פנחס ג

B"H Okay, let's break down this fascinating Sicha (discourse) from the Rebbe. The Rebbe is analyzing a specific comment by Rashi, the primary commentator on the Torah, regarding the sacrifices offered during the festival of Sukkot (Tabernacles). The goal isn't just to understand Rashi, but to uncover the deeper layers of meaning through the Rebbe's sharp questions and insightful answers. **The Starting Point: Rashi's Comment on Sukkot Sacrifices** 1. **Background:** During the seven days of Sukkot, special additional sacrifices (called *Musaf* offerings) were brought in the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. A unique feature of these sacrifices was the number of bullocks (*parim*) offered: 13 on the first day, 12 on the second, 11 on the third, and so on, down to 7 on the seventh day. The total number of bullocks over the seven days is 70 (13+12+11+10+9+8+7 = 70). 2. **The Verse and Rashi's Comment:** The Sicha focuses on the description of the sacrifices for the *second* day of Sukkot. The Torah states (Numbers 29:17-18): "And on the second day: twelve young bullocks..." and then, regarding the accompanying offerings, "...And their meal-offerings and their libations for the bullocks..." On this second verse ("And their meal-offerings..."), Rashi comments: > "The bullocks of the festival are seventy [in total]: corresponding to the seventy nations [of the world]. That they diminish progressively is a sign of destruction for them. And in the days of the Temple, they [these sacrifices] would protect them from suffering." 3. **Understanding Rashi (Superficially):** Rashi seems to be explaining the strange phenomenon of the *decreasing* number of bullocks. He connects the total number (70) to the traditional number of nations in the world. The fact that the number goes *down* each day, he says, symbolizes the eventual decline or destruction of these nations. However, he adds a seemingly positive note: while the Temple stood, these very sacrifices served to *protect* the nations from suffering. **The Rebbe's Questions: Probing Rashi's Commentary** The Rebbe, with his characteristic precision, finds several difficulties with Rashi's comment. **Section Aleph (א): The Question of Timing and Placement** * **The Problem:** The most obvious question Rashi seems to be answering is: "Why does the number of bullocks *decrease* each day?" This decrease is evident as soon as we read the verse for the second day (verse 17), which says "twelve bullocks" (one less than the 13 on the first day). * **The Rebbe's Question:** If Rashi wants to explain the decrease, why does he wait until the *next* verse (verse 18 – "And their meal-offerings...") to give his explanation? He should have commented right on verse 17 where the decrease first becomes apparent! * **Even Stranger:** The verse Rashi actually comments on (verse 18) doesn't even *mention the number* of bullocks! It talks about the accompanying meal-offerings and libations. So, why place the explanation about the *number* of bullocks here? * **Why it Matters:** Rashi is known for his economy of words and precise placement. If he comments on a specific verse, it's usually because that verse itself presents a difficulty or holds the key to the explanation. The Rebbe is pointing out that, on the surface, Rashi's comment seems misplaced. This suggests we might be misunderstanding *what* problem Rashi is truly trying to solve. **Section Beis (ב): The Internal Contradiction** * **The Problem:** Rashi says two things about these sacrifices concerning the nations: 1. The decreasing number is a "sign of destruction" (`siman klayah`) for them. 2. In Temple times, they "protected them from suffering" (`meginin aleihem min hayisurin`). * **The Rebbe's Question:** How can the very same sacrifices represent both destruction *and* protection? These seem like opposite effects! * **Anticipating an Answer:** One might try to resolve this by saying the *symbolism* of the number points to eventual destruction, but the *act* of offering the sacrifice brought immediate protection. * **The Rebbe's Follow-up:** Even if true, why does Rashi need to mention the "protection" aspect when explaining the *verse*? The textual difficulty seems to be about the number, not the effect. And more fundamentally, it's still a paradox (`tarti d'sasri` – two contradictory things) for one entity (the sacrifices) to embody such opposing concepts simultaneously. * **Why it Matters:** This apparent contradiction challenges the coherence of Rashi's explanation and suggests a deeper understanding is needed. **Section Gimel (ג): Puzzling Word Choices** The Rebbe zooms in on specific words and phrases in Rashi's comment: 1. **Order of Explanation:** Why does Rashi start by saying the *total* is 70 corresponding to the 70 nations, and *then* mention that they decrease? Logically, if he's explaining the *decrease*, he should start with that point ("They decrease because they represent the nations who diminish...") and then bring the total of 70 as supporting evidence. (He notes that later, when explaining the sheep offerings for Israel, Rashi *does* follow this logical order). 2. **Redundant Phrase:** Why does Rashi say "...that they diminish progressively, *a sign of destruction for them*"? Wouldn't simply saying "they diminish progressively" be enough to convey the idea (as Rashi does elsewhere)? Why add the explicit "sign of destruction"? 3. **Missing the Action:** Rashi says the bullocks "protected them." Shouldn't he have specified that it was the *offering* of the bullocks (`hakravas haparim`) that provided the protection? The act of sacrifice is key. 4. **Stating the Obvious?:** Why emphasize "And *in the days of the Temple* they protected them"? Where else would sacrifices be offered and have effect? It seems redundant to specify this. 5. **Different Reason than in Talmud:** In the Talmud (Tractate Sukkah 55b), Rashi explains that the 70 bullocks were offered to *atone* for the nations so that they would receive rain (as the world is judged for rain on Sukkot). Here, Rashi says they protected them *from suffering*. Why the different explanations? Are they related, or distinct types of protection? * **Why it Matters:** These detailed questions (`dikukim`) reinforce that every word in Rashi is precise. The seeming redundancies or slightly odd phrasing must have a reason, pointing towards a more nuanced understanding. **Section Dalet (ד): The Rebbe's Solution - Identifying the REAL Question** The Rebbe now proposes a new way to understand what prompted Rashi's comment. * **The Perspective of the "Ben Chamesh L'Mikra":** Imagine a five-year-old just beginning to learn Torah. They encounter the decreasing number of bullocks. Would this be a major problem? Not necessarily. The child already knows that numbers and details in the Torah often have symbolic meanings (`remez`, `drush`). They've seen examples before (like the animals in the Covenant Between the Parts or the specific gifts of the tribal Princes). So, they might assume each day's number has its own unique symbolism, which belongs to a deeper level of interpretation (`remez`) that Rashi (focused on `pshat`, the plain meaning) doesn't usually need to elaborate on. * **The *Actual* Difficulty:** The Rebbe argues that the *real* problem Rashi is addressing arises only at verse 18: "ומנחתם ונסכיהם לפרים... במספרם **כמשפט**" ("And their meal-offerings and their libations for the bullocks... according to their number, **as prescribed/according to the rule**"). * **The Significance of "K'Mishpat" (As Prescribed/According to the Rule):** This phrase implies that the way the offerings (meal-offerings, libations) are brought for the bullocks follows a *single, consistent rule* throughout the days of Sukkot. It suggests uniformity. * **The Paradox:** Now we have a conflict! * The *changing number* of bullocks each day suggests that each day's offering is distinct, perhaps with a different underlying meaning (like the Princes' offerings, where identical physical items had unique intentions, requiring the Torah to repeat the details each time). * But the phrase "כמשפט" suggests the *opposite* – that these are fundamentally *one type* of offering, governed by a single rule, repeated daily (which is why the Torah *doesn't* repeat all the details of the meal-offerings and libations each day, unlike with the Princes). * **The Rebbe's Reframing of Rashi's Question:** Rashi isn't just asking "Why the decrease?" He's asking: "If these bullock offerings are truly *one unified concept* ('כמשפט'), how can their number *decrease*? A decrease implies diminution, ending, destruction (`klayah`), which seems contrary to the idea of holiness and increase ('מעלין בקודש' - we ascend in holiness) associated with Temple offerings. How can they be *one offering* ('כמשפט') yet simultaneously signify *decline*?" * **Rashi's Answer (Re-interpreted):** Rashi resolves this paradox: "The bullocks of the festival are seventy [in total] corresponding to the seventy nations [that] diminish progressively." Yes, the offerings *are* one unified concept ('כמשפט'). That unified concept is the totality of the 70 bullocks representing the 70 nations. And the inherent nature of *that specific concept* (the nations of the world) *is* one of eventual decline ("diminish progressively"). Therefore, the daily decrease isn't contradicting the unity ('כמשפט'); rather, it's the necessary expression *of* that unified theme. **Section Hei (ה): Answering the Follow-Up Question (Why Destruction?)** * **The "Ben Chamesh's" New Concern:** Okay, the connection to the nations explains the decreasing number as part of a unified theme. But wait – sacrifices are supposed to be *good*! They bring atonement, closeness to G-d. How can a sacrifice be linked to *destruction* (`klayah`)? * **Rashi's Clarification (Re-interpreted):** This is where the second part of Rashi's comment becomes crucial: "**a sign of destruction for them**, *and* in the days of the Temple, they would protect them from suffering." * Rashi is clarifying: The "diminishing" aspect isn't the *purpose* or *effect* of the sacrifice itself. It's merely a *sign* (`siman`) embedded in the number, pointing to the ultimate destiny G-d has ordained for the nations. * The *actual effect* of bringing the sacrifices, during the time the Temple stood ("in the days of the Temple"), was the *opposite* of destruction – it was *protection* (`meginin`). * **Explaining "In the Days of the Temple":** The Rebbe explains that this phrase isn't redundant. It specifically demarcates the *action* of the sacrifice (protection), which occurred *only* during Temple times, from the *symbolism* of the number (sign of future destruction), which relates to the nations' overall trajectory, not limited to the Temple era. **Section Vav (ו): Connecting the Sign and the Action** * **A Lingering Question:** If the decrease is *just* a sign and the protection is the *action*, do they relate? Why have two distinct aspects (70=nations, decrease=destruction)? It seems disjointed. * **The Rebbe's Refinement:** The Rebbe argues the "sign" must be intrinsically linked to the *action*. The fact that the nations are destined to "diminish progressively" (the sign) is the very *reason* they need the protection offered by the sacrifices. * **Explaining "From Suffering" (`Min HaYisurin`):** This clarifies why Rashi uses this specific phrase, distinct from the Talmud's "atonement for rain." The sacrifice's action was precisely to shield the nations *from the suffering* that would naturally accompany their ordained decline. G-d's plan might involve their eventual diminution, but *while the Temple stood* and Israel offered these bullocks *for* them, that process was mitigated. The sacrifices actively counteracted the negative consequences ("suffering") inherent in their trajectory ("diminishing"). The "sign" points to the underlying condition that the "action" is addressing. **Section Zayin (ז): Understanding the Sheep (`K'vasim`)** * **Rashi's Comment on Sheep:** Later in the verses, sheep (`k'vasim`) are offered daily alongside the bullocks and rams. Rashi comments on the sheep offered on the *eighth* day (Shemini Atzeret), but the principle applies to the Sukkot sheep too: "Corresponding to Israel... and they are fixed [i.e., the number doesn't decrease]... And their total number [over Sukkot and Shemini Atzeret] is 98, to annul from them the 98 curses in Mishneh Torah [Deuteronomy]." * **The Rebbe's Question:** Why does Rashi need to bring in the symbolism of the number 98 annulling curses? Isn't it enough to say the sheep represent Israel (who are called "scattered sheep") and their fixed number represents Israel's permanence (unlike the diminishing nations)? How does the number 98 *prove* they correspond to Israel in the context of `pshat`? * **The Rebbe's Explanation:** Since the 70 bullocks form one unified theme/action for the nations, it's logical that the sheep offered alongside them also represent a unified theme/action for Israel. And just as the bullocks' action related to mitigating a negative potential (suffering accompanying decline), the sheep's action should be similar. * **The Sheep's Action:** Rashi explains: Israel is "fixed" (`k'vuim`), meaning permanent, unlike the nations. However, permanence doesn't guarantee freedom from suffering. The 98 sheep come to "annul the 98 curses," ensuring that Israel endures *without* that suffering. It's a positive counterpart to the bullocks' protective function. The number 98 isn't just trivia; it explains the *mechanism* of this protection for Israel. **Section Ches (ח) & Tes (ט): The Rams (`Eilim`) and the Patriarchs** * **The Question:** The verse lists Bullocks, *Rams* (`Eilim`), Sheep. Why does Rashi link the *sheep* to Israel, skipping over the rams? And why are the rams placed *between* the animals representing nations and Israel? Furthermore, why didn't Rashi simply say bullocks represent nations because nations are *likened* to bulls (as he does elsewhere), instead of relying only on the number 70? * **The Rebbe's Solution - The Patriarchal Connection:** The Rebbe introduces another Rashi comment, from the description of the *Pesach* (Passover) sacrifices: Bullocks correspond to Abraham, Rams to Isaac (specifically, the ram offered in his stead), and Sheep to Jacob. * The Rebbe suggests this isn't just for Pesach, but a general principle for festival Musaf offerings: Bullocks -> Abraham, Rams -> Isaac, Sheep -> Jacob. * **Why Rashi couldn't link bullock *type* to nations:** On Sukkot, the bullock *type* primarily links to Abraham. The connection to the nations is *secondary*, via Abraham being the "father of many nations," and is established through the *number* 70. * **Sheep = Jacob = Israel:** This fits perfectly, as Jacob is the direct ancestor of the tribes of Israel (his "bed was complete," unlike Isaac who also fathered Esav). * **The Rams = Isaac:** This explains the middle position. Why *two* rams daily on Sukkot (unique among festivals)? Because Isaac had *two* sons: Jacob (Israel) and Esav (representing the nations). The two rams represent both lines stemming from Isaac. * **The Order Makes Sense:** Bullocks (Abraham -> Nations) -> Two Rams (Isaac -> Esav & Jacob) -> Sheep (Jacob -> Israel). The rams bridge the gap. **Section Yud (י): Deepening the Ram Symbolism** * **The Question:** Rashi connected the rams to "the ram of Isaac." How do the *two* rams (for Jacob and Esav) relate to that *one* ram from the Binding of Isaac? * **The Midrashic Insight:** A Midrash (Pirkei d'Rebbi Eliezer) teaches that the ram of Isaac had two horns. The left horn was sounded at the giving of the Torah at Sinai; the right horn will be sounded in the Messianic era. * **Connecting Horns to Jacob/Esav:** * The Sinai revelation (left horn) was primarily for Israel ("the heritage of the congregation of Jacob"). * The Messianic era (right horn) will involve the elevation and participation of the nations as well (serving G-d alongside Israel). * Thus, the two horns of Isaac's single ram conceptually link to Jacob/Israel (Torah) and Jacob+Esav/Israel+Nations (Messianic Era), beautifully explaining the connection of the *two* rams on Sukkot back to the *ram of Isaac*. **Section Yud Aleph (יא): The Practical Lesson ("The Wine of Torah")** * **The Final Contrast:** Rashi stated the bullocks' protection was "in the days of the Temple." Yet, he says the sheep's effect (annulling the 98 curses) relates to curses often associated with *exile*, a time *after* the Temple. Why this difference? * **Prayer in Place of Sacrifices:** The Sages teach that our prayers today correspond to the sacrifices offered in the Temple. * **The Difference in Impact:** Physical sacrifices in the physical Temple had the power to affect the physical world directly (e.g., protecting nations). Prayer, while powerful, primarily affects the inner, spiritual state of the person and, through them, the world. * **The Rebbe's Conclusion:** * **Bullocks (Nations):** Their effect was tied to the physical Temple sacrifices and ceased with its destruction ("Woe to the nations... they don't know what they lost"). * **Sheep (Israel):** Their effect is enduring. Israel is "fixed," and the *effect* of their corresponding sacrifices is also "fixed" or permanent (`kayemes l'olam`). How? Through *prayer*. Even in exile, Jews, through their prayers corresponding to those sheep offerings, can draw down the power to "annul the 98 curses," mitigating suffering and bringing inner peace and light ("light in their dwellings") even amidst darkness. * **The Ultimate Goal:** This ongoing spiritual protection achieved through prayer, even in exile, is the preparation (`hachana`) for the ultimate and complete Redemption (`Geulah Amitit v'Shleimah`) with the coming of Moshiach, bringing a level of peace and perfection exceeding all previous eras. **In Essence:** The Rebbe takes a seemingly simple Rashi comment and, through rigorous questioning, reveals its profound depth. He shows that Rashi's placement and wording are perfectly precise once we understand the true textual difficulty (the paradox of changing numbers vs. "כמשפט"). He resolves the apparent contradiction within Rashi (destruction vs. protection) by distinguishing between a sign and an action, intrinsically linked. He integrates the symbolism of the Patriarchs to explain the roles of all the animals (bullocks, rams, sheep) and their order. Finally, he extracts a powerful, practical lesson about the enduring spiritual power available to Israel through prayer, even in exile, allowing them to overcome suffering and prepare the world for the final Redemption. The Sicha demonstrates how detailed textual analysis, guided by foundational principles of Chasidus, can unlock layers of meaning relevant to our lives today.