English translation — מסעי א

1.

On the verse "And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, etc."¹

Which stands after the story of the death of Aaron,

Rashi says

(on the words "And the Canaanite heard")

: "Here it taught you that the death of Aaron is the report,

that the clouds of glory departed, and he thought that permission was given to fight against Israel."

In this it is not understood:

a)

Because his explanation "Here it taught you that the death of Aaron is <b>the report</b> etc.'",

is then relevant only to the word "Vayishma" ostensibly,

why does Rashi quote both words "Vayishma HaCanaani"?

b)

From the fact that Rashi begins his explanation with "Here it taught you etc.'" and not "He heard that Aaron died etc.'"<sup>2</sup>

it is proven ostensibly,

that he is here coming to explain

(not only the explanation of "Vayishma HaCanaani" itself,

but)

also the <b>superfluity</b> of the verse<sup>3</sup>

— that the reason why the verse repeats here <b>again</b> the narrative "Vayishma HaCanaani etc.'"

(although this is already told in Parshat Chukat<sup>4</sup>)

is in order to teach us "that the death of Aaron is the report",

But from that which Rashi says later "therefore he repeated and wrote it"

(after his explanation "here he taught you etc.")

it is evident,

that earlier,

when teaching his explanation on the verse "and the Canaanite heard",

is not difficult the "he repeated and wrote it" —

is if he finds it necessary to articulate that question

(because it is not so simple and consequently it is possible that the "ben chamesh

(to Scripture)

" may not grasp it by himself),

he places the words that express the question before his explanation⁵

(so that the student should immediately know what Rashi intends to address with his explanation)

; and in a case,

where due to the great simplicity of the question Rashi does not preface it,

rather begins immediately with his explanation — then he does not articulate the question even after the explanation,

with which it is answered⁶]

Only after Rashi explains "here it taught you etc."

(In order to answer another question,

a most simple question that Rashi does not need to explain at all),

he adds "therefore it repeated and wrote it",

that through his explanation it also becomes understandable

(although even without this it is not a real difficulty,

or the difficulty only arose according to his explanation)

the reason for "repeated and wrote it".

One must understand⁷

: what is this superficial non-smoothness in "and the Canaanite heard",

because of which Rashi needs to explain "here it taught you"?

3)

The "here it taught you" is, after all, ostensibly a revelation of the matter

(not in the matter of the death of Aaron,

but)

in the matter of "and the Canaanite heard" — what kind of report it was — should the language in Rashi's commentary have been in the opposite order: here it taught you "that the report is the death of Aaron" and not "that the death of Aaron is the report"?

4)

Also on the verse "and the Canaanite heard" which is in Parshat Chukat<sup>4</sup>,

Rashi says "he heard that Aaron died" — why does Rashi say in <b>our</b> verse "<b>here</b> it taught you that the death of Aaron etc."

(and he further concludes "therefore it repeated and wrote it")

when we already know it from Parshat Chukat?

2.

Commentators answer the last question⁸

: in parshas Chukas,

after "And the Canaanite heard, etc.",

the verse immediately continues "for Israel came by the way of the spies".

Therefore one can learn there,

that "And the Canaanite heard" refers <b>not</b> to the death of Aharon which is related earlier,

but to the conclusion "for Israel came, etc."⁹

; not so in our parshah,

where in the verse "And the Canaanite heard" no other event is mentioned,

one must learn that "And the Canaanite heard" comes in continuation of the death of Aharon.

And the reason why also in parshas Chukas Rashi says "he heard that Aharon died" — because it is forced from <b>our</b> verse.

One cannot, however, answer in this way.

Because everywhere that Rashi gives a certain explanation for which he takes the proof from a <b>later</b> verse

(which the student has not yet learned),

he points out and says that the proof for his explanation is from such-and-such a verse.

In contrast, in parshas Chukas Rashi says "he heard that Aharon died, etc." and brings <b>not</b> any proof for it from our

Verse,

is from it implied¹⁰

that the explanation is proven from that same verse itself¹¹

— and since it is so,

then the question returns to its place: how does Rashi say <b>here</b> that "<b>here</b> it taught you etc."?

3.

And the explanation in this: The very thing that is learned out from our verse — <b>here</b> it taught you — Rashi himself explains with his language "that the death of Aaron is the report that the clouds of glory departed etc.":

In parshas Chukas Rashi says "He heard that Aharon died and the clouds of glory departed",

that he heard about the death of Aharon and <b>also</b>¹²

that "the clouds of glory departed".

But in our verse he says the wording "that the death of Aharon <b>is</b> the report"

(that the event of the death of Aharon is <b>the</b> <b>the</b> — single — report),

only afterwards Rashi <b>adds</b>

(<b>not</b> as an added detail in "And the Canaanite heard",

but)

as an <b>explanation</b>: "that the clouds of glory departed" — that which the report that Aharon died aroused him to war against Israel,

it was because at the time of Aharon's death the clouds of glory departed and he therefore considered that "permission was given to fight against Israel"¹³.

It remains however not understood: also in parshas Chukas in the Chumash¹⁴

it is not told that at the time of Aharon's death the clouds departed.

Why then should one assume that "And the Canaanite heard" there means the report "that Aharon died and the clouds of glory departed",

and in our verse — "that the death of Aharon is the report"¹⁵?

4.

Another change in Rashi of our verse regarding his commentary in Parshat Chukat: In Parshat Chukat he adds "and Amalek from time immemorial a rod of chastisement for Israel, ready at all times for calamities" and in his commentary on our verse this entire matter is absent.

Not there; instead he adds here another matter

(which he leaves out in Parshat Chukat)

: "And he thought that permission was given to fight against Israel."

Regarding that in our verse he does not mention that "Amalek from time immemorial a rod of chastisement etc.",

one can say that this is no question,

because it is not necessary to repeat it a second time; but the second change is not understood: why does he say the detail "And he thought that permission was given etc." only in our verse,

and not¹⁶

the first time where it says "And the Canaanite heard"¹⁷?

One must therefore say,

that the explanation of "and he thought that permission was given to fight against Israel" comes specifically in continuation to that which our verse innovates "that the death of Aaron is the report",

i.

in Parshat Chukat where "and the Canaanite heard" includes also the "the clouds of glory departed",

there one does not need to arrive at the explanation "he thought that permission was given etc."; but in our verse,

since that with "and the Canaanite heard" is meant here only the death of Aaron,

here one must already arrive at the explanation "he thought that permission was given etc.".

e.

e.

So the explanation of all this is:

After the words "And the Canaanite heard" — both in parshas Chukas and in our parshah — the verse tells us that he,

the "Canaanite",

was located in the "Negev".

There is, however, a difference between the two verses: in parshas Chukas it says "the Canaanite king of Arad <b>dwelling</b> <b>in the Negev</b>" — "dwelling in the Negev" is a description with which he characterizes the "Canaanite king of Arad"; but in our verse it is said "the Canaanite king of Arad,

and he was dwelling in the Negev": his description is "Canaanite king of Arad",

and "and he was dwelling in the Negev" is a <b>narrative</b> that tells where he was located at that time¹⁸

"when the children of Israel came"¹⁹.

From this change in the language of the verse it is evident,

that in the story "And the Canaanite heard" of our parshah the verse tells a <b>new</b> matter in his report

(which caused him to wage war with Jews)

In parshas Chukas,

where the verse describes him as "&lt;b&gt;dwells&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;the Negev&lt;/b&gt; — this is &lt;b&gt;Amalek&lt;/b&gt;

(as it is said&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;

Amalek dwells in the land of the Negev)

it speaks about such a report that affects only Amalek to have war with Jews.

Because,

as Rashi explains there: "Amalek was always a scourge for Israel,

ready at all times for punishment".

In our verse, however,

it is told about such a report that would affect also a mere "Canaanite"

(which is &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; a "scourge for Israel")

to have war with Jews.

6.

Based on this, it will be understood why in his commentary on our verse the language of Rashi is different than in his commentary on parshas Chukas:

Amalek,

being from always a "rod of chastisement for Israel",

is always ready to wage war with Jews — not thinking whether "permission was given to wage war with Israel",

or not.

And as one sees it clearly,

that also during Aharon's lifetime he did not refrain from it and "And Amalek came and waged war with Israel"&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;,

although then

(when the Clouds of Glory&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;

had still <b>not</b> departed)

it was not yet possible to think that permission had been given to wage war with Jews.

Therefore Rashi teaches that the "Vayishma Hakena'ani"

( — "zeh Amalek")

which is in parshas Chukas,

does not mean the report of the death of Aharon itself,

but rather the <b>result</b> of it — the <b>departure</b> of the <b>clouds</b> of <b>glory</b>: as long as the clouds of glory were present,

he simply had no possibility to approach the Jews,

because they were surrounded and protected by the clouds²³.

But as soon as "he heard that

(Aharon died" and that through this "and)

the clouds of glory departed" — immediately "he waged war against Israel".

However, in our verse,

where the "Vayishma Hakena'ani" means,

that he was motivated to the war as a <b>Canaanite</b>

(as he presented himself according to his language²⁴),

Rashi explains and emphasizes "<b>that the death</b> of <b>Aharon</b> is the report": from the perspective of this <b>possibility</b> that was created through the departure of the clouds of glory,

he would

(as a "Canaanite")

<b>not</b> have come to wage war with them; he did this only because he heard of the death of Aharon and therefore "he thought that <b>permission</b> had <b>been given</b> to wage war against Israel"²⁵.

And based on this, one will also understand why Rashi quotes the words "And the Canaanite heard" — although with his explanation "the death of Aaron is the report" only the word "And he heard" is interpreted — because by this he means to emphasize,

that our verse speaks about such a report that affected him as a Canaanite to the war with the Jews²⁶.

7.

One must, however, understand:

It is understood &lt;b&gt;simply&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;,

that in the "Vayishma Hakena'ani" in our verse,

is related the &lt;b&gt;same&lt;/b&gt; event as the one that is related in Parshat Chukat — i.e.

i.e.

that in actuality it was &lt;b&gt;Amalek&lt;/b&gt;,

it is therefore understood that his "Vayilachem b'Yisrael" came because he is "retzu'ah mardut k'v." and he is ready to fight with Jews &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; thinking about nitnah reshus; and that which our verse changes its language,

saying "Vayishma hakena'ani etc. &lt;b&gt;v'hu&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;yoshev&lt;/b&gt; banegev"

(and with the aforementioned diyukim in it),

is thereby only meant,

that even if he would &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; have in himself the characteristics of "Amalek" and he &lt;b&gt;would&lt;/b&gt; have been a "Kena'ani",

he would still have waged war with Jews because of that which "savor shenitnah reshus lehilachem b'Yisrael".

According to this, it is then completely difficult to understand: Why does the verse relate a matter that in actuality did not really happen and is entirely a matter of "ilu yitzuyer"?

And this Rashi guards with what he says "here it taught you that the death of Aaron is the report" —

In the story of the death of Aaron in our parshah,

are told a number of details which are not present in parshas Chukas: the manner of his passing "by the mouth of Hashem — that he died by a kiss"²⁸

; the time of the passing — "in the fortieth year etc. in the fifth month on the first of the month"²⁹

; and how old he was then — "and Aaron was a hundred twenty-three years old at his death"³⁰.

So since in our parshah are told several main details in connection with the death of Aharon

(which are not told in Parshas Chukas),

therefore "&lt;b&gt;here&lt;/b&gt; it teaches you that the death of Aharon is the report" — in &lt;b&gt;this&lt;/b&gt; parshah

(where it is fitting to tell &lt;b&gt;several&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;details&lt;/b&gt; about the death of Aharon)

it teaches us another detail in this matter and a detail that also proves the greatness of the importance of the death of Aharon: the death of Aharon &lt;b&gt;in its&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;own right&lt;/b&gt;,

was that which effected upon the "Canaanite" to wage war with Jews

(and not because of the result of the death of Aharon — the removal of the clouds of glory,

which can affect only &lt;b&gt;Amalek&lt;/b&gt;)

— because through the death of Aharon he "thought that permission was given to fight against Israel".

And based on this, also understandable is the change of language that exists in our verse relative to the verse in Parshas Chukas: there it is told "And the Canaanite heard etc." as a story by itself,

and since in actuality it was Amalek

(it is only that "he changed his language to speak in the language of Canaan"),

therefore the verse says "the inhabitant of the south"; but in our verse the story "And the Canaanite heard" is told in connection with &lt;b&gt;the death&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;of Aharon&lt;/b&gt;,

as a part of it,

in order to bring out that which Jews lost and suffered through his passing — therefore here stands the language "And the Canaanite heard etc. &lt;b&gt;and he&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;was dwelling&lt;/b&gt; in the south",

because through this style is brought out the very great damage that the death of Aharon caused — even &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;Amalek&lt;/b&gt; was ready to attack the Jews.

And therefore Rashi says "Here it taught you that the death of Aharon is the report" and not "that the report is the death of Aharon" — because the intention of "taught you" in our verse is

(<b>not</b> the matter of "and the Canaanite heard",

but)

"the death of Aharon"

(which indicates his greatness).

Ch.

After all the above, an explanation is still required: Why are several main matters in the death of Aharon told specifically when the narrative is told a second time,

and not in Parshas Chukas — where the narrative stands the first time?

In the simple approach, it is indeed not so difficult — because we find similar in other places — but nevertheless it is not entirely smooth, and especially since here it speaks specifically about the journeys of Bnei Yisrael,

unlike in Parshat Chukat.

And this is one of the matters of "the wine of Torah" that is in this Rashi commentary:

The <b>time</b> of Parshat Masei is <b>always</b> adjacent to Rosh Chodesh Menachem Av³¹.

And since in each and every year that which happened the first time is repeated and awakened at this time³²,

therefore³³

the Torah placed the <b>time</b> of the death of Aharon

(— "In the fifth month

(<b>Menachem Av</b>)

on the first of the month"),

as well as other main matters of the death of Aharon — in Parshat Masei³⁴.

And from this one can also derive a lesson regarding the guarding of the daily portions of study of Chumash with Rashi's commentary

(and likewise the daily portions of Tehillim and Tanya³⁵

— self-understood,

in addition to the fixed daily portions that each one has)

— that one must study it each day on its day,

and not put it off from one day to the next — because the portion of each day belongs to that day,

And through the observance of the regulations of the Rebbe, the Nasi, and walking in his ways in general,

one will go from journey to journey,

until one will arrive at the Jordan of Jericho, which alludes to and indicates Moshiach, "who smells and judges"³⁶,

that then "these days

(the Three Weeks)

will turn into joy and gladness",

very soon.

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Massei 5727)