לקוטי שיחות חלק ל״ה - לך לך ב

Parshas Lech Lecha

1. Before the command of the mitzvah of circumcision in our parshah — "And you shall keep My covenant etc. This is My covenant which you shall keep etc.: every male among you shall be circumcised" — Avraham was given the promise, "And I will give to you and to your descendants after you the land of your sojourning, the entire land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession."

The implication of the verses is that the inheritance of the Land depends on the mitzvah of circumcision; and so it is stated explicitly in the exposition of our Sages at the beginning of the section on circumcision: "Walk before Me and be perfect" — "walk before Me with the mitzvah of circumcision"; "And I will place My covenant between Me and you" — "a covenant of love, and the covenant of the Land, to give it to you as an inheritance through this mitzvah." And in Bereishis Rabbah on the verse: "If your children uphold circumcision, they will enter the Land, and if not, they will not enter the Land… So did the Holy One, blessed be He, say to Avraham our father: 'And I will give to you and to your descendants after you etc.' — on condition that 'you shall keep My covenant.'" And so it is stated explicitly in the Zohar, Parshas Va'eira, that "whoever is circumcised inherits the Land."

This requires understanding: Eretz Yisrael had already been promised to Avraham our father at the Covenant between the Parts, as it is written, "On that day G‑d made a covenant with Avram, saying: To your descendants I have given this land etc." What, then, is added by this promise, which depends on the mitzvah of bris milah?

And although seemingly there is something new in this promise — that it specifies that the giving of the Land is (in the manner of) "an everlasting possession" — aside from the fact that it requires explanation why specifically this detail depends on the fulfillment of the mitzvah of circumcision, according to the plain meaning the earlier promise too is "an everlasting possession," for it was given through a "covenant," and a covenant is forever and eternal, without interruption.

2. Now, seemingly one could explain that the novelty of this promise is as indicated by the precise wording of the Midrash, "If your children uphold circumcision, they will enter the Land": that is, what is spoken of here is not the giving of the Land to Israel as "an everlasting possession" (for this had already taken place at the Covenant between the Parts), but the actual entry of Israel into the Land, which depends on the fulfillment of the mitzvah of circumcision. And so too one could seemingly infer from the wording of the Zohar cited above, "whoever is circumcised inherits the Land," that what is spoken of is not the inheritance of the Land by the Jewish people as a whole, which was effected at the Covenant between the Parts, but the right of each and every individual to his portion in the Land, which took effect at the time of the actual entry into the Land.

But one cannot explain it this way, for in the Zohar there he says this on the explicit verse "And I also established My covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan" — that "whoever is circumcised inherits the Land": the giving and inheritance of Eretz Yisrael depends on, and came about through, the merit of circumcision — the giving of the Land to the Jewish people as a whole (and not only the entry into the Land and its being given to each individual) depends on circumcision.

3. This will be understood by first considering what my father wrote in his notes on the Zohar there, and this is his wording: "And he says 'inherits,' as it says in the verse 'they shall inherit the land' — specifically an inheritance, for an inheritance has no interruption. For this comes about through circumcision, and circumcision, once one has been circumcised, has no interruption, for it is impossible that he should again be uncircumcised, and this remains in him forever without interruption; therefore likewise, his taking of the Land is as an inheritance that has no interruption." And he continues: "And as for Israel having been exiled from their land — this is not an inheritance that has no interruption," and he explains this in two ways: (a) "this is only for a period of time, and afterwards they will return"; (b) "and moreover, this comes about through sins and transgressions, through which the foreskin is drawn forward — similar to one who has relations with a gentile woman, whose foreskin is drawn forward so that he no longer appears circumcised, G‑d forbid — and this is the meaning of [the letters of] milah being the initials of matanah yesh lah hefsek, 'a gift has an interruption.'"

This seemingly requires explanation: from the plain wording of his second answer it is implied that only according to this answer is the exile in the category of an "interruption" ("a gift has an interruption"), whereas according to the first answer ("this is only for a period of time, and afterwards they will return") the exile is not called an interruption — for since it is "only for a period of time," even during the time of exile the Land is theirs and in their ownership, and the inheritance of the Land has not been interrupted from them. But if so, why does he explain in the second answer that it is an interruption? Surely exile that comes because of sins and transgressions also does not cancel the ownership of the Land — as we say, "Because of our sins we were exiled from our land and distanced from our soil": even when they were exiled from the Land "because of our sins," it is still "our land" and "our soil" [to the extent that according to several opinions even one who has no land can write in a document "and I have transferred to him four cubits," because "there is no Jew who does not have four cubits in Eretz Yisrael"]. Why, then, does he say in the second answer that this is a gift, which has an interruption?

We must therefore say that both are true: there are two levels and modes, both in Eretz Yisrael and in the mitzvah of circumcision: a) as it is in the manner of an "inheritance," which has no interruption — from this standpoint an interruption for a time is not called an interruption; b) as it is in the manner of "a gift, which has an interruption."

4. This may be explained on the basis of what we find regarding circumcision. In addition to the fact that every Jew — even a Jew who cannot actually fulfill the mitzvah of circumcision ("for example, one whose brothers died as a result of circumcision," and the like) — is called "circumcised," we also find distinctions in law regarding one who draws his foreskin forward (a mashuch). The Rambam writes, "Whoever annuls the covenant of Avraham our father, leaving his foreskin or drawing it forward etc." — that is, in the Rambam's view, drawing forward the foreskin is included in "annulling the covenant of Avraham our father." On the other hand, the Gemara states, and so too the Rambam rules, that "one who has drawn his foreskin forward is permitted to eat terumah, even though he appears uncircumcised" (and as for his concluding, "but by Rabbinic law he must be circumcised a second time so that he appears circumcised," several commentators on the Rambam explain that this is only a mitzvah, and does not prevent him from eating terumah, even Rabbinically). From this it is proven that although he appears uncircumcised, he is not uncircumcised and is not called uncircumcised, and therefore he is permitted to eat terumah.

And from the continuation of the Gemara, which raises a difficulty from the Baraisa in which it is stated, "'He has broken My covenant' — to include one who has drawn his foreskin forward," and answers that this is only "Rabbinic, and the verse is a mere support," it is proven that by Torah law he is not included in "he has broken My covenant" [and according to the above in the Rambam's view, that even Rabbinically he is not uncircumcised and is permitted to eat terumah (and the reason he must be circumcised a second time is because he appears uncircumcised), it emerges that even Rabbinically he is not in the category of "he has broken My covenant"].

And from all this it is proven that in the covenant of circumcision there are two definitions: "the covenant of Avraham our father," in which annulment by a person's deed is possible — through his action he can annul the covenant; and "My covenant," of the Holy One, blessed be He, which, since one was once circumcised, a person can no longer cancel and annul — and therefore a mashuch is not called uncircumcised with regard to eating terumah.

5. The explanation of this:

The covenant between G‑d and Avraham differs from a "covenant" between two people, who bind themselves to love one another. In the covenant between G‑d and Avraham (between Creator and created), however, there is a distinction between the covenant as it is from G‑d's side and the covenant as it is from Avraham's side. And although the essence of the covenant is from G‑d's side — by virtue of the power of the Creator the covenant is made as "an everlasting covenant" — there is in it also the side of the created being: "And you shall keep My covenant."

These are the two aspects of bris milah mentioned above: as it is from G‑d's side, "My covenant," and as it is from the side of Avraham our father.

That is, in the forging of the covenant and the bond with G‑d there are two aspects. As it is from the side of the created being and his action — the covenant of Avraham our father — in the revelation of this bond there can be an interruption; this is the meaning of milah being the initials of "a gift has an interruption," and therefore it is possible for a person's deeds to impair it, so that a mashuch is called one who "annuls the covenant of Avraham our father." And as it is from the side of the Creator, it is a bond in which there can be no interruption, since it is not something made from the side of the created being but from G‑d's side — and therefore it is called "My covenant"; and from this standpoint even a mashuch is not called uncircumcised, for a person's action cannot annul this covenant.

It may be said that although in general both of these were given in the covenant of Avraham, more specifically this is the distinction between the covenant as it was before the Giving of the Torah and as it is after the Giving of the Torah, when we were commanded, "And on the eighth day he shall be circumcised."

As the Rambam points out: "Pay attention to the great principle… that everything we refrain from or do today, we do only because of the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, through Moshe our teacher, peace be upon him, not because G‑d said this to the prophets before him… We do not circumcise because Avraham our father, peace be upon him, circumcised himself and the members of his household, but because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded us through Moshe our teacher that we circumcise."

For the covenant as it was before the Giving of the Torah — before the annulment of the "decree" that the higher realms shall not descend to the lower realms (as in the well-known words of the Midrash) — is principally and openly the covenant from the side of the created being, from the side of Avraham our father; whereas the covenant as it is after the Giving of the Torah is principally as it is from G‑d's side.

This is similar to the general distinction between the mitzvos after the Giving of the Torah and the mitzvos which the Avos fulfilled before the Torah was given, of which our Sages said, "All the mitzvos which the Avos performed before You were fragrances, but we — 'Your name is like oil poured forth' etc." For a "fragrance" has two features: a) it is only an emanation of the thing and is not part of the thing itself (and therefore nothing is diminished from the thing through its fragrance); b) after a period of time the fragrance dissipates. Similarly, the mitzvos which the Avos fulfilled are likened to "fragrance," because a) they did not contain the power of the Creator as do the mitzvos after the Giving of the Torah, for their fulfillment was by their own power; b) they did not have the power to establish eternally the holiness of the mitzvos in the physical objects with which the mitzvos were performed.

From this it is understood also regarding the mitzvah of circumcision: although there was a command concerning it, which means (also) an empowerment from Above, nevertheless, since it was before the annulment of the decree that the higher realms shall not descend to the lower realms, its fulfillment before the Giving of the Torah did not have the same force as the mitzvos after the Giving of the Torah, which we were commanded through "I am G‑d your G‑d" — "I," Who I am.

6. Accordingly, we can explain two statements we find in the Midrashim concerning bris milah:

In Bereishis Rabbah it states: "Rabbi Levi said: In the Time to Come, Avraham sits at the entrance of Gehinnom and does not allow any circumcised Jew to descend into it. And those who sinned excessively — what does he do to them? He removes the foreskin, etc., and places it upon them, and lowers them into Gehinnom etc." And in Shemos Rabbah it states: "For circumcised Jews do not descend to Gehinnom. Rabbi Berechyah said: So that the heretics and the wicked of Israel should not say, 'Since we are circumcised, we do not descend to Gehinnom' — what does the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He sends an angel who draws their foreskin forward, and they descend to Gehinnom, as it says etc."

This needs examination: since Avraham our father "does not allow any circumcised Jew to descend into it (Gehinnom)," and "circumcised Jews do not descend to Gehinnom," why do those "who sinned excessively" (and the like) descend to Gehinnom?

We also need to understand the difference between the two Midrashim: in Bereishis Rabbah it states that Avraham our father himself removes the foreskin, etc., and places it upon them, while in Shemos Rabbah it states that an angel draws their foreskin forward, etc.

We must therefore say that their deeds caused the title "circumcised" to be removed from them, but in this there are two modes. When they "sinned excessively," this means the annulment of their covenant with G‑d, and therefore in relation to Avraham our father and his covenant they are in the category of "uncircumcised," which belongs to Gehinnom; and therefore Avraham "removes the foreskin, etc., and places it upon them" — that is, from the standpoint of "Avraham" they are in the category of "uncircumcised." In Shemos Rabbah, however, it refers to G‑d's covenant, from the standpoint of which even one who sinned "excessively" is not called one who has annulled the covenant and does not become actually uncircumcised; only "the heretics and the wicked of Israel," who are like apostates, Heaven forfend — regarding them there is room to say that they are like the uncircumcised. [Moreover, from the words of the Midrash it is understood that even they are not actually in the category of "uncircumcised" (and therefore the angel does not bring a foreskin and make them actually uncircumcised, but draws their foreskin forward, which according to halachah is not in the category of actually annulling the covenant); rather, it is "so that the heretics and the wicked of Israel should not say, 'Since we are circumcised, we do not descend to Gehinnom'" — that is, it is only to negate their statement and the license it would give these people to continue in conduct of heresy and wickedness.]

7. Accordingly, we can also explain the matter of the inheritance of Eretz Yisrael:

Eretz Yisrael was given to the Jewish people in an everlasting covenant by G‑d to Avraham our father, and it is obvious that no interruption of any kind applies to this: it always belongs to Israel and is in their ownership.

However, just as in the actual giving of the Land we find three modes in its apportionment (to the tribes and to the families) — inheritance (in the manner of a nachalah), division according to reason and understanding, and division by lot — and as explained elsewhere at length, these three correspond to the three modes of inheritance, sale and gift — so too were these three present (at their source) in its being given to Avraham our father (to the Jewish people as a whole).

The difference between these three, simply put, is: a sale is something given to the buyer in exchange for payment, and consequently it is understood that it is in accordance with, and in proportion to, the buyer's payment.

A gift comes principally from the side of the giver, without payment on the part of the recipient as in a sale; but ultimately the recipient's state and action bear some relation and proportion to the gift, for "had he not given him satisfaction, he would not have given him a gift."

An inheritance, however, is something that does not depend at all on the service of the heir or on his standing and state: in whatever state he is, he inherits everything. The reason, it may be said, is that inheritance is not a giving to another; rather, as the verse says, "In place of your fathers shall be your sons" — the heir stands in the place of the one bequeathing; he is the one bequeathing, and consequently he has ownership of the estate of the one bequeathing (and in inheritance there is no change of domain).

And something akin to these three (in a more refined manner) exists also in Eretz Yisrael:

"On that day G‑d made a covenant with Avram, saying: To your descendants I have given this land" — this covenant was connected with the decree of the Covenant between the Parts, "Know surely that your descendants will be strangers in a land not theirs, and they will enslave them and afflict them four hundred years etc., and the fourth generation shall return here," which was a kind of "debt" that the Jewish people had to pay for the inheritance of the Land. In the words of Rashi in several places, it was a "bond of debt" of the decree "your descendants will be strangers," which was incumbent upon the descendants of Yitzchak (and therefore "he (Esav) went to a land away from Yaakov his brother" — "he said: I will go away from here; I have no share, neither in the gift of this land that was given to him, nor in the payment of the bond").

In the covenant of circumcision, however, G‑d added, "And I will give to you and to your descendants after you the land of your sojourning, the entire land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession, and I will be their G‑d," which does not depend on and is not connected with the action and service of man.

But in this itself there are two modes — the mode of a gift and the mode of an inheritance — and both are connected with the mitzvah of circumcision, as is also emphasized in the verses of the section:

At the beginning of the section it says, "And I will place My covenant between Me and you" (which is, as Rashi explains, "a covenant of love, and the covenant of the Land, to give it to you as an inheritance through this mitzvah," as above), after the command (concerning circumcision) was stated: "Walk before Me and be perfect."

And further on in the section it first says, "And I will give to you and to your descendants after you the land of your sojourning, the entire land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession," and afterwards continues, "And G‑d said to Avraham: And you shall keep My covenant etc. This is My covenant which you shall keep etc.: every male among you shall be circumcised."

It may be said that these allude to the two aspects of the giving of the Land — in the manner of a gift and in the manner of an inheritance:

The first giving, stated in the section on circumcision, "to give it to you as an inheritance through this mitzvah," is also not in the manner of a condition and a debt, but "And I will place My covenant between Me and you"; it is like a gift, which comes principally from the side of the giver, except that it comes to him because of the elevation of the recipient of the gift to a higher state — "he gave him satisfaction" — which is the content of the mitzvah of circumcision.

Higher than this is what is said, "And I will give to you and to your descendants after you etc. as an everlasting possession, and I will be their G‑d." In this statement of the giving of the Land "as an everlasting possession" it is said that G‑d is the G‑d of the Jewish people; this is the covenant of the Land in the manner of an inheritance, without conditions or any connection to the state of Israel, but by virtue of their very essence, in that they are entirely one with the Holy One, blessed be He; only that it adds, in a separate statement, "And G‑d said to Avraham: And you shall keep My covenant."

These are the two aspects of Eretz Yisrael, corresponding to the two definitions in circumcision. From the standpoint of the covenant of Avraham our father in the mitzvah of circumcision — that is, as it still relates to the created being and his standing and state — the connection to Eretz Yisrael is in the manner of a gift, in which ultimately the standing and state of the recipient plays a role; and consequently, with a change in the standing and state of Israel (when they are not in a state of "giving Him satisfaction"), there can be an interruption in it — that is, their connection to the covenant of Avraham our father, and consequently to Eretz Yisrael, is not openly recognizable.

Therefore this matter is alluded to in the initials formed by the letters of milah, "a gift has an interruption," for letters indicate the revelation of a thing — os, "letter," from the expression "asa boker," "morning comes."

But from the standpoint of G‑d's covenant in the mitzvah of circumcision, no cancellation or interruption whatsoever, G‑d forbid, applies to it, since it is entirely from the side of the Creator and the standing and state of the person plays no role. Therefore it exists always, in whatever state a Jew may be: since he was once circumcised, he is in an everlasting covenant with G‑d. And so it is regarding Eretz Yisrael — there is no interruption in it at all.

And this is my father's first answer, "this is only for a period of time, and afterwards they will return": there is no interruption here; on the contrary, this expresses and indicates this very point — that even in a state in which the revealed bond of the Jewish people is lacking, and therefore Israel were exiled for a period of time, nothing is lacking thereby in their covenant and bond, and they know even then that afterwards they will return.

And just as it was in Egypt, that "in the merit of the covenant of circumcision and the blood of the Pesach offering I redeemed you from Egypt," so it is also in the future, that "in their merit you are destined to be redeemed at the end" — "the Holy One, blessed be He, redeems them in the merit of circumcision." And very soon indeed, Israel, who are called an "inheritance," will come to the Land, which is an everlasting inheritance for the Children of Israel, with the coming of our righteous Moshiach, speedily in our days.

(From a talk of Shabbos Parshas Va'eira, 5740)

Key Lesson

The bond between G‑d and the Jewish people has two levels: the bond as it depends on our conduct, which can be obscured like a gift withheld, and G‑d's own covenant, which no deed can annul. Eretz Yisrael belongs to the Jewish people on both levels, and on the deepest level it is an inheritance that exile does not interrupt. Even when that bond is hidden, every Jew remains in an everlasting covenant with G‑d, and in the merit of that covenant we will return to our Land with Moshiach.