English translation — בלק ב

1.

It has already been spoken several times,

that the essence of Rashi's commentary on the Torah is to explain the plain meaning of the verse

(as Rashi says in several places in his commentary<sup>1</sup>).

And in the places where Rashi brings an "aggadah" — it is as Rashi himself says<sup>2</sup>

: and I have not come except

(for the plain meaning of the verse and)

for the aggadah that settles the words of the verse, each word in its proper place.

That is,

that Rashi brings an aggadah only a)

when there is a difficulty in the plain meaning of the verse that requires a resolution,

and b)

the ,

aggadah

(is)

settles the words of the verse";

Thus, in the places where the verse can be interpreted literally without any difficulty — Rashi does not bring any "aggadah"

(even not such an aggadah that "fits" into the language of the verse "a matter spoken in its proper way").

Based on this, a great wonder arises regarding a verse in our parshah,

where one finds that

(most)

literal commentators interpret it according to its simple meaning,

and specifically Rashi interprets it

(seemingly)

according to a derash!

Among the first statements that Balaam said in praise of Israel,

is the verse³

— "For from the top of rocks I see him, and from the hills I behold him; behold, a people that dwells alone, etc."

are the simple interpretations⁴

(Ibn Ezra⁵,

Rashbam,

Ramban,

Ralbag and others)

interpret the words "from the top of rocks I see him" according to their simple meaning,

that Balaam was then standing on a mountain peak

("top of rocks")

from where he saw the Jews

("I see him"),

and seeing them he praised them — "behold, a people that dwells alone, etc."

Rashi, however, stands on the words "For from the top of the rocks I see him" and explains

(in the manner of the Midrash<sup>6</sup>)

: I look at their beginning and at the start of their roots, and I see them established and strong in these rocks and hills through the patriarchs and matriarchs.

It is entirely not understood: Why does Rashi abandon<sup>7</sup>

the simple interpretation of "From the top of the rocks I see him"<sup>8</sup>

and interpret the words according to a homiletic exposition<sup>9</sup>?

B.

Commentators¹⁰

explain,

that according to the simple interpretation it is difficult — what relevance is there to tell where Balaam was standing then?

And therefore one says

(and the Midrash expounds),

that also

"From the top of the rocks etc." is a part of the praises that Balaam said about the Jews.

But according to the simple meaning, this is no question at all,

And on the contrary — from the continuation of the verses it is absolutely necessary

(at first glance)

to interpret simply:

After Balaam finished the first statements of praises and blessings upon the Jews,

Balak said to Balaam: "What have you done to me? To curse etc. and behold you have blessed etc. Please go with me to another place from where you will see him; only the edge of him you will see and all of him you will not see etc."¹¹,

And from this it is forced,

that Balak thought that the reason that Balaam had previously blessed the Jews was that he had seen "all of him".

Where does it say earlier that Balaam saw the people of Israel "entirely"?

(And on the contrary: earlier¹²

it says even "And Balak took Balaam and brought him up to the high places of Baal¹³

and from there he saw

(only)

the edge¹⁴

of the people"¹⁵)?

— So when one translates the words "For from the top of the rocks I see him" according to its simple meaning,

then there is no question: Balaam himself said it and emphasized — "From the top of the rocks I see him",

and moreover he said it as a beginning

(and an explanation in a hint)

to the blessings that follow in the continuation of the speech¹⁶.

It turns out,

that specifically according to the simple interpretation of "For from the top of the rocks I see him" the continuation of the verses is understood.

3.

Air must be understood [in the] language of Rashi:

The source of Rashi's commentary — that the verse speaks about the fundamentality and strength of Jews from the side of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs — is in the Midrash¹⁷,

but there the wording is: "For from the top of the rocks¹⁸

these are the Patriarchs, and from the hills these are the Matriarchs."

And the foundation of the exposition is¹⁹

that which one finds²⁰

that the "Patriarchs" are called

(in several verses²¹)

"mountains"

as it stands in — Isaiah²³

"Look to the rock from which you were hewn etc., look to Abraham your father etc."].

It is not understood: a)

Why does Rashi say the wording "by means of fathers and mothers",

not like the wording of the Midrash — "these are fathers ..

these are mothers"?

b)

Why does Rashi not bring any proofs from verses<sup>24</sup>

that "Tzurim" is a term for "fathers" — which would have strengthened

(at the very least)

that the derash is compatible

(also)

with the plain meaning of Scripture?

However, when one delves well into Rashi's wording, it is proven,

on the contrary,

that he is indeed out to change,

to explain not like the Midrash that "Rosh Tzurim these are fathers and Migba'ot these are mothers",

but as Rashi is precise in his wording: "I look at their beginning and at the start of their roots and I see them — the Jews — founded

(in their roots)

and established like these rocks and hills".

That is,

that the Jews are the

(who are strong like)

"rocks and hills",

and the Patriarchs and Matriarchs are the "from the head

(rocks)

" — the "beginning" and "roots" of Jews

(that make the Jews rocks,

strong)

; and therefore Rashi is precise "through Patriarchs and Matriarchs" — not that rocks and hills are the Patriarchs and Matriarchs,

but that becoming a rock — the strength,

the Jews receive through

(their "head" and roots)

the Patriarchs and Matriarchs.

It remains, however, not explained — the very reason is needed: since that in any case Rashi learns

(not literally,

but)

that "from the head of rocks" denotes the strength in connection with the Patriarchs and Matriarchs — why does he deviate from the Midrash,

and instead of learning that "rocks" means the Patriarchs

Rock of their quarry etc. "Abraham your father"²⁵],

he explains that rocks and hills refer to Jews,

and the Patriarchs and Matriarchs are only "head of the rocks"?

4.

Then the explanation of this — simply: as an introduction to the words of Balaam the verse says²⁶

: "And he took up his parable and said."

The word "his parable" Rashi here²⁷

does not explain,

from which it is understood,

that according to Rashi its meaning is — its simple literal sense,

that Balaam spoke here with a parable,

in its simple meaning — "a parable, to what is the matter similar."

(three times)

speeches of Balaam,

where it also says "and he took up his parable"²⁸,

he praised Jews using thereby parables — "like the horns of a wild ox"²⁹,

"like a lioness ... and like a lion"³⁰,

"like streams ...

like gardens etc.³¹,

"a star treads"³²].

Thus the question: which of his utterances were in the manner of a parable³³?

The beginning of his words "From Aram led me Balak etc. Come etc. How shall I curse etc."³⁴

is not a parable,

but these words are as they are and the subsequent words of blessing and praise — "Behold, a people that dwells alone and among the nations is not reckoned" — are also not a parable³⁵.

At first glance one could say that "his parable" refers to the

(subsequent)

words³⁶

"Who has counted the dust of Jacob",

as commentators³⁷

explain,

that this means that because of the immense multitude of Jews one cannot count them,

as for example "dust",

which cannot be counted; and as it says in the verse earlier³⁸

"And I will make your seed as the dust of the earth, which if a man can count etc."

— But Rashi himself rejects this explanation:

On "Who has counted the dust of Jacob" Rashi brings

(in his first commentary)

"like its Targum: the subtle ones of the house of Jacob etc.",

that is,

that the word "dust

(of Jacob)

" in the

Verse

(Is not an expression of a parable about Jews,

to denote their multitude,

but it)

means simply — the small children

(of Jacob)³⁹

the term "dustiness"⁴⁰

and therefore "delicate children"⁴¹

are called by the name "dust"; or because "dust"

(in this verse)

is

from the expression⁴²

“fawns of the rams”⁴³,

which means [choice].

all the more so according to the second interpretation in Rashi — “there is no account of the commandments that they fulfill with dust”,

which according to this interpretation the meaning of “dust” is in its simple sense,

actual dust

(but [it] refers to the commandments that one fulfills with dust⁴⁴).

And likewise the words "and counting the fourth of Israel" are also not a metaphor — according to the first explanation in Rashi

(according to the Targum)

means "four

(banners)

and according to the second explanation — "their fourths".

The only words among Balaam's words,

which can be interpreted allegorically,

are — "For from the top of rocks I see him, and from the hills I behold him"⁴⁵,

and for this reason Rashi does not want to accept to interpret them simply,

but allegorically: "I look at their beginnings etc. and I see them established and strong in these rocks and hills etc."

H.

Based on this — that Rashi's interpretation is founded on the necessity to explain "from the top of the rocks" as a metaphor — it will also become clear why Rashi cannot learn like the Midrash that "from the top of the rocks refers to the Patriarchs"

(in the manner as in other

verses where the Patriarchs are called "rock,"

"mountains")

Because since the word "Tzurim" is

(according to the Midrash)

a nickname

(in the Torah)

for the Patriarchs,

then it is not a parable

(whose meaning is an example from another thing),

but a name⁴⁶

with which the Patriarchs are called.

Therefore Rashi must learn that the words "Tzurim" and "Gevu'ot" Balaam said as a parable for the strength of Jews,

that they are "strong like these rocks and hills",

like physical rocks and hills⁴⁷.

6.

According to this, one can explain another perplexing Rashi commentary in our parshah — at the conclusion of Balaam's prophecy: on "First of nations is Amalek"⁴⁸

Rashi explains "He preceded all of them to wage war against Israel, and so Onkelos translated"⁴⁹

And his end is to be destroyed by them, as it is said⁵⁰

You shall blot out the memory of Amalek."

One must understand:

a)

What is the necessity according to the homiletic interpretation to explain "first of nations Amalek" — "he preceded all to fight against Israel",

and not according to its simple meaning

(according to the commentary of the Ramban)

that Amalek is

"First⁵¹

of the nations he is considered because they were mighty and men of valor for war"

("first" from a praiseworthy term⁵²,

and as we find in Rashi above⁵³

"first of the heavens — important")⁵⁴?

b)

Why does Rashi bring the proof on "and its end until destruction" from the later verse "you shall blot out the memory of Amalek" and not⁵⁵

from the earlier verse⁵⁶

"I will surely blot out the memory of Amalek"?

Simply, the reason is because Rashi wants to bring a proof that "and its end is to be destroyed by their hand"

(through Jews),

and therefore he brings the proof from "you shall blot out the memory of Amalek"⁵⁷.

But this itself is not understandable: why does Rashi need to add the word,

"by their hand" and be compelled to bring the proof from the later verse "you shall blot out the memory of Amalek"?

— In the verse it only says "and his end is destruction",

not mentioning by whom,

it could mean Hashem,

"I will surely blot out"⁵⁸.

The Maharal⁵⁹

explains that one cannot say that "end is destruction" means "by itself",

because "if so, what is its relevance to the beginning of nations Amalek".

Therefore Rashi says that this will be "in war with Israel".

But the answer is seemingly not sufficient: from where is the necessity,

that just as "the first of nations" is related to

(the war with)

Jews,

therefore must "and his end until destruction" also be interpreted thus — through the Jews<sup>58</sup>?

One can simply explain,

that since Amalek was the first to make war with Jews,

his punishment will be "and his end until destruction" — that he will

(completely)

be destroyed

(as it says further<sup>60</sup>

in relation to another nation "and also he until destruction").

7.

And one may say the explanation in this — in the manner of the above:

The verse introduces — "And he saw Amalek and he raised his parable and he said: First of nations etc."

Is difficult for Rashi: apparently there is no parable in this verse — the words "First of nations Amalek" are simple and clear,

that Amalek is the "first",

the first praiseworthy

(in strength)

of all nations; "and his end" — and his end will be "until destruction"!

Therefore Rashi explains "First of nations Amalek" — "He preceded them all to fight against Israel",

that "First of nations" means here not in its simple sense,

but this is a description that brings out by way of parable another thing in Amalek,

which does not lie in the plain meaning of the words —

"First of nations" alludes to that which "he preceded them all to fight against Israel" — and therefore the phrase "he took up his parable and said"⁶¹ fits it.

And with this is also understood the continuation in Rashi — "and his end to be destroyed by them": because "first of nations is Amalek" is a parable that points to a special matter,

namely in connection to the Jews as above,

it is logical,

that also the continuation "and his end" its meaning is

(not

(only)

literally: "his end",

but)

a parable to indicate a new matter.

And since the meaning of "beginning ..

and its end" is a parable,

it follows to say,

that both of them are a parable in relation to the same matter,

the "beginning" and "end" of one matter⁶²,

the war of Amalek and Israel.

— Therefore Rashi specifies "and its end to be destroyed by them": "and its end" is like a concluding matter of "beginning",

that Amalek was the "beginning" in war,

to attack the Jewish people,

its "end" will be — "to be destroyed by them" in war.

8.

from the above explanation — that according to Y.-Sh.-Y. "from the top of the rocks" is a mashal — comes a tasty point in "the wine of Torah" in Rashi's commentary:

The necessity of a mashal is specifically when one speaks about a matter

(that is)

deep⁶³,

that the matter as it is in itself cannot be depicted and explained.

Therefore one gives a mashal for it — one finds another matter in which one can have comprehension and depiction,

whose content is like and similar to the nimshal,

and through this one gets a

(slight)

understanding of the nimshal.

And likewise in our matter: That which Balaam said that Jews are "strong as these rocks and hills" is only a parable — because the true strength and might of Jews

(which they receive "through the Patriarchs and Matriarchs")

is entirely not comparable to the strength of "rocks and hills",

it is a strength of which Balak can have no conception — only so that he should have some comprehension and grasp of it,

they gave him a parable of "these rocks and hills".

9.

The explanation in this:

The true strength of a Jew is — not "the hands

(the hands of Esav)

physical power and the might of his hand,

but rather his spirituality,

the powers of the soul,

and especially his power of self-sacrifice,

which overcomes all his powers

(also the physical ones,

"the hands")

— he is after all willing to give up everything,

And in the levels of the soul,

this is,

as the Tzemach Tzedek⁶⁴

explains it: "Rosh Tzurim" alludes to the level in the soul from which every Jew has the readiness "to give his life for the sanctification of G-d's name without any

Reason and knowledge ..

And therefore it is called "head of rocks," which is the aspect of very great strength,

The strength of a Jew is his faith in G‑d,

For which a Jew is prepared to go to self-sacrifice⁶⁵

for the sanctification of G‑d's name, "not to deny the one G‑d"⁶⁶,

And in a manner "as if it is something that it is altogether impossible to deny the one G‑d"⁶⁶.

And this is what Rashi says: "I look at their beginning etc. I see them established and strong ..

through the Patriarchs and Matriarchs" — because the "strength" of self-sacrifice for the sanctification of G‑d's name was inherited from the Patriarchs⁶⁷

(and Matriarchs),

What the power of self-sacrifice is is precisely the opposite of the concept of "power" in relation to worldly matters: the definition of the world is — existence and reality,

and a strong thing in the world means,

that the reality of the thing is powerful: but self-sacrifice, its essence is,

on the contrary,

one is completely self-nullifying,

one gives oneself entirely away to the Above.

And therefore the Alter Rebbe explains⁶⁶

that the power for self-sacrifice comes from the aspect that "Hashem is One" shines in every Jew

(in the soul,

which

is a "part of G-d from above literally"⁶⁸),

and from this is in Jews the matter of faith and self-sacrifice.

Because self-sacrifice is opposite of the nature of the created being — a created being does not do a thing through which he

(his existence)

is nullified — only this is a G‑dly power and strength.

And this is the continuation in the verse: "For from the top of the rocks I see him, etc. Behold, a people that dwells alone and among the nations is not reckoned" — the strength of the Jew

("rocks")

is in a manner that makes them completely "alone",

(higher,

until — completely),

not in the category of all nations,

"and among the nations is not reckoned"⁶⁹.

Yud-Yud-Daled.

And this is the explanation in the words of Rashi "I look at their beginning etc. and I see them

(Jews)

established and strong ..

through the Patriarchs and Matriarchs" — so the strength of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs is transmitted to Jews

(until the end of all generations),

without changes:

If it were speaking about a strength that is a created thing,

it is not possible that the strength be transmitted from generation to generation in the same manner: by nature a thing becomes weaker and weaker over the course of time.

But since the strength of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs derives from the fact that

in them was illuminated "Hashem is One" — and this is transmitted as an inheritance "to their children after them forever"⁷⁰

— is in

There are no changes to this,

it is transmitted with the same force to every Jew until the end of all generations,

in a manner of "I have not changed."

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Chayei Sarah 5732)