English translation — משפטים ג

Sicha 3<pg>115</pg>

A.

"And he sent the youths of the children of Israel, and they offered burnt offerings etc., peace offerings to the Lord etc., and Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and half of the blood he dashed against the altar,

And he took the book of the covenant and read etc., and Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people and said, Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you etc."<sup>1</sup>.

And in Rashi's commentary on the word "in basins"<sup>2</sup>

: "Two basins,

one for half the blood of the burnt offering and one for half the blood of the peace offerings to sprinkle it upon the people,

and from here our Sages learned<sup>3</sup>

that our forefathers entered the covenant through circumcision, immersion, and sprinkling<sup>4</sup>

of blood, for there is no sprinkling without immersion."

And it is not understood: This verse,

"And Moses took half the blood and put it in basins,"

does not deal with the sprinkling of the blood upon the people, but only with the placing of the blood in basins in order "to sprinkle it

(afterwards)

upon the people",

and if so, Rashi should have brought this that "our Sages learned that our forefathers entered the covenant through circumcision, immersion, and sprinkling of blood" on the verse<sup>5</sup>

"And Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people",

and as explained there "and he said, Behold the blood of the covenant" — and why did Rashi bring it here in the verse "

(And Moses took half the blood and put it)

in basins"?

And more puzzling: In the Gemara<sup>3</sup>,

the source of the teaching,

so was the teaching brought about this from the verse "And Moshe took

(half<sup>6</sup>)

the blood and threw [it] upon the people",

and Rashi changed from the words of "our Rabbis" and brought it on the verse "in the basins"!

And especially that Rashi emphasizes in his language "From here our Rabbis learned"

(and not "and our Rabbis said",

"and our Rabbis learned" and the like)

— which implies,

as explained many times<sup>7</sup>,

to reject the assumption that it could be learned from another place.

And that is,

that Rashi is precise that the teaching is specifically "from here",

from the verse "in the basins",

and not from the verse later "and he threw [it] upon the people".

2.

And this will be understood with the introduction of the question: It has already been stated many times that Rashi's commentary on the Torah is not a book of halacha,

and he came only to explain the plain meaning of the verse

(as Rashi himself says many times⁸),

And it is perplexing in our case — what is the practical difference in the explanation of the verses [from] that which our Rabbis said "that our fathers entered the covenant through circumcision, immersion, and sprinkling of blood"?

For at first glance,

that they entered the covenant through sprinkling of blood is explicit in the verse,

"And he sprinkled upon the people and said, Behold the blood of the covenant etc.",

and there is no need for a "teaching" because it is explicit; and on the other hand,

there is no mention in the plain meaning of the verse here that there was circumcision and immersion⁹.

And moreover, what is added in the understanding of the plain meaning of the verse through this teaching of our Rabbis?

<pg>116</pg>

Thus — conclusion of Rashi's words "that there is no sprinkling without immersion": this rule has no necessity in the plain sense of the verse

(And thus — Rashi did not bring any proof for this),

but it is a rule in halacha&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;

— and if so,

even if you say that Rashi needed to bring that there was also immersion

(since thus said our Rabbis that thus our ancestors entered the covenant),

it requires explanation why he also brought the proof of our Rabbis for this from the rule "that there is no sprinkling without immersion"?

And furthermore: regarding circumcision Rashi did not bring any proof,

even though in the Gemara two verses were brought for this — "for circumcised were all the people who went out&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;,

or alternatively from here&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;

And I passed over you and saw you wallowing in your bloods and I said to you, 'In your bloods live, etc.'" — and why did Rashi need a proof for immersion?

[And superficially it is forced to explain,

that the circumcision of Bnei Yisrael in Egypt is explicit in the verse&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;,

as it is written&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;

"And no uncircumcised person shall eat of it",

and likewise Rashi explains&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;

that the Holy One Blessed be He "gave them two commandments: the blood of the Passover and the blood of circumcision, that they circumcised themselves on that night, as it is said&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;

You are wallowing in your blood..

And it says&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;

Also you, by the blood of your covenant I have sent forth etc." — for the circumcision of Bnei Yisrael in Egypt was for the sake of eating the Passover

[or

(in the language of Rashi&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;)

that they would have "commandments in their hands to occupy themselves with them in order that they be redeemed"],

And further: according to the simple meaning, this circumcision is not related to the entry of Bnei Yisrael into the covenant of our section at the time of the Giving of the Torah,

and it would have been fitting for Rashi to explain this novelty,

that the circumcision of Bnei Yisrael in Egypt is considered part of their entry into the covenant at the time of the Giving of the Torah].

3.

Also one must consider:

According to the common version, Rashi's language is "

(that our fathers entered the covenant with circumcision and immersion)

and sprinkling of blood",

but in the Gemara&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;

(our text&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;)

it says "

(they did not enter the covenant except with circumcision and immersion)

and presentation of blood",

and in Rashi there "presentation of blood — throwing of blood upon the altar"

(except that later in the Gemara it is brought,

"immersion from where do we derive? For it is written, 'And Moses took

(half&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;)

the blood and threw it upon the people, and there is no sprinkling without immersion'").

And it is puzzling — why did Rashi not also mention "presentation of blood",

namely throwing of blood upon the altar&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;?

And behold, according to another version&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;,

also in Rashi here the wording is

(as in the Gemara)

"and the presenting of the blood",

and there are commentators&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

who wrote that also to-&lt;pg&gt;117&lt;/pg&gt;

version in Rashi "the sprinkling of the blood",

Rashi's intention is not that there was sprinkling upon the people,

but rather as the Targum explained below on the verse&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;

"and he sprinkled upon the people"

(and brought in Rashi there,

as below section 8)

"and he sprinkled upon the altar to atone for the people",

and that is,

that "not&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;

did he sprinkle anything upon the people themselves, but rather for the atonement of the people he sprinkled upon the altar

..

that the sprinkling and the tossing are all one, namely upon the altar.

But it is puzzling if it is possible to explain thus in the common version in Rashi here&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;,

that he wrote "

(two basins etc.)

to sprinkle them upon the people",

that is, that the sprinkling was upon the people themselves

(and not a tossing upon the altar,

which is not mentioned at all in Rashi here).

And from this,

that what Rashi says later on this "that our fathers entered into the covenant etc. and the sprinkling of blood" his intention is the sprinkling of blood "upon the people".

And furthermore: how is it possible to explain that "sprinkling of blood" means a tossing upon the altar,

and behold Rashi continues "that there is no sprinkling without immersion",

and granted, if sprinkling means sprinkling upon the people,

it is understood that before the sprinkling there must be immersion,

but if the intention is the tossing of blood upon the altar — what is the relevance of a person's immersion to the tossing of blood upon the altar&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;?

!

[And so it is explicit in Rashi on the Talmud elsewhere&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;,

that he brought the language of the baraita "Just as your forefathers did not enter the covenant except through circumcision and immersion and the presentation of blood and the sprinkling of blood&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;

as it is written 'And Moses took the blood and threw it etc.' and there is no sprinkling without immersion and presentation of blood as it is written 'and half the blood he threw on the altar' — thus the sprinkling of blood and the presentation of blood are not the same,

and both are present in [the verse].

And based on this — why did Rashi bring only the sprinkling of blood

(upon the people)

and not also "the presentation of blood"

(upon the altar)?

4.

And one must say the explanation in this:

In the verse here is explicitly stated a novel thing,

"And Moshe took half the blood etc. and half the blood etc.",

that is,

that there was a special act of dividing the blood into two halves²⁷

specifically,

and as explained in Rashi on the phrase "And Moshe took half the blood" — "Who divided it,

an angel came and divided it",

a special action of the division of the blood by an angel²⁸.

And it requires further examination: We find in other places that part of the blood of the sacrifice is thrown on the altar and part is sprinkled on the person

(As in the consecration of Aharon and his sons to the priesthood, where it is said²⁹

"And you shall take from its blood and put it on the lobe of the ear of Aharon, etc., and you shall throw the blood on the altar all around,"

and elsewhere)

— But we do not find that there is a specific act of dividing the blood into two halves,

And why here was it necessary to say the division of the blood into two halves?

And this is what Rashi said: "From here our Sages learned that our ancestors entered the covenant through circumcision, immersion, and the sprinkling of blood,"

that is,

From this verse — in which<pg>118</pg>

It is emphasized that they split the blood — our Rabbis taught that this sprinkling&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;

brought our forefathers into the covenant.

And as explained in the commentators on the Torah&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;

"that it was divided into two halves,

for such is the way of those who make a covenant, as it is stated&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;

the calf which they cut in two and they passed between its parts",

and this matter is already explained in Rashi earlier

(regarding the Covenant Between the Parts)

on the verse&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;

"And he cut them" — "he divided each one into two parts..

because He was making a covenant with him etc. and the way of those who make a covenant is to divide an animal and to pass between its parts, as it is stated below&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;

those who pass between the parts of the calf",

and since this is "the way of those who make a covenant"

(also in the covenant with the Holy One, blessed be He),

certainly also the covenant of our portion was in such a manner.

And this is the intent of Rashi here,

that the entry into the covenant&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;

was through sprinkling of blood&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;,

because it was in a manner of dividing the blood into two halves&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;.

And this is what Rashi brought: "From here our Sages learned that our fathers entered the covenant through circumcision etc. and the sprinkling of blood,"

For just as it is simple that circumcision brings a person into the covenant,

as is explicit in the verse that the meaning of circumcision is "a sign of the covenant between Me and you"&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;,

"My covenant in your flesh",

so the sprinkling of blood brought Israel into the covenant.

And based on this, we can also explain the conclusion of Rashi's language: "for there is no sprinkling without immersion": Rashi's intention is not to bring proof that there was immersion

(just as he did not bring proof regarding circumcision),

but rather to explain the content of the matter of immersion and its connection to the covenant,

for what is the connection of immersion to the matter of the covenant&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;?

And therefore Rashi explains,

that indeed the act of immersion itself is not an action of entering into the covenant,

and all its purpose is nothing other than a preparation for sprinkling&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;,

"for there is no sprinkling without immersion".

And this is also the reason that Rashi did not bring that they entered the covenant through a sacrifice

("the sprinkling of blood"),

for in the plain sense of the verse&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;,

the offering of the sacrifice is a secondary and additional obligation,

and it is not part of the essential act of entering the covenant&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;.

5.

But this explanation is not sufficient,

for according to the above, Rashi's intention in bringing this teaching of our Rabbis is to answer a question regarding the entire verse,

concerning the division of the blood into two halves — whereas Rashi brought it in continuation of his explanation of "basins",

that Rashi's main intention in this explanation is to explain the reason that two basins were needed

("one for half the blood of the burnt offering and one for half the blood of the peace offerings")

; and if Rashi's intention was only to answer the aforementioned general question — he should have brought it in a separate entry

("And he placed it in basins — to sprinkle upon the people,

from here they learned etc.").

&lt;pg&gt;119&lt;/pg&gt;

And further: according to the above explanation, it is found,

that the entry into the covenant pertains to both halves of the blood,

both the half that Moses placed in basins "to sprinkle..

upon the people" and the half that "he threw upon the altar" — and if so, it is more difficult why Rashi brought this teaching in his commentary on the word "in basins"

(which refers only to the half that he sprinkled upon the people)⁴².

Also it is not explained why Rashi did not also bring "the presentation of the blood",

for even though the obligation of the sacrifice

(at the time of the entry into the covenant)

is not part of the essence of the entry into the covenant as above,

nevertheless "the presentation of the blood" — that is, the throwing of half the blood upon the altar — is part of the very matter of the covenant

(and as explained in the Sforno⁴³,

"he made the altar as a messenger to God alone to cut the covenant,

and thus received

(the altar)

half the blood and the other half he will sprinkle upon the people entering into the covenant with him"),

and the difficulty returns to its place,

that it would have been proper for Rashi to also bring "and the presentation of the blood"?

And therefore it seems to me,

that according to Rashi,

the content of the matter of entering the covenant by means of "sprinkling of blood" is not by means of the two halves of the blood

(according to the explanation of the aforementioned commentators),

but rather by means of the blood that Moses placed in two basins,

one for half the blood of the burnt offering and one for half the blood of the peace offerings,

as will be explained below.

6.

According to its simple meaning,

the intention of Rashi in his explanation "two basins,

one for half the blood of the burnt offering and one for half the blood of the peace offerings" is to negate the explanation that also the blood that he threw on the altar he first placed in basins,

and as the Ibn Ezra wrote that "the basins serve for two [purposes],

that he placed half in basins and the other half in basins"

[And in the Ramban he adds,

that this is also "the opinion of Onkelos&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt;

who translated 'in sprinkling bowls'"

(because the throwing of the blood on the altar was from the sprinkling bowls&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;)

— but not so according to the opinion of Rashi and the Ramban, there were two types of vessels,

"basins"&lt;sup&gt;46&lt;/sup&gt;

in which Moses received the blood in order to sprinkle on the people&lt;sup&gt;47&lt;/sup&gt;,

"and the other half he threw on the altar from the sprinkling bowls in which he received it, in the manner of the sacrifices"&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;].

And the reason that Rashi did not explain thus is understood simply,

because the simple meaning of the verse's language "And Moses took half the blood and put it in basins,

and half the blood he dashed on the altar" indicates,

that only half the blood

(that he did not dash on the altar)

he put in the basins.

But according to this, it is puzzling in the verse itself: Why did the verse specify the vessel in which Moses put the first half of the blood "to sprinkle on the people",

and not the vessel in which he received the blood in order to dash on the altar⁴⁹?

Thus it is not understood: what is the novelty in this that Moshe placed the blood in basins to sprinkle from it upon the people

(until the scripture needed to relate this)

— for it is impossible to receive the blood&lt;pg&gt;120&lt;/pg&gt;

in hand to sprinkle from it upon all the people&lt;sup&gt;50&lt;/sup&gt;

(and especially that in the meantime "And he took the book of the covenant and read in the ears of the people etc."),

and thus it is obvious that he placed the blood in a vessel.

And to resolve these questions, Rashi continues "And from here

[with the conjunctive vav]

our Sages learned that our forefathers entered the covenant etc. and the sprinkling of blood",

with this Rashi emphasizes,

that the entry into the covenant was through the two types of blood in the two basins.

7.

Explanation of the matter:

The difference between "olah" and "shelamim" in simplicity is,

that olah "is entirely consumed"⁵¹

to G‑d,

and shelamim have in them a portion for the owners⁵².

And they are two parts of the "covenant"

(in the manner of those who cut a covenant,

who pass between the two halves),

one part belongs to G‑d

(the blood of the olah)

and one part belongs to Israel

(the blood of the shelamim)⁵³.

And this is what the verse says "and he placed in basins",

that Moses did not mix the two bloods and sprinkle them together⁵⁴

upon the people,

but rather placed them in two basins and sprinkled from each one separately upon the people,

for specifically by this is emphasized the definition of a covenant,

sprinkling from two parts of the blood

(as if Israel passed between the two parts of the blood).

And according to this explanation it is found,

that the action of entering the covenant was only through the half of the blood that he sprinkled upon the people

(through its two parts,

half blood of olah and half blood of shelamim),

and as the simple meaning of the verse "And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it upon the people and said, Behold the blood of the covenant which the L‑rd has made with you",

that only this half of the blood is called "the blood of the covenant".

And based on this, it must be said,

that the throwing of "half the blood..

upon the altar" is not part of the action of entering into the covenant,

but rather it is a side matter,

for in order that the name "blood of burnt-offering" and "blood of peace-offerings" apply to the "blood of the covenant"

(that specifically through this it has two parts,

one for G-d and one for Israel),

the blood must be part of the blood of a sacrifice that was thrown upon the altar⁵⁵.

And this is also the reason that the verse recounts in detail regarding the half of the blood to sprinkle upon the people

(that he placed it in basins)

— because the main intent of this portion is⁵⁶

to recount regarding the covenant that the Holy One, blessed be He, made with Israel,

and this covenant was made through "sprinkling of blood" with the part of the blood that he placed in basins; and one may add,

that according to the above, the beginning of the action of the covenant was in this very thing that "And Moses took half the blood and placed it in basins",

for this action,

to place the blood "in two basins, one for half the blood of burnt-offering and one for half the blood of peace-offerings",

is similar to the action of "And he cut them in half"

(the division of the animal).

[But the throwing of the blood on the altar was only a secondary matter

(regarding the matter of the covenant's action),

so that there would be the blood of the burnt offering and the blood of the peace offerings

(as above),

and therefore it does not specify there the vessel in which he received the half of the blood that he threw on the altar].

&lt;pg&gt;121&lt;/pg&gt;

8.

And it can be said,

that the reason Rashi adopted this manner,

that the covenant was through the part of the blood that he sprinkled on the people

(and not that the covenant was through the two halves of the blood,

the half that he sprinkled on the people and the half that he threw on the altar)

— is not only because of the implication of the language of the verse,

that only this part is called "the blood of the covenant",

but also because specifically according to this manner the action of the covenant is precise through the sprinkling of the blood.

Behold, "the way of those who cut a covenant" is in two details

(a)

to divide the animal

(b)

and to pass between its parts,

and the main action of the covenant is

(not the division of the animal,

for this is an action of division and separation,

but rather)

in the passing between its parts,

which alludes to the unification of the two parts.

And based on this, one must examine in our subject,

where was there an action in the manner of passing between the two halves?

For according to the interpretation of the commentators mentioned above, there was only a division of the blood,

and each part was sprinkled in a different place,

half one on the altar and half one on the people⁵⁷?

But not according to the above in Rashi's method it is understood,

that Moshe sprinkled the two parts of the blood of the covenant

(half of the burnt offering and half of the peace offerings)

upon the children of Israel,

by which the two types of blood were united.

[And in this way there is to add explanation in Rashi later on the verse⁵

"And he sprinkled upon the people",

that he explains "the matter of sprinkling,

and its Targum: and he threw upon the altar to atone for the people",

that according to the method of the Targum there was no sprinkling of blood upon the people⁵⁸,

but only a throwing upon the altar on behalf of the people,

"to atone for the people"

(that one half he threw upon the altar like every offering⁵⁹,

and one half he threw specifically "to atone for the people").

And the reason that Rashi brought the translation of Targum has already been explained in the commentators&lt;sup&gt;60&lt;/sup&gt;,

because according to its simple meaning it is difficult to say that Moses our teacher sprinkled from this blood on all six hundred thousand of Israel.

But according to the above it can be said,

that this also touches upon the content of the action of the covenant.

For according to the interpretation that the sprinkling was on the people literally,

behold the entry into the covenant through "sprinkling of blood" was by means of this that the two types of blood

(half blood of burnt offering and half blood of peace offerings)

were united in their sprinkling upon Israel as above.

And on this Rashi adds,

that according to the translation of Targum the definition of the covenant through the blood is understood also for the interpretation that the entry into the covenant was through the two halves of the blood

(the half that he sprinkled "on the altar" and the half that he sprinkled "on the people"),

for since also the second half

(to atone for the people)

he sprinkled on the altar,

behold it is found,

that the two halves were united upon the altar].

9.

And now according to this explanation it is understood,

that the "unity" that is through this covenant is a strong and superior unity more than the "unity" that is through the division of&lt;pg&gt;122&lt;/pg&gt;

An animal and the passing between the two pieces,

for there the pieces remain divided each one by itself,

but they pass between the two pieces,

while here the two parts of the blood were mixed and united.

And it can be said that in this there is also a hint to the innovation in this covenant between the Holy One, blessed be He, and the Children of Israel over the covenant that He made with Avraham in the Covenant Between the Pieces:

At the Giving of the Torah, the power was given that the Children of Israel would reach complete unity with the Creator,

and as explained above at length&lt;sup&gt;61&lt;/sup&gt;,

that the ultimate ascent in the recognition and feeling of nullification that creatures could reach before the Giving of the Torah,

is the level of nullification of the "Chariot"

(as our Sages, of blessed memory, said&lt;sup&gt;62&lt;/sup&gt;

"the Patriarchs, they are the Chariot"),

that even though the chariot is completely nullified to the will of the rider,

nevertheless there are here two things,

the rider and the chariot that is nullified to him; but not so through the giving of the Torah,

that "the Torah and the Holy One, blessed be He, are entirely one"&lt;sup&gt;63&lt;/sup&gt;,

the power was given to become united with the Holy One, blessed be He, in the ultimate unity.

And based on this, one can explain the hint in that the Covenant Between the Parts was through the division of an animal&lt;sup&gt;64&lt;/sup&gt;

whereas the covenant here was through "the sprinkling of blood"&lt;sup&gt;65&lt;/sup&gt;

— for here was renewed the nullification in the very existence and vitality of Israel,

in their blood&lt;sup&gt;66&lt;/sup&gt;,

that they become entirely one with the Holy One, blessed be He.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Mishpatim 5734)