English translation — בהעלותך א

A.

On the verse¹

"And the L-rd spoke to Moses in the Sinai desert in the second year of their going out from the land of Egypt in the first month, saying,"

where the Almighty commanded regarding the making of the Passover

(and following this — the section of the Second Passover²),

Rashi stands on the words "in the first month" and explains: "A section³

that is at the beginning of the book was not said until Iyar⁴

you learn that there is no earlier and later order in the Torah etc."

(as below section 3).

One must understand:

The concept of "there is no earlier and later in the Torah" is already known from before,

One has already learned it from several verses before this,

as Rashi says in his commentary,

right in the first portion

(Genesis at its end)

on the verse⁵

"My spirit shall not contend with man forever, and his days shall be a hundred

and twenty years",

and so on several times after this⁶.

Further: the particular detail itself,

the change of order of the "section at the beginning of the book",

one already knows from <b>earlier</b>,

and in the sedra that one had <b>just</b> learned: the offerings of the princes,

which is explicit in the verse of their time⁷

"And it was on the day that Moses finished setting up the Tabernacle",

that "it was the first of Nissan"⁸,

one learns <b>from this</b> that "there is no earlier and later" in this particular,

because "the section at the beginning of the book was not said until Iyar"!

And further in this — there Rashi does not explain at all?

from the camp" Rashi explains&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;

"This section was said on the day the Mishkan was erected,"

which was on Rosh Chodesh Nissan as mentioned above].

So what does Rashi say "&lt;b&gt;you learn&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;

here — that

The concept of "there is no earlier and later in the Torah" is first learned from there¹²?

B.

The explanation of this: the novelty here is that "there is no <b>order</b>¹³

earlier and later in the Torah"

(which <b>the</b> language Rashi did not say in the earlier places)

The earlier places where Rashi says "there is no earlier and later in the Torah,"

it is

Regarding a certain portion,

event¹⁴

or a statement from the Most High — which stands out of place¹⁵.

In these cases, the question of the change of order is not such,

because the Torah is not a book of "Chronicles,"

which tells the <b>order</b> of events and the time when each command was given¹⁶.

Rashi in all these places

(where he explains that there is earlier and later in the Torah)¹⁷

only comes to protect that one should not have any <b>error</b> in the time of the event or in the time of the command,

when this is relevant to the plain meaning of Scripture there¹⁸

or elsewhere¹⁹.

on the verse "And it was on the day that Moses finished setting up the Tabernacle" or at "And they sent out from the camp",

that there is no earlier and later in the Torah — because elsewhere Rashi explains with it &lt;b&gt;when &lt;/b&gt;the section was said; and here — it states explicitly "on the day that Moses finished".

And in the section "And they sent out from the camp" Rashi explains "This section was said on the day the Tabernacle was erected",

as above].

In our case however one sees that the verse comes to &lt;b&gt;emphasize &lt;/b&gt;the &lt;b&gt;order and time &lt;/b&gt;of the commands

(and events),

both in our section "And God spoke to Moses in the Sinai desert &lt;b&gt;in the second year of their going out from the land of Egypt in the first month &lt;/b&gt;saying",

both at the beginning of the book "And God spoke to Moses in the Sinai desert in the Tent of Meeting &lt;b&gt;on the first of the second month in the second year of their going out from the land of Egypt &lt;/b&gt;saying".

And nevertheless the sections stand — one regarding the second — &lt;b&gt;in reverse &lt;/b&gt;order!

Rashi explains "you learned",

<b>Here</b> one learns a novelty that "there is no <b>order</b> of earlier and later in the Torah" — even when the Torah <b>emphasizes</b> the <b>time</b> of matters and commandments,

that

(as it seems)

the Torah wants thereby to tell the <b>order</b> of the commandments and events,

it can also then be that "there is no <b>order</b> of earlier and later in the Torah".

3.

Further Rashi continues: "And why did it not begin with this? Because it is the disgrace of Israel,

that all forty years that Israel²⁰

were in the wilderness they offered no Pesach offering except this one alone".

At first glance it is not understood: since "we learned that there is no earlier or later order in the Torah,"

what is the question "why did it not begin with this etc." — he just said that this is because "there is no earlier or later order in the Torah"?

in the Gemara²¹,

that after the Gemara concludes "this teaches that there is no earlier or later in the Torah" the Gemara does not explain the reason why the Torah does not begin with the portion.

And so

Also in Sifri²²].

In simple terms one could answer,

that Rashi is precise in his language "you learned" — not as in Sifri²³

"to teach you" — that is,

that according to the Sifri the Torah changed the order <b>in order</b> to teach us

("to teach you")

that there is no chronological order in the Torah; but according to Rashi — "you learned" — this means

(not that <b>because of this</b> the Torah changed the order,

but)

that from this <b>we</b> learn²⁴

that "there is no chronological order in the Torah"²⁵.

Therefore the question becomes "&lt;b&gt;And why &lt;/b&gt;did He not begin with this",

because as is known&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;,

is

There where one says "there is no earlier and later in the Torah",

but the Torah has an intention and reasoning regarding the order of precedence and postponement&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;

in which the portions are written.

It is but still not smooth: according to this the question is

(not "why did He not begin with this",

but)

why did the Torah: a)

change the order,

b)

preceded that portion — Rashi should have asked

(not "why did He not begin with this" but)

"why did He change the order and why did He begin with the portion at the beginning of the book" and the like?

Also requires explanation the language of Rashi's question "and why did He not begin",

and not "why did He not precede"²⁸

and the like²⁹?

4.

Also one must understand the answer

(of Rashi etc.)

"Because it is the &lt;b&gt;disgrace &lt;/b&gt;of Israel,

that all forty years that Israel were in the wilderness they offered only this Pesach alone":

In what does the "disgrace" consist — Rashi had &lt;b&gt;previously &lt;/b&gt;already explained&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;,

That "the Scripture attached this commandment*³⁰

(the Paschal sacrifice)

to their coming into the land, and they were not obligated in the wilderness except for one Paschal sacrifice that they performed in the second year according to the command."

D.

E.

They were <b>explicitly </b>commanded regarding its offering <b>only </b>in the Land of Israel³¹

that the offering of the Paschal sacrifice in the wilderness

(aside from the first time)

was forbidden

(one may not offer on the altar — "which I did not command them"³²)],

And on the contrary — the offering in the desert was only according to the word³³.

Tosafot³⁴

and commentators of Rashi³⁵

are

explains³⁵,

"namely their fault that they delayed to enter the land until 40 years because of the sin of the spies."

It is however difficult to learn thus in the simple meaning of the verse

(in Rashi's commentary),

because —

a)

In our parshah of Pesach it is not mentioned that because of the sin of the spies one would not enter Eretz Yisrael,

and on the contrary,

(further)

<b>In our parshah </b>it states³⁶

that Moshe said "We are journeying to the place,"

<b>And Rashi </b>"Immediately within three days we are entering the land,

for in this first journey they journeyed with the intention to enter Eretz Yisrael,"

is here not mentioned at all the disgrace of Israel³⁷?

b)

And the main point: according to this, 1)

the "disgrace" in this that "they delayed to enter the land for forty years,"

is not the <b>offering</b> of the Pesach.

2)

If one were to count this as a "disgrace,"

this pertains not only to the Korban Pesach,

but to all commandments which are dependent on the Land and on entry into the Land — does it not fit to attribute the "disgrace" specifically to the Korban Pesach?

And on the contrary, more "disgrace" is in all the other commandments of this type,

because they were not fulfilled in the desert even once.

5.

This will be understood by prefacing what Rashi says that "He did not begin with this because it is the disgrace of Israel."

Is not smooth: if the Torah does not want to bring "the disgrace of Israel,"

why does one need to relate "the disgrace of Israel" at all?

It is understood from this,

that the main objection about this is regarding the "section <b>at the beginning of</b> the book,"

because the <b>opening</b>

(of a book and the like)

must be with a matter of "the endearment of Israel."

And as we indeed find that the opening of each of the three books of the Torah in which it speaks about Jews,

Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers³⁸,

is with a matter of affection for Jews — as Rashi explains at the beginning of each book: "And these are the names,

to make known their belovedness"; "And He called to Moses,

to all speeches and to all sayings and to all commandments a calling preceded, an expression of affection"; "And He spoke etc. in the Sinai desert,

out of His affection for them He counts them at every time".

"What is the reason that He opened with 'In the beginning'" that the intention of this

(and of the opening)

is "the power of His works He told to His people, to give them the inheritance of nations"].

And since this matter

(regarding the opening of the book of the Torah)

is already known

from the <b>previous </b>books,

one must say,

that Rashi's question here "And why did he not begin with this" is,

because <b>the </b>portion

("this")

expresses the virtue and belovedness of Jews,

and therefore it would seemingly have been more fitting that it should be the opening of the book of Bamidbar.

6.

Explanation of the matter: The book of Leviticus is almost entirely commands from the Most High that were said to Moses after the establishment of the Mishkan; and the book of Numbers speaks about

(the commands and the)

order of events in the conduct of the children of Israel in the wilderness³⁹.

would then have been fitting,

that the opening of the book of Numbers should be with the virtue of Jews as they fulfilled in practice the command of God⁴⁰,

"And they made the Passover etc. according to all that the Lord commanded Moses, so did the children of Israel"⁴¹,

in its completeness and fullness,

that all Jews offered the sacrifice of the Lord at its appointed time,

in the Mishkan,

as it ought to be⁴²

(and even to the extent of the claim "Why should we be diminished").

Even though the "section at the head of the book" is in a matter that is "out of their endearment",

as above,

but

it would have been more appropriate to say the section

(with its endearment),

is]

the

endearment that "out of their endearment He counts them" is not a new thing; it is already brought at the beginning of the book of Shemot⁴³

; it would have been more appropriate that the opening should be with our section,

And one should add — the openings would have been in the order of ascending in holiness — each higher than the previous:

The opening of the book of Shemot is the affection for Jews &lt;b&gt;from their own essence&lt;/b&gt;,

which expresses itself in that which “&lt;b&gt;He counted them&lt;/b&gt;”;

The opening of the book of Vayikra is the love of the Almighty for Jews in the matter of the commands and the commandments,

which is expressed in that before all commands there was "preceded a reading [in] a language of affection"

(and as the precise wording of Rashi "for all speeches and for all sayings and for all commands",

not as the speech to Moshe himself,

but as the conclusion of Rashi's wording "but to the prophets of the nations of the world He revealed to them in a language of transience and impurity, as it is said etc.",

since this is connected with the nations of the world)

And the opening of this subsequent book,

the book of Bamidbar,

would then have been with the superiority and love of Jews in that the Almighty then told them

(after the erection of the Mishkan)

a special commandment,

which they themselves were then

(in the desert)

not obligated,

which itself already indicates their praise and love of Israel; and the Jews fulfilled the commandment,

and offered the sacrifice in the Mishkan in completeness "as all that the Lord commanded Moshe, so did the children of Israel do",

as above.

Further: here is expressed

(a)

the <b>superiority</b> and <b>praise</b> of Jews — how strongly they wanted to fulfill G‑d’s command,

that even “men who were impure from a human soul and could not make the Passover-offering,”

also they demanded and argued “why should we be diminished so as not to bring the offering of G‑d in its appointed time”⁴⁴,

and

(b)

the <b>affection</b> of Jews by the Most High,

that He accepted their claim and request “why should we be diminished” and gave them the opportunity to complete the lack and to offer the Passover-offering of the second Passover.

7.

To this Rashi answers “because it is the disgrace of Israel,

that all the years that Israel were in the wilderness they offered only this Passover-offering alone.”

That this affection that is seen in the portion — the command regarding the offering of the Passover-offering in the wilderness

(as a temporary directive)

and the second Passover — brings with it a matter of disgrace:

Even though "the Torah attached this commandment to their coming to the Land",

it is however not like other commandments that are dependent on coming to the Land,

whose essential obligation applies only when one comes to the Land⁴⁵,

Not only the commandments like first fruits⁴⁶

and terumot and ma'asrot or even challah⁴⁷

— these commandments are connected to the land itself,

the fruits and produce of Jews in the Land of Israel specifically; but even such matters as for example the firstborn donkey which is not related to the land itself,

and

(according to one opinion in Rashi's commentary⁴⁸)

is connected to their coming

Specifically to the land — the obligation is only upon their coming to the land⁴⁹]

The offering of the Paschal sacrifice also applies in the desert,

It is only that the Almighty did not obligate them regarding <b>in practice</b>⁵⁰

until their coming to the land⁵¹.

And further we see in the parshah,

that from the request and claim of some <b>counted</b> Jews "Why should we be diminished",

did the Almighty give a time for the Paschal sacrifice on the 14th of Iyar when they could offer the Paschal sacrifice,

a thing which is not found regarding any other commandment or sacrifice

(that one says that in general — its day passed, its sacrifice is void⁵²).

Becomes the question — and even for a five-year-old studying Scripture: How is it that all the 39 years that the Jews were in the wilderness they did not demand and request from the Almighty "Why should we be diminished",

that they want to offer the "sacrifice to the Lord",

the Paschal sacrifice

(and especially since this was the sacrifice that saved them in Egypt⁵³

and brought them to the redemption from Egypt⁵⁴)?

And all the more so with a kal vachomer: That when individual Jews argued "Why should we be diminished" the Almighty gave them an opportunity to offer the sacrifice,

all the more so when all Jews

(knowing that the sacrifice is not equal to the other commandments dependent on the Land,

as above)

would have asked and demanded from the Almighty that they want to offer the Paschal sacrifice in the manner that they did it in the wilderness in the second year,

they would have carried it out.

And this is "the disgrace of &lt;b&gt;Israel&lt;/b&gt;,

that all forty years that Israel was in the wilderness they offered only this Paschal sacrifice alone" — when Jews ask the Almighty "Why should we be diminished" they would have achieved and offered the sacrifice all forty years.

8.

According to this, however, the question arises: How is it that Moses and Aaron and the like did not ask and did not effect from the Almighty that they should offer the Paschal sacrifice during the entire span of 39 years in the desert?

So the explanation of this is

(in the inner dimension of the matters)

The princes of Israel are the head of all, and their entire matter is to think and do about Jews.

Until we find by Moses that he sacrificed himself for the entire Jewish people,

not only mesirat haguf (self-sacrifice of the body) but also mesirat hanefesh (self-sacrifice of the soul),

as he said, "And if not, erase me now from Your book which You have written"⁵⁵.

And from this it is understood in our subject:

"The shortcomings of Israel" and how this comes

out in our parshah,

is not so much with emphasis.

Because one does not find that the essence of the offering of the Paschal lamb is effected through a request to the Almighty,

rather — a <b>completion</b> to the offering that all Jews became obligated that year.

On the other hand: If Moshe and Aharon had asked the Almighty that they themselves should offer the Paschal sacrifice,

and would have accomplished this

(and even — for all Jews),

this itself would have brought out "the disgrace of Israel" in an even greater manner,

demonstrating that this is a sacrifice to G‑d which one can effect its offering through a request to G‑d — and nevertheless, the Jews did not ask.

Therefore, Moshe and Aharon,

being faithful shepherds,

in order not to bring out

(more openly)

"the disgrace of Israel,"

they forwent their advantage

(in which they were not commanded)

to bring a Paschal sacrifice,

by asking for it — just to preserve the honor of Israel.

9.

Based on all the above, it is to be explained based on the wine of Torah in Rashi's commentary,

That which the concept that "there is no <b>order</b> of early and late in the Torah" is derived

("you learn")

specifically from this portion:

The obligation of the Second Passover⁵⁶

(which is the <b>novelty</b> of the portion)

its essence is not like the manner of obligation of the First Passover

(and in general — other commandments)

which was initially set up and must be according to the order of the Torah

(<b>in its time</b>),

but this is in a manner of not according to order,

for those who <b>did not</b> offer the Passover sacrifice in its time.

And also the manner in which the commandment was <b>said</b> to Jews,

was not according to order,

from other commandments and commands,

which the Almighty commanded them initially,

Only as an answer to the claim and request of Jews who are “impure through contact with a human corpse” — “Why should we be diminished?”

In the service of G‑d, this is the matter of the service of repentance, which is not like one who serves the Most High in the <b>straight</b> way,

“which G‑d made man straight”⁵⁷,

but one who has fallen,

sinned and blemished and transgressed the path⁵⁸,

That this is also the content of the matter of being impure for a human soul,

as discussed at length once⁵⁹.

And this is the hint in Rashi in this: "Because it is the disgrace of Israel that all forty years that Israel were in the wilderness they offered only this Passover sacrifice alone,"

that also the offering during the entire forty years had to come in a manner of not according to the order

(in the manner that the Above told them to offer the Passover sacrifice in the second year, which is not according to the order of the commandment,

since in the wilderness they were not obligated,

and primarily)

that they had to demand and ask from the Above,

The reason for this is: during all the years "that Israel was in the wilderness",

this was a state of after the sin

(for which they were indeed in the wilderness,

as above.

as above),

not like the state of Jews at the offering of the Passover sacrifice in Egypt,

when they then stood in a state of first having been "born"⁶⁰,

and consequently it then

(in the wilderness)

required of Jews a service of "without order",

above order,

"in one moment"⁶¹,

the service of repentance.

10.

According to all the above, it comes out,

that <b>in our parshah</b> we learn the greatness of the matter of the <b>request</b> "Why should we be diminished."

And since "the Torah is eternal"⁶²,

an <b>eternal lesson</b>,

it is understood,

that this pertains to all times and in all places,

and especially in the present time⁶³.

And in this manner it is understood regarding the requests and prayers of the children of Israel⁶⁴

in general,

and all the more so the spiritual request of each and every one of the children of Israel,

that it should be

(for indeed “all the appointed times have passed”⁶⁵)

the true and complete redemption,

and in the manner of “immediately they are redeemed”⁶⁶,

And in the language of the prayer of the Amidah,

which Jews pray three times each day

(of the weekdays),

"The shoot of David Your servant &lt;b&gt;speedily &lt;/b&gt;may You cause to sprout"&lt;sup&gt;67&lt;/sup&gt;,

and in the seal of &lt;b&gt;all&lt;/b&gt;

prayers,

also of Shabbat and Yom Tov,

"May it be His will etc. that the Holy Temple be built speedily in our days etc.",

According to its simple meaning — speedily in our days, literally.

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Beha'alotcha 5741)