English translation — יתרו ג

A.

At the conclusion of our parshah on the verse "And you shall not ascend with steps upon My altar, that your nakedness be not uncovered upon it,"

the Mechilta says¹

"And behold, things [are inferred] a fortiori,

And if stones, which have no awareness, neither for evil nor for good²

said³

the Holy One, blessed be He, you shall not conduct yourself with them in a manner of disgrace⁴,

your fellow who is in the image of the One who spoke and the world came into being, it is logical⁵

that you should not conduct yourself with him in a manner of disgrace"⁶.

Also in Rashi's commentary the a fortiori argument is brought,

but with changes and additions: "And what of these stones, which have no awareness to be particular about their disgrace, the Torah said, since they are needed, you shall not conduct yourself with them in a manner of disgrace,

your fellow who is in the image of your Creator and is particular about his disgrace, all the more so"⁷.

That which Rashi says the language "that they have no understanding to be particular about their humiliation" — different from the language of the Mechilta "that they have no understanding neither for evil nor for good" — is understood simply,

because by emphasizing the absence of humiliation regarding stones

(in contrast to the humiliation that exists regarding "your fellow")

is

simply explained and stronger the kal vachomer; and for this reason he also adds regarding "your fellow" the words "and is particular about his humiliation"

(which are not in the Mechilta).

Also the language in Rashi "your friend who is in the form of <b>your Creator</b>" — instead of the language of the Mechilta "in the form of He who spoke and the world came into being" — is because <b>your Creator</b> speaks simply about the Creator of the <b>one who ascends in levels</b>.

But that which Rashi adds

(on the language of the Mechilta)

— "The Torah said, since there is a need for them",

needs to be understood: what does the "need" of the "stones" contribute to the explanation of the kal vachomer regarding "your friend"?

2.

will one understand this with the introduction of the distinction between the explanation and the study of the verse

(in which one states the aforementioned kal vachomer)

is explained in the Mechilta and as this is explained in Rashi's commentary⁸

In the Mechilta it says earlier⁹

: "Asher lo teegaleh ervasecha alav,

upon it you may not take a large step, but you may take a large step in the Heichal and in the Kodesh HaKodashim,

it could have been inferred,

And if regarding the less severe altar it is forbidden to take a step upon it,

the Heichal and Kodesh HaKodashim which are more severe, it is logical that it is forbidden to take a large step upon them because they are more severe,

the verse states "Asher lo teegaleh ervasecha alav",

upon it you may not take an excessive step, but you may take an excessive step in the Heichal

And in the Holy of Holies"

(And afterwards the Mechilta says the kal vachomer "And if the stones etc.")

But Rashi,

at the beginning of his commentary,

where he explains the verse,

explains: "That by way of the steps you need to widen your steps,

And even though it is not actual nakedness, for it is written¹⁰

And make for them linen trousers, nevertheless the widening of the steps is close to nakedness and you treat them with a manner of disgrace."

That which the aforementioned kal vachomer comes in the Mechilta immediately after the exclusion "upon it you may not take a haughty step, but you may take [a step] etc. in the Sanctuary and in the Holy of Holies" — it is possible to say that with this is guarded what one can ask:

The prohibition of "you shall not uncover your nakedness upon it"

("you shall not treat them with contempt")

is seemingly not from the side of the stones of the altar in themselves,

but because of this, that being a part of the altar

(and the Sanctuary)

is this

(a matter of the sanctity and awe of the altar which is)

connected with the honor of God,

which rests upon the altar

(and the Sanctuary)¹¹

that "you are not in awe of the Sanctuary but of Him Who caused His Shechinah to rest in this place"¹²,

and in the language of the Chinuch¹³

that this is "to establish in our souls the fear of the Omnipresent, blessed be He, and His importance, and therefore we were warned not to behave there with frivolity in any matter"],

Now how can one from these "stones"¹⁴

Learn a kal vachomer regarding "your fellow",

since among the "stones" there is a holiness that is absent among "your fellow"?

Since however that one had previously learned "upon it you may not take a big step, but you may take a big step in the Sanctuary and in the Holy of Holies"

that this is connected with the honor of the Temple etc.,

the prohibition of "taking large steps" would have had to apply also¹⁵

in the Sanctuary and in the Holy of Holies,

and on the contrary even more strongly — with a kal vachomer and a fortiori,

since they are indeed more stringent than the altar]¹⁶

So from this it is understood that the prohibition "and do not ascend etc." is not

(merely)

because this is a part of the Temple but

(primarily)

due to the stones of the altar themselves; and consequently, one can learn from this a kal vachomer: "And if stones, which have no understanding for good or for evil, the Holy One, blessed be He, said: Do not behave

<b>in them </b>

(in the stones themselves)

a disgraceful treatment,

your fellow etc. it is right that you should not treat him with disgraceful treatment.”

3.

Based on this one will also understand why Rashi adds¹⁷

in his commentary the words “The Torah said: since there is a need in them, do not treat them with disgraceful treatment”:

Since in Rashi it is <b>not</b> mentioned the exclusion "upon it you shall not step etc. but you may step in the Heichal and the Holy of Holies"¹⁸,

from which one knows that the

prohibition of "and you shall not ascend by steps" is connected with the stones of the altar itself,

as above — Rashi must emphasize the matter in this kal vachomer itself:

"Since they are needed"; because in "these stones"

(of the altar)

there is a special aspect — "they are needed" — which brings the prohibition of "Do not ascend by steps onto My altar, that your nakedness be not uncovered upon it"¹⁹

On the stones of the altar themselves

(not because they are a part of the totality of the Temple,

but)

"since they are needed";

And based on this it is simply understood why one does not find any prohibition to make "steps" in

(other parts of)

the Temple

(even though through this "your nakedness will be uncovered")

— and on the contrary: there were "steps" to ascend to the

(Hall)

Sanctuary²⁰

— because regarding the stones of <b>the </b>"steps" there is no "need for them".

D.

The explanation of this:

That which one learns from "Avnei

Mizbe'ach" that one may not disgrace a fellow Jew

— At first glance it is puzzling: Does one then need to arrive at a kal vachomer from the stones of the altar?

It is because here,

by the stones of the altar,

it is not about a disgrace in its simple sense,

but only

(in the language of the Mechilta and Rashi)

— “<b>a custom </b>of disgrace”²¹.

Both from the aspect of the stones — that they do not feel any disgrace

(because the <b>feeling </b>of disgrace is an essential element in disgrace,

so much so that according to one reasoning in the Gemara²²,

the entire obligation of embarrassment is specifically when there is “shame”: but if “he shamed an old man who died”,

where the other person never felt the shame,

one is exempt)

And both from the aspect of the act of disgrace: here it is not about a conduct of frivolity²³,

for frivolity and actual disgrace is forbidden in the entire area of the Tabernacle and the Temple²⁴

; rather here it is only about "a custom of disgrace" — an act that can be interpreted as a matter of disgrace.

And as Rashi says,

that by "ascending on steps" there is no "actual nakedness",

but "close to nakedness"²⁵.

And from this one learns regarding one's fellow,

that there must not be an act that is only a "custom of disgrace",

and

Even when the second one feels thereby no shame and disgrace.

5.

And in this is the difference between the Mechilta and Rashi: In what does the prohibition consist:

According to the Mechilta, the prohibition consists in the action of man — one may not even do an act that is

(not an act of disgrace,

but)

merely a "custom of disgrace".

Rashi — the plain meaning — cannot learn thus,

because according to this there is no reason to distinguish between the stones of the altar and the stones of the Sanctuary.

From this that the prohibition is specifically by the stones of the altar is understandable,

that from the aspect of man's action alone there would be no prohibition

(for here there was no actual act of disgrace)²⁶

But by the stones of the altar there is a special aspect — "since they are needed" — that because of this the "disgraceful custom" causes a kind of "shame"²⁷

By those that must reach the stones

(as follows),

And consequently it is forbidden.

6.

The explanation in this:

With "since they are needed" Rashi means to say,

that the <b>kohanim</b> cannot do their service on the altar except through their burnt-offering ascending upon the stones; and this is the reason of "you shall not treat them with contempt",

because by treating with contempt in relation to the

stones of the altar,

one thereby also disgraces the kohanim who need to come to the stones²⁸.

In the manner of

(and not exactly)

as it stands in the early authorities²⁹

(regarding the obligation of payment for embarrassment),

that the law: one who spat on his garment is exempt³⁰

is specifically when the embarrassed one at the time of the act did not wear the garment; but if he was then

(at the time of the spitting)

dressed in that garment,

the spitter is liable — because through spitting on the garment he shamed the person who was dressed in the garment³¹.

because: a)

one can reach the Sanctuary not via the steps³².

b)

the steps were not before the Sanctuary where the service was performed,

but before the Hall³³,

it follows automatically,

that the walking of the priests to the Sanctuary via the steps before the Hall is not a part and "need" of their service in the Sanctuary

(but not so by the altar,

the ramp of the altar is indeed a part of the altar itself³⁴,

so that the verse says "And you shall not ascend with steps upon My altar³⁵

which not

Your nakedness shall be uncovered upon it — that ascending onto the steps

(or ramp)

to the altar is considered as if he is on the altar itself³⁶].

And from this one derives also regarding shaming one's fellow: even when this is only a matter of "a custom of shame,"

which did not create for "your fellow" any actual shame and disgrace — nevertheless,

since "he is in the image of your Maker,"

it turns out,

that with the custom of shame regarding one's fellow it is a matter of shame towards your Maker

(in the manner of the prohibition "Do not ascend with steps upon My altar,"

where the "custom of shame" in relation to the stones brings a shame for the priests).

7.

Based on this one will also understand Rashi's language when stating the kal vachomer — "And what of these stones that have no understanding &lt;b&gt;to be particular about their degradation&lt;/b&gt; the Torah said, since they are needed, you shall not treat them with degrading conduct,

your fellow who is in the image of your Maker and is particular about his degradation, all the more so"

(not as in the Mechilta,

where the language "to be particular about their degradation" and "is particular about his degradation" does not appear)

— with this Rashi explains:

How much more so regarding "these stones that have no understanding to be particular about their degradation" — and consequently regarding them there is altogether not the

(essential)

&lt;b&gt;definition of degradation&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;

(because if there is no particularity about the degradation,

then one is indeed not degraded),

nevertheless,

due to the fact that "they are needed" for the kohanim,

it is considered a degrading conduct,

is all the more so that one may not practice a custom of disgrace regarding "your fellow" —

(a)

"who is in the image of your Creator,"

the connection between him and "your Creator" is direct and evident

(not like the stones of the altar and the priests who have among themselves no connection in their image etc.)

; and

(b)

"and He is particular about His disgrace" — and consequently also from His own side there can be a reality of disgrace

(unlike by the stones of the altar regarding which there is altogether no disgrace from the stones themselves)³⁸.

8.

Rashi's commentary on the Torah is indeed the wine of Torah.

So one may say,

that in this Rashi commentary at the conclusion of the portion — for "everything follows the conclusion"³⁹

— is hinted the essence and content of the entirety of the sedra — the matter of the giving of the Torah — the Ten Commandments:

Just as the Ten Commandments include not only the commandments of "I am the Lord your God" and "You shall have no other gods"

(the highest matters in the unity of God),

but also the latter commandments which are simple matters,

down to the most simple matters between man and his fellow

("You shall not&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;

murder, you shall not commit adultery, etc., anything that belongs to your neighbor"),

So too in Rashi's commentary — the Oral Torah — the end of Parshat Yitro,

as there must be utmost caution in simple matters of conduct

Between a person and his fellow,

to be careful even from "&lt;b&gt;the custom &lt;/b&gt;of disgrace".

And just as the simple matters in the Ten Commandments are not a separate thing from the first commandments,

but as explained in several places&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;,

that that which they placed the things into the Ten Commandments is also to teach that they are one matter with "I am the Lord your God": also the matters between a person and his fellow are truly "between a person and the Omnipresent",

one must be careful in them because this is the will of God,

Rashi also adds,

that this carefulness towards your fellow is because he is "in the form of your Maker": the connection of the prohibition to "between man and God" is not only from the side of the &lt;b&gt;commandment&lt;/b&gt;

(that one must be careful in these matters because of the commandment of G‑d),

but also because "your fellow" and "the Place" are one form,

so to speak; and therefore,

one who is not careful &lt;b&gt;in the honor of your fellow&lt;/b&gt;,

is a lack of carefulness in &lt;b&gt;the honor of the Holy One, blessed be He&lt;/b&gt;.

And the measure of good is greater, etc. — that love of Israel,

up to an unlimited love which brings to a conduct of &lt;b&gt;honoring&lt;/b&gt; one's fellow with utmost carefulness,

this is

(in inwardness)

a matter of love of &lt;b&gt;the Holy One, blessed be He&lt;/b&gt; and honor of &lt;b&gt;heaven&lt;/b&gt;,

And as water reflects the face: this reveals the love of the Holy One, blessed be He, for Jews,

which ultimately brings about the elevation of the honor of Israel even in the eyes of all the nations of the earth,

until this true honor which will be revealed in the true and complete redemption through our righteous Mashiach,

speedily in our days, literally.

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Yitro 5725)