When Rashi says, “Elsewhere, the sending of messengers is ascribed to Moshe,” he is pointing out that what bothers him is not the question of what actually happened. Rather, he finds difficulty with the fact that the verse ascribes the messengers that were sent to Edom to Moshe, and the messengers that were sent to Sichon to Israel.
What accentuates his question is, if concerning the messengers that were sent to Edom—where the verse stresses that Israel is the one that sent the messengers in its words, “So says your brother, Israel”—the verse nevertheless states, “Moshe sent,” all the more so in the verse concerning the messengers that were sent to Sichon—where the verse does not mention Israel—should the verse state “Moshe sent” as well.
Rashi is not bothered in regard to who actually sent the messengers, but is bothered as to the reason that the Torah changes the language that is used for each.
Supplementary verses
Seemingly one can explain, that the reason one verse assigns the sending of messengers to Moshe and the other to Israel is dependent on the accord of whom the messengers were sent. When it was Israel’s idea to send the messengers, the verse says that Israel sent them, when it was G-d’s idea to send the messengers it says that Moshe sent them.
It is possibly because of this difference that concerning the messengers that were sent to Edom the verse says, “Moshe sent messengers,” and concerning the messengers that were sent to Sichon the verse states, “Israel sent messengers.”
Although the verse does not say outright that Moshe sent them as a response to G-d’s directive, it is obvious this was the case. This is true in many instances where the Torah does not express the directive to Moshe.
The messengers that were sent to Edom were a result of a directive of G-d, and therefore the verse states that Moshe—the emissary and servant of G-d—was the one that sent them.
However, the messengers that were sent to Sichon were not sent by a directive of G-d, as expressed in Rashi:
Text 7
Even though they were not commanded to offer them peace, they nevertheless sought peace from them.
Rashi, Bamidbar 21:22
If so, one can postulate that it is because the messengers were sent by Israel and not G-d that the verse states that Israel sent them and does attribute the dispatching to Moshe.
This reasoning is incorrect, however. In order to negate this explanation, Rashi begins his commentary by stating, “Elsewhere, the sending [of messengers] is ascribed to Moshe, as it says, ‘So I sent messengers from the desert of Kedeimot.’” Being that concerning this dispatch of messengers itself the verse further on in the Torah testifies that Moshe sent them, it is impossible to conclude that the expression “Israel sent messengers” as opposed to mentioning Moshe, indicates a situation where Israel sent the messengers without a directive from G-d.
After showing that Moshe is also considered to be the sender of the messengers to Sichon, Rashi states the same idea concerning Edom as well: “Similarly, ‘Moshe sent messengers to the king of Edom...’ (Bamidbar 20:14), but concerning Yiftach it says, ‘Israel sent messengers to the king of Edom...’ (Shoftim 11:17).” This shows that the Torah’s intent in mentioning Moshe in the verse concerning the messengers to Edom, is not to say that it was Moshe who sent them—and not Israel—as the Torah clearly states elsewhere that Israel sent them.
It is for this reason that Rashi feels the need to mention, “These verses supplement each other; one holds back and the other reveals. For Moshe is Israel, and Israel is Moshe.”
Were the Torah to have only have written “Moshe sent” concerning the messengers that were sent to Edom, this would “hold back” and exclude that the messengers sent there were on behalf of Israel. If this would indeed be the only verse, it would be understood that the reason Israel was not mentioned is because Moshe sent them as an agent of G-d, and that it cannot be considered that Israel sent them.
The same would be true if concerning the dispatch of messengers to Sichon the verse only stated, “Israel sent.” Doing so would “hold back” and exclude the possibility that it was also considered a mission from Moshe, and one would assume that this was only a mission of Israel.
It is the second verse that “reveals” that “Moshe is Israel and Israel is Moshe.” For, when the verse says “Moshe sent,” it is as if it says “Israel sent,” for “Moshe is Israel.” Similarly, when the verse states “Israel sent,” it as if it says “Moshe sent,” as “Moshe is Israel.”
The statement “Moshe is Israel and Israel is Moshe” is therefore also not redundant. Rather, each part is supporting a different verse. The statement, “Moshe is Israel” explains the messengers that were sent to Edom, and statement, “Israel is Moshe” explains the messengers that were sent to Sichon.
Moshe and Israel
What remains to be understood though, is how it can truly be that “Moshe is Israel and Israel is Moshe.”
To clarify this Rashi says, “The leader of the generation is like the entire generation, because the leader is everything.
The two parts of this statement, a) “the leader of the generation is like the entire generation” and b) the leader is everything,” correlate to the two statements “Moshe is Israel and Israel is Moshe.”
The reason that “Moshe is Israel” is because “the leader of the generation is like the entire generation.” Meaning to say, it is not that when Moshe does something for the congregation of Israel he has no personal involvement, as he is doing it for Israel and therefore one can interchange the words “Moshe” or “Israel.” Rather, the very identity of Moshe is that he is the “leader of the generation” and he is therefore like the entire generation. I.e., that a Jewish leader’s very essence is the community and therefore, by extension, all that he does is an act of Israel.
The same is true of “Israel is Moshe.” It is because “the leader is everything.” Here, Rashi does not write that the leader is “the generation,” as his intent is not to say that the identity of the leader is all the individuals of his generation. Rather, Rashi shows that all the particular needs of the congregation are the personal needs of the leader, and all their needs come through him. The leader is the conduit for both the physical needs and the spiritual needs of his generation. Since everything comes through the leader, “Israel is Moshe.”
Thus, Rashi’s declares that “These verses” are “to teach you that the leader of the generation is like the entire generation, because the leader is everything.” A verse that really should be assigned to Israel is assigned to Moshe and a verse that should be assigned to Moshe is assigned to Israel as “the leader...is like the entire generation” and “the leader is everything.”
Deeper lessons
An amazing thought can be learned from a seemingly insignificant discrepancy between the language of Rashi and the language of the Medrash.
While the Medrash states, “the head of the generation is the entire generation,” Rashi writes “the leader (nassi) of the generation is like the entire generation.”
The difference between the head of the generation and the leader of the generation is as follows: The head of the generation is like the head of a body. Just as the head directs the body, so too, the head of the generation directs the generation. The head expresses interaction with the generation. The word nassi, however, means exaltedness and separation. The title nassi is expressive of an individual that is exalted above his generation.
The intent of the Medrash’s statement, “the head of the generation is the entire generation,” is that because the individual is the head, therefore he is the entire generation. Because his actions as a head are acts of leadership for the generation, this unites the generation into a single unit.
From this it is understood, that this quality of the leader being considered as the entire populace is only in regard to his actions that he performs as a public figure for the community, where his actions are for the “entire generation.” Thus, only when he is serving his role of a head and a leader can he be called the “entire generation.”
However, when Rashi says that “the leader (nassi) of the generation is like the entire generation,” it expresses that even when the leader is exalted as a personal individual (as the term “nassi” connotes) he is still like the entire generation.
What is brought out from Rashi’s statement is twofold:
- On one hand, he is called a “nassi,” which is expressive of exaltedness and separateness from the rest of the generation. That being the case, it is understood that even his private actions, which one would think are the same or relatable to the rest of the generation, are inherently of a different nature. In all his actions he is removed and exalted from the rest of the generation.
- On the other hand, because “the leader (nassi) of the generation is like the entire generation,” it is understood that even the exalted attributes of the leader, which are seemingly “from his shoulders and upwards, taller than any of the people,” and not on the same wavelength, are nevertheless pertinent to the generation. Since “the leader (nassi) ...is everything,” it is understood that everything about him effects the generation.
The Rebbe
The parsha of Chukat falls out on many weeks between the dates of 3 Tammuz—the day that the Previous Lubavitcher Rebbe was released from prison—and 12 Tammuz—the day that he was completely freed from being exiled to the city of Kastroma.
It is understood that the parsha that this event falls out in hints to the way that the Previous Rebbe served the Jewish people. In all his actions it was clear that “the leader (nassi) of the generation is like the entire generation,” and “the leader (nassi) is everything.”
Whether it was spreading Torah in communist Russia or his acts of spreading Judaism after he left Russia, he was completely given over to the Jewish People; not working in one specific field for the Jewish People, but servicing all their needs.
He sent shochtim (ritual slaughterers) and rabbis to places that were needed, built mikvaot in places that were lacking, established Yeshivos and schools for the youth, and spread the deepest secrets of the Torah to all Jews.
Not only was he completely given over to the spiritual needs of the Jewish people, he was dedicated to their physical needs as well. His dedication to saving lives, freeing captives and helping the needy is well known and documented.
No matter the area that he was working in it, he did so with complete dedication and literal self-sacrifice. It was clearly recognizable in all his actions that the “leader of the generation is like the entire generation,” and both the physical and spiritual needs of the Jewish People came through him as “the leader (nassi) is everything.”
(Based on Likutei Sichos 13, Korach 1, reworked by Rabbi Dovid Markel. To see other projects and to partner in our work, see: www.Neirot.com.)
