English translation — וילך ב

A.

In the verse¹

Take this Torah scroll and place it at the side of the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord your God etc.,

Rashi stands

(In the second discourse beginning²)

on the words "at the side of the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord" and explains: "The Sages of Israel disagreed in Bava Batra³,

Some of them say that a shelf protruded from the ark on the outside and there it was placed,

And some say at the side of the tablets it was placed inside the ark."

In this there is something incomprehensible:

The simple explanation of "from the side of the Ark" is — at the side of the Ark.

Why then does Rashi bring in his commentary on the Torah — in which "I have come only for the simple meaning of the verse"⁴

- also the opinion that the Sefer Torah was lying "inside the Ark",

and that "from the side of the Ark" means inside the Ark but "from the side of the Tablets"?

The question is even greater:

Even the <b>Gemara</b>

(which learns the verses of the Torah according to the way of halacha and derush etc.)

says,

that from the verse "And you shall place it beside the Ark of the covenant of the Lord your God" alone,

one would have assumed that the Sefer Torah was lying <b>outside</b> the Ark<sup>5</sup>

; and the "Sages of Israel" who hold that it was placed <b>inside</b> the Ark,

they derive it

(<b>not</b> from the verse "beside the Ark etc.",

but)

from another verse — and that verse compels them to interpret in "beside the Ark" that this means "beside the tablets".

But from the fact that Rashi does not bring in his commentary any proof from other verses,

it is clear,

that also the second interpretation — "beside the tablets it was placed inside the Ark" — he takes out from our verse "beside the Ark of the covenant of the Lord"<sup>6</sup>.

So where does Rashi find the compulsion to interpret,

that "beside the Ark" means "<b>inside</b> the Ark ..

beside the <b>tablets</b>"

— which is prima facie the opposite of the plain meaning of the verse?

2.

Already spoken many times,

that when Rashi lets it be known at the beginning of his commentary on a verse — before he writes the commentaries themselves — that there are two

(several)

commentaries,

he means thereby to emphasize,

that the commentaries are "equivalent"

(not as in other places,

where the first commentary in Rashi is his main commentary

(and for that very reason he brings it earlier)

because it is smoother in the way of the plain meaning).

Rather, because it is impossible to write both commentaries simultaneously,

therefore he precedes one commentary before the other.

So it is also in our Rashi commentary,

that with his <b>addition</b> in his commentary

(as an introduction)

"the sages of Israel disagreed about it" he means to say,

that the interpretation "from the side of the tablets was placed inside the ark" is <b>not</b> further from the plain meaning than the interpretation that the Torah scroll was outside the ark.

And based on this it is even more perplexing: even if for some reason Rashi wants to bring also the interpretation "from the side of the tablets etc." — how is it possible to say that <b>this</b> interpretation is as good as the interpretation "a board protruded from the ark <b>outside</b> etc.",

when the plain meaning of the language "from the side of the ark" is — at the <b>side</b> of the ark?

3.

Also in the first explanation of Rashi it is not understood: from the words "from the side of the Ark of the covenant of the Lord" one knows only that the Sefer Torah lay <b>outside</b> the Ark

(as the simple meaning of "from the side of the Ark").

Where, however, is the proof that the Sefer Torah lay on a shelf and that the shelf protruded from the Ark?

And seemingly — <b>on the contrary</b>: from that which in the command regarding the making of the Ark⁷,

and also in "And Bezalel made the Ark"⁸,

all the details of the Ark are enumerated and no "shelf" is mentioned,

one must seemingly assume,

that no shelf <b>did</b> protrude from the Ark,

and the thing

(a shelf or something else⁹)

upon which the Sefer Torah lay — was a matter in its own right,

which was <b>not</b> attached to the Ark.

Is the question — what compels Rashi to <b>innovate</b> that

(also)

in the plain meaning of Scripture "the page protruded from the Ark"?

4.

In addition to all the above,

several details are also not understood

(precise points)

in this commentary of Rashi:

a)

Why does Rashi quote from the verse

(not only the words "from the side of the Ark" which he explains,

but)

also the words "covenant of the Lord"¹⁰

— seemingly, to his <b>both</b> interpretations

(regarding where the Sefer Torah was

located)

pertains only to the words "from the side of the Ark"?

b)

Rashi in his commentary on the Torah does not indicate the sources for his commentaries&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;,

except where through this comes an additional explanation in the commentary.

One must understand: what kind of additional understanding comes in the two commentaries that Rashi brings,

by his letting it be known that they stand in "Bava Batra"?

5.

So the explanation in all this is:

In the command "Take [etc.] and place it at the side of the Ark of the covenant of the Lord etc.",

the verse emphasizes "And Moses commanded the Levites <b>carriers</b> of the Ark of the covenant of the Lord"¹².

So from this it is understandable¹³,

that this command that the Torah scroll should be located "at the side of the Ark of the covenant of the Lord your God" applies not only to the time of the <b>encampment</b> of the Mishkan,

but also to the time of the <b>journeys</b> — when the Levites carry the Ark.

In addition to this: the story "And Moses wrote this Torah etc."¹⁴

and then "And it was when Moses finished writing the words of this Torah etc. and Moses commanded etc. and you shall place it at the side of the Ark of the covenant of the Lord your God etc."¹⁵

— comes in continuation to "And Moses called to Joshua etc. for you shall bring this people into the land etc."¹⁶

And since when going to the Land of Israel they dismantled the Mishkan and they set it up at a later time¹⁷,

there is therefore no place to learn that the continuation of the command

("and you shall place it at the side of the Ark etc.")

to Joshua meant that the Sefer Torah should be located "at the side of the Ark" only after they would set up the Mishkan,

at a later time.

Asks therefore the "Ben Chameish

(for Mikra)

": During the journeys the Ark was covered with three covers¹⁸.

And consequently,

is even if one would say that also during the journeys they carried the Sefer Torah at the side of the Ark,

it was nevertheless not "from the side of the Ark" actually,

because the covers interposed between the Ark and the Sefer Torah?

On this Rashi says "The sages of Israel disagreed about it etc.",

that in this there are two interpretations:

One explanation is,

"the board was protruding from the ark on the outside and there it was placed".

That the Sefer Torah was lying on a board which was protruding from the ark itself,

and the covers covered the ark together with the board,

and consequently the Sefer Torah was found "at the side of the ark" also during the journeys.

And although from the portions Terumah and Vayakhel it is evident,

that from the ark no board &lt;b&gt;did not&lt;/b&gt; protrude

(as above section 3)

— one can say,

that when the Almighty commanded Moses to place the Sefer Torah at the side of the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord

(for certainly Moses's command "Take etc. and place them etc." was not of his own mind, Heaven forbid,

but he heard it from the Almighty),

he understood from that command itself,

that one must make a board that should protrude from the ark,

so that the Sefer Torah should be "at the side of the ark" also during the journeys.

But since it is a great difficulty to say that in the fortieth year they changed the Ark

(attached to the Ark a board)

— therefore Rashi brings another explanation how the Sefer Torah lay &lt;b&gt;always&lt;/b&gt; alongside the Ark of the covenant of Hashem — "alongside the tablets it was placed inside the Ark".

But also this explanation is difficult,

because the plain meaning of the phrase "alongside the Ark" means on the &lt;b&gt;side&lt;/b&gt; of the Ark

(&lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;inside&lt;/b&gt; the Ark)

— therefore Rashi returns to the first explanation.

And since the interpretation "the board protruded from the Ark" — a thing that is not mentioned anywhere — is no less difficult than the interpretation that "from the side of the Ark" means inside the Ark on the side of the Tablets — therefore Rashi precedes his interpretation "the Sages of Israel disagreed",

to say,

that both interpretations are equivalent

(as above section 2).

6.

At first glance one can ask:

What is in general the necessity,

that with "and you shall place it on the side of the Ark" is meant the Ark that Bezalel made,

what then,

is since they covered the Ark with three covers during the journeys — one must force that in the fortieth year a change occurred that "the board protruded from the Ark" or that "on the side of the Ark" means "on the side of the Tablets etc."

— one can indeed learn,

that here is meant the Ark that Moses made¹⁹

— what was with the Jews the entire time and also it is called "Ark of the Covenant of the Lord"²⁰,

and regarding <b>that</b> Ark one does not find that one would need to cover it during the journeys.

And then,

will the explanation "on the side of the Ark" be understood simply — on the side of the Ark

(from the outside)?

This question Rashi answers by copying

(before his commentary)

the words "from the side of the Ark of the covenant of the L-rd":

In the previous verse it says "And Moses commanded the Levites, bearers of the Ark of the covenant of the L-rd" — and there it certainly refers to the Ark that Bezalel made,

that specifically upon it it says that the Levites

(the sons of Kohath)

carried it²¹

— from this it is understandable,

that the command "And you shall place it from the side of the Ark of the covenant of the L-rd" which comes later and with the same lengthy language as in the previous verse,

also refers to the Ark that Bezalel made.

7.

After all this,

In the student a question is aroused:

It is a simple thing²²,

that the measure of the Ark — two and a half cubits its length and a cubit and a half its width²³

— was connected with the measure of that which lay in the Ark²⁴.

And since it is so,

it turns out,

that the dispute among the Sages of Israel whether the Torah scroll was placed outside the Ark or inside the Ark,

will increase the dispute — it will bring about another dispute: according to the opinion that the Torah scroll was inside the Ark,

it will turn out,

that the tablets were much smaller than the Ark; and according to the opinion that the Torah scroll was outside the Ark,

it must turn out,

that the tablets were much larger — almost as large as the Ark.

— In order to remove the student from that error,

Rashi points out that the dispute is in Bava Batra.

And when the student will look in there,

he will see,

that according to both opinions the tablets were the same size,

and nevertheless, also according to the opinion that the Torah scroll was outside the Ark,

there was no empty space in the Ark — because according to that opinion the Ark was smaller.

As the Gemara says there,

that Rabbi Meir,

who holds that the Torah scroll was inside the Ark,

learns "two cubits and a half… and a cubit and a half…" — "by a cubit of six handbreadths",

and Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that the Torah scroll was outside the Ark,

says "by a cubit of five handbreadths".

8.

According to the above, it will also be understandable,

why Rashi specifically notes to Bava Batra — although the dispute exists also in the Yerushalmi

(twice — in tractate Shekalim²⁵

and tractate Sotah²⁶)

and in the Midrash²⁷,

and also there it says that R' Meir and R' Yehuda disagree regarding the measure of the Ark:

Because²⁸

according to the calculation of the Yerushalmi and Midrash,

(according to both opinions²⁹)

the place of the Ark was filled with the Tablets and with the broken pieces of the first Tablets³⁰

(and according to R' Meir, also with the Sefer Torah)³¹.

And since according to &lt;b&gt;Rashi&lt;/b&gt;

(it is on the level of the simple explanation)

the broken tablets were lying in the ark that Moses made&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;

(not in the ark that Bezalel made)

— then it will turn out,

that according to the calculation of the Jerusalem Talmud and Midrash

(in the way of the simple explanation)

there was an empty place in the ark according to both opinions,

Therefore Rashi refers to Bava Batra,

because according to the calculation in Bava Batra,

there is in

(the length and width of the)

ark &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; any place for the broken tablets

(as Rashi says there,

that the broken first tablets were &lt;b&gt;under&lt;/b&gt; the tablets),

and the entire

(length and width of)

ark was filled with the second tablets,

and according to Rabbi Meir — also with the Torah scroll.

9.

According to the above

(above),

Then both interpretations — both the interpretation "the page was protruding etc." and the interpretation "from the side of the tablets it was placed etc." — are difficult,

and the difficulty in both interpretations is equal,

Therefore Rashi mentions both interpretations at once

(as above there)

— the student is aroused with another question: Why do others indeed hold that "the page was placed etc." and others "from the side of the tablets etc."?

Then Rashi answers the question with his language "the sages of Israel disagreed about it":

From the perspective of the simple meaning, indeed both interpretations are equivalent,

and that which in the Gemara each Tanna holds according to his method,

it is connected

(not with the plain sense of the verses,

but)

with the fact that they are "the sages of Israel",

i.

e.

with their methods in the ways of wisdom,

as follows.

10.

The explanation of "and you shall place them at the side of the Ark of the covenant of the Lord"

(in the inner dimension of the matters)

In the tablets were all the matters of Torah in a general way³³,

and in the Torah scroll they come out in detail.

And since every matter,

at the time it comes out in details,

its light becomes contracted and divided into the many details,

therefore comes the command "and you shall place them at the side of the Ark of the covenant of the Lord",

that

(the Torah scroll)

the details should be connected with

(the tablets)

their general principle.

And in this consists the dispute between the "wise men of Israel" — R' Meir and R' Yehuda — on how much the details need to be connected with the general principle:

R"M holds,

that the details of the intellect which the Rebbe influences to the student,

although the Rebbe indeed cannot influence to the student the point of the intellect as it is by him, rather he must give him details&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;,

must however the details be in the same place

(level)

of the point of the intellect,

because when the details would go out from the point — then would be lost the strength and multiplicity of light,

and therefore he holds,

that the S"T

(details)

is placed &lt;b&gt;within&lt;/b&gt; the Ark — in the same place where there were the Tablets

(general principle)

But R. Y. holds,

that in order for the student to comprehend the intellect,

the influence from the teacher must come down in a manner that the details should &lt;b&gt;go out&lt;/b&gt; from the place and level of the point.

Only the influence must be in such a way,

that also after the details go out from the point,

there should be felt in them that they are

(not a matter unto themselves,

but)

derived from the point.

And therefore R. Y. holds,

that the Sefer Torah was &lt;b&gt;outside&lt;/b&gt; the Ark,

but nevertheless,

the Sefer Torah lay on a board that prominently protruded &lt;b&gt;from&lt;/b&gt; the Ark.

— because the way of the method of R' Meir,

that the details should stand on the same level as the general principle,

is relevant only for exceptional individuals — as the Gemara says about R' Meir "his colleagues could not fathom the depth of his mind"&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;

; and the way for most people is

(like the method of Rabbi Yehuda),

that there indeed need to be details in the category of existence,

but in the details the point should be heard].

11.

And this is also the connection of the command "Take³⁷

this Torah scroll and place it at the side of the Ark of the covenant of the Lord"

which is read on <b>Shabbat</b> <b>Teshuvah</b>

(as in this year),

or

(in some years)

on the Shabbat that precedes

(and in proximity to)

the Ten Days of Repentance]

— to the Ten Days of Repentance:

Because during the Ten Days of Repentance the level of Yechidah in the soul shines³⁸,

they are different and distinguished from all the days of the year

— not only in matters that come from the aspect of bechinas yechidah — the service that exists &lt;b&gt;only&lt;/b&gt; during the Ten Days of Repentance,

but —

also in the matters that are related to the revealed powers — the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvos that exists also throughout all the days of the year,

because also in the revealed powers does bechinas yechidah shine,

In the manner of the "this Torah scroll" which was placed "at the side of the Ark of the covenant of the Lord."

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Vayeilech,

Shabbos Teshuvah,

5729)