English translation — דברים א

1.

At the beginning of our parshah,

on the verse "These are the words which Moses spoke etc. and Di Zahav,"

Rashi explains: "And Di Zahav - he rebuked them about the calf which they made because of the abundance of gold that they had, as it is said<sup>1</sup>

And I multiplied silver for them<sup>2</sup>

And gold they made for Baal."

And behold,

even though Rashi already prefaced at the beginning of his commentary to this verse "that they are words of rebuke

(and he enumerated here all the places where they angered etc.)

" and nevertheless he wrote again regarding "Di Zahav": "he rebuked them

(about the calf)

" - it seems that his reason is because "Di Zahav" is not included among the places enumerated in the verse

(for Rashi understands it that it is not a place name),

and consequently we would not yet know that also "Di

“Di Zahav” is about rebuke.

And therefore Rashi’s explanation on “Di Zahav” — “He rebuked them

(even though he did not explain thus in the earlier places)

about the calf that they made because of an abundance of gold” — and with this his intention

(also)

is to emphasize,

that “Di Zahav” is not a place name by which he hints to rebuke them,

but rather this very wording itself announces the rebuke about the calf: “He rebuked them about the calf etc.”<sup>3</sup>.

And as his explanation on “and between Tofel and Lavan” — “He rebuked them about the things that they complained about the manna that is white”,

because also Tofel and Lavan is not a place name.

And what compelled Rashi to explain that “Di Zahav” is not a place name,

one can say simply that this is because we do not find in Scripture a place whose name is “Di Zahav”<sup>4</sup>

; and this too is like

(and later why)

that he wrote regarding “Tofel and Lavan” — “We searched through all of Scripture and did not find a place whose name is Tofel and Lavan,

but rather etc.”<sup>5</sup>.

But one must understand:

Why will he not explain that this is a place name⁶,

and the place is called "Di Zahav" after "the calf that they made

(there)

because of much gold"?

And behold we find several places in the Torah,

that were named after the actions that were done in them⁷.

And even though we do not find again in Scripture a place whose name is "Di Zahav" — behold many places⁸

are mentioned in the Torah only once.

And it is not comparable to "Tofel and Lavan" - because in them one cannot say that the place is called so on account of that "they fell upon the manna which is white" - because in such a name

(which is called on account of some action)

- it must be evident in the name the matter of the action,

or the thing in which the action was done,

or at least the thing which is the cause of the action that took place in this place; but in the case of "Tofel and Lavan" this that the manna is "white" is a peripheral matter in the manna and is not in the aforementioned manner

(which means that "they fell")

without the word "and Lavan",

no specific sin is hinted,

because all the sins of Bnei Yisrael in the desert were that "they fell" upon some matter].

And therefore it is logical that "Tofel and Lavan" is not a place name on account of that there "they fell upon the manna

(hinted in a completely peripheral matter -)

which is white"⁹.

But in "Di Zahav" the cause is hinted

the sin

(the action),

and as Rashi's language "that they did because of the abundance of gold that they had" — and if so, then it is possible that this is also included in the places where they angered [Him],

because the place is called "Di Zahav" on account of the abundance of gold etc.

Also it is not understood: the content of this Rashi,

Rashi already wrote in Parshat Tisa<sup>10</sup>

on the verse "And Moses returned to the Lord and said etc. and they made for themselves a god of gold" and Rashi explained: "a god of gold — you are the one who caused them that you bestowed upon them gold and all their desire,

what should they do that they not sin etc." — and if according to Rashi here, he should bring a proof for this

(from the verse "And silver I multiplied for them and gold they made for Baal")

it would have been fitting for Rashi to bring the proof in Parshat Tisa,

in which this matter is stated for the first time?

2.

And the explanation of this:

The necessity of Rashi for his commentary in Parsha Tisa is understood¹¹

: for at first glance it is very puzzling the preface of Moses "this people has sinned a great sin and they made for themselves gods of gold"

(as a reason)

for his request that follows immediately afterwards "And now, if You will bear their sin etc."?

This is a contradiction to the request for forgiveness! And therefore¹²

necessarily one must say that in these words of his he explains a reason and rationale that diminishes the sin; namely,

even though it is impossible to minimize the value of the sin itself,

for indeed "this people has sinned a great sin",

he diminishes the belonging and connection of the Children of Israel to the sin — to its cause.

And this is what Rashi explained that Moses intended by this to say that "You are the One Who caused them

etc.”,

to judge the merit of Israel,

that they are not guilty

(as is well known)

in the commission of the sin¹³.

Based on this it is understood that there is a fundamental difference

(according to the simple meaning of the verse¹⁴),

between the content of the matter

(of the abundance of gold)

in Parshat Tisa and its content in our parshah: In Parshat Tisa, Moses said to the Holy One, blessed be He, intentionally to judge the merit of Israel and to minimize the cause of their sin,

but in our parshah, he said to the Children of Israel and intended to “reprove them”¹⁵

— he emphasizes the greatness of the sin.

And now it is understood that Rashi says,

who interprets the simple meaning of the verse,

to bring in Parshat Tisa the verse "And I multiplied silver for them and gold they made for Baal",

for in this verse it is emphasized that the silver and gold that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave - and not a mere giving,

but rather "I multiplied for them" - from them themselves they made something that is the opposite of His will, the Holy One, blessed be He - behold this point highlights the greatness of the sin most<sup>16</sup>.

But not so in our parshah,

when Moses came to rebuke the children of Israel,

it is fitting to bring this verse.

3.

According to the above it is understood that it is impossible to explain that “the gold” is a place name,

that it was so called because there they made the calf “because of the abundance of gold that they had,”

i.e., after the reason for the sin that they sinned there: according to the above, then — both according to the emphasis

(in our parshah)

that the abundance of gold is a matter of addition to the severity of the sin,

and according to the emphasis in parshas Tisa that it is a detail that diminishes the value of the sin and its cause — “the gold” is a peripheral detail in the manner of the sin,

or a factor that assists in the sin,

but not the essence

(cause)

of the sin.

(For the true cause was that which the verse said<sup>17</sup>

“And the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain etc.”).

And thus it is not reasonable to say that the place would be called

after a detail in the gravity or lightness of the offense of the sinner and not after a matter in the sin itself

(or the thing with which it was done or at least its primary cause).

4.

But still Rashi's wording is not explained: According to the above, Rashi should have written "he rebuked them about the calf that they made from

(most)

of the gold

(etc.)

that they had" - wording that implies well that from that most gold that they had from the Holy One, blessed be He,

from it they made the calf - and why did Rashi use "because of

(most gold etc.)

wording that emphasizes that "the gold" was like a cause of the sin

(for it is as if he says: because of the most gold they committed the sin),

and especially since it is explained that in our case his intention is to be stringent regarding the sin and not the opposite?

And the explanation of this

(according to the aspect of the hint and the "wine of Torah" in Rashi's commentary)

: In his commentary on this verse Rashi prefaces and says: "And he mentioned them

(the sins)

by hint out of respect for Israel"; and it can be said that Rashi's intention is,

that just as out of "respect for Israel" Moses concealed the sins from mentioning them explicitly - even though his intention was to rebuke them for them - so too,

and for this same reason,

Moses hinted in these words of his also about a merit to minimize these sins,

for this too is "respect for Israel",

even though in essence, on the contrary,

he comes to rebuke them and inform them of the severity of the sin.

And therefore Rashi writes "because of the abundance of gold" to hint to the aforementioned merit that "you are the one who caused them etc. what can they do that they should not sin"¹⁸.

5.

And now, since in our case Moses was careful "in the honor of Israel," it is understood that just as

Regarding "V'Di Zahav",

In the rebuke itself is hinted the merit-finding,

This must also be said regarding the other rebukes in this verse.

And they are hinted in the language of the verse or in the language of Rashi¹⁹

: "In the wilderness" - "Because of what they angered Him in the wilderness, that they said²⁰

Who will give our death etc." - And superficially it is not understood: Why did it hint at this through the word "wilderness" which is a general name for all places,

And not through the name of the specific place where "they angered Him" with their aforementioned claim²¹

That is, "the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai,"

as explained in the verse²²?

But with the name "wilderness" it comes to hint that there is to be learned merit for their claim "Who will give, etc.": Since they were then "in the wilderness," which is "the great and terrible wilderness, with snake, fiery serpent, and scorpion, and thirst, where there is no water"²³,

(And also before our parshah it is explained that the wilderness is a place of snakes and scorpions, etc.²⁴),

so it is understood that this is a very great trial,

and therefore one should not blame them so much for their claim "Who will give our death, etc."

"In the Arabah" and in Rashi "Because of the Arabah that they sinned with Baal Peor in Shittim in the plains of Moab."

And it requires explanation: The plains of Moab were "from Beth Jeshimoth to Abel Shittim"<sup>25</sup>

And if so, it should have said "in Shittim" and not "in the Arabah."

Rather, in this is hinted a merit for Israel: "In the Arabah"

(a kamatz under the beis,

which serves in place of the definite article),

and it is as if it were written "in the Arabah"

(the well-known one),

as Rashi says "in the plains of Moab."

And behold, regarding the naming of Moab and Ammon, Rashi explains*<sup>25</sup>

"Moab — this one, who was not modest, publicized that he was from the father,

but the younger one called him in a clean language,

and received reward in the days of Moses, as it is said<sup>26</sup>

regarding the children of Ammon: Do not provoke them at all,

and regarding Moab he did not warn except that he should not wage war with them<sup>27</sup>

but to distress them he permitted."

And superficially, behold it is explicit in Rashi<sup>28</sup>

: "To My enemies; visiting the iniquity of fathers upon children -

when they hold the deeds of their fathers in their hands",

and if so, how did He permit to afflict the children of Moab because of<sup>29</sup>

the sin of the mother who was not modest?

Behold, this compels to say that also in the days of Moses the conduct of the children of Moab was entirely the opposite of modesty.

And this is the emphasis here in the plain,

in the plains of Moab — learning merit for the sin of Baal Peor

(whose cause³⁰

and primarily it was a sin of promiscuity³¹),

since they were in a place

(in the plains of Moab)

of great licentiousness in this sin,

and consequently the trial is also very great³².

"Opposite Suf" — "on what they rebelled at the Sea of Suf,

when they came to the Sea of Suf and said³³

Is it because there are no graves in Egypt,

and likewise when they journeyed³⁴

They wanted to travel from there

(Rashi on Beshalach 15,

22),

and not as explained in Arakhin,

for we do not find this matter in the simple meaning of the text*.

And what he cites to Arakhin, the intention is to the entirety of the homily on the verse "And they rebelled etc.'",

or as below.

And see Rashi on Beshalach

(14,

30)

: "Israel will not say, just as we etc.'"

(And not that they said so in actuality).

And what Rashi [says] that it also refers** to "when they traveled from the sea"

(And consequently it is necessary to explain that their unwillingness to travel from there was considered a sin etc.')

is: a)

From what is written "before Suph",

whose simple meaning is "opposite the

(Sea of)

Suph",

and since it did not explain on which side,

behold it is possible to say that the intention is to every side***.

Since in the simple meaning of the verse there were

(at least)

two matters at the Sea of Suph to prove about them — it is reasonable to say that both are hinted in the verse.

And since this is not so simple, he brings a proof: it is said "and they rebelled"

(a)

at the sea

b)

(b)

at the Sea of Reeds

(And the intention here is not that he explains the verse: which sea — the Sea of Reeds,

but rather that they rebelled several times)

as it is brought in Eiruchin.

And based on this, what Rashi brings a proof only in the interpretation of "opposite Suf" will be resolved.

35)

Psalms 106,

7.

At the Red Sea" - and understand the merit: when they came to the shore of the sea there was no possibility in the way of nature to be saved,

because on one side were the Egyptians and on the other side was the sea etc.,

and likewise when they traveled from the sea,

when they were occupied with the spoils of the sea³⁶,

a matter that the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself wanted that they occupy themselves with this,

this is "you are the one who caused" - and understand the greatness of their desire and longing for this.

"Between Paran" - "And about what they did in the wilderness of Paran through the spies" - and seemingly it should have said

(In short)

"In the sin of the spies" and the like.

Rather his intention is to emphasize that the sin was through the spies - they incited and enticed Bnei Yisrael,

And were it not for the spies, Bnei Yisrael would not have sinned with this sin.

"And between Tofel and Lavan" - "that they spoke disparagingly about the manna which is white": what he emphasizes here is the whiteness of the manna

(In the "wine of Torah" in Rashi)

It is,

That since the manna was "white",

Part and abstract from any color - and in the manner of Rashi*³⁶

That Moshe served all seven days of the consecration in a white garment.

That is, it is a matter of "simplicity" that it is impossible "to feel it with hands"³⁷,

Behold they had no true pleasure in this*³⁷,

And consequently it is understood

This aspect gives room to complain about the manna

(even though in practice their complaint was not about this, that the manna was white — therefore it is possible to say that this is the name of the place as above — nevertheless, this causes a general movement of opposition toward the manna).

"And Chatzerot" — "in the division of Korach"³⁸.

And seemingly it should have said "in the dispute of Korach and his assembly"?

Rather, his intention is to hint also in this to the above: the dispute was only of Korach,

and not of Bnei Yisrael,

but Korach enticed them³⁹,

and like Moshe's claim⁴⁰

"One man sins and on the entire assembly You will be angry"

(even though in practice he enticed all of them⁴¹).

6.

And behold, the portion of Devarim is always read on the Shabbat before Tisha B'Av or on Shabbat Tisha B'Av itself - and this also relates to the aforementioned matter: The general concept of "between the straits" is that the time itself⁴²

"proves" to Bnei Yisrael,

and teaches us Rashi at the beginning and start of the portion that even in the "rebuke" Hashem is careful with the honor of Israel,

for the ultimate intention

in the "rebuke" and descent of the exile is for the sake of the ascent,

to increase "the honor of Israel",

and therefore it is understood that even during the time of exile

(the "rebuke")

itself,

the "honor of Israel" is apparent

(as above in Rashi).

One of the matters that is emphasized in it "the honor of Israel" also during the exile itself,

is what is said at the beginning of Megillat Eichah: "How she sits alone etc." - that there is also in this a good quality<sup>43</sup>,

and it is what is said<sup>44</sup>

"A people that dwells alone and among the nations is not reckoned",

that Bnei Yisrael do not intermingle with the nations of the world<sup>45</sup>,

and as our Rabbis of blessed memory said<sup>46</sup>

"Oil does not mix but stands,

so Israel do not mix with the nations".

And from this virtue that is in "How she sits alone",

that Bnei Yisrael do not mix with the nations,

we will merit that "the honor of Israel" will be revealed openly,

in the building of the third Holy Temple,

that is also hinted at in this verse<sup>47</sup>,

may it be built speedily in our days and in our time.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Devarim 5731)