English translation — דברים א

1.

On the verse¹

"Eleven days from Horeb by way of Mount Seir to Kadesh-barnea" say Chazal²

- and Rashi brings it down in his commentary on the Torah - that the way from Horeb to Kadesh-barnea

(which is "a journey of eleven days")

the Jews traversed in <b>three </b>days³

And Moshe Rabbeinu thereby added another matter of rebuke⁴

- as Rashi explains: Moshe said to them⁵

See what you have caused. You have no shorter way from Horeb to Kadesh-barnea than the way of Mount Seir, and it too is a journey of eleven days, and you traversed it in three days...

(as Rashi makes the calculation⁶)

And so much was the Shechinah exerting itself for you to hasten your coming to the Land, and because you spoiled it, He turned you about by way of Mount Seir forty⁷

years.

From the language of Rashi it is implied,

that the <b>main </b>emphasis in the rebuke is

in that "because you corrupted yourselves" the journey became in a manner <b>opposite </b>to the manner that "the <b>Shechinah </b>was stirring etc. <b>to hasten </b>your coming to the land",

with a supernatural speed⁸

; and according to this, "Eleven days from Chorev etc." - that the path between Chorev and Kadesh Barnea is "an eleven-day journey" - is only an <b>introduction </b>to the body of the rebuke⁹.

It is not smooth: Indeed, truly,

that the very fact that the path from Chorev to Kadesh Barnea the Jews traversed in three days,

compels one to say,

that Moshe Rabbeinu also <b>this </b>matter

(that "you traveled it in three days")

included in the rebuke¹⁰

- but why should one say,

that <b>this </b>is from the <b>main </b>rebuke,

and that which is stated <b>explicitly </b>in the verse

(that the path from Chorev to Kadesh Barnea is "an eleven-day journey"¹¹)

is only an <b>introduction </b>to the essence of the rebuke?

It is implied from this,

that there is no “between” possible in this.

Their journey in the wilderness could have been either in a manner of “<b>to hasten </b>your coming to the land”,

or in a manner <b>opposite </b>- to be prolonged

(because of the sins of the Jews)

<b>Supernaturally </b>- 40 years; and therefore Moshe combined the two matters together in one sequence: if not in a miraculous manner, then automatically the opposite manner comes¹².

B.

The above - that the journey of the Jews in the wilderness is possible only in one of the two opposite manners mentioned above - also gives an explanation in an addition,

which explains a perplexing statement in the Gemara:

The Gemara¹³

says,

that Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai had a dispute with a Boethusian about their method,

that Shavuot is always "after Shabbat"

(because they interpret "And you shall count for yourselves from the morrow of the <b>Shabbat</b>"¹⁴

- the Shabbat of Creation).

The Boethusian argued: Moses our teacher loved Israel and knew that Shavuot is one day, he stood and instituted it after Shabbat so that Israel would delight two days.

Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai answered him about this with the verse "Eleven days from Horeb, etc.",

concluding - "And if Moses our teacher loved Israel, why did he delay them in the wilderness forty years".

Tosafot¹⁵

explains that which Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai chose specifically <b>this</b> verse

("He cited upon it the verse <b>this</b>"¹⁶)

as a proof that "he delayed them in the wilderness forty years" - that this is understood according to Rashi above

- because with this Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai meant to say "If he loved Israel, why did he delay them forty years and they did not succeed to travel like they did in those three days".

It is, however, not understandable: what is here so relevant that "they did not succeed to go as they did in those three days" - the claim why "they delayed in the wilderness forty years" applies even if it would have taken

(not three days,

eleven days to go from Horeb to Kadesh-barnea?

According to the above, however, it is understandable.

For the manner of the journey - when not "they delayed in the wilderness forty years" - would have been "they succeeded to go as they did in those three days".

3.

At first glance, however, it is still not understood: True, indeed, that instead of "&lt;b&gt;delaying &lt;/b&gt;in the desert" there would have been a journey

(not in the usual manner,

but)

with the speed of "&lt;b&gt;they succeeded &lt;/b&gt;to go ..

three days" — but what does this have to do with emphasizing it in the answer to the &lt;b&gt;Boethusian&lt;/b&gt;,

such that therefore "he cited upon him the verse &lt;b&gt;this&lt;/b&gt;" specifically?

One must say,

that the rebuttal to the claim of the Boethusian

(that from the aspect of love of Israel "he stood

(Moses)

and enacted after Shabbat etc.’”)

is indeed from this matter,

that the "delaying in the desert forty years" had replaced

(not only a &lt;b&gt;regular &lt;/b&gt;journey to the Land of Israel,

but)

the manner of "they succeeded to go" with a miraculous speed.

4.

As already discussed once at length¹⁸

Regarding the many debates that we find in the Talmud and Midrashim between the sages of Israel and non-Jews

(and about this — with the Boethusians etc.),

That the very fact that Tannaim etc. conducted debates with them — and moreover,

That the

(details of the)

debates — were incorporated into the Torah

(the Torah of <b>truth</b>)

— compels us to say,

That in the <b>intellect of the Torah</b> there is there a response to their claims,

and all the more so that the answers of the sages of Israel are

(not merely a dismissal¹⁹,

but)

but)

true in the Torah of truth.

With this one can explain the precise wording in the claim of the Boethusian in our matter: "Moses our teacher loved Israel etc. he arose and instituted after Shabbat etc." —

i.e.,

He attributed it not to the Above,

but to <b>Moses our teacher</b>

(out of <b>his</b> love for Israel <b>Moses</b> made an <b>enactment</b> that Atzeret [falls] after Shabbat).

And at first glance: his system is indeed founded on the <b>verse</b> "the morrow of the Shabbat"

(- Shabbat of Creation),

and <b>not</b> that it is an <b>enactment</b> of Moses our teacher²⁰?

The explanation in this: Chazal²¹

bring <b>several </b>teachings - proofs,

that Atzeret is fifty days from the morrow of the first Yom Tov of Pesach,

and therefore,

has <b>the </b>interpretation

(that "the morrow of the Shabbat" means Shabbat Bereishit)

no basis in <b>the writings of the Torah</b>²².

But the Boethusian²³

argued,

that Moshe Rabbeinu had <b>instituted </b>*²³

that Atzeret should always fall on the morrow after Shabbat,

that is: they should make the fixing of the months in a manner²⁴,

that the first day of Pesach should always fall on the day of Shabbat,

and in the known expression "they intercalate the month as needed"²⁵,

so that both things will match - the counting is both "from the morrow of the Shabbat"

(Shabbat Bereishit)

and also from the morrow of the Yom Tov

as below section 6-7].

And upon this Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai

(after rejecting the <b>reason</b> of the enactment,

of that which "they delayed in the wilderness forty years",

as below section 9)

brought a proof from a verse that there cannot be such an enactment - because from the verse one sees,

that there must be <b>two</b> modes of fixing:

(here b)

Yom Tov that falls on Shabbat,

(here b)

Yom Tov that falls in the middle of the week²⁶.

5.

According to the above

(that the details of the dispute have a place in the intellect of the Torah)

the greatest question in the point of the dispute becomes: the view of <b>Boethusians</b> is founded on that "Moses our teacher loved Israel" - and <b>Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai</b> says "And if Moses our teacher loved Israel" - in a questioning language?

The point of the explanation in this:

"And if Moshe Rabbeinu loves Israel etc." means,

that Moshe Rabbeinu's love of Israel is not in such a manner as the &lt;b&gt;Baytusi &lt;/b&gt; understood

(that such a love of Israel obligates the enactment "that Israel should delight two days"),

but in a completely different and deeper manner,

that such a love of Israel is not

(always)

a reason that by Jews there should be &lt;b&gt;revealed &lt;/b&gt;"delighting";

And upon this he brought the verse "Eleven days from Horeb etc.",

which is from the words of rebuke of Moses and outwardly it appears as a matter of punishment etc. - but the truth is,

that specifically in these

(words of)

rebuke was expressed the great and deep love of Moses for Jews,

and in the language of the Midrash²⁷

: <b>He rebuked them Moses who loved them</b>.

6.

"Atzeret" is connected with counting - Jews count forty-nine days and the fiftieth day is Atzeret.

It is known*²⁷,

that the forty-nine days that Jews count,

indicate levels

(the forty-nine gates)

to which Jews attain <b>by the power and work of themselves</b>

(and therefore they need to count²⁸

the days)

; but the fiftieth day - which does <b>not</b> enter into the counting of Jews - indicates a level

(the fiftieth gate)

which comes and is given <b>from above</b>,

after the doing and attaining of the levels that are by the power and work of oneself,

and in the manner of²⁹

our sages of blessed memory³⁰

that when a person sanctifies himself a little below they sanctify him much from above.

And this is the claim of the Boethusian: since the content of Yom Tov,

the fiftieth day is a matter that comes from above,

the <b>preparation</b> for Shavuot must also be a matter that emphasizes

(not so <b>the work of man</b>,

but)

the holiness that comes <b>from above</b> — “Shabbat” which “is inherently holy”³¹

(therefore it is a day of delight,

without toil³²

and exertion³³).

The preceding levels

(the days of the Omer)

are the preparation to be a <b>vessel</b> for the level

(the fiftieth day,

Shavuot)

that is given from above

(Gate of the Nun),

but <b>Shavuot itself</b> is higher than the work of man,

and therefore also the <b>eve</b> of Shavuot,

the day in immediate proximity to Shavuot,

specifically such a time that is a semblance of the aforementioned elevation of Shavuot — the day of Shabbat.

7.

The holiday of Shavuos is indeed "the time of the giving of our Torah"³⁴

- is the aforementioned matter regarding "Atzeres" also present in the opinion of the Boethusians regarding the totality of the matter of the Torah³⁵

not in the Oral Torah³⁶.

The difference between Written Torah and Oral Torah is: Written Torah is <b>the Holy One, blessed be He, says </b>and Moses writes³⁷,

it was given entirely <b>from above</b>,

and in this there is no

(so)

involvement of the understanding and comprehension of the one who studies it³⁸

; the Oral Torah, its subject is,

how Torah came down into understanding and comprehension³⁹,

as it is revealed and transmitted through the sages of Israel in each and every generation⁴⁰,

and in it there must be "<b>lafsha lah</b>"⁴¹

- the student must toil with his intellect to discover and innovate in Torah,

unlike in the Written Torah, there may not be any extra or missing [letters].

The Boethusians believe only in the Written Torah,

The Boethusians believe only in the Written Torah,

they hold that Torah is only that which comes revealed from above.

And likewise at the giving of the Torah.

And this is the claim of the Boethusians that

(from the aspect of <b>love of Israel</b> Moses instituted that)

Atzeret,

the giving of the Torah,

is after Shabbat — after a day which is without toil and exertion, only delight,

one gives everything from above⁴².

8.

The truth is, however, that also the Oral Torah was given at Sinai,

also that which created beings comprehend with <b>their</b> intellect in Torah,

it is — the Torah of G‑d,

only this is as Torah descended in enclothement below,

until that a created being can understand it⁴³

And in this is carried out the intention of the Giving of the Torah,

that there should be the connection “upper” and “lower”⁴⁴.

When a person toils with his intellect a rationale in Torah,

then <b>the Torah of G‑d</b> is called by his name,

his Torah⁴⁵,

this becomes <b>his</b> matter — it is indeed not so much like the “<b>nine</b> kav of his fellow”⁴⁶

(which is given from above),

but rather it is “<b>his kav</b>"⁴⁶

— and through this his existence becomes united with His wisdom, blessed be He, “in a wondrous unity”⁴⁷.

Since the intention of the Giving of the Torah is the connection between the upper and the lower,

the matters that are

(upper ones)

<b>higher</b> than created beings must ultimately be grasped in the human intellect

(lower ones)

It follows,

that that which before the Giving of the Torah must be the preparation of the Counting of the Omer

(the toil and work of man to be worthy of receiving the Torah)

pertains to the very essence of the Giving of the Torah; until Chassidus⁴⁸

interprets the matter of "you shall count fifty days"⁴⁹

— that Jews open up and illuminate

(from Even Sapir)

the day of the <b>fiftieth</b> — also the drawing down from the Gate of the Nun

(which is revealed at the Giving of the Torah)

is <b>opened</b> through the service of Jews during the Counting of the Omer; and therefore this is the proper preparation for the Giving of the Torah⁵⁰.

9.

On this, R. Yochanan ben Zakkai brought a proof from that which Moshe "delayed in the desert forty years":

The punishments of the Torah - which is the Torah of <b>kindness</b> - are in order to refine⁵¹

the sinner from the blemish of the sin; and so it is also regarding the decree to be in the desert forty years,

that the purpose of this was

(primarily)

not to punish for the sin of the spies,

but in order to bring out among Jews a stronger and deeper connection with the Supreme One

(and all the more so,

that it will not allow them to commit again such a sin)

And this came through all the trials that Jews subsequently had in the desert,

over which they prevailed and overcame them,

repented over them etc. - all of which awakened in Jews a deeper connection with G‑dliness that nothing can, G‑d forbid, destroy,

And in the manner that the Rambam elaborates⁵²

on the virtue of one who stands in trial,

in the manner of the virtue of penitents etc.

D.

H.

Specifically the great love of Israel of Moses brought him to this, that he should want and do - delay - that Jews should enter into the land which the eyes of the L-rd your G‑d are always upon it⁵³

standing in the level of “<b>those who cling to the L-rd your G‑d</b>”,

which came about through <b>their labor and toil</b>⁵⁴,

wandering and journeys in the desert of the nations⁵⁵,

washing away the sin and blemish - “delay in the desert forty years”.

10.

According to the above, it is understood that R. Y. b. Z. "read upon him this verse

(specifically)

eleven days from Horeb etc." - that by this he meant

(as Tosafot say above)

"that if he loved Israel etc. and they did not succeed in going etc.":

That which Jews had to go through the desert in order to enter Eretz Yisrael was because of this,

that through their journeys in the desert

(and clarification of the "desert of the nations")

they became,

as above,

elevated⁵⁶,

and this prepared them and made them worthy for the entry into the Holy Land.

This could be in two ways:

a)

From the aspect of <b>the Shechinah</b> - from above - that in this manner there are no limitations from the aspect of the lower realm,

and consequently the clarification and elevation is accomplished with speed,

without any delays; but in this manner it is nahama d'kisufa,

there is not in this the accomplishment of the service of man.

b)

From the aspect of <b>Jews</b> - from below - that then,

in order that the journey in the desert should accomplish in Jews properly,

it had to be in a manner of "tarrying in the desert forty years"⁵⁷.

Specifically through all the journeys

(and thereby also - the service of trials etc.)

did the refinement and elevation pass through them in all details⁵⁸.

And this R' Yochanan ben Zakkai said to the Boethusian: according to his view, Moshe should have better chosen the manner of "&lt;b&gt;they succeeded &lt;/b&gt;to go etc." "&lt;b&gt;to hasten &lt;/b&gt;your coming to the land",

which comes &lt;b&gt;from Above &lt;/b&gt;

(- "so that Israel would delight etc.")

From that which "they delayed in the desert forty years" it is proven,

that the true love of Israel of Moshe expressed itself specifically in that he brought the Jews to &lt;b&gt;service by their own power&lt;/b&gt;

which stand in the preceding verse⁵⁹

- that "Moses rebuked them because he loved them" - because the intention of the words of rebuke was to awaken in Jews service and repentance from their own side⁶⁰.

Which is the reason for their journey in the desert for forty years].

And so it is regarding the <b>length</b> of this last exile.

The intention of this is to refine Jews and make them worthy,

that also from <b>their</b> own existence they should be ready for the redemption;

And through this that Jews “heal” themselves in the avodah

(in a manner)

of “zachu”,

the refinement itself is elevated in a manner of “achishenah”⁶¹

- and consequently the redemption comes in a manner that has both virtues: both of “b’itah”⁶¹

(when then the clarification is to its purpose in all details)

and also “achishenah”

(which comes from above),

And especially since it is already: kalu kol ha’kitzin⁶²,

In the true redemption &lt;b&gt;and the complete &lt;/b&gt;through our righteous Messiah,

&lt;b&gt;Speedily &lt;/b&gt;in our days, literally.

(From talks of the second day of Chol HaMoed Sukkot 5737)