English translation — מטות ג

1.

At the last verse of the parshah,

"And Nobach went and captured Kenas etc. and he called it Nobach after his name",

Rashi stands on the words "and he called it Nobach" and explains: to her¹

It does not have a mapik hei.

And I saw in the foundation of Rabbi Moshe HaDarshan because this name was not established for her²

Therefore it is rafeh, which implies*²

Its midrashic interpretation is like "lo" (not).

And I wonder what he will expound in two words similar to it,

"And Boaz said to her"³,

"to build her a house"⁴.

One must understand:

א)

If Rashi holds that the explanation of R' Moshe HaDarshan is <b>not</b> consistent with <b>the plain meaning</b> of the verse — because "I am amazed what he will expound" regarding the other two words "lah" without a mappik hei — why did he initially bring down his derash?

He should have also here said,

as one finds <b>in many</b> places⁵

in Rashi's commentary on the Torah,

that he says about a word "I do not know",

he does not know the <b>plain meaning</b> of the word — although in the midrashim of our sages of blessed memory there are on it explanations and clarifications,

because since the explanations of our sages of blessed memory are entirely not according to the plain meaning,

Rashi does not bring them in his commentary⁶

which is <b>the plain meaning</b> of the verse⁷.

b)

Why does Rashi bring first from the verse "And Boaz said to her" in Ruth

(Writings)

and then from the verse "to build her a house" in Zechariah

(Prophets)

- in the order of Tanakh, Prophets comes <b>before</b> Writings?

c)

The question of the Ramban⁸

: In Midrash Ruth⁹

there are expositions both on "And Boaz said to her" and on "to build her a house"

(together with the exposition on our verse "And he called its name Nobah" - "that that name did not endure for her")

which also answers for them the "lack of the mapik"¹⁰

- now what does Rashi say "and I wonder what he will expound"?

as the Ramban wonders „&lt;b&gt;And behold &lt;/b&gt;the master is a treasure house of Torah for laws and aggadot &lt;b&gt;and it escaped me &lt;/b&gt;etc.’].

Even stronger

(asks the Ramban)

: also in the &lt;b&gt;Gemara &lt;/b&gt;

(in tractate Sanhedrin&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;)

there is a derivation on that which the word “lah” of “to build her a house” is “not with a mapik hei” - the Gemara says,

that the verse speaks about “flattery and haughtiness of spirit that descended to Babylon”,

and from that which the dagesh is missing in the hei one learns that the descent

(of haughtiness of spirit)

into Babylon was not in a permanent manner - “to Babylon it descended” and afterwards “it spread out there”

(to Elam).

And even though that &lt;b&gt;Rashi&lt;/b&gt; in his commentary on the Talmud&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;

teaches,

that the proof from "to build her a house" that "it stretched itself there" - is

(&lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; from that which "lah" does not have a mappik hei,

but)

from that which it says "lah" in the singular&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;

- because since earlier it says in the verse&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;

"And behold &lt;b&gt;two&lt;/b&gt; women ..

and to them ..

etc.'"

(plural),

which allude to

(the &lt;b&gt;two&lt;/b&gt; things that descended to Babylon)

"flattery and haughtiness of spirit",

and afterwards it says "to build &lt;b&gt;her&lt;/b&gt; a house",

singular - therefore it is forced from this,

that "when they came to build a house &lt;b&gt;to establish&lt;/b&gt; in Babylon"&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;

only remained "flattery alone"&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;

(and haughtiness of spirit "stretched itself there")

Nevertheless, it is not appropriate to ask in the language of astonishment "&lt;b&gt;And I wonder what &lt;/b&gt;he will expound etc.",

because although Rashi

(has a reason why he)

does not want to learn thus in the Gemara,

it can nevertheless be that Rabbi Moshe HaDarshan indeed learned thus the plain meaning in the Gemara&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;.

B.

The explanation in this:

It has already been said many times,

that also the <b>derashot</b> of Chazal that Rashi brings down in his commentary on the Torah are "close" to the plain meaning of the verse,

and in the language of <b>Rashi</b>¹⁸

-"an aggadah that settles the words of the verse, each word properly in its place."

But the derashot that are entirely not according to the plain meaning, Rashi does not bring them down

(and as above section 1).

From this it is understandable in our matter,

that since Rashi brings the derash of R' Moshe HaDarshan on "vayikra lah navach",

it has a place in the plain meaning of the verse; and that which Rashi says "and I wonder what he will expound on two words etc.",

he does not mean thereby that one can <b>at all</b> not find a derash on the two words,

rather that one can regarding them

(according to Rashi)

not expound the "lah"

(without a mappik hei)

in the <b>same</b> manner as he expounds here - a derash close <b>to the plain meaning</b> of the verse - because the derashot on them that exist in the midrash

(and Talmud)

are entirely not according to the plain meaning¹⁹

(as below section 4 and onward).

Based on this, Rashi’s wording is also precise: “&lt;b&gt;And I am amazed &lt;/b&gt;what he will expound etc.” — not “and it is difficult for me” and the like — because this is not a &lt;b&gt;difficulty &lt;/b&gt;and contradiction to the exposition of R’ Meir HaDarshan here,

but an amazement,

what kind of exposition will he say on the two other verses

(words)

that regarding those two words the exposition is in a different manner,

which is indeed &lt;b&gt;not &lt;/b&gt;consistent with the plain meaning of Scripture; because,

as mentioned once,

it can be said that in the Prophets and Writings there are so many verses and words that one must interpret them not according to the plain meaning&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;

— unlike the Five Books of Moses where one must interpret a verse specifically according to its plain meaning&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;],

Rashi wonders - "ותמהני" - "מה ידרוש כו'": What will R' Moshe HaDarshan expound on the other two words "לה" - whether these will be expositions that are close to the simple meaning of the verse,

and consequently - "מצאתי לו חבר" to the exposition on our verse; or the expositions that are in the Midrash

(and Talmud)

and the like which are not according to the simple meaning

(and consequently - "לא מצאתי לו חבר").

3.

To explain the matter, one must first explain what Rashi says "לה is not with a mapik hei ..

that its meaning from its exposition is like 'לא'": At first glance, Rashi here means to say,

that it is as if it stood in the verse "לא

(Nabach)

- the name of the city is not Nabach

(because "this name did not endure for her").

But the explanation is <b>the opposite of</b> the plain meaning of the verse

(and consequently the opposite of Rashi’s rule in his commentary on the Torah¹⁸

- “I came only for its plain meaning”),

because with “and he called it Nobach by his name” the verse means,

in its plain sense,

to relate that Nobach called the city by his name - “Nobach”;

But Rashi is precise: “that its meaning <b>according to its midrashic interpretation</b> <b>is as if</b> not”²³

(and not that “its meaning is not”

(literally)),

that is: the “heh is not pronounced” is meant to hint,

that the matter about which the verse speaks is “weak”,

is a weak reality²⁴

- Nobach indeed gave the name “Nobach”

(therefore it does not say “not”),

but this was in a weak manner,

the name had no permanence²⁵.

With this is simply answered why one cannot use the same derash

(according to the plain meaning)

in the verse "And Boaz said to her":

In the Scroll of Ruth

(there²⁶)

it stands,

that Ruth said to Boaz "I will not be like one of your maidservants

("I am not important as one of your maidservants"²⁷

- and as an answer to her words the verse continues)

"And Boaz said to her at mealtime, come here and eat, etc.'"

The midrash expounds on "And Boaz said to <b>her</b>"

("her" without a mappik hei),

that Boaz answered her: "Heaven forbid, you are <b>not</b> from the maidservants

(handmaids)

but from the matriarchs

(Sarah, Rebecca, etc.²⁸)

4.

i.

e.

that on what she said "I will not be like one of your maidservants" Boaz answered "to her" - "<b>no</b>",

"It is not so as you have spoken"²⁹.

It is understood that this exposition is here not at all maintained in the plain sense - here one cannot say that it is "its midrash is like not",

because the words "there is not with from the matriarchs" are not, heaven forbid, in a weak manner,

but absolute negation³⁰.

And similarly in the verse "to build her a house":

Indeed, it is true that "haughtiness of spirit" was in Babylon in a "weak" manner,

without a permanence

("spreading out there")

- but according to the simple meaning of Scripture,

the verse "to build a house for Him" does not speak about "haughtiness of spirit",

but exclusively about "flattery"; and as brought earlier

(section 1)

from the commentary of Rashi on the Talmud,

that from that which the verse says "to her" in singular - not "to them" in plural

(as earlier)

- it is proven,

that the verse speaks only about one thing,

"flattery alone",

because "flattery" is not "spreading out there" - it remained in Babylon permanently

- then one cannot interpret that the "to her"

(without a mappik hei)

singular letter is alluding to another thing and that which was there in a "weak" manner.

E.

But one must understand:

According to the exposition in Midrash Ruth, the verse "to build her a house" alludes to the falsehood of Shinar

(Babylonia),

and the "her" without a mappik hei is "teaches that falsehood has no foothold" — so Rashi could have accepted that exposition,

which is similar to his commentary on "and he called its name Nobah" — the falsehood is present in reality,

but it is only in a "weak" manner,

since "falsehood has no foothold"

(it has no permanence)³⁴

And this would also be consistent with Rashi's commentary on the Talmud,

that "to build her a house" refers to "flattery",

for "flattery" is also falsehood³⁵,

as Rashi interprets³⁶

"flattery" — "they pretend to be pious".

And the explanation of this³⁷

: If one were to say that with the “lah” without a mappik heh the verse intends to hint at a reality of “rafah” — flattery and falsehood that has no salvation — then the question arises: why is the emphasis only regarding flattery alone,

and <b>not</b> also regarding haughtiness of spirit

(and on the contrary,

this is more plausible regarding haughtiness of spirit)

which descended to Babylon

(specifically,

only)

in a manner of “rafah”

(“it stretched itself there”)³⁸

as above?

From that which the verse says “lah” in the <b>singular</b> — that it speaks here <b>only</b> about one thing,

flattery — it is proven,

a)

that the verse is not about the matter of

(that which flattery)

has no salvation,

and b)

the verse means the descent of flattery into Babylon in a <b>permanent</b> manner

(not like “it stretched itself there” of haughtiness of spirit).

6.

According to the above, it is also understandable why Rashi precedes the verse from Ruth before the verse from Zechariah:

In the verse "And Boaz said to her"

(from Ruth)

the drash itself is the opposite of the plain meaning: according to the drash, "vayomer lah" means "vayomer lo",

as above; and therefore Rashi rejects this drash earlier,

because it is further from the plain meaning than the drash on the verse "livnot lah bayit",

which is more compatible with the plain meaning

(for "lah" hints at a weak reality — "ishtarbuvei l’hatam" or "ein lo teshua"),

but it is difficult to learn this way due to the change in the text from plural to singular,

as above.

7.

from the wine of Torah in the commentary of Rashi:

All three places where it says "lah" without a mappik hei speak in connection with a reality of non-holiness: in our parshah it speaks about a captured city of the Emorite; "And Boaz said to her" - about Ruth <b>the Moabite</b>; and "to build her a house" - about

(haughtiness of spirit and)

flattery

(falsehood)

of Babylon.

And therefore it says "lah" without a mapik hei,

to hint,

that the reality of leu"z is a "weak" reality: only holiness is a true and eternal reality,

but leu"z is not a true reality,

and consequently it is not enduring³⁹.

On this Rashi says "and I wonder what he will expound" on the verses "And Boaz said to her, 'To build her a house'":

Granted, our verse where the discussion is about the subjugation of the foreign nations

(and not about their being transformed into holiness)⁴⁰

- "And he captured" etc. - fits the hint of "to her" with a mapik hei,

which hints that the reality of the foreign nations is not transformed;

But in the other two verses, it speaks about a reality of foreign nations as they become transformed into holiness: Ruth the Moabite converted and was elevated to the highest levels of holiness,

until she is like one "of the matriarchs"; and "to build her a house" - the "falsehood" of Babylon - means inwardly,

the give-and-take of the Babylonian Talmud⁴¹

which "was drawn down in darkness...

even in falsehood"⁴²,

and specifically through this "He placed me in darkness...

this is the Talmud of Babylon"⁴³

is brought about "to build her a <b>house</b>",

the highest level in Torah - the aspect of "house" in Torah⁴⁴,

"a faithful house"⁴⁵

And since here it speaks about lo"z as it becomes transformed into holiness,

does not fit on this the "lo" without a mapik hei,

d'mameh nafshecha: the kelipah itself has become entirely nullified,

it is "lo" literally,

and from the aspect of the level of holiness - it must stand with a dagesh specifically,

the greatest intensity,

and on the contrary - specifically in the transformation of darkness to light is seen the true "intensity" of holiness⁴⁶.

(From the sichah of Shabbos Parshas Mattos-Masei 5725)