English translation — חוקת ב

1.

We have already spoken many times about the principle that Rashi states regarding his commentary on the Torah — "I have come only for the plain meaning of the verse and for the Aggadah that settles the words of the verse, etc."¹

— that since he is with the Aggadah in order to settle the words of the verse,

therefore he is not precise to bring the Aggadot specifically in their language²,

rather he brings them

(often)

in a different language,

which should be suited to the content of his commentary.

A striking example of this we find in Rashi's commentary in this week's Torah portion:

About the journey and encampment "And they camped beyond Arnon, etc."³

The Torah tells: "Therefore it is said in the Book of the Wars of the Lord: 'Et Vahev in the storm and the streams of Arnon.

And the slope of the streams that stretches toward the dwelling of Ar and leans upon the border of Moab'"⁴.

Rashi explains,

that thereby the Torah alludes to the "great miracles" which occurred in the streams of Arnon.

And as Rashi elaborates at great length,

that there were "high mountains and the stream deep and narrow",

and the path on which the Jews had to go passed through that stream.

The Amorites hid in the caves of the mountains,

saying,

that when the Jews would pass through "we will kill them with arrows and catapult stones".

But the Almighty performed a miracle that "the mountain of Eretz Yisrael quaked

And it drew near to the side of the mountain of Moab ..

And they killed them"

(And this means "which stretches toward the dwelling of Ar and leans upon the border of Moab" — "the mountain moved from its place and drew near to the side of the border of Moab").

Further says the verse<sup>5</sup>

"And from there the well,

it is the well of which the Lord said to Moses: Gather the people and I will give them water."

Rashi explains,

that this is a continuation of

(the miracles of)

the previous verse,

and the plain meaning of this verse is: "From there the stream came to the well. How did the Holy One, blessed be He, say: Who informs the children of these miracles? The proverb says: You gave bread to a child, inform his mother,

after they passed, the mountains returned to their places and the well descended into the stream and brought up from there the blood of the slain and arms and limbs and carried them around the camp, and Israel saw and sang praise."

B.

The source of this explanation

(that the verses allude to the aforementioned miracles)

is in Tanchuma<sup>6</sup>

and Midrash Rabbah<sup>7</sup>

on the passage — but one sees a <b>fundamental </b>difference between Rashi and the Midrash in the description of the miracle<sup>8</sup>

as it was the "and they killed them."

In the Midrash it stands,

that a part of the "populations" came into the caves

(which were in the mountains above)

and a part of them were within the valley; and there were <b>two</b> miracles: a)

The populations in the caves were killed by

the fact that the mountains converged⁹

"And the demons of this mountain entered into the caves"¹⁰.

b)

The second miracle was through the fact that "the well descended into the valley and surged there

(the waters of the well)

and destroyed all the population

(that was in the valley)

in the manner that the sea destroyed them

(at the splitting of the Red Sea)

Rashi, however, brings down only &lt;b&gt;one &lt;/b&gt;miracle&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;

— the killing of the Amorites who had hidden in the caves — he &lt;b&gt;omits &lt;/b&gt;the miracle of the well that flooded the stream and there drowned the Amorites.

One must understand: although at first glance one can say that the plain meaning of the verse compels a miracle,

but not two

(types)

miracles,

But Rashi himself explains,

that the plain meaning of the verse here <b>matches</b> the miracles of the Arnon streams to the miracles at the Red Sea — as he translates the words "את <b>והב בסופה</b> ואת הנחלים ארנון": "which He gave them <b>and many</b> miracles at the Red <b>Sea</b> ..

<b>Just as</b> they recount the miracles of the Red Sea <b>so</b> should one recount the miracles of the Arnon streams"¹²

— then it is simply understood

As the interpretation of the Midrash is also that in the stream a miracle occurred

(through the well)

"in the manner that the sea destroyed them"?

Further: the verse tells further that Jews said song and that the content of the song is connected

(only)

with the well.

So,

according to the Midrash that the well itself destroyed

(drowned)

the Amorites

(— their portion),

it is understandable why the well was the content of the song of the Jews; but according to Rashi it turns out,

that upon the actual miracle through which they were saved from the Amorites,

they did not say song,

and their song was only about a matter secondary to the miracle — that the well informed the Jews of this miracle?

3.

According to the above — that Rashi brings down only the Aggadot

(and from the Aggadot only the matters)

which settle the words of the verse — it is understood:

In the continuation of the verse "and the outpouring of the streams which stretched to dwell at Ar and leaned toward the border of Moab" is only alluded to the miracle of "the mountain moved from its place and drew near to the side of the border of Moab",

But there is no hint of the miracle that the well waters drowned the Amorites in the stream¹³

(One cannot say that it is alluded to in the words "and the outpouring of the streams",

Because from the language of the verse it is proven,

That the "outpouring

(flow)

of the streams" was a result of "which stretched etc.")

— Therefore Rashi teaches,

That "outpouring of the streams" means "flow of the streams that was poured out there <b>the blood of the Amorites</b> who were hiding there"

(In the

caves in the mountains)

— Through this that "the mountain moved from its place and drew near to the side of the border of Moab" and the Amorites who were in the caves killed them,

There was a "flow" of their blood which entered into the stream.

whose way of interpretation is not so bound to the language of the verse,

then since the verse compares the miracles in the Arnon streams to the miracles at the Sea of Reeds,

the Midrash learns¹⁴,

that also in the stream a miracle occurred similar to the miracle at the Sea of Reeds,

even though the verse does not hint at this miracle].

4.

Based on this, several variations in language between Rashi and the Midrash will also be understood

(on the verse "And from there [to] Be'er")

a)

In the Midrash it stands that in order to publicize the miracles,

the well descended was "to those &lt;b&gt;caves&lt;/b&gt;" where the Amoraim were killed; but Rashi says that the well "descended into the &lt;b&gt;stream&lt;/b&gt;".

b)

In the Midrash the wording is "and it brought out skulls and arms and legs without number"; in Rashi, however, the wording is that the well "brought up from there the blood of the slain and arms and limbs".

That which Rashi says "arms and limbs" — not "skulls arms and legs" as in the Midrash

they are indeed including also arms — why are "arms" mentioned separately?]

One can explain: The Above wanted to show Jews not only

That they were saved from enemies in general,

but also from &lt;b&gt;which &lt;/b&gt;type of enemies He saved them — from an army of heroes; and therefore He

(through the well)

showed them the &lt;b&gt;arms&lt;/b&gt;,

in which the heroism of a person is evident.

But if the Almighty had shown this in a manner that the well would raise &lt;b&gt;only &lt;/b&gt;the arms of the slain and leave the other limbs,

then this would have been a miracle within a miracle — a benefit and purpose,

a gratuitous miracle&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;

— therefore the well raised

(not only arms,

but all)

limbs — which includes skulls and legs.

He omits "שאין להם חקר" — because this is not in the plain meaning of the verse.

And beyond this — such a great wonder would have had to be at least hinted at in the verse,

according to the plain meaning.

But it is not understood: why does Rashi &lt;b&gt;add &lt;/b&gt;to the midrash "the blood of the slain"?

Blood — who mentioned it?¹⁶

But Rashi goes according to his approach: Rashi explains, after all,

as above,

that “&lt;b&gt;and the stream &lt;/b&gt;of the brooks” means the &lt;b&gt;outpouring &lt;/b&gt;of blood that entered into the &lt;b&gt;brook&lt;/b&gt;.

And consequently,

that the verse says “&lt;b&gt;and from there &lt;/b&gt;the well” it means — “from there

(from the &lt;b&gt;brook&lt;/b&gt;)

came &lt;b&gt;the stream &lt;/b&gt;

(the outpouring of blood)

to the well” — Rashi cannot say like in the Midrash that the well entered into the caves — because in the &lt;b&gt;simple meaning &lt;/b&gt;of Scripture it states that the “stream” was &lt;b&gt;in the brook&lt;/b&gt;.

Therefore Rashi must say “and the well descended into the &lt;b&gt;brook&lt;/b&gt;”.

And therefore Rashi adds “and the blood of the slain” — and on the contrary: he places it first of all — because the verse speaks about “&lt;b&gt;outpouring &lt;/b&gt;of the brooks”

(the simple meaning of “stream”),

which is relevant specifically when there is blood,

a thing that is poured out

(“where the blood of the Amorites was poured out”)

— but not so arms and limbs

(alone)

regarding which the matter of “outpouring” cannot apply —

But in this "torrent" of "the blood of the slain" there were also "arms and limbs"¹⁷.

H.

One must however understand: in Rashi on "And from there the well" one finds yet two main changes regarding the midrash:

A)

Rashi in his commentary adds "the parable says: you gave bread to a child, inform his mother."

The parable was indeed taken from

(another place in)

Midrash¹⁸

(where the story is brought in brief)

— but in <b>that place</b> in Midrash where the <b>lengthy version</b> that Rashi brings is told

(in his commentaries here),

the parable is <b>not</b> brought¹⁹.

B)

In the Midrash here¹⁰

that the Jews found out about the miracle through the fact that "they returned to seek the well and saw it that it was emerging ..

from the stream and bringing forth limbs, limbs"

(and in

Gemara²⁰

it states,

states,

that two lepers who were <b>outside </b>the camp saw this)

; Rashi, however, <b>changes </b>from the midrash

(and Gemara)

and says that the well itself announced it <b>to everyone </b>through the fact that

(the well)

"<b>led them around the camp, and Israel saw </b>and said song."

What is the compulsion in the plain meaning of Scripture for the two above-mentioned changes?

For apparently — on the contrary: in both of the above details, it would seemingly have been more fitting to the way of peshat that Rashi should say as in the midrash:

A)

The purpose of a mashal is to explain and make clearer that which is lacking in the understanding of the nimshal.

But in our case, there is seemingly nothing lacking in the understanding of the nimshal — the reason why the Almighty informs the Jews about the miracles that He performed for them,

is understood <b>very simply</b>²¹

and requires no explanation — and in general, what does the mashal add that Rashi adds?

B)

Even a five-year-old studying Scripture understands that the Almighty does not perform a miracle for no reason¹⁵

— there must be a reason for which Hashem should, because of it, override the natural order.

So why does Rashi teach that in order to inform [them] of the miracle, the Almighty made a special miracle

("He led them around the camp")

— and does not teach, as in the Midrash, that the Jews themselves figured this out through natural means²²,

as above?

6.

In the parable itself that Rashi brings — "He gave bread to a child, he informed his mother" — is not understood:

At first glance, in the parable it is similar to the moral: in the parable, the notification

(not to the child,

but)

"<b>to his mother</b>",

unlike in the moral, the One Above informed the Jews of the miracle

(the child — in the parable).

Also: what is he teaching us by selecting the example of "He gave <b>bread</b>" — and on the contrary: "bread" indicates a matter of necessity,

unlike the moral of "Who informs the children of <b>these miracles</b>" <b>emphasizes</b> not the matter of necessity

(bread),

but — only the thing which one does because of abundant affection etc.

The wonder in this is even greater: the source of this parable is in the Gemara²³,

where the instruction is stated: one who gives bread to a child must inform his mother²⁴.

And this law comes as a continuation²⁵

to the law: one who gives a gift to his fellow must inform him — and prima facie specifically <b>this</b> law of <b>to his fellow</b> is appropriate in our case:

(a)

here it speaks about a plain "gift"²⁶

(not a necessary item — "bread").

(b)

the notification here is to the recipient of the gift himself

(and not "to his mother")

And Rashi brings specifically the parable of "you gave bread to a child, inform his mother"?

7.

This will be understood by prefacing a general question in Rashi's commentary,

that the words "and the waterfall of the streams which bent etc. and from there the well etc." allude to the details of the miracles that the Most High performed at the streams of Arnon — at first glance the interpretation

(that "which bent etc." means that the &lt;b&gt;mountain &lt;/b&gt;bent and moved until "the border of Moav")

is far from the plain meaning.

And as one indeed sees,

that several plain-sense commentators&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;

interpret that "which bent etc." refers to the stream

(or to the Jews&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;)

and indicates the signs where the stream

(or the Jews)

was,

and "and from there the well" means the journey of Bnei Yisrael to "the well"

(which comes in continuation of the previously enumerated journeys)&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;,

or that the stream from there bent until "the well"

(the place of the well)&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;.

Why does Rashi interpret

(like the interpretation of the midrash)

and not like the aforementioned plain-sense commentators?

And it may be said, the explanation in all this:

In his commentaries on the verses here,

Rashi comes to defend a general question in the narrative of the Scriptures: In the Chumash it is told about several miracles that the Almighty did for Jews for the sake of saving the children of Israel,

and

(from them)

miracles which were not

They are not at all within the boundaries of nature — and nevertheless one does not find,

that Jews should say &lt;b&gt;shirah &lt;/b&gt; because of them

(Certainly Jews remembered the Above and praised Him for the miracles&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;,

but the Torah does not mention this)

— with the exception of the splitting of the Sea of Reeds and — in our parshah.

And it requires understanding — what is different about these two miracles,

that specifically by them did Jews say shirah&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;?

Rashi learns that from this itself there is a necessity to say that in Nachlei Arnon there occurred great and unique miracles which are similar to the splitting of the Yam Suf,

and as Rashi explains and emphasizes in his commentary on the words "Et Vahev beSufah" and "VeEt haNechalim Arnon" — "Just as they recount the miracles of Yam Suf, so too etc. the miracles of Nachlei Arnon,

that here too great miracles occurred";

And it can be said that the proof that the verse compares the miracles to the miracles of the sea is

(primarily)

not from the language of "Sufah"

(which falls on the language of Yam Suf)

— because that is far in the way of the simple meaning — rather from the totality of the content of the story: since we find that Jews specifically said a song here,

this compels one to say that the miracles here are "just as" — similar to the miracles of Yam Suf

(of Az Yashir).

And from this reason Rashi learns that the verse itself brings out

in what the miracles consisted —

Since the verse tells that Jews said song,

it is plausible that the verse also says

(at least in hint)

(at least — in hint)

why one said song here.

ח.

In what consists the advantage and superiority of the miracles of Kri’as Yam Suf relative to the other miracles,

that for that specifically then they said shirah?

One cannot say that this is because the miracle of Kri’as Yam Suf saved Bnei Yisrael from mortal danger³³

— because also by other miracles one finds this,

And in our matter: the mann and the well of Miriam saved Jews from danger of hunger and thirst in the desert;

And likewise — also not because of this that Krias Yam Suf was a miracle that is entirely above nature — because also the miracle of the manna and Miriam's well are not within the category of nature,

And on the contrary — specifically they lasted close to forty years.

Rather the unique wonder in this was

(in the language of the verse³⁴)

— "Hashem will fight for you and you shall be silent": in other such cases³⁵,

when Jews were in a situation of danger from the nations,

was the miracle of salvation and rescue in a manner that Jews waged war with them,

and the Almighty conducted so that the Jews should be victorious,

until a victory in a miraculous manner.

By Kria”s however,

were Jews “tachrishun”,

did not do any thing to

save themselves from the Egyptians; the Above alone and only He is “yilachem” with the Egyptians.

And <b>the </b>inyan — that the Above did everything <b>instead of </b>the Jews

("Hashem will fight <b>for you</b>")

— shows an extraordinary and superabundant love

(that not only does the Above save Jews from danger,

but He even spares them from doing anything towards it),

and therefore specifically <b>the </b>miracle brought about that Jews should say shirah.

And this is also the point of the novelty in the miracle that occurred at Nachlei Arnon: also there³⁶

the salvation of Bnei Yisrael came in a manner of "Hashem will fight for you and you shall be silent"³⁷,

and therefore also <b>the </b>miracle aroused Jews to say shirah³⁸.

9.

Based on this, one will also understand why Rashi adds the parable "You gave bread to a child, inform his mother":

Rashi emphasizes the distinctiveness of the miracles at the Arnon streams compared to other miracles

(and one could say that in particular the following — even regarding the miracle of Kri'as Yam Suf)

: By &lt;b&gt;the &lt;/b&gt;miracles the Almighty said "&lt;b&gt;Who&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;

informs the children of these miracles": The matter that only "&lt;b&gt;Hashem &lt;/b&gt;will fight for you" was there to such an extent that Jews did not

You know,

neither of the danger nor of the salvation!

And this is the content of "You gave bread to an infant, you informed his mother" and its novelty regarding "one who gives a gift to his friend must inform him": "bread" is not just a gift,

but a matter of &lt;b&gt;necessity&lt;/b&gt;,

as above.

And this is also the matter in "you informed his mother": in general,

this is the role of the mother to give the infant all his needs.

And therefore,

when another "replaces" the mother and gives the infant "bread" — must inform &lt;b&gt;his mother&lt;/b&gt;.

And so too in our matter: here it dealt with a matter most necessary,

in the manner of "bread" — saving Jews from a &lt;b&gt;danger&lt;/b&gt; general and great&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;,

which in general,

occupied himself with it "the nation" — Moses our teacher,

the faithful shepherd who provided Jews with all their needs&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;.

And as one finds,

that in every case when among the children of Israel something was lacking,

or they found themselves in a time of distress,

Moses our teacher occupied himself with it

(or prayed to the Holy One, blessed be He).

But in our case, the entire help and salvation was brought about &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; through Moses our teacher&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;.

It came entirely

In a manner of "Hashem will fight for you and you shall be silent"

(and as above,

even more than by Krias,

where there they knew of the danger,

and also — Moshe prayed to the Almighty⁴³)

; the "opening" did not come through "his mother".

Based on this one can say,

that the matter of "made known <b>to his mother</b>" in the allegory is: also the "well",

which provided Jews with water

(a necessary thing)

in the desert,

is analogous to a "mother"⁴⁴

who provides her children with their needs.

And through that which the Almighty made that "the well went up to the well",

was the "made known to his mother"⁴⁵.

With this is also answered the second change

(above section 5)

in Rashi regarding the midrash

(and gemara)

— that the &lt;b&gt;well &lt;/b&gt;“leads them around the camp”:

One of the purposes in “you gave etc. inform his mother” is — that the mother should

(after all)

inform

(and explain)

the infant of the good that he received from the giver of the bread.

And likewise in our matter: from the perspective of the directive “you gave etc. inform his mother” it is understandable,

that the &lt;b&gt;well itself &lt;/b&gt;went “&lt;b&gt;informing&lt;/b&gt;” the Jews of the miracle

(and Gemara),

it is not that the well announced the miracle to Jews,

but rather Jews,

seeking the well,

saw the miracles through the well].

10.

And one can further say — regarding the

(second)

change in Rashi — that,

according to the above,

the foundation of Rashi's explanations is to explain what here is the exception,

from all the miracles — why Jews said song:

On "Az Yashir Moshe"⁴⁶

Rashi explains: "Then <b>when he saw the miracle</b> it arose in his heart that he would sing a song."

From Rashi's language it is understood,

that the matter of saying a song comes from that which "<b>he saw</b> the miracle": when one <b>perceives</b> a miracle,

it causes that one should say a song⁴⁷.

And for this reason Rashi teaches,

that likewise it was in our case⁴⁸

: That which the Jews <b>found</b> the well was also not in a <b>natural</b> manner —

(Then it is not "he saw the miracle": they did not see the miracle itself,

but the <b>results</b> of the miracle).

Therefore Rashi explains,

that the announcement to Jews about "these miracles" was in one continuum with the totality of the miracle: the well

(in the same "journey" of "and from there to the well")

went around the camp in a miraculous manner,

so,

that all Jews <b>saw</b> how the Almighty informed them about "these miracles".

It turns out,

that Jews had a vision in this miracle⁴⁹,

and since "and Israel <b>saw</b>

(therefore)

and they said⁵⁰

song:

Leaves of the well⁵¹,

from the stream and the leaves that you raise up.”

(From the sicha of Shabbat Parshat Chukat-Balak 5735)