Parshas Behar
1. It has already been discussed many times that Rashi, in his commentary on the Torah, answers all the questions that arise in the plain meaning of Scripture (and in the places where Rashi does not find an answer (according to the approach of the plain meaning), he says "איני יודע" ("I do not know")1 and the like).
Accordingly, the following requires an explanation:
At the beginning of our parsha the Torah states the laws of the Shemittah of the land, and afterward — the laws of Yovel (and in continuation of this — "וכי תמכרו גו' אל תונו גו'" ("And if you sell etc., do not wrong etc.")2). And after the laws of Shemittah and Yovel etc., the Torah says3: "ועשיתם את חוקותי גו' ונתנה הארץ פרי' גו' וכי תאמרו מה נאכל גו' וצויתי את ברכתי גו' וזרעתם גו'" ("You shall perform My statutes etc. and the land will yield its fruit etc. And if you say, 'What will we eat?' etc. I will command My blessing etc. And you will sow etc.").
This must be understood: the question "And if you say, 'What will we eat?' etc."4 arises immediately upon learning the laws of Shemittah, "ושבתה הארץ שבת לה' גו' שדך לא תזרע גו' לא תבצור גו'" ("The land shall rest a Sabbath for G‑d etc.; your field you shall not sow etc.; you shall not harvest etc.")5. Why does the Torah answer the question of "What will we eat?" only after the laws of Yovel6 (and also after "And if you sell etc., do not wrong etc.")?
— Had the matter not been presented in the form of a question ("And if you say, 'What will we eat?' etc." and the answer — "I will command etc."), one could have answered that "I will command etc." comes in continuation of the blessings that the Al-mighty pledges to the Jewish people for fulfilling the mitzvos of Shemittah and Yovel7 ("You shall perform My statutes etc." — "and you will dwell on the land securely, and the land will yield its fruit etc. … I will command My blessing etc., and it will produce the crop for the three years").
Since, however, the Torah here sets out to remove the question "And if you say, 'What will we eat?'", it should have addressed this as soon as the question arises (right at the commandment of the law of Shemittah)8.
There are commentators9 who learn that the verses "And if you say etc. I will command My blessing etc. for the three years" refer (also) to Yovel (which follows Shemittah), when it is forbidden to plow and sow etc. for two consecutive years (the Shemittah year and the Yovel year), and concerning this the Torah says "I will command My blessing etc. for the three years" — and therefore these verses stand after the laws of Yovel.
But in Rashi's commentary one cannot learn it this way, because Rashi10 learns that the verses "I will command My blessing etc. And you will sow in the eighth year etc." do not speak about "the seventh Shemittah" (which comes immediately adjacent before Yovel), but rather — "מקרא זה נאמר בשאר השמטות כולן" ("This verse was stated regarding all the other Shemittos") (not before the Yovel year).
Accordingly it is puzzling11: why does Rashi not address how it is that "this verse" waits until after the laws of Yovel etc.?
2. Another question that Rashi seemingly should have addressed:
From the wording of the verse "And if (v'chi) you say, 'What will we eat?'" it is implied that it is certain that people will ask this!
[For if the intent of the verse were "perhaps you will say," the wording "ואם (v'im) you say"12 would have been more fitting (similar to "ואם אמור יאמר העבד" ("And if the servant shall say")13)].
And similar to how Rashi14 explains the verse* (regarding a false prophet15) "וכי תאמר בלבבך איכה נדע גו'" ("And if you say in your heart, 'How shall we know?' etc.") — "עתידים אתם לומר" ("You are destined to say")16, "when Chananyah comes etc."
This is not smooth: why does the Torah use an expression that means "you are destined to say," as if this must be the order of conduct17? —
And seemingly: asking "What will we eat?" shows (seemingly)18 that one does not rely completely, G‑d forbid, on the Al-mighty. This is similar to what we have already learned concerning Avraham, that a sign of "והאמין בה'" ("He believed in G‑d") is that "לא שאל לו אות" ("he did not ask Him for a sign")19.
Moreover: immediately before the question "And if you say etc." the verse states (as mentioned above): "ונתנה הארץ פרי' ואכלתם לשובע וישבתם לבטח עלי'" ("The land will yield its fruit, and you will eat to satiety, and you will dwell securely upon it"). And Rashi explains: "'The land will yield etc., and you will dwell securely upon it' — that you will not worry about a year of drought; 'and you will eat to satiety' — even within the intestines there will be blessing in it."
This is all the more puzzling20: after the Torah says that the Al-mighty assures that there will be no worries due to a lack of grain, and that there will be a supernatural blessing in the grain ("even within the intestines") — how does the question "And if you say, 'What will we eat?'" fit immediately afterward, and especially with the wording "v'chi" — "you are destined to say"?!
— And seemingly we do not find that Rashi answers this question in his commentary.
3. It can be said that the reason Rashi in our parsha gives no answer to the aforementioned questions on "And if you say" is because when a five-year-old beginning Scripture learns in Chumash about a question on a mitzvah with the wording "And if you say," he recalls the first place where he learned something similar — earlier, at the end of Parshas Bo21: "והי' כי ישאלך בנך גו'" ("And it shall be when your son asks you etc."); and remembering what Rashi explains there on "when your son asks you etc.," the aforementioned questions in our parsha are thereby answered for him as a matter of course:
The verse there says "והי' כי ישאלך בנך מחר לאמר מה זאת" ("And it shall be when your son asks you tomorrow, saying, 'What is this?'"). Rashi pauses at "What is this?" and explains: "This is a foolish child who does not know how to deepen his question, so he closes it off and asks 'What is this?' And elsewhere it says22, 'What are the testimonies, the statutes, and the ordinances etc.' — that is the question of a wise son. The Torah spoke regarding four sons: a simple one23, a wicked one, one who does not know how to ask, and one who asks in the way of wisdom."
This is not understood: what difference does it make in Parshas Bo to know that "elsewhere" there is also "the question of a wise son" (and consequently, "the Torah spoke regarding four sons etc.")?
Even if one were to say that Rashi wants to let us know (for whatever reason) that there are "four sons" — it is not smooth: why does he not say this earlier?
In his commentary on the verse24 "ועבדת את העבודה הזאת" ("You shall perform this service"), he says: "He repeated it because of something new in it: in the first passage it says25, 'And it shall be when they say' … the verse speaks of the wicked son … and here, 'והגדת לבנך' ('You shall tell your son')26 — of the son who does not know how to ask." He should have mentioned there that one should not think that "the Torah spoke" only regarding two sons, but that further on in the passage there is added (also) the question of the "foolish" one, and "elsewhere … the question of a wise son," so that "the Torah spoke regarding four sons"27.
4. The explanation of this:
It is generally customary to interpret the words "the Torah spoke regarding four sons" in connection with the obligation of recounting the Exodus from Egypt on the night of Pesach — that the "questions" of the sons concern the mitzvos of the night of Pesach; and "the Torah spoke regarding four sons" means that the Torah says that one should answer each of the sons according to his nature — but all of it regarding the night of Pesach.
It is indeed true that this is the intent of the words according to the approach of halachah (and as stated in the Mechilta28, and as we say in the Pesach Haggadah) —
but the purpose of Rashi's commentary on the Torah is to explain the plain meaning of Scripture, and in the plain meaning of the verses, the question of the "foolish child" concerns (not the mitzvos of the night of Pesach, but rather) the mitzvah of the firstborn*28, in continuation of which his question is written.
[Accordingly we will also understand why Rashi uses the wording "This is a foolish child29 who does not know how to deepen his question," and not "simple" (as the wording is in the Mechilta30 and the Pesach Haggadah; and especially since Rashi himself continues (according to the widespread version of Rashi's commentary31), "The Torah spoke regarding four sons: a simple one etc.")
— because the redemption of the firstborn is a mitzvah that does not have many details, such that even a son who is not wise (a simple one) can also sort it out, and he will therefore not simply ask "What is this?"; and the one who does ask "What is this?" does so only because he is a "foolish child."
Whereas the "simple one" of the Haggadah, whose question concerns the mitzvos of Pesach, can already be of a higher type (not "foolish"), since on the night of Pesach there are many kinds of mitzvos (testimonies, statutes, and also ordinances), among which it is difficult to find one's way even for one who is not "foolish," and the question "What is this?" shows only that the questioner is "simple"32].
Similarly, the question of the wise son, in the plain meaning of Scripture, is also not about the night of Pesach; rather, he asks about mitzvos in general — "מה העדות והחוקים והמשפטים אשר צוה ה' אלקינו" ("What are the testimonies, the statutes, and the ordinances which the L‑rd our G‑d has commanded?") (and he is answered: "עבדים היינו גו' ויוציאנו גו' ויצונו גו' את כל החוקים האלה ליראה גו'" ("We were slaves etc. and He took us out etc. and He commanded us etc. all these statutes, to fear etc.")33, by which all the mitzvos of the Torah are meant).
Accordingly it is simply understood why Rashi does not bring the questions of the "foolish child" and "the question of a wise son" earlier, when he speaks of the question of the wicked one and of the one who does not know how to ask — because these are entirely separate matters:
Earlier it speaks of the question of the wicked son and of "You shall tell" (to the one who does not know how to ask) in connection with the mitzvos of the night of Pesach. This has no connection with the question of the "foolish one" about the mitzvah of redeeming the firstborn, and certainly not with the question of the wise son about "the testimonies, the statutes, and the ordinances" (all the mitzvos, in general).
5. Accordingly, however, the earlier question becomes even stronger: why does Rashi add (in continuation of "This is a foolish child … and asks 'What is this?'") "And elsewhere it says … the question of a wise son"? According to the above, "the question of a wise son" has no connection with the question of the "foolish one" (which is a question only about the redemption of the firstborn)!
And on the other hand: if Rashi does connect them (although their questions are not about the same matters) — why does Rashi not connect them earlier, at the question of the wicked son and of the one who does not know how to ask (as mentioned above)?
The explanation of this is as follows:
When one learns that on the night of Pesach there is a command to answer the question of a wicked son, and certainly — "You shall tell your son" (who does not know how to ask), one could learn that this is a special law of Pesach: since the Exodus from Egypt is a fundamental matter in the entire Torah (as stated — in the plain meaning of Scripture — in many verses), one must be sure that all the sons will participate in the mitzvos of the night of Pesach. This is especially so after Pharaoh's claim "לכו נא הגברים" ("Let the men go now") — and not "your little children"34.
For this reason the Torah instructs that Jews should occupy themselves also with a wicked son and with one who does not know how to ask, because with these two types there is a concern that if the mitzvos of the night of Pesach are not explained to them, they will not fulfill the mitzvos. The wicked son is, after all, one who (in Rashi's words24) "הוציא את עצמו מן הכלל" ("excluded himself from the community") — so one must "bring him back in" to "this service" of the "Pesach offering"35; and one who does not know how to ask is a son who does not even understand that there is something to ask about, not even "What is this?" — so one must draw him into the mitzvos. And as Rashi24 explains the matter of "You shall tell your son": "והכתוב מלמדך שתפתח לו אתה בדברי אגדה המושכין את הלב" ("The verse teaches you that you should open for him with words of Aggadah that draw the heart").
Whereas with the types of the "foolish one" (the simple one) and the wise one, one could think that it is not so important to answer their questions, because regarding them there is no concern that a lack of understanding will lead to not fulfilling the mitzvah — it is merely a request for a reason and an explanation. Therefore the Torah does not state that (and what) one must answer them.
When, however, one comes to the verse "And it shall be when your son asks you" regarding the redemption of the firstborn, one sees that (a) also regarding other mitzvos the Torah obligates answering the questions of a "son," and (b) the Torah instructs (that and — what) to answer also the questions of a "foolish child" —
the question arises: surely a wise son also asks questions about mitzvos, and on the contrary, being wise, he probably has more questions. So if one must answer the question of a "foolish child," all the more so the Torah should have mentioned occupying oneself with the questions of a wise son!
Says Rashi — indeed so: "And elsewhere it says … the question of a wise son."
And this is the precision of Rashi's wording in continuation of this — "The Torah spoke regarding four sons": by this Rashi means — according to the plain sense of the wording — that the Torah in general (not only in connection with the night of Pesach) speaks of all "four sons," i.e., we find in the (Written) Torah an instruction to answer the questions of all types of sons: "a simple one, a wicked one, one who does not know how to ask, and one who asks in the way of wisdom"36.
6. According to the above — that "the Torah spoke regarding four sons" — we understand that wherever one finds in the Torah a "question" about a mitzvah, one must clarify which type of "son" the Torah is speaking about there.
(It is not necessarily a question that must be addressed in order to ensure the fulfillment of the mitzvah by the questioner, or even a question that stems from doubt or weakness in faith — it can be the question of a wise son, the purpose of whose question is to clarify and understand the details of the matter (similar to the question of the wise son — "What are the testimonies, the statutes, and the ordinances").)
And so too in our matter: by placing the question "And if you say" at the conclusion of the entire subject (also after the laws of Yovel37), and moreover — immediately after the blessings and assurances of the Al-mighty, "The land will yield its fruit and you will eat to satiety etc.," the Torah makes clear that here it is not a question of a "wicked son" whom one must, through the answer, safeguard so that he fulfills the mitzvos of Shevi'is (for in such a case the Torah would have addressed it right at the commandment of the mitzvos of Shevi'is, as mentioned above), but rather this is "the question of a wise son"38, and the content of his question is:
Learning the assurances of the Al-mighty, "The land will yield its fruit and you will eat to satiety etc.," a "wise son" wants to understand the details and manner of the blessing: in what manner will "G‑d's blessing" come in the years when "לא נזרע ולא נאסוף את תבואתנו" ("we may not sow nor gather in our crops")?
[For it can be in several ways, even — by giving in those years "manna" from heaven, as in the desert for forty years — and day by day!].
— He is answered that the blessing will be in such a manner that the land will produce, in the sixth year, an abundance of crop: "ועשת את התבואה לשלש השנים" ("and it will produce the crop for the three years")39.
7. In the inner dimension of the matters:
It has already been discussed several times40 concerning the fact that the Torah presents the matter in the form of question and answer — "And if you say, 'What will we eat?' etc. I will command My blessing etc." — that since "התורה היא נצחית" ("the Torah is eternal")41, it follows that the question "And if you say, 'What will we eat?'" is an eternal question. Even after one has seen the good results of (the answer —) "I will command My blessing etc." in the previous Shemittos, the question "And if you say, 'What will we eat?'" can arise anew —
because Shemittah is the service of bittul ha-yesh (nullifying one's sense of self), i.e., in essence the one who serves is a yesh (a self-conscious entity), but he nullifies his yesh through accepting the yoke of the Kingship of Heaven; and because of his yesh, there remains in him room for a question, a difficulty — and each time anew he must be told "I will command My blessing etc."
But according to the above explanation, that here it speaks of "the question of a wise son," whose questions do not stem, G‑d forbid, from the yesh, but on the contrary, from wisdom — why is there such a question with a "wise son"?
The explanation of this: the miracle of "וצויתי את ברכתי גו' בשנה הששית ועשת את התבואה לשלש השנים" ("I will command My blessing etc. in the sixth year, and it will produce the crop for the three years") is not only above nature42, but entirely contrary to nature: according to the ways of nature a field becomes "weaker" (leaner) from year to year43
— and furthermore — the way of nature is one of the reasons44 for the Shemittah of the land, "The land shall rest a Sabbath for G‑d," in order "שתוסיף הארץ תבואתה ותתחזק בעמדה שמוטה" ("that the land may increase its yield and be strengthened by lying fallow") —
and specifically in "the sixth year," when the land is in its "weakest" state, it yields crop "for the three years"!
And since this is a miracle that has no foothold at all in nature — on the contrary, it is specifically in a manner entirely contrary to nature — it is a matter entirely above intellect —.
The wise son asks, "And if you say, 'What will we eat?'": even after the answer "I will command My blessing," it remains a matter entirely above intellect.
8. It is known45 that the "six years" and the "seventh year" correspond to the six thousand years of the world's existence and the seventh millennium.
In this there is the question "וכי תאמרו מה נאכל בשנה השביעית" ("And if you say, 'What will we eat in the seventh year?'")46: finding ourselves "in the sixth year," in the sixth millennium before the coming of Moshiach, when all the matters and revelations of the days of Moshiach "תלוי במעשינו ועבודתינו" ("depend on our deeds and service")47 now — the question becomes "What will we eat in the seventh year?": being in the sixth millennium, when due to the decline of the generations we are "weaker" than previous generations — "אכשור דרא" ("has the generation become worthier?"), said in astonishment — how then can we draw down the Redemption, and bring about "the seventh year"?
The Al-mighty says and assures: "I will command My blessing etc." When one does the service of "the sixth year" — the service during the time of exile, which is with mesirus nefesh and with a bittul that transcends reason and understanding — the Al-mighty gives the blessing from Above, that the sowing of the sixth year — regardless of its being a "weakened field" etc. — will be with blessing, with the blessing of the Holy One, blessed be He; and moreover — there will be crop "for the three years": one draws down the matters and revelations of the Future to Come, revelation after revelation after revelation — which divide in general into three ascents48 — "יחיינו מיומים ביום השלישי יקימנו ונחי' לפניו" ("He will revive us after two days; on the third day He will raise us up, and we will live before Him")49.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Behar 5733 and 5709; the night of the second day of Pesach 5728)
Notes
1) Rashi, Toldos 28:5, and elsewhere (cited in Likkutei Sichos vol. 5, p. 1, note 2, in the marginal note).
2) 25:14ff.
3) Ibid., 18ff.
4) Ibid., 20.
5) Ibid., 2–5.
6) As the Alshich asks here, and elsewhere.
7) Note Rashi on the verse (ibid., 18), that through the sin of Shemittah etc., corresponding to seventy Shemittos etc. — and he does not mention "Yovel." But see Rashi, Bechukosai (26:35): corresponding to the seventy years of Shemittah and Yovel etc. (see the calculation there). Note also Abarbanel on our parsha here (at the end of the third approach): "Yovel is included among the Shemittos."
8) But one cannot ask why this was not stated in the commandment concerning Shemittah earlier, in Parshas Mishpatim (23:11) or Parshas Tisa (34:21) — for there the commandment is stated only in general terms (see Rashi, Ramban, and others at the beginning of our parsha).
9) Ibn Ezra (ibid., 17), Ramban (ibid., 20), Abarbanel (in the first approach, and the third argument), and others.
10) Our parsha, ibid., 22. See also Rashi, ibid., 21, and the commentators there.
11) See also Abarbanel here, who raises a difficulty on Rashi.
12) And it can be said that this too is the reason for the fault found in Moshe's having said "והן" ("but behold") and not "ואם" ("and if") (Shemos 4:1, and Rashi there).
13) Mishpatim 21:5. See also Vayetze 31:[OCR unclear].
14) Shoftim 18:21. See the Re'em and Gur Aryeh there, that Rashi's proof is from the word "כי" (and in Be'er Yitzchak there — that it is from "וכי," with the added vav; and here too it says "וכי תאמרו" etc. But in the Levush there, Rashi's proof is from the continuation of the verse; see there).
Note Rashi, Eikev (7:17 — cited in the Levush and Be'er Yitzchak mentioned above): "'If you say' … perforce this is an expression of 'perhaps,' 'lest you say,' for it cannot be interpreted etc." (implying that this is not the plain meaning). But see Likkutei Sichos vol. 14, p. 78, note 3. And see note 16. This is not the place to elaborate.
*) Rashi, Mishpatim 21:28, and in many places.
15) See also Rambam, Laws of the Foundations of the Torah, ch. 10, halachah 1; ibid., halachah 4 (in the daily portion of Sunday of Parshas Behar 5744).
16) And it is explicit in the Toras Kohanim on our parsha on this verse: "'And if you say' — you are destined to say" (see also Malbim here).
Seemingly, the reason Rashi did not copy this into his commentary here is that this is the plain meaning (and the reason he explained it this way in Parshas Shoftim is mainly for the sake of the continuation of his commentary there — "when Chananyah comes" etc.).
In Rashi [OCR unclear] it is explicit that "And if you say, 'What will we eat?'" is an expression of "perhaps," "lest." But Rashi's commentary on the Talmud is the plain meaning of the Talmud, the approach of halachah. And see Likkutei Sichos vol. 14, mentioned above. This requires further study.
17) Seemingly, one could say that this is because, according to nature — since the verse speaks of what is customary — there will be people who ask this (see Malbim here). Note that the Children of Israel also asked "What shall we drink?" (Beshalach 15:24), "If only we had died etc." (ibid., 16:3), and more, even though they had seen the miracles in Egypt and the splitting of the Sea etc. But — if this question is undesirable, Rashi seemingly should have explained so.
18) See Sforno here.
19) Lech Lecha 15:6, and Rashi there.
20) See Sforno and Kli Yakar (and see also Malbim) here. But see below, note 39.
21) 13:14. See there, earlier, 12:26. And see below at length.
22) Va'eschanan 6:20.
23) In the first printing of Rashi's commentary (and similarly in several manuscripts of Rashi in my possession): "a wicked one, one who does not understand how to ask, one who asks in a closed manner, and one who asks in the way of wisdom" (and according to this they are enumerated in the order of the verses). But in the printed editions of Rashi before us (and so it is in the second printing of Rashi's commentary) it is as in the text. — The reason for their order in Rashi's commentary (according to this widespread version) was explained at the farbrengen (of the night of the second day of Pesach) at which this sichah was said.
*) In other manuscripts of Rashi in my possession they are enumerated in Rashi's commentary in their order in the Mechilta (and the Pesach Haggadah) and the Yerushalmi cited in note 28.
24) Bo 13:5.
25) Ibid., 12:26.
26) Ibid., 13:8 (and note Rashi there, that the verse about the one who does not know how to ask also contains "a hint of an answer to the wicked son." See the commentators on Rashi, and the commentators on the Pesach Haggadah on the explanation of "The wicked one — what does he say." And see below, note 35).
27) But it is possible to answer (at least in a forced manner) that Rashi relies on his commentary at the end of the parsha, since it is still the same subject.
28) End of Parshas Bo, on the verse "And it shall be when your son asks you." And in the Yerushalmi, Pesachim ch. 10, halachah 4 (with several variations).
*28) As explained by Targum Yonasan ben Uziel, Sforno, Or HaChaim, and others there. And see Likkutei Sichos, Bo 5748, sec. 6ff.
29) And so it is in the Yerushalmi there; Yalkut Shimoni, Bo, there; and elsewhere.
30) Bo, ibid.
31) Unlike the version cited above in note 23.
32) And see below, note 36.
33) Va'eschanan, ibid., 21ff.
34) Bo 10:11, and as Rashi explains there.
35) Bo (12:26–27) — in the answer to the wicked son, from which it is understood that through the answer to him ("that He passed over" etc.) he participates in the Pesach offering. And what Rashi says further on there (13:8), "an answer to the wicked son, to say, 'G‑d did for me' … for had you been there, you would not have been worthy of being redeemed," is an additional matter (unlike what is written in Maskil LeDovid there).
— And according to this one can explain the reason (and it will be resolved) why Rashi (there) chose the wording "you would not have been worthy of being redeemed" (similar to the wording of the Yerushalmi there, "fit to be redeemed") — and not the wording of the Mechilta (and the Pesach Haggadah), "you would not have been redeemed." For only the wicked who did not want to leave Egypt died during the three days of darkness (Rashi, Bo 10:22; Shemos Rabbah 14:3; Tanchuma, Va'eira 14; explained in Likkutei Sichos vol. 1, p. 3ff.) and were not redeemed from Egypt. But the fact that the wicked son "excluded himself from the community" with regard to the Pesach offering (matzah and maror), while he admits his connection to the Exodus from Egypt, does not exclude him from the Exodus. Therefore the answer to him is (not that had he been there he would not have been redeemed, for he would have been redeemed (like the rest of the wicked in other matters (not — in unwillingness to leave Egypt), who did leave Egypt)), but that he would not have been worthy of being redeemed. And Rashi's wording "G‑d did for me, and not for you" requires some further study.
36) According to this, the reason is understood why Rashi uses here the term "simple" and not "foolish" as at the beginning of his commentary (but see above, note 23) — for Rashi's intent here is not to what is actually being discussed in these particular verses; rather, Rashi writes a general rule (regarding the entire Torah) — "The Torah spoke regarding four sons." Therefore he uses the term "simple," which is a general name (that includes the "foolish" one who lacks the desire to inquire, to know, etc.).
37) And also after "You shall not wrong" (25:17) — so that there be no room to err that the question "And if you say, 'What will we eat?'" relates to the fulfillment of the mitzvos of (Shemittah or) Yovel regarding sowing the land etc.
— And according to what is explained in the text, it will also be better understood why the questions of the "simple one" and the "wise one" — although according to halachah they relate to the mitzvos of the night of Pesach (and the Exodus from Egypt) — were written in the Torah after the laws of the night of Pesach (and especially the question of the wise son, which was written even not adjacent to the laws of Pesach): to emphasize that they fulfill the laws of Pesach, and their question is, on the contrary, to add knowledge in matters of Pesach, as mentioned above in the text, section 5.
38) Note [OCR unclear] here.
39) In Sforno and Kli Yakar (and see also Malbim) here, "'And you will eat to satiety' — within the intestines there will be blessing in it" is the blessing that there will be something to eat in the seventh year: for in the small crop of the sixth year "there will be blessing (within the intestines)," and consequently there will be something to eat also in the seventh year. But "if you say, 'What will we eat?'" (that you will be in doubt whether it will be so), then He will give an abundant crop in the simple sense, "and it will produce the crop for the three years."
However: (a) Rashi does not mention that this blessing relates specifically to the sixth year, and simply understood it is a general blessing that will be in all the years (and not — in order that there be something to eat specifically in the seventh year). (b) From the change in Rashi's wording in Parshas Bechukosai (26:5), "one eats a little and it is blessed in his intestines," it is implied that Rashi's intent in our parsha, "even within the intestines there will be blessing in it," is not to the matter of "one eats a little etc." And see Likkutei Sichos vol. 9, p. 116, note 14. This is not the place to elaborate.
40) Likkutei Sichos vol. 6, p. 172. See also Likkutei Sichos vol. 1, p. 107, and elsewhere. Note also Or HaChaim (of the Rema"a) at the beginning of our parsha.
41) Tanya, beginning of ch. 6.
42) See at length Kli Yakar on our parsha, on the verse (25:2) "The land shall rest" etc. See also Likkutei Sichos vol. 2, p. 548.
43) See Kli Yakar there (and elsewhere) regarding "Six years you shall sow your field etc." (ibid., 3).
44) Moreh Nevuchim, part 3, ch. 39. Abarbanel on our parsha raises a difficulty on him. And see Likkutei Sichos, ibid.
45) See Sanhedrin 97a, end; Ibn Ezra and Ramban on our parsha (ibid., 2); Abarbanel; and elsewhere.
46) Note Or HaTorah on our parsha, [OCR unclear] p. 187. And at length, the maamar beginning "Vechi Somru," 5678.
47) Tanya, beginning of ch. 37.
48) See Hemshech 5666, p. 105. And see Sefer HaLikkutim — Dach of the Tzemach Tzedek, entry "Le'asid Lavo" (p. 629ff., and the sources cited there), regarding the three periods: the days of Moshiach, the Resurrection of the Dead, and the seventh millennium. And elsewhere.
49) Hoshea 6:2. And see Or HaTorah on this verse.
Key Lesson
The question "What will we eat?" is not the doubt of one weak in faith but the question of a wise son seeking to understand how G‑d's blessing works when it defies nature entirely. So too, in the "sixth year" of exile, our weakness is no obstacle: service with mesirus nefesh draws down G‑d's blessing "for the three years," revelation after revelation, until the complete Redemption.