בהעלותך א

B"H Okay, let's break down this Sicha (discourse) from the Rebbe. The goal is to understand the Rebbe's deep insights into a specific comment by Rashi, the foundational commentator on the Torah. We'll go step-by-step, explaining the context and concepts along the way. **The Starting Point: A Question on Rashi** 1. **The Verse and the Context:** The Sicha begins by quoting a verse from the Torah portion (Parsha) of Beha'aloscha, found in the Book of Numbers (Bamidbar 9:1): "Hashem spoke to Moshe in the Sinai Desert, in the second year after they left the land of Egypt, in the *first month*, saying..." What did G-d say? He instructed Moshe about bringing the Korban Pesach (Paschal Lamb offering). This is the offering Jews brought in Egypt right before the Exodus, and G-d is now commanding them to bring it again. This section also includes the story of "Pesach Sheni" (Second Passover), a make-up opportunity for those who were unable to bring the offering at the proper time. 2. **Rashi's Comment:** Rashi focuses on the words "**in the first month**" (referring to the month of Nisan). He makes a crucial observation: "The section at the *beginning* of this Book [of Numbers] was not stated until Iyar [the *second* month]. This teaches you (לְמַדְּתָּ - *L'madeta*) that there is no chronological order in the Torah..." * **Background - Rashi:** Rashi is the most fundamental commentator on the Torah. His explanations aim to clarify the *P'shat* - the plain, straightforward meaning of the text. When Rashi speaks, it's considered essential for understanding the Torah's basic message. * **Background - "Ein Mukdam U'meuchar BaTorah":** This Hebrew phrase means "There is no earlier and later in the Torah," or more simply, the Torah is not always written in chronological order. Events or commandments might be placed out of sequence for thematic or other reasons. * **Rashi's Point:** Rashi notices that the command for the Passover offering (Bamidbar Chapter 9) happened in Nisan (Month 1), but the census described at the *very beginning* of the Book of Numbers (Bamidbar Chapter 1) happened later, in Iyar (Month 2). Yet, the census appears *before* the Passover command in the Torah's text. Rashi concludes from this that the Torah isn't bound by strict chronology. 3. **The Rebbe's Question (Section א - Aleph):** The Rebbe asks: Why does Rashi say *here*, specifically about this verse, "**This teaches you** (לְמַדְּתָּ)" that the Torah isn't chronological? This implies we are *learning* this principle *from this specific instance*. The Rebbe finds this problematic for several reasons: * **Problem 1: We Already Knew This Principle.** The idea of "Ein Mukdam U'meuchar BaTorah" isn't new. Rashi himself points it out much earlier in the Torah. For example, in Genesis (Bereishis 6:3), Rashi explains that G-d's statement about limiting human lifespan to 120 years was actually said much earlier than its placement suggests. Rashi mentions this principle multiple times before we reach the Book of Numbers. So why present it as a *new lesson* here? * **Problem 2: We Already Knew *This Specific* Chronological Issue.** Even if we focus on *this particular* instance (the census in Iyar appearing before the Passover command in Nisan), we should have already figured it out from the *previous* Torah portion, Naso. In Naso (Bamidbar 7:1), the Torah describes the dedication of the Mishkan (Tabernacle) by the tribal leaders. The verse explicitly states this began "on the day Moshe finished setting up the Mishkan," which Rashi elsewhere clarifies happened on the 1st of Nisan. Since the census (Bamidbar 1:1) is dated the 1st of Iyar, it's clear *from Parshas Naso* that the census came *after* events described later in the book (like the Mishkan dedication and, implicitly, the Passover command, both in Nisan). So, the fact that the beginning of Bamidbar (Chapter 1) is chronologically later than Chapter 9 isn't a discovery made only when we reach Chapter 9. * **Problem 3: Rashi Was Silent Before!** Even more puzzling, when Rashi discussed the Mishkan dedication in Naso (Bamidbar 7:1), which clearly highlights this chronological discrepancy, he *didn't* mention the principle "Ein Mukdam U'meuchar BaTorah"! Similarly, earlier in Naso (Bamidbar 5:2), Rashi notes that the command to send impure people out of the camp was given on the day the Mishkan was erected (1st of Nisan) – again placing it chronologically *before* the census, yet Rashi doesn't comment on the non-chronological order there either. **In short:** Why does Rashi choose *this specific verse* about the Passover offering to teach us the principle of "Ein Mukdam U'meuchar," presenting it as if it's a new insight ("This teaches you"), when both the general principle and this specific chronological inversion were already known, and Rashi himself passed up earlier opportunities to mention it? **The Rebbe's First Answer: The Emphasis on *Order* (Section ב - Beis)** 1. **The Nuance in Rashi's Language:** The Rebbe points out a subtle difference. Here, Rashi says, "אין **סֵדֶר** מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה" – "There is no **order** of earlier and later in the Torah." In previous instances, Rashi might have just pointed out a chronological switch without using the specific word "סֵדֶר" (Seder - order). 2. **Why the Difference Matters:** * **Previous Cases:** In earlier examples where Rashi noted chronological issues, the Rebbe explains, it wasn't so shocking. The Torah isn't just a history book meticulously recording dates. It's primarily a book of Divine instruction. If a specific event or command is placed out of time, Rashi's goal there was simply to clarify the *correct timing* when it was necessary for understanding the context (either of that passage or another one related to it). He wasn't necessarily making a grand statement about the *nature* of Torah's structure. * **Why Rashi Was Silent Earlier (Naso):** In the cases from Naso (Mishkan dedication, sending out the impure), the timing *was* explicitly stated or clarified by Rashi ("On the day Moshe finished," "This was said on the day the Mishkan was erected"). Since the timing was being directly addressed, there was no need to state the general *principle* of "Ein Mukdam U'meuchar." * **The Uniqueness of *This* Case:** Here, in the Book of Numbers, something is different. Both at the beginning of the book (Chapter 1) and here in Chapter 9, the Torah *goes out of its way to give precise dates*: "in the second year... on the first of the **second month**" (Bamidbar 1:1) and "in the second year... in the **first month**" (Bamidbar 9:1). It *looks* like the Torah *is* trying to establish a clear timeline. * **Rashi's Deeper Lesson:** *Despite* this explicit emphasis on dates, the order is still reversed! *Therefore*, Rashi says, "**This teaches you** (לְמַדְּתָּ)" – from this specific instance where chronology *seems* important to the text itself, we learn a more profound lesson: Even when the Torah provides dates, the principle holds true. There is no *absolute chronological order* ("אין **סֵדֶר** מוקדם ומאוחר") that dictates the sequence of the narrative. The placement serves a deeper purpose than just historical reporting. **Rashi's Second Point and the Rebbe's Next Question (Section ג - Gimmel)** 1. **Rashi Continues:** After establishing *that* the order is not chronological, Rashi asks *why*. "And why didn't [the Torah] begin with this [Passover story]?" His answer: "Because it contains criticism (גְּנוּתָן - *G'nutan*) of Israel, for during the entire forty years that Israel was in the desert, they only brought this one Passover offering." 2. **The Rebbe's New Question:** This seems strange. Rashi *just* told us the reason for the placement is that the Torah isn't bound by chronology ("Ein Mukdam U'meuchar"). Now he's asking *why* the order is the way it is and giving a *different* reason (the "criticism")? If the lack of chronological constraint *is* the explanation, why seek another one? * **Supporting Evidence:** The Rebbe notes that the Talmud and the Sifrei (ancient Midrashic texts which are sources for Rashi) mention the principle "Ein Mukdam U'meuchar" in this context but *don't* ask or explain *why* the Torah didn't start with the Passover story. This suggests Rashi is adding a layer of questioning and explanation. 3. **A Possible Interpretation (and its Flaw):** One might distinguish between Rashi's "לְמַדְּתָּ" ("You learn *from this*") and the Sifrei's "לְלַמֶּדְךָ" ("*To teach you*"). Maybe Rashi means we *derive* the principle from the existing order, but the order wasn't *created* specifically *to teach* the principle. If so, there must be *another* reason for the chosen order, which is what Rashi asks about. * **Refined Problem:** Even if this is true, the Rebbe finds Rashi's phrasing awkward. Instead of asking "Why *didn't* it start with this [Pesach story]?", wouldn't it be more logical to ask "Why did the Torah *change* the order?" or "Why did it *start* with the census story?" Also, why the specific word "פתח" (*Patach* - open/begin)? This suggests the issue relates specifically to the *beginning* of the book. **Questioning Rashi's Reason: What's the "Criticism"? (Section ד - Dalet)** 1. **Rashi's Reason:** The Torah didn't start with the Passover story because it reflects poorly on the Jewish people ("G'nutan") that they only offered the Korban Pesach this one time during their 40 years in the desert. 2. **The Rebbe's Challenge:** How is this a criticism ("G'nus")? Rashi himself explains elsewhere (commenting on Exodus 12:25) that the obligation to bring the Pesach offering regularly was explicitly linked to entering the Land of Israel ("When you come into the land..."). They were *not obligated* to bring it in the desert after this second year! This offering in the second year was a special, one-time command from G-d ("עַל פִּי הַדִּבּוּר" - by Divine utterance). If they weren't commanded to do it, how can *not* doing it be a criticism? If anything, bringing it without a command would have been wrong! 3. **Addressing Other Commentators (Tosafot):** Some commentators (like Tosafot) suggest the "G'nus" isn't the failure to bring the offering itself, but the *reason* they were stuck in the desert for 40 years – the sin of the Spies. This sin prevented them from entering the Land and fulfilling the Mitzvah (commandment) properly. 4. **The Rebbe's Problems with Tosafot's View (as an explanation of Rashi):** * **(a) Contextual Issue:** The Parsha about the Pesach offering (Bamidbar 9) makes no mention of the Spies or the 40-year decree. In fact, later in the same Parsha (Beha'aloscha, Bamidbar 10:29), Moshe tells his father-in-law, "We are traveling to the place..." and Rashi explains they intended to enter Israel immediately! So, the "criticism" related to the 40-year wandering isn't relevant to the narrative *at this point*. * **(b) Specificity Issue (Crucial):** If the "G'nus" is the *delay* in entering the Land, then: * (1) The criticism is about the *delay*, not specifically about the Pesach offering. * (2) This criticism should apply equally, or even *more strongly*, to *all* the commandments dependent on entering the Land, many of which they didn't perform *even once* in the desert. Why does Rashi single out the Pesach offering as the embodiment of this "G'nus"? Other mitzvot were missed entirely for 40 years, making the "criticism" arguably greater there. **Reframing the Issue: It's About the *Beginning* of the Book (Section ה - Hei)** 1. **The Rebbe's Insight:** The key lies in Rashi's wording: "Why didn't [the Torah] **begin** (פתח - *patach*) with this?" The issue isn't mentioning the "G'nus" somewhere in the Torah, but specifically placing it *at the very beginning* of a new book. Why? Because the opening of a book of the Torah, especially one dealing with the Jewish people, should ideally express G-d's love and endearment towards them (חִבָּתָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל - *Chibatan shel Yisrael*). 2. **Evidence from Other Books:** The Rebbe shows how Rashi consistently highlights this theme of "Chibah" (affection/love) at the start of the books focusing on the Israelites: * **Exodus (Shemot):** "These are the names..." Rashi: "[He counts them again] to show His affection (לְהוֹדִיעַ חִבָּתָן)." * **Leviticus (Vayikra):** "And He called to Moshe..." Rashi: "The 'calling' preceded every communication... an expression of affection (לָשׁוֹן חִבָּה)." * **Numbers (Bamidbar - the current book):** "Hashem spoke... in the Sinai Desert..." Rashi: "Because of His affection for them (מִתּוֹךְ חִבָּתָן), He counts them frequently." * **(Even Genesis (Bereishis), about Creation):** Rashi immediately asks why the Torah begins with creation and explains it relates to G-d's power shown to His people to give them the heritage of nations (i.e., the Land of Israel). 3. **Conclusion:** Since we know (from Rashi's comments on previous books) that the opening of a Torah book should convey G-d's affection for Israel, Rashi's question "Why didn't it **begin** with this [Passover story]?" must imply that *this Passover story itself* contains elements of profound praise and affection ("Chibah"), making it seem like a very fitting candidate to open the Book of Numbers. **Why the Passover Story *Should* Have Been the Opening (Section ו - Vav)** 1. **The Flow of the Torah:** Leviticus (Vayikra) mainly contained commandments given after the Mishkan was built. Numbers (Bamidbar) describes the Israelites' journey and how they lived according to these commandments in the desert. 2. **A Perfect Opening:** What better way to start Bamidbar than by showing the Israelites *actively and perfectly fulfilling* a command? The Passover story does just that: "And the Children of Israel did... according to all that Hashem commanded Moshe, so they did" (Bamidbar 9:5). They performed the mitzvah completely, in the newly erected Mishkan, with such enthusiasm that even those who were ritually impure and couldn't participate demanded a way to be included ("לָמָּה נִגָּרַע" - *Lamah nigara?* - "Why should we be diminished/excluded?"). 3. **Better Than the Census?** While the census at the beginning of Bamidbar *does* show G-d's affection ("He counts them because He loves them"), the Rebbe points out that this theme (G-d counting Israel out of love) was already introduced at the beginning of Exodus. Starting Bamidbar with the *actual fulfillment* of the Passover mitzvah would showcase Israel's devotion in a *new* and arguably *higher* way. It's not just G-d loving them passively; it's them actively responding to His command. 4. **An Ascending Scale of Holiness:** Starting Bamidbar with the Pesach story would create a beautiful progression ("מַעֲלִין בַּקֹּדֶשׁ" - ascending in holiness) in the opening themes of the books: * **Shemot:** Affection expressed through G-d counting them (their intrinsic value). * **Vayikra:** Affection expressed through the loving *manner* in which G-d gave the commandments. * **Bamidbar (if it started with Pesach):** Affection demonstrated by Israel's *perfect fulfillment* of a special mitzvah – one they weren't even technically obligated to perform regularly in the desert! This highlights both G-d's special instruction and their enthusiastic response. 5. **Dual Affection:** The Passover story showcases affection in two ways: * **(a) Israel's Eagerness:** The intense desire even of the impure ones to participate ("Lamah nigara?"). * **(b) G-d's Responsiveness:** G-d heard their plea and established Pesach Sheni, showing His love by creating a special provision for them. **In summary:** The Passover story, with its themes of perfect fulfillment, eager participation, and Divine responsiveness, seems like an exceptionally positive and affectionate narrative, making it a prime candidate to open the Book of Numbers. So, Rashi's question "Why *didn't* it open with this?" becomes very strong. **The Rebbe's Deeper Explanation of the "G'nus" (Section ז - Zayin)** 1. **Rashi's Answer Revisited:** "Because it is a criticism (G'nutan)... they only brought this one Pesach in the desert." The Rebbe now reveals the true, subtle nature of this criticism. 2. **The Pesach Mitzvah's Potential:** As established, while generally tied to the Land, the Pesach *could* be offered in the desert (proven by the second year). It wasn't inherently impossible; G-d just hadn't *commanded* it for the subsequent 39 years *in the absence of entering the Land*. 3. **The Crucial Lesson of Pesach Sheni:** The very fact that G-d established Pesach Sheni *because a few individuals asked* "Lamah nigara?" reveals something profound. It showed that participation in this mitzvah, even outside the standard rules, was something desirable and *potentially achievable through request*. 4. **The Real "G'nus":** The criticism isn't that they broke a rule. The criticism is the *missed potential*. For the next 39 years, knowing that G-d had responded positively to the "Lamah nigara" plea, why didn't the *entire nation* ever ask, "Lamah nigara?" Why didn't they collectively express a yearning to bring the Korban Pesach again? Why didn't they petition G-d for the opportunity to relive that foundational experience of the Exodus, especially since G-d had shown He was open to such requests regarding this specific mitzvah? * **The Logic (Kal VaChomer - an inference from minor to major):** If just a *few* impure individuals asking "Why should *we* be left out?" resulted in the institution of Pesach Sheni, then *all the more so*, if the *entire nation* had passionately pleaded year after year, "Why should *we* be deprived of offering Your Pesach sacrifice?", wouldn't G-d likely have granted their request, just as He had commanded it exceptionally in the second year? 5. **Conclusion:** The "G'nus" is the subtle lack of initiative, the failure to passionately seek this connection over the next 39 years. The potential was revealed by the "Lamah nigara" incident itself, and their subsequent silence constitutes the criticism. It's this underlying shadow, this hint of spiritual complacency, that makes the story, despite its overt positivity, unsuitable for *opening* the book. **A Deeper Dimension: Why Didn't Moshe and Aharon Ask? (Section ח - Ches)** 1. **The Obvious Follow-Up:** If bringing the Pesach was desirable and potentially achievable through request, why didn't the leaders, Moshe and Aharon, ask G-d on behalf of the people each year? 2. **The Rebbe's Insight (Pnimiyus - Inner Dimension):** True leaders like Moshe and Aharon are utterly devoted to the well-being of the Jewish people (מסירת נפש - *Mesiras Nefesh* - self-sacrifice). 3. **The Leaders' Dilemma:** The "G'nus" pointed out by Rashi (the people's failure to ask) is quite subtle as presented in the Parsha; it hinges on the *implication* of the Pesach Sheni story. *However*, imagine if Moshe and Aharon *had* asked G-d each year, "Please let us bring the Korban Pesach," and G-d had agreed (perhaps just for them, or even for all who wished to join). This very act would have thrown the "G'nus" of the rest of the nation – those who *didn't* ask – into much sharper, more public focus. It would have starkly highlighted: "See? It *was* possible! The leaders did it! Why didn't *you* ask?" 4. **Protecting the People's Honor:** Therefore, the Rebbe explains, Moshe and Aharon, as devoted shepherds, chose *not* to pursue this potential personal spiritual elevation (bringing Pesach annually). They refrained from asking, even though it might have been granted, in order *not* to magnify the subtle failing ("G'nus") of the people. They sacrificed their own potential spiritual gain to protect the honor (כבודן של ישראל - *K'vodan shel Yisrael*) of the community. **Connecting Back to "Ein Mukdam U'meuchar": The Inner Theme (Section ט - Tes)** 1. **Recap:** We learn the principle "Ein Mukdam U'meuchar" specifically from this Parsha. 2. **The Inner Connection (Yayin shel Torah - the "Wine" or deeper meaning of Torah):** The very essence of Pesach Sheni embodies being "out of order." * It's a make-up offering for those who missed the *correct* time (Pesach Rishon). * It came about *not* through the standard top-down Divine command structure, but through a bottom-up request ("Lamah nigara?") initiated by those who were themselves "out of order" – the ritually impure ("טמאים לנפש אדם"). 3. **The Spiritual Parallel: Teshuvah (Repentance):** This perfectly mirrors the spiritual path of *Teshuvah*. Teshuvah is not the service of someone on the "straight path" ("man was created upright"). It's the path for someone who has stumbled, sinned, gone "out of order," and needs to return. Impurity, especially from contact with death ("Tamei l'nefesh adam"), often symbolizes the spiritual consequence of sin, a distance from the source of life (G-d). 4. **The "G'nus" and the Need for Teshuvah:** The Rebbe connects Rashi's explanation of the "G'nus" ("...that for 40 years... they didn't offer...") to this theme. The *potential* to bring the Pesach during the 40 years also needed to come about in a way that was "out of order" (since they weren't commanded). It required a *request*, a "Lamah nigara," stemming from a sense of lack. This reflects the state of the Israelites *after* the sin of the Spies – they were in a state requiring rectification, unlike their "newborn" status at the Exodus. Their service in the desert, therefore, required the energy of *Teshuvah*, a service that transcends the normal order ("למעלה מסדר"), driven by intense yearning and petition, like the "Lamah nigara" cry. 5. **Why *Here*?** We learn "Ein Mukdam U'meuchar BaTorah" most profoundly *here* because this Parsha, centered around Pesach Sheni and the underlying theme of "Lamah nigara," inherently deals with rectifying a situation that is "out of order," mirroring how the Torah itself can arrange its narratives "out of order" for deeper purposes. **The Eternal Lesson: The Power of "Lamah Nigara?" (Section י - Yud)** 1. **The Core Takeaway:** This entire discussion highlights the incredible power and significance of the heartfelt cry, "Lamah nigara?" – "Why should I/we be excluded? Why should I/we be diminished?" It's a powerful expression of desire for connection with G-d and participation in His service. 2. **Timeless Relevance:** Since the Torah is eternal ("נצחית"), its lessons apply in every generation and situation, especially in our times ("בפרט אין איצטיקן זמן"). 3. **Application to Our Lives:** This principle applies to all our prayers and requests to G-d. But it applies with particular force to our yearning and demand for the *Geulah*, the final and complete Redemption. We should feel a sense of "Lamah nigara?" – Why are *we* still in exile? Why are *we* lacking the presence of the Beis HaMikdash (Holy Temple)? Haven't all the preconditions been met, haven't all the prophesied "end times" ("קיצין") passed? 4. **A Call to Prayer:** This understanding fuels our prayers for Redemption. When we say in the Amidah (the core silent prayer) three times a day, "אֶת צֶמַח דָּוִד עַבְדְּךָ מְהֵרָה תַצְמִיחַ" ("Speedily cause the offspring of David Your servant to flourish"), or when we conclude prayers with "יְהִי רָצוֹן... שֶׁיִּבָּנֶה בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ בִּמְהֵרָה בְיָמֵינוּ" ("May it be Your will... that the Holy Temple be rebuilt speedily in our days"), it shouldn't be mere recitation. It should be infused with the energy of "Lamah nigara?" – a genuine, perhaps even demanding, plea born from the deep feeling that we *shouldn't* be lacking this ultimate connection. We should ask for it "בִּמְהֵרָה בְיָמֵינוּ מַמָּשׁ" – speedily in our days, *literally* and immediately. In essence, the Rebbe takes a seemingly technical question about Rashi's commentary and unfolds layers of meaning, revealing profound insights into the structure of the Torah, the nature of criticism and praise, the dynamics of leadership, the power of prayer and Teshuvah, and ultimately, a powerful call to action for bringing the Redemption.