Gimmel Tammuz - Yaakov Avinu Did Not Die

00:00 Speaker 1 It is stated explicitly, and people read it that way. I haven’t studied the subject all the way through. There are several stories from the Rebbe on this subject in Likkutei Sichos and in his teachings. And of course, this is a very important subject for us. Certainly, no one can say clearly or define precisely where the matter of Gimmel Tammuz fits. We weren’t given explanations about Gimmel Tammuz. With Gimmel Tammuz, we are all in the same position: the Rebbe did not explain to us what Gimmel Tammuz is. Moshiach will come soon, and perhaps after Moshiach comes and there is techiyas hameisim, we will also have explanations for everything that happened during this period, and for all sorts of other questions we have about the reckoning and other matters. But as far as practical matters go, we should at least know—especially based on the Rebbe’s teachings—a little about the subject of tzaddikim and the whole concept of life for a tzaddik even afterward. How do we explain life for a tzaddik? There are several passages in the Gemara that discuss tzaddikim. The most distinctive is the Gemara’s statement that Yaakov Avinu did not die. But there are actually several passages in the Gemara about the life of a tzaddik. One Gemara says that tzaddikim are called living even after their death. It says this about tzaddikim in general, not specifically about certain exceptional tzaddikim: the wicked are called dead even during their lifetimes, while tzaddikim are called living even after their death. So we see that there is such a concept regarding tzaddikim: even after they die, they are called living. But the fact that the Gemara makes a separate statement about Yaakov Avinu indicates that it is not the same as what is said of all

02:31 Speaker 1 tzaddikim, that they are called living even after their death. There is something special about Yaakov. Along similar lines, we find another passage in the Gemara, in Tractate Sotah, which says about Moshe Rabbeinu: “Moshe did not die. Just as he stands and serves here, so he stands and serves there.” It says there, too, that Moshe Rabbeinu did not die: just as he serves now, he also serves there, afterward. That wording is more similar to “Yaakov Avinu did not die,” but it is still not quite the same, because with Moshe Rabbeinu, the Torah explicitly says, “And Moshe, the servant of Hashem, died there.” It says, “died there.” With Yaakov Avinu, the Torah does not use the word “died.” It says that he expired and was gathered to his people, but it does not say that he died. Then there is also a story in the Gemara, in Tractate Shabbos, about one of the Tannaim who went to a grave. He was doing something there, fixing something. I don’t know exactly how the story went. Suddenly, he heard a voice from one of the graves telling him, “Be careful here; don’t touch me,” or something like that. Someone spoke to him, and he saw that the person was alive. So he said to him, “What are you doing here? Why are you lying here? If you’re alive, go home to your family.” And he replied, “I haven’t been given permission.” We see there, too, this idea regarding tzaddikim: the Gemara says he was alive. Then there is the Gemara in Kesubos concerning Rebbi. It relates that at the time of Rebbi’s passing—before Rebbi, Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, died—he asked that the table remain as it had been, the bed remain as it had been, and the lamp stay lit as before. And every Erev Shabbos he would

04:28 Speaker 1 come and make Kiddush. The Rebbe goes so far as to cite, in the first Basi Legani maamar, Tosafos on page 103, quoting Sefer Chassidim, which says that he fulfilled the obligation on behalf of others. Rebbi’s soul was clothed in a body to such an extent that he could fulfill their obligation. But this raises a halachic question. For a person to fulfill someone else’s obligation, he has to be alive. That is the rule: the dead are free from the mitzvos; they no longer have the obligation to perform them. Yet Rebbi made Kiddush every Friday night, even after his passing, and, as Sefer Chassidim writes, he fulfilled the obligation on behalf of others. In other words, his soul was truly clothed in a body, even from a halachic standpoint. That is a very great novelty. In any case, there are various passages in the Gemara on this subject. And clearly, they are not all speaking about the same level. We know it isn’t all black and white. Even a five-year-old can understand that not all tzaddikim are the same, and consequently, not everything applies to every tzaddik to the same degree. So even where the wording in the Gemara is similar, the concept of life is clearly not being stated on the same level. Now, as far as our subject is concerned, let’s finish the Gemara about Yaakov Avinu not dying, because in his case the Gemara says it in perhaps the clearest and strongest terms of all. Then we can get to this idea of tzaddikim for whom there is no cessation. Let’s look at the Gemara inside. The Gemara tells the following story in Tractate Taanis, page 5. Part of it also appears in the book of selections. Yes, it says:

06:22 Speaker 1 There was a story involving Rav Nachman and Rabbi Yitzchak. Rav Nachman and Rabbi Yitzchak were sitting at a meal. Rav Nachman said to Rabbi Yitzchak, “Let the master say something.” Rav Nachman wanted Rabbi Yitzchak to share a Torah teaching. What did Rabbi Yitzchak tell him? “So said Rabbi Yochanan: One does not converse during a meal.” You must not talk while eating, “lest the windpipe precede the esophagus and he come to danger.” Why mustn’t you talk during a meal? Because food might go down the windpipe instead of the esophagus. The body has two passages: the windpipe, through which air enters, and the esophagus, through which food enters. When a person eats, the food goes down the esophagus. You have to make sure the windpipe stays closed. But if he speaks, the windpipe might open, food might enter it, and that could cause a problem in the body and put him in danger. All right, when they finished eating, Rabbi Yitzchak said to him, “So said Rabbi Yochanan: Yaakov Avinu did not die.” After they had finished eating, he gave him a Torah teaching. Apparently, he didn’t say during the meal what Rav Nachman had wanted him to say; he said it afterward. And what did he say? “Yaakov Avinu did not die.” That was the teaching he shared. Rav Nachman said to him, “Then were the eulogists’ eulogies, the embalmers’ embalming, and the buriers’ burial all for nothing?” You say Yaakov Avinu did not die. Rav Nachman asked Rabbi Yitzchak: What do you mean? Was it all for nothing? The Gemara tells us there were eulogies, embalming, and burial. How could that be if he did not die?

08:29 Speaker 1 What did Rabbi Yitzchak answer? “I am expounding a verse.” There is a verse about it; we learn it from a verse. He did not offer an explanation based on logic, but answered with a verse. The verse says of Yaakov Avinu: “And you, do not fear, My servant Yaakov, says Hashem, and do not be dismayed, Yisroel, for behold, I will save you from afar and your offspring from the land of their captivity.” What is the connection? Hashem is speaking to Yaakov—“My servant Yaakov”—to Yaakov Avinu himself, and telling him not to fear. Why? Because He will bring him and his offspring back from exile. So what is the connection to his offspring? “Just as his offspring are alive, so too is he alive.” That is the Gemara. There is also a continuation to this Gemara. I’ll read it now, because it is very interesting. Rabbi Yitzchak says—yes—“Anyone who says, ‘Rachav, Rachav,’ immediately experiences a seminal emission.” One of the sichos explains this continuation of the Gemara, so let’s mention it too. If there is time, we’ll explain it as well. Rabbi Yitzchak said, “Anyone who says, ‘Rachav, Rachav,’ immediately experiences a seminal emission.” Who was Rachav? When the Jewish people went to Yericho, Rachav was a woman, a prostitute, whose house they visited. Later, it says, she converted and married Yehoshua. The Gemara says that anyone who says “Rachav, Rachav” immediately experiences a seminal emission. Rav Nachman said to him, “I say it, and nothing happens to me.” Why doesn’t it happen to me? I say “Rachav, Rachav,” and nothing happens. Rabbi Yitzchak replied, “I was speaking of someone who knew her and was acquainted with her.” If you didn’t know her, it has no effect. When they were taking leave of each other—when Rav Nachman was leaving, before they parted—one of the students said, “May the master bless me.” Rav Nachman asked Rabbi Yitzchak for a blessing.

10:19 Speaker 1 And then he said to him—he gave him a blessing, just as he had blessed him: “What is this like? A man was walking through the desert, hungry, tired, and thirsty. He found a tree whose fruit was sweet, whose shade was pleasant, and beneath which a stream flowed. He ate its fruit, drank its water, and sat in its shade. When he was about to leave, he said: ‘Tree, tree, with what shall I bless you?’” Everyone knows this from the songs, from cheder. “Tree, tree, with what shall I bless you? If I say that your fruit should be sweet, your fruit is already sweet. That your shade should be pleasant—your shade is already pleasant. That a stream should flow beneath you—a stream already flows beneath you. Rather, may it be Hashem’s will that all the saplings planted from you should be like you. So too, with what shall I bless you? If with Torah, you already have Torah; if with wealth, you already have wealth; if with children, you already have children. Rather, may it be Hashem’s will that your descendants be like you.” A wonderful Gemara. A wonderful story. Good. In short, what is going on in this Gemara? There are many questions here. Let’s return to the main point. There are many questions about the Gemara in general, but since time is short, we mainly want to get to the point that Yaakov did not die. So let’s focus on that. All the commentators make quite a stir over this Gemara. What is it talking about? There are several questions. For example, first of all, what practical difference does it make? What practical difference does it make? The Gemara specifically says that he asked him for something. If he asked him for something, he was asking for a point of halachah. What halachah is there in the matter of Yaakov not having died? It sounds like a teaching, a beautiful teaching. But what is the halachah here? Then there is the question people ask: Does the Gemara mean specifically Yaakov Avinu, or all the tzaddikim? The Gemara says Yaakov did not die. Did it mean specifically Yaakov, or all the tzaddikim? Presumably specifically Yaakov; otherwise it would have said all the tzaddikim. On the other hand, according to the explanation given in the Gemara’s conclusion, the whole

12:40 Speaker 1 reason Yaakov did not die is that, since his descendants are alive, he is alive. So why specifically Yaakov? Were there no other tzaddikim whose descendants were alive? That entire explanation could be applied to everyone. Yet it says specifically Yaakov. Then there is the biggest question, which all the rabbis ask, and which is our main concern: What does the Gemara mean when it says “Yaakov Avinu did not die”? Does it mean physically, or spiritually? What do we mean when we say Yaakov Avinu did not die? Does it mean he remained alive, a soul in a body, or does it mean something spiritual? There are several ways to explain the Gemara. Let’s look at Rashi. Rashi explains—and there is quite a bit in Rashi, but it is written here—there are several ways to explain the Gemara. Does “Yaakov Avinu did not die” mean literally, that he remained physically in his body, or does it mean spiritually? So let’s see what Rashi says. On “Yaakov Avinu did not die,” Rashi says: “He did not die, but lives forever.” So from Rashi, it is clear that the meaning is literal. Rashi adds words here: Where the Gemara says “did not die,” Rashi says, “but lives forever.” In other words, literally—Yaakov Avinu simply remained alive. The Gemara then asks: “Was it for nothing that the eulogizers eulogized him?” Rashi explains: “Was it for nothing that the eulogizers eulogized him,” and so on. What was the answer? What did Rabbi Yitzchak answer Rav Nachman? He told him: “I am interpreting a verse.” He cites a verse for it. What do we learn from the verse? Rashi says, “I am interpreting a verse” to mean that he is alive. Rashi says: “And as for the fact that the embalmers embalmed him”—the question you asked. After all, he did not answer the question. He asks: “Was it for nothing

15:16 Speaker 1 that the eulogizers eulogized him, the embalmers embalmed him, and the buriers buried him?” Yaakov was embalmed, buried, and eulogized. So how can you see from this that he is alive rather than dead? What does he answer? That there is a verse about it. So Rashi explains what he meant to tell him by citing the verse. He meant that those who embalmed him—the Egyptians, who embalmed him—and the eulogizers who eulogized him and the buriers who buried him thought he had died. But in truth he had not died. That is what Rashi says. Rashi then continues with the comparison to his descendants: “Just as his descendants are alive, so too he is alive.” Rashi says that when Hashem gathers the Jewish people from the land of their captivity—He gathers those who are in captivity—this refers to people who are alive in bodies, and so too he is alive. Hashem will bring Yaakov Avinu into the exile so that he can witness our Geulah. Hashem will bring Yaakov Avinu to see the ingathering of the exiles. Yaakov Avinu will be with the Jewish people, as it says, “And you, do not fear, My servant Yaakov,” and, “Behold, I will save you from afar, and your descendants from the land of their captivity.” So those who performed the embalming, burial, and eulogies were people who thought he had died. But the Torah also tells us—the prophet who said the verse “And you, do not fear,” Yirmiyahu the prophet, knew the truth too. The truth was that Yaakov had not died; his death was only an appearance. In fact, he remained alive, a living soul in a body. So Rashi explains the Gemara’s entire discussion, from beginning to end. And the conclusion of the Gemara’s entire discussion, according to Rashi, is that “Yaakov Avinu did not die” means literally: he is alive, a soul in a body. Everything that happened there was only an outward appearance. That is Rashi—he is the most Chassidic; Rashi takes the strongest position.

17:13 Speaker 1 Tosafos is also similar to Rashi, but we will look at Tosafos in a moment. Tosafos says the following. There is a very short Tosafos there on “Yaakov Avinu did not die.” Tosafos says [unclear], in the final chapter of Gid Hanasheh, in the story of Chushim, where the Gemara writes that Yaakov was smiling. Incidentally, you see there that Tosafos does not say more than that either. But from Tosafos’ wording, and from his citation of the story of Chushim, where Yaakov was shown to be alive, it sounds as though Yaakov Avinu was alive literally, in a body. Why do I say that this is not straightforward in Tosafos? Because there is a letter from the Rebbe saying that one could explain Tosafos as referring only to the opening statement. In other words, when Rabbi Yitzchak first said, “Yaakov Avinu did not die,” it was understood literally: he had not died in the literal sense. But in the conclusion, after the questions were raised and he finally said, “I am interpreting a verse—just as his descendants are alive,” perhaps he changed his position and meant it not literally, but spiritually. We will soon see what was said about that. So Tosafos can be understood as referring only to the initial assumption, not to the conclusion. The Maharsha, however, explains the Gemara differently from Rashi. The Maharsha explicitly explains that this was the whole debate between Rabbi Yitzchak and Rav Nachman. And the Maharsha concludes that... This is what the Maharsha says: From the Gemara’s conclusion, it is clear that Yaakov Avinu did, in fact, die. When we say he “did not die,” we mean with regard to his soul. That is what the Maharsha says. The Maharsha says that “Yaakov Avinu did not die” can be understood in two ways: either he did not die at all, even bodily, or he did not die in his soul, like other tzaddikim. What we say about all tzaddikim—that ultimately they are all alive—means that the soul lives. But

19:25 Speaker 1 as far as the body is concerned, the body died. Bodily, he died. So, he says, the alternative is that he did not die in his soul. Rav Nachman had no problem with saying that Yaakov did not die in his soul. To him, that was obvious. He agreed that the soul remains alive; that was fine. But then why single out Yaakov? On that reading, Avraham and Yitzchak are the same. They too did not die in their souls. So what are you trying to say—that the novel point about Yaakov is that his body did not die? Avraham and Yitzchak experienced bodily death, while Yaakov did not. That is why Rav Nachman asked him: “Was it for nothing that the eulogizers eulogized him?” We see that there was bodily death. And this was the answer he gave him. Listen carefully to these words. This changes the interpretation: Rabbi Yitzchak answered that he was speaking about the soul. In the end, Rabbi Yitzchak told him that Yaakov Avinu really did die bodily. When we say he did not die, we mean his soul. Ah, then why do I say Yaakov? If his soul did not die, what is the difference between Yaakov and Avraham and Yitzchak? Aren’t they all the same? So he says, “I am interpreting a verse”: it compares him to his descendants. With Yaakov, all his sons were part of the Jewish people. Avraham and Yitzchak, he says, had Yishmael and Esav. So you cannot say of them, “It compares him to his descendants.” With Yaakov, by contrast, all his sons were righteous. In short, though.

21:04 Speaker 1 Let’s continue. Another explanation says that with Avraham and Yitzchak, on the contrary: because they died in Eretz Yisroel, they certainly did not truly die. That is not called death. Yaakov died outside Eretz Yisroel, so I might have thought that because he died in Egypt, perhaps he really did die. The Gemara therefore concludes that Yaakov, too, did not die. In short, the Maharsha makes it a little simpler. The Maharsha explains it in a more spiritual sense: the conclusion of “Yaakov our father did not die” is that his soul did not die. At first, the questioner thought it meant that his body did not die, which is why he asked, “Did the eulogizers not eulogize him?” But the answer, in the end, was that he did not die in his soul. Sometimes you really look into the commentators on this. There are different explanations of what it means—some commentators say one thing, others say another. Most commentators do tend to explain that it is all a matter of his soul not dying, but Yaakov’s body... According to the... Let’s see what the Rebbe explains. We find something interesting in the Rebbe’s teachings: there isn’t just one explanation. We find an explanation that develops through several stages. The first letter we have from the Rebbe on the subject of “Yaakov our father did not die” was written in 5702, before the Rebbe’s leadership, long before it. The first Sichos Lanoar came out then. This was in one of the very first issues, the first or second. There was something there about “Yaakov our father did not die,” and someone wrote to the Rebbe with a question about it—Pinchas Katz. I don’t know if you’ve heard of him. He was also connected with Slabodka. He asked the Rebbe for an explanation, and the Rebbe wrote him a letter. The letter is Iggeres 128, and it also appears in the Rebbe’s personal notes. Apparently, the Rebbe also recorded it in those notes of his, which were discovered after 5704, after the discovery of those personal notes, and afterward

23:11 Speaker 1 [unclear] number twenty. So there is a note, number twenty, on the subject of “Yaakov our father did not die,” almost word for word the same as the letter to Reb Pinchas Katz. This is the first foundation we have from the Rebbe on the subject. There the Rebbe presents the various approaches. He discusses Rashi, Tosafos and the Maharsha—the whole subject—and explains that the Gemara is best understood specifically according to Rashi: “Yaakov our father did not die” means just what it says. The Rebbe asks: Why specifically Yaakov our father? Why him in particular? And the Rebbe explains... Actually, there the Rebbe doesn’t explain the matter so fully. He explains the difference. The interesting new point in that letter is the question we asked: What—sorry—what is the difference between Yaakov our father and other tzaddikim? We said that other tzaddikim, too, are spoken of as living, and there is also everything the Gemara says about Rebbi. What is unique about Yaakov our father? The Rebbe cites various works of Kabbalah, including the Ramak, and says, briefly, that there are two differences between Yaakov our father and other tzaddikim. One is that when we say other tzaddikim remain alive, that applies only to the level of nefesh; at the levels of ruach and neshamah, they experienced histalkus. In other words, there are several levels to the soul. One level departs, while another remains connected to the body. So when we speak about other tzaddikim, we are speaking only about one level—only the nefesh. The other levels depart. With Yaakov our father, we say that no change at all took place. The nefesh, the ruach and the neshamah all remained connected to the body. That is one difference. Second, the Rebbe says that with other tzaddikim there are

25:32 Speaker 1 times when it is one way and times when it is another. In essence, tzaddikim pass away and ascend to enjoy the radiance of Hakadosh Boruch Hu, but from time to time they return. They can do that—there are tzaddikim who return to be clothed in a body whenever they wish. We find, for example, that Rebbi would return to his body on Friday night. In other words, they are not in the body all the time. They can return to it from time to time, on certain occasions. Similarly, it is related that the Baal Shem Tov came to visit the Alter Rebbe in prison and said that he had come clothed in a body. So tzaddikim can return and be clothed in a body whenever they wish. What is unique about Yaakov our father is that his connection to the body, his being clothed in it, remained constant. The Rebbe asks there in the letter: Seemingly, don’t the seforim say that, on the contrary, this is a shortcoming, not an advantage? What is the advantage of the soul remaining connected to the body? When a tzaddik needs to come down into this world, he has to undergo a descent. He has to be clothed in a physical body. For the tzaddik, that is a descent. So what is the advantage of Yaakov our father remaining connected to the body all the time? The Rebbe explains it very briefly, and what he says there is very difficult to understand. The letter also appears in Likkutei Sichos, volume 4, in the additions at the end of Vayechi. The Rebbe says it in one line. It is very hard to understand, but over the years, you could say, there was further explanation. The Rebbe says that the difference has to do with the purpose of the tzaddik. For the ordinary soul of a tzaddik, when does the soul feel free? When does it feel connected to Hakadosh Boruch Hu? Specifically when it is in a higher, spiritual world, without the limitations of the body. But there are tzaddikim whose entire distinction lies in joining the

27:31 Speaker 1 soul with the body. That is their entire distinction; that is their strength. So Yaakov embodied this quality. His distinction was not to be disconnected, but, on the contrary, to join the soul and the body. That is why, with Yaakov, the soul remained in the body constantly. The explanation there is very difficult to understand, but in later years the Rebbe explained it further. One place the Rebbe explains it is in Likkutei Sichos, volume 26, Parshas Shemos. There the Rebbe explains it wonderfully: Why do we say specifically of Yaakov our father that “Yaakov our father did not die,” and not of other tzaddikim? The Rebbe explains there that Yaakov’s unique quality is that he is associated with the attribute of truth. As is well known, Avraham is chesed, Yitzchak is gevurah, and Yaakov is truth and tiferes. Tiferes is the middle line: “Grant truth to Yaakov.” What is truth? It is well known that truth is something that undergoes no change whatsoever. Chesed is also good and right and true, but it can nevertheless come to an end. Truth, by contrast, means something eternal, something that cannot change in any way. As is known regarding what is called living water: if you have water and then, for seven years, [unclear]—if the water dries up for seven years, it is not called living water. Living water means something enduring. Since Yaakov our father’s attribute was truth, and truth means that there is no change—especially since “the truth of Hashem endures forever,” so it must endure in this world as well—no change is possible. Therefore, when it comes to Yaakov, we have to say that the departure of the soul from the body is

29:31 Speaker 1 In a way that undergoes no change at all. That is why we say that it truly remains forever. It’s an interesting point. The Rebbe cites his father, Reb Levi Yitzchak. The Rebbe’s father. In Reb Levi Yitzchak’s writings there is a wonderful explanation of this entire passage. A truly wonderful explanation. You need to know some Chabad concepts to understand what he writes, but he explains it beautifully. It’s long, about twenty pages. But Reb Levi explains this entire passage of Gemara in a truly wonderful way. He says something very, very interesting when he comes to the statement that Yaakov did not die. You see with Reb Levi that every detail is precise. He asks: Why specifically Yaakov Avinu? Because Yaakov represents the attribute of truth. It says, “You will give truth to Yaakov.” That is the basis for saying that Yaakov represents truth. He says that if you rearrange the letters of “truth to Yaakov,” you get “Yaakov did not die.” “Truth to Yaakov,” “truth to Yaakov.” The words Yaakov, did not, and die—all three are there in the letters of “truth to Yaakov.” Right? So that is the meaning. From those very words we learn that Yaakov did not die: “truth to Yaakov” contains the letters of “Yaakov did not die.” He goes further and says a very nice vort. It sounds like just a vort. He asks: Rav Nachman asked Rabbi Yitzchak to tell him a Torah teaching. Why did he tell him specifically this—that Yaakov did not die? Were there no other Torah teachings? True, it has a halachic bearing too, as we said, when it comes to going to [unclear], or when it comes to visiting the graves of tzaddikim. If Yaakov did not die, then it is permissible to go

31:41 Speaker 1 there, to the grave of a tzaddik. So how does this affect halacha? Because the halachic ruling is that kohanim may not visit the graves of tzaddikim, whereas they may visit Yaakov Avinu’s grave if we say that he is literally alive. That is where it has a halachic bearing. But why did he choose to tell him this particular halacha? And the Gemara implies that this was what he had intended to tell him from the outset. It was only because they were in the middle of a meal that he told them to wait until they had finished eating. Then he told him, “Yaakov did not die.” So he offers a wonderful vort. What wording did Rav Nachman use when he asked for a Torah teaching? The Gemara says: “He said to him, Let the master say a milsa.” The letters of milsa can be rearranged to say, “Yud did not die.” The yud stands for Yaakov: “Yaakov did not die.” In other words, when he asked him for a milsa, he took those letters and made his Torah teaching from them. From that very word he drew the Torah teaching he wanted to give: milsa—Yaakov did not die. He explains various other interesting things there, but that goes further into it. In any case, in volume 26 the Rebbe explains the meaning of “Yaakov did not die.” Why specifically Yaakov? Because Yaakov represents the attribute of truth. So this must also be true of his physical body here below. If so, what does the continuation of the Gemara mean, where he answers, “Just as his descendants are alive, so too he is alive”? He should simply have said that Yaakov did not die, that he truly did not die. As Rashi says, it only appeared that he had died. What does “just as his descendants are alive, so too he is alive” add? Now we come to a whole discussion: How do we explain “just as his descendants are alive, so too he is alive”? How does it relate to the answer, to the explanation that Yaakov did not die? The Rebbe explains it in several ways. There is the explanation in volume 26.

33:32 Speaker 1 There the Rebbe explains it one way. He does not mean that Yaakov’s own body remained alive. It is a somewhat more spiritual interpretation. There the Rebbe explains that the meaning is not that Yaakov’s body remained alive. Rather, the tribes were born from Yaakov’s body, and all the Jewish people, through every generation, descended from him. So they are all Yaakov’s descendants. And after all, a child’s body contains something from his father’s seed. That is, something physical from the father’s body passes on to the son.

34:11 Speaker 2 Generally, you can see a way of life.

34:13 Speaker 1 It is quite literal; that is exactly what it is. There is a physical part of the body. Now, from Avraham came Yishmael, who was... And the same can be said of Yitzchak and Eisav. So you cannot say that all their descendants remain alive in this sense. Some descendants were lost, becoming non-Jews. But with Yaakov, all his descendants remained part of the Jewish people. And Jews have physical bodies; in the physical body of a Jew, there is, after all, some tiny fraction of a fraction of a fraction, some trace of the physical body of Yaakov. So it follows that Yaakov’s body is here in this world, alive through Yaakov’s descendants, who are here in this world. Thus a part of Yaakov’s body is alive. That is the meaning. That is how the Rebbe explains the statement about Yaakov. But Yaakov’s body as it originally was, his own body—yes, that body was, after all, still buried beneath the ground. That is what the Rebbe explains in volume 26. The Rebbe says this is revealed primarily in the leaders of the Jewish people. There are leaders, and every generation has its leader. There is Moshe Rabbeinu—Moshe Rabbeinu did not die—and this continues through all the generations. So the concept of a soul in a body continues through the leader of each generation: the leader’s body is connected to Yaakov’s body, having descended from it, and is therefore a living body. According to this, when we say that Yaakov Avinu did not die, we are not speaking about Yaakov’s own body. We are speaking about Yaakov’s body as it is present in the bodies of our Rebbeim, the leaders of each generation, or in the Jewish people generally. That is how the matter is explained in volume 26. In the sicha here, in volume 35, Parshas Vayechi, the Rebbe leans a little more

36:07 Speaker 1 toward explaining that it means Yaakov’s own body. There the Rebbe explains that “his descendants are alive” means that the Jewish people, throughout all generations, are Yaakov Avinu’s descendants and are alive. So this reveals something: it reveals that Yaakov is alive, that his own body is alive. How does the Rebbe explain that? Hm? Do you have the energy to listen? Yes, let’s leave that... The explanation is a little complicated. We need time for it. I’m going to turn to another sicha. There is a simpler sicha, and it is the most wonderful one—the simplest and the most wonderful. It was the last time the Rebbe spoke clearly about Yaakov Avinu not dying. And there, specifically, he spoke about it in the simplest and most wonderful way. When was that? One moment, let me preface it with this. In 5746, the trial over the seforim began. When the trial began, the Rebbe spoke very forcefully about Yaakov Avinu not dying. The Rebbe spoke about “he is alive; his descendants are alive.” And the Rebbe repeated several times during that period that it means quite literally that he is alive, a soul in a body, literally. He said this several times afterward too; there are even audio and video recordings. Perhaps we’ll show part of that video here afterward. That was in 5746, and it continued through 5746. Several times the Rebbe reiterated that it was literal: he is literally alive, here below, within ten handbreadths of the ground. The Rebbe spoke about it several times then, and also connected it to the Rebbe: although people had seen a funeral, although that had taken place, one must know that he is here, that he is literally alive, here below within ten handbreadths, a soul in a body. It was quite a striking expression... Well, 5746, Shabbos Parshas Vayechi. If we think about it, that was the beginning of the trial.

38:27 Speaker 1 Of the sefarim. Everyone knows. The court case over the sefarim began on 19 Kislev 5746, and this was two weeks later, exactly a month before 5 Teves. Right—a year before 5 Teves. Parshas Vayechi 5746 was a year before 5 Teves. A year later came 5 Teves. The Rebbe gave a sicha on Rashi. Every Shabbos, the Rebbe would give a sicha on Rashi. Which Rashi did the Rebbe choose that Shabbos? The Rashi in Parshas Vayechi. On “He expired and was gathered,” Rashi says, “Death is not mentioned in connection with him, and our Sages said: Yaakov our father did not die.” Our Sages said it. Death is not mentioned in connection with him. Our Sages said Yaakov did not die. And Rashi explains nothing further. Rashi does not explain what happened with those who eulogized him and those who buried him—all the questions. A five-year-old learning Chumash hasn’t learned about any of that. What is he supposed to do? He starts asking his teacher: What happened with the eulogy? With the burial? All those things. And not only that: if Rashi had said this was a derash, or quoted a Midrash—as he often says “an aggadic Midrash”—then we would know it was a Midrash. It’s a Midrash, it’s a Midrash. Then, to begin with, it wouldn’t be the plain meaning. But Rashi does not call it a derash. He says, “Our Sages said.” That means Rashi is explaining that Yaakov did not die according to the plain meaning of the verse, and he does not explain it or add anything. In other words, according to the plain meaning of the verse—and Rashi is explaining the plain meaning—it is the same statement found in the Gemara. That is the plain meaning. There is no problem with it. Yaakov did not die; he remained alive. So what is the plain meaning here? The Rebbe asked. That was the Rebbe’s question: how can we explain this according to the plain meaning of the verse? So the Rebbe explained at that farbrengen that, according to the plain meaning, a child has no question. Why doesn’t the child have a question? Really, there are

41:02 Speaker 1 two questions here. One question is about the whole idea itself. The second is: why specifically Yaakov? Why? Why? Why not the others? Why Yaakov in particular? The Rebbe said that a five-year-old learning Chumash has no question at all about why specifically Yaakov. He has already seen that the various tzaddikim he has learned about—Adam, Noach, Avraham—each had a different story. The same thing did not happen to all of them. So the child understands that there are different kinds of tzaddikim. He sees explicitly that Avraham our father lived 175 years, Yitzchak lived 180 years, and Yaakov lived 147 years. So he understands that tzaddikim have different levels and different stories. He has already grasped that not all tzaddikim are the same. He has no problem with that at all. So Yaakov our father did not die. He was a special tzaddik. That does not trouble him. Why Yaakov our father and not someone else? Well, he was such a great tzaddik. And more than that, the Rebbe says, the child understands why it was specifically Yaakov, because Rashi has already said earlier that all of Yaakov our father’s children were righteous. Rashi already says this in his explanation of the plain meaning, in chapter 47. Rashi said that Yaakov our father’s distinction over Avraham and Yitzchak was that all his children were righteous. So that lets the child understand it on his own: since that was true of Yaakov our father, the child understands why he, specifically, did not die. Now, as for the idea itself—what does it mean that he did not die? The Rebbe says that the child has no difficulty with that either. Why? Because the child has already seen, in the plain meaning of Bereishis, that it says of Chanoch, “Chanoch walked with G-d, and he was no more.” It says there, “he was no more.” It does not say he died. And Rashi explains that because Chanoch was a tzaddik, he was taken

42:44 Speaker 1 before his time. So the child has already seen the concept of people who do not die but are taken in a different way. He has seen it there. So the child understands that not everyone dies in the ordinary way. There are different possibilities. Rashi therefore does not need to explain “Yaakov did not die” to him. But why didn’t he die? The child understands that literally, too, because he learned from the plain meaning of Bereishis that the whole reason death came into the world was the sin of the Tree of Knowledge. People were really supposed to live forever. What happened? Death was a punishment for the generations. So the child understands that Yaakov our father did not receive that punishment because he had no connection to the sin of the Tree of Knowledge. He was exceptional, so he did not. In short, the Rebbe’s approach is that a child does not yet have difficulties arising from other Midrashim, stories and interpretations. He has not yet learned to make intellectual distinctions. He takes what he has learned from Chumash. So when the child learns from Chumash that Yaakov did not die, he takes it literally. He has no difficulty with it at all. If only we could be like children and experience these things literally: that the Gemara’s statement, “Yaakov our father did not die,” means just that. There is such a thing as a soul in a body—even Yaakov’s body. Especially since we see in a number of the Rebbe’s sichos that there is a particular need for the nasi of the generation to be connected to a soul in a body. And the Rebbe explains in Likkutei Sichos, regarding the “intermediary that connects,” that the entire concept requires a soul in a body. Along these lines, there is also the well-known sicha in which the Rebbe explains the acacia wood. Here, [unclear] the acacia wood. We can also explain that the nasi’s ability to give strength and encouragement to the people of his generation

44:31 Speaker 1 requires his influence to come through his body. So we have to say that “Yaakov our father did not die” means it in the most literal sense in which the matter can be understood. Yes, regarding these matters. But the main thing, of course, is that anyone who wants to know the subject better and grasp it must learn the sichos and the explanations. I didn’t even—I didn’t mention the sicha that was also given on [unclear]. There is a very interesting explanation there of the whole idea of “did not die.” It is a little more complicated. But in any case, we need to learn the sichos. And what we need most is to see the Rebbe with our physical eyes, a soul in a body. We have learned dozens of chapters, so that we won’t need to debate the interpretations of “Yaakov our father” and exactly what happened there, but will see it with our physical eyes. We have learned dozens of chapters, and then we will see that the whole thing was only an outward concealment. In truth, the Rebbe is with us, always has been with us, without interruption throughout this entire period. May we merit to see the Rebbe with our physical eyes. Master of the Universe. Now there will be a video of the Rebbe, and with Hashem’s help, at around seven-thirty we will daven Maariv, and afterward there will be a farbrengen. Where will the farbrengen be? Well, it will start here in the zal. Then we’ll see where to continue. It will all be here, at the minyan, upstairs or downstairs. It depends on how things develop... We just need to move things forward.