English translation — ראה א

1.

On the verse¹

“Only be strong not to eat the blood, for the blood is the soul, etc.” Rashi quotes the beginning of the verse “Only be strong not to eat the blood,”

and explains: “From what is said ‘strong’ you learn that they were addicted to blood to eat it, therefore it was necessary to say ‘strong’ — the words of Rabbi Yehudah.

Rabbi*¹

Shimon ben Azzai²

says: The verse came only to warn you and to teach you how much you need to strengthen yourself in the commandments: if blood, which is easy to guard against because no one craves it, required a strengthening in its prohibition, how much more so for the other commandments.”

Simply understood is the difficulty in the text that Rashi comes to resolve,

and it is the expression “strong,”

which we do not find this language in the other commandments of the Torah³,

and on this he brings the expositions in the Sifri here, according to which the expression “strong” said regarding blood is explained.

However tz”l:

a)

It was stated numerous times that when Rashi brings two explanations it is because in each of the explanations there is a difficulty in understanding the verses,

that will be resolved

through the second explanation,

except that the first explanation is closer to the plain meaning of the verse.

Based on this, it requires explanation: what reason necessitated Rashi to bring here both expositions — what is difficult in the first explanation that is resolved through the second explanation,

and what is lacking in the second explanation that compels bringing the first explanation?

2)

In general, regarding this dispute of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai, and in particular according to the plain meaning, it is difficult — this is a dispute about reality and diametrically opposite: according to Rabbi Yehuda, "he needed to say 'be strong' because 'they were addicted to eating blood',"

meaning that in that time they were accustomed and especially to eating blood; and according to Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai,

regarding blood itself there is no need for strengthening at all because "it is easy to guard against it, as no one craves it"

(and in such a manner it was also at the time of the commandment,

therefore they were warned at that time "only 'be strong not to eat the blood'"⁴),

3)

In the words of R' Shimon ben Azzai in Rashi⁵

"that a person does not covet it",

and not "that a person is not infatuated with it",

regarding the words of R' Yose "that they were infatuated with blood".

4)

Later on the verse⁶

"in order that it be good for you etc." Rashi⁷

(Go out and learn the reward of

of the commandment if)

“the blood which a person’s soul abhors,”

for from this language it implies that it is so at all times — a person’s soul abhors blood.

And superficially it is neither according to this nor according to that: according to R. Yishmael “they were addicted to blood”

(the opposite of “his soul etc. abhors it”⁸)

; and also according to R. Shimon ben Azzai — “a person does not desire it,”

but not “that a person’s soul abhors it.”

e)

It has been discussed many times that Rashi does not bring the name of the author of the statement unless thereby additional explanation is added in the content of the commentary

(at least for a sharp student).

And it requires clarification what is added in his commentary here by the fact that the authors of the statement are R. Yishmael and R. Shimon ben Azzai.

Furthermore: the words of R. Shimon ben Azzai are brought in the Sifri

(also)

in the name of R. Gamliel,

and based on this Rashi should have said “our Rabbis explained”

(and the like),

and it would have included also R. Gamliel⁹?

2.

And behold, as was said,

Rashi's commentary is from the Sifrei,

However, Rashi changes here from the language of the Sifrei — both by omission,

both by addition:

a)

In the Sifrei it states in the words of R. Yishmael "that they were steeped in blood before the giving of the Torah"¹⁰,

Whereas

Rashi only copies "steeped in blood".

And this is an omission whose meaning is the opposite of the Sifri — since this verse was said forty years after the giving of the Torah,

And on this Rashi explains that one must say to the listeners "be strong" because they were steeped in blood.

And on the contrary, if Rashi were explaining according to the plain meaning and consequently would copy in the words of Rabbi Yehuda also the words "before the giving of the Torah" — the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai would not be about a factual reality,

because one could say that also according to Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai they were steeped in blood before the giving of the Torah like according to Rabbi Yehuda,

And what Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said "that a person does not desire it",

the discussion is after

(And because)

they were warned about eating blood — after the giving of the Torah.

b)

Rashi elaborates on the words of Rabbi Yehuda¹¹

"From what is said 'be strong' you learn ..

And therefore it was necessary to say 'be strong'.

Whereas in the Sifri it is in brief language "it tells that they were steeped etc.".

3)

In the Sifrei, it says in the words of R. Shimon ben Azzai, "What blood, which is the lightest of all the commandments, the Scripture warned you about it," and Rashi adds, "that a person does not desire it,"

And although in several of the above it could be said that Rashi had a different version in the Sifrei¹²,

nevertheless, the

The body itself requires explanation: Why did Rashi choose a rare version of the Sifri and not the prevalent version that we have before us?

(Because from the fact that in the prints before us this version appears in the Sifri,

it is proven that this was the version at least in most manuscripts of the Sifri — also in Rashi's time)?

3.

And the explanation of this:

Rashi does not cite in the words of Rabbi Yishmael according to our version in the Sifri "that they were addicted to blood before the giving of the Torah" - which implies that it changed after the giving of the Torah,

because based on this it is not understood: the warning against eating blood was stated in the Torah several times¹³,

and if it is said that they were addicted to blood only before the giving of the Torah

(which simply is because they were addicted to blood in Egypt¹⁴)

- it would have said "be strong" when they were warned about eating it the first time,

that is, in proximity after the giving of the Torah,

close to the time they were addicted to blood.

And why were they commanded to strengthen themselves not to eat blood in "These are the words",

which was said at the end of the fortieth year after their departure from Egypt,

and already that entire generation had died,

and "be strong" was not said in the warning against eating blood in the book of Leviticus¹⁵?

Therefore Rashi elaborates in the words of Rabbi Yishmael "from what is said

(here)

be strong you learn that they were addicted to blood to eat it"¹⁶

- that is, at the time of the statement,

also in the fortieth year when this command was said to Israel,

And nevertheless there is no dispute about reality to say that the reasoning of R. Y. is opposite to the reasoning of R. Shimon ben Azzai that the blood "a person does not desire it",

because it is possible for a person not to desire a thing,

and moreover — that his soul should loathe it,

and nevertheless in practice he will be immersed in eating it because of an external taste — believing that there is a segulah¹⁷

or a cure¹⁸

in this,

because he is accustomed to this and the like — as is seen empirically.

And likewise in our case regarding blood — they were immersed in it for many years even after their exodus from Egypt,

even though they did not desire it¹⁹,

or also their soul loathed it.

However, this reason is not sufficient for what is stated specifically here "strong" regarding blood,

because

a)

Since they were "steeped in blood," it should have said "strong" also regarding the warning about blood in the book of Vayikra — and on the contrary, its main place is there adjacent to the giving of the Torah, and not

(only)

at the end of the forty years*¹⁹.

b)

And the main point: since they had already been warned multiple times about eating blood before the fortieth year.

It is not at all plausible to say that during the course of nearly forty years all these warnings were of no avail at all, and they were still steeped in blood.

3)

It is most difficult to say,

that at the end of forty years when all the people who left Egypt had already died,

their children²⁰

were steeped

in blood,

and especially after the warnings of the Holy One, blessed be He, were said about this many times.

And therefore Rashi brings the second explanation

(the opinion of R. Shimon ben Azzai)

that what is said "strong" here - is not because they were then steeped in blood: "The verse came only to warn you and to teach you how much you need to strengthen yourself in the commandments" - for even though "it is easy to guard against" blood "because a person does not desire it,

it was necessary to strengthen in its warning,

all the more so for the other commandments".

And Rashi adds in the words of R. Shimon ben Azzai "that a person does not desire it":

a)

Since that which "it is easy to guard against it" is because "a person does not desire it",

that is, this is a matter of human nature,

it is understood that it was so also at the time when the command was given.

b)

that it is not said that “it is easy to guard oneself” from blood specifically because “a person’s soul abhors it”²¹,

for

(even though this is not the opposite of the opinion that they were steeped in blood as above,

nevertheless)

then the opinions of R. Yishmael and R. Shimon ben Azzai would be more distant from each other.

And furthermore, and primarily — this is the opposite of the tangible: a thing that a person does not desire and also they warn him about it several times — certainly it is easy for him to guard himself from it.

d.

However, Rashi is not satisfied with this explanation alone,

and he brings this also as the second explanation

(also regarding the correctness of the explanation)

— because since ultimately it is said “strong” regarding blood²²,

it is difficult to say that it is only in order to teach you to strengthen yourself in the other commandments,

and it is more logical that also the prohibition of blood itself requires strengthening.

And it is also implied from the continuation of the section: In this section it comes to permit meat of desire<sup>23</sup>

(which were forbidden to them previously)

and as it is written "for your soul desires to eat meat, in all your soul's desire you may eat meat",

"and you shall eat in your gates, in all your soul's desire" - and when it continues afterwards "only be strong not to eat the blood"<sup>24</sup>,

it implies

In simple plain meaning that also in this applies "for your soul desires",

desire for whatever reason it may be,

therefore "from what is said

(here)

be strong you learn that they were steeped in blood to eat it".

But according to the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai,

that blood a person does not desire it and only it comes to teach etc. - behold the style of the warning about eating blood

(only - despite what was said above - be strong)

does not fit with the preceding verses.

And therefore Rashi brings the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael first

(in order),

because such is the implication of the continuation of the verses and the difficulty is only from the aspect of the content of the matter

(that they were still steeped in blood then),

as above.

5.

However, there is still room for a sharp student to remark: What is the reason that one master said thus and another master said thus and he disputes the interpretation of his colleague — what superiority does this difficulty have over that difficulty?

Therefore Rashi brings the name of the author of the statement,

because each one follows his own system²⁵

to R. Y. we find²⁶

in what is written²⁷

"You shall not eat any carcass; to the stranger who is within your gates you may give it and he may eat it, or sell it to a foreigner, etc.,"

that he holds "matters as they are written,

to a stranger by giving and to a foreigner by selling"

(and he disagrees with R. M. who said "both a stranger and a foreigner, whether by selling or by giving").

And according to his method in our subject,

that one should interpret that the verse came to teach about other commandments,

or it speaks regarding the blood itself — he interprets it "matters as they are written",

that it came to teach regarding the prohibition of blood itself,

that it says "strong" regarding blood because it needed to strengthen them regarding blood "because they were addicted to it" — and even though there is in this

a difficulty,

as above; therefore he also elaborates

(Rashi?)

in his language "from what is said 'strong' you learn ..

therefore it was necessary to say 'strong'"²⁸.

The method of R. Shimon ben Azzai we find - a)

To urge and strengthen in the fulfillment of the commandments, even the light ones,

And as he said²⁹

"Run to a light commandment

(I.e.

(Even if we do not read "like a severe one"³⁰,

And according to the version of the Alter Rebbe³¹)

Not - only to a light commandment,

But - also to a light commandment³².

And as the reason he concludes)

That a commandment brings a commandment"; and likewise the opposite regarding a transgression he says "and flee from the transgression

(And also about this the reason)

And a transgression brings a transgression."

b)

Fulfillment of a light commandment - leads to the fulfillment of the other commandments,

Also more severe ones,

And conversely - regarding a transgression.

And according to his system — also here regarding the prohibition of blood: a)

Also in the command "which is easy to guard from it" — it should say "strong" in its warning,

that in positive commandments it is from the statement "run to a mitzvah

(also)

easy"; and in negative commandments

(in every transgression)

"flee from transgression";

b)

"to warn you and to teach you how much you need to strengthen yourself in mitzvot ...

all the more so for the rest of the mitzvot",

for what is stated here is a strengthening for the rest of the mitzvot.

An example of his saying "run to an easy mitzvah ..

that one mitzvah brings about another mitzvah",

and you will also fulfill the rest of the mitzvot,

"and flee from transgression",

and through this you will be distant also from the rest of the transgressions.

6.

And behold, according to what was said,

we know that the view of R. Yosi is — "things as their plain meaning" and the view of R. Shimon ben Azzai — to run even to a light mitzvah and its opposite — to a transgression.

But from where do we know that R. Yosi does not hold like R. Shimon ben Azzai that one must be "strong" in a mitzvah that is easy to guard,

and R. Shimon ben Azzai does not hold like R. Yosi that "things as their plain meaning"?

And the explanation: It is brought at the end of tractate Berachot³³

: It was taught: Ben Azzai says: Once I entered after Rabbi Akiva into the bathroom and learned from him three things,

I learned etc.

R. Yehuda said to him: Until here you have brazenly faced your rabbi.

He said to him: Torah it is, and to learn I need.

And superficially, in what do they disagree?

And it can be said that R. Shimon bar Yochai holds that even though it is Torah and one must learn it,

behold,

as is usual in the study of Torah — he must ask the halacha in the study hall,

and this is what he said to R. Shimon ben Elazar: "Until here you have emboldened your face" instead of a question in the study hall.

However, R. Shimon ben Azzai who emphasizes that there must be running even for a light mitzvah,

And likewise it is understood also regarding clarification of halachah — that in a place where it is possible, it is not sufficient to ask a halachic question in the study hall,

Rather to see an action,

Because maaseh rav*³³,

And in the manner of our Sages of blessed memory³⁴

One does not

learn halachah neither from study nor from an action

(If it matters and there is room for error in the reason³⁵

of the action)

Until they tell him halachah l’maaseh — and therefore he went after R. Akiva to see his actual conduct³⁶.

And according to this, the question of the Chida"g there is resolved,

"Why did he force himself and have the audacity to ask his teacher about these matters."

And there he resolves that "I did not consider in my mind these matters that have a concern of prohibition to ask about them,

and it is Torah and to learn etc. that he said means to know what there is to learn from it etc."

And I did not merit to understand: This itself he could have asked his teacher if "there is [something] to learn from him" and he would have learned the matter from his mouth,

and he would not have needed to be insolent toward his teacher.

And the explanation is as above: The method and way of Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai,

to do every thing and matter in Torah and mitzvos in a manner of running and strengthening beyond measure.

And since there is no halachic ruling better and clearer than "the deed of the teacher,"

he was not satisfied with this, that he would ask his teacher,

but rather "he entered after him into the bathroom" to learn from him by seeing his conduct in practice.

However, the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael was that one does not need to run to the point of being brazen-faced, etc.

And even though it is Torah, etc.

He should ask his teacher if there are laws and rulings relevant to the outhouse.

And the conduct of Ben Azzai is this

According to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael — "Until here your brazenness toward your teacher"³⁷.

Thus we find³⁸

On the other hand: "Ben Azzai says it is said³⁹

A sorceress you shall not let live and it is said⁴⁰

Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death,

They juxtaposed the matter to it,

Just as lying with an animal is by stoning, so too a sorceress is by stoning.

Rabbi Yehuda said to him: And because they juxtaposed the matter to it, shall we take this out for stoning?

Rather, a necromancer and a knowing spirit were included among sorcerers,

And why were they singled out?

To draw an analogy to them and to say to you,

Just as a necromancer and a knowing spirit are by stoning, so too a sorceress is by stoning."

And the reason for their dispute can be said: Ben Azzai expounds "juxtapositions" in the entire Torah,

"They juxtaposed the matter" - the section⁴¹

In its entirety and to such an extent to learn from this the punishment of stoning.

But Rabbi Yehuda wonders "And because they juxtaposed the matter to it, shall we take this out for stoning?"

Rather, he learns the law from this that "a necromancer and a knowing spirit were included etc. and to say to you etc. a sorceress is by stoning" - "an explicit verse"⁴¹.

7.

The meaning of the Torah in Rashi:

The reason for the warning about blood, the verse explains: "For the blood is the soul, etc."

And the commentators explained⁴²

That even though also in the meat of the animal is found

the soul,

however there is a difference between the flesh in which the soul is found*⁴²

and the blood that "it is⁴³

the soul" itself*⁴³.

For from every food item blood and flesh are made from his flesh, and therefore the nature of the food that he eats is established in the person⁴⁴.

And when a person eats the meat of an animal

(pure)

then a)

there is not in this the force of the soul

(and nature)

of the animal⁴⁵,

b)

the meat must be chewed and digested and changed etc. until it becomes blood and flesh "and returns to the nature of the nourished"; but the blood which does not need digestion etc. like meat and the like,

then through his eating the blood which is the soul of the animal,

the nature and soul of the animal will become attached to the soul of the person and become coarse like the soul of the animal⁴⁶.

And the understanding from this,

that those who are steeped in blood,

the traits of the soul of the animalistic*⁴⁶

of them are like the nature of the soul of the animal.

And this is the two explanations in Rashi:

At first it speaks about this that "they were steeped in blood" and "therefore it was necessary to say 'strengthen'" and it is the command about the strengthening in the correction and refinement of his natural attributes⁴⁷

of the animal soul.

And the explanation of this is the saying of Rabbi Yishmael,

for Rabbi Yishmael is from the aspect of

"This time I will praise the Lord" which is the aspect of acknowledgment and nullification,

and from this side the service is in nullification and refinement of the lowest levels,

the service of itkafya — that is, he has a connection to the natural traits of the animal soul,

and he must refine them and change them.

But Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai whose service was specifically in the aspect of ratzo, that all his desire and aspiration was to ascend above etc., and likewise in his engagement in Torah his soul yearned

for Torah etc.,

and therefore every matter of Torah and mitzvot he did in a manner of running and strengthening,

as above,

according to the view that "the verse came only to warn you

And to teach you how much you need to strengthen yourself in the mitzvahs,

That is, the verse did not come to clarify and change natural traits — but to warn you to strengthen yourself in the mitzvahs,

to warn you from the Zohar and light⁵²,

That is, that a person must strengthen himself and elevate himself etc. and illuminate his soul with Divine light in the matter of the mitzvahs —

If in a matter “that is easy to guard against because a person does not desire it, He needed to strengthen you in His warning,”

7.

A.

If in such a matter that already a person does not desire it due to his natural traits of his animal soul and is separated from it also due to⁵³

the nature of his traits⁴⁷,

nevertheless “He needed to strengthen in His warning,”

that also in this he must strengthen himself even more in His warning,

in the aspect of Divine light,

That is, to ascend higher in separation also from the nature of his traits —

"ק"ו לשאר מצות" regarding such mitzvos that a person's soul desires them — all the more so that he must strengthen himself and elevate to be in a manner of separation from this⁵⁴,

and to illuminate his soul with G‑dly light.

(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Re'eh 5730)