Tzav: Parshas Balak: When the Rider of the She-Donkey Prophesies About the Rider of the Donkey

00:01 Speaker 1 Recording in pro--

00:05 Speaker 2 Good evening to everyone watching and listening to COL. This week is Parshas Balak, a fascinating parsha: how the rider of the she-donkey prophesies about the rider of the donkey. In the section where Balak invited Bilaam to curse the Jewish people, Bilaam’s prophecy contains four passages. Each time, it is another attempt from another place. Finally, on the fourth occasion, after he had disappointed Balak and Balak told him, “I called you to curse my enemies, and behold, you have blessed them,” Bilaam felt the need to leave him with a tip. So he says to him, “And now,” in chapter 24, verse 14. “And now,” Bilaam says, “I am going to my people. Come, I will advise you what this people will do to your people at the end of days.” Here he begins to speak of the prophecy of the future, the end of days, and these are his words: “I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near. A star shall emerge from Yaakov, and a scepter shall arise from Yisroel; he shall crush the corners of Moav and break down all the children of Sheis. Edom shall become a possession, and Seir, his enemies, shall become a possession, while Yisroel acts valiantly.” In the last verse, verse 19: “One shall rule from Yaakov and destroy the remnant from the city.” This passage, written in poetic language, calls for a great deal of interpretation. Let’s begin with Rashi’s interpretation: how does he explain this passage, and whom does he take it to be about? Rashi says: “I see him”—I see the praise and greatness of Yaakov. Interesting. Not of Moshiach, but of Yaakov. “But not now”—the greatness I see is not in the present, but at a later time. Rashi continues: “A star shall emerge,” which he explains to mean that a fortune will arise. He does not apply it to any particular person. He says that someone will arise whose fortune will shine in the world. “And a scepter shall arise,” Rashi says, is an allusion to a king who rules and governs. The scepter is a symbol of the power of government. Rashi continues: “He shall crush the corners of Moav.” Here, for the first time, Rashi says who this is. He says it is David, of whom it says, “He made them lie on the ground.” He ordered the captives he had taken from Moav to lie on the ground, “and measured out two lengths of cord to put them to death,” and so on. After that, regarding the words “and break down”—that is a very, uh, unusual word—he explains it as an expression of making a hole, like a bird making a hole in a trunk with its beak. To peck means to make small punctures. Rashi cites support from “I dug,” a second verse, “from the pit from which you were hewn,” and a third verse, “the ravens of the valley shall peck it out”—ravens peck with their beaks. And he concludes: What does “all the children of Sheis” mean? All the nations, since they all descended from Sheis, the son of Adam. And who will break them down? The one who crushed the corners of Moav: David. That is what Rashi says. On the last verse, Rashi suddenly remembers Moshiach: “One shall rule from Yaakov.” Rashi says: And there will be another ruler from Yaakov. He says this of King Moshiach. How does Rashi know? He brings a verse from Tehillim: “He shall rule from sea to sea.” It is important to emphasize that “shall rule” does not mean “shall descend.” It is not the word for going down; it is an expression of dominion. He will rule, he will govern from sea to sea. That refers to Moshiach. So, to sum up Rashi’s interpretation: in all these verses, which everyone relates to Moshiach, Rashi sees no allusion to King Moshiach. Only the last verse, “One shall rule from Yaakov,” does he interpret as referring to King Moshiach. That is one point. A second, very striking point is that Rashi ignores the paired expressions in the verses. Every verse here has two parts, yet Rashi does not explain what the pairing means. Who is the “star that shall emerge,” and who is the “scepter that shall arise”? There are further points to examine in Rashi. In his comment beginning “One shall rule from Yaakov,” Rashi says, “And there will be another ruler from Yaakov.” On what basis can Rashi say this is another ruler? Perhaps the same person who crushed the corners of Moav and broke down all the children of Sheis—which refers to David—perhaps

03:43 Speaker 2 that same person will be the one who rules, someone from Yaakov’s people. How do you know it is another ruler? And there is another puzzling detail in Rashi. In his comment beginning “One shall rule from Yaakov,” Rashi does not explain the word “from Yaakov.” He explains only the unusual word “shall rule”: it does not mean to descend, but to govern and rule. A ruler. “He shall rule from sea to sea.” Why does he ignore the words “from Yaakov”? He should have commented only on “shall rule,” saying that it means “He shall rule from sea to sea,” and that it refers to Moshiach. Those are the questions about Rashi. Let’s look at other commentators. Ibn Ezra is surprising in his interpretation: he explains this entire passage as referring to David. He sees no allusion to Moshiach here. This is what he says: “I see him, but not now”—Ibn Ezra says, “The view closest to my own is that this prophecy was said about David.” So what does “but not now” mean? Yes, it is not now. It happened four hundred years later. He then continues, “I behold him, but not near.” He says, in brief, that the meaning is repeated. In other words, it is like saying in poetry, “Who is like You among the mighty, Hashem? Who is like You, glorious in holiness?” [unclear]. That is a poetic style; the repetition does not signify anything. There is no need to look for one person in the first phrase and another in the second. It all refers to David. Interestingly, that is very unusual, because all the other commentators say it refers to King Moshiach. It is interesting that he feels the need to defend himself, and he uses strong words: “Those lacking understanding will think that one who interprets ‘a star shall emerge’ as referring to David denies the coming of Moshiach—Heaven forbid, Heaven forbid.” There were people who argued: If he does not see Moshiach in Bilaam’s prophecy, what, does he not believe in the coming of Moshiach? What is the connection? For Moshiach is clearly described in Daniel’s prophecy. And there is no need for any prophet in the world after the words of Moshe, which are the primary source.

07:07 Speaker 2 “If your dispersed ones are at the ends of the heavens,” and “Hashem your G-d will return your captives.” So he argues that Moshiach is stated explicitly in Parshas Nitzavim: the whole Geulah is there, and the ingathering of the exiles, and so on. There is no need for Bilaam to speak about it at all. In his reading of these verses, Bilaam is prophesying about David’s era. What about Moshiach? There are other verses; don’t worry. The Or Hachaim Hakadosh is interesting. He takes exactly the opposite approach. He argues that the entire passage speaks about King Moshiach. The whole prophecy was said about King Moshiach. He explains it, paying close attention to the paired expressions. He does not say they are there simply because this is poetry; if there is a double expression, it refers to two different things. So he says this can be explained in light of what our Sages say about the verse describing how the Geulah will come: “I, Hashem, will hasten it in its time.” Our Sages say that if it comes “in its time,” then it will not be “hastened”—brought earlier. So how can both be true? The Gemara answers: If they merit it, “I will hasten it,” before the appointed time. If they do not merit it, it will come “in its time,” and that time is very far off. Accordingly, he says, “I see him, but not now” refers to the... How will it happen? Like a star appearing in the sky? The redeemer will shine forth from the heavens, “with the clouds of heaven,” in a miraculous way. Corresponding to the Geulah that comes “in its time,” if they do not merit it, it says, “I behold him, but not near,” followed by “and a scepter shall arise from Yisroel”—a royal scepter. What does that mean? In the way rulers arise in the world, through the natural order: suddenly some figure appears, some emperor or king, without miracles. He simply takes control of the people and becomes their ruler. Those, essentially, are the two paired expressions. One refers to “if they merit it,” and the other to “if they do not merit it.” But the entire—entire prophecy is about Moshiach. That is the Or Hachaim’s novel interpretation. Ramban also says that the entire prophecy concerns the days of Moshiach. He proves it by

09:49 Speaker 2 “Even if your dispersed are at the ends of the heavens,” and “Hashem your G-d will restore your fortunes.” So he argues: Moshiach is written about explicitly in Parshas Nitzavim. The whole Geulah is there, including the ingathering of the exiles and so on. There is no need for Bilam to speak about it at all. In his reading of the verses, Bilam is prophesying about the time of David. What about Moshiach? There are other verses; don’t worry. The Or Hachayim Hakadosh is interesting. He goes in exactly the opposite direction. He argues that the entire passage speaks about Melech HaMoshiach. The whole prophecy was said about Melech HaMoshiach, and he explains it. He pays close attention to the repeated expressions. He doesn’t say they are there just because this is poetry; if something is repeated, it refers to two different things. So he says this can be explained according to what our Sages say about the verse concerning when the Geulah will come: “I, Hashem, will hasten it in its time.” Our Sages say that if it comes “in its time,” it will not be “hastened”—it will not come earlier. So isn’t that a contradiction? The Gemara answers: If they are worthy, “I will hasten it,” before the appointed time. If they are not worthy, it will come “in its time,” and that time is very far off. Accordingly, he says, “I see him, but not now” refers to the... How will it happen? Like a star appearing in the sky? The redeemer will shine forth from the heavens—“behold, with the clouds of heaven”—in a miraculous way. And corresponding to the Geulah that comes “in its time,” if they are not worthy, it says, “I behold him, but not near,” and then, “A scepter will arise from Israel”—a scepter of kingship. What does that mean? In the ordinary way people rise to power in this world, through the natural order: just as a certain emperor or king might suddenly emerge without miracles, simply take control of the people and become their ruler. Those are the two sets of repeated expressions. One applies to when they are worthy, and the other to when they are not worthy. But the entire prophecy is about Moshiach. That is the Or Hachayim’s novel interpretation. The Ramban also says that the whole prophecy concerns the days of Moshiach. He proves it by…

13:12 Speaker 2 Biblical. He says there are four sections in the prophecy. In the first, he prophesies that the Children of Israel are Hashem’s portion, His people and His inheritance. In the second, he speaks about how, at the end of the forty years, they will conquer the land and kill its kings—thirty-one kings. In the third, he sees them multiplying in the land and appointing a king, Shaul, who will defeat Agag; and their kingdom will rise until the reign of David. Now, he says, in the fourth prophecy he goes even further into history: Moshiach. The Ramban says that this is why he places it so far off and says, “Not now,” “not near.” He did not use those words in the earlier prophecies. David also came four hundred years later, and he did not say, “not near.” Interestingly, in the Ramban’s Sefer HaGeulah, in Kisvei HaRamban, volume 1, page 266, published by Mossad Harav Kook, he also objects to Ibn Ezra’s interpretation that the entire prophecy is about David. He says: “I did not agree with those who interpret it as referring to David, peace be upon him.” He means Ibn Ezra. Why did he disagree? For two reasons. First, because we know that from this prophet, Bilaam, until David was only four hundred years. He makes a strong statement here: “And among the prophets, that is not ‘the end of days.’” True, four hundred years is a long time, but not to the prophets. In the long-range view of their prophecies, four hundred years is a small stretch of history. When they say “far off, at the end of days,” they do not mean four hundred years. We find those expressions only in the section beginning “A star shall go forth from Yaakov.” That shows it refers to the actual era of the end of days. His second reason for disagreeing that it refers to David is very interesting. He

15:48 Speaker 2 says that David our king did not crush all the descendants of Sheis. The verse says that the one who “crushes the borders of Moav” also “crushes all the descendants of Sheis.” David crushed the borders of Moav. So who crushed all the descendants of Sheis? David? Where? When did David conquer all the nations? Only his enemies around him. So, he says, the whole prophecy cannot refer to David. Let’s move on to the Rambam’s interpretation. But here we need to add that the Rambam is not a commentator on Scripture. We have a passage where the Rambam says this in Hilchos Melachim, in the laws concerning King Moshiach. He wants to show that King Moshiach is mentioned in the Torah of Moshe, not only in the Prophets, so he brings three proofs. His second proof is Bilaam’s prophecy. He says there: “There he prophesied about the two anointed kings: the first, David, and the last, who will arise from among his descendants.” His interpretation is the most unusual of all the commentators. He maintains that throughout the entire passage, in every verse, the first half speaks about David and the second half about Moshiach. In his view, that explains the repeated expressions. The beginning of every sentence in this prophecy refers to David, and the end to King Moshiach. He is the only one who says that David and Moshiach are interwoven throughout all the verses. How does he interpret them? Let’s see. You can see it on the source sheet attached to the video; look at it there. He explains it this way: “I see him, but not now”—the first part refers to David. “I behold him, but not near”—that is King Moshiach. “A star shall go forth from Yaakov”—that is David. “A scepter shall arise from Israel”—that is King Moshiach. “And he shall crush the borders of Moav”—that is David, as evidenced by the verse, “He struck Moav and measured them with a cord.” “And he shall crush all the descendants of Sheis”—that is King Moshiach, of whom it says, “And he shall rule from sea to sea.” So it is indeed King Moshiach who will crush all

18:41 Speaker 2 the descendants of Sheis. He continues: “Edom shall become a possession”—that is David, as it says, “Edom became servants to David.” “Seir, his enemies, shall become a possession”—that is King Moshiach, as it says, “Saviors shall ascend Mount Zion to judge the mountain of Eisav.” Just an interesting aside, a hint I have not seen written anywhere: the Rambam’s attribution of Bilaam’s prophecy to both David and Moshiach is hinted at in an interesting gematria. Moshiach plus David—do the calculation—is three hundred and seventy-two. Bilaam son of Beor: three hundred and seventy-two. The one prophesying is the rider on the she-donkey; the prophecy concerns the rider on the donkey. So far we have presented different interpretations. Now there is a sicha of the Rebbe in Likkutei Sichos, volume 13, that addresses all these interpretations and asks an interesting question: Why doesn’t Rashi, who follows the plain meaning of Scripture, adopt the Rambam’s interpretation? What is the advantage of the Rambam’s interpretation? First, in the plain meaning of Scripture, it is preferable to account for the repeated expressions. True, one could say they are there for literary effect, but if we can find a straightforward reading in which this part refers to one figure and that part to another, as the Ohr HaChaim and the Rambam do, that seems closer to the plain meaning than using verses merely for literary effect. Second, there is the big question about Rashi: “And he shall crush all the descendants of Sheis”—according to Rashi’s approach, this refers to David. He does not mention Moshiach there. But David did not defeat all the descendants of Sheis; he did not crush them. He struck a few nations around him. And there is the question that “the end of days” cannot refer to David’s era, which was not so far off. The end of days means the end of history. So why does Rashi interpret the whole passage that way? He does not interpret it as referring to Moshiach at all; only in the last verse does he mention him: “One shall rule from Yaakov”—that speaks of King Moshiach. What leads

21:44 Speaker 2 him to do that? The point of the Rebbe’s sicha is that the difference between the Rambam and Rashi lies in their perspective. What is Bilaam trying to accomplish when he prophesies? What does he want from this prophecy? Does he want to publicize the coming of Moshiach? What is his concern? Rashi, who follows the plain meaning of Scripture, maintains that the purpose of Bilaam’s prophecy was to reassure Balak. Balak is angry with Bilaam. He hired him for a great deal of money and with great honor, and in the end, instead of curses, Bilaam brought him blessings. Poor man, he did it against his will. I want to bring in a nice thought here about the verse, “And Hashem put a word in Bilaam’s mouth,” and Rashi’s comment there. What does it mean that He “put” it there? At the end, Rashi says it is like someone putting a bit and a hook in his mouth, like someone controlling an animal to lead it wherever he wants. What is that expression...? Fine, you want to give an analogy? Say either a bit or a hook. Why both, “a bit and a hook”? Earlier in Bilaam’s prophecy, Bilaam says, “How can I curse whom Keil has not cursed? And how can I denounce whom Hashem has not denounced?” The Vilna Gaon gives an amazing explanation. Bilaam knew all the... he “knew the knowledge of the Most High,” all the secrets of Kabbalah. He knew that if he wanted to invoke Hakadosh Boruch Hu to bring a curse, he had to use the appropriate names. There are names associated with kindness and names associated with judgment. So when he wanted to say the name Elokim, Hakadosh Boruch Hu put a bit in his mouth—a bit that stops him. He began to say Keil but could not say Elokim, only Keil; and Keil is associated with kindness, as it says, “The kindness of Keil is all day long.” So: “How can I curse whom Keil has not cursed?” He could not say Elokim, so he wanted to use the name Y-ah. The name Havayah is a name of mercy, but Y-ah, as is known, is a name associated with judgment: “Y-ah has chastened me severely”; “From the narrow place I called to Y-ah.” So he wanted to curse

24:53 Speaker 2 them using the name Y-ah. Then Hakadosh Boruch Hu used a hook to pull him, as one pulls a fish, drawing out his tongue so that he would say not just Y-ah but also the remaining letters of the name Havayah, a name of mercy. That is why he said, “How can I curse whom Keil has not cursed?” Keil is a name associated with kindness. I could not say Elokim. “And how can I denounce whom Hashem has not denounced?” I wanted to say Y-ah, but He pulled my tongue, and I said Havayah. Now, after He treated Bilaam so harshly, the Rebbe says, Bilaam’s first aim was to reassure Balak. After all, what had happened? Balak was afraid of the people. He was afraid of the Jewish people, so Bilaam wanted to tell him: Don’t worry. These people will not do anything to you now. I see that, yes, at the end of days they will cause trouble for Moav, but not in your time. Interestingly, the Ramban says this explicitly: to inform Balak that his people would not fall into Israel’s hands now, but at the end of days Moav would not escape the hand of the ruling scepter. So you can relax: you and your kingdom will not be harmed by them. They will go around you and continue on. Since Rashi sees Bilaam’s prophecy as intended simply to reassure Balak, he does not feel compelled to interpret it specifically as referring to Moshiach. When will Rashi say it refers to Moshiach? Only when the verses make that necessary. As long as the verses do not require me to say it refers to Moshiach, how do you know that it does? So let’s follow Rashi’s interpretation according to what each verse requires. It is truly fascinating. The Rebbe explains it very beautifully. Let’s start with the first word, “I see him.” Those who say it is about Moshiach take “I see him” to mean King Moshiach, or David. Rashi does not say that. Rashi says: “I see him”—“I see the praise of”

27:18 Speaker 2 Yaakov. Why doesn’t he mention a particular person? It seems simple. The word “I see him” in the verse refers back to what was said earlier. No person was mentioned before that. What does it say? “Come, I will tell you what this people will do to your people in the end of days.” So who is the subject here? This people. And immediately afterward he says: “I see him”—whom? This people, Yaakov, his greatness and praise. “But not now.” So he doesn’t say “in the days of Moshiach”; he has no reason to publicize Moshiach right now. He only wants to tell Balak: Don’t worry, you’re safe for now. If there will be trouble with this people, it won’t be in your time; it will be afterward. Then it says, “A star has come forth.” Who is this “star”? Rashi says, “A mazal will arise.” In other words, this isn’t about a particular person. A certain mazal will awaken—someone’s mazal—and he doesn’t say whose. Why doesn’t he say it refers to Moshiach? The Rambam says it refers to David. The Or Hachayim says it refers to Moshiach. Rabbi Akiva thought it referred to the Moshiach of his time, Ben Kosiba. Why does Rashi say “mazal”? The Rebbe says: It’s simple. In the plain meaning of Scripture, a star is a physical object; it has no free choice. So how can you say it refers to a person, to a king? A person has free choice. Can you compare a person to a star? That’s why Rashi holds that the star symbolizes the mazal of some person, whoever he may be. His mazal will rise. But it isn’t speaking about the person himself. Interestingly, the Rambam, the Rebbe says, does interpret it as referring to a person—to David. How? The Rambam explicitly says that the stars have a soul, awareness, and intellect. So he can interpret the symbolism, the allusion of the star, as referring to

29:58 Speaker 2 a person. And the Rambam uses these verses in the laws of Moshiach, which is why he says they refer to Moshiach. He also explains the repeated expressions. But Rashi sticks to his approach: until the verse itself gives me a hint about Moshiach, how do I know it refers to Moshiach? Let’s continue. “And a scepter shall arise.” Rashi says: “A ruler who holds sway.” A king who rules and holds sway. Who is he? Rashi doesn’t say. Why? Because the verse hasn’t given me any hint about who he is. A scepter is a rod, a symbol of a master’s authority over his servant. So, as a poetic image, the word “scepter” symbolizes kingship and rule, but it doesn’t say whose. Rashi therefore says simply: a king who rules and holds sway will arise. When does Rashi first identify a particular person? “And he shall crush the corners of Moav.” That is David. Why? Because here the verse itself gives me information that points to someone. Who crushed the corners of Moav? Rashi brings a verse about David: David conquered Moav and ordered—and this is the wording of the verse—“Lay them on the ground.” I’ll read the whole verse. “He struck Moav and measured them with a cord, laying them on the ground; he measured two cords to put to death and a full cord to keep alive.” Rashi says, “And so on.” So here I can already see someone who fought Moav. He didn’t wipe them out entirely; he left some of the corners of Moav. Yes, that was David. We don’t find anyone else who did that. But here you might ask: Why only the “corners of Moav”? “Corners” means a small portion of them, like the corner left at harvest, which is a small part at the edge of the field. Yet here it says he put two cords to death and kept only one cord alive. So he killed the majority. It wasn’t the “corners of Moav” that he killed; those he left alive. Rashi answers this with “and so on.” Read the verse to the end. I opened the verse. What

33:11 Speaker 2 does it say next? “And a full cord to keep alive; and Moav became servants to David, bringing tribute.” It is about them that the verse says “crush.” Those he put to death weren’t “crushed.” “Crushed” is what in Yiddish you’d call “giving a squeeze.” He didn’t kill them. There’s also an explicit verse: “I put to death and I bring to life; I have wounded and I will heal.” In other words, “I have wounded” isn’t the same as putting someone to death. It means injuring him somewhat, so that he can later be healed. So Rashi’s “and so on” explains why these are called the “corners of Moav.” The smaller portion, the third that he left alive—those he only wounded. He killed most of Moav, but he merely wounded the corners of Moav. Rashi continues: “And he shall pierce all the children of Sheis.” Ibn Ezra explains the word “pierce.” Other commentators interpret it as destruction, like breaking down a wall until it collapses completely. “And he shall destroy all the children of Sheis.” That is why those commentators, who take it to mean destruction, apply it to King Moshiach, who will rule over all the nations. But Rashi doesn’t hold that it refers to King Moshiach. Why not? Again, because the verse hasn’t given us any information about another person. The one who crushed Moav was David, and that same person “pierced all the children of Sheis.” So what tells me this is Moshiach? It’s the same first person, David. Ah, but that raises a question. David didn’t kill them all. And Rashi takes the word to mean piercing. It doesn’t mean destruction; it means making a small hole, a slight wound. Fine. David inflicted some harm on several nations, but he didn’t completely wipe them out. Still, there’s a difficulty Rashi doesn’t explain: even if he only pierced them a little, did David harm every human being in the world? Just a little, but every one of the children of Sheis? Interesting. I opened the book of Shmuel. In II Shmuel, chapter 8,

36:18 Speaker 2 verse 11, it speaks of the silver and gold that David consecrated from all the nations he conquered. The verse lists Aram, Moav, the children of Amon, the Pelishtim, Amalek, and the spoils of Hadadezer, king of Tzovah. So you see that he conquered many peoples, many nations. Then there’s a very interesting verse there, verse 13: “And David made a name.” What is that? What does “David made a name” mean? Rashi explains there that David buried the people he had killed in Edom, earning a good name for Israel: they bury their enemies and behave humanely. And how do we know David buried them? It says so in the book of Melachim. In I Melachim, chapter 11, verse 15, it says, “When David was in Edom, Yoav, the commander of the army, went up to bury the slain.” Wow. Now there’s something remarkable in the supporting verses Rashi brings for the meaning “piercing,” or “digging.” He brings three verses. Why do we need three verses? I checked the verses. I read them closely—and “dug,” with a kuf. Rashi says, “Like one who digs a pit.” Notice the word “pit.” “The hollow of the pit from which you were dug.” Again, the word “pit.” Doesn’t that bring to mind graves, where bodies are placed in a pit? And the third verse he brings is, “The ravens of the valley shall peck it out.” If you don’t bury the slain, the ravens will peck at their bodies. So “piercing” here means that he dug pits and buried them. In what capacity did he bury them? As children of Sheis. They are human beings, all children of Sheis. It doesn’t matter who a person is, even if he’s my enemy: he is one of the children of Sheis, and so David dug graves and buried them. Where does Rashi first see that the verse is speaking about Moshiach? When he reaches the verse “And he shall rule.” That means he will rule from Yaakov. So Rashi says, “And there will be another ruler from Yaakov.” Where does he learn that? First, it says “and he shall rule.” If this is the same person for whom it already said “a scepter shall arise from Israel”—King David—then that verse already spoke of

39:47 Speaker 2 kingship, and here it uses another word for rule, which would be redundant. Interestingly, here it says “from Yaakov.” So if it’s the same person, why does it say “Israel” there and “Yaakov” here? Rashi learns from this that it’s speaking about another ruler, a different ruler. And that refers to King Moshiach. Moshiach. “And he shall have dominion,” “and he shall rule from sea to sea.” He will rule over all humanity, throughout the entire world. That’s how Rashi reads these verses, but one difficulty remains. Again: why did Rashi quote the word “from Yaakov”? We asked this earlier. He doesn’t explain that word. He explains only “and he shall rule,” because the word “from Yaakov” shows him that this is something new. Earlier it said “a scepter shall arise,” so he had already mentioned the one who rules and holds sway. There it says “from Israel,” and here it says “from Yaakov.” Ah, apparently this is a different ruler. It’s interesting that he doesn’t say “an additional ruler.” We’ll see why shortly. In any case, the interesting question is this: according to Rashi, “a scepter shall arise from Israel” refers to David’s era—a king who rules and holds sway—or perhaps to Shaul’s era? No, he already spoke about Shaul earlier: “His king shall rise above Agag.” Here he’s speaking about David’s era, while “and he shall rule from Yaakov” refers to King Moshiach. Which name denotes a higher level, Israel or Yaakov? Here, in David’s era, when the complete Geulah had not yet come, he calls it “from Israel”; but in Moshiach’s era, when the complete and final Geulah will come, he calls it “from Yaakov,” the lower name of the Jewish people. Rashi doesn’t give an answer to this. So here I’m adopting the explanation of the holy Or Hachayim. It fits Rashi here exactly as well. We learned earlier that the holy Or Hachayim says the Geulah described by “a star has come forth from Yaakov” is when they are deserving. Then Moshiach will come like a star from heaven, “with the clouds of heaven,” in a miraculous way. And the part of the verse that says “and a scepter shall arise”

42:55 Speaker 2 “A scepter shall arise from Yisroel”—that refers to a time when they have not merited it, and the Geulah will come through the natural course of events, through people who rise to power naturally. The Ohr Hachayim himself asks this question: How does that fit with his own interpretation? He says that “A star shall go forth from Yaakov” refers to a time when they have merited it. Since they have merited it, Moshiach will come like a star. Yet the verse says Yaakov, the name that denotes a lower level than Yisroel, while “a scepter shall arise from Yisroel,” which I interpreted, says the Ohr Hachayim, as referring to a time when they have not merited it and the Geulah comes through natural means, uses the name Yisroel. The Ohr Hachayim gives a wonderful insight. I’ll read it inside, because it’s truly sweeter than honey. He says: Why does the verse associate the Geulah of achishenah, when Moshiach comes like a star, with Yaakov, and the Geulah of be’itah, when he comes humble and riding on a donkey, with Yisroel, the group of tzaddikim? Why? You would expect the opposite. So he says that the Geulah will come like a star when it comes about through the refinement of the ordinary Jews, those on the level of beinonim. No—what does “they have merited it” mean? It means that the whole people have become refined, including the beinonim. He calls them the beinonim among Yisroel. All the ordinary people, the Yankels, have done teshuvah. That is why they deserve “a star shall go forth from Yaakov.” But if it is a Geulah when they have not merited it, then in whose merit will the Geulah come? Through the merit of the tzaddikim. As Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said, “I can exempt the entire world from judgment.” In other words, the Geulah will come because of those who are on the level of Yisroel. Now it fits beautifully here, too, with Rashi’s interpretation. He says that “a scepter shall arise from Yisroel” refers to the era of Dovid, but “one shall rule from Yaakov” refers to King Moshiach: even the Yankels will do teshuvah, and then Moshiach will come and rule from sea to sea. To conclude, I’ll add something from another sicha of the Rebbe. Why does Rashi call him “another ruler will arise”? He could have said “an additional ruler.” Why use the word “another”? Well, there is

45:37 Speaker 2 another sicha of the Rebbe that discusses Caesar and half-Caesar. The Gemara says that in the future there will be both Dovid and Moshiach. Dovid will be half-Caesar, and Moshiach will be Caesar. In other words, Moshiach will be the Caesar himself, while Dovid will only be his deputy. But why does it call him by the foreign name Caesar? Why doesn’t it say “king” and “viceroy”? There the Rebbe offers a novel explanation. The term “Caesar,” Tosafos says, comes from Rome, where there was a man who was born and came to rule over them. His mother died giving birth, and he was taken alive from her womb. Today that is called a Caesarean section, and that is why it has that name. What is the actual Hebrew term for a Caesarean birth? You won’t believe it: yotzei dofen, literally “emerging through the side.” If the baby comes out not through the mother’s womb but through the abdominal wall, that is called a Caesarean birth. From there came the expression for someone unusual, someone special: we say he is yotzei dofen—exceptional. So, he says, Dovid will be a king, but a king like other kings of the House of Dovid. The utterly exceptional king, who will rule the whole world, from sea to sea—that exceptional king will be Caesar, and he will be King Moshiach. May we merit the true and complete Geulah soon, in our days, this very year.