לקוטי שיחות חלק כג - קרח ג

In this week's Torah portion, the Torah states the law regarding the firstborn of an ox, sheep, or goat: "You shall not redeem it; they are holy. You shall sprinkle their blood upon the altar, and their fat you shall burn as an offering, and their flesh shall be yours (to the priests) like the breast of the wave offering and the right thigh." Rashi comments on the words "like the breast of the wave offering and the right thigh" and explains: "Of peace offerings, which are eaten by the priests, their wives, their sons, and their servants for two days and one night. Similarly, the firstborn is eaten for two days and one night."

We need to understand: Rashi begins by mentioning two details regarding peace offerings: (a) who may eat them — "by the priests, their wives, their sons, and their servants"; (b) the duration for eating them — "for two days and one night." Yet, he concludes with only one detail: "Similarly, the firstborn is eaten for two days and one night."

Rashi omits the words regarding the firstborn: "by the priests, their wives, and their servants." Why does he omit this detail for the firstborn?

It is understandable, or one might say, that since Rashi wishes to be concise in his language, he omits a detail. Additionally, he did not need to write the words "Similarly, the firstborn is eaten for two days and one night." He could have written concisely: "Similarly, the firstborn, etc." — omitting the entire conclusion "Similarly, the firstborn, etc."

The question becomes even greater: The source of Rashi's explanation is in the Sifrei and the Gemara, and in both places, the detail of "eaten by the priests, their wives, their sons, and their servants" is not mentioned at all, neither for peace offerings nor for the firstborn. It only states: "Just as peace offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so too the firstborn."

We need to understand:

(a) As discussed several times, Rashi only cites the name of the author of a statement when it adds to the understanding of the explanation. Why is it better understood here by knowing that Rabbi Akiva said this statement?

(b) What is the reason for the lengthy wording "Rabbi Akiva and so on"? Rashi should have stated concisely (as is his custom in many places) "Rabbi Akiva said."

The source of Rabbi Akiva's statement is in the Sifrei and the Gemara, and there too, the wording is unusual: "Rabbi Akiva said." However, there it is understandable, as it comes in the middle of a discussion: Previously, a question was asked before the sages in the vineyard of Yavneh, etc. Rabbi Tarfon responded, etc. Rabbi Yosi the Galilean asked a question that Rabbi Tarfon could not answer, so another entered the discussion — "Rabbi Akiva jumped in and said." But how does this wording fit in Rashi's commentary, "Rabbi Akiva came," when the entire...?

In the simple explanation, the necessity arises from the fact that the verse states, "And their flesh shall be yours," which indicates that the flesh of the firstborn belongs to the Kohen. What does this add to the understanding of the verse? It seems to be redundant, as it already states that the flesh of the firstborn belongs to the Kohen, similar to the breast of the wave offering and the right thigh (as it says, "it shall be yours"). Therefore, Rashi explains that these words come to teach us a law regarding how the flesh is consumed. The words "their flesh" indicate that it is eaten in a manner similar to another offering, and the words come only to specify the time of consumption — "for two days and one night," like the breast and thigh of the peace offerings. This is not understood: Why does the verse need to hint at this, stating the law through a comparison to another offering? Why use the words "like the breast of the wave offering and the right thigh," especially when it is not clear if this refers to peace offerings, which are eaten for two days and one night, or to a thanksgiving offering, which is only eaten for one day and one night?

And we need to add another point of learning — "it shall be yours" — which should have been stated clearly and concisely: "On the day of his offering, it shall be eaten, and on the next day." From this, Rashi derives that with the words "like the breast of the wave offering and the right thigh," more than one law is meant (not just one law): (a) it is eaten by the Kohanim, their wives, their sons, and their servants; (b) it is eaten for two days and one night.

Therefore, it is also understood why Rashi learns out "do not say like the breast and thigh of the thanksgiving offering" from "it shall be yours," and prefers to rely on the verse "year by year" (in Parshas Re'eh). If we were to say that in our verse there is no teaching regarding the time of eating the firstborn, it would follow that with "like the breast of the wave offering and the right thigh," the verse means only one law — "it is eaten by the Kohanim, their wives, their sons, and their servants."

Therefore, Rashi explains that "it shall be yours" comes to clarify the law of "two days and one night," and consequently, with the words "like the breast of the wave offering and the right thigh," the verse is stating two laws: both that it is eaten by the Kohanim, their wives, their sons, and their servants, and that it is eaten for two days and one night.

However, it remains not fully understood. As mentioned above: Why does Rashi conclude with only one detail — "even the firstborn is eaten for two days and one night"?

The explanation is as follows: The two explanations of Rashi ("like the breast of the wave offering and the right thigh" and "it shall be yours") are indeed separate interpretations, but they are part of one continuum. Rashi states the learning from the peace offerings, and the conclusion of this is the words "even the firstborn" — just as the breast and thigh of the peace offerings, so too are the laws of the firstborn.

Rashi continues to explain: Rabbi Akiva comes and learns that this detail is sufficient (the learning from) the words "like the breast of the wave offering and the right thigh (of the peace offerings)" — because it is understood. "Like the breast and thigh of the thanksgiving offering, which is eaten only for one day and one night" — therefore, one must also arrive at the subsequent words "it shall be yours," adding another law.

This is also understandable. Rashi is precise in saying, "Rabbi Akiva comes and learns," to clarify whether this interpretation is the beginning of a new topic — in which case the wording "Rabbi Akiva comes" fits well — or if it is a continuation (and in the middle of the explanation in connection) to the previous words "for two days and one night."

Rashi addresses the question on "for two days and one night" — why compare the firstborn to peace offerings and add to thanksgiving offerings — and says: "Rabbi Akiva comes and learns. The verse adds another law."

It is reasonable to say that this discussion is about the same matter, to strengthen it, (just as at the beginning of Parshas Shelach it states "one man, one man per tribe," and similarly with the offerings of the princes it states "one prince per day, one prince per day" — where Rashi explains the repetition of the language, because in such a context it is to strengthen and emphasize the matter).

However, according to the above explanation, it turns out that the first part of the verse — "and their flesh shall be yours like the breast of the wave offering and the right thigh" — is not a specific law, but rather a general law, a general comparison to the breast and thigh of the peace offerings (and not more than one detail: eaten by the Kohanim, their wives, etc., and eaten for two days, etc.); and the phrase "it shall be yours" at the end of the verse comes to include an additional detail in the law of its time of consumption.

Therefore, Rashi emphasizes that this statement was said by Rabbi Akiva. He follows his own reasoning, as he does not hold that "the Torah speaks in the language of man," and a repetition in the Torah is not for the sake of emphasis.

"It shall be yours" is an inclusion — "the verse adds another law."

(And one cannot ask: how can Rashi learn according to Rabbi Akiva's view (that we do not say the Torah speaks in the language of man) — when Rashi takes the approach of peshat that the Torah does speak in the language of man, as is evident from the fact that Rabbi Akiva learns that the repetition of the phrase "one man, one man per tribe" comes to include that there were twenty-four spies, while Rashi learns (according to the simple meaning) that there were only twelve spies? Because there it speaks about twelve different tribes, it is understandable (according to the simple meaning) that the verse wants to emphasize that each tribe had "one man," and therefore it repeats "one man, one man").

In the offerings of the princes, the repetition "one prince per day, one prince per day" emphasizes the importance of each prince's offering. However, in the case of the firstborn, the repetition and emphasis of "it shall be yours" is superfluous.

In the Torah's explanation in Rashi's commentary, there is a comparison made between the firstborn and the sin offering and guilt offering, because they are all "gifts to the Kohanim." The teaching is that just as the sin offering and guilt offering are consumed for one day and one night, so too is the firstborn. However, Rashi in his commentary explicitly states, "Do not say like the breast and thigh of the thanksgiving offering."

The simple reason for this is that Rashi focuses on the verse "like the breast of the wave offering and the right thigh," which cannot be applied to the sin offering and guilt offering (which belong entirely to the Kohen). In contrast, in the Sifrei and Gemara, where the comparison of the firstborn offering is made, it is not based on the verse "like the breast of the wave offering," but rather on logical reasoning.

However, it can be said that there is also a deeper matter here: "The firstborn of Israel" — the firstborn of man (as it says, "for the L‑rd," a part of G‑d above) is the G‑dly soul, and the firstborn of a pure animal is the animal soul of a Jew. This is why the verse says, "firstborn ox, sheep, etc.," which are known to be the three general types within the animal soul of Israel.

Rashi in his commentary on the Torah must negate and exclude the idea that the firstborn is similar to the sin offering and guilt offering. From the simple meaning of the verse, where the simplicity of a Jew is emphasized, there is no room to think that even a Jew (in his essence) has any connection to the sin offering and guilt offering.

Regarding the G‑dly soul of a Jew, the Zohar states simply and plainly on the verse "a soul that sins" — that even in the lowest level of the soul, the five names given to the G‑dly soul, it is a wonder and a marvel how it could fall into sin.

Rashi here makes an even greater point. Even the "flesh" — the physical body of a Jew — should not be compared or associated with a sin offering and guilt offering, but rather "like the breast of the wave offering and the right thigh" of the peace offerings. The fact that the G‑dly soul of a Jew descends and is clothed in an animal soul and a physical body is so that he can make from it a peace offering — a completion in the world — so that even this lowly, physical, and material world becomes a dwelling place for Him.

Therefore, Rashi must also exclude the idea "do not say like the breast and thigh of the thanksgiving offering." Although the thanksgiving offering is a peace offering, its essence is that the person was previously in a state of danger and was saved from it in an unusual manner, through a miracle (and therefore he brings a thanksgiving offering). In spiritual service, this means that the person had a great trial or difficulties in his service to G‑d, which put his spiritual life in danger, but he was saved from it.

What he accomplishes is connected with peace in the world. Therefore, Rashi also excludes the notion of "thanksgiving," because from the simplicity of a Jew, there shines within him a simple faith in the One G‑d. Consequently, he is "with faith in Him" in all situations and circumstances, to the extent that there is initially no place for matters contrary to his Judaism.

The very fact that a Jew feels there is a reality of a trial from which he needs to save himself (especially if he needs to resort to a miracle) indicates that something has mixed into him that is not purely Jewish.

For a Jew himself has no connection to matters contrary to goodness, and from this comes the physical aspect as well. When a Jew is as he should be, he does not need to resort to miracles (and consequently, a thanksgiving offering) concerning his physical state, because according to nature, "the L‑rd is with him," and therefore, "the L‑rd is your keeper, the L‑rd is your shade upon your right hand."

In the "light of the king's countenance is life," the Almighty gives him all matters of children, life, and sustenance, and in all of them — abundance.