English translation — תצוה א

Sicha 1<pg>146</pg>

A.

"Six of their names on the one stone and the names of the remaining six on the second stone, according to their births"<sup>1</sup>,

And Rashi explains "according to their births" — "in the order they were born: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, and Naphtali on one, and on the second: Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, and Benjamin, full, as it is written in the place of his birth, twenty-five letters<sup>2</sup>

in each and every one".

And it requires explanation: a)

Is there a novelty in Rashi's commentary,

for ostensibly this is the simple explanation of the word "כתולדותם" — in the order they were born³.

b)

Why does Rashi elaborate and specify here the order of their birth⁴,

behold it is explicit in the verse

(in parshas Vayeitzei⁵).

Some commentators⁶

that Rashi's intention is to negate the reasoning that the meaning of "כתולדותם" is according to the order

(the beginning)

of their birth by the mothers

(that she who began to give birth before her companions, all her children will be earlier — even if some of them are later — than the other sons),

then the order would be: all the sons of Leah

(Reuben Simeon Levi Judah Issachar Zebulun),

the sons of Bilhah

(Dan and Naphtali),

the sons of Zilpah

(Gad and Asher),

and afterwards the sons of Rachel

(Joseph and Benjamin).

And therefore Rashi explains "in the order they were born" each of the tribes and not in the order

(the beginning)

of their birth by the mothers.

But in addition to this that it is still unclear⁷

why did he nee-<pg>147</pg>

d to elaborate and specify here all this,

as above,

why would it enter our mind to explain "their generations" — in the order of the birth of the mothers and not in the order of their own birth?

Also tz”b: Why did Rashi need to add “and Binyamin is full because it is written in the place of his birth”,

and also the continuation “25 letters in each one”&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;?

After all, Rashi did not intend

(to establish halacha for practice)

but rather to explain the plain meaning of Scripture,

and in the plain meaning it is only explained that six of their names are on one stone and the remaining six on the second stone,

and their order according to their births,

but it is not stated how they were written and how many letters on each stone?

[And particularly that based on this, Rashi adds another explanation in “according to their births”,

for according to the beginning of his words the explanation of “according to their births” is “in the order they were born”,

whereas according to what he concludes “Binyamin is full because it is written in the place of his birth” it turns out that “according to their births” comes to indicate the manner of its writing

(namely, as it is written in the place of his birth)&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;].

2.

And the explanation of all this:

Even though the simple meaning of "ke-toldotam" is "in the order they were born",

but still there are two difficulties in this verse: a)

The word "ke-toldotam" is not stated

(as would seemingly be appropriate)

at the beginning of the matter — "and you shall open on them the names of the children of Israel ke-toldotam" and the like — but at the conclusion of the matter,

in continuation of "and the names of the six remaining on the second stone",

which implies that it refers only to the second stone¹⁰.

b)

What is the precise language of the verse "and the names of the six remaining"?

And is it not self-evident that the second six are "the remaining" after the first six?

And because of these two difficulties¹¹

there was place, seemingly, to explain,

that the verse comes to distinguish here between the names engraved on the one stone and the names on the second stone,

that on the one stone were engraved the names of the more important tribes,

and on the second stone — the names of the tribes that are not so important

[such as,

that on the second stone were written the names of all the sons of the handmaids,

or perhaps

(also)

those whom Jacob rebuked before his passing¹²,

or the like¹³],

therefore¹⁴

the verse called them "the remaining"^*14

; and there would also be a difference in the order of their engraving on the stones,

that on the one stone it is according to their level of importance

(as understood from the blessing of Ya-<pg>148</pg>

28: Yehuda Yosef etc.),

And on the second stone,

About which it is said "the remaining ones",

Their order is "according to their generations".

And this is what Rashi teaches us in his commentary,

To the extent that because of this he needed to specify their order in detail¹⁵

: "Reuven Shimon Levi Yehuda Dan and Naftali on one and on the second Gad Asher Yissachar Zevulun Yosef and Binyamin"^*15

— to indicate that what is written "according to their generations" refers to both stones¹⁶

Equally¹⁷.

But still one must ask: since it is so,

why is it said "according to their generations" at the end of the verse,

after the words "on the second stone",

and not at the beginning of the verse

(or at the end of the previous verse),

in a way that it would be clear that it refers to both of them?

And therefore Rashi continues and explains that "Binyamin is full because it is written in the place of his birth",

that with this he comes to resolve that what is said "according to their generations" at the end is to hint at the manner of writing the name Binyamin

(that it is written on

(the end)

of the second stone).

And based on this it is also understood that which Rashi added "twenty-two letters on each and every one",

to negate the assumption that on the one stone there is importance relative to the other^*17

and the like — rather there is no difference between them, so that they are equal also in the number of letters that are on each one of them.

3.

And behold, the Rambam¹⁸

wrote the order of the tribes on the shoham stones of the ephod in a different manner: Reuben, Levi, Issachar, Naphtali, Gad, Joseph on one stone; Simeon, Judah, Zebulun, Dan, Asher, Benjamin on the second stone¹⁹,

And there has already been discussion²⁰

on the Rambam's method, which does not align with any opinion in the Gemara²¹,

neither according to the Tanna Kamma nor according to Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel.

And the commentators explained²²

the Rambam's opinion,

that he holds<pg>149</pg>

that the meaning of "according to their births" is in the order that the mothers gave birth to the tribes

(Leah who gave birth first, all her children come one after another, and likewise Bilhah&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;

and Zilpah and Rachel),

except that "there is no&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;

their arrangement on each stone

(individually)

but on the two stones

(as one),

Reuben on this stone

(the first)

and Simeon after him on another stone

(the second),

and Levi opposite Reuben and Judah opposite Simeon and so all of them".

And that is,

that since it is written "six of their names on the one stone and the names of the remaining six on the second stone according to their births" it implies,

that the order "according to their births" is not in the manner of their arrangement one after another on one stone and then one after another on the second stone — for it is not said "according to their births" except after "the second stone"&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;,

and that is in their joining together in a manner that their reading is from this stone to the second stone

(and according to the diagram in the Rambam&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;).

And it is found,

that also the Rambam according to his method in the order of the names emphasizes the equality between the two stones; and furthermore,

according to the Rambam the equality of the two stones is to a greater degree than according to Rashi:

According to Rashi, on each stone individually the "their order of birth" is fulfilled,

"in the order they were born",

and only that "their order of birth" of all twelve tribes is between the two stones,

that the six on the second stone come after the six on the first stone; whereas according to the Rambam, the two stones are as if placed next to each other and they are like one stone and their names are called together,

and there is no beginning to the "fulfillment" of "their order of birth" on one stone except only in combination with the second stone,

that after Reuben on the first stone comes Simeon on the second stone and so forth.

And seemingly one can explain based on what is explained elsewhere²⁷

that according to the Rambam, the breastplate and the ephod together are one garment

(even though in the count of the garments of the priestly garments they are two garments)

[And based on this it is understood what regarding the wearing of the ephod and the breastplate is implied from the words of the Rambam²⁸

that the girding with the belt of the ephod was done after he wore the breastplate,

and not according to the opinion of the Ramban²⁹

(and further)

that the girding of the ephod with the belt of the ephod was done before the wearing of the breastplate³⁰].

And therefore, just as regarding the Choshen, even though all twelve tribes were written on it individually,

each one on its own stone,

and there were on it "four rows of stone specified in the Torah"³¹,

the Rambam did not specify in his explanation which of them were in each row,

but rather generalized "and he engraved on the stones the names of the tribes according to their birth order, and thus he wrote on the odem Reuven and on the yashfeh Binyamin"³²,

because the fulfillment of "according to their birth order"³³

is not in each row individually,

<pg>150</pg>

but rather in the names of the tribes on all twelve stones together³⁴,

so too it is regarding the shoham stones on the shoulder straps of the ephod

(through which the connection of the Choshen and the ephod is made,

"that they should be joined one to the other, and the Choshen shall not be loosened from upon the ephod"³⁵)

— that "he engraved on the two stones the names of the tribes, six on this stone and six on that stone, according to their birth order"³⁶

in a manner that it is like one stone, and "according to their birth order" is fulfilled when they are called "together" immediately at its beginning, Reuven Shimon, as above³⁷.

However, based on this, it is somewhat puzzling that according to the Rambam, "their offspring" is not "in the order they were born"

(as Rashi explains)

but rather in the order of the birth of the matriarchs,

for at first glance, "the order of their birth" implies more their equality and unity,

and does not emphasize the division between them,

whereas the order of the birth of their matriarchs emphasizes more the distinction between the tribes,

for the children of Leah were by themselves,

and the children of Bilhah and Zilpah by themselves, and the children of Rachel by themselves.

D.

And one can explain this in the inner dimension of the matters:

The content of the matter of engraving the names of the tribes on the shoham stones on the shoulder straps of the ephod is explained in the verse³⁸

"And you shall place the two stones on the shoulder straps of the ephod, stones of remembrance for the children of Israel,

And Aaron shall bear their names before the Lord on his two shoulders for a remembrance",

And Rashi explains "for a remembrance, that the Holy One, blessed be He, should see the tribes written before Him and remember their righteousness".

And since the matter of the names of the children of Israel is their elevation as a remembrance before the Lord,

this is connected and dependent on the unity of the children of Israel together³⁹,

for then they are fit to ascend before the Lord,

for all the children of Israel are one complete structure⁴⁰,

and when there is division and separation between one and his fellow,

it is not fit to ascend for acceptance⁴¹

before the Lord⁴².

But in this there are two levels:

The distinction between the tribes

(Children of Israel)

as they are from the side of the order of their birth and as they are from the side of the birth of their mother,

that "in the order they were born" indicates their birth as it is from the side of the father,

in contrast to the order of their birth from the side of the mothers.

And it is known that the essence of the existence of the child is from the drop of the father,

and the division into the particular form of the limbs is through her being nine months in the mother's womb⁴³,

and likewise it is in our matter,

that from the father's side

(in the order that they were born)

is felt in them the matter of unity as it is from their root,

all of us are sons of<pg>151</pg>

we are all one man⁴⁴,

and the order of their birth from the mother's side indicates their division.

And they are two manners that must be in the unity of Bnei Yisrael and of the tribes,

in order that they can ascend "before the Lord": the first manner "according to their generations — in the order they were born",

that their unity should be felt as it is from the aspect of their root in our father Yaakov,

and the second manner according to the order of their birth from the aspect of the mothers,

that the unity should be emphasized also in the place of their division.

And the superiority in each one of them:

In one manner,

that is, the unity from the perspective of the root,

it is a more elevated unity,

for from the perspective of their root there is no division,

but unlike the unity as it is according to the order of their birth from the perspective of the mothers — it has a place for division.

But on the other hand,

behold, for this very reason that the unity from the perspective of the father is through the awareness of their root,

it follows,

that only in their root are they united,

but in their place they are divided and separated from one another

(and as above that according to Rashi the phrase "their generations" is fulfilled,

"in the order they were born",

on each stone individually)

;

And this is the innovation in the second manner — that even in the place of division they draw and effect unity.

And this is what in the second manner — the system of the Rambam — is specifically emphasized,

that even as they are on two separate stones,

they become actual unity,

as if they are one stone,

that they are called together — that even in the place of division⁴⁵

they effect and draw the unity of the children of Israel⁴⁶.

5.

And behold, this unity of the tribes of Israel among themselves is connected with their unity with the Holy One, blessed be He.

And according to this, it is understood,

that also the two aforementioned modes in the unity of the children of Israel have their parallel in the unity of the Godhead.

And this can be explained based on what is said in the books⁴⁷

regarding the names of the children of Israel that were on the shoulder pieces of the ephod,

that the twenty-five letters in each stone correspond to the twenty-five letters of "Shema Yisrael Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad,"

twenty-five letters of the morning and twenty-five of the evening,

and another interpretation⁴⁸,

that what is written "six of their names upon" is the acronym "Shema,

that they said 'Shema Yisrael'"⁴⁹,

and this is that the twenty-five letters on the right shoulder correspond to "Shema Yisrael Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad,"

and the twenty-five letters on the left shoulder are the six of "Baruch Shem Kevod Malchuto Leolam Vaed"

(for in each of them there are six words and twenty-five letters⁵⁰),

and as it is brought in the Gemara⁵¹

that the tribes said, "Just as there is in Your heart only One, so too there is in our heart only One."

And the difference between the two explanations: the Shema of the morning and the Shema of the evening, both their content — yichuda ila'ah,

which is the unification as it is from the aspect above,

whereas "Baruch Shem" indicates&lt;pg&gt;152&lt;/pg&gt;

yichuda tata'ah&lt;sup&gt;52&lt;/sup&gt;,

that in the service of G-d, this is the aspect of itkafya,

that he does not have a heart's desire for G-dliness,

but rather he must coerce himself,

in the aspect of the intellect ruling over the heart&lt;sup&gt;53&lt;/sup&gt;.

And this is in the manner of the two aforementioned modes,

for according to the first mode, the difference between the two stones is not so apparent^*53,

but not so according to the second mode,

and as emphasized in the language of the Rambam⁵⁴

"and the stone on which is written Reuben on his right shoulder and the stone on which is written Simeon on his left shoulder",

And nevertheless there is an advantage specifically in this⁵⁵

that "just as in your heart there is only One, so in our heart there is only One",

that they effect and draw down unity also in the place of division,

the world of separation,

in the manner⁵⁶

that they are united above in One, so too she is united below in the secret of One..

to be one in One,

through which a more elevated unity is achieved, even more than as it is from the aspect of the supernal unity by itself⁵⁷.

But not so the Shema of the morning and the Shema of the evening,

even though both of them are in the aspect of yichuda ila'ah,

the unity as it is in the root,

nevertheless, that of the morning and evening are two levels,

and this is that as it is drawn into the place of division, the unity is not felt as much as it is from the side of yichuda ila'ah.

And through the addition in love of Israel,

unity of all the children of Israel together,

in all the above-mentioned manners,

that this is the foundation of the entire Torah,

as the Alter Rebbe explains in the Tanya⁵⁸

"For the foundation and root of the entire Torah is to elevate and raise the soul above the body, level after level, up to the essence and root of all worlds, and also to draw down the light of the Ein Sof, blessed be He, into the Congregation of Israel..

in the source of the souls of all Israel, to be one in one specifically, and not when there is division, heaven forbid, in the souls,

for the Holy One, blessed be He, does not dwell in a defective place..

(then it becomes)

Bless us, our Father, all of us as one, with the light of Your countenance",

And until the complete and primary blessing in the days of Mashiach,

that "a great congregation will return here"⁵⁹,

"with our young and with our old, with our sons and with our daughters",

and immediately and instantly.

(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Tetzaveh 5735)