Igrot Kodesh · Letter 9538

[19 Menahem Av* 5728]

Question(1):

The discourse referred to Rashi's*(2) commentary in which: "your sons — these are the students":

a) Commenting on the verse: "My firstborn son," Rashi* states that this term alludes to greatness. He specifies that this is the simple meaning of the verse and that there is no question here of firstborn in the literal sense[A].

b) Tractate[B] Shabbat* 89b states: "When they proclaimed before You: 'we will do and [then] we will understand,' You called them: 'My firstborn son.'" Rashi* explains: "It was entirely clear before You that they would proclaim, before Mount Sinai: 'we will do and [then] we will understand,' in order to accept Your yoke with love, as sons."

c) The Tanya*[B], in chapter 2, interprets these two verses as referring to the soul[C].

Answer(3):

[A] 1) According to this explanation as well, this refers to the period before the giving of the Torah*.

2) It has been emphasized on many occasions that everything(4) that appears in Rashi's* commentary on the Torah* must correspond — as Rashi* himself specifies(4) — to the simple meaning(4) of the verse. If this is not possible, Rashi* writes: "I do not know" — including in a case where our Sages offer an interpretation(5), and this is self-evident. Nevertheless, this simple meaning can exist on multiple levels. This is why Rashi* continues, at the same reference(4), in his commentary on the verse Shemot* 4:22: "The explanation of the Midrash*(4) is as follows":
1. Such an interpretation likewise conforms to the simple meaning of the verse, but in a less evident manner.
2. Furthermore — and this is essential — it proves that the preceding explanation was insufficient, and this is clear.

[B] The Gemara* does not express the simple meaning of the verse.

[C] The text emphasizes that here there is an intrinsic quality(4) of the soul — not one it acquired through the giving of the Torah*. This is not the interpretation given here by the Sifri* and Rashi's* commentary, according to which the quality of sonship was acquired at the giving of the Torah*. It can, nevertheless, be accepted, but at the cost of a difficulty.

Notes

(1) This letter is addressed to Rav* Mordechai Mentlik, rector of the central Yeshiva* Tomchei Temimim* Lubavitch* in Brooklyn. It is written directly on his correspondence, in which he questioned the Rebbe about a discourse that had been delivered on Shabbat* Parshat VaEtchanan* 5728. Regarding Rav* Mentlik, see letter no. 9351.
(2) On the verse VaEtchanan* 6:7.
(3) See Likutei Sichot*, vol. 9, p. 41.
(4) The Rebbe underlines the words: "everything," "himself," "simple meaning," "at the same reference," "Midrash," and "intrinsic."
(5) Which is, however, not consistent with the simple meaning of the verse.

ט'תקלח

[י"ט מנ"א ה'תשכ"ח]

שאלה

ע"ד השיחה ברש"י ד"ה לבניך, אלו התלמידים:

א) עה"פ בני בכורי פרש"י לשון גדולה ואומר שם זהו פשוטו (ולא פי' בכור) א .

ב ב) שבת פט, ע"ב בשעה שהקדימו לפניך נעשה לנשמע קראת להם בני בכורי ופרש"י שהי' גלוי לפניך שהן עתידין לומר לפניך בסיני נעשה ונשמע לקבל עולך מאהבה כבנים.

ב ג) בתניא פ"ב משמע שב' הפסוקים מצד הנשמה ג .

*              *              *

מענה :

א ) 1) הרי גם עפ"ז – הי' לפני מ"ת.

2) מדובר כ"פ שכל המובא בפרש"י עה"ת – צ"ל (ע"פ הודעת רש"י עצמו ) – פשוטו של מקרא (ובאם א"א – אומר רש"י "לא ידעתי" (שהרי גם שם יש פי' רז"ל וק"ל)) – אלא שבפשט עצמו אפ"ל דרגות וכו'. ובמילא המשך רש"י על אתר – (שמות ד, כב) – ומדרשו א) זהו ג"כ ע"פ פשוטו (אלא שלא בפשטות כ"כ). ב) עוד (ועיקר): מוכיח שהפי' שקדמו אינו מספיק כו'. וק"ל.

ב ) אינו ע"ד הפשט.

ג ) ובהדגשה שזהו מעלת הנשמה מצד עצמה (ולא מצד קבלת התורה – ולא כהספרי ופרש"י כאן דבנים אתם גו' – ה"ז מצד מ"ת. אף שבדוחק קצת י"ל).