1. The Zohar states that “every day has its own service,” that service being unique to that particular day. In a week, for example, the days share the common theme that all are days of the week. At the same time, however, each day has its own service — a unique service for Sunday, a different service for Monday, etc., until Shabbos, which is lithe most desirable of days.” Likewise, each day of a month has its own special service, that of Rosh Chodesh being the most choice (and therefore is called “Rosh Chodesh” — “head of the month” for its is to the rest of the month as a head is to a body).

In addition to the one special service unique to each day, culminating on Shabbos of the days of the week, and in Rosh Chodesh of the days of the month — some days have yet a greater distinction. When Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh coincide (as today), we have the merger of two special services — the highest service of the days of the week, Shabbos, and the highest service of the days of the month, Rosh Chodesh.

Shabbos Rosh Chodesh occurs more than once a year. Of these times, Shabbos Rosh Chodesh MarCheshvan has unique significance. Although each Shabbos of the year has a special concept in regard to the other Shabbosim (as evidenced by our reading a different parshah on each Shabbos), and each Rosh Chodesh is special compared to the other Roshei Chodesh (each month corresponding to a different permutation of the twelve permutations of G-d’s Name), Shabbos Rosh Chodesh MarCheshvan has a special quality unparalleled by any other Shabbos Rosh Chodesh.

Shabbos Rosh Chodesh MarCheshvan is the first Shabbos and the first Rosh Chodesh after the month of Tishrei — a distinction which is unparalleled (as will shortly be elaborated on). Because it is a “one in a year” occurrence its influence extends to the whole year (until it reoccurs). Thus, besides the influence exerted by this Shabbos on the following week, and the influence exerted by this Rosh Chodesh on the following month, Shabbos Rosh Chodesh MarCheshvan exerts influence on the entire year.

The above must be understood by all Jews, including any lessons related to deed that may be derived, for “deed is paramount” — and all Jews are equal in the area of deed. Deed applies not just to simple Jews, the “hewers of your wood” and the “drawers of your water,” but also to “the heads of your tribes” — for since it is one Torah for all of us, they too must engage in deed. Indeed, the simple Jew knows that because of his low spiritual standing, he can relate only to deed, and therefore, when told that “deed is paramount,” accepts it simply as truth. The “heads of your tribes,” however, may think that because they are on a lofty level, deed is not so important for them. Therefore, for them, greater emphasis must be laid on the idea that “deed is paramount.”

The special quality of this Shabbos Rosh Chodesh, we have said, is that it is the first Shabbos and first Rosh Chodesh to follow Tishrei. What is so special about this? Indeed, one could posit that the reverse is true: That precisely because it follows Tishrei, it is a descent compared to the greatness of Tishrei.

The answer comes from the above mentioned theme that “deed is paramount.” Although the month of Tishrei is a very lofty one, service in actual deed starts after Tishrei; and because deed is paramount, special distinction is present in the first Shabbos and first Rosh Chodesh after Tishrei, when such service begins.

True, the rule that “deed is paramount” is in force the whole year, including Tishrei. However, it is not “pure” deed (“deed within deed”), for all the deeds of Tishrei are associated also with speech and thought (“speech within deed” and “thought within deed”). The mitzvah on Rosh Hashanah, for example, is the blowing of the shofar ”deed.” Simultaneously, however, speech and thought are also present — the special intentions (“kavannos”) in the blowing etc. The Rambam writes, concerning the shofar blowing, that “it contains an allusion, ... [to the idea of] wake up slumberers from your sleep ... and return in teshuvah.”

Similarly, although the principal part of the mitzvah of the four kinds on Sukkos is to actually take them — “deed” — there are also different ideas and “kavannos,” such as the unity of Jews, alluded to in this mitzvah. In similar fashion, the mitzvah of Sukkah is to actually sit in the Sukkah — “deed” — but part of the mitzvah is also to know that one sits in the Sukkah because G-d made Jews dwell in Sukkos when He took them out of Egypt. Likewise Yom Kippur: Although the principal concept of Yom Kippur is the actual affliction and fasting, it is not pure “deed within deed,” for special thoughts and kavannos are also part of its concept. Thus we see that although the rule “deed is paramount” applies also on Tishrei, it is not “pure”t1pure” deed.

In contrast, the principal service of a Jew in the month of MarCheshvan is in pure deed, “deed within deed,” actual engagement in worldly matters. Thus the rule “deed is paramount” is most highly emphasized after Tishrei. And because the first Shabbos and first Rosh Chodesh after Tishrei serve as the initial break-through to such a service, they possess special distinction (whereas service of the rest of the year merely follows the path blazed by MarCheshvan).

2. The lesson from the above: A Jew, leaving the service of the month of Tishrei, enters the service of the rest of the year (beginning in MarCheshvan), the service of “Ya’akov went on his way.” This service emphasizes the area of “pure” deed:

“Ya’akov” — “Ya’akov” derives from the word “eikev,” meaning “heel,” which is a level lower than that of “Yisroel,” the letters of which form the words “Li Rosh,” “To me is the head;” and it is certainly lower than the level of “Yeshurun” (Jews are called by three names — Yeshurun, Yisroel, and Ya’akov, Yeshurun the highest level, and Ya’akov the lowest). “Ya’akov,” the “heel,” is associated with actual deed.

“Went” — One goes on one’s feet — again, the idea of deed.

On his way — The “way” peculiar to Ya’akov, in contrast to the way of “Yisroel” or “Yeshurun, It is that of deed.

To leave the service of Tishrei, to go into a service of actual deed, is a descent, and a Jew may thus become depressed. Even the simplest Jew feels this: Tishrei is full of festivals, whereas MarCheshvan is the only month which doesn’t have even one festival! Moreover, it contains an element of sadness and pain, for although the construction of the Bais Hamikdosh was actually completed in MarCheshvan, its dedication was deferred until the following Tishrei (Yalkut Shimoni, 184). Although G-d has promised this month that He will repay it by having the dedication of the third Bais Hamikdosh in it, until that happens, the month of MarCheshvan is associated with pain and sorrow. Thus, entering such a month from Tishrei can cause a Jew to become depressed.

But a Jew must know that “I was created to serve my Maker” — and therefore the only thing that matters is to fulfill this mission without hesitation. Since it is G-d’s will that his service should now be in the area of actual deed, he need not be depressed, for it is through this that he fulfills his mission of serving G-d. Indeed, principal service to G-d is effected through actual deed, for “deed is paramount.”

With this knowledge, not only does a Jew not become depressed, but he goes about his service in the area of deed in the manner of “Ya’akov lifted up his feet” — “his heart lifted his feet and it became easy to journey” (Bereishis 29:1, Rashi). Ya’akov was leaving “the land where his father lived” to go to “Choron.” This was seemingly a great descent: to leave his father’s house (Yitzchok — and also Avraham, for a grandfather is also called “father”) to go to “Choron,” which Rashi interprets to mean “G-d’s wrath was kindled there” (Bereishis 11:32). Nevertheless, “his heart lifted his feet and it became easy to journey,” for “he had been informed of good tidings.”

Those “good tidings” were that “G-d will be with me and will keep me in this way that I go;” further, that “You shall spread out to the west and to the east, to the north and to the south,” to the extent that “in you shall be blessed all the families of the earth and in your seed.” Not only would Ya’akov conquer the whole world (“You shall spread out but all peoples would be blessed in him and his seed.

So too every Jew, going from Tishrei to the service of the whole year — “Yaakov went on his way” — knows that G-d has promised him that “I am with you and I will keep you wherever you go;” and this service is in the manner of “You shall spread out to the west and to the east, to the north and to the south.” A Jew then goes securely on his way in the service of the whole year, with joy and a good heart, in the manner of “Ya’akov lifted up his feet.”

May it be G-d’s will that on this Shabbos, the first Shabbos and first Rosh Chodesh after Tishrei, each one accept upon himself good resolutions in regard to service of the whole year in actual deed.

3. In addition to the above, there is also a lesson to be derived from the fact that Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh coincide.

The difference between Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh is, in general, associated with the difference between the sun and the moon. The days of the week, including Shabbos, are fixed according to the sun’s movements. The days of the month, including Rosh Chodesh, follow the moon’s rotation. There are no changes in the sun’s movements, for after completing one complete revolution (one year), it repeats itself the next year without any change. In the moon’s movements, however, there are changes within each month: at times the moon is totally concealed, and then it is renewed and reborn.

Just as everything in the world is reflected in a Jew’s service, and indeed, is dependent on a Jew’s service, the “sun” and “moon” too are concepts which are present in a Jew’s service. Thus the lesson from this year is that the initial break-through in the service of “Ya’akov went on his way” must be expressed both in the service associated with the “sun” (the days of the week), and in the service associated with the “moon” (days of the month) — and such that both coexist simultaneously.

There are some aspects of service which never change — similar to the sun. The recital of “Modeh Ani” every morning immediately upon awakening, for example, is present every day of the year equally, irregardless of one’s spiritual standing at the moment. Similarly, the morning blessings, the recital of Shema, and the first and last three blessings of the Amidah, are all the same every day of the year.

However, although these things are similar to the “sun” which does not change, nevertheless, they must be performed in a new manner — “they should be in your eyes every day (as) new.” And this is the lesson from the first Shabbos after Tishrei, when a new service for the rest of the year starts — new in those aspects of service which are associated with the “sun” (the days of the week and Shabbos). For whereas the sun was created by G-d in such a way as not to change, a Jew’s service to G-d is different. The Baal Shem Tov taught that creation ex nihilo is renewed every moment, and therefore a Jew’s existence is renewed every moment; he is not the same person as a moment before. Thus his service, including those things which are the same every day, must be performed in a totally new manner. It is a Jew’s mission to infuse an element of “newness” even in those things which of themselves are not new that a Jew should perform “sun” matters in the manner of the “moon” — constantly being renewed.

For Jews are connected to the moon, in that they “count f1count (the calendar) according to the moon,” and flare destined to be renewed like it.”

There are also aspects of service which are similar to the “month,” constantly changing and becoming new. A Jew must always “ascend in holiness,” his present service being new compared to his prior service. This directive to “ascend in holiness” does not apply only to special times, but is a constant command, which must be expressed every moment: a Jew must always be striving to be better, to go from strength to strength. This is the lesson from the first Rosh Chodesh after Tishrei, when the set order of Roshei Chodoshim of the whole year begins — a service of change and newness.

There is also a lesson to be derived from the coincidence of the first Shabbos and first Rosh Chodesh after Tishrei. The two types of above service, that similar to the “sun” (unchanging) and that similar to the “moon” (change and newness), are two separate, opposite types of service. The coincidence of the first Shabbos after Tishrei and the first Rosh Chodesh after Tishrei teaches that the service of “Ya’akov went on his way” must be done in both ways — simultaneously (although opposite types of service).

This is emphasized by the very nature of Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh. Shabbos is the idea of delight — tranquillity and absence of change. Rosh Chodesh is the birth of the new moon — change. When both Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh come together, it emphasizes that the types of service they represent can be synthesized together. And the strength for this comes from the coincidence of Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh, both of them “auspicious days.”

May it be G-d’s will that through our deeds in the service associated with Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh, we speedily merit the fulfillment of the promise (in this week’s Haftorah — Yeshayah 66:23): “And it shall come to pass, that on every new moon, and every Shabbos, shall all flesh come to bow down to the ground before Me, says the L-rd” — in the true and complete redemption, through our righteous Moshiach.

4. Parshas Noach talks of the flood that G-d brought upon the earth, and His subsequent covenant with Noach never to bring another flood. The sign of this covenant would be the rainbow. Ch. 9, verse 16, states: “The rainbow will be in the clouds, and I will see it to recall the eternal covenant between G-d (“Elokim”) and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” Rashi, quoting the words “between G-d and every living creature,” comments that this means: “Between the attributes of Justice Above [“Elokim” refers to G-d’s attribute of Justice — see Rashi, Bereishis 1:1] and between you. For it should have written ‘Between Me and between every living creature;’ but this is its Aggadic interpretation: When the attribute of Justice will come to accuse you to condemn you, I shall see the above mentioned sign.” In other words, Rashi is commenting on the fact that the verse says “I will see it to recall the eternal covenant between G-d (Elokim) and every living creature” and not “between Me and every living creature” as it should seemingly have done, since it had already said previously that “G-d said ...” Rashi therefore explains that “Elokim (G-d)” refers to “the attribute of Justice Above.”

There are many difficulties in this interpretation of Rashi. Among them: — 1) The basis for Rashi’s interpretation is that the verse says “between G-d” and not “between Me.” Yet we find other instances where a name is repeated although seemingly unnecessary. In parshas Bereishis (4:23) it states: “Lemech said to his wives: Adah and Tzillah, hear my voice; wives of Lemech, give ear to my speech.” Rashi makes no comment on this verse as to why it says “wives of Lemech” instead of “my wives” (although it already says “Lemech said”). From Rashi’s silence it seems that such repetition is no problem in the plain interpretation of Scripture, for so seems to be the normal way of Scripture to speak (because of linguistic or literary reasons etc.). If so, why, in our verse, is it a problem that the verse says “between G-d” and not “between Me” (although previously it says “G-d said”)?

The question becomes strengthened when we learn in parshas Vayeira (19:24) that “The L-rd caused brimstone and fire to rain upon Sodom and Amorah, from the L-rd out of the heavens.” Rashi comments on this verse that “it is customary for Scripture to speak thus, such as ‘wives of Lemech’ and he did not say ‘my wives’ ... Here too it said ‘from the L-rd’ and not ‘from Him.”’ We see that Rashi himself says that “It is customary for Scripture to speak thus.” Why, then, is it a problem that our verse says “between G-d” and not “between Me” — it is customary for Scripture to speak thus!

2) Everything stated in our verse (verse 16) has already been stated in the preceding verses. For example, verse 13: “1 have set My rainbow in the clouds and it shall be for a sign of the covenant between Me and the earth;” verse 14-15: “When ... the rainbow is seen in the clouds, I will remember My covenant between Me and you, and between every living creature and all flesh

Our verse therefore seems superfluous. Why does Rashi make no comment on this?

The explanation:

Rashi need not explain why verse 16 is written, although seemingly superfluous, for a student learning Scripture can understand it without Rashi’s help. A student knows that when he wants something that is very important to him, he does not-ask for it only once, but repeats his request a few times.

The same thing applies to G-d’s promise not to bring another flood on the earth. Rashi explains (9:9) that “Noach was worried ... until the Holy One blessed be He promised him not to destroy the world again, and so He did. And at the end He said to him: ‘I agree to make a confirmation and a strengthening of the covenant for My promise, and I shall give you a sign.” Thus, it is understandable that G-d repeated once more His promise ”The rainbow will be in the clouds, and I will see it to recall the eternal covenant between G-d and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth” (our verse, 16) — even though the ideas in it have already been said. For since it is talking of a very important matter, it is necessary to repeat it.

We could perhaps bring proof to this from the previous verses. In the beginning of parshas Noach (6:19-20), Scripture talks of G-d’s command to Noach: “You shall bring into the ark two of every living thing of all flesh ... of the fowl according to their kind, and from the cattle according to their kind ...” Immediately afterwards, it again states (7:2-3): “You shall take of every clean beast ... also of the fowl of the air

We see, then, that when talking of something of the utmost importance — rescue from the flood — the words are repeated.

Similarly, ch. 4, verse 23, of parshas Bereishis states: “Lemech said to his wives: Adah and Tzillah, hear my voice; wives of Lemech, give ear to my speech.” Again, repetition because of importance — first “Adah and Tzillah, hear my voice,” and then a second time “wives of Lemech, give ear to my speech.”

However, these two verses are not really proofs, for in each case, there is another reason for the repetition (and not because it is important). In regard to Lemech, he repeats his injunction to his wives to hear simply because there is then greater hope they will listen to him especially since he was talking to them of a matter they disagreed about.

In the case of the command to Noach to take the animals into the ark, the second time the command was given was 120 years after the first command. Rashi explains (6:14) that the ark took 120 years to build “so that the men of the generation of the flood should see him engaged in it for 120 years, and would ask him: ‘What is this to you,’ and he could then say to them, ‘The Holy One blessed be He is going to bring a flood upon the world’ — perhaps they will repent.” Thus, G-d first commanded Noach to build the ark, including the command to bring in the animals into it; and then, after 120 years, when Noach had to actually enter the ark, G-d once again commanded him concerning all the details. It is no wonder, then, that after a 120 years lapse, G-d repeated his command!

Our verse, however, talks of one period of time. Therefore, the only explanation why G-d repeated His promise to Noach is, as mentioned before, because of its importance.

The only difficulty Rashi finds in this verse is why it says “between G-d” and not “between Me.” And Rashi answers that the verse writes “between G-d” because it is referring to “the attribute of Justice Above” — that “when the attribute of Justice will accuse you to condemn you, I shall see the above mentioned sign.” Because Noach was so worried about the possibility of a second flood, G-d had to assure him again and again — and the second time, G-d emphasized that His promise will be in force even against the attribute of Justice Above (“Elokim”).

Yet, all is not clear: Rashi’s difficulty was that the verse speaks in the third person (“between G-d”) and not in the first person (“between Me”). But we find a similar usage earlier in parshas Bereishis — “Lemech said to his wives ... hear my voice, wives of Lemech, give ear to my speech.” As noted above, since Rashi makes no comment on this, it is evidence that in the plain interpretation of Scripture, this is not a difficulty — for it is the customary way for Scripture to speak thus (especially since in parshas Vayeira Rashi brings the case of Lemech as an example of the way Scripture speaks in third person).

However, Rashi does not offer an interpretation on a verse unless something compels him to do so in that verse. Since Rashi only comments on the case of Lemech (that it states “wives of Lemech” and not “my wives”) in parshas Vayeira, and not where the verse actually appears (in Bereishis), it follows that there is nothing in the verse in parshas Bereishis to force us to conclude that “It is customary for Biblical verses to speak thus.” Once, however, we know that it is customary to speak thus — from the verse in parshas Vayeira (concerning the raining down of fire in Sodom and Amorah) — than we can say that this rule applies also to parshas Bereishis.

In our parshah, therefore, before we come to parshas Vayeira, Rashi’s question is why it says “between G-d” and not “between Me” — for as yet, the rule that “It is customary for Scripture to speak thus (in the third person)” has not been fixed. And even after Rashi explains this rule in parshas Vayeira, it is irrelevant to our case (and Rashi therefore does not bring it as an example in parshas Vayeira, as he does with the “wives of Lemech”). For since we are talking of a verse that is repeated, we cannot say that a difference between this verse and the preceding verse is due to the fact that “it is customary for Scripture to speak thus.” We must instead conclude that this difference teaches us something — as Rashi explains, that it teaches that G-d’s assurance to Noach that He will never again bring a flood applies also to the attribute of Justice Above.