It has been discussed many times that Rashi's commentary on the Torah, although he comes to explain the simple meaning of the text — as Rashi himself emphasizes several times, right from the first parsha: "I have come only to explain the simple meaning" — nevertheless contains wondrous matters from other parts of the Torah, even the secrets of the Torah. As is known, the saying of the Alter Rebbe is that "Rashi's commentary on Chumash is the wine of the Torah."
However, in order to reach the "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 embedded in his commentary according to the "simple meaning of the text."
There is a specific matter in the Gemara, and yet in his commentary on the Torah, Rashi says, "I do not know", and this is also understood based on the above.
It is also hinted at in the expression "wine of the Torah." Just as wine is initially hidden within the grapes, and the longer it remains in the grapes, the more it matures and improves, so too the deeper secrets of the Torah are concealed within the simple meaning, and through delving into the simple meaning, one can reach these deeper insights.
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 stands to reason that he at least hinted at it, in a subtle manner, in his first comment. Rabbi Yitzchak said, "The Torah should have begun with 'This month shall be for you,' which is the first mitzvah commanded to the Jewish people. So why did it start with 'In the beginning G‑d created'?" By emphasizing the order that first comes "In the beginning G‑d created" and only afterwards "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 underlines the order in the study of the Torah. First, one must learn the simple meaning of the text, which is akin to "In the beginning G‑d created" — the simplicity of the world, and only afterwards can one arrive at the deeper insights.
It is noteworthy that even in its simplicity, Rashi's comment here is a general explanation and rationale for why all the sections in the book of Genesis and the sections in the book of Exodus were written. Moreover, "The Torah should have begun with 'This month shall be for you'" also explains the essence of the entire Torah. In his answer, Rashi teaches and establishes 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, as if to say, "If the nations of the world say..."
Regarding Rashi's question, "The Torah should have begun with 'This month shall be for you,'" the 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 is it possible to say that the Torah should have begun entirely from "This month shall be for you" and not mention this at all?
We can ask a similar question regarding the stories in the Torah, particularly those before "This month shall be for you." The Ramban addresses this by explaining that there is no benefit in writing about the creation of the world for those who deny the Torah and believe in the eternity of the world. However, according to this, all the miracles written to prove the renewal of the world should not have been written. Additionally, even to respond to the nations of the world regarding their claims, writing about the creation of the world is not beneficial.
It seems possible to resolve the question (as well as subsequent questions) by suggesting that Rashi's intention in saying "The Torah should have begun with 'This month shall be for you'" is because it is the first mitzvah given to the Jewish people. The Torah should have started with this, and all other sections should have been written afterwards. However, from the straightforward reading of Rashi's lengthy wording, it implies that all the verses before this were not necessary to be written in the Torah at all.
If this is Rashi's question, then his answer is unclear: even if the Torah had begun with "This month," there would still be a response to the nations' claim of "You are thieves." Therefore, the question remains: why did it begin with "In the beginning"? It is necessary to say that if these sections need to be in the Torah, then it is not appropriate to ask (in the simple sense) "Why did it begin 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 have been written at all.
In Rashi's commentary on Psalms 111:6, it is written that the creation of the world was made known to Israel so that the nations could not say to Israel, "You are thieves," indicating that if not for this reason, the creation would not have been written. The Ramban here explains that the intention of the answer is regarding the other stories of creation. The Riva already questioned this, saying that it is "created for the sake of argument." It is noteworthy that in the version of Rashi's commentary quoted by the Ramban, these words do not appear.
In the subsequent 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 many stories besides mitzvos and laws. It is therefore understandable (even in the simple sense) that the stories of the Torah contain many necessary lessons for every Jew today. What then is Rashi's question, "The Torah should have begun..."? Why does he assume that the stories in the Torah up to "This month shall be for you" are meant to teach Jews how to respond to the nations of the world, and not lessons that Jews need to learn for themselves?
The question becomes even stronger: there are, after all, in the book of Genesis, indications of several mitzvos, such as "Be fruitful and multiply," circumcision, and the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve. So how can it be said that the Torah should have begun only from "This month shall be for you" when these mitzvos are already present?
In the commentaries on Rashi here, it is explained that what was difficult for Rashi in saying "The Torah should have begun with 'This month shall be for you'"—even though there is no story in the Torah that is unnecessary, G‑d forbid—is because the main purpose of the Torah is for its mitzvos. However, according to this, it is not understood: a) If so, Rashi should have asked this question also about the stories after "This month shall be for you".
According to this, Rashi should have also questioned the verses following "This month shall be for you." Why are these sections written in the Torah if its purpose is to instruct us in the actions we should perform?
Rashi explains that the reason these sections are included in the Torah before "This month shall be for you" is because "He declared the power of His works to His people, to give them the inheritance of the nations." This is so that 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 earth 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 also difficult to understand: a) This point, that "the entire earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He," is already clear to us from the very beginning of Parshas Bereishis. So why is it necessary for the Torah to include all the other sections between the account of Creation and "This month shall be for you"?
b) 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. It was only later that the Canaanites (descendants of Ham) took it for themselves. So 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 could argue that the Jews' claim is false, as the Holy One, blessed be He, does not perform miracles without reason. Why would He take the land from the nations and give it to Israel? However, from Rashi's wording, "The entire earth 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 simply that the land is His, and He can do with it as He pleases. But this does not explain why He took it from them and gave it to us.
Moreover, the reason for taking the land from them is explicitly stated in Parshas Acharei (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 apparent than the one hinted at in the sections before "This month shall be for you," where G‑d promises 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 or give the land to Abraham's friend?
Additionally, the Canaanites were those who had seized the land from others. The question arises: if conquest through war, as was the case with Joshua's entry into the Land of Israel, constitutes theft, why do we not find any nation being punished for conquering a land (and its people) from another nation? This indicates that, in simple terms, conquest through war does not fall under the category of theft, and thus the entire basis of the claim "You are thieves for conquering" is nullified.
Here, the claim "You are thieves" is because "you did not give the rightful portion to the children of Shem." However, the straightforward language of "You conquered the land of the seven nations" does not imply this at all.
In Bereishis Rabbah, it states: "Israel responds to them: Is it not in your possession through theft? Did not the Caphtorim expel the Avim?" But this response only indicates that the nations have no right to claim "You are thieves," because "Do not say to your friend what is in you" (as is explained here). This is not an answer to the claim itself, because the fact that the Caphtorim expelled the Avim does not permit Israel to take it. However, according to the explanation given here, the conquest of the Land of Israel is not theft.
In the Talmud Sanhedrin and Rambam's Laws of Kings, it is stated that the generation of the Flood was not sealed for punishment except for theft. Even when King David conquered lands that were not part of the boundaries of the Land of Israel, it was considered the conquest of the Land of Israel. It cannot be said about this, "By His will, He took it from them and gave it to us," because this would imply acting contrary to the Torah.
Furthermore, in the response to the claim of the nations, "The entire earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He... He gave it to us," clarification is required:
a) Why does Rashi emphasize in the response that "The entire earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He," when the claim of the nations is only about the lands of the seven nations?
b) In the continuation and conclusion of "and He gave it to whomever was right in His eyes," the words "The entire earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He" seem necessary (which clarify that since "the entire earth" belongs to the Almighty, He therefore has the "right" to give it to whomever He wishes). And what Rashi adds, "He created it," seems to be merely an explanation of "The entire earth, etc." (it belongs to Him because He created it). However, according to this, Rashi should have stated the phrase in the reverse order: "The Holy One, blessed be He, created the earth and it is His." Why does Rashi present it in this order?
Rashi places the words "The entire earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He" before "and He gave it, etc.," which implies that "He created it" also refers to "and He gave it." (Especially since he writes "and He gave" with a connecting 'vav'.)
With the words "and He gave it to whomever was right in His eyes," Rashi seemingly means the same content 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 generally that the Almighty gave the Land of Israel to whomever was pleasing to Him, and then he explains specifically that with His will, He gave it to them first, and with His will, He gave it to us afterward. The question arises: Why does Rashi need to state the same thing twice (first generally and then specifically)?
To answer the claim "You are robbers," it seems necessary to know only how the ownership of the Land of the Seven Nations came to the Jews, which was not because the Jews themselves conquered these lands, but because the Almighty (to whom "the entire earth belongs") gave it to the Jews. However, what is the relevance of the detail "and He gave it to whomever was right in His eyes," which Rashi explicitly states?
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 of the world, especially about "Canaan"? If so, Rashi should have simply said, "and He gave it to whomever He wanted."
One could infer from this that Rashi intends to refute a claim that could be made by the nations: How could it be justified to take away the land that belonged to them? Rashi emphasizes that the ownership of the Land of Israel by the nations was only because "by His will, He gave it to them," and therefore, He also has the right to take it from them and give it to others.
However, this is difficult to say, because if Rashi did not write "by His will, He gave it to them" (as if they had taken it themselves), then after it has already been established that "the entire earth 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, they would not have any ownership over the Land of Israel. It would then 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, but that there was a specific will of the Almighty regarding this. We must understand: Regarding the claim "You are robbers," this is not an answer, for when one steals property from someone, it is also under Divine Providence, and nevertheless, it is considered robbery.
The emphasis on "and He gave it to us" is understood from the phrase "by His will," as found in many places, starting from the Covenant Between the Parts. It indicates that the Almighty desired that the Land of Israel should belong to 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 for all this is as follows: The fact that the Jews were completely distinguished from all other nations concerning Torah and mitzvos was primarily realized at the time of the Giving of the Torah. It was then that they became "a treasured nation among all 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."
Although the mitzvos of circumcision and the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve were commanded much earlier than the Exodus, 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 Children of Israel concerning the descendants of Esau, Ammon, and Moab, which distinguished them 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 Children of Israel as Jews. Therefore, it follows that all the previous commandments and instructions, through which the 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 the nations' claim, "You are robbers, for you conquered the lands of the seven nations."
And although conquest in war is not considered robbery (as mentioned earlier), nevertheless, if not for the response "He declared to His people the power of His works," the nations could still, to some extent, claim, "You are robbers," because when the Jews took possession of the Land of Israel, it transitioned from the domain of the nations to the domain of the Jews. This transition was in a special and much deeper manner than the transition of conquest from one domain to another in other lands, as will be explained further.
When a certain item transfers from one person to another through any form of acquisition (sale, gift, conquest in war, etc.), the essential nature of the item is not affected or changed by this transfer. The item itself does not express any particular connection to the domain of this or that person, nor does it undergo any change; it is merely that its external belonging changes when it transfers from one person to another.
However, the conquest of the Land of Israel was different. Since the Jews 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 since the conquest by the Jews, the land itself was transformed into the Land of Israel, becoming a Jewish land through and through. Consequently, it can no longer belong to any other nation. In truth, it can never be taken away from the Jews in any manner.
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 allowed to settle in the Land of Israel. When the child learning Chumash reads about the connection of the Jews to the lands of the seven nations, "And the fourth generation shall return here," "To your descendants I have given this land," he already knows from earlier that this is "to your descendants forever."
And this is precisely the reason for the claim of the nations, "You are robbers," regarding the land. Before the Land of Israel was chosen, all lands were equal. But once it was chosen, it became uniquely connected to the Jewish people, and thus, the nations' claim arises.
Even the nations of the world know that as soon as the Jews conquered the lands of the seven nations, these lands became the Land of Israel permanently. Consequently, the land can no longer belong to them, to the nations of the world. And precisely because of this, they claim, "You are robbers." 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 manner that it would be completely removed from the nations — this, they claim, is robbery.
And to this comes the response: "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," meaning that the entire earth belongs to Him. 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 robbers." Even if the claim of "You are robbers" was regarding the very act of conquest — since "the entire earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He," it remains under His domain even after He gave it to them.
Based on what is explained above, we can understand what Rambam writes: "The lands that David conquered outside the land of Canaan... since he was a king of Israel and acted according to the Great Sanhedrin, he made them like the Land of Israel in every respect... because he conquered them before he conquered the entire Land of Israel... and if he had first taken the entire land of Canaan to its borders and then conquered other lands, his conquest would have been entirely within 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 of 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 conquest of the entire Land of Israel are included in "to you it shall be" and "I have given it to you," 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...
are not included in "I have given it to you."
When the accusation of "You are robbers, for you conquered the lands of the seven nations" would have only pertained to the fact that the Jews took from the seven nations a land that actually belonged to them before, it would have been 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 relates to the fact that the Jews took the land from all the nations of the world, meaning that all of them 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 initially it was created as a land that could belong to any of the nations, it turns out that this right is not given to them, but rather it comes naturally due to the very essence 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" to the land that comes from the very essence of every land?! 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 gave 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 willingly gave it to them," 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 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 turns out 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 a claim. Therefore, Rashi emphasizes: "He willingly gave it to them, and He willingly took it from them and gave it to us." The same "willingly" in the first instance is the same as the "willingly" in the second instance. That is, the Almighty initially intended that the temporary giving of the Land of Israel "to them" would lead to the purpose of giving it "to us"; 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 "He gave it to whomever was right in His eyes," but rather the opposite: through giving it "to them," the intention of giving it "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.
In the manner of the advantage of transforming darkness into light. And according to this, it is also understood why there are so many portions written in the Torah, more than a complete book, so that it can be explained to make known that the conquest of the Land of Israel is not theft—because since the supreme will is that the lands of the nations should be transformed into the Land of Israel, it is appropriate that even the nations agree to this.
According to this, it will also be answered why in the Torah, not only is the story of the creation included, but also all other portions until "This month shall be for you." Because through all these portions, 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" be extracted specifically from the "mundane."
So too is it with regard 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 earth, 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 after that, the Torah recounts the promise of the Almighty, "To your descendants I will give this land"—that at the time the Canaanite was in the land.
When the descendants of Shem were in possession of the Land of Israel, the Almighty immediately informed Avraham Avinu that this did not, G‑d forbid, nullify the giving of the land to the descendants of Shem. Rather, He assured him, "I will return it to your children in the future."
However, one might ask: Why indeed should the Land of Israel have to pass through the hands of others before it is given to us? It would have sufficed for the Land of Israel to be with them for only a short time. Why did it come to us only after being with 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. It was His desire 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 following portions narrate the details of how this decree was fulfilled in the exile of Egypt, and then the story of the Exodus, 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 of the above, further explanation is required—on a deeper level. It is true that Jews need to know not only how they themselves should conduct themselves, but also what to answer 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, the Torah is primarily a teaching for Jews regarding their own conduct. How does this align with the fact that it begins with "In the beginning," where 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 the portion of "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 is arranged is also a part of the Torah—a teaching. In this order, there is an instruction 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, having no connection to the nations. This is similar to the mitzvos and...
...the instructions from "This month shall be for you," which were given to the Jews, who were already a "treasured nation among all the peoples." However, to reach this level, it is first necessary to engage in study that is suited to the animal soul, the "nation" that exists within every Jew. This is similar to the portions up until "This month shall be for you," through which Jews can clarify the truth to the nations of the world.
The Torah indicates the reason for this in the order that was established concerning the Land of Israel, as will be explained.
This can be understood by prefacing with the teaching of our Sages in the Gemara: A Jewish child, while still in its mother's womb, is taught the entire Torah. However, when the child enters the world, an angel comes and makes the child forget all the Torah it learned. The question is asked: Since the child will forget everything it learned, why teach it 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 to first be the land of the nations, and through the Jews' efforts, they would merit it and transform it into the Land of Israel. Yet, the child is taught the entire Torah beforehand because if the entire Torah study began 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 creation, limited within the bounds of creation, a level of Torah that is also relevant to the nations of the world.
This is similar to the Land of Israel, that if its designation to the Jews began only with its conquest (and initially, it was given "in thought" to whomever was pleasing in His eyes at 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.
To have some merit and connection to the Land of Israel, therefore, the Torah is taught to the child while it is still in its mother's womb—meaning, with the soul as it is in the state of "gestation" in Malchus of Atzilus. Before it becomes a separate entity, the manner of learning is without the limitations of a created being, and the Torah is given to it as it is in its infinite state. Through this, a Jew has the potential that later, through his learning in this world, he will also illuminate that level of Torah which was taught to him while he was in his mother's womb, which is beyond the limitations of created beings.
This is similar to the Land of Israel, where the fact that its designation to the Jews (in thought) was from the very beginning of creation gives them the strength in the task of conquering the lands of the seven nations, so that it becomes the Land of Israel in such a manner that completely excludes the nations from any right to it, even a potential right.
This aforementioned order—"given to whomever was pleasing in His eyes," then "given to them," and then "taken from them and given to us"—demonstrates not only the manner of learning Torah (that initially, "they teach him the entire Torah" from above, and then comes the learning through the person's effort, until the point that G‑d illuminates the "light of the Torah" for him, similar to the Torah that was taught to him from above), but also from the order of the descent of the Torah itself:
Torah, in its essence, is the wisdom and will of the Holy One, blessed be He—this is analogous to "given to whomever was pleasing in His eyes," which has no connection yet to the "upright" and good of holiness. Then the Torah "descended and went down" into the worlds of Beriah, Yetzirah, and Asiyah: the part of Torah that is drush and remez in the worlds of Beriah and Yetzirah, and the part of peshat in the world of Asiyah. This is analogous to "given to them," because in the worlds of BYA...
In the world of Asiyah (the physical world), there is already a presence of evil, especially since it 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 peshat in the world of Asiyah that the essence of Torah is revealed (which is even higher than the part of sod that did not descend into BYA and remained in Atzilus). This is similar to "given to us," which comes through "taken from them," that specifically by extracting 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 only through this does one subsequently reach the "wine of Torah," 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 "taken from them and given 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.