English translation — מסעי א

Talk 1<pg>199</pg>

A.

In our parshah,

after the section of the borders of the Land of Israel

("This is the land etc."<sup>1</sup>),

it is stated in the verse<sup>2</sup>

"These are the names of the men who shall inherit for you the land etc."

And Rashi explains: "Who shall inherit for you — for your sake.

Each prince is a guardian for his tribe,

and divides the inheritance of the tribe into families and to the men,

and selects for each and every one a fitting portion.

And what they do shall be done as if they were appointed agents.

And it is not possible to interpret 'for you' here like every 'for you' in Scripture,

for if so, it should have written 'they shall cause to inherit for you,'

'they shall inherit' implies that they inherit for you for your sake and in your place,

like<sup>3</sup>

the Lord shall fight for you."

Simply, Rashi's intention is,

as his wording: "to explain to you" which here means — "for you"

(because "it is not possible to explain" it "like every 'to you' in Scripture,

for if so, he would have had to write 'they shall cause to inherit to you'")

etc.

But explanation is needed,

what is the lengthiness in Rashi here,

in the details of the modes of division by the princes of Israel — for for the explanation of the word "to you"

(— "for you")

it would have been sufficient to write "each prince and prince divides the inheritance of his tribe and selects for each and every one a fitting portion."

And why was Rashi compelled to add

(a)

that "each prince and prince is a guardian for his tribe",

(b)

"and what they do shall be done as if they did it as agents"<sup>4</sup>,

And especially that the above details,

apparently,

are not a matter for the plain meaning of Scripture but rather for the legal part of the Torah

(that the princes had the law of a guardian,

and that "what they do shall be done as if agents did it").

Also, an explanation is needed of the lengthiness at the end of Rashi: "And it is not possible to explain to you this [as] all 'to you' in Scripture, because if so, etc.'"

For apparently,

why did Rashi need to elaborate in negating the explanation of the word "to you" here that it is not "like all 'to you' in Scripture" — and especially that we find in other places<sup>5</sup>

in the verse the word "to you" in the sense of "for you"?

And Rashi's language implies,

that his intention is to explain and decide his interpretation of "lachem"

(— "for you")

not only because it is not like "every lachem in Scripture",

but also to resolve that here if we interpret "lachem zeh",

"like every lachem in Scripture" — this fits better with the content of the verses here — and therefore Rashi needed to explain his reason in negating this interpretation.

<pg>200</pg>

2.

And behold the Ra'am<sup>6</sup>

explained,

that Rashi's source is in the Gemara Kiddushin<sup>7</sup>,

and this is the language of the passage there: From where is it derived that a person's agent is like himself? As it is said<sup>8</sup>

And one prince, one prince from a tribe<sup>9</sup>..

But minors are not fit for agency? Rather, like this..

that he said etc. From where is it derived that one may acquire merit for a person not in his presence? As it is said, "And a prince.."

And do you think so?..

But there is also an obligation, for there is one who prefers the mountain and does not prefer the valley, and there is one who prefers etc. Rather, like Rava etc. From where is it derived that orphans who come to divide their father's property, the court appoints a guardian for them to obligate and to grant merit,

To obligate, why? Rather, to obligate in order to grant merit,

The verse says, "And one prince, one prince from a tribe you shall take"<sup>10</sup>.

And Rashi there¹¹

"That is to say..

To also indicate that for minors, even an obligation that comes from a merit, the court is permitted to do for them, as here, that they came for their benefit in the inheritance, and even though sometimes this division is to their detriment, for there is one who is not pleased with the portion that fell to him, nevertheless they do not retract from it.

(And therefore the court appoints a guardian for orphans "to litigate and argue on their behalf for their benefit and advantage, and if they are found liable in court, what they have done is done."¹²)

And based on this, the Ra'ah explains,

that "This is what Rashi wrote

(here)

as if they made them agents, and not actual agents, for can minors of the tribes be agents?"

And that is,

that this that Rashi wrote "as if they made them agents" his intention is to be precise,

that they were not in the category of agents

(as per the initial assumption in the Gemara),

but rather their power was as good as agents only in this particular matter,

that "what they do shall be done" and established,

and it is impossible for them to retract from it.

But in addition to the main point — since Rashi in his commentary on the Torah came only for "the plain meaning of Scripture"<sup>13</sup>

(And particularly that in our case he does not write that the source of his commentary is from the Gemara<sup>14</sup>),

behold there is no place to say that Rashi's intention is to negate the assumption of the Gemara

(that the princes were agents)

which is not mentioned in Rashi's commentary at all;

Behold yet this — Rashi's precise wording here contradicts the interpretation of the Ra'ava"m

(That it is impossible that they were agents because "Are minors of the tribes fit for agency?"

And therefore Rashi writes "as if they made them agents")

— For it is explicit in Rashi here "and he divides the inheritance of the tribe to families and to men"

(And not as usual in many places "males"),

because "men" excludes

(also)

minors<sup>15</sup>

— And according to this, behold well one can explain according to Rashi that they were in the category of actual agents,

for behold adults are fit for agency<sup>16</sup>.

<pg>201</pg>

3.

And this will be understood by prefacing further several questions on Rashi:

A)

At first glance the words "which they shall cause you to inherit" refer to "Eleazar the kohen and Joshua bin Nun" stated immediately in this verse,

whereas the princes of the tribes,

mentioned in the verse after this — "and one prince, one prince from a tribe you shall take" — behold the Scripture repeats regarding them the phrase "to inherit the land",

and if so, why does Rashi explain that "which they shall cause you to inherit" in this verse refers to "each and every prince an overseer for his tribe etc."?

[And on the contrary: according to Rashi,

that "which they shall apportion to you" means that "each prince and prince...

divides the inheritance of the tribe etc." — this applies only to the princes in the verse after this,

and not to Elazar the priest and Joshua bin Nun in this verse

(for they were not princes of a tribe and did not divide the inheritance "by families and by males"<sup>17</sup>)

!].

b)

From where does Rashi derive in the plain sense of Scripture that the appointment of the princes here was to divide the inheritance of the tribe by families and by males,

and not,

as its plain sense,

that "these are the names of the men who shall apportion to you the land" applies to the entire division of the land by tribes.

Bera"m here wrote "And what is written 'and he divides the inheritance of the tribe into families and to males' and it does not say 'and they divide the inheritance of the land into tribes and into families and to males' is because<sup>18</sup>

that the division of the land into tribes was by lot and the lot itself would cry out and say 'the boundary of such-and-such is for the tribe of such-and-such'<sup>19</sup>

And this is not dependent on the guardians of the tribes,

but the division of the inheritance of the tribe into its families and the division of the family into males, this is dependent on the guardians and about this the verse needed to inform that what they did they did."

But superficially this is not a sufficient reason,

for indeed one can explain that it refers to the division of the entire land into tribes,

since the actual taking of the lot was done by the prince of each tribe,

as Rashi explains above<sup>20</sup>

"Elazar the priest was clothed in the Urim and Thummim and would say through the Holy Spirit: 'If the tribe of such-and-such comes up, the boundary of such-and-such comes up with it,' and the tribes were written on twelve slips and twelve boundaries on twelve slips, and he mixed them in the lottery box, and the prince would put his hand into it and take two slips, etc.'"

And if so,

from where [do we know] that what is spoken of in the verse here is about something that "depends on the guardians" and "to inform that what they did, they did",

and not in the manner of the division of the entirety of the land?

And on the contrary: this section comes in continuation of the section of the borders of the land¹

"This is the land that shall fall to you as an inheritance, the land of Canaan according to its borders",

at the end of which matter it is stated²¹

"And Moses commanded the children of Israel, saying: This is the land which you shall inherit by lot, which the Lord commanded to give to the nine tribes and the half-tribe.

For the tribe of the children of Reuben etc. have taken, and the tribe of the children of Gad etc., and the half-tribe of Manasseh have taken their inheritance.

The two tribes etc.".

And based on this, it is simple to understand that also in this section

(which comes in continuation of the above)

"These are the names of the men who shall inherit the land for you",

the verse refers to that same division mentioned at the end of the preceding matter

(for the tribes that did not "take²²

their inheritance across the Jordan, east of Jericho, toward the sunrise")

— and not in the manner of the division of the inheritance of each tribe into families and individuals.

<pg>202</pg>

4.

And one can say that one is resolved by the other:

The necessity to explain the intention here as the division of the inheritance of the tribe into families and into men,

is from this that the words "which they shall inherit for you" were said

(not in the verse after this where it is said "and one prince, one prince etc.",

but rather)

regarding "Eleazar the priest and Joshua son of Nun".

Explanation of the matter:

The main intention of Rashi here is to explain what is written "asher yinchalu lachem",

namely that they themselves will inherit — they are the inheritors of the land.

And this is Rashi's necessity to explain that "asher yinchalu lachem" refers to the princes of the tribes and not to Elazar the Kohen and Joshua bin Nun — because only regarding the princes of the tribes can it be said that they themselves inherit the land,

for each prince merited and

(as if)

inherited

(by taking the lots²³)

the portion of his tribe in the land

(for his tribe)²⁴,

and thus the princes of the tribes are in the category of inheritors; but not so Elazar the Kohen and Joshua bin Nun, of whom it can only be said that they cause the children of Israel to inherit the land

(by performing the lot etc.),

but not that they themselves inherit the land for Israel

(and especially that Elazar is a Kohen and Kohanim have no portion in the land at all²⁵,

and Joshua did not merit for the tribe of Ephraim,

for Ephraim had another prince²⁶).

But it is impossible for Rashi to be satisfied with this and to explain that it refers to the princes,

that each one of them inherits his tribe's portion in the land for his tribe — because according to this it should have said

(in the verses)

"which they will cause you to inherit" in the verse after this,

by "and one prince etc." — and why were these words stated by Elazar the Kohen and Joshua bin Nun?

And therefore Rashi explains,

that the discussion is not about the division of the land to the tribes,

but about this that "each and every prince is a guardian for his tribe and divides the inheritance of the tribe to the families and to the men, and what they do will be done as if they did it as agents",

and only according to this explanation are both details explained — that it is fitting to say "which they will cause you to inherit" which implies that they themselves inherit,

and on the other hand this is stated in the verse by Elazar and Joshua

(who are only in the category of those who cause inheritance,

as above)

as follows.

5.

In the role of the president of each tribe — to take care of the needs of the people of his tribe — there are two matters:

A)

His role from the side of Bnei Yisrael,

which is as their emissary for all their needs and their requirements.

b)

His role from G‑d,

through Moshe Rabbeinu.

For just as Moshe Rabbeinu was appointed from G‑d as head and general prince of all Israel

(And after him Yehoshua bin Nun was ordained to lead the&lt;pg&gt;203&lt;/pg&gt;

community through Moshe by the command of G‑d&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;),

so too is it regarding the prince and particular head of each tribe,

that his appointment came from the Holy One, blessed be He, through

(His command to)

Moshe Rabbeinu, prince of all Israel.

And the difference between these two matters,

is in the essence of his role as nasi — and in two extremes:

a)

In the matter of his role from the side of Bnei Yisrael,

all of his activity in this role is as if it is done by all the people of the tribe

(for he is their agent),

except that it is done in actuality by their nasi; but his activity and doing from the side of his appointment by the Holy One, blessed be He,

(and Moshe)

is not considered as the doing of the people of his tribe,

but rather this is his own activity as their head and nasi,

who is like their "owner."

[And it can be said that this is what we find, two aspects in the titles of the princes in the Torah.

And for example: at the beginning of the book

(at the beginning of Parsha Bamidbar)

in the counting of Bnei Yisrael it is said&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;

"And with you they shall be, each man by his tribe etc. These...

princes of the tribes of their fathers",

that when Moshe and Aharon counted Bnei Yisrael,

Hashem commanded that there be with them a prince of each tribe

(And similarly at the beginning of Parsha Shlach it is said "Send for yourself men and let them spy out the land of Canaan...

one man, one man for the tribe of his fathers you shall send, every prince among them"),

That is, the title "prince" is mentioned only after he is called by the name "a man of the tribe"; whereas regarding the dedication of the altar it is said&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;

"And the princes of Israel, the heads of their fathers' houses, brought offerings":

The title "each man of the tribe"

("one man of the tribe")

indicates that he is the representative and delegate of the people of the tribe,

that their participation is through one man from among them as their emissary — the prince; but the title "princes of Israel" is appropriate for a matter where the action of the prince is

(not like a thing in which all the people of the tribe participate through their emissary

(the prince),

but rather)&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;

as the head of the tribe&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;].

b)

His function from the side of Bnei Yisrael is

(mainly)

to take care of the needs of the collective and the public

(and as is the custom in the world,

that any gathering of people appoint a head and leader to take care of the general needs of the collective,

that each one of the gathering is busy with his own private needs and affairs)

; but his appointment from the Holy One, blessed be He, as a Nasi of Israel as a Nasi and "owner",

this is also regarding the needs of the individual,

because since

(in the language of Rashi&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;)

"the Nasi is everything",

therefore he is a Nasi

(not only of the collective and the public,

but)

of each and every one

(also)

as an individual&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;.

6.

Based on this introduction,

it will also be understood in our matter — the appointment of the Nesiim to inherit the land on behalf of Bnei Yisrael,

that at first the appointments of Elazar and Yehoshua come in the verse,

and afterwards it is said "and one Nasi, one Nasi from each tribe you shall take to inherit the land":

From that the words "which you shall inherit for yourselves"

(which refers to the princes,

as above)

were said regarding Elazar and Yehoshua,

Rashi learned,

that the discussion is about an inheritance such that it belongs to this role of the princes which is in the category of the appointments of Elazar and Yehoshua.

&lt;pg&gt;204&lt;/pg&gt;

That is: just as regarding Elazar and Yehoshua there was a special appointment from G-d

(and it is not sufficient that Elazar is the High Priest and Yehoshua is the head of the congregation),

from which it is understood that they were appointed here as "owners" over the matter of the inheritance of the land — so too is it regarding the princes of the tribes,

that there was here a special appointment,

and it relates to their role as owners and appointees over the matters of the members of the tribe.

[And based on this, the language of the verse here will be sweetened: "And one prince, one prince from a tribe you shall take"

(And not "each man to his tribe" and the like)

— because the action and doing of the princes here is not from their being representatives and emissaries of the people of the tribe,

but as princes — as owners and appointees over them].

And therefore Rashi explains,

that the action of the "inheritance" here

("they shall inherit")

is not the division of the land to the tribes

(That this matter,

that the princes acquire in the inheritance of their tribe is because they are emissaries of the people of their tribe),

but rather that "each and every prince is a guardian for his tribe and divides the inheritance of the tribe to the families and to the men,

and selects&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;

for each and every one a fitting portion" — that this, that each prince is a guardian for his tribe,

means that he concerns himself,

as a prince

(from above and over)

his tribe,

for the needs of each and every individual as a particular,

and therefore he "selects for each and every one

(by himself)

a fitting portion"&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;.

But according to this, again the wording of the verse "which they shall cause you to inherit" is difficult,

which implies that the princes are the ones who inherit — and this that the prince "selects for each one a fitting portion" is not a matter of "inheriting" but "bequeathing"

(that he selects and bequeaths a portion to each one of the people of his tribe)?

And therefore Rashi continues "And what they do shall be done as if they did it as agents" — that through the actions of the princes

(to select for each one a fitting portion)

the matter is already completed,

meaning that there is no need for an additional action to bequeath the portion to the recipient of the portion,

but rather the action of inheritance is completed through the selection and choice of the prince,

and since the choice of the prince is itself what completes the action of inheritance,

they are the inheritors,

and therefore it is said "which they shall cause you to inherit".

And this is also the precise wording of Rashi "as if they made them agents",

from which it is implied

(as above sec. 2 in the Re'em)

that they do not have the status of agents,

but only that regarding the outcome their power is as effective as agents,

that "what they do shall be done"³⁶

— because the power of each prince to select for each one a fitting portion is not due to his role as their agent of the people of his tribe,

but because of his appointment by the Holy One, blessed be He, as prince of the tribe³⁷.

<pg>205</pg>

And based on all the above, the reason for the lengthiness at the end of Rashi "and it is not possible to explain to you this as every 'to you' in Scripture, because if so it would have written 'they shall cause you to inherit'" — because ultimately this explanation,

that what is written "which they shall cause you to inherit" refers to the action of the princes

(and not Elazar and Joshua),

is forced,

since in this verse only Elazar and Joshua are explicitly mentioned

(who are the ones causing inheritance as above),

and not the princes — therefore Rashi elaborates and explains,

that "it is not possible" to explain "which they shall cause you to inherit" as referring to this that Elazar and Joshua cause you to inherit

(to the children of Israel)

the land,

because "if so it would have written 'they shall cause you to inherit'".

7.

And from here a wonderful lesson regarding the matter of "nasi" — including "nasi"

(the true one of)

family

(head of the family),

institution,

community etc.:

A true nasi does not only care for the good of the public and the community,

but he "selects for each and every one a fitting portion",

the nasi "inserts" himself into the situation of this private individual³⁸,

evaluates his qualities etc.,

and selects a portion that is fitting for him,

that is, not only what is "fitting" in general,

but that it is fitting for him.

And so it is also when a true leader imposes a special role upon a person,

it is not only for the sake of the general good

(so that the role that the Holy One, blessed be He, imposed upon this particular collective should be filled),

but this is also his private good&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;.

And regarding us: the Rebbe, my father-in-law, the Rebbe,

the leader of the generation,

instructed in a clear manner,

and "clarified" for each one of us a paved and broad path,

that in our days&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;

each one is obligated to engage in spreading Judaism and strengthening Judaism

(including — spreading the wellsprings of Chassidic teaching outward).

And if it arises in a person's mind: what does he have with "the outside",

and is it not better for him to confine himself within the four cubits of Torah and prayer etc. and to rise and flourish in Torah and service — behold, he must know,

that the meaning is not that his involvement in spreading Judaism is only a temporary obligation due to the state of the generation,

and that one forgoes his personal benefit for the sake of the public good,

but rather this is his personal benefit and his "proper portion",

that they placed him on the beautiful portion⁴¹

and He implores "and you shall choose life"⁴²

— "this is clear to you"⁴³.

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Matot-Masei 5737)