English translation — שמות א

1.

At the beginning of the portion Rashi stands on the words "And these are the names of the children of Israel" and explains: "Although He counted them during their lives by their names,

He counted them again at their death<sup>1</sup>,

to make known their belovedness,

that they were compared to the stars, which He brings out and brings in by number and by name, as it is said<sup>2</sup>

He who brings out their host by number, to all of them by name He calls" — so even though during their life they were already counted by name<sup>3</sup>,

He counts them again at their death,

in order to make known

(and to show)

their belovedness; because they are compared to stars, which the Almighty brings out and brings in with a number and with a name,

as it is written "He who brings out their host by number, to all of them by name He calls".

As one learns in the plain sense<sup>4</sup>,

with "He counted them again" Rashi means

(not the "children of Israel" — Jacob's sons — because their number separately is not stated at all in the verse,

neither in our portion nor in the portion of Vayigash<sup>5</sup>

— but rather)

the "descendants of Jacob"

(including Jacob's grandchildren and great-grandchildren)

who came to Egypt,

all of whom are counted both in the portion of Vayigash and in our portion — "all the souls of the house of Jacob who came to Egypt <b>seventy",</b>

and "all the souls of the descendants of Jacob were <b>seventy </b>souls".

And about this Rashi says,

that the reason for this that they are counted here a second time is "to make known their belovedness etc."

And according to this it is also understandable that regarding "He counted them again at their death" Rashi <b>omits</b> the word "by their names" — he writes it only by "He counted them during their lifetimes" — because in our parshah the names of all seventy souls are not enumerated.

B.

According to this, however, the entire commentary of Rashi is difficult,

from its beginning to its end:

a)

Since Rashi comes to explain that which the verse repeats again the <b>count</b> of <b>"all the souls of Jacob's descendants"</b>

(and <b>not</b> that which the <b>names</b> of the <b>tribes</b> are enumerated),

Rashi should have placed himself on the verse "And it was, etc., seventy souls",

and not on "And these <b>are the names of the sons of Israel"?</b>

b)

The difficulty in our parshah comes from that which the descendants of Jacob were already <b>counted</b> once in Parshas Vayigash,

and not from the <b>names</b> which are enumerated there.

Then why does Rashi add to "although He counted them in their lifetimes" also the word "by their names"?

3)

About the stars Rashi says "He takes them out and brings them in by number and by their names" — that both their bringing in and their taking out is with <b>both</b> things: "by number and by their names".

And as is understood simply,

"He takes them out" is an example of "counts them in their lifetime" and "He brings them in" is an example of "counts them in their death".

So since the names of "every soul of the offspring of Jacob" are <b>not</b> mentioned in our portion,

the "counts them in their death" is <b>not</b> "by their names",

then what brings Rashi that the stars the Most High <b>calls them by their names?</b>

want to learn,

that the comparison of the seventy souls to the stars is only in "He takes them out

(and brings them in⁷)

<b>by number",</b>

and "and by their names" Rashi adds only incidentally,

because in the verse

(from which Rashi brings a proof that "He takes them out and brings them in <b>by number")</b>

it also says "He calls each by name".

But it is understood that this is a great difficulty: even if Rashi would have needed to bring here also the word "בשם" from that verse,

he would not, because of this, have written an extra word in his commentary — and especially since it is not just a word but such a word that brings in an entire concept

(that the Almighty brings out and names the stars also by their names)

; and all the more so,

that according to the aforementioned explanation — Rashi did not need to bring at all the word "בשם" from that verse,

as below].

d)

Already spoken many times — and as one sees it in many many places in Rashi's commentary — that when Rashi brings a verse or a saying of our Sages,

he quotes only those words which are necessary for his explanation,

but the other words of the verse or saying he omits.

Rashi should have therefore brought only the words "המוציא במספר צבאם etc. יקרא"

"במספר" — because of the matter of the number,

"צבאם" — that here it speaks about stars,

and "יקרא" — because of the "מכניסן"

(because when one calls someone,

one means thereby that that one should come to the caller — "מכניסן"⁸)].

Why does he also copy the words "לכולם בשם",

and especially that in the allegory

(seventy souls)

is &lt;b&gt;not by name?&lt;/b&gt;

3.

Seemingly one could have learned,

that Rashi with his commentary "to make known their belovedness that they were compared to stars etc." comes to protect &lt;b&gt;both &lt;/b&gt;things: both that the verse repeats again the &lt;b&gt;number &lt;/b&gt;

(of the "descendants of Jacob")

— "it repeated &lt;b&gt;and counted them",&lt;/b&gt;

and also that the verse repeats again the &lt;b&gt;names &lt;/b&gt;

(of &lt;b&gt;"the children &lt;/b&gt;of Israel")

: just as stars are "He brings them out and brings them in by number and by their names",

so too are the "children of Israel" in their lives and in their deaths counted, calling them by name.

(And that only the tribes are counted by their names and not their children,

it is because in belovedness there are several levels,

and the belovedness of the seventy souls is not so great&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;

as that of &lt;b&gt;"the children &lt;/b&gt;of Israel").

And according to this, ostensibly the entire Rashi would be consistent: Rashi stands on "And these are the names of the children of Israel" and not on "seventy souls"

(Although he also explains the "He counted them again and&lt;b&gt; they were lacking"),&lt;/b&gt;

Because this is the beginning of the matter

(And as we find in several places where Rashi stands on the first words of a verse or a portion,

Although his explanation is not &lt;b&gt;only &lt;/b&gt;on the words on which he stands but on the &lt;b&gt;entire &lt;/b&gt;verse or portion)

And that which Rashi adds "by their names" regarding "He counted them in their lifetimes" and regarding the stars,

Is because this pertains to the question in the answer in relation to the &lt;b&gt;names &lt;/b&gt;

(of the children of Israel)

: And nevertheless Rashi &lt;b&gt;omits &lt;/b&gt;the word "by their names" regarding "He counted them again at their death",

Because most of those counted are counted &lt;b&gt;not &lt;/b&gt;by their names.

D.

In truth, however, one cannot learn thus.

Because

a)

The comparison "that they were compared to stars etc." refers indeed to those who "he counted them again",

which according to the aforementioned explanation are <b>all</b> the seventy souls.

And since the stars — <b>all</b> stars¹⁰

— the Most High is not only bringing out but also bringing into number <b>and by their names,</b>

it is understood that all those who "he counted them again",

about whom Rashi says "that they were compared to stars",

are counted by their names not only in their lives but also in their death.

b)

When Rashi explains an entire verse or a section,

and he quotes from the Chumash at the beginning of his comment the beginning of that verse or of that section,

it is Rashi's way to quote <b>only</b> the very first words,

and no more.

So if Rashi would have explained here also the words "seventy souls" and wanted to indicate at the beginning of his words the first words of several verses,

he would have written only "And these are the names"

(or even "And these" alone)

and would not have brought also the words "the children of Israel".

And especially that with <b>"the children of </b>Israel" it is emphasized that here are meant the children of Jacob

("Reuben etc.")

and <b>not</b> the <b>"seventy </b>souls" which Rashi comes to explain.

3)

From Rashi's commentary further in the portion of Va'eira¹¹

it is understood that he learns that in the verse "And Joseph died, and all his brothers etc." it speaks about the death of the tribes,

and not about the death of all the seventy souls.

— And this is indeed compelled <b>and simply </b>— because Jochebed is indeed one of them and she lived many years afterwards.

One cannot say,

that with "he counted them again <b>at their death" </b>one should mean the count of the seventy souls.

5.

From all the above it is clear that Rashi here explains only the reason that the &lt;b&gt;sons of &lt;/b&gt;Israel

(Jacob's sons)

are here again counted by their names,

but the count of "seventy souls" of "all souls issuing from Jacob's thigh" is not a difficulty for Rashi.

And Rashi assumes that this is understood only simply,

so that even the "five-year-old for Scripture" will understand it himself:

Further in the verse he tells in a novel way "And the children of Israel were fruitful and swarmed and multiplied and became very, very mighty."

And to this the verse prefaces,

that at the time of their coming to Egypt they were only &lt;b&gt;seventy &lt;/b&gt;souls,

and afterwards they multiplied so greatly,

so that "and the land was filled with them"&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;.

And even though that in parshas Vayigash¹³

it already says "all the souls of the house of Jacob who came to Egypt were seventy",

but because that in between the verse interrupts with other matters,

he repeats it here once more,

because it is relevant to "be fruitful and swarm etc."¹⁴.

What is difficult to Rashi is the "And these are the names of the children of Israel" about which he asks: because that the very story of the coming of the children of Israel to Egypt already stands earlier in p.^,

Vayigash

(and there indeed are enumerated the names of all those who came to Egypt — because in the story "and they came to Egypt, Jacob and all his seed with him"¹⁵

the verse wants to tell who were those who came to Egypt),

and in our parsha the matter comes only as an introduction to "be fruitful and swarm etc." as above¹⁶,

then it is not relevant to enumerate once more the names of the "children of Israel",

just as it is not necessary to enumerate once more the names of the other ones who came to Egypt?

On this Rashi explains: "Although He counted them in their lifetimes by their names, He returned and counted them at their death" — that the reason that the children of Israel are counted again in the same manner

(by their names¹⁷)

as the counting in their lifetimes, it is "to show their endearment, that they are compared to the stars, which He brings out and brings in by number and by their names".

And since this applies only to the sons of Jacob

(as above end of section 4),

therefore specifically they are counted by their names.

6.

According to this, however, the question arises: According to the above explanation, it turns out that Rashi is here explaining only the reason that the verse lists the names of "the children of Israel",

and not their number — for the count of Jacob's sons specifically is not mentioned at all in the portion

(And regarding that they are counted among all the "seventy souls",

it is initially no question,

and one must nevertheless learn that the number comes as an introduction to "and they were fruitful and swarmed" etc.,

and <b>not </b>because of "to make known their belovedness",

because regarding the seventy souls it is not in their death),

Then why does Rashi say "He returned <b>and counted them"</b><b>¹⁸</b>

and also regarding the stars he says "taking them out and bringing them in <b>by number </b>etc."?

Is the explanation in this:

When the verse tells that the "offspring of Jacob's thigh" who came to Egypt were "seventy souls",

he does not count them as a thing by themselves,

he counts them only as the "houses" of the "children of Israel": the "coming to Egypt" are here the "children of Israel": Reuben,

Simeon etc.

Only just as each one of them came with his "house",

they are in the total — <b>seventy </b>souls.

So the question arises: since in our parshah the number <b>"seventy</b> souls" is relevant in order to bring out emphatically that "they were fruitful and swarmed etc."

(That which initially they were only twelve,

does not at all bring out the "they were fruitful and swarmed" which was <b>in</b> Egypt,

because when they came to Egypt,

after the walls¹⁹,

they were already <b>seventy</b> souls),

so the verse should have said briefly that the arrivals to Egypt were seventy souls,

and not mention the tribes at all by themselves

(even <b>without</b> detailing their names).

From that which the verse speaks about ,

"all souls issuing from the thigh of Jacob" as the houses of the tribes,

he counts them, meaning

(not the seventy souls themselves, but)

the twelve tribes "each man and his household",

so it is a proof that here it is relevant to count them specifically.

Therefore Rashi says that both the count and the naming of them is "to show their preciousness" like stars which are counted by number and by name.

7.

After Rashi explains the reason of "He counted them again at their death" that this is "to show their preciousness",

he adds: "that they were compared to stars, which He brings out and brings in by number and by their names etc."

As one learns this Rashi at first glance,

it means that Rashi wants to bring a <b>proof</b> from stars,

that precious things are brought out and brought in by number and by name.

Based on this, however, Rashi's wording "that they were compared to stars" is not understood: since from stars Rashi wants to bring a <b>proof</b> that precious things are brought out and brought in by number and by name,

he should have said <b>"and like</b> stars which He brings out etc.",

what relevance is there that the children of Israel were <b>compared</b> to stars: even if they were not compared to stars but to another precious thing, would the proof that the showing of preciousness expresses itself through number and name have been good?

— and especially since according to Rashi in the Scroll of Esther

(6,

13)

Jews at that time were "as they afflicted him" — <b>not</b> compared to stars but like dust.

One must say,

that with "they were compared to stars" Rashi means

(not only a proof but also)

a <b>reason:</b> because Jews are <b>"compared</b> to stars" — in them there are the same qualities that are in stars,

therefore the announcement of affection to them is through number and name,

like stars that "bring them out and bring them in <b>by number and by their names."</b>

— And according to the above that <b>their death</b> means only of the <b>children of</b> Israel,

then this was before "and a new king arose etc. and as they afflicted them" — then they were compared to stars.

8.

The explanation in this is:

Affection expresses itself both through counting and through calling by name.

And the "ben chamesh lamikra" already knows both things from his own life,

so that Rashi does not need to explain it to him at all.

A child knows that the things which are dear and beloved to him,

he wants to know their exact number,

because each one has for him a special importance and endearment²⁰.

Also that calling by name expresses affection, knows the "ben chamesh lamikra",

because he sees that his father and mother,

out of affection for him,

keep constantly mentioning his name.

That through this their love for him is expressed.

— With which is also explained what Rashi brings in many places&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

the matter of calling the name and does not explain what is the importance in this.

And further — that Rashi does &lt;b&gt;not &lt;/b&gt;stand on "vayomer eilav Avraham"&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;

— answer: mai kamashma lan?&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;

However, since also <b>one</b> aspect — counting alone and name alone — expresses affection,

then why is there the "to make known their preciousness" both through counting and through their names?

It is indeed <b>no</b> question: because every additional action expresses <b>more</b> affection²⁴

Yet Rashi adds an explanation: <b>"that they were compared</b> to stars",

through these words he explains

(as is <b>the truth —</b> although even without this explanation it is no question,

as above),

that each one of the two aspects — counting and name — expresses a <b>particular</b> aspect of affection.

9.

Number and name express two separate

(opposite)

aspects of the things which are counted and called by name:

The number expresses <b>the </b>point of the enumerated things,

in which they are all equal.

The fact that many things are counted <b>together,</b>

in the same number,

is it then from the aspect of the common point among them

(because things which have no common point between them²⁵,

can then<b> </b>not be included in the same count).

In contrast, "name" expresses <b>the </b>point in which each one of those called by name is <b>separated </b>from the other.

Therefore each one has a <b>distinct </b>name²⁶.

And this Rashi explains with &lt;b&gt;"for they were compared &lt;/b&gt;to stars": in stars there are two matters:

a)

the common point among them,

that each one of them is a star.

And from the side of the greatness and importance of each star as a &lt;b&gt;star,&lt;/b&gt;

it is counted in number.

b)

Every star has in itself a matter in which it <b>distinguishes</b> itself from the other stars — as the Ben Chamesh LaMikra has already learned from the example of the eleven tribes — eleven stars²⁷.

that through each star a particular influence is influenced into the world,

corresponding to its matter"²⁸].

And because of the importance of the <b>particular</b> matter,

each one is called by a particular name.

And this is what Rashi means with "they are compared to stars",

that also among Jews there are these two matters: the point of Judaism which is equal among all Jews

they are the children of Yaakov whom the Holy One, blessed be He, called a god²⁹,

<b> </b>and the particular virtue that exists in each individual Jew.

And therefore the expression of affection for Jews must be expressed through both things: through "from a hundred" is shown the affection for each Jew because of <b>his</b> point of Judaism,

and through "by their names" is shown the affection for each Jew because of his particular virtue.

Yud.

In Rashi there is also "yina shel Torah"³⁰

— is in that which the "lehodie chibasan" expresses itself<b> </b>through "minyan bishmosam",

there is a tasty matter of pnimiyus haTorah.

(Which according to<b> </b>this explanation will become understood several diyukim that in the plain sense are not so smooth).

"Minyan" and "shem" both point to the essence,

which is higher than forms:

In a "minyan" all are indeed counted equally,

the greatest of the great is no more than one and the least of the lowly is no less than one,

because from the greatest of the great to the least of the lowly, from the perspective of the essence of the soul, they are "all compatible and one father to all of them"³¹.

And also a "name" is connected to the essence which is above the revealed faculties³²,

therefore a person is called by the same name throughout all the days of his life,

despite the various developments that occur in his revealed faculties during the years of his life.

However, since the service of a Jew must be with his revealed powers,

and the giving of power to the revealed powers,

so that they can perform their service,

comes specifically through that which their essence shines within them,

(as below section 14),

therefore there must be the &lt;b&gt;"to make known &lt;/b&gt;their belovedness",

that the love from the essence,

which is higher than revelation,

should become &lt;b&gt;to make known &lt;/b&gt;— stand in revelation.

And the revelation of the love from the essence,

comes through "counting them by their names": through that which one counts them and calls them by name openly,

comes the essence

(with which the counting and name are connected as above)

into a revealed expression.

Yes.

It is indeed known that the essential love of parents for their children is drawn down and it is,

as it were,

in the likeness of the essential love of the Most High for Jews&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;

— is the revelation of the essential love above that comes

Through calling by name,

there is an example also in the love and affection of parents for their son: the affection that parents express to their children by mentioning them by name

(and especially further by drawing out the name or by giving a nickname),

is much deeper than the love that is expressed by giving him a gift,

speaking to him words of love,

and even — by hugging and kissing.

Because* giving a gift and speaking words of love depends on the age and understanding of the child: if one were to give a grown child a gift that is suitable for a small child,

it will not only not express any love,

but it will express the opposite of love: and so too conversely: giving a small child a gift that is suitable for a grown one,

will not be any expression of love³⁴.

And so it is also regarding words of love: specifically when the words of love are according to the measure of the age and understanding of the son,

they express the affection.

And since a gift and words of love — the vessels through which one shows the affection — are measured according to the years and understanding of the son,

it is therefore understood,

that also the affection which expresses itself through the vessels,

is a measured one.

And consequently it is not the essential love for the &lt;b&gt;essence&lt;/b&gt; of the son,

which is not measured according to his intellect etc.

Even the love and affection that expresses itself through embrace and kiss,

which they

(embrace and kiss)

pertain both to a small one and to an adult — nevertheless,

from the fact that embrace and kiss pertain specifically when the beloved is in proximity and nearness of place to the lover,

it is a proof that they do not yet express the essential love itself,

which is not measured and limited in place.

Furthermore: the expression of affection through embrace and kiss pertains specifically when the beloved is awake

(and it is not possible to express affection to someone by hugging and kissing him while he sleeps).

From this one sees even more that the love involved is not the essence of love itself,

for in the "essence" there is no difference between awake and asleep.

Not so the love that expresses itself through the mention of the Name,

we see tangibly that in it there are no measures and limitations: it makes no difference whether the beloved is located in proximity of place or in distance of place,

and all the more so that in it there is no difference at all whether the son is a wise one

(in whatever state the son may be,

one expresses the affection for him by calling him with the same name)

— because through the mention of the Name is expressed the essential love that is connected with the <b>essence </b>of the son,

above depictions.

12.

Although both — number and name — are connected with the essence that is above division,

nevertheless,

there is a difference between them:

In a "count," one does not differ from another; each one of the counted is counted as <b>one.</b>

In contrast, by "name,"

each one has his own particular name.

The lack of division in a name is only regarding the same person himself,

that throughout all his years

(also from the term change)

he is called by the same name.

But there is a division from one to another.

From this it is understood that "count" indicates <b>the </b>level in the soul as it is above being connected with a particular body,

in which level all souls are equal: "all are compatible and one father to all of them"³¹.

And "name" indicates the level of the soul as it becomes enclothed in a particular body.

And as is known³⁵

that a soul above has no name.

Only when it descends below into a body,

does it receive a name.

And this is the explanation of "from where &lt;b&gt;b&lt;/b&gt; in their names" — that in "their names" —&lt;b&gt; &lt;/b&gt;the illumination of the soul in the body — must be the "from where" — the revelation of the essence of the soul.

13.

According to the above, a precision will become understandable,

which according to plainness is not entirely smooth:

Since the reason of "He counted them again

(by their names)

" is because of that which in the portion it says &lt;b&gt;"And died &lt;/b&gt;Joseph and all his brothers" and because of their endearment he &lt;b&gt;includes them &lt;/b&gt;in number and by their names,

then their names and their number should have been enumerated in the verse "And died".

Why does it say there "Joseph and all his brothers" and there are not enumerated neither their names nor their number?

True indeed that also the beginning of the portion — where there are &lt;b&gt;indeed&lt;/b&gt; enumerated their names

("And these are the names etc.")

and their number

(including in the count of the &lt;b&gt;"seventy &lt;/b&gt;souls",

as above)

— comes in sequence to the subsequent verses

("And died Joseph and all his brothers etc. And the children of Israel were fruitful and swarmed etc."),

Nevertheless,

there should seemingly have stood their number and name at "And died"

(includes them)

itself,

and not at "who came to Egypt" which

(comes only in proximity to the And died,

and the coming itself)

was in their lifetimes&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;?

It is not a question indeed: from the aspect of "to make known their belovedness" alone, the Torah would not have counted them and also not enumerated their names.

But when the verse is specifically counting <b>all</b> the inhabitants of Egypt,

it counts<b> </b>the tribes in particular,

and it counts them in detail of their names,

to make known their belovedness.

(not like by stars where the number and the name are <b>two</b> separate matters as Rashi says "in number <b>and</b> in their names"),

because the entire matter of "their names" by the tribes is not a matter in itself,

it is only a manner in the "counting them": when the verse already counts them

(and also that,

<b>their</b> count,

comes from the fact that it counts <b>all</b> the inhabitants of Egypt),

it counts them by their names]

But it requires explanation: Why should the "by their names"

(which itself,

even when it comes independently is an expression of affection),

be connected specifically with the "counting",

and even the "counting" of the tribes is not a matter in itself to make known their preciousness&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;,

it comes specifically by the count of "seventy souls" of all those who came to Egypt?

And accordingly, also understandable is the reason of that which "counting by their names" comes specifically by the matter of "those coming to Egypt",

because the necessity of this "to make known their preciousness" is because of the &lt;b&gt;"names&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;

of the children of Israel &lt;b&gt;who came to Egypt&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;

&lt;b&gt; — &lt;/b&gt;because of the &lt;b&gt;illumination &lt;/b&gt;of the soul which comes into the "Egypt" of the body and animal soul,

until in exile in its simple sense&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;.

That through "counting by their names" — through &lt;b&gt; &lt;/b&gt;that which in the illumination which is found in "Egypt",

shines the essence of the soul which is &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; come into "Egypt" — also it has the power not to be affected by the concealments and coverings of the body and animal soul&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;,

and on the contrary,

carry out its function,

to refine the body and animal soul and its portion in the world,

make them into a vessel for Godliness&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;.

15.

Just as the essence of the soul activates in the illumination of the soul within the body,

so too conversely: the illumination of the soul within the body activates in the essence of the soul.

And as is known⁴³

that the ascent that occurs in the soul through its descent below is not only in the illumination of the soul,

but through the service of the illumination of the soul within the body

(because of the fact that it is connected with the essence of the soul,

to the extent that in the illumination the entire essence is connected⁴⁴),

an ascent also occurs in the essence of the soul.

And this is the concept of "by their names in number" — the connection of number

(essence of the soul)

with name

(illumination of the soul within the body)

— both in their lives and in their deaths:

In order that the illumination of the soul should have the power to carry out its function while it is located in the body — in their lifetimes — must shine within it the "Minan" — the essence of the soul.

And through the "Minan by names in their lifetimes",

that the essence of the soul gives a giving of power into the illumination of the soul to carry out its function in this world,

is when it comes to "in their deaths",

when the illumination of the soul finishes its function — "He counted them again

(by names)

that the illumination of the soul ascends upward into the essence of the soul.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Shemos 5725)