English translation — מצורע

Sicha 1<pg>91</pg>

A.

On the verse<sup>1</sup>

"When you come to the land of Canaan, which I give to you as a possession, and I will place a leprous plague on a house in the land of your possession" it is said in the Midrash<sup>2</sup>

: Is it good news for them that plagues come upon them..

When the Canaanites heard that Israel was coming upon them, they stood and hid their wealth in houses and in fields..

What does the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He incites plagues in his house, and he demolishes it and finds a treasure in it

[Otzar<sup>3</sup>]

(His field<sup>4</sup>

is burned<sup>5</sup>

And because he overturns it, he finds a treasure beneath it),

And who comes and tells the Canaanites that Israel is entering the land..

Three prozdigamot

[Igrot<sup>6</sup>]

Joshua sent to them: whoever wants to leave etc., to make peace etc., to make war etc.

This discourse is also brought in Rashi's commentary on the verse,

with several changes,

and this is its language: It is good news for them that the plagues come upon them because the Amorites hid treasures of gold in the walls of their houses all forty years that Israel was in the wilderness, and through the plague the house is demolished and he finds them.

Of the changes

(the main ones)⁷

between the language of Rashi and the language of the midrash:

a)

In the Midrash it says "Canaanites",

and Rashi changes and writes "Emorites"<sup>8</sup>.

And this change requires explanation especially,

since in the verse it is explicit "When you come to the land of Canaan",

and how is it possible that specifically Rashi,

who comes to explain the plain meaning of Scripture,

changes from the language of the verse

(Canaanites)

and writes "Emorites"?

b)

In the Midrash it says "When the Canaanites heard that Israel were coming upon them they stood and hid etc.'",

that this was

(as it explains afterwards)

at the time of the conquest of the land,

when Joshua sent the letters etc.,

by which it became known to them "that Israel were entering the land"; whereas Rashi writes "that they hid etc. all forty years that Israel were in the desert"<sup>9</sup>.

And it requires examination, from where does he [know] this, and especially in the plain meaning of Scripture?

3)

In the Midrash the phrase "and they hid their money",

and in Rashi — "they hid..

treasures of gold".

4)

In the Midrash — "in houses and in fields",

and in Rashi — "in the walls of their houses"

(and omits "and in fields").

The reason for the last change is understood simply: the subject of Rashi on the Torah is — the explanation of the verses

(and not stories of the Sages),

and therefore there is no place to bring in his commentary about the money in the fields,

which is not related to the explanation of the verse "and I will give a plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession"¹⁰.

<pg>92</pg>

And further and primarily: a)

behold the burning of the fields

(and the finding of the money through this)

is only close to the conquest of the land^*10,

b)

is not related to plagues.

And for this reason Rashi precisely says "in the walls of their houses" — because through the demolition of a leprous house they can find only the treasures that are in the walls of the house

(which they demolish),

but not what was hidden in the depth of the ground of the house¹¹.

And based on this one can also explain the variation before it — "their money"

(generally)

or "gold" — for this depends on that: In the Midrash it speaks about all that they hid "in houses and in fields" and therefore it uses a general expression — "their money"; but in Rashi,

who used "in the walls of their houses",

he is compelled to explain that they hid only gold,

because the walls of the house are a narrow and limited place to contain all kinds of wealth of silver and copper in a quantity worthwhile the trouble of hiding; but gold,

for even a small amount of it is great wealth¹².

But the first two changes mentioned above require explanation.

2.

And this will be understood by prefacing the question in the words of the Midrash "And who comes and tells the Canaanites that Israel is entering the land..

Three paradigms Joshua sent to them etc." — for at first glance:

What is the question of the Midrash "And who comes and tells the Canaanites that Israel is entering the land" — behold, the verse speaks explicitly,

that at the splitting of the Red Sea "all the inhabitants of Canaan melted away"&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;,

and Rashi there explains that "they said, 'They are coming upon us to destroy us and to inherit our land'"&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;

! And as is also explicit in the book of Joshua&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;,

that Rahab said to the two spies "I know that the Lord has given you the land, etc., and that all the inhabitants of the land have melted away before you, for we have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea before you when you came out of Egypt, etc.'"

[There are those who explain&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;

that this is the reason of Rashi that he changed from the language of the Midrash

(as above)

and wrote "All 40 years that Israel was in the desert."

But the words of the Midrash require explanation].

And one can say simply,

that even though the Canaanites knew that the Children of Israel were destined to enter their land and at the time of the Splitting of the Sea they already "melted" from this that the Children of Israel would come upon them to destroy them etc.,

nevertheless this is not a reason that from that time they would hide their wealth because of&lt;pg&gt;93&lt;/pg&gt;

the Children of Israel,

for there was still time until the Children of Israel would approach their land and be ready to enter their land in actuality,

and especially after they saw that the Children of Israel were delayed a long time in the desert&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;.

And this is the question of the Midrash: "And who came and told the Canaanites that Israel was entering the land?"

That is,

From where did they know that the time of their entry into the land had now arrived,

that they therefore hid their money?

And he answers that this became known to them through the sending of the letters etc.

However,

According to this, one must understand in Rashi's commentary: the explanation that their hiding of their money was in proximity to Israel's entry into the land

(and not forty years earlier,

when they heard about the Splitting of the Sea,

even though then "they melted")

this is also in study according to the plain meaning;

And thus it is difficult according to Rashi

("that they hid..

all 40 years that Israel was in the desert")

— why did they hide at a time when there was no reason for this yet?

And especially after the nations saw that Israel was lingering in the desert,

nevertheless they feared all this time that Bnei Yisrael were about to enter immediately

(without delays)

the land,

and because of this "all 40 years that Israel was in the desert" there were hidden treasures of gold and they could not use this gold!

And it can be said that Rashi resolves this difficulty by the change from "Canaanites" to "Emorites",

as follows.

3.

It has been explained several times,

that Rashi wrote his commentary on the Torah in a way that the student can understand his intention without needing to search in other books,

And in a place where it appears superficially that Rashi did not explain his words etc. — this is because the matter is understood and explained from what is already explained in the verses

(and Rashi's commentaries)

that precede this.

And similarly it can be said regarding our matter,

that the special connection of "Emorites" to here

(therefore Rashi changes "Canaanites" to "Emorites")

is understood from what is explained in the verse above — that the verse specifies the "Emorite" as an exception of the seven nations!

In the promise of the land in the Covenant Between the Parts it was said to Abraham¹⁸

"And the fourth generation will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete."

And even though in the verses afterwards¹⁹

ten nations were counted that his children would inherit their land,

and the Amorite is only one of them,

nevertheless,

the determination of the time of the return to the land

("And the fourth generation will return here")

the Scripture makes dependent specifically on "the completion of the iniquity of the Amorite"²⁰.

And it can be said that this is what Rashi hints at in his writing "that the Amorites hid etc.": Since at the time of the Exodus from Egypt there already is "a fourth generation

(that)

will return here",

behold the Amorites knew²¹

that their iniquity was completed

("the iniquity of the Amorite is complete")

and the time had already arrived "to be driven out from his land"²².

And for this reason they immediately after the Exodus from Egypt began to hide their gold etc.,

because they knew that the fixed time had already come for the return of Abraham's seed to this land.

4.

However, the matter is still not entirely settled,

for according to this, one must innovate that also<pg>94</pg>

the nations knew about the details of the covenant between the parts²³.

And it is well regarding what Rashi did not adopt the explanation of the midrash

(that the Canaanites hid etc. because they knew about the entry of Israel into the land from the letters that Joshua sent etc.),

it is possible to explain,

for we do not find in the verse that Joshua sent letters to the inhabitants of the land²⁴

;

But still it is possible to explain simply,

that the Canaanites began to hide their gold after the defeat of Sihon and Og

(who were the nations "confident in them"²⁵),

thinking that from now on there is no one who can stand before the children of Israel to cross the Jordan and enter the land.

And what is the difficulty of Rashi²⁶

to explain that the Amorites hid their gold "all forty years that Israel was in the wilderness"

(and the knowledge about the entry into the land was from this that "the iniquity of the Amorite is complete")?

And one can say the explanation in this:

The hiding of the money etc. has in it a thing and its opposite: On the one hand this is a proof,

as understood,

of their fear and dread that they will be driven from their homes and their land etc.; but on the other hand,

the act of hiding indicates that they are not despairing entirely and still there is hope in their heart that in the end they will return to their homes and find the hidden treasures that they hid

(for it is very forced to say,

that their intention in the hiding was only so that their money should not reach the Children of Israel,

in the manner of also²⁷

to me also to you it shall not be).

And based on this it is understood simply that one cannot say that their fear of Bnei Yisrael — both after Kri'at Yam Suf

(when "all the inhabitants of Canaan melted"),

and after the fall of Sichon and Og — is the reason that because of it they hid their money,

for if because of this,

what is the benefit in hiding the money when they are destined to be driven out from the places where they hid?

And it must be said that they did this for a different reason and rationale — and in this is the difference between the opinion of the Midrash and the opinion of Rashi:

According to the midrash,

the reason for their hiding of their money was — the letters that Yehoshua sent,

in one of which was written "whoever wishes to make peace may make peace",

from which the Canaanites understood that it was not certain that they would be driven from their land

(since there exists the possibility to make peace),

therefore,

even though in practice they did not want to make peace but went out to war,

nevertheless they did not entirely despair of the possibility that even if they would be defeated in war they could

(they or their seed)

make peace and return to their home,

and therefore they hid their money.

But according to Rashi

(who did not bring that "three prozdigmas Yehoshua sent etc."²⁸)

— the reason for the hiding of their gold

(and their hope to return and take it)

is from this itself that they knew

(as above sec. 3)

that the appointed time had come that Bnei Yisrael "will return here" because "the iniquity of the Emorite is complete to be driven from his land".

And the explanation: Since the "merit" of dwelling in the land depends on the conduct of its inhabitants

(therefore the Emorite was not sent from his land until the completion&lt;pg&gt;95&lt;/pg&gt;

of his iniquity),

behold — said the Emorites — just as they

(the Emorites)

are about to be driven from their land because of their iniquities,

so it is possible&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;

that the Children of Israel will be sent from the land by means of their own iniquities

(at least when their measure is filled).

And therefore "the Emorites hid treasures of gold"

[for "treasure" is a hiding that lasts for many days&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;],

perhaps in the course of time the Children of Israel will be sent from the land and they will return to their homes and find those treasures.

5.

But after all this, there is still room for a question:

It is true that Rashi used the term "Emorites" relying on what was said earlier "for the iniquity of the Emorite is not yet complete" — but this itself requires a reason,

why specifically "the iniquity of the Emorite" was mentioned in the Covenant Between the Parts,

and the discussion is about the promise of the entire land of Canaan

(which includes ten,

or at least seven,

nations)³¹?

In Ibn Ezra³²

that he mentioned the Emorite because of his strength..

And so said the prophet³³

(And I destroyed the Emorite etc.)

who were as high as the height of cedars".

But in the simple meaning of Scripture we have not yet learned about the strength of the Emorite

(relative to the rest of the seven nations).

And why did Rashi omit³⁴

and not explain the reason mentioned in the portion of Lech "Emorite" specifically³⁵?

And it is to be said,

that according to Rashi's commentary,

the meaning of "And the fourth generation will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete until now"

(and Rashi explains)

that he was exiled from his land until that time,

that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not exact punishment from a nation etc.' — its explanation is according to the simple meaning of the language,

that "at that time" only the iniquity of the Amorite was completed

(and not that of the other nations)³⁶,

and only he was exiled

(at that time)

from his land³⁷,

but not so the other nations were exiled from their land only after a later time.

And as is explicit in the verse³⁸,

that Sihon king of the Amorite

[was from the other side of the Jordan³⁹

and]

was conquered before all the nations by Moses our teacher,

and the other nations were conquered afterwards by Joshua

(and further<pg>96</pg>

this — that they also were not completely exiled from their land until after the death of Joshua⁴⁰,

as is recounted in the Prophets⁴¹).

6.

Based on the above

(that Rashi's "the Emorite" mentioned in the portion of Lech refers only to this nation,

and not to the other nations in the land of Canaan)

— it follows,

apparently,

that according to Rashi there were no "hidden treasures of gold"

(at the time of Bnei Yisrael's entry into the land)

in all the land of Canaan⁴²,

but only among the Emorites,

because only regarding them had the appointed time arrived for "they will settle here"

(to be sent away from his land).

And according to this, we can also explain the lengthy language of the verse here — that it begins "When you come to the land of Canaan which I give to you as an inheritance",

and then repeats "

(And I will give a plague of tzaraat)

in a house of the land of your inheritance" — for apparently it should have shortened and said "in your houses"⁴³?

Also: At the beginning of the verse it says "which I give to you as a possession",

whereas at the end of the verse it is stated "the land of your possession"

(as the precise wording of the Kli Yakar⁴⁴,

that "he ascribes the possession to Israel as if they are the ones holding the inheritance").

And according to the above it can be said:

The beginning of the verse discusses regarding the general law of plagues of houses,

that it applies only after their entry into the land in a manner of "possession",

i.e., that they settle in the land

(unlike when they were in the desert, where they did not have houses, and consequently the law of plagues of houses did not yet apply⁴⁵)

;

But at the conclusion of the verse, the intention of the verse is to inform us of a special matter regarding plagues of houses,

that

(in addition to this that they come as a punishment for sin⁴⁶,

like plagues of a person

(which come for the sin of evil speech⁴⁷),

behold)

the Holy One, blessed be He, will give "a plague of leprosy" in houses so that the children of Israel will find the "treasures of gold" that were hidden there by the inhabitants of the land;

And since this was not in all the land of Canaan except only by the Amorites

(as above),

who were

(also or primarily)

on the other side of the Jordan⁴⁸

(the land of Sihon

(and Og⁴⁹)),

therefore it is said regarding this "the land of your possession"⁵⁰

— because the other side of the Jordan

(the land of the <pg>97</pg>

Amorite)

was not given

(initially)

by God to the Children of Israel as a possession^*50,

but rather it became "your possession"⁵¹

through the request of the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben⁵²

who took it on their own⁵³

as a possession.

7.

Spoke several times,

that in Rashi there are "wondrous topics"⁵⁴

in the manner of hint and secret

("the wine of Torah"⁵⁵)

— and so in our matter,

that in this change from "Canaanites" to "Amorites" it can be said that Rashi hints to the special connection between the matter of negaim and Amorite specifically.

And the explanation:

Negaim come as Rashi explains, because of lashon hara&lt;sup&gt;47&lt;/sup&gt;,

that is — evil speech; and as explained in the Rambam at the end of Hilchot Tumat Tzaraat that the intention is not specifically speaking lashon hara,

but rather "the conversation of the wicked" in general

(and as he elaborates there that the very fact that they "multiply in frivolous talk" leads to the point that they "come to speak disparagingly of the righteous etc. to speak about God and deny the fundamental principle").

And this is also the matter of the husk of "Emori",

and particularly according to our master the Alter Rebbe&lt;sup&gt;56&lt;/sup&gt;

— that "Emori is an expression of speech and talk..

a sign for foolish words&lt;sup&gt;57&lt;/sup&gt;..

and in many words transgression is not absent&lt;sup&gt;58&lt;/sup&gt;..

because of the many words of the fool called Emori who multiplies words etc."

(similar to the above words of the Rambam regarding "the conversation of the wicked").

However, on the other hand,

specifically in the houses of the Emorites were found "treasuries of gold" — because the ultimate intention in the matter of the plagues is not only to nullify and negate "the conversation of the wicked" but to transform the power of speech of the person,

that in place of "Emori" of idolatry there should be speech and utterance of holiness⁵⁹,

"I took from the hand of the Emorite"⁶⁰,

that through good and holy utterances and speeches one reveals the "treasuries" that are in the soul⁶¹.

And as is also hinted in the Rambam there,

that after the lengthy discussion about "the conversation of the wicked",

he concludes about the greatness of the virtue of "the conversation of the worthy of Israel",

that "it is only in words of Torah and wisdom,

therefore⁶²

the Holy One, blessed be He, helps them and grants them merit, as it is said⁶³

Then those who fear the Lord spoke to one another, and the Lord listened and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who fear the Lord and for those who think of His name"⁶⁴.

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Metzora 5741)