לקוטי שיחות חלק לח - מסעי א

In the section of the Torah portion that discusses the borders of the land ("This is the land that shall fall to you... the land of Canaan according to its borders"), we find something remarkable in Rashi's commentary on the Torah. In most instances, Rashi does not use the term "border" (as the verse frequently does in this portion), but rather uses the term "boundary":

In the verse "And the border shall turn..." Rashi explains, "Every place where it says 'and it shall turn' or 'and it shall go out' teaches that the boundary was not straight... the boundary goes out... and the boundary passes... inside the boundary". In the following verse, "And the border shall turn... and its end shall be at the sea," Rashi writes "to the western boundary." In the next verse, "And the western border," he asks, "And what is the western boundary?" "And the great sea shall be your boundary." In the subsequent verse, "And this shall be your northern border," Rashi explains, "The northern border — the northern boundary." This pattern continues in several more verses.

It is puzzling why Rashi deviates from the language of the verse and uses the term "boundary" — after all, "border" is a common term in the Chumash, and furthermore, Rashi has already explained it several times: In Parshas Noach, on the verse "And the border of the Canaanites," Rashi explains, "Border, the end of its land. Every 'border' is an expression of end and edge." Similarly, in Parshas Tetzaveh, on the verse "And you shall make on the breastplate chains at the edges," Rashi writes, "And every 'border' is an expression of edge." In Parshas Chukas, on the verse "that goes out from the border of the Amorites," Rashi explains, "an expression of edge and end." Why does Rashi not suffice with the term "border" and instead use "boundary," which is not found elsewhere in the Chumash [and even in the Prophets, it is found only twice]?

There is also a question regarding Rashi's language on the verse "This is the land...," where he writes, "Since many commandments apply in the land... it was necessary to write its boundaries, its borders, and its directions around." The simple understanding is that "its borders" means its boundaries. It is difficult, however, because it should have said "its boundaries and its borders" (or just "its boundaries of directions"), whereas "its boundaries, its borders, and its directions" implies "the boundaries of its borders of directions."

It seems to me that the explanation is simple:

The word "border" has two meanings:

1) The border and edge (end) of the area, meaning the line that separates between two areas. As Rashi explains on the verse "And you shall set boundaries for the people" — "Set for them limits as a sign that they should not approach beyond the border," and similarly, "Do not move your neighbor's boundary" — "which returns the sign of the division of the land backward."

2) The area itself within the borders. As it is written regarding the plague of frogs, "I will smite all your borders with frogs," meaning the entire land of Egypt (and not just the borders of the land around). Similarly, "And no leaven shall be seen in all your borders," meaning all of a person's domain. This interpretation is necessary for several other verses as well. We also find this in Rashi's language, such as in our portion in the explanation of the verse "To the tribes of your fathers you shall inherit," where Rashi explains "in twelve borders according to the number of tribes," meaning twelve portions of land (and not the boundaries of the twelve parts of the land).

[This does not contradict Rashi's previous explanations that "every border" is "an expression of end and edge," because Rashi's intention in those places is only to explain the term "border," which is "an expression of edge and end." However, in several places in the Torah, the meaning of the word "border" is the area between the edges, which is called "border" because it is within the borders at its edge.]

This is why Rashi specifically uses the term "boundary" here, because in the section of the borders of the land, the verse comes to describe the precise location of the dividing line between the Land of Israel and outside the land. Just as the verse details the specific path of the border line for all four directions, Rashi uses the term "boundary" specifically to emphasize that here the intention is not the area within the border, but the border itself, as the meaning of the term "boundary" — something that bounds and limits, meaning the boundaries of the land.

Based on this, we can simply understand the precision and change in Rashi's language in the verse "And the western border shall be for you the Great Sea and the border," where Rashi writes: "And the western border — what is the western boundary? The Great Sea shall be for you as a boundary. And the border, the islands within the sea are also part of the border, etc." In the first two headings, Rashi uses the term "boundary," while in the third heading, he uses the term from the verse "from the border."

According to the above, it is understood that "And the western border" refers to the western boundary, and the Great Sea is the boundary (from the sea inward, "the commandments apply"). However, when it later says "and the border," which comes to include "the islands within the sea," the intention is not to describe the boundary of the Land of Israel, as the islands are not the boundary itself. Rather, from the redundancy of the verse, we learn that the islands within the sea are also considered part of the Land of Israel (as if they are within the borders of the land), where the commandments apply. Therefore, Rashi uses the term "border," which means (not the boundary of the land, but) the area within the borders.

It can be said that this is also the reason why in the verse "This is the land, etc." (at the beginning of this portion), Rashi writes "the verse needed to write the boundaries of its borders" (and not "its boundaries and borders"), emphasizing that the word "border" can be interpreted as referring to the area between the borders, and the intention of "its borders" here is to the "boundaries" of the border (the area).

Furthermore, it has been mentioned in several places the words of the Shaloh that in Rashi's commentary on the Torah, there are "wondrous matters," also in the way of hint and homiletics. It is also known the words of the Shaloh that the portions of the Torah are connected to the time in which they occur, as he explains at length the connection of the portions of Matos, Masei, and Devarim to the "Three Weeks" (as these portions always occur during the "Three Weeks").

It can be said that this is the hint in Rashi's use of the term "boundary" instead of "border" — to hint at the time when this portion is read, during the time of the "Three Weeks."

Additionally, the word "boundaries" in the sense of "border" is found in the verse in the Book of Lamentations — "All her pursuers overtook her between the boundaries", which is also a hint to the time of the "Three Weeks," as explained by the Sages.

We can explain the connection between these two matters — seemingly they are opposite matters, as in our portion it discusses the boundaries of the land, while there it refers to the matter of destruction, etc.: The fact that there can be a concept of "between the boundaries" has its root in the fact that there is a boundary and limit to the holiness of the land. When the holiness of the Land of Israel is complete, this holiness spreads throughout the world, and there is no place for the concept of exile. Only when the holiness of the Land of Israel is not spreading as it should, but is limited and within a boundary, is there room for the concept of "between the boundaries" in its simple sense.

In a deeper sense, it can be said that Rashi's use of the term "boundary" is also intended to hint at the advantage and elevation of the borders of the land (even though, seemingly, they limit the spread of the holiness of the land, that up to here it shall come and no further).

This can be understood based on what is explained in the writings of the Tzemach Tzedek on the Book of Lamentations, where he interprets the verses of Lamentations in a positive light, as very lofty blessings. He also interprets the verse "Judah has gone into exile, etc." — "Exile in the sense of revelation," and "Judah has gone into exile" is "the revelation of the aspect of Judah, for in the future Judah will be above Joseph," "and they overtook her between the boundaries," meaning that "by contemplating how all the worlds are but a single drop, etc., therefore, it draws from the aspect of 'from the boundary,'" and from this it is understood that "between the boundaries" is like the concept of "From the boundary I called G‑d, G‑d answered me in a broad place," the boundary that leads to the true expansion, "the broad place of G‑d."

It can be said that this concept is also hinted at in Rashi's wording on "they overtook her between the boundaries," "between the boundaries, where there is height on this side and that side and no place to flee." Seemingly, Rashi could have used the term "fence," "a fence on this side and a fence on that side" (as the verse states "a fence on this side and a fence on that side"). However, Rashi hints that the inner content of "between the boundaries" is a matter of height, because "from the boundary" of between the boundaries, one reaches the true "height," the "broad place of G‑d."

This is also the internal distinction between the two terms "boundary" and "narrow place": the root of the concept of "boundary" is the limited and constricted light of the Divine. However, the concept of "narrow place" is the opposite; its root is in the unlimited light of the Holy One, blessed be He. Yet, the way a person (who is limited) can reach the revelation of this unlimited light is only when he calls "from the narrow place" (feeling the incomparable and lack of significance of himself and the entire world, "that all the worlds are but a single drop"), then he comes "from the narrow place" to the "broad place of G‑d."

This is why Rashi is precise, that although the verse states "this is the land... to its boundaries," the purpose of these boundaries is not limitation and measurement, but rather a matter of a narrow place, through which the "broad place of G‑d" is revealed. Within these boundaries, the true expansion of the "broad place of G‑d" is drawn (as is also expressed in the physicality of the land, as our Sages say that the Land of Israel is "like the skin of a deer," expanding like the skin of a deer, etc.).

Based on this, we can further explain (in the inner dimensions) another matter in Rashi's commentary here:

On the verse "this is the land... to its boundaries," Rashi explains that the reason the verse specifies the boundaries of the land is "because many mitzvos apply in the land, etc., it was necessary to write the boundaries of its directions around, to tell you that from these boundaries inward the mitzvos apply." This is seemingly puzzling; why did Rashi not explain simply that the reason for writing the boundaries of the land is for the conquest of the land, to know what is the inheritance of Israel?

The (inner) explanation is: The boundaries of the land are seemingly a matter of limitation, and on this Rashi explains and reveals that through the matter of the mitzvos performed in the Land of Israel, the concept of "boundaries" transforms into "the boundaries of its directions around." Although seemingly there is a matter of boundary here, it is a matter of a narrow place from which one comes to the "broad place of G‑d." For this is the nature of mitzvos, that although the mitzvos are given with measurement and limitation specifically, this measurement is not truly a limitation. On the contrary, specifically through the fulfillment of the mitzvos according to the measurement of the Torah, one comes thereby to the "broad place of G‑d," where there is a connection and union with His essence and being, the Commander of the mitzvos.