English translation — דברים ב

Talk b*

[pg]9[/pg]

A.

"How can I bear alone etc. Provide for yourselves wise and understanding men etc."1,

and Rashi explains "understanding2

— understanding one thing from another,

this is what was asked3

Arius asked Rabbi Yosi: what is the difference between wise and understanding,

A wise person is like a rich money-changer when they bring him dinars4

to see, he sees, and when they do not bring him, he sits and wonders,

an understanding person is like a merchant money-changer when they bring him coins4

to see, he sees, and when they do not bring him, he goes around and brings from his own".

And one must understand:

The difference between a wise person and an understanding person Rashi explained earlier

(in Parshat Tisa),

on the verse⁵

"See, I have called by name Bezalel son of Uri etc. and I will fill him with the spirit of God in wisdom and in understanding etc." — "In wisdom — that which a person hears from others and learns,

and in understanding — understands a thing from his heart out of the things he learned",

and if so, why does Rashi need to repeat and explain "understanding ones — understand a thing from a thing"?

And although superficially it is simply — because of the multiplicity of passages

(multiplicity of time)

from the time of his explanation the first time — behold, just as Rashi did not trouble to explain here again that "wise ones" are the "ones who hear from others and learn"⁶

(and simply it is because he relies on his explanation in Parshat Tisa),

so too should he not have repeated and explained that "understanding ones" means "ones who understand one thing from another"?

And even more perplexing: In Parshat Tisa Rashi is uncertain about the explanation of the words "wisdom" and "understanding",

And why did he need to add here a parable,

and moreover a parable at length and not — the moral briefly?

And on the other hand: if there is a need for additional explanation,

by means of a parable etc. — it would have been fitting for Rashi to write it in the place where he explains the difference between wisdom and understanding the first time⁷,

in Parshat Tisa,

and not to wait until Parshat Devarim.

Also needs explanation:

a)

What is added and innovated in understanding the difference between wise ones and understanding ones,

by means of the parable of "a wealthy money-changer" and "a retail money-changer"?

b)

On the contrary,

at first glance,

the parable of "a shopkeeper<pg>10</pg>

peddler" is not directed to the moral

("understanding one thing from another")

: "understanding one thing from another" means that the understanding of the new "thing" is based on the first "thing"

("from [another] thing")

that he heard from others; whereas "a shopkeeper peddler..

when they do not bring to him, he goes around and brings from his own",

that is

(a)

that he deals and trades

(according to the simple explanation of "peddler"⁸),

(b)

and the implication of "his own"⁹.

[And only the first part of the mashal from "my table is rich" that "when they do not bring to him he sits and wonders",

is directed at the "wise one" who only "hears from others" and cannot add from himself,

and therefore "when they do not bring to him he sits and wonders"].

ג)

When Rashi mentions there the name of the author of the statement, this is because knowledge of the name of the author of the statement adds explanation,

or resolves a question of a "sharp" student

(and as explained many times),

And what is added here by the notification of the name of the author of the mashal — "this is what Arius asked Rabbi Yosi"?

And moreover, not only that Rashi there copied the author of the parable — "Rabbi Yosi" — but furthermore he is precise to preface "This is what Arius asked",

namely

(a)

that the saying of the parable came as an answer to a question,

(b)

that the questioner was "Arius"

(and Rashi did not write "a certain gentile"¹⁰

and the like).

2.

And one can say the explanation in this:

Rashi's intention here is to explain a simple question in the sequence of the verses here,

that at first Moses said "Provide for yourselves wise and understanding and known men etc.",

and in the continuation of his words it is only stated "And I took..

wise and known men"¹¹

and "understanding" is not mentioned,

as Rashi explains that this is because "understanding I did not find"¹².

And it is to be wondered¹³

: behold, regarding the work of the Tabernacle Moses our teacher found masters of wisdom and understanding,

as is explicit in the portion of Vayakhel¹⁴

"And Bezalel made etc. and every wise-hearted man whom the Lord gave wisdom and understanding in them",

behold it is explicit,

that the quality of "understanding" was found, and not only that but it was

(not only by Bezalel of whom it is said

(as above)

"And I filled him etc. with wisdom and with understanding",

but also)

by "every wise-hearted man"; and why in the appointment of judges — "understanding I did not find"¹⁵?

<pg>11</pg>

[And especially that both,

the work of the Tabernacle and the appointment of the judges,

occurred — according to Rashi — in close time to each other,

for the portion of the appointment of the judges was

(as Rashi explains in the portion of Yitro¹⁶)

on the morrow of Yom Kippur

(or at least in proximity to it),

and at that same time was the command regarding the work of the Tabernacle

(as Rashi explains in the portion of Tisa¹⁷)].

And necessarily one must say,

that it is not comparable to the "understanding ones" who were needed for judges,

as the men of understanding who were needed for the making of the Mishkan¹⁸.

And in order to explain the superiority of the "understanding ones" needed for judges over the understanding needed for the making of the Mishkan — Rashi brings a parable from a "money changer",

to tell you that "understanding one" here

(regarding judges)

"is comparable to a merchant money changer",

as follows.

3.

Explanation of the matters:

In understanding "understanding one thing from another thing" — there are two modes

(general)

:

(a)

When one learns a certain matter and concept,

his learning is not in a manner that he understands only what he "hears from others" and nothing more,

but rather,

that from this matter he understands on his own additional details that he did not hear explicitly.

(b)

"Understanding one thing from another thing" in a manner of actual innovation.

That is to say, not only does he expand his understanding of the matter he heard with additional details,

but on the basis of this "thing,"

he comes to understand truly new things¹⁹.

And this is the difference between people of understanding regarding the work of the Mishkan or — regarding judges "of understanding" — that even though in the work of the Mishkan there was a need for understanding,

namely not only to hear from others but also to understand "a thing from his heart out of things he learned"²⁰,

behold this is only an expansion of understanding in the "thing" itself from it and in it,

and not understanding a new thing; but regarding judges,

there was a need for "men of understanding" who have the power to understand

(from a thing)

a thing that has actual novelty.

And this is the intention of Rashi in bringing the parable of a "money-changer merchant"²¹,

that also "when they do not bring to him he goes around and brings from his own" — in this it is explained,

that the intention here is for "men of understanding" such that they are not satisfied with what they understand and they expand the thing they learned

(like a money-changer who profits from what "they bring to him"),

but rather they understand through this truly new things — like the parable of "shul-<pg>12</pg>

Chanei Tager" that deals with his [case] when "they do not bring him",

and he profits new profits.

And the reason for the difference between the work of the Mishkan and the appointment of judges — is understood simply:

In the command regarding the making of the Mishkan it is said²²

"According to all that I show you, the pattern of the Mishkan and the pattern of all its vessels,"

"in their pattern which you are shown on the mountain,"

which was an explicit and detailed instruction in all the particulars of their making — and therefore "understanding" alone suffices to understand from seeing their pattern how to make them in practice — and there is no need for understanding in a manner of innovation,

since they innovate nothing;

but not so regarding judges to judge Israel in all kinds of situations and conditions and throughout the entire time of judging,

and to adjudicate questions and matters that were not explained in the Torah,

therefore there is a need to compare one matter to another, etc.,

to understand and deduce from the depths of the Torah in a manner of actual innovation — they must be "those who understand one thing from another" in a manner of innovation.

[And in particular according to Rashi's commentary on the verse before this²³,

"that the Israelites were troublesome..

sees his opponent winning in the judgment

(and then)

says I have witnesses to bring I have proofs to bring etc.'",

that certainly the Israelites needed "wise" judges who could deal with such "troublesome" litigants who come with claims and proofs that are newly arising just now].

— And such "wise ones"

(who understand one thing from another like a "shopkeeper")

— said Moses our teacher — "I did not find."

D.

And based on this, Rashi explains another difficulty in the general matter of "wise and understanding I did not find":

It is understood and simple,

that Moses' request "Provide for yourselves men, wise and understanding and known to your tribes" — to appoint judges who specifically have these qualities — was in accordance with the will of God.

And it is explicit in Rashi²⁴

that Moses' words "I cannot bear alone... how can I bear alone..." — "I am not saying to you of my own accord, but from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He."

[And even though Rashi&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;

that all "seven attributes" required for a judge "Yitro said"

(and not only those enumerated in the portion of Yitro&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;

"And you shall see etc. men of valor etc.")

— it is obvious that Moses would not agree to his words to change the order of the conduct of judging the people without the consent of the Holy One, blessed be He,

and as explained in Rashi on the verse&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;

"I will advise you..

and God will command you" — "the King in His strength if He commands etc.",

and if so, certainly that also regarding the details of the matters there was the consent of the Holy One, blessed be He].

And since so it is perplexing — how is it possible that the Holy One, blessed be He, agreed that one of the conditions of the judge is that he must be "understanding",

when there were no "understanding ones" at that time among the children of Israel — "understanding ones I did not find"?

And according to the above, it can be said,

that the title "understanding ones" as above includes two types, one above the other: a)

understanding ones simply — "one who understands one thing from another thing"

(as was the case with the makers of the work of the Mishkan),

b)

"understanding ones" in the ultimate perfection — "like a merchant's table",

in a manner of innovation,

as above at length.

And Rashi's intention in "understanding ones I did not find" is to the superior type of "understanding ones"

(in which Rashi elaborated before this,

as above),

but it is understood and simple that the judge must be

(at least)

in the level&lt;pg&gt;13&lt;/pg&gt;

of "understanding one" simply,

"one who understands one thing from another thing" like the first manner above — and to them Moses intended when he expounded

(with the agreement of the Holy One, blessed be He)

"provide etc. and understanding ones"&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;

— and such understanding ones indeed were and they found them and they were counted.

[But that in order to hint that Moshe did not find discerning ones in completeness like a "jeweler",

the verse later omits the detail of "discerning ones"

(even though the men that Moshe appointed were also "discerning ones",

and they lacked only the completeness in this,

as above)].

And in this way one can also settle the words of the Rambam regarding this matter: In Hilchos Sanhedrin beginning of chapter 2 the Rambam ruled "They do not appoint to the Sanhedrin etc. except wise and discerning men,

outstanding in the wisdom of Torah etc.".

And it is not understood: Since Chazal said&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;

that "discerning ones he did not find" even in the days of Moshe,

how did the Rambam rule that "They do not appoint etc. except wise and discerning men"?

There are commentators³⁰

"that this 'they do not appoint' that the Rambam said, that is where knowledgeable ones are found, but if they are not found, it does not prevent",

And according to the words of the Rambam below in the chapter³¹,

that "a court..

must have in each of them seven things, and they are: wisdom and humility etc.'",

that "it is simple that all this is not indispensable"³².

But from the plain language of the Rambam "they do not appoint etc. except etc. and knowledgeable" it implies³³,

that this law

(that at the beginning of the chapter)

is indeed indispensable³⁴.

And based on the above, one can say,

that the intention of the Rambam in "they do not appoint etc. except etc. and knowledgeable" is to "knowledgeable" simply, that this is a condition that is indispensable

(in Sanhedrin³⁵)

and "knowledgeable" such as were in the days of Moses

(and also afterwards)

; and the words of the Gemara that in the days of Moses "knowledgeable he did not find" means "knowledgeable..

like a money-changer merchant",

as above.

5.

But there is still room for the "student

(at least)

sharp" to object: Since we say,

that this that the verse hints

(by omitting the word "understanding")

that "understanding I did not find" the intention is "understanding" in the ultimate perfection — then it follows,

that

(also)

to such "understanding" ones did Moses intend in his request "Provide for yourselves men etc. and understanding."

And the difficulty returns to its place: How did the Holy One, blessed be He, demand this condition at the time that He knew that "understanding

(such)

I will not find"?

And it must be said,

that since this quality in a judge is a most necessary matter,

therefore one must endeavor and do everything possible in order to find also such "understanding" ones; and therefore this condition is mentioned in the Torah

(in Moses' request),

even though "understanding I did not find",

to emphasize,

that the ultimate&lt;pg&gt;14&lt;/pg&gt;

The completeness in "judge" is,

when there is also in him this quality and attribute.

And Rashi prefaced "This is what Arius asked Rabbi Yosi" — that in this he alludes to two matters:

a)

The parable of "a money-changer" was said by Rabbi Yosi,

who was distinguished in the quality and attribute of "understanding" in a special way,

and as our Sages said³⁶

"When Rabbi Yosi died, understanding ceased"

[And as we find that the quality of Rabbi Yosi is "his reasoning is with him"³⁷,

"his explanation is with him,

to give reason for all his words, that he would settle his words"³⁸,

that is, study in a manner of reason and explanation

(understanding³⁹)]

— Therefore Rabbi Yosi "according to his system",

in accordance with his quality,

it was he who recognized and emphasized the greatness of the matter of "understanding" in all its perfection,

required as a condition in the judges of Israel

(those worthy of their name),

namely that they should be like a "money-changer" in the parable⁴⁰.

b)

On the other hand,

the aforementioned question of the "sharp student"

[Why did the Holy One, blessed be He, require that there be "understanding ones" when He knew that understanding ones would not be found],

is not a desirable question — and to this Rashi hinted by prefacing that "this is what Arius asked Rabbi Yosi"⁴¹,

that is,

this is not a question of the sages of Israel,

but of a non-Jew,

and furthermore,

that this is the question of "Arius" who was a priest.

And this is because such a question

(which is not about understanding the words of Torah,

but)

about the conduct of the Holy One, blessed be He,

can cause weakness, Heaven forbid, in matters of faith etc.^*41.

And this is what Rashi informs us when he brings "This is what Arius asked Rabbi Yosi",

to warn the "seasoned student" about such questions,

even though this is not a frivolous question,

and the proof,

that Rabbi Yosi answered this question,

and furthermore — that the question was copied and fixed in the Torah&lt;pg&gt;15&lt;/pg&gt;

(for only a very small number of the questions that the sages of the nations asked the sages of Israel are explicitly [recorded] in the Torah).

6.

And one should add regarding the hint and the secret:

In the name "Aryus" — are included the letters "Or",

And it is brought in the Zohar⁴²

that "Or" refers to Chochmah,

And based on this, one can say,

that the matter of "Aryus" was — Chochmah of the opposite side⁴³

(As is known that "This opposite that God made"⁴⁴,

that opposite a matter of holiness there is its counterpart in "the opposite side").

And this is "that Arius asked Rabbi Yosi" — that "wisdom" of idolatry "asks" what is the greatness of the elevation in "the understanding ones",

to such an extent,

that even though the Holy One, blessed be He, knew that "understanding ones will not be found",

nevertheless He required that this quality also be with the judges of Israel?

And to this Rabbi Yosi answered — that this is understanding of holiness,

as above,

when it is in the ultimate perfection of "understanding one thing from another thing",

that specifically in it there is the matter of the innovation — "like a shopkeeper's table".

And one should connect this with the time when we read Parshat Devarim — Shabbat Chazon

(And according to the determinations of this year — on Tisha B'Av that falls on Shabbat and is postponed)

:

It is known that "How can I bear alone" is in the manner and similar to the concept of "How she sits solitary"⁴⁵

(And this is the hint of Shabbat Chazon,

the Shabbat before Tisha B'Av,

in the weekly portion).

And since the concept of "Provide for yourselves wise and understanding men etc. and I will appoint them as your heads" comes to rectify the situation of "How can I bear alone",

it is understood from this,

that in the inwardness of the matters, this hints at the nullification of the exile

("How she sits solitary")

through the appointment of the judges.

And one must say the explanation in this:

One of the main matters that will be renewed at the time⁴⁶

of the true and complete redemption is — that then "Hashem your God will enlarge your border"⁴⁷,

the conquest of three lands: Keni, Kenizi, and Kadmoni⁴⁸.

And it is explained in the books⁴⁹

the difference in spirituality between the conquest of the seven lands

(that were conquered at the time of the first and second conquest)

and the conquest of the three lands of the future — that the seven nations are opposite the seven attributes of the Other Side,

and the three lands that will be conquered in the future are opposite the intellect of the Other Side that is divided into three,

wisdom, understanding, knowledge.

that one of the innovations of the future to come is —&lt;pg&gt;16&lt;/pg&gt;

that then there will be the matter of the intellects in the ultimate perfection

(and in the language of the Rambam&lt;sup&gt;50&lt;/sup&gt;

that then Israel will be "great wise men and will know hidden things and will comprehend the knowledge of their Creator" — wisdom, knowledge and understanding

(comprehension)),

therefore they will then conquer the intellects of the side of impurity,

the land of the Kenite, the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite.

And this is what Rashi hints — "This is what Arius asked Rabbi Yosi,"

that the conquering and resolution and nullification of Arius's question by Rabbi Yosi,

is the nullification of the wisdom of idolatry and its transformation into holiness — in the manner and likeness of the conquest of the three lands in the future.

(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Devarim 5746)