English translation — חוקת ב

Sicha in <pg>131</pg>

A.

In his commentary on the verse<sup>1</sup>

"And Israel sent messengers to Sihon king of the Amorite",

Rashi cites "And Israel sent messengers",

and explains: And in another place the sending is attributed to Moses, as it is said<sup>2</sup>

And I sent messengers from the wilderness of Kedemot, and also, And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the land of Edom<sup>3</sup>

And by Jephthah it says<sup>4</sup>

And Israel sent messengers to the king of Edom etc. These scriptures need each other; this locks and that opens: that Moses is Israel and Israel are<sup>5</sup>

Moses, to tell you that the leader of the generation is like the entire generation, for the leader is everything.

And behold, although according to the superficial meaning, Rashi's intention in this explanation is to mediate the contradictions between the verses

(whether the mission to Sichon or to Edom was by Moses or by Israel),

behold, it has already been explained many times at length that this is not Rashi's way to resolve and mediate contradictions and misunderstandings in the verses except afterwards,

in the place where the contradiction and the like arises.

And according to this,

it necessarily follows that Rashi's intention here is to explain a difficulty that arises in this verse,

except that for this purpose he must explain all the verses that he brings and resolves incidentally.

And it can be said,

that the difficulty in the verse here is — the change between this verse in the mission to Sichon

(in which it is said "And Israel sent messengers")

to the verse before this

(brought by Rashi here)

regarding the mission to the king of Edom "And Moses sent messengers"⁶

— and in order to explain this change, Rashi explains "And in another place etc.",

by which⁷

is resolved

(also)

this change.

2.

However, at first glance one must understand the specific language of Rashi: "These verses need each other, this one locks and this one opens, that Moshe is Yisrael and Yisrael is Moshe, to tell you that the leader of the generation is like the entire generation, for the leader is everything":

a)

What is the content of the introduction: "These verses need each other, this one locks and this one opens"<sup>8</sup>?

[And although Rashi's language originates from the Midrash<sup>9</sup>,

behold: a)

it has already been stated many times that Rashi's purpose is to explain the plain meaning of Scripture and not to copy and inform the language of the Midrash,

and in a place where he copies the words of our Sages in the Midrash and the like,

it is because this language pertains to understanding the plain meaning of the verses.

And this is also when he writes explicitly "our Sages expounded" and the like,

and it is obvious that this is so when he explains the verse without writing that the source of the explanation is in the words of our Sages.

b)

And the main point: in the Midrash the exposition begins here "all words of Torah need each other, that which this locks this opens",

namely<pg>132</pg>

that the content of the Midrashic statement is a general explanation<sup>10</sup>

in the manner of "all words of Torah"<sup>11</sup>,

but in Rashi's commentary, whose intention is only to explain the details of these verses,

what is the practical difference of the introduction that "these verses need each other, this locks and this opens"?].

b)

What is the double language

(and the concept)

"Moshe is Yisrael and Yisrael is Moshe¹²

(to tell you that the leader of the generation is like the entire generation)

"?

c)

Just as in the details of the matter he writes the two sides,

"Moshe is Yisrael and Yisrael is Moshe",

so it should have been, seemingly, to specify in the summary of his explanation,

not only "that the leader of the generation is like the entire generation" but also "and the entire generation is like the leader" and the like?

d)

What is the content of the reason "because the nasi is everything"¹³,

and what is the addition in this beyond what he said previously "that the nasi of the generation is like the entire generation"¹⁴?

And moreover — seemingly this is a contradiction in itself: at first it implies that the nasi of the generation is only like the entire generation¹⁵

(and not literally "the entire generation"),

and later he writes "because the nasi is everything",

that he is not only "like the entire generation" with the kaf of comparison,

but rather "everything" literally?

g.

And one must preface an explanation of the precise wording of Rashi "And in another place he attributes the agency to Moshe, as it is said 'and I sent' etc.",

for seemingly he should have abbreviated and said "And in another place it is said 'and I sent'" and the like.

And one must say,

that in this language the difficulty in the verse here according to the simple meaning of Scripture is emphasized,

which Rashi comes to resolve in his commentary.

And the explanation of this is:

This that is in our verse

(in the sending to Sihon)

it is written "And Israel sent messengers",

and in the previous verse

(in the sending to the king of Edom)

it is said "And Moses sent messengers" — one cannot explain the intention in this that the sender to the king of Edom was Moses and the sender to Sihon was the people of Israel.

Because

It is simple that the sending of the messengers to the king of Edom was on a mission of the people of Israel,

as the continuation of the entire portion there¹⁶

"Thus said your brother Israel etc.¹⁷

Our fathers went down to Egypt etc. and we cried out to the Lord and He heard our voice etc.",

for the entire content of the words is regarding the people of Israel¹⁸,

and that which is said "And Moses sent" is understood simply,

because all the deeds of the people of Israel were and were done by Moses,

and he is the one who actually sent the messengers¹⁹

;

And on the other hand — even when it is said "And Israel sent" it is simple that the actual sending was by means of

Moshe,

and that which is said "And Israel sent" is because the mission was for and from all of the people of Israel,

and was carried out in actuality by Moshe — like all matters that pertain to the entirety of Israel which were through Moshe²⁰.

And based on this — the mission to Sihon and the mission to the king of Edom, there is no difference between them,

only a change in the language of the verses.

And this is what Rashi precisely notes — "And in another place it attributes the mission etc.",

that his intention is,

that the question about the change in the language of the verses here is not regarding what actually occurred

(whether Moshe sent the angels or Israel),

but only regarding to whom the verse attributes the mission,

that is,

what is the reason for the change in the language of the verse — for regarding Edom the verse attributed the mission to Moshe,

and here the verse attributed the mission to Israel,

And in particular, that at first glance it seems the opposite,

for if regarding the mission to the king of Edom,

in which it is emphasized in the verses that the sender is the entire assembly of Israel

("Thus says your brother Israel"),

it is stated there "And Moses sent",

all the more so that it should have been stated thus in the mission to Sihon

(in which there is no such emphasis).

4.

And behold, at first glance there would be room to explain that the attribution of the mission to Moses or to Israel is not merely a secondary matter

(— in the language of the verse),

rather this explains who was the initiator of the mission

(for since the mission came at his initiative,

then the mission is dependent on him)²¹.

And this is the reason for the distinction that by Edom the scripture attributes the mission to Moshe,

and here — to Israel,

for the mission to the king of Edom is different from the mission to the king of Sichon²²

:

Regarding Edom, the mission was by the command of God²³,

therefore the scripture attributes the mission to Moshe,

who is the servant and agent of God who hears the instruction of the Holy One, blessed be He, and fulfills them in practice

(to the extent that the scripture does not need to write that God commanded him about this,

for it is understood by itself that it is so,

and as we find²⁴

in several places where a command is not stated in the Torah<pg>134</pg>

Hashem to Moshe)&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;

; but regarding Sichon,

it is explicit in Rashi here&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;

that the Holy One, blessed be He, did not command to open [with] peace to him&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;,

and if so, there is room to say,

that for this reason it is said "And Israel sent",

to teach us,

that Bnei Yisrael they themselves demanded this mission,

and Moshe agreed with them&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;,

and therefore it is said "And Israel sent".

And to negate this interpretation Rashi begins his commentary — "And in another place it attributes the mission to Moshe as it is said 'And I sent messengers from the wilderness of Kedemoth'",

namely that it is explicit that

(also)

this mission — is of Moshe,

and one should not attribute and ascribe it

(only)

to Israel&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;

; and afterwards Rashi continues "And likewise 'And Moshe sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom' and by Yiftach it says 'And Israel sent messengers to the king of Edom etc.'" — that is,

also regarding the mission to the king of Edom the intent of the verse is not to attribute the mission only to Moshe

(and not to Bnei Yisrael),

for it is explicit "And Israel sent".

And this is what Rashi continues: "These verses need each other; this one locks and this one opens, that Moshe is Israel and Israel is Moshe."

If regarding the mission to Edom it were written only "And Moshe sent",

it would be "this locks",

that is,

it would lock

(before the interpretation)

and negate that the mission to Edom was

(also)

of Bnei Yisrael,

rather Moshe did it as an agent of G-d and one cannot attribute the mission to Israel

(even though the content of the mission is for their sake)³⁰

; and likewise conversely — if regarding the mission to Sichon it were written only "And Israel sent" it would be "this locks" the interpretation of Moshe's mission in this,

because the mission to Sichon can be attributed only to Israel and not to Moshe.

And therefore comes the second verse and "opens" and reveals — "that Moshe is Yisrael and Yisrael is Moshe",

that what it says "And Moshe sent" this is as if it were said "And Yisrael sent"

(because "Moshe is Yisrael"),

and what it says "And Yisrael sent" it is as if it were said "And Moshe sent"

(because "Yisrael is Moshe").

5.

But it requires explanation — how can it be said "that Moshe is Yisrael and Yisrael is Moshe"?

And Rashi explains "to tell you that the leader of the generation is like the entire generation because the leader is everything" —

It can be said that the two matters in Rashi's commentary,

"The leader of the generation is like the entire generation, for the leader is the all,"

they correspond to the two matters preceding this³¹

— "Moshe is Israel and Israel is Moshe":<pg>135</pg>

This that "Moshe is Israel" is according to that "the leader of the generation is like the entire generation,"

that is — the meaning of the words is not,

that when it is spoken of Moshe's involvement in a matter that pertains to the needs of all of Israel, he is not a private individual in this,

but rather he does this for the sake of the community,

and consequently it is possible to write "Moshe"

(the one who does [it] in actuality)

or "Israel"

(for whose sake it is done)

— but rather that the very existence of Moshe,

his being "the leader of the generation,"

is "like the entire generation."

That is, the leader of the generation is

(a person)

communal in his very essence,

and consequently what he does is the doing of Israel.

And likewise conversely — this that "Israel is Moses" is according to that "the president is everything": here Rashi did not write "the entire generation",

for his intention here is not that the essence of the president of the generation is — all the people of the generation,

but rather that everything³²

— all needs of the public — are

(his needs and come by means of)

the president³³,

for everything that exists among the children of Israel comes from

(the power)

of the president

[as we find regarding the children of Israel in the desert,

that all their physical needs

(eating

(manna and meat)³⁴

and drinking³⁵)

they received through Moses,

and likewise the entire Torah was given to them

(and several commandments and the like)

through Moses].

And since all the matters and needs of the children of Israel come from Moses

(the president),

it follows that "Israel is Moses"³⁶.

And this is that "these scriptures" — that attribute the mission sometimes to Moses and sometimes to Israel — come "to tell you",

that a mission which ostensibly should be attributed and ascribed only to Moses

(as the agent of the Lord),

behold it belongs to all Israel,

and likewise conversely,

that a mission which ostensibly is of Israel,

the scripture attributes it to Moses — according to that "the president of the generation is like the entire generation..

the president is everything".

6.

The "wondrous matters" in Rashi's commentary:

In the Midrash³⁷

(Source of Rashi)

The wording is "the head of the generation is the entire generation",

and Rashi changes and writes "the leader of the generation is like the entire generation"³⁸.

And one could say,

that this is in accordance with Rashi's innovation

(the above)

: "Head of the generation" means

(as per&lt;pg&gt;136&lt;/pg&gt;

head literally)

that he leads the entire generation; unlike "the nasi" which is a term of exaltation and elevation,

namely that it is a title for an exalted and elevated person.

And therefore: In the language of the Midrash "the head of the generation is the entire generation" one can explain the intention,

that since he is the head who leads the entire generation,

and through the one and unified leadership of the head — all the people of the generation become one entity,

the entity of the head,

therefore "the head of the generation is the entire generation",

[And note from the Responsa of the Rashba³⁹

regarding a king "the king is like the public, that the public and all of Israel are dependent on him"⁴⁰,

that the reason that the king is like the public,

is because the public and all of Israel are dependent on him⁴¹],

And according to this, it is found,

that what "the head of the generation is the entire generation" this is

(only)

in his communal matters,

that is, in matters that he does for all of Israel and the like,

through which all of Israel are united as one entity.

But in the language of Rashi "that the prince of the generation is like the entire generation because the prince is everything",

it can be said that in this it is emphasized that the "prince" of the generation,

even as he is elevated and exalted

(by himself),

he is like the entire generation.

And the novelty in the matter is in the two extremes:

On the one hand,

since his affairs are part of his existence as a nasi,

it is understood,

that his activities and deeds,

which ostensibly one would say that they are "equal",

at least "in value" to the deeds of the rest of Bnei Yisrael,

even in them he is different and elevated⁴²,

relative to the entire nation.

And on the other hand,

since “the Nasi of the generation is like the entire generation,”

behold also the most elevated matters of the Nasi,

which ostensibly are in the category of “from his shoulder and upward he was higher than all the people”⁴³

and are not comparable to the people of the generation,

behold since they too are part of the existence of the Nasi

(the Nasi is everything)

— behold they affect and are drawn into the people of the generation⁴⁴.

7.

The portion of Chukat falls in several years between 3 Tammuz

(the day on which “freedom was granted to him,”

the beginning of the redemption)

and 12-13 Tammuz — the day of redemption of the Rebbe, my master, father-in-law, the Rebbe,

the Nasi of the generation,

from his imprisonment in which he was imprisoned for spreading Torah and strengthening religion.

And one can find a hint to his service and manner of his leadership in Rashi above — because by him it was seen openly,

and especially in his service mentioned above,

that "the prince of the generation is like the entire generation..

the prince is everything":

"The great service" which was served by his Holy Honor&lt;pg&gt;137&lt;/pg&gt;

my master, my teacher, the Rebbe "in spreading Torah and strengthening religion"⁴⁵

in that country

(which in the natural way — it caused the imprisonment)

— and likewise in every place of his residence after his departure from that country⁴⁶

— was not limited to a specific domain of Judaism,

but rather he dealt in all areas⁴⁷

— both in everything related to strengthening religion: sending rabbis and slaughterers to places that needed them,

building mikvaot,

founding yeshivas and cheders for the young children,

up to spreading Torah to all Israel,

and also disseminating the secrets of secrets of the Torah; and both saving lives in the simple sense,

in redeeming captives,

material help and assistance to the poor and all who need it

(as is known the story of those days,

and what is known — is a minute amount,

for understandable reasons).

And in all these works,

which are divided from one extreme to the other,

his involvement in this was with absolute self-sacrifice,

up to actual self-sacrifice.

And so they saw tangibly regarding him the matter of "the Nasi of the generation is like the entire generation" — and consequently — "the Nasi is everything",

that all matters of the needs of Bnei Yisrael, spiritual and physical, come and are drawn from him.

(From the sicha of Shabbat Parshat Chukat 5741)