English translation — וארא א

On the verses¹

At the beginning of the sedra — “And I appeared to Abraham etc. And also I have established My covenant with them etc.” — Rashi brings²

two explanations:

A.

A)

That the content of the verses is an introduction³

to the <b>following</b> verses⁴

“And also I have heard the groaning of the children of Israel etc. Therefore say to the children of Israel etc. And I will bring you out etc.”: Since the Almighty had promised the patriarchs and made a covenant with them “to give them the land of Canaan”⁵

and had not yet fulfilled it,

therefore the Almighty says “And also I have heard etc. and I will remember My covenant.

Therefore say etc.”,

that He will now fulfill the promises.

b)

“And our Rabbis expounded it regarding the <b>superiority</b> that Moshe said⁶

Why have You done evil⁷

,”

that the verses relate to the preceding matter and are an answer to Moshe’s statement “Why have You done evil”³

- they bring out the superiority of the Patriarchs: “<b>They</b> did not say to me ‘What is Your name’ ..

<b>And they</b> did not question My ways,”

unlike Moshe - “But you said ‘What is His name’ ..

Why have You done evil.”

And Rashi continues

(after bringing the second interpretation)

: “And the midrash does not fit with the verse for several reasons etc.

(And he asks about it two⁸

questions,

and then concludes)

Therefore I say: let the verse be settled according to its plain meaning, the matter spoken in its proper way⁹

And the exposition shall be expounded, as it is said¹⁰

‘Behold, My words are like fire, says the Lord, and like a hammer that shatters a rock, splitting into many sparks.’”

Simply put, it looks,

that Rashi here intends to say:

(a)

that according to the plain meaning one cannot learn the midrashic interpretation,

because it does not "settle the verse" — and Rashi indeed states a principle in many places¹¹

that "I came only for the <b>plain meaning</b> of the verse,"

and he brings only an "aggadah that settles the words of the verse, each word in its proper place"¹².

On the other hand, Rashi emphasizes,

that this does not mean that the interpretation of the midrash has, God forbid, no place at all in the interpretations of the Torah,

but rather "and the homiletic interpretation shall be expounded,"

because the words of Torah are divided into different modes of study

("like a hammer that shatters a rock"),

and according to the way of <b>homiletic interpretation</b>—on the contrary, "the homiletic interpretation shall be expounded."

(b)

2.

According to this, however, it is perplexing:

a)

It is not the usual way of Rashi to bring down explanations and then to refute them,

rather he says from the outset the explanation that fits the plain meaning of the verse — and here Rashi copies the explanation of our Rabbis

(and at length),

and immediately afterwards he refutes it

(because he is <b>not</b> "settled according to the verse")?

b)

If Rashi needs to defend,

that even when one cannot accept

(in the way of plain meaning)

an explanation

(from Midrash),

it is nevertheless a true explanation in the Torah,

because words of Torah are "like a hammer that shatters a rock" — then Rashi should have defended it there where he says for the <b>first</b> time that he does not bring in his commentary Aggados that do not settle the words of the verse,

which is in Parshat Bereishit¹³?

and I have come only for the plain meaning of the verse and the aggadah that settles the words of the verse, word upon its proper meaning"

(similar to the language of Rashi here)

-then Rashi immediately &lt;b&gt;there &lt;/b&gt;should have &lt;b&gt;explained &lt;/b&gt;his words and concluded "and the midrash is to be expounded, as it is said, 'Behold, My words are like fire... divided into many sparks'"].

3.

Simply, one learns,

that Rashi brings the explanation of "our Rabbis" because,

since according to this explanation several questions that one can ask according to the first explanation are answered

(- according to the plain meaning)

On the words "And God spoke to Moses" at the beginning of the sedra,

is Rashi

explains: "He spoke with him a complaint about that he had hardened to speak and to say why have You done evil to this people"; and since that on <b>this</b> explanation Rashi does not say "and our Rabbis expounded"

(and the like),

it is proven,

that this is the <b>plain meaning</b> of the verse¹⁴.

It comes out according to this,

that according to the first explanation mentioned above in Rashi

but an introduction to "And also I have heard etc. 'Therefore say etc.'"]

- are the

(four)

words "And God spoke to Moses" a matter <b>in itself</b>,

which are a continuation of the statement "Why have You done evil" in the portion <b>before this</b>.

This is, however, very not smooth,

because

that according to this one divides the verse "Vayidaber G-d" into two: the beginning of the verse "Vayidaber Elokim el Moshe" comes as a continuation of the section &lt;b&gt;before this&lt;/b&gt;,

and from the words

(in the second half of the verse)

"Vayomer elav Ani Hashem"

(which is the beginning of the subsequent statement "Va'era Hashem")

a new matter begins - is]

Immediately after Moshe's question "Lama hare'osa Hashem" there stands an answer from the Almighty "Atah tireh Hashem"&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;

; now why should the Torah separate

(only)

&lt;b&gt;four &lt;/b&gt;words

("Vayidaber Elokim el Moshe")

from the preceding answer,

and insert them into a &lt;b&gt;separate &lt;/b&gt;section and into a separate sedra&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;?

Therefore Rashi brings the explanation of "our Rabbis,"

which according to this explanation,

the verses "And I appeared etc. and also I established etc." are a continuation of "And G-d spoke to Moses" — these are the words of rebuke that the Almighty said to Moses "for having spoken harshly to say why have You done evil."

D.

But upon careful examination, one cannot answer in this way.

Because Rashi clearly says "&lt;b&gt;And the midrash does not fit &lt;/b&gt;the plain meaning of the verse because of &lt;b&gt;several &lt;/b&gt;things".

That is,

that the difficulties in this explanation are many

(and so great),

that one cannot accept this explanation at all according to the plain meaning

(even though it answers a question

(or questions)

in the verse).

And since so,

the question returns to its place - why is Rashi at all quoting

(And at length)

the explanation of "our Rabbis",

since he does not accept it?

For even in the places where Rashi only wants to note that in Midrash there is an explanation that answers a question that exists according to the simple meaning of the verse

(but Rashi does not accept this explanation in the way of peshat)

- is the way of Rashi to say briefly "there are many Midrashei Aggadah"¹²

and the like

(as one finds

In Rashi in many places&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;)

; but he does &lt;b&gt;not &lt;/b&gt;copy the Midrash.

5.

In the conclusion

(the above from)

Rashi - "And the exposition shall be expounded, as it is said, 'Behold, My words are like fire, says the Lord, and like a hammer that shatters a rock, it splits into many sparks'" - requires explanation:

On the words "divides into several sparks" there is a dispute among commentators - what is the thing that becomes "divided":

One interpretation is¹⁸,

that this refers to the <b>rock</b>: "and like a hammer shatters a rock",

the rock is broken by the hammer

: just as a hammer - the rock is divided by it into several sparks].

A second explanation is²⁰,

that this means the <b>hammer</b>

are thus gursa here in Rashi himself - as the language of the Gemara²²

- "<b>What hammer is this</b> splits

etc.']

- here it speaks about a hard rock that breaks,

splits the hammer²³.

And a third explanation is²⁴,

that this indeed relates to the hammer,

but this does not mean that the hammer itself becomes divided into parts²⁵,

rather that through the striking of the hammer upon the rock²⁶

go out from the hammer²⁷

sparks of <b>fire</b>.

In each of the explanations there is seemingly a difficulty:

In the first explanation it is not understood

(as the question of the Ra”m)

: Since the rock becomes "divided",

then why does Rashi use the term "sparks",

which fits

(more²⁸)

for a "thing that illuminates",

and not the term - "divided into several <b>parts</b>"²⁹?

The second explanation is entirely not understandable according to the plain meaning

(in addition to the fact that the aforementioned question of the Ra”am is also present according to this explanation³⁰)

a)

It is contrary to the plain meaning to interpret “like a hammer shatters a rock” that the hammer is shattered by the rock³¹

in Rashi’s commentary,

that the words “just as this hammer

(splits etc.)

” do not appear,

then there is absolutely no place to say that Rashi,

who “demands” in every place specifically the plain meaning

(clarity)

- should in his own commentary write: a)

simply “like a hammer shatters a rock

divides into several sparks” and b)

mean the

(opposite of the plain sense,

the rock,

only the)

<b>hammer</b>].

b)

Rashi should have interpreted that here it speaks about a hard rock through which the hammer is shattered³³

(not like an <b>ordinary</b> rock,

which,

on the contrary,

the hammer shatters it).

Also the third explanation is not understood,

because

that according to the &lt;b&gt;simple meaning &lt;/b&gt;one cannot explain that „

(like a hammer)

shatters

(a rock)

” refers to the rock*&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;,

is]

: the plain meaning of the language „divides into several sparks” is,

that the &lt;b&gt;thing &lt;/b&gt;becomes divided&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;

(and not that from it go out in a manner of „divides” - sparks)&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;.

From all this one comes to the greatest wonder in all this: since Rashi wrote his explanation in a clear style,

that should be understandable

(even)

for a child of five years of age studying Scripture - why does he write in our matter the subject in such a cryptic manner that gives room for a give-and-take and several explanations of Rashi's intention?

The difficulty becomes even stronger: from the fact that in his commentary on the Talmud

Rashi clearly explains his interpretation in this statement of the Sages

(that this means "the coin is divided"

as above)

- then all the more so that he should have done so in his commentary on the Torah!

6.

Another precision in this language of Rashi mentioned above:

When Rashi brings the verse "And like a hammer that shatters a rock" he also quotes the beginning of the verse — "Is not My word like fire, says the Lord."

It is not understood: what are relevant &lt;b&gt;these &lt;/b&gt;

(beginning)

words to the matter that Rashi wants to bring out

(that in one verse there can be multiple interpretations)?

Prima facie, to this matter only the

(parable of)

end of the verse "And like a hammer that shatters a rock"&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;.

The difficulty in this is even greater: this very matter

so one matter in Torah is divided into several parts]

is brought in Tractate Shabbat&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;

- In tractate Shabbos we learn from this that "every utterance that came out of the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, was divided into seventy languages",

and in Tractate Sanhedrin&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;

and in tractate Sanhedrin,

that "one verse goes out to several interpretations" -

and in both places the beginning of the verse is indeed <b>not</b> brought

("Behold, are not My words like fire, says the Lord"),

but only the words "like a hammer that shatters a rock"⁴⁰.

and tractate Kiddushin&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;

the maamar "If a vile one encounters you, drag him to the study hall ..

If &lt;b&gt;iron &lt;/b&gt;he is &lt;b&gt;it shatters &lt;/b&gt;as it is written, 'Behold, My words are like fire, says the Lord, and like a hammer that shatters rock.'"

But there it is understandable why the Gemara also brings the beginning of the verse&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;,

because the reason why "drag him to the study hall" is effective so that "if iron he is it shatters" is

(&lt;b&gt;according to Rashi's commentary&lt;/b&gt;

there)

"<b>that the Torah</b>⁴⁴

is likened to fire that penetrates iron",

and consequently it is there relevant and necessary to know that words of Torah are compared to fire - "Behold, My word is like fire".

But in our case, seemingly, the beginning of the verse is not at all relevant].

7.

The aforementioned questions

(section 5-6)

become even greater,

when one compares <b>this </b>Rashi commentary with his <b>previous </b>commentary,

in Parshat Vayishlach⁴⁵

On the verse "And he called him El Elohei Yisrael" Rashi gives two explanations — one according to the plain meaning and another explanation which "our Rabbis expounded" — and concludes: And the words of Torah are like a hammer that shatters a rock, dividing into many interpretations, and I have come to settle the plain meaning of the verse.

Here Rashi is precise to say the matter in a clear and simple manner:

He concludes "&lt;b&gt;divided &lt;/b&gt;into several &lt;b&gt;reasons&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;46&lt;/sup&gt;,

which refers to "&lt;b&gt;words of Torah&lt;/b&gt;" - and from this,

that the interpretation in the &lt;b&gt;parable &lt;/b&gt;"like a hammer shatters a rock" is &lt;b&gt;according to the plain meaning &lt;/b&gt;of the language

(and consequently Rashi does not need to interpret it),

that the hammer breaks the rock into several pieces.

(b)

Rashi does not bring the beginning of the verse "Is not My word like fire, says the Lord",

but only the words "like a hammer shatters a rock".

It becomes even more perplexing in Rashi in our parshah - why does Rashi &lt;b&gt;change &lt;/b&gt;from his commentary in Parshas Vayishlach,

and:

(a)

(a)

says

"&lt;b&gt;Divided &lt;/b&gt;into several &lt;b&gt;sparks&lt;/b&gt;"

(D.

E.

Rashi continues to speak in the &lt;b&gt;parable&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;47&lt;/sup&gt;),

and therefore it does not become clear,

&lt;b&gt;What &lt;/b&gt;is the thing that is divided.

(B)

Adds the beginning of the verse "Is not My word like fire, says the Lord."

Ch.

The explanation of this is,

that one change accounts for the other:

through the two changes in his commentary here regarding his commentary in Parshat Vayishlach -

(a)

adding the beginning of the verse "Behold My words are like &lt;b&gt;fire&lt;/b&gt;",

and

(b)

emphasizing "divides into several &lt;b&gt;sparks&lt;/b&gt;" - Rashi makes his intention clear,

that the "divides"

(in Rashi's commentary &lt;b&gt;this&lt;/b&gt;)

refers to the word "&lt;b&gt;fire&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;

that is at the beginning of the verse,

which

(- and in the plain sense especially,

it is simple that)

only fire

(and not hammer and rock)

is divided into

(several)

sparks.

And the explanation is,

as the &lt;b&gt;plain&lt;/b&gt; meaning of Rashi's wording: "Behold My words are like fire

says the Lord and like a hammer

(- and compared to a hammer which)

shatters a rock

(which we are speaking about &lt;b&gt;here&lt;/b&gt; - words of Torah)]

divides into several &lt;b&gt;sparks&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;49&lt;/sup&gt;.

And the reason why Rashi here deviates from his commentary in Parshat Vayishlach

(where he uses the parable of "like a hammer that shatters a rock" by itself,

as above)

- is because <b>here</b> there is a <b>novelty</b> in the manner of the connection and relationship between "its midrash" and "its plain meaning",

for which the fitting example is specifically from the division of <b>the fire</b> into several sparks,

as follows.

9.

The plain meaning of that which Rashi says "

(therefore I say the verse will be settled according to its plain meaning etc.)

<b>and the midrash shall be expounded</b>",

is not as one learns superficially,

that Rashi comes to let it be heard that the midrash is a true matter in the Torah

(- according to the way of midrash)

- for what does this come to teach us?

! - Rather the plain meaning of this is: "<b>the plain meaning</b>" of this verse <b>demands</b> that it should be "and the midrash shall be expounded".

That is - in the manner that Rashi says in several places&lt;sup&gt;50&lt;/sup&gt;

that "this &lt;b&gt;verse &lt;/b&gt;does not &lt;b&gt;say &lt;/b&gt;anything but 'explain me'" - only with a fundamental difference: in those places,

one cannot according to the simple meaning at all resolve

(the words of)

the verse,

and consequently - "&lt;b&gt;this verse &lt;/b&gt;does not &lt;b&gt;say &lt;/b&gt;anything but &lt;b&gt;explain me&lt;/b&gt;": the

(main&lt;sup&gt;51&lt;/sup&gt;)

interpretation of the verse is according to the homiletical interpretation.

In our verse, however, Rashi presents a new manner in the interpretation of the verse

(which one had not had until now),

that even though the verse &lt;b&gt;has &lt;/b&gt;an interpretation according to the simple meaning,

and moreover - that interpretation is the primary

(first)

interpretation,

since specifically it resolves "the verse spoken in its proper manner",

nevertheless "he says",

Rather, the plain meaning itself,

that "והדרשה תדרש" - one must arrive at the derash.

That is,

that the &lt;b&gt;plain meaning itself &lt;/b&gt;compels that the verse contains within itself both the simple explanation and the explanation of "והדרשה

(תדרש)

And for this reason Rashi cites the midrash - even though "the midrash does not settle according to the text" - because in this case,

"remains" Rashi &lt;b&gt;at the conclusion &lt;/b&gt;

(also)

with the midrash,

and as above - "והדרשה תדרש".

Yud.

The explanation in this:

In the other places where Rashi says "there are many Aggadic midrashim" and the like — with which Rashi means to indicate

(as above section 3)

that according to the plain meaning of the verse a difficulty remains which is resolved according to the midrash and homiletic interpretation — is besides the difficulty

(in the language of the verse)

there is no proof and necessity from the verse for this midrash;

And since this is a midrash that is <b>entirely not</b> settling "the words of the verse, the word spoken in its proper context"

Rashi does not accept this midrash as the plain meaning of the verse.

But in our case,

is

(as above there),

is]

the content of the explanation of the midrash a matter that is necessary <b>without that</b>

(in its own right)

according to the <b>content</b> of the verses:

When a five-year-old for Scripture learns the saying of Moshe "Why have You done evil,"

and that the Almighty for that to him

said words of judgment - and he also remembers what he learned about the Patriarchs,

that although they had many troubles, nevertheless they did not have any complaints to the Almighty etc. - it occurs to him simply,

that the Almighty surely said to Moshe

(the content of)

"Alas for the lost and not found etc."

And on the contrary: if the Above would not have said this to Moshe - this would have aroused by the one who is five years old for Scripture a great question: how is it that the Above should not say it?

And therefore,

after Rashi explains how the explanation of our Rabbis is not "settled according to the verse"

(and the plain sense of the verse must be interpreted like the first explanation)

- it remains still difficult: since the subject compels

(also according to the plain sense of the verses)

- that the Above said these words of judgment

(woe for the lost ones etc.),

why do they not stand in the verse?

True indeed that not all of the words of Hashem to Moshe are explicit and detailed in the Torah

(the Written [Torah])

- but here the verse says "And Elokim spoke to Moshe,

He spoke with him judgment",

and furthermore the verse conveys several matters and details that the Almighty had then said to Moshe; and moreover: in Parshat Shemot⁵²

it is told that upon Moshe's saying "Why have You done evil" the Almighty answered "Now you will see etc'",

which this is a matter of words of judgment,

as Rashi explains there - so why should the verse not convey

also the words of judgment⁵³

And especially since this is the strongest argument

(also according to the simple meaning).

Therefore Rashi continues „

(Therefore I say the verse will be settled etc.)

<b>And the exposition is to be expounded</b>”: since one finds a compulsion in the content of the verses and an indication in the language of the verses

(at least according to the exposition)

upon <b>the </b>words of judgment

(Woe for the lost ones etc')?

(Woe for the lost ones etc.)

-this itself compels that „And the exposition is to be expounded”: the <b>plain meaning </b>

(of the narrative)

says that one should

(<b>also</b>)

expound the verses.

That is: according to the <b>plain meaning </b>of Scripture the verse here relates about <b>two </b>speeches of the Most High to Moses⁵⁴

: a)

The speeches that stand explicitly in the verse,

according to the plain sense of the language of Scripture.

b)

The words of judgment which are hinted at in the same words

(according to the way of exposition).

11.

Since Rashi says here a new manner in the explanation of the verse

- everywhere it is clear to which part of the Torah the explanation belongs: the

Interpretations according to the plain meaning

(Including the aggados that reconcile the words of the verse, the word spoken in its proper context,

which are a part of the plain meaning of the verse)

are in the section of plain meaning in the Torah,

and the interpretations according to the homiletic method — in

(Aggadic midrashim)

the section of homiletic interpretation in the Torah;

Here, however, is an interpretation that "I harnessed my chariots"⁵⁵

: An interpretation that is necessary from the perspective of the <b>plain meaning</b> of the verse; but where is its place —

(Not in the plain meaning of the verse,

but)

in the section of <b>homiletic interpretation</b> in it

(Which is <b>not</b> "reconciled with the verse")

must therefore Rashi bring a proof in such a manner in the plain meaning of the verse - "as it is said 'Behold, are not My words like fire, says the Lord, and like a hammer that shatters a rock' it splits into many sparks",

which means

(as above section 8),

that the <b>fire</b> itself "splits into many sparks":

The difference <b>in plain meaning</b> between the manner in which a rock is shattered into several parts and how fire itself splits into many sparks:

When a rock is split into many pieces,

each piece is <b>different</b> from the other — in its size,

in its shape

(form)

etc.;

But the sparks that come out of a fire,

one sees them

(the sparks)

all <b>equal</b>,

both in quantity and in quality.

One sees no difference between one spark and the other; the only thing that distinguishes them is,

that each spark flies in a different direction and place: this one goes to the west,

and that one — to the south etc.

And likewise is the difference regarding matters of Torah:

There is the manner that Rashi says in Parshat Vayishlach — "And words of Torah are like a hammer that shatters a rock, they are divided into several <b>meanings</b>"⁵⁶

— which is like words of Torah become divided into different modes of study; and this is analogous to "like a hammer that shatters a rock" which is not only a change in place,

but also a change in <b>content</b> and "meaning": one interpretation has a "meaning" of peshat,

the second — a "meaning" of derash etc.,

that with "him" is meant the altar

("he called the name of the altar after the miracle"),

is a matter of peshat; and the second explanation,

"that the Holy One, blessed be He, called Yaakov El",

has a "reason" of derash].

But here in our parshah Rashi says a new innovation regarding "

(25)

my words",

that this is like the division of fire into several sparks: both explanations have the &lt;b&gt;same&lt;/b&gt; "reason" - a content

(and necessity)

of the way of &lt;b&gt;peshat&lt;/b&gt;

the difference is &lt;b&gt;only&lt;/b&gt; in &lt;b&gt;place&lt;/b&gt;: one explanation

("spark" of peshat)

is found in one place - in

the simple meaning of the verses,

and the second interpretation

("spark" of "the discourse")

is found in a second place - in the midrash of the verse.

12.

from all the above one sees with greater strength and intensity how the entire Torah is a Torah <b>one</b>:

The content of "Torah one" is not only that the various modes of study are said in the same verse and statement

(and moreover - they are descended one from the other - as known⁵⁷

that the four modes of study - PaRDe"S - are corresponding to the four worlds ABY"A,

which are descended one from the other),

that therefore all parts of the Torah must correspond one to the other,

and not only that all parts of the Torah together constitute one "complete structure"

(in the manner of all limbs of a human,

both limbs of his body and limbs of his soul,

together constitute one

(whole)

"human"⁵⁸),

Only even more: also how every part of Torah is in its designated "place"

- because every

part in Torah has its rules of study]

- is because of that which it is a part of the Torah of God which is "

(the matter of)

<b>fire</b>" - above division

(like the simplicity of fire)

- it remains

(in its essence and its truth)

one thing with all other parts of the Torah,

until that a matter which is necessary in the plain sense of the verse can be placed into the part of homiletic interpretation.

13.

From this there is also a directive regarding the inner dimension of the Torah

(the soul of the Torah⁶⁰),

that one must know that it is one thing with the revealed aspect of the Torah

(the body of the Torah⁶⁰),

until as we see in several places,

that "in the matter of the revealed aspect it says <b>but </b>explain it in the inner dimension of the Torah" - the revealed aspect of the Torah itself compels⁶¹

an interpretation of the soul of the Torah⁶²,

And in particular - the general concept of the revealed aspect of Torah from the Divine attributes "His feet,"

"finger" etc.⁶³

And likewise to the opposite side - and simply, as we find in many of the writings of the AriZal explanations and topics according to the simple meaning.

And through this that one will learn <b>all </b>the parts of the Torah in a manner of one Torah,

one will very quickly merit the study⁶⁴

of the Torah of Moshiach⁶⁵,

who will teach Torah to the entire nation⁶⁶,

and speedily in our days, literally.

Shabbos Parshas Bo and Tu B'Shvat 5741)