English translation — משפטים ג

A.

On the verse

(near the end of our parshah)¹

"And Moshe wrote all the words of Hashem" — Rashi stands on the words "And Moshe wrote" and explains: "From Bereishis until the giving of the Torah, and he wrote the commandments that were commanded in Marah."

As discussed several times,

Rashi in his commentary on the Torah explains the plain meaning of the verse — one must understand: What is the necessity in the plain meaning of Scripture that Moshe wrote all the matters "from Bereishis until the giving of the Torah"

(even though most of them are in the style of a narrative and not in the style of "words of Hashem")

and also "the commandments that were commanded in Marah,"

and not a part of all this,

or other "words of Hashem" and the like?

Further: In the verse here it says "And Moshe wrote <b>all the words of Hashem</b>" — the <b>same</b> wording that appears in an earlier verse<sup>2</sup>

"And Moshe came and told the people <b>all the words of Hashem</b>" — which Rashi explains there "all the words of Hashem — the commandments of separation and boundary."

So what is the reason to change the explanation of "And Moshe wrote all the words of Hashem" in this verse,

from the explanation in the earlier verse?

Even if one learns that since the commandment of separation and boundary was a one-time matter

(as preparation for the Giving of the Torah),

therefore it is not plausible that

(only)

upon this refers the "And Moshe wrote",

which Moshe's writing indicates a matter that pertains to later,

or moreover a permanence for generations — one can nevertheless

learn,

that the "Vayichtov Moshe" includes,

together with the matters of separation and boundary,

also all those utterances that came as an introduction to the Giving of the Torah but also pertain later

(the Bachya³

learns that "Vayichtov Moshe et kol divrei Hashem" means)

"the conditions and the

If you will surely listen to My voice and keep My covenant etc."⁵].

B.

The difficulty in this is even greater:

<b>In the example </b>of Rashi's commentary one finds in the Mechilta<sup>6</sup>

— but Rashi <b>changes </b>from the Mechilta,

in such a way that Rashi's commentary is contrary to all opinions!

The Mechilta brings <b>three </b>opinions: "Rabbi Yosi bar Rabbi Asi says: From the beginning of Genesis until here,

Rabbi says: The commandments that were commanded to Adam the first, and the commandments that were commanded to the children of Noah, and the commandments that were commanded in Egypt and in Marah, and all the rest of the commandments,

Rabbi Yishmael says: At the beginning of the passage, what does it say? 'And the land shall rest a Sabbath to the Lord; six years you shall sow your field, etc.'<sup>7</sup>

Sabbatical years and Jubilees, blessings and curses; at the end of the passage, what does it say? 'These are the statutes and the judgments and the laws'<sup>8</sup>,

They said: We accept upon ourselves, etc.' —

<b>Rashi</b> however <b>combines</b> the first two opinions <b>together</b>.

(Even if Rashi learns the plain meaning in the Mechilta,

that Rabbi is not rejecting the first opinion,

rather he comes to add upon it,

that in addition to "from the beginning of Bereishis until here" were included in the writing the "commandments that were commanded to Adam the first etc."⁹

— one cannot however say that this is the source of Rashi's commentary,

because Rabbi counts not only the commandments that were commanded at Marah

(as Rashi says),

rather <b>all</b> the remaining commandments

(also those that Rashi brings <b>not</b>¹⁰.

In addition to this: It is generally difficult to say,

that Rashi's commentary here is taken from

(or based on)

the Mechilta — because the Mechilta explains not the verse "Vayichtov Moshe",

but the verse¹¹

"Vayikach Sefer HaBrit Vayikra B'oznei HaAm",

and says "But we did not hear from where &lt;b&gt;he read &lt;/b&gt;in their ears" — i.e.

i.e.

in the Mechilta it does not speak about the &lt;b&gt;writing &lt;/b&gt;

(what Moshe &lt;b&gt;wrote &lt;/b&gt;in the book),

but about that which Moshe &lt;b&gt;read &lt;/b&gt;

(from this same book)

"in the ears of the people".

Consequently, from this there is no proof on "Vayichtov Moshe" — it could be that in the writing Moshe included more than in the reading

(and according to the precise wording of the Mechilta: "We did not hear &lt;b&gt;from where &lt;/b&gt;

(in this book)

he read").

And in any case it is not understood: From where does Rashi &lt;b&gt;in the plain sense of Scripture &lt;/b&gt;take that the "Vayichtov Moshe" was "from Bereishit until the giving of the Torah ..

the commandments that were commanded in Marah"?

3.

Further,

on the verse¹¹

"And he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the ears of the people" — Rashi explains the words "Book of the Covenant" — "from Bereishis until the giving of the Torah and the commandments that were commanded at Marah."

The reason why Rashi needs here at all to say an explanation on "Book of the Covenant",

is understood,

because earlier it is not mentioned that what Moshe wrote was the Book of the Covenant,

Rashi must explain that it is the same thing.

One must, however, understand: why does Rashi need to repeat here all the details

(which he already said by "Vayichtov Moshe")

"From Bereishis until the giving of the Torah and the commandments that were commanded at Marah"?

— He only needed to say that this is the book that Moshe wrote.

And see the language of Rashbam here: "Sefer HaBris — as it is written above, Vayichtov Moshe etc."

At first glance, one could say,

that Rashi needs to specify in detail,

because in the verse it simply says "And he took the Book of the Covenant and read in the ears of the people,"

but it does not state what and how much Moshe read to them

(and in the language of the aforementioned Mechilta: "But we did not hear from where he read")

; therefore Rashi informs us,

that what he read was "From Bereishis until the giving of the Torah and the commandments that were commanded at Marah" — the <b>entire</b> Book of the Covenant.

But one cannot teach it this way,

because according to this Rashi would have needed

to comment on the words "&lt;b&gt;Vayikra &lt;/b&gt;be'oznei ha'am" and &lt;b&gt;alav &lt;/b&gt;say

(that "Vayikra" means)

"from Bereishit etc."; Rashi however comments on the words "Sefer HaBrit",

and even more — he does not even add "vego"

(to hint at the continuation of the verse)

; from which it is understood,

that he intends to explain

(not what "Vayikra" means)

which book the verse means by "&lt;b&gt;Sefer HaBrit&lt;/b&gt;".

Then the question returns to its place: Why does Rashi repeat his commentary — in detail?

4.

This will be understood by first introducing another precision in the language of Rashi in the previous commentary

(above)

"And Moses wrote — from Genesis until the giving of the Torah &lt;b&gt;and he wrote &lt;/b&gt;the commandments that were commanded at Marah."

For at first glance the word "and he wrote" is superfluous; it stands after "And Moses wrote",

it would have been sufficient only the conjunctive vav — "

(from Genesis until the giving of the Torah)

&lt;b&gt;and&lt;/b&gt;the commandments that were commanded at Marah",

and one would have understood on his own that all this is included in the "And he wrote"?

is the explanation in this:

Regarding the generalities of the portion

(from "And to Moshe He said, ascend to Hashem, etc.")

there is a dispute among the commentators of the Torah — when the portion was said and when all the events about which the portion speaks occurred:

Rashi teaches¹²

that "this section was said before the Ten Commandments and on the 4th of Sivan it was said to him 'ascend'."

4.

5.

that also the "And Moshe wrote" was on day 4,

and other

things,

like "and he built an altar etc.",

occurred on day 5 of Sivan¹³.

According to the Ramban¹⁴

And further, all this occurred after the Ten Commandments,

after the Giving of the Torah.

Due to the dispute in that time,

when the portion was said,

there also emerges a change in the interpretation of the verse "And Moses came and told them all the words of the Lord and all the judgments":

According to Rashi, "all the words of Hashem" means

as above,

the "commandments of separation and boundary",

and "and all the judgments" — the "seven commandments that were commanded to the children of Noah, and Shabbos, and honoring father and mother, and the red heifer, and the laws that were given to them in Marah"¹⁵.

And according to the Ramban¹⁶

and further, with this

("all the words of Hashem")

is meant that which the Almighty said <b>after</b> the Giving of the Torah — "You have seen that from the heavens, etc.",

and

(with "all the judgments" — )

the entire portion of Mishpatim until the section "And to Moshe He said, etc."

And this difference between the two opinions also brings a difference in the content of the “<b>covenant</b>”:

The essence of a covenant is to strengthen the connection and bond between those who participate in the covenant¹⁷,

and in our discussion — Jews with Torah

(that through the Torah which the Most High gave them they become bound also with the Most High)¹⁸.

According to this, it is understood,

that according to Rashi that the covenant was <b>before </b>the Giving of the Torah,

the covenant is on and through the matters that the Almighty gave the Jews before the Giving of the Torah,

and especially those which can strengthen most the

(connection)

covenant,

as "the strength of His works He declared to His people" — from Bereishis until this month¹⁹

and the covenant was as a <b>preparation and introduction </b>to the Giving of the Torah²⁰

(the above words etc.)

; but according to the opinion of the Ramban and others — the covenant was primarily connected with the utterances and commandments that the Almighty commanded after the Giving of the Torah.

According to this, it is understood that when the verse says "And Moshe wrote" — the writing of the "Book of the Covenant"

(the book that is connected with the covenant,

as said further in the portion)

— it is meant according to Rashi,

that he wrote the "all the words of the Lord" which are already

Until then was said to Jews,

namely: "From Bereishis until the Giving of the Torah" and the "commandments that were commanded in Marah".

That the writing was not

(only)

for the sake of the later reading "in the ears of the people",

but this itself was

(also)

a part of the covenant: with that which he wrote it, it received an additional strength,

this obligated the Jews more and bound them in it²¹.

5.

Based on this, one can say,

that the reason that Rashi divides

(with the "וכתב")

the two subjects "from Bereishis until Matan Torah" and "the commandments that were commanded at Marah",

is because these are two modes of writing:

A)

"from Bereishis until Matan Torah",

the narrative of events etc. from the creation of the world until the time of Matan Torah,

Moshe wrote them

(most of them)

here in style and form as they are written in the Torah before us²²

(from where would he derive and why should he change,

and as is somewhat implied from Rashi's language itself: "&lt;b&gt;from Bereishis &lt;/b&gt;until Matan Torah"),

and consequently this is in the category of writing &lt;b&gt;parshiyos of the Torah&lt;/b&gt;;

b)

"and the writing of commandments that were commanded at Marah",

which

These are the commandments of "Shabbat, honoring parents, the red heifer, and laws",

he could not have written

(for example)

regarding the red heifer "This is the statute of <b>the Torah</b>" "And you shall give it to Elazar the priest" etc.

It is logical that Moshe wrote them <b>not</b>

(in the manner and wording as they were <b>later</b> written)

as sections of the Torah,

but in a manner that expresses the content and essence <b>of the commandments</b>

(and as Rashi's language: <b>and the writing of commandments</b>²³),

here there was not the category of writing sections of <b>the Torah</b>,

but a category of writing commandments²⁴.

And likewise is the difference whether the "Vayichtov Moshe" was before Mattan Torah or

(as the opinions that it was)

after Mattan Torah.

Before Mattan Torah there were two matters: the sections of the Torah²⁵

and the commandments that were commanded at Marah,

and consequently also in "Vayichtov Moshe" there were two types of writing,

as above — the writing of the sections of the Torah and the writing of <b>commandments </b>

(that were commanded at Marah)

not as they are a part of the sections of the Torah;

After the giving of the Torah, however, there is no reason to make a distinction²⁶,

Rather "and he wrote" everything in the same manner — also the commandments

(Mishpatim)

were written by Moses as sections of the Torah

(which contain the commandments).

6.

With this the reason becomes understood,

that coming to the verse "And he took the Book of the Covenant",

Rashi needs to explain and interpret what the "Book of the Covenant" is:

Since we learned earlier that Moshe wrote two separate topics,

in two different categories of writing — and here it says "Sefer HaBris" in singular — Rashi must explain that this Sefer HaBris consists of the same two different topics: "from Bereishis until the giving of the Torah and the commandments that were commanded in Marah"; with this it is also brought out that the covenant with Jews was on both topics:

a)

on Torah and its study,

which this was through the writing "from Bereishis until the giving of the Torah",

the sections of the Torah.

b)

On the fulfillment of the commandments²⁷

— through the writing of the "commandments that were commanded at Marah."

And based on this it will be sweetened,

That after Moshe Rabbeinu read the Book of the Covenant "in the ears of the people,"

the Jews said: "All that the L-rd has spoken <b>we will do and we will hear</b>"²⁸

"Na'aseh" — in connection with the "&lt;b&gt;mitzvos that were commanded &lt;/b&gt;in Marah",

which he read; and "Nishma" in continuation of the reading of the portions "from Bereishis until the giving of the Torah"&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;

— and this was the preparation and preface to the study of the Torah and fulfillment of the mitzvos that Jews accepted upon themselves*&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;

from now onward; through the double acceptance and in a manner of "&lt;b&gt;covenant&lt;/b&gt;",

they became worthy to receive the Torah.

7.

From the wondrous matters in this commentary of Rashi:

In the Gemara&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;

there is a dispute between Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish,

whether "the Torah was given scroll by scroll"

("When a portion was said to Moshe, he would write it,

and at the end of 40 years, when all the portions were completed, he joined them with sinews and sewed them" — Rashi&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;),

or "the Torah was given sealed"

("It was not written until the end of 40 years, after all the portions were said, and those said to him in the first year and second year were arranged by heart until he wrote them" — Rashi&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;).

Tosafos&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt; raises

on the opinion that holds "the Torah was given sealed" and asks: "It is astonishing, for it is written: 'And he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the ears of the people,' and Rashi in his commentary on Chumash

That is, from Bereishis until here”³⁴,

and answers: “And we see to explain that it does not say that it was given sealed, that it was not written until the end, but rather that it was written in order, that there are sections that were said earlier before those verses that precede them and were not written until that which is written before it was said to him, and he writes this after it.”

The Maharal³⁵

explains,

that Rashi in our parshah is not in contradiction to the one who says the Torah was given sealed

(also according to Rashi in his commentary on the Talmud,

that this means “it was not written until the end of forty”)

— because this was “a necessity of the commandment”,

and therefore “this is not considered giving of the Torah, only making a covenant”³⁶.

According to the above will be sweetened: For although the writing "from Bereishis until Matan Torah" is ge-

when in the manner of the writing of the sections of the Torah,

this is however certainly not in the category of

(writing of)

the sections of the Torah,

rather a part of "Sefer HaBris",

which also contained the "commandments that were commanded at Marah" — and their writing was indeed <b>entirely </b>different from the writing in sections of the Torah and the two types of writing indeed together comprised <b>one </b>"Sefer HaBris".

And that which Tosafos asks from the commentary of Rashi — it can be said according to the view of Tosafos: Since the sections that Moshe wrote from Bereishis until the Giving of the Torah are not different

(in their form and language)

than the sections written afterwards in the Torah&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;,

so even though Moshe in the "Book of the Covenant" &lt;b&gt;joined &lt;/b&gt;to them &lt;b&gt;also &lt;/b&gt;the commandments that were commanded at Marah

(which were written not like the sections of the Torah),

this however does not nullify or detract from that which the sections from Bereishis until the Giving of the Torah are a matter of the writing of the sections of the Torah.

and does not mention the conclusion of Rashi's language "commandments that were commanded at Marah"&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;

— because the

The writing of the commandments that were commanded at Marah has no connection to the discussion in Tosafos.

The question is only from "the writing from Bereishis until the Giving of the Torah,"

which is a category of writing the portions of the Torah⁴⁰].

Rashi's opinion, however, is,

that since both matters of writing became <b>one</b> "Book of the Covenant" — then even the portions from Bereishis until the Giving of the Torah are not a matter of writing the portions of the <b>Torah</b>,

but rather — a matter of the "Book of the Covenant."

8.

The meaning of the Torah in this Rashi commentary — it can be said:

Although the entirety of the matter of the covenant is the connection and bonding between those who are cutting the covenant,

And in our subject — the connection and unification of the Most High with Jews,

But there is a difference in the content of the covenant whether the covenant was made before the Giving of the Torah,

Or after the Giving of the Torah:

Until the Giving of the Torah, there was the decree that the upper ones should not descend to the lower ones and the lower ones should not ascend to the upper ones⁴¹.

It turns out,

that the covenant before the Giving of the Torah was still connected with the person, not with the object.

Moreover: it indeed brought about through Torah and commandments

(before the Giving of the Torah)

an ascent and a connection with the Upper One,

this was, however, in the manner of before the Giving of the Torah — not

Out of the category

(lower)

was created⁴².

But not according to the opinions that the covenant was after the Giving of the Torah,

after a)

the nullification of the decree,

b)

And I am the beginner,

moreover c)

the novelty of "I, my soul, have written and given"⁴³

— the Almighty gave Himself, as it were, into the Torah forever and always⁴⁴,

is also understood,

that the unification with Torah and in a manner of covenant has effected the ultimate and complete ascent in the aspect of a complete departure from the category of a created being.

There is however an elevation in the understanding

(opinion of Rashi)

that the covenant was before the Giving of the Torah — since that being also then

(<b>before </b>the Giving of the Torah)

"bound tied grasped"⁴⁵

with the aspect of the Torah as it descended to created beings

(<b>before </b>the Giving of the Torah)

and with the aspect of Divinity that is drawn down through it,

it is understood,

that after <b>such </b>a preparation the refinement and elevation of the created beings at the Giving of the Torah was more complete,

and consequently they

were from the standpoint of <b>their level </b>fit recipients to receive the Torah that is above the category of created beings.

but not according to these opinions,

that the covenant was after the Giving of the Torah,

then at the time of the Giving of the Torah, [the Torah] was completely above their level and essence, and the giving of the Torah was primarily from the side of Above⁴⁶.

9.

And based on this, one can explain the aforementioned difference

(ibid.)

— that according to Rashi, in that "writing" and in the covenant there were two matters — Torah and commandments,

and according to the other opinions, this is one matter,

(a part of)

Torah:

From the aspect of the definition of created beings, there is a division between Torah and mitzvos,

and consequently also in the acceptance of Yisrael, “naaseh” separately and “nishma” separately.

But from the aspect of the Creator, there is no division.

Just as the Above is absolute oneness,

so too it expresses itself also in Torah as it is from the aspect of Above: everything is <b>one </b>matter of Torah⁴⁷.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Mishpatim 5742)