English translation — מסעי א

Sicha 1<pg>122</pg>

A.

In the matter of the borders of the land

(which is in our parshah)

— "This is the land that shall fall to you etc. the land of Canaan according to its borders"<sup>1</sup>

— we find a wondrous thing in Rashi's commentary on the Torah,

that in most instances he did not use the term "border"

(as the language of the verse many times in this parshah),

but rather the term "boundary"<sup>2</sup>

:

In the verse³

"And the border shall turn for you, etc." Rashi explains: "Every place where it says 'and it shall turn' or 'and it shall go out' teaches that the boundary was not straight, etc. The boundary goes out, etc. And the boundary passes, etc. Within the boundary"

(And likewise several more times in Rashi's language in this verse⁴)

; And in the verse after this⁵

"And the border shall turn, etc. and its goings out shall be to the sea" Rashi writes: "To the western border"; and in the verse after this⁶

"And the western border" — "And what is the western border",

"And the great sea shall be to you — for a border"; and in the verse after this⁷,

"And this shall be to you the northern border" — Rashi explains: "The northern border — the northern boundary".

And likewise many more times in the verses after this⁸.

And it is puzzling: why did Rashi deviate from the language of the verse and use the term "boundary" — for "border" is a common word in the Chumash,

And furthermore — that Rashi already explained it several times: In Parshat Noach on the verse⁹

"And the border of the Canaanite was" Rashi explains: "Border,

the end of his land.

Every border means end and edge",

And likewise in Parshat Tetzaveh on the verse¹⁰

"And you shall make on the choshen settings of borders" Rashi writes: "And every border means edge",

And in Parshat Chukat on the verse¹¹

"That goes out from the border of the Emorite" Rashi explains: "Meaning edge and end" — and why does Rashi not suffice with the word "border",

And he uses the term "boundary"¹²,

Which has no parallel in the Chumash

[And also in Tanach it is found only two times¹³]?

Also it is puzzling in Rashi's language on the verse "This is the land etc.,"

that he wrote "because many commandments are practiced in the land etc. it was necessary to write the borders of its boundaries around,"

that in simple understanding his intention is that "its boundaries" means its borders,

and it is difficult that he should have said "its borders and its boundaries"

(or only "its borders of its directions"),

whereas "borders of its boundaries of its directions" implies — "the borders of its boundaries of its directions."

2.

And it seems to me simply:

The word "border" has two meanings:<pg>123</pg>

A)

Border and edge

(end)

of the area,

namely the line that separates between the two areas.

As Rashi's language on the verse<sup>14</sup>

"And you shall set bounds for the people" — "Set for them boundaries as a sign that they should not approach from the border and onward",

and likewise "You shall not remove your neighbor's landmark"<sup>15</sup>

— "Who moves back the marker of the division of the land, etc.'"

b)

The area itself that is within the borders.

As it is written regarding the plague of frogs<sup>16</sup>

"I will smite all your border with frogs",

that the intention in this is for all the land of Egypt

(and not only on the borders of the land around).

And likewise "and no leaven shall be seen by you in all your border"<sup>17</sup>,

that is, all the domain of the person.

And so it must be interpreted in yet several other verses<sup>18</sup>.

And so we find also in the language of Rashi,

as in our portion in the explanation of the verse<sup>19</sup>

"According to the tribes of your fathers you shall inherit",

Rashi explained "in twelve borders corresponding to the number of the tribes",

that its meaning is twelve parts, areas

(and not the boundaries of the twelve parts of the land).

[And this is not a contradiction to the above explanations of Rashi that "all border" is "an expression of end and edge",

for the intention of Rashi in the above places is only to explain the word "border",

that it is "an expression of edge and end",

but in several places in the verse the meaning of the word border is the area between the ends,

which is called "border" because it is within the borders at its edge].

And this is what Rashi precisely indicated and used here the language "border" specifically,

because in the section of the boundaries of the land,

the verse comes to describe the precise location of the line that separates between the Land of Israel and outside the Land,

and just as the verse describes in detail the manner of the course of the boundary line to all four directions,

therefore Rashi used the language "border" specifically,

to emphasize that here the intention is not to the area within the boundary,

but to the boundary itself,

and according to the explanation of the language "border" — something that narrows and limits,

and that is the borders of the land.

3.

Based on this, the precision and the change in Rashi's language in the verse²⁰ is simply settled

"And the western boundary, and you shall have the Great Sea as a boundary",

and his language: "And the western boundary — and the western border what it is.

And you shall have the Great Sea — as a border.

And the boundary,

the islands

[the islands]

that are within the sea, they too are from the boundary etc.'"

That in the first two headings Rashi precisely uses the language "border",

and in the third heading he uses the language of the verse "from the boundary".

And according to the above, the matter is understood,

for what is written "and the western border" is the western boundary,

and the Great Sea is the boundary

(from the sea and inward "the commandments are practiced").

But what is written afterwards "and border" which comes to include "the islands that are within the sea",

the intention in this is not to describe the boundary of the Land of Israel,

for the islands are not the boundary itself,

but rather from the superfluity of the verse we learn that also the islands that are within the sea are included in the Land of Israel

(as if they are within the borders of the land),

that the commandments are practiced there.

Therefore Rashi used the term "border",

which its meaning is

(not the boundary of the land,

but)

the area that is within the borders.

<pg>124</pg>

And it can be said,

that this is also the reason that on the verse "This is the land etc."

(that is at the beginning of this section)

Rashi wrote "the scripture needed to write the boundaries of the borders of its directions"

(and not "the boundaries and borders"),

that in this he emphasizes that the word "border" can be interpreted that it refers to the area between the borders,

and the intention of "its borders" here is to "the boundaries" of the border

(the area).

4.

And behold, already brought in many places the words of the Shelah

that in Rashi on the Torah there are "wondrous matters",

also in the way of hint and homily.

And also known are the words of the Shelah

that the portions of the Torah are connected to the time in which they occur,

and as he explains at length

the connection of the portions of Matos, Masei, and Devarim to the Three Weeks

(for always these portions occur during the Three Weeks).

And it may be said,

that this is the hint in that Rashi used the term "Metzar" instead of the term "Gevul" — to hint at the time when this portion is read,

in the time of "Bein HaMetzarim".

And one may add further: The word "Mitzrayim" in the sense of "border" we find in the verse in Megillat Eichah<sup>26</sup>

— "All my pursuers overtook me between the borders"

(And as Rashi explains there<sup>27</sup>

"the borders,

borders of field and vineyard"),

and it is also a hint to the time of the Three Weeks,

as the Sages explained<sup>28</sup>

(and it is also brought in Rashi there).

And one must explain the connection of the two matters — for at first glance they are opposite matters,

for in our parshah it speaks about the matter of the borders of the land,

whereas there it speaks about the matter of destruction etc.: This that there can be a matter of "between the borders" whose root is in that there is a strait and border to the holiness of the land,

for when the holiness of the Land of Israel is in completeness,

then this holiness spreads throughout the entire world<sup>29</sup>

and there is no place for the matter of exile,

and only when the holiness of the Land of Israel is not in spreading as is proper,

but rather it is limited and within a strait,

then there is a place for the matter of "between the borders" in its simple sense.

5.

And on a deeper level, it can be said,

that Rashi’s use of the term “Metzar” is intended to also hint at the virtue and superiority within the boundaries of the land

(even though, ostensibly, they limit the spread of the holiness of the land,

for “until here you shall come and no further”).

And this will be understood based on what is explained in the Reshimot of the Tzemach Tzedek on Megillat Eichah³⁰,

where he interprets the verses of Eichah in a positive light,

that they are most exalted blessings.

And so he interprets³¹

the verse²⁶

“Galtah Yehudah etc.” — “Galtah is an expression of revelation”,

and “Galtah Yehudah” is “the revelation of the aspect of Yehudah,

for in the future to come, Yehudah will be above Yosef”,

“and they will reach between the borders”,

meaning that “by contemplating how all the worlds are only one drop³²

etc., and therefore there is drawn forth thereby from the aspect of Min³³

<pg>125</pg>

the straits,

and from this it is understood,

that "between the straits" is like the concept of "from the straits&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;

the straits I called upon Yah, He answered me with broad expanse Yah",

the strait that brings to the true expanse&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;,

"broad expanse of Yah".

And it can be said,

that this concept is also hinted in the language of Rashi on "they overtook them between the straits",

"between the straits,

that there is height from here and from here and no place to flee" — for at first glance Rashi should have used the expression "fence",

"fence from here and from here"

(as the language of the verse&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;

"a fence from here and a fence from here")

— but rather in this Rashi hints,

that the inner content of "between the straits" is a matter of height,

for "from the strait" of between the straits one reaches the true height,

"broad expanse of Yah".

And this is also the inner distinction between the two expressions "gevul" or "metzar": the root of the matter of "gevul" is the limited and constricted light of the Blessed One; however, the matter of "metzar" is the opposite,

that its root is in the unlimited light of the Holy One, blessed be He,

but the way that a person

(who is limited)

can reach the revelation of this unlimited light,

is only when he calls "from the metzar"&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;

(that he feels the incomparability and lack of place of himself and the entire world,

"that all worlds are only one drop"),

that then he comes from "the metzar" to "the expanse of Yah".

And this is what Rashi precisely states,

that although in the verse it is stated "this is the land etc. to its borders",

the nature of these borders is not a matter of limitation and measurement,

but rather a matter of metzar,

that through the matter of metzar the expanse of Yah is revealed,

that within these borders is drawn the true expansion of the expanse of Yah

(and as is also expressed in the physicality of the land,

as our Sages, of blessed memory, said&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;

that the Land of Israel is "like the land of a deer",

like the skin of a deer etc.).

6.

Based on this, we can explain

(in the inwardness of the matters)

another matter in Rashi here:

On the verse "This is the land etc. according to its borders" Rashi explains that the reason the Scripture specifies the borders of the land is "because many commandments apply in the land etc. it was necessary to write the boundaries of its borders around, to tell you that from these borders and inward the commandments apply,"

For at first glance it is puzzling,

why did Rashi not explain it simply,

that the reason for writing the borders of the land is for the conquest of the land,

to know what is the inheritance of Israel?

And the explanation

(the inner³⁸)

in this³⁹

: The borders of the land are seemingly a matter of limitation,

And on this Rashi explains and reveals,

that through the matter of the commandments that are fulfilled in the Land of Israel,

then the matter of the "borders" is transformed into "boundaries" of its spiritual borders around,

that although seemingly there is here a matter of a border,

this is a matter of a boundary from which one comes to the "expanse of Yah".

For this is the essence of the commandments,

that although the commandments were given with measurement and limitation<pg>126</pg>

specifically,

nevertheless this measurement is not a matter of true limitation,

but rather on the contrary,

specifically through the fulfillment of the commandments according to the Torah's measurement,

through this one comes to the "expanse of Yah",

that there is union and connection with His Essence and Being, may He be blessed,

the commandment of the commandments.

(From the talk of Motzaei Shabbos Parshas Massei-Matot, 5739)