English translation — חוקת ב

Talk in <pg>78</pg>

A.

"And the Canaanite, king of Arad, who dwelt in the Negev, heard that Israel came by the way of the spies, and he fought against Israel, etc."<sup>1</sup>,

And in Rashi on "the way of the spies" he brings two explanations<sup>2</sup>

: "The way of the Negev by which the spies went<sup>3</sup>

as it is said<sup>4</sup>

And they went up into the Negev.

Another explanation: the way of the spies, the way of the great scout<sup>5</sup>

who travels before them, as it is said<sup>6</sup>

a journey of three days to scout out a resting place for them."

At first glance, Rashi's intention is to explain the word "Eisim"

(which has no parallel in Scripture)

— for according to both interpretations "Eisim" is from the term "Tayarim"⁷

(except that the letter Aleph was added at the beginning of the word⁸,

as we find in this manner in other places),

and the difference between the two interpretations is — who are the "Tayarim": according to the first interpretation it refers to the spies,

about whom it is said⁹

"Tayarim

(the land)

"

[and so we find many times in the portion of Shelach regarding the spies the phrase "vayetayru",

"latayr" and the like]

; and according to the second interpretation it refers to the Ark that traveled before them,

and it is called "the great guide" because it is said about it "to scout for them a resting place".

[And even though in the verse it says "HaEisim",

plural form

(and as several commentators of Rashi questioned¹⁰)

— it can be said,

that therefore Rashi adds the word "

(the guide)

the great",

for since it is "great" there is room to describe it in the plural,

<pg>79</pg>

Regarding Rashi's explanation

(in the portion Vayeira¹¹)

"In many places the language of divinity and the language of dominion is called the language of plural"¹²].

But it is difficult to say that the main intention of Rashi is to explain the word "the places" — because simply it is a place name¹³,

which is not necessary for explanation,

like most of the decisions that the names in the Torah that Rashi did not bother to explain them,

and likewise in this verse itself,

that Rashi does not explain the name "Arad",

and especially that the Talmud

(in tractate Rosh Hashanah¹⁴,

which Rashi cites here in the entry "And the Canaanite heard")

explained it.

Furthermore: if you say that Rashi's intention is only to explain the word "האתרים" — it is puzzling in Rashi's language:

A)

The main point is missing from the book,

for he should have explained at the beginning of his words that "האתרים" means "like התרים"

(and the like).

And likewise he should have explained that an aleph was added at the beginning of the word,

to bring an example¹⁵.

b)

at any rate it should have brought explicitly the first explanation the language of "tarm" regarding the spies

(and not wait for the second explanation,

that it used the language of "tayar").

c)

the order in the first explanation "the way of the Negev

(and afterwards it explains)

that the spies went in it" — it should have said in reverse order,

first to explain the word "ha'itarim" — "spies",

and afterwards to explain that this is "the way of the Negev"¹⁶.

d)

In the second explanation — why did he move the words "derech ha'itarim" from the verse?¹⁷

And especially since he does not innovate anything in the explanation of the word "ha'itarim"

(since according to both explanations it is from the term "ha'tarim").

e)

Why did Rashi not write in the explanation

(in the second explanation)

that "ha'itarim" is the Ark — and he wrote simply "ha'tayar hagadol"?¹⁸

6)

Why did he cite in the proof also the words "a way of three days" — seemingly only what is said "to spy out"¹⁹ is relevant here.

2.

And therefore it seems to me,

that Rashi did not intend to explain the word "the Atharim"

(which according to its simple meaning is a place name that does not require explanation as above)

— but rather to resolve the change in the language of the verse,

that at first it says "And the Canaanite heard etc. dwelling in the south" and afterwards it concluded "for Israel came by the way of Atharim".

For seemingly,

the plain meaning of the verse is²⁰,

that because the children of Israel came through his land therefore the Canaanite went out

[— Amalek,

as Rashi explains²¹]

to wage war with Israel.

And based on this it is not understood,

what reason did it begin with "dwelling in the south" and conclude with "the way of Atharim"?

And regarding this Rashi brings two explanations in "the way of the spies" — what way is this:

The first explanation that this is the same,

that "the way of the spies"<pg>80</pg>

It is "the way of the Negev"²²,

meaning that Bnei Yisrael then went through his land,

but the Scripture calls it "the way of the spies" because "the spies went on it"²³

(and as below section 3)

;

And the second interpretation — "the way of the spies,

the way of the great scout traveling before them, as it is said, a journey of three days to scout for them a resting place",

according to this interpretation,

Bnei Yisrael did not then go through the way of the Negev

(the way of the land of the Amalekite),

but rather through "the great scout traveling before them...

a journey of three days" the news reached Amalek

(that Israel is approaching him)

from afar,

and he went out to wage war with Israel

(like his first war with Israel in Refidim²⁴,

that he came upon them from afar²⁵).

And based on this, Rashi's wording is precise,

(a)

that he quoted in the heading also the word "derech"

(and not only "ha'itarim")

— because the intention of his commentary is to explain which way is "derech ha'itarim",

(b)

before the second commentary he quoted the actual words "derech ha'itarim" — because this commentary negates the content of the first commentary

(that Bnei Yisrael then went by way of the Negev,

the way of the land of Amalek),

(c)

he did not emphasize in the second commentary that this was the Ark,

because for understanding the commentary "derech ha'itarim" it is not relevant that this was the Ark&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;,

but only that they went in the way of that "great scout,

the one traveling before them etc. a way of three days" as above.

And according to this, one can also resolve the Ra'am's difficulty on the second commentary — what reason is this "And he heard etc. that Israel came by way of the Ithrim and he fought against Israel",

"And is it because Israel came after the Ark that he came to fight with them,

and behold all forty years that they were in the desert Israel walked after the Ark"

(and on the contrary,

this is a reason not to fight with Israel,

since there is the protection of the Ark&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;).

[See Rashi's commentary that this comes in continuation to Rashi on "And the Canaanite heard" — "He heard that Aharon had died and the clouds of glory had departed",

and this is "the way of the spies" — that he heard that "Israel is now traveling only after the Ark alone, for nothing remained for them of all those who were traveling with them except the Ark."

But at first glance this explanation is forced&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;,

for according to this, Rashi should have written explicitly "Ark" and not left vague "the great spy"&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;].

But according to the above, it is understood simply&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;,

&lt;pg&gt;81&lt;/pg&gt;

since Bnei Yisrael were not then in proximity to the land of Amalek,

the verse needed to inform how he came to wage war with Israel,

and about this it explains that he heard from afar³¹

about the journey of Israel by means of "the great scout who travels before them..

a journey of three days"³²,

as above.

3.

But still it is difficult: according to the first interpretation — the question remains in its place: what reason did it open with "Negev" and conclude with "Atarim"?

And furthermore

(as the commentators asked³³)

— is it because the spies went by way of the Negev that the way is called by their name

("the way of Atarim")?

And what is the matter of the spies' journey here?

There are commentators³⁴,

that as long as Israel were in the wilderness, Amalek did not care,

but now that they went by way of the spies,

this is the beginning of the entry into the land,

and they come to inherit his land,

therefore he went out to war.

But it is difficult to explain thus according to Rashi,

who wrote³⁵

"And Amalek from always desired cruelty against Israel, ready at all times for calamity",

and as we find that he went out to fight with Israel at Rephidim when they were far from his land,

and all the more so when they came by way of his land.

And behold, also the kings of Edom and the Amorite and Bashan went out to fight with Israel even though it was explicitly stated to them that they are not coming to inherit their land³⁶.

And one can say,

that this comes in continuation of Rashi on "And the Canaanite heard" — "he heard that Aaron died and the clouds of glory departed",

for seemingly how does this fit with what is explained in the continuation of the verse "

(And the Canaanite heard etc.)

because Israel came by way of the spies"?

And behold, simply one can say

(and so it is written in the commentaries&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;)

that what is written "for Israel came by way of the spies" is not the report that he heard,

but rather as if it said "when Israel came by way of the spies",

that is,

that the verse comes to explain why only the Canaanite was aroused from this report

(that Aharon died and the clouds of glory departed)

to wage war against Israel,

"for Israel came by way of the spies"

(the way of his land).

But one could say,

that in this that the verse&lt;pg&gt;82&lt;/pg&gt;

Describes "the way of the Negev" in the language of "the way of the spies"

(the way "that the spies went")

Is also hinted at regarding the report "that the clouds of glory departed".

Because until then the going of Bnei Yisrael in the desert was according to the clouds that went before them "to guide them on the way"&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;,

And now that the clouds departed&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;,

How did Israel know where to go?

And about this the verse says that they went "the way of the spies" — that they went on a paved road,

That the spies paved.

And this is what the Canaanite heard,

That Bnei Yisrael do not have the clouds of glory to guide them on the way

(therefore they go in the way of the spies),

And since the clouds of glory departed

(that were protecting Israel&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;)

— "And he fought against Israel"&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;.

4.

And further one can say,

According to the words of the Targum Yonatan here in the explanation of "the way of the spies" — "the path of the place where they rebelled against the Master of the world"

[The way of the spies,

the place where they rebelled against Him'].

For since the Amalekite heard that this is the place where they rebelled against Hashem,

Therefore he went out to fight with Israel thinking that it is a "place&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;

ready for punishment"&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;.

And one must say,

that this emphasis

(which is the way that the spies went,

a place prepared for calamity)

is a continuation of Rashi on "And the Canaanite heard",

that he wrote "And Amalek from time immemorial was a rod of chastisement for Israel, ready at all times for calamity",

for seemingly what is the double language in Rashi⁴³?

Rather they are two matters: a)

"From time immemorial a rod of chastisement etc." means a simple hatred for Israel,

which is "from time immemorial".

b)

"Ready at all times for calamity" means that he is ready at all times to exploit every "time of calamity" for Israel to harm them.

And as we find these two matters in their war the first time,

which

(a)

"He came..

to confront Israel before all the nations"⁴⁴,

this indicates the greatness of his hatred for Israel more than all the nations,

(b)

it was then a time of calamity,

as Rashi⁴⁵

that the war of Amalek came after "the quarrel⁴⁶

of the children of Israel..

their testing the Lord, saying, 'Is the Lord in our midst?'"

And so in our case,

that this that Amalek came then to fight with Israel

(at the death of Aaron)

is because of two reasons: a)

simple hatred of Israel,

except that as long as Israel were protected by the clouds there was no possibility to fight them,

but now that the clouds of glory departed⁴⁷.

b)

The death of Aaron was a time of calamity for Israel,

as Rashi explains⁴⁸

"that because they joined here to draw near to Esau the wicked, their deeds were breached and this righteous one was lacking."

And this is the continuation in Rashi,

that this that Amalek came to fight now with Israel is because of two<pg>83</pg>

The reasons — both that his hatred causes him to fight against Israel at every opportunity,

and also because he knew that it was a time of calamity,

and also a place of calamity,

since this is "the way of the Atarim"

(by which the spies went).

5.

And behold, according to this explanation it may be said,

that Rashi's two interpretations of "the way of the Atarim" differ also in the overall intent of the verse "for Israel came by the way of the Atarim"

(which is a giving of reason for Amalek's war here against Israel)

:

According to the first interpretation — the intent of the verse is to emphasize,

that even though "Amalek from the beginning desired etc.",

nevertheless,

this time they were careful not to harm Israel,

and as Rashi explains in the entry "before this",

that what they are called here "Canaanite" is because "he changed his language to speak in the language of Canaan so that Israel would pray to the Holy One, blessed be He, to give Canaanites into their hand, but they are not Canaanites",

behold, Amalek was afraid of Israel's prayer⁴⁹

and sought stratagems etc.

And continuing from this, the verse says that they heard "that Israel came by the way of the spies",

that the reason they came now to fight is because it is

(not only a time of calamity,

but also)

a place of calamity.

But according to the second interpretation — the emphasis of the verse "that Israel came by the way of the spies" is the opposite,

to indicate his insolence⁵⁰

the great of Amalek,

that even though "the great scout" scouted for them rest at Mount Hor,

Amalek came from afar,

to fight them there.

[And based on this, what Rashi cited will be sweetened, also the words "to them rest"&lt;sup&gt;51&lt;/sup&gt;

— and not only the word "to spy" — because this increases the emphasis of Amalek's insolence].

6.

From "the wine of Torah" that is in this Rashi commentary:

The two explanations in "Derech Ha'itim" indicate two manners in which Israel stand and position themselves against Amalek

(the forces of the Other Side)

which oppose holiness,

and they are two ways in which it is possible to defeat Amalek:

A)

"The way..

that the spies went" — it is the service according to reason and intellect,

like the matter of the spies — "to spy out the land" — literally,

that they went to find the easier way according to nature to conquer the land.

And so it is in spirituality,

that when the evil inclination incites a person against the way of Torah and commandments,

the person fights against it through contemplation of the lowliness of evil and the greatness of the good and holiness,

and thus conducts his war with the inclination according to intellect,

like tactics of war literally;

b)

"the way of the great Traveler etc." — it is the service of self-sacrifice,

above reason and intellect,

for he is nullified to the Holy One, blessed be He,

and consequently relies on "the great Traveler",

the Ark of the covenant of the Lord,

before which all opponents are automatically and consequently nullified,

as it is written⁵²

"And it came to pass when the Ark set out etc. 'Arise, O Lord, and let Your enemies be scattered, and let those who hate You flee from before You.'"

And these two modes correspond to the state of the opponent

(Amalek)

:

According to the first interpretation,

Amalek is in a state of fear of Bnei Yisrael,

and therefore comes with tactics&lt;pg&gt;84&lt;/pg&gt;

and stratagems,

and to win this war it suffices that Bnei Yisrael go "the way of the spies — the way..

that the spies went",

service that is according to reason and understanding.

But when Amalek is in a state of open insolence,

that he is not affected by anything and fights with Israel even when it is against reason — then the way to nullify him is only through the service of self-sacrifice,

and nullification that is above reason and intellect⁵³

— "the way of the Etarim,

the way of the great traveler".

(From the talks of Shabbat Parshat Massei 5727,

Motzaei Shabbat Parshat Chukat 5739)