English translation — ואתחנן א

A.

In the verse "And you shall teach them to your children etc."¹

Rashi focuses on the word "to your children" and explains "these are the students" — that the meaning of "And you shall teach them to your children" is: you should teach with your <b>students</b>.

So the question arises: the translation of "to your children" is — to your <b>sons</b>,

so how can one translate "these are the students"?

— So Rashi adds "We find everywhere that students are called children" — that everywhere

the students are called children.

It is not understandable: from where does Rashi take to say that with "your children" here is meant students?

True indeed that also "students are called children",

But it is nevertheless much simpler to say that "your children" means sons,

as the simple interpretation of children in most places?

And although the Sifri interprets "your children — these are your students" — this is nevertheless an interpretation according to the way of the law,

and one cannot say that therefore Rashi interprets thus,

because as explained several times,

Rashi explains the verses according to the simple meaning,

not looking at that which according to the way of the law,

the homily etc. one learns differently,

and as Rashi himself gives out the rule — right in the first portion

: and I have come only for its simple meaning.

2.

On what Rashi says "My children are called sons everywhere" he brings three proofs:

(a)

"As it is said⁶

You are children to the Lord your God"

(That Jews are called the Most High's sons because they learned Torah from Him and are His students).

(b)

"And it says⁷

Sons of the prophets who are in Beit-El"

(That the students of the prophets,

who learned prophecy from them,

are called <b>sons</b> of the prophets).

(c)

"And likewise by Chizkiyahu who taught Torah to all of Israel and called them sons, as it is said⁸

My sons, now do not be negligent"

(That Chizkiyahu called Jews sons because he taught them Torah).

In this it is not understood:

a)

Why does Rashi need to come to three proofs and not suffice with one proof and not even with two?

In parshas Bamidbar⁹

Rashi says on the verse "and the sons of Aaron" are called in the verse "the generations of Moses",

that this is "because they learned Torah,

this teaches that whoever teaches his friend's son Torah, Scripture considers it as if he gave birth to him".

So the question: why in parshas Bamidbar,

where Rashi says that students are called "generations",

does he not seek any proofs for this from other places and he suffices with what it says there itself "the generations of Moses".

But when it comes in parshas Vaeschanan,

where Rashi says a <b>second</b> time "that students are called sons",

does he say "we find etc." and bring <b>proofs</b> for this?

3)

When Rashi already needs to come to proofs that students are called sons,

he brings proofs from verses,

which

(a)

the student has not yet learned them,

and

b)

(b)

and which Rashi himself holds that from each verse individually there is not sufficient proof

(which is why he must come to all three verses¹⁰)

— he could have brought a proof from the verse "Toldot etc. Moshe" which

(a)

the student has already learned,

and

(b)

in it it states clearly

(as Rashi explains there <b>in plain sense</b>)

that students are called Toldot?

4)

In the book of Proverbs, King Solomon calls each of his students

(to whom he says the words of rebuke of this book)

by the name "my son" <b>twenty</b> <b>and</b> <b>six</b> <b>times</b>.

So why

Rashi must bring that Chizkiyah called Jews "my children" <b>one</b> time

(and also that single time it is still not clear that this is because they were his students,

as below sections 3-4),

could he not have brought from that Shlomo's address to his students is <b>regularly</b> with the name "my children"?

The question is even stronger:

What Chizkiyah called his students "banai,"

is stated in Divrei HaYamim,

but Shlomo calls his students "banai" in Sefer Mishlei,

so Rashi should have seemingly better brought the proof from Sefer Mishlei,

because¹¹

(a)

In the "order of the Writings," Sefer Mishlei comes before Sefer Divrei HaYamim¹²,

and it was also written earlier—it

(because Mishlei was written by Chizkiyah and his colleagues,

and Divrei HaYamim—by Ezra and Nechemyah¹³).

(b)

The content of the book of Divrei HaYamim is as its name — words of the days.

But the content of the book of Mishlei is — instruction for students,

as it says immediately at the beginning of the book "to know wisdom and discipline,

to understand words of understanding".

So it is self-understood that when one wants to bring a proof that a teacher calls students sons,

one need not come to that which one finds it <b>one</b> <b>time</b> and in a book of <b>words</b> of the <b>days</b> — when in an entire book of <b>instruction</b>,

the teacher continuously turns to his students with the expression <b>my sons</b>.

3.

Besides the difficulty why Rashi does not bring proofs from other places,

there are also several precise points in the words that Rashi writes here:

a)

When Rashi brings the proof from "bnei hanevi'im" he adds the words "asher beVeit E-l".

And at first glance,

to prove that "students are called sons" is only relevant to the words "bnei hanevi'im".

Why does he also quote "asher beVeit E-l"?

The question is even greater: In the Sifri — from where Rashi copies his commentary — only the words "

(And the sons of the prophets went out¹⁴)

sons of the prophets",

and the words "which are in Beit-El" do <b>not</b> appear.

Why does Rashi add the words?

Even more wondrous

(and this is also difficult in the Sifri)

: The phrase "sons of the prophets" already appears in the Tanakh¹⁵

several chapters <b>before</b> the verse "And the sons of the prophets who are in Beit-El went out".

So why does not bring

(the Sifri and not)

Rashi a proof that "students are called sons" from the <b>first</b> time that it says "sons of the prophets"?

2)

After a change of Rashi's language relative to the language of the Sifri: In the Sifri it stands "And so you find regarding Chizkiyahu king of Yehudah who taught the entire Torah in its entirety to Yisrael".

What Rashi's change here consists of in three things:

(a)

He omits "king of Yehudah".

(b)

He writes Torah simply and not "the entire Torah in its entirety".

(c)

He adds "to &lt;b&gt;all&lt;/b&gt; of Yisrael",

not &lt;i&gt;"to Yis&lt;/i&gt;r&lt;i&gt;ael"&lt;/i&gt; simply,

as in the Sifri.

So that which Rashi omits "king of Yehudah" — is understandable.

Because the words are not relevant at all to our subject

(and on the contrary,

they give a &lt;i&gt;place&lt;/i&gt; for error that that which Chizkiyahu called Jews children is it because of the fact that he was their king

(see &lt;i&gt;below&lt;/i&gt; section fourteen)

and not because of the fact that he taught them Torah).

Also this that Rashi does not write "the entire Torah" — is understood,

because even when one learns with a student only one chapter or one verse, the student is already called son.

(that specifically <b>such</b> a student is <i>called</i> son)

it would have been a contradiction to his commentary "And you shall teach them to your sons — these are the students" — because it is understood that in this verse it also speaks about the study of only a part of the Torah],

It is, however, not understood what Rashi adds "to all of Israel": it is, after all, simple that even when one learns Torah with one Jew, the student is called a son.

4.

After Rashi brings the proofs that students are called sons, he adds: "And just as students are called sons, as it is said, 'You are sons to the Lord your God,' so too the teacher is called father

(Just as the students are called sons,

as it is stated, 'You are sons to the Lord your God,'

so is the teacher called father.

And he brings a proof for this')

as it is said¹⁶

"My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, etc."

(That which Elisha called Elijah "my father, my father" is because he was his teacher¹⁷),

Is in this not understood:

a)

To Rashi's explanation "to your children these are the students" is indeed only relevant that "the students are called children".

Because of what does he add a whole matter that "the teacher is called father"?

2)

If Rashi already wants to write this,

it is seemingly enough that he should say "וכן הרב <i>קרוי</i> אב".

What is the relevance of the entire lengthiness "<b>וכשם</b> שהתלמידים קרויים בנים etc. <b>כך</b> הרב <i>קרוי</i> אב" — that what the teacher is called father is it in the same manner as students are called children?

3)

When Rashi brings "וכשם שהתלמידים קרויים בנים"

(in order to conclude "כך הרב <i>קרוי</i> אב"),

he adds: "שנאמר בנים אתם לה' אלקיכם".

And seemingly,

Rashi has already <b>just</b> <b>now</b> written — and brought <b>three</b> proofs — that the students are called children,

so why does he need to bring again a proof for this

(and — specifically this one proof and not even saying <b>etc.</b> — as a hint also to the other two proofs)

<b>immediately</b> when repeating it a second time¹⁸?

d)

On this that "the teacher is called father" Rashi brings a proof: "as it is said, 'My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, etc.'"

In the Sifri he quotes additional words from that verse: "and Elisha saw and he cried out, 'My father, my father, the chariot of Israel and its horsemen,' and he saw him no more, and he took hold of his garments, etc."

Rashi, however, quotes only the words "my father, my father, the chariot of Israel."

It is understandable why Rashi does not write all the other words — because according to the plain meaning they are not needed for the proof that "the teacher is called father."

Why, however, does he need to bring the words "the chariot of Israel"?

Also they are apparently not necessary here¹⁹

Because to prove that "the teacher is called father" only the words "my father, my father" are relevant.

e)

As discussed several times, it is evident that the way <i>of</i> Rashi in every place²⁰,

when he brings certain words from the middle of a verse he does not write "etc."

Except when also the <i>subsequent</i> words are relevant to the matter he wishes to bring out — but they are not so necessary,

then he suffices with hinting at them through "etc." and does not quote them explicitly.

Since Rashi adds "etc." after the words "chariot of Israel",

it is understood that also the word "and its horsemen" which is stated in the verse after "chariot of Israel" pertains to the understanding of the matter here

(although it is not so necessary,

which is why Rashi does not explicitly quote it).

One must understand: what additional understanding comes into our matter through the word "and its horsemen"?

5.

That which Rashi teaches "to your sons these are the students" — and not to your sons literally — one could seemingly explain:

In Parshat Tisa²¹

Rashi says "How was the order of the Mishnah" — that at first Moses taught with Aaron,

then with Aaron's sons etc. and concludes: "Thus it is found in the hand of the people one, in the hand of the elders two, in the hand of Aaron's sons three, in the hand of Aaron four."

It is not understood²²

: How does it come that Aaron should need to hear

(every subject in the Torah)

and for those who are lesser than him it should be sufficient to hear only three or two times,

until that for "all the people" it was enough to hear only one time?

On this Rashi there adds "etc. as it is stated in Eruvin",

meaning what is stated there²³

that after Moses finished the four times of teaching "they taught to Aaron his chapter etc. they taught to his sons their chapter etc. they taught to the elders their chapter".

So that thus it <i>turns</i> out

(as the Gemara explains there)

"Thus it is found in the hand of all four".

Why was it necessary that it should be "in the hand of all four"?

It is understood simply,

because specifically when one hears a matter several times,

four times,

four times,

one knows it well,

in a way that the words of Torah are "sharp in your mouth" — according to Rashi's explanation on "veshinantam".

And in this manner also at the beginning of Parshat Mishpatim²⁴.

The question, however, is: the obligation of "veshinantam" is only "levanecha",

which simply — without Rashi's explanation — means sons literally.

Why were the sons of Aharon and the elders²⁵ obligated

to review each matter again until it should be "in the hand of all four"?

If the Jews had not heard even one time,

the sons of Aharon and the elders would also not have been obligated to teach them.

And all the more so, since all the Jews had already heard each matter twice — from Moshe and from Aharon — surely the sons of Aharon and the elders were not obligated to review again in order that it should be "in the hand of all <b>four</b>"?

And one cannot say that they did it "beyond the letter of the law" — because as Rashi says there, this was the "<b>order</b> of the Mishnah".

Therefore Rashi teaches "to your children these are the students",

and consequently, learning with students every matter four times — the order of the Mishnah.

6.

But the explanation is not sufficient.

Because

a)

That which Aaron,

his sons and the elders taught after "Moshe was taken",

is not necessarily so much in the plain meaning of the verses,

therefore Rashi does not bring it in his commentary,

rather he only alludes to it with etc.

One cannot say that Rashi's <b>compulsion</b> to explain — according to the way of <b>the plain meaning</b> — "your sons, these are the students" is from a matter that is <b>not</b> <b>compelled</b> in the plain meaning.

b)

The proof from "the order of the Mishnah" is only,

that somewhere an obligation was stated to teach also with other Jews,

not only with sons.

It is, however, not necessary that the obligation stands specifically in this verse "and you shall teach them to your sons".

Is it then because we do not find any other verse for this obligation,

one will explain "your sons, these are the students" — <b>contrary</b> to the <b>simple</b> explanation?

3)

Even more: even according to Rashi's interpretation "to your children — these are the students," one must still seek another source for the fact that Aharon,

his sons and the elders taught with other Jews.

For the verse "And you shall teach them to your children" was only said in Mishneh Torah,

in the fortieth year,

and the "order of the Mishnah" was already in the first year.

7.

So the explanation in this is:

On "I will divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel"²⁶

Rashi explains

(and he says this <b>explicitly</b>,

because it is thus compelled there from the plain meaning of the verse²⁷),

that the children of Shimon will have their livelihood from being scribes and teachers of young children.

If one will learn "And you shall teach them to your children" according to its plain meaning,

that every father is commanded that he himself should teach his children²⁸,

then it would turn out that the entire existence of teachers of young children applies only in a case when the children have no father, may G-d spare us,

or when their father is such a great ignoramus that even with young children he cannot teach,

or when he transgresses, may G-d spare us, the positive commandment of "And you shall teach them to your children."

So the question arises: how did Yaakov Avinu give the sons of Shimon a livelihood that they should be

(scribes and)

teachers of young children,

when the entire reality of teachers is so rare?

This compels us to learn that "and you shall teach them to your children" is <b>not</b> according to its simple meaning.

And since upon the father there is no obligation <b>personally</b> to teach Torah with <b>his</b> sons,

it is then understandable that the livelihood of the tribe of Shimon is based on a firm foundation,

because every father will certainly hire a teacher for his children and pay him tuition

(although it is not written any obligation for him to do this),

just as he provides his children with all their needs.

And this is also compelled from other places: earlier in Parshat Vayechi²⁹

Rashi says "Ephraim was accustomed before Yaakov in Talmud."

And also at the end of that parshah on the verse "the sons of Machir son of Menasheh were born on Yosef's knees"³⁰,

Rashi says "that he raised them between his knees",

which it seems to say his intention³¹,

that he taught them Torah.

So.

If one will say that "and you shall teach them to your children" means according to its simple meaning,

then it will be very difficult: how does it happen that Yaakov Avinu should take from Yosef the positive commandment of "and you shall teach them",

and Yosef should take it from Machir*³¹?

(Because "was accustomed" and "that he raised them"

It does not mean that this was done once,

by chance,

but rather that this was the regular order,

it turns out that Yaakov took the mitzvah from Yosef and Yosef from Machir).

8.

In truth, one need not come to all these above-mentioned verses at all.

By the "ben chamesh lamikra",

learning the verse "veshinantam levanecha",

the question arises from what he himself sees with his own eyes:

The child learns in cheder by a melamed,

also learn in that cheder other boys.

Also the ben chamesh lamikra knows that there are many other chedors where melameds teach children,

so when he comes to the verse "veshinantam levanecha",

he asks: Why did my father put me into cheder to the melamed and does not learn himself with me — and.

So also do the fathers of all the other boys: are then the fathers of all children transgressing, G‑d forbid, a positive commandment?

Rashi answers him "banecha these are &lt;b&gt;the students&lt;/b&gt;",

and consequently your father is, G‑d forbid, not transgressing any commandment,

because there is not

(according to the simple explanation)

any obligation to learn personally with one's own children.

9.

But the ben chamesh lamikra argues,

it says indeed &lt;b&gt;levanecha&lt;/b&gt;,

so how can one interpret "these are the students"?

On this Rashi says that one finds in other places,

and on the contrary — &lt;b&gt;in every&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;place&lt;/b&gt;,

that students are called sons — just as "sons are you to Hashem your G‑d",

that Jews are called the sons of the Most High because of that which they learn Torah from Him.

With this verse alone, however, Rashi cannot.

be satisfied,

and he also brings the verses "the children of the prophets etc." and "children, do not neglect",

because

that what Jews are called the Most High's children is an expression of endearment,

as one sees tangibly that when someone wants to express his love to someone who is dear to him,

he calls him "my child",

since the greatest love that one can depict is the love of parents for children

(And although the love of the Most High for Jews is much greater than the love of parents for children — as is known from the teaching of the Baal Shem Tov³²

that the love of parents for an only son born to them in their old age does not compare to the love of the Most High for each and every one of Israel — nevertheless,

"the Torah spoke in the language of men,"

and since the greatest love among a person is the love of parents for children,

therefore the verse says "You are children to the Lord your God" — "to bend the ear to what it can hear"³³),

is in addition to this — even if one will already learn that the word "children" in the verse is

(not a term of endearment and rhetoric,

but)

the correct name,

i.

e.

that Jews are called children of the Holy One, blessed be He, because they receive from Him a matter that pertains to their very essence of existence — like a son whose existence derives from his father,

Is still no proof that this is because they are the Almighty's students and have learned Torah from Him,

]because

One can say,

that the matter which Jews received from the Almighty,

because of which they are called His children,

are the 613 commandments³⁴.

Which also they are a <b>fundamental</b> thing in the existence of Jews.

10.

A proof of this, that regarding every matter

(essential)

which one receives — not only regarding the study of Torah — the title "sons" applies:

In Parshat Shemot³⁵

it says "Israel is My firstborn son",

one sees from this that Jews are called the Most High's sons while still in Egypt,

<b>before</b> the giving of the Torah³⁶.

Even more: from the wording "My <b>firstborn</b> son Israel" it indicates

(according to the second explanation of Rashi³⁷)

that

(before the giving of the Torah)

also non-Jews, be it different, are the Most High's sons,

and the superiority of Jews consists in that they are "My <b>firstborn</b> son".

One must therefore say,

that the title "son" there is because the Most High created them and they are constantly sustained by Him,

as it says "Who sustains the entire world".

So although it is understood that the term "children" in the verse "You are children etc.",

where only Jews

("you")

are called children,

is much higher than the term "son" in the portion of Shemot which also non-Jews are called with it; this term "children" which is only by "you" is because of that which Jews

(and only Jews)

receive such a matter from the Above which is much higher than that which He is "providing for the entire world",

And since even a five-year-old for Mikra knows that "Who chose us from all the nations" is connected with "and gave us His Torah"^*37,

it stands to reason that that which it says "You are children to the Lord your God"

(which the verse was said <b>after</b> the giving of the Torah)

is it because of that which Jews received the Torah,

But still, from this there is no conclusive proof that they are called children because they learned Torah from the Most High — it could be that this is because of the 613 commandments that He gave them at the giving of the Torah.

Therefore Rashi brings another proof from "children of the prophets,"

where one must say that the title children is because they learned from the prophets.

11.

When Rashi brings the proof from "bnei nevi'im" he must also write the words "asher beVeis E-l",

because without these words one could learn that by "bnei hanevi'im" is meant

(not students of prophets,

but)

prophecy-people.

d.

h.

Such people whose essence and substance is — prophecy.

Like the expression "bnei kedem"&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;

which means kedem-people and not children of Kedem,

and similarly "bnei shanah"&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;

which the expression describes their essence — it does not mean the children of shanah.

Therefore Rashi also adds the words "asher beVeis E-l",

which prove,

that "bnei nevi'im" does not mean prophecy-people,

because in Beis E-l there were indeed no true prophets&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;

(as related earlier in Tanach&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;

that from all the true prophets there remained only Eliyahu the prophet).

Consequently it is forced that "bnei hanevi'im" means students of the prophets,

and they are called &lt;b&gt;bnei&lt;/b&gt; nevi'im because students are called sons.

12.

From the verse itself, however, there is also no proof.

Because

(with difficulty, at least)

one can say,

that although Jezebel had killed all the prophets of the Lord and only Elijah the prophet remained

(and the prophets who were in the cave),

but after Elijah the prophet had killed the prophets of Baal,

the prophets of truth began to return.

And consequently, one can still interpret that by "sons of prophets" — also in the "sons of the prophets who were in Bethel" — are meant grown men,

and not disciples of prophets.

But it is not entirely smooth.

It is very difficult to say,

that in the course of such a short time there should already be a whole group of prophets of truth,

and especially in Bethel — the place where the main idolatry of Jeroboam was⁴².

(Therefore Rashi assumes,

that from the verse "sons of the prophets who were in Bethel" there is indeed a proof "that students are called sons" — not like from the verse "sons of the prophets" from I Kings

(20,

35),

which Rashi does <b>not</b> bring).

Nevertheless,

since however with difficulty one can still say so — Rashi brings another proof from that which Hezekiah called Jews "sons" because he taught them Torah⁴³.

13.

On this proof, however, it is difficult: Hezekiah was a king.

And the role of a king is — to provide the people with all their needs,

like a "shepherd" to "flock"⁴⁴.

One can indeed ask: from where is the proof that Hezekiah called them children because he taught them Torah,

it could indeed be that this is because he provided them with all their needs,

and for any matter

(essential)

that one receives one is called a child

(as above section 10)?

So the explanation in this is: one does not find anywhere,

except by Hezekiah, that kings should call Jews children,

therefore it is forced that what

(specifically)

Hezekiah called the Jews thus is because of that which he gave them such a thing that no other king gave them.

And since we find only one matter that Hezekiah gave Jews more than other kings,

and that is the matter of the study of Torah,

we understand from this,

that he called them children because he taught them Torah.

And therefore Rashi adds "who taught Torah to all of Israel",

meaning thereby,

that in "the study of Torah",

in this did the influence of King Hezekiah to the entire Jewish people stand out.

14.

Nevertheless, from this there is still no conclusive proof that "students are called sons".

One could say,

that that which Hezekiah called Jews sons is because in addition to his teaching them Torah,

he also provided them with material needs,

like other kings.

And specifically because of his giving Jews both things — both material needs and Torah — they are called sons

(since receiving all needs — material and spiritual — is similar to a son whose all needs

(and also his very existence)

is from the father).

From where, however, is the proof that the students who learn Torah from the teacher and do not receive from him any other things,

are also they called sons?

Therefore Rashi brings the verse "the sons of the prophets etc."⁴⁵,

where one finds that the title sons can be solely from the aspect of the matter of study.

15.

After all the above, it is still difficult: Why does Rashi not bring from "Toldot Moshe" and from the book of Proverbs?

So the explanation in this is:

The difficulty that Rashi has in the explanation "to your sons, these are the students"

(which he answers with "we find in every place that students are called sons")

is: why does it say in the verse "to your sons",

which gives room for a mistake to interpret "to your sons" literally?

It could have said "and you shall teach them to your students"&lt;sup&gt;46&lt;/sup&gt;

! And to this Rashi answers "we find in every place that students are called sons",

that "&lt;b&gt;in every&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;place&lt;/b&gt;" — in the entire Written Torah,

students are called sons.

And consequently one cannot ask why it does not say "and you shall teach them to your students",

because &lt;b&gt;in every&lt;/b&gt; place the name for students is — sons&lt;sup&gt;47&lt;/sup&gt;.

Where does one see that in every place students are called sons?

Rashi brings several places where the verse calls students by the name sons,

and not by the name students.

And according to this it is understood &lt;b&gt;simply&lt;/b&gt; why Rashi needs to come to several verses — because from one verse,

and even from two — it is only a proof that students can be called children.

But there is no proof that this is their name in every place,

when one sees, however, in &lt;b&gt;three&lt;/b&gt; places

Prophets and Writings]

that the verse calls students by the name children,

it is a proof that this is their unique name.

According to this it is understood why Rashi cannot bring a proof from that which the sons of Aaron are called "the generations of Moses": true indeed — there the verse lets us hear that "whoever teaches the son of his friend Torah, Scripture considers it as if he gave birth to him",

but from there there is no conclusive proof that students are called children — because there the name "children" does not appear

that "whoever teaches etc. it is as if he gave birth to him",

but not regarding obligation etc.].

Also it is correct that Rashi does not bring a proof from the word "my son" in the book of Proverbs,

because one can say,

that the "Proverbs of Solomon" King Solomon first said to his son

(Rehoboam etc.)

and only afterwards did he make it into a book of study for everyone.

And since when saying the proverbs to his son he used the term my son,

he did not change the term from my son to my students also when it became a book of study for everyone,

because the term is also fitting for every student because students are called <b>also</b> sons.

Therefore Rashi brings the verse where Hezekiah said my son <b>not</b> to his children — also originally — from this is a proof that the only name for students in the Written Torah is sons.

16.

After Rashi explains why it says "to your sons" and not to your students he adds "And just as students are called sons, so the teacher is called father."

With these words Rashi addresses another question that one can ask on his commentary "to your sons these are the students":

The explanation of "ושננתם" is as Rashi says "it is an expression of sharpening,

that they should be sharp in your mouth etc."

It is understood,

that to teach another in such a manner until "ושננתם" is a great labor.

The question arises: why is the teacher obligated to exert himself so much with his students until the matters should be "sharpened"?

If one would interpret לבניך simply — it is understandable,

because a father must do everything that is possible for his children.

If "לבניך" means however students,

it is difficult: it is enough that the teacher teaches at all with other Jews who have no connection to him,

why obligate him to labor with them until in a manner of "ושננתם"?

This is indeed not a strong question — we find other commandments for which we do not know a reason.

But it is not entirely smooth.

Because the matters of "gezeiras hakasuv" that we find in the Torah are only few.

Therefore Rashi says "a teacher is called a father",

and since the teacher is

(regarding the study)

a father to his students,

he must devote himself to them

(in connection with the study)

with the same giving and taking as a father to his children.

17.

If Rashi would however say only the words "the teacher is called father" it would still not be clear his intention,

it could be that the title is only a matter of honor⁴⁹,

not a matter that places upon him an obligation,

and certainly not such an obligation like that of a father to children.

Therefore Rashi adds "<b>And just as</b> that the students are called sons etc. <b>so</b> the teacher is called father",

that this that the teacher is called father it is <b>exactly</b> like that which students are called sons:

Just as the concept that "students are called children" places upon the students a great obligation to their teacher

— "as it is said, 'You are children to the L-rd your G-d',"

so therefore because Jews are the children of the Most High they are obligated in all 613 commandments

(and cannot exempt themselves by fulfilling 612 commandments — although even 612 commandments is very many),

so that there is not a single minute when a Jew is, G-d forbid, free from the yoke of heaven,

for in every free moment he is obligated in Torah study,

and also when he is occupied with his needs

(in addition to the fact that in every matter there are several laws as to how it should be done),

he must do it for the sake of heaven —

"&lt;b&gt;Thus&lt;/b&gt; the teacher is called 'father',"

Thus the title "father" with which the teacher is called places upon him the same kind of obligation to his students.

Chai.

Where does one find that the title "father" places upon the teacher an obligation to teach his students in a manner that words of Torah should be sharp in their mouths?

Rashi brings a proof on this "as it is said, 'My father, my father, the chariot of Israel':"

When Elisha called his master Eliyahu "Avi Avi" he added to it "Rechev Yisrael",

meaning thereby that Eliyahu had

(through his prayers⁵⁰)

given Jews the power to be victorious in their wars,

like a chariot helps out in a war

(which the "ben chamesh lamikra" already learned in parshas Beshalach⁵¹).

What is the connection of "Rechev Yisrael" — which Eliyahu was to <b>Jews</b>,

with "Avi Avi" — which he was to <b>Elisha</b>

(being his master)?

From this however that Elisha said about Eliyahu "Rechev

(Yisrael)

" in continuation of "Avi Avi",

it is understandable that the title "Rechev" also pertains to the matter of "Avi Avi"⁵²

: because of that which the master is called father to his students,

he must be their "Rechev" — give them the power to be victorious in the wars that they have in their learning.

19.

In what kinds of wars

(in learning)

of the students, their teacher must give them the strength to be victorious,

and what connection does this have to “<b>and you shall teach them</b> to your children” — the student himself knows it from his own learning and Rashi does not need to explain it at all:

It happens quite often,

that after he has learned a topic,

and understood a reasoning,

a second reasoning comes and conflicts with the first,

it wars with the reasoning that he previously learned.

And if he himself does not catch on to the new reasoning,

it comes to him through a question that another asks — “if someone asks you something”.

And if he cannot be victorious in the war: he does not have the correct answer with which to repel the contradictory reasoning,

a doubt arises in him in his learning and consequently he begins to stammer.

And therefore the teacher must

(not only learn with him,

but also)

give the student the rules and explanations — the "chariot" — through which he should be able to be victorious in the intellectual wars and decide between the opposing opinions,

until the words of Torah should be for him "sharpened",

without any doubts.

18.

When Rashi brings a proof from "Avi avi rechev Yisrael" he adds "etc.",

meaning thereby the following word — "and his horsemen",

his rider.

The action of "and his rider" upon "chariot" in war literally is: when the warrior has a chariot,

it is still no proof that he will be victorious in the war,

because it could be that he does not even know how to drive the chariot.

When, however, to the chariot he has a "rider",

who sits upon the chariot and drives it,

then it is much more certain that he will be victorious in the war.

And the same thing is also regarding the war that takes place in the intellectual world: sometimes it can be that even when the teacher gives him a "chariot",

i.e.,

i.e.,

the principles and explanations to the student,

there should still remain by him doubts and he should be hesitant — because he does not know where and how one needs to use the principles.

Then in such a case,

the teacher must also be the "rider",

he must show the student the correct approach and help him to use the principles.

The word "ופרשיו" however Rashi only hints with "וגו׳" and does not quote it explicitly — because it is not necessary to "ושננתם": in most cases,

one fulfills the "ושננתם — sharpening language" also by giving the students only the "chariot".

Only since sometimes

(when the student is in a lower state where he cannot use the rules by himself; or when it concerns a matter most complicated and deep)

the teacher must also be the "ופרשיו",

Rashi hints also at <b>this</b> word.

יא.

In Rashi there is also "יינה של תורה"⁵³,

so with Rashi's hinting at the word "ופרשיו" through the <b>וגומר</b> he indicates a directive in avodah:

When one tells a Jew that he needs to teach Torah to other Jews,

with all those who are only in the category that they should become his students,

and teach them in a manner of "and you shall sharpen them — the language of sharpening",

that sometimes he needs because of this to also become "persuasive",

he can nevertheless argue: When that one is such that even after one tells him the general principles of study and one shows him the way — it is still too little for him,

then why do I need to occupy myself with him,

and even with such great effort?

He is after all completely beyond my level,

and especially that after I will already toil with him, who says that it will help him that the words of Torah will be sharpened for him?

To this the answer is: Since from Above it was arranged that you should encounter that Jew,

this is a clear instruction that you need to teach him in a manner of "and you shall sharpen them".

And consequently you must also become "and his spreaders,"

in order to <b>complete</b> and finish <b>your</b> mission: it is not a matter of you doing <b>that one</b> a favor,

but this pertains to you⁵⁴

because without this — you do not finish <b>your</b> mission,

and when there is lacking in this the completion of the mission, there is lacking in the fulfillment of the entirety of the mission.

And on the other hand: when you <b>will</b> become "and his spreaders" and complete your mission,

you then receive the power of the Holy One, blessed be He,

for the agent of a person

(the superior)

is like him⁵⁵,

and you are called father, for He equated the honor of a father to the honor of the Omnipresent⁵⁶,

and consequently you are certain that your effort will succeed,

for the power of the sender with which you act — is indeed an unlimited one.

22.

The proof that "the rav is called father"

(which is an explanation of the obligation "and you shall sharpen them" as above section 16)

— Rashi brings from the phrase "my father, my father" which is stated by Elijah the prophet, the herald of the redemption⁵⁷.

And also with this Rashi hints at a matter of "the wine of Torah":

When one fulfills the command "and you shall sharpen them" [meaning] the language of sharpening, this is a foretaste of the future to come,

when "they shall no longer teach each man his fellow"⁵⁸

because <b>the</b> matter which the student has already learned from the rav,

is already sharpened in his mouth and he no longer needs to come to the rav for it.

And since all future revelations are dependent on our deeds and our service now⁵⁹,

it is therefore understandable that the fulfillment of the command "and you shall teach them" is the vessel that draws down the "and they shall not learn etc." that will be in the future⁶⁰.

And this is what Rashi hints at with his bringing the proof for "and you shall teach them to your children" from the verse "my father, my father, the chariot of Israel etc." that is stated by Elijah the herald of the redemption,

because the fulfillment of this particular command brings near and hastens the fulfillment of the prophecy "and they shall not learn etc. for the earth shall be filled with knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea"⁶¹,

which is an essential matter⁶²

in the true and complete redemption through our righteous Messiah,

may he come and redeem us speedily, truly.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Va'eschanan 5728)