English translation — שופטים ד

1.

At the end of this week's parshah,

in the section of the eglah arufah,

it says in the verse¹

"And the elders of that city shall bring the heifer down to a rough valley, which is neither plowed nor sown, and they shall break the heifer's neck there in the valley."

Rashi explains on the word "ve'arfu": he cuts its neck with a cleaver.

Said the Holy One, blessed be He: Let a heifer in its first year that has not produced fruit come and be beheaded in a place that does not produce fruit, to atone for the killing of this one, whom they did not allow to produce fruit.

The source of this Rashi's commentary is in the Gemara².

It is, however, known that the essence of Rashi's commentary on the Torah is,

as Rashi himself says: I have come only for the plain meaning of the verse³,

and he brings the midrashim of Chazal only when it is necessary for the plain meaning of the verse⁴.

It is not understood in our matter: why does Rashi need to add the topic of "Said the Holy One, blessed be He, let a heifer come etc."

which is a kind of giving a reason for the command?

— From the plain sense of Scripture there is no necessity to seek reasons for

(details of the)

commandments⁵.

Also one must understand: a)

Why does he say here the expression "Said the Holy One, blessed be He",

which is not usual in his commentary at

Other similar explanations and interpretations⁶

; and it is understood simply that Rashi does not need to say it,

because all matters of Torah are "said by the Holy One, blessed be He."

And although this is the language of the Gemara⁷

— but Rashi in his commentary on the Torah is not one to <b>copy</b> the language of the Gemara or Midrash and the like,

(and especially since he does not add the words "the Rabbis expounded" and the like)

; and here it is even more proven from this,

that at the beginning of his commentary here he <b>changes</b> from the language of the Gemara⁸

— so why does he copy the words "said by the Holy One, blessed be He"⁹?

b)

In any case: why does Rashi attach this matter "Said the Holy One, blessed be He, let a calf come etc." in continuation of his commentary on "and they shall break the heifer's neck" — "he cuts its neck with a cleaver"?

The reason "let a calf come etc." is not on the detail of "and they shall break the heifer's neck",

but on the commandment <b>in its entirety</b> — why one takes

(in Rashi's language)

a "calf in its first year etc." and kills it "in

(a hard valley — )

a place that is not etc."

(and as it is explained

And it is emphasized in the Gemara: "Why did the Torah say to bring a heifer in the valley")

Rashi should have placed these two matters in two separate dibbur hamatchil's: to repeat the word "ve'arfu" and interpret it — "kotzetz orfah bekufitz"; and afterwards a separate d"h with the words "ve'arfu sham et ha'eglah banachal" and explain the reason: "amar HaKadosh Baruch Hu tavo eglah etc."¹⁰

(or bring the reason at the beginning of his commentary on the verse,

in the preceding d"h "el nachal eitan" where he explains "kashe shelo ne'evad")¹¹.

2.

And one can explain the explanation in this:

In the usual manner it is not the way of Rashi

(in his commentary on the Torah)

to explain the reasons of the commandments; when he comes however to such a commandment which is not in accordance with the rules and commands of the Torah in general,

there Rashi must stand and explain the reason of the change.

And in what we are discussing: Regarding the bringing and slaughtering of animals for the need of man, one finds

(until our portion)

several types: a)

sacrifices whose purpose is atonement¹²,

as explained in Parshat Vayikra and Tzav; b)

their purpose is to thank for blessings,

or to bring blessings¹³,

c)

whose purpose is to <b>purify</b>,

as with a metzora — "This shall be the law of the metzora on the day of his purification

and the priest shall command, and take for the one to be purified two live clean birds"¹⁴.

And the difference between them:

Sacrifices to atone or which are related to blessings — are brought in the Mishkan and Beit HaMikdash "before the L-rd"

"the place which the L-rd your G-d will choose to cause His name to dwell there"

that the offering before the L-rd effects the "and it shall be accepted for him to atone for him"

or "before the L-rd" — source of the blessings.

However, the two birds of the leper for his purification, their performance is "outside

the camp,

outside the three camps

(in the place of the leper)

where he was sent during the days of his being shut out" — that he should become purified and be able to enter the camp,

and then bring the sacrifices in the Beit HaMikdash for his atonement.

We find two more offerings whose offering is also not in the Beis HaMikdash — the scapegoat on Yom Kippur and the red heifer.

The scapegoat is also called a chatas

(two male goats for a chatas²⁰),

— and although it is not offered upon the altar,

but the main act of atonement is through it²¹,

which is the "and he shall lay [his hands] ..

and confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel etc. and give etc."²²,

is done "before the Lord"²³

in the courtyard²⁴

; and that which

He is sent away "to a land of cutting off" — the intention thereby is to send away all the iniquities of Bnei Yisrael

(And the goat shall bear upon it all their iniquities to a land of cutting off²⁵).

This, however, is

(according to the plain meaning of Scripture)

not an act of offering²⁶,

but its opposite.

On the other hand, regarding the red heifer,

although its performance is also "outside the camp — beyond the three camps"²⁷,

nevertheless its purpose is — preparation and introduction to make the water of sprinkling to purify from impurity of the dead,

and to be able to offer a sacrifice in the Temple.

And that which it is called "chatat",

Rashi says²⁸

"the expression of 'chitui' literally, and according to its laws Scripture called it chatat, to say that it is like sacred offerings to be forbidden in benefit."

It is only according to the "Midrash Aggadah" that Rashi cites

"from the foundation of Rabbi Moshe HaDarshan" the details and matters of atonement of the red heifer.

Because even though its performance is outside,

there are nevertheless in it matters akin to a sacrifice: it must be [done] by a kohen,

and furthermore "its mitzvah is by the deputy [High Priest]",

"and he shall slaughter it before him",

"and he shall sprinkle toward the front of the Tent of Meeting"

3.

In our parshah, however — regarding the heifer whose neck is broken, one sees an entirely new matter: on one hand it is said that it does the matter of atonement — "Atone for Your people Israel etc. and the blood shall be atoned for them"

not a matter of purification from impurity; but on the other hand,

there is in it no likeness or connection to sacrifices — neither in place

(one does not bring it to the Holy Temple

(or upon an altar etc.)

even not in front of the Sanctuary),

nor regarding those who perform the service — it is not done by kohanim

(the command

"and the kohanim, the sons of Levi, shall approach" refers simply to the time after the breaking of the neck "the kohanim

say 'Atone for Your people Israel'")

and not in the act of the service — there is no act of slaughter

sprinkling etc.

interpret that "just as the calf is whole and clean, that it did not do anything,

and the ground is virgin ground, so we are clean from the murder",

and similarly "they shall wash their hands, a sign that just as our hands are clean, so we are clean from this corpse" — there would not be any

(strong)

question,

why the Above One commands to make such a sign.

According to the simple meaning of the verse, however, it implies that all these actions are parts of the act of atonement].

It is a question according to the plain meaning of Scripture — this is not in accordance with the instructions of the Torah as to how and where atonement is effected — that it is through the offering of sacrifices to Hashem by a kohen in the Beis HaMikdash!

"And to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting they did not bring it to offer a sacrifice to Hashem etc.

(It must be)

which Bnei Yisrael bring their offerings etc. to Hashem to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to the kohen and slaughter them etc. to Hashem etc. and sprinkle etc. upon the altar of Hashem"³⁷].

Therefore Rashi explains: "&lt;b&gt;The Holy One, blessed be He, said &lt;/b&gt;Let a calf a year old come etc. and be beheaded etc.",

Here is an additional utterance — &lt;b&gt;special &lt;/b&gt;from the One above,

A matter of novelty regarding the rest of the Torah — a new manner of atonement,

Which is not like sacrifices*&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;

And the rest of the matters of atonement in the

Torah.

Here the atonement comes through that the action,

And the place,

And the sacrifice,

Are in accordance with the details in the killing.

Based on this it is understood that what Rashi explains "Said the Holy One, blessed be He, let a heifer come etc." in continuation to "cuts its neck with a cleaver,"

is

(not only because the change of decapitation

(and not slaughter)

proves that here it is not an act of atonement as with offerings in general,

but also)

because this is an essential detail that compels the explanation of "Said the Holy One, blessed be He etc."

4.

One will understand this with an introduction to what earlier,

in Parshat Bo³⁸

(regarding a firstborn donkey)

Rashi explains on "

(And if you do not redeem it)

you shall break its neck"³⁹

: "Break its neck with a cleaver from behind and kill it,

it caused a loss of money to the priest, therefore it should lose its money."

Why is Rashi here changing from his commentary in Parshas Bo,

where although he gives the reason "he caused a loss etc." in the continuation of his commentary

(as here)

on "and you shall decapitate it",

he does <b>not</b> say there "said the Holy One, blessed be He",

as in our parshah⁴⁰.

And according to the above, this is understood: decapitation relative to slaughter — is a death in a cruel manner,

"Striking its neck with a cleaver from behind" — the death of the animal comes through suffering and pain⁴¹.

But by slaughter from the neck — there is no breaking of the bone of the neck, etc.⁴²,

as the Ben Chamesh LaMikra sees.

And Rashi explains regarding a firstborn donkey*⁴²

: That which the Torah says "If you do not redeem it, you shall strike its neck" does not mean that the person has a choice between two <b>equal</b> commandments: "You shall redeem it with a lamb,"

or "you shall strike its neck"⁴³

; the action of "striking its neck with a cleaver from behind and killing it,"

is a <b>punishment</b>: since "he caused a loss to the property of the priest, therefore he shall <b>lose</b> his property": in order to emphasize that this is a matter of loss,

this is done in the manner of "you shall strike its neck,"

which is an act of cruelty

(and loss to the life of the donkey,

and consequently, likewise also to the owner of the donkey — as one sees in practice that a person is affected⁴⁴

by the suffering of his animals).

He says, however, not there "said the Holy One, blessed be He" because there is no change regarding the commandments of his likeness — it is, after all, not a sin-offering,

thanksgiving-offering,

purification-offering etc.

In our portion, however,

a matter of atonement,

is although that the detail of the place where this is done,

"a hard, untilled valley that has not been worked"⁴⁵,

is not like the atonement through the offerings in the Holy Temple,

but the detail of "and you shall break its neck" is — like by the sin-offering of the bird "and he shall pinch its head from opposite its neck"⁴⁶.

Therefore Rashi says and specifies

(Although he already explained the meaning of עריפה earlier⁴⁷)

„<b>קוצץ </b>ערפה <b>בקופיץ</b>"⁴⁸

(And also deviates from the language of the Mishnah „<b>עורפין </b>אותה בקופיץ מאחורי'"),

to emphasize that here there is no action similar to the act of the offerings,

because such an action of „קוצץ" being the neck of the animal

(Which has a strong neck bone,

and)

with a „קופיץ"⁴⁹

— „כמין סכין גדול"⁵⁰

— is

The opposite of slaughter,

Which makes the question even stronger: How does this atone — while it is not similar,

and moreover it is the opposite,

of the offering of the sacrifices?

And therefore Rashi also continues and emphasizes "Said the Holy One, blessed be He, let a heifer come etc.'",

Here was said a new manner of atonement: "Let a heifer of a year old that has not borne fruit come and be beheaded in a place that does not bear fruit",

That all matters here are entirely in a manner of negation — a)

A heifer of a year old <b>that has not</b> borne fruit,

b)

be beheaded,

c)

in a place <b>that does not</b> bear fruit,

Because it comes "to atone for the killing of this one <b>whom they did not</b> allow to bear fruit".

5.

From the wondrous matters in Rashi: According to the above one can say that Rashi and the Rambam follow their respective systems in the interpretation of "Nachal Eitan".

Rashi explains

(as above)

"a hard valley — hard that it was not worked",

the Rambam⁵¹

but translates "a stream that flows with force" and that which it says "which is not worked nor sown" is a prohibition for the future⁵².

And it can be said that the dispute is not only in the interpretation of the verse,

but it is also connected with a disagreement in the very definition of the atonement of the "eglah arufah":

The Rambam explains in Moreh Nevuchim&lt;sup&gt;53&lt;/sup&gt;

the reason for bringing a heifer whose neck is broken and the details of its matters,

that these are stratagems which give a possibility that the murderer should be revealed,

and in his language&lt;sup&gt;54&lt;/sup&gt;

And it is impossible, for the most part, with the investigation and the going out of the elders and the standing and the taking of the heifer, that the words of people will not multiply,

And perhaps through the publicizing of the matter the murderer will be known.

And he concludes: And this matter is strengthened by the fact that the place where the heifer is beheaded will never be worked nor sown, so that the owner of the land will use every stratagem and investigate until the murderer is known, so that the heifer will not be beheaded and his land will not be forbidden to him forever&lt;sup&gt;55&lt;/sup&gt;.

The Ramban⁵⁶

says

(regarding the detail of "nachal eisan"),

that "in my opinion there is

in it a reason like the matter of the sacrifices performed outside⁵⁷

the scapegoat and the red heifer,

and therefore the Sages counted the broken-necked heifer among the statutes."

And so we find in the Book of the Hand of the Rambam

(at the end of Hilchos Me'ilah)

that all these three — eglah arufah and parah adumah and se'ir hamishtale'ach — are counted there together⁵⁸

as chukim.

However, according to the exposition that Rashi brings down,

"Said the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Let a calf come... that did not produce fruit and be decapitated... to atone...'"

it appears superficially that it is not in the category of chukim.

6.

And one can say,

that these are three ways how one can learn the definition of the atonement of the heifer whose neck is broken⁵⁹

: from the aspect of the agent,

from the aspect of the action in its entirety,

from the aspect of the recipient

(and its place)

a)

According to the Rambam in the Moreh Nevuchim, the atonement is from the aspect of the agent: when the elders of the city near the slain one perform all these actions in order to reveal the murderer,

this itself atones for them,

it removes from them⁶⁰

the sin⁶¹.

but also because through this they publicize with great publicity that "the desire of the elders and men of understanding" is to find the murderer "to avenge from him the vengeance of the murdered"⁶²

— and this itself prevents and uproots the matter of murder,

and consequently this itself atones].

b)

According to the Ramban

(and it can be said that it is also according to the view of the Rambam in the Book of the Hand there),

this is from the aspect of the action,

and in the manner of the matter of the sacrifices

(about which also the Rambam says there "and all the sacrifices, all of them, are from the category of the statutes"),

that the action and atonement of sacrifices is from the aspect of the act of the offering,

similarly it is by the heifer whose neck is broken,

about which "atonement is stated regarding it as with the holy things"⁶³,

d.

h.

Exactly like by all sacrifices it is a decree of the King,

that each sacrifice atones for a sin

(sins)

specific,

so too there are actions

(the sacrifices)

specific outside,

the scapegoat,

the red heifer and the heifer whose neck is broken⁶⁴,

that the decree of the King⁶⁵

is,

that

(also)

the deed should atone⁶⁶.

c)

According to Rashi "Let a heifer in its first year etc." emerges a third way — that the atonement is not from the side of the actor or the action in general⁶⁷

— analogous to the sacrifices,

but from the side of the acted-upon

(the murdered person,

and the heifer whose neck is broken)

— "Let a <b>heifer </b>in its first year that has not produced fruit come <b>and let its neck be broken </b>in a place that does not produce fruit",

because the atonement is not

(only)

for the act of murder

(of the murderer)

but specifically for the special "content" <b>of the murdered person </b>

(and acted-upon)

"to atone for the killing of this one <b>who was not allowed to produce fruit</b>"⁶⁸.

And therefore it is said here "said the Holy One, blessed be He",

it was said a new manner of atonement not like by the other manners of atonement of holy things⁶⁹

(also not those done outside,

the scapegoat and the red heifer)⁷⁰.

7.

According to this will be sweetened further the difference in the interpretation of "nachal eitan": according to the reason of the Rambam in the Moreh Nevuchim it is understood why he translates "to a nachal eitan that flows with strength",

not hard ground that was not worked

(rather — that from here onward there is a prohibition that it should not be worked in it),

because — according to his reason — it is effective that the owner of the field "will make every stratagem and investigate until he knows the killer" — is if it would

meant land,

must it be <b>on the contrary</b> a good field that is fit for sowing <b>most</b>⁷¹,

that then it will more affect the owner of the field and he will more exert himself to find the murderer "so that his land not be forbidden forever"*⁷¹

; therefore teaches the Rambam that "nachal eitan" means not land,

but a stream of water⁷²

"that flows with force".

And accordingly is according to the reason of the Rambam

(in his book the Yad)

: since this is an atonement in the category and type of the sacrifices,

it is logical,

that the place of the decapitation need not be

(specifically)

a hard land that was not worked,

but on the contrary — the more chosen,

a praiseworthy place⁷³.

According to Rashi, however,

since here it was changed and renewed "said the Holy One, blessed be He" — a new type of atonement was renewed,

as above — it is plausible that just as the heifer

is a "that did not produce fruits",

and the action is "beheading"

(matters of negation),

the place must also be of negation,

such a "that does not produce fruits",

"firm,

hard that was not worked"; that not only from now onward must it be a place that does not produce fruits,

but primarily — at present at the time of the beheading it must be a "firm hard that was not worked" — "does not produce fruits".

8.

The Torah is eternal.

It is understood,

that the lesson of the portion of the heifer whose neck is broken is here in all times and in all places to all Jews

which has a connection to the matter of bloodshed,

for spiritually, through every sin,

in action, speech, or thought,

one causes the matter of "shedding the blood and life of the holy person in the person of the husk"*⁷³]

— and this is a wonderful lesson:

One speaks about "if a corpse be found in the land ... fallen <b>in the field</b>"⁷⁴,

that in this case one can argue: since that in a death without sin*⁷⁴,

it is certainly from G-d,

and as our Rabbis of blessed memory said⁷⁵

regarding an unintentional sin

(on the verse⁷⁶

and God caused it to come into his hand)

; the striker is a murderer and a great punishment is due to him,

but since "it is not known who struck him" — and especially according to the interpretation

(in the Gemara and)

in Rashi as above,

that the heifer whose neck is broken comes primarily "for the killing of this one whom they did not allow to bear fruit" he did not have the protector and defender⁷⁷

of Torah and mitzvos*⁷⁷

it is thus

Regarding this damage, it was already decreed from heaven⁷⁸

— one might think,

that one has no connection to it and need not occupy oneself with it.

And similarly in spirituality: when one encounters a Jew in a lowly state and situation — „<b>fallen </b>

(and where —)

<b>in the field</b>",

he has a connection to „Esau ..

man of the field"⁷⁹,

the opposite of the city,

place of <b>dwelling </b>of man — „and I will dwell" of the supernal man upon the throne⁸⁰,

a place and environment of Torah and mitzvos —

One can make a calculation: whose fault is it that the Jew finds himself in such a situation?

— He should have found himself not in the field,

but in a settled place and city,

in an environment of Torah and fear of Heaven etc.

And consequently,

the Jews who find themselves in the city,

in an environment of Jews who observe Torah and mitzvos,

of elders and the court,

should not occupy themselves with him.

On this is the teaching of the portion of the heifer whose neck is broken: this has a connection not

Only to the inhabitants of the city nearest to the corpse,

but also to the elders of that city — to the court of that city⁸¹,

until this reaches the Great Court,

"And your elders shall go out,

the distinguished among your elders,

these are the Great Sanhedrin"⁸².

And the elders of the court of the city must make sure and until a proclamation that "Our hands did not shed this blood"⁸³,

as Rashi translates⁸⁴

"We did not see him and we dismissed him without <b>sustenance</b> and without <b>escort</b>" — that they gave the Jew "provisions for the road",

the sustenance of Torah, as it is written⁸⁵

and Your Torah is within my innards,

and likewise — garments of mitzvos⁸⁶

— which protect from "cold" and from bow and sword,

"bread and garment" which will accompany him in the field of Esau — the darkness of exile,

in the standing and situation of "field" where he went.

And furthermore one says,

that this is connected also with the Great Sanhedrin that was in the Chamber of Hewn Stone.

At first glance: what connection do they have with this "corpse" that was found — not in proximity to Jerusalem⁸⁷,

but to another distant city somewhere in the Land of Israel⁸⁸?

— But it says in Tanna Devei Eliyahu

Rava⁸⁹

: "It was incumbent upon the Great Sanhedrin that Moses and Joshua established etc. to tie iron ropes around their waists and to lift their garments above their knees and to go around <b>all the cities</b> of Israel in one day to Lachish etc. and likewise in all places of Israel and to teach Israel etc. so that the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, be magnified and sanctified in the worlds etc."

And to note — that in the Tanna of Bei Rav it is said regarding the "seventy thousand⁹⁰

who were killed at Gibeah of Benjamin",

that "the Great Sanhedrin etc. did not kill him",

if they had gone out to the cities of Israel etc. the incident of the concubine at Gibeah would not have occurred;

all the more so when it is speaking about Jews who are in the field,

a place without Torah and without mitzvot,

that this is an obligation and responsibility that lies upon the Jewish court.

And this is the lesson for every Jew in our times,

and especially in this time of

the month of Elul,

that one must go out to the place of the dwelling of the children of Israel⁹¹,

also to a place that is not an environment of Torah and mitzvos

("field")

and help out every Jew and awaken him,

that in this time of Elul the King of kings of kings, the Holy One blessed be He, is found "in the field",

and receives each one in whatever state and condition he may be "with a pleasant countenance and a smiling face to all"⁹²,

and this itself helps the Jew to go out from the state and condition of "field" in which he finds himself.

And then is "when he goes

(the king)

to the city, they go after him",

in this time of the Days of Awe⁹³,

when one fulfills the request of the Holy One, blessed be He, "that you make Me king over you"⁹⁴,

until this "forgive Your people Israel"⁹⁵

on Yom Kippur,

when there is brought about the atonement and forgiveness and pardon for every Jew and for the entire community of Israel,

and — I have forgiven <b>according to your word</b>,

And each and every one is written and sealed immediately in the book of the righteous⁹⁶

complete.

(From sichos of Shabbos Parshas Shoftim, Teitzei, and Tavo — 5741)