Vol 21.18 - Mishpatim 2               Spanish French Audio  Video

Page133   Page134   Page135   Page136   Page137

Summary:

(5741) Rashi (Ex. 23:20): "that I have prepared".

Why Rashi gives two explanations in the wording of the verse:

Translation:

1. On the verse (Ex. 23:20): “Behold, I am sending an angel before you (to guard you on the way and) to bring you to the place that I have prepared”, Rashi explains:

“That I have prepared (Hachinosi -הכינותי) to give to you: That I have prepared (Zimanti -זמנתי) to give to you -that is its plain meaning”. 

(And after this Rashi cites another explanation”

“But its Midrashic explanation is: ‘to the place that I have prepared’ (means that) My Place (i.e., the Temple of Heaven) is already recognizable opposite it (כבר מקומי ניכר כנגדו). This is one of the verses (in Scripture) which indicate that the Beis HaMikdash of Heaven is directly in line with the Beis HaMikdash below.)”

which will be discussed in Par. 2).

The commentators learn that Rashi is addressing the reason that the verse states just the words

“That I have prepared (Hachinosi -הכינותי)

yet does not state for whom G-d had prepared the place. Therefore Rashi explains that Hachinosi - הכינותי means that I have prepared “to give to you”.

(However, since this explanation of why the verse does not state explicitly - “That I have prepared to give to you” – is difficult - therefore Rashi cites a second explanation that “prepared/Hachinosi” means:

“My Place which is already recognizable opposite it. This is one of the verses which indicate that the Beis HaMikdash of Heaven is directly in line with the Beis HaMikdash below. (Viz. Par 2)”

Thus, according to this explanation “prepared/Hachinosi” means that it was for Himself (G-d). It is as if it states “That I have prepared for Me” (therefore it does not need to explicitly state (to whom it is prepared) because (as the Mizrachi states: “the word ‘prepared’ alone refers to (preparing for) Himself (G-d)”.)

This explanation is however, not understandable because

1.       According to the method of Pshat, there is no question at all why the verse states “prepared/Hachinosi” alone, because it is understood by itself that “prepared/Hachinosi” is for the Yidden (about who the verse is addressing).

2.       According to this Rashi should have stated concisely (like the wording of the Ibn Ezra here) “That I have prepared - to you”). Why does Rashi :

a.       Elaborate with the words: “That I have prepared (Zimanti -זמנתי) to give (to you) - and even more so

b.      Change from the word of the verse (“prepared/Hachinosi”) and use the word Zimanti (זמנתי)?

2. After this Rashi continues:

“But its Midrashic explanation is: ‘to the place that I have prepared/Hachinosi’ (means that) My Place is already recognizable opposite it. This is one of the verses which indicate that the Beis HaMikdash of Heaven is directly in line with the Beis HaMikdash below.”

The reason that Rashi, again cites the words: "to the place that I have prepared (‘Hachinosi’)” in the (second) explanation is understood:

– For it comes to hint that, according to the “Midrash”, the simple wording (that the verse uses) - "to the place“ is more straightforward than “To the Land” - because  (the word) “prepared/Hachinosi” refers (not to Eretz Yisroel, but rather) to the place of the Beis HaMikdash.

(However, this is not an actual question on the “Simple (״פשוטו״) meaning (the first explanation) – because we find in Scripture that an entire land may be referred to as a “place”. On the contrary – from the flow of the topic here – one is, seemingly, forced to say that “and to bring you to the place etc.” does not refer (to a specific place in Eretz Yisroel, but rather) to Eretz Yisroel, in general)

And since, according to “Its Midrash”:

1.       It changes the translation of “to the place” and

2.       According to this the words ““prepared/Hachinosi” ” are more straightforward (as will be discussed) – therefore Rashi cite the words with the term “its Midrashic explanation”)

One must however understand why Rashi adds another aspect:

“This is one of the verses that state that the Beis HaMikdash of Heaven etc.”

For seemingly, why is it relevant to know (to emphasize) that there are “other verses that state that the Beis HaMikdash of Heaven (is directly in line with the Beis HaMikdash below)”?

One cannot say that this is something that does not sit well (לייגט) with a “five year old” and therefore Rashi must add (these words) –

similar to that which he says, in many places, “I have found a counterpart for it (מצאתי לו חבר)”- meaning that this topic was found in other places –

Because Rashi had already previously - twice - brought this aspect that “the Beis HaMikdash of Heaven is directly in line with the Beis HaMikdash below” – and in each of these places – Rashi does not add the words (the proof - ) “This is one of the verses that state etc.”.

3. One must also understand other specifics (דיוקים) in Rashi, of which:

1. The source for the “Midrash” is in the Tanchuma. But there the wording is:

“This is one of the verses that indicate that the Beis HaMikdash of below is directly in line with the Beis HaMikdash of Heaven” (״זה אחד מן המקראות המחוורת שבה״מ שלמטן מכוון כנגד בהמ״ק שלמעלן״)

Why does Rashi change the order that the Beis HaMikdash of Heaven is directly in line with the Beis HaMikdash of below?

2. There is another version (גירסא) of Rashi that states that “the Beis HaMikdash of Heaven is directly in line with that of below” (כנגד של מטה) (omitting the words: “the Beis HaMikdash of below”). Why does Rashi omit (according to this version) the words “Beis HaMikdash” specifically when in the previous two places he does state the words “the Beis HaMikdash (Mikdash) of below”?

4. The explanation of this is:

Rashi is coming to address a simple question concerning the word “prepared/Hachinosi”. “Hachana/preparation” indicates - a specific (באשטימטע) change in the thing – that enables it to be “prepared” (״מוכן״) - fit and proper (מוכשר) for the aspect for which we are preparing it.

In our case, the question arises:

What “preparation” was there, of Eretz Yisroel, in order to receive the Yidden? We do not find that something was now changed in the Land than what previously existed?

On the contrary:

The topic of the flow of the Parsha emphasized that the Land was not yet prepared for the Yidden. For the Seven Canaanite nations lived there and it was necessary to evict them from the Land. It was necessary to “destroy them (וְהִכְחַדְתִּיו)” and to “drive them out (״אגרשנו״)” (in the future tense). And moreover- this would not be in the immediate future – it could not be soon – (“lest the land become desolate”) - but rather it had to be in a manner of “I will drive them out from before you little by little” –

Therefore, what does the verse mean when it says: “(to bring you to the place) that I have prepared”?

On this Rashi answers that:

“(that) I have prepared” in this verse means

(not a preparation through a deed or act – as is the translation of the word “preparation (הכנה)” in many places, but)

“That I have prepared (Zimanti -זמנתי) to give to you “ which just represents a reservation ( הזמנה ) - Zimanti (זמנתי) - which (also ) comes from the word – “Zimun” – invitation (איינלאדונג). For when inviting a guest, the invitation does not contain, in itself, any act of preparation – it is just an invitation (verbally).

The same is in our case:

G-d invited Eretz Yisroel, for the future giving (of it) to the Yidden (as it states: “That I have prepared to give to you“).

Since, however, the explanation of preparation means, in the main – a fix and change (הכשרה ושינוי) in the thing – Rashi therefore adds a second explanation - “its Midrashic explanation” – that “My Place is already recognizable opposite it”. According to this a preparation and fix (הכנה והכשרה) was effected in the place. However, this was not in the place of Mikdash below- but rather in the Beis HaMikdash of Heaven - “My Place is already recognizable opposite it”.

In order to emphasize this, Rashi uses the precise wording:

“The Beis HaMikdash of Heaven is directly in line with the Beis HaMikdash below.” –

not in the (reverse) order of the (wording of the) Tanchuma. Because the act of preparation is in the place of the “the Beis HaMikdash of Heaven”, meaning that in “My Place” (of the Beis HaMikdash of Heaven) it became “recognizable opposite it” (ניכר כנגדו). (from the place of the Beis HaMikdash below).

5. This however, is not sufficient, because:

It is not logical to say that G-d’s preparation of the Beis HaMikdash of Heaven, should entirely have no effect (ווירקוגג) on the place of the Beis HaMikdash Below. , which is directly opposite it.

And we indeed see in the verse (regarding Yaakov) “And this is the gate of Heaven” –

where Rashi cites for the first time that “the Heavenly Beis HaMikdash is directly opposite the Earthly Beis HaMikdash” –

that Yaakov felt the holiness of the place below – as he said: “How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of G-d, and this is the gate of heaven."

And since the verse states: “That I have prepared (Hachinosi -הכינותי) - a preparation in the “the Beis HaMikdash of Heaven in such a manner that “My Place is recognizable opposite it” – this must have been “recognizable” then even in the place of the Beis HaMikdash below-

How then does this fit with the topic of the rest of the Parsha, where it emphasizes that Eretz Yisroel, (including the place of the Beit HaMikdash), was, at that time, not at all prepared (even) to accept the Bnei Yisroel into the Land?

Therefore Rashi adds:

“This is one of the verses that state that the Beis HaMikdash of Heaven etc.”

This verse, here, does not mean to say that now, there was a preparation, though which the Beis HaMikdash of Heaven is directly in line with the Beis HaMikdash below. The “prepared/Hachinosi”  already took place beforehand, and this is just another verse

(among others, even of the previous “verses” (מקראות))

which tell the same thing that (even from before) that “the Beis HaMikdash of Heaven is directly in line with the Beis HaMikdash below” (and that “My Place is already recognizable opposite it” – that this also existed beforehand (eternally).

Therefore there is no question why we do not find that there should now be a change in the place of the Earthly Beis HaMikdash.

Accordingly, it is also understood why the (other) version (of Rashi) states:

“The Beis HaMikdash of Heaven is directly in line with that of below” (כנגד של מטה)

(omitting the words: “the Beis HaMikdash of below”).

For it emphasizes that the preparation in the place of the Beis HaMikdash of Heaven is not connected to the condition of the Beis HaMikdash of below. The Beis HaMikdash of Heaven is here, even when there is no Beis HaMikdash - it is “directly in line with that of below” (where the “Beis HaMikdash” is missing), therefore there is no contradiction. For even though “My Place is already recognizable opposite it” – nevertheless we do not see here below, any change and preparation. On the contrary – other nations (אומות העולם) are in the place of the Earthly Beis HaMikdash – which is a contradiction to Beis HaMikdash.

6. Among the Halachot which we can derive from this Rashi is:

There is a dispute of the Rishonim in the opinion of Abaye (Sanh. 47b) whether “designation is a material act” (״הזמנה מילתא היא״) – that even a verbal designation (הזמנה) is as though it has (already) been employed for the purpose – or not.

And this also has a practical ramification (נפק״מ למעשה). For (even) according to the view of Rava (whose opinion is the Halacha) that “designation is not a material act” (הזמנה לאו מילתא היא) – (nevertheless) there are certain situations where one does consider (רעכנט) “designation” (הזמנה) (as something).

One could say that this is the difference in Halacha according to the two explanations in Rashi:

According to its “plain meaning” (״פשוטו״) - it comes out that “I have prepared (Zimanti -זמנתי) to give to you” (without an act of preparation and fixing in the place) is still termed (in the verse) “That I have prepared (Hachinosi -הכינותי). Accordingly even a verbal preparation is an aspect pf preparation – it is considered a material act (מילתא היא).

However, according to “its Midrashic explanation”- the preparation is connected to the achievement (אויפטו) which is recognizable in the thing (in a manner that is opposite it) - “My Place is recognizable opposite it”. Accordingly, it is reasonable to say that verbal preparation is not an aspect of preparation (הזמנה לאו מילתא היא).

M’Sichas Motzai Shabbat Parshat Mishpatim 5739