English translation — לך לך ב

Talk in <pg>45</pg>

A.

Before the commandment about the mitzvah of circumcision in our parshah — "And you<sup>1</sup>

My covenant you shall keep etc. This is My covenant which you shall keep etc. Every male among you shall be circumcised" was said to Avraham<sup>2</sup>

the promise "And I will give to you and to your seed after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession."

And the meaning of the verses is that the inheritance of the land depends on the commandment of circumcision,

and so it is in the explanation in the teaching of our Rabbis at the beginning of the section of circumcision "Walk³

before Me and be perfect" — "Walk⁴

before Me in the commandment of circumcision"; "And I will give⁵

My covenant between Me and you" — "A covenant⁶

of love and a covenant of the land to bequeath it to you through this commandment".

And in Bereishit Rabbah on the verse⁷

"If your children keep the circumcision they enter the land, and if not they do not enter the land..

So said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Abraham our father: And I will give to you and to your seed after you etc. on condition that you keep My covenant",

and likewise it is explained in the Zohar Va'eira⁸

that "Whoever is circumcised inherits the land".

And it needs to be understood: Behold, the land of Israel was already promised to Abraham our father in the covenant between the parts,

as it is said⁹

"On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying: To your seed I have given this land etc."¹⁰,

And what is added in this promise that it depends on the commandment¹¹

of the covenant of circumcision¹²?

And although superficially there is a novelty in this promise,

that it is explained in it that the giving of the land is

(in a manner of)

"for an eternal possession",

however besides this that explanation is needed why specifically this detail depends on the fulfillment of the commandment of circumcision<sup>*12</sup>,

however according to its simple meaning also the previous promise is "for an eternal possession",

for it was given in a "covenant",

for a covenant is — for eternity and everlasting that there is no cessation in it.

B.

And behold superficially it can be explained that the novelty in this promise is,

according to the precise wording<pg>46</pg>

The midrash,

"If your children keep the circumcision, they enter the land",

meaning that the discussion here is not about the giving of the land to Israel in a manner of "eternal possession"

(because this was already in the Covenant Between the Parts),

but rather in the manner of Israel's actual entry into the land<sup>13</sup>,

which is dependent on the fulfillment of the commandment of circumcision.

And likewise one can seemingly infer from the language of the aforementioned Zohar "that whoever is circumcised inherits the land",

that it is not discussing the inheritance of the land for the people of Israel in general,

that this was effected in the Covenant Between the Parts,

but rather in the merit of each individual in his portion in the land,

which occurs at the time of the actual entry into the land.

But one cannot explain thus,

for in the Zohar there, it said this regarding the explicit verse<sup>14</sup>

"And also I have established My covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan",

"that whoever is circumcised inherits the land",

that the giving and inheritance of the land of Israel is dependent and was in the merit of circumcision<sup>15</sup>,

that the giving of the land to the entirety of Israel

(and not only the entry into the land and its giving to each individual)

is dependent on circumcision.

3.

And it will be understood with an introduction to what my master, my father, the Rebbe, wrote in his glosses on the Zohar there¹⁶,

and his language is: "And he said 'yiras' as it is written in the verse¹⁷

they will inherit the land, specifically an inheritance, for an inheritance has no cessation¹⁸,

for behold this is through circumcision and circumcision, after one is circumcised it has no cessation, because it is impossible that he will again be uncircumcised, and this remains in him forever without cessation,

therefore likewise what he takes of the land is by inheritance that has no cessation",

and he continues "And that Israel were exiled from their land^*18,

and behold this is not an inheritance that has no cessation",

and he explains this in two ways —

(a)

"Behold this is only for a duration of time and afterwards they will return",

(b)

"And furthermore, for behold this is through sins and iniquities, through which the foreskin is drawn, and in the manner of the coming¹⁹

upon the Aramean his foreskin is drawn and he is not seen as circumcised any more, heaven forbid,

and this is what circumcision, the initials of 'gift has a cessation'"¹⁸.

And superficially it requires explanation: From the plainness of our language in the second explanation it implies that only according to this explanation is the exile in the category of "cessation"

("a gift has a cessation"),

but not so according to the first explanation

(that "this is only for a duration of time and afterwards they will return")

the exile is not called a cessation,

because since it is "only for a duration of time" behold even during the time of exile it is their land and in their ownership,

and the inheritance of the land has not ceased from them.

But superficially if so,

why does he explain in the second explanation that it is a cessation, and behold even the exile that comes as a result of sins and iniquities does not nullify the ownership of the land,

and as we say "Because of our sins we were exiled from our land and we were distanced from our soil",

that even when they were exiled from the land "because of our sins" behold it is our land and our soil

[and even according to several opinions²⁰

even one who has no land can write in a deed 'and I have acquired for him four cubits' because "there is no Jewish person who does not have four cubits in the Land of Israel"²¹],

why did he state in the second explanation that this is a gift that has a cessation.

<pg>47</pg>

And therefore it must be said that both are present in it,

that there are two levels and manners both in Eretz Yisrael and in the mitzvah of milah: a)

as it is in the manner of "inheritance" that has no interruption,

for from this aspect, an interruption for a time is not considered an interruption.

b)

as it is in the manner of "gift

(that)

has an interruption".

4.

And this can be explained based on what we find regarding milah,

that in addition to this that each one of Israel,

even a Jewish man who cannot fulfill the mitzvah of milah in practice

("such as<sup>22</sup>

whose brothers died because of milah" and the like),

is called "circumcised"<sup>23</sup>,

nevertheless, also regarding one who draws his foreskin,

we find regarding this distinctions in laws: the Rambam<sup>24</sup>

wrote "And anyone who violates the covenant of Avraham Avinu and leaves his foreskin or draws it<sup>25</sup>

etc.'",

that is, according to the opinion of the Rambam, drawing the foreskin is included in "violates the covenant of Avraham Avinu",

and on the other hand, it is stated in the Gemara<sup>*25</sup>

and so the Rambam ruled<sup>26</sup>

"One who has drawn [his foreskin] is permitted to eat terumah, even though he appears as uncircumcised"

(And what he concludes "and by rabbinic law he should be circumcised a second time until he appears circumcised",

several commentators of the Rambam explained<sup>27</sup>

that it is only a mitzvah and it does not prevent eating terumah even rabbinically<sup>28</sup>).

And from this it is proven,

that even though he appears as uncircumcised,

he is not uncircumcised and is not called uncircumcised<sup>29</sup>,

therefore he is permitted to eat terumah.

And from the continuation of the words of the Gemara<sup>30</sup>

which asks from the baraita in which it is said "Es brisi heifer<sup>31</sup>

to include the one who draws [his foreskin]",

and answers that this is only "derabbanan and a biblical support merely",

it is proven,

that deoraisa it is not included in "Es brisi heifer"

[And according to the above in the view of the Rambam that also medivreihem is not an arel and is permitted to eat terumah

(And what he needs to circumcise a second time is because he appears as an arel)

it is found that also medivreihem is not in the category of "brisi heifer"<sup>32</sup>]<sup>33</sup>.

<pg>48</pg>

And it is proven from all this that in the covenant of circumcision there are two categories: "His covenant of Avraham Avinu",

in which violation is possible through the action of man,

that through his action he will violate the covenant; "My covenant" of the Holy One, blessed be He,

that since he was circumcised once, it is no longer possible for man to nullify and violate this covenant,

and therefore one who draws [his foreskin] is not called an arel regarding eating terumah.

5.

And the explanation in this:

The covenant between the Holy One, blessed be He, and Avraham is different from a "covenant" between two people,

who connect to be friends with each other,

but not so in the covenant between the Holy One, blessed be He, and Avraham

(between Creator and created),

there is a difference between the covenant as it is from the side of the Holy One, blessed be He, and the covenant as it is from the side of Avraham.

And even though the essence of the covenant is from the side of the Holy One, blessed be He,

from the side of the power of the Creator the covenant is made in a manner of "an eternal covenant",

nevertheless there is in this also a side of the created being,

"And you, My covenant you shall keep".

And they are the two details mentioned above in the covenant of circumcision: as it is from the side of the Holy One, blessed be He,

"My covenant,"

and as it is from the side of our father Abraham.

That is, in the matter of the cutting of the covenant and the connection with the Holy One, blessed be He,

there are two details,

as it is from the side of the created being and his action,

the covenant of our father Abraham,

that in the revelation of this connection there can be an interruption,

and it is that "milah is an acronym for 'a gift has an interruption',"

and therefore it is possible that man's action will harm this,

that one who is drawn is called "one who violates the covenant of our father Abraham"; and as it is from the side of the Creator,

which is a connection that cannot have an interruption in it,

since it is not a thing that is done from the side of the created being but from the side of the Holy One, blessed be He,

therefore it is called "My covenant,"

and from this aspect even one who is drawn is not called uncircumcised,

for man's action cannot violate this covenant.

And one can say,

that although in general these two matters were given in the covenant of Avraham,

nevertheless in more particularity,

this is the difference between the covenant as it is before the giving of the Torah,

to as it is after the giving of the Torah, when we were commanded "And on the eighth day he shall circumcise"³⁴.

And as the Rambam³⁵ precisely states,

"Set your heart on the great principle..

that everything that we distance ourselves from or do today, we do only by the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, through Moshe Rabbeinu, peace be upon him, not that the Holy One, blessed be He, said this to the prophets before him..

We do not circumcise because Avraham Avinu, peace be upon him, circumcised himself and the men of his household, but because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded us through Moshe Rabbeinu that we should circumcise."

the covenant as it is before the Giving of the Torah,

before the nullification of the "decree" that upper ones should not descend to lower ones

(according to the well-known words of the Midrash³⁶),

it is primarily and manifestly the covenant from the side of the created being,

from the side of Avraham Avinu; while the covenant as it is after the Giving of the Torah,

it is primarily as it is from the side of the Holy One, blessed be He.

And along these lines is the general distinction between the commandments after the Giving of the Torah,

in relation to the commandments that the Patriarchs fulfilled before the Torah was given,

that our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said³⁷

"All the commandments that the Patriarchs performed before You were fragrances<pg>49</pg>

were,

but we, "Oil poured is your name, etc."

that in "scent" there are two matters: a)

is only an extension of the thing and is not a part of the essence of the thing

(therefore through the scent nothing is lacking from the thing),

b)

after the passage of time the scent is consumed.

And likewise the commandments that the Patriarchs fulfilled are compared to "scent",

because a)

there was not in them the power of the Creator like in the commandments after the Giving of the Torah,

because their fulfillment was in their own power,

b)

there was not in them the power to establish in an eternal manner the holiness of the commandments in the physical objects with which the commandments were performed.

And from this it is understood also regarding the commandment of circumcision,

that even though there was a command about this, namely

(also)

a giving of power from above,

nevertheless,

since it was before the nullification of the decree that the upper ones should not descend to the lower ones,

there was not in its fulfillment before the Giving of the Torah that same force of the commandments after the Giving of the Torah,

that we were commanded³⁸

through "I am the Lord your God",

"I am"³⁹

He who is "I am"⁴⁰.

6.

Based on this, we can explain the two expressions that we find in the Midrashim regarding the matter of the covenant of circumcision:

In Bereishit Rabbah⁴¹

It is stated: "R. Levi said: In the future, Avraham will sit at the entrance of Gehinnom and will not allow any circumcised man from Israel to descend into it. And those who sinned excessively, what does he do to them? He removes the foreskin etc. and places it upon them and brings them down to Gehinnom etc."

And in Shemot Rabbah⁴²

It is stated: "That circumcised Israelites do not descend to Gehinnom. R. Berechiah said: So that the heretics and wicked of Israel should not say, 'Since we are circumcised, we do not descend to Gehinnom.' What does the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He sends an angel and pulls their foreskins, and they descend to Gehinnom, as it is said etc."

And one must examine this: since Avraham Avinu "does not allow a circumcised person from Israel to descend into it

(to Gehinnom)

",

and "there are no circumcised Israelites who descend to Gehinnom",

why do those "who sinned excessively" descend

(and the like)

to Gehinnom?

Also one must understand the difference between the two midrashim,

that in Bereishit Rabbah it states that Avraham Avinu himself passes the foreskin etc. and places it upon them,

and in Shemot Rabbah it states that an angel pulls their foreskin etc.⁴³.

And it must be said that their actions caused them that the name "circumcised" be removed from them,

except that in this there are two ways.

For when "they sinned too much",

its meaning is the violation of their covenant with the Holy One, blessed be He,

and therefore regarding Avraham Avinu and his covenant it is in the category of "uncircumcised" which belongs to Gehinnom,

and therefore Avraham "passes the foreskin etc. and places it upon them",

namely that from the side of "Avraham" they are in the category of "uncircumcised ones".

However, in Shemot Rabbah there it stands regarding the covenant of the Holy One, blessed be He,

that from this side even one who sinned "too much" is not called a violator of the covenant,

and does not become actually uncircumcised,

but only "heretics and wicked ones of Israel" who are like apostates, may G-d spare us,

about them there is room to say that they are like uncircumcised ones

[And furthermore,

from the words of the Midrash it is understood,

that even they are not in the category of actual "uncircumcised ones"

(therefore the angel does not bring a foreskin and make them actually uncircumcised,

but draws their foreskin,

which according to halacha is not in the category of actual violation of the covenant⁴⁴),

but "so that the heretics and wicked ones of Israel should not say, 'Since we are circumcised we do not descend to Gehinnom'",

namely that this is only to nullify their saying and their permitting to them-<pg>50</pg>

selves to continue in the conduct of heresy and wickedness].

7.

Based on this, it is also to be explained regarding the inheritance of the Land of Israel:

The Land of Israel was given to the people of Israel in an eternal covenant by the Holy One, blessed be He, to Abraham our father,

and it is simple that there is no interruption in this in any manner whatsoever,

that it is always of Israel,

it is in their ownership.

But just as it was in the giving of the land in actuality,

that we find three modes in its division

(to the tribes and to the families)

: inheritance

(in the manner of an estate),

division according to taste and intellect,

and division according to the lot,

and as explained elsewhere at length&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;

that these three matters are analogous to the three matters of inheritance, sale, and gift&lt;sup&gt;46&lt;/sup&gt;,

so too were

(the source)

these three matters in its giving to Avraham our father

(to the people of Israel in general).

The difference between these three matters simply is,

that sale is a thing given to the buyer in exchange for payment,

and consequently it is understood,

that it is in accordance with and according to the value of the payment of the buyer.

A gift comes primarily from the side of the giver of the gift,

without payment from the side of the recipient as in a sale,

but after all, the situation and action of the recipient have a relation and value to the gift,

for if he had not done something that gives him satisfaction, he would not have given him a gift⁴⁷.

But not so inheritance, it is a thing that is not at all dependent on the work of the heir or on his standing and situation,

for in whatever situation he is, he inherits everything.

And one can say the reason,

for inheritance is not a giving to another,

but rather as the expression of the verse⁴⁸

"Instead of your fathers shall be your sons",

that the heir stands in the place of the testator,

that he is the testator himself,

and consequently he has ownership over the property of the testator

(and in inheritance there is no aspect of change of ownership)⁴⁹.

And a kind of these three matters

(and in more detail)

is also in the Land of Israel:

"On that day the Lord cut a covenant with Abram, saying: To your seed I have given this land" — behold, this covenant was in connection with the decree of the Covenant Between the Parts,

"Know⁵⁰

surely know that your seed will be strangers in a land not theirs, and they will enslave them and oppress them four hundred years, etc., and the fourth generation they will return here",

which was a kind of "debt" that the children of Israel had to pay for the inheritance of the land.

And in the language of Rashi in several places⁵¹

"promissory note" of the decree of "for your seed will be strangers" placed upon the seed of Isaac

(and therefore "and he went

(Esau)

to a land because of Jacob his brother"⁵²,

"he said: I will go away from here; I have no part neither in the gift that this land was given to him, nor in the payment of the note"⁵³).

However, in the covenant of circumcision, the Holy One, blessed be He, added "And I will give to you and to your seed after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession, and I will be to them for a God,"

which is not dependent and connected with the action and work of man.

But in this itself there are two ways — a way of gift and a way of inheritance,

and both of them<pg>51</pg>

are related to the mitzvah of circumcision,

and as emphasized also in the writing in the portion:

At the beginning of the portion it is said "And I will give My covenant between Me and between you"

(which is as Rashi explains "a covenant of love and a covenant of the land to bequeath it to you through this mitzvah" as above)

after it was said the command

(regarding circumcision)

"Walk before Me and be perfect."

And later in the portion it precedes "And I will give to you and to your seed after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession" and afterwards it continues "And God said to Abraham, And you, My covenant you shall keep, etc. This is My covenant which you shall keep, etc. Every male among you shall be circumcised."

And it may be said that in this are hinted the two matters in the giving of the land,

in a manner of a gift and in a manner of an inheritance:

Also the first giving that was said in the section of circumcision "to bequeath to you through this mitzvah",

is not in a manner of condition and obligation,

but rather "And I will give My covenant between Me and between you",

and it is similar to a gift that comes primarily from the side of the giver,

except that it comes to him from the side of the elevation of the recipient of the gift to a more elevated state,

it gives Me satisfaction,

which is the content of the mitzvah of circumcision.

Above this is what is said "And I will give to you and to your seed after you etc. for an everlasting possession,

and I will be to them for a God",

that in this speech of giving the land "for an everlasting possession" it is said that the Holy One, blessed be He, is the God of the children of Israel,

and it is a covenant of the land in a manner of inheritance,

without conditions or connection to the state of Israel,

but rather from the side of the essence of their existence that they are completely one with the Holy One, blessed be He,

except that it adds in speech by itself,

"And God said to Abraham, And you, My covenant you shall keep".

And they are the two details that are in Eretz Yisrael,

corresponding to the two definitions that are in the word,

that from the side of the covenant of Avraham Avinu that is in the mitzvah of milah,

that is, as it still pertains to the created being and his status and his condition,

behold the connection to Eretz Yisrael is in a manner of a gift,

that after all the status and condition of the recipient occupies a place here,

and consequently, with a change of status and condition of Yisrael

(that he is not in a condition of one who causes gratification to himself),

it is possible in this an interruption,

that is, that his connection to the covenant of Avraham Avinu is not openly recognizable,

and consequently to Eretz Yisrael.

And therefore this matter is hinted at in the initials of the letters of the word "a gift has an interruption",

that letters indicate a revelation of the thing,

letter from the language of "came&lt;sup&gt;54&lt;/sup&gt;

in the morning"&lt;sup&gt;55&lt;/sup&gt;.

But from the side of the covenant of the Holy One, blessed be He, that is in the commandment of circumcision,

there cannot apply to this any nullification or interruption, heaven forbid,

since the entirety of it is from the side of the Creator,

and there is no place of grasp for the standing and situation of the person,

and therefore this is always enduring,

in whatever situation a Jew is found,

for since he was circumcised once, behold he is in an eternal covenant with the Holy One, blessed be He,

and so it is regarding the Land of Israel,

that there is no interruption in this at all.

And this is what my master, my father, my teacher, my Rebbe, answers in the first answer: "Behold, this is only for a duration of time and afterwards they will return,"

that there is in this no matter of interruption, but rather on the contrary,

this expresses and indicates this very thing,

that even in a situation where there is a lack in the revelation of the connection of the Children of Israel,

and therefore Israel were exiled for a duration of time,

there is no lack by means of this in their covenant and their connection,

and they know even then that afterwards they will return.

And just as it was in Egypt that in the merit of the covenant of circumcision and the blood of the Passover I redeemed you from Egypt⁵⁶,

so too is it for the future that "in their merit you are destined to be redeemed at the end"⁵⁷,

"The Holy One, blessed be He, redeems them<pg>52</pg>

In the merit of the circumcision"⁵⁸,

And very soon indeed they will come⁵⁹

Israel, who are called an inheritance to the land that is an eternal inheritance for the children of Israel,

with the coming of Mashiach our righteous one,

speedily in our days.

(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Va'eira 5740)