Parshas Masei
1. Regarding our parsha's enumeration of the journeys of the Jewish people in the desert, the Midrash says1 (and Rashi cites it in his commentary on the Torah2): "משל למה הדבר דומה, למלך שהיה בנו חולה הוליכו למקום אחר לרפאותו, כיון שהיו חוזרין התחיל אביו מונה כל המסעות ואמר לו כאן ישננו כאן הוקרנו כאן חששת את ראשך" ("A parable: to what may this be compared? To a king whose son was ill; he took him to a distant place to heal him. When they were returning, his father began to recount all the journeys, saying to him: 'Here we slept3, here we were cold, here you had a headache'"). "So4 the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moshe: 'Recount to them all the places where they angered Me.' Therefore it says, 'These are the journeys of the children of Israel.'"
We need to understand:
a) A parable in the Torah is utterly precise. Consequently one must say that (not only is the general illustration of the parable — "a king whose son was ill… to heal him" — aimed at the analogue, but also) the particular events in the parable ("here we slept, here we were cold, here you had a headache") are precise illustrations of the analogue. Where do we find these three matters in the analogue, in the journeys5?
b) Moreover: from the fact that the Midrash says only these three things and does not add (at least) the word "etc.," it is evident that these are illustrations not merely of a like number of matters in the analogue; rather they describe the overall state of the Jewish people during the journeys6 — they are present in all forty-two journeys.
c) It is understood why "here you had a headache," and even "here we were cold"7, are a parable for "places where they angered Me" — since they are matters of distress and illness; but in what way is "we slept" (a parable for) something that arouses the king's anger8?
d) The first two events are stated in the plural — "we slept" and "we were cold" — including the king as well; but the third detail, "you had a headache," is in the singular — only the king's son. How does all this fit the analogue?
2. The reason why the Midrash gives these three illustrations [we slept, we were cold, and you had a headache] can be explained simply9: they occurred at the beginning — in the first three journeys, from the land of Egypt to the Sea of Reeds: (a) from Ramses to Sukkos, (b) from Sukkos to Eisam, (c) from Eisam to Pi HaChiros.
On "ויסעו מסכות" ("And they journeyed from Sukkos")10 Rashi says: "On the second day, for on the first day they came from Ramses to Sukkos." It follows that after the first journey from Ramses the Jewish people stopped and rested the night11 (until "the second day") in Sukkos — and consequently, "here we slept."
The novelty that came about at the second journey — "ויסעו מסכות ויחנו באתם" ("They journeyed from Sukkos and encamped at Eisam")12 — was that then, according to the plain meaning of Scripture13, the Clouds of Glory were added, as the verse (in Parshas Beshalach14) continues: "וה' הולך לפניהם יומם בעמוד ענן לנחותם הדרך גו'" ("And G‑d went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them on the way…")15 —
and our Sages say16 that the Clouds of Glory (in addition to their task "to lead them on the way") surrounded the Jewish people as a sukkah, "as shade, so that heat and sun should not strike them"17 (and this function18 of the Clouds of Glory too began right at "they journeyed from Sukkos19…"); and the illustration "here we were cold" alludes to this — through the "shade" of the Clouds of Glory.
What happened at the third journey — "Pi HaChiros"? The verse says20 that there the Jewish people argued, "טוב לנו עבוד את מצרים ממותנו במדבר" ("It is better for us to serve Egypt than to die in the desert"), which is an intellectual argument against Moshe21 — "you had a headache."
3. As is known22, the forty-two journeys in the desert allude (also) to the refinement of "the desert of the nations"23 throughout the time of exile, which will conclude when we arrive at "the Jordan at Yericho" — the level of rei'ach (smell), the revelation of Moshiach, who "judges by smell," and by this he is tested24 — until the evil of "the desert of the nations" is entirely nullified: "ואת רוח הטומאה אעביר מן הארץ" ("and I will remove the spirit of impurity from the land")25.
The verse says26, "כימי צאתך מארץ מצרים אראנו נפלאות" ("As in the days of your going out of the land of Egypt I will show him wonders"), which Chassidus explains27 to mean that the power for the future Redemption derives from "your going out of the land of Egypt." It is understood, then, that the nullification of evil also took place at the Exodus from Egypt — and moreover, in the manner of granting power for "and I will remove the spirit of impurity from the land" in the Time to Come.
We find this openly at the Splitting of the Sea — "וירא ישראל את מצרים מת על שפת הים" ("And Israel saw Egypt dead on the seashore")28: the Jewish people saw with physical sight the nullification and death of the opposing side.
It can be said that this is, in general, the explanation of why the Midrash alludes in the parable to the (first three) journeys until the Splitting of the Sea: in the journeys until the Splitting of the Sea there was brought about something parallel to the nullification and removal of impurity through the forty-two journeys in "the desert of the nations" until "the Jordan at Yericho" — both then and also in the exile in general, as above.
As is also understood from what is said in the Song at the Sea, that the terror and dread from the Splitting of the Sea will last "עד יעבור עם זו קנית" ("until this people that You acquired has crossed over")29 — "until they cross the Jordan," as Rashi explains according to the Targum. And right at the beginning of the entire Song it says "אז ישיר משה ובני ישראל" ("Then Moshe and the children of Israel will sing")30 — in the future tense — referring (also) to the song when the dead are revived, as Rashi expounds in his commentary on the Torah.
4. The above explanation, however, is only from the standpoint of the Splitting of the Sea, which came after those journeys — that at the Splitting of the Sea there was "Egypt dead," similar to the time of the completion of the journeys in "the desert of the nations."
But since he details all three journeys — and not the Splitting of the Sea — one must say that in the journeys themselves (before the Splitting of the Sea) there are details and matters that are general for all the "journeys of the children of Israel," on account of which he enumerates them; and also that this is expressed in the three parables "we slept," "we were cold," and "you had a headache."
To understand this, we must first dwell on further points of precision in the above parable:
a) From the fact that the Midrash comments on "These are the journeys of the children of Israel" and also concludes, "therefore it says, 'These are the journeys of the children of Israel,'" it is evident that the parable comes to clarify and explain (in Rashi's words) "why these journeys were written." This is not understood: among the forty-two journeys enumerated there are many "places" to which the reason "recount to them… where they angered Me" seemingly does not apply31?
b) In the parable, the king recounts "all the journeys" "when they were returning"; moreover, from the wording "saying to him, 'Here…'"32 it is implied that he recounts "all the journeys" at the time of the return and in the very place itself33: going back through the same places, the king says, "Here we slept, here…" We need to understand: where is the "when they were returning" in the analogue? The Jewish people did not return to the journeys34; they kept going further on — closer to Eretz Yisrael?
5. The explanation is as follows:
The "journeys" that the Jewish people must pass through in "the desert of the nations" come about through the soul (and a Jew in general) descending from "a lofty peak" to a place of concealment and hiding. And although the intent of the descent is [not only for the sake of the benefit to "the desert of the nations" (its refinement through the service of the Jewish people), but also] for the sake of the ascent that the Jewish people attain through the descent35, nevertheless, during the journeys themselves the exile and concealment are felt; only through them does the ascent come ("later").
Although one knows that the entire purpose of exile is only the matter of ascent, since it is nevertheless in such a manner that while in exile one finds oneself in a state of descent (except that it brings about something else — the ascent), it follows that while going through the "journeys" one is in a place (and state) of "desert," where "לא ישב אדם שם" ("no man dwelt there")36 — "they angered Me"; as in the words of my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe, in a maamar37, that "the body and essence of the tzimtzum is contrary to the (Supernal) Will."
6. This applies while one is still in the "journeys" themselves; but when one arrives at the ascent, the inner dimension of the exile is revealed — that in truth it is nothing other than a part of the ascent38.
And this is the intent of the parable's description, "when they were returning, his father began to recount all the journeys, etc.": after the descent from Above to below into (the place of — and into each one of) the forty-two journeys, the return back begins — the ascent from below to Above39; and "they were returning" through the same journeys — that is, then one perceives how even the journeys in the way of descent (and each of them in particular) are a part of the ascent40.
And this is the meaning of "recount to them all the places where they angered Me" — similar to what is written41 (that in the Time to Come one will say), "אודך ה' כי אנפת בי" ("I will thank You, G‑d, for You were angry with me"): one will thank G‑d for "You were angry with me," because then it will be revealed how this was a matter of kindnesses.
How then can it be said that the "journeys" in "the desert of the nations" are actually a matter of kindness and ascent? The Midrash introduces and clarifies this in the parable: it is because the king's son does not go alone on the "journeys"; he goes with the king, and moreover the king "took him," and moreover the entire journey (and its details) is "to heal him." Since this is so, it is clear that the descent itself is (in its inner dimension) a matter of kindness42.
7. Seemingly one could ask: granted, regarding the general descent into "the desert of the nations," since it was arranged from the outset by the king, etc., it is understood that it must be a matter of kindness and ascent;
but the matter of "they angered Me" in the journeys came about through the sins of the Jewish people — that is, the Jewish people caused through sins a descent43 beyond what was arranged from Above. What then compels us to say that these descents too are for the sake of ascent?
Even if one were to say that since the rectification and ascent of an additional descent can come only through a higher and deeper power, consequently the addition in the descent also brings about an addition in the ascent — that, seemingly, is only a matter "from here on," brought about at the time of the completion of the rectification and ascent. How can it be said that the (additional) descent is in its inner dimension a matter of ascent?
— The truth, however, is44, as the Mitteler Rebbe explains at length45 [based on what is stated in the Midrash46 on the verse47 "נורא עלילה על בני אדם" ("awesome in His dealings with mankind"), that Adam's sin with the Tree of Knowledge was a "pretext" hung upon him], that when sometimes "the evil of the evil inclination prevails over a person and he sins," it is because "from Above the evil inclination was incited against him to bring him to this sin"48.
And this does not contradict the matter of "choice" and (consequently) reward and punishment, because this "supernal assistance to arouse the evil to prevail over the good"49 is in a hidden manner that is not felt by the person, and consequently it does not compel his choice50 (just as the Divine knowledge Above does not compel choice51).
It follows that the descents too are intended from the outset52, so that through teshuvah for the sin there will come about specifically "the advantage of light over darkness," by transforming willful sins into merits.
8. The difference between the two kinds of descent in "the places where they angered Me" — (a) the journeys in which it is openly felt that the king "took him to a place" (the descent); (b) the journeys which openly are a result of human choice, and in which the king's "took him" is in a hidden manner — is expressed in the difference between the journeys before the Splitting of the Sea and those after the Splitting of the Sea:
Our Sages53 say that "had Israel been worthy, as soon as the soles of their feet came up from the sea they would have entered the land" — that is, the journeys after the Splitting of the Sea ("from the sea") were a result of their not "being worthy," because of their sins; but the journeys until the Splitting of the Sea had to take place even had "Israel been worthy."
The explanation of this: the actual "desert" began after the Sea of Reeds54; the place of the journeys until the Sea of Reeds is intermediate between settled land (Egypt) and desert55.
Spiritually this means56: "desert" is a place where "no man (the Supernal Man57) dwelt," a place of actual kelipah that opposes the Supernal Will. But the road that leads to the desert, although it is indeed not a place of settlement (for the Supernal Man), is also not opposed to the Supernal Will58; this is the order of descent that was arranged from the outset from Above (according to Torah)59.
And this is the explanation of why, plainly and openly, the three illustrations of the parable correspond to the three journeys until the Splitting of the Sea — because only in these three journeys does the king lead the king's son openly; whereas the subsequent journeys are (openly) a result of the choice of "My son," which at that time brought about that they were "not worthy."
9. The content of the three journeys in which the king's "took him" is open is expressed in the three matters of (the parable) "we slept," "we were cold," and "you had a headache" [none of which is yet the state of true "illness"60 (which is connected with sin61); even "you had a headache" is not an "illness," as Rashi62 says (on the saying of our Sages62, "any ache…"): "an ache — a mere passing, light discomfort"] —
In order that the service of the Jewish people can be in the manner of "החיים והמות נתתי לפניך גו' ובחרת בחיים" ("I have set before you life and death… and you shall choose life")63, three new matters are required:
(a) The soul must descend from the place of light and revelation into a "place" of concealment and withdrawal of light — otherwise there could not exist "and death I have set," which gives the possibility of choosing the opposite of life and light, Heaven forfend.
(b) But there must also be "life… I have set before you" — therefore, in that place of the withdrawal of light there must be a drawing down of light and revelation: "He joined with it the attribute of mercy"64.
(c) For there to be free choice, the animal soul must also have its own intellect, which can find a "benefit" in the opposite of light and life, Heaven forfend65 [for if the choice (of the animal soul) of "death" could come only from the emotions, it would not be "one corresponding to the other" (and consequently not free choice) — especially since then the intellect (of the G‑dly soul) would necessarily prevail over the "emotions," since a person is in his essential nature an intellectual being].
And these are the three matters — "we slept," "we were cold," and "you had a headache": (a) sleep, which is "one-sixtieth of death"66, a concealment and withdrawal of the intellect, etc., indicates tzimtzum67 in the manner of withdrawal. (b) "We were cold" is that within the tzimtzum the intent of revelation is included68, and moreover "He joined with it the attribute of mercy," which "cools"69 the severities of the tzimtzum. (c) "You had a headache" — the intellect of the animal soul, which gives the possibility of choosing "death," Heaven forfend.
With this it is understood why the illustrations "we slept" and "we were cold" are in the plural and "you had a headache" is in the singular — because the movement of tzimtzum and (the intent of) revelation exists also on the part of the king, whereas "you had a headache" is a matter that pertains only to the king's son himself.
10. As said earlier (section 7), these descents too, which openly are a result of human choice, are intended from the outset; except that in these descents the king's "took him" is in a hidden manner.
Therefore the first three journeys above ("we slept… your head") are the "general principle" of all the journeys — because even the later descents (resulting from human choice) are in truth a result of the state into which the king "took him."
It can be said that this is the reason why Rashi in his commentary on the Torah — the "wine of Torah"70 — adds (after citing the words of the Midrash "you had a headache") "etc."71. With this he alludes that the continuation of "you had a headache" too — the king's son becoming (through his choice) actually "ill," Heaven forfend — is not only from the son himself, but is a part of the journeys on which the king "took him… to heal him."
Therefore it is clear that the entire intent of the "illness" is only so that the king's son should attain the advantage of an ill person who was healed, in the manner of "willful sins become for him like merits"72 — and not only "from here on," but in the manner that "his sin is uprooted from its beginning"73 (since this was their intent from the outset).
And this will come about openly and completely with the coming of Moshiach Tzidkeinu — when there will be the completion of "they were returning" — and the truth and inner dimension of the "journeys" in exile will be revealed "like the sun going forth in its might"74, very soon indeed.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Matos-Masei, Shabbos Mevarchim Av, 5725, and the maamar beginning "Basi LeGani," 5731*)
Notes
1) Tanchuma on our parsha, 3; Bamidbar Rabbah 23:3.
2) Beginning of our parsha — in the second interpretation. And see below, note 4.
3) In Rabbeinu Bachaye here: "we sat" (yashavnu). And so it reads in the first and second printings of Rashi, and in several manuscripts of Rashi. And see below, note 67.
4) Rashi does not have this conclusion (he writes only "etc."). It can be said simply that according to the plain meaning it is impossible to say that here He recounts "all the places where they angered Me," since in many journeys they did not "anger Me"* [and note Rashi at the beginning of Devarim: "and he enumerated here all the places where they angered, etc."; but note Eikev 9:7; ibid. 24; Rashi, Yisro 19:2]. Moreover: regarding many of the journeys, the plain meaning of Scripture does not mention at all that any special event occurred there. And the reason Rashi also brings the interpretation of the Tanchuma: according to the interpretation of R. Moshe HaDarshan, that "these journeys were written to make known the kindnesses of the Omnipresent… that in all thirty-eight years they traveled only twenty journeys," it is difficult — if so, it should have detailed only these twenty journeys**? Therefore Rashi brings the parable of the Tanchuma, according to which it is resolved why it details the journeys that preceded the sending of the spies and those after the death of Miriam: (most of) them were already mentioned in Scripture, and some special event occurred there [and "here we slept… here we were cold… here you had a headache" are not necessarily matters of "they angered Me," but events in general — see R. Ovadiah of Bartenura, Gur Aryeh (cited in the next note), Dvek Tov and others; and note Lekach Tov here]. But according to this interpretation it is difficult why the journeys from the sending of the spies until the death of Miriam (which were not mentioned at all earlier in Scripture) were written. This is resolved according to the interpretation of R. Moshe HaDarshan.
*) The explanation according to the inner dimension of the matters (in the Midrash) — see below in the text, section 5.
**) In the Ramban here: "In all that long time they traveled only forty-two journeys." But from Rashi's wording it is implied that the kindness consists in this, "that in all thirty-eight years they traveled only twenty journeys."
5) In the Gur Aryeh here: "Sometimes Israel were at ease and tranquil, and this is 'we slept'… in distress, when they lacked something, and this is 'we were cold'… in danger, and this is like a sick person who has a headache." But it is understood that since it is a parable in the Torah, one must say that we find these three matters (we slept, we were cold, and you had a headache) in the analogue also in their particular content (sleep, cold and headache).
6) See the Gur Aryeh cited in the previous note.
7) See Etz Yosef on Tanchuma and Bamidbar Rabbah here; Sifsei Chachamim here; and elsewhere. And see Bava Metzia 107b: "illness… this is a chill."
8) With some strain it can be said that sleeping itself (especially for a king and a king's son) away from home is a matter of "distress."
9) Also according to the plain meaning, as is evident from its being cited in Rashi's commentary on the Torah. And see below in the text and in the notes.
10) Beshalach 13:20.
11) Although they were also there several hours on the first day, for "they came there (to Sukkos) in a moment" (Rashi, Bo 12:37); and also the gathering of all Israel to Ramses was "in a short time," on eagles' wings (Rashi, Yisro 19:4, from the Mechilta there; and note Likkutei Torah, Tzav 14a*).
*) In the above: "their coming to Ramses." And in the Siddur (301a): "in Sukkos." This depends on the expositions of our Sages on "and they baked the dough" — in which place they baked. See Torah Shleimah on the verse, Bo 12:39.
12) Our parsha, 33:6; Beshalach there.
13) And see Targum Yonasan ben Uziel, Bo 12:37: "And they traveled… to Sukkos… there they were sheltered by seven Clouds of Glory, etc."
14) Ibid., verse 21.
15) As for why they did not need the Clouds of Glory from Ramses to Sukkos — it can be said that the journey from Ramses to Sukkos was in the manner of "and I bore you on eagles' wings" (Rashi, Bo there), and there was no need for the Clouds of Glory.
16) See Sukkah 11b, end; Mechilta and Tanchuma, Bo there; Mechilta, Beshalach (ibid. 20); Toras Kohanim, Emor 23:43; Targum Yonasan, Targum Onkelos and Rashi, Emor there. And note also Rashi, Behaaloscha 9:18 (from Baraisa d'Meleches HaMishkan, beginning of ch. 14).
17) The Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim §625; Tur and Shulchan Aruch there.
18) Unlike the cloud that traveled before them, lowering the high places and raising the low ones and killing snakes and scorpions, etc. (Mechilta, Beshalach (ibid. 21); Baraisa d'Meleches HaMishkan there; Sifri and Rashi, Behaaloscha 10:34; Tanchuma, Beshalach 3) — plainly* there was no need for this until they were in the actual desert (after the Sea of Reeds — see below, note 54), where there were no roads, etc., and it is a place of "fiery serpent and scorpion…" (Eikev 8:15).
*) And also according to Targum Yonasan (in note 13), the main need for this was when they were in the actual desert.
19) Note the opinion of Rabbi Akiva (the Mechilta (and Tanchuma) cited above, note 16), who expounds "Sukkosah," "they journeyed from Sukkos" — "Sukkos means only the Clouds of Glory."
20) Beshalach 14:12.
21) To add to the point — although even without this the matter is understood from the above — the other trials in the desert came mainly from their being hungry for bread and thirsty for water (and not from an intellectual argument). At Marah it is written (Beshalach 15:24) only "What shall we drink?"; in the Desert of Sin (ibid. 16:2 ff.), "to kill this whole congregation by hunger" [and this is the reason for their argument, "Would that we had died… in the land of Egypt…"; and see Rashi there, verse 2]; at Refidim (ibid. 17:1 ff.), "and there was no water… give us water" [and only when Moshe answered with an intellectual argument did it arouse a similar reply — "Why did you bring us up from Egypt?"]; when they craved meat (Behaaloscha 11:4 ff.), "they craved a craving" (and only upon this, "and the children of Israel also wept…"; and see Rashi there [OCR unclear]); after the death of Miriam (Chukas 20:2 ff.), "and there was no water for the congregation, (therefore) they assembled…," as Rashi explains — and this is the situation and trial of Refidim. To add further: their argument itself (and similarly with the spies — Shelach 14:2) began with an expression of desire (and not of intellect) — "Would that…"; after Hor HaHar (Chukas 21:5 ff.), "for there is no bread and no water…." Whereas at Pi HaChiros the beginning was a question (a matter of the intellect).
22) Likkutei Torah on our parsha, the discourses beginning "Eileh Masei" and their explanation.
23) Yechezkel 20:35. And see also Rabbeinu Bachaye, Or HaChaim and others at the beginning of our parsha; Likkutei Torah, beginning of Nasso; and elsewhere.
24) Sanhedrin 93b.
25) Zechariah 13:2. And it says (Yeshayahu 25:8), "He will swallow up death forever." And see Sefer HaMaamarim 5628, p. 40 ff.
26) Michah 7:15.
27) See the maamar beginning "Kimei Tzeis'cha" 5708, ch. 2: in the redemption from Egypt a fundamental matter was introduced, namely the opening of the channel of redemption. And see there at the end of the maamar. And see Gevuros Hashem of the Maharal of Prague, ch. 61, who explains that in the redemption from Egypt the Jewish people received the very essence of free people, and the occurrence of the later exile does not nullify this at all. And see Zohar II, 40a. And note the saying of our Sages that after the Giving of the Torah (whose first commandment is "Who took you out of the land of Egypt"), "they are My servants — My deed came first" (Toras Kohanim (cited in Rashi), Behar 25:42; Rashi there, verse 55).
28) Beshalach 14:30.
29) Ibid. 15:16.
30) Ibid., verse 1.
31) And see the Alshich at the beginning of our parsha: "so in these journeys, troubles occurred (only) in most of them, etc."
32) In Bamidbar Rabbah: "when they returned." It too can be interpreted as in the text.
33) As stated explicitly in the Alshich here.
34) Although in the holy Zohar it can be said that the intent is returning to the places in their memory, thought and speech.
35) See also Likkutei Torah on our parsha, 91a ff.
36) Yirmiyahu 2:6.
37) The maamar beginning "Al Kein Yomru HaMoshlim" 5691, ch. 2 (Sefer HaMaamarim Kuntreisim vol. 1, 192b).
38) See also Likkutei Sichos vol. 3, p. 976, note 19; vol. 5, p. 61 ff.; vol. 6, p. 237 (on the matter of the "journeys"); and elsewhere.
39) Note also Rashi here: "when they were returning — that is, when they were close to entering the land and returning to the level of their forefathers, etc."
40) According to what is explained in the text, it can be said — in the "wine of Torah" in Rashi's commentary — that the two interpretations (of R. Moshe HaDarshan and of the Tanchuma) correspond to the two states of the soul. The first interpretation speaks of "the kindnesses of the Omnipresent" at the time of the journeys — the descent of the soul below* — and although all these descents of the journeys took place when it was already a soul in a body and in "the desert of the nations," this is similar to what we say each day anew, "Who restores my soul to me," that one becomes a new creation (the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 4:1), and afterwards "the soul You have given me is pure" (in the supernal purity — Likkutei Torah, Bechukosai 46a), and from there it descends through the entire chain of worlds — "You created it, etc. (until) within me." And note Bereishis Rabbah, end of ch. 14: "When a person sleeps, it (the soul) ascends and draws life for him from Above"; and similarly Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 12. The second interpretation, "when they were returning," refers to the time of the soul's ascent after its descent. [This also corresponds to the two matters in the verse: (a) "And Moshe wrote their goings forth according to their journeys…," (b) "and these are their journeys according to their goings forth" — which refer to the descent of the soul from Above to below and its ascent from below to Above, as explained in Likkutei Torah on our parsha, 91a ff.; 96a; and elsewhere]**. Accordingly the allusion in Rashi's unusual wording, "(and Rabbi Tanchuma expounded on it) another exposition," is all the sweeter — for the state and service of the soul in its ascent from this world are entirely incomparable to its state at the time of its descent below: "another" exposition (and service) [see Or HaTorah, Vayechi (386a–b) on "May G‑d add for me another son" — "from another level"; and see there that this is that which from the side of the animal soul is transformed to become the level of "son," etc. — similar to the elevation of "the places where they angered Me"].
*) See Toras HaBaal Shem Tov (cited in Degel Machaneh Ephraim, beginning of our parsha; Additions to Keser Shem Tov (Kehot), §23), that the forty-two journeys exist for every person, and they are… "from the day of his birth until he returns to his world."
**) Accordingly one can also explain (in the "wine of Torah" in Rashi's commentary): (a) why Rashi also copies the names of the authors of the interpretations — R. Moshe HaDarshan and Rabbi Tanchuma: for "Moshe" signifies drawing down from Above to below, and Rabbi Tanchuma, from the word nechamah (consolation) — consolation for the descent through the ascent that follows the descent. (b) Rashi's wording, "from the foundation of R. Moshe HaDarshan… expounded on it an exposition, etc.": for in the PaRDeS of Torah, derash corresponds to the world of Beriah — the beginning of the existence (relating to the descent) of the soul, as above (in the body of the note), that this beginning is "You created it." And the beginning of the ascent, up to the perfection of "true unity," comes through contemplating that it was created from nothing to something, etc., and "Forever, O G‑d, Your word stands," etc. (Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, at length).
41) Yeshayahu 12:1.
42) See Iggeres HaKodesh, §11. And see the Likkutei Sichos cited in note 38.
43) That is, not only was their general wandering in the desert for forty years because of the sin of the spies, but also in the journeys themselves, in many of them "they angered before the Omnipresent" (Rashi's wording at the beginning of Devarim).
44) On what follows, see also Likkutei Sichos vol. 5, there, p. 65 ff.
45) Toras Chaim, Toldos, the maamar beginning "Veyiten Lecha," ch. 10 ff.; Shaar HaTeshuvah of the Mitteler Rebbe, vol. 1, 20d ff. And see also the maamar beginning "U'Moshe Nigash El HaArafel" of the Alter Rebbe (Kehot, 5725), ch. 5 (Or HaTorah, Yisro [OCR unclear]); the maamar "Veyiten Lecha" and its explanation in Sefer HaMaamarim 5562. And note also Biurei HaZohar of the Tzemach Tzedek, p. 266 ff.
46) Tanchuma, Vayeishev 4. And see Sukkah 52b: "Four things the Holy One, blessed be He, regrets having created… the evil inclination, as it is written, 'and whom I have caused to do evil.'"
47) Tehillim 66:5.
48) Toras Chaim there, 13a. [But in Biurei HaZohar there (p. 268): "whereas one who comes to defile himself — they open [the way] for him, but do not assist him, G‑d forbid." This is not the place to elaborate.]
49) Toras Chaim there, 16d.
50) This is the explanation of the saying of our Sages (Niddah 16b), "righteous or wicked He does not say": when the Divine knowledge comes openly (in speech), it compels the person — Toras Chaim there, ch. 3; Shaar HaTeshuvah there.
51) See on all this Toras Chaim there, ch. 1 ff.; Biurei HaZohar there (pp. 265–266); Likkutei Sichos there (and the sources cited there).
52) See Bereishis Rabbah (end of ch. 2; ch. 3, 8): "From the beginning of the creation of the world the Holy One, blessed be He, foresaw… the deeds of the wicked." And there (end of ch. 2): "I do not know in which of them He desires, etc." And see Toras HaBaal Shem Tov (Tzafnas Paneach, Ben Poras Yosef, etc. — copied in Sefer HaBaal Shem Tov, Bereishis, §41 ff.), that this is because of the advantage of light that is recognized through darkness; see there.
53) Sifri, Devarim 1:2.
54) For "Eisam" is "at the edge of the desert," and from Eisam to Pi HaChiros is "backwards, toward Egypt," and Pi HaChiros "is Pisom" (Rashi, Beshalach 14:2). And see Beshalach 15:22; our parsha 33:8.
55) Although in general it too is called a desert (relative to the settled land of Egypt) — see Beshalach 14:3; and elsewhere.
56) See Likkutei Torah, Re'eh 32b: "There is in a person the level of a settled city, and the level of field and desert."
57) Likkutei Torah, Nasso 20c; Re'eh there; and elsewhere.
58) Along the lines of what is said in Likkutei Torah on our parsha, in the explanation of "Eileh Masei" (92a), regarding the difference between the journeys until the Giving of the Torah (in the desert near settled land — kelipas nogah) and after the Giving of the Torah (far from settled land — the three impure kelipos). And see Or HaTorah, Vayeitzei (203a [OCR unclear]), that "field" (intermediate between city and desert) "is the general Malchus, from which kelipas nogah too draws nourishment."
59) Note Torah Or, Chayei Sarah, the maamar beginning "Vayeitzei Yitzchak Lasuach BaSadeh" [cited in Likkutei Torah, Re'eh there, end of column d], that the level of "field" is the Torah's descending into darkness… even into falsehood, etc. See there.
60) As for the son being "ill" in the parable even before the journeys, it can be said that there are several levels of "ill," as the Arizal says (Taamei HaMitzvos, Parshas Vayeira; and at length — the maamar beginning "Chamishim Shaarei Binah" 5653 (printed in Sefer HaSichos 5703, p. 201 ff.)) that cholah (ill) is numerically 49, lacking the fiftieth gate. So too in our matter: the soul Above, before its descent below, is called "ill" because it still lacks the ascent that comes through the descent below.
61) See Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbos (14:3): "Illness — this is the evil inclination." And see Maharzu on Bamidbar Rabbah here.
63) Nitzavim 30:19.
64) As our Sages said — Bereishis Rabbah 12:15; Pesikta, Parshas BaChodesh HaShevi'i; Rashi at the beginning of Bereishis. Explained at length in the maamar beginning "Shuvah Yisrael" 5659.
65) See at length the maamar beginning "Kevod Malchuscha" 5660.
66) Berachos 57b.
67) Even according to the version "we sat" (see above, note 3) — for we say (Megillah 21a, end) that "sitting means only delay." And see, according to Chassidus, Likkutei Sichos vol. 7, p. 89 ff., and the sources cited there.
68) See at length the maamarim of Chag HaShavuos 5675 (in Hemshech 5672, vol. 3); Chag HaShavuos 5704.
69) See the maamar "Shuvah" there (in explaining the parable there), that "if one puts cold water into it… this is the level of the attribute of mercy." And see there, from the Ramaz, Parshas Shelach.
70) Hayom Yom, p. 24.
71) Plainly his intent is the continuation of the Tanchuma (the analogue), "So the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, etc."; but according to the "wine of Torah" in Rashi's commentary, it can be said as in the text.
72) Yoma 86b.
73) Rashi, Yoma (86a), s.v. "Kan me'ahavah." And see at length Likkutei Sichos vol. 10, p. 185 ff.
74) Shoftim 5:31. See Tanya, ch. 26.
*) Printed in Sefer HaMaamarim Melukat vol. 5, p. 149 ff.
Key Lesson
Every journey through exile — even the descents a person seems to bring on himself — is one on which the King Himself leads His son, "to heal him." When we arrive at the ascent, we will see that each station was part of the healing, and we will thank G‑d even for "You were angry with me," as every descent is revealed to have been a kindness.