לקוטי שיחות חלק י״ד - וילך ב

Likkutei Sichos Vol. 14 – Vayeilech 2

1. Regarding the verse, "Moses commanded the Levites... 'Take this Book of the Torah and place it beside the Ark... and it shall be there as a witness against you,'" Rashi quotes the word "Take" and explains: "Like 'Remember,' 'Keep,' 'Go.'"

There are commentators who explain that Rashi's intention is to clarify that "Take" is not a command but rather a present tense, similar to the interpretation of "Remember" and "Keep," etc., which indicate that the act of remembering and keeping must be constant. Similarly, "Take" is in the present tense, meaning "You are to take this Book of the Torah and place it beside the Ark to be a witness for you at all times." From their words, it is understood that Rashi is explaining why "Take" is not in the form of a command but in the present tense — to indicate that it should be a constant matter.

However, it is difficult to interpret Rashi this way because: a) According to this, the main point is missing from Rashi's explanation, as Rashi should have explained that by using "Take" in the present tense, the intention is to emphasize that this Book of the Torah should be there as a witness at all times, similar to how he explains regarding "Remember."

b) At the very least, Rashi should have added the words: "present tense" (always — that the use of "Take" here is due to the constancy required in this matter).

c) According to this, the order of the examples in Rashi's explanation "Remember, Keep (and then) Go" is not understood, as he should have first brought "Go," which is mentioned in the portion of Noah before the words "Remember, Keep," which are mentioned afterward.

d) In general, the concept of "present tense" cannot apply to the act of taking (since the taking of the Torah scroll was only a one-time event), except in the context of "and place it" — "there," meaning it should be placed beside the Ark with the intention that it should be there as a witness at all times.

2. From the above, it is understood that Rashi's intention here is not to explain why "Take" is in the present tense, but rather to prove that even though "Take" is not a term of action and command, it is a term indicating the essence of the act of taking (as referred to in grammar as "infinitive"), yet its intention here is a command, that they should "take this Book of the Torah." For this, he brings examples from "Remember, Keep, Go," which are also forms of "infinitive," yet they are used in the sense of a command.

And based on this, it is understood why Rashi brings the example of "Go" after "Remember, Keep," because Rashi's intention here is to bring an example from "Go," which is mentioned after "Keep," as a command (like "Go and speak," "Go and call," and others); the term "Go" is in the order of the verses in the Tanach after "Remember" and "Keep": "Remember" in the Book of Exodus, "Keep" in the Book of Deuteronomy, and "Go" (in the form of a command) in the Prophets.

3. Even though these are terms of the infinitive, their intention is a command. And if in these verses it is indeed a command, why does Rashi need to explain it in our verse?

4. The explanation is as follows:

The meaning of the infinitive form excludes the aspect of action, as in the term "lekach" (take), which means "taking" as it is abstracted from the act of taking. The "distance" between the infinitive form and the form of action is greater than the "distance" between past, present, and future in the form of action, because all three tenses relate to the essence of the action and the action in actuality — whereas the "infinitive" describes the subject of the matter devoid of actual action.

5. Therefore, in the simple meaning of the text, when the scripture uses the infinitive form, we strive as much as possible to interpret it according to its literal meaning and not as a command. This is because the essence of a command is that the matter is obligatory and must come into action.

Regarding the words "Remember" and "Keep," the simple explanation is that "the heavy" is in the infinitive form. However, a) "the heavy" is in the causative form (as explained by the commentators), unlike "Remember," "Keep," etc. (as well as the proofs brought in Va'era), which are in the passive form. b) He brings other proofs from the portion of Yisro.

The command "always" does not derive from the word "Remember" (with a kamatz under the zayin) but from other reasons. Therefore, Rashi writes this matter after explaining "Remember and Keep were said in one utterance, etc." Similarly, in the portion of Bo, Rashi brings from the verse "Remember this day," because the proof for his explanation also comes from the words "this day".

In the previous portions, even though they are in the infinitive form, since it is impossible to interpret them as not being commands (as is clear and explained in the continuation of the verses), there is no need for Rashi to inform us of this in his commentary, as it is self-evident.

However, in the verse before us, there was room to interpret that the word "take" is as its literal meaning and not a matter of command. The verse "Take this book and place it" could be interpreted: when the taking of the book occurs, then (the command) "and place it" follows.

There is also room for this interpretation (that "take" is not a command) for another reason: earlier in the portion of Tavo, Rashi writes that the Israelites argued with Moses about why he appointed the Levites over the Torah by giving them the Torah scroll. To negate this argument (at least to weaken it), the explanation of "And Moses commanded" does not refer to "take" (but rather to "and place"), because he did not want to appoint the Levites, etc., but only if and when "take" occurs (meaning when and after they explain to the Israelites that there is no reason for concern, and consequently, there will be no argument or dispute), then the command "and place it beside the Ark of the Covenant of the L‑rd" follows.

Therefore, it is understood why Rashi needed to explain that the word "take" is intended as a command and to bring proofs for his explanation that we find commands in the infinitive form.

6. Rashi needed to bring proofs from three expressions and not suffice with just one:

7. Therefore, Rashi brings an additional proof from the expression "shamor" (guard) — which involves the guarding (preventing) of an actual action, and yet the command is given in the infinitive form "shamor." Thus, it serves as proof for the term "take," which is an actual action.

However, there is still room to argue that even from "shamor" there is not a complete proof — since the term "guard" in scripture is generally used in the context of preventing an action (such as the command "guard the Sabbath day," which means to refrain from doing work that desecrates it). As Rashi explains, every "guard" is a prohibition.

Since the act of guarding is about preventing opposite actions, it is possible for the command to be in the infinitive form, which also negates the concept of action, as mentioned earlier. Therefore, there is no proof for a matter of actual action and doing.

Thus, Rashi brings a third proof from the term "haloch" (go), which is a command for an actual action — walking with one's feet. Since it is stated in the infinitive form, it is a complete proof that a command can be in the infinitive form for an action.

However, on the other hand, even from "haloch" alone there is not sufficient proof, because the word "haloch" (in the verses mentioned above) is said as a "preparation" for the command "and speak" or "and call" — therefore, it could be interpreted that its intention is not literal walking, but rather a mental "walking," meaning that a person "goes" and prepares himself to perform an action (to speak, to call, etc.).

5. Regarding "haloch v'karasa b'oznei Yerushalayim" (go and proclaim in the ears of Jerusalem), on the contrary, it is more reasonable to interpret this as a "walking" in the soul. This is unlike "haloch v'dibarta el David" (go and speak to David), which was commanded to Gad the prophet. There, it is easier to interpret the walking literally, since the prophet was not present at the time of the prophecy in the place of King David. However, the command "haloch v'karasa b'oznei Yerushalayim" given to Jeremiah the prophet does not logically suggest a literal command to go to Jerusalem, since most of his prophecies were given to him while he was already in Jerusalem. Therefore, it is more appropriate to interpret this as a spiritual and mental preparation.

Therefore, Rashi does not rely solely on the proof from "haloch" alone and needs to bring additional evidence.

6. The reason Rashi does not suffice with the two proofs from the three (but rather brings all three) is because the two proofs from "zachor" and "shamor" have a commonality that makes them unlike "lakach":

"Zachor" and "shamor" — neither are actual actions. "Zachor" is a spiritual action, and "shamor" pertains to the negation of performing an action, as mentioned earlier. In contrast, "haloch" — the literal walking — is indeed an actual action.

"Zachor" and "haloch" (which can be interpreted as a mental walking) — are spiritual actions, whereas "shamor" — is not a spiritual action but relates to an actual action (albeit concerning its negation).

7. Only because it is similar to literal walking. Even spiritual walking is an action (albeit a spiritual action), where a person prepares himself to do something. In contrast, remembrance is not an action at all (the action involved in remembrance, such as reviewing one's study several times, is in order to lead to a second matter — remembrance, but the remembrance itself is not an action). Nevertheless, there is an advantage in the proof from "zachor" over the proof from "haloch," because the walking of the soul is merely a preparation for performing an action, and therefore it does not serve as proof for "lakach" (even though "lakach" is also a preparation for "vesamachta," since the taking is only a preparation for "vesamachta," but it is an action in itself). In contrast, the walking of the soul is entirely a preparation for action, and in this, "zachor" is superior, as is evident.

8. From the "wine of Torah" in this Rashi, and also — the lesson for the time of the Ten Days of Repentance (as in many years, the portion of Vayelech is read on Shabbat Shuva): It is mentioned several times that when a command for an action is given without a source, it indicates that the action must be done not only with the power of the person's action but also with the power of the "source" in the soul, meaning from the will and the source of the powers in the soul that are above the person's abilities.

During the Ten Days of Repentance, the aspect of the "source" within every person is illuminated, the Yechida of the soul, and Rashi hints that the revelation of the Yechida of the soul during the Ten Days of Repentance, even though it is an aspect of the "source" above the person's abilities, nevertheless, it is a command for action, meaning it must be brought to revelation even in the individual's specific powers.

The details are hinted at in the three matters Rashi brings: "zachor," "shamor," "haloch": Memory is in the memory brain, wisdom, and in general — Chabad of the person's soul; "shamor" is guarding in the heart, understanding of the heart, in general — the emotions whose place is in the heart; "haloch" (by foot) is the power of action — the lowest of the soul's powers and at its lowest level (unlike action by the hand).

This hints that the revelation of the "source," the Yechida of the soul, is meant to affect all the specific powers of the person — starting from the higher powers of Chabad, and also in the emotions of the soul, and down to the power of action, which is the lowest garment in the person; during the Ten Days of Repentance, it should be felt in all his actions the aspect of the "source" — the Yechida of the soul.

17. The concept of teshuva ila'ah (the higher level of repentance) is well known. Shabbos is composed of the letters of "tashuv," which means teshuva ila'ah, especially on Shabbos Teshuva, which represents the completion of the service of teshuva ila'ah.

The essence of teshuva ila'ah is not repentance for sins and transgressions, but rather the cleaving and unification of the soul with its source. This is achieved through "engaging in Torah," as stated in the Zohar.

Therefore, the hint of the revelation of the Yechida in our parsha is in the phrase "take (in the form of a source) this Torah scroll and place it beside the Ark of the Covenant of the L‑rd," which represents the ultimate and complete elevation of Torah (as it is in the Ark). In the service of man, this is the ultimate completion and elevation of teshuva ila'ah (through the study of Torah).

This extends also to "zachor, shamor, haloch," meaning in all the powers and garments of the soul. For this teshuva ila'ah of engaging in Torah must be "in the aspect of the attachment of spirit to spirit... in all parts of the soul: intellect ("zachor"), emotions ("shamor"), and their garments of thought, speech, and action ("haloch").

And from this, to their garments, to each one individually, and this too is hinted at in the three aforementioned: Zachor — in your mouth, Shamor — guarding the heart (thought), Haloch — action.

Primarily through action — actual mitzvos — a person becomes a "walker," as our sages say, "the world from which we depart," and through this, "I will walk among you, and I will break the bars of your yoke and lead you upright."

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Vayelech, Shabbos Teshuva, 5729)