English translation — וילך ב

Sicha b<pg>194</pg>

A.

Parshas Vayeilech is read in several years<sup>1</sup>

on Shabbos

(T)

Shuva<sup>2</sup>.

And according to the known<sup>3</sup>

that the content of the portions that are read in the Torah is related to the time when they are read,

it must be said,

that there is a lesson regarding the matter of teshuvah in this parshah.

And it can be said simply,

that this is what we find in Parsha Vayelech<sup>4</sup>

several matters of rebuke about abandoning Torah and mitzvos etc.,

that the purpose of the rebuke is

(not

(only)

the notification of the punishment for abandoning Torah and mitzvos,

but)

to awaken the hearts to repentance,

in a manner that from the outset the punishments will not come,

for even if they stumbled they will return from their evil way.

And now it has been explained several times<sup>5</sup>,

that the main innovation in the service of repentance of Shabbos

(T)

Shuva — is not repentance on sins<sup>6</sup>,

but repentance whose matter and content

(to return and)

to draw closer even more to Hashem,

in the language of the verse<sup>7</sup>

"And the spirit shall return to God who gave it",

and it is called

(in the Zohar<sup>8</sup>)

"Supernal repentance",

and this repentance is not out of bitterness but "with great joy"<sup>9</sup>.

And based on this, it must be said,

that the words of rebuke in the portion of Vayelech,

even though according to their simple meaning they pertain to repentance for sins,

nevertheless, not only are they not in contradiction to the feeling of joy,

but on the contrary,

they arouse "great joy."

And one can find a hint to this in that,

the matters of rebuke in the portion of Vayelech are connected with the writing of the song of Haazinu¹⁰,

for although the content of the song is — words of rebuke,

"so that the people will return in repentance"¹¹,

nevertheless it is called by the name "song",

which indicates joy

(to the extent that this portion is from the song of the Levites upon the sacrifice¹²,

that they do not say a song except upon wine¹³)

— because the rebuke of the portion of Haazinu brings a person to joy,

as explained elsewhere¹⁴

at length.

And based on this, we can explain

(in the manner of a hint)

the precision of Rashi's language in our portion,

in the words of rebuke — "And My anger will burn etc. and I will abandon them and hide My face from them etc."¹⁵

— that he explains "and I will hide My face",

"as if I do not see their distress":

In this Rashi hints,

that even when the conduct of Israel causes "And My anger will burn etc.<pg>195</pg>

"And I will forsake them and hide My face etc."

The Holy One, blessed be He, does not truly forsake, Heaven forbid, the children of Israel,

but this is only "as if I do not see etc.",

but the truth is that the Holy One, blessed be He, sees and feels the distress of Israel,

and furthermore,

that "in all their distress, He is distressed"&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;,

and He is present in that same distress.

And on the contrary,

the entire intention of the hiding of the face is only to arouse the children of Israel to return to G-d,

and as will be explained below in section 6 at length — and this thing emphasizes the greatness of the love of the Holy One, blessed be He, for the children of Israel in every situation they are in&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;.

And this is also the connection and relevance to the Ten Days of Repentance,

as explained by our master, the Alter Rebbe&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;

regarding that which our sages, of blessed memory, said&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;

that during the Ten Days of Repentance the Holy One, blessed be He, is "close" to the children of Israel — "that He is called close, except that He has distanced Himself and is hidden from him,

and it is like, for example, a son who is with his father in his house, except that the father hides his face from him in order that his son should take to heart the love and his love will be revealed with greater intensity,

and when the son will recognize that the father is here and hides his face from him, then certainly his love will increase in a revealed manner more."

2.

And behold, it has been explained many times,

that in addition to the hints in Rashi's commentary on the Torah — indeed, primarily his purpose is to explain the plain meaning of the verse.

And in our subject, we need to understand Rashi's interpretation,

that "And I will hide My face" means "as if I do not see their distress":

Bera"m explains,

that "the hiding of the face of the Holy One, blessed be He, is the absence of His providence, and it is called 'hiding of the face' because anyone whose face does not see a thing does not supervise it,

and this is what the Rav intended in his saying 'just as I do not see their distress.'"

But explanation is needed: at first glance, the simple meaning of 'hiding of the face' from above is,

an expression of a state of anger etc. — the opposite of the blessing²⁰

"May Hashem lift His face to you"²¹,

which indicates the joy of the Holy One, blessed be He, in the children of Israel,

as Rashi explains there²²

"He will show you a smiling face, a bright face."

And like the conduct of a father with his son,

that when the father shows his son a smiling face, this indicates the revelation of his love for him,

and when he is angry with him, he hides his face from him.

And why did Rashi leave this explanation regarding the hiding of the face above²³

— that it is

(a)

in accordance with the beginning of the verse "and My anger will burn",

(b)

a matter that pertains to the entirety of "face" — and explains that it refers to the absence of His providence,

which pertains

(only)

to "the eyes of the Lord"

(and not to the entirety of "face")²⁴.

<pg>196</pg>

3.

Also, the precise wording of Rashi "as if I do not see their distress" requires explanation,

for at first glance,

since Rashi's intention is to explain the hiding of the Holy One's face regarding the absence of His providence,

he should have said "as if I do not see them",

and why does he limit the absence of seeing

(and the providence)

only to "their distress"?

And it is implied and understood from this,

that Rashi's intention is not the absence of providence which is the cause of the evils and distresses

[as explained in the Guide for the Perplexed²⁵

and other commentators²⁶,

that when the children of Israel are in a state of hidden face and absence of providence,

they are abandoned "to chance" and consequently evils and distresses come upon them²⁷,

as the continuation of the verse here "because G-d is not in my midst, these evils have found me"],

but rather,

the absence of providence after the evils and distresses have already come,

that even then the Holy One conducts Himself "as if I do not see their distress"

(i.e., not that He does not oversee the children of Israel,

but that He does not see the distresses,

and consequently does not turn to their cry etc. to save them²⁸).

And based on this, Rashi's wording "that I do not see" is also precise,

for seemingly it should have said "that I do not pay attention"

(which is the main point),

and why does Rashi say "that I do not see" and the student must understand that his intention is the absence of attention,

"Because²⁹

anyone whose face does not see the thing does not pay attention to it"?

And according to the above, it is understood,

that Rashi's intention is not the absence of God's attention upon the Children of Israel,

which is the cause of the troubles etc.

(to which the expression "I do not pay attention" applies),

but rather the absence of seeing the troubles

(which have already come),

as above].

And it is puzzling: In the verse it is explicit "And I will hide My face from them and it will be for devouring and many evils will find them etc.,"

that the hiding of the face of the Holy One, blessed be He, comes before the state of "and it will be for devouring and will find them etc.,"

and on the contrary,

it itself is the cause of the evils — and Rashi explains the opposite,

that "And I will hide My face" is after the evils and troubles find them?

At first glance one could say,

that this is because in the heavenly punishments that we have learned in the verse until now,

we do not find

(in the simple meaning of the verse)

that they come due to the absence of providence,

and on the contrary,

the punishment of the wicked comes specifically through His providence, may He be blessed,

who judges the wicked and sentences him to the appropriate punishment.

And moreover: a severe punishment for a severe sin is described in the verse

(not in the language of hiding the face,

but)

in the language "And I will set My face"&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;

(and the like),

whose meaning is as Rashi explains&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;

"I turn away from all My affairs and engage with him",

that is, the intensity of providence.

And therefore also in our case Rashi does not explain "And I will hide My face" that this is a cause for the punishment etc.

But this is not a sufficient excuse,

for it can be said that here it speaks of a punishment more severe than the punishments mentioned until now,

as explained in the commentaries³²,

that this is measure for measure,

that "corresponding to the abandonment with which they abandoned the Lord

[as it says in the verse before this "and they abandoned Me and violated My covenant"]

said<pg>197</pg>

And I will abandon them and hide My face from them, meaning that I too will abandon them and not look after them,

and this destiny is harder than all the destinies..

In all the curses of the covenant you will not find hiding of the face nor abandonment, but rather providential punishments, and here the retribution for their abandonment is destined with His abandonment of them and with hiding of the face from them."

4.

Also, one must understand — what is the reason Rashi adds "like

(that I do not see etc.')

"?

In the commentaries³³

they wrote that it is difficult for Rashi: Is there, heaven forbid, something hidden before Him?

Therefore he explained "like that I do not see".

But superficially this is not sufficient,

because this emphasis is superfluous,

for even if Rashi had written "that I do not see their distress" it would be understood that the intention is not literal,

that the matter is hidden from Him,

but rather that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not supervise them&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;

to save them etc.

And as we find explicitly in Rashi's commentary above in Parshat Shemot,

on the verse&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;

"And God saw etc." — "and He did not hide His eyes",

and likewise on the verse&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;

"I have surely seen the affliction of My people etc. I know their pains" — "I did not hide My eyes nor will I stop My ears from their cry".

For superficially,

how is hiding the eye applicable before Him, that He needed to negate "I did not hide My eyes"?

And it must be said that this is a simple matter, that hiding the eye means the absence of supervision etc.

(To the extent that Rashi did not need to explain it).

And furthermore, the main point: even if you say that "I do not see their distress" is not language that is appropriate regarding Above,

for its simple meaning is that the matter is hidden from Him — Rashi should have written

(in the manner of his language in Parshat Shemot cited above³⁷)

"And I will hide My face — I will close My eyes"

(and especially since this is the language of the verse³⁸).

5.

And one can explain the explanation of this — simply:

In the verse two matters are stated — "And I will forsake them

(and afterwards)

and I will hide My face from them."

And it is to be understood³⁹

: after the Holy One, blessed be He, forsakes the children of Israel, may He spare us, and is not together with them,

what is the addition afterwards,

that He will also hide His face from them?

And it should have said the opposite,

"And I will hide My face from them"

(which also applies when He is in their midst),

and additionally — "And I will forsake them"?

Granted, regarding flesh and blood one could say,

that first he leaves the place

(but he can still look at it from there),

and afterwards he adds even more,

that he hides his face so that he does not look

(even)

from afar;

But by the Holy One, blessed be He, that "and I will forsake them" is the absence of providence — behold, the absence of providence described in the language "and I will forsake them"

(which indicates a complete forsaking),

is much more than the absence of providence of "and I will hide

(only)

My face"?

And from this Rashi concludes,

that the intention of the verse here is for two matters of punishment:

(a)

"and I will forsake them" — absence of providence which causes troubles and evils&lt;pg&gt;198&lt;/pg&gt;

(And as the continuation of the verse "Because there is no God in my midst

[namely "and I will forsake them"]

these evils found me"),

(b)

"And I will hide My face from them",

that this is after the troubles have already come,

that the Holy One, blessed be He, conducts Himself with Israel "as if I do not see their distress".

And it is resolved simply why it is impossible to explain that hiding the face is an expression of a state of anger etc.

(as above section a)

— because anger causes "and I will forsake them"

(as is explicit here "and My anger will burn etc. and I will forsake them"),

and if this is the intention, it would have been appropriate to say it before "and I will forsake them".

6.

Based on this, Rashi's addition "as if I do not see their distress" is also understood — because otherwise it is perplexing: If you say that even after the troubles come, the Holy One, blessed be He, averts His eyes from them and does not see the distress of Israel,

and in the language of Rashi

(the above in Parshat Shemot)

that He stops His ears from their cry,

then it is found that the door of repentance is locked — and this is the opposite of the intention of the punishments,

which come to bring a person to repentance,

and in the language of the verse⁴⁰

"Do I desire the death of the wicked? Rather, that the wicked turn from his way and live" — and how can it be said that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not see their distress?

Therefore Rashi explained "as if I do not see their distress" — that the conduct of hiding the eyes from the troubles is not a true hiding of the eyes

(on the part of the Holy One, blessed be He)

but only an appearance to the recipients,

that it appears to the Children of Israel that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not see,

but in truth the Holy One, blessed be He, sees and sees,

and waits for the repentance of Israel, etc.

[And on the contrary,

this very thing that the Holy One, blessed be He, hides His face in a way that it appears to the Children of Israel that He does not see their distress,

is only to awaken them even more that they return to Him].

That is to say: the matter of the absence of providence which causes the evils and troubles is something that exists in reality,

for from this come evils and troubles etc., meaning

(And one does not say about this "as if I do not oversee",

since from this conduct come actual results)

; but not so regarding the seeing of the distress of Israel

(after it has already come)

— there is here nothing actual regarding Israel,

but immediately when they repent it is revealed that truly He saw their distress,

and He turns to them and saves them etc. — and the entire matter of "And I will hide My face" is only towards the Children of Israel,

to whom it appears

(because of the multitude of troubles)

that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not see their distress.

And it can be said,

that this is also the precision of the language "And I will hide My face" — and not "And I will cover My face" and the like:

The distinction between the term "covering" and the term "hiding" is,

that in "hiding" it is emphasized that this is in relation to another,

and one cannot say that he hid the thing without relating to the thing from which he hid it,

but not so the term covering applies also when it does not relate to another thing.

And accordingly it can be said,

that the distinction between covering the face and hiding the face is — that when he covers his face,

a change is effected not only regarding the other

(that the other does not see him),

but also regarding himself,

his face,

that they are covered; but not so when he hides his face,

then

(it is possible that)

the change is only regarding the other,

that he does not see the face,

but regarding the face itself there is no change at all.

And this is what Rashi explains that "And I will hide My face" its explanation is "as if I do not see their distress",

that this is only hiding

(and not covering),

for in truth certainly that the Holy One, blessed be He, sees their distress and does not avert His eye at all from the children of Israel,

rather His seeing of the Holy One, blessed be He, is in a manner of "And I will hide My face"⁴¹,

that it appears to the children of Israel⁴²

that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not see their distress,

as above.

<pg>199</pg>

And from this it is understood,

that immediately and at once,

when the children of Israel turn to the Holy One, blessed be He,

(contrary to their conduct in a manner of "they have forsaken Me,"

which caused "and I will forsake them")

— immediately and at once the matter of "and I will forsake them and hide My face" is nullified,

and the Holy One, blessed be He, reveals Himself to the children of Israel face to face,

with great affection and love revealed in the sight of all,

and bestows upon the children of Israel all the blessings,

from His full, open, holy, and ample hand,

specifically in the revealed and manifest good.

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Vayelech 5742)