English translation — פנחס ג

A.

On the verse¹

"And their meal-offering and their drink-offerings for the bulls" — which is stated regarding the offerings of the second day of Sukkos — Rashi explains: the bulls of the festival are seventy,

corresponding to the seventy nations that are diminished and go,

a sign of their destruction,

and in the time of the Temple they would protect them from the sufferings.

As one learns simply,

it is difficult for Rashi: how does it come that the bulls of the festival are "<b>diminished </b>and go"²?

And he answers³,

that the bulls of the festival are "corresponding to the seventy nations that are diminished and go."

According to this, it is also understandable why Rashi places this commentary specifically at the verses of the <b>second</b> day of Sukkot — and not immediately at the first day — because the difficulty in the verse

(which compels the explanation that the bulls of the festival are corresponding to the seventy nations)

arises only at the second day<sup>4</sup>,

where one sees that the bulls of the festival are diminished and go decreasing.

It is, however, most perplexing: the matter

From diminishing and going one sees immediately in the first verse of the offerings of the second day — "And on the second day bulls etc. twelve"

(With one less than on the first day)

; today why does Rashi wait with his commentary until the verse <b>following</b> — "And their meal-offering and their drink-offerings for the bulls"?

The wonder in this is even greater: in <b>this</b> verse the number of the bulls is not mentioned at all!

2.

Also in the very commentary of Rashi it is perplexing — he is seemingly contradicting himself repeatedly:

He begins his commentary saying that what the bulls of the festival are corresponding to the seventy nations,

is in a manner of

(diminishing and going —)

"a sign of <b>destruction</b> for them",

and immediately continues the opposite,

that "in the times of the Temple" the offerings not only did not bring their destruction,

but on the contrary: "they <b>protected</b> them etc."⁵?

And although one could say,

that the two opposite actions are connected with separate matters — the "sign of a vessel for them" is only from the aspect of the &lt;b&gt;number &lt;/b&gt;of the bulls,

but the offering of the sacrifices effected a protection upon them — is nevertheless still perplexing:

a)

What is the practical difference &lt;b&gt;here &lt;/b&gt;in the explanation of the verse that "and in the days of the Temple they would protect them etc."?

b)

And the main point: in the end, this is a contradiction — how can it be that the &lt;b&gt;same &lt;/b&gt;offerings should have &lt;b&gt;contradictory &lt;/b&gt;effects: a sign of destruction and of protection?

c.

Also there are several precise points in the &lt;b&gt;language &lt;/b&gt;of Rashi,

and among them:

a)

Since Rashi comes to answer why the bulls of the festival are diminishing and going,

he would have needed to <b>begin</b> his commentary: "For the bulls — corresponding to the nations that are diminishing and going, a sign of their destruction"

(and the like),

and afterwards to base this commentary with a <b>proof</b>: "And

(therefore)

their number is seventy corresponding to the seventy nations"

(and the like)

— why does Rashi begin with the explanation on the <b>total number</b> of the bulls,

and only <b>afterwards</b> does he say "that are diminishing and going"?

Furthermore: in the continuation of the topic,

the explanation on "and for the lambs"⁶,

Rashi indeed begins his commentary "corresponding to Israel ...

and they are fixed"

(not like the bulls of the festival that are diminishing and going)

— and only <b>afterwards</b> does he explain "<b>and their count</b> is ninety-eight etc."

b)

What is the lengthy language in Rashi “

(that they diminish and go)

<b>a sign of destruction for them</b>” — seemingly it would have been sufficient if Rashi said “

(against seventy nations)

that they diminish and go”⁷?

And along the lines of how the

language that Rashi himself uses in his commentary earlier

(at the Covenant Between the Parts⁸)

— “therefore etc. a hint about the nations that they will be destroyed and go”.

3)

Essential matter missing from the book: Where is then the &lt;b&gt;offering of the bulls&lt;/b&gt; — Rashi should have said "and the offering of the bulls protects them."

4)

What is the meaning of "&lt;b&gt;And in the time of the Temple&lt;/b&gt; they would protect them etc." — Would one then have thought that the offering and consequently the protection of the sacrifices is during the time of the exile?

ה)

Rashi in the Gemara⁹

says,

that the seventy bulls of the festival — corresponding to the seventy nations — are "to atone for them so that rains fall in the entire world, because they are judged on the festival regarding water."

Why does Rashi in his commentary on the Torah say a <b>different</b> matter and subject¹⁰

regarding the action of the offerings — "they would protect them <b>from the sufferings</b>"?

ד.

And one can say the explanation of all this:

The very thing why the days of the festival are decreasing and going,

would

(in study according to the plain meaning)

not have been a great difficulty.

Because,

as it is even understood by a child of five years for Scripture,

there is in each number of the offerings a certain hint.

And as he already learned earlier in the story of the Covenant Between the Parts

(a three-year-old heifer etc.11)

and so on in Parsha Nasso by the

offerings of the princes¹²

— that the hints determine the number

(i.

e.

of the offerings.

And likewise in our matter: one could say that each day of Sukkot there is a matter that is connected specifically with the corresponding number of the bulls.

And Rashi need not say in what the hints consist — because this does not belong to the study according to &lt;b&gt;the plain meaning&lt;/b&gt;,

but to the study according to the hint and the homiletical interpretation.

The "ben chamesh lamikra" knows that in the Torah there is

(not only "pshat",

but)

also remez and drush — for which there will be for him no question from the change in the number of the bulls —

But with <b>him</b> one learns only the study of pshat.

Unless there is a difficulty in the <b>pshat</b> that is resolved only when one knows the remez.

But when one comes to the verse "And their meal-offering and their drink-offerings for the bulls, etc., according to their number, as prescribed" — here it is not understood:

If the offerings of each day of Sukkot have <b>different</b> allusions,

it means,

that they are

(in the allusions and intentions of the matters)

<b>different</b> offerings¹³.

And consequently the verse should have ex-

Count each day all the details of the offerings,

also those that have the same number as on the previous day.

And as we learned earlier,

regarding the offerings of the princes,

that although each prince brought the same number of offerings as the other princes,

nevertheless,

since "each one offered according to his understanding"¹⁴

— each prince had thereby different intentions and allusions,

as is fitting for <b>his</b> tribe — the Torah enumerates by <b>each</b> prince separately

(<b>twelve</b> times)

all those details of the offerings

(and does not suffice with saying "and so-and-so offered" etc. and the like).

But in our case,

the Torah does not repeat for each day separately the meal-offerings etc.,

the details of the offering,

but on the contrary — the verse <b>emphasizes</b> "and their meal-offerings and their libations etc. according to their number <b>as prescribed</b>"

(that this is in the same "prescription" as the offerings of the first day¹⁵).

That is: not only is it not emphasized how the offerings of each day are <b>different</b> offerings,

but on the contrary: the verse emphasizes that they are the same matter that repeats each and every day "as prescribed" of the first day.

Therefore it becomes difficult according to Rashi: since the offerings of the festival are one matter — how is it that the first days of the festival are "<b>diminishing</b> and going"?

If [one] changes the number of the bulls,

it would need to be in a manner of <b>blessing</b>,

increase and "<b>one ascends</b> in holiness",

but not, God forbid,

"<b>diminishing</b> and going"!

Further — it is a thing and its opposite: from that which each day is a &lt;b&gt;change &lt;/b&gt;

(minority)

in the number of the offerings one sees,

that they are &lt;b&gt;different&lt;/b&gt;,

with different allusions; and immediately afterwards the verse emphasizes how the offerings of the festival are &lt;b&gt;one &lt;/b&gt;matter,

one "judgment"?

To this Rashi answers "the bulls of the festival are seventy corresponding to the seventy nations that diminish and go": the offerings of the festival are indeed &lt;b&gt;one &lt;/b&gt;matter

(and judgment),

but regarding the bulls of the festival

(allusion to the nations),

the matter expresses itself.

In the &lt;b&gt;total &lt;/b&gt;number of all the days of the festival — "the bulls of the festival are seventy corresponding to the seventy nations": the bulls of all seven days together constitute one matter

(and consequently — one judgment)

— seventy nations; and this itself is the reason why they are in a manner of "they diminish and go",

because "

(seventy nations that)

diminish and go".

5.

But at the age of five for Mikra it is not understandable:

One has already learned in many places in Chumash about sacrifices,

all kinds of sacrifices,

and everywhere regarding sacrifices a good thing is done — forgiveness and atonement,

"a pleasing fragrance to the Lord,"

etc.

How does it come,

that the <b>action</b> of the bulls of the festival should be a matter of a <b>vessel</b>?

On this Rashi adds explanation — „<b>a sign</b> of a vessel for them, and in the times of the Temple they would <b>shield</b> over them etc.”: That which the bulls of the festival are „corresponding to the seventy nations that diminish and go”,

does not mean that this is the <b>action</b> of the offering,

rather it is „<b>a sign</b> of a vessel for them”: it is only a sign that

(the offerings are corresponding to such

What)

They will ultimately be finished¹⁶

; but "in the days of the Temple they would <b>shield</b> over them etc." — the action of the sacrifices,

which is "in the days of the Temple",

is the opposite,

to provide a defense.

And the action of the offering was indeed not

(Only)

at the time of the offering but until the time of the next offering¹⁷

And the reason for the emphasis "&lt;b&gt;And in the days of the Temple &lt;/b&gt;etc.’”,

because thereby it becomes clear that specifically &lt;b&gt;the &lt;/b&gt;matter

(“they protect them”)

is connected with

(the action of the sacrifice)

— in the days of the Temple¹⁸.

in the days of the Temple,

but not so the “sign of destruction for them”

(which stands before this in Rashi),

is a sign which is connected with the nations in general&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;

(not with the days of the Temple).

6.

According to the above, however — that the matter of “they diminish and go” is

(not the action of the sacrifice,

but)

only “&lt;b&gt;a sign &lt;/b&gt;of destruction for them” — it turns out,

the two matters in the bulls which are corresponding to the nations:

(a)

the inclusive number — seventy,

(b)

the offering in a manner of “they diminish and go” — have no connection between them.

Rashi had to separate them: seventy corresponding to seventy nations,

a

Second matter

(The saying begins with?)

— They diminish and go, a sign of destruction etc.

Also it is not smooth: after what did one need upon it

(The relevance of the bulls and the nations)

have <b>two</b> signs²⁰?

One must say,

that even though the matter of "they diminish and go" is only "a sign of their destruction,"

this, however, pertains to the action of the offering.

And therefore Rashi is precise "they would protect them from <b>the sufferings</b>"

(and not simply "to atone for them" so that they should have <b>blessings</b>,

<b>rains</b>)

: this very thing was the action of the offering,

that not looking upon this that the Most High initially made the nations in a manner that they should be "diminishing and going,"

but "in the days of the Temple" — when Jews would offer the bulls of the festival and specifically seventy corresponding to the seventy nations — then

(all seventy bulls)

"they would <b>protect them from the sufferings</b>,"

the bulls of the festival would protect upon the nations that by them there should

(then)

<b>not</b> be any matter of "diminishing and going,"

even not a "diminishing" of sufferings.

7.

According to all the above, the continuation in Rashi on "ולכבשים" will also become more understandable — "And corresponding to Israel who are called²¹

a scattered sheep and they are fixed and their count is 98 to finish from them the 98 curses in Mishneh Torah" — for at first glance it is not understood:

It is understandable that Rashi says "corresponding to Israel ..

and they are fixed",

this is the opposite of the first fruits of the festival,

which are "corresponding to the seventy nations that diminish and are

“Chai”; but what is relevant

(in the plain sense of Scripture)

to look for hints on “their count 98”?

So the number of the first fruits of the harvest is a proof that they are corresponding to the

(seventy)

nations; but what does the hint in “their count 98” add to this that the lambs are “corresponding to Israel”?

But the explanation in this: since the seventy bulls of the days of the festival are <b>one</b> principle

(as above),

it is plausible to say,

that also the festival offerings which are "corresponding to Israel",

constitute together one matter; and since one offers them in a continuous sequence with the festival bulls,

it follows to say,

that both types of offerings have a similar effect.

Rashi says — "And their count is 98 to finish from them the 98 curses in Mishneh Torah": It is indeed true that "lambs,

corresponding to Israel ..

and they are fixed" — Jews are

(not "diminishing and going" G-d forbid,

but)

"fixed",

"enduring forever"²²

; but this still does not preclude that there should be upon them suffering G-d forbid.

Upon this come the "lambs" and do upon "&lt;b&gt;to finish &lt;/b&gt;in the pattern of the sign &lt;b&gt;vessel &lt;/b&gt;of the bulls,

only for good)

from them 98 curses etc.",

that not only does the very existence of Jews remain whole,

but this is in a manner of rest and tranquility,

without sufferings.

Ch.

One must still however understand: In the verse it says indeed "for bulls for rams and for lambs" — why does Rashi learn that "and for lambs" is "corresponding to Israel",

and not "for rams" which is stated earlier in the verse?

And one cannot answer,

that this is because Jews are called "seh" but not "elim",

<b>And on the contrary </b>— Rashi already explained in parshas Lech²³,

that <b>the nations </b>are compared to elim — because:

a)

On "one bull, one ram"²⁴

(which is written regarding Shemini Atzeret)

Rashi explains "these are corresponding to <b>Israel</b>".

One sees that also bull and ram can be "corresponding to Israel"²⁵

(from the aspect of their number and the like).

Could Rashi then not have found a hint encompassing the rams of the festival of Sukkot - fourteen - that has a connection to Jews²⁶?

b)

Even if one should press oneself and say that there is no hint that corresponds in the plain sense regarding the fourteen rams

(and therefore one must say that the lambs are corresponding to Israel)

— it does not remain smooth²⁷

In the verse: Why does the Torah interrupt between the bulls

(corresponding to the nations)

and lambs

(corresponding to Israel)

— with rams?

This will be understood by prefacing what Rashi explains that the bulls are corresponding to the nations

(only)

from the aspect of the number

(which includes the)

seventy — and prima facie: Rashi indeed explains in Parshat Lech²³

that the nations are compared

Regarding bulls, it is said: "Many bulls have surrounded me"; why does Rashi not bring this matter here by the bulls of the festival?

The question is even greater: Regarding "lambs," Rashi gives a reason that the species of lamb itself is a hint to the Jewish people,

then surely Rashi²⁸

should have given a reason in connection with the <b>species</b> of bulls to the nations of the world?

9.

And one could say the explanation of this — at least in the manner of a hint:

By the sacrifices of the festival of Passover²⁹

Rashi explains: "Bulls — corresponding to Abraham"; "Rams — corresponding to the ram of Isaac"; "Lambs — corresponding to Jacob."

Why does Rashi say “אילים” — plural — when the verse says “ואיל”

(in the singular)?

One can say,

that with this Rashi clarifies,

that this commentary refers

(not only to &lt;b&gt;this verse&lt;/b&gt;,

but)

to all the additional offerings of Yom Tov&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;

of bulls, rams, and lambs,

that they are corresponding to the three Patriarchs.

And therefore Rashi cannot say that the bulls of the festival are corresponding to the nations because the nations are likened to bulls — because on the contrary,

the type of bulls &lt;b&gt;here&lt;/b&gt; is a hint to Abraham; it is only that the &lt;b&gt;number&lt;/b&gt; of bulls are corresponding to the seventy nations.

And there is no contradiction,

that the bulls are both corresponding to Abraham and corresponding to the seventy nations — because regarding Abraham it says³¹

"Father of a multitude of nations have I made you,"

so on the festival one brings the bulls corresponding to the nations to which Abraham is "I have made you" a "father"³².

And likewise regarding "lambs,"

that what they are corresponding to Israel is consistent with that they are corresponding to Jacob — because specifically Jacob is "his bed was complete"³³,

from him came forth only "Israel"

(unlike Isaac from whom came Esau).

And based on this it will be explained

(not only why the verse interrupts with "rams" — since they are corresponding to Yitzchak — but)

also the reason for <b>the change</b>,

that specifically by the offerings of the festival they brought "rams <b>two</b>"

(not like on the other festivals where they bring "one ram")

Since that the bulls and lambs are not corresponding to Avraham and Yaakov in themselves,

but in connection to those of whom they are "fathers" — seventy nations and Bnei Yisrael — it is understood,

that likewise it is regarding the "rams,

corresponding to ..

Yitzchak".

And therefore they bring "rams two" — corresponding to the two sons of Yitzchak,

Yaakov and Esav³⁴.

And this is the order of the offerings: first come the bulls corresponding to the seventy nations; finally come the sheep corresponding to

Israel; and as a "middle ground" — the "two rams",

corresponding to Esau

(nations)

and Jacob

(Israel).

(the inclusive)

of the rams — because the rams are not a matter in themselves,

but they "belong",

are only a mean between bulls and lambs,

as above].

Yud.

And one should add: Rashi indeed is precise in his language "rams — corresponding to the <b>rams</b> of Yitzchak": what is the connection of "two rams" — Yaakov and Esav — to "<b>the rams</b>³⁵

of Yitzchak"?

is the explanation in this

(in the manner of a hint)

: Regarding the ram of Yitzchak it stands in Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer³⁶,

that "the two horns of the ram,

the left one, its voice was heard at Mount Sinai ..

and the right horn ..

(and)

is destined to blow with it in the future".

The difference between the two matters — the Giving of the Torah

(the secret)

and the future — is: The Giving of the Torah has a connection specifically to Jews — Torah is "an inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov"³⁷,

and a gentile who engages in Torah is liable to death³⁸

: But the revelations of the future will open also upon

(on)

the nations that "and the elder shall serve the younger"³⁹,

"and strangers shall stand and feed your flocks" etc.⁴⁰,

and moreover as it is said⁴¹

that "I will turn [to] the

nations a clear language etc. to serve Him with one accord.

It turns out,

that the two horns of the ram of Yitzchak have a connection one to Yaakov

(Yisrael)

and a second to Yaakov and Esav

(nations).

11.

from the wine of Torah that is in Rashi’s commentary:

Regarding the action of offering seventy bulls corresponding to seventy nations, Rashi says “<b>And in the time of the Temple</b> they would protect them, etc.”; in contrast, regarding the lambs he says “And their count is 98, to finish upon them the 98 curses in Mishneh Torah” — why are so many of the “curses in Mishneh Torah” specifically relevant to the time of exile,

not in the time of the Temple?

The explanation in this: There are indeed prayers corresponding to the sacrifices they instituted⁴².

And that which was accomplished in the time when the Holy Temple existed through sacrifices,

is now accomplished through prayer.

The difference, however,⁴³

: through physical sacrifices in the physical Holy Temple,

the effect of the sacrifices descends into the physical world,

"in the world, in externality, in actual deed"⁴⁴

; but through prayer the effect is only in the soul

(in the person himself).

And it may be said that this is the difference between the action of the bulls and the rams:

The fruits of the festival that need to be brought in from the nations,

can only be "in the days

the Sanctuary”,

when one had offerings <b>in physicality</b> that had an effect in the externality of the world; but after the destruction of the Holy Temple this became nullified,

and as our Sages, of blessed memory,⁴⁵

“Woe to the nations of the world who are lost and do not know what they have lost.”

but not so regarding Jews,

is “lambs corresponding to Israel ..

and they are <b>fixed</b>”,

that the inner explanation of this is,

that the offerings are “fixed” — their effect is “enduring forever”;

For through the prayer corresponding to the offerings one brings about “to finish from them the ninety-eight curses in Mishneh Torah”,

that even after the destruction of the Holy Temple and our exile from our land, and one finds oneself under the hand of the nations,

one does not have any sufferings, heaven forbid,

rather one has rest and peace and tranquility,

“And for all the children of Israel there was light in their dwellings”⁴⁶,

while still in Egypt,

in the straits of exile,

And this becomes the immediate preparation for the rest and true peace until the ultimate perfection in this,

more than in the days of

(He redeemed in peace from)

David,

even more than in the days of Solomon,

only like in the days of the Messiah⁴⁷

— in the true and complete redemption through our righteous Messiah.

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Pinchas 5741)