English translation — במדבר ב

A.

In the verse¹

"And these are the generations of Aaron and Moses on the day that the Lord spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai,"

Rashi stands on the words "And these are the generations of Aaron and Moses" and explains: "And it mentions only the sons of Aaron²,

and they are called the generations of Moses because he taught them Torah, teaching that whoever teaches his friend's son Torah, Scripture considers it as if he gave birth to him."

explain the reason why this applies specifically to the sons of Aaron

(although Moses taught Torah with <b>all</b> Jews)

— because Moses taught them <b>separately</b>,

and — before he taught all Jews

(as Rashi already brought earlier in Parshat Ki Tisa⁴

the "order of the Mishnah")

And since in this Moses was not obligated

(And on the contrary,

since he had already learned earlier with Aaron,

then already <b>Aaron </b>became obligated⁵

to learn with his child-

The⁶),

therefore Moses received the special reward,

that "Scripture credits him as if he gave birth to him"].

Afterwards Rashi continues in his commentary: "On the day that Hashem spoke to Moshe,

these became his offspring that he taught what he learned from the mouth of the Almighty."

What is here for Rashi to add with the explanation

(in the second discourse)

"these became his offspring that he taught what he learned

from the mouth of the Almighty"?

— he already said the matter in the previous discourse: "that they taught Torah ..

the verse credits him as if he gave birth to him"?

learning commentaries⁷,

that by Rashi the continuation of the verse is difficult: how do the words "on the day that the Lord spoke to Moses" fit as a continuation to "and these are the generations of Aaron etc."?

Rashi explains that "on the day that the Lord spoke etc." comes as a continuation

(<b>not </b>to "and these are the generations of <b>Aaron</b>",

but)

to "and these are the generations ..

(and)

<b>Moses</b>": because the children of Aaron are called

(also)

"the generations of Moses" because "they taught Torah"

(as Rashi says in the previous discourse),

the verse immediately warns,

that <b>the </b>matter occurred from "on the day that the Lord spoke to Moses",

that then "he taught what he learned from the mouth of the Almighty".

And that which the verse says "on the day that G-d spoke to Moses" — at first glance: Moses taught Torah to the sons of Aaron also the entire time that after the "day that G-d spoke to Moses"

(in general and with the sons of Aaron in a special manner)

began only⁸

on the morrow of the Day of Atonement

(after the third "forty days" that Moses was on the mountain)

— more than four months from the "day that G-d spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai"],

Commentators answer in two ways:

(a)

"On the day of speaking" here means "&lt;b&gt;f&lt;/b&gt;rom the day of speaking",

as in the verse&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;

"And the leftover of the meat

and the bread"

(which means: &lt;b&gt;from &lt;/b&gt;the meat and bread)&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;.

(b)

With the precision &lt;b&gt;on&lt;/b&gt; the day the Torah comes to teach,

that "even if he learned only one thing, it becomes for him like lineages"&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;.

But

(In addition to the difficulty in the very explanations mentioned above)

It is difficult to say that this is the intent of Rashi,

Because¹²

A)

What is the practical difference in emphasizing the beginning <b>when </b>the sons of Aharon became the descendants of Moshe

(Through the fact that “they learned Torah”)¹³?

b)

&lt;b&gt;And the main point&lt;/b&gt;: Moshe taught Torah to Jews also before the giving of the Torah

(before the “day that the L-rd spoke with Moshe at Mount Sinai”),

as &lt;b&gt;Rashi&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;

explains,

that “&lt;b&gt;at Marah &lt;/b&gt;He gave them some &lt;b&gt;sections of the Torah to occupy themselves with them&lt;/b&gt;”; and even more: already in &lt;b&gt;Egypt &lt;/b&gt;the Most High commanded several laws

(as related in parshas Bo&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;)

which Moshe conveyed to them

(and taught)

to Jews — now why did the children of Aharon become the offspring of Moshe only “on the day that the L-rd spoke with Moshe &lt;b&gt;at Mount Sinai&lt;/b&gt;”,

and not &lt;b&gt;before&lt;/b&gt; that?

that that which Moshe taught Torah to the children of Aharon in a special manner

(by virtue of which they became the offspring of Moshe,

as above),

occurred specifically in that “order of Mishnah” which began on the morrow of Yom Kippur&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;,

but not earlier —

Because the reason

(whatever it may be)

of this order

(Mishnah in general,

and in particular)

of learning separately with the Bnei Aharon — applies in full force also <b>before</b> the day after Yom Kippur; and as is evident here itself,

that already "on the day that the Lord spoke to Moses in Mount Sinai" — on the sixth

(seventh)

of Sivan¹⁷

— Moses learned separately with the Bnei Aharon¹⁸

(since then they became "his descendants")

; therefore it is logical to say,

that also <b>before</b> the giving of the Torah¹⁹

Moses learned with them in the same manner as afterwards].

B.

Also there are several precise points in the language of Rashi,

and among them:

a)

From Rashi's language in the first passage "the Scripture credits him as if he had begotten him" it is understood,

that this does not mean that they <b>became</b> his offspring,

but only a matter of reward,

this is counted "as if he had begotten him": in contrast, in the second passage

Rashi says: "<b>became</b> these are his offspring"

(they <b>became</b> the offspring of Moses)?

The wonder is even greater: the source of this Rashi commentary is in the Gemara&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;,

and there the wording is "Whoever teaches etc., Scripture credits him as if he fathered him, as it is said, 'And these are the generations of Aaron and Moses...'

and Moses taught, therefore &lt;b&gt;they were called &lt;/b&gt;by his name",

and Rashi here adds to the wording of the Talmud,

and says

(not only "&lt;b&gt;and they were called&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

the generations of Moses",

but)

"&lt;b&gt;these generations became &lt;/b&gt;his".

What is the verbosity of the wording "

(that he taught them)

&lt;b&gt;what he taught from the mouth of the Almighty&lt;/b&gt;" — Rashi should have said &lt;b&gt;in short &lt;/b&gt;

(and as he indeed says in the first discourse)

"that he taught them &lt;b&gt;Torah&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;?

Even if you would say,

that because in the verse the wording is "on the day that the Lord spoke to Moses",

therefore

(also)

Rashi accordingly emphasizes that he taught them that which the Almighty had told him — is still not smooth: if so,

why does Rashi deviate from the wording

(and content)

of the verse,

and says

(a)

"what &lt;b&gt;he taught&lt;/b&gt;"

(not — "what he heard"),

b)

(b)

"&lt;b&gt;from the mouth of the Almighty&lt;/b&gt;"

(not — "from the mouth of the Lord" and the like)?

3.

The explanation in this:

Rashi cannot be satisfied with the interpretation "whoever teaches Torah to his friend's son, Scripture considers it as if he gave birth to him",

because in the verse it says "And these are the generations of <b>Aaron and Moses</b>":

If in the verse it had stood only "generations of Moses",

one could say,

that the verse uses the word "generations" as a borrowed noun²³,

that through the fact that "teaches Torah" is "Scripture considers it as if he gave birth to him"; in the manner that Rashi already explained on the verse²⁴

(by Abraham)

"the souls which they <b>made</b> in Haran — that he brought them under the wings of the Shechinah etc. and Scripture considers them as if he made them

(them)

": and in this manner Rashi explains further²⁵

— in connection to <b>the study of Torah</b>

(as in our verse)

: "And you shall teach them to your sons,

these are the students,

we find everywhere that students are <b>called sons</b>".

Here it says, however, "And these are the generations of &lt;b&gt;Aharon and Moshe&lt;/b&gt;": the verse mentions them in one category,

that "And these" are the generations of Moshe &lt;b&gt;exactly &lt;/b&gt;as they are the generations of Aharon — this is perplexing: how can one compare that which they are the generations of Aharon — that their very existence is a generation from Aharon — to that which they are the generations of Moshe because of his teaching them Torah,

which with all the superiority therein,

it is, however, seemingly not a

novelty in their very essential existence

(and about this one can say only "&lt;b&gt;the Scripture credits him &lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;as if &lt;/b&gt;he had begotten him")?

Rashi learns,

that the verse guards this by adding the words "on the day that the Lord spoke to Moses": this emphasizes that the Torah which Moses taught with the sons of Aaron was "what he learned <b>from the mouth of the Almighty</b>",

and therefore <b>the </b>study effected a <b>might</b>,

that "<b>became </b>these the generations of him"²⁶

— it was such a study that remade their very essence existence

(in spirituality),

until they thereby <b>became </b>"generations of Moses",

as follows.

D.

As an introduction to the giving of the Torah,

the Almighty said to Moses that he should convey to Israel: "And now, if you hearken, you shall hearken to My voice and keep My covenant, you shall be to Me a treasure from all the peoples, etc., and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation"²⁷.

That is,

the Giving of the Torah

(and the Receiving of the Torah)

brought about a fundamental change in the very essence of Jews: before they were like "all the nations,"

and through the Giving of the Torah Jews became different,

distinguished,

"a treasure from all the nations" — "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation."

Therefore the Giving of the Torah was in a manner that the Almighty revealed Him-

To show to Jews and with <b>might</b> — "voices ..

flames ..

voice of the shofar"²⁸

— which effected a change in the reality of Jews²⁹.

And the hearing of the utterances was "from the mouth of the Almighty"³⁰.

And since the "And you shall be to Me a treasure etc." is connected with the Giving of the Torah and dependent on "and you shall keep My covenant"

("observance of the Torah"³¹)

— it is understandable,

that this power

(of the Giving of the Torah)

to be able to effect a change of reality in Jews,

was given into <b>the Torah</b>.

And this is also what Rashi is precise — "what he learned from the mouth of the Almighty": since that "Torah that he learned"

(with the sons of Aaron in particular)

was "what he learned from the mouth of the Almighty" — Moshe himself heard and learned from the Most High — it had within it openly

the power of the "might" of the giving of the Torah

(which has the power to change the reality of a Jew)

; and therefore

"These became his descendants",

because his study opened up a "progeny"

(spiritual).

5.

According to the above — that "And these are the generations" ..

(6)

Moshe is

(not only a matter of "as if he begot him",

but it is)

similar to "the generations of Aharon",

in a way that "these generations became his" — one will also understand what the verse is precise here "on the day that Hashem spoke to Moshe"

(not — "from the day etc.")

Exactly as in physical birth,

it is not possible to say that the birth is a thing that repeats itself

(multiple times)

— the birth takes place in the first moment,

and afterwards there occurs only the growth of the offspring from smallness to greatness.

So too is it by spiritual "offspring": that which "these became his offspring" was initiated "on the day that God spoke to Moses" — with the first study that Moses studied

(separate)

with the sons of Aaron the Torah "that he learned from the mouth of the Almighty"; the later study of the Torah

(from Moses with the sons of Aaron)

was not in a manner that through it "these became his offspring"

(it only has the

advantage of "whoever teaches his friend's son Torah, Scripture considers it as if he gave birth to him",

as below section 7).

Based on this, however, it is not understood: at the giving of the Torah, Jews indeed

(and the sons of Aharon among them)

heard from the Most High Himself,

from the mouth of the Almighty,

the Ten Commandments

(as they were spoken in a single utterance,

and afterwards — the two commandments of "I am" and "You shall not have"&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;,

then indeed already among all Jews

(and the sons of Aharon among them)

&lt;b&gt;was opened &lt;/b&gt;the "spiritual birth"

upon hearing the commandments "from the mouth of the Almighty" — so how can one say,

that the sons of Aharon became descendants of Moses through that which Moses &lt;b&gt;afterwards &lt;/b&gt;repeated to them

(separately)

what &lt;b&gt;he &lt;/b&gt;heard "from the mouth of the Almighty"?

Therefore Rashi is precise "&lt;b&gt;that he taught them &lt;/b&gt;what he learned from the mouth of the Almighty": so that the spiritual birth should be opened

(spiritual)

(spiritual)

that through Torah the matter of "hearing" is not sufficient

(generally)&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;

— that which the Jews only heard&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;

the commandments from the Most High Himself — rather the Torah must be &lt;b&gt;learned &lt;/b&gt;,

&lt;b&gt;absorbed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;

be in the listener; and this Moses opened through that which "&lt;b&gt;he taught them &lt;/b&gt;what &lt;b&gt;he learned&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;

from the mouth of the Almigh-

Rosh.

Moshe did not only <b>speak</b> the other Ten Commandments to Jews⁴⁰,

rather he <b>taught</b> them⁴¹

all the Ten Commandments

(with their laws and details of laws)⁴²

; and since he taught separately with the sons of Aharon,

therefore "these became his descendants."

6.

On the above explanation one can seemingly ask:

If one would say that because Moshe taught Torah with the sons of Aharon,

“Scripture credits him <b>as if </b>he had fathered them”,

only as a reward,

one could understand why specifically the sons of Aharon are called the offspring of Moshe — although Moshe taught Torah with all Jews —

Because

(as brought earlier),

specifically the study with the sons of Aharon was a matter of beyond the letter of the law,

for which one receives a special reward;

But according to the explanation mentioned above,

that this is

(not only a reward,

but)

— "&lt;b&gt;became &lt;/b&gt;these

his descendants",

because through that which "&lt;b&gt;he learned &lt;/b&gt;what he learned from the mouth of the &lt;b&gt;Almighty&lt;/b&gt;" &lt;b&gt;became &lt;/b&gt;a "descendant"

(spiritual)

— it is not understood: in &lt;b&gt;this &lt;/b&gt;there is seemingly no difference,

whether one is obligated to teach the other,

or one acts beyond the letter of the law: and since in practice Moses &lt;b&gt;taught &lt;/b&gt;"what he learned from the mouth of the Almighty" to &lt;b&gt;all &lt;/b&gt;Jews,

then all Jews should have become "descendants of Moses".

Is the explanation in this: That which the study of Torah effects a change and "birth" in the person studying,

is it

(not from the aspect of the "teacher",

but)

from the aspect of the <b>Torah</b>,

which possesses the power of "the Gevurah".

And therefore: When one studies Torah with another

(in the aforementioned manner,

"that which he learned from the mouth of the Gevurah")

from the aspect of <b>the obligation</b>,

it is true,

that there occurs a birth

(in spirituality)

in the student,

but the "birth" is not related to the "teacher",

but to the <b>Torah</b> and "mouth of the Gevurah"

(the commandment)

; analogous to how the plagues of Egypt are called⁴³

"My signs"

(from the <b>Most High</b>),

because Moshe performed them by the command of G‑d and by His agency

but not the effect of "birth"⁴⁴]

Specifically when his learning Torah with the other is

(not in the measure and line of &lt;b&gt;the law &lt;/b&gt;of the command of G‑d and His mission,

but it is)

in a manner of &lt;b&gt;beyond &lt;/b&gt;the line of the law,

which he does of his own &lt;b&gt;will&lt;/b&gt;,

then the “begetting” is attributed to him.

7.

One must still, however, understand:

According to the above it comes out,

that the concept of "these became his descendants" applies

(a)

only by Moses,

who himself learned "from the mouth of the Almighty",

and consequently his learning with the sons of Aaron had the power to bring about in them a birth

(spiritual),

and

(b)

only "on the day that the Lord spoke to Moses",

when it was the beginning of the study

("what he learned from the mouth of the Almighty")

with the sons of Aaron — it is not understood: how can one learn from this,

that "whoever teaches his friend's son Torah, Scripture considers it as if he gave birth to him"?

So the explanation of this is: if one were to say that the concept of "these became his descendants" applies only by Moses,

it would turn out,

that by adding the word "Moses" in the verse, the Torah is hinting only a story — a one-time event and what applied only by Moses;

In the plain sense of the verse, however, one inclines to say — and wherever one can, one must interpret thus — that the Torah is a teaching and instruction

that a verse comes "to teach"

(and the like)].

Therefore Rashi also learns thus in our case,

that although the matter of "these became his generations" literally,

applies only to Moses who "learned from the mouth of the Almighty" and "on the day the Lord spoke to Moses" — one learns from this, however,

that also "every

One who teaches the son of his friend Torah

(is at any rate)

Scripture considers him <b>as if </b>he gave birth to him":

Since every matter of Torah,

which every Jew learns with "the son of his friend" at any time,

was said "from the mouth of the Almighty" — although

(a)

the "teacher" did not learn it from the mouth of the Almighty,

and

(b)

the "son of his friend" is already a scholar — the "teacher" receives the reward that is accounted "<b>as if </b>he gave birth to him".

that precisely his wording "he who teaches the &lt;b&gt;son &lt;/b&gt;of his fellow"

(not — "his fellow"&lt;sup&gt;46&lt;/sup&gt;)

Rashi hints,

that the matter of "Scripture credits him as if he gave birth to him" applies

(primarily)

when it is about a study with

(not an independent person but with)

"&lt;b&gt;son &lt;/b&gt;of his fellow" — &lt;b&gt;a child &lt;/b&gt;who is at the beginning of study&lt;sup&gt;47&lt;/sup&gt;

; and since the teacher makes the &lt;b&gt;beginning &lt;/b&gt;

(of the study of Torah)

with "son of his fellow",

it is therefore a novelty,

a wonder,

which is in the category of "birth"

(spiritual)

*&lt;sup&gt;47&lt;/sup&gt;].

ח.

From this one can learn,

incidentally,

an explanation in the greatness of the matter of "one who says a thing in the name of its speaker"

(up to how

from our Sages, may their memory be for blessing⁴⁸

that this is "brings redemption to the world")

When one relates a matter in Torah "in the name of the one who said it",

he thereby emphasizes the matter of <b>the tradition</b> that is in the Torah,

as he received the Torah <b>from his teacher</b> — and from this it is logical — generation after generation until Moses our teacher⁴⁹,

that Moses "learned from the mouth of the Almighty";

And with this that he connects the matter in Torah that he says with Moshe as he learned it from the mouth of the Almighty,

he reveals the power of "the mouth of the Almighty" in the Torah that he says,

and with this power he effects the matter of "the birth"

(as above)

And it can be said more than this — that therefore this "brings redemption to the world" — because redemption is a matter of might and "birth",

as explained in many places⁵⁰.

9.

Even though according to the simple meaning one cannot say about "&lt;b&gt;Whoever &lt;/b&gt;teaches Torah to the son of his friend" that through this a matter of actual "procreation" is opened up

(as above)

However, since the Torah of &lt;b&gt;truth &lt;/b&gt;says about this that "Scripture credits him as if he gave birth to him," it is understood,

that this is not merely an &lt;b&gt;external &lt;/b&gt;comparison to a &lt;b&gt;different &lt;/b&gt;matter,

but that

(in the inwardness of the matters)

he has &lt;b&gt;opened up &lt;/b&gt;a "kind of"&lt;sup&gt;51&lt;/sup&gt;

of

(as if)

— "gave birth to him"&lt;sup&gt;52&lt;/sup&gt;.

The explanation in this: The punishment for nullification of Torah is — "the word of Hashem he despised, being cut off shall he be cut off"⁵³,

a matter of the opposite of vitality, so to speak.

Because the vitality of a Jew is connected with Torah — "for they are our life" — and therefore,

when a Jew separates from Torah,

it is like fish that separate from the sea⁵⁴.

And according to the teaching of the Baal Shem Tov⁵⁵,

that <b>in every moment</b> the Most High <b>renews</b> the existence and vitality of every created being,

it turns out,

that when one learns Torah and guards himself from "being cut off shall he be cut off",

this is not only a negative matter — that he has prevented that by him should <b>not be cut off</b> his

(continuation of h)

vitality,

but it is a <b>positive</b> matter: through his study he causes that the Most High should <b>renew</b> his existence vitality.

And therefore it is "&lt;b&gt;Whoever &lt;/b&gt;teaches Torah to the son of his fellow, Scripture considers it as if he had given birth to him": At &lt;b&gt;every &lt;/b&gt;time of learning,

with whomever it may be — that thereby one connects "the son of his fellow" with the source of his vitality — this is "as if he had given birth to him": he has brought about a birth,

because he has caused that the Higher One should in this very moment &lt;b&gt;renew &lt;/b&gt;the existence of "the son of his fellow".

and 5738)