לקוטי שיחות חלק ל׳ - לך לך ב

Parshas Lech Lecha

1. We learned in a Mishnah in Tractate Nedarim: "Great is circumcision, for despite all the mitzvos that our father Avraham performed, he was not called complete (shalem) until he circumcised himself, as it is said, 'Walk before Me and be perfect (tamim)'" (and immediately afterwards it is written, "And I will place My covenant between Me and you" — Rashi). And in the Gemara there: "It was taught: Rebbi says, Great is circumcision, for there is none who occupied himself with mitzvos like our father Avraham, and he was called tamim only on account of circumcision, as it is said, 'Walk before Me and be tamim,' and it is written, 'And I will place My covenant between Me and you.'"

Now, at first glance the two statements (in the Mishnah and in the Baraisa) seem to be one and the same. But when you look carefully, there are several differences between them:

a) The Mishnah's wording is "he was not called shalem until he circumcised himself," while the Baraisa says "he was called tamim only on account of circumcision." Seemingly these are the same, since shalem (complete) is the same as tamim (perfect). [For it is a strained interpretation to say that the Baraisa's intent is to correct the Mishnah's wording, "he was not called shalem," to bring it in line with the verse's wording, "and be tamim."]

b) The Mishnah's wording is "he was not called shalem until he circumcised himself," whereas the Baraisa says "he was called tamim only on account of circumcision" — and this is a substantive difference in content. According to the Mishnah's phrasing, "all the mitzvos that our father Avraham performed" do pertain to Avraham's "completeness," only that by themselves they are unable to make him complete, "until he circumcised himself" — (only) in combination with the mitzvah of circumcision did he become "shalem." Whereas the Baraisa states explicitly that "he was called tamim only on account of circumcision" — that the mitzvah of circumcision alone is what brings it about that he "is called tamim."

2. Now, in general, one may say that the Mishnah and the Baraisa speak of two different aspects that exist in the mitzvah of circumcision.

For it is explained in several places that the mitzvah of circumcision has two aspects: a) that one not be uncircumcised (arel); b) that one be circumcised (mahul). (There are several practical halachic differences between them, as explained at length in the Tzafnas Pa'aneach of the Rogatchover.)

Accordingly, one may say that the Mishnah speaks mainly of the virtue of the first aspect of the mitzvah of circumcision (that one not be uncircumcised), while the Baraisa adds the virtue of the second aspect (that one be circumcised):

The Mishnah is precise in saying, "Great is circumcision, for despite all the mitzvos that our father Avraham performed, he was not called shalem until he circumcised himself" (and not "on account of circumcision"), because it refers to the removal of the foreskin that circumcision entails. It thus continues the beginning of the Mishnah, which speaks of the negation of the foreskin: "[If one says,] 'Konam, that I will not benefit from the uncircumcised,' he is permitted [to benefit] from uncircumcised Jews and forbidden [to benefit] from circumcised gentiles … for 'uncircumcised' is a term applied only to gentiles … Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah says: The foreskin is repulsive …" [And so it is implied in the Rambam, who at the end of the Laws of Circumcision writes, "The foreskin is repulsive, for the gentiles were disgraced by it … And great is circumcision, for our father Avraham was not called shalem until he circumcised himself, as it is said …" — thus he wrote "great is circumcision" of Avraham in the same halachah and in continuation of "the foreskin is repulsive," joined by the connective "and"].

The Baraisa, however, explains the virtue of circumcision itself (that one be circumcised), and therefore it is precise in saying "and he was called tamim only on account of circumcision" (and not "until he circumcised himself").

But it still requires clarification how the other differences between the Mishnah and the Baraisa are explained by this.

3. The explanation of this may be as follows:

In "tamim" we find two aspects: (a) the negation of a blemish and deficiency; (b) additional perfection and completeness — not only is nothing lacking in it, but it is "tamim."

This resembles the law of "tamim" (unblemished) in offerings, where we find both these aspects: the negation of deficiency — that it has no disqualifying blemish; but included in it is also an extra perfection. As the Rambam writes, "It is a positive commandment that all the offerings be unblemished and choice, as it is said, 'It shall be tamim to be accepted' — this is a positive commandment" [and similarly he writes regarding the libations and the wood of the altar-pyre, "Just as it is a mitzvah that every offering be unblemished and choice, so the libations shall be unblemished and choice, as it is said, 'They shall be unblemished for you, and their libations …' And likewise the wood of the pyre shall only be choice, and not …"].

Thus, although "choice" is a law in its own right, as the Rambam cites that it is derived from the verse "the choice of your vows," it is nevertheless also included in the words "it shall be tamim." When one brings an offering from the choicest, he fulfils not only the law of choiceness in offerings but also "it shall be tamim." The reason is that "tamim" has two particulars: "tamim" as opposed to blemished, meaning that it lacks nothing; and tamim in the sense that it possesses added completeness and perfection, even though it is complete without that as well.

One may say that this is the difference between the two terms "tamim" and "shalem": although in general they are synonyms, in particular there is a difference between them — "shalem" means the absence of deficiency, while "tamim" denotes extra perfection.

And one may say that this is similar to what we find regarding a "year": an ordinary year is a year of twelve months, and when Cheshvan and Kislev are both full it is called a "shalem" (complete) year. But "a tamim year" our Sages explained as "to include the intercalated month." It follows that although even without the intercalated month it is called a complete year that lacks nothing, nevertheless the intercalated month adds to it the quality of temimus, perfection.

4. And this is the core of the difference between the Mishnah and the Baraisa in Tractate Nedarim there:

The Mishnah speaks of the first category of "tamim" brought about by circumcision; therefore the Mishnah is precise (and departs from the wording of the verse): "Great is circumcision … he was not called shalem until he circumcised himself" — that is, complete, without blemish or deficiency.

And the Baraisa adds to the Mishnah: "Great is circumcision … and he was called tamim only on account of circumcision" — that besides the mitzvah of circumcision having made our father Avraham "shalem" (without blemish), it furthermore made him "tamim," with additional perfection (akin to the intercalated month).

And the difference in the wording of the Mishnah and the Baraisa is precise — the Mishnah says "he was not called shalem until he circumcised himself," whereas the Baraisa says "he was called tamim only on account of circumcision." For the category of "shalem" (without deficiency) is not brought about by the mitzvah of circumcision alone, but in combination with "all the mitzvos that our father Avraham performed": through all of them together he became complete. That is what the Mishnah says, that "until he circumcised himself" he was not yet called complete [for besides lacking the fulfilment of one mitzvah — the mitzvah of circumcision — as long as a person is uncircumcised, he is intrinsically lacking (and blemished)]. Whereas the Baraisa speaks of the category of "tamim," which is additional perfection and completeness — and this virtue came to him "only on account of circumcision": this mitzvah is what brought a new perfection and completeness into all of Avraham's matters.

Likewise the difference at the beginning of the statement is understood — the Mishnah says "for despite all the mitzvos that our father Avraham performed," while the Baraisa says "there is none who occupied himself with mitzvos like our father Avraham":

In the Mishnah, which speaks of the category of "shalem" (not blemished) brought about by the mitzvah of circumcision, the emphasis is on the completeness that our father Avraham had even before fulfilling the mitzvah of circumcision: "all the mitzvos that our father Avraham performed" (that is, the entire Torah, which our father Avraham fulfilled before it was given) did not have the power to make Avraham "shalem," "until he circumcised himself."

Whereas in the Baraisa, which refers to the category of "tamim" — an additional completeness and perfection (beyond completeness in the sense of the absence of deficiency) — it must emphasize that although even before fulfilling the mitzvah of circumcision Avraham had (not only the fulfilment of all the mitzvos, but also) the fulfilment of mitzvos in a beautified manner (additional perfection and completeness) — "there is none who occupied himself with mitzvos like our father Avraham," in a manner of occupation and extra exertion, to the point of mesirus nefesh — nevertheless, "he was called tamim only on account of circumcision." For one cannot reach the level of "tamim" except through "circumcision," when the person is "mahul."

Accordingly, one can also explain the connection to the two aspects of circumcision — that one not be uncircumcised, and that one be circumcised — as emphasized by the difference in the wording of the Mishnah and the Baraisa, "until he circumcised himself" or "on account of circumcision":

The aspect of "that one not be uncircumcised" in the mitzvah of circumcision makes a person complete, without blemish. For the foreskin is a blemish, and removing the foreskin nullifies this deficiency and he becomes "shalem" (this itself permits him to eat terumah, as explained in the Rambam). This is what the Mishnah says, "he was not called shalem until he circumcised himself," referring to the removal of the foreskin, through which "he is called shalem."

But a person's attaining the status of "mahul" is not merely a negative matter, that he has no foreskin; rather, it is an additional completeness and virtue: besides having no foreskin (blemish), there is a positive quality — that he is circumcised. This is what the Baraisa adds: the purpose and effect of circumcision is not only that it brings completeness to a person who is lacking, but that it adds perfection even to a person who is complete — "he was called tamim only on account of circumcision." For the quality of "tamim" (not only "shalem") is brought about by the positive aspect inherent in the object of circumcision, the fact that the person is "mahul."

5. Now, in the discussion in Nedarim there we find yet another interpretation of "and be tamim": "Whoever conducts himself with simple wholeheartedness (mesamim), the Holy One, blessed be He, deals wholeheartedly with him … Whoever conducts himself with simple wholeheartedness, the hour stands by him, as it is said, 'Walk before Me and be tamim,' and it is written, 'And you shall be the father of a multitude of nations.'"

According to this interpretation, "tamim" is not a matter of completeness, but of walking in simple wholeheartedness (temimus). It resembles the command "You shall be wholehearted with G‑d your G‑d," and as Rashi explains, "Walk with Him in wholeheartedness and look forward to Him, and do not inquire into the future; rather, whatever comes upon you, accept with wholeheartedness …" That is, he does not conduct himself with schemes and cleverness; moreover, he does not ask and does not probe, but simply believes the words of G‑d and conducts himself wholeheartedly in accordance with them.

From the fact that this interpretation too is cited in the discussion in Nedarim regarding the mitzvah of circumcision, it is implied that this quality in Avraham — that he walked in simple wholeheartedness — is also connected with the mitzvah of circumcision.

Simply, one may explain according to the interpretation of the Ibn Ezra (and other commentators), that "Walk before Me and be tamim" means "that you not ask why circumcision," "that he accept without qualification whatever thing He commands him, even if it be difficult, and accept it wholeheartedly; he shall not ask what this is and for what reason." It is more reasonable, however, that there is also a connection to the content of the mitzvah of circumcision — that it is precisely this mitzvah that brought about in Avraham the quality of walking in simple wholeheartedness.

Furthermore: it has been explained many times that all the interpretations of one verse (or one word) are connected with one another. So too in our case, the third interpretation of "be tamim" — walking in simple wholeheartedness — is connected with the concepts of "shalem" and "tamim."

Accordingly, there are three modes in the virtue of "temimus" in the mitzvah of circumcision: a) the nullification of all deficiencies; b) completeness and perfection in a beautified manner; c) the acceptance of the yoke of Heaven that transcends reason and understanding.

6. This will be understood through a further explanation of the three above aspects of "tamim" — "shalem," "tamim," and walking in simple wholeheartedness. To preface: one may say that these three levels in the service of G‑d correspond to the service of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov (although in general all three of these aspects were present in each of the Patriarchs):

The quality of temimus we find in all three Patriarchs: of Avraham — "Walk before Me and be tamim"; Yitzchak is called "an unblemished burnt-offering" (olah temimah); and of Yaakov it is said, "And Yaakov was a wholehearted man (ish tam), dwelling in tents."

Simply put, these are the three above aspects of "shalem," "tamim," and walking in simple wholeheartedness:

The plain meaning of "be tamim" regarding our father Avraham is that he should be complete (without deficiency and blemish), in keeping with all three interpretations in Rashi's commentary on the verse: "Be complete in all My trials; and according to its Midrashic interpretation … and in this matter you will be tamim, for as long as the foreskin is on you, you are blemished before Me … now you lack five limbs …"

The expression "olah temimah" denotes (not only the absence of deficiency, but) additional completeness and perfection. For "olah" itself already denotes that it is entirely for the Most High, a complete offering (that is: an offering in general is unblemished and not blemished; beyond that, an "olah" ascends wholly to G‑d, a complete offering), and the description "temimah" adds perfection even to this — an addition of completeness to a burnt-offering that is wholly for the Most High in any case.

And "Yaakov was an ish tam" means walking in simple wholeheartedness, as Rashi explains: "As his heart, so his mouth; one who is not sharp at deceiving is called tam."

7. The explanation of the connection between the three aspects of "shalem," "tamim" and walking in simple wholeheartedness and Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov:

Avraham was the son of Terach, and "he had no teacher and no one to inform him of anything; rather, he was sunk in Ur Kasdim among foolish idolaters, and his father and mother and all the people were star-worshippers, and he worshipped with them; but his heart wandered and understood until he grasped the way of truth … from his own correct understanding … and he knew that the whole world was in error … and at forty years of age Avraham recognized his Creator" (as explained in the Rambam). From this it is understood that the main thrust of Avraham's service was to negate deficiency (that stemmed from his father Terach and the world around him, etc.), and in this he went from strength to strength in the service of G‑d until he reached the level of completeness in His service. As the Zohar states on the verse "And Avraham was old, advanced in days," that Avraham had "complete days," lacking not a single garment and not a single day …

Yitzchak, however, was born of a holy seed; immediately upon his birth he was already holy from the womb (and he was the first to be born a Jew), and his service was the quality of temimus — that is, adding to the completeness of the holiness and Jewishness that was in him.

[It may be noted that in the matter of circumcision as well, it was specifically Yitzchak who was circumcised at eight days, i.e., the fulfilment of the mitzvah of circumcision in its completeness (as it is after the Giving of the Torah), whereas Avraham was circumcised at ninety-nine.]

This, however, is still not the ultimate completeness, for Yitzchak did not go out beyond the bounds of holiness, as G‑d commanded him, "Do not go down to Egypt; dwell in the land …" And this is the innovation of Yaakov, of whom it is said, "And Yaakov went out from Be'er Sheva and went to Charan" — the "charon af" (wrath) of the place in the world — literally, in that he had to flee from Esav and be in the house of Lavan the Aramean for twenty years, and afterwards there befell him "the trouble of Yosef, etc." And in all these situations he remained wholehearted in his service — "I sojourned with the wicked Lavan … and I did not learn from his evil deeds," as explained at length in the Midrashim of our Sages.

And this stems from the third aspect of temimus: "A wholehearted and upright man … turns from evil and does good in actual deed, in a manner of temimus that never changes. Time and place do not affect him, for because of the strength of the matter and the temimus in his soul — that this is how one must act, and any other way is utterly out of the question — therefore at every time and in every place he acts so without any change at all. And he pays no heed to any opponent or inciter who would lead him astray, Heaven forfend, because of the tremendous strength in his soul … to the point that it is not even considered a trial for him at all, since any other way, Heaven forfend, is utterly out of the question."

And this is the quality of Yaakov, "a wholehearted man" — the attribute of truth, the "middle bar that runs from end to end," which in all details and all situations is exactly the same and is not affected by any opposition.

8. And this is also the connection between walking in simple wholeheartedness ("tam") and the aspects of "shalem" and "tamim": walking in simple wholeheartedness is not a different matter; rather, it is a higher level of "completeness" — that he is complete at every time, in every place and in every situation [as the Zohar states, that Yaakov "was more complete than all of them; and therefore it is written of him, 'And Yaakov was an ish tam' — complete in everything. Avraham was called tamim but was not so complete; but tam is complete in everything"].

The explanation of this:

The completeness of "shalem" is formed by the various particulars it contains, which, combined together, make up a complete entity. The category of "tamim," however, is not brought about by the particulars combining together, but by a new element that adds to the thing's own completeness; this new element makes it "tamim." For example, in time: a lunar year has twelve lunar months, a complete year; and a tamim year is formed by adding the intercalated month. And although the whole year is called a tamim year, becoming a single entity (not a year plus a thirteenth month), nevertheless this single entity was created through the thirteenth month.

So it is with a person. The difference between a complete person, who has no deficiency, and an ordinary person is not only that the complete person has more particular virtues (and likewise a tamim person has additional virtues even relative to a complete person); rather, the person becomes the entity of "a complete person" (and all the more so with regard to tamim, where the person is called tamim). Nevertheless, the definition of a complete person is that all his soul's powers and all the details of his service are as they should be — that is, the combination of all the particulars in him; and "tamim" is the addition of a particular virtue, which is what brings about and creates the designation "tamim."

The third aspect of "temimus," however, is above particular virtues. For the fact that he is wholehearted in his service, is not affected and does not change, does not stem from the virtues and completeness of the particulars he possesses, nor from the addition of an extra virtue, but from his simplicity, which is not bound to particulars and specific virtues. Therefore temimus finds expression in self-nullification and setting oneself aside (which includes the nullification of one's particular virtues) — this is the essential point of will that exists in every Jew (as the Rambam writes), which never changes.

Therefore in all situations, at all times and in all places he is in completeness and perfection.

9. In light of all the above, one can also explain the connection between the mitzvah of circumcision and walking in simple wholeheartedness (as mentioned above in section 5, that the third interpretation of "and be tamim" — walking in simple wholeheartedness — is also brought about by the mitzvah of circumcision). One may say that this relates to the third aspect of the mitzvah of circumcision, which is the very act of circumcising (and the halachic difference is that even one born circumcised requires the drawing of the blood of the covenant — the very act of circumcision).

That is, the very act of circumcision (and perhaps one may say that this is connected with the pain of the infant) demands of the father (who circumcises his son) temimus — self-nullification and setting himself aside.

To explain further — according to the inner explanation of the spiritual content of the three above aspects of the mitzvah of circumcision:

The spiritual content of "that one not be uncircumcised" is to be freed from the dominion of the evil inclination in bodily desires and the impulse, through which one attains the status of "shalem."

The spiritual content of "mahul" is that even a person who turns from evil and is not under the dominion of the impulse continually adds in his service, ascending in holiness, and reveals the good within him; through this he becomes "tamim" — not only is he lacking nothing, but he has added virtue and completeness (even relative to one who is complete without deficiency in any case).

But these two aspects — the service of not being uncircumcised and of being circumcised — are a service that has reason and virtue: "that one not be uncircumcised" means that one be a complete person without deficiency, and "that one be circumcised" means that one be a person of extra completeness and perfection. Therefore this service does not (so much) require temimus and self-nullification.

Whereas the very act of circumcision, which is a deed and service in which no virtue or completeness is felt, but only the bare performance of the mitzvah because of G‑d's command — this comes from the temimus and self-nullification in one's soul: he nullifies and sets aside himself, as well as his intellect and emotions, to fulfil G‑d's will above reason and understanding.

And through this service one brings about that "whoever conducts himself with simple wholeheartedness, the Holy One, blessed be He, deals wholeheartedly with him … whoever conducts himself with simple wholeheartedness, the hour stands by him, as it is said, 'Walk before Me and be tamim,' and it is written, 'And you shall be the father of a multitude of nations'" — up to "And kings shall be your nursing fathers, and their princesses your nursing mothers," in ultimate completeness with the coming of our righteous Moshiach, very soon, in this tamim (leap) year.

(From talks of Shabbos Parshas Lech Lecha, 5741, and the nights of the second and third days of the festival of Sukkos, 5749)

Key Lesson

Bris milah brings three levels of perfection: being shalem, free of blemish and deficiency; being tamim, possessing an added completeness beyond what is lacking; and the simple wholeheartedness of a "tam," who acts on G‑d's will above reason and remains unchanged at every time and in every place. These correspond to Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, and the highest of them flows from the bare act of the mitzvah performed with self-nullification, without feeling any virtue in it. When a Jew serves G‑d with this temimus, G‑d deals wholeheartedly with him in return, bringing the ultimate completeness of the Redemption.