English translation — ואתחנן א

On the beginning of the Sidra — “And I besought the L-rd” — are brought in the books¹

two opinions:

A.

a)

That “Va’etchanan” is from the term “chinam”,

i.e.

i.e.

Moshe Rabbeinu asked of the Almighty,

that He should let him enter Eretz Yisrael as a gift of <b>free</b>.

Because even though

(the righteous²)

“were able to attribute ..

to their good deeds

(and)

they did not ask of the Omnipresent that He give them except <b>free</b>”.

that "Va'etchanan" is one of the ten expressions of prayer.

In Midrash Rabbah³

on the verse are also brought the two matters — that "Va'etchanan" is

(a)

one of the ten expressions of prayer,

and

b)

(b)

that this is from the language of a gift of grace — but not as <b>two </b>opinions,

but as one and the same explanation⁴

(from the same author),

and his language is:

"<b>Rabbi Yochanan said: </b>Ten expressions are used for prayer, etc., and supplications, as it is written: 'And I supplicated to the Lord,' and of all of them Moses prayed only with the expression of supplications.

<b>Rabbi Yochanan said: </b>From here you learn that a creature has nothing before its Creator, for Moses ..

came only with the expression of supplications" — that means,

that the term "supplications"

(And I supplicated)

refers to a

(prayer)

request that one asks as a gift of grace

(since "a creature has nothing before its Creator")

(immediately afterward)⁵

: "Why did Moses come only with the expression of supplications ..

with a gift of <b>grace </b>I am dealing with him"].

one must understand: what is the logic of the dispute between Sifri and Midrash,

whether these are two interpretations,

or one interpretation⁶

B.

commentators⁷

explain the difference between the two opinions

(in Sifri)

According to the first explanation that "Va'etchanan" is from "language of a free gift"&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;

it is as if it had stood "Va'etchan&lt;b&gt;m&lt;/b&gt;",

he asked the Supreme One "to give me a free gift".

And therefore it is not from the languages of prayer — because in this word "Va'etchanam" itself there is no language of prayer and supplication&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;

But according to the second explanation,

that "Va'etchanan" is from the ten languages of prayer — then "Va'etchanan" is a language of supplication and entreaties

(as above from Midrash).

According to this, it will turn out,

that the opinion of the Midrash

(which brings both matters

together)

is,

that although the word "Va'etchanan" is

(not from the term "chinam",

but)

from the term "tachanunim",

but the content of a prayer of supplications is — that one asks for a free gift¹⁰.

One must however understand: since that both according to the Sifri&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;

and both according to the Midrash,

is in practice did Moshe ask from the Almighty a gift of grace — so in what consists the content of the dispute,

whether Moshe used a wording that has &lt;b&gt;only &lt;/b&gt;the content of "grace"

(according to the opinion of the Sifri&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;),

or — a wording of &lt;b&gt;prayer&lt;/b&gt;,

only such a wording that fits when one asks a gift of grace?

3.

The explanation in this:

When one asks the Most High that He should give his needs and the like,

there are in this two matters:

(a)

The <b>manner</b> of the request,

supplications or a claim.

(b)

The <b>reason</b> for which the Almighty should fulfill his request — this is coming to him,

or as a free gift.

Since Hashem created him, He must give him his needs,

"And His mercies are upon all

&lt;b&gt;His deeds&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;,

And especially that he is the son of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;

— then indeed the meal of Solomon comes in its time and more&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;,

And particularly a keeper of Torah and mitzvos stands indeed&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;

"If you walk in My statutes etc. and I will give your rains etc.",

so one can say,

that also the matter of prayer

(as it should be from the outset&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;

according to the true Torah&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;)

is because it is due.

And even though one can ask: if it is due and especially through good deeds — then why does he need to pray for it?

is¹⁸

(in Sefas Yashar)

than from that which is due to him as a reward,

is]

It is known,

that even that which the Most High gives as a reward,

it is not in a manner that the Most High is <b>obligated</b> to give it¹⁹.

As it is stated²⁰

"And to You, my Lord, is kindness, for You repay a man according to his deed" — that the "You <b>repay</b> a man <b>according to his deed</b>" is a <b>kindness</b> from the Most High²¹.

Therefore,

one must <b>pray</b> for it²²

to the Most High,

and one cannot <b>demand</b> it²³

from the Most High,

rather one <b>asks</b> Him to fulfill the request as a gift of grace.

And as Chazal²⁴

say that one should not

attribute a prayer "in his own merit"²⁵

— because even when the Almighty fulfills the request due to his good deeds,

there is no place to <b>attribute</b> the request to his own merit

(to <b>pray</b> "do for me in my merit"²⁶).

4.

And this is the difference between the Sifri¹¹

and the Midrash:

The two manners the above

(Section b)

How to connect the wording "Va'etchanan" with the concept of "gift of grace" — express two manners in asking a gift of grace:

According to the midrash,

is "Va'etchanan" — a free gift — only describes the <b>manner </b>of the request

(as it is written²⁷

"The poor man speaks supplications, and the rich man answers with insolence")

: One who stands in the movement of self-nullification opposite insolence,

his prayer is "<b>in the language of supplications</b>" — a free gift.

That is: He knows that he has good deeds,

but nevertheless he asks the Most High as a free gift

(and therefore the midrash connects "free gift" with "<b>the language </b>of supplications" — the matter of a free gift is heard only in the <b>language </b>and manner of prayer).

But not so in Sifri,

the matter of a free gift is not only <b>in the language of</b> his prayer,

but also in his feeling: he asks for a free gift because he feels that it is not coming to him,

he feels that he <b>does not have</b> any merits that the Almighty should fulfill his request,

and therefore he asks of the Almighty a <b>free gift</b>.

And for this reason holds

(the first opinion in)

Sifri that "Va'etchanan" is an expression of a free gift — and consequently <b>not</b> from the expressions of prayer

(as above section b)

— because such a request

(as a truly free gift)

is not like the definition of prayer²⁸

ab initio

(as above)²⁹.

And although Moshe Rabbeinu certainly always remembered that he received the Torah from Sinai &lt;b&gt;and more &lt;/b&gt;— and consequently it is in his feeling that he has great good deeds&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;

— but the humility of Moshe was so great,

that he considered that &lt;b&gt;he &lt;/b&gt;deserves nothing for it&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;

in the verse&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;

"And the man Moshe was very humble, more than any person on the face of the earth",

that despite the fact that Moshe knew his great virtues relative to "any person",

he was "very humble, more than any person",

because he considered that this is not &lt;b&gt;his &lt;/b&gt;achievement,

but that he received everything from Above; &lt;b&gt;and on the contrary&lt;/b&gt;,

if another had his powers and virtues,

that one would have been better than him].

And this is also the reason for the difference between the language of the Sifri and the language of the Midrash:

In the Midrash it is emphasized that "there is nothing in creation &lt;b&gt;before its Creator&lt;/b&gt;" — by the &lt;b&gt;Supernal One&lt;/b&gt; the service does not occupy space,

and therefore one asks of Him in the language of supplications

(a free gift)

However, in Sifri it is explained that "they were able to attribute ..

to their good deeds and did not ask from the Omnipresent to give them except as a free gift",

which emphasizes

(not that "their good deeds" do not occupy a place before the &lt;b&gt;Most High&lt;/b&gt;,

but)

the humility of the righteous,

that their good deeds do not occupy a place for &lt;b&gt;them themselves&lt;/b&gt;,

so that they ask from the Most High only as a &lt;b&gt;free gift&lt;/b&gt;.

5.

According to this explanation in the two ways of understanding Moses' prayer "And I besought the Lord",

the content of the difference between the two interpretations is also explained

(which Rashi brings&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;)

in the answer of the Most High — "It is too much for you":

(a)

That people should not say: How difficult is the teacher and how stubborn is the student

(insistent)&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;,

(b)

It is too much for you,

Much more than this is stored up for you, the great good that is hidden for you&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;

They correspond to the two interpretations in "Va'etchanan"³⁶

According to the interpretation that Moshe requested as a true gift of grace — the Almighty answered that Moshe must stop asking — "so that they should not say the master etc. and the student etc."

Because if not for this —

Since he asks for a gift of <b>free</b>,

there is no limit how many times he can ask.

And according to the explanation that "Va'etchanan" is from the ten expressions of prayer — that a prayer the Almighty fulfills based on the merits of the one praying — then the answer from the Almighty is "Much more than this is stored for you, great goodness hidden for you": the reward for your good deeds is "<b>much more than this</b>".

6.

One must still understand: what is indeed the essential reason of the dispute between Sifri and Midrash,

whether "Va’etchanan — a gift of grace" from Moshe's prayer is only a matter in the language of the prayer

(according to the opinion of the Midrash),

or because he truly held that he indeed does not deserve,

and therefore he could not use a language of prayer,

but only to request as a gift of grace³⁷

(according to the opinion of the Sifri)?

And one can say the explanation in this — with an introduction:

Upon Moses our teacher was decreed the decree that he should not enter the land.

Because that which Moses considered that "after I have conquered the land of Sihon and Og...

perhaps the vow is permitted"³⁸

— this is only³⁹

Regarding the Above's <b>oath </b>that Moses should not

enter the Land of Israel,

about <b>that </b>there is a place to say,

that because a vow that is partially permitted is entirely permitted, the oath became nullified.

But this does not take away the essential &lt;b&gt;decree&lt;/b&gt;

(and punishment)

that he should not enter Eretz Yisrael.

That is why he only afterwards

(as he thought "perhaps the vow was permitted")

prayed to Hashem to remove that which "&lt;b&gt;a decree was decreed&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;.

And based on this, one can say,

that the dispute between the Sifri and Midrash,

is dependent on the two opinions&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;,

whether prayer helps also "after the decree" or specifically "before the decree":

The midrash holds like the opinion that prayer helps even after the decree⁴²,

and therefore Moses <b>prayed</b> to the Holy One, blessed be He, with one of the ten expressions of <b>prayer</b>⁴³

(But from them themselves,

he chose specifically the expression of supplications)

But not so the Sifri

(in his commentary)

holds like the opinion that prayer helps only before the decree,

and consequently here would not help a language of <b>prayer</b>⁴⁴

: rather Moshe asked as a <b>gratuitous gift</b>⁴⁵.

7.

And one may say,

that likewise is also the reasoning in the dispute between the Bavli and Yerushalmi in the statement of the Mishnah⁴⁶

that a prayer

(for a pregnant woman)

"that my wife bear a male — this is a vain prayer" —

According to the Bavli⁴⁷

the Mishnah also speaks about the time of immediately after the forty days

(when the form of the fetus is already fixed)

: however, according to the Yerushalmi⁴⁸

the Mishnah speaks specifically "of one sitting on the birthstool,"

but before that, prayer helps to <b>change</b> from female to male.

And according to another opinion,

"even one sitting on the birthstool can be changed":

On the side of the Bavli — that the manner of study in the Babylonian Talmud is⁴⁹

in a bottom-up way: there are many questions etc. and one must arrive at <b>the toil of man</b> to reach the conclusion — so also the matter of prayer is measured according to the boundaries and limitations of <b>the one who prays</b>.

And since that by nature the fetus cannot be changed

from female to male,

"this is a vain prayer."

(that in the Bavli there⁵⁰)

why by Dinah a prayer did help

(after forty days)

(after forty days),

that there it was "a matter of &lt;b&gt;miracles&lt;/b&gt;": since Leah was a &lt;b&gt;expert&lt;/b&gt; in miracles,

therefore,

is by &lt;b&gt;her&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;51&lt;/sup&gt;,

can a prayer

(that is from the human side)

effect a matter of miracle].

But not so from the side of Talmud Yerushalmi — whose study is⁴⁹

not

(so much)

connected with human exertion,

rather it comes in a manner of "direct light",

in the way of a gift from above — so too is there in prayer a way of a free gift that has no limitations,

until that "even the woman sitting on the birthstool can be changed".

8.

The explanation in this according to Chassidus:

The Alter Rebbe explains in Likkutei Torah⁵²

the concept of "Ein Va'etchannan ela

a free gift",

that through his entry into the land, Moses wanted to reveal that among Jews such a level should be illuminated,

which is <b>higher</b> than being able to attain it through the service of created beings

(in the language of Chassidus: an arousal from above which is entirely higher than an arousal from below).

And this is the expression "a <b>free</b> gift" — "free, without commandments"⁵³

: a level that is "above and beyond the aspect of commandments".

And based on this, the reasoning of the Sifri is understood,

that according to the interpretation "and I pleaded" — "a free gift", it is <b>not</b> among the ten expressions of prayer:

Prayer is indeed a service in the manner of an awakening from below.

And therefore,

in order to effect with the Supreme One the fulfillment of the request of "Let me cross over, please, and see the good land,"

which would have opened up among Jews the revelation in the manner of an awakening from above — the manner of the request for this also had to be similar to this

: asking

(not with an expression of prayer,

but)

an outright gift of grace,

which is entirely not connected with merits

(as above at length).

9.

Nevertheless, the Midrash holds that also "Va'etchanan" — "a gift of grace" is among the ten expressions of prayer.

Will one understand this according to the explanation of the Tzemach Tzedek on the aforementioned maamar in Likkutei Torah: in Likkutei Torah&lt;sup&gt;57&lt;/sup&gt;

it is explained,

that the aforementioned request

of Moshe

(that it should be in the aspect of it should be elevated above the lower worlds which is above it should be elevated below)

— is the matter of Torah,

because through Torah is drawn from "the aspect of I am that I am ..

which is above and beyond it should be elevated below",

it comes in the manner of a gift&lt;sup&gt;58&lt;/sup&gt;.

The Tzemach Tzedek asks⁵⁹

: If so,

why does one say that Moshe Rabbeinu did not effect through his prayer — we have the Torah, after all,

through which is drawn also now "from this aspect of Atzilus that is Atzilus"?

And he explains,

that Moshe's request was,

that the drawing down through Torah

(which comes in the manner of a gift and Atzilus as above)

should effect below in the world⁶⁰.

That is the advantage in the activity of prayer over Torah⁶¹,

Torah effects

(mainly)

above,

in the upper worlds.

But through prayer one effects "to change the creatures from what they are, that the sick person be healed and the rain fall, etc."

it effects in the "below" where one prays].

And Moshe wanted to effect that also the drawing down <b>below </b>should be in the manner of Atzilus

(through Torah).

And therefore the Midrash says that also the request for a free gift of Moshe was a language of prayer,

because Moshe

wanted to have the connection of <b>both</b> virtues: even though the drawing down comes in the manner of a <b>free</b> gift

(as it will be explained at length elsewhere),

it should nevertheless descend down to the lowest level

(in the "place" of prayer).

And therefore also in his prayer there were both things: it was a language of prayer,

but its content was — a request for a free gift.

Yud.

Nevertheless, Moshe did not effect it through his prayer,

because the ultimate intention is,

that everything should come through <b>avodah</b>.

Therefore,

although⁶²

that from the aspect of this

(that Moshe did not enter Eretz Yisrael)

the entry into the land was through Yehoshua,

pnei levana⁶³

which has changes,

and consequently the matter of exile could occur afterwards

for then it would have been the eternal redemption

(since it would not have been dependent on the avodah of the lower)]

Is but specifically through this the advantage of service,

"For the work of your hands You will yearn"⁶⁴,

Which draws down an even higher light⁶⁵

(Higher than the light that comes through "a free gift"),

Which will be revealed below in the true and complete redemption,

Through Mashiach our righteousness,

Speedily in our days literally.

(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Vaeschanan, Shabbos Chazon, 5751)