English translation — משפטים ב

A.

In the verse¹

"Behold, I am sending an angel before you etc. and to bring you to the place which I have prepared,"

Rashi explains: "which I have prepared — which I have designated to give you"

(And afterwards Rashi brings a second explanation

(as follows section b)).

Commentators learn²,

that Rashi warns here: In the verse it says "which I have prepared" without specification,

and it does not say for whom the Most High prepared the place.

Rashi explains,

that the "I have prepared" is — "to give to <b>you</b>".

why does the verse not say explicitly "which I have prepared for you" — therefore Rashi brings a second explanation,

that "which I have prepared" means "already My place is recognizable opposite it ..

the Heavenly Temple is aligned opposite the earthly Temple"

(as below section 2),

which according to this explanation the "I have prepared" was "&lt;b&gt;for Himself&lt;/b&gt;",

as if it had stood "which I have prepared for Myself"

(and it need not stand explicitly,

because "an unqualified 'I have prepared' is for Himself"&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;)].

The explanation is however not

Understandably,

because:

In the plain sense, it is not initially a difficulty that the verse says here "I have prepared" simply⁴,

because it is understood <b>by itself</b> that the "I have prepared" is for Jews

(about whom the verse speaks).

According to this, Rashi should have said <b>in short</b>

(like the language of Ibn Ezra here)

"which I have prepared — for you" — why is Rashi

a)

(a)

lengthy in his language — "<b>which I have appointed to give</b>

(to you)

"; and furthermore:

he <b>changes</b> from the language of the verse

("I have prepared")

and uses the word "<b>I have appointed</b>".

b)

(b)

2.

Afterwards Rashi continues: "This is its simple meaning,

and its midrashic interpretation: to the place which I have prepared, already My place is recognizable opposite it,

and this is one of the verses that say that the Heavenly Temple is aligned opposite the earthly Temple".

The reason why Rashi again cites the words "to the place which I have prepared" in the

(second)

commentary,

is understood — to hint,

that according to "his midrash" the simple meaning of the language is smoother

(what the verse says)

"to the place" — not "to the land"⁵

— because the "I have prepared" refers

(not to the land of Israel,

but)

to the place of the Temple.

(commentary a)

— because in the verse one finds that also an entire land is called "place"⁶

; and on the contrary — from the continuation of the topic here it is,

at first glance,

compelled⁷,

that "and to bring you to

The place etc." speaks

(<b>Not </b>about a specific place in Eretz Yisrael⁸,

but)

about Eretz Yisrael in general:

Since that according to "his midrash"

(a)

<b>Changes </b>the interpretation of "to the place",

and

(b)

accordingly, smoother is the wording "which I have prepared"

(as follows),

therefore Rashi copies the words, bringing "his midrash"].

One must, however, understand what Rashi is adding here, another matter: "&lt;b&gt;And this is one of the verses that say &lt;/b&gt;the Heavenly Temple etc." — for at first glance: what is it relevant here to know

(emphasizing)

that there are &lt;b&gt;additional &lt;/b&gt;"verses that say the Heavenly Temple etc."?

One cannot say,

that this is a matter that does not rest upon the intellect of a "five-year-old for Scripture",

and therefore Rashi must add in the manner that he says elsewhere "I found a companion for it" — one finds this matter in additional places,

Because Rashi already earlier<b>9</b>

— twice — brought the matter,

that "the heavenly Temple is aligned opposite the earthly Temple",

and in those places Rashi does <b>not</b> add the words

(the proof — )

"and this is one of the verses that they say etc."

3.

Also one must understand additional nuances in Rashi's language,

and among them:

a)

The source of "Midrasho" is in

Tanḥuma¹⁰,

but there the wording is "this is one of the verses that are clarified that the Beis HaMikdash <b>below</b> is aligned opposite the Beis HaMikdash <b>above</b>" — why does Rashi reverse the order¹¹

: that the Beis HaMikdash of <b>above</b> is aligned opposite the Beis HaMikdash of <b>below</b>¹²?

b)

There is a version¹³

in Rashi "the Beis HaMikdash above is aligned opposite <b>the one below</b>"

(not — "<b>the Beis HaMikdash</b> below")

— why does Rashi <b>omit</b>

(in this version)

the words "Beis HaMikdash"?

And especially since in the previous two places Rashi says the expression "Beis HaMikdash

(Mikdash)

below"?

d.

The explanation in this:

Rashi comes here to protect a simple question in the words "asher hichinoti": "hachanah" means — a specific change in the thing,

by which it becomes "muchan",

fit and suitable for the matter for which one prepares it¹⁴

; the question arises in our matter: in what did the "hichinoti" of Eretz Yisrael consist to receive there the Jews — one does not find that anything in it <b>changed</b> now regarding its state before?

<b>And on the contrary</b>: the content of the continuation

The portion¹⁵

emphasizes,

that the land is still <b>not</b> ready for Jews: in Eretz Yisrael there are the seven nations,

one must first drive them out of the land,

it must come

(in the future)

"and I will destroy him" "I will drive him out"; and moreover — it is not in the near future,

it <b>cannot</b> be soon

("lest the land become <b>desolate</b>"),

but specifically in a manner of "<b>little by little</b> I will drive them out" —

So what does the verse mean with the "

(and to bring you to the place)

<b>which I have prepared</b>"¹⁶?

Rashi answers,

that "

(which)

I have prepared" here means

(not a preparation through an action,

doing — like the meaning of "preparation" in several places&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;,

but)

"which &lt;b&gt;I have designated to give &lt;/b&gt;to you",

that it was only a designation — "I have designated"

(also)

from the term designation

(invitation)

: like when inviting a guest,

in this inviting itself there is indeed no action of preparation,

it is only a designation

(in speech)&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;

— thus in our matter&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;

: the Most High designated

the Land of Israel&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;

for the &lt;b&gt;later &lt;/b&gt;giving&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

to Jews

("I have designated to give to you").

However, since the explanation of preparation according to most is — preparation and change in the thing,

Rashi brings a second explanation — "and its midrash" — "&lt;b&gt;My place is already recognizable&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;

that according to &lt;b&gt;this &lt;/b&gt;explanation a preparation and fitting&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt; occurred

in that place,

but not in the place of the Holy Temple below,

but in the place of the Holy Temple of &lt;b&gt;above &lt;/b&gt;— "&lt;b&gt;My place &lt;/b&gt;is recognizable opposite it".

And for this reason Rashi is precise "that the Holy Temple of &lt;b&gt;above &lt;/b&gt;is aligned opposite the Holy Temple of &lt;b&gt;below&lt;/b&gt;" — not in the

(opposite)

order

(as the language)

of the Tanchuma — because the action of the preparation was in the place of "Holy Temple of above",

that "My place"

(of the Holy Temple of above)

became "&lt;b&gt;recognizable&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;

&lt;b&gt;opposite it&lt;/b&gt;",

&lt;b&gt;opposite it&lt;/b&gt;"

(from the place of the Holy Temple of below).

5.

This alone is however not sufficient —

Because it is not logical to say,

that that which the Supreme One prepared the heavenly Temple site,

should have absolutely no effect on the earthly Temple site,

which is "aligned opposite it";

And as we indeed see in the verse²³

(by Yaakov)

"And this is the gate of heaven" — where

Rashi brings for the first time that "the Beis HaMikdash above is aligned opposite the Beis HaMikdash below" — that Yaakov perceived the holiness of the place below,

as he said "How awesome is this place, this is none other than the house of G-d and this is the gate of heaven."

And since the verse says that here was "which I have prepared" — a preparation in the place of the Sanctuary on high in a manner that "already my place is recognizable opposite it" — therefore it had to be "recognizable" then also in the place of the Sanctuary below —

How does this accord with the content of the continuation of the portion,

where it is emphasized that the Land of Israel

(including the place of the Sanctuary)

was then still generally not ready

(even)

for the coming of the Children of Israel to the land²⁴?

Therefore Rashi adds and explains "&lt;b&gt;And this is one of the verses that say &lt;/b&gt;the Heavenly Temple etc.": The verse does not mean here to say that &lt;b&gt;now &lt;/b&gt;there was a preparation through that the Heavenly Temple is aligned opposite the Earthly Temple; the "I have prepared" was from time immemorial,

and this is just another verse

(among others,

also earlier "verses")

that tells about the same matter,

that

(already from earlier it is)

"the Heavenly Temple is aligned opposite the Earthly Temple"

(and the "already My place is recognizable opposite it" was also from earlier

(always&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;))

And consequently there is no longer any question that we do not find that there should &lt;b&gt;now &lt;/b&gt;be a change in the place of the Earthly Temple.

Based on this,

is also understood the reason for the version "the heavenly Temple is aligned opposite the earthly [Temple]"

(without the words "the earthly Temple")

— to emphasize,

that the preparation in the place of the heavenly Temple is not connected with the state of the place of the earthly Temple: the heavenly Temple exists even when below there is no Temple,

it is "aligned opposite the earthly"

(the earthly Temple is missing)²⁶

; and therefore there is no contradiction,

that although "my place is already recognizable opposite it",

nevertheless no change and preparation is seen here below²⁷,

and on the contrary — in the place of the earthly Temple are found the nations of the world,

the opposite of the Temple.

6.

From the halachic matters that can be derived from this Rashi commentary:

There is a dispute among the early authorities regarding the opinion of Abaye&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;

that "designation is significant" — whether also a designation by speech is significant,

or not&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;

— and this is also a practical difference &lt;b&gt;in practice&lt;/b&gt;,

because

(also)

according to Rava&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;

(whose view is the law)

that "designation is not significant

she",

there are however certain cases where one reckons with "preparation"³⁰

one can say that this is the practical halachic difference between the two explanations of Rashi:

According to the "simple meaning" it comes out,

that that which "&lt;b&gt;I prepared &lt;/b&gt;to give you"

(without a &lt;b&gt;action&lt;/b&gt;

preparation and qualification in that place),

is called

(in the verse "which)

&lt;b&gt;I have prepared&lt;/b&gt;",

and according to this, also preparation by speech is a matter of &lt;b&gt;preparation &lt;/b&gt;— it is a thing&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;.

But not according to "his midrash",

the "I have prepared" is connected with an action that is recognizable in the thing

(in the opposite manner)

— "Already &lt;b&gt;my place is recognizable &lt;/b&gt;opposite him"; and according to this it is reasonable to say,

that preparation by speech is not a significant matter.

Likkutei Sichot volume 21