חוקת ב

Okay, let's break down this Sicha (a discourse or talk by the Rebbe) step by step. The Rebbe is analyzing a commentary by Rashi, the most fundamental commentator on the Torah, regarding a specific passage in this week's Torah portion (Parshat Chukat). The goal is to understand *why* Rashi explains the verses the way he does, especially when he seems to differ from the Midrash (ancient rabbinic interpretations and stories) which is often his source. **The Core Principle: Rashi's Method** * **The Starting Point:** The Rebbe begins by reminding us of a well-known principle about Rashi's commentary on the Torah. Rashi himself stated his goal: "I have come only for the plain meaning of the scripture (*peshuto shel mikra*) and for the Aggadah [non-legalistic Rabbinic teachings, often stories or ethical lessons] that resolves the difficulties in the scripture..." * **What This Means:** Rashi's main goal is to explain the simple, straightforward meaning of the text. However, sometimes the text is unclear, seems contradictory, or has grammatical oddities. In these cases, Rashi brings in teachings from the Midrash (Aggadah) to help explain the verse and make it flow properly. * **Rashi Adapts:** Crucially, because Rashi's purpose in using Aggadah is specifically to clarify the *text*, he doesn't always quote the Midrash word-for-word. He often adapts the language of the Midrash so that it fits perfectly with the *peshat* (plain meaning) he is trying to bring out in the verse. He's not just retelling a story; he's using elements of the story to illuminate the words of the Torah. **The Case Study: Miracles at the Arnon Stream (Parshat Chukat)** * **The Verses:** The Sicha focuses on a passage in Numbers (Bamidbar) Chapter 21, verses 14-18. The Torah describes the Israelites traveling and camping "beyond the Arnon [stream]." It then quotes something cryptic: "Therefore it is said in the Book of the Wars of the Lord, 'Vaheb in Suphah, and the streams of Arnon, and the slope of the streams that stretches toward the settlement of Ar...' " The verses continue, "And from there to the well; that is the well of which the Lord said to Moses, 'Gather the people, and I will give them water.'" * **Rashi's Explanation:** Rashi explains that these mysterious verses are actually alluding to great miracles that God performed for the Israelites at the Arnon streams. * He describes a dramatic scene: There were high mountains on either side of a deep, narrow valley (the *nachal* or stream-bed) where the Israelites had to pass. The Amorites (enemies of Israel) hid in caves within the mountains, planning to ambush the Israelites with arrows and catapult stones as they walked through the valley below. * The Miracle (according to Rashi): God performed a miracle. The mountain on the side of the Land of Israel *moved* closer to the mountain on the side of Moab. The peaks or sides of the mountains entered the caves where the Amorites were hiding, crushing and killing them. This, Rashi says, is hinted at in the phrase "the slope of the streams that *stretches* (natah - literally 'leaned' or 'inclined') toward the settlement of Ar and *leans* (nish'an) on the border of Moab" – the mountain itself *leaned over*. * Finding Out About the Miracle (according to Rashi): The next verse says, "And from there to the well..." Rashi explains this isn't just about traveling to a new place. It's connected to the previous miracle. *How* did the Israelites find out about the miracle that saved them? Rashi explains: The "Well" (the miraculous Well of Miriam that traveled with the Israelites) went down into the valley (*nachal*). It brought up the blood of the slain Amorites, along with their arms and limbs, and carried this evidence *around the Israelite camp*. Seeing this, the Israelites realized the miracle God had done for them and sang a song of praise (which is mentioned in the subsequent verses). **The Problem: Rashi vs. The Midrash** * **The Source:** Rashi didn't invent this story. The Rebbe points out that the source for this interpretation is in the Midrash (Midrash Tanchuma and Bamidbar Rabbah). * **The Discrepancy:** However, there's a major difference between Rashi's account and the Midrash's account of *how* the Amorites were killed. * **The Midrash:** The Midrash describes *two* groups of Amorites and *two* miracles: 1. Some Amorites hid in the caves up in the mountains. They were killed when the mountains moved and crushed them (similar to Rashi's account). 2. Other Amorites hid *down in the valley* (*b'toch ha'nachal*). They were killed when the Well of Miriam went down into the valley and its waters miraculously surged, *drowning* them, much like the Egyptians were drowned in the Red Sea. * **Rashi:** Rashi only mentions the *first* miracle – the Amorites crushed in the mountain caves. He completely *omits* the second miracle described in the Midrash, where the well drowned the Amorites in the valley. **The Question: Why Did Rashi Change the Story?** * **The Obvious Puzzle:** Why would Rashi leave out the second miracle? It seems like a significant omission. * **Peshat Argument (Initial Thought):** One might initially think Rashi omitted it because the *peshat* (plain meaning) of the verses only hints at *one* miracle (the mountains moving). * **Counter-Argument (Strengthening the Question):** But wait! Rashi *himself* explains the cryptic phrase "Vaheb in Suphah" as comparing the miracles at the Arnon to the miracles at the Red Sea (*Yam Suf* - often pronounced *Suf*). He says, "Just as they recount the miracles of the Red Sea, so too should they recount the miracles of the Arnon streams." If Rashi is making this comparison, wouldn't the Midrash's version – where the well *drowned* enemies in the valley *like* the Egyptians at the sea – fit the *peshat* even *better*? * **The Song Connection:** Furthermore, the Torah continues by saying the Israelites sang a song specifically about the *Well* ("Then Israel sang this song: 'Spring up, O well!'..."). According to the Midrash, this makes perfect sense: the Well was directly involved in destroying the enemy. But according to Rashi, the Well only *reported* the miracle after the fact. Why would the song be focused *only* on the Well, which played a secondary role, and not on the main miracle of the mountains moving? It seems Rashi's version makes the song harder to understand. **The Rebbe's First Answer: Rashi Sticks to the Text** * **Applying Rashi's Principle:** The Rebbe explains this using Rashi's own principle mentioned at the beginning: Rashi only brings Aggadah to explain the *words of the verse*. * **Analyzing the Verse:** Let's look closely at the verse Rashi is explaining: "and the *slope* (eshed) of the streams that *stretches* (natah) toward the settlement of Ar and *leans* (nish'an) on the border of Moab." * Rashi sees a clear hint here for the mountains *moving* ("natah," "nish'an"). * What about "eshed ha'nechalim" (slope/pouring of the streams)? Rashi connects this *directly* to the moving mountains. He explains "eshed" means the *pouring out* – specifically, the *pouring out of the blood* of the Amorites who were crushed in the caves by the moving mountains. This blood then flowed down into the valley (*nachal*). * Crucially, Rashi sees *no hint* in this verse for a *second* miracle involving the Well drowning people in the valley. The "pouring" ("eshed") is presented as a *result* of the mountain moving ("natah"). * **Why Rashi Omits the Second Miracle:** Therefore, according to his principle, Rashi only includes the part of the Midrashic story that is hinted at in the verse – the crushing in the caves. He omits the drowning by the well because he finds no textual basis for it in *this specific verse* he's explaining. * **Midrash vs. Rashi:** The Midrash, employing a different interpretive style (*drash*), is less bound to the specific wording. Since the overall context involves comparing Arnon to the Red Sea, the Midrash feels comfortable adding the parallel miracle of drowning, even if verse 15 doesn't explicitly mention it. Rashi, focusing on explaining verse 15's *peshat*, cannot do this. **Explaining Other Differences in Wording (Supporting the First Answer)** The Rebbe then shows how this understanding (Rashi sticking closely to the verse's implication) explains other, smaller wording differences between Rashi and the Midrash regarding the *next* verse ("And from there to the well..."): 1. **Where did the Well go?** * Midrash: Says the well went down to "those *caves*." * Rashi: Says the well "went down into the *valley* (*nachal*)." * Why the change? Because Rashi just explained that the "eshed" (pouring of blood) was *in the valley* (*nachal*). The verse says "And *from there* (mi'sham) to the well..." Rashi understands "from there" as referring back to the *valley* where the blood had poured. So, the well must have gone *into the valley* to pick up the evidence (the blood and limbs). Rashi cannot say it went to the caves, as the *peshat* connection ("from there") points to the valley mentioned implicitly via the "eshed." 2. **What did the Well bring up?** * Midrash: "Skulls, arms, and legs beyond reckoning." * Rashi: "Blood of the slain, and arms and limbs." * Why the changes? * **"Blood":** Rashi *adds* blood and lists it *first*. Why? Because his whole explanation of "eshed ha'nechalim" in the previous verse was about the *pouring of blood*. It's central to his interpretation derived from the *peshat*. The well bringing up blood confirms his reading of "eshed." Limbs don't "pour" (*shefach*, related to *eshed*), but blood does. * **"Arms and limbs":** Instead of the Midrash's specific "skulls, arms, legs." Perhaps "limbs" is just a general term including skulls and legs. But why single out "arms"? The Rebbe suggests this might be to show the *might* of the enemies God saved them from – seeing the powerful *arms* would emphasize the greatness of the salvation. * **Why "limbs" too?** If the point was to show the arms, why not *only* bring up arms? The Rebbe explains that would be a "miracle within a miracle" without a clear purpose (a *nes l'magana* - an unnecessary miracle). God wouldn't likely perform an extra miracle just to sort the body parts. So, the well brought up various *limbs* (including arms, skulls, legs etc.) naturally mixed with the blood from the crushed bodies. * **Omitting "beyond reckoning":** Rashi leaves this out because there's no hint of an uncountable number in the *peshat* of the verse. For Rashi's *peshat*-oriented commentary, such a dramatic detail would need some textual hook. **Deeper Questions Emerge: Going Beyond Simple Peshat** Now the Rebbe raises more difficult questions. Rashi made two *other* significant changes/additions compared to the Midrash/Talmudic sources, and these *don't* seem easily explained by simply sticking to the *peshat* of the verses: 1. **The Parable:** Rashi adds a parable to explain *why* God had the well reveal the miracle: "The proverb says: If you give bread to a child, inform its mother." This parable *is* found elsewhere in the Midrash in a related discussion, but *not* in the main Midrashic source Rashi is using here for the detailed story. * **The Question:** Why did Rashi feel the need to add this parable? Isn't it obvious why God would want the Israelites to know about the huge miracle He just performed for them? What does this specific parable add to our understanding? It seems unnecessary for clarifying the *peshat*. 2. **How the News Spread:** * Midrash/Talmud (Gemara): These sources suggest the Israelites found out more naturally. The Midrash says they went looking for the well and *saw* it emerging from the valley carrying the limbs. The Gemara even specifies that two *metzora'im* (people afflicted with a specific spiritual skin condition, required to stay outside the main camp) discovered it first. * Rashi: Rashi changes this. He says the well *itself* "carried them [the blood and limbs] *around the camp*, and Israel saw and sang." Rashi describes an active, miraculous announcement by the well to *everyone*. * **The Question:** Why does Rashi introduce *another miracle* (the well circling the camp) when the Midrash/Gemara offer a perfectly plausible, non-miraculous way for the discovery to happen? A basic principle is that God doesn't perform unnecessary miracles (*nes l'magana*). Why invent one here? **An Even More Fundamental Question: Why Miracles at All?** Before answering the previous two questions, the Rebbe steps back and asks something even more basic: * **The Simplest Reading:** Why does Rashi interpret these verses (Num 21:14-18) as referring to complex miracles in the first place? Many other commentators read these verses much more simply, as geographical descriptions or travel logs. * For example, "the slope of the streams that stretches toward Ar..." could just be describing the geography of the Arnon valley. * "And from there to the well" could simply mean the Israelites traveled from the Arnon region to a place called Be'er (Well). * **The Question:** What *forces* Rashi to adopt the Midrashic interpretation involving elaborate miracles, rather than these simpler, more *peshat*-like geographical explanations offered by other commentators? **The Rebbe's Core Insight: The Song is the Key!** The Rebbe now reveals the central pillar of his explanation: * **The Uniqueness of the Song:** Rashi's entire interpretation hinges on something mentioned *after* the verses he's explaining: the Israelites *sang a song* ("Az Yashir Yisrael... Eli Be'er..." - Then Israel sang this song: Spring up, O Well...). * **Songs are Rare:** Throughout the Torah, the Israelites experienced countless miracles, many involving salvation from mortal danger and completely defying nature (like the Manna, Miriam's Well). Yet, the Torah records them singing a national song of praise (*Shira*) on only *two* occasions: 1. After the Splitting of the Red Sea (*Kriat Yam Suf*). 2. Here, at the Well, after the events at the Arnon streams. * **The Implication:** This extreme rarity tells Rashi something crucial. If the Israelites sang *Shira* here, the miracle(s) at Arnon must have been exceptionally profound and special, somehow *comparable in nature* to the unique miracle of the Red Sea crossing. Ordinary miracles, even great ones, didn't elicit *Shira* recorded in the Torah. * **Why Rashi Needs the Miraculous Interpretation:** This is why Rashi *cannot* accept the simple geographical readings. Those readings don't describe an event momentous enough to warrant a unique *Shira*. The fact that they sang *forces* Rashi to conclude that the preceding verses *must* be hinting at miracles of Red Sea caliber. * **Justifying the Comparison to the Red Sea:** Rashi's comment comparing Arnon to the Red Sea ("Vaheb in Suphah...") isn't just based on the word "Suphah" (which is a bit of a stretch, *peshat*-wise). It's driven by the *outcome* – the *Shira*. Because they sang here, the events *must* have been "like" the Red Sea ("*k'shem* she'mesaprim..."). * **Why Rashi Explains the Details:** And if the verses *are* hinting at such extraordinary miracles, it's logical (*mistaber*) that the verses themselves would contain clues (at least hints, *remez*) as to *what* those miracles were. Rashi is therefore looking for those hints to explain *why* they sang. **What Made the Red Sea Miracle (and Arnon) So Special?** * **Not Just Salvation:** It wasn't just being saved from death. They were saved from starvation and thirst in the desert by the Manna and the Well, but didn't sing *Shira*. * **Not Just Supernatural:** It wasn't just that the miracle was totally beyond nature. The Manna and Well were also completely supernatural, and lasted nearly 40 years, yet no *Shira*. * **The Unique Factor:** The truly unique aspect of the Red Sea miracle is captured in the phrase God told Moses beforehand: "**Hashem yilachem lachem, v'atem tacharishun**" – "**The Lord will fight for you, and you shall remain silent**" (Exodus 14:14). * In other conflicts or times of need, the Israelites usually had to do *something* – fight a battle (where God helped them win miraculously), pray, cry out. * At the Red Sea, they did *nothing* to save themselves from the Egyptians bearing down on them. They were passive. God did everything, single-handedly. * **A Sign of Extra Love:** This total Divine intervention, where God handles everything without requiring any human input or effort, demonstrates an extraordinary level of Divine love and care (*chibah yeteirah*). It's not just salvation; it's salvation delivered effortlessly (from the human perspective). *This* is what evoked the unique response of *Shira*. * **Applying it to Arnon:** Rashi understands that the miracle at the Arnon streams must have shared this same quality. The salvation from the hidden Amorites happened entirely through God's intervention ("The Lord will fight for you"), while the Israelites were completely passive and unaware ("you shall remain silent"). *This* is why they sang *Shira* here too. **Explaining Rashi's Additions (The Parable and the Circling Well)** Now, armed with this core insight (the miracle was defined by "Hashem yilachem lachem, v'atem tacharishun"), the Rebbe explains Rashi's puzzling additions: 1. **Why the Parable ("Give bread to a child, inform its mother"):** * Rashi added this parable precisely to *highlight* the unique nature of the Arnon miracle, perhaps even suggesting it was a step *beyond* the Red Sea in this aspect. * At the Red Sea, the Israelites *knew* they were in danger. They saw the Egyptians coming. Moses prayed. Here at Arnon, they were *completely unaware* of both the deadly threat and the salvation until after it was over. God asked, "Who will inform My children of these miracles?" Their passivity ("v'atem tacharishun") was total. * **Decoding the Parable:** * **"Child" (Tinok):** Represents the Israelites, completely unaware, like an infant, of the danger they were just saved from. * **"Bread" (Pat):** Represents not just any gift, but something *essential* for life – like the salvation from the ambush. * **"Inform its Mother":** Generally, the "mother" is the one responsible for the child's basic needs. When someone *else* steps in to provide the essential "bread," they should let the mother know. * **Who is the "Mother" in the Analogy (Nimshal)?** * **Moses:** In the desert journey, Moses was the devoted shepherd (*roeh ne'eman*), responsible for the people's needs. Normally, when danger arose or something was lacking, the people turned to Moses, and he prayed or acted. Here, God acted directly, bypassing Moses entirely. The salvation ("bread") didn't come via the usual provider ("mother"). * **The Well:** Alternatively, the Rebbe suggests the *Well itself* could be seen as the "mother" figure in this context. It consistently provided the essential need for water. God arranging for the Well to reveal the evidence of the *other* miracle (the crushing of the Amorites) could be seen as informing the "mother" (the usual provider of needs, the Well) about the extraordinary intervention ("bread") that God provided directly. * **The Parable's Point:** The parable underscores the extreme level of "Hashem yilachem lachem" at Arnon. God provided the most essential salvation ("bread") without the people ("child") even knowing, and bypassing the usual channels ("mother"). Therefore, notification was necessary. 2. **Why the Well Miraculously Circled the Camp:** * This also connects directly to the *Shira* and the nature of the miracle. * **How Shira Arises:** The Rebbe points to Rashi's own comment on the Song at the Sea ("Az Yashir Moshe" - Then Moses sang). Rashi explains: "When he *saw the miracle*, it arose in his heart to sing." Song, especially this profound *Shira*, is triggered by the *direct experience* or *seeing* ("re'iyah") of the miracle. * **Applying it to Arnon:** If the Israelites had just stumbled upon the evidence by chance (like the Midrash/Gemara suggest), it wouldn't have been a direct, communal *seeing* of the miracle itself, but rather finding the results afterwards. It might not have generated the same powerful impulse for *Shira*. * **Rashi's Solution:** Rashi explains that the *notification itself* was part of the ongoing miracle. The Well didn't just passively hold the evidence; it *miraculously circled the entire camp*. This created a public, undeniable, and miraculous revelation for *everyone* ("Vayisrael ra'u" - And Israel *saw*). They weren't just finding clues; they were *witnessing* the Well miraculously presenting the evidence of God's hidden salvation. * **The Result:** This direct, miraculous "seeing" ("*ra'u*") is what logically led to the immediate and collective outburst of song ("*va'yomru Shira*"): "*Eli Be'er*..." (Spring up, O well...). They sang *to the well* because it was the miraculous agent revealing the wonder they had just witnessed. **Conclusion** The Rebbe demonstrates that Rashi's commentary on these verses, while seemingly complex and divergent from his sources, follows a profound internal logic. Rashi isn't just picking and choosing details arbitrarily. His entire interpretation is driven by the need to explain the exceptional occurrence of the *Shira* (Song) mentioned shortly after. This leads him to understand the events at Arnon as being fundamentally similar to the Red Sea miracle – characterized by God fighting entirely alone while Israel remained passive ("Hashem yilachem lachem, v'atem tacharishun"). Every detail Rashi includes, omits, or modifies – the single miracle, the focus on blood, the parable of the child and mother, and the well miraculously circling the camp – serves to build this picture and explain how such an event could culminate in the rare and powerful expression of *Shira*. Rashi masterfully weaves together hints from the verses and adapted elements from the Aggadah to present a coherent explanation grounded in the textual phenomenon of the song. *(Based on the Sicha of Shabbos Parshas Chukat-Balak, 5735 - 1975)*