English translation — יתרו ב

A.

On the verse¹

"And Israel encamped there opposite the mountain" it says in the Mechilta²

: "Everywhere else it says 'they traveled' and 'they encamped' traveling in dissension and encamping in dissension, but here they were of one heart."

This teaching is also brought in Rashi's commentary on the Torah²,

In Rashi, however, it appears in a reversed order³

: "And Israel encamped there — as one person with one heart,

but all the other encampments were with complaints and dissension."

— from the Mechilta it comes out,

that the novelty is in

(<b>the </b>encampment — in)

that which “<b>here </b>they were compared as one heart”,

not in a manner of “traveling in dispute and encamping in dispute” as by all other encampments<sup>4</sup>

; but from Rashi it is understood,

that the novelty is,

on the contrary,

in that which “

(but)

all the other encampments were in complaint and in dispute”.

One must understand: in what does the reasoning of the difference between the Mechilta and Rashi consist?

2.

Simply, the difference is connected with a change between Rashi and the Mechilta in the manner of learning the verse

(as already discussed once⁵)

The Mechilta learns out the matter,

that "every place ..

they traveled in dispute and camped in dispute" from that which it says "they traveled and they camped"

(plural).

And therefore the novelty consists in the )

<b>change</b>)

that <b>here</b> it says "he camped" — singular — "here they were equal as one heart";

However, Rashi does not bring the words "they traveled and they encamped",

because the reason that it is written in the plural language can be — &lt;b&gt;simply &lt;/b&gt;— because it speaks about several people,

tribes etc.; but Rashi derives the matter from that which the verse is precise and emphasizes here itself: "and he encamped &lt;b&gt;there &lt;/b&gt;Israel"

— at first glance,

the word "there" is a superfluous language,

it could have stood "they encamped in the desert and Israel encamped opposite the mountain" —

It is proven from this,

that specifically "camping" — at <b>the </b>encampment — was

("And he encamped",

singular form)

"as one person with one heart,

but all the other encampments were with complaints and with dispute."

But according to this, one must understand the reasoning of the Mechilta: from where would it occur to derive from the phrase "they traveled and they encamped" that "they travel in dispute and they encamp in dispute"?

Also it is not understandable: the Mechilta itself says on the verse⁶

"And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth" — "In the blink of an eye the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth to fulfill what is said⁷

And I will carry you on the wings of

eagles etc." — which certainly in a journey in a manner of "in the blink of an eye" there could not have been any matter of dispute etc. — now how does it happen that there it says the expression "vayisu" — plural — which according to the Mechilta indicates that "they traveled in dispute"⁸?

And on the other hand — it is also not understood in Rashi's commentary: why does the verse &lt;b&gt;add&lt;/b&gt; the word "there"&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;

in order to negate,

that "all the other encampments were with complaints and quarrels" — what is the practical difference &lt;b&gt;here&lt;/b&gt;,

in the section about the Giving of the Torah,

to indicate the disgrace of Israel at "&lt;b&gt;all the other&lt;/b&gt; encampments"?

3.

The point of the explanation in this:

Rashi's commentary is indeed according to the plain meaning.

And consequently,

When Rashi says "all the encampments were with complaints and quarrels" he means the matter of complaints and quarrels in the <b>plain</b> sense — fighting.

And regarding this, from the wording "they traveled and they encamped" there is no necessity and even no implication that "

(rest)

all the encampments were with complaints and quarrels",

because in the plural wording there is simply no indication of fighting among Jews,

as above.

Specifically from this that the verse here is precise "and Israel encamped <b>there</b> opposite the mountain" one learns a <b>novelty</b>,

that specifically at <b>that</b> encampment the Jews were "as one man

With one heart,

but all the other encampments in grievance and in dispute”,

as above.

But not so according to the Mechilta,

is the explanation of “dispute”

(not in the sense of quarreling,

opposite of peace,

rather — opposite of “one heart”)

— differences of <b>opinions</b>¹⁰

: since “their opinions are not equal”¹¹,

is when many need to do a matter,

<b>must </b>

(according to nature)

arise <b>different </b>opinions as to how to do this and the like.

And therefore it says by all journeys and encampments — "they journeyed and they encamped" — plural language — because at every journey and encampment there were differences of opinion among Jews.

that the 42 journeys in the desert allude to 42 levels and ascents in the service of G-d — there are in this differences between each Jew and all others,

by each one the ascent is

(and "journey")

according to <b>his </b>level in the service of G-d,

according to <b>his</b>: your heart,

your soul,

your might].

Only <b>here</b>,

at the encampment of the Giving of the Torah,

there was <b>a wonder</b>— "And Israel encamped there opposite the mountain ..

they were unified with one heart": standing "opposite the mountain" — for the receiving of the Torah — "they were unified with one heart"; one and the same heart

(even not — "hearts"),

because Torah,

which brings about peace

in completeness¹³,

effected a <b>complete unity</b> among Jews,

until their differences of opinion were nullified.

And with this it is understood why by the journey from Raamses to Sukkos it says "and they journeyed"

(in the plural)

— because even though that the journey

(which was "in the blink of an eye")

was in a manner of "all of them as one",

nevertheless one cannot say about it singular language,

that among them there were no differences of opinion

(from the aspect of their intellect and knowledge)

— a thing which was accomplished specifically through Torah

(opposite the mountain),

"they were all equal as one heart",

as above.

And for this reason it says in the verse "and he encamped there Israel",

which emphasizes that by the other encampments there was not a state of "one heart" — because in this consists the accomplishment of Torah¹⁴.

And Rashi says further,

that Torah brings about unity even in a place where there exists

(not only differences of opinion,

but)

grievances and strife

(a kind of grievances)

literally — "And he encamped &lt;b&gt;there &lt;/b&gt;Israel,

but all the other encampments were with grievances and strife."

4.

To understand more clearly the superiority of Torah,

that specifically it brings about the quality of "they became of one heart" —

At first glance: also in Torah one finds the matter of multiplicity of opinions¹⁵,

until that

Chazal¹⁶

say that "the words of Torah were not given as cut-and-dried, but rather every thing etc. forty-nine faces pure and forty-nine faces impure" — Torah obligates differing opinions,

but they are all "

(these and those)

words of the living God"¹⁷

— so how does one say that from the Torah's perspective the differences of opinion become nullified until that "they become one heart"?

And even though the halacha is only like one opinion,

and after the halacha has been decided, everyone must conduct themselves according to &lt;b&gt;that &lt;/b&gt;opinion,

it means, however, not,

at first glance,

that thereby the differences of opinion become nullified,

it is only that in &lt;b&gt;actual deed &lt;/b&gt;everyone conducts themselves equally,

but from the perspective of the intellect, one remains in dispute with the other —

Now how does one say that from the perspective of Torah, "they made &lt;b&gt;one heart&lt;/b&gt; equal",

which means,

that not only does a unity come about in action,

but that the unity is also from the perspective of the &lt;b&gt;heart &lt;/b&gt;

(and feeling)

of man?

one must first preface what the verse emphasizes,

that the "ויחן שם ישראל נגד ההר" — ויחן in the singular — occurred "in the third month of the children of Israel's going out of the land of Egypt"¹⁸,

from which it is understood,

that the "ויחן" is connected with the quality of

(number)

third

say and emphasize

Regarding Torah in general: "Blessed is the Merciful One who gave a threefold Torah to a threefold people through a third [day] on the third day in the third month" — that which the Torah was given specifically "in the third month,"

is because Torah is connected with the number three].

And superficially, the matter of "and he encamped" to <b>singular</b> — "as one person with one heart" — is connected with "<b>one</b>" — the first month,

which indicates unity,

in the manner that one finds regarding the six days of creation,

that the first day is called "day <b>one</b>...

the Holy One, blessed be He, <b>singular</b> in His world"²⁰

; what connection does unity

(of "and he encamped")

have to the <b>third</b> month — a number that consists of multiplicity and division²¹?

5.

So the explanation in this is:

The difference in the hint of the content between the numbers "one",

"two" and "three" is²²

"Echad" emphasizes that there is &lt;b&gt;from the outset&lt;/b&gt; only &lt;b&gt;one&lt;/b&gt; thing,

and as the language of Chazal above, "HaKadosh Baruch Hu is &lt;b&gt;unique&lt;/b&gt; in His world";

"Shnei" indicates division,

the opposite of unity&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;

And the function of “the third” is — that it unifies the “two”²⁴,

and as per the statement of our sages of blessed memory²⁵

“Two verses that contradict each other until the third verse comes and decides between them.”

In this rule a thing and its opposite is emphasized: on one hand the Torah of truth testifies that these are not merely different verses

(as per the differences of opinion mentioned above)

rather they are “verses that contradict each other”

(complaints and dispute),

that is: it is not merely a difference or a superficial contradiction of one verse upon the other,

and if one will toil in the two verses themselves one will mediate between them,

rather one must arrive at a third verse,

were it not for the third verse they would truly contradict each other²⁶

But on the other hand,

the function of the “third verse” is that it “decides between them”,

which true “decision” means

(not that it rules like one and negates the other,

rather)

that both verses

(which are

(in themselves)

contradicting each other)

“agree” together according to the decision of the “third verse”²⁷.

And this is the matter of "the halacha is like the words of

the decider"²⁸,

and the reason for this is²⁹,

because the decision of the third opinion is

(not by virtue of it being "in agreement with one of the two opinions",

but through the fact that its reasoning is)

"including the two opinions and both agree with the opinion of the decider"³⁰.

6.

Since Chazal connect,

as above,

Torah in general with the number of "third",

it is understood from this,

that <b>the generality</b> of the matter of Torah is analogous to the matter of the third that decides.

That is: even in the places where the halachic ruling of Torah is

(openly)

not in a manner of decision,

but in a manner that it negates the reasoning of the second opinion³¹,

it is nevertheless in truth and inwardly³²

a matter of "decision" — because after the halacha has been decided,

the dissenting opinions agree to the halacha not only regarding actual practice,

but also in their intellect the halacha is reflected,

so that there becomes a true peace among all

Opinions³³.

This is the power of Torah — "Hashem gives strength to His people, Hashem will bless His people with <b>peace</b>"³⁴

: first there is the give-and-take in the subject in Torah,

reasonings on one side and reasonings on the other side; but when one comes to the decision and determination of Torah like one of the reasonings — for which one needs to have the matter of "<b>strength</b>",

the force of the decision³⁵

to wage war with the various tendencies in the give-and-take and to decide like one way — then comes "<b>peace</b>",

that all opinions then agree to the halachah,

with their <b>entire</b> existence,

until it becomes a true peace between them.

With this the story of Chazal is sweetened&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;,

that when according to R. Yehoshua's calculation of the fixed calendar Yom Kippur should have been fixed not on the day that R. Gamliel had fixed,

R"G ordered R. Yehoshua to come to him with his staff and his money&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;

"on Yom Kippur that falls according to your calculation" — and R. Yehoshua did so in practice.

The dispute is not smooth: in order that R. Yehoshua should demonstrate that he acts like Rabban Gamliel,

it would have been sufficient if R. Yehoshua would

(on the day that falls as Yom Kippur according to his calculation)

simply gone from his place of residence to Yavneh

(which was more than a techum&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;)

— why did he still need to come with his staff

(and also)

with his money?

One of the explanations in this is&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;

: with this it had to be demonstrated,

that his opinion as the view of Rabban Gamliel is not merely with acceptance of the yoke

(but in his intellect he holds

differently),

but his entire being

(also in his intellect)

he admitted to him&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;.

Although that previously it was concluded by him according to the intellect of the Torah&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;

that Yom Kippur must be not on the day which Rabban Gamliel had fixed,

but after that when he heard that the halacha is like Rabban Gamliel,

this was laid down by him also in his understanding and comprehension&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;.

And the aspect thereof is — that he came also with his staff and with his money: in this one sees,

that the halachic ruling had taken over his <b>entire</b> existence,

with all its details,

until even completely external things

(which are outside of the person)

; and not only "his staff",

which is at least a thing that helps in the walking of the person⁴³,

but even his money which is entirely outside of the person — also this "went along" with Rabbi Yehoshua to Yavneh.

7.

The explanation in this:

Even though the Torah is a matter of wisdom and intellect — "for it is your wisdom and your understanding"⁴⁴

— there is, however, a special quality in the Torah that wisdom as wisdom does not have,

and in the language of our Sages⁴⁵

"There is wisdom among the nations, believe [it] ..

there is Torah among the nations, do not believe [it]".

Which superficially is not understood: since "there is wisdom among the nations",

it means, then,

that the quality of Torah

is <b>not</b> in the matter of wisdom — that is, what does the verse mean that the Torah is "your wisdom and your understanding in the eyes of the nations"?

But the plain meaning of this is: from the aspect of the quality of <b>Torah</b>

(which is <b>not</b> among the nations)

(which is absent among gentiles)

there is an elevation also in the <b>wisdom</b> that is in Torah

(which wisdom does not have from itself⁴⁶),

and therefore Torah is "your wisdom

(<b>your</b> special wisdom)

and your understanding in the eyes of the nations."

The advantage of Torah over wisdom is: Torah is from the term <b>instruction</b>⁴⁷.

Torah

(— Torah of truth)

does not merely explain the truth of every thing,

but Torah also brings out the "therefore" and the conclusion and instruction <b>for practice</b>,

that the person must conduct himself in a specific manner.

Not so wisdom does not give any instructions to the person.

Wisdom only teaches a person that if he will conduct himself in a certain manner, the results will be such and such,

she <b>does not tell</b> him, however, how to conduct himself.

the results will be such and such; but it is not

Obliges the person to conduct himself thus — if he wants he can be a self-injurer; but not so Torah gives a directive,

that one &lt;b&gt;must &lt;/b&gt;not be a self-injurer&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;].

And from this reason Torah is "your wisdom and your understanding in the eyes of the nations",

because when learning a subject and knowing at the time of action that from the give-and-take must come forth a &lt;b&gt;directive &lt;/b&gt;and ruling of law &lt;b&gt;for practice&lt;/b&gt;,

one delves into it with a &lt;b&gt;great exertion&lt;/b&gt;,

and specifically then one stands on the truth of the matter&lt;sup&gt;49&lt;/sup&gt;.

is the "wisdom" of Torah

(which is a "wisdom" for which the "directive" is a part of its existence&lt;sup&gt;50&lt;/sup&gt;)

connected with a completely different depth than wisdom plain.

8.

The reason for the above difference between Torah and wisdom is that Torah is the wisdom and will of the Holy One, blessed be He, which is true in its essence.

And the attribute of truth is its nature that it "extends from one end to the other"⁵¹

— it must be "consistent" everywhere,

in <b>all</b> levels.

And therefore,

And therefore,

when Torah reveals the truth of a matter,

it cannot remain limited to human intellect — that he understands that the matter is so,

but in actual deed he conducts himself in a different manner — rather it takes

him through entirely,

until into deed

(And on the contrary,

the deed is the main thing⁵²).

from this reason⁵³

there are also differences in the way one comes to the wisdom of Torah,

regarding other wisdoms.

and among them as the saying of our sages⁵⁴

that the reason why they established the halacha like Beit Hillel and not like Beit Shammai

(although that Beit Shammai "were sharper"⁵⁵)

is "because they were pleasant and humble."

And at first glance: the matter of establishing halacha is related to that which is sharper and a greater intellect who can thereby understand the halacha better and deeper — should the halacha have been like Beit Shammai who "were sharper"?

But the point in this:

In order to reach the true truth of Torah — which is the matter of <b>halacha</b>⁵⁶

— the matter of intellect alone is not sufficient.

Because intellect has within it inclinations of chesed and gevurah etc.

that that which Beis Hillel are generally lenient and Beis Shammai — stringent,

is because Beis Hillel is from chesed and Beis Shammai — from gevurah].

And therefore,

although the nature of intellect is to seek and understand the truth of a thing — for which a person can "strip himself" of his inclinations and understand <b>differently</b> than what is required by the line to which he is inclined by his natural disposition⁵⁸

: my lenient [ruling] in the name of Shammai and my stringent [ruling] in the name of Hillel]

— nevertheless,

the intellect remains in its form,

and consequently it cannot always "grasp" the "true truth"⁶⁰

of the intellectual concept

(as <b>it</b> is).

When one has the matter of <b>self-nullification</b>,

through which one goes out of one's own existence and inclinations,

the give-and-take of human intellect can attain the true truth.

And therefore the halacha — that the matter "true to its truth"⁵⁶

— was established like Beit Hillel "because they were pleasant and humble",

The matter of nullification.

9.

The above matter is also hinted at in that the beginning of the Shas is with the Mishnah "From when does one recite the Shema",

and the conclusion of the Shas — with the statement "Whoever studies halachot every day etc.":

The conclusion of the Shas is with the matter of the study of halachos,

because the purpose of the give-and-take of Torah is — to bring the discussion to a conclusion in accordance with the halacha⁶¹,

to reach the conclusion and the halacha in practice,

because specifically in this is expressed in revelation the true truth of Torah.

And in order that the give-and-take of Torah should bring this "conclusion"

(of "Whoever studies <b>halachos</b>"),

one must have the introduction and beginning of Kriyas Shema,

whose subject is — acceptance of the <b>yoke </b>of the kingdom of heaven⁶².

Because through the awe and self-nullification to the supernal will

(from the aspect of acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven)

— also his study is with self-nullification and acceptance of the yoke:

He knows that it depends on him whether the Jew who will conduct himself according to his ruling will do according to the Will of the Above or, G-d forbid, the opposite,

so that from this he stands in a fear and dread to direct himself to the Will of the Above&lt;sup&gt;63&lt;/sup&gt;

— and through the fact that the person nullifies his selfhood, his intellect becomes a vessel for the true truth of Torah,

and directs himself to the halachah.

10.

According to this one will also understand why Torah brings about a true peace between the disputants,

until they all agree

(also in their intellect)

to the ruling:

When it speaks about differences of opinion in a matter that is taken only with intellect alone — the differences of opinion remain.

Because in the world of intellect there are inclinations to here and to there,

so,

that both opinions have a place.

— also "wisdom"

(which "there is among the nations")

understands,

that in actual deed there must be one manner of conduct

(because one cannot allow a situation of "each&lt;sup&gt;64&lt;/sup&gt;

the upright in his eyes he shall do"),

and consequently when there are different opinions in a matter,

one decides according to the majority of opinions and all — also

The minority — must conduct themselves thus⁶⁵

This is however only a recourse regarding in practice — that the minority yields on their opinion and do as the majority; in their intellect and opinion however they do not change their view;

Different, however, regarding a ruling of <b>Torah</b>

(instruction),

which reveals the true truth of the matter: because this is the true truth,

which is "drives from one extreme to the other"

(as above),

it is "maintained" in all levels.

It makes no difference whether the intellect is according to the line of kindness or according to the line of severity etc. — everywhere it is reflected as the true truth.

And therefore,

when one studies Torah permeated with self-nullification and acceptance of the yoke,

which makes him a vessel for the true truth of Torah — then when he hears that the halacha is

(according to the rules of Torah)

not like his reasoning,

but like the opinion that disputes him,

then due to his self-nullification to the supernal will he immerses himself in the matter with a new depth and toil until that also in his intellect the matter is reflected in accordance⁶⁶

with the halachic ruling⁶⁷.

11.

This is also the explanation in the difference between the three months — Nissan,

Iyar and Sivan⁶⁸

Nissan — the first month

(one)

is the month of the Exodus from Egypt,

which came in a manner of "He revealed Himself over them from the highest heavens, the Holy One blessed be He, and redeemed them"⁶⁹

— entirely from above; and since the redemption came

(not so from the side of the Jews,

but)

from the side of the <b>Upper One</b>,

therefore in this there was from the outset no differences of levels among Jews — the Exodus from Egypt encompassed all of Israel as one.

And the concept of one-oneness regarding the Exodus from Egypt expressed itself both regarding the manner of the Exodus itself and regarding the state and level of the Jews at the time of the Exodus:

(a)

Both the gathering together of all the Jews from the entire land of Egypt to Rameses and their first journey — the actual <b>Exodus</b> from Egypt — from Rameses to Sukkot,

was in a manner of “<b>And I bore</b> you on eagles’ wings”⁷⁰,

and consequently this manifested in a point of time beyond division — “in the blink of an eye”⁷¹

(“for a brief moment”⁷²).

(b)

The description of the Jews at the time of their exodus from Egypt is — “&lt;b&gt;Hosts&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;73&lt;/sup&gt;

&lt;b&gt;G‑d&lt;/b&gt;”&lt;sup&gt;74&lt;/sup&gt;.

The main thing

(and foundation)

of an army is — acceptance of the yoke,

in which there is no differentiation between one soldier and another: differentiation applies in intellect and emotions,

where each one understands and feels differently from another; but in acceptance of the yoke all are equal.

And since the Exodus from Egypt came from Above and in a manner that encompassed all Jews equally,

therefore at the Exodus the division of Jews was not heard

(twelve tribes; Kohanim, Levites, Israelites.

and the like)

— rather the matter that unites them: acceptance of the yoke,

the hosts of the Lord.

the unity is only regarding

(the matter of acceptance of the yoke which is connected with)

the action,

but Jews in their essence

(in intellect and emotions etc.)

remained in a state of division⁷⁵

(It is only that in this state of "He revealed Himself to them etc." the differences were not "revealed",

not seen),

and therefore it says there "and they journeyed" in the plural,

as above sec. 3].

Month of Iyar — the second month — is the month of Sefirah⁷⁶

(Sefiras HaOmer),

which indicates the service of Jews by their own power.

And in this Jews are a "rabbim" — they divide themselves in a revealed manner into various levels,

each one according to his matter,

as above.

And afterwards comes the month of Sivan — the third month — the month of Matan Torah,

which Torah unites all Jews in a manner of "lev echad" — that not looking at the differences of opinions of Jews and even complaints and disputes⁷⁷,

Torah makes "shalom" among all these conflicting opinions,

until it becomes "hushvu lev echad" — a true peace.

12.

One of the instructions from all the above:

The Alter Rebbe explains in Tanya⁷⁸,

that the matter of love of Israel must be "for every soul of Israel from great to small",

because "from the root of their souls in the One God" are "all of them compatible and one father to all of them".

Can one indeed ask: Granted, when he would have to do with the <b>root</b> of the soul of the other Jew,

one can demand of him that he should have a love for him,

love of brothers literally; but when it speaks about such another Jew,

that not only is his root of the soul not illuminated in him in revelation,

but he is in such a state,

that the materiality of his body completely conceals even the <b>light</b> of the soul — how does one demand of him to have a love for that one in the state that he is now?

On this is the instruction of "And he encamped <b>there</b> Israel opposite the mountain" — "But all other encampments were with complaints and with quarreling": the effect of the giving of the Torah is,

that one has the power

To continue the matter of unity in the place of division and separation,

through which is revealed only a <b>higher</b> unity than the unity of Jews "from the root of their souls in the One G‑d"

(where Jews are from the outset one thing),

in the manner of the advantage of "third" over "one".

And consequently it is <b>on the contrary</b>: the effort in the matter of unity and love of Israel must be <b>first and foremost</b>⁷⁹

with the Jews who find themselves in a lowly state and condition,

who find themselves in the place of division and separation most — and specifically <b>there</b>

("there"⁸⁰)

to continue the matter of unity,

until one becomes "as one person with one heart".

And through the effort in love of Israel and unity of Israel — "and he encamped" [as] a single individual,

and particularly a unity that is connected with Torah

("opposite the mountain")

— to effect also through this that every Jew should have a letter in one of the general Torah scrolls,

to unite all Israel — this will be the appropriate preparation and vessel for the "new Torah from Me shall go forth"⁸¹,

the revelation of the Torah of Moshiach,

in the true and complete redemption through Moshiach our righteousness,

speedily in our days, literally.

Shabbos Parshas Miketz 5740)