Igrot Kodesh · Letter 7153 — Faith & Bitachon

By the grace of Hashem,

13 Teves* 5720,

Brooklyn,

To the distinguished Chassid* who fears Hashem and devotes

himself to communal needs, Rav Aryeh (note 1: Rav A. Shpeizman, of Barbados. See, regarding him, letter no. 7319),

I greet you and bless you,

I am responding to your letter of this Sunday evening, in which you ask me about the change of formulation found between the commentary of Rashi* on the Torah*, on the verse Vayigash* 46:28, and Midrash* Bereishis*, chapter 95. Indeed, Rashi* says (note 2: Regarding the house of study that Yaakov* had established in Egypt): "From which teaching would emanate," while the Midrash* prefers: "In which one studies words of Torah*." Now, it is established that certain Midrashim* that Rashi* and the early Sages* consulted did not reach us, and of those we possess, there exist several versions. Thus, in this matter, Midrash Tanchuma* says: "In which he would deliver his teaching." Why did Rashi* choose the formulation of Midrash Tanchuma* rather than that of Midrash Rabbah*? This can be easily justified according to the plain meaning of the verse, which speaks of teaching rather than of what one learns. This is the difference that can be made between the study of Torah* and the ability to rule on Halachah*, which one acquires subsequently. Rashi*, in his commentary on the Torah*, systematically seeks the explanation closest to the plain meaning of the verse, whereas the Midrash* sometimes opts for its analytical meaning. This is self-evident.

Perhaps it is therefore possible to suggest that Rashi* states here the plain meaning of Midrash Rabbah*. The difference between these two interpretations is the following. In this instance, the purpose was to study Torah* in that place. Now, such study can be envisioned without it being necessary to rule on Halachah*. Conversely, if it is indeed a matter of ruling, Torah* study is a prerequisite. This is why Rashi* speaks of teaching — a concept that is indeed closer to the terms of the verse and, furthermore, applies to all, including to Torah* study, for "in two hundred coins, there are indeed one hundred coins." Indeed, we heard the teaching of the Alter Rebbe* on the Sidra* of Vayechi*, "And Yaakov* lived," and on the commentary of Rashi* to which you allude. You will learn of it by consulting the HaYom Yom*, on the date of 18 Teves*. May Hashem grant that each of us act, within his own Egypt, as the explanation of the Alter Rebbe* says, and that it be so with exaltation and warmth, with Chassidic* enthusiasm. With my blessing to give good tidings,

(14 Teves* 5720)

Chassidus*, in the Sefer HaMaamarim* 5629 (note 3: 1868), of the Rebbe Maharash*, in the discourse entitled Vayigash*, page 18, makes a distinction between the Mishkan* (note 4: The provisional Tabernacle in the desert) and the Beis HaMikdash* (note 5: The permanent Temple in Yerushalayim*) — the same distinction that exists between Yosef* and Yehudah*. This is why the Mishkan* was fashioned from Shittim* wood (note 6: While the Beis HaMikdash was of stone). Now, you raise a question regarding this, because in Shiloh* (note 7: Where the Holy Ark resided after the entry into Eretz Yisrael* and before the permanent installation in Yerushalayim*) as well, there was an edifice of stone. The explanation is as follows. The commentary of this Sefer HaMaamarim*, based on the Raz, in the Yerushalmi*, at the end of chapter 11 of Tractate Megillah*, referring to the Mishnah* of Tractate Zevachim*: the stone edifice was only ten Tefachim* (note 8: Approximately one meter) high, and upon it rested the beams and the planks.

And it is surely conceivable that no one disputes this interpretation. Indeed, one may in any case question the version reported by Midrash* Tehillim*, at the end of chapter 78, and by Midrash* Shmuel*, chapter 3. The Rambam* does not cite it at the beginning of his Laws of the Temple, for these are written in a very concise manner. According to him, indeed, one does not revisit the past. One must also say, as is explained elsewhere, that the same distinction is found between the Mishkan* of the desert and that of Shiloh*. You will consult, in this regard, the Likkutei Torah*, Parshas* Berachah*, page 99d, and the Sefer HaMaamarim* of the Alter Rebbe*, Hana'os HaRap, page 81. According to these texts, it is from the period of Shiloh* that one began to speak of rest, which was not the case in the desert. The Sefer HaMaamarim* specifies furthermore that it (note 9: The Tabernacle of Shiloh) was situated in the portion of Yosef*. Indeed, at Shiloh*, it presented both aspects simultaneously, since it was called both Temple and Tabernacle, as our Sages* specify. This is self-evident.

Note: In the Likkutei Torah*, at the same reference, and in the notes of the Rebbe Rashab*, printed at the end of the Likkutei Torah* published by Kehot, there appears to be a printing error. The same applies to the Sefer HaMaamarim* of the Alter Rebbe*. It states there that at Shiloh*, there was no protruding wood. The Rambam* therefore retains this principle for the construction of the Temple. Indeed, there is no reason to question the Sefer HaMaamarim*. Thus, Chassidus* comments on the second paragraph of the Shema Yisrael*, in which "you shall bind" (note 10: The Tefillin* on your arm) is placed before "you shall teach" (note 11: The words of Torah* to your children). Now, it will be so in the World to Come, when concrete action will have precedence (note 12: Over theory and study). This does not correspond to the explanation given in Tractate Berachos* 35b, according to which the second paragraph of the Shema* applies: "When one does not fulfill the Will of Hashem." One must therefore specify that in the World to Come as well, there will be several categories of men, from the "greatest" to the "smallest," as it is said: "The young man of one hundred years will die" — even if, overall, what is discussed here is the unification of the heavenly spheres among themselves and the revelation below of the highest lights, transcending the world of Atzilus*, as Iggeres HaKodesh* of the Alter Rebbe* explains at the end of chapter 26.

ב״ה ,י״ג טבת ,תש״כ
ברוקלין.
הוו״ח אי״א נו״נ עוסק בצ״צ מו״ה ארי׳ שי׳
שלום וברכה!
במענה למכתבו מאור ליום השני ,בו שואל בשינוי הלשון של פירוש
רש״י על התורה )ויגש מו ,כח( מלשון המדרש )בראשית פרשה צ״ה(
שרש״י מביא את הלשון ,שמשם תצא הוראה ,ובמדרש כתוב ,שיהא
מורה בו דברי תורה.
ידוע שמדרשים רבים שרש״י ,והראשונים בכלל ,ראו ,לא הגיעו
אלינו ,גם במדרשים שכן נמצאים ,יש בהם נוסחאות שונות ,הלשון
בתנחומא הוא :שיהא מורה שם הוראה.
מה שרש״י בחר בנוסח זה ,כתנחומא ולא כנוסח מדרש רבה ,אפשר
לומר בפשטות ,כי זה קרוב יותר לפשט הפסוק ״להורות״ ולא ״ללמד״,
שזהו החילוק בין לימוד תורה ,לאופן)שבא אחר כך ,ל(פסיקת דין ,ורש״י
בפירושו על התורה ,משתדל תמיד שהפירוש יהי׳ כמה שיותר קרוב לפשט
הכתוב ,לעומת זאת במדרש מעונינים לפעמים דוקא באופן הדרוש ,וק״ל.
אפשר לומר ,שרש״י כולל את פשט המדרש רבה .ההבדל בין שני
הענינים הוא :שיהא מורה שם תורה ,ייתכן לימוד התורה ולא בקשר
לפסק דין ,אבל לפסק דין מוכרח הרי להיות לימוד תורה ,לכן מביא
רש״י את הלשון הוראה ,הקרובה יותר ללשון הכתוב ,ובד בבד ,הרי
הוראה כוללת את לימוד התורה ,שיש בכלל מאתים מנה.
ולהעיר ממה ששמענו ,פתגם אדמו״ר הזקן על פרשת ויחי יעקב ,ועל
פירוש רש״י זה שאודותו כותב)ראה היום יום י״ח טבת(.
והשם יתברך יעזור ,שכל אחד מאתנו יפעל במצרים שלו על דרך
האמור בתורה זו של אדמו״ר הזקן ,ושזה יהי׳ בחיות וחמימות
ובהתלהבות חסידותית.
בברכה לבשורות טובות.