English translation — ואתחנן א

שיחה א<pg>14</pg>

A.

In the verse¹

"Then Moses set apart three cities on the other side of the Jordan, etc." Rashi: "Then he set apart — he set his heart to be anxious about the matter to set them apart,

and although they do not provide refuge, etc."

(as below section 2).

And the commentators wrote&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;,

that the reason that Rashi explained that "then he will separate" refers to the thought to separate,

"gave heart to be anxious about the matter that would separate them",

and not on the act of separation itself,

is because of the words "then he will separate",

that "then" is an expression of past,

and following this it should have said "

(then)

he separated",

past tense,

and not "he will separate" future tense.

And therefore he explained that "then he will separate" refers to the thought to separate

("gave heart..

to the matter"),

and as he explained on the verse&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;

"then Moses sang" — "then when he saw the miracle it rose in his heart that he would sing a song,

and so 'then Joshua spoke'&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;

and so 'and a house he will make for Pharaoh's daughter'&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;

he thought in his heart that he would make for her; so too here 'then he will sing' his heart told him that he would sing and so he did..

we learned that the yud was said about the thought".

And so in our case,

that what it says "then" is past tense and "he will separate" is future tense,

is because it refers to the thought that he will separate which is before

(and the reason for)

the act of separation in practice.

And one must understand,

that if the intention is only on the thought, it would have been for Rashi to write "gave heart to separate" and the like,

and why does he strengthen and emphasize "gave heart to be anxious about the matter".

Also needs explanation: what is the precision "then Moshe set apart",

which implies that here a special event occurred because of which "he set his heart etc. to set them apart"

(and in the manner that Rashi explains the word "then" in the verse "then sang" — "then when he saw the miracle",

and likewise in the other examples there).

2.

Below Rashi continues: "And although they do not absorb until those in the land of Canaan set them apart, Moshe said: a commandment that can be fulfilled I will fulfill it"⁶.

And one must be precise — why did Rashi bring this matter

("And although they do not absorb etc.")

in that same heading,

contrary to his usual way in most places,

to write each matter in its own heading,

and at first glance Rashi explained here two different things: a)

the explanation of the words "Then he shall set apart",

b)

the explanation of the matter that Moses set apart these cities "although they do not absorb etc." — and what reason did Rashi combine them in one heading?

There are those who explain⁷,

that the continuation of Rashi's words "And although they do not absorb etc." is the explanation⁸

and the answer to this that it says "Then he shall set apart" — future tense,

for since they were not absorbing then,

therefore it is not appropriate to say "he set apart"

(past tense).

But this explanation requires clarification⁹,

for although they are not absorbing,

the setting apart of these cities already was,

and therefore "he set apart" is past tense.

<pg>15</pg>

3.

And the explanation of this:

The first time that the matter of the designation of the cities of refuge is explained in Scripture is in Parshat Massei,

and there it is stated¹⁰

"For you are crossing the Jordan to the land of Canaan, and you shall designate for yourselves cities; cities of refuge they shall be for you..

And the cities that you shall give, six cities of refuge shall be for you; the three cities you shall give across the Jordan, and the three cities you shall give in the land of Canaan; cities of refuge they shall be",

behold, the preparation and designation of the cities of refuge

(also those on the other side of the Jordan)

is after "you are crossing the Jordan"¹¹.

And it is understood from this,

that the commandment of cities of refuge is a matter dependent on the Land of Israel,

in the manner of a commandment dependent on the Land,

therefore the obligation and commandment did not apply until after they crossed the Jordan and were in the Land of Israel,

except that since also the other side of the Jordan the children of Israel inherited and dwell there¹²,

therefore they make cities of refuge also

(in a secondary manner¹³)

on the other side of the Jordan¹⁴.

And behold, the novel point that is innovated in the plain meaning of the verses in the portion of Va’etchanan is,

that until then Moses was still hoping that perhaps he would be permitted to enter the land

(and especially after the conquest of Sihon and Og,

that “I thought perhaps the vow was annulled”¹⁵),

but in our portion it was already said to Moses

(after “And I pleaded with the Lord, etc. ‘Let me cross over, please, etc.’ — and the Lord said to me, ‘Enough for you! Do not continue to speak to Me further about this matter. Ascend to the top of the summit, etc.’)

that you shall not cross this Jordan”¹⁶.

And this is what Rashi explains here on the verse "Then he will set apart" — that the discussion is after Israel is already prepared to enter the land

[And as is explicit in the verse before this¹⁷

"to dispossess nations etc. to bring you to give you their land as an inheritance as this day",

and in Rashi "as you see today"],

and it is already known that Moses does not enter with them,

behold "then" — "he set his heart to be anxious about the matter to set them apart":

The simple explanation of this anxiety,

fear stemming from concern whether his actions in this are as required and proper.

And this is that Moses "set his heart to be anxious about the matter to set them apart — and even though they do not absorb until those in the land of Canaan set them apart etc." — because it is a commandment dependent on the land,

that all the definition of the cities of refuge is after they cross the Jordan to the land of Canaan,

he was concerned lest also the preparation and setting apart of the cities is only after their entry into the land of Israel,

and there is no place for Moses to set them apart beforehand.

And beyond this, it can be said,

that this "trembling" is

if this is according to the will of G-d,

that just as it is the will of G-d that Moses should not enter the land,

so too perhaps it is His will, blessed be He, that the commandments dependent on the land should not be performed by him,

and this is the reason for Moses' trembling — not only if there is some effect in his distinction,

but if his distinction is according to the will of G-d.

[Based on this, one can say,

that Rashi's intention here is only to explain the words — "then he separated" future tense on account of the thought that is before the action

(as he explained in the verse "then he sang"),

but also that all of Moses' action here is in a manner of "he separated",

that he was agitated in the making of the separation,

and the reason for this is — "then",

since they are about to enter the land,

and he does not enter with them

(and it is found that it is a thing that does not pertain to him),

as above.

And this is "he separated" future tense,

because it was a kind of separation regarding the act of separation itself].

4.

And one can explain the matter according to the law,

and with the preface of the words of the Rambam in the Laws of Murderer and Preservation of Life&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;

:

"It is a positive commandment to separate cities of refuge, as it is said&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;

Three cities you shall set apart for yourself, and the cities of refuge apply only in the Land of Israel."

And in the following halacha: "And there were six cities,

three which Moses our teacher set apart on the other side of the Jordan and three which Joshua set apart in the land of Canaan,"

And in the halacha after that: "Not one of the cities of refuge provides refuge until all of them are set apart, as it is said&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;

Six cities of refuge shall be for you,

And Moses our teacher informed us that the three on the other side of the Jordan do not provide refuge until the three in the land of Canaan are set apart,

And why did he set them apart? He said: Since a commandment came to my hand, I will fulfill it."

And it requires explanation:

A)

Why does he bring in the first law "It is a positive commandment to set up cities of refuge" from the verse "You shall set aside three cities for yourself",

when in the law after this it is explained "And there were six cities"?

And why did he not bring the verse in which it is explained that there are six cities of refuge,

as it is stated in the third law "Six cities of refuge shall be for you",

or the verse before this²¹

"And you shall designate for yourselves cities, cities of refuge they shall be for you"²².

B)

In the second law — what is his wording "And there were six cities" — language of storytelling,

for seemingly he should have said language of command and obligation.

3)

In law 3, clause 20: "And Moshe Rabbeinu informed us that the three [cities] on the other side of the Jordan do not provide refuge until the three in the land of Canaan are separated,"

And seemingly, this law is already included in what is stated at the beginning of the law that "not one of the cities of refuge provides refuge until all of them are separated, as it is said: 'Six cities of refuge shall be for you.'"

And especially what he adds: "And Moshe Rabbeinu informed us,"

from which it is evident

that this is an additional law not included in the words of the verse "Six cities of refuge shall be for you."

And in general, one must ponder what the Rambam wrote: "

(And Moshe Rabbeinu informed us etc.)

And why did he separate them? He said: Since a mitzvah came to my hand, I will fulfill it" — now, firstly)

the Rambam is a book of "laws, laws,"

secondly)

&lt;pg&gt;17&lt;/pg&gt;

What is the practical difference for halacha? The discussion why Moshe Rabbeinu separated the three cities on the other side of the Jordan.

5.

And it seems that these are the very things:

In Maimonides' opening of the Laws of Cities of Refuge: "It is a positive commandment to set aside cities of refuge, as it is said, 'You shall set aside three cities for yourself,' and the institution of cities of refuge applies only in the Land of Israel,"

Maimonides teaches us that this commandment is a commandment dependent on the Land,

and therefore the foundation of the commandment of cities of refuge is that which is said, "You shall set aside three cities for yourself"²⁴,

for the primary obligation and commandment of setting aside cities of refuge is regarding the three cities in the Land of Israel²⁵

; and afterwards he continues

(in a separate halakhah)

"And six cities were, etc.",

meaning,

that although the foundation of the obligation and the positive commandment is the setting aside of three cities in the Land of Israel,

nevertheless,

"six cities were",

that the halakhah in practice is that there will be six cities of refuge that absorb the murderer

(also three on the other side of the Jordan),

that the laws of cities of refuge apply to all six cities.

And this point Maimonides emphasizes again in halakhah 3,

for just as it is regarding the positive commandment of setting aside cities of refuge,

that the commandment is specifically in the Land of Israel

(and the setting aside of three cities on the other side of the Jordan is like an adjunct and additional matter),

similarly we find regarding the law of their absorption — that "Moses our teacher informed us that the three on the other side of the Jordan do not absorb until the three in the land of Canaan are set aside",

and this law is not included in the teaching at the beginning of the halakhah "Six cities of refuge shall be for you",

that not every one of the six cities of refuge absorbs until all of them are set aside — rather it is a special law regarding the cities of refuge on the other side of the Jordan²⁶.

That is to say: the first law in this halacha — "Not one of the cities of refuge absorbs until all of them are separated" — is,

that the law of absorption of the cities of refuge is only when all six cities of refuge exist,

for all six cities of refuge are like one entity,

and therefore if one of them is missing, there is no law of absorption in any of them,

and this law is equal in all six cities of refuge,

both those in the land of Canaan and those on the other side of the Jordan²⁷.

And afterwards the Rambam adds another halacha — "And Moshe Rabbeinu informed us that the three on the other side of the Jordan do not absorb until the three in the land of Canaan are separated" — for since the entire essence of the commandment of setting apart<pg>18</pg>

The cities of refuge apply only in the Land of Israel

(and it is among the commandments dependent on the Land),

therefore it is impossible that the law of cities of refuge applies to those on the other side of the Jordan only after the three in the land of Canaan exist

(that their designation is the essence of the commandment,

"Three cities you shall set apart for yourself").

And this is also the novelty in this law regarding the dependence of all six cities of refuge upon each other,

that there they are dependent upon each other only regarding the law of their absorption,

but not so regarding those on the other side of the Jordan,

that the intention is not only regarding the law of their absorption,

but rather there is no application of the name "cities of refuge" at all as long as those in the land of Canaan have not been designated.

And it can be said that the practical difference is regarding one who vows "from the cities of refuge that existed before they entered the land."

6.

And behold, according to the above — that before the separation of those in the land of Canaan the name of city of refuge did not apply — one must examine what was the content of Moses' action in the separation of the cities of refuge on the other side of the Jordan.

And this is to be explained in two ways:

a)

The separation was merely a preparation

(He chose the cities and their boundaries,

and perhaps also directed the roads²⁸),

That even though there was no fulfillment of a commandment nor the status of a city of refuge,

Nevertheless, it is like a preparation²⁹

and enabling³⁰

for the fulfillment of the commandment of cities of refuge afterwards.

b)

Even though before the separation of those in the land of Canaan the status of a city of refuge did not apply,

Nevertheless, after Joshua separated the three in the land of Canaan, the status of a city of refuge applied to those on the other side of the Jordan automatically by virtue of Moses' separation³¹,

And it turns out,

That Moses' act caused them to be separated as cities of refuge³²,

Except that the application of the matter did not occur until after the time of Joshua

[And perhaps one could say even more than this — that after Joshua separated the three in the land of Canaan,

The status of a city of refuge applied to the three on the other side of the Jordan retroactively³³,

From the time of Moses' separation]³⁴.

And the practical difference between these two approaches³⁵

: According to the first approach, Joshua would have needed to set apart<pg>19</pg>

again the cities on the other side of the Jordan after he had set apart those in the land of Canaan,

for only then did the name "city of refuge" apply to them,

and thus the commentators explain³⁶

the words of the Sifri³⁷

"From where [do we know] that Moses commanded Joshua to set apart cities of refuge for them, etc.",

namely "that Moses commanded Joshua that he himself should set apart all six cities, so that even those on the other side of the Jordan would not provide refuge until Joshua set apart all six cities"³⁸

; however, according to the second approach,

there would have been no need for a further setting apart by Joshua,

but rather after Joshua's setting apart, the name "city of refuge" applied to them

(retroactively?³⁹)

through Moses' setting apart.

And one could say,

that in this Rashi and the Rambam disagree,

And with the introduction of the difference between the language of the Rambam and the language of Rashi: In the Rambam the wording is "He said, since a mitzvah has come to my hand I will fulfill it",

and it is the language of the Gemara in Makkos; but Rashi changed from the language of the Talmud and wrote "A mitzvah that it is possible to fulfill I will fulfill it".

And the distinction between the two aforementioned languages: The language "a mitzvah has come to my hand" emphasizes the possibility of fulfilling the mitzvah from the aspect of the person

("has come..

to my hand"),

whereas the language "a mitzvah that it is possible to fulfill" speaks about the possibility from the aspect of the object,

"a mitzvah that it is possible to fulfill"⁴⁰.

And this is the content of the distinction between the two aforementioned manners: According to the first manner that Moses' act was only a mere preparation,

behold his act is called by the name "mitzvah" only from the aspect of the person,

that he was occupied with

(preparation for)

a matter of mitzvah,

but from the aspect of the object no status of mitzvah has yet been effected; whereas according to the second manner, behold the name "mitzvah" applies to Moses' act also from the aspect of the object,

since he designated these cities as cities of refuge

(except that it did not take effect in actuality until after Joshua designated those in the land of Canaan).

And in this Rashi and the Rambam disagree — for Rashi holds that the action of Moshe caused that the name "city of refuge" should apply to them⁴¹

(except that the actual application was later in the days of Yehoshua),

and therefore he writes "a commandment that is possible to fulfill I will fulfill it"; but not so the Rambam holds that it was only a preparation,

and therefore he uses the expression "since a commandment came to my hand I will fulfill it"⁴².

7.

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

This that the three cities on the other side of the Jordan did not absorb until those in the land of Canaan were set aside requires explanation,

at first glance,

since the children of Gad and the children of Reuben and half the tribe of Manasseh had already settled on the other side of the Jordan

(as related at the end of parshas Matos&lt;pg&gt;20&lt;/pg&gt;

and at the end of parshas Devarim),

what is the reason that the protection of the cities of refuge was not immediately given to them&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;?

And although "every warrior" crossed with the rest of the tribes to conquer the land of Canaan — behold

(a)

Israel did not cross the Jordan until after several months,

and during this time the children of Gad and the children of Reuben and half the tribe of Manasseh sat in their cities which they inherited on the other side of the Jordan,

(b)

and mainly: also afterwards there remained there the men who were under twenty and above sixty years old,

aside from the women and children].

And perhaps one could say that the inner reason for the matter is — because they did not need cities of refuge,

and as Moses our teacher said⁴⁴

"And you who cling to the Lord your God are all alive today",

that the children of Israel were attached to the Omnipresent⁴⁵

to the extent that they were not at all connected to the matter of the opposite of life, may it not be said,

[and behold, even one who kills a soul unintentionally needs atonement⁴⁶,

from which it is understood that there is lacking in him in attachment to God].

And one could say,

that this elevated state of the Children of Israel was effected in them by Moshe Rabbeinu,

who raised them to this lofty attachment to the Name in a manner that "you are all alive today",

but after the passing of Moshe⁴⁷

they descended from their level etc. and consequently needed the cities of refuge.

8.

And based on this, one can explain the difference between the two aforementioned modes regarding the nature of Moshe's action in the designation of the cities of refuge on the other side of the Jordan — whether it was only in the category of mere preparation,

or that his designation effected the application of the status of city of refuge — according to the inner aspect of the matters:

The concept of the cities of refuge is not only a negation — protection from the avenger of blood — but also a concept of a positive command — "And he shall flee to one of these cities and live"⁴⁸,

Do for him something that will be for him a life-force⁴⁹.

And in the inner aspect of the matter: killing a person unintentionally indicates the domination of the evil inclination,

which is Satan and he is the angel of death⁵⁰,

and in the language of the Tanya⁵¹

— that he receives life-force from "the place of death and impurity",

And in the city of refuge there is drawn for him life-force from the side of holiness — "And he shall flee..

and live",

with true life,

life of holiness that comes from the source of life,

"The Lord God is truth, He is the living God"⁵².

And therefore also the commandment of designating the cities of refuge had to be done specifically through the action of Moses,

for through him was drawn the concept of "You who cling to the Lord your God are alive, all of you, today" to the children of Israel,

including also — the drawing of life-force through the cities of refuge⁵³

for one who kills a person unintentionally⁵⁴.

<pg>21</pg>

And this is the content of the two explanations above regarding the nature of Moshe's action:

According to the first approach, that the handiwork of Moshe was only in the category of a mere preparation but did not effect a matter of the separation of the cities of refuge in actuality — this is in order to emphasize and teach that from the level of Moshe, the entire matter of one who kills a soul unintentionally is not relevant from the outset, and there is no need for cities of refuge as above,

And this is that also the matter of drawing down vitality to one who kills a soul unintentionally is below the level of Moshe.

[And one can say,

that according to this reasoning,

this itself that Moses made only a mere preparation for the cities of refuge

(without there being through this an actual effect of the name "cities of refuge"),

is because he wanted to achieve through this,

that also afterwards there would not be so much need for cities of refuge,

by means of there being fewer unintentional murderers who would need cities of refuge].

But according to the second manner, Moses effected the actuality of the name "city of refuge" — for although Moses, from his own perspective, is above any matter of an unintentional murderer

(also from drawing down vitality to him),

nevertheless,

being a faithful shepherd,

he lowered himself to draw down vitality also to the Children of Israel who would need

(after the time)

the cities of refuge⁵⁵.

And this is what Rashi said: "He set his heart to be anxious about the matter to set them apart,"

for the setting apart of the cities of refuge by Moshe Rabbeinu is connected with his descent from his level,

to draw down vitality also to one who fell into "the place of death and impurity, may Hashem protect us"&lt;sup&gt;56&lt;/sup&gt;,

and therefore it caused him anxiety

(which removes the bloods&lt;sup&gt;57&lt;/sup&gt;)

;

But on the other hand, "He set his heart to be anxious about the matter to set them apart,"

that not only did he do so in practice,

but he set his heart on this,

for this is the essence of a faithful shepherd,

who gives his soul for the flock of his pasture,

and draws down vitality also to one who needed to go into exile,

"And he shall flee..

and live",

until even he will be elevated to be among "those who cling to Hashem, living, all of you today."

And so may it be for us,

in this bitter exile of ours,

that not only is there no dominion, G-d forbid, over Israel,

for there is the spiritual protection of the cities of refuge — words of Torah provide refuge⁵⁸,

but moreover,

that "he shall flee..

and live",

that is drawn to each one of Israel the matter of life,

true life,

until the fulfillment of the promise⁵⁹

"He will revive us after two days; on the third day He will raise us up and we shall live before Him",

in eternal life⁶⁰,

in the true and complete redemption through our righteous Moshiach,

and immediately, right away.

(From the farbrengen of Shabbos Parshas Va'eschanan 5745)