English translation — עקב ב

1.

In the verse¹

"All the commandment which I command you today you shall keep to do, etc." Rashi stands on the words "All the commandment" and explains: according to its plain meaning,

and an Aggadic midrash²

If you have begun a commandment, complete it, etc.

(as below section 2).

What is difficult in the first explanation — "according to its plain meaning" — that because of this Rashi needs to bring a second explanation,

and moreover from "Aggadic midrash"?

are commentators

explain,

that in the verse the wording "all the commandment" is difficult,

that "commandment" is a singular term — <b>one </b>commandment,

and the meaning of "all" is — <b>all </b>the commandments.

one must say,

that the interpretation of "all

(the commandment)

" here is

(not "<b>all </b>the commandments",

but)

"<b>every </b>commandment".

It remains, however, not understood: accordingly, it should have said "every commandment"

(without a hey)

— not "all <b>the </b>commandment"?

Therefore Rashi says — "according to its plain meaning,

and the Aggadic Midrash etc.": not looking at the difficulty in the first interpretation,

"according to its plain meaning",

is nevertheless this the primary and essential interpretation

(in the <b>plain meaning</b> of Scripture)

; but to answer the aforementioned question,

Rashi brings a second interpretation

(from the Aggadic Midrash)

- "If you have begun a mitzvah, complete it" — which according to this interpretation the verse indeed speaks about

<b>one</b> mitzvah,

and the wording "<b>all</b> the mitzvah" means,

that one must do the <b>entire</b> mitzvah⁵

(and not a part of a mitzvah).

As you will precisely note, however,

one cannot say that Rashi is out to protect this question,

because⁶

the same language — "all the commandment" — already appears <b>earlier</b> in the Chumash⁷,

and Rashi does not stop there⁸

on it; one must say,

that this is

(by Rashi)

no question⁹,

because also "all the commandment" can

(according to Rashi)

mean — all the commandments¹⁰.

And thus the question returns to its place: what difficulty is there in "all the commandment" that appears in <b>our</b> parshah,

that

Specifically here Rashi stops on this and says "according to its plain meaning" and also brings an explanation from Midrash Aggadah?

2.

In this explanation of Midrash Aggadah that Rashi brings at length — "If you began a mitzvah, finish it¹¹

it is not called the mitzvah except by the name of the one who completes it, as it is said¹²

And the bones of Joseph, which the children of Israel brought up from Egypt, they buried in Shechem — but was it not Moses alone who occupied himself with bringing them up? Rather, because he did not manage to complete it¹³

and Israel completed it, it is called by their name" — one must understand several precise points in the language of Rashi.

And among them:

a)

Seemingly, the beginning of the commentary,

"If you began a mitzvah, complete it,"

is sufficient to explain the phrase "all the mitzvah,"

what is here relevant to the continuation "that is not called the mitzvah except on account of the one who completes it etc."¹⁴?

b)

And especially further — the proof for this

(from Moses)

"as it is said, 'And the bones of Joseph etc.'"?

3)

If Rashi already wants to bring a proof that underscores the <b>severity</b> of not completing a mitzvah,

it would have been more fitting to bring the proof from which Chazal

(in the Gemara¹⁵

and Midrash¹⁶)

derive that one who begins a mitzvah and does not complete it "is lowered from his greatness,"

and moreover,

"buried etc." - of Yehudah?

4)

What is the language "but because he did not have time to complete it"¹⁷

- Rashi wants indeed

(mainly)

to bring out that "it is called by the name of its completion,"

then what difference does it make why Moshe did not complete the mitzvah?

Since he adds the words "lo hispik etc." it implies that here the manner in which the one who did not finish it was — under duress is relevant

("lo hispik")

It was not dependent on him¹⁸.

3.

The explanation of this will be understood by way of preface to the question: Why does Rashi not learn this "kol hamitzvah"

(as other commentators¹⁹

learn),

that this refers to that which is discussed in the verses just before this²⁰

"The graven images of their gods you shall burn with fire; you shall not covet etc. and you shall not bring an abomination into your house etc." — the prohibition of idolatry — and therefore

(because it discusses one mitzvah²¹)

the Torah says "hamitzvah" in the singular;

And on the other hand, about this it is said "all" and it is also called a plain commandment,

as Rashi already explained in his commentary earlier²²

: "It is equal to all the commandments together, and one who is careful with it²³

is like one who keeps all of them" and accordingly, the phrase "all the commandment" with a definite article is also smooth - the commandment about which it speaks just earlier²⁴.

So the reasoning in this: In earlier verses, Moses tells the Jews,

that they will take possession of the Land of Israel "and He will give their kings into your hand"²⁵

and he warns that "the carved images of their gods you shall burn etc. and you shall not bring an abomination etc.",

I.e.,

that is,

as one must be careful after one will enter and conquer the Land of Israel.

Consequently, it is not plausible that "all the commandment" means the preceding command of "the statues of their gods you shall burn etc. and you shall not bring an abomination etc." - because in that verse

("all the commandment etc.")

he continues "&lt;b&gt;in order that&lt;/b&gt; you may live etc. &lt;b&gt;and you shall come&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;

and possess the land",

that &lt;b&gt;through&lt;/b&gt; "you shall keep to do" "all the commandment" one will merit to &lt;b&gt;later&lt;/b&gt; arrive and inherit the land of Israel,

whereas the preceding commandments pertain to the time that comes &lt;b&gt;after&lt;/b&gt; "you shall come and possess the land"

(although with difficulty one could say,

that thereby is meant the prohibition of idolatry in general,

and not specifically later&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;).

D.

Based on this one will understand why Rashi &lt;b&gt;places himself&lt;/b&gt; on the verse and interprets "according to its simple meaning": Moses our teacher began to say Mishneh Torah "on the eleventh month on the first of the month"&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;

- Rosh Chodesh Shevat,

so that Parshat Eikev was said by him afterwards,

or on Rosh Chodesh Shevat;

And since that Moshe Rabbeinu says "All the commandment which I command you today you shall observe to do <b>in order that</b> you may live and multiply and come and inherit the land",

that because of the fulfillment of

"All the commandment" all the commandments²⁹,

one will be worthy³⁰

to inherit the Land of Israel,

It is not understood what the verse says "all the commandment",

that through the fulfillment of <b>all</b>

(613)

commandments - will <b>later</b> be

("in order that")

"you will live and multiply and come and inherit"³¹

- they had then between the beginning of the tribe and the entry into the land,

could fulfill only a very small number of the 613 commandments - certainly not the commandments dependent on the land and also not many and many commandments that are practiced outside the land,

like the laws that pertain to the festival etc.

etc.

etc.

(not <b>all</b> commandments,

but)

only the commandments "which I command you <b>today</b>" - the day³²

- because:

a)

Why should “you will come and inherit the land” be specifically in the merit of the fulfillment of the commandments that he commanded them <b>that</b> day?

b)

The simple explanation of “

(I command you)

<b>today</b>” is not the one single day,

but — the present

(current)

<b>time</b> in general³³

(and “I command you today” means simply all the commandments

(of Mishneh Torah at least)

; and

As it says earlier in the end of the parshah Va’eschanan, “And you shall keep the commandment and the statutes and the judgments which I command you &lt;b&gt;today &lt;/b&gt;to do them,”

which means simply all the commandments).

3)

If one would say that “today” here means specifically &lt;b&gt;that day&lt;/b&gt;,

then the question arises: we do not know which are the commandments that He commanded on that day

(and also not which day it was then)?

And we have a principle, “The verse did not come to be obscure but to explain”&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;].

Therefore Rashi explains "all the commandment - according to its simple meaning": he warns,

that one must explain "all the commandment" all the commandments - as one finds that a singular term is used as a "generic term" which includes a multitude of details - although it is not entirely smooth to learn it that way.

And according to this, the explanation of "all the commandment" is not all 613 commandments,

but all the commandments that the Jews have a possibility to fulfill until the entry into the land.

It is however still a difficulty to explain thus,

as above - that the word "kol hamitzvah" is a generic name which includes all mitzvos without distinction,

and,

on the other hand,

it means here only a tiny minority of all mitzvos - therefore Rashi brings a second explanation "if you have begun a mitzvah, complete it",

according to which "kol &lt;b&gt;hamitzvah&lt;/b&gt;"

(not a generic name for the totality of mitzvos,

but this)

means the completeness of a mitzvah,

as above.

It is however not understood: what connection does this command to complete a mitzvah have,

to the entry into the Land - that in the merit of completing mitzvos the entry will come?

Therefore Rashi brings the continuation

(with all the details)

"that a mitzvah is called only by the name of its completer, as it is said etc.'",

as follows.

The conquest and inheritance of the Land of Israel by the Jews, although this came because of the oath "which the Lord swore to your fathers,"

was nevertheless also connected with the fulfillment of the commandments by the conquering Jews³⁵,

as Moses explicitly says in this verse³⁶.

that although there was the oath to the fathers,

nevertheless the sin of the spies caused that that generation did not enter the Land of Israel³⁷].

And this the verse comes to say: Even though the Jews of the previous generation — of the forty years — also fulfilled commandments,

and thereby helped towards the

(manner³⁸

5.

5)

entry into the Land of Israel³⁹,

Nevertheless, “a commandment is called only after its completer,”

The Jews who found themselves at the end of the fortieth year,

To them specifically Moses says “the entire commandment ..

You shall keep to do for the sake of G‑d”,

That the coming to the land and the inheritance of the land are opened up in the merit of their commandments.

According to this it is understandable why in “the entire commandment ..

for the sake of” is emphasized the concept of “if you began a commandment, complete it”: thereby it is stated that the entry into the land is specifically through “the entire commandment”,

Through that which is “its completer” — those who completed the fulfillment of the commandment

(At the conclusion of the fortieth year).

Based on this it is also understood that this Midrash Aggadah does not remove from its simple meaning

(entirely and nullify)

the simple interpretation in "all the commandment",

because also according to the interpretation of the Midrash Aggadah it means

(not only one commandment,

but each one of)

all the commandments — all the commandments that Jews fulfilled during the course of the forty years in the desert are counted as commandments of the generation that "completed" the commandments

(before the entry into the land).

6.

But a question arises: Granted, the Jews who had a connection to the counsel of the spies and did not want

Entering Eretz Yisrael,

it is understood why their mitzvos become - in connection with entry into the land - counted

(not as theirs,

but)

on behalf of the Jews who entered Eretz Yisrael,

since they did not want to enter Eretz Yisrael

(they,

on the contrary,

caused that Jews should remain in the desert 40 years)

But the Jews who were not of one counsel with the spies and died in the desert only because they were included in the collective decree being "from twenty years old and upward" at that time,

why should their mitzvos not be counted as ones that helped toward the entry into the land.

And also conversely: the Jews who at the time of the decree were younger than twenty years,

but also they did not want to enter Eretz Yisrael,

but upon them the decree of the generation of the spies did not apply and they entered Eretz Yisrael — why should the mitzvah be called by their name?

Therefore Rashi brings "as it is said¹²

And the bones of Joseph etc. And was it not Moses <b>alone</b> occupied with them to bring them up? Rather, because <b>he did not manage to complete it</b> and Israel completed it,"

which according to this it is understandable: a)

There is no difference what was the reason because of which he did not complete the mitzvah,

even when it is through an unavoidable circumstance,

as with Moses "he did not manage to complete it",

the mitzvah is nevertheless called only by the name of the one who completes it;

b)

and similarly on the other hand,

although that "Moses <b>alone </b>occupied himself with them",

d.

e.

that from the Exodus from Egypt youths from twenty years who later brought the bones of Joseph into Eretz Yisrael and buried them

in Shechem,

did not want to help Moses at the time of the Exodus from Egypt in the occupation of taking out the bones of Joseph from Egypt,

nevertheless,

since they completed it, it is called by their name.

This is also in our case,

in the entry into the Land: a)

It is called after the one who completes it also regarding those who did not enter due to an unavoidable circumstance,

not because of their fault; b)

It is called after the one who completes it even after such a one who had previously

(not only did not begin to do the commandment,

but he had)

done the opposite⁴⁰.

And based on this it is simply understood why Rashi brings specifically and <b>only </b>the matter "that the commandment is called only after the one who completes it" and brings the proof for this from Moses - and not the matter of "they lower him etc.",

as above and the proof from Judah - because here the severity of the matter of not completing the begun commandment is not relevant; here the relevant matter is that "it is called etc. after the one who completes it"

(the generation that entered the Land)

and even in such a case when the previous beginner did not merit to complete it due to an unavoidable circumstance.

7.

According to the above, another question in Rashi will also be answered: At first glance, the beginning does not match the end and the end does not match the beginning — Rashi begins

(in the explanation of Midrash Aggadah)

"If you began a mitzvah, complete it,"

which from the language implies that there is in this an obligation and a mitzvah,

and afterwards he continues "that the mitzvah is called only after the one who completes it,"

i.e.,

that is,

that it is only a matter that it is worthwhile for him — in order that the mitzvah

should be called after him; and if he does not care that the mitzvah will not be "called after him,"

it implies that there is no necessity that specifically he should complete it.

But according to the above,

that the continuation in Rashi "that is not called etc." comes to explain

(only)

the relevance to our subject,

it is understood: Regarding the &lt;b&gt;beginner&lt;/b&gt; of the mitzvah there is indeed an obligation⁴¹

to complete the mitzvah; but Rashi's commentary is intended to emphasize the novelty regarding the &lt;b&gt;completer&lt;/b&gt; of the mitzvah,

that although the beginner was forced and could not complete

(as in our subject⁴²,

those who are

not entering the Land of Israel due to the decree of the Holy One, blessed be He,

and like Moses our teacher),

nevertheless the mitzvah is credited &lt;b&gt;only&lt;/b&gt; "in the name of its completer".

8.

From the wondrous matters that one finds in Rashi:

Rashi says the expression

(in the manner as in Tanchuma)

"that a commandment is called only by the name of the one who completes it",

in the Gemara, however, the expression is "Scripture credits him who completed it as if he performed it".

The reason that specifically the expression "is called after the one who completes it"

(as in the Midrash)

is consistent with the simple meaning of the verse - and not "as if he made it"

(as in the Gemara)

the simple reason is: In the Gemara it does not speak about the verse "all the commandment",

and "commandment" is not mentioned at all,

rather "whoever does a <b>thing</b> and did not complete it and another came and completed it, Scripture credits him etc."; but in the Midrash the language of commandment appears and in connection to that verse - and since Rashi bases himself on that verse and it is relevant to him regarding the <b>commandments</b> of the generation that entered the Land,

therefore he says the language as in the Midrash]

It is said that in our case,

although it is "called the commandment etc. after the one who completes it," one can however - according to the simple meaning of the words - not

say that this is "as if he performed it"⁴³

- that it is as if only he performed the commandment and the other has no connection to it.

In a different style: There are in this two details - that which "the commandment is called etc. after the one who completes it" it speaks only in relation to the completer; but regarding the beginner,

there is indeed upon him an obligation to complete⁴⁴,

but also his beginning of the commandment

(and especially if he did not complete it due to an unavoidable circumstance)

is a performance of the commandment

(from his side)⁴⁵.

What from this is understood regarding practical conduct: from the simple meaning of the wording "if you began a commandment, complete it"

It is proven that from "all the commandment" one learns out only the obligation,

that if he has begun to do, he must finish it,

but not the matter,

that if one cannot do the entire commandment, one should not begin at all.

Which according to this is understandable simply⁴⁶

what Rashi says⁴⁷

(from Gemara⁴⁸)

on the verse "When Moses set apart three cities on the east side of the Jordan" — "And even though they do not provide refuge until those in the land of Canaan are set apart, Moses said: A commandment that can be fulfilled I will fulfill it" — although Moses knew that he would not be able to finish the setting apart of the cities of refuge and set apart

(also)

the three cities of refuge in the Land of Israel,

one sees from this that also the beginning of the commandment is a part⁴⁹

and a matter in the fulfillment⁵⁰

<b>And the doing of </b>the commandment⁵¹,

although one knows in advance that one will not be able to finish.

9.

According to the above, it is understandable,

that our case has no connection to the well-known discussion⁵²

: whether a part of the measure

(or action)

of the commandment,

which one is <b>obligated</b>,

is by itself a part of the commandment,

and there lies upon him an obligation to fulfill that part — or not,

for example: eating half a kezayit of matzah and the like.

Because

that according to Rashi "if you began a commandment, finish it" does not mean that the beginning of a commandment is not a part of the commandment — is]

the aforementioned discussion is regarding commandments that are an obligation of the individual,

and the obligation is to do the <b>entire</b> commandment⁵³

; but here it speaks about such commandments that there is no obligation upon <b>him in particular</b> to do them,

but in practice he began to do them

("you began a commandment"),

then — "

(<b>If</b> you began a commandment)

finish it"*⁵³

— since he began it,

there is already upon him an obligation to finish.

Regarding like by the bones of Joseph,

that "He adjured, he adjured the children of Israel, saying, 'God will surely remember you, and you shall bring up my bones from here with you'"

the adjuration and obligation was upon all Jews equally

(that they should take out the bones of Joseph from Egypt)

But after Moses began the mitzvah "And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him," then upon him specifically was the obligation to complete the act of the mitzvah,

and since that he did not suffice to complete it,

due to the coercion,

"and the children of Israel completed it,"

therefore it is called by their name.

The explanation in the aforementioned yud-gimmel&lt;sup&gt;55&lt;/sup&gt;

: in the matters that are a communal obligation,

is that when one begins to do, he becomes &lt;b&gt;al derekh &lt;/b&gt;like a "messenger" of the entire community in the mitzvah,

and consequently he receives a special obligation

(as a messenger)

to complete the mitzvah*&lt;sup&gt;55&lt;/sup&gt;.

Yud.

And it can be said that &lt;b&gt;al derech zeh &lt;/b&gt;was regarding the matter of the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben: upon their request "Give this land to your servants as a possession; do not bring us across the Jordan"&lt;sup&gt;56&lt;/sup&gt;

Moses said to them first "Shall your brothers go to war while you sit here?"&lt;sup&gt;57&lt;/sup&gt;,

but when they answered&lt;sup&gt;58&lt;/sup&gt;

"We will arm ourselves quickly before the children of Israel, etc." Moses accepted this

("If you arm yourselves before the Lord for war, and every armed man among you crosses etc., and the land is subdued before the Lord")

and thereby warned that,

"But if you do not do so, behold you have sinned against the Lord, and know your sin which will find you."

What one could seemingly ask: indeed,

they took upon themselves the "vanguard",

why then did

Moshe bring it out in such a harsh manner,

that if not in the manner of "vanguard you shall cross" and "before your brothers Bnei Yisrael" it is "your sin before Hashem" - which implies that even if they will go and wage war together with all Jews <b>equally</b>,

but not vanguard etc.,

it is an undesirable matter - "your sin"⁵⁹.

According to the above, one can say that this is connected with the principle "If you have begun a mitzvah, complete it":

Conquest of the Land of Israel is a mitzvah⁶⁰

that lies upon all Jews equally,

it is an obligation of the community.

When the land of Sihon and Og was bequeathed to the tribe of Gad and the tribe of Reuben, it thereby became a part of the Land of Israel⁶¹

; consequently it follows,

that through their inheriting the land of Sihon and Og, there was opened

(retroactively)

the beginning of the mitzvah of <b>conquest of the Land of Israel</b>.

: In one place&lt;sup&gt;63&lt;/sup&gt;

he says "When Moses entered &lt;b&gt;the inheritance of &lt;/b&gt;the children of Gad and the children of Reuben he rejoiced and said, 'It seems to me that my vow was permitted,'"

i.

e.

he thought that "my vow was permitted"

(not immediately after the conquest of the land of Sihon and Og,

but)

but after he had &lt;b&gt;bequeathed &lt;/b&gt;

the land of Sihon and Og to the children of Gad and the children of Reuben

("the inheritance of the children of Gad and the children of Reuben")

; and in another place&lt;sup&gt;64&lt;/sup&gt;

he says "after &lt;b&gt;I conquered &lt;/b&gt;the land of Sihon and Og I thought, 'Perhaps the vow was permitted'" -

Because specifically through this that it became "&lt;b&gt;the inheritance &lt;/b&gt;of the children of Gad and the children of Reuben",

this became a part of Eretz Yisrael,

and consequently it is

(retroactively)

became the beginning of &lt;b&gt;the conquest &lt;/b&gt;of Eretz Yisrael].

And since that through them was opened the &lt;b&gt;beginning &lt;/b&gt;of the mitzvah of conquering Eretz Yisrael,

there applied upon them a special obligation

(in addition to the obligation equally with all Jews of that generation&lt;sup&gt;65&lt;/sup&gt;)

to &lt;b&gt;complete &lt;/b&gt;the conquest in accordance with the principle "If you have begun a mitzvah, complete it".

And therefore,

When they requested the land of Sihon and Og as <b>an inheritance</b>,

Moses answered them,

that they should know,

that through this they receive a law of "the one who begins a mitzvah",

and consequently it is not enough that they will <b>help</b> the other tribes in the continuation of the conquest of the land,

the other side of the Jordan westward,

but "finish it" - it must be "armed you shall cross

<b>before</b> your brothers the children of Israel",

because upon them lies a special obligation,

greater than upon all Jews⁶⁶.

11.

From the yina shel Torah in this Rashi - and also a lesson from it in our times: the current generation is according to all signs⁶⁷

the generation of the footsteps of Mashiach,

which will soon go out of exile and go to our holy land in the true redemption through Mashiach our righteous one -

was said

(also)

on the "the commandment is called only after the one who completes it": although in previous generations Jews were engaged in Torah and mitzvos in a greater and higher manner than in the current generation,

one says however that "it is called only after the one who completes it",

that the redemption comes in the merit of the mitzvos that Jews fulfill in this generation,

through <b>the completion </b>and conclusion of the service in the footsteps of Mashiach;

What this must give and gives a special encouragement to every Jew to increase in the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvos and through this to hasten the redemption through Moshiach Tzidkeinu.

On the other hand,

is also the instruction for every Jew "If you have begun a mitzvah, complete it":

It is known the letter of the Baal Shem Tov⁶⁸,

that on his question "When will the Master come" the Mashiach answered "When your wellsprings will spread forth outward",

and there lies an obligation upon the entire collective of Israel to spread the wellsprings,

the teachings of the Baal Shem Tov,

outward - to all Jews.

Especially is this however relevant to those who "began in the mitzvah",

who have begun to do in the spreading of the wellsprings⁶⁹.

It can be that after a certain time there should become a negligence in the work,

thinking,

that one can leave this over for a second to continue,

and he will help him with a good advice and the like.

Is the directive "begin a mitzvah, complete it" - since you have begun the work of spreading the wellsprings, there is upon you an obligation

(and a merit)

to continue and complete this service.

which He influences and draws down through His servants the presidents in every generation,

and in our generation through the Rebbe, the father-in-law]

And at the time when one decides with vigor and with truth to continue in the work of spreading Torah in general,

and in spreading the wellsprings outward in particular,

the Almighty helps and gives powers so that one can overcome all difficulties.

And within all Jews,

together -

One completes the mitzvah,

one brings down Mashiach Tzidkeinu below ten handbreadths speedily in our days literally.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Eikev 5727)