English translation — וארא ב

A.

In the portion about the miracle of the staff¹

— after "And Aaron cast his staff before Pharaoh and before his servants, and it became a serpent" and "And the magicians of Egypt also did so with their enchantments; and they cast each man his staff, and they became serpents" — the verse details "And Aaron's staff swallowed their staffs."

Rashi stands on the words "And Aaron's staff swallowed"²

and explains "Since³

it returned and became a staff, it swallowed all of them."

In simple understanding, Rashi comes here to explain in his commentary this⁴

: In the verse it is not told,

that after this

(when the staff of Aaron became a serpent)

the serpent was transformed back into a staff,

so there would be a place to assume,

that the "vayivla" here means that being a serpent it swallowed the serpents of the magicians⁵

: And that which the verse calls it "

(vayivla)

<b>staff</b><b> </b>of Aaron את <b>their staffs</b><b>",</b>

it is therefore because by nature they were staffs

(staff of Aaron and staffs of the magicians)⁶.

Therefore Rashi explains,

that this is not so,

rather "vayivla <b>staff</b><b> </b>of Aaron" means simply: "since it returned and became a staff it swallowed them all",

that becoming again a staff it swallowed them⁷.

At first glance, the reason why Rashi explains thus — although the verse does not mention that "it returned and became a staff" — is because this is the simple interpretation of the words "and the staff of Aaron swallowed up etc."

(Not "and the serpent of Aaron swallowed up")⁴.

And to note that in this manner the wonder and miracle in this is further emphasized,

that the staff of Aaron performed the act of swallowing,

which is entirely beyond the bounds of nature.

2.

According to this, one must understand:

The Gemara⁸

says regarding the verse “And Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods” — “a miracle within a miracle”: and likewise it stands in the Midrash that here occurred a “great miracle.”⁹

is not

It is understood: Why does Rashi not also say in the plain sense of Scripture that this was a "miracle within a miracle" and the like?

And although in the plain sense of Scripture it is seemingly not relevant to emphasize the greatness of the miracle here, and it is sufficient that Rashi describes the manner of the event — "since it returned and became a staff, it swallowed them all"

(which this is relevant to the explanation of the verses)

One sees, however, in our parshah itself,

regarding the plague of hail,

that Rashi specifies¹⁰

when there was a matter of "a miracle within a miracle"¹¹.

And the reason for this is understood simply: when sending Moses and Aaron to Pharaoh, the Almighty said¹²

"And I will harden the heart of Pharaoh <b>and I will multiply My signs and My wonders</b><b> </b>in the land of Egypt."

And accordingly it is understood,

that in the study according to the simple meaning of the verse there must be that which is more noticeable and explained also the <b>multiplication</b><b> </b>of the signs and wonders in the land of Egypt

(and as Rashi says

(also)

regarding the plague of boils¹³

"behold many miracles").

And accordingly it is perplexing: why does Rashi not add also here the emphasis that here occurred a "miracle within a miracle"?

And moreover: Regarding the plagues, the main purpose of them was indeed to punish,

to smite Pharaoh and the Egyptians,

in which, at first glance, the emphasis is not so relevant that there occurred thereby several &lt;b&gt;miracles&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;,&lt;/b&gt;

and nevertheless Rashi found it necessary to emphasize regarding boils and hail the multitude of miracles that were in them,

all the more so

Regarding the wonder of the turning of the staff into a serpent,

which was &lt;b&gt;entirely&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt; &lt;/b&gt;

(not as a punishment and smiting of Egypt,

but)

as a sign and wonder — like an answer to "Show yourselves a &lt;b&gt;wonder&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

— Rashi certainly should have brought out there the greatness of the miracle and wonder that was in the matter.

3.

In simple terms, one could explain,

that the interpretation "miracle within a miracle" here is not appropriate

(in Rashi's commentary)

<b>In the plain sense of Scripture</b><b>:</b>

One of the interpretations among the commentators¹⁵

in the plain meaning of "miracle within a miracle" is: the first miracle is that the serpent turned back into a staff, and the second miracle is that the staff swallowed their staffs.

in Rashi's commentary &lt;b&gt;in the Talmud&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

on "a miracle within a miracle" — "after it returned and became the staff of Bilam and not when it was a serpent, for it is not written 'and the serpent of Aaron swallowed'"&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;].

But according to the simple meaning of Scripture, Rashi cannot accept it thus.

Because

: according to the simple meaning of Scripture it must turn out,

that

The return of the serpent to a staff was not at all a miracle,

And with an introduction:

Earlier in Parshas Shemos¹⁸

When the Almighty showed Moshe the sign of the staff that he should show the Jews,

It says in the verse that after the action of "and he cast it to the ground and it became a serpent",

The Almighty said to Moshe "Stretch out your hand and grasp it by its tail, and he stretched out his hand and took hold of it

(and only then)

it became a staff in his hand."

One sees,

that in order for the serpent that had become to return to a staff, a special action was required.

The question arises: how is it that in our verse there is no mention at all about "it returned and became a staff",

and not that there was a special action

(Aharon's)

that the serpent should become a staff¹⁹

; and this is also not mentioned in the command of Hashem earlier¹⁴

"When Pharaoh speaks to you saying, 'Provide yourselves a wonder,' you shall say to Aharon, 'Take your staff and cast it before Pharaoh, <b>it shall become a serpent</b>'"²⁰?

One must say,

that according to the simple meaning of the verse, the return of the serpent to a staff in our verse was not through an action,

but rather it happened by itself,

as follows.

4.

One finds two types of miracles by

(the other)

plagues in Egypt:

(a)

A miracle that changed a thing from one nature of reality to a

Second — as in the case of "his hand

(of Moses)

was leprous like snow"&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;,

that after the miracle the leprosy on the hand became a &lt;b&gt;natural&lt;/b&gt; thing&lt;b&gt;,&lt;/b&gt;

in such a way that it required a second &lt;b&gt;miracle&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt; &lt;/b&gt;to nullify the leprosy,

so that it should be "restored like his flesh"&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;.

(b)

That in this miracle there did not occur an actual change from nature to nature,

but rather such a change in the nature of existence that the novelty holds itself every moment in a miraculous manner&lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

(&lt;b&gt;in the manner&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt; &lt;/b&gt;as it was at the splitting of the Red Sea&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;)

— as we find it by the plague of blood,

where the waters "turned to blood"&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;,

that even after their becoming blood, the nature of existence of water was not uprooted from them — and only the miracle effected at every moment the transformation of water to blood&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;

; and therefore,

when the need for the miracle ceased,

they &lt;b&gt;by themselves&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt; &lt;/b&gt;returned to an existence of water&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;.

And in the simple meaning of Scripture, it lends itself to say,

that where the Torah does not say that it was a special act and miracle to nullify the previous wonder and miracle,

one must assume that the wonder became nullified by itself,

after the need for that miracle ended,

and not that one had to come to another miracle.

And based on this it is understood in our matter,

regarding the staff in our portion,

that the fact that it does not state in the verse that the serpent became back a staff through an action

(of Aharon),

is it therefore because after the wonder of "And Aharon cast ...

and it became a serpent" which the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded to do before Pharaoh,

the miracle ended,

and the serpent had in a manner of <b>automatically</b><b>²⁷</b>

returned to its <b>natural</b><b> </b>state — a staff²⁸.

And therefore Rashi does not say in simple meaning of Scripture that here there was a miracle within a miracle.

5.

One must, however, understand:

In the explanation of a miracle within a miracle in this matter, the Maharsha²⁹ learns

in the aforementioned Rashi

(in the Talmud),

that the "first miracle is the swallowing itself, even if it was a crocodile, and a second miracle that they were swallowed after it became a staff",

and the Maharsha himself learns

(based on the words of the Midrash³⁰)

a second explanation,

that the first miracle is the actual swallowing that a staff swallowed, and "within the miracle of the swallowing, when it became a staff, there was yet another miracle within it, that the staff did not become thickened by the swallowing"

(from all the other staffs).

And according to this, Rashi should have said that here there was a miracle within a miracle for the aforementioned reasons.

6.

At first glance, one must say that also the two aforementioned approaches are not consistent with the simple meaning of the verse:

The first explanation that the "miracle of swallowing itself even if it was a serpent" — is not understood

(in simple meaning)

: a)

That a serpent swallows another serpent is generally no miracle at all,

because "so is the way of serpents to swallow one another"

(as we see it in practice and the Maharsha brings it from Midrash³¹).

b)

According to this explanation, the

language "miracle within a miracle" — this was not one miracle inside the other,

but two separate miracles³².

And the explanation,

the Maharsha that the second miracle is that "the staff was not repulsed by the swallowing" — is

(even)

not hinted at in the simple meaning of the verse.

But in truth, the aforementioned questions are not a sufficient reason to reject the two explanations:

Regarding the explanation of the first: a)

Indeed, when one crocodile swallows another

(a smaller one)

is indeed not a miracle,

But when one crocodile swallows several crocodiles, that is indeed a miracle.

b)

Even though then it does not fit for so many the phrase "a miracle within a miracle"

(as the question of the Maharsha),

Rashi could have said "two miracles were"³³,

in the manner that Rashi himself says¹³

by the plague of boils as above,

"behold many miracles",

or "a great miracle"³⁴

and the like.

And regarding the explanation of the Maharsha that the second miracle is that "the staff did not become thickened by the swallowing" — one can also say that thus it is implied from the simple meaning of the verse:

Further in the portion regarding the plague of

Blood, the verse says³⁵

"And the staff which was turned into a serpent you shall take in your hand",

"Take your staff and stretch out your hand etc."; regarding the plague of frogs it says again³⁶

— "Stretch out your hand with your staff etc."; regarding the plague of lice³⁷

— "Stretch out your staff etc.",

Which simply implies that all this is the same staff that is being discussed here³⁸.

So if the staff had been so changed and thickened through the swallowing of all the staffs of the Egyptian magicians — and as the Midrash says³⁹,

"If a person would make from all those staffs that they cast down and became serpents, there would be more than ten bundles

(And standing⁴⁰)

— That would have had to be mentioned somewhere

(By a hint at least)

In the Torah.

It is implied from this that

(also)

According to the simple explanation of the plain meaning, "the staff was not made repulsive through the swallowing."

And the question returns to its place: Why does Rashi not say that here there was a "miracle within a miracle"

(or "two miracles" and the like)?

7.

will one understand this in the introduction to the matter requiring explanation seemingly in

the miracle of the staff:

In this discourse "G‑d spoke to Moses and to Aaron" — "When Pharaoh speaks to you saying, 'Provide yourselves a wonder'"¹⁴

— the Almighty said "And you shall say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and cast it before Pharaoh, it will become a serpent'",

and nothing more.

How does it happen that afterwards there was the wonder "And the staff of Aaron swallowed

their staffs",

a thing that was not at all commanded in the words of G‑d concerning this matter?

And one cannot say, of course,

that since here occurred a thing that the magicians of Egypt did,

"And each cast his staff and they became serpents",

about which the Almighty had <b>not</b><b> </b>commanded earlier in His directive,

therefore there also had to be the <b>additional</b><b> </b>wonder of "And the staff of Aaron swallowed

(the staff of Aaron)

(the staff of Aaron)

their staffs" — because the Almighty indeed knew this,

and nevertheless He did not say about this to Aaron.

8.

And the explanation in this:

On the verse "Give yourselves a sign" Rashi translates: "Sign — a token to make known that there is need

(need)

in the one who sends you".

As the commentators&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;

translate,

"Need" means

(need)

" in Rashi here — "expression of ability and authority".

That is,

even though the plagues themselves showed the power and dominion of the Supreme One

(as it says earlier in the verse

(as above)

"And I will multiply⁴²

My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt ..

And Egypt shall know that I am the Lord when I stretch out My hand over Egypt"),

but the Supreme One wanted that

As an introduction to the plagues, the ability and dominion of the Supreme One over Egypt should be brought out as a matter <b>in itself</b><b>,</b>

not in connection with the punishment and plagues upon Egypt.

According to this, it is understood that the sign of the staff was not merely to demonstrate miracles from the Most High,

but rather to announce the "necessity",

"ability and dominion",

of the Most High over the Egyptians.

And consequently it is understood simply,

that the "and Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs" was not an additional thing that came because of the addition that "and they cast down each his staff and they became serpents"

(that is to say,

that essentially it was necessary only that Aaron's staff should become a serpent before Pharaoh),

but rather this very thing

(the swallowing

(of Aaron's staff)

their staffs)

was the purpose of the wonder of the staff,

because this showed the power and dominion of the Holy One, blessed be He,

until that one can say that the "and it became a serpent" was merely an introduction to this⁴³.

9.

Based on this, it is simply understandable what Rashi teaches that the "and the staff of Aaron swallowed" occurred "after it returned and became a staff, it swallowed all of them":

If the swallowing had occurred when the staff was a serpent,

for the nature of the serpent is to swallow one another,

then although when one serpent swallows several serpents it is a miraculous matter,

it still does not bring out in a prominently noticeable way the power and dominion of the sender,

of the Above,

over the Egyptians.

Specifically at the time of the swallowing it is by means of a staff,

which emphasizes power and dominion

(rod of chastisement⁴⁴),

there was thereby carried out the "wonder" before Pharaoh,

the ability and dominion of the Supreme One over the Egyptians.

10.

And this is the difference between Rashi on this verse,

where Rashi does not say that it was a miracle within a miracle

(or many miracles),

and the subsequent verses regarding the plagues where Rashi does emphasize that there occurred a miracle within a miracle,

or many miracles:

By the plagues the main intention was — as known: <b>plagues</b><b>,</b>

with them the Most-High struck the Egyptians.

Only in order that it should be evident that they come from the Most-High,

"And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I stretch out <b>My hand</b><b> </b>over Egypt",

therefore among them there were miracles,

miracle within miracle,

many miracles,

etc.

But not so by the wonder of the staff,

whose purpose was "to make known" the "need",

the ability and dominion of the Most-High over Egypt,

there was according to the simple meaning not

(so)

relevant the emphasis of the multitude and greatness of the miracles in this,

but the dominion of the Most-High over the Egyptians,

and this is expressed in the very matter that "since it returned and became <b>a staff</b><b> </b>it swallowed <b>them all</b><b>".</b>

11.

Based on this, we can also explain what Rashi says the phrase "swallowed <b>all of them</b><b>"⁴⁵</b>

and not in the language of the verse "their <b>staffs</b><b>"⁴⁶</b>

("all of them")

gives room for inquiry⁴⁷

whether also their crocodiles returned to be staffs and Aaron's staff swallowed them as staffs,

or they remained crocodiles and in this manner Aaron's staff swallowed them]

Because this particular detail is not relevant to the emphasis of the verse.

The main intent of the verse is to bring out that <b>the staff</b>

Aaron swallowed "&lt;b&gt;et kulan"&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

: That which the &lt;b&gt;staff&lt;/b&gt; of Aaron, on the mission of the Holy One, blessed be He, swallowed everything that came by the power of the magicians of Egypt

(And there is no difference or practical distinction whether these were serpents or staffs*&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;),

clearly showed the ability and dominion of the sender,

of the Most High,

over Pharaoh and Egypt.

12.

And all the above will be sweetened most of all according to the explanation in the inner dimension of the Torah:

It is explained in Chassidus⁴⁹

that the ten plagues are the matter of breaking the klipot which hold themselves as an independent entity and thing in itself.

For through the wonders it was clearly demonstrated that they are not an independent entity and separate thing in themselves,

but they must constantly receive vitality from holiness.

But the vitality comes to them only through tzimtzumim and screens,

therefore it is not revealed by them.

When, however, there is revealed an <b>illumination</b><b> </b>from the Supernal One "above the tzimtzum",

they are nullified and void,

and this is the content of the matter of the wonders

(through the plagues).

And in this stood the essence of the first wonder — that the staff was turned into a serpent,

which was an introduction to all the ten plagues⁵⁰

Each plague of the ten plagues had the purpose to break a particular aspect of the impurity of Egypt,

which consists in general of ten aspects

(as is known⁵¹

that "this opposite that God made"⁵²,

and just as in holiness there are ten aspects,

so there are,

to distinguish,

ten aspects in impurity).

But as an introduction to the breaking of the particular levels was the miracle of the staff,

the staff of Aaron was turned into a serpent and immediately afterwards "&lt;b&gt;and it swallowed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt; &lt;/b&gt;the staff of Aaron their staffs",

that the concept of "swallowing" indicates the total and complete nullification of the swallowed thing&lt;sup&gt;53&lt;/sup&gt;,

and through this &lt;b&gt;general&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt; &lt;/b&gt;nullification and breaking &lt;b&gt;in general&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt; &lt;/b&gt;of the husk of Egypt,

it was possible afterwards the action of the ten plagues,

the breaking and nullification in the particular levels of the husk of Egypt.

13.

From every matter one must take out a lesson for divine service:

The Torah is indeed eternal⁵⁴.

From this it is understood,

that in particular a fundamental matter like Yetzi'at Mitzrayim

(and the matters in connection with

Yetzi'at Mitzrayim,

including also the exile of Egypt),

exist in all times and in all generations

(in the spiritual service of man).

And as the commandment of Chazal "In every⁵⁵

generation and generation

(and every day and day⁵⁶)

a person is obligated to see himself as if he went out

(today⁵⁶)

from Egypt".

When one goes to "do" with another Jew,

it must be done according to the instruction of Chazal⁵⁷

in the manner of "the right hand draws near",

out of love of Israel,

like the conduct of Aharon the Kohen "lover of peace and pursuer of peace, lover of the creatures and draws them near to Torah"⁵⁸,

and as the Alter Rebbe⁵⁹

says that "even those who are far from the Torah of Hashem and His service ..

one must draw them with cords of love and perhaps one will be able to draw them near to Torah and the service of Hashem".

And furthermore: even those who "it is a mitzvah to hate them",

it is "a mitzvah to love them as well",

and furthermore — one must arouse mercy in his heart upon them "and mercy <b>nullifies</b><b> </b><b>hatred</b><b> </b>and arouses love".

Sometimes it happens, however, that the other Jew is in such a low state — the good in him is so hidden — that one must come to a matter of "a person should anger"⁶⁰,

striking with words,

until sometimes the only advice is,

to effect in him a nullification

(and breaking)

general⁶¹

— an action of "swallowing",

that that one should be "swallowed up"⁶²,

he should become nullified from existence to himself entirely.

On this is the instruction,

that this action of "swallowing" must be done through "<b>the staff of Aaron</b><b>":</b>

First and foremost, it must be done by someone who is entirely permeated with true kindness and love of Israel,

and consequently one is then certain that the sole reason for the aforementioned action is only from his love of Israel to the utmost

(and in this is not mixed, heaven forbid, any other reasons and inclinations from evil traits of his animal soul⁶³).

14.

And in this itself one adds another instruction — that the action of the "swallowing"

(by Aaron)

must be through a "staff",

not a "serpent":

It is not enough that the <b>cause</b><b> </b>of the action is from love of Israel

(the attribute of Aaron),

rather the action of swallowing

("he will anger a person")

itself,

may not be done as a "serpent" does,

with a feeling of anger etc.

(like a serpent whose characteristic and nature is to frighten and harm)

*⁶³

— rather only like a "<b>staff</b><b>": </b>the influencer,

the doer,

must do it like a "stick",

without any feeling of wrath and anger, G-d forbid,

or even a feeling of his own existence,

rather without feeling of self

(in this matter of striking and swallowing)

like a stick⁶³,

And in the language of our Sages,

as above,

so the reprover is <b>not made abominable</b><b> </b>through this.

And then it is revealed that the recipient indeed becomes "swallowed" in

(the staff of)

<b>Aaron</b> for superiority,

he becomes a part of the student of Aaron the reprover,

and especially of Aaron the Kohen,

"loves peace and pursues peace, loves the creatures and draws them near to the Torah",

until this becomes his essence

Also openly,

because the opposite of the good became completely nullified in him,

That the service also hastens the exodus from the present exile

(Egypt),

for the unconditional love nullifies the cause of the exile — unconditional hatred⁶⁵,

And immediately they are redeemed,

And as in the days of your exodus from the land of Egypt I will show him wonders⁶⁶.

5745)