English translation — האזינו

A.

Already spoken many times,

that the essence of Rashi in his commentary on the Torah is

(as Rashi himself gives the principle¹)

"I have come only for the plain meaning of the verse",

and even in those places where at first glance it appears that Rashi simply brings down a derash

(of Chazal),

but upon careful examination one sees that the brought derash

(if he does not say about it "our Rabbis expounded" and the like)

is compelled by the plain meaning of the verse².

And this is prominently evident in Rashi's commentary in our parshah: Rashi says a commentary that when one examines the sources of the commentary one sees that these are three separate derashos of Chazal — one in the Gemara,

the second in the Sifri on Parshas Vayelech and finally a derash that stands in the Sifri on the spot — and in their source the derashos have no connection between them,

but Rashi in his commentary on the Torah combines and includes all three of them into one commentary!

And perforce it must be said that they are related to the plain meaning of the verse,

which binds them together; and consequently also the order of their presentation in his commentary is a matter that is in the plain meaning of the verse — and as will be explained further.

2.

On the verse³

"And Moses came and spoke etc., he and Joshua son of Nun" Rashi cites

From the verse the words "He and Hoshea bin Nun" and explains: "A pair of twins had one taking permission from the other and giving to the other. Moses appointed for him a translator for Joshua that he should expound in his lifetime so that Israel should not say, 'In the lifetime of your master you had no right to lift your head.' And why does it call him here Hoshea? To say that his pride did not swell, for although greatness was given to him, he humbled himself as at his beginning."

The beginning of Rashi — "A pair of twins had one taking permission from the other and giving to the other" is in the Gemara Sotah⁴

; The continuation of Rashi "Moses appointed for him a translator for Joshua etc." is in the Sifri on Parsha Vayelech⁵,

And the content of the conclusion of Rashi "And why does it call him here Hoshea" is in the Sifri on our parsha on the verse.

Why does Rashi combine the three separate statements into one commentary?

And furthermore: Granted, the first two matters in Rashi's commentary —

(a)

"Shabbos of Diuzgei etc.,

(b)

"He appointed for him Moses an interpreter for Joshua etc." — have a connection between themselves in their content — also in the second matter it is emphasized how the matter of "authority" passed to Joshua; but the continuation of the commentary "And why does he call him here Hoshea etc." is seemingly an entirely separate topic,

which has no connection to the preceding matter — and nevertheless, it is not that Rashi inserts it

In the same discourse,

But he connects it further with a vav ha-machber-mosif — "And why does he call it here etc."⁶

— as if the question arises specifically after and in continuation of the previous explanation "Shabbos of Diuzgei etc. Moshe appointed a translator etc."!

The aforementioned wonder — that Rashi combines three separate subjects together — is even greater: not only do they come in separate places and even separate books and midrashei Chazal — but Rashi himself! brings these

(first two)

teachings in another place but each one by itself! In parshas Pinchas on the verse⁷

"And you shall lay your hand upon him" Rashi says⁸

"Appoint for him a translator who will expound in your lifetime so that they will not say about him 'He should not have raised his head in the days of Moshe'"; and at the beginning of parshas Vayelech,

on the verse⁹

"I can no longer go out and come in",

Rashi says "I am not permitted, for permission was taken from me and given to Yehoshua" — i.e.

i.e.

that also according to Rashi these two subjects

(permission was taken etc. and Moshe appointed a translator etc.)

are not dependent one on the other — what compels Rashi to connect them together in our verse?

3.

Also one must understand: the maamar "Shabbos of the dyozgi was taken permission from this and given to this" stands in the Gemara regarding a different

(previous)

verse,

in parshas Vayelech — "And Moshe went and Yehoshua and they stood in the Tent of Meeting"¹⁰.

And superficially,

Rashi should have said the entire commentary on that verse in parshas Vayelech,

where it is stated in this language

(Moshe and Yehoshua)

for the first time¹¹.

One cannot answer,

that since Rashi already brought the content of the commentary at the beginning of parshas Vayelech

(as above),

Rashi should not need to repeat the matter again in the continuation of the parsha on the verse "And Moses went with Joshua" — because if so,

why does Rashi need to repeat it again in our parsha?

And even more: specifically in our parsha he adds the matter of "it was a Sabbath of the second day"

And likewise it is not understandable regarding the matter of "Moses appointed for him an interpreter etc.": since Rashi already brought the matter in parshas Pinchas

(that the Almighty commanded Moses "appoint for him an interpreter etc." — which certainly Moses fulfilled)

— why does Rashi need to repeat it again in our parsha?

Even if you say that this is similar to what we find in many places in Rashi,

that a matter that he explained in an earlier book he repeats again in a later book; and certainly in our case where it is not about the exact same matter — in Parshat Pinchas it speaks about the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, "Appoint for him an interpreter," and in our parshah — about the actual deed "Moshe appointed for him an interpreter."

— But it is not understood,

why does he need to repeat all the details,

also the reason,

"so that Israel should not say, etc.,"

since he already explained this in Parshat Pinchas

when Rashi repeats an explanation that he already said earlier,

he says it only in brief<sup>12</sup>,

and in the places where he repeats it with all the details,

it is because it is necessitated by the verses on the spot].

Also one must understand: Rashi explains the phrase "Shabbat shel duzgi"

(in the Gemara)¹³

: "two pairs, two companions were in it, the beginning of the day for Moses and its end for Joshua",

and in simple terms Rashi informs us here,

that "duzgi" cannot be translated here literally,

from the word pair — because the leadership of Moses was at the beginning of the day and of Joshua at its end

(it was not a matter of a "pair",

both together)

— rather it means "two companions were".

It is not understood: since Rashi in the Gemara must inform us

(to a fifteen-year-old for Gemara),

it is obvious that he must do so in study according to the simple meaning

(to a five-year-old for Scripture)?

4.

Will one understand this by prefacing to explain the matter of the variations of the language in Rashi,

regarding the language in its source in the Sifri:

a)

In the Sifri it stands: "Appoint an interpreter for Joshua, and he will ask and inquire and teach rulings in your lifetime, and when you depart, Israel will not say to him: In the lifetime of Moses your teacher you were not

From the wilderness and now you speak"¹⁴.

The difference in Rashi "that he should expound in his life etc. in the life of your master you should not have raised your head".

And what is the precision of the language "to raise the head"?

b)

Regarding the reason why he is called here "Hoshea", it says in Sifri "to teach you the righteousness of Joshua, I hear that he foresaw¹⁵

his mind upon him from when it was given¹⁵

with permission, the text says 'he and Hoshea bin Nun, Hoshea in his righteousness, even though he was appointed leader over the community, he is Hoshea in his righteousness'¹⁶.

Rashi says however completely differently — "that his mind did not become haughty over him, that even though greatness was given to him, he humbled himself as at his beginning".

And it can be said the explanation in all this:

The reason that Rashi does not say the matter of "it was a Shabbat of the day of rest" immediately at the beginning of Parsha Vayelech,

is — because there is no necessity there to say that then the leadership of Yehoshua had already begun in practice.

For although Rashi says "I am not permitted, for permission was taken from me and given to Yehoshua",

nevertheless Rashi immediately continues

(in the continuation of his commentary)

"and G-d said to me, this is the explanation of 'I will no longer go out and come in' because G-d said to me

(you shall not cross this Jordan¹⁷)

4.

5.

5.

So the giving of permission to Yehoshua pertains

(not on that day,

but)

Because of this matter and consequently — the time of "you will cross this Jordan."

And consequently there is no necessity that at the time of Moses' saying "I can no longer go out and come in" the leadership of Joshua had already begun in practice.

Similarly in the verse "And Moses and Joshua went and stood in the Tent of Meeting"

(further in the portion of Vayeilech)

— in this

(that Joshua entered together with Moses into the Tent of Meeting)

there is no content that Joshua was already a prince over Israel in practice — this was still a fulfillment of the statement of the Most High "Call Joshua and stand in the Tent of Meeting and I will command him"¹⁸

But when we come to our parshah,

where the verse says "And G-d spoke, he and Hoshea the son of Nun," here the question arises: what is the intent of the text in joining Yehoshua with Moshe — how does Yehoshua come in here

(Hoshea)?

Indeed, it is true that Yehoshua "did not depart from the tent"¹⁹,

he was always with Moshe — but what is the reason that the Torah states it explicitly specifically here

One must say,

that the words "he and Hoshea the son of Nun" refer to the "And He spoke" at the beginning of the verse,

i.

e.

after the Torah relates that Moshe said the song,

the verse adds²⁰

<span> "he and Hoshea the son of Nun" — the song was said not only by Moshe alone, but also Yehoshua the son of Nun said it</span>

"In the ears of the people."

Even more: from that which the Torah says "he and Hoshea bin Nun" — which at first glance the word "he" is superfluous — it is understood,

that the Torah thereby emphasizes that Moses and Joshua were there both equal

(in the matter and manner of this speech — in the style of a prince — to Bnei Yisrael).

And therefore Rashi specifically says here that "it was a Sabbath of a pair",

and Rashi does not need to explain what that means — his intention in this is its simple literal meaning,

that they were both together a pair of princes²¹.

that what he continues afterwards "permission was taken from this one and given to that one" does not mean that then the leadership of Moshe had already ended,

but rather that it was in a manner of "pair",

both together; only because Moshe was no longer the sole leader

(in a manner of "one matter for a generation"²²)

one says about this "permission was taken from this one and given to that one"²³].

6.

With this it is also simply answered why Rashi adds here "Moshe appointed for him an interpreter for Yehoshua etc." — and is not satisfied with "permission was taken from this one and given to that one"

(as explained earlier in parshas Vayelech)

— because in this consists the novelty of the verse "he and Hoshea bin Nun",

that Yehoshua actually spoke with Jews in the same manner as Moshe,

actual leadership; Yehoshua expounded "in the ears of the people" as a leader expounds — with an interpreter²⁴.

Based on this, it is also understandable the novelty of Rashi's commentary regarding his commentary in Parshat Pinchas

(where he says "give him a translator who will expound in your lifetime")

"Translator" for the discourse of Joshua from Parshat Pinchas was not a matter of leadership²⁵,

rather — in order to exclude that Jews should

Not to say "he should not have raised his head in the days of Moses,"

and therefore there was the announcement "Appoint for him an interpreter who will expound in your lifetime"; unlike in our parshah, Rashi says in continuation of his previous explanation "The Sabbath of a colleague was taken permission from this one and given to that one" — that is,

that here it was with Joshua in the capacity of leadership,

until in a manner of "colleague" — Joshua is a colleague of Moses our teacher.

7.

But,

Rashi cannot be satisfied with saying "The Sabbath of a colleague etc. Moses appointed for him an interpreter etc." — because according to this a great question arises: Why was such an order required that Joshua's leadership should begin while Moses was still alive

(contrary to the rule "One leader for a generation")?

Indeed,

Moses had to appoint Joshua as his successor,

But what is the necessity that Joshua

(the student of Moses)

should lead the presidency during the lifetime

(of his teacher)

Moses

(and in a manner of "together" — both together)

— and not as one finds by other successors of the presidents who preceded them,

that the presidency of the successor

(even when he was appointed for it in advance)

began after the passing of the president who preceded him²⁶?

On this Rashi continues "so that Israel should not say, during the lifetime of your teacher you did not have

"To raise the head": Specifically by Joshua was required a

special "raising",

because during Moses' life his entire leadership was in an opposite direction — completely contrary to loftiness,

self-nullification and lowliness: his entire essence consisted of the fact that he was "Moses' servant",

"And his servant Joshua etc. and he would not depart etc."²⁷,

he was constantly in a movement of ultimate self-nullification — "youth"²⁸

and "servant"

Not as we find for example by Aaron,

Even though Moses was the prince,

Aaron himself also taught Torah to all Jews

(as Rashi brings²⁹

in the "order of Mishnah").

But by Joshua we do not find until then any matter of loftiness over all Israel³⁰].

And therefore here specifically one needed to guard that Jews should not say "In the lifetime of your master you had no right to raise your head" — since by him it was lacking entirely

raising of the head

(In the lifetime of his master)³¹,

he is therefore not capable of being a Nasi of Israel.

And over him "Moshe appointed for him a translator for Yehoshua that he should expound in his lifetime."

ח.

Based on this one will also understand the continuation in the verse "And why does it call him here Hoshea, to say that his pride did not swell etc."

(And Rashi is precise to say "he humbled himself as at his beginning",

not as in Sifri "he is Hoshea in his righteousness etc.")

The question is not simply "why does it call him Hoshea" after they gave him the name "Yehoshua" — rather "and why does it call him here Hoshea",

in this verse.

For at first glance,

on the contrary — specifically in this verse it is fitting that they should call him "Yehoshua":

Since the verse comes to emphasize the matter and necessity of raising the head

(elevation)

of Yehoshua already during Moshe's lifetime — how does it happen that the verse picks here specifically the name "Hoshea",

which he had before Moshe gave him the name "Yehoshua"³²

(which recalls that Yehoshua needed to attain the prayer

(special)

and from Moshe that in the future "Yah will save you from the counsel of the spies"³³)?

On this Rashi explains,

that on the contrary "to say" — this comes to teach the virtue of Yehoshua "that his mind was not haughty over him, that even though greatness was given to him, he humbled himself as at his beginning": the nature of man is,

that when he

When one rises to greatness, his character traits and conduct change in accordance with his change and greatness.

And all the more so in the matter of leadership,

that when someone is appointed as a leader,

it brings out in him a movement of greatness and self-exaltation.

Not, heaven forbid, a movement of pride&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;

and selfhood, heaven forbid — but within holiness itself,

a movement&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;

of greatness and loftiness that is required according to Torah — so that the leader can conduct his leadership properly.

And as Rashi brings in this context that the Almighty tells Joshua "Take a staff and strike"&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;.

And this the Torah relates,

that despite the fact that they gave Joshua greatness — and he certainly received through the laying on of hands by Moses with a generous eye the necessary greatness and self-exaltation that a leader needs to have&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;

— nevertheless, together with this, there was in him the movement and conduct of "he lowered himself as at the beginning":

Exactly as before they gave him greatness,

his humility was — "servant Moshe",

a conduct of lowliness,

so too afterwards,

when greatness was given to him,

there remained with him the same conduct and movement of lowliness itself,

"he lowered himself as at his beginning".

And it can be said

That this also connects to what Rashi brought earlier³⁸

"The face of Moshe like the sun, the face of Yehoshua like the moon",

that with him it was always apparent that he is a receiver

(like the moon from the sun),

and consequently in smallness and lowliness^,3

accordingly.

9.

From this there is also a lesson in the service of each and every one:

Just as it was by Yehoshua,

that after he merited greatness,

and not just greatness,

but to such a lofty greatness that he had leadership already during Moshe's lifetime and moreover in a manner of "dual,"

nevertheless he was in his own eyes lowly to the utmost "as at the beginning,"

This is by every Jew

(and especially when Moshe Rabeinu

transmitted — to Yehoshua)

: When he merits a matter of greatness,

greatness in a matter of rulership,

or a greatness in other matters,

that he merits sublime blessings from the Above — he can then make a calculation,

that from this itself that he merited this greatness,

it is a sign that specifically he is worthy of it,

and consequently it brings out in him a movement of expansiveness of mind — indeed not haughtiness G-d forbid,

but at any rate a movement of expansion and elevation,

One learns from Yehoshua that on the contrary: specifically when one merits a matter of

Greatness,

the way to be the "one who lowered himself as at his beginning"⁴¹,

And this is also the vessel so that the greatness that one gives — should have a permanence.

10.

The above-mentioned matter relates to the time of year when one reads the portion in the Torah — after

(And in proximity to⁴²)

Rosh Hashanah:

The service of Rosh Hashanah is — "Say etc. that you make Me king over you"⁴³,

Jews coronate the Most High as King,

King of Israel and — King over the entire world.

And since the concept of kingship is actualized through the service of Israel,

it shows thereby the importance of a Jew,

that in their power is to coronate the

King of kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He! And consequently,

can from this come out a rationale,

that he should be aroused with a movement of the opposite of lowliness entirely

— is on this the instruction,

that on the contrary: specifically after Jews do such a great matter — of making the Supreme One king as King,

must this evoke in a Jew a movement of self-nullification to the utmost,

humble himself⁴⁴,

and through this⁴⁵

one adds further in the blessings of G‑d in all that is needed,

in a sealing and final sealing for good,

for a good and sweet year,

in the good that is seen and revealed,

below ten handbreadths.

in children, life, and ample sustenance,

and in all of them ample.

(From sichos of Shabbos Parshas Haazinu 5731,

5743)