English translation — לך לך ב

Sicha of <pg>44</pg>

1.

We learned in Maseches Nedarim¹

: Great is circumcision that all the commandments that Avraham Avinu did, he was not called complete until he circumcised, as it is said²

Walk before Me and be perfect³

(And it is written after it⁴

And I will give My covenant between Me and you.

Rashi⁵).

And in the Gemara there⁶

: It was taught: Rabbi says, Great is circumcision, for there is no one who engaged in commandments like Avraham Avinu, and he was called perfect only because of circumcision, as it is said, Walk before Me and be perfect, and it is written, And I will give My covenant between Me and you.

And behold, ostensibly it appears that the two statements

(in the Mishnah and in the Baraitha)

are the same⁷.

But when you examine closely — several differences between them:

A)

In the Mishnah the wording is "he is not called complete until he circumcises",

and in the Baraitha "he is not called perfect except by virtue of circumcision".

And ostensibly they are the same,

that is, complete means perfect.

[For it is forced to say that the intention of the Baraitha is to correct the wording of the Mishnah "that he is not called complete",

to align it with the Scriptural wording "and he shall be perfect"⁸].

2)

In the language of the Mishnah "he is not called complete until he is circumcised",

but in the Baraita "he is not called perfect except by virtue of circumcision" — this is a fundamental change in content: according to the style of the Mishnah "all the commandments that Abraham our father performed" belong to his "completeness",

except that they are not able by themselves to effect in him that he be complete,

"until he is circumcised",

that

(only)

with the addition of the commandment of circumcision he becomes "complete"; but in the Baraita it is explicit,

that "he is not called perfect except by virtue of circumcision",

that the commandment of circumcision alone is what effects that he be "called perfect"⁹.

2.

And now in general it can be said,

that in the Mishnah and Baraita they speak about two different matters that exist in the commandment of circumcision.

For behold, it is explained in many places that in the commandment of circumcision there are two matters: 1)

that he should not be foreskinned,

2)

that he should be circumcised¹⁰

(and there are between them several practical differences for law also in practice,

and as explained at length in the Tzafnat Paneach of the Rogatchover¹¹).

And according to this, one could say,

that in the Mishnah it speaks primarily about the virtue of the first matter in the commandment of circumcision

(that not<pg>45</pg>

he will be uncircumcised),

and in the baraita it adds regarding the virtue of the matter of the second

(that he will be circumcised)

:

In the Mishnah it is precise and says "Great is circumcision that all the commandments that Abraham our father performed, he was not called complete until he circumcised"

(and not "on account of circumcision")

— because the intention is regarding the matter of the removal of the foreskin in circumcision,

and it comes in continuation of the beginning of the Mishnah that there it speaks of the negation of the foreskin,

"Konam that I benefit from the uncircumcised, he is permitted regarding uncircumcised Israelites and forbidden regarding circumcised gentiles etc., for the foreskin is called only for the name of gentiles etc. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says, loathsome is the foreskin etc."

[and so it is implied in the Rambam,

that at the end of the Laws of Circumcision&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;

he writes "loathsome is the foreskin with which the nations are disgraced..

and great is circumcision that Abraham our father was not called complete until he circumcised, as it is said etc.",

behold that he wrote "great is circumcision" of Abraham in that same halakhah and in continuation of "loathsome is the foreskin",

and with the conjunctive vav&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;]

;

But in the Baraisa it explains the virtue of the circumcision itself

(that he should be circumcised),

and therefore it infers "and he is not called perfect except on account of circumcision"

(and not "until he circumcises").

But still it needs to be understood how the other differences between the Mishnah and the Baraisa are explained by this.

3.

And one must say the explanation in this:

In "tamim" we find two matters:

(a)

Negation of a blemish and lack,

(b)

Wholeness and completeness additional,

That not only is there not lacking in him any thing,

Rather that he is "tamim".

Regarding the law of "tamim" in offerings,

that we find in it these two matters: negation of defect&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;

— that there is no blemish that disqualifies&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;

; but included in this is also extra perfection,

as the Rambam wrote&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;

"It is a positive commandment that all offerings be perfect and choice, as it is said&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;

Perfect shall it be for acceptance; this is a positive commandment"

[And similarly it is written&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;

regarding libations and wood of the arrangement: "Just as it is a commandment that every offering be perfect and choice, so the libations shall be perfect and choice, as it is said&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;

Perfect shall they be for you and their libations etc., and likewise the wood of the arrangement shall be only choice and not etc."].

Thus, even though "choice" is a law in itself,

as the Rambam brought&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;

that we learn this from what is said&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

"The choice of your vows",

nevertheless it is also included in the phrase "Perfect shall it be",

and when one brings an offering from the choice, he fulfills not only the law of choice in offerings,

but also that of "Perfect shall it be"&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;,

and it is — because in "tamim" there are two details,

"tamim" in contrast to a blemished animal,

meaning that there is no defect in it&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;,

and tamim that has an addition of completeness and perfection,

even though without this it is also whole&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;.

&lt;pg&gt;46&lt;/pg&gt;

And it can be said,

that this is the difference between the two expressions "tamim" and "shalem",

that although in general they are synonymous terms,

in particular there is a difference between them,

that "shalem" means the absence of deficiency&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;,

whereas "tamim" indicates an additional completeness.

And it can be said that this is similar to what we find regarding "year": a regular year is a year of twelve months,

and when Cheshvan and Kislev are full, they call it a "complete" year&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;.

But a "perfect year"&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;

our Sages of blessed memory explained&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;

"to include the intercalated month".

And it follows,

that even without the intercalated month it is called a year&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;

complete, lacking nothing,

nevertheless&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;,

through the intercalated month the aspect of perfection is added to it&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;.

4.

And this is the point of distinction between the Mishnah and the Baraita in tractate Nedarim there:

In the Mishnah it discusses the first aspect of "tamim" that is effected by the circumcision,

therefore the Mishnah is precise

(and changes from the language of the verse)

"Great is circumcision etc. he is not called complete until he is circumcised",

that is, complete without blemish and deficiency;

And in the Baraitha it adds to the Mishnah — "Great is circumcision etc. and he was not called perfect except on account of circumcision,"

that besides the fact that the commandment of circumcision caused that our father Abraham would be "whole"

(without a blemish),

behold, additionally,

that it caused in him that he would be "perfect,"

an additional perfection

(similar to the intercalated month).

And the difference in the language of the Mishnah and the Baraitha is precise — in the Mishnah "he was not called whole until he circumcised,"

whereas in the Baraitha "he was not called perfect except on account of circumcision" — because the definition of "whole"

(without lack)

was not effected by the commandment of circumcision alone,

but with the addition of "all the commandments that our father Abraham performed,"

that through all of them together he became whole,

and this is what the Mishnah says that "until he circumcised" he was not yet called whole

[because besides the fact that he lacked the fulfillment of one commandment — the commandment of circumcision&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;,

behold, as long as a person is uncircumcised,

he is lacking

(and blemished)

in essence]

; but in the Baraitha it speaks of the definition of "perfect,"

which is an additional completeness and perfection — and this level did not come to him "except on account of circumcision,"

that this commandment is what brought a new perfection and completeness in all matters of Abraham.

And likewise is understood the change in the beginning of the language of the maamar — in the Mishnah "All the commandments that Avraham Avinu performed",

And in the Baraisa "There is no one who occupied himself with commandments like Avraham Avinu":

In the Mishnah that it speaks about the category of "shalem"

(not a baal mum)

which is effected by the commandment of milah,

&lt;pg&gt;47&lt;/pg&gt;

Emphasized is the aspect of completeness that was with Avraham Avinu also before the fulfillment of the commandment of milah,

that "all the commandments that Avraham Avinu performed"

(that is, the entire Torah,

which Avraham Avinu fulfilled before it was given&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;)

did not have the power to effect in Avraham that he be "shalem",

"until he circumcised";

But not so in the baraisa,

that the intention is the definition of "tamim",

that this is an additional completeness and wholeness

(more than completeness in the sense of the absence of lack)

— it is necessary to emphasize,

that even though also before the fulfillment of the commandment of milah there was with Avraham

(not only the fulfillment of all the commandments,

but also)

fulfillment of commandments in a manner of hiddur

(additional wholeness and completeness)&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;

— "there is no one who engaged in commandments like Avraham Avinu",

in a manner of engagement and extra exertion,

even to the point of mesiras nefesh — nevertheless,

"he was not called tamim except on account of milah",

for it is impossible to reach the level of "tamim" except through "milah",

when the person is "mahul".

And based on this, one can also explain the connection to the two matters in the word — that he should not be uncircumcised,

and that he should be circumcised — as emphasized in the change of language of the Mishnah and the Baraisa,

"until he circumcises" or "on account of circumcision":

The matter of "he should not be uncircumcised" in the commandment of circumcision,

causes that a person be complete without a blemish,

because the foreskin is a blemish&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;,

and the removal of the foreskin nullifies this defect and he becomes "complete"&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;

(This itself permits him to eat terumah as explained in the Rambam&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;)

; and this is what the Mishnah says "he is not called complete until he circumcises",

that the intention is the removal of the foreskin,

through which "he is called complete";

But this that the person becomes in the category of "circumcised,"

this is not only a negative matter,

that he does not have a foreskin,

but this is a perfection and additional virtue,

that besides this that he does not have a foreskin

(a blemish)

— there is a positive matter that he is circumcised.

And this is what the baraita adds,

that its content and action of circumcision is not only that it effects perfection in a person who is lacking — but that it adds wholeness also in the perfect person,

"He is not called whole except on account of circumcision,"

for the concept of "whole"

(not only "perfect")

is effected by the positive aspect in the object of circumcision³⁸,

this that the person is "circumcised"³⁹.

<pg>48</pg>

5.

And behold we find in the sugya of Nedarim there⁶

another explanation of "and be whole" — "Whoever makes himself whole, the Holy One, blessed be He, makes whole

[makes whole⁴⁰]

with him etc. 'Whoever makes himself whole, the hour stands for him, as it is said, Walk before Me and be whole, and it is written, And you shall be a father of a multitude of nations.'"

And according to this explanation,

"tamim" is not a matter of perfection,

but rather walking in innocence&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;,

and it is similar to the command&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;

"You shall be tamim with the Lord your God"&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;

and as Rashi explains&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt;

"Walk with Him in innocence and hope for Him and do not inquire into the future, but rather whatever comes upon you accept in innocence, etc."&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;.

That is, he does not conduct himself with tricks and with cleverness,

and moreover, he does not ask and does not investigate, but rather believes simply in the words of God and conducts himself in innocence accordingly.

And from this that this explanation is also brought in the sugya of Nedarim regarding the commandment of circumcision,

it implies,

that also this matter regarding Abraham,

that he walked in innocence,

is related to the commandment of circumcision.

In simple terms, one can say according to the commentary of the Ibn Ezra&lt;sup&gt;46&lt;/sup&gt;

(and other commentators&lt;sup&gt;47&lt;/sup&gt;),

that "Walk before Me and be perfect" means "that you shall not ask why the circumcision",

"that he accept&lt;sup&gt;*47&lt;/sup&gt;

simply any thing that He commands him,

even though it was difficult,

and that he accept it with simplicity, not asking what is this and why is this".

But it is more plausible,

that there is also a connection to the content of the commandment of circumcision,

that specifically it is the commandment that effected in Abraham the matter of walking in simplicity.

Furthermore: It has been stated many times&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;

that all the interpretations on one verse

(or one word)

are related to each other.

And so in our case,

that also the third interpretation of "be perfect",

walking in simplicity,

is related to the matter of "whole" and "perfect".

And based on this there are three aspects in the quality of the "temimus" that is in the mitzvah of milah: a)

Nullification of all deficiencies.

b)

Wholeness and completeness in beautification.

c)

Acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven that is above reason and intellect.

6.

And this will be understood through additional explanation of the three matters mentioned above in "tamim" — "shalem",

"tamim",

and going in temimus.

And as an introduction,

that these three levels in the service of G-d correspond to the services of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov

(although in general all three matters mentioned above were present in each of the Patriarchs)

:

The quality of temimus we find in all three Patriarchs⁴⁹,

In Avraham — "Walk before Me and be perfect",

Yitzchak is called "a perfect offering"⁵⁰,

And about Yaakov it is said⁵¹

"And Yaakov was a wholesome man, dwelling in tents".

And simply,

they are the three matters mentioned above of "shalem" "tamim" and walking in temimus:

The simple explanation of "be tamim" by Avraham Avinu is that he should be complete

(without&lt;pg&gt;49&lt;/pg&gt;

defect and blemish),

and like all three explanations in Rashi on the verse&lt;sup&gt;52&lt;/sup&gt;

"He was complete in all My tests and according to its midrash..

And in this matter you shall be tamim: as long as the orlah is in you, you are a baal mum before&lt;sup&gt;53&lt;/sup&gt;

Another interpretation etc. Now you are missing five limbs etc.";

The phrase "olah temimah" indicates

(not only the absence of a defect,

but)

on completeness and additional wholeness.

For "olah" itself already indicates that it is entirely for the Most High,

a complete offering

(that is: a sacrifice in general is tamim and not blemished; additionally "olah" — that it is wholly burnt to Hashem,

a complete offering),

and the adjective "

(olah)

temimah" adds wholeness also in this,

an addition of completeness in the olah that is entirely for the Most High already without this;

And "Yaakov ish tam" means — walking in wholeness,

and as Rashi⁵¹ explains

"His heart is like his mouth,

one who is not sharp to deceive is called tam".

7.

Explanation of the connection of the three matters of "shalem" "tamim" and walking in innocence — to Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov:

Avraham was the son of Terach,

"and he had no teacher nor informer of anything, but was immersed in Ur Kasdim among the foolish gentiles, and his father and mother and all the people were idolaters, and he worshipped with them, and his heart was roaming and understanding until he grasped the path of truth etc. from his correct understanding..

And he knew that the entire world was mistaken..

And at the age of forty years, Avraham recognized his Creator"

(as explained in the Rambam&lt;sup&gt;54&lt;/sup&gt;),

from which it is understood,

that the main service of Avraham was to negate the matter of deficiency

(that came from Terach his father and the world around him etc.)&lt;sup&gt;55&lt;/sup&gt;,

and in this he ascended from strength to strength in the service of G-d until he reached the level of perfection in His service,

and as it is brought in the Zohar on the verse&lt;sup&gt;56&lt;/sup&gt;

And Avraham was old, advanced in days,

that by Avraham the days were complete days,

that there was not missing one garment and one day etc.

But Isaac was born from a holy drop&lt;sup&gt;57&lt;/sup&gt;,

that immediately at his birth he was already holy from the womb&lt;sup&gt;*57&lt;/sup&gt;

(and he was the first who was born a Jew)&lt;sup&gt;58&lt;/sup&gt;,

and his service was — the matter of innocence,

namely an addition in the perfection of the holiness and Judaism that was in him.

[And to note,

that also in the matter of circumcision,

behold specifically Isaac was circumcised at eight&lt;sup&gt;59&lt;/sup&gt;,

namely the fulfillment of the commandment of circumcision in its perfection

(as it is after the giving of the Torah),

but not so with Abraham who was circumcised at ninety-nine].

But that still is not the ultimate perfection,

for Isaac did not go outside the boundary of holiness,

as per G‑d’s command “Do not go down to Egypt, dwell in the land that I will tell you of”⁶⁰

; and this is the innovation of Jacob,

that regarding him it is said⁶¹

“And Jacob went out from Beersheba and went to Charan”,

the burning anger of the Omnipresent⁶²

in the world,

<pg>50</pg>

And according to its simple meaning, that he had to flee from Esau,

and to be in the house of Lavan the Aramean for twenty years and afterwards the “distress of Joseph etc.” passed over him,

and in all these situations he remained perfect in his service,

“With Lavan the wicked I dwelt etc. and I did not learn from his evil deeds”⁶³,

and as is explained at length in the Midrashim of our Rabbis, of blessed memory.

And this matter is from the aspect of the third matter in temimus,

that "a man⁶⁴

simple and upright..

he turns from evil and does good in actual deed in the aspect of temimus that will never change,

and time and place do not affect him, that because of the intensity of the matter and the temimus in his soul that this is what he must do and it is not at all relevant in any other way, therefore in every time and in every place where he is, he does so without any change at all,

and he will not heed any opponent or enticer to divert him, G-d forbid, from the strength of the intensity in his soul etc.^*64,

so much so that it is not even considered by him as a trial at all, since another way, G-d forbid, is not at all relevant"⁶⁵.

And this is the matter of Yaakov "a simple man"⁶⁶,

the attribute of truth⁶⁷,

the middle bar that passes through from one end to the other end⁶⁸,

that in all the details and situations he is exactly the same,

and he is not affected by any opponent⁶⁹.

8.

And this is also the connection between the matter of walking in innocence

("tam")

to the matter of "shalem" and "tamim" — because walking in innocence is not a different matter,

but rather it is a higher level in "perfection",

that he is perfect in every time and in every place and in all situations

[And as it is brought in the Zohar⁷⁰

that Yaakov "was perfect from all of them and therefore it is written about him 'and Yaakov was a perfect man, perfect from all',

Avraham is called 'tamim' and was not so perfect, but 'tam' is perfect from all"].

And the explanation of this:

The definition of completeness of "shalem" is created by the various details that are in it,

that by combining all of them&lt;pg&gt;51&lt;/pg&gt;

together becomes a complete matter; and the definition of "tamim" is not affected by the joining of the details together,

but rather by a new matter that adds to the completeness of the thing in itself,

that this new thing acts upon it that it should be "tamim".

And as for example in time,

that the lunar year has in it twelve lunar months,

a complete year.

And a full year is made by adding the intercalated month.

And even though the entire year is called a full year,

that one reality is made

(not a year and a thirteenth month),

nevertheless,

this one reality was created by the thirteenth month.

And so it is in man,

that even though the difference between a complete man who has no deficiency and an ordinary man is not only in this, that a complete man has more particular virtues

(and a perfect man has an addition of virtues also relative to a complete man),

but rather that the man becomes an entity of "the complete man"

(and even more so in connection to perfect,

that the man is called perfect)

— nevertheless,

the definition of the complete man is that all the powers of his soul and all the details of his service are as they should be,

i.e., the combination of all the details within him; and "perfect" is an addition of a particular virtue which itself acts and creates the name "perfect".

But not so the third matter in "temimus" — it is above particular virtues,

because that he is perfect in his service,

and is not affected and does not change,

is not from the aspect of virtues and completeness of the details that he has,

or from the aspect of an addition of an extra virtue,

but rather,

from the aspect of his simplicity which is not related to particular details and virtues,

and therefore the matter of temimus is expressed in nullification and laying down of his essence

(which includes nullification of his particular virtues),

which is the very point of will that is in every Jew

(as the Rambam said&lt;sup&gt;71&lt;/sup&gt;)

that does not change ever&lt;sup&gt;72&lt;/sup&gt;.

And therefore in all situations and in all times and in all places he is in wholeness and in simplicity.

9.

According to all the above, one must also explain the connection between the commandment of circumcision and the matter of walking in simplicity

(And as above section 5,

that also the explanation of the three [words] "and you shall be wholehearted" — walking in simplicity — is effected by the commandment of circumcision)

— that one must say,

that this relates to the third matter in the commandment of circumcision,

which is the essential act of circumcision

(And the practical difference for halachah,

that even one who was born circumcised requires the letting of the blood of the covenant⁷³,

the essential act of circumcision⁷⁴).

And this is because the very act of circumcision&lt;pg&gt;52&lt;/pg&gt;

(And perhaps one could say that this is connected with the pain of the infant),

requires that there be by the father

(who circumcises his son)

temimut — self-nullification and self-abandonment&lt;sup&gt;75&lt;/sup&gt;.

And for further explanation — and according to the inner explanation in their spiritual content of the three matters mentioned above in the commandment of circumcision:

The spiritual content of "He shall not be foreskinned" is — to free oneself from the control of the evil inclination in the lusts of the body and the impulse⁷⁶,

through which he is in the category of "whole";

The spiritual content of "circumcised" is,

that even a person who is removed from evil and is not under the control of the evil inclination,

always adds in his service in his ascent in holiness,

and reveals the good that is found in him⁷⁷,

by which he becomes "whole",

that not only is there no lack in him, but there is an addition of virtue and perfection

(also regarding one who is perfect without a lack already).

But these two matters,

the service that he should not be uncircumcised and that he should be circumcised,

their meaning is service that has in them reason and virtue — "that he should not be uncircumcised" means that he should be a person who is perfect without lack,

and "that he should be circumcised" means that he should be a person in superior perfection and wholeness,

and therefore there is no need

(so much)

for the matter of wholeness and self-nullification in this service.

But not so the essence of the act of circumcision,

which is a deed and service such that no elevation and perfection is felt in it,

but only the very act of the commandment from the aspect of the command of G-d,

this comes from the aspect of the simplicity and self-nullification that is in his soul,

that he nullifies and sets aside himself,

and also his intellect and his attributes,

to fulfill the will of G-d above reason and knowledge⁷⁸.

And through this service they effect that "whoever makes himself simple, the Holy One, blessed be He, makes Himself simple with him, etc. Whoever makes himself simple, an hour stands for him, as it is said, 'Walk before Me and be simple,' and it is written, 'And you shall be a father of a multitude of nations,'"

until "And⁷⁹

kings shall be your nursemaids and their princesses your nursing mothers,"

that it will be in the ultimate perfection with the coming of our righteous Mashiach,

very soon,

in this complete year⁸⁰.

(From sichos of Shabbos Parshas Lech, 5741,

night of the second and third days of Sukkos, 5749)