It has been discussed many times that Rashi's commentary on the Torah, although he comes to explain the straightforward meaning of the text, as Rashi himself emphasizes several times, including right at the beginning of the first parsha: "I have come only to explain the plain meaning of the text." Yet, it contains more than that. Even when the text demands a homiletic interpretation because the straightforward explanation does not resolve the text, Rashi endeavors to explain it also according to its plain meaning.

And when he concludes there, "and not for the sake of a reward," and similarly when he often brings in his commentary "a midrash" and the like, it is necessary to say that everything brought in his commentary on the Torah must be according to the plain meaning of the text (though within the plain meaning there are different levels).

Accordingly, the great wonder is understood: that in many places Rashi says "I do not know" or similar expressions, even though there are midrashic interpretations and the like. Why does he not bring them? Because in those places, the midrashic interpretations are not at all according to the plain meaning, and therefore Rashi does not include them.

Moreover, even when Rashi himself brings a certain matter from the Gemara in his commentary on the Torah and says "I do not know", it is also understood based on the above.

However, also "wondrous matters" from other parts of the Torah, even "the secrets of the Torah," as is known from the saying of the Alter Rebbe, that "Rashi's commentary on Chumash is the wine of the Torah." But in order to reach these "wondrous matters" and "the wine of the Torah" that are in Rashi's commentary, one must first study and understand the simple explanation. Because even these wondrous matters and the wine of the Torah, Rashi has integrated into his commentary according to the plain meaning of the text.

It can be said that since Rashi did not write a separate introduction to his commentary (as other commentators on the Torah have done), it is logical to assume that he at least hinted at it in his first comment. Rabbi Yitzchak said: "The Torah should have begun with 'This month shall be for you,' which is the first commandment given to the Jewish people. So why does it start with 'In the beginning G‑d created'?" By emphasizing the order that first comes "In the beginning G‑d created" and only afterward "This month shall be for you," and by explaining the reason why the Torah begins with "In the beginning" (so that if the nations of the world say to Israel, "You are robbers, for you conquered the lands of the seven nations," the Jews will know what to answer), he also provides the introduction that establishes the order in the study of the Torah. First, one must learn the plain meaning of the text, which is similar to "In the beginning G‑d created" — the simplicity of the world. Only afterward can one reach the wondrous matters and the secrets of the Torah that are embedded within Rashi's commentary.

It is noteworthy that even in the plain meaning, Rashi's comment here is a general explanation for why all the sections in the Book of Genesis and the sections in the Book of Exodus were written. Moreover, it explains the essence of the entire Torah. In his answer, Rashi indicates and intends to teach that all the stories and matters in the Torah, up to "before the eyes of all Israel" at its conclusion, contain lessons for all generations. Just as "if the nations of the world say..."

Regarding Rashi's question, "The Torah should have begun with 'This month shall be for you,'" Ramban asks: "In the beginning G‑d created" is the root of faith; and one who does not believe in this (and thinks that the world is eternal, G‑d forbid) is a heretic in the fundamental belief and is thereby cut off from the entire Torah. So how can it be said that the Torah should have begun with "This month shall be for you" and not mention it at all?

Among the commentators on Rashi here, even if the Torah had begun with "This month shall be for you," we would know that the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world from what is stated in "For in six days the L‑rd made", or from the miracles that are evident to our eyes, which testify to the renewal of the world (Gur Aryeh here); or the matter is entrusted to the tradition of Israel and not written in the Torah (Rabbeinu Bachya here). However:

a) It is simple that the matter of Creation, since it is the root of faith, should be explicitly written in the Torah and in its sections (as Rabbeinu Bachya himself writes: "The Holy One, blessed be He, did not want this great matter to be entrusted solely to tradition but that the Torah should testify to it"). All the more so with what is written in the Torah about miracles — even though they are not as fundamental as the belief in creation.

b) According to this view, there is no need to write about Creation also for the reason "if the nations of the world say..." because even without this, the Jews would know that the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world. And what is written "For in six days..." is only mentioned incidentally as a reason for the commandment of Shabbat.

In a similar vein, one can question even regarding the stories in the Torah section that precedes "This month shall be for you": if the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world, and they will respond to them, "All the power of the Holy One, blessed be He, is..."

The Bera'am here explains that there is no benefit in the story of Creation for the heretics who believe in the eternity of the world and deny the Torah, as they will also deny the story of Creation. But according to this: a) all the miracles that were written to prove the renewal of the world, etc., should not have been written. b) Even to respond to the nations of the world regarding their claim, there is no benefit in writing about Creation.

One could seemingly resolve the question (as well as the questions that follow) by saying that Rashi's intention in "He did not need to begin the Torah... and why did He start with 'In the beginning'?" is that the beginning and opening of the Torah should be "This month shall be for you" because it is the first mitzvah that the Israelites were commanded. And "In the beginning" and all other sections should be written afterwards. However: a) From the straightforward reading of Rashi's language, "He did not need to begin the Torah except from 'This month shall be for you'," it implies that all the verses stated before this were not necessary to be written in the Torah at all.

b) If this is Rashi's question, his answer is not understood: even if "In the beginning" and the like were written after "This month," there is still an answer to the claim of the nations of the world, "You are robbers," and thus the question remains, "Why did He start with 'In the beginning'?" It is necessary to say that if these sections need to be in the Torah, it is not appropriate to ask (in the way of peshat), "Why did He start with 'In the beginning'?" because most matters in the Torah are written in a logical order. Rashi's question is that these matters should not be written at all.

c) In Rashi's commentary on Psalms 111:6, it is written, "He declared to His people the power of His works... so that the nations should not say to Israel, 'You are robbers,' etc." It is explicitly stated that if not for this reason, it would not have been written about Creation.

In the further sections of the Torah, after "This month shall be for you" (when the response to the nations of the world is already known), there are, aside from mitzvos and laws, many stories. It is therefore understandable (even in the way of peshat) that the stories of the Torah also contain many necessary instructions for every Jew today. What is Rashi's question, "He did not need, etc.," and why does he assume that the stories written in the Torah until "This month shall be for you" are only to teach Jews how to respond to the nations of the world and not instructions that Jews need to learn for themselves?

The question becomes even stronger: there are in the Book of Genesis indications of several mitzvos, such as "Be fruitful and multiply," circumcision, and the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve. How can it be said that the Torah should have begun only from "This month shall be for you" when through this...

According to this, even the verses that follow "This month" are also for the reason that if the nations say, etc., these sections would not need to be written in the Torah since they are meant to instruct us in the actions we should take.

Rashi explains that the reason the Torah begins with the stories up until "This month shall be for you" is to demonstrate the power of His deeds to His people, to give them the inheritance of nations. If the nations of the world say to Israel, "You are thieves, for you conquered the lands of the seven nations," they can respond, "The entire world belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He. He created it and gave it to whomever was right in His eyes. By His will, He gave it to them, and by His will, He took it from them and gave it to us."

This explanation is difficult to understand for several reasons:

Firstly, the point that "the entire world belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He" is already clear from the very beginning of the Torah in the portion of Bereishis. If so, why are all the other sections between the story of creation and "This month shall be for you" necessary?

Secondly, what is the basis of the nations' claim? Initially, when Noah divided the lands among his sons, the Land of Israel was in the portion of Shem. Later, the Canaanites (descendants of Ham) took it for themselves. What grounds do the nations have to claim against the Jews, "You are thieves for conquering the lands of the seven nations," when, on the contrary, the Land of Israel originally belonged to the children of Shem?

Additionally, if the Torah had begun with "This month shall be for you," the nations might argue that the Jews' claim is false, as the Holy One, blessed be He, does not act without justice. Why would He take the land from the nations and give it to Israel? However, from Rashi's wording, "The entire world belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He... by His will, He gave it to them, and by His will, He took it from them and gave it to us," it seems that the response to the nations' claim is solely that the land is His and He can do with it as He wishes, without explaining why He took it from them and gave it to us.

Furthermore, the reason for taking the land from them is explicitly stated later in the Torah, after "This month shall be for you": "And I will visit their iniquity upon them, and the land will vomit them out." This reason is more fitting than the one hinted at in the sections before "This month," where G‑d promised Abraham to give the land to his descendants, stating, "The iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete."

There is (some) room for the argument — why did He promise to give the land to Abraham's descendants, or why not give it to Abraham's friend?

Furthermore, the Canaanites were the ones who had seized the land from others. The question arises: why is it that we do not find any nation being punished for conquering a land (and its people) from another nation? This indicates, in simple terms, that conquest in war does not fall under the category of theft, and thus the entire basis of the claim "You are robbers because you conquered, etc." is nullified.

Here, the claim "You are robbers" is understood as "You did not give the rightful portion to the children of Shem." However, the simple wording "because you conquered the land of the seven nations" does not imply this at all.

In Bereishis Rabbah, the response of the Israelites is: "Is it not in your possession through robbery, as the Caphtorim, etc.?" But this response only indicates that the nations have no right to claim "You are robbers," because "the blemish you have, do not say to your fellow." This is not an answer to the claim itself, as the fact that the Caphtorim expelled the Avim does not permit Israel to take it. However, according to the explanation in the text, the conquest of the Land of Israel is not theft.

In Sanhedrin and Rambam's Laws of Kings, it is stated that the generation of the Flood was not sealed for their fate except for robbery. Even when King David conquered lands that were not part of the Land of Israel, it was considered as the conquest of the Land of Israel. It is not applicable to say "by His will He took it from them and gave it to us" — as this would be contrary to the Torah.

Additionally, in the response to the nations' claim — "The entire world belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He... He gave it, etc." — further explanation is required:

a) Why does Rashi emphasize in the response that "The entire world belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He," when the nations' claim is only about the lands of the seven nations?

b) In the continuation and conclusion of "and gave it to whomever was right in His eyes," the words "The entire world belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He" seem necessary to clarify that since "The entire world" belongs to the Almighty, He therefore has the "right" to give it to whomever He wishes. Rashi's addition "He created it" appears to be merely an explanation of "The entire world, etc." (it belongs to Him because He created it). However, according to this, Rashi should have stated it in reverse order: "The Holy One, blessed be He, created the world, and it is His." Why does he not?

Rashi places the words "The entire world belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He" before "and gave it, etc." This implies that "He created it" also refers to "and gave it, etc." (especially since he writes "and gave it" with a connecting 'vav').

With the words "and gave it to whomever was right in His eyes," Rashi seemingly means the same as when he later says, "By His will He gave it to them, and by His will He took it from them and gave it to us." Initially, he states in general terms that the Almighty gave the Land of Israel to whomever pleased Him, and then he explains in detail — by His will, He gave it to them first, and by His will, He gave it to us afterward. The question arises: Why does Rashi need to say the same thing twice (first in general terms and then in detail)?

To respond to the claim "You are thieves," it seems necessary only to know how the ownership of the Land of the seven nations came to the Jews, that it was not because the Jews themselves conquered these lands, but because the Almighty (to whom "the entire world belongs") gave them to the Jews. However, what is the relevance of the detail "by His will He gave it to them," which Rashi states explicitly?

Additionally, from the phrase "to whomever was right in His eyes," it implies that the nation to whom He gave the land was "right in His eyes." Seemingly: a) What difference does this make here? b) How can this be said about the nations, especially about "Cursed be Canaan"? Therefore, it should have stated "and gave it to whomever He wished."

In this dispute, one can infer that Rashi intends to refute a claim that could be made by the nations: How is it justified to take away the land that belonged to them? Rashi emphasizes that since the ownership of the Land of Israel by the nations was only because the Almighty "by His will gave it to them," He also has the "right" to take it from them and give it to others.

However, it is difficult to say this because, on the contrary: If Rashi did not write "by His will He gave it to them" (but rather that they, as it were, took it themselves) — then, once it has been established that "the entire world belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He," and despite this, the nations took the Land of Israel for themselves, not according to the will of the Almighty, as it were, they would have had no ownership over the Land of Israel at all — and then it would be even more understandable why it could be taken from them.

With the phrase "by His will," Rashi means to say that the fact that the Land of Israel was first with the seven nations and then with the Jews is not merely an expression of Divine Providence like all events that happen in the world. Rather, there was a specific will of the Almighty in this matter.

We must understand: Regarding the claim "You are thieves" — since when one steals property from someone, it is also under Divine Providence, and nevertheless, it is considered theft.

The emphasis on "and He gave it to us" is understood from the phrase "by His will," as we find in many places, starting from the Covenant between the Parts, that the Almighty wanted the Land of Israel to be with the Jews. However, Rashi's use of "by His will" regarding "He gave it to them" is difficult: Where do we find that the Almighty wanted the descendants of Ham to conquer the Land of Israel from the descendants of Shem?

The explanation in all this is: The fact that the Jews were completely distinguished from all other nations concerning Torah and mitzvos primarily manifested at the time of the Giving of the Torah. It was then that they became "a treasured nation from among all the peoples." In a more general sense, this distinction occurred at the Exodus from Egypt, which is connected to the Giving of the Torah, when they were commanded regarding the mitzvah of "This month shall be for you."

And although the mitzvos of circumcision and the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve were commanded much earlier than the Exodus from Egypt, they were given only to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. However, since these commandments were not given at a time or occasion connected with the Giving of the Torah, it turns out that these mitzvos were given to them not as distinguished Jews, but as a distinct category within the descendants of Noah (similar to the instructions given to the descendants of Esau, Ammon, and Moab, through which they were distinguished from among the nations of the world).

According to this, Rashi's question becomes clear: The Torah should have begun with "This month shall be for you," since "Torah" means commandments and instructions given to the Jewish people as Jews. Therefore, all previous commandments and instructions through which Jews were not yet distinguished from their unique category among the descendants of Noah should either have been written in a separate book or remained in tradition (like the seven Noahide laws until the Giving of the Torah), but not written in the Torah as instructions to Jews as Jews.

To this, Rashi answers that the reason the Torah begins with Genesis is to provide a response for the Jews to answer the claim of the nations of the world: "You are thieves, for you conquered the lands of the seven nations."

Even though conquest in war is not considered theft (as explained earlier), nevertheless, without the answer "He declared to His people the power of His works," the nations could still, to some extent, claim, "You are thieves," because when the Jewish people took possession of the Land of Israel, it involved a transfer from the domain of the nations to the domain of the Jews. This transfer was in a special and much deeper manner than the typical transfer of ownership through conquest in other lands, as will be explained further.

When a certain object transfers from one person to another, regardless of the method of acquisition (sale, gift, conquest in war, etc.), the essential nature of the object is not affected or changed by this transfer. The object itself does not express any particular connection to the domain of this or that person, nor does it undergo any change in this respect; it is merely that its external affiliation changes when it passes from one person to another.

However, the conquest of the Land of Israel was different. Since the Jewish people took possession of the lands of the seven nations, a change occurred in the essential nature of the land. Previously, it was a land like all other lands, which could belong to any nation. But from the time of the Jewish conquest, the land itself was transformed into the Land of Israel. It became a Jewish land through and through, and therefore, it can no longer belong to any other nation. In truth, it can never be taken away from the Jews.

Therefore, even during the time of exile, when "we were exiled from our land and distanced from our soil," it is still called "our land" and "our soil." Moreover, no nation is permitted to settle in the Land of Israel.

When the young student learns in the Torah about the connection between the Jewish people and the lands of the seven nations, such as "And the fourth generation shall return here," and "To your descendants I have given this land," he already knows from earlier that this is "to your descendants forever."

And this is the basis for the claim of the nations of the world, "You are thieves," regarding the matters related to the land. Before the Land of Israel was chosen, all lands were equal. However, once it was chosen, it became uniquely connected to the Jewish people, and this connection is eternal.

The nations of the world also know that as soon as the Jews conquered the lands of the seven nations, these lands became the Land of Israel permanently. Thus, the land can no longer belong to them or to any other nation. This is why they claim, "You are thieves." Since before the Jews conquered it, it was a land like all other lands, which could belong to any nation, they argue that the Jews had no right to take possession of the Land of Israel in such a way that it would be completely removed from the nations. This, they claim, is theft and robbery.

In response to this, the answer is: "The entire earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He, He created it." Since the Almighty created it and brought its entire existence into being, it is self-evident that "the entire earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He." Therefore, He has the right to change its essential nature from being called "the lands of the nations" to being exclusively the Land of Israel.

However, even this explanation of "the entire earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He" is not entirely sufficient to nullify their claim of "You are thieves." Even if the claim of "You are thieves" was regarding the very act of conquest, since "the entire earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He," it remains under His dominion even after He "gave it to them."

According to what is explained, it is understood what the Rambam writes: "The lands that David conquered outside the land of Canaan... since he was the king of Israel and acted according to the Great Sanhedrin, he made them like the Land of Israel for all matters... because he conquered them before he conquered the entire Land of Israel... and if he had captured the entire land of Canaan according to its borders and then conquered other lands, his conquest would have been entirely in the Land of Israel for all matters."

Seemingly, since the sanctity of the Land of Israel also applies to lands outside the land of Canaan when conquered for the sake of all Israel, and since the conquest by the king of Israel is a valid conquest, why does it matter that he conquered them before conquering the entire Land of Israel? Because the sanctity of the Land of Israel is not solely due to the conquest, but primarily because the Almighty "gave it to us." Therefore, the lands conquered after the entire Land of Israel was conquered are included in "to you I have given it" and "to you it shall be," and they are like the Land of Israel that Joshua conquered for all matters. However, the lands conquered before this, since the conquest was "not according to the Torah," even though they were acquired by Israel...

due to the nature of conquest through war, they are not included in "I have given it to you."

If the accusation of "You are robbers" because you conquered the lands of the seven nations was only about the fact that the Jews took from the seven nations a land that originally belonged to them, it would be understandable. Since the ownership of the land came to them from the Almighty, He therefore has the right to take it back from them. However, since the claim of the nations of the world pertains to the fact that the Jews took the land from all the nations of the world, meaning that they all had a certain potential right to the land (just as with all lands that can belong to any nation), and this right came to them at the very creation of the land, as it was initially created as a land that could belong to any of the nations, it follows that this right is not a given to them but comes naturally due to the very nature of the land as it is from creation.

And this gives them a basis to claim, "You are robbers": How did you have the right to take from them the "right" in the land that comes to them from the very essence of every land?! In order to counter this claim, Rashi adds, "He created it and gave it to whomever was right in His eyes," meaning that the Almighty, as soon as He created the Land of Israel — "created and gave" — He then assigned it (in thought) to whomever was right in His eyes, that is, to the Jews. This means that the "right" that the nations had over the Land of Israel was not due to the very essence of the Land of Israel, but only because "He gave it to them by His will," and what He gave them, He then had the right to take back from them — "He took it from them and gave it to us."

However, here arises the question from the other side: If initially, at the time of creation, the Almighty already gave the Land of Israel to whomever was right in His eyes, meaning that He created it as the Land of Israel, whose very essence excludes the rights of all the nations, it follows that by later giving it to them, He, G‑d forbid, wronged the Jews by taking away (even if only temporarily) their inherent right to the land. And since this cannot be said, it seems that at the time of creation, the giving was...

...not given to "whomever was right in His eyes." The nations still have their claim, therefore Rashi emphasizes: "He gave it to them by His will, and He took it from them by His will and gave it to us." The same "will" — the first "by His will" means the same as the second "by His will," that is, the Almighty initially intended "by His will" that the temporary giving of the Land of Israel to them would lead to the purpose of the giving to the Jews; that it would become the Land of Israel (in actuality and revelation) only after it passed through the domain of the nations and was then taken from them.

The reason for this is because it was His will that specifically from a land of the nations, the Jews, through their service, would make it into the Land of Israel, a holy land. Therefore, it is understood that "He gave it to them" is not in contradiction to "and gave it to whomever was right in His eyes," but on the contrary: through the giving to them, the intention of the giving to "whomever was right in His eyes" is fulfilled — that the lands of the nations should be transformed by the Jews into the Land of Israel.

This is similar to the advantage of transforming darkness into light. According to this, it is also understood why so many sections are written in the Torah, more than a complete book, so that they can explain to the nations that the conquest of the Land of Israel is not theft — because since the divine will is that the lands of the nations should be transformed into the Land of Israel, it is appropriate that the nations should also agree to this.

According to this, it will also be answered why in the Torah, not only the story of the creation is included, but also all other sections until "This month shall be for you." Because through all these sections, it becomes understood that what the Almighty gave the Land of Israel to "whomever was right in His eyes" happened immediately "when He created it"; and that "He gave it to them" was only a means to fulfill the singular will of "He gave it to us."

Just as regarding the entirety of creation, the Torah teaches us immediately in the first words "In the beginning G‑d created," that the creation was "for the sake of the Torah, which is called 'the beginning,' and for the sake of Israel, who are called 'the beginning.'" Nevertheless, until then, until the giving of the Torah when they became the people of Israel, there were many generations that were not "important before the Omnipresent" — because it was His will that the "pearls" should be extracted specifically from the "mundane."

So it is also in relation to the Land of Israel: that which "He gave it to whomever was right in His eyes" — was in the thought of the Holy One, blessed be He, right at the creation of the land, until later when "the nations were divided in their lands, each according to his language," the Land of Israel "fell to the portion of Shem," and even afterwards, the Torah recounts "and the Canaanite was then in the land" in proximity to the promise "to your descendants I will give this land" — that at the time the Canaanite was...

...occupying the Land of Israel was from the descendants of Shem." The Almighty immediately assured through a message to Avraham Avinu that this did not, G‑d forbid, nullify the giving of the land to the descendants of Shem, but rather, "I am destined to return it to your children."

However, one might ask: Why indeed should the Land of Israel have to go through the process of being given "to them" before it is given "to us"? Would it not have sufficed for the Land of Israel to be in their possession for only a short time? Why did it come to us only after being in the possession of the Canaanites for so many years? To this, the Torah responds with the concept of the Covenant Between the Parts, explaining that this was the will of the Holy One, blessed be He: that the actual giving of the Land of Israel to the Jews should come specifically after "your descendants will be strangers in a land not theirs, and they will enslave them and oppress them for four hundred years." As a continuation of this, the subsequent portions narrate the details of how the decree was fulfilled in the Egyptian exile, and then the story of the Exodus from Egypt, where the Almighty took the Jews out of Egypt to bring them "to a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey."

After all the above, further explanation is required — in the inner dimension of matters. It is indeed true that since Jews need to know not only how they themselves should conduct themselves, but also how to respond to the nations of the world, therefore the Torah includes the portions from Bereishis until "This month shall be for you," which contain the response to the claim of the nations, "You are thieves." However, it is difficult to accept: after all this, the Torah is still primarily a teaching for Jews regarding their own conduct. How does this align with the fact that "it begins with Bereishis," that the opening of the Torah is with matters necessary for Jews to know only to answer the nations, and only after more than an entire book does it begin with "This month shall be for you" and the subsequent mitzvos and instructions relevant to the Jews themselves?

Therefore, it must be said that this order in which the Torah was arranged is also a part of the Torah — a teaching. In this order, there is a lesson regarding the order of Torah study: the purpose of Torah study is that a Jew should learn it in such a way that it is above the world — which has no connection to the nations of the world. Similar to the mitzvos and...

...the instructions given to the Jewish people, such as "This month shall be for you," which were given to them as a "treasured nation among all the peoples." However, to reach this level, it is first necessary to study in a manner that is suited to the animal soul, the "non-Jew" that exists within every Jew. This is similar to the portions before "This month shall be for you," through which Jews can clarify the truth to the nations of the world.

The reason for this is indicated by the Torah in the order that was established concerning the Land of Israel, as will be explained further.

We can understand this by first introducing the teaching of our Sages in the Gemara, that a Jewish child, while still in its mother's womb, is taught the entire Torah. However, when the child is born into the world, an angel comes and makes it forget the entire Torah. The question arises: since the child is made to forget everything it learned, why is it taught in the first place?

The explanation is that Torah must be acquired by Jews through study and effort, not in a manner of "bread of shame." Therefore, the child must forget the easily learned Torah so that it can achieve it through its own toil and effort.

This is analogous to the Land of Israel, which G‑d desired should first be the land of the nations, and through the Jews' service, they would merit to transform it into the Land of Israel. And yet, the child is taught the entire Torah beforehand, because if the entire study of Torah would begin only from the child's own learning, being a created being (especially since the soul is clothed in a body and an animal soul), it would perceive the Torah only as a created entity, limited within the confines of creation, akin to a level of Torah that is also relevant to the nations of the world.

Similarly, regarding the Land of Israel, if its designation to the Jews would begin only with its conquest (and if it were given initially "to whomever He deemed fit" at the time of creation), it is true that it would still be acquired by the Jews. However, this acquisition would not completely exclude all the nations of the world from it.

This is why the Torah is taught to the child while still in the womb, meaning, with the soul as it is in the state of "pregnancy" within Malchus of Atzilus, before it becomes a separate entity. At this stage, the learning is without the limitations of a created being, and the Torah is given to the child as it is in its infinite form. Through this, a Jew has the potential that later, through his learning in this world, he will also illuminate that aspect of the Torah which was taught to him in the womb, which is beyond the confines of creation.

This is analogous to the Land of Israel, where the fact that its designation to the Jews (in thought) occurred even earlier, at the very beginning of creation, gives them the power in their service of conquering the lands of the seven nations. Through this, it becomes the Land of Israel in a manner that completely excludes any claim from the nations, even a potential claim.

The aforementioned order — "He gave it to whomever He deemed fit," then "He gave it to them," and then "He took it from them and gave it to us" — demonstrates not only the manner of Torah study (that initially, the entire Torah is taught from above, and then comes the learning through the person's effort, until the point where G‑d illuminates the "light of the Torah" similar to the Torah taught from above), but also the order of the Torah's descent itself. Torah, in its essence, is the wisdom and will of the Holy One, blessed be He — akin to "He gave it to whomever He deemed fit," which has no connection yet to the "straight" and good of holiness. Then the Torah "traveled and descended" and lowered itself into the worlds of Beriah, Yetzirah, and Asiyah: the part of drush and remez of the Torah in the worlds of Beriah and Yetzirah, and the part of peshat in the world of Asiyah, which is similar to "He gave it to them," because in the worlds of BY"A...

In the world of Asiyah (the physical), there is already a presence of evil, and particularly in the world of Asiyah, which is mostly evil. However, there is still a connection to them. Nevertheless, "the beginning is wedged in the end" — it is specifically through the study of the peshat in the world of Asiyah that the essence of the Torah is revealed (which is even higher than the part of sod that did not descend into Beriah, Yetzirah, and Asiyah and remained in Atzilus). This is similar to "He took it from them," which comes through "He gave it to us," that specifically by taking it out from "them" in the world of Asiyah, we are given the inner and essential aspects of the Torah.

This is what Rashi hints at right at the beginning of his commentary on the Torah, in his first statement, which also serves as an introduction (as mentioned at the beginning of the sicha) to all his commentaries on Chumash: that first, one must understand the "simple meaning of the verse", and specifically through this, one then comes to the "wine of Torah," to the "secrets of the Torah," and the "secrets of secrets" (which are also present in his commentary). Until very soon, we will come to the reasons of the Torah that will be revealed in the future through our righteous Moshiach.

Then there will also be the completion of "He took it from them and gave it to us" concerning the Land of Israel in its literal sense, that the Jews will receive the entire Land of Israel — including the lands of the Kenites, Kenizzites, and Kadmonites. And even more: that the Land of Israel will expand to encompass all lands, in the true and complete redemption, through our righteous Moshiach, may he come and redeem us very soon.