1. It is a Jewish custom to say “words of admonishment” on a fast after the minchah prayer. When, however, the fast of the 10th of Teves falls on erev Shabbos (as this year), there are two reasons to think that this custom is suspended.

1) Jews on erev Shabbos after midday are very busy with preparing for Shabbos. Indeed, according to Torah, one should run to complete the preparations for Shabbos. Accordingly, there does not seem to be any time to deliver “words of admonishment.”

2) On Shabbos, “there is no sadness,” and the preparations for Shabbos should accordingly be done with joy. Thus, although one is still obligated to fast when the 10th of Teves falls on erev Shabbos, it is doubtful if the custom to say “words of admonishment” remains in full force.

Moreover, the 10th of Teves is the only fast of its kind which can fall on erev Shabbos and even then only occasionally. Because a fast on erev Shabbos is such a rare event, it is very possible that the custom to say “words of admonishment” does not apply in its full force.

But there is a simple way to be able to follow this custom on erev Shabbos. A fast is “a day desirable to G-d,” and therefore automatically it possesses an element of joy. Moreover, a fast, writes the Rambam, is “of the ways of repentance,” and the ultimate in repentance ("teshuvah itloh”) is performed with great joy. Further, Shabbos is the level of teshuvah i’loh. Thus, if the “words of admonishment” are in joyful matters, there will be no contradiction to the fact that there is no sadness on Shabbos.

Indeed, even the aspect of affliction on a fast, and those “words of admonishment” which are not associated with joyful matters, serve as a preparation to the ultimate joy on Shabbos. Tanya explains that teshuvah ta’toh (lower level of teshuvah) is the preparation to teshuvah ilo’oh (higher level of teshuvah — associated with Shabbos).

2. The idea of teshuvah is emphasized in today’s Torah portion, the sixth section of parshas Vayechi. The beginning of the portion talks of Ya’akov’s blessing to Binyomin — “Binyomin is a tearing wolf,” and the conclusion of the portion talks of Yosef’s reassurance to his brothers that their sale of him to Egypt was by Divine Providence

“G-d meant it for good ... to save the life of a great people.”

Binyomin’s service is that of teshuvah. The expression “a tearing wolf” means that in a dispute between two adversaries over an object, the stronger one tears the object from the weaker into his possession. This parallels the process of teshuvah, repentance. Through battling against the Yetzer, the evil inclination, the evil is transformed into holiness, and sins are transformed into merits — one tears deeds from the realm of evil and changes them into sanctity.

The idea of repentance as reflected in this verse is emphasized in Rashi’s interpretation. He states: “Binyomin is a tearing wolf.” — “He is a wolf that tears. Ya’akov prophesied that they (the tribe of Binyomin) were destined to become seizers, [as stated (Shoftim 21:21)] ‘And each of you shall seize his wife,’ in (the narrative of) the concubine of Givoh.”

There are several perplexing points in this Rashi. The verse “Binyomin is a tearing wolf” is part of Ya’akov’s blessing to Binyomin, and therefore its plain interpretation demands that this verse refer to good things associated with Binyomin. Yet Rashi interprets it to mean an evil thing, that it refers to “that they were destined to become seizers, [as stated] ‘And each of you shall seize his wife,’ in [the narrative of] the concubine of Givoh.” “Seizing” in general is not a good trait, and particularly in this case, for the normal way of marriage is that “A man shall take a wife,” not seize one. Moreover, the events which forced the members of Binyomin to act in such an unusual manner did not rebound to the tribe of Binyomin’s credit at all, for the story of the “concubine of Givoh” was a very unpleasant and evil episode indeed.

Further, Rashi, when quoting a verse, usually makes no mention of the events surrounding the verse. Yet here, when interpreting the blessing given to Binyomin, Rashi mentions the event associated with the verse — an event which was a disgrace to Binyomin.

Even more puzzling is Rashi’s insistence on bringing this as his first interpretation. Further on Rashi cites Onkelos’s interpretation of this verse, that it refers “to the spoil of the priests from the sacred (sacrifices) of the Sanctuary.” This is the meaning of “Binyomin is a tearing wolf,” for the Sanctuary and altar were situated in Binyomin’s territory. This interpretation is associated with the idea of a blessing, and Rashi should therefore have brought this interpretation before that of the concubine of Givoh.

Onkelos’s interpretation itself is unclear. “Spoil” is something taken from war. The Sanctuary is the idea of peace and rest. What connection can there be between “spoil” and the sacred sacrifices of the Sanctuary?

Rashi then continues: “He also prophesied regarding Shaul, who conquered his surrounding enemies, as it is stated (Shmuel 1, 14:47): ‘Shaul conquered the kingdom ... and he fought against Moav ... and against Edom ... and wherever he turned he was successful (“yarshiah”).

This too is puzzling. The word “yarshiah,” here meaning “successful,” usually connotes something bad. Why did Rashi, in citing a verse relating Shaul’s success, choose this verse which concludes with a word that usually connotes something bad. He could have chosen a verse which talks ‘of Shaul’s success using terminology that is unambiguously good.

Rashi then continues to interpret the second part of Ya’akov’s blessing to Binyomin — “In the evening he divides the spoil” — and comments: “Even after the sun of Israel had set through Nevuchadnezzar who exiled them to Babylonia, “he will divide the spoil” — Mordechai and Esther, who are of Binyomin, will divide the spoil of Haman, as it is stated: ‘Behold, I have given the house of Haman to Esther.”’

This comment of Rashi also requires clarification. Mention of “Haman” connotes bad things, for it reminds us of the decree against the Jews — a decree which resulted from the divisiveness and disunity among Jews. Rashi could have cited another verse to explain that “At evening he will divide the spoil” refers to Mordechai and Esther the verse (Esther 8:11), “to plunder their goods.”

Further, the term “spoil” in our verse connotes booty taken in war. Haman’s house was given Esther in the month of Nissan, before the war of defense waged by the Jews against their enemies, whereas the verse “to plunder their goods” explicitly refers to the spoils available after the war — and thus is more appropriate to the term “spoil” in our verse.

[Although the Jews did not actually take any booty, as stated, “They did not reach their hands to plunder,” this verse indicates there was plunder to be taken. If not for the fact that the Jews wished to show everyone that they did not wage the war for the purpose of plunder, they would have followed Achashverosh’s directive to t1plunaer their goods.” (See Rashi on Esther 8:11.)]

Further, the booty taken in war is obviously "spoil,” whereas the house of Haman became Esther’s only after it had first passed through Achashverosh’s possession (for otherwise, it is prohibited to derive any use from anything belonging to Amalek). It is thus not really “Spoilt, taken directly from the enemy.

Another problem is why Rashi mentions Haman's name twice — “Mordechai and Esther ... will divide the spoil of Haman, as it is stated: ‘Behold, I have given the house of Haman to Esther.”’ Rashi could have written just “Mordechai and Esther ... will divide the spoil, as it is stated: ‘Behold, I have given the house of Haman to Esther” — similar to our verse which states “In the evening he divides the spoil.”

A further question: There is another place in the Megillah which mentions that Achashverosh gave Haman’s house to Esther and Mordechai — “On that day King Achashverosh gave Haman’s house to Queen Esther” (Esther 8:1). This verse is more appropriate then the one Rashi cites for several reasons.

1) It is the first time that the Megillah mentions the presentation of Haman’s house to Esther;

2) This verse talks of the actual giving, whereas the verse Rashi cites is only a recounting of that gift;

3) Rashi in his comment says that “Mordechai and Esther ... will divide the spoil of Haman.”

The verse Rashi cites in support of this makes no mention that Mordechai received any share in Haman’s house, whereas in the alternative verse, the following verse states, “Esther set Mordechai over the house of Haman.”

All of the above. difficulties are resolved, in the light of our previous explanation concerning teshuvah, when transgressions are transformed into merits, and darkness into light. We shall discuss them in order of their appearance in Rashi’s comment:

“Ya’akov prophesied that they were destined to become seizers, [as stated] ‘And each of you shall seize his wife,’ in (the narrative of) the concubine of Givoh.” The events of “the concubine of Givoh” were very unpleasant, the complete antithesis of holiness. The tribe of Binyomin could no longer continue in the regular way of service, but needed to repent to nullify this evil act. It was a full repentance, with contrition for the past, and resolve to be better in the future. As a result, the tribe of Binyomin was accepted back into the community of Israel, and Israel was once again complete.

Because the ultimate in repentance is when the evil is not just nullified, but transformed into holiness, their reacceptance into the community of Israel had to be in similar fashion. Instead of marrying a woman in the usual fashion (“A man shall take a wife”), they needed extra strength to transform the evil of the event of “the concubine in Givoh” to sanctity. And thus “Each of you shall seize his wife — analogous to the blessing “Binyomin is a tearing wolf,” which, we explained earlier, refers to the tearing away of deeds from the realm of evil and bringing them into the realm of sanctity — the service of teshuvah.

Thus, when Ya’akov was giving his blessings to his sons, all of whom were righteous, Rashi in his comment emphasizes that Binyomin possessed a quality superior to the rest. Besides being righteous, he also possessed the service of repentance (“Binyomin is a tearing wolf”), to its ultimate extent: the transformation of darkness into light — the transformation of the event of the “concubine in Givoh” through the idea of “seizing.”

So too with Rashi’s next comment, that “He also prophesied regarding Shaul, who conquered his surrounding enemies, as it is stated: ‘Shaul conquered his kingdom ... and he fought against Moav ... and against Edom ... and wherever he turned he was successful (“yarshiah").'” Rashi could have cited other verses regarding Shaul’s victories in war, verses which would not use the term “yarshiah” which normally connotes something bad. But Rashi wanted to stress the above idea of transforming evil into good. That is, to be successful not only by eliminating the enemy, but to transform the enemy into good. Therefore Rashi cites the verse ending with the words, “and wherever he turned he was successful (‘yarshiah’),” for the word “yarshiah” itself, which normally connotes bad, is here transformed into a positive meaning (“successful").

The same reasoning applies to the second part of the verse, “In the evening he divides the spoil,” which Rashi interprets to refer to “Mordechai and Esther, who are of Binyomin, will divide the spoil of Haman, as it is stated: ‘Behold I have given the house of Haman to Esther.”’ “Haman” was a descendant of Amalek, the symbol of utter evil. We are commanded to always remember what Amalek did to us on the way going out from Egypt, to eradicate him totally. The ultimate level of this is to transform anything associated with Amalek to holiness. Rashi, to emphasize this point, mentions Haman’s name twice: “Mordechai and Esther ... will divide the spoil of Haman” and “I have given the house of Haman to Esther.” Haman’s spoil specifically, his house, became Mordechai’s and, Esther’s property — i.e. it passed from the realm of evil into the realm of sanctity.

It is for this reason that Rashi prefers to cite this particular verse and not an alternative, for Rashi, in the Megillah, interprets this verse to mean “From now, all see that I (King Achashverosh) desire you” — the ultimate in the transformation of evil into good. Similarly, the word “Behold” in this verse tells us the same thing, and therefore Rashi includes it when citing this verse. Rashi explains elsewhere (Bamidbar 18:8) that “behold” is “an expression of joy.” In our case, it means that through the service of transformation evil into good (the transformation of Haman’s house into Esther’s possession), an infinitely greater amount of joy is produced.

Rashi then concludes with the words, “Onkelos interprets it as referring to the spoil of the priests from the sacred [sacrifices] of the Sanctuary.” Because Binyomin’s service was that of teshuvah, transforming darkness into light, he merited to have the Sanctuary and altar situated in his territory — for penitents (Binyomin) are on a higher level than the totally righteous (the other tribes), to the extent that “where penitents stand, the totally righteous cannot stand.” And therefore Rashi brings Onkelos’s interpretation at the end of his comment, to emphasize that the distinction of having the Sanctuary in his territory followed, and was a result of, Binyomin’s service of repentance.

Moreover, Binyomin’s service of teshuvah affected even the Sanctuary. Although the Sanctuary of itself is a House of Rest, it also possessed the distinction of “spoil” — the “spoil of the priests from the sacred [sacrifices]” — which distinction accrues from the transformation of darkness into light. _ ; .

3. That Binyomin is the idea of teshuvah, the transformation of evil into good, is also alluded to in the conclusion of today’s Torah portion “You meant to do bad to me, but G-d meant it for good ... to save the life of a great people.” Here too there are a number of difficulties which can be resolved in the light of the above explanation concerning the service of teshuvah.

The difficulties in this verse are:

1) Yosef intended to comfort his brothers and allay their fears concerning his possible revenge for their mistreatment of him. If so, why does he mention that “You meant to do bad to me?”

2) Yosef says that G-d meant it “to save the life of a great people.” Rashi on a previous verse (Bereishis 33:11) explains that the difference between Ya’akov and Esav is that Ya’akov said “I have all that I need” (“Yesh li kol”), whereas Esav said “I have much” (“Yesh li rov”) — an expression of conceit. Why then does Yosef say “a great people” ( it am rov”), when talking of the children of Ya’akov. A more appropriate expression would be “to save the life of all the people (“kol ha’am”).

But the verse “You meant to do bad to me, but G-d meant it for good” serves to emphasize the idea of transformation of evil to good — that the bad thought of the brothers was transformed into good. Similarly, the expression “to save the life of a great people” stresses the transformation of the expression “I have much,” used by Esav, to holiness. And it is specifically through such service that one can reach the loftiest level.

The emphasis on the transformation of evil into good in today’s Torah portion is connected to the idea of a fast. Repentance on a fast should be not just to nullify the evil (the cause of the fast), but to transform the evil into holiness. When repentance is in such a way, then the fast itself is transformed into good, as the Rambam says (Laws of Fasts 5:18): “All these fasts are destined to be abolished in the Messianic days. Moreover, they are destined to become festivals and days of gladness and joy.” That is, the fasts themselves will be transformed into festivals.

4. Another concept stressed in today’s Torah portion concerns love and unity of Jews. After the blessing to Binyamin, Scripture states (49:28): “This is what their father spoke to them and blessed them; he blessed them each one according to his blessing.” Rashi comments that, “Scripture should have stated only, ‘He blessed each one according to his blessing.’ What does it teach by saying, ‘He blessed them?’ Since he gave Yehudah the strength of a lion, and to Binyomin the seizing (ability) of a wolf, and to Naftali the speed of a hind, one might think that Ya’akov did not include all of them in all the blessings. Therefore Scripture teaches, ‘He blessed them (all).”’

Each of the tribes received a blessing that was peculiarly suited to him — “each one according to his blessing.” “He blessed them” teaches that this individual blessing was extended to all the other tribes.

This is achieved through Ahavas Yisroel (love of Jews) and particularly through Achdus Yisroel (unity of Jews). Through the fulfillment of the command, “You shall love your fellow as yourself,” all Jews are united into one entity, inseparable one from the other. Thus the individual blessing given to each individual tribe extends to every other tribe.

This is also alluded to in Rashi’s comment on the verse “Binyomin is a tearing wolf” (elaborated on above).

“‘Each of you shall seize his wife,’ [in the narrative of] the concubine in Givoh” — Binyomin’s service of teshuvah in a manner of transforming darkness into light effected that the body of Jewry would be whole, for Jewry is whole only when every tribe is whole.

“Wherever he turned he was successful” — victory for all Jewry, since Shaul was King of all Israel.

“Behold, I have given the house of Haman to Esther” — the victory of Purim was for all Jews.

“The spoil of the priests in the sacred [sacrifices] of the Sanctuary” — the sacrifices in the Sanctuary in Binyomin’s territory were on behalf of all Jews.

Thus we see that the blessing bestowed upon Binyomin stresses the unity of Jews: “he blessed them” — all of them equally, for the distinction accruing to Binyomin affected all Jewry.

Ahavas Yisroel and Achdus Yisroel is particularly associated with the 10th of Teves. Scripture (Yechezkel 24:2) states that “The King of Babylonia laid siege (“somach”) to Yerushalayim,” which is the reason a fast is held on the 10th of Teves. “Somach” is a very unusual term to use for besiege, for in the majority of cases, “somach” connotes support.

However, the siege of Yerushalayim, because it forced the Jews to remain together in Yerushalayim, caused Jews to be united. The cause of our exile was hatred between Jews. Yerushalayim was the cure before the illness. The effect of the siege by the “King of Babylonia” was to support “somach”) the eradication of exile. This is analogous to the idea of transforming evil into good — the “king of Babylonia” (evil) himself helps to eradicate the exile.

5. From all of the above we can draw two practical lessons — joyful lessons — from today’s Torah portion. We must do our utmost to increase in Ahavas Yisroel and Achdus Yisroel, as emphasized in today’s Torah portion — “He blessed them each one according to his blessing.” Although it is one’s personal blessing (“his blessing”), one endeavors, through uniting together with others, to extend this blessing to all Jews.

A further lesson is that a Jew need not become despondent at the intensity of darkness of the exile, for the ultimate goal is to transform that darkness into light. This too is stressed in today’s Torah portion — “Binyomin is a tearing wolf.” As explained above, this verse is interpreted to mean the transformation of bad things to sanctity, through which we reach the interpretation of “the spoil of the priests in the sacred [sacrifices] of the Sanctuary.”

In practical terms, one should increase in giving tzedakah, a practice which unites Jews together. Instead of quarreling with each other, Jews conduct themselves with Ahavas Yisroel and Achdus Yisroel. Indeed, the beginning of each day should start with love of a fellow Jew, by reciting before prayers the words, “I hereby take upon myself to fulfill the mitzvah, ‘Love your fellow as yourself.”’

Since the cause of the exile was hatred between Jews, when the cause is eliminated, the effect automatically. follows, and indeed, the exile itself is transformed into goodness. Then the redemption immediately follows, when we shall merit to have the third Bais Hamikdosh, in Binyomin’s territory, where “the upright will dwell in Your presence.” This is especially effected by reciting after prayers the verse “Indeed, the righteous will extol Your Name, the upright will dwell in Your presence.”