לקוטי שיחות חלק ט׳ - וילך ב

Likkutei Sichos Vol. 9 – Vayeilech 2

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

The question arises: The straightforward interpretation of "beside the Ark" is — at the side of the Ark. Why then does Rashi, in his commentary on the Torah — where he states, "I have come only to explain the plain meaning of the text" — also bring 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 becomes even stronger: Even the Gemara (which interprets the verses of the Torah according to the way of halacha and drash, 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 this not from the verse "beside the Ark," 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 any proof from other verses in his commentary, 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." So 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 — even before he writes the interpretations 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 presents one interpretation before the other.

This is also the case in our Rashi commentary, where by adding in his introduction "the sages of Israel disagreed," he means 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 the interpretation "beside the Tablets, etc.," how can it be said that this interpretation is as valid as the interpretation "a board protruded from the Ark, etc.," when the simple meaning of the phrase "beside the Ark" is — at the side of the Ark?

3. Even in Rashi's first interpretation, there is a lack of clarity: 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, it would seem that one should assume that no board protruded from the Ark, and the thing (a board or something else) on which the Torah scroll was placed was a separate entity, 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 (nuances) in this Rashi commentary are also not understood:

a) 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.

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

5. The explanation of all this is as follows: When the commandment "Take... and place it beside the Ark of the Covenant of the L‑rd" is given, 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 commandment for the Torah scroll to be placed "beside the Ark of the Covenant of the L‑rd your G‑d" applies not only during the resting periods of the Mishkan but also during the journeys — when the Levites carried the Ark.

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

Therefore, the "five-year-old" asks: During the journeys, the Ark was covered with three coverings. Consequently, even if one were to say that during the journeys the Torah scroll was carried beside the Ark, it was not literally "beside the Ark," because the coverings separated between the Ark and the Torah scroll.

On this, Rashi says, "The sages of Israel disagreed, etc.," indicating that there are two interpretations:

One interpretation is, "A board protruded from the Ark on the outside, and there it was placed." This means that the Torah scroll lay on a board that protruded from the Ark itself, and the coverings covered the Ark along with the board. Consequently, the Torah scroll was "beside the Ark" even during the journeys.

And although from the sections of Terumah and Vayakhel it seems that no board protruded from the Ark (as mentioned above in section 3) — one can say that when the L‑rd commanded Moses to place the Torah scroll beside the Ark of the Covenant of the L‑rd (since certainly Moses' command "Take... and place it..." was not of his own accord, G‑d forbid, but he heard it from the L‑rd), he understood from this command itself 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 a significant difficulty to say that in the fortieth year they altered the Ark (by attaching a board to the Ark) — Rashi therefore brings another interpretation of how the Torah scroll was always placed beside the Ark of the Covenant of the L‑rd — "beside the Tablets, it was placed inside the Ark."

But this interpretation 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 interpretation.

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

6. At first glance, one might ask: What is the necessity to assume that "and you shall place it beside the Ark" refers to the Ark made by Bezalel? If so, since the Ark was covered with three coverings during the journeys, one must resort to saying that in the fortieth year there was a change, such that "a board protruded from the Ark" or that "beside the Ark" means "beside the Tablets, etc."

One could instead learn that this 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." Regarding this Ark, we do not find that it needed to be covered during the journeys. Then, the interpretation of "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 lengthy expression as in the previous verse, also refers to the Ark made by Bezalel.

7. 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.

And since this is so, it follows that the dispute among the sages of Israel about whether the Torah scroll was placed outside the Ark or inside the Ark will lead to another dispute: According to the opinion that the Torah scroll was inside the Ark, it would result that the Tablets were much smaller than the Ark; and according to the opinion that the Torah scroll was outside the Ark, it would have to be that the Tablets were much larger — almost as large as the Ark itself.

8. Based on the above, it will also be understood 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 Yehudah disagree about the dimensions of the Ark.

This is because, according to the calculations of the Jerusalem Talmud and the Midrash, the space of the Ark was filled with the Tablets and the broken Tablets of the first set (and according to Rabbi Meir, also with the Torah scroll).

9. Since, according to Rashi (in the context of peshat), the broken Tablets were placed in the Ark that Moshe made (and not in the Ark that Betzalel made), it follows that, according to the calculations of the Jerusalem Talmud and the Midrash, there was an empty space in the Ark according to both opinions. Therefore, Rashi references Bava Basra, because according to the calculations in Bava Basra, there was no space in the Ark for the broken 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.

9. Based on the above (section 5), since both interpretations — whether "the page protruded, etc." or "from the side of 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), the student is prompted to ask another question: Why do some hold "the page protruded, etc." and others "from the side of the Tablets, etc."?

This question is addressed by Rashi with his wording "the sages of Israel disagreed about it":

From the perspective of peshat, both interpretations are indeed balanced, and the fact that in the Gemara each Tanna 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.

10. The explanation of "and you shall place it beside the Ark of the Covenant of the L‑rd" (in the inner dimensions):

In the Tablets were contained all the general aspects of the Torah, and in the Torah scroll, they are expressed in detail. And since every matter, when it is expressed in details, its light becomes constricted and divided into many details, the command comes "and you shall place it beside the Ark of the Covenant of the L‑rd," that the details (the Torah scroll) should be connected with their generality (the Tablets).

And in this lies the dispute between the "sages of Israel" — Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah — regarding how much the details need to be connected with the generality:

Rabbi Meir holds that the specific intellect that the teacher imparts to the student, although the teacher cannot indeed impart to the student the essence of the intellect as it is by him and must give him details, nevertheless, the details must be in the same place (level) as the essence of the intellect. For if the details were to depart from the essence, the strength and abundance of the light would be lost.

11. And therefore, Rabbi Yehudah holds that in order for the student to grasp the intellect, the influence from the teacher must descend in such a manner that the details emerge from the place and level of the essence. However, the influence must be in such a way that even after the details have emerged from the essence, it should be felt within them that they are not an independent matter, but rather emanate from the essence.

And therefore, Rabbi Yehudah holds that the Torah scroll was outside the Ark, but nevertheless, it was placed on a ledge that protruded from the Ark.

This is also the reason, in the inner dimensions, why Rashi precedes the explanation "a ledge protruded, etc." Although, simply, it is because it is not possible to write two matters at once, as mentioned earlier, in addition to the fact that all matters of the Torah [including the order of Rashi's explanations] are precise, it is certain (and even more so, since even matters of the world are not by chance, G‑d forbid) that the fact that one explanation is written before the other is because, in the inner dimensions at least, this explanation has some precedence in quality.

Especially in our case, where Rashi changes the order of the two opinions from the order as they are taught in Bava Batra — there must be a reason and explanation for this.

Because the approach of Rabbi Meir, that the details should stand on the same level as the generality, is only applicable for unique individuals — as the Gemara says about Rabbi Meir, "his colleagues could not fathom the depth of his understanding"; and the way for the majority of people is (like the approach of Rabbi Yehudah), that there indeed need to be details in the form of existence, but within the details, the essence should be heard.

And this is also the connection of the commandment "Take this Torah scroll and place it beside the Ark of the Covenant of the L‑rd," which is stated in this week's Torah portion, which is read on Shabbat Shuvah (as in this year), or (in some years) on the Shabbat before (and adjacent to) the Ten Days of Repentance — to the Ten Days of Repentance:

Because during the Ten Days of Repentance, the level of the "Yechidah" of the soul shines, they are different and distinct from all the days of the year — not only in matters that come from the level of "Yechidah" — the service that is present only during the Ten Days of Repentance, but also in matters that are related to the revealed powers — the observance of Torah and mitzvos that is present throughout the year, because even in the revealed powers, the level of "Yechidah" shines, similar to this "Torah scroll" that was placed "beside the Ark of the Covenant of the L‑rd."

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Vayelech, Shabbat Shuvah, 5729)