1. Today comprises several special aspects:

1) It is Shabbos, which was “sanctified of itself” from the beginning of creation. Further, Kabbalah explains that the concept of Shabbos existed even before the six days of creation — and, since “from Shabbos all the days are blessed,” from this Shabbos blessings were extended to the six days of creation.

2) It is Rosh Chodesh.

3) Of all Roshei Chodoshim, it is Rosh Chodesh of the -”fourth month,”-which has qualities greater even than the “third month,” in which the Torah was given. We shall shortly elaborate on this.

4) Of Rosh Chodesh of the fourth month itself, -it is the first day of Rosh Chodesh, which is particularly unique, as we shall explain.

5) We read parshas Chukas on this Shabbos.

Each of these aspects has special distinction. When all coincide on the one day, that day is lofty indeed.

Let us now discuss the unique nature of the “fourth month.” To do so, we must first understand the nature of the “third month,11 and then we can comprehend the special quality of the fourth month, which, since it follows the third month, must be loftier yet, consonant to the dictum, “Ascend in holy matters.”

The third month represents peace, for peace is relevant only when there are two parties in a controversy and a third makes peace between them. On the third month, the Torah was given, and “The Torah was given to make peace in the world” — for through Torah, we make the world a fit dwelling place for G-d, reconciling the corporeal world and G-dliness (which formerly were antithetical one to another).

The greatness of making peace in the world -making the corporeal world a dwelling place for G-d — is seen from the fact that “G-d desired to have a dwelling place for Himself in the nethermost worlds.” A “desire,” something in which one takes delight, is the highest of all faculties -a-s-we see from a person. A person’s essence is connected to and is expressed in a matter that is a delight, for delight is a faculty higher not 3ust than one’s inner soul powers — the intellectual — and emotional faculties — but also than the faculty of will; for the faculty of delight is the innermost dimension of will.

We find that a person can want something 11will”) without having a desire for it (“delight”). For example, when a person engages in business deals, he doesn’t really desire or find delight in the actual deals, but in the profit which accrues from the deals. Thus the actual deals are only an external manifestation of his true desire; and because one must lower himself to deal with the world, the business deals are a burden. His true desire and delight — the inner dimension of will — lies in something higher.

So too with G-d: The fact that “G-d desired to have a dwelling place for Himself in the nethermost worlds” indicates a level higher than the Supernal faculties of intellect and emotions, and higher even than the Supernal Will.

Further, “delight” itself has two aspects: That which is connected with will — the external aspect of delight; that which is unconnected with will — the inner aspect of delight. Shabbos, for example is the concept of delight (as written “You shall call Shabbos ‘delight’): It contains the concept of delight as associated with rest from work, and higher still, contains the essence of delight, unassociated with anything else. The difference between these two levels is incomparably great. Chassidus explains that any revelations of this era (before Mashiach’s coming) stem only from the external aspect of ‘atik’ (the Supernal Will), whereas its inner aspect can occur only in the--future era. The world as it is now is incapable of absorbing the revelation of the inner dimension of ‘atik’ — so lofty is its nature.

We thus see how lofty is the fact that 11G-d desired to have a dwelling place for Himself in the nethermost worlds” — which is the concept of “to make peace in the world,” which in turn is the concept of the “third month” in which the “threefold Torah” was given.

All the above concerning the lofty nature of the third month relates to the way it is Above, -”G-d desired to have a dwelling place for Himself in the nethermost worlds.” For this to actually happen, there must be a world in which man can work to transform it into an abode for G-d. This is associated with the “fourth month.”

We will understand why this is associated specifically with the fourth month by first investigating the difference between the numbers three and four. Everything in the world has its root Above, where it is in a configuration of three -the three “rays” of Chesed (Kindness), Gevurah (Severity) and Tiferes (Splendor). When it is drawn down below, it appears in a configuration of four: the three “rays” plus a fourth matter — its descent below (through the sefirah of Malchus (Kingship)).

This metaphysical analysis of the numbers three and four is also alluded to — moreso, explicated — in the revealed aspect of Torah, in the Talmud. The tractate Shabbos states (104a): “Teachers of young children of our times came to the study hall and said words that like them were not said even in the times of Yehoshua bin Nun ... Gimmel (the third letter in the aleph-bais) Dalet (the fourth letter in the aleph-bais) stands for Gemel Dalim — Giving to the Poor.” That is, the latter Gimmel, which represents the number three (each letter in the aleph bais represents a number: aleph = 1, bais = 2, gimmel = 3, dalet = 4, alludes to one who gives (the benefactor), and the letter dalet, which represents the number alludes to the one who receives (the- poor person). This is the basis of that noted above: A thing as it is in its root, by the giver (the benefactor), is in a configuration of three (“gimmel”); when it is actually drawn down below, to the receiver (the poor person), it is in a configuration of four (“dalet”).

The above clarifies a puzzling point concerning the “merkavah,” the Heavenly Chariot. Our Sages say (Bereishis Rabbah 47:6). “The Patriarchs are the Heavenly Chariot.” Since there are only three Patriarchs, it follows that the Heavenly Chariot has only three legs. Yet it is well-known that the Heavenly Chariot has four legs (as we see that the camp of the Israelites in the desert was divided into four standards, for the Jews wanted to be similar to the Heavenly Chariot which they had seen).

We can resolve this puzzle by reference to the explanation given previously. The Heavenly Chariot, as it is in its root, appears in a configuration of three; when it is drawn down below, it appears in a configuration of four.

Yet another puzzling point is resolved through this explanation. There are four basic elements in creation: fire, water, air and earth. The question is asked, “Why is the element of earth, which is the fourth element of creation, not mentioned in the whole of Sefer Yetzirah (Book of Formation)?V? We find only the three elements of fire, water and air mentioned in this Book. The answer given is Iftive- element of earth, although the fourth basic element, is comprised of the three first elements, water, fire and air,- and from them the fourth element came into being. They said a wonderful p,rQgf for this: That if a person will boil a vessel, of water on the fire such that it continuously boils without cessation — and if the water becomes less, the person should add more for a while — there will come into being within the water dust in the shape of a stone.”

The answer that the element of earth comprises the first three elements, is puzzling. Earth is one of the four basic elements of creation. It must therefore be an entity for itself, not just something that is comprised of the other elements. Only then can it be called a “basic element” of creation.

However, as noted above, in the root of things above, there are only configurations of three; when they descend below they become four. Sefer Yetzirah is the idea of the root, and therefore it mentions only three elements, with the fourth encompassed within them. When they are drawn down and revealed below, the fourth elements becomes an independent basic element.

In greater clarification: The difference between the numbers three and four does not apply only to the process of giving (“Giving to the Poor — Gimmel Dalet”) — that relevant to the giver there are three things (the three “rays” of Chesed, Gevurah and Tiferes), and when it comes to the receiver a fourth thing is added (Malchus). It applies also to the receiver himself. The aspect of the receiver exists, albeit in a concealed manner, also in the letter gimmel whch corresponds to the giver (similar to the element of earth encompassed in the other three elements). Yet, the &1.ver is still associated with the number three W mmel) for on that level, the receiver is not an independent aspect; thus only the number three is present. After the receiver is actually present -when he becomes an independent entity — only then d~_es_ it become the number four, similar to the ‘t~m -elements which are present only when -the element of earth actually appears and becomes an independent basic element.

The same applies to the number three in Torah (the “threefold Torah”). Although, as noted earlier, this number is associated with the idea of “The Torah was given to make peace in the world” -for through Torah the two opposing entities of world and G-dliness are reconciled and are at 11peace” — nevertheless, the fact that it is associated with the number three and not four indicates that the “peace in the world” alluded to in this number is not yet actual fact. It is still encompassed in the Torah. That is, Torah is the 11giver” of peace and the world is the “receiver.” Although the “Torah was given to make peace in the world” — i.e., “peace in the world” is encompassed in the Torah — it is still not yet an independent phenomenon. As yet, only the act of giving by the giver is present, alluded to in the number three ( 11gimmel”). When it is actually drawn down from Torah and there is “peace in the world (i.e., in the receiver), then it is alluded to in the number four.

In slightly different words: The number three corresponds to the fact that “G-d desired to have a dwelling place for Himself in the nethermost worlds.” At this stage, the “dwelling place in the nethermost worlds” is only encompassed in G-d’s desire. The “dwelling place in the world” as a reality is alluded to in the number four. And since G-d desired that such a dwelling place actually exist, it follows that the making of it (alluded to in the number four) — the fulfillment of-G-d’s desire — is loftier in a respect than the dwelling place as it is encompassed in G-d’s desire (alluded to in the number three).

We can now -understand in-what respect -the “fourth month” is loftier than the “third month.” The “third month” represents the concept of “The Torah was given to make peace in the world” — the giving of the Torah to Jews on the condition that through it they will make this world a dwelling place for G-d. The actual making of the world into a fit abode for G-d is the concept of the “fourth month.” As we see, the Jews received the Torah in the third month, and then comes the next step of using the Torah to “make peace in the world” — in the fourth month.

At Matan Torah in the third month, the Jews were 11receivers”: wile they were ready to fulfill Torah and mitzvos, they actually did so afterwards. Thus the actual implementation is not an aspect of the third month, in which they received the Torah, but of the next month, the fourth. Of course, the Jews actually fulfilled Torah and mitzvos in the third month, too, after receiving the Torah. But we are talking of the theme of each month: the third — receiving the Torah; the fourth actual implementation.

The difference between the third and fourth months may be compared to the difference between Torah study and observance of mitzvos. The third month is the concept of Torah. Thus, even the mitzvos received at Mt. Sinai were presented as they are in Torah; they had not yet been implemented in deed. Although the Jews at Mt. Sinai said “we shall do” before “we shall hear,” this utterance was not actual deed, but a resolve to make deed paramount. In other words, it is deed (the “receiver”) as it is encompassed in the faculties of intellect and emotions (“giver”).

The “fourth month” is the concept of actual deed the fulfillment of mitzvos, in which the number four is emphasized. It is for this reason that the Talmud, when enumerating all the matters of Matan Torah associated with the number three (threefold Torah, threefold people, third month), says the “threefold Torah” (Chumash, Prophets, Writings) and does not mention anything about mitzvos, although they too are divided into three (Torah, prayer, deeds of loving kindness). For there is a fourth aspect in the fulfillment of mitzvos — the actual performance of them — which, because one thereby carries out the Divine Will of making this world a dwelling place for G-d, is a loftier aspect.

That the number four is associated specifically with mitzvos is expressed in the mitzvah of tefillin, to which the whole Torah is compared. There are four compartments in the tefillin; and the head piece of the tefillin is the only instance in which the letter “Shin” appears with four strokes rather than the regular three. On one side of the head piece the “Shin” appears with three strokes, and on the other side it appears with four. This teaches that the three aspects of intellect (Chochmah-Wisdom, Binah-Understanding, Da’as-Knowledge) by themselves are insufficient; one needs the fourth thing — actual deed.

The lofty nature of the fourth month compared to the third, then, is that we thereby “ascend in holiness.” After the third month in which the Torah was given to make peace in the world, the fourth month follows in which peace is actually made: the making of this world into a fit abode for-G-d.

2. The above concerns the lofty nature of the “fourth month,” especially Rosh Chodesh of that m=h. In addition, the first day of Rosh Chodesh possesses special distinction. Of two days Rosh Chodesh, the principal day is the second: The -new month begins from this day, whereas the first day of Rosh Chodesh is the thirtieth day of the previous month. Yet, precisely because the first day of Rosh Chodesh is the thirtieth day of the previous month, it has special significance: It emphasizes the principal, “the end is rooted in the beginning, and the beginning in the end.”

“Rosh Chodesh” literally means “Head of the Month.” Because it is the “head,” the beginning, it must also contain the end of the month, for lithe end is rooted in the beginning and the beginning in the end.” Openly, however, we see only that it is the “head,” not also the end.

On the first day of Rosh Chodesh, however, we see openly the connection between the “head” and the “end” of the month. It is the thirtieth day of the past month — i.e., the end of the month — and yet it is simultaneously called Rosh Chodesh, the Head of the (coming) month. Although we are talking of the head and end of two different months, nevertheless, they are the same in regard to the concept of a “month.” Also, the same sacrifices were brought on each Rosh Chodesh, thereby emphasizing their identical nature in actual deed.

In terms of man’s service to G-d, “end” corresponds to actual deed, and “head” corresponds to the intellect. “The end is rooted in the beginning and the beginning in the end” — which is openly emphasized on the first day of Rosh Chodesh -corresponds to the synthesis of them both. This is particularly emphasized on the first day of Rosh Chodesh Tammuz, which joins the “third month” with the -”fourth month” ~ i.e., the joining of the intellect (Torah) with deed.

Today is also Shabbos parshas Chukas. “Chukas” is cognate to the word “Chakikah,” which means engraved. Torah and Judaism are engraved in a person’s very fiber, without being able to separate the two.

That Torah and mitzvos are engraved in a Jew is associated with the plain meaning of the word “Chukas” — “statutes” — mitzvos which transcend understanding. Satan and the nations of the world taunt Jews about these mitzvos and the lack of reason behind them. When Torah and mitzvos are engraved in a Jew’s very essence, he takes absolutely no heed of their taunts — for what others say is totally irrelevant when it concerns something bound up with one’s very essence.

Torah and mitzvos became engraved in a Jew’s essence because “G-d desired to have a dwelling place for Himself in the nethermost worlds.” Just as G-d had this desire — a desire connected with G-d’s Essence — so it became that Jews, who are G-d’s children, have a desire for holiness, a desire connected with their essence (“engraved”).

Thus, when all the matters discussed above (Shabbos, Rosh Chodesh, first day of Rosh Chodesh, fourth month) are on Shabbos parshas Chukas, the service to G-d associated with them becomes engraved in a Jew.

The lesson from all the above is that one must utilize all aspects of this auspicious day to increase in Judaism, Torah and mitzvos, especially in those matters associated with fulfilling the previous Rebbe’s mission — the dissemination of Chassidus with the, dissemination of Torah and Judaism.

In the well known phrase, “taporo da-placho” “Placho” (in Ukrainian) is a log of wood. When one encounters a Jew who, instead of being a living Wi~ae_of the field,” is a log of wood, one should take * the “taporo” — the ax — to him. An “ax” is Torah, as we learn in the chapter of Pirkei Avos recited this week (4:5), that Torah is called “an ax to chop with” (i.e., one is forbidden to use this “ax” for personal gratification; it is to be used only for its right purpose). In other words, “taporo-da-placho” — “the ax on the log of wood,” means that one makes an altar for the Mishkan, or the Mishkan itself which was made of wood, out of the log.

3. All of the above aspects of today take place in a leap year. A leap year reconciles the difference between the solar and lunar years. In terms of man’s service to G-d, “sun” corresponds to a giver and “moon” to a receiver — for, as we see, the moon receives its light from the sun.

“Giver” and “receiver” correspond to two types of service. A Jew in some respects is a receiver, as for example, when he accepts upon himelf to fulfill Torah and mitzvos. In other respects he is a giver, as in the mitzvah of tzedakah, when a Jew gives tzedakah to a poor person from his own money.

A leap year teaches that these two types of service must be reconciled. One may think that just as the sun and moon have their respective times — the sun rules in the day and the moon in night — so a Jew’s service should be similarly divided: part of the day will be devoted to being a- “receiver,” and the other part to being a “giver.” When a Jew is- praying, for example, he is a “receiver,” nullifying himself before G-d. If a person asks for tzedakah in the middle of his k:Eeyers, he may think that since he is then a “receiver,” he cannot become a “giver” to- give tzedakah. Let the poor man wait until he has finished praying, and then he will devote himself to the service of the “sun.”

A leap year teaches that these two types of service must be synthesized: One must engage in both simultaneously. One may be praying (“moon” -receiver); but since by Divine Providence a poor person has turned to him for tzedakah, it is an indication that one should now engage in the service of giving (“sun”).

Parshas Chukas tells us how it is possible to engage in these two seemingly contradictory services at one time. Since Torah and mitzvos are engraved in a Jew’s very soul — and one’s fulfillment of them must be in a corresponding fashion -any questions concerning the suitability of a particular matter to one’s present mode of service (“sunif or timoon”) have no place. When a Jew desires holiness (as noted above), and feels that it is his whole existence, he grasps any holy matter that comes his way.

4. As usual, we shall analyze a point in the daily portion of Rambam’s Mishneh Torah — chapters 9-11 of the Laws of Sanctification of the New Moon. Earlier, Rambam described the method of reckoning to determine when will be the birth of the new moon (chapter 6). Basically, the period of time between the births of each new moon is a fixed period: 29 days, 12 hours (1 day = 24 hours) and 793 parts (1 hour = 1080 parts). If the exact time of the birth of any new moon is known, one need- merely add the above figure to that time to know when will be the-birth of the next new moon. Adding this figure again will give the time of the month of the new moon after that, and so forth. To make the calculations easier, Rambam advises a s4~e method. We are interested only in knowing on which day of the week and at which time of day the new moon will be born. If one subtracts round weeks from the above figure, one will be left with I day, 12 hours and 793 parts. [I.e., 29 days, 12 hours, 793 parts minus 28 days (4 whole weeks) = I day, 12 hours, 793 parts.] This is termed the 11remainder of the lunar month.” Adding this figure to the time of birth of a new moon will give the day of the week, the hour, and the number of parts of the hour at which the next birth of the new moon will occur.

The 24 hour day is divided into two parts -”day” proper (i.e. daytime) and night, each of 12 hours duration, with the night preceding the day. The night is considered to start from 6 p.m. and extends until 6 a.m.; day from 6 a.m. until 6 p.m.

Rambam then gives an example (6:7). The birth of the new moon for the month of Nissan was Sunday, at the fifth hour of the “day,” and 107th part of the hour (i.e. Sunday, at 11 a.m. and 107/1080 of the hour). Adding the “remainder of the lunar month” — I day, 12 hours, 793 parts -gives the birth of the new moon for the next month (Iyar) as Monday night, at the fifth hour and 900th part of the night (i.e. Monday night, at 11 p.m. and 900/1080 of the hour).

Rambam wrote Mishneh Torah with the utmost precision. We can therefore assume that the example he chose as the given date for the birth of a new moon — for Nissan, Sunday, at the fifth hour an4,107th part of that hour — has significance.

Similarly, we fin-d in today’s portion of Mishneh Torah (chapter 11, halachah 16 of the Laws of the -Sanctification of the New Moon) that Rambam gives a date which he says he will use as the starting point for all calculations to know where exactly the moon will be at any given time. That date is “The beginning of the eve of Thursday (i.e. Wednesday 6:00 p.m.), the third of Nissan of the year 4938 from creation.”

Again, the question is: What is the reason for choosing this date specifically. Indeed, R. Levi Ibn Chaviv, in his commentary on Rambam, says: “I question why the Rav (i.e. Rambam) used the third of the month as his basic starting point; it would have been proper to use the first of the month.” However, R. Levi Ibn Chaviv makes no comment on Rambam’s choice of the example quoted previously (Sunday during the day at the fifth hour and 107th part of the hour).

The “Pirush” (a commentary on Rambam’s “Laws of Sanctification of the New Moon”) notes that the date chosen by Rambam as his basic starting point (in chapter 11, halachah 16) was concurrent to when Rambam lived. He unites “Know that this basic date from which the sage (i.e. Rambam) started is far removed from our times (i.e. the times of the “Pirush”). We therefore must set another basic date from which we will start [to make calculations]... it

We can posit that the same is true of the date given by Rambam as an example of the birth of a new moon (in chapter 6, halachah 7) — for the month of Nissan, Sunday, at the fifth hour of the day, and at the 107th part of the hour, At the time Rambam was writing these laws, this was then the actual new moon. Thus Rambam chose as his example the birth of a new moon that happened at the-time he was writing these laws, and not a new moon from earlier or from the future.

But not all is clear: Earlier, at the beginning of today’s portion (chapter 9, halachah-5), Rambam gives an example of how to find the time of a “tekufah” [There are four tekufahs: The tekufahs of Tammuz and Teves — the summer and winter solstices (the precise times at which the sun is farthest from the equator); and the tekufahs of Nissan and Tishrei — the vernal and autumnal equinoxes (the precise times when the sun crosses the equator)]. Again, there is an exact length of time between tekufahs. Once the date of one tekufah is known, one merely need add the length of time between tekufahs to this date to arrive at the precise date of the next tekufah. Rambam then gives an example of the calculation necessary to find the time of the tekufah of Nissan of the year 4930.

Now, according to our previous explanation, that Rambam gives examples of the time at which he was writing, it follows that Rambam wrote this halachah in the year 4930. Yet, as we noted earlier, when setting a basic date from which to start calculations, Rambam (in chapter 11, halachah 16) gives the year 4938 — 8 years later! It is highly improbable that 8 years passed from the time Rambam wrote chapter 9 (in which he gave the date as 4930) until he wrote chapter 11 (in which he gives the date as 4938) — when Rambam writes that it took him [10] years to write the entire Mishneh Torah.

Moreover, even if Rambam had not given the year 4930 as a date, there would still be a problem. It is known that Rambam finished writing Mishneh Torah in approximately the year 4940. Rambam wrote Mishneh Torah in order — i.e., the laws-which are placed earlier were written earlier, and those placed at the end of Mishneh Torah were written toward the conclusion of the writing of Mishneh Torah. The Laws of Sanctification of the New -Moon are-near the beginning of Mishneh Torah. How is it possible, then, that he wrote the Laws of Sanctification of the New Moon in the year 4938, close to the conclusion of the writing of Mishneh Torah?

The Explanation

After Rambam wrote Mishneh Torah, he checked and corrected it, and then re-checked and recorrected it, etc., such that there were two or three different editions. Indeed, Rambam himself wrote to the Sages of Lunel that they should correct their copy of his work according to his final edition.

Naturally, Rambam edited only those laws which needed correction, not the entire manuscript. Even those matters which had to be changed because of corrections made by Rambam in other places, Rambam himself did not make these changes in his manuscript, but relied on the fact that his readers would themselves understand that such corrections naturally follow.

In our case, Rambam first wrote the Laws of Sanctification of the New Moon in the year 4930 (as recorded in chapter 9). The date Rambam gives as the basic starting point for calculations — the year 4938 — was the year in which Rambam edited and corrected these laws. Hence, when giving a year which to use as the basic starting point, he used the year in which he was then, when correcting it — 4938, and not the old date in which these J.a s were originally written eight years earlier -4930.

In chapter nine, however, no corrections were necessary, and therefore the date originally written — 4930 — remained.

Accordingly, we can say that the time given in the* example (in chapter 6, halachah 7) for the birth of the new moon — for Nissan, Monday night, at the fifth hour and 900th part of the hour — was indeed the time for the birth of the new moon for the month of Nissan when Rambam was writing this law.

There is a lesson to be derived from this, concerning our Sages’ statement, “Every day they (Torah and mitzvos) should be new in your eyes as if you were commanded about them on that day.” When Rambam edited and corrected a halachah, he didn’t edit an old matter that was written 8 years earlier; it was a totally new thing, for “every day they should be new in your eyes.” Thus Rambam naturally wrote the date of the time he was in now, and not a date of 8 years ago! Even if he was working on a manuscript which had the date of 4930 written on it, he still wrote the date of the year in which he was now working when he edited it -4938. He wasn’t just correcting something old; it was 11new,[11] something which happened “on that day.”

This teaches every Jew how he should learn Torah. Even when he learns something he has learned in the past — even if he has repeated it 101 times (as the Alter Rebbe instructs) — his study of it should be such that “every day they should be new in your eyes.”

In this week’s parshah, Chukas, we learn of the Jews’ complaints against G-d and Moshe resulting from the troubles-encountered on their journey — “Why have you brought us up from Egypt to die in t4g_Wilderness?” As punishment, G-d sent venomous snakes, to bite the people, resulting in- many da;ath,9. The people then said to Moshe, “We- have sinned by speaking against G-d and you; pray to G-d that He take the snakes away from us.” Scripture then tells us (21:7), “Moshe prayed for the people.” Rashi, commenting on the words, “Moshe prayed,” says: “From here [we learn] that one from whom forgiveness is asked should not be so cruel as not to forgive.”

Rashi’s words, “From here [we learn] that one from whom forgiveness is asked should not be so cruel as not to forgive,” implies that it is specifically this verse which teaches us this information. Yet we find several previous instances where the Jews complained against Moshe and Moshe nevertheless prayed on their behalf. Why then does Rashi write “From here [we learn]” such conduct?

The question is intensified when we examine Rashi’s source for his comment, the Midrash Tanchuma. The Midrash, adding to the above, says that “It likewise states (Bereishis 20:17), ‘Avraham prayed to G-d, and G-d healed Avimelech and his wife, etc.”’ This refers to the episode when Avimelech had taken Sarah, Avraham’s wife, and was consequently struck with a plague. Avimelech then gave gifts to Avraham that he should pray for him, and Avraham did so. We see, then, that Avraham forgave one who asked for forgiveness. Why then does Rashi write in the episode with the snakes that “From here [we learn] that one from whom forgiveness is asked should not be so cruel as not to forgive?”

Further, such conduct is more strongly emphasized in Avraham’s case than in Moshe’s. The insult to Avraham, Sarah’s abduction, was greater than the insult to Moshe — the Jews’ complaint st him — and yet Avraham still prayed for lech. Also,-Avimelech was-healed without-any conditions, whereas in the case of the snakes, healing occurred only when a condition was met, as written (21:8), “The L-rd said to Moshe: Make yourself [an image of] a venomous snake and set it upon a pole; and everyone who has been bitten shall look at it and live.”

We will answer the above question by first understanding another point. After Moshe had prayed for the people, G-d told him, “Make yourself [an image of] a venomous snake.” Why does it state “Make yourself,” and not just “Make [an image of] a venomous snake?”

We find another instance of such a usage, in parshas Behaaloscha (Bamidbar 10:2). G-d told Moshe, “Make yourself two silver trumpets,” and Rashi comments that “Make yourself” means, “of your own.” Thus here “Make yourself [an image of] a venomous snake” would mean that the material (copper) from which this snake would be made should come from Moshe’s own resources (“of your own”?)

Now, the trumpets were for the purpose “that they should sound the trumpets before you like a king,” and they could be used only for Moshe, no other (Rashi, Bamidbar 10:2). Hence it is understandable that the silver used to make the trumpets should come from Moshe’s personal resources. But in the case of the copper snake, there seems to be no reason why the copper should come out of Moshe’s pocket. Indeed, the copper snake was for t4n-_-- purpose of healing those who were bitten because they spoke against Moshe; surely it would be more- appropriate that the copper come from the whole congregation, not from Moshe? Why then does .tl,u--,-verse say, “Make yourself [an image of] a venomous snake?”

In answer to this question Rashi comments on the words “Moshe prayed” that “From here [we learn] that one from whom forgiveness is asked, should not be so cruel as not to forgive.” “From here” means that from the whole passage concerning Moshe’s prayer for the Jews, including G-d’s command, “Make yourself [an image of] a venomous snake,” we learn a new thing — that one should not be so cruel as not to forgive when one is asked for forgiveness.

That a person should not deny forgiveness to one who requests it is not a new concept learned from this passage. As noted above, we find that Avraham agreed to Avimelech’s request to pray for him. What we learn from our passage concerning the episode with the snakes is how one should forgive — “he should not be so cruel as not to forgive.”

It is possible that when one is asked for forgiveness, one will say that one forgives and even be prepared to do him a favor (e.g. pray for him) — and yet, resentment may still be felt in one’s heart. Such forgiveness is termed “cruel,” for since the injured party in any case does not repay the aggressor in kind, and is even prepared to pray for him — why shouldn’t he also remove the resentment from his heart? To remain resentful is cruel behavior!

This is what the episode with the snakes teaches: “From here [we learn] that one from whom forgiveness is asked, should not be so cruel as rm~t- to forgive.” G-d’s command to Moshe, “Make yourself [an image of] a snake” — “of your own” -teaches how important--it is to totally remove the faintest tinge of resentment from one’s heart. The ra=er snake which was for the purpose of healing those Jews who had spoken against Moshe Rabbeinu had to come specifically from Moshe’s resources, to show that he harbored absolutely no resentment against them.