English translation — חוקת ב

1.

At the conclusion of his commentary on the parshah,

Rashi stands on the words "and they struck him" and explains "Moshe killed him" — that despite what is written here "and they struck"

Moshe himself killed him.

And Rashi concludes with a proof for his explanation,

"as it is brought in Berachot 26."

(as below sec. 2).

From where does Rashi indeed take [it] in the plain sense of Scripture that "Moshe killed him",

differently than it appears from the plain meaning of the language "and they struck him"

(plural language),

(plural language)

that all

(a plural)

Jews killed him — says the Maharal of Prague,

that Rashi takes it from the previous verse¹

where it is written that the Almighty said to Moshe "Do not fear him, for into your hand I have given him etc.",

that the Almighty gave Og into the hands of Moshe.

And that which it says "and they struck him" in plural language,

is because after the word "him" it says "and his sons and all his people",

therefore it says "they struck" in plural language,

because "him and his sons and all his people"

(all together),

Moshe and Israel killed them.

It is, however, not understandable:

a)

One finds in many places where the Almighty spoke to Moses

(not regarding Himself,

but)

regarding all Jews,

and yet He said it in singular language

<b>and to bring you</b> to the place etc." <sup>2</sup>,

"Behold, I drive out <b>from before you</b> the Amorite etc." <sup>3</sup>

— although this was only after the passing of Moses <sup>4</sup>],

and this is so,

because the Almighty spoke to Moses as to the agent and representative of the entire Jewish people.

Now what is the proof from "Into your hand I have given it" that "<b>Moses</b> killed him"<sup>5</sup>?

b)

Even if you say that the wording "<b>into your hand</b> I have given" is different from "before you" and "from before you" and the like — one finds, however, the same wording also in connection with Sichon — "See, I have given into your hand Sichon king of Cheshbon the Amorite"<sup>6</sup>,

and nevertheless Rashi does not say anywhere regarding Sichon,

that "Moses killed him"<sup>7</sup>.

So it is not understood: in what way is the wording "into your hand I have given" that is stated in our verse regarding Og different,

from the wording "I have given into your hand" that is stated regarding Sichon?

3)

In this same verse where it speaks about Og,

the verse continues after the words "for into your hand I have given him" — "and all his people etc."

So if Rashi assumes that "your hand" means in the hands of <b>Moshe</b>,

he would have had to learn that Moshe killed not only Og but also "all his people";

But from the fact that Rashi focuses only on the words "and they struck <b>him</b>"

(and does <b>not</b> bring "

(and his sons)

and all his people" — even not by hint with "etc.")

and explains "Moshe killed him"

(only Og),

it is evident⁸,

that regarding "and his sons and all his people" Rashi learns the "and they struck"

(plural form)

literally.

Thus it is proven,

that also the "into your hand" of our portion — regarding "and all his people",

means in the hands of <b>Israel</b>.

Now from where is it forced that regarding "him" "into your hand" means in the hands of <b>Moshe</b>?

2.

After Rashi explains "Moshe killed him",

he continues: "as it is brought in Berachot in HaRo'eh⁹

uprooted a mountain of three parsa etc.".

Then in this it is not understood:

a)

In many places where Rashi brings a statement of our Sages,

he says "Our Rabbis said"

(and the like)

and does not indicate where the statement is located&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;

And even in a case where he

(for some reason)

does indicate in which tractate

(and the like)

the statement is located,

he contents himself with mentioning the name of the tractate

(and the like)&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;.

Why in our verse,

does he not content himself with saying "as it is brought in Berachot" and adds "in HaRo'eh"?

b)

The proof from the Gemara that "Moshe killed him",

is ostensibly &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; from the words "he uprooted a mountain three parasangs [in size]",

but rather from the conclusion in the Gemara "and struck him on his ankles and killed him" — so Rashi ostensibly should have copied the last words of the Gemara.

In practice, however, we see

that the last words Rashi only hints at with the word "etc.",

and the words "he uprooted a mountain three parasangs [in size]" which are ostensibly &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; a proof that "Moshe killed him",

&lt;b&gt;them&lt;/b&gt; Rashi copies explicitly&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;?

3.

is the explanation in all this:

With a verse earlier he tells,

that at the time of "And Og king of Bashan went out toward them"¹³,

the Almighty said to Moses "Do not fear him" ¹

— explains Rashi "that Moses was afraid to fight, lest the merit of Abraham stand for him".

And superficially,

Rashi there comments on the words "Do not <b>fear</b> him",

and they come later to "And the Lord said <b>to Moses</b>",

so if Rashi would write simply "that he was afraid",

one would also know that this refers to Moses.

Why does Rashi need to explain "that <b>Moses</b> was afraid"?

Rather, Rashi intends thereby to emphasize,

that <b>only</b> Moses was afraid:

All other Jews,

when they saw before them Og king of Bashan,

they saw in him only a great gentile,

they therefore were not afraid of him,

because they were confident "in the power of Moses' prayer" that they would surely defeat him

that the spies whom Moses sent "to spy out Jazer",

they themselves captured the city — although their mission was only "to spy out" — and they did this saying,

"We are confident in the power of Moses' prayer"]

Not so Moses our teacher — <b>he</b> saw in Og "the merit of Abraham",

he therefore was afraid: because since the land of Sihon and Og is <b>not</b> from the land of the seven nations,

it could possibly be,

that "the merit of Abraham will stand for him",

that one should not be able to conquer him and one would have to go around on the way when going to the Land of Israel¹⁵

(in the manner as it was by the land of Edom¹⁶).

Therefore the Almighty assured him "Do not fear him,

for into your hand I have given him and all his people and his land".

4.

Because regarding Og Moses was <b>distinguished</b> from all Jews that only he was afraid of him,

but all the other Jews,

not only that they had no fear of him,

but they were even confident of a victory over him — through the power of Moses' prayer,

Therefore one cannot learn,

that with the words "Do not fear him, for into your hand I have given him" — which the Almighty said to Moses,

He meant into the hands of all Jews,

in the manner of "I have given into your hand Sihon etc."

— Because since "for into your hand I have given him"

(Og),

came in continuation of "Do not fear him",

then just as the "Do not fear him" was said to Moses

(not as a representative of all Jews,

because all Jews initially did not fear Og),

so too the "for into your hand I have given him"

(which comes in continuation and — "for" — as a reason for "Do not fear him"),

means into the hands of <b>Moses</b>.

And therefore Rashi learns,

that although it says "and they struck him"

("and they struck" plural form),

it means that "Moses <b>killed him</b>".

And although that after the words "for into your hand I have given him" the verse continues "and all his people and his land" — and "all his people" other Jews killed — it is because regarding "all his people" Moses was no different from all Jews

(for his fear was only of Og's "lest the merit of Abraham stand &lt;b&gt;for him&lt;/b&gt;"),

and therefore one can learn that the "into your hand I have given" regarding "all his people" means into the hands of all Jews.

But regarding "him",

in which Moses was different from all Jews,

one must learn that the "into your hand" means into the hands of Moses.

5.

But the "Ben Chamesh

(to Scripture)

" asks: since that "&lt;b&gt;Moses&lt;/b&gt; killed him",

why does it actually say "&lt;b&gt;and they struck&lt;/b&gt; him"

(in plural),

from which it implies that the &lt;b&gt;Jews&lt;/b&gt; killed him?

And although Rashi already said earlier,

that "Moshe is Yisrael and Yisrael is Moshe" — it is nevertheless understood <b>simply</b>,

that regarding a matter that <b>Moshe</b> did, the verse will not say that the <b>Jews</b> did it:

That which it says earlier¹⁷

"And <b>Yisrael</b> sent messengers" — although <b>Moshe</b> sent them¹⁸

— it is because the content of the mission to Sichon consisted of "Let me pass through your land, we will not turn into field or vineyard, etc."¹⁹,

and that meant all Jews

(that they <b>all</b> will not turn aside into field or vineyard and not drink "well water" etc.)

; so although the sending of the messengers was done by Moshe,

since however the entire content of the matter is in the name of all Yisrael²⁰,

it is fitting to say also regarding the <b>sending</b> of the messengers — "<b>And</b> <b>Yisrael</b> <b>sent</b>" — because of that which "Moshe is Yisrael and Yisrael is Moshe".

But regarding the striking of Og — it is true indeed that Moshe killed him for the sake of Jews,

this, however, was not in their name and by their agency,

therefore it is not applicable to say that because "Moshe is Israel and Israel is Moshe" the verse will attribute the striking of Og by Moshe,

to Jews.

The question again remains: why does it say "and they struck him",

6.

Seemingly one could answer,

that it says "vayaku"

in the plural?

(plural)

and not "vayach"

because for the wording "vayach" it would require that the verse add extra words:

The Torah tells here,

that they killed "him and his sons and all his people".

And since "his sons and all his people" were killed by other Jews

(as above sec. 1),

then if it would have stood

(regarding Og)

"and he struck him"

(singular),

(singular form),

the verse would have had to say "And Moses and the children of Israel struck him and his sons and all his people" or the like

(so that then "and Moses struck" would refer to "him",

and "and the children of Israel" to "his sons and all his people"),

And in order to avoid superfluous words,

he says right at the beginning "and they struck" plural form — and the plain meaning is that the striking of "him and his sons and all his people"

(together)

was done by a plurality,

by Moses and the children of Israel.

But the answer is not smooth:

Since that Moses

and looked upon Jews with a good eye ²³]

was afraid "lest the merit of Abraham stand for him",

is then seemingly understandable,

that after all the virtues and praises of Jews,

there was a place to say that their merit is not enough to defeat Og,

because of that which he possesses "the merit of Abraham";

And accordingly, one must seemingly say,

that that which the Almighty said to Moshe, "Do not fear him, for into &lt;b&gt;your hand&lt;/b&gt; I have given him",

it is from the merit of &lt;b&gt;Moshe&lt;/b&gt;,

And since that because of the killing of Og one had to come specifically to &lt;b&gt;Moshe&lt;/b&gt; — &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; as by the killing of "his sons and all his people" which could have been also through other Jews — it does not fit that the verse should include both matters together

(although this locks up extra words)

and say "and they struck him",

which refers to Moshe and the children of Israel together?

This question Rashi addresses with that which he brings "a mountain of three parsangs",

as follows.

7.

The reason that Og uprooted a mountain that is three parsangs large is because of the area where the Jews were located which measured three parsangs²⁴.

4.

5.

That with his uprooting the mountain "of three parsangs" he wanted to kill — G-d forbid — <b>all</b> the Jews.

is therefore understandable from this,

that by means of that which "he uprooted a mountain like three hairs" he

(not only committed a great sin,

but he also)

lost "the merit of Abraham": had he wanted to kill

(G-d forbid)

only a part of the Jews,

or even the majority of the Jews,

it could still have been a rationale that by him should remain the merit that he claimed from Abraham "for he took captive &lt;b&gt;his brother&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;

which brought to "and he returned etc. Lot &lt;b&gt;his brother&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;

; but when "he uprooted a mountain like three hairs" in order to destroy G-d forbid the seed of Abraham entirely&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;,

he thereby nullified the merit that he had.

And consequently it comes out,

that although initially,

the Almighty said to Moses "Do not fear him, for into &lt;b&gt;your hand&lt;/b&gt; I have given him"

(that specifically Moses could kill him)

— but when Moses actually killed him,

since in the interim the "uprooting of the mountain etc." had occurred,

one did not need to come specifically to the merit of Moses,

and also other Jews could have killed him — and therefore the verse says "and they struck" in the plural.

8.

Based on the above, we can say,

that the reason why it says "and they struck him"

(in the plural),

is

(not only because of the fact that one should not have then arrived specifically at the merit of Moshe,

and therefore one can include the striking of Og together with the striking of his sons and all his people which was done by other Jews,

but also)

because of the fact that also regarding "him" itself

(the striking of Og),

although that "&lt;b&gt;Moshe&lt;/b&gt; killed him",

he did it on the mission of all of Israel:

Since with the "uprooting a mountain of three parsangs" Og wanted to kill, heaven forbid, all the Jews,

as above,

as above,

then consequently &lt;b&gt;every&lt;/b&gt; Jew was obligated to kill him,

as the law is "if one comes to kill you, rise early to kill him"&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;,

it consequently follows,

that with what Moshe killed Og he did the mission of all the Jews.

And therefore it says "and they struck" in the plural.

9.

Based on this, it will also be understandable why Rashi is not satisfied with writing "as it is in Berachot" and he adds "in HaRo'eh" — because thereby he indicates,

that the matter that "Moshe killed him" was relevant to all Jews:

In the chapter HaRo'eh it discusses the blessings that one must make when one "sees",

when one sees certain things,

and at the beginning of the chapter²⁹

— about the blessing "Blessed is He who performed miracles <b>for Israel</b>"

(i.e.,

that is,

"a miracle for the many" — as opposed to "a miracle for an individual" which has other laws).

Is from this that the incident "aker tura etc." is stated in chapter <b>HaRo'eh</b> in continuation of "even shebikesh lizrok Og etc."

(Which is one of the examples of "makom shena'asu bo nissim <b>leYisrael</b>"²⁹)

— is a proof that this pertained to the many,

And therefore Rashi adds "beHaRo'eh" — because through this it is more emphasized what is stated "vayaku lashon rabbim".

10.

Of the "wondrous topics" and "the wine of Torah" that are in this commentary of Rashi:

The portion of Chukat is read in many years on the Shabbat that precedes 12-13 Tammuz

(And in this year)

— which Shabbat is indeed that from which all the days are blessed³⁰,

is one of the hints³¹

in the current portion in the matters of 12-13 Tammuz:

Just as regarding Og king of Bashan,

the beginning started from "into your hand I gave him",

and also in practice "Moses killed him",

but through this it became a miracle of all Israel — "and they struck" plural,

So too regarding the redemption of 12-13 Tammuz,

that through the sufferings and self-sacrifice of the Rebbe, the master of the redemption — the "extension of Moses" in our generation,

he drew down the redemption for "all lovers of our holy Torah,

keepers of the commandment",

even for those who are merely "called by the name of Israel"³²,

Every Jew — even one who is only "called by the name Israel",

if he only wants — he can enter directly into the Land of Israel in spirituality

(and he does not need to go around the land of Og — because it is already "and they struck him"),

which is also the preparation and preface to entry into the Land of Israel physically,

in the true and complete redemption through our righteous Mashiach,

he will come and redeem us and lead us upright to our land,

very soon and in our time.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Chukas 5725)