By Divine Design

Chapter 1: Foreword — Understanding Missing Letters in The Torah

(Based on Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 29, Sicha No. 1)

The Torah is explained by our great Jewish commentators on many levels. The simplest level is the plain meaning of the words — a level to which everyone can relate, even a five-year-old starting Torah study for the first time.

That is the level addressed by one of the greatest and most popular of all commentators, RaShI — an acrostic for Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (the son of Yitzchak), who lived in north-eastern France (and what is now western Germany) from 1040 to 1105. Drawing on his vast knowledge of Talmudic-Midrashic literature and his expertise in Hebrew language and grammar, Rashi answers every question a beginner might ask. If, on the other hand, the beginner should be able to solve a problem on his own, either by remembering previous Rashi explanations or by reference to his own childhood experiences, then Rashi makes no comment. His language is clear, concise, and remarkably precise — to the extent that scores of the greatest Torah luminaries of the ages have written super-commentaries to explain Rashi’s depth and precise wording.

The Torah’s Every Letter Is Precise

It is well known that the Torah scribes have always been scrupulous in transcribing the Torah with meticulous accuracy. Every word and letter of the Torah is holy; none is extra; nor is anything missing. The spelling of every word in the Torah is likewise precise. There is much to learn from the spelling.

There are some Hebrew words in the Torah which normally include one or more vowel letters (alef, vav, or yud), while the same words used elsewhere omit them. So when a word which normally has such a letter omits it, or which normally omits such a letter includes it, there is always a good reason.

Rashi usually does not comment on such inclusions or omissions as being inconsistent with his purpose of teaching at the simplest level. But in 23 cases Rashi does explain the omission of vowel letters when he believed it was essential to the understanding of the plain meaning of the word under investigation. Commentators have struggled for centuries to appreciate the reasons for those 23 occasions when Rashi chose to comment.

The Rebbe’s Questions

The Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, is renowned for his innovative approach to every field of Torah scholarship. Particularly revolutionary is his profound approach to understanding Rashi’s commentary on the Torah. He takes up the challenge to answering the above question by concentrating on a comment of Rashi in Parshas Eikev (Deuteronomy 9).

Here is the relevant passage in the Torah, containing Moshe’s rebuke of the Children of Israel for their idol worship of the golden calf:

[7] Remember, do not forget, how you angered G-d, your Master, in the wilderness; from the day when you left Egypt until your arrival at this place, you have been rebelling against G-d. [8] And at Choreiv [i.e. Sinai] you angered G-d, and G-d became irate at you to destroy you. [9] [It was] when I had ascended the mountain to receive the stone tablets, the Tablets of the Covenant that G-d had concluded with you, and I stayed on the mountain for forty days and forty nights... [10] And G-d gave me the two stone tablets inscribed by the ‘finger’ of G-d, and on them were all the words that G-d had spoken with you on the mountain from the midst of the fire on the day of the assemblage. [11] And it was at the end of the forty days and forty nights that G-d gave me the two stone tablets, the Tablets of the Covenant. [12] And G-d said to me: ‘Arise, descend quickly from here, for the people that you brought out of Egypt has become corrupt; they have strayed quickly from the path that I commanded them — they have made for themselves a molten image’… [15] And I turned and descended from the mountain, as the mountain was burning with fire, and the two Tablets of the Covenant were in my two hands. [16] And I saw, and here, you had sinned to G-d, your Master, you had made for yourself a molten calf, you had strayed quickly from the path that G-d had commanded you. [17] And I grasped the two tablets and I threw them from my two hands, and I shattered them in front of your eyes.

The Hebrew word for tablet — singular — is luach, and its plural is luchos. In the Torah scroll, the word luchos can be written with or without either of the two vavs, as shown in the above passage.

After his comment on the words in verse 9 above, Rashi comments on the word luchos: "It is written luchas [i.e. this implies that the word is considered singular], for both [tablets] are equal."

Which "luchos" is Rashi discussing? Not the words which appear twice in verse 9, because they come early in the verse, while his comment follows the later words of verse 9. It must therefore refer to one of the words in verses 10-15. In verses 10 and 15 (as in verse 9), the word luchos does include the first vav, where it is optional. But in all these cases, the word luchos omits the second vav. Therefore Rashi’s comment could possibly apply to any or all of these mentions from verse 10 on.

In verse 9, too, however, both occurrences of the word luchos omit the second vav. So why, asks the Rebbe, didn’t Rashi make his comment there?

The Rebbe notes that Rashi has already made almost the same comment much earlier in the Torah, at the point where G-d actually gave Moshe the Tablets (Exodus 31:18, Parshas Ki Sisa). As a rule, Rashi rarely repeats his comments, generally relying on the student’s memory. Here, however, in Parshas Eikev, his repetition is understandable because the original comment was so far back in the Torah that the student might need a reminder.

But the Rebbe also points out that the word luchos, without both vavs, has already appeared earlier than either Ki Sissa or Eikev The earlier verses are Exodus 24:12 Parshas Mishpatim and in Deuteronomy 5:19 Parshas Vaeschanan. Why didn’t Rashi explain the missing vavs in those earlier cases?

Differences In Language

A clue to solving this riddle can be found by observing the words Rashi uses when he does comment on the missing letters. Sometimes Rashi explicitly states that the word is "missing a vav (or another letter), or that it is written missing (i.e. deficiently). In other cases, he will write it is written [thus] without adding that a letter is missing." In view of Rashi’s known precision, what underlying rationale explains when and why he adds or omits the word missing?

Missing Letters Represent Deficiency

According to the Rebbe, no further explanation is given when the missing or extra letter creates no other difficulty. When, however, the missing or extra letter creates a further difficulty, then this is a problem even at the simplest level, demanding explanation.

For example, if a word is missing a letter, that implies some deficiency. But if the verse emphasizes the superior quality of something — the opposite of deficiency — then a missing letter in the main operating word seems to contradict that meaning and, even at the simplest level of meaning, demands an explanation. In such cases, Rashi sometimes explains how the missing letter does indeed reflect some deficiency not apparent on the surface. In other cases, he shows how a missing letter actually reveals an advantage or confirms the verse’s positive theme in a way otherwise not realized.

The Rebbe explained how, when a missing letter does reflect a deficiency not immediately apparent, then Rashi adds the word missing — meaning deficient. In other examples, the apparent deficiency actually reveals an advantage or confirms the verse’s positive theme, in which case Rashi does not write the word missing.

Rashi’s comment on luchos is an example of the latter. Although he normally does not comment on a missing letter, here in Parshas Eikev and also on the previous occasion where he writes the same comment, the missing letter seems to contradict the content of these verses which emphasizes the Tablets’ exalted source and nature.

In Exodus (31:18), it states: And He gave Moshe — when He finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai — the two Tablets of the Testimony, stone tablets inscribed by the ‘finger’ of G-d. This verse emphasizes their Divine source and exalted nature.

In Parshas Eikev, too, it states (verse 10):

And G-d gave me the two stone tablets inscribed by the ‘finger’ of G-d, and on them were all the words that G-d had spoken with you on the mountain from the midst of the fire...

And it continues (verse 11): And it was at the end of the forty days and forty nights that G-d gave me the two stone tablets, the Tablets of the Covenant. This follows the verses (8-9) "And at Choreiv you angered G-d…when I ascended the mountain…" It is followed in turn by the verses (12, 15-17):

And G-d said to me: ‘Arise, descend… And I turned and descended from the mountain…and the two Tablets of the Covenant were in my two hands. And I saw, and here, you had sinned… And I grasped the two Tablets and I threw them from my two hands, and I shattered them in front of your eyes.

In other words, in his rebuke, Moshe is describing the exalted nature of the Tablets, despite which his people’s sin had caused their destruction. Accordingly, the Torah should write the word luchos in full, including the second vav, in order to express their greatness, and not, as it does, with the second vav missing, which seems to imply some deficiency in them.

Rashi feels it necessary to comment here, and also previously in Exodus 31:18, to show that no deficiency is implied by the spelling of luchos. On the contrary, the deficient spelling indicates a unique quality of the Tablets, emphasizing their Divine creation — the fact that the two were of precisely equal size. Although the first five of the Ten Commandments, inscribed on one tablet, have more words and letters than the last five commandments inscribed on the other tablet, the second tablet was no smaller than the first.

No Deficiency After All

So the omission of the vav implies no deficiency but actually reveals a deeper perspective in the uniqueness of the Tablets, which results from their Divine creation. Therefore it accords perfectly with Moshe’s rebuke that, despite the Tablets’ exalted nature, the people had thoughtlessly caused these superlative Divine creations to be destroyed.

On the other hand, the previous appearances of the word luchos (Exodus 24:12 and Deuteronomy 5:19) without the second vav to indicate the plural form, do not refer to the Tablets’ special quality or uniqueness. Therefore there is no need for Rashi to relate to the missing vav, for even if it implies some deficiency in those verses, that does not contradict the verses’ general meaning.

For a similar reason, Rashi does not relate to the missing vav in the two mentions of luchos in Parshas Eikev in verse 9 — when I had ascended the mountain to receive the stone tablets, the Tablets of the Covenant — right before Rashi’s comment on the next verses. Verse 9 refers to the Tablets when they were still with G-d, before Moshe received them, whereas verses 10-11 refer to the Tablets after Moshe received them. To underline his rebuke, Moshe emphasized the greatness of the Tablets not only when they were still with G-d but even after he had received them for the purpose of giving them to the people. For even on that lower level, the tablets remained an exalted Divine creation, transcending all created beings.

Thus all our original questions are answered.

Chapter 2: Introduction

B"H

One can sense the Infinite within the confines of the Finite. This concept applies beautifully when we take the time to count up the exact number of letters written in a single Torah scroll. Of course, this number never varies: We know for a fact that there are 304,805 letters in a Torah scroll, yet scholars from ancient times to the present agree that each letter, and certainly each word, holds within it unlimited layers of meaning and interpretation. The Talmud tells us that A-lmighty G-d dictated to Moshe the words of our Holy Torah letter by letter.¹ At the same time, the great 16th-century Kabbalist, Rabbi Isaac Luria (The Arizal) says that there are 600,000 interpretations to every word in the Torah.² Hence my title, By Divine Design. Together, in the pages of this book, we will be exploring the meanings and application of the lessons of individual letters to the weekly Torah parshah.

A few words on how to use this book

Our analysis in will primarily focus on five areas:

1) Letter Size: In a Torah scroll, Hebrew letters appear in three sizes — small, medium, and large — with medium-sized letters being the norm. When the Torah deviates from the norm, however, the letter, and the word in which the anomaly appear, beg for a deeper analysis.

2) Missing or Additional Letters: Generally, these missing letters are the alef, vav, or yud — letters whose absence can easily be substituted by vowels. In this book, we will discuss the relevance of the omissions, themselves.

3) Kri and Ksiv: There are words that are written (ksiv) one way in a Torah scroll — and hence carry one, valid meaning; yet they are vocalized (kri) a different way, thereby taking on another meaning. We will compare and contrast these discrepancies.

4) Dots on Letters: There are only ten words in the Torah where dots appear on the tops of the letters. We will, of course, take some of these highly unusual phenomena into account.

5) Numerical Value (or gematria): In the Hebrew alphabet each individual letter is also a number. We will explore the deeper meaning of a number as it functions within the parshah by also examining the letter that represents it.

Chapter-Structure

Each parshah begins with a humorous story or joke. This is in accordance with the Sage Rabbah, who began each lesson with a joke to open the minds of his students.³ Thereafter, we continue with a an essay, or drash, on the parshah, focusing on one of the five aforementioned areas. Next follows a story, for as the Lubavitcher Rebbe tells us, Stories have the power to communicate a greater depth and profundity than other realms of Torah.⁴ And finally, capping off each chapter, I provide an action box, this, in accordance with the Mishnah, which states, The main thing is the deed.⁵

On a Final Note

This book does not attempt to answer every discrepancy in the text of Torah. Volume upon volume of commentary would be needed to accomplish that. Rather, our goal here is two-fold: 1) to whet the beginning-reader’s appetite to delve deeply into aspects of Torah that they might otherwise overlook; and 2) to encourage the already seasoned student to see the Divine structure of Torah as clearly as they might perceive the colors within a kaleidoscope.

Can we see the Infinite within the Finite? I believe that such a revelation is, indeed, possible. When we study the seeming mistakes and anomalies of Torah — and find within them indisputable patterns — we can’t help but acknowledge that every letter of Torah is truly a work of Divine design.

Rabbi Aaron L. Raskin

6 of Tishrei, 5771 (Year of Ufarazta)

Ten Days of Teshuvah

Histalkus of Rebbetzin Chana Schneerson

Acknowledgments

Blessed are you G-d, our G-d, King of the Universe who has allowed me to write this book.

I want to acknowledge the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, my mentor, teacher, and guide, whose inspiration I live with every day. Throughout the text I refer to him simply as The Rebbe out of deep admiration and endearment. I would also like to acknowledge the following people for always supporting me and encouraging me to do more: my life’s partner and wife, Shternie, and my children, Yankel, Eliyahu, Mendy, Chaya, Yehoshua, and Zalmy; my parents Reb BenZion and Bassie Raskin; my in-laws Rabbi Shmuel and Devorah Plotkin; my grandmother Rebbetzin Chava Hecht; and my dear late grandfather Rabbi Jacob J. Hecht, O.B.M., because of whom I am a practicing rabbi today.

I am grateful to the following individuals for helping to make this book a reality: Rabbi Yonah Avtzon, Publisher of Sichos In English; Yosef Yitzchok Turner for layout and design; Mattisyahu Brown for early-stage editing; and Levana Madani, Dovid Sabol, and Sarah Schmerler for copy editing. I am also grateful to the following people for their invaluable insights and friendship: Michael Bast, Steven Cohn, Rabbi Shimon Hecht, Stephen Rosen, Rabbi Simcha Weinstein, and Domenico and Angela Lepore.

Finally, to all of my students and congregants, thank you for your love of Torah and your passion to learn.

Chapter 3: Alef-Beis Chart — Pronunciation and Gematria

NEKUDOS CHART

Chapter 4: Cantilation Chart

* * *

Chapter 5: Parshas Bereishis — Woman, the Crown of Creation

In Heaven there are two lines for husbands. The first line is for husbands who, during their lives, ruled over their wives. The second line is for husbands who were ruled over by their wives. The second line is filled to capacity. However, standing in the first line is a fellow named Schmerel. A few of Schmerel’s earthly colleagues notice him there and call out, Eh, Schmerel, everybody knows your wife treated you like a doormat. Why are you standing in the line for husbands who ruled their wives? Schmerel, says, Nu, what do you want from me? My wife told me to stand here.

* * *

Bereishis In the Beginning⁶

With its very first letter the Torah invites our curiosity. Why does the Torah begin with beis, the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet? A more logical beginning letter would have been alef. Not only does alef come first alphabetically, but spiritually, alef represents preeminence. Alef is the numeral one, alluding to G-d’s Oneness. Alef alludes to Alufo Shel Olam, the Chief — or Master — of the World, the One Who precedes all.

Another curious phenomenon: rare for the Torah script, this letter beis is written in a large font, making it stand out among all the other letters on the page. Nothing in the Torah is ambiguous or meaningless. So what is the message in this beginning letter, and in its size?

Male and Female

We could explore this letter beis within the framework of the passage, G-d created the Adam ... male and female He created them.⁷ Commenting on this verse, Rashi quotes the Midrash: G-d created Adam as a hermaphrodite — both genders together, a man and a woman attached back to back.

There are four different descriptive terms for man: adam, ish, enosh, and gever.⁸ The most prestigious of these terms is adam, meaning a human being who manifests G-d’s image, a truly exalted person.

To be an adam therefore, a complete person, a mentsch, one must possess the Divine qualities of both genders. One must balance masculine and feminine energies in terms of giving versus receiving, silence versus speech, aggressiveness versus sensitivity, and abstract contemplation versus devoted commitment.

The Letter of Balance

The letter Beis expresses this inclusivity and balance:

Graphic Design: Graphically, the letter Beis is built from two⁹ other letters: a dalet, which is a feminine letter,¹⁰ and below it a horizontal vav, which is a masculine letter.¹¹

Gematria: Beis = two. This tells us that G-d created the world for two: man and woman.¹²

Meaning: Bereishis or binah.¹³ The word bereishis can mean With the first — meaning the first sefirah or attribute of consciousness, called chochmah. Chochmah, original insight, is understood to be a masculine phenomenon.

Binah, understanding or intuition, is the second sefirah or attribute of consciousness. Binah is a feminine quality.

The Crown of Her Husband

As the Messianic Era begins to unfold, we become conscious of the fact that the feminine mystique will be greater than that of the masculine. This is hinted in the enigmatic phrase of King Solomon, The woman of valor is the crown of her husband,¹⁴ indicating that the woman of valor, the feminine quality, is the crown, being higher than her husband, the masculine attribute. Similarly, the Prophet Jeremiah states,¹⁵ The feminine will surround (overpower) the masculine.

Therefore, with further evaluation, within this picture of the letter beis, there appears to be an additional emphasis on the feminine. Does the Torah actually consider the feminine to be greater than the masculine?

The Beis Advantage

Let’s re-examine the letter beis.

Graphic Design: the feminine dalet is indeed positioned higher than the masculine vav, representing the superiority of the feminine mystique.

Furthermore, the top of the beis is adorned with a crown. Because the crown is placed on the left side of the letter, the feminine side, binah is again emphasized. In Torah scrolls written according to Kabbalah, the beis of Bereishis has four prongs,¹⁶ symbolizing the Four Mothers. All of this alludes to the fact that the woman is the crown of creation.

Gematria: The woman was created second, after Adam. We can derive from this that she was an improvement upon the original human. The unusually large size of this beis may also suggest that the status of being the second is more important than the first.

Meaning: The Talmud says a greater level of binah was given to women.¹⁷ Kabbalah explains that binah, the feminine, actually comes from a higher source than chochmah, the masculine.

Thus, the first word of the Torah can be read ‘B’ reishis, meaning "The Letter Beis is reishis, first." In other words, the beis — the feminine mystique that is dormant in each individual — is most essential. Indeed, it is the crown of creation. The Rebbe stated that our mission today is to accept the countenance of our Righteous Moshiach. He explained, "Every mitzvah we perform should be infused with this focus: ‘With this mitzvah may we receive our Righteous Moshiach.’¹⁸ The quality of receiving is feminine. This sheds light on the Talmudic passage, In the merit of the righteous women, our ancestors were redeemed from Egypt.¹⁹ In the future Redemption we will merit the countenance of Moshiach through the essential feminine attribute of receiving."

A Story

Despite his busy schedule, the Belzer Rebbe was involved with every detail of the construction of his new synagogue in Russia. When the synagogue was almost complete, some of his Chassidim approached him and said, Rebbe, perhaps we can begin to have services in this beautiful new shul. The Rebbe responded, "Not yet, the ezras nashim, the women’s section, is not completed. The Chassidim said, We don’t necessarily need the women to pray with us.

The Rebbe firmly answered, Yes, we do. The Talmud states, ‘Since the Holy Temple’s destruction, the gates of prayer have been closed; yet the gates of tears are still open.’²⁰ When women pray, they pray with tears. In their merit, our prayers will be answered.

Action:

Think about something that you should have done today, but you didn’t. Use your feminine quality of devotion to carry out the task.

Chapter 6: Parshas Noach — A Taste of Paradise

A man was visiting the zoo, walking from cage to cage, when he came upon one topped with a painted sign: Witness a Messianic Prophecy! The wolf and the lamb lie together! The man looked into the cage and was awestruck. Indeed, a wolf and a lamb were dozing there, next to each other. Excitedly, and with tears in his eyes, the man ran up to the zookeeper and exclaimed, This is wonderful! A miraculous sign! Please tell me, how did you merit this? The zookeeper shrugged, and said, Merit? All I know is, the boss’s orders: ‘Three times a day, put a new lamb in the cage.’

* * *

The flood was over. Dry land appeared, and the world was ready to be re-inhabited. Noach and the animals had been locked up in the Ark for 365 days. G-d commanded Noach to leave the Ark, and in turn, "hayitzei — order the animals out."²¹

Why did G-d command Noach to leave the Ark when the Ark was already on dry land? Wasn’t it clear that Noach had finished his mission and was dismissed?

Furthermore, why should G-d have to issue an additional command to Noach, instructing him to order the animals to leave the Ark? Did Noach think the animals should stay? By this time they were surely agitated, exasperated, and more than ready to leave on their own.

Kri and Ksiv

The word ha-yitzei is a "kri-and-a-ksiv," a word that is pronounced (kri) one way, but written (ksiv) in the Torah scroll a different way. These two ways of reading the word also imply different shades of meaning.

Rashi²² explains that the kri in this passage, ha-yitzei, implies, "Order them (all the animals) that they should go out." However, the ksiv of this word, hotzei, implies, "If they don’t want to go out, take them out by force."

In general, a kri is the logical meaning of the word, given its context. The meaning of the ksiv, however, is often beyond logic,²³ and may even seem to be out of context, yet it reveals unexpected mystical implications. When we encounter a kri-and-a-ksiv we are invited into contemplation: how can we embrace this conflict in meaning?

The Wolf and the Lamb

Our rabbis tell us that the light of the Messianic Era permeated the Ark.²⁴ Even though the Ark was packed with every creature under the sun, and Noach and his family had to tend to all of their needs around the clock, Noach reveled in a deep sense of peace. The animals, too, were enjoying a miraculously harmonious existence. There were no carnivorous acts among the Ark’s inhabitants, nor did their food spoil during the entire year. It was truly a revelation of the Messianic prophecy, The wolf and the lamb will lie together.²⁵ Now we can understand why Noach and the animals needed to be told to disembark. Still, if the animals were so peaceful, why would they need to be taken out by force?

Survival Instincts

The prospect of leaving the Ark also triggered the animals’ survival instincts. The