Likkutei Sichos, Shabbos Parshas Vayechi, 5751; from the Sichos of 20 Menachem Av, 5731

I.

Our Sages relate:[1]

Rav Nachman and Rav Yitzchak were sitting together at a repast. Rav Nachman asked Rav Yitzchak: "Share a word [of Torah]."

[Rav Yitzchak] replied: "Rabbi Yochanan taught as follows: One should not speak during a meal lest the windpipe open before the esophagus, causing danger. {When a person speaks, the covering of the windpipe opens, and [it is possible] for food to enter. This would cause danger.... [Generally,] food and drink pass through the esophagus.[2]}

After [Rav Yitzchak] finished eating,[3] he told him: "Rabbi Yochanan said the following: Yaakov Avinu did not die, (rather, he lives forever)."[4]

[Rav Nachman] replied to him: "Was it for naught that he was mourned, embalmed, and buried?"[5]

[Rav Yitzchak] told him: "My statements are based on a verse. It is written:[6] ' "Do not fear, My servant Yaakov," speaks G-d, "And do not dismay, O Israel. For I will deliver you from afar, and your descendants from the land of their captivity." ' An association is established between [Yaakov] and his descendants. Just as his descendants are alive, he too is alive."

The commentaries[7] have noted several difficulties with this passage. [Among them:]

1. What did Rav Yitzchak gain by saying: "One should not speak during a meal..."? Seemingly, mentioning this directive itself is also a contradiction to its instructions.[8] On the contrary, the concept "Yaakov Avinu did not die" which he wished to convey, takes up less words than the directive "One should not speak during a meal...." Seemingly, it would have been more appropriate to make that statement alone.

   It has been suggested[9] that with the statement: "One should not speak during a meal...," Rav Yitzchak was not explaining why he would not share a Torah concept with Rav Nachman.[10] Instead, he was reproving Rav Nachman for speaking with him in the midst of a meal.[11] Since special priority is given to statements which are intended to dissociate a person from a transgression[12] over other words of Torah,[13] Rav Yitzchak made this brief statement. {He did not, by contrast, tell him: "Yaakov Avinu did not die...," for that statement has no relevance with regard to one's immediate conduct.[14] Therefore, there is no need for it to be made in the midst of a meal.}

   This interpretation, however, also appears insufficient. Were this his intent, seemingly it would have sufficed for him to have said: "One should not speak during a meal," and not to have continued speaking in the midst of the meal. The rationale for this law, "lest the windpipe open before the esophagus, causing danger" is unnecessary.

   True, adding this rationale does impress a listener with the severity of the matter, because "danger to life is considered more severe than transgression."[15] Nevertheless, for that very reason, seemingly, in the midst of a meal, one should confine oneself to a brief directive, for that is sufficient to dissociate the person from the transgression. After the conclusion of the meal, the rationale for the prohibition could have been added.

2. The manner in which concepts are stated in the Torah is precise. Therefore, Rav Yitzchak's statement that "Yaakov Avinu did not die" which he made after the meal appears to be connected with the statement he made during the meal, that "One should not speak during a meal...."[16] [How are they related?]

3. Rav Nachman's reply: "Was it for naught that he was mourned, embalmed, and buried?" is problematic. Seemingly, he should have said: Since Yaakov did not die, why was he mourned, embalmed, and buried?[17]

4. What is the significance of his reply, quoting the verse: "Do not fear, My servant Yaakov." Seemingly, this does not answer the question: "Was it for naught that he was mourned, embalmed, and buried?"[18]

   There are commentaries[19] who explain that by identifying his source as the verse: "Do not fear," and extrapolating "Just as his descendants are alive, he is alive," Rav Yitzchak was explaining his original intent. His statement that Yaakov did not die was not meant to be taken in an absolutely literal sense, that his physical body did not die. For indeed, in this context, he did die. Instead, he was speaking about "the life of the soul."

   This explanation, however, is difficult to accept. (If this is the intent, what is the new concept conveyed by the statement: "Yaakov Avinu did not die"? The "life of the soul" of all tzaddikim is eternal. Moreover,) it does not concur with Rashi's interpretation of the passage. Rashi states that Yaakov was embalmed, because "they thought that he had died." And afterwards,[20] he writes: "It appeared to them that he had died, but he was alive." From this, it is apparent[21] that Rashi interprets the statement: "Yaakov Avinu did not die" in the most literal sense, that his body did not die, as he writes: "he did not die, rather, he lives forever."

5. According to Rashi's commentary, the explanation does not appear to be contained in the text.[22] The answer to the question "Was it for naught that they mourned?..." is that it only appeared to them that he had died. (And this is not stated in the Talmud.) The extrapolation from the verse merely brings proof that Yaakov did not die. It does not resolve the difficulty raised by Rav Nachman.

II.

It is possible to resolve the above difficulties by seeing this passage in the context of its place in the Talmud. This story follows several other dialogues between Rav Nachman and Rav Yitzchak in which Rav Yitzchak replies: "Rabbi Yochanan said the following:..." The statements which he quotes in the name of Rabbi Yochanan all explain the miraculous nature of G-d's conduct with regard to the Jewish people.

For example, the first of the passages mentioned there states:[23]

[With regard to the verse,[24] "In the first month, He has granted you the first rain, and the final rain."] Rav Nachman said to Rav Yitzchak: "Do the first rains descend in Nissan? The first rains descend in MarCheshvan...."

[Rav Yitzchak] told him: "[The promise of] this verse was fulfilled in the days of Yoel ben Pasuel, as it is written.... That year, Adar passed without having any rain descend. The first rains descended on the first day of Nissan. The prophet told the Jewish people: "Go out and sow [your fields]."

They answered him: "If a person has a measure of wheat, or a measure of barley, should he eat it and live, or should he sow it and die."

He told them: "Notwithstanding [your logic], go out and sow."

A miracle was wrought on their behalf and the kernels [concealed] in the walls and in the ant hives were revealed for them. [They sowed] them on the second, third, and fourth days. On the fifth day of Nissan, the second rain descended. And on the sixteenth of Nissan, they offered the omer. Thus grain [which usually] grows in sixth months, grew in eleven days.

Following the statements from Rabbi Yochanan of this nature, the Talmud relates the story of Rav Yitzchak and Rav Nachman dining together. We can assume that when Rav Nachman asked Rav Yitzchak to share a Torah thought, Rav Nachman also knew that, because of the possible danger, one should not speak during a meal. Nevertheless, he thought that this prohibition applied only to ordinary talk,[25] and not to the words of the Torah.

When speaking words of the Torah, one might think that there is no need to worry about danger, because "the Torah protects and saves."[26] Indeed, we are obligated to recite words of Torah at a meal as reflected by the Mishnah:[27] "When three eat at one table without speaking words of Torah there, it is as if they ate of sacrifices to the dead..." Thus there is no need to worry about danger. When the Jews are occupied in Torah study (as commanded by G-d), G-d will protect them even in situations when, according to the natural order, there is a possibility of danger.

For this reason, Rav Yitzchak gave a full reply to Rav Nachman, mentioning not only the directive, "One should not speak during a meal," but also the rationale, "lest the windpipe open before the esophagus, causing danger." With this rationale, he demonstrates that the prohibition applies[28] also to the words of Torah.[29]

To cite a parallel concept: It is written:[30] "One who observes a commandment will not know evil." And we have been taught: "Agents [charged with the performance of] a mitzvah will not be harmed."[31] Nevertheless, we cannot rely on this principle "in a situation where harm is probable,"[32] as reflected in the narrative to follow:31

([G-d commanded Shmuel the prophet] to anoint David. Although Shmuel was sent by G-d, he was frightened,)[33] as it is written:[34] "Shmuel said, 'How can I go? Shaul will hear, and he will kill me.' "

"And G-d replied: 'Take a calf [to offer as a sacrifice].' [I.e., do not rely on the mitzvah to protect you, instead, employ a ruse.]"

To apply that concept in our context, since there is the possibility that "the windpipe open before the esophagus, causing danger,"[35] this is considered an instance where "harm is probable." Therefore, one cannot rely on the protective influence of the Torah and its mitzvos and hence, even words of Torah should not be spoken during a meal.

III.

Based on the above, it is possible to explain the continuation of the narrative: "After he finished eating, he told him: 'Rabbi Yochanan said the following: Yaakov Avinu did not die.' " According to the interpretation mentioned above, Rabbi Yochanan's statement: "One should not speak during a meal..." reflects a general concept that applies with regard to the effect of the Torah and its mitzvos on the world at large. As Rabbi Yochanan emphasizes, although there are times when G-d works miracles for the Jewish people which transcend the natural order, by and large, a person's endeavors in the sphere of the Torah and its mitzvos must be enclothed within the natural order of the world. As such, although the Torah does bring about protection and deliverance, one cannot rely on this in a situation where harm is probable and miracles are required.

This concept - that our endeavors in the observance of the Torah and its mitzvos must be enclothed within the natural order of the world - can be explained in two ways: Either that the natural order requires such conduct, or that the Torah requires it.

1. This is required by the natural order. Since the laws of nature are a creation of G-d, G-d does not desire that the Torah and its mitzvos be observed in a manner that nullifies the natural order. As Rabbeinu Nissim writes:[36] "It is G-d's desire and will to maintain the natural order to the greatest degree possible. The natural order is precious in His eyes, and He does not negate it unless it is absolutely necessary to do so."[37]

2. This is required by the Torah, i.e., the purpose of the Torah and its mitzvos is to affect the natural order of the world, and not to modify it.

According to the first explanation, our endeavors within the Torah and its mitzvos must be enclothed within the natural order, because (since the Torah and its mitzvos were given within our world), they are governed by the rules of nature, (as it were). Therefore, the observance of the Torah is limited to situations where that observance is possible according to the rules of nature.

The second interpretation, by contrast, does not view the natural order as being able to confine or limit a person's observance of the Torah and its mitzvos. [The limitation is willful.] For the Torah prescribes that our observance must be enclothed within the world,[38] (rather than negate the natural order of the world).

IV.

It is possible to say that these two approaches lie at the crux of the difference of opinion between Rav Yitzchak and Rav Nachman.

When, after eating, Rav Yitzchak quoted Rabbi Yochanan's statement: "Yaakov Avinu did not die," his intent was to [highlight the second of the opinions mentioned above]. The fact that the observance of the Torah and its mitzvos must be enclothed within the natural order is not because the laws of nature can control the Torah and its mitzvos.

On the contrary, as indicated by the statement: "Yaakov Avinu did not die," not only are the Torah and its mitzvos not confined by the limits of nature, they transcend that sphere entirely.

According to the laws of nature, death is an unequivocal reality, for it is impossible for a limited created being, subject to change, to exist with eternal vitality.[39] Nevertheless, Yaakov Avinu did not die. Yaakov was "the chosen of the Patriarchs,"[40] and as such, his entire existence was the Torah,[41] as it is written:[42] "Yaakov was a simple man, a dweller of tents." Therefore, just as the natural order does not limit the Torah itself, it cannot restrict Yaakov.[43]

Rav Nachman, by contrast, follows the first approach mentioned above. He interpreted Rabbi Yochanan's teaching forbidding speaking in the midst of a meal because of the danger that might arise as indicating that the Torah is limited by the natural order.

This is the intent of his reply: "Was it for naught that he was mourned, embalmed, and buried?" (He did not ask, if Yaakov was alive, why were these deeds performed? Instead,) his intent was that the fact that the Torah relates how Yaakov was mourned, embalmed, and buried, and tells that these activities were performed at the instruction of Yosef[44] (- indeed, the burial, which is a mitzvah, was performed based on the instructions of both Yaakov and Yosef -) indicates that the Torah recognizes the limitations of the natural order. If one were to say that "Yaakov did not die," the Torah's description of the activities performed with Yaakov's body is not true according to the Torah. (According to this conception, these activities would have been performed "for naught," only because of this mistaken perception of the Egyptians who did not know that he did not die.)

In response to this objection, Rav Yitzchak states: "My statements are based on a verse.... Just as his descendants are alive, he too is alive." When he said, "Yaakov Avinu did not die," Rabbi Yochanan was not referring to the dimension of Yaakov's being that could be appreciated by the Egyptians, but rather, his true being (which applies also to his bodily existence).

Yaakov's true being is as it is conceived by the Torah, and this is not bound by the limitations of nature. Instead, "he is alive." This is implied by Rav Yitzchak's words: "My statements are based on a verse.... Just as his descendants are alive, he too is alive." Although from a material perspective (i.e., as the Egyptians view existence), this could not be perceived, as the concept exists in the Torah, and is extrapolated, [Yaakov's true life can be appreciated].

As such, there is no contradiction between the concept that Yaakov did not die, and the fact that "he was mourned...." He was mourned, embalmed, and buried, because as the Egyptians perceived reality, it appeared to them that he had died. For from their perspective, this concept was true (according to the Torah).[45] Hence they performed these activities with Yaakov's body. For the expression of the Torah and its mitzvos as they are enclothed in the matters of the world is a true expression of the Torah's intent.

And thus, both aspects are true according to the Torah: As they exist independently (far zich), the Jews and the Torah are not bound by the natural limitations of the world. Nevertheless, G-d desired that the effects of the observance of the Torah and its mitzvos be enclothed within the natural order of the world. [And from that perspective, these activities are in place.]

V.

Just as this above applies with regard to Yaakov Avinu, "our grandfather Israel,"[46] so too, it applies with regard to his descendants. "His descendants are alive." This applies even as they exist in Egypt, "the nakedness of the land,"[47] and in all the subsequent exiles, for "all the ruling nations are described with the term Mitzrayim, Egypt."[48] The Jews are "the smallest among the nations,"[49] and "one lamb among seventy wolves,"[50] and thus they are "in a situation where harm is probable," physical harm, and even more so, spiritual harm. Nevertheless, concerning them it is said: " 'Do not fear, My servant Yaakov,' speaks G-d, 'And do not dismay, O Israel. For I will deliver you from afar, and your descendants from the land of their captivity.' " An association is established between [Yaakov] and his descendants. Just as his descendants are alive...." Even as Yaakov's descendants exist in captivity and exile, they remain alive. For "you who cling to G-d, your L-rd, are all alive."[51] Although the natural laws of probability would not allow for this, these natural laws do not determine the Jews' future.

Thus we see two dimensions of the Torah and the Jewish people:

1. as they "sit at a repast," i.e., as they are enclothed in the material dimensions of existence, in which instance, even their Torah activity recognizes the limits of the world. (Therefore, we do not speak words of the Torah in a place where harm is likely.)

2. as they exist "after eating," above the material plane, after they have completed the task of refining the material world. At that time, the essential quality of the Jews which transcends the natural order will be revealed, and it will be seen that "Yaakov did not die," and that "just as his descendants are alive, he too, is alive."

VI.

Although we find the application of the concept of the eternality of physical existence with regard to Yaakov alone, when focusing on its inner dimensions, it can be applied to all Jews. As the Mishnah states:[52] "All Israel have a portion in the World to Come."

In this context, the term "World to Come" refers to the Era of Resurrection.[53] The rationale for this is reflected in the prooftext quoted by the mishnah:[54] "And your people are all righteous; they shall inherit the Land forever. [They are] the branch of My planting, the work of My hands in which to take pride."

Since they are "the branch of My planting, the work of My hands" - G-d's handiwork, as it were - all Israel will arise at the Resurrection of the Dead. Even their bodies will exist with eternal vitality.[55]

This is transferred as an inheritance from Yaakov Avinu, who did not die. In particular, this applies because Yaakov was "the chosen of the Patriarchs,"40 chosen by G-d Himself. And with regard to G-d's choice of the Jewish people, the Tanya explains[56] that G-d's choice of the Jewish people applies not only to their souls (which are "an actual part of G-d from above"),[57] but also (and primarily) to their bodies.

Thus the mourning and burying of Yaakov, which was required by Torah because it appeared to them that he died, draws down the potential for every Jew to reach the Resurrection of the Dead through the task of refining and purifying the body. This refinement is accomplished through the negation of the body, via its return to dust[58] (which as explained,[59] can be fulfilled through the spiritual service of "My soul will be as dust to all,"[60] in which case there is no need to actually return to dust). This brings us to the Resurrection of the Dead in the true and ultimate Redemption.

   

Notes:

1. (Back to text) Taanis 5b.

2. (Back to text) Rashi, Taanis, loc. cit. As is well known, there is a debate among the authorities if the commentary ascribed to Rashi on this tractate was indeed authored by him or not. (See Maharatz Chayos, at the conclusion of the tractate of Taanis, Shem HaGedolim, from the Chidah, entry Rashi.)

3. (Back to text) This is the version quoted by the Ein Yaakov. Our texts of the Talmud state, "After they finished eating," which indicates that they were both eating. According to the version of the Ein Yaakov, it might appear that Rav Yitzchak had already finished eating previously. See note 29 below.

4. (Back to text) Tosafos (Taanis, loc. cit.) derives this concept from the exegesis of Bereishis 49:33 which uses the word Vayigvah for "and he died," rather than the more common Vayameis, as explained in Sotah (13a) with regard to Chushim. See also a similar interpretation in Rashi's commentary on the Torah.

5. (Back to text) Bereishis 50:2, 10, 13.

6. (Back to text) Yirmeyahu 30:10.

7. (Back to text) Note the commentaries to the Ein Yaakov.

8. (Back to text) Indeed, we find that mentioning the word Amen, i.e., one word alone, is considered a contradiction to this directive. See Berachos 43a, Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Berachos 7:6, and other sources.

9. (Back to text) The commentary of Rif (Reb Yoshiyahu Pinto) to Ein Yaakov.

10. (Back to text) Rashi offers such an explanation, that Rav Yitzchak was explaining his conduct.

11. (Back to text) This interpretation is reinforced by the version of the text quoted by the Dikdukei Sofrim which states: "Share a word of aggadita (homiletic teachings)." See also note 14.

12. (Back to text) For this reason, several prohibitions are waived for this purpose: e.g., the prohibition against giving halachic directives in the presence of one's teacher (see Eruvin 63a; Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Talmud Torah 5:3), and the prohibition against speaking words of Torah in a bath house (Shabbos 40b; Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Krias Shema 3:5).

13. (Back to text) See the notes of the Pri Megadim (Eshel Avraham 1) to Orach Chayim 170 which quotes this Talmudic passage and concludes: "It thus appears that to dissociate a person from transgression, one may speak. [This is allowed,] despite the principle: Danger to life is considered more severe than transgression."

14. (Back to text) See the gloss of Iyun Yaakov to the Ein Yaakov. Note, however, that there is a practical point which emerges from this concept with regard to the laws of ritual impurity. For a corpse conveys ritual impurity, and a living being does not. See Niddah 70b. This relates to the well-known discussion of whether the graves of tzaddikim convey ritual impurity or not. This is not the place for extended discussion about this matter.

15. (Back to text) Chulin 10a. Tur and Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 173:2).

16. (Back to text) See an explanation of this concept from a mystical perspective at the beginning of the text Toras Levi Yitzchak.

17. (Back to text) See the comments of the Iyun Yaakov. Note also the quote in Eitz Yosef to Ein Yaakov.

18. (Back to text) See the gloss of Rif to Ein Yaakov, and the gloss of the Anaf Yosef.

19. (Back to text) Chiddushei Aggados of the Maharsha to Taanis, loc. cit; Rashba, Ein Yaakov.

20. (Back to text) Entry af hu bachayim.

21. (Back to text) This perspective also appears to be shared by Tosafos as mentioned previously (note 4), and by Rashi's commentary to the Torah. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. IV, p. 1260ff. and Vol. XXVI, p. 7ff.

22. (Back to text) See the Chiddushei Aggados of the Maharsha, loc. cit.

23. (Back to text) Taanis 5a.

24. (Back to text) [Yoel 2:23.]

25. (Back to text) See the gloss of the Iyun Yaakov to Ein Yaakov which explains a similar concept, albeit with a slightly different thrust.

26. (Back to text) Sukkah 21a.

27. (Back to text) Avos 3:3. See note 29.

28. (Back to text) The Iyun Yaakov explains that it is permitted to speak words of Torah in the midst of a meal. The prohibition, however, applies to the ordinary talk of Sages which, [though ordinarily a worthy pursuit as reflected by our Sages' (Sukkah 21b, Avodah Zorah 19b) comment: "even the casual conversation of scholars demands study,"] is not permitted during a meal, because of the danger.

29. (Back to text) Rabbeinu Chananel concludes: "It is forbidden to speak words of Halachah in the midst of a meal."

    The Magen Avraham (Orach Chayim 170:1) states: "It is forbidden to speak even words of Torah during a meal." Afterwards, however, he states: "Whenever words of Torah are not spoken at a table, it is as if those who ate partook of sacrifices to the dead." It would appear that his intent is that words of Torah should be spoken either at the beginning of the meal or at the end, as explained in the Aruch HaShulchan.

    The Perishah, commenting on the Tur (loc. cit.), states that it appears that it is forbidden to talk between one course and another course as long as one desires to continue eating. (Note the proof he quotes.) The Eliyahu Rabbah, however, differs and states that it is permitted to speak between courses. (His statements are quoted by the Mishnah Berurah.)

    In his gloss to Ein Yaakov, Rif states: "Since he desired to rebuke him, he stopped eating so that he could reply." This appears to imply that Rav Yitzchak ceased eating entirely, and did not resume; he was not merely pausing between courses. From the continuation of the passage [which states, "after he finished eating,"] however, it appears that this is not so.

    This is not the place for extended discussion about this matter.

30. (Back to text) Koheles 8:5. See the discussion of this concept in Sdei Chemed, Vol. III, p. 665b ff.; Vol. IX, p. 1880c ff.

31. (Back to text) Pesachim 8b.

32. (Back to text) Pesachim, loc. cit. Rabbeinu Chananel has a slightly different version of the text which reads "where danger is set." This version is also found in Yoma 11a, Kiddushin 32b, and Chulin 142a.

33. (Back to text) Rashi, loc. cit.

34. (Back to text) I Shmuel 16:2.

35. (Back to text) The Talmud's expression which literally means "and he will come to danger," is quoted by the Rambam, as cited in footnote 8 and by the Shulchan Aruch HaRav.

36. (Back to text) Derashos HaRan, Discourse 8, Introduction 1.

37. (Back to text) See also Sefer HaChinuch, mitzvah 546.

38. (Back to text) See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. V, p. 80ff.

39. (Back to text) See Emunos VeDeos of Rav Saadia Gaon, Discourse 1, ch. 1; Moreh Nevuchim, Vol. II, Introduction 12; Likkutei Sichos, op. cit., p. 97ff., and sources cited there.

40. (Back to text) As reflected by the verse (Tehillim 135:4): "Yaakov was chosen by G-d for Himself" (Bereishis Rabbah 76:1). See also Zohar, Vol. I, p. 171a; also p. 147b, 119b. See also Shaar HaPesukim LehaAriZal, Toldos, 27:24.

41. (Back to text) See the gloss of the Rashba to Ein Yaakov. Note also the sources mentioned in note 43.

42. (Back to text) Bereishis 25:27. [The commentaries explain that "tents" refer to "the tents of the Torah."]

43. (Back to text) Similarly, with regard to Moshe, it is said (Sotah 13b; Zohar, Vol. 1, p. 37b): "Moshe did not die." For Moshe is also identified with the Torah.

    The connection between Moshe and Yaakov is reflected by the Tikkunei Zohar (Tikkun 13, p. 29a) which states: "Moshe reflects the inner dimension, and Yaakov, the external dimension." See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XXVI, p. 6ff.

44. (Back to text) Bereishis 50:2. See the commentary of the Alshich (quoted in the Eitz Yosef) which states that Yaakov's body remained intact when he was embalmed. See also the Responsa of the Chasam Sofer, Yoreh De'ah, Responsum 336.

45. (Back to text) Perhaps this is Rashi's intent in his choice of the words: "It appeared to them that he had died," as opposed to his previous statement: "They thought that he had died." Since "it appeared to them that he had died," they were required to act according to their perception.

    Nevertheless, the apparent redundancy in Rashi's statements still requires an explanation. This, however, is not the place for it.

46. (Back to text) Rashi's wording in Taanis, loc. cit.

47. (Back to text) [Cf. Bereishis 42:12.]

48. (Back to text) See Bereishis Rabbah 16:4.

49. (Back to text) Devarim 7:6.

50. (Back to text) See Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Toldos, sec. 5; Esther Rabbah 10:11.

51. (Back to text) Devarim 4:5.

52. (Back to text) Sanhedrin 10:1.

53. (Back to text) Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura and others.

    This is evident from the continuation of the mishnah: "The following do not have a portion in the World to Come: One who says the Resurrection of the Dead does not have a source in the Torah." As the Talmud (Sanhedrin 90a): states: "He denied the Resurrection; therefore, he will not have a share in this Resurrection.... Measure for measure."

54. (Back to text) Yeshayahu 60:21.

55. (Back to text) See the maamar Lehavin Inyan Techiyas HaMeisim, Sefer HaMaamarim Melukat, Vol. III, p. 33ff [English Trans.: Anticipating the Redemption (SIE, N.Y., 1994)].

56. (Back to text) Ch. 49 (69b), which states that G-d's essential choice of the Jewish people is reflected in their physical bodies. See also Toras Shalom, p. 120.

57. (Back to text) Tanya, ch. 2.

58. (Back to text) Cf. Bereishis 3:19.

59. (Back to text) Sefer HaSichos 5748, Vol. I, (pp. 227-228); Sefer HaMaamarim Melukat, Vol. II, p. 280.

60. (Back to text) Berachos 17a, the passage Elokai netzor recited after Shemoneh Esreh.