English translation — מסעי א

A.

Also that which our parshah enumerates the journeys of the Jews in the desert,

says the Midrash

(and Rashi brings it down in his commentary on the Torah

: A parable, to what is this thing comparable?

To a king whose son was sick, he took him to another place to heal him,

when they were returning, his father began to count all the journeys and said to him: here we slept,

here we were cooled, here you ached your head.

So

said the Holy One, blessed be He,

(to)

Moses: count for them all the places where they angered Me; therefore it is said: These are the journeys of the children of Israel.

One must understand:

a)

A parable in Torah is indeed with utmost precision,

and consequently one can say,

that

(not only the general example of the parable "that his son was sick etc. to heal him" is directed to the moral,

but also)

the specific events in the parable

("here we slept, here we were heated, here you bumped your head")

are examples directed to the moral -

Where does one find these three matters in the moral,

in the journeys⁵?

b)

Furthermore: from that which the Midrash says only the three things and does not add

(at least)

the word "etc.",

it is proven,

that these are examples not only also of a similar number of matters in the nimshal,

but they describe the general state of Jews during the journeys

- they are present in all forty-two journeys.

c)

It is understood why "here you bowed your head",

and even "here they shone"

are a mashal also for "places where they angered Me" - since they are a matter of pain and illness; but what is the matter of "we slept"

(a mashal also for)

a thing that provokes anger in the king?

<span>d)</span>

The first two events are in plural language — “yishn’nu” and “hukarnu” — including also the king,

but the third detail,

“chashashta et roshekha,”

is in singular language — only the prince — how does all this correspond in the allegory?

<span>b.</span>

The reason why the Midrash gives these three examples

hukarnu,

and chashashta et roshekha]

can be explained simply⁹

: they were at the beginning — in the <b>first</b> three journeys from the land of Egypt to the Sea of Reeds —

(a)

from Raamses to Sukkot,

(b)

from Sukkot to Eitam,

(c)

from Eitam to Pi-hachirot:

Also "they journeyed from Sukkot"&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;

Rashi&lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt; says&lt;span&gt;: "on the second day, for on the first they came from Rameses to Sukkot".&lt;/span&gt;

It turns out,

that after the first journey from Rameses the Jews stopped and rested the &lt;b&gt;night&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;

(on "the second day")

in Sukkot,

and consequently - "here they &lt;b&gt;slept&lt;/b&gt;".

&lt;span&gt;The novelty that occurred at the second journey - "they journeyed from Sukkot and encamped in Etham"&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;

&lt;span&gt; - was,&lt;/span&gt;

that then - according to the plain meaning of Scripture&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;

&lt;span&gt; - the clouds of glory came,&lt;/span&gt;

as the verse

(in Parshat Beshalach&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;)

continues: And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them the way etc.&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;

Chazal say¹⁶,

that the Clouds of Glory

(in addition to the role of "to guide them the way")

surrounded Bnei Yisrael like a sukkah "for a shade, so that the sun and heat should not strike them"¹⁷

of the Clouds of Glory was equal at "they journeyed from <b>Sukkot</b>"¹⁹

etc.")

And on this alludes the example of - "here <b>they were darkened</b>",

through the "shade" of the Clouds of Glory.

What happened at the third journey — "Pi HaChirot"?

Says the verse²⁰,

that there the Jews argued "It is better for us to <b>serve</b> Egypt <b>than to die</b> in the wilderness",

which is a <b>rational</b> argument against Moses²¹

— "<b>You have shaved your head</b>".

3.

As is known²²,

the forty-two journeys in the wilderness allude

(also)

also to the refinement of the "wilderness of the nations"²³

during the time of the exile,

which will end when one arrives at "Yarden Yericho" — aspect of scent,

the revelation of Mashiach,

who is "he smells and judges" and thereby one tests him²⁴

— until the evil of the "wilderness of the nations" will be <b>entirely</b> nullified,

"And the spirit of impurity I will remove from the land"²⁵.

It stands in the verse²⁶

"As in the days of your exodus from the land of Egypt I will show him wonders" — one interprets in Toras HaChassidus²⁷,

that the power also of the future redemption derives from "your exodus from the land of Egypt."

It is understandable,

that the nullification of evil was also at the Exodus from Egypt and still in a manner of a giving of power also for "and the spirit of impurity I will remove from the earth" in the future;

This concept is found explicitly at the Splitting of the Sea — "And Israel saw Egypt <b>dead</b> on the seashore"²⁸,

that Jews saw with tangible sight the <b>nullification and death</b> of the sitra achra.

And it can be said that this is,

in general,

the explanation why the midrash hints in the parable to the

(first three)

journeys until Karyat-Sepher — because in the journeys until Karyat-Sepher it was revealed, in analogy to the nullification and removal of impurity through the forty-two journeys in the "wilderness of the nations" until "Jordan of Jericho" — then and also in general the exile,

as above.

And it is also understood from this that in the Song of the Sea it is said that the terror and dread of Karyat-Sepher will be "until²⁹

this people whom You have purchased passes over — the Jordan",

as Rashi explains according to the Targum.

And immediately at the beginning of the entire song it is said "Then³⁰

<b>will sing</b> Moses and Bnei Yisrael" — future tense — meaning

(also)

the song when the dead will live,

as Rashi expounds in his commentary on the Torah.

D.

The above explanation is, however, only from the aspect of the matter of Karyat-Sepher which was <b>after</b> the aforementioned journeys — that at Karyat-Sepher there was "Egypt dead",

similar to the time of the <b>completion</b> of the journeys in the "wilderness of the nations".

Since he specifies, however, all three journeys - and not KRY"M - one must say,

that in the journeys themselves

(before KRY"M)

there are details and matters which are general for all "journeys of Bnei Yisrael" - that because of them he counts them; and also - that this expresses itself in the three analogies "our sleep" "our being honored" and "you covered your head".

In order to understand this, one must first dwell on further precisions in the aforementioned analogy:

a)

From that the midrash stands on "These are the journeys of Bnei Yisrael",

and also concludes "therefore it is said 'These are the journeys of Bnei Yisrael'",

it is proven,

that with the parable is explained and elucidated -

(in the language of Rashi)

- "Why were these journeys written" -

It is not understood: among the enumerated 42 journeys there are several "places",

that ostensibly does not apply to them the reason of "He counted for them etc. where they angered Me"?

b)

In the parable, the king "counts all the journeys" at the time "when they were returning"; and further: from the expression "and he said to him <b>here</b>"³²

it is implied,

that he "counts all the journeys" at the time of the return and in that same place³³

: going back the <b>same</b> places,

the king says "<b>here</b> we lodged, <b>here</b> etc." — one must understand: where is there a "they were returning" in the analogue?

Jews have indeed <b>not returned</b> to the journeys³⁴,

but rather went ever further and — closer to the land of Israel?

e.

The explanation in this:

The “journeys” that Jews must go through in the “wilderness of the nations,”

is through that which the soul

(and a Jew in general)

comes down from a high place to a place of concealment and hiding.

And although the intention of the descent is

(<b>its </b><span>refinement through the service of Jews),</span>

but also]

for the sake of the ascent that the Jews achieve through the descent³⁵

— nevertheless,

during the journeys themselves, the <b>exile </b>and <b>concealment </b>are felt; only <b>through </b>them comes

("<b>later</b>")

the ascent.

Although we intend that the entire purpose of exile is only the matter of ascent — since it is, however, still in a manner,

that being in exile one finds oneself in a picture of descent

(more than that this brings a <b>second </b>thing — the ascent)

— it turns out,

that <b>going </b>in the “journeys” one is in a place

(and state)

of “wilderness,”

which “no³⁶

man dwelt there” — “they angered Me”; as the expression of my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe, in a discourse³⁷,

that the “body and essence of the contraction is the <b>opposite </b>of the will

(the Supernal)

6.

In what matters are the words said — when one is still holding by the "journeys" themselves; but when one comes to the aliyah,

the inwardness of the exile becomes <b>revealed</b>,

that in truth it is not something else, only a <b>part</b> of the aliyah³⁸.

And this is the intention of that which the mashal describes "When they were returning, his father began to count all the journeys etc.": after the descent from above to below into

(the place of — and in each one of)

the forty-two journeys,

begins the <b>return</b> backwards — the <b>aliyah</b> from below to above³⁹

; and "they were <b>returning</b>" the <b>same</b> journeys,

4.

5.

that then one hears how also the journeys on the way of descent

(and each one of them in particular)

are a part of the aliyah⁴⁰.

And this means "apportion to them all the places where they angered Me" — in the manner as it is stated&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;

(that in the future to come they will say)

"&lt;b&gt;I will thank You &lt;/b&gt;Hashem &lt;b&gt;for &lt;/b&gt;&lt;span&gt;You were angry with me",&lt;/span&gt;

that one will thank the Almighty for that which&lt;span&gt; "You were angry with me",&lt;/span&gt;

because then it will be revealed how this was a matter of kindnesses.

<span><span>How is it even possible to say,</span></span>

that the "journeys" in the "desert of the nations" are indeed a matter of kindness and ascent?

— The midrash precedes and warns with a parable,

that this is because the son of the king does not go alone in the "journeys,"

he goes with the king and moreover the &lt;b&gt;king &lt;/b&gt;is "&lt;b&gt;He led him&lt;/b&gt;" and moreover — the entire walking

(and the details)

is "&lt;b&gt;to heal him&lt;/b&gt;"; and since it is so — it is clear,

that the &lt;b&gt;descent itself &lt;/b&gt;is

(in its inwardness)

a matter of kindness&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;.

7.

Seemingly, one can also ask further: Granted, the general descent into the "wilderness of the nations,"

since this was initially set forth by the King etc.,

it is understood,

that this must be a matter of kindness and ascent;

But the matter of "they provoked Me" regarding the "journeys" was through the sins of Jews,

i.

e.,

Jews caused through sins a descent

more than was set forth from Above — now what is the necessity to say,

that also these descents are for the sake of ascent?

Even if one would say,

that since the correction and ascent from a descent &lt;b&gt;additional &lt;/b&gt;can be only through a higher and deeper power,

and consequently through the addition in the descent there is also effected an addition in the ascent — it is however,

at first glance,

only a matter of "from now onward",

it is effected at the time of the completion of the correction and ascent; how is it however possible to say,

that &lt;b&gt;the &lt;/b&gt;descent

(additional)

is &lt;b&gt;in its inwardness &lt;/b&gt;a matter of ascent?

- The truth is however&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt;,

as the middle Rebbe explains at length&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;

&lt;span&gt; on the verse&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;47&lt;/sup&gt;

&lt;span&gt;&lt;span&gt; "Awesome in deed upon the children of man",&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;

that that which&lt;span&gt; Adam the first sinned with the sin of the Tree of Knowledge is "a pretext attributed to him"],&lt;/span&gt;

that that which "sometimes the evil of the evil inclination overcomes a person and he sins" is because "from above they incited the evil inclination upon him to bring him to this sin"&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;.

And this is not in contradiction to the matter of "choice" and

(consequently)

reward and punishment - because this "supernal assistance that awakens the aspect of evil to overcome the good"⁴⁹

is in a hidden manner that is not felt by the person,

and consequently it does not compel his choice⁵⁰

(just as the supernal knowledge does not compel the choice⁵¹).

It turns out,

that also <b>the </b>descents are with premeditation⁵²,

that through the repentance over the sin there should be the "<b>advantage </b>of light from darkness" specifically,

through transforming intentional sins into merits.

&lt;span&gt;8.&lt;/span&gt;

The difference between the two types of descent in the "places where the concealment of the light" -

(a)

The journeys where it is felt &lt;b&gt;in revelation &lt;/b&gt;that the &lt;b&gt;king &lt;/b&gt;&lt;span&gt;"led him to a place"&lt;/span&gt;

(the descent)

(b)

The journeys that in revelation are a result of man's choice and the "led him" of the king is in a hidden manner - expresses itself in the difference between the journeys before KRY"M and after KRY"M:

Chazal&lt;sup&gt;53&lt;/sup&gt;

&lt;span&gt; say that "if Israel had merited, as soon as the soles of their feet rose from the sea they would have entered the Land" etc.&lt;/span&gt;

i.e.

that the journeys that after KRY"M

("from the sea")

were a result of the not "merited" - because of their sins; but the journeys until KRY"M would have had to be even if "Israel had merited".

The explanation in this: the "desert" itself began after the Sea of Reeds⁵⁴

; the place of the journeys until the Sea of Reeds is a <b>mean</b> between settlement

(Egypt)

and desert⁵⁵.

In spirituality it means⁵⁶

<span>: "desert" is a place that "no</span>³⁶

man dwells

(<b>the Supernal</b>⁵⁷

there",

a place of actual kelipah that is <b>opposed</b><span> to the Supernal will.</span>

But the path that leads to the desert is indeed not a place of <b>settlement</b>

(for the Supernal Man),

but it is also not <b>opposed</b> to the Supernal will⁵⁸

<span><span>: this is the order of the descent </span>that was initially set from above</span>

(according to Torah)

&lt;span&gt;&lt;span&gt;And this is the explanation &lt;/span&gt;that &lt;/span&gt;&lt;b&gt;in plain and revealed &lt;/b&gt;&lt;span&gt;the three examples of the parable are directed toward the three journeys until KRY"M - because only these three journeys are those in which the king leads in them the prince in a &lt;/span&gt;&lt;b&gt;revealed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;span&gt; manner; in contrast, the subsequent journeys are&lt;/span&gt;

(in a revealed manner)

a result of the choice of Bnei Yisrael - which then brought that they did not merit.

9.

The content of the three journeys where the "He led them" of the king is in a &lt;b&gt;revealed&lt;/b&gt; manner,

is expressed in the three matters of

(parable)

"we slept",

"we were pale" and "you felt your head"

(which is connected with &lt;b&gt;sin&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;61&lt;/sup&gt;)

; even "you felt your head" is not an "illness",

as Rashi&lt;sup&gt;62&lt;/sup&gt;

says

(on the Sages' statement&lt;sup&gt;63&lt;/sup&gt;

"any ache etc.")

"an ache,

a mere &lt;b&gt;ordinary &lt;/b&gt;sensation for a time and light"]

So that the service of Jews should be able to be in a manner of "the life and the death I have placed before you etc. &lt;b&gt;and you shall choose &lt;/b&gt;etc."&lt;sup&gt;63&lt;/sup&gt;,

three &lt;b&gt;novel &lt;/b&gt;matters are required:

(a)

The soul must &lt;b&gt;descend &lt;/b&gt;from the place of light and revelation into a "place" of concealment and removal of the light - otherwise the reality of "&lt;b&gt;and the death &lt;/b&gt;I have placed" cannot be,

which gives a possibility to choose in the opposite of life and light, G-d forbid.

(b)

It must however also be "&lt;b&gt;the life &lt;/b&gt;and &lt;b&gt;I have set before you&lt;/b&gt;" - therefore there must be in this place of removal of light an extension of light and revelation - "He combined with it the attribute of mercy"&lt;sup&gt;64&lt;/sup&gt;.

In order that there be &lt;b&gt;free &lt;/b&gt;choice, the &lt;b&gt;animal &lt;/b&gt;soul must also have &lt;b&gt;its intellect&lt;/b&gt;,

that can find a "benefit" in the opposite of light and life, may G‑d forbid&lt;sup&gt;65&lt;/sup&gt;

(of the animal soul)

in "death" could be only from the side of the attributes - then this is not this corresponding to that

(and consequently - not free choice),

and especially then the intellect

(of the G‑dly soul)

would have to overcome the "attributes",

since a person is by his very essence an intellectual].

And these are the three matters — "our sleep,"

"our hollowing" and "you have wrapped your head":

(a)

sleep,

which is "one-sixtieth of death"⁶⁶,

concealment and removal of the intellect etc.,

indicates a tzimtzum⁶⁷

in a manner of removal.

(b)

"our hollowing" is that,

that in this tzimtzum is included the intention of the revelation⁶⁸,

and moreover He joined with it the attribute of mercy,

which "<b>cools off</b>"⁶⁹

the severities of the tzimtzum.

(c)

(c)

"<b>You have wrapped</b> your head" — the intellect of the animal soul,

which gives a possibility that there can be the choice in "death" G‑d forbid.

With this it is understandable why the examples of "our sleep" and "our hollowing" stand in the plural language and "you have wrapped your head" is a singular language — because the movement of tzimtzum and

(the intention of)

revelation also exists from the side of the <b>king</b><span>,</span>

but "you have wrapped your head" is a matter that has to do only with the <b>son</b> of the king himself.

&lt;span&gt;Yud.&lt;/span&gt;

As said earlier

(Section 7),

is also these descents which in revelation are they a result of the choice of man,

are they with deliberate intent,

only by &lt;b&gt;the &lt;/b&gt;descents is the "He led" of the king in a hidden manner.

And therefore are the first three journeys the aforementioned

(We will camp..

Your head)

the "general principle" of all journeys - because also the later descents

(from the side of the choice of man)

are in truth a result of the state in which the king "led him".

And it can be said that this is the reason why Rashi in his commentary on the Torah — "the wine of Torah"

— adds

(after bringing down the words of the Midrash "you anointed your head")

"etc."

: with this he hints,

that also the continuation of "you anointed your head" — that which the king's son becomes

(through his choice)

a real "sick person" G-d forbid — is not only from the side of the son himself,

but is a part of the journeys in which the king "led him...

to heal him".

And therefore it is clear that the entire intention of the "sickness" is only so that the king's son should attain the virtue of a sick person who was healed,

in a manner of "intentional sins become for him like merits"

and not only "from now onward",

but in the manner that "his iniquity is uprooted from its very beginning"

(since this was their intention from the very outset)

That this will be revealed openly and completely with the coming of Mashiach Tzidkeinu - when there will be the completion of "they would return" - it will be revealed "as the sun goes forth in its might"

The true and inner aspect of the "journeys" in exile,

And very soon.

Ma'amar Basi LeGani 5731*)