Preparing for Sinai | Rabbi James Kennard | May 13 2026

Okay, everybody, we will start. My name is Rabbi Kenner. I'm here replacing Rabbi Adler today. Um I prefer not to use the microphone. Can everyone hear me at the back? Yes. Okay, that's good. Acoustics are good in in this in this hall. So, before we we start, I'd like to acknowledge that the Wednesday morning program in Rechavia is dedicated for this year the Nishmat Daniel ben David and Limor bat Avraham Strauss, Mordechai ben Moshe and Rachel bat Yosef Meir Marcus, zichronam livracha, parents of Judy and Menachem Marcus. And this year in particular is sponsored for this academic year by the Frist family in memory of their beloved daughter and sister Elisheva Frist. Uh Elisheva Sima bat Zalman, zichrona tzadik livracha. So, next week is Shavuot. So, I thought I'd learn a piece of Chumash which in a sense is how Bnei Yisrael prepared for Shavuot and will help us perhaps prepare for Shavuot. And I want to talk about the mitzvot that Bnei Yisrael were given before they got to Har Sinai. Where were they given mitzvot before they got to Har Sinai? At Marah. Marah was the first place they came to after Kriat Yam Suf. And if we read quote number one, Vayasa Moshe et Yisrael mi Yam Suf, Moshe moved the Bnei Yisrael from the Yam Suf. Rashi says he had to move them because they were busy collecting gold and silver. Vayeitzei'u el Midbar Shur, and they went out to the Midbar, the desert of Shur. Vayeilchu shloshet yamim bamidbar, and they journeyed for three days in the desert, velo matz'u mayim, and they didn't find water. So, they had a problem. Later on, we'll see that the absence of water for three days might be a metaphor, but it might not be a metaphor. They were thirsty, they needed help. Vayavo'u and so the next pasuk kaf gimmel, vayavo'u Marah, they came to a place called Mara. Velo yachlu lishtot mayim And they weren't able to drink the water there keep Miriam home because the water was bitter. I'll came Karash Mara. So it's a appropriate branding for this place where the water is bitter Mar and the place is called Mara. And the people argued they complained to Moshe saying what will we drink? And the answer was in cafe. Moshe cried to Hashem for your ray who Hashem eights and Hashem showed him a tree. And he threw it into the water for him to cool her mind and the water became sweet and all that is introduction for the next six words. Sham some low hawk or mishpat. For Sham Nisahu. There Hashem gave them a hawk and they mishpat. And there he tested them. So we're not going to talk about the test. We are going to talk about what was the hawk or mishpat. So the passage says Hashem gave the Israel a hawk which we usually translate as a decree that we don't necessarily understand the reason for and a mishpat a judgement sometimes a sort of mitzvah we do understand the reason for. What were those mitzvot? And why were those mitzvot chosen at this particular moment? So we are six weeks before Har Sinai. They're going to journey throughout Sefirat HaOmer from Kriyat Yam Suf through to Har Sinai and they have some mitzvot to as it were help them along the way. So before we get into the Gemara and Chazal and Rashi, let's see from the Ramban a more pshat orientated explanation. What is this hawk or mishpat? So later on we're going to define it in a different way but the Ramban says in number two. The Anitama. I am questioning I am wondering, why does it not specify what is this this hook and this mishpat? It just leaves it blank. Um What it should have said, what we would have expected when mitzvot are given to benei Israel, Hashem speaks to Moshe and Hashem says to Moshe tzav et benei Israel, command benei Israel, as it was said in parshiot above, where Hashem says to Moshe dabru el kol adat benei Israel begom etc. So, normally, when Hashem gives a mitzvah to klal Israel, he gives it through the medium of Moshe and we read in the Chumash Hashem tells Moshe go and command benei Israel to do such and such or not to do such and such. But here we don't have that. Here we just have Hashem gave chok u'mishpat and there's no sort of idea that Moshe passes it on or Moshe tells the people or tells us the reader what was this chok u'mishpat. Um so, let's just jump to number three. So, the answer, says the Ramban, al derech hapshat, in the simple non-midrashic way, um what it what is what I've missed out from the page is how he quotes Rashi and analyzes Rashi and then he says, but the pshat, the simple non-midrashic way is as follows. ka'asher hechilu la'avor ba'midbar hagadol v'hanora, when the Jews began to go into this desert, which is great and awesome. That's awesome in the proper sense of the word, not the teen age sense. But summer on and there was a lack of water, asher ein mayim, and there's no water, sham sam lahem b'michiutam v'tzarcheihem, he gave them for their lives and for their needs, minhagim, customs. We talk about a minhag like Ashkenazi do it this way and Sefardim do it this way. He's talking about a way to behave when you're in the desert. Minhagim asher yinagu bahem ad boam al eretz noshavet. Ways of behavior that they will behave until they come to a settled place where they can interact with other people and buy and sell. In the meantime, they're going to be in the desert and we don't know how long at this time. It turns out to be 40 years. They thought it was going to be less at that time. But when you're going into the desert, there are practices you need to follow because there's no water, it's very hot, it's very difficult. So he gave them chok u'mishpat, says the Ramban, means practices with which they could survive comfortably in the desert. And how do I know that chok u'mishpat means Minhag? So end of line two of number three, ki im Minhag yikarei chok. We find and he gives various examples which I haven't put on the page that a Minhag, a way of behaving, can be described as a chok. V'ikra Mishpat, and it also can be described as a Mishpat. He brings examples which I haven't put on the sheet. Um so chok u'mishpat can refer to customs, ways of behavior. So the simple p'shat is Hashem gave the Bnei Yisrael ways to behave, not mitzvot that we need to know the details of, not mitzvot that apply to us, which is why it's fine for it just to say chok u'mishpat and we can work out what it means, ways to behave in the desert. And then he says in in number three, line three, o sheyasrem b'chukei hamidbar. Or, slightly different approach, he instructed them about the laws of the midbar, the laws of how to behave in a more halachic sense. Lisbol haraav v'hatzama, to bear the hunger and the thirst. Likrovam el Hashem. Uh what you do when you're hungry and you're thirsty? You call to Hashem. That's good, that's the right way to behave. Lo derech tluna, in the line three, but not in a way of complaining. So, a hok is how you deal with things like famine, lack of water, lack of food. You do turn to Hashem. Just a moment. You do turn to Hashem, but lo bederech tluna, not in a way of complaining. That's what Hashem told Moshe to tell them. That's hok. On line four, umishpatim, what's the judgments? Sheyichyu bahem, things that they will live by. Le'ahov ish et re'ehu, to love one's fellow person, ulehitnaheg be'etzat hazekenim, and to behave in accordance with the advice of the old, the sages. Hatsnea lechet, to be modest and hidden in one's tent, be'inyan hanashim ve'hayeladim, in regarding to the wives and the children. In other words, to preserve family life and family integrity. Ush'einah hagush shalom in habayit umahaneh, limkor lahem davar, and they should behave peacefully with other people who might come into the camp to do some trade. So, according to the first explanation, the Ramban says, hok umishpat, both of them refer to just ways to endure in the desert. According to the second interpretation that he brings, it's more specifically ways to behave in a proper manner, to not complain to Hashem, to be modest, and to be peaceful with other people. Those are the hok umishpat which Hashem gave them. Yes, thank you for your patience. Thank you. So, then, according to the Ramban, hok is that survival techniques? According to the first Ramban, yes, absolutely. That's a good way better way of putting it than I did. Desert survival techniques. And he says, I chose not to put it on the sheet cuz it takes us down a little bit of of a rabbit hole, but hok can be used in the sense of minhag, and mishpat can be used in the sense of minhag. Minhag in the sense of technique, desert survival technique. So, he doesn't disagree with what we're about to see from Chazal. He actually quotes it, but he also offers his pschat, which means the reason it's not formulated like a mitzvah is because it's not a mitzvah. It's just for the time how to get along in the desert. And it fits. I mean, I think his pschat fits very nicely cuz they're about to go into the desert and that's where Hashem gives them chok u'mishpat. So, the Ramban says b'derech pschat chok u'mishpat is how to survive in the desert. But, I promise that we're going to concentrate on Chazal and Rashi. So, Rashi tells us what these mitzvot are. Um but before we get to Rashi number six, let's look at two possible sources for Rashi. Number four is the Mechilta in Midrash. Number five is the Gemara. So, in number four, in the Mechilta, we read as follows. Sham sam lo chok u'mishpat. There he gave them a chok and mishpat. What does that refer to? Chok, zeh ha'Shabbat. Chok is refers to the mitzvah of Shabbat. Now, we understand normally chok is a mitzvah that we don't know the reason for. And Shabbat, we think we do know the reason for. Thank you. And Shabbat, we think we do know the reason for, but we will see later why Shabbat can still be called a chok. So, according to this opinion in the Mechilta, chok refers to Shabbat. Yes? Is this the end of this sham sam lo chok u'mishpat, sham nisahu, it is a test for them? Yes. Well, I said I didn't want to get into that and I'm not going to concentrate on that today cuz that's another shiur. >> prefer a different question. You're very No, you don't have to rephrase the question. All questions are good. All questions are valid. But, um basically, I can answer very simply. He gave them mitzvot and he tested them to see if they would keep the mitzvot. But, there's other things to say, but I'm concentrating on today, this shiur is on what is the chok u mishpat. So, back to number four, line one, I'll start again. Sham sham lo chok u mishpat. Chok zeh Shabbat, u mishpat zeh kibud av va em. Mishpat is kibud av va em. Now, that is not so problematic. Um mishpat is a mitzvah that we understand the reason for. It's our a judgment. It like makes sense to us. And kibud av va em is a natural thing to do. We all honor our parents. We respect our parents. We thank the parents for raising us. So, mishpat refers to kibud av va em. Divrei Rabbi Yehoshua. So, those two mitzvot, Shabbat being the chok and kibud av va em being the mishpat, that's the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. End of line one. Rabbi Elazar Hamadai omer, Rabbi Elazar Hamadai gives another interpretation. Omer chok elu arayot. When it says chok, that refers to forbidden relationships between men and women. Lo vilti, as it says, shenemar, as it says in Vayikra, um in the parsha of Kedoshim, lo vilti assot ba mechukat hatoevot. Uh so, you're prohibited from doing the abominable chukot. Um and the context there is it's talking about forbidden relationships. So, Rabbi Elazar Hamadai said that's what it means here. U mishpat elu dinei onsin v'dinei knasiot v'dinei chavalot. It's the framework of a legal system. Dinei meaning judgments of things that are accidental or things that are liable for a fine or things that refer to damages between one person and another, either on their body or on their property. How we deal with that. Let's we group that all together and we call that dinim. So, we have two opinions. Each matches up chok u mishpat to a different mitzvah. Rabbi Yehoshua says chok is Shabbat, mishpat is kibud av va em. And Rabbi Elazar Hamadai says hok is arayot, forbidden relationships, and mishpat is dinim. That's one pair of pairs, if you like. So, we have two opinions there about what hok and two opinions about mishpat. In the Gemara in number five, we get another set of interpretations. So, the Gemara starts by saying, "Esreh mitzvot nitstavu Yisrael be-Marah." The Jews got 10 mitzvot, not just two, 10 mitzvot. It was a bargain day for mitzvot. Sheva she-kiblu aleihem benei Noach. So, that was the sheva mitzvot benei Noach. That's like a given, because all the the whole world are obliged to keep the sheva mitzvot benei Noach. So, at Marah, the Jews accepted upon themselves those mitzvot. Middle of line one, "Ve-hosifu." And they added aleihem on them another three mitzvot to get from seven to 10. And what were the three? Dinim, u-Shabbat, ve-kibud av va-em. Now, you'll see that what the Gemara says in number five is like a pastiche of the two opinions in the Midrash in number four. In the Midrash, we had one person said Shabbat and kibud av va-em. One person said arayot and dinim. And now, the Gemara in Sanhedrin in number five says the three mitzvot are dinim and Shabbat and kibud av va-em. So, they've sort of merged together some of what we saw in the Midrash. Um and then he says, "Where do we know" Yes, sorry. Isn't dinim one one one of the sheva mitzvot benei Noach? Yes, it is. And I was aware of that, and I didn't check the meforshim on the Gemara to resolve that. So, we'll leave that as homework. Thank you. For you and for me. Okay. But, that's a very good question. Yes, uh the sheva mitzvot includes dinim. Uh okay. Um let's keep going, because how do we know that these are the three extra mitzvot that they accepted? So, again, it's it's it's worked out by exegesis, by looking at the words and seeing how that words occurred before. So, dinim kativ, so we're in line two of number five, second word and third word. Dinim, because it writes in Shemot, sham sham lo chok umishpat, and dinim go very very naturally with mishpat. Mishpat means judgment. Dinim basically also means judgment, so that fits. Shabbat for kibud av va'eim, it's a different limud how we know Shabbat and kibud av va'eim are included. Dikhtiv, because it says in the second set of the 10 Commandments, there's a version uh in parshas Yisro, and there's another version in parshas Va'etchanan, and there are some subtle differences between them. And if you look in the second set, by both kibud av va'eim and by Shabbat, we find, so we're now on the third line of number five, the words kasher tzivicha Hashem Elokecha, as Hashem commanded you. V'amar Rav Yehuda, kasher tzivicha b'Marah. When did Hashem command you? In Marah. If you just look at number eight and number nine and number 10 and number 11, we'll just go through those. So, in these are quotes from the second decalogue, the second set of the 10 Commandments. In number eight, Shabbat goes like this, shamor es yom haShabbat l'kadsho, guard Shabbat to keep it, kasher tzivicha Hashem Elokecha, as Hashem has commanded you. So, if it says keep Shabbat as Hashem has commanded you, that implies that Hashem had already commanded you. And where do we find evidence that Hashem commands the people before Matan Torah? It must be at Marah. So, that's how we know that kibud av va'eim, sorry, Shabbat is one of those mitzvot that was given at Marah. And we can say exactly the same process, just one moment. In number 10, uh kabed es avicha v'es imecha, kasher tzivicha Hashem Elokecha, k- k- keep your on your parents as Hashem commanded you. Uh I'll I'll leave Rashi for a while, but as Hashem commanded you, again, same limud, same idea, that that means before the people got to Sinai, Hashem has already commanded them about kibud av v'em. Where did he command them previously before Sinai? Answer, Marah. So, we know that Shabbat and kibud av v'em were commanded at Marah because we're told explicitly in the Chumash, in the second 10 Commandments, that they were been previously instructed. And we know that the dinim is there because of the word mishpat. Okay. Now, I was going to ask why Rashi in where you quoted number six did not include kibud av v'em. So, when I ask I'm going to still ask it because you're saying now in Devarim that it should have been included. So, why didn't in Devarim include it? Okay, so you've read ahead. We haven't done number six yet. But, we will hopefully answer that, at least we'll find an explanation. Whether it'll satisfy us or not, we'll we'll come to that. So, now we've got the number four, the Mechilta. We've got number five, the Gemara. Let's see how Rashi deals with this. And Rashi says in number six, sham sam lo, there Hashem gave them. B'Marah nitan lahem miktzat parshiyot shel Torah sheyit'asku bahem. So, before we come to the very end where Rashi identifies what the mitzvot are, Rashi says something very, very significant. Why did Hashem give them these mitzvot at Marah? After all, if he just waited six weeks, he's going to give all 613. Why does he need to precede that with this particular mini matan Torah? And Rashi says, natan lahem miktzat parshiyot, he gave them a few, he doesn't call them mitzvot, he calls them parshiyot of the Torah, like sections of the Torah, sheyit'asku bahem, that they should occupy themselves with. In other words, these mitzvot are deliberate mitzvot chosen for Bnei Yisrael can practice, can get the idea of learning Torah and and deriving these Mitzvahs she yet ask cool behind they should occupy themselves with. Doesn't actually say that they should do the Mitzvah. I think that's implied, but it's not the focus. After all, when we say Birkat HaTorah every morning, Ashkenazim at least do not say "Asher Kid'shanu b'Mitzvotav v'Tzivanu l'ilmod Torah." We say "la'asok b'divrei Torah." The Mitzvah of learning Torah is to occupy oneself, to busy oneself with words of Torah. So, it's not just the doing, it's the learning. And Rashi here uses the same word "she yet ask cool behind" that they should occupy themselves with. They should practice learning the Torah and it does as I said, he doesn't say it, but I think it's implied they should keep these Mitzvahs, but they are ones that they should occupy themselves with as if as if as if he's saying in preparation, practice with these Mitzvahs until 6 weeks time we'll get all the other Mitzvahs and you'll have a head start because you'll have been practicing "she yet ask cool behind" how to occupy yourselves with them. Now, let's now bring all this together. So, the end of lines of number six. What were the Mitzvahs? Says Rashi, Shabbat, Upara Aduma, V'dinim. So, what's wrong? Aduma, what is it doing here? So, one's missing and one's here with no reason. What's missing is Kibud Av v'Eim. And what's here with no reason is Para Aduma. Mante Kashme, who mentioned Para Aduma for heaven's sake? So, where did Rashi get that from? And why is it there? So, Rashi, as we can see, takes a little bit from the Midrash in number four. He takes Shabbat and Kibud Av v'Eim and din and dinim. Um he takes the same three but he misses out Arayot, which was one of the options in number four. In number five in the Gamara he takes Dinim Shabbat and Kibud Av Va'em except he doesn't mention Kibud Av Va'em in his list here in number six and he does mention Para Aduma. So where did Kibud Av Va'em go and where did Para Aduma come from? So there is a famous idea by the Torah Temima. So the Torah Temima is the son of the Aruch Hashulchan. He's the author of the Torah Temima on the Chumash. He's also the author of Machberes Baruch on the Siddur and the reason I mention all that is because he says something here which he also says in a couple of other circumstances. Let's see what he says in number seven. Nilu Hamiforshim the commentators worked hard, almost struggled Limtzo Makor Lidvarav to find a source for Rashi's words. In other words we've got a problem because Para Aduma is not in the Midrash, it's not in the Gamara. Where did Rashi get that from? And says the Torah Temima, people have tried to answer that question and we will see an answer later on but the Torah Temima doesn't like the approaches and he says Ledati Ne'era Barur Sheta'ut Sofer Kal Nafal Bidvarav. It seems clear to me that a little scribal error fell into his words. Now this is a reasonable position. We have about 200 manuscripts of the original Rashi and they're all different. Because as copies get copied by individual people with a with a pen it's inevitable that mistakes will get made and if you copy out one version of Rashi and you make a mistake and you pass it on to your student and he passes it on to his student that mistake is going to be multiplied and happen all over again. So says the Torah Temima, I think there was a scribal error here and he calls it a very little scribal error and you'll see what he means why he says it's very little. It's a told sofa call the father of it fell into Rashi's words Shahaya Katuv because Rashi originally wrote and meant to write Shabbat V'dinim Vov Kof Aleph which stands for V'kibud Ov. Rashi Tevot that's the opening word the initials of Kibud Ov. So if Rashi went with those three that's good because that's exactly what the Gamorah says. So Rashi's on firm ground if he means Shabbat and Dinim and Kibud Ov the Aim and either Rashi himself or some scribe abbreviated Kibud Ov the Aim to be Vov Kof Aleph. Kumah of the Gamorah B'chiltah so you've got the three that have in the Gamorah and three of the four that you have in the Mechiltah. O Betaut and then by mistake the next time it was copied Nishtar Vov HaKof the Kof of Vov Kof Aleph got a little bit extended la Pay and a little bit of a curl occurred at the top of the letter so instead of it looking like a Kof it looked like a Pay. The Azem Atik and the next copyist Hosif Taut Altaut added mistake onto mistake Uperish Umephorash Harishai sorry Haroshi Tevot and some people thought instead of Vov Kof Aleph it looks like Vov Pay Aleph and what does Vov Pay Aleph stand for? V'Parah Adumah. So says the Torah Temimah it means Kibud Ov the Aim it doesn't mean Parah Adumah and why does it say Parah Adumah and it doesn't say Kibud Ov the Aim? Because Vov Kof Aleph which stands for V'kibud Ov got switched by a tiny little dot. You can imagine maybe just a fly flew over and dropped a little bottle of ink where I'm making a Kof into a Pay. So the next reader says scratches his head and says what's Vov Pay Aleph? Ah it's V'Parah Adumah. So implying so it's an it's a good story. It's a good explanation. As I say, the the Torah Temimah and a couple of other places gives a similar explanation about some of our text in the Siddur. Um and it also answers the question, where did para aduma come from? It came from a dot. And where has kibbud av v'eim gone? It's gone become para aduma. And everything's fine, except everything's not fine. Because if you look at number 11, so number 11 is Rashi's comment on kibbud av v'eim in the second set of the 10 Commandments, which we saw in number 10. Uh and the key word is kasher tzivcha Hashem. So, kibbud av v'eim is something you knew before Sinai because the Torah says you have already been commanded in it. Says Rashi, kasher in number 11, kasher tzivcha. As you were commanded, af al kibbud av, you were also commanded about kibbud av v'eim sorry, v'eim. Nitztavu b'Marah. There you were commanded it in Marah. Sham sham lo chok u'mishpat. There it was given a chok and a mishpat. Sorry, that's wasn't the Rashi that wasn't the key Rashi I was looking for. It's coming in number 13, but we'll get there. So, Rashi there says you have to include kibbud av v'eim. Um Right, okay. Now I've got it. You have to include kibbud av v'eim in number 11. Rashi says explicitly kibbud av v'eim was given at Marah. He says it in black and white. And the reason we know that kibbud av v'eim was given in Marah because it says in the second set of the 10 Commandments, kasher tzivcha, you've already been commanded about it. So, Rashi in number 11 clearly wants to include kibbud av v'eim. Which raises the question, why doesn't he include it in number six? When he says Hashem gave the mitzvot they can occupy themselves with Shabbat, para aduma, and dinim, he doesn't mention kibbud av v'eim. So, the Torah Temimah has given an answer to that. He did mention kibbud av va'em, but it got swapped in Para into Para Adumah. But, here's what I was looking for. If you look at number 12, we have to go back a little bit. Uh back to the story of well, sort of the end of Parshas Mishpatim, which Rashi says is to in the wrong place chronologically, and what we're about to read happened before the Torah was given. And what we read is as follows number 12. Vayavo Moshe vayasaf la'am kol divrei Hashem. Uh Moshe returned went to the people and said to them what Hashem had said to him, which is all about preparing for Matan Torah. And he also said ve'et kol hamishpatim, and he gave them all the mishpatim. Vayaan kol ha'am kol echad, and the people answered with one voice vayomru, and they said kol hadvarim asher diber Hashem na'aseh. All the things that Hashem has said we will do. Now, what is kol divrei Hashem in number 11? Sorry, number 13. What is kol divrei Hashem? Says Rashi, it means mitzvot perushot vahagbalah, the mitzvah of separating from Har Sinai and the boundary around Har Sinai. In other words, the the mitzvah which or the the practice, if you like, which is stressed over and over again immediately before Matan Torah, that the people must not come up the mountain. Only Moshe goes up the mountain, and the people are restricted by a not a picket fence like the kids all draw in kindergarten, but by a rule that says you're not allowed to go up to the mountain. That's kol divrei Hashem. But then the possuk also says in number 12, Moshe go gave the people kol hamishpatim. What does that mean? So, says Rashi in number 13, second line, ve'et kol hamishpatim, zayin mitzvot she nitstavu bnei Noach, the seven mitzvot that were commanded to the bnei Noach, va' Shabbat, vekibbud av va'em, vepara adumah, vedinim. Full mitzvot she nitnu lahem b'Marah. So, what Rashi is doing is basing himself on the Gemara, which said the seven mitzvot b'nei Noach and more, but Rashi is not focusing on three more cuz he comes up with four more, and he comes up explicitly with Shabbat, kibbud av va'em, which is there in the Gemara, I'll jump, and dinim, which is there in the Gemara, and he says parah adumah. So, I'm very sorry, but it's hard to reconcile the words of the Torah Temimah with this Rashi here. Now, it could be that the Torah Temimah had a different text of our of Rashi in number 13, and it could be that the text that he had said kibbud av va'em and didn't say parah adumah, or maybe the other way around, which would then have fitted with his thesis that was only three, and a mistake was made what kibbud av va'em switched into parah adumah, but according to our text of Rashi, that doesn't work. Just let me let me just finish the point because according to our text of Rashi, it's there in black and white in number 13, Rashi says there were four mitzvot given at Marah, and that includes both kibbud av va'em and parah adumah. So, one's not a mistake for the other. The other two are Shabbat and dinim. Now, we have to ask if Mosha if Rashi here in Shemot says there were four, why did Rashi in number six say there were three? So, that's what we're going to analyze in a just a moment. Just so everyone can get on the same page. Rashi in number six said there were three mitzvot, Shabbat, parah adumah, and dinim, and Rashi in number 13 says there were four mitzvot, Shabbat, parah adumah, dinim, and kibbud av va'em. So, there's a discrepancy somewhere. Yes. Um it the way I read it, uh it doesn't really matter the number of mitzvot because it just says hope and mishpat. So hope could be the parah adumah and all the means for the real ones. Uh that may well be that may well be exactly right. But we still have a if not a contradiction a variation between Rashi and Rashi. When we get a variation between Rashi and Rashi I mean some of us like me get very excited and see how we can reconcile it. But but certainly hope lends itself to parah adumah. Yes. Yes. Can we extend the Turei Zahav Maimonides' idea and say that the same scribe who unpacked a aleph and said oh parah adumah, that same scribe in his Talmud went and then they came he came to number 13 and said well let's see. Rashi said kibbud av em that we know from number 11 and he also said parah adumah. Good. I'm going to put them both in. So in other words I I that's a little further and far-fetched. However, according to the Turei Zahav Maimonides the only question is why did the Turei Zahav Maimonides on this Rashi stop and say it can't be both. Correct. However, scribal errors could possibly explain how that Rashi got Yes. Um totally agree and thank you for your summation of where we're up to. You're clearly on the same page as me by your You're you're perfectly clear. >> Thank you. Thank you. You are correct. >> Um Uh the answer is absolutely yes. We know there are scribal errors in Rashi because we know we have many different versions. Not fundamentally different at all but different a word here even a comment that appears in this Rashi but didn't appear in that Rashi or the Ramban will quote Rashi and it's not the same as what we have in our Rashi. So there's absolutely no doubt that scribal errors ta'ut sofer uh crept in. And the Turei Zahav Maimonides gave a very clever suggestion of how kaf aleph turns into peh aleph and it's totally possible that another scribe said "Well, hang on a minute. We've got kaf of somewhere. We've got pay of somewhere. Maybe it should be both." And that would explain why Rashi sometimes says three and sometimes says four. But we're not going to go down that path cuz we're going to do one we're going to go down a path a bit more interesting to the Gur Aryeh in number 14. So, the Gur Aryeh, which is a particular favorite of mine, is the is the Maharal. The Maharal didn't make a golem, by the way. Sorry to disappoint some people. There's no basis for that legend at all. But what the Maharal did make was a fundamental revolution in Jewish philosophy. He left us a a library of works and he also wrote a payrush on the Rashi, which he called Gur Aryeh. And it's important for what's coming next to just give a little bit more background about the Maharal. Um There are a number of themes in the Maharal's writings, but one which is constant is respect for the words of Chazal. The words of Chazal are always right. They may not be literally true. They may be an allegory or a metaphor, but they're always precise and they're always deliberate. Now, the commentary on Rashi is to an extent a commentary on the midrashim and the words of Chazal that Rashi brings. And we'll see this quite clearly in in what we're going to learn today. So, the Maharal, all his books have as a part of the agenda is to defend the integrity of the words of Chazal. And he brings that style to bear when he comments on Rashi. And what I'm leading up to is when Rashi misquotes a midrash or deliberately quotes it in a different way, the Maharal will often criticize Rashi and say, "You should have left the words of Chazal as they appear and not started mucking around with them." Mucking around is too strong. Not not changing them. And you'll see that quite clearly here. So, in number 14, he says, um and this is really commentary on our our key point, which is in number six. At Mara, Hashem, the possuk says, "Sham sam lo chok u'mishpat." There he gave them a chok u'mishpat. And Rashi in number six said that was Shabbat, Parah Adumah, and Dinim. And he missed out Kibbud Av v'Eim. So says the Gemara in number 14, sorry, said the Maharal in number 14. Rashi lo ba'al ha'turrets, rak ha'possuk. Rashi's own agenda is to explain the possuk. The possuk of what Hashem gave them at Mara, chok u'mishpat. She'ne'emar chok u'mishpat, as it says, chok u'mishpat. U'lekoch peirush ki chok zeh Parah Adumah. And therefore Rashi, Rashi's objective, says the Maharal, and he's, I think we would all agree he's right, is Rashi is focusing on explaining the words of the possuk. That's what Rashi always does. Rashi's uh, his own agenda is to resolve contradictions, to explain words, to explain what the possuk means. And Rashi in this case comes across the word chok. Now, without a source in Chazal, because there isn't one in the Mechilta and there isn't one in the Gemara, Rashi says, "You know what chok is? Chok is what chok always means, a mitzvah that we can't understand." And what is the classic chok, the chok of chokim? It's the Parah Adumah. As the parsha of the Parah Adumah at the beginning of Chukat says, "Zot chukat ha'Torah." This rule, which these laws, which we're about to describe in chapter 19 of the of Bamidbar, about the Parah Adumah, are introduced with the words, "Zot chukat ha'Torah." So says Rashi, as explained by the Maharal, "I've got the word chok in front of me. Chok can only mean Parah Adumah." So end of line one of number 14, "Ki chok zeh Parah Adumah, she'badai nikra chok." Because that's certainly called a chok. No question. Then, "V'hosif Alzat Shabbat. And then he adds on it Shabbat. Now, what about Shabbat? Af al gav shalom matzanu befeirosh etzel Shabbat hok. Even though we do not find in our sources that Shabbat is called a hok. End of line two. Keivan de matzanu ki Shabbat gam kein ef kadma be mara. Since we find that Shabbat was commanded about at Mara, how do we know for sure that Shabbat was commanded at Mara? Cuz of the Ten Commandments. As he goes on to say, line three. Shaharai ne'emar ba'aseret hadibrot kasher tzivicha be Shabbat. So, we have this thing. We have the word hok to describe the mitzvot that were given at Mara. And we know that Shabbat was given at Mara. So, we put the two together and we say, uh end of line three, belashon hok yitparesh gam kein al Shabbat. We can also explain the word hok referring to Shabbat. So, in other words, why does Rashi say Shabbat among as amongst these mitzvot? Because Rashi sees the word hok. And Rashi says, "You know what? I know Shabbat was given at Mara because it says so in the Ten Commandments. So, I can't get away from the fact Shabbat is there. Is it hok or is it mishpat? You know what? It's sort of hok. Sort of hok, that's my words. Um that's what I think the the Maharal is saying about Rashi. It's sort of hok because there are things in Shabbat we understand, there are things in Shabbat we don't understand, as he will explain. Um the dinim, uh line four after the dots, the dinim shaarai ketav mishpat. And the word Rashi says the word dinim, sorry, the mitzvot of dinim, of laws is there because it says mishpat. So, Rashi looks at it and says hok u mishpat. Hok, that's para aduma cuz that's the classic hok. Shabbat, I know it's got to be included somewhere, so I'll say that Shabbat is also a hok because there are elements of Shabbat we don't understand. And dinim, that's clearly mishpat. So, what are we explaining? Why did Rashi miss out kibbud av v'aim? The Gemara had kibbud av v'aim. We know Rashi later on had kibbud av v'aim. Why didn't Rashi have kibbud av v'aim when he says at Marah? So, end of line four, aval kibbud av v'aim lo nis kar ba katuv. Kibbud av v'aim is not mentioned in the pasuk. It's not a hawk. It's not a mishpat. V'lakh lo perush Rashi imahaim kibbud av v'aim. And that's why Rashi didn't mention kibbud av v'aim. Now, spoiler alert, the Marah is not going to be happy about this approach. He thinks Rashi shouldn't have done that. But he's explaining why Rashi in number six at Marah doesn't mention kibbud av v'aim. What's your question? But in number in number 10, kashyot tzeevcha Ah. Okay. I can answer this. Because uh according to the Marah and according to most of the students of Rashi, Rashi is answering the question about the pasuk that he's dealing with. And in the pasuk in number six, he's dealing with what's chok u'mishpat. And he doesn't need to include kibbud av v'aim. This is the chiddush of the Marah. That's what we just learned. He doesn't need to explain kibbud av v'aim cuz there's no word in the in the pasuk which demands the explanation explanation being kibbud av v'aim. In number 11, he's answering a different question. W- just just a second. What's he answering in number 11? Why does it say in the second set of the 10 Commandments, kashyot tzeevcha? Because kibbud av v'aim was given at Marah. I, there's almost a contradiction in what happened. That's not Rashi's problem. Rashi's job, he comes with a yanan and says, "My job is to explain the words of the pasuk that I'm dealing with." So, it it's it's a bit stretched and there's there's there's a there's a tension here at the very least, if not a problem. But the Marah has said this is what's going on. In number six, Rashi has to explain what's Mishpat. In number 11, Rashi has to explain why is Shabbat When he gets to that part When he gets to that part, he's not there now. Yes. Yes. Because okay, you're right. So, the question is he does use in the Maharal says that Rashi does use for Shabbat. And they answer that I think the Maharal is saying is because Shabbat can be fitted into the word "chok". But can't. Okay? Okay? You're welcome not to like it. I ask you to respect it. It's the words of the Maharal. Well, let's keep going. Let's keep going. Number 15. The odd Furthermore, "chok" means "tam la". The word "chok" refers to any which isn't a reason for or I would say which we don't know the reason for. But Shabbat shall I tell you why? Because But a where the the reason is completely revealed That's not called a "chok". So, the basic idea which we're all familiar with, a "chok" is a that you don't understand the reason for. And another type of where you do find understand the reason, that is called not sorry, that's not called a "chok". And in line two, number 15. Keep it up and Shabbat is more than all. So, keep it up and the is clear. The reason for the is clear. Of course, we have to show respect for our parents. That's a basic human instinct. And there "chok" all. Keep it up and cannot be fitted into the word "chok" at all. But Shabbat will be a little bit. We're very nearly there. Even if you don't know the Torah, even if you don't know the Torah, you know it small. Um the other way but >> A person knows from their own instinct to honor their parents. But Shabbat, if it weren't given by Hashem, it wouldn't be known by itself. And therefore, it's called and therefore it's called hok. We're probably not going to have time. But in number 18, I'll just say now, he says there are elements of Shabbat which are beyond understanding like to whom him. Why can't you walk more than a thousand I'm not 2,000 1.2 kilometers. Why can't you walk more than a thousand 2,000 on Shabbat? That's not clear. That's a little bit mysterious. We don't really know the reason for that. It's my words, so blame me for I'm summing up number 18. But what he says, what the what the moral just said in number 15 to sort of justify what he said in number 14, is look at the word hok. It cannot refer to the aim, which is why he doesn't mention aim in his parish. But it could refer to Shabbat. Because he he's been very open about it. It's not it's not slight of hand. He starts by saying that a hok is a myth that which is the reason is not known. And then he changes that. He says a hok is a myth that which we would not work out for ourselves. Give it up the aim is not a hok. Because we would not work out we sorry, we could work out for ourselves. Shabbat is a hok. If we weren't given Shabbat, we would work Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday. We would carry on working. Maybe we take Wednesday afternoon off and have a little bit of a break. As a very good. Exactly when they moved to a 10-day week. So, Shabbat we all think Shabbat such an obvious idea cuz we couldn't manage without Shabbat. We couldn't live our lives without Shabbat without one day a week stopping, reflecting, recharging, reconnecting. But, take away the poetry and then and the polemic, we could manage without Shabbat. And if we didn't have Shabbat, we wouldn't work it out for ourselves. So, says the Maharal, that's why Rashi, when he comes to the word "chok" in the possuk about Mara, says, "You know what? Obviously it's Para Aduma, and Shabbat Shabbat was commanded in Mara. I can fit Shabbat into the word "chok", but I cannot fit Kibbud Av v'Eim into the word "chok". So, why not put it with Mishpat? Cuz it's the Why does it fit with Mishpat either? Mishpat is a judgment. The same way you Okay. chok you could do Mishpat. Uh apparently apparently not. Uh but, number 16. So, number 16, "I'm none, but in cold air the world of to move him." Nevertheless, with all this explanation, and I've managed I, the Maharal, have explained what Rashi is doing, why and Mara he brings in Para Aduma cuz it is chok, why he doesn't bring in Kibbud Av v'Eim cuz it doesn't really doesn't fit in the chok or Mishpat, therefore he doesn't need to mention it. So, I, the Maharal, I've explained Rashi, I've justified Rashi, but you know what? I'm not happy. Sh'haya lo l'fareish hakasuv k'mo shepirshu hachachamim. Rashi's castigating Rashi here. Rashi should have explained the possuk like Chazal do. And what do Chazal do? They say Shabbat, Kibbud Av v'Eim, and Dinim. And should Rashi should not have missed out Kibbud Av v'Eim because Chazal put it there, so Rashi should have put it there. That's what I mean about the Maharal. He writes his commentary on Rashi called the Gur Aryeh, which is explaining and justifying Rashi. And by the way, when Rashi disagrees when the Ramban disagrees with Rashi, the Maharal's in there like a shot to defend Rashi. But, ultimately Rashi has a higher master, says the Chazal says the Maharal, and that's the words of Chazal. And when Rashi deviates from the words of Chazal, and there are a number of examples, the Midrash has like four elements and Rashi quotes three or the other way around, or Rashi quotes a Midrash here and where Chazal quoted there, the Maharal will be in there saying, "Rashi should have stuck to the words of Chazal." End of line one of number 16. "Valola asot perush misvarat halev." And Rashi shouldn't have done a perush based on his own reasoning, the reasoning which I, the Maharal, have tried to explain in the previous two paragraphs. Because when a person really studies and tries to understand the disputes of Chazal, they'll find a wondrous reason for omed ma'od and great depth lama bacharu ba'elu, why they chose these particular things in general and in our case, why they chose these particular mitzvot. And they chose everything with wisdom and another word for wisdom. Varashi natan midivrei chachamim zal, and Rashi in this case deviated from the words of Chazal vehosif aleihem, and he added to them. Vegara haber, and if you add, it leads to ultimately a subtraction. And he, by adding in Para Aduma and missing out Kibud Av Va'Em, by deviating from the words of Chazal and not really appreciating or not sharing with us the deep, deep meaning of every word of Chazal, Rashi did something he shouldn't have done. He added and as the Gemara says, anyone who adds ultimately is subtracting because you're shattering the integrity of the system. If he adds, he did something wrong. If he subtracted, he did something wrong. So, I just find that fascinating that the Maharal, who speaks with great reverence for Rashi, will criticize Rashi quite strongly when Rashi doesn't follow the words of Chazal. So, again, what what the Maharal did in paragraph 14 or 15 is explain why Rashi given Rashi's own internal reasoning and I think he did a pretty good job to be honest. We've got our critics here. We've got our questioners here, but I think he did a pretty good job. Rashi's focusing on Mishpat. He's not focusing on Tzvacha cuz that's a different possuk. And it sort of fits. I think even the Maral would agree the word sort of is appropriate here. But then he says he shouldn't have done it. He shouldn't have done it because he should have stuck with the words of Chazal. Okay. Um Look at the clock. Yes. Okay. Let's go on to the Maskil LeDavid who is a another commentator on Rashi and he says in number 17 on the word Sham Sham etc. Af Al Gav De Lone Miscarah Parah Adumah Lo Be Mechilta Ve Lo Be Shas Ve Sanhedrin. So uh putting aside what we saw from the Maral who I think explained things quite well, we come back to a question. This is the question that Torah Temimah answered in his radical way with the dot in the kaf. Where did Parah Adumah come from? Because it's not there in the classic sources, not in the Mechilta that we saw, and not in the Gemara that we saw. So where does Rashi get it from? And I will just add that there is a little possuk that no place in the Chumash when it talks about Parah Adumah does it ever say Kashes Lo Yuchal. Very good point. Yep. Very good point. So Rashi where where that adds to the mystery of where and why Rashi got this. Yes. Because the Parah Adumah is specifically a way to re make a Cohen or anyone who uh a mis- a mis- I'm sorry. I'm not putting it very well. Well, it it makes >> to a way to re- makes them makes them tahor when they became tamei. Yes. There had to be a way. It's such a strong thing. You know, they couldn't be isolated from the from the camp. Yes, so there needed to be some mechanism to get them back and that's what the parah adumah is. But it's still very mysterious. >> Yes. Uh in many many ways. I mean the Gamara says one example is the one of the people involved in the process becomes tame by actually carrying the the water with the dust in it. Uh the very water which is used to make people tahor, the person who carries it becomes tame. That's a mystery, but that's only one of many many mysteries. So yes, there has to be a mechanism, but it's still very mysterious. So let's get back to number 17. So end of line one. Rashi zal hotzi came azeh midrash elam mimenu. Aha, says the Maskil leDavid. Do you know where Rashi got this parah adumah from? He got it from some midrash that we don't have. And that by the way is very very plausible. Um when we say the midrash, I have one of my hobby horses is I I I have a problem with the series of books called the midrash says. Uh and it's even worse with for the children's version for little midrash says. And the reason I have a problem is because there's no such thing as the midrash says. There are hundreds of midrashim. And many say different things. There's a wonderful book called the Torah Sheleimah where Rav Menachem Mendel Kasher compiled every midrash that he could ever see and every manuscript in every university library that he researched and he put them together in this book called the Torah Sheleimah and and you can see there the vast range of midrashic comments. There's lots and lots and lots of different midrashim. We know of Midrash Rabbah, we know of Midrash Tanchuma, and maybe we know a few more, but there are literally hundreds more than that. Um and says the Maskil leDavid, you know what? It's quite probable that there's another midrash that we don't have anymore. It was lost along with thousands of other Jewish texts that we don't have today because they've been lost. And there it said parah adumah. So working backwards if you like, Rashi says parah adumah. Rashi usually has a midrashic source. Presumably there was a midrashic source. So then he says the middle of line two in number 17, "The Yeshua remez be parsha lishlo sham." We can actually see an illusion in the words of the midrash to the three that the Rashi talked about there in my keep going back as number six. Rashi said at my commenting on the parsha Amara that they got the mitzvah of parah adumah and Shabbat and dinim. So it says the Masoretic they're all three are alluded to in the parsha. End of line two. "Chuk zu parah." Obviously chuk refers to parah adumah. "Mishpat elah hadinim." Mishpat is dinim. "Chuk u'mishpat beyachad zeh Shabbat." This is what I wanted to put on the page cuz I think it's really clever. It's really beautiful. You've only got two words, chuk u'mishpat, and you've got three mitzvot. But says the Masoretic, I can show you how Rashi can match up all three to the two words. One word is chuk, parah adumah. One word is mishpat, dinim. And where's the third word? Chuk [snorts] u'mishpat together. And what is chuk u'mishpat together? Shabbat. Because Shabbat has elements that you can understand and elements that you can't [music] understand. Nice, huh? So um I'll carry on. I'll use his words rather than mine. Chuk, end of line two, beginning of line three. "Chuk u'mishpat beyachad zeh Shabbat detarvayu itbay." Because you've got elements of both chuk and mishpat in the laws of Shabbat. "Hamishpat shebohu as isur melacha." The mishpat which now I will go to Sorry, I don't know your name. What you said you thought maybe Shabbat can be fitted into mishpat? Sorry. You Shabbat maybe Shabbat can be fitted into mishpat. Yes, he can cuz there's elements in it which like make sense. Isur melacha, not doing work. "Shabbat meforesh batorah." And the reason for not doing work on Shabbat is explicit in the Torah. We do know the reason. Ki she your meme etc. Hashem created the world in six days and rest on the seventh day. So, apart from the hidden reason for Shabbat, every mitzvah has got a hidden reason even if we think we know the reason, we don't. But Shabbat, apart from the hidden reason we don't know, we do know a Tam Galui, a revealed reason and it's the call and it's clear to everyone. So, he is saying and the Maral didn't, but he is saying that Mishpat means a mitzvah that we do understand. And so, Shabbat has got elements that we do understand and therefore it fits with the word Mishpat. For end of line four, for Shabbat, but the Hok could go Hok and to Humin. Hok, carrying something from one domain to another. He says as example something that we don't understand the reason for. I suppose it's not really a Malacha, it's it's it's often listed distinct from the other 38 Malachot. Hok has a status of its own and says the Masquerade it's not something we really know the reason for. Why can't you carry from one domain to another? That's not a Malacha in the sense of creative activity. Are there ways of answering that for sure, but at least it's a question. And to Humin as I said earlier, the limit on how far you can go outside the city on Shabbat, that we don't know the reason for. At least the Manda Mar we're on line five here. The Manda Mar the if could be Marah. There's a dispute whether to Humin actually is mid the right or mid the rabbinan and if you say it's mid the right or it's from the Torah, then you would say it's like the other mitzvot of Shabbat was given at Marah. Um Getting towards the middle of line five. To Humin ain't Tam Barur and the dome the Tam Shatnez and the Hazir, not going past the to Humin on Shabbat is a mitzvah which does not have a clear reason, but it's like the mitzvah shatnez, which is a classic chok as well, something we don't know the reason for. The achilas chazir and the forbidden not being allowed to eat pigs is also something we don't know the reason for. She na'aman Rashi l'chaman b'chlall chukim. Those mitzvah shatnez and not eating pigs Rashi lists as chukim. He mentions it in various places and gives those examples. Af al gav d'eet b'eit ta'ama, even though they have a reason, ela shehu misterei Torah. A but their a reason that the Torah keeps hidden. The hachi nami kain and it's the same here with elements of the mitzvah of Shabbat. So to sum up, the Maskil l'David says that they Rashi sees the allusions in the parsha to the three mitzvah that he lists. I would also say by extension he doesn't see an allusion to kibbud av v'eim, which is why he doesn't mention it there, even though kibbud av v'eim was commanded at Sinai at Mara as we know from other sources. But sticking to the same idea that I've been stressing, Rashi's job is to explain the pasuk that he's dealing with and he mentions these three mitzvah because chok is parah adumah, mishpat is dinim and chok u'mishpat together is Shabbat because it has elements of both. And where did he get parah adumah from? What's his source? Well, it's some midrash that we've lost, we don't have anymore. Um going back to the theme of Hashem gave mitzvot or parshiyot she'yit'asku bahem, that they should occupy themselves with. So the Maharal in number 18 explains why these mitzvot are particularly good for occupying yourself with. Um I'll just I'll say it outside. He says the the significance of Shabbat is it's got lots and lots of details. There's a lot of bits and pieces involved in knowing Hilchos Shabbat. Um I I I think to study Hilchos Shabbat properly at a, you know, a serious level, it probably takes about 10 years to cover the whole of Hilchos Shabbos. It's it's not a simple matter. Whereas, Kibbud Av Va'Eim has got fewer components and Parah Adumah has got a number of components, but they're far far fewer than um uh than the Shabbos. So, the significance of Shabbos is it's got lots of details. Uh the significance of Parah Adumah is obviously that we don't understand the reason. It's a classic one that we have to do because Hashem told us to do it. And um Yeah, so I didn't it's not it's not Parah Adumah. He's still talking He's still talking about the the list that Rashi gave with the three, which didn't include Kibbud Av Va'Eim. Sorry, that's what I was just checking. Um the mitzvah he's talking about is Dinim. Uh so, I haven't mentioned Dinim. Uh so, Parah Adumah is a classic example of a mitzvah we don't understand. Shabbos is a classic example of a mitzvah where there's a lot to learn. And Dinim is a classic example of wisdom. Chazal used wisdom to determine what the civil law is. Reuven's uh hurt Shimon, how much does Reuven have to pay to Shimon? Shimon lost the deposit the article that Shimon that that Reuven deposited with him, how much does Shimon have to pay to Reuven? These are all very fine distinctions. Uh when one learns what some people call the Bava trilogy, Bava Kamma, Bava Metzia, Bava Basra, um where deal with all these laws, it's very hard. It's very subtle. It's very nuanced. And what puts somebody from one category into another, from liable to not liable and and and so on, is a very subtle point and it requires great wisdom. And Chazal say that those who want to become wise should learn Dinim because Dinim is the manifestation of the Torah's wisdom. So, the Bene Israel are 6 weeks out from Har Sinai. Hashem says, "Here's some mitzvot that you can practice learning and practice doing." And he gives them mitzvot which will fulfill these great different criteria. They'll learn about Shabbat and they'll realize that there are lots of mitzvot with lots of details. They'll learn about Parah Adumah and they'll realize there are lots of mitzvot which which we don't know the reason. They'll learn about dinim and they'll say there's tremendous wisdom and profundity in this system of legality. And that will give them things to practice with before they get to Har Sinai. I just want to end with a well-known story in number 19. Rav Amital Rav Amital, the founder of Har Etzion Yeshiva, the great Rosh Yeshiva, once asked a couple who were beginning to take Sorry, once received a couple who were beginning to take their commitment to Torah more seriously. And they asked which mitzvot they should start with. And this text that I quoted doesn't actually say, but what I would the the version that I heard of the story, that Rav Amital said, "Look at what Hashem gave Bene Israel to start their commitment to mitzvot." He gave them kibud av v'em, depends on how you count them, which is an obvious mitzvah to do. He gave them Shabbat, which is a beautiful mitzvah, it's a complicated mitzvah, and it's a testament to Hashem creating the world. So, Rav Amital said, "Those are good ones to start with. Just like Klal Yisrael were introduced to mitzvot with these, so in real life people can be introduced to mitzvot with these." And going back to the text, Rav Amital said, "Start with mitzvot you understand and find meaningful, like Shabbat and kibud av v'em, but also expe- accept upon yourself at least one mitzvah which you do not understand at all and follow it diligently." And that's crucial. It's crucial for us today. It's crucial for Klal Yisrael then. The mitzvot that we people can't understand, the mitzvot for which we don't know the reason, are the most important to follow. Of course, every mitzvah is important to follow. But, sometimes I I used to be for many years I was a teacher, I was a principal, and I met many many young people who would say, or many not so young people, who would say, "I understand this mitzvah, it's a good one. I'm going to keep that one. But, this mitzvah I don't understand, or to use the modern parlance, it goes against my values, or it doesn't fit comfortably with me. I'm not going to keep that one." You know what? They've got it the wrong way around. The most important mitzvot to keep are the ones for which we don't know the reason, because we are keeping them solely because Hashem commanded them to us. We have faith that this is what Hashem wants us to do. Um to have a day off once a week and to eat cholent, that doesn't show faith in Hashem, that shows faith in ourselves. Um Well, sometimes people say, "The God I believe in wouldn't command me to do this." Cuz what they mean is the God I believe in, by amazing coincidence, is exactly what they think anyway. We have to show that we worship we we try to be the people that Hashem wants us to be, not we make him into the God that we want him to be. And in order to show that we are the people whom Hashem wants to act in a certain way, it is most important that we pick at least one mitzvah to that demonstrates that we don't know the reason for it, but we do it solely because Hashem wants us to do. So, Rav Amital was saying that the program that Hashem gave to Klal Yisrael, these mitzvot, is it three or is it four? We can call it however we count them. But, we can see the the categories into which they fit were a wonderful paradigm, an archetype of a program for coming closer to mitzvot ourselves. So, Klal Yisrael didn't have 613 mitzvot at this time. So, Hashem arranges it so they have three or four or 10, however you count them, to practice. And it's absolutely crucial that one of them is Parah Adumah, even though it maybe Rashi doesn't have a source, maybe it has a source that we don't know of, but it's absolutely crucial that when Bnei Israel are being introduced to the idea of keeping mitzvot, just like when we are introduced to the idea of keeping mitzvot, either because that's how how we were as children or because we've come to mitzvot at a later age, one of those that we learn and do at the very beginning is the ones that we don't know the reason for because we are keeping just because Hashem tells us to do. And that is why Hashem gave these mitzvot for Bnei Israel as preparation so they could occupy themselves with as preparation for receiving the Torah on Har Sinai. Thank you very much.