Vol 38.13 - Chukat 2                         Spanish French Audio  Video

Page 78   Page79   Page80   Page81   Page82   Page83   Page84  

Translation:

1. On the verse Rashi (Num. 21:1):

"The Canaanite king of Arad, who lived in the south, heard that Yisroel had come by the route of the Spies, and he waged war against Yisroel”.

Rashi, on the words “the route of the Spies” (דֶּרֶךְ הָאֲתָרִים), states two explanations:

1. “The southern route, taken by the Spies (הַתָּרִים), as it says, “They went up in the south”.

2. Another interpretation: The route of the great pathfinder (the Ark) (הַתַּיָּר) which went ahead of them, as it says, “traveled three days ahead of them to seek for them a place to settle”.

At a quick glance, Rashi’s intent is to explain the word “Atarim” (אֲתָרִים) which has no counterpart in Scripture).

The two explanations of “Atarim” is from the word “Tarim” (exploring) (except that the letter Aleph is added to the beginning of the word, as we find similarly in other places).

The difference between the two explanations is regarding who it was that travelled (toured).

• According to the first explanation it refers to the Spies, as it states: “who explored (the land)” (as we indeed find in many places in Parshat Shlach regarding the Spies, the words, “they explored”, “scouted”, and so forth).


• According to the second explanation, it refers to the Ark that travelled in front of them, which is called the “great pathfinder”, since it states “to seek (לתור) for them a place to settle”.

(Although the verse states, “Atarim”, in the plural (as many of the commentators of Rashi ask) one could say that since Rashi adds the word “the great (pathfinder)”, indicating that it is “great”, there is a place to describe it in the plural.

This is similar to Rashi’s comment (in Parsha Vayeira) where he writes,

“In many places, words denoting G-dliness and words denoting authority are expressed in the plural”).

However, it is difficult to say that Rashi’s main intent is to explain the word “Atarim”. For plainly, this is the name of a place, that does not require explanation. This is like most of the instances where Rashi does not deem to explain the names of places in the Torah. Indeed, in this very verse, Rashi does not explain the name “Arad”, despite Rashi

(in Tractate Rosh Hashanah, where Rashi cites the verse here, in the comment under the heading: “The Canaanite heard”)

explaining it in the Talmud.

Moreover:

If one wants to say that Rashi’s intent is just to explain the word “Atarim” - one must examine Rashi’s wording:

1. The main point is missing from the comment. Rashi should have explained, in the beginning of his comment, that “Atarim” is “like (the word) Tarim/explore” (and so forth). He also should have explained why the letter Aleph was added to the beginning of the word, and to bring an example.
2. At the least, he should have brought in the first explanation, the word “Tarim” with regard to the Spies (and not to wait for the second explanation, where he says that it is from the word “pathfinder”.
3. The order in the first explanation is “the southern route” (and afterward he explains) “taken by the Spies (הַתָּרִים)”. It should have been in the opposite order, first explaining the word “Atarim” – “Spies” and afterward explaining that this is the “the southern route”.
4.  In the second explanation – why does Rashi repeat the words “the route of the Atarim/Spies”? especially since it is not innovating anything in the explanation of the word “Atarim” (for according to both explanations, it is from the word the “Tarim”).
5. Why doesn’t Rashi explicitly write (in the second explanation) that the “Atarim” is the Ark? Why does he obliquely write that it is, “the great pathfinder”?
6. Why does Rashi cite in his proof, also the words, “a three days’ journey (ahead of them)”? Seemingly only what is written, “to explore” (לתור), is relevant here.

2. Therefore, it appears that Rashi is not coming to explain the word “Atarim”.

(For according to the simple explanation, it is the name of a place that does not require explanation, as aforementioned).

Rather he is coming to answer why there is a change in the wording of the verse. For in the beginning it states, “The Canaanite . . who lived in the south, heard”, and afterward it concludes “that Yisroel had come by the route of the Atarim/Spies”.

For seemingly, the simple intent of the verse is that Bnei Yisroel came through the route of his land, and therefore, the Canaanite (who is Amalek, as Rashi explains) came out to fight with Yisroel.

According to this, it is not understood. What is the reason that it begins with the words “who lived in the south” and concludes with “the route of the Atarim/Spies”?

On this Rashi brings two explanations in, “the route of the Atarim” – what path was this?

• The first explanation explains that it is literal (דהיינו הך), that “the route of the Atarim/Spies” is “the southern route”. in other words, that Bnei Yisroel went, at that time, through his land. However, Scripture calls it “the route of the Spies”, since it was “the route taken by the Spies” (as will be explained in Par. 3).

• The second explanation of “the route of the Atarim” – is that it is “the route of the great pathfinder which traveled ahead of them, as it says, “it traveled three days ahead of them to seek for them a place to settle”. According to this explanation, Bnei Yisroel did not travel, at that time, on “the southern route” (through the land of the Amalek).

Rather, through “the great pathfinder which traveled ahead of them . . a three days' journey”, news reached Amalek (that Yisroel is coming near to him) from afar, and he went out to wage war.

(Similar to his first war with Yisroel in Rephidim, where he attacked them from afar).

According to this, Rashi’s words are precise:

1. He cites in the heading, also the word “route” (דרך) (and not just the word: “Atarim”). For the intent of his explanation is to explain which “route” is “the route of the Spies”.
2. According to the second explanation, he repeats the words, “the route of the Spies”. For this explanation negates the interpretation of the first explanation (that Bnei Yisroel travelled at that time on “the southern route” – the path through the land of Amalek).
3. He does not emphasize, in the second explanation, that this is the Ark. For in order to understand the explanation of, “the route of the Atarim”, it is not relevant that this was the Ark. Rather that they travelled in the path of that “great pathfinder”, that went before . . them a three days’ journey”, as aforementioned.

According to this, one can also resolve the question of the Rom (R’ Eliyahu Mizrachi) on the second explanation.

Namely, what is the reason,

“The Canaanite king . . heard that Yisroel had come by the route of the Spies, and he waged war against Yisroel”.

(The Rom writes:

“Did Amalek wage war with them just because Yisroel travelled after the Ark? Indeed, the entire forty years that they were in the desert, Yisroel followed the Ark”).

(On the contrary, this is the very reason that they did not fight with Yisroel, since there was the protection of the Ark).

(The Rom answers that this comes in continuation to Rashi’s comment on, “The Canaanite . . heard” – “He heard that Aharon had died and that the Clouds of Glory had departed”.

This is what is meant by ‘the route of the Atarim’. Amalek heard that “Yisroel is travelling now, solely after the Ark. For only the Ark remained with them among all that travelled with them”

However, seemingly, this explanation is problematic. For according to this, Rashi should have expressly written the word “Ark” and not obliquely state, “the great pathfinder”).

Yet, according to the aforementioned, it is plainly understood:

Since Bnei Yisroel were, at that time, not close to Amalek‘s land, Scripture needs to inform us how they came to attack Bnei Yisroel. For this, it explains that that Amalek heard from afar regarding Yisroel‘s travelling through news of  “the great pathfinder which went ahead of them . . a three days' journey’, as aforementioned.

3. However, it still requires explanation:

According to the first explanation – the question remains: Why does the verse begin with “the southern” and end with “Atarim” route?

Moreover (as the commentators ask),

“Just because the Spies travelled on ‘the southern route’ is that a reason for the route to be called after them (“the route of the Spies”)?”

What relevance does the travelling of the Spies have here?

There are those that explain that the entire time that Yisroel was in the desert, Amalek did not care. However, once they travelled on the route of the Spies, this was the beginning of their entering Eretz Yisroel, and coming to inherit his land. Therefore, he came out to wage war. However, it is difficult to explain Rashi so. For he writes,

“Amalek was always a chastising whip for Yisroel, ready at any time to mete out punishment.”

As we find, he came to wage war with Yisroel in Rephidim, when they were far from his land. How much more so, when they came on the path of his land. Indeed, even the kings of Edom, Emor, and Bashan went out to wage war with Yisroel, even though it expressly states that Yisroel was not coming to conquer their land.

One could say that this comes in continuation to Rashi’s comment of, “The Canaanite heard” – “He heard that Aharon had died and that the Clouds of Glory had departed”.

For seemingly, how does this fit with what is expressly stated in the continuation of the verse. “(The Canaanite heard . .) that Yisroel came by the route of the Spies”?

Plainly, one could say (and so write many commentators) that the words,

“that Yisroel had come by the route of the Spies”

does not refer to the news that Amalek heard. Rather it is as if it states,

“when Yisroel had come by the route of the Spies“.

In other words, that the verse is coming to explain why just the Canaanites were awakened by this news

(that Aharon died and the Clouds of Glory departed)

to fight with Yisroel,

“for Yisroel had come by the route of the Spies“ (the path of his land).

However, one could say that by Scripture describing, “the southern route” with the term, “the route of the Spies” (that path “that the Spies travelled on”), it also alludes to the news that “the Clouds of Glory departed”.

For until then, the travel of Bnei Yisroel was according to the clouds that went before them “to lead them on the way”. However, now that the clouds departed, how did Yisroel know where to go? On this, Scripture states that they went on, “the route of the Spies”. Namely, that that they went on the “proven path” (בדרך סלולה) that the Spies paved.

This is what the Canaanites heard, namely, that Bnei Yisroel no longer have the Clouds of Glory to lead their way (which is why they are travelling on the route of the Spies). And since the Clouds of Glory departed (which protected Yisroel) - “they waged war with Yisroel”).

4. One can additionally say:

Targum Yonatan Ben Uzziel explains on the words, “the route of the Spies”:

“(Yisroel was coming) by the way of the Spies to the place where they had rebelled against the L-rd of the world“ (the path of the Spies, that place that they rebelled against G-d).

For since Amalek heard that this is the place that they rebelled against G-d, they went to wage war against Yisroel thinking that it is a “place ready for retribution” (מקום מוכן לפורענות).

One could say that this emphasis (that it is the “route that the Spies travelled, a place ready for retribution”) comes in continuation to Rashi’s comment on “The Canaanite heard” where he writes,

“Amalek was always a chastising whip for Yisroel, ready at any time to mete out punishment”.

For seemingly what is the reason for Rashi’s repetition?

 However, there are two aspects:

1. “Always a chastising whip for Yisroel etc.” - refers to plain hatred of Yisroel that is “always” (מעולם).
2. “Ready at any time to mete out punishment” - means that they are prepared, at all times, to utilize every “time of retribution” against Yisroel to strike against them.

We find these two aspects in their war, the first time, where:

1. “(Amalek) came to attack Yisroel prior to any other nation”. This shows their great hatred for Yisroel more than all the other nations.
2.  It was then, a time of retribution, as Rashi explains that the war of Amalek came after,

                    “the quarrel of Bnei Yisroel . . testing the L-rd, saying, Is the L-rd in our midst or not?”

The same is in our case. The reason that Amalek came, at that time, to attack Yisroel (with Aharon‘s death) was due to two reasons:

1. Baseless hatred for Yisroel (סתם שנאה). However, as long as Yisroel were protected by the clouds, they did not have the possibility to attack them. As opposed to now, where the Clouds of Glory departed.
2. The death of Aharon was a time of retribution for Yisroel, as Rashi states,

“because they associated themselves in a close relationship with the wicked Esau, a breach was made in their accomplishments, and they lost this righteous man”.

This is the continuation of Rashi’s explanation, that the reason that Amalek warred against Yisroel, now, was because of two reasons:

1. Both, their hatred of Yisroel which caused them to attack Yisroel at every opportunity.
2. As well as, because they knew that it was a time of retribution, and also a place of retribution, since this was the “the route of the Atarim/Spies” (that the Spies travelled on).

5. According to this explanation, one could say that the two explanations of Rashi in, “the route of the Atarim/Spies”, are different also in the general intent of the verse,

“that (כי) Yisroel had come by the route of the Spies” (which is the reason for Amalek‘s waging war with Yisroel).

According to the first explanation – the intent of the verse is to emphasize that although “Amalek was always a chastising whip”, nevertheless, at this time, they were careful in attacking Yisroel. as Rashi writes in the comment before this, that the reason that they were called Canaanites here is because,

“They changed their language to speak in the language of Canaan so that the Israelites would pray to the Holy One, blessed is He, to deliver the Canaanites into their hands, and (since) they were not Canaanites (their prayers would have no effect)”.

Thus, Amalek was afraid of Yisroel’s prayers and they sought schemes etc.

In continuation to this, Scripture states that they heard “that Yisroel had come by the route of the Spies”. Namely, that the reason that they now came to wage war was (not only because it was a time of retribution, but also) because it was a place of retribution.

Whereas, according to the second explanation – Scripture’s emphasis of “Yisroel had come by the route of the Atarim” is the opposite. Namely, it is to depict Amalek‘s tremendous Chutzpah (audacity). For even though “the great pathfinder” - “sought for them a place to settle at Hor HaHar”, nevertheless Amalek came from afar, to wage war against Yisroel there.

(According to this, it comes out nicely, that which Rashi also cites the words

“a resting place for them” (להם מנוחה),

and not just the word

“to seek (לתור)”.

For this magnifies the emphasis of Amalek’s chutzpah)

6. From the homiletic style of Torah in Rashi's commentary (”Yayina shel Torah”) one could say:

The two explanations of, “the route of the Atarim/Spies” depict the two manners which Yisroel face and stand up against Amalek (the powers of the opposing forces (לעו״ז)) – that oppose holiness. These are two paths in which it is possible to conquer Amalek:

1. “The route . . that the Spies travelled on” – this refers to Avodah according to reason and comprehension (טעם ודעת). Like the aspect of the Spies, “to explore the land”, literally. Where they went to find the easiest manner, according to nature, to conquer the land. The same is in spirituality. When the Yetzer Hara entices a person against the path of Torah and Mitzvot, a person fights against him through contemplating the worthlessness of evil, versus the great advantage of good and holiness. So too, he wages his war against the Yetzer Hara according to intellect, like literal tactics of war.
2. “The route of the great pathfinder” – this refers to the Avodah of Mesirat Nefesh, above reason and knowledge. For one nullifies himself to G-d. Therefore, he relies on “the great pathfinder” – the Ark – the covenant of G-d, before, all who oppose, are automatically nullified, as it states,

“So it was, whenever the Ark set out, Moshe would say, Arise, O L-rd, may Your enemies be scattered and may those who hate You flee from You.”

These two manners correspond to the condition of the opposer (Amalek):

According to the first explanation, Amalek is in a state of fear of Bnei Yisroel. Therefore, they come with tactics and schemes. In order to be victorious in this war, it is sufficient that Yisroel go on, “The route . . that the Spies travelled on” - Avodah that is according to reason and knowledge.

However, when Amalek comes in a state of revealed chutzpah, where he is not fazed by anything and wages war against Yisroel, even when it is against logic – then the way to subdue him is solely through the Avodah of Mesirat Nefesh, and Bitul which is above reason and comprehension – “the route of the Atarim- the route of the great pathfinder”.

M’Sichas Shabbat Parshat Ma’asei 5727

Motzai Shabbat Parshat Chukat 5739