English translation — פנחס ב

1.

At the beginning of the portion of the offerings in our portion¹

Rashi copies the words "Command the children of Israel" and explains: What is stated above²

May God appoint.

The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: Before you command Me concerning My children, command My children concerning Me.

A parable, etc.

(As below sec. 2).

And it needs to be understood: What was difficult for Rashi in the words "Command the children of Israel" that he needed to explain them?

And if it is because of the word "Command" — behold, Rashi already explained it at the beginning of the portion of Tzav and emphasized: "Command" is nothing but an expression of urging, immediate and for generations — meaning that everywhere there is no other explanation for "Command"³?

There are commentators⁴

Rashi comes to explain the juxtaposition of this portion to the previous portion "Yifkod Hashem".

And this is the intention of Rashi in what he said "What is said above 'Yifkod Hashem'",

That is: What is the connection between our portion and what is said above "Yifkod Hashem"?

And he answers "He said to him Hashem etc.".

But it is difficult to explain thus in Rashi,

Because:

a)

Rashi's style in similar places — when he comes to explain the juxtaposition of sections — is "Why was it juxtaposed, etc.,"

and his wording in this very portion on the verse⁵

"Ascend to Mount Abarim" —

"Why was it juxtaposed here, etc."; at the beginning of Parshat Shlach: "Why was the section of the spies juxtaposed to the section of Miriam, etc."; at the beginning of Parshat Beha'alotcha: "Why was the section of the menorah juxtaposed to the section of the princes, etc."

And more.

b)

The juxtaposition of the sections in our discussion — is understood simply: since regarding

(end of the fortieth year in the wilderness)

the section of the offerings had not yet been said,

the Holy One, blessed be He, must command them about this now,

before the beginning of Mishneh Torah

("which Moses spoke"),

for if not now, when?⁶

Also, one should not explain that Rashi is troubled by the double language "Command etc. and say to them" — one of which is seemingly superfluous,

because:

a)

So Rashi had to copy from the written text before his commentary

(or - in his commentary<sup>7</sup>)

also "And you shall say

(to them)

(because through this the difficulty was aroused).

b)

Later in parshas Masei<sup>8</sup>

(in connection with the borders of the land)

it is also said "Command the children of Israel and you shall say to them" and Rashi did not explain anything<sup>9</sup>.

3)

In general, it is stated in the Torah additional times

Many¹⁰

"Speak to the children of Israel and say to them" and Rashi does not explain the doubled language.

And it is necessary to say that according to the simple interpretation this is not a difficulty,

And the repetition of the language is for strengthening the command and the like.

2.

Rashi continues in his commentary: A parable of a king's daughter who was departing from the world and was commanding her husband concerning her children etc. as it is brought in the Sifri¹¹.

And it is not understood:

What is added in the understanding of the verse

(and the analogy "until you command me concerning my son etc.")

by means of this analogy?

And superficially, on the contrary,

the analogue is more understood than the metaphor:

a)

Moses' request from Hashem "Let Hashem appoint etc. a man over the congregation",

is understood and necessary,

for it is about the appointment of a leader of all of Israel "who will bear each and every one according to his opinion"¹²

; whereas in the metaphor discussed it is about the children of a king's daughter,

(a)

who are few in number

who are sons - and it is not necessary

(so much - at any rate)

that the father should need that they appoint for him over his sons.

(b)

b)

The statement of the Holy One, blessed be He, to Moshe "Command the children of Aharon" is understood,

for the children of Israel transgressed the command of Hashem and tested Him multiple times in the desert,

and there is a need to warn them about this; but in the analogy,

why would it enter one's mind that the sons

would forget their father,

and it is necessary to command them about this?

3.

Also, one must understand the precise points in Rashi when he brings the parable:

a)

Rashi quotes from the words of the Sifri: "A parable of a king's daughter who was departing from the world and was commanding her husband concerning her sons, etc." and adds "as it is brought in the Sifri."

And from either side: if his intention is to indicate the source of the parable and that the student should look into the source itself,

he should have abbreviated and said: A parable of a king's daughter etc. as it is brought in the Sifri; and if his desire is to inform the content of the parable — he should have quoted it in its entirety,

and not bring only a few details from the parable.

And it follows that these details that Rashi cites are essential in understanding his commentary — unlike the rest.

And it is necessary to understand: What is the main point in this?

b)

The source of the parable is

(as Rashi says)

in the Sifri,

but there it states:

(a)

A parable etc. of a king

(b)

who had his wife

(and not "a king's daughter")

etc.; whereas Rashi changes and writes:

(a)

A parable of a king's daughter

(b)

who was commanding her husband

(simply — not "a king").

And behold,

although certainly Rashi found such a version in the Sifrei

(since he writes "as it is brought in the Sifrei"),

nevertheless it is not understood: why did he choose this version,

and not adopt the prevalent version

(apparently from this that it comes in our books)?

And in particular that on the contrary — for the analogue

(the Holy One, blessed be He)

specifically the parable of a king is fitting.

And it will be clarified that specifically this version corresponds to the simple meaning of the verse — the way of Rashi.

And this requires further study.

3)

It was spoken many times,

that when Rashi cites¹³

a source for his commentary

(and especially when he does not phrase his words "our Rabbis" and the like,

but rather specifies it — as in our matter "Sifri"),

this is in order to negate a similar statement found elsewhere but which does not correspond to his commentary in the simple meaning of the verse

(or that examination of the source will resolve a difficulty that would arise for a sharp student).

And in our matter: What does Rashi come

(to hint 6)

to explain by adding the citation of the source "as it is written in the Sifri"?

And behold, in Tanchuma<sup>14</sup>

it also brings a similar parable in our matter.

And this is its wording: A parable: to what is the matter comparable? To a king who married a woman and she had a groomsman,

as long as the king is angry at his wife, the groomsman appeases etc.,

the groomsman came to die, began to request from the king, said to him: I beg of you, pay attention to your wife,

the king said to him: Why do you command me about my wife? Command your wife about me etc.

According to this, there is room to say,

that this parable in the Tanchuma — Rashi comes to negate by his writing "kedei" in the Sifrei¹⁵

— however, this itself

requires explanation: In what way does the parable in Rashi's commentary fit better than the parable of the "shushvin" in the Tanchuma?

4.

And the explanation in this regard:

The word "tzav" Rashi already explained,

as above,

that "tzav is nothing but an expression of urging."

And from this it is understood,

that the expression "tzav" is only appropriate for those who are actually engaged in the fulfillment of the command — who need urging etc.

And according to this it is difficult in our verse: the content of the portion is the command to offer the sacrifices of Hashem in their appointed time,

which is a thing done by the kohanim — and here it says "Command the children of Israel",

and not "Command Aaron and his sons"

(and as it is explained in the beginning of the portion of Tzav)¹⁶,

who are the ones who occupy themselves with the offering of the sacrifices?

And to resolve this difficulty Rashi cites "Command the children of Israel" and explains: "What is said above? 'May Hashem appoint.'

The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: Before you command Me concerning the children, command the children concerning Me."

And this is,

that the explanation of "Command the children of Israel" in the matter under discussion is

(not specifically about the offering of the sacrifices "immediately and for generations",

but rather)

a general urging to all of Israel concerning the Holy One, blessed be He

(before the death of Moses),

as a response

(in juxtaposition)

to the words of Moses "May Hashem appoint".

And therefore it is said: a)

the language "to" — just as Moshe "commanded me about the children of" in a command

("May Hashem appoint"),

so answered Hashem to Moshe "Command the children of Israel about Me."

b)

"the children of Israel"

(and not only "Aharon and his sons")

— just as Moshe requested "May Hashem appoint" concerning "the children of",

that in this all the children of Israel

are equal,

so answered Hashem to Moshe "Command the children of Israel about Me" — a command in general.

c)

Afterwards it adds that this command is not only "paying attention"

(remembrance)

to Hashem,

but rather "And say to them: My offering etc." — the command must bring to action.

And it is understood that also the action must pertain to all of Israel

(the activity of the offerings,

through which is made "a pleasing aroma" — "satisfaction before Me that I spoke and My will was done"<sup>17</sup>).

5.

However, according to this explanation — it is difficult:

a)

The words of Moses

("May Hashem appoint")

were said to the Holy One, blessed be He, in a command — "He commanded me concerning the children"

(And therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, answered him "Command the children of Israel",

as above)

— how is it possible that Moses would speak to the Holy One, blessed be He, in such language?

b)

Moshe's request "let Hashem appoint" is a thing necessary for the existence of the people of Israel,

and as it is explicit "and let the congregation of Hashem not be as sheep which have no shepherd"¹⁸

; whereas the response of Hashem "command the children of" to offer sacrifices etc.,

its purpose is that it be "a satisfying aroma" — "a pleasing fragrance before etc." —

And it is most perplexing: is the "pleasing fragrance before etc."

(through the offering of the sacrifices)

more necessary than "let Hashem appoint etc. a man over the congregation",

that Hashem comes with a claim to Moshe "while you command Me about My children — command My children about Me"?

And Rashi explains this by means of "a parable of a king's daughter who was departing from the world and was entrusting to her husband regarding her children etc." - by means of this parable

(At the time that she "departs from the world" and regarding the matter

that she "entrusts regarding her children"),

and the Holy One, blessed be He - "her husband"

(plain)]

All the above is understood

as above section 63].

6.

And the explanation — in the analogy:

a)

the woman,

since she is a “king’s daughter,”

demands forcefully from her “husband”

(ordinary)

who is not a king,

but only

(a)

when she “passes from the world,”

when she “commands concerning her children”: all the days of her marriage — for regarding every woman it is said¹⁹

“and he shall rule over you,” that she is subordinate and nullified to her “husband.”

But when the time comes: ¹⁾

that she “passes from the world,”²⁾

that she is compelled to command “her husband

(ordinary)

concerning her children” and moreover they are the king’s grandchildren,

then the force of “king’s daughter” returns and is awakened.

(b)

b)

The husband requests that his wife command his sons concerning him, and in the language of "command" and urging: since he is a plain "husband" and not a king,

there is room for concern that the sons, grandchildren of the king, "will treat me with contempt, etc."²⁰,

therefore it is necessary that his wife

(who is "the daughter of the king")

urge them and warn them about this.

c)

The claim is "Until you command me, etc., command my sons concerning me, etc.": Granted, if he were a king,

then even if his sons do not treat him with honor - he does not need

(so much)

them,

for he is a king and he has ministers and servants, etc.; but since he is a plain "husband",

he has only his sons alone,

and if they do not treat him with honor, etc., then, etc.

And this is in the allegory:

a)

Regarding the request of Moses "May the Lord appoint

"A man over the congregation who will go out before them ... will come before them ... will bring them out ... will bring them in, and the congregation will not be ... like sheep that have no shepherd" - In this matter Moses was - the shepherd of Israel - and he said with force²¹

"And now, if You will bear their sin, [good;] if not, I do not say to You, blot me out from Your book which You have written" and the like - with great force, like a "king's daughter" who was married to a simple "husband" - the Holy One, blessed be He, as it were.

And when the time of his passing came,

at the hour when he had to hand over the flock of his pasture to a shepherd who would fill his place in the leadership of the children of Israel - "My firstborn son Israel"²²

and "a kingdom of priests

(princes)

- he demanded

(from "her husband")

from the Holy One, blessed be He, with the force of a "king's daughter."

2)

Regarding Bnei Yisrael who

(part of them)

transgressed the command of Hashem multiple times,

Hashem is with them in the manner of a plain "husband,"

and therefore Moshe Rabbeinu—the "daughter of the king"—must command them

(with speech of urging<sup>24</sup>)

about this

("Command Bnei Yisrael").

3)

Hashem is, as it were,

like

("husband"—and not a king)

"father,"

who needs his sons for bread.

And consequently it is understood,

that "Command the sons of Eli" is a necessary thing,

as it were for Him, blessed be He—and as explained in the continuation of the verse: "My offering, My bread, etc.,"

that the offerings are His bread and His food,

a necessary thing,

of the Holy One, blessed be He, as it were²⁵.

7.

And from this a wonderful lesson in the service of G-d:

The connection²⁶

between the Holy One, blessed be He, and Nesi'einu is,

like the connection between a father and son, as it is said²⁷

: Children are you to the Lord your God — only you

(above the aspect of a king²⁸)

; there is no name there except the Holy One, blessed be He, and Nesi'einu alone,

"They shall be yours alone, and no strangers with you"²⁹.

And this connection between the Holy One, blessed be He, and Nesi'einu is a constant and eternal matter that has no changes; therefore also the sacrifice that is related to this — the continual sacrifice,

every single day,

and brings about the "pleasing aroma" before

(the Holy One, blessed be He,)

etc.'",

and this is,

as it were,

as it were,

"My bread" of the Holy One, blessed be He.

And "prayers were instituted in place of the daily offerings"<sup>30</sup>,

that if it should arise in the heart of a person who prays: what is the great importance, so very much, of the service of

my prayer,

and day after day,

and what is the commotion if one should miss,

G-d forbid,

one of the prayers on an ordinary weekday?

Upon this came the response and instruction from our Rashi commentary: The Holy One, blessed be He, requested, command the sons of Eli that they should guard to offer in its appointed time two each day, a continual [offering]

(And prayers - come in their place)

And He says about this "My bread" and that this is important even more

than the command of the shepherd to all of Israel.

And it is understood that so it is every continual day - on the special days of the year and on a plain day on weekdays - and on each and every day it is done through the prayer of each one "a satisfaction before Me that I spoke and My will was done."

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Pinchas,

5731)