לקוטי שיחות חלק ט׳ - וילך א

Likkutei Sichos Vol. 9 – Vayeilech 1

1. It is known the teaching of the Baal Shem Tov on the verse "And I will surely hide My face on that day," that the interpretation of "surely hide" — a double concealment — is that the concealment itself is hidden. This means that the concealment is so great that one does not even feel that it is a concealment, to the extent that it can lead, G‑d forbid, to "turning darkness into light."

According to what is explained in Likutei Torah regarding the matters mentioned in the "rebuke," that "in truth, they are only blessings," and the reason they are expressed in such a manner that externally appears to be the opposite of a blessing is because the blessings come from a very high place, "from a concealed level" — it is understandable in relation to our matter — with "And I will surely hide My face on that day" — that "in truth" it is an exalted blessing.

Moreover, from the very fact that externally it appears to be the ultimate opposite of a blessing [because when one knows it is a "concealment," there is still hope that one will seek ways to be rid of it. However, when it is "surely hide," to the extent that one accepts the darkness as light — one is satisfied with the state in which they find themselves, which is the ultimate opposite of a blessing], it is understood that the blessing is exceedingly great, which is why it comes in the most concealed manner.

2. This can be understood by prefacing with the saying of the Alter Rebbe on the verse "I am asleep but my heart is awake," that in the level of Memalei Kol Almin, which is referred to as "I," there is the concept of "sleep." However, in the level of Sovev Kol Almin — "my heart," it is always "awake."

And he explains there that when a Jew attaches his thoughts to the desires of this world and seeks to derive vitality from them, abandoning the vitality of "You give life to them all," which is Memalei Kol Almin, he becomes separated from the level of Memalei Kol Almin. However, from the level of Sovev Kol Almin, "it is impossible to separate in any way," because the "desire of the heart" that comes from the level of Sovev Kol Almin ("my heart") "exists in every person." And "even if it seems to him that he does not have it and does not feel it, this is certainly false, for although he does not see it, his mazal sees it."

Seemingly, it is not understood: also the level of Memalei Kol Almin, since "You give life to them all," it also gives life to the one who "abandons the vitality of 'You give life to them all'" — and yet it is said that since the person is "running after his livelihood" and "abandons the vitality of 'You give life to them all,'" he is (from his feeling) "separated from the level of Memalei Kol Almin."

Why, then, is it said regarding Sovev Kol Almin — that even if "it seems to him that he does not have it, etc." — "it is impossible to separate in any way"?

We must say that what the Alter Rebbe says regarding the desire of the heart, "it exists in every person," does not mean only from the perspective of "his mazal," but also from the perspective of "himself" (from his feeling). And seemingly, since "he does not see it," he is indeed separated from the perspective of "himself"?

3. The explanation of this is as follows: The level of Memalei Kol Almin, since it "fills and gives life to all the worlds," implies that the worlds perceive the influence. Therefore, when someone does not perceive that his vitality comes from G‑dliness, it means that the divine light is present for him in a concealed and encompassing manner. Consequently, it turns out that one who abandons the divine vitality is separated from Memalei Kol Almin.

In contrast, Sovev Kol Almin, "which is above all the worlds," is present in the worlds not because they have a connection to it, but because of its own nature (since it is infinite, it is present everywhere). Similarly, the "desire of the heart" that comes from the level of Sovev in the soul cannot be affected by the lack of perception. It exists in its revelation even in places where it is not felt.

Therefore, it is stated in the maamar, "even if it seems to him that he does not have it and does not feel it, this is certainly false," because the "desire of the heart" in every Jew, which every Jew's "mazal sees," is also present in his revealed faculties — in the place where "it seems to him that he does not have it and does not feel it."

4. However, further explanation is required: Since the fact that the "desire of the heart" is present even in the place where "it seems to him that he does not have it and does not feel it" is due to the level of his mazal and Sovev, which cannot be changed by the fact that it seems to a person that he does not have the "desire of the heart" and does not feel it; but from the perspective of "it seems to him" — what he sees and feels — it indeed seems to him that he does not have it and does not feel it.

Why, then, is it said that the fact that "it seems to him that he does not have it and does not feel it, this is certainly false"?

The explanation is — as explained elsewhere — that tzimtzum has an advantage over the light, which allows it to be contracted: that the very fact that "it seems to him that he does not have it" comes from a level that is even higher than the level "that exists in every person." It turns out that the "it seems to him that he does not have it" reveals a level that is even higher than Sovev, not just once concealed but twice concealed.

Therefore, when a person accepts this "it seems to him" as a concealing factor, he thereby denies the reason and strength of this "it seems to him" itself — he accepts it contrary to its own nature. Therefore, the Alter Rebbe says that the very fact that "it seems to him that he does not have it" — this is certainly false.

5. This also explains the greatness of the blessing in "And I will surely hide My face on that day": even the "I will surely hide" comes from "I". Since this is so, it is not only that it does not conceal G‑dliness, but on the contrary — when one contemplates the matter as it truly is, it reveals an even higher aspect than through the line of revelation.

6. This is also the connection of the verse (and concept) "And I will surely hide My face, etc." (from Parshas Vayelech) to the Ten Days of Repentance — as Parshas Vayelech is always read in proximity to Rosh Hashanah (which is also the first day of the Ten Days of Repentance): This concept — that the "I will surely hide" is not opposed to holiness, and on the contrary, through this one takes "I" — is revealed specifically through the service of teshuvah, which causes even intentional sins to be transformed into merits.

1. In the verse "Take this Torah scroll and place it beside the Ark of the Covenant of the L‑rd your G‑d, etc.," Rashi comments (in his second commentary) on the words "beside the Ark of the Covenant of the L‑rd" and explains: "The sages of Israel disagreed in Bava Basra; some say a board protruded from the Ark on the outside and there it was placed, and others say it was placed inside the Ark beside the Tablets."

This is not understood:

The simple explanation of "beside the Ark" is — at the side of the Ark. Why, then, does Rashi bring in his commentary on the Torah — in which he says, "I have come only to explain the simple meaning of the text" — also the opinion that the Torah scroll was placed "inside the Ark," and that "beside the Ark" means inside the Ark but "beside the Tablets"?

The question is even greater:

Even the Gemara (which interprets the verses of the Torah according to the way of halacha and derush, etc.) states that from the verse "and place it beside the Ark of the Covenant of the L‑rd your G‑d" alone, one would assume that the Torah scroll was placed outside the Ark; and the "sages of Israel" who hold that it was placed inside the Ark derive it not from the verse "beside the Ark, etc.," but from another verse — and that verse compels them to interpret "beside the Ark" as meaning "beside the Tablets."

However, from the fact that Rashi does not bring in his commentary any proof from other verses, it is clear that he also derives the second interpretation — "beside the Tablets it was placed inside the Ark" — from our verse "beside the Ark of the Covenant of the L‑rd." Where does Rashi find the necessity to interpret that "beside the Ark" means "inside the Ark... beside the Tablets"?

2. It has been discussed many times that when Rashi informs us at the beginning of his commentary on a verse — before he even writes the explanations themselves — that there are two (or several) interpretations, he intends to emphasize that these interpretations are "equally balanced". However, since it is impossible to write both interpretations simultaneously, he therefore precedes one interpretation before the other.

This is also the case in our Rashi's commentary, where with his addition (as an introduction) "the sages of Israel disagreed about it," he intends to say that the interpretation "beside the Tablets it was placed inside the Ark" is not further from the way of peshat than the interpretation that the Torah scroll was outside the Ark.

Based on this, the question becomes even more puzzling: Even if, for some reason, Rashi wants to bring also the interpretation "beside the Tablets, etc.," how is it possible to say that this interpretation is as valid as the interpretation "a board protruded from the Ark from the outside, etc.," when the straightforward meaning of the phrase "beside the Ark" is — at the side of the Ark?

3. Also, in Rashi's first interpretation, it is not understood: From the words "beside the Ark of the Covenant of the L‑rd," we only know that the Torah scroll was placed outside the Ark (as the simple meaning of "beside the Ark" suggests). But where is the necessity that the Torah scroll was placed on a board and that the board protruded from the Ark?

Seemingly, on the contrary: From the fact that in the commandment regarding the making of the Ark, as well as in "Bezalel made the Ark," all the details of the Ark are enumerated and no "board" is mentioned, one should seemingly conclude that no board protruded from the Ark, and the thing (a board or something else) on which the Torah scroll was placed was an independent matter, not connected to the Ark.

The question then is: What compels Rashi to innovate that (also) in the simple meaning of the text "a board protruded from the Ark"?

4. In addition to all the above, several details (precise points) in Rashi's commentary are also not understood:

1. Why does Rashi quote from the verse not only the words "beside the Ark," which he explains, but also the words "of the Covenant of the L‑rd"? Seemingly, for both of his interpretations (regarding where the Torah scroll was placed), only the words "beside the Ark" are relevant.

2. In his commentary on the Torah, Rashi does not usually cite the sources for his interpretations unless it adds an additional explanation to his commentary. We must understand: What additional understanding is gained in the two interpretations that Rashi brings by letting us know that they are found "in Bava Basra"?

5. In the explanation of all this: In the command "Take... and place it beside the Ark of the Covenant of the L‑rd," the verse emphasizes "And Moses commanded the Levites who carried the Ark of the Covenant of the L‑rd." From this, it is understood that this command, that the Torah scroll should be found "beside the Ark of the Covenant of the L‑rd your G‑d," applies not only during the resting of the Mishkan but also during the journeys — when the Levites carried the Ark.

Additionally, the narrative "And Moses wrote this Torah..." and then "And it was when Moses finished writing the words of this Torah... and Moses commanded... and place it beside the Ark of the Covenant of the L‑rd your G‑d..." follows the continuation of "And Moses called to Joshua... for you shall bring this people to the land..."

And since, when going to the Land of Israel, the Mishkan was dismantled and set up again some time later, there is no place to learn that the continuation of the command ("and place it beside the Ark...") to Joshua meant that the Torah scroll should be found "beside the Ark" only after the Mishkan would be set up, some time later.

Therefore, the "five-year-old" (beginner in learning) asks: During the journeys, the Ark was covered with three coverings. Consequently, even if we say that also during the journeys the Torah scroll was carried at the side of the Ark, it was not "beside the Ark" literally, because the Ark was covered from the outside. Therefore, the Torah scroll was placed on a board that protruded from the Ark itself, and the coverings covered the Ark together with the board. Consequently, the Torah scroll was "beside the Ark" also during the journeys.

6. Although from the sections of Terumah and Vayakhel it seems that no board protruded from the Ark (as mentioned above in section 3), it can be suggested that when G‑d commanded Moses to place the Torah scroll beside the Ark of the Covenant of the L‑rd (since Moses' command "Take it... and place it..." was certainly not of his own accord, G‑d forbid, but he heard it from G‑d), he understood from this very command that a board needed to be made to protrude from the Ark, so that the Torah scroll would be "beside the Ark" even during the journeys.

However, since it is quite difficult to say that in the fortieth year they altered the Ark (by attaching a board to it), Rashi therefore brings another explanation of how the Torah scroll was always placed beside the Ark of the Covenant of the L‑rd — "it was placed beside the Tablets inside the Ark."

But this explanation is also difficult, because the simple meaning of the phrase "beside the Ark" implies at the side of the Ark (not inside the Ark). Therefore, Rashi returns to the first explanation.

And since the explanation "a board protruded from the Ark" — something that is not mentioned anywhere — is no less difficult than the explanation that "beside the Ark" means inside the Ark beside the Tablets, Rashi therefore prefaces his explanation with "the sages of Israel disagreed about this," to indicate that both explanations are equally valid (as mentioned above in section 2).

7. At first glance, one might ask: What is the necessity to say that "and you shall place it beside the Ark" refers to the Ark made by Bezalel, which, since it was covered with three coverings during the journeys, requires the difficulty of saying that in the fortieth year a change was made so that "a board protruded from the Ark" or that "beside the Ark" means "beside the Tablets, etc."? One could learn that here it refers to the Ark made by Moses, which was with the Jews the entire time and is also called "the Ark of the Covenant of the L‑rd," and regarding this Ark, we do not find that it needed to be covered during the journeys. Then, the explanation "beside the Ark" would be understood simply — at the side of the Ark (from the outside).

This question is addressed by Rashi by quoting (before his explanation) the words "beside the Ark of the Covenant of the L‑rd": In the previous verse, it states "And Moses commanded the Levites who carried the Ark of the Covenant of the L‑rd," and there it certainly refers to the Ark made by Bezalel, which specifically the Levites (the sons of Kohath) carried. From this, it is understood that the command "and you shall place it beside the Ark of the Covenant of the L‑rd," which follows and uses the same extended language as in the previous verse, also refers to the Ark made by Bezalel.

8. After all this, a question arises for the student:

It is a simple matter that the dimensions of the Ark — two and a half cubits in length and one and a half cubits in width — were connected to the dimensions of what was placed inside the Ark.

9. Consequently, it turns out that the dispute among the sages of Israel regarding whether the Torah scroll was placed outside the Ark or inside the Ark will lead to an additional disagreement. According to the opinion that the Torah scroll was inside the Ark, it would follow that the Tablets were much smaller than the Ark. Conversely, according to the opinion that the Torah scroll was outside the Ark, it must be that the Tablets were much larger — almost as large as the Ark itself.

To prevent the student from making this mistake, Rashi points out that the dispute is in Bava Basra. When the student looks there, he will see that according to both opinions, the Tablets were the same size. Nevertheless, even according to the opinion that the Torah scroll was outside the Ark, there was no empty space in the Ark because, according to this view, the Ark was smaller. As the Gemara states there, Rabbi Meir, who holds that the Torah scroll was inside the Ark, interprets "two and a half cubits, etc., and one and a half cubits, etc." as "with a cubit of six handbreadths," while Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that the Torah scroll was outside the Ark, says "with a cubit of five handbreadths."

10. Based on the above, it is also understandable why Rashi specifically references Bava Basra, even though the dispute is also found in the Jerusalem Talmud and in the Midrash. There too, it states that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree regarding the dimensions of the Ark:

Because according to the calculations of the Jerusalem Talmud and the Midrash, the space of the Ark was filled with the Tablets and the fragments of the first Tablets (and according to Rabbi Meir, also with the Torah scroll).

11. The commentary of the Bartenura on Beha'aloscha questions, according to Rashi, who derives that the fragments of the Tablets were placed in the Ark from "which you broke and placed them in the Ark," that they were placed in the Ark made by Moshe. However:

(a) From the wording "the fragments of the Tablets that were placed in the Ark, from where do we know?" it implies that it refers to the same Ark discussed in the sugya before us.

(b) According to the initial understanding of the Talmud, this matter is derived from the verse "which is called by the Name, the L‑rd of Hosts, who dwells upon the cherubim," and this verse speaks of the Ark made by Bezalel.

(c) Even in the conclusion of the Talmud, where Rabbi Meir derives from "which you broke and placed them," it concludes: "This teaches that the Tablets and the fragments of the Tablets were placed in the Ark," and the straightforward reading implies that the Tablets and the fragments were placed in that Ark.

(d) Also in the Jerusalem Talmud, it is derived (both according to Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda) from "which you broke and placed them in the Ark," and yet it is explicitly stated there "and there were four Tablets in it, two whole and two broken." In Tosafos Menachos 99a, it is also explicitly stated according to the Babylonian Talmud.

Perhaps it can be said that for this reason, in Bava Basra there, "which you broke and placed them" is mentioned, omitting the word "in the Ark" — to hint that "and placed them" (the fragments of the Tablets) was not "in the Ark" (made by Moshe) which the verse discusses.

And since, according to Rashi (in the straightforward interpretation), the fragments of the Tablets were placed in the Ark made by Moshe (not in the Ark made by Bezalel), it would then follow that according to the calculation of the Jerusalem Talmud and the Midrash, there was (in the straightforward interpretation) an empty space in the Ark according to both opinions. Therefore, Rashi references Bava Basra, because according to the calculation in Bava Basra, there was no space in the Ark for the fragments of the Tablets, and the entire (length and width of the) Ark was filled with the second Tablets, and according to Rabbi Meir, also with the Torah scroll.

12. Based on the above (in section 5), since both interpretations — whether "a board protruded, etc." or "beside the Tablets it was placed, etc." — are difficult, and the difficulty in both interpretations is equal, which is why Rashi mentions both interpretations simultaneously (as explained there), another question arises for the student: Why do some hold "a board protruded, etc." and others "beside the Tablets, etc."?

Rashi addresses this question with his wording "the sages of Israel disagreed about it":

From the perspective of the straightforward interpretation, both interpretations are indeed balanced, and the reason each Tanna in the Gemara holds according to his view is connected (not with the simplicity of the verses, but) with the fact that they are "sages of Israel," meaning with their respective approaches in the ways of wisdom, as will be explained further.

10. The explanation of "And you shall place it beside the Ark of the Covenant of the L‑rd" (in the inner dimensions of the matter): The Tablets contained all the matters of the Torah in a general sense, and in the Torah scroll, they are expressed in detail. Since every matter, when it is expressed in detail, its light becomes constricted and divided into many details, the commandment "And you shall place it beside the Ark of the Covenant of the L‑rd" comes to ensure that the details (the Torah scroll) remain connected with their general source (the Tablets).

This is the essence of the dispute between the "sages of Israel" — Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah — regarding how much the details need to be connected with the general source:

Rabbi Meir holds that the specific aspects of wisdom that the teacher imparts to the student, although the teacher can indeed impart the essence of the wisdom as it is with him, he must give it in details. However, these details must remain in the same place (level) as the essence of the wisdom, because if the details were to depart from the essence, the strength and abundance of the light would be lost.

Therefore, he holds that the Torah scroll (details) was placed inside the Ark — in the same place where the Tablets (general source) were.

However, Rabbi Yehudah holds that for the student to grasp the wisdom, the influence from the teacher must descend in such a manner that the details emerge from the place and level of the essence. Yet, the influence must be such that even after the details emerge from the essence, it should be felt within them that they are (not an independent matter, but) derived from the essence.

Therefore, Rabbi Yehudah holds that the Torah scroll was outside the Ark, but nonetheless, the Torah scroll was placed on a board that protruded from the Ark.

[This is also the reason, in the inner dimensions of the matter, why Rashi precedes the interpretation "a board protruded, etc." Even though, simply, it is because it is impossible for a person to write two matters simultaneously, as mentioned earlier, it is certain that the fact that one interpretation is written before the other is because (at least in the inner dimensions of the matter) this interpretation has some precedence in quality — especially in our case, where Rashi changes the order.]

11. This approach aligns with Rabbi Meir's method, where the details should remain on the same level as the general principle. This is applicable only to unique individuals, as the Gemara states about Rabbi Meir, "His colleagues could not fathom the depths of his understanding." For most people, however, the approach is like that of Rabbi Yehudah, where the details must indeed exist as distinct entities, but within these details, the core point should be discernible.

This is also related to the commandment, "Take this Torah scroll and place it beside the Ark of the Covenant of the L‑rd," which is found in this week's Torah portion, read on Shabbat Shuva (as in this year), or (in some years) on the Shabbat before (and adjacent to) the Ten Days of Repentance.

During the Ten Days of Repentance, the aspect of "Yechidah" in the soul shines forth, distinguishing these days from all other days of the year. This distinction is not only in matters that stem from the "Yechidah" aspect, which is present only during the Ten Days of Repentance, but also in matters related to the revealed powers, such as the observance of Torah and mitzvos, which is present throughout the year. Even in the revealed powers, the aspect of "Yechidah" shines forth.

This is analogous to "this Torah scroll" which was placed "beside the Ark of the Covenant of the L‑rd."