English translation — האזינו ב

A.

At the end of the parshah¹

it is told "And G-d spoke to Moses on that very day, saying: 'Ascend this mountain of the Abarim, Mount Nebo, etc., and die on the mountain, etc.'"

Rashi stands on the words "And G-d spoke to Moses on that very day" and explains "In three places it is said 'on that very day,'"

and he brings down the other two places²

where this is said: at the entering of Noah etc. into the ark

("On that very day Noah came, etc."³)

and at the Exodus from Egypt

("On that very day the L-rd brought out"⁴)

— that just as there it means,

that the contemporaries of Noah and the Egyptians said "In such and such a way if we sense, etc., and moreover we will take, etc."

(and they would not allow that Noah should enter the ark,

and not allow Jews to go out of Egypt,

as Rashi elaborates in the details of the matters),

"The Holy One, blessed be He, said: 'I will etc. at midday, and whoever has⁵

power to protest, let him come and protest'";

So too it is also at the passing of Moses, that the Jews then said "We will not let him go

(and Rashi brings the many good things that Moses did for the Jews)

The Holy One, blessed be He, said: 'I will hide him at midday, etc.'"

That which Rashi needs to generally seek an explanation on "in the selfsame day" is understood in the plain sense,

because the words are seemingly superfluous<sup>6</sup>

: It already stands at the beginning of the topic

(in Parsha Vayelech<sup>7</sup>)

"I am one hundred and twenty years old today",

and he was indeed on that day deceased,

one already understands that everything that happened afterwards was "in

(the selfsame)

this day"; and if because of "in the selfsame" — what difference does it make from this?

Therefore Rashi says that this comes to hint,

that the Jews did

(the passing of Moses)

not want to allow,

and as an answer to this the Almighty said: "Behold I am appointing him at midday etc."

One must however understand:

a)

Granted, the generation of Noach,

could have thought that they are able to prevent Noach's <b>entering</b> into the ark;

Also the Egyptians could have argued that they would not let the Jews go out from Egypt,

since they were the majority - but how is it relevant that Jews should think that they should hold back the passing of Moses,

a thing that is entirely not in the hands of flesh and blood⁸?

b)

Why does Rashi need to explain here that "in three places it is said 'on that very day'"

(and further bring the entire lengthiness in connection to the other two places)

- he should have interpreted the plain meaning of the verse - only our verse

(that the Jews did not want to allow the passing of Moses,

"The Holy One, blessed be He, said etc."),

and especially since he does so in his commentary on the words in Parshat Noach³,

where he explains "the verse taught you that the people of his generation etc.⁹

the Holy One, blessed be He, said I will bring him in before the eyes of all etc.",

and does not bring to it any example from another place

(that this is the explanation of "on that very day")?

Furthermore: all the more so and a fortiori,

That even the first time when he explains the words so, he does not need to have any example and proof,

All the more so — the third time!

Furthermore: In parshas Bo, Rashi does not comment at all on the verse "On that very day, Hashem took out"¹⁰

— simply,

is the reason

Because he relies on his commentary in Parshat Noach; so why here in our parshah,

does he need to explain what the verse means by "on that very day"

(and further with examples and proofs and at length!)?

One must say,

that in our verse the explanation is not straightforward,

rather since one finds the explanation on the same words in other places,

this is a proof that also in our verse the explanation is so¹¹.

(After bringing down the examples of Noach and Egypt)

"<b>So too here</b> etc." — not as in the Sifri,

the source of this Rashi,

where it says

(As by the Exodus from Egypt)

"And what did he see to say here etc." — to emphasize that only after we find that such is the explanation by Noach and Egypt,

is "<b>So too</b> here" the explanation so].

B.

Also there are several precise points in the language of Rashi — and some of them:

a)

By Noach and Egypt Rashi does not explain any reasons why the people of the generation of Noach and the Egyptians said "we will not let [them] go etc." — because it is understandable by itself — but by Moshe Rashi does need to explain the good things that Moshe did for the Jews because of which the Jews said "we will not let him go": why is it also not understood and simple,

that the Jews did not want Moshe's death?

By Noach and Egypt Rashi is not satisfied with the fact that they said "we will not let [them] go etc."

(as in our case),

rather he <b>adds</b>: by Noach — "<b>And not only that</b> but we take axes and hatchets and split open the ark",

by Egypt — "<b>And not only that</b> but we take swords and weapons and kill with them" — i.e.

that

not only will they not allow the entering and exiting etc.,

rather they will also nullify the possibility of the entering and exiting

("split open the ark",

"kill with them")?

3)

What is the reason that in the main text itself,

"ולא עוד אלא אנו נוטלין כו׳״,

Rashi mentions two details

(by Noach by Egypt)

: by Noach -

(a)

axes

b)

(b)

and hatchets; by Egypt -

(a)

beautiful ones

(b)

and weapons?

4)

By Noach and Egypt Rashi brings the entire statement

(from "אמר הקב״ה וכו׳")

"וכל מי שיש בידו

(in him)

כח למחות יבוא וימחה״,

but in our case he writes only "אמר הקב״ה הריני מכניםו בחצי היום

(and continues)

וכו׳״ - and at first glance: since by Egypt Rashi writes the elaboration explicitly

(not relying

about this that he said earlier by Noach),

why here does he only hint at it with "etc."?

וממ״נ: either in both they write "etc.",

or in both they spell it out explicitly.

ה)

When Rashi enumerates the favors that Moses our teacher did for Jews - why does Rashi specifically choose <b>the </b>favors¹²

: "He took us out of Egypt and split the sea for us and brought down the manna for us and sent the quail for us and brought up the well for us and gave us the Torah"¹³?

During the course of the forty years that the Jews were in the desert, Moses our teacher did many more favors for Jews

(for example: sweetening the bitter waters in Marah,

conquest of the land of Sihon and Og¹⁴,

<b>etc. etc.</b>).

6)

Furthermore: In Sifrei it also says "and performed for us miracles and mighty deeds" - why does Rashi omit it?

and especially since Rashi does not indicate here that the explanation is from Sifrei,

one must say that all these diyukim explain the <b>p'shuto </b>of the verse].

7)

Rashi in his commentary explains only the words "in the selfsame day" — why does he also quote in his opening words the words "And the Lord spoke to Moses"?

3.

The explanation in this:

The difference,

simply,

between our case and the brought examples of Noach and Egypt: there they

(the generation of Noach and the Egyptians)

were wicked,

and they were ready to do contrary to the will of the Most High,

therefore it is understandable why they did not want to allow Noach's entry into the ark and the exodus of Bnei Yisrael from Egypt

(contrary to the will of Hashem).

But in our case it is not understood: how can one say that Jews would want to be rebellious,

heaven forbid,

against the Most High and do contrary to His will?

- Here it is not about the generation of the wilderness

(regarding which one finds several times that they did contrary to the will of the Most High),

but about the generation that entered the land,

about which it is said "And you who cling to Hashem your God"<b>*</b>¹⁵

- it is difficult to explain that they opposed the will of the Most High that Moshe Rabbeinu should pass away.

And therefore,

were it not for the proof that "in three places it is said 'on this very day' etc.",

one would <b>here</b> for this reason not learn the interpretation

(that this is an answer to "we do not rely etc.")

; however since "in three places it is said etc." and the other two places, here is the inter

pretation proven

(and without any difficulty)

from the words - it is a proof that "<b>here too</b>" is the interpretation thus.

4.

How did the Jews intend not to allow the passing of Moses?

- Also this Rashi warns through his language

(after bringing down the lengthiness about Noah and Egypt)

"&lt;b&gt;Here too &lt;/b&gt;etc.",

with which he emphasizes that the matter of "they do not allow etc." is identical in all three places:

Just as by the generation of Noah and the Egyptians they wanted not to allow the transition from one place to the other

(the entering of Noah and the exodus of the Jews),

so too in our case: Jews wanted not to allow a transition — that Moses our teacher should ascend &lt;b&gt;to the mountain&lt;/b&gt;; and since the Almighty said "and die &lt;b&gt;on the mountain &lt;/b&gt;etc.",

the preventing of Moses' ascent to the mountain will automatically cause also a prevention of the passing of Moses&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;.

He.

With this it is also understood why in our case the one who says “אין אנו מניחים אותו” is sufficient,

and in the other two cases Rashi must add “ולא עוד וכו׳”:

The generation of Noach and the Egyptians were wicked,

by them it was not certain that the statement of the Almighty about the entry into the ark “לימים עוד שבעה”¹⁷

and the exodus from Egypt “כחצות הלילה גו׳ ואחרי כן אצא”¹⁸

Must be exactly as said from the Above,

consequently the "we do not leave him" on that specific day is not enough; they will have to guard days and weeks always,

day and night,

that Noah should not enter the ark and the Jews should not go out of Egypt - they therefore had to do an action that would nullify the entire possibility of entering and leaving - "they break open the ark",

"they kill them".

But not so in our case,

where it is about righteous Jews,

they wanted simply that the decree from the Above that brought that Moshe told them that &lt;b&gt;today &lt;/b&gt;your days are completed - on this day I will die&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;

is exact; they thought that if Moshe will not be on the mountain on &lt;b&gt;that &lt;/b&gt;day on which the death of Moshe was decreed,

the decree will be nullified

brought,

that after the conquest of the land of Sichon and Og, Moshe Rabbeinu thought that "the vow is permitted"].

And therefore it is "we do not place it"

(to go up on the mountain)

<b>On this day </b>enough to remove the <b>decree </b>of the passing of Moses.

6.

Why does Rashi bring <b>two </b>details

(in the matter of "and not only that, but we take etc.")

By Noach — since the people of his generation saw that the Almighty wanted to save Noach from the flood through his entering into the ark,

they reckoned,

that if they would break the ark,

the place

of refuge of Noach,

then the Almighty would "not be able" to bring the flood.

And therefore, understanding that Noah will certainly endeavor not to allow that they should break the ark,

they had to seek a means to be able to break the ark and together with this prevent that Noah should through this not be killed — because if they will kill him,

then there will again be no hindrance that the Almighty should bring the flood²¹.

Therefore Rashi says that they took

(not only "axes" with which one "splits the ark",

but)

also "hatchets":

Rashi already brought in Parshat Shoftim&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;

that the "sarei tzevaot" had "axes of iron in their hands and whoever wanted to return, the permission was in his hand &lt;b&gt;to strike his legs&lt;/b&gt;" — axes but do not kill,

a hindrance,

but not killing&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;].

And so too in our matter,

they prepared themselves with "kashilin" so as not to allow that Noach should hinder them in their breaking the ark.

And similarly regarding Egypt: The Egyptians knew,

that as soon as they would take to killing the Jews, may G-d forbid,

would immediately break out a war on the part of the Jews,

therefore they armed themselves not only with "swords"

(weapons of killing),

but also "weapons"²⁴

in general,

including also defensive weapons²⁵.

7.

It remains however still difficult: How did the Jews still want to do an action to prevent the passing of Moses — after all it is contrary to the will of G-d?

Rashi continues,

that Jews said "the man who took us out of Egypt etc.": in the verse "Tavo"²⁶

it was learned that when the Almighty blesses a Jew with a field with fruits,

he may not be an ingrate and is obligated to bring first fruits and thank the Almighty.

The Jews argued: since Moses our teacher did them so many favors,

there lies upon them an <b>obligation</b> not to be an ingrate,

and consequently to do everything that is in their power not to allow his passing

(even when this overrides the command of G‑d²⁷

of "ascend to Mount Abarim etc.").

And therefore Rashi is not satisfied with bringing only one of the favors and writing "etc.",

but he specifies them,

because the greater the number of favors that the Jews received from Moses,

the greater and stronger is their obligation not to be an ingrate,

and the more it justifies their effort to prevent the fulfillment of G‑d's command — "Ascend to the mountain etc."

8.

Based on this it is understood why Rashi specifically chooses the above-mentioned favors that Moses our teacher did for them and not the others:

Regarding the favors that Moshe Rabbeinu did for the Jews during all those years &lt;b&gt;in the past&lt;/b&gt;,

they certainly - not being ungrateful - have already expressed their gratitude.

Therefore Rashi counts only the favors that Jews benefited from them

(also)

"on this day" on the &lt;b&gt;day of Moshe's ascent to the mountain&lt;/b&gt;,

for which there lies upon them &lt;b&gt;now&lt;/b&gt; an obligation not to be ungrateful.

And one cannot ask why Rashi also brings "He took us out of Egypt and split the sea for us ..

and gave us the Torah"&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;

- although these are things that

were done in the past

(furthermore - in connection with the generation of the wilderness)

- because the favors have a continuous connection

(like "a continuing action")

to all Jews of all generations and times: regarding the Exodus from Egypt

(and the Splitting of the Sea which is the conclusion and completion of the Exodus&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;)

was already taught earlier&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;,

that "For your son will ask you tomorrow etc." - where "tomorrow" means

(as Rashi explains)

"tomorrow that is &lt;b&gt;after a time&lt;/b&gt;"

(without any limitation)

- "And you shall say to your son etc. &lt;b&gt;And us &lt;/b&gt;He took out from there etc."; and likewise the giving of the Torah was also not limited to that generation alone,

but for all Jews throughout all generations&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;.

as above,

Rashi enumerates the good things that Jews enjoyed from them

(also)

on the day of the ascent of Moshe to the mountain,

but not the ordinary "miracles and mighty deeds" whose benefit was in the past].

9.

At first glance, however, it is still not smooth: after all, there was an explicit command from the Almighty "Ascend to the mountain, etc." - so how could Jews think that from the aspect of the obligation not to be ungrateful they could prevent the passing of Moshe?

To answer the question,

Rashi quotes from the verse also the words

"And God spoke &lt;b&gt;to Moses&lt;/b&gt;" - that the command "Ascend to Mount Abarim etc." was only &lt;b&gt;to Moses&lt;/b&gt; and not to them.

And since regarding them themselves there is no commandment³²,

and Moshe would not have ascended as one compelled,

about which one says "lo ta'aseh davar"³³,

It is only a matter of <b>causing</b> that Moshe Rabbeinu should not fulfill <b>his</b> commandment of G-d — they held,

that <b>their</b> obligation not to be ungrateful overrides the matter of the <b>causation</b>³⁴.

And according to the above it is understood why Rashi does not conclude explicitly "

(Said the Holy One, blessed be He, etc.)

And whoever has the power to protest, let him come and protest" but rather in a hint

(etc.)

: Here Jews were not [in a position] to protest, heaven forbid, against the Most High,

Rather,

on the contrary,

to fulfill

(in their opinion)

a Torah obligation not to be an ingrate; and therefore if Rashi had written explicitly "Whoever has the power to protest etc." one could have interpreted it

(in the same manner as regarding the generation of Noach and Egypt)

as a rebellion

("protest")

of Jews against the Most High³⁵.

And therefore Rashi only hints at the matter with "etc."

Yud.

And for additional explanation: Saying "go" was indeed a command from the Most High

(at least)

to Moses that he should ascend the mountain,

now how did the Jews want to not allow him to fulfill a command of G‑d?

So the explanation in this is: The Jews interpreted that this very thing that "And G‑d spoke to Moses"

(specifically)

and also set a condition

(after "ascend the mountain")

is not only that it can be only "against his will"³⁶

as in the war of Midian,

but "here He opened an opening for him and informed him that the matter depends on him"³⁷

- and especially since Moses would be an unwilling one - as in the decree of the incident of the Golden Calf.

11.

And in the inner aspect of the matters, it can be said: Although it was already after the decree of the passing of Moshe,

since however this is a matter of the community,

nevertheless the repentance of the community can nullify the decree "even though it was sealed"³⁸.

This is also a reason why Rashi does not elaborate "Anyone who has the power to protest etc." - because in truth Jews have the power to protest, as it were, and nullify the decree above

and just as the prayer of Moshe helped⁴⁰

to nullify the half of "And with Aharon the L-rd was angry" could have helped the prayer and action of the community to nullify the "Also with me the L-rd was angry" and "And the L-rd was angry with me" - and as we find it regarding the Torah,

When the Almighty says "My children have defeated Me, My children have defeated Me"⁴¹].

Why did the Jews indeed not nullify that?

Also this the verse hints to "&lt;b&gt;In the very &lt;/b&gt;day itself",

that "the day itself"

(the passing of Moses on that day)

touches "&lt;b&gt;in the very&lt;/b&gt;" - in the very existence of Jews; because when Moses our teacher would have brought the Jews into the Land of Israel,

and the deeds of Moses are indeed eternal⁴²,

later the matter of "we were exiled from our land"⁴³ could not have been,

and consequently the punishment would not have been in the manner of "the Holy One, blessed be He, poured out His wrath on the trees and on the stones"⁴⁴,

but also on the Jews themselves, God forbid.

Therefore the matter of "Ascend to Mount Abarim etc." had to be.

12.

The lesson from this in avodah in each particular:

By every Jew there is in his soul from the aspect of Moshe Rabbeinu,

as the Alter Rebbe explains at length in Tanya⁴⁵.

Can a Jew nevertheless argue: Since the Almighty wants that I should learn Torah and fulfill mitzvos,

then why did He make that the aspect of Moshe

That in his soul should be in concealment,

until one can say that it is in the ultimate concealment, G-d forbid,

and in revelation one feels only the animal soul?

Then to this the answer is,

that this is the goodness of a Jew,

because specifically through this becomes "<b>In the essence of</b> this day": specifically when there is <b>avodah</b> - a Jew works to overcome the concealment and separation that is in him and around him in the world in general - comes to expression the "essence" of a Jew⁴⁶

; and then

One sees how the entire heter and isur was only a preparation to the elevation afterwards: the redemption through the aspect of Moshe in his soul,

and from a private redemption to the general redemption,

and Moshe is the first redeemer, he is the final redeemer⁴⁷.

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Haazinu 5727)