לקוטי שיחות חלק לח - בלק ב

"Who can count the dust of Jacob, and number the stock of Israel?" Rashi explains: "Who can count the dust of Jacob, etc., as the Targum translates it, referring to the children of the house of Jacob, etc., from the four camps. Another explanation: the dust of Jacob refers to the mitzvos they fulfill with dust, such as 'You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together,' 'You shall not sow your field with mixed seeds,' the ashes of the red heifer, and the dust of the sotah, and similar commandments."

At first glance, it seems that the reason Rashi presents the Targum's interpretation before the second explanation (which originates from the Midrash) is because the Targum's interpretation aligns more closely with the simple meaning of the verse ("Who can count the dust of Jacob"), which implies it refers to the children of Israel themselves (and not the mitzvos they perform, which are not mentioned in the verse).

However, it can be said that there is an advantage to the Targum's interpretation also in terms of the content of the explanation, regarding the intent of Bilaam's prophecy. [Especially since in Bilaam's prophecies in our parsha, Rashi frequently brings the interpretations of the Sages, and the reason is straightforward — because the verse explicitly states "and he took up his parable," from which it is understood that even according to the simple meaning, these verses are not to be taken literally, but are parables, and a parable in its simplicity implies a hint, and so on.]

Bilaam's prophecies came as a response to Balak's request, "Please come and curse this people for me," and their content is that he cannot curse Israel because they have great merits and virtues. These merits and virtues are divided into two general categories: a) They are beloved in the eyes of the Holy One, blessed be He, who watches over them and protects them, etc. b) They themselves possess many virtues and merits that are not found in other nations, and for this reason, not only can they not be cursed, but furthermore, "they are worthy of blessing."

This is the distinction between the two interpretations of "Who can count the dust of Jacob, etc.": According to the Targum — "Who can count the children of the house of Jacob, who are said to increase like the dust of the earth, or one of the four camps of Israel," the intention here is the dearness of Israel before the Holy One, blessed be He, who therefore blessed them that "they will increase like the dust of the earth," etc.; according to the second interpretation — "there is no count to the mitzvos they perform with dust, etc.," it speaks of the virtue of Israel themselves, due to their actions, namely their fulfillment of the mitzvos.

Based on this, we understand why Rashi prioritized the Targum's interpretation — because according to the simple meaning of the text, the main emphasis in Bilaam's first prophecy is on the dearness of Israel before the Holy One, blessed be He (which is why they cannot be cursed), as he said in the introduction to this prophecy, "How can I curse whom G‑d has not cursed, and how can I be angry when the L‑rd is not angry?" [This is the novelty in his second prophecy, where he begins with "Behold, I have received a blessing, and He has blessed, and I cannot reverse it," because in this prophecy he comes to add that, in addition to the fact that they cannot be cursed, furthermore, they are worthy of blessing, as explained at length elsewhere.]

There is room to examine and analyze several details in Rashi's words:

Generally, when Rashi brings the Targum's interpretation, he does not usually quote the Targum's wording, but rather writes "as the Targum translates" or similar expressions. Based on this, it is puzzling in our case that Rashi did not suffice with saying "as the Targum translates," but also quoted from the Targum's words. On the other hand, he did not quote the entire wording of the Targum on "Who can count, etc." ["Who can count the children of the house of Jacob, who are said to increase like the dust of the earth, or one of the four camps of Israel"] but only the beginning of its wording "the children of the house of Jacob" (and the continuation of its words "who are said to increase like the dust of the earth" is hinted at with "etc."), and similarly in his explanation of the words "and number the stock of Israel," he quoted from the Targum only "from the four camps," and then explains it — "from the four banners."

Simply, it can be said that in our case, Rashi needed to explain the Targum's intention, because the Targum's words are not clear:

In the explanation of "the dust of Jacob," it is unclear in the Targum whether the intention is to interpret "dust" as "children," referring to the young children, who are called "dust" because they are small and fine like dust, or if "the dust of Jacob" means "who are said to increase like the dust of the earth" (as if to say, "Who can count them, of whom it is said, 'Your seed shall be as the dust of the earth'"), which would refer to the entire nation of Israel. This is the question raised by the Ra'am and the discussion among the commentators regarding the interpretation of the Targum's words.

Therefore, Rashi quotes from the Targum only "the children of the house of Jacob" and not the continuation — to teach us that the Targum's intention is to interpret "the dust of Jacob" as referring to the young children ("children") who are called dust (because they resemble dust).

[The Targum's words "who are said to increase like the dust of the earth" are an additional matter and reason in the explanation of "the dust of Jacob" (where it is found, "Who can count the children of the house of Jacob"), but not the interpretation of the word "dust" in the verse.]

Similarly, Rashi's explanation "from the four camps — from the four banners" is because, until now, we have found that the Targum translates "banner" as "tax," and "camp" is the Targum for the word "camp." Therefore, Rashi needed to explain that here the Targum's intention with "camp" is referring to banners.

However, this itself requires explanation: What is the reason Rashi determined that the Targum's intention is to interpret (a) "the dust of Jacob" as "the children of the house of Jacob" (and not referring to all of Israel "who are said to increase like the dust of the earth"), and (b) "the stock of Israel" as referring to "the four banners," and not "the four camps."

There is also a need to examine the second explanation — where Rashi deviates from the language of the Sages in the Midrash, where it states (in addition to the four mitzvos that Rashi quotes) also "for three years they shall be uncircumcised, etc.," yet Rashi omits this.

At first glance, one cannot say that Rashi did not intend to detail everything, as if he were a merchant listing items, because since he quoted most of them, it requires explanation why he specifically omitted the mitzvah of orlah.

It must be said that Rashi holds that according to the simple meaning of the verse, the mitzvah of orlah is not included among the mitzvos performed with dust, because the mitzvah pertains to the fruits of the tree and not to the dust.

[It can be said that for this reason, Rashi did not quote the words of the Midrash brought in the Yalkut, "Even the simplest of the simple does not put a piece into his mouth until he performs mitzvos. How so? He goes out to plow and fulfills 'You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together,' he comes to sow and fulfills 'You shall not sow your field with mixed seeds,' he comes to reap and fulfills 'gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field,' he comes to thresh and fulfills 'You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing,' he makes a pile and fulfills the mitzvah of terumah, the first tithe, and the second tithe, he comes to bake and fulfills the mitzvah of challah, thus ten mitzvos... they do not taste until ten mitzvos are fulfilled with dust, therefore Balaam said, 'People who perform many mitzvos with dust, who can curse them.'"]

According to this interpretation, Balaam's words are well explained, as he specifically mentioned the matter of dust — that each Jew, in his regular daily routine, fulfills all these ten mitzvos before tasting bread, etc. — so why did Rashi not bring this? Rather, because these mitzvos listed in the Midrash are not considered mitzvos performed with dust, as most of them pertain to fruits and produce, the growth of the land, and not the dust of the land.

But if so, it is puzzling why "You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together" is counted, as this mitzvah is not a mitzvah of dust, but a mitzvah of animal mixtures (and the prohibition is also "to lead them together tied as a pair in carrying any load").

There are also several language changes in Rashi's commentary compared to the language of the Midrash: (a) In the Midrash, the language is "Who can count the mitzvos, etc." (similar to the language of the verse "Who can count"), whereas in Rashi, the language is "There is no count in the mitzvos, etc."; (b) In the Midrash, "that they perform with dust," and in Rashi, "that they fulfill with dust"; (c) In the Midrash, it concludes "and so all of them," and in Rashi, "and similarly."

According to both interpretations, the phrase "Who can count the dust of Jacob" (in wonder) is only metaphorical, but it does not imply that they are beyond enumeration altogether. Not only according to the second interpretation, which refers to the mitzvos performed with dust, are they certainly within a limited number (since all the mitzvos of the Torah amount to 613, a finite number); but even according to the Targum's interpretation, which refers to the children of Israel, and is explicitly stated in the Torah, "And I will make your seed as the dust of the earth, so that if a man can count the dust of the earth, then shall your seed also be counted," the intention is not that it is impossible to count the children of Israel (since ultimately they are a finite number), but rather that due to their vast multitude, they are not counted (just as the dust of the earth is not counted).

It can be said that Rashi, through his precise wording (both in the way he quotes the Targum and in his alteration of the Midrash's language), intends to convey that according to the simple meaning of the verse, "Who can count, etc." does not refer to an immense multitude (of the children of Israel or of mitzvos), but rather to describe a qualitative superiority of the children of Israel, which renders them beyond enumeration (as will be explained).

The necessity to interpret it this way can be explained: Balaam's intention in this prophecy, simply put, is to explain why he cannot curse them, as he states in the introduction to this prophecy, "How shall I curse whom G‑d has not cursed, etc.," meaning that since they have already been blessed to multiply like the dust of the earth, it is impossible to curse them to diminish them, G‑d forbid.

But according to this, it is not understood: In the previous verse, Balaam already said, "For from the top of the rocks I see him, etc.," and Rashi explains, "I look at their beginnings and the roots of their origins, and I see them established and strong like these rocks and hills through the Patriarchs and Matriarchs," and since it is impossible to harm them due to their strength, what is added afterward by saying "Who can count the dust of Jacob, etc."?

It can be said that for this reason, Rashi explains that the intention is not only that they were blessed to multiply like the dust of the earth, but that in addition to their strength and firmness due to the Patriarchs, they themselves possess strength and firmness stemming from their own importance and superiority. Therefore, Rashi interprets that the intention of this verse is not merely quantitative increase, but a qualitative superiority (that they are beyond enumeration). In this regard, Rashi presents two interpretations — according to the first interpretation, it refers to a quality indicating the dearness of Israel before the Holy One, blessed be He, and according to the second interpretation, a quality within the children of Israel themselves (as mentioned earlier in section one).

This is why in the first interpretation, Rashi writes "the children of the house of Jacob," which means young children, indicating the great and precious dearness of Israel before the Holy One, blessed be He, who are dear to Him like a small child is to his father (as is visibly evident in the great affection fathers have for their young children); and this is also the reason he interprets that "the camps" refer to the banners, because the fact that G‑d commanded that the children of Israel camp "each by his banner" indicates a matter of dearness, as Rashi explains in Parshas Haazinu on the verse "He surrounded them" (in the verse speaking about the dearness of Israel) — "He surrounded them and encompassed them with clouds and surrounded them with banners on all four sides."

In this, Rashi emphasizes that the intention is not that they cannot be counted due to a quantitative multitude, but that they are beyond measurement and enumeration, a qualitative superiority, and thus there is an addition in the description of the strength and superiority of Israel that no curse can affect them.

Similarly, in the second interpretation, through the three changes Rashi makes from the language of the Midrash, he emphasizes that his intention is not merely to a multitude of mitzvos, but to a qualitative superiority. That is: In the Midrash, the intention is to the multitude of mitzvos that the children of Israel perform only with dust, whereas in Rashi, the intention is not (only) to the number of mitzvos — the number of mitzvos given to Israel to fulfill with dust (which ultimately are a finite number), but to special mitzvos, each of which "has no count" in its fulfillment, as will be explained.

This is the difference between the language of the Midrash "that they perform with dust," which refers to the action and effort of the person, and Rashi's language "that they fulfill," which does not emphasize the person's action, but the fulfillment of the mitzvah.

In this too, a new and higher quality in Israel is emphasized.

The mitzvos that Rashi brings here are divided into two categories: The first category includes "You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together" and "You shall not sow your field with mixed seeds" — these are prohibitions.

The second category includes the ashes of the red heifer and the dust of the sotah — these are positive commandments.

The emphasis on "there is no count in the mitzvos they fulfill with dust" applies to both categories. In the first category, the novelty and emphasis are that we are dealing with prohibitions and not with the fulfillment of mitzvos, but rather with matters that are constant and ongoing. Whenever a person plows his field and does not plow it with an ox and a donkey, even though it is not so fitting to say that he is performing a mitzvah, he is indeed fulfilling the mitzvah of "You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey." Similarly, every time he sows his field and does not sow mixed seeds, he fulfills the prohibition of "You shall not sow mixed seeds."

Therefore, Rashi writes "there is no count in the mitzvos they fulfill with dust," meaning that his intention is not that the mitzvos given to be fulfilled with dust are numerous, but rather that there is no count in the mitzvos that a person fulfills in connection with dust (since the fulfillment of each of these mitzvos is very common).

Based on this, we can understand another change: In the Midrash, it is brought "You shall not sow your vineyard with mixed seeds," while Rashi quotes simply "You shall not sow mixed seeds," and the simple intention is to the verse in Kedoshim that applies to all sowing of mixed seeds, not just the vineyard. The reason: In the Midrash, which enumerates the mitzvos related to dust, it mentions the more severe sowing "You shall not sow your vineyard with mixed seeds" — which involves several prohibitions, and when one sows mixed seeds, it is forbidden to benefit from it, as it is written "lest the fullness of the seed you sow and the yield of the vineyard become forbidden." But in Rashi, who comes to emphasize "there is no count in the mitzvos they fulfill with dust," he writes simply "You shall not sow mixed seeds," because "You shall not sow your vineyard with mixed seeds" is not as common and regular as sowing a field, which is more common and regular.

Similarly, in the second category of "the ashes of the red heifer and the dust of the sotah": the novelty and emphasis in these mitzvos is also that "there is no count in the mitzvos they fulfill with dust." Therefore, Rashi also changes from the Midrash, where the verses "And a pure man shall gather the ashes of the heifer" and "from the dust that will be on the ground of the Mishkan" are brought, while Rashi simply states "the ashes of the red heifer and the dust of the sotah," because Rashi's intention is not to the one-time action of "a pure man shall gather the ashes of the heifer," and in the sotah — "from the dust that will be on the ground of the Mishkan," but rather to the fact that there is no count in the fulfillment of these mitzvos:

In the ashes of the red heifer, besides the fulfillment of the mitzvah of purification throughout all times (when it was available) — that they sprinkle on the impure and purify him from the impurity of death, the fulfillment of the mitzvah continues as long as the ashes exist, brought about by the making of the heifer, and continues all the time that the ashes are sprinkled and all the time that the ashes are kept. Similarly, with the "dust of the sotah," the intention is not only to the act of taking the dust from the ground of the Mishkan, but to the entire time that this dust exists as the dust of the sotah and its effect as the dust of the sotah, including that the woman is purified to her husband, and furthermore — "and she shall be acquitted and shall conceive seed" — that the entire subsequent time is included in this mitzvah, and therefore "there is no count in the mitzvos they fulfill with dust."

This is also the reason Rashi changes at the end of his commentary and writes "and similar to them" instead of "and so all of them" as in the Midrash, because in the Midrash the intention is simply to all the mitzvos whose performance is related to dust, in which there is a multitude of mitzvos (as stated in the Midrash brought in the Yalkut, as mentioned above), whereas in Rashi the intention is to special mitzvos that are fulfilled with dust in which "there is no count," and this is the expression "and similar to them" — mitzvos like those enumerated before.

And yet, we still need to understand what the connection is between "there is no count in the mitzvos" and "dust" specifically, for the fulfillment of the mitzvos in the aforementioned manner is not specifically related to dust.

The explanation of this (in the inner dimensions of the matters):

It is known that there are generally two approaches to fulfilling the mitzvos: one approach is fulfilling the mitzvos with calculation and reason (whether it is intellectual understanding, based on the reasons and virtues of the mitzvos, or emotional enjoyment, where one takes pleasure and feels the mitzvos), and the other approach is fulfilling the mitzvos without reason, in a manner of accepting the yoke because they are commandments — the command and will of G‑d, as expressed in the blessing for all mitzvos, "Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us."

It can be said that the second approach mentioned above is referred to as "dust" — for two reasons: a) Fulfilling the mitzvos in a manner of "dust" indicates complete acceptance and nullification, as in the saying "and let my soul be as dust to all," implying no self-existence (for oneself), b) "Dust" indicates a service that lacks "taste" and virtue. This means that one fulfills the mitzvos of the Holy One, blessed be He, without any "calculation" of intellect — his own reason and understanding, and without any calculations at all, but solely because "I have decreed a decree."

When the fulfillment of the mitzvos is in this manner, it causes the effect of the mitzvah to be in an unlimited way — "there is no count."

In other words, the reason that the fulfillment of the mitzvos "You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together," or "You shall not sow your field with mixed seeds," is considered as "there is no count," is because each time one plows or sows, he fulfills these mitzvos — it is because their fulfillment is in the manner of dust, out of nullification and acceptance of the yoke, for he says, "I desire, but what can I do, for my Father in Heaven has decreed upon me," and then it is fulfilled in him "he sits (causing himself to sit and refrain) and does not transgress, he is given a reward, etc.," which is considered as fulfilling the mitzvah.

Similarly, it is with the fulfillment of positive commandments, that when a person fulfills a mitzvah based on his own calculation and reason, it is connected with his existence, and thus the mitzvah is only done at the time of his action and effort. However, when he fulfills a mitzvah not based on calculation, not based on his own existence, but based on the acceptance of the yoke of Heaven, fulfilling the command and will of G‑d, then just as G‑d is beyond time and space, so too is His will. Therefore, in fulfilling the mitzvos out of acceptance of the yoke of Heaven, the sovereignty of the Creator is revealed openly, and its "existence" continues throughout the subsequent time.

It has been explained many times that when we find two interpretations in one verse, they are related to each other, and so too in our case, the two interpretations of "Who can count the dust of Jacob" — the Targum's interpretation "the children of the house of Jacob," and the second interpretation (of the Midrash) "there is no count in the mitzvos they fulfill with dust" — are connected.

The explanation of the matter:

In the Baal HaTurim on the verse, it is written "Who can count the dust of Jacob, like the young of the rams, because 'Israel is a youth and I love him,' etc., and so the Targum translates 'who can count the children of the house of Jacob.'"

That is, according to the Targum's interpretation "the children of the house of Jacob" alludes to G‑d's love for the Jewish people because "Israel is a youth and I love him." It is known the explanation of this verse, that G‑d's love for the Jewish people is because they are "youth." The love of a father for his grown son might not be apparent and revealed that the reason for the love is solely because he is his son; it might be because of the son's great wisdom and good traits, or because he is a son who fulfills his father's commandments with maturity (with all the son's abilities, etc.). However, the love of a father for a young son, who does not have the completeness of intellect and traits, is clearly revealed to be because he is his son, and even more so — an essential unity with him. Thus, the love of a father for a grown son (and similarly the love of a grown son for his father) is (in revelation) a love that is clothed in reason, whereas the love of a father for a young son (and similarly the love of a young son for his father) is not because of reason but because of the inherent connection in birth, to the extent that, simply, the father (and mother) bring the sons and daughters into the world.

This is the meaning of "for Israel is a youth and I love him." There is a love of G‑d for the Jewish people when they are in an elevated state of serving G‑d and their greatness is openly apparent; this love is due to a reason, similar to the love of a father for his grown son. However, the essential love of G‑d for the Jewish people is due to their souls, which are "a part of G‑d above, truly," like a part of the essence (similar to the love of a father for his young son). This love is not dependent on the service of Israel [as it is stated in the Midrash: just as a man's son, when he is a small child, if he sins, his father does not abandon him because he is small... so too, Israel, even if they sin inadvertently, they are considered as a small child].

This is the connection between the two interpretations in Rashi: that "who can count the dust of Jacob — the children of the house of Jacob," which indicates the dearness of Israel to G‑d (as explained above in section 4), is the aspect of "Israel is a youth and I love him." This is connected with the service of "the dust of Jacob," the service from acceptance of the yoke that is not calculated, and through this service, Israel is called "the children," meaning the smallness and self-nullification in each and every Jew, like a young son who does not have revealed virtues and whose service is not based on reason and understanding.

And conversely, due to the great dearness of the Jewish people to G‑d, even those who, in their level of divine service, are in the aspect of dust, at the lowest level, are also included in "who can count the dust of Jacob." This is the ashes of the red heifer, which purifies even those who have become impure with the impurity of death, the father of all impurities, meaning that their vitality of holiness has completely ceased, to the extent that "Moshe's face turned pale" wondering how they would be purified —

yet because, in essence and internally, they are in the aspect of "Israel is a youth," there is purification and it is prepared for them.

And even for one who, externally and openly, is in a state of "and she has committed a trespass against her husband" — her husband being G‑d — G‑d provides the dust of the Sotah, so that Israel will be purified to G‑d (her husband), until "she shall be cleared and shall conceive seed," a sowing of Torah and mitzvos, in a revealed manner and in daily life.

Based on this, we can also explain the connection to the Festival of Redemption, the 12th-13th of Tammuz, when "not only did G‑d redeem me, but all those who love the Torah, etc.," up to "all who are called by the name of Israel," which hints at those for whom the name Israel is so concealed that it is only in the form of a "nickname" — and through the redemption of my father-in-law, the Rebbe, it was revealed in them as well the aspect of "Israel is a youth and I love him."

As was seen in practice in the work of the Redeemer, who engaged not only with "the children of the house of Jacob" in the literal sense — the education of young children, including education "from the time the child begins to speak," but also with those who are in the level of "children" in their knowledge of Torah and connection to Judaism, up to the level of dust.

And all this he did with self-sacrifice and acceptance of the yoke beyond any calculation, in the aspect of "without calculation," and with this power, he acted and succeeded in revealing in each and every Jew the aspect of "Israel is a youth and I love him" to their advantage.

And so it shall be for us, that through engaging in spreading Torah and strengthening Judaism everywhere, in the way the Redeemer taught us, it will soon be fulfilled what is stated in our parsha — "a star shall come forth from Jacob and a scepter shall rise from Israel... and it shall be a possession, etc.," this is King Moshiach, who will come and redeem us and lead us upright to our land, and in the words of the Rambam — "may he be revealed speedily, Amen, so may it be His will," "speedily" indeed.

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Balak, 5726)