאת שמות השבטים לקריאת שמות האבות, means אברהם, יצחק, יעקב. We find, we look in the תורה when it says that the names were given to the אבות and the names given to the שבטים, so you

find a difference between the names given to the שבטים and the names called to the אבות. Number one, the difference is: השמות של השבטים ניתנו על ידי האמהות. If you look in the פסוקים, he brings in the הערות, who called the שבטים by their names? The mothers. מה שאין כן השמות של האבות, יצחק ויעקב, the names of the אבות in יצחק, by יצחק and יעקב, it's not the mothers. See, by אברהם there's nothing to talk about, his mother wasn't שייך, but even by יצחק and יעקב, it wasn't the mothers that gave. The אייבערשטער gave, or father gave, but not the mothers. That's one difference. Another difference is: בכל אחד מהשבטים ניתן טעם על השם שנקרא בו. By the שבטים, it says in the תורה every name has a reason. The תורה gives a reason why this was the name that was given. מה שאין כן בשמות האבות שלא נאמר בהם טעם מפורש בתורה. The names of the אבות doesn't say clearly a reason in the תורה, על כן קרא, that says the name was because of this. Now, באמת לגבי יצחק we do find that he was called יצחק, צחוק עשה אלוקים, but that's all the way רש״י explains that that's the reason for the name. In חומש, that's what the רבי you have in italics the word, there's no טעם מפורש. There is a טעם, but it's not clearly in the תורה, על כן קרא, why the name of אברהם or יצחק, אברהם's name and יצחק's name יצחק and יעקב, it's not clear. So we see two differences: one difference is that who gave the name, and the other difference is that by the אבות we don't say a reason for the name. ויובן זה בהקדים לבאר ענין השם. The רבי explains it by first explaining what's the concept of a name. ידוע, we know it says in חסידות in different places: שהשם אשר יקראו לו אינו הסכמה בעלמא. A name name that you give is not just decided. Like in דרך הטבע, when you give a name on something, it's just people decide it: call him John, call him Jack, I mean, it's a name. But we know that the name that we call באמת על פי תורה is not just סתם a made-up thing, אלא יש שייכות ממש להשם על עצם הדבר. The

name has a connection to the thing itself, עצם of the thing. It describes what the thing is. It fits to the description and the פרטים of the thing that's called by that name. אלא שאין השם ביחוס להנשמה כפי שהיא לעצמה, the name it says is not relationship to the נשמה itself, שהרי הנשמה עצמה קודם ביאתה בגוף אינה נקראת בשם כלל. The נשמה before it comes down into the body doesn't have a name. And the נשמה exists properly and fine, everything is fine. So the name is not נוגע to the נשמה itself, כי אם כשבא להחיות את הגוף, when the נשמה comes down and it's going to give life to the body, השם מקשר הנשמה בגוף. The שם is describes what? The connection between the נשמה and the גוף. והחיות הנמשכת מהנשמה ומחיה הגוף, הוא נשרשת בהשם. The חיות that comes from the נשמה to the גוף is נשרשת, rooted in the name. So the name describes the connection of the נשמה to the גוף. That's, that's what the ענין of a name is. אמנם בענין השם גופא, היות והוא המשכת החיות לגוף, the name itself which we just said that represents the המשכה of the חיות into the גוף, יש ב' בחינות. There's

two types of names, basically. You have כמו שהוא פועל כללות ההתקשרות של נשמה בגוף. There's a general name which describes the general connection between the נשמה וגוף, but not of each individual thing separately. על דרך שם המין, אדם. Like a משל, human beings are called אדם, because the word אדם represents the connection between the נשמה to the body of a person. But it's not this person, that person; all people are called אדם. Same thing with other things, all animals, all oxen are called שור. It's a general thing. So that's one thing in a name, that's נוגע to the כללותדיקע thing. And ב', the second ענין in a name is, כמו שהוא בא בגילוי בבחינת ציור פרטי, when it comes already in a form of an individuality, בכל גוף וגוף לפי ערכו. The name also has a name that represents each person in his ציור of what he is. השם הפרטי שיש לכל אחד, this individual name: this person is called אברהם, this person is called משה. So the name אברהם has to do with this person. The name אדם has to do with גאנץ human race, and the name אברהם, משה, all these names have to do with individuality. And these are two separate things. They're both שייכות to the המשכה of the נשמה בגוף, but there's the שייכות one is the המשכה כללית of נשמות into bodies, so the word אדם brings the נשמות into the bodies, and the different names is everyone individual what his individual thing is. הנה מבואר בתורה אור, it says in תורה אור, דבחינת האבות ישנה בכל זמן ובכל אדם. That the levels of what the אבות represent in עבודת השם, every person has it always, all years, all times, all person, every איד. כי הנה אין קורין לאבות אלא לשלשה, because אבות are only three. And if you're an אב, אברהם, יצחק, ויעקב called אבות, and we know children ירשן from the אבות. All children ירשן from the אבות. So all the אידן have to have within themselves whatever the אבות had, and the אבות are only three. The גמרא says even though the people from שבט יהודה, יהודה was the אב of that שבט, but they don't call him אב. Okay, it's נוגע only to שמונה עשרה, what's, but the לשון is we don't, אין קורין לאבות אלא לשלשה. והענין, so שהבחינת האבות ירושה לבניהם אחריהם בכל דור ודור, because the ענין of the אבות, the בחינה of the אבות is a ירושה, an inheritance for all the children, all generations. אבל שאר בחינות ומעלות הצדיקים, but other מעלות and levels of different צדיקים, כגון השבטים, for instance the שבטים, ראובן, שמעון, לוי, יש לך אדם שאין בו כלל מבחינות ומדרגות אלו. You have a person that doesn't have these מדרגות. מה שאין כן בחינת האבות צריך להיות בכל אדם. אבות, everyone has to have what the אבות represent, שהם שורש ומקור כל נשמות ישראל, because that's the root of all נשמות. ראובן is not the שורש of all נשמות, only of the people from him. So actually the people from שבט ראובן have to have in themselves the מדרגה whatever ראובן represents. And in חסידות we can learn what ראובן represents and שמעון represents, all the different מדרגות. But the אבות, which represent אהבה, יראה, whatever that, that's by everybody. ומובן מזה, from that we understand, שההפרש שבין בחינת האבות לבחינת השבטים, that the difference between the אבות and the שבטים is לא רק בזה שבחינת האבות של כל ג' אבות ישנה בכל אחד מבני ישראל, not only as we just said that the level of everyone of the אבות is by every single איד, מה שאין כן בחינת השבטים, the שבטים, אינה מוכרחת להיות בכל אחד כי אם בחינת שבט שלו, doesn't have to have the בחינה of every שבט, only whatever his שבט is. So besides that's the difference between the אבות and the שבטים, אלא הכוונה בזה, it means more, שהאבות, מכיון שהם שורש ומקור כל נשמות ישראל, since the אבות are the שורש, the root, the source of all נשמות הרי בחינת האבות ישנה בכל אחד מבני ישראל מצד ענינו העצמי. So everyone has the ענין of the אבות, not because of his individual מדרגה. It's because of his נקודה עצמית, which everyone is equal. The fact that the אבות is the שורש of all the נשמות, and there are differences in every person. So how do we say that the אבות have to do with every single person? Because if it would

have to do with the individual מדרגה of every person, so you could say, if it's the individual מדרגה, how do we say that the אבות are the שורש of all? Everyone has different מדרגות. How could it be the שורש of everything? So we say, no. The אבות are the שורש of the מדרגה of every איד in which they're all equal. In the עצם. In עצם they're all equal. In גילוי, in פרטים, it's different. So the ענין of the אבות has to do with the עצם of the איד. The ענינו העצמי להיות חלק מכללות עם ישראל. To be, since you are part of כלל ישראל, there's a נקודה עצמית that everyone has equally. וזו היא בחינה כללית שבה מושווים כל בני ישראל. That's a general thing which all the אידן are equal. אבל בחינת השבטים שבישראל, but the שבטים by אידן, היינו גם כן השבט הפרטי שלו, even when a person has his שבט, which, let's say ראובן is the שורש of all the people from שבט ראובן, but it's a בחינה הבאה בהתחלקות בבני ישראל. It's not a level that has to do with his עצם. Because if it'd have to do with his עצם, everybody would have it. Since it it's only to do with this person or even many people, but it's not with their עצם. היא בחינתו ועבודתו הפרטית שכל אחד ואחד. That has to do with the בחינה and עבודה from every single איד separately. So it comes out like this. That the difference in the אבות and the שבטים, the ענין of the אבות has a שייכות to the נקודה עצמית of a איד, and the ענין of שבטים has to do with עבודה פרטית of every single איד. על פי זה אפשר לומר ההפרש, אפשר להבין, or אפשר לפרש, whatever, ההפרש שבין שמות האבות לשמות השבטים. This will explain the difference between the names of the אבות, names of the שבטים. שם and since we said the names represent the המשכה of the חיות, so we'll understand the difference between the שבטים and the

אבות. שמות האבות, the names of the אבות, המשכה הכללית שבכל אחד מבני ישראל. The names of the אבות, and we said before the name represents the המשכת החיות, which חיות does the name of the אבות represent? Since the אבות represent the עצם, so the names of the אבות which represent the חיות, the חיות which is connected, the חיות כללית that every איד has equally. Every איד has a חיות that's נמשך to him as a, as a איד! As one of the descendants of אברהם, יצחק, יעקב. So that's what the names represent, because the אבות are שייכות of the כלל, and their names is the המשכה of the כלל. שמות השבטים, היינו שהמשכה בבחינת ציור פרטי. The names of the שבטים, since the שבטים are שייכות to the individuality of the אידן, the name, which is the חיות of the that the that that represents the חיות that נמשך, is the חיות that's נמשך in a ציור פרטי, בהתאם למהותו הפרטית של כל אחד, fitting to the individuality of every single person, his עבודה. ומכיון ששמות אלו ענינם ההתחלקות, המשכות בבחינת ציורים פרטיים, and since the names of the שבטים are connected to the differences and the individuality of everyone separately, לכן נאמר בכל אחד מהם טעם גלוי ופרטי על שם מאורע פרטי וכיוצא בזה, בעבודתו הוא. That's why it always says the reason for the name. One of the differences the רבי said is by the שבטים we find a reason always for the name. When do we give a reason for the name? When we're saying, "Why does he have this name?" So, and we're saying it has to do with what he is, so we have to give a reason. When we're talking about the אבות, when the אבות are the general נקודה, so you can't say, "He's he is this reason, he is this reason." There are no separate reasons. It's all one נקודה. So the reason is only given when there's a specific thing which we have to give a reason why. So the שבטים represent individuality, so you have to say, why is this individual? But when there's something for everybody, there's no need to give a reason. This is the way it is. This is the עצם. וזהו גם הטעם ששמות השבטים נקראו על ידי האמהות. It's the second thing, that the שבטים were called by the mothers.

What's the difference between a mother and a father? ידוע ההפרש בין אב לאם בשייכות להולדת הבן. We know there's a difference between a father and a mother in connection to the birth of the child. A lot of difference between a father and a mother, but in connection to the birth, we're talking about the birth. שעצם מציאות הבן הוא מטיפת האב. The essence, the essential part of the child comes from the father. התגלותו, but the revelation, והתחלקותו בציור של פרטי אברים, but then the division that it goes into different limbs and different organs and becomes different, בא על ידי שהייתו תשעה חדשים בבטן האם. That comes by the baby being nine months in the mother. So the father has to do with the עצם of the child, the mother has to do with the individual, when it already goes into פרטים. ועל דרך זה הוא ההפרש ביניהם גם לאחר שנולד. And that also is a difference After the child is born is also different. התקשרותו הפנימית של האב להבן היא עצמית יותר. The connection of the father to the child is more essential, אולם בגילוי מורגש יותר הקישור והקירוב של האם להבן, אם להבן, but בגילוי you see that a person is closer to his mother. But בעצם he's part of the father, and he takes the תכונות of the father, and the רבי brings here that looks in פירוש המשניות, he brings from different places. In לקוטי שיחות he's מסביר בנוגע במנחם אב, the ענין of אב and אם, whatever. So there it says that בגילוי, in details, you're more connected to your mother. בעצם the connection is to the father.

ולכן נקראים חכמה ובינה, that's why חכמה and בינה are called אבא ואם, father and mother of the מדות. Why father and mother? כי החכמה היא נקודת השכל. When we learn חסידות we know חכמה is the נקודה of the שכל, בינה is the development of the שכל. The נקודה is one, and from that you develop to many. So חכמה, which is the נקודה, that's בחינת האב של המדות, that's the father. Why is it called parents בכלל? Because if you have חכמה and בינה, it gives birth to emotions. So they're parents. But why דוקא father and mother? Why חכמה father and בינה a mother? Because חכמה is the נקודה. So that's why it's called the father. Like the father בגשמיות gives the נקודה to the child, so the חכמה gives the נקודה to the מדות. בינה, היא ההשגה שבאה בפרטים. That's the understanding already which comes into details. That's the אם של המדות, the mother of the מדות. We find that בכלל it says in other places that a man and a woman: איש is א-י-ש; אשה is א-ש-ה. They both have the letters א-ש. The man has the י and the אשה has the ה. And that fits to what it says here. חסידות says that י-ק-ו-ק, י is חכמה, ה is בינה, and ו is the six מדות, and that second ה is מלכות. So the man has the, איש has the י, the נקודה, and the אשה has the ה, which is the התפשטות, which is already going into the פרטים. Actually the

גמרא says even more. The גמרא says, פסוק says by a man and a wife that השם said I'll make עזר כנגדו, I'll make a I'll give him a help. So the גמרא explains how does a wife help the husband? It says a husband goes to the store, goes to the market and buys, he gets the money, he makes a living, buys, buys חטים, buys wheat, and he brings it home. נו, go eat the חטים. כלום חטים כוסס? Are you going to chew the חטים? So the wife, she makes it and grinds it and makes it and cooks it and does all the details you have to do, now you have food. And the גמרא finishes, נמצא שהיא מעמידתו על רגליו ומאירה עיניו. She puts him on his feet and lights him up. So חסידות says also the same נקודה that bringing the חטים, that's the נקודה, he bring it, but then you have all the פרטים, that's the wife. על דרך זה מובן גם כן בנוגע להשבטים, so we understand by the שבטים also. שהתחלקות השבטים לפרטים שונים בפשטות בא על ידי האמהות רחל ולאה. Since we said the mothers are the ones that connect with the פרטים, so the names, so first of all the התחלקות of that each one has his own תכונה has a connection to the mothers, because the mothers are the ones that develop the the פרטים. ולכן על ידם נעשה גם קריאת השמות של השבטים. Therefore, who called the names, which we said before the names of the שבטים represent the חיות that's given into the details? The mothers, because they're the ones that deal with the details. היינו התחלקות של בני ישראל לבחינות ומדריגות פרטיות, the the division of the אידן to different מדריגות. אמנם עדיין צריך להבין, the רבי, still have to understand, הלא טעמי השמות המבוארים בפרשתינו, the reasons given in our this פרשה for the names given to the שבטים by the mothers, אינם מורים על שייכותם של השמות לבחינתם ועבודתם של השבטים עצמם הנקראים בשמות אלו. Every name there is not doesn't describe the connection of the name to the child. Because we're saying now that the mothers gave the name because the children are פרטים and the mothers give the פרטים. But the names don't represent. כי אם השייכות שלהם להאמהות שקראו שם זה. The names show the mother's connection to this name. Like למשל ראובן, she said, כי ראה ה׳ בעניי, השם saw my suffering, כי עתה יאהבני אישי, now he's going to love me, it's all of herself! By שמעון: כי שמע ה׳ כי שנואה אנכי, השם heard I'm hated, He gave me another son, כיוצא בזה. So it's all about herself! According to the ביאור we're saying here, it should have been something that has to do with the children, because the children are the פרטים that we're dealing here, that the difference of the names of the שבטים.

לכן מפרש רש״י בשם, so רש״י explains in the first name, of ראובן, וממנה נלמד על כל השמות, here he explains, על פי חסידות here explains it clearly, since this is by the first, we assume it's by the rest also. What? רש״י says, פירשו רבותינו, that our רבותינו explained, אמרה, she said, ראו מה בין בני לבן חמי, that what does the name ראובן? Something has to do with the child! Look at the difference between my child and my father-in-law's child. היינו שהשייכות היא that the connection of the name is לא רק לאם, not only to the mother, כי אם בעיקר להבן הנקרא בשם זה מצד תכונתו ומדותיו, it's to the son himself. So that's what רש״י wants to show, that the name has to do with the son. And that's why the mothers gave it, and that's the The תורה tells us the reasons. So this is explained so far the פשוטו של מקרא, the ענין של תורה. פי הנ״ל יש לרמז בדרך המשך. According to this, we could give a רמז to something else. Since we said that the whole thing here, which is in our פרשה, has to do with the עצם, then the נקודה, and then you have the התפשטות, so it has to do with something else also.

השייכות of פרשת ויצא to ט׳ כסלו. The connection of פרשת ויצא to ט׳ כסלו, which is the יום הולדת יום ההילולא של כ״ק אדמו״ר האמצעי, the birthday and the יארצייט, the יום ההילולא of the מיטעלער רבי, שחל כמה פעמים בשבוע דפרשת ויצא. Many times it's actually in the week of ויצא, like this year. אי נמי על כל פנים בימים הסמוכים לשבת פרשת ויצא, כמו בשנה זו. Sometimes it's close to ויצא, like in that year when the שיחה came out, ומתברכים משבת ויצא. It's after שבת ויצא, but we know the whole week gets the ברכה from שבת, so if it's in the next week, it's still connected to ויצא. So that's connected to what we said till now. כי, because מבואר ההפרש בין אדמו״ר הזקן לאדמו״ר האמצעי, we know the difference, it says, between the אלטער רבי and the מיטעלער רבי. אדמו״ר הזקן ענינו ספירת החכמה, and we know when we count this the רביים with the ספירות, the אלטער רבי is called ספירת החכמה, the מיטעלער רבי ספירת הבינה. בכלל, to go into this, it's not so clear. We know that the בעל שם טוב and the מגיד are known to be כתר. בעל שם טוב is עתיק, and the מגיד is אריך. And the אלטער רבי is חכמה, the מיטעלער רבי is בינה, and the צמח צדק is דעת. And from there on, it's not so clear. We know that the רבי רש״ב is הוד, the פריערדיקער רבי is יסוד, the רבי is מלכות. But what happened to the ones in between? From דעת, חסד, גבורה. So the רבי once spoke about it, there are different It's not so clear, but one thing is clear, written, and the רביים say, that אלטער רבי is חכמה and the מיטעלער רבי is בינה. חכמה, we know, like we said before, is בחינת נקודה. אדמו״ר האמצעי ענינו ספירת הבינה, the מיטעלער רבי ספירת הבינה. And what's בינה? כמו שהגילוי בא בבחינת פרטים ובהתפשטות, that the עצם is מתפשט, gets spread out and gets in more, all the details you get there. And that happened by the מיטעלער רבי. וכנודע שעל ידו, we know that through the מיטעלער רבי, באה תורת החסידות לגילוי רב, became to a great גילוי, ובאופן של התפשטות והתרחבות, in the form of being spread out and broad, which we call רחובות הנהר בינה. By בינה it says רחובות הנהר. See, חכמה is like a נקודה, so it's like a a מעיין, and from there you have a נהר, a river which gets spread out, and that's בינה.

And that's what the ודוגמת ענין קריאת שמות השבטים, well this is like the שבטים who called the name the פרטים, that's what the מיטעלער רבי is. The אלטער רבי, and in regard to his תורה, so in the other שיחה the רבי says that the אלטער רבי said his תורה in the form of נקודות, נקודה, נקודה, נקודה, and the מיטעלער רבי came and was put into more פרטים, not נקודות. ומצד ההתרחבות דבינה, and because of בינה, it נעשה שבט לשון המשכה. The word שבט also means המשכה, שנמשך הגילוי למטה מטה. If it's very התרחבות, it goes very far. Something that's very נקודה doesn't spread, doesn't go so far. Something that's very wide, a lot of water that spreads, and it goes all the way down, which means that bringing חסידות down all the way into the lower levels. שזה היה חפצו ורצונו של אדמו״ר האמצעי, we know that this was what the מיטעלער רבי wanted. כידוע פתגמו, you know the פתגם, the the וואָרט that the מיטעלער רבי said, כי רצונו he wanted, שכאשר שני אברכים נפגשים יחד, when two יונגע לייט will meet, ידברו בענין אריך ועתיק. What should it be their discussion? Which means basically what should be their דברים בטלים, not what to be they learn. Everybody learn חסידות, you learn עתיק ואריך. But when they speak סתם as you meet a friend, hello, how are you, וואָס טוט זיך? So normally you say וואָס טוט זיך and the guy tells you, well, I'm making money, I'm not making money, I'm doing this. He wanted that their discussion, their simple discussion, should be אריך ועתיק. שזהו ענין הפצת המעיינות חוצה. So what he's really saying here that where did the real חוצה start? By the מיטעלער רבי. So we know that a lot of דרגות. The בעל שם טוב started יפוצו מעינותיך חוצה, by the מגיד, then by the אלטער רבי, and then after פטרבורג by the אלטער רבי אוודאי. And then here he says by the מיטעלער רבי it was even further. על ידי זה זוכין דקאתי מר דא מלכא משיחא, we'll be זוכה to the coming of משיח, בקרוב ממש. And that's like a המשך to what the מיטעלער רבי did. So this is the part of the שיחה that we're learning. Now, I

don't know if Rabbi Frankfurter is on. We made up that now, right after the שיחה, now we should see for a few minutes only, a video. Oh, here you are. a video of the רבי to bring us into, so to speak, in a mode