כי תבואו אל ארץ מושבותיכם, "when you will come to the land of your habitations, etc." When G'd saw the despondency of the Jewish people over the decree that He had issued against them to wander aimlessly in the desert for forty years, He provided some encouragement for their hearts by instructing them in commandments which would apply only once they lived in the land of Canaan. G'd wanted to keep this prospect before their eyes in order to make their lives more meaningful. If one knows that at the end of a certain period of time one will experience fulfilment of one's hopes then the time lag until then becomes less onerous. G'd made sure to write אשר אני נותן לכם, "which I am about to give to you," although the generation He addressed had already been described as carcasses. He taught the people that the accomplishments of the children reflect credit also on their parents seeing the children are meant to be the extension of their parents.

Another reason why the Torah wrote here נותן לכם, "am about to give you," may be based on Sanhedrin 90 where the Talmud raises the question "where it is written in the Torah that there will be a resurrection?" The Talmud quotes Exodus 6,4: "and I will also keep My covenant with them (the patriarchs) to give the land of Canaan to them." The fact that the Torah did not write "to you," seeing the living Israelites were being addressed, proves that the patriarchs will be resurrected. In our verse the Torah addresses "carcasses." The verse makes sense only if it presumes that these "carcasses" will be resurrected and will take possession of their land.

והקריב המקריב קרבנו, When the person offering his sacrifice is about to do so, etc. An examination of the relative amounts of oil which are to be part of the meal-offerings appears at first glance to be proportional to the amounts of solids used in those offerings, i.e. the amount of flour. Similarly, the amount of wine which accompanies an animal sacrifice as a drink-offering is also proportional to the size of the animal being offered as a sacrifice. Why does the Torah make an exception to these proportions (compare verse 6) in our verse when the amount of flour used in the meal-offering is one tenth of an eyphah, i.e. a quarter hin which is equivalent to three lugin? [this is a proportionally much larger amount of oil than with other sacrifices. Ed.] Please refer to the Mishnah in Menachot 107. Maimonides writes in chapter 17 of his treatise on Maaseh Hakorbanot that "someone may voluntarily donate, or promise by means of a vow, a drink-offering to consist only out of wine, provided the minimum quantity is two lugin. He is not allowed to donate an offering consisting entirely out of oil even if the quantity is 2 lugin oil, as we do not find meal-offerings containing such a small amount of oil. One may also not donate one log or two lugin wine, however, as the drink-offerings accompanying animal offerings require larger amounts of wine than that." Thus far Maimonides on the subject. This may be the reason why in our verse the Torah is not satisfied with the person offering the meal-offering donating two lugin oil to be mixed with the tenth of the eyphah of flour although when the amount of flour in the meal-offering consists of two tenths eyphah of flour, the Torah had stated that 4 lugin oil are required. This is to teach you that a drink-offering of wine must not consist of less than two lugin of wine.

One may be tempted to argue that this reasoning is only correct concerning the amount of wine in the respective drink-offerings, seeing that according to Rabbi Tarfon (Zevachim 91) an offering consisting of oil only is acceptable even in a relatively small amount. We find a difference of opinion in the Talmud Menachot we have quoted, one sage holding that one may donate as little as one log of oil as a separate offering. According to the reasoning presented in the Talmud for this latter opinion, why did the Torah not remain consistent in its presentation of the relative amounts of oil and flour? We may have to conclude that the Torah was anxious to equalise the respective amounts of oil and wine to be used in these drink or meal-offerings respectively which accompany the animal offerings.

וכי תשגו ולא תעשו, If you err and do not observe, etc. We are taught in Horiot 8 that this verse speaks about someone who commits the sin of idolatry. We find that the Torah repeats itself here, first writing "all the commandments," and then, in verse 23, "all that G'd has commanded you." The Torah appears to speak of someone who denies the validity of the Ten Commandments [commandments the people heard from G'd directly, Ed.] as well as all of the other commandments recorded in the written Torah but relayed to the people only through Moses. The message of the verse is that if someone worships idols he effectively rejects all the positive as well as all the negative commandments which make up Judaism. The words לא תעשו refer to the positive commandments, whereas the words את כל אשר צוה ה׳ אליכם refer to the negative commandments. The Torah informs us of a new concept, i.e. that there are individual positive commandments whose performance is equated with performance of all the positive commandments. Nonetheless, if someone worships idols he is considered as if he had also denied the validity of all the positive commandments. Similarly, there are some negative commandments the violation of which is considered as equivalent to rejection of all the negative commandments and the punishment in store for the person guilty of this is that which would be visited upon a person who had physically violated all the negative commandments.

והנפש אשר תעשה ביד רמה, But the person who acts defiantly, etc. This means that if someone deliberately worships idols, G'd considers it as if he had blasphemed against Him. This is why his punishment is that he will be cut off from amongst his people.

The Torah adds: כי דבר ה׳ בזה, "for he has despised the word of G'd." This means that inasmuch as the sin of idolatry is equivalent to rejection of the entire Torah, such a person has despised every word of G'd. The Torah adds that ואת מצותו הפר, "and he has violated His commandment," i.e. by worshiping idols he has in effect violated all the negative commandments. As a result, הכרת תכרת הנפש ההיא. The word הכרת refers to the tendons of the soul, the word תכרת to the limbs of the soul. The soul is perceived as being made up of parallel parts to those of the body. Just as the body consists of 365 tendons and 248 limbs, so is the soul a composite of 613 parts. Once a person is treated as if he had violated all the 613 commandments no vestige of his soul remains. Such a soul can never be repaired. This is the deeper meaning of the words עונה בה, "its sin remains an ongoing fact." Our sages in Sanhedrin 90 explain this differently. We know that the written Torah can be explained in many different ways.

ויהיו בני ישראל במדבר, While the children of Israel were in the desert, etc. Why did the Torah have to let us know that the children of Israel were in the desert? This may be understood in conjunction with what we learned in Shabbat 96. Rav Yehudah is quoted as saying that the sin of the person collecting the firewood consisted of his carrying it a distance of 4 cubits in the public domain. We have aslo learned in Shabbat 6 that a Seratya or a Platyah i.e. a camp or a busy highway, constitute a public domain. The Talmud asks there why the Baraitha which mentioned the examples of a camp or busy highway did not include a desert as a further example of a public domain? Abbaye answered that this was not really an appropriate question as the desert constituted a public domain only while the Israelites (600,000 plus) marched through the desert, whereas the Baraitha was concerned with conditions at the time. Rashi comments on this as follows: "In those days the desert was considered a public domain whereas in our time it is not considered an area traversed by many people. When a Baraitha did mention that a desert may also be a public domain this is based on the assumption that the desert once more became a route used by multitudes of people on a regular basis."

This is basically what the words "while the Israelites were in the desert" wanted to convey to us. The reason that the מקשש עצים, the person gathering firewood, was guilty of violating the Sabbath, was because at that time the desert was a proper public domain and carrying in it for a distance of four cubits or more was forbidden on pain of death. If the Israelites had not at that time travelled through the desert, the act of the מקשש would not have been punishable.

According to the opinion of Maimonides in Hilchot Shabbat chapter 14 there does not seem to be a difference between the status of the desert in the days of the Israelites' trek through the desert and nowadays. I explained this in a volume called Chefetz Hashem which I composed during my youth. Maimonides understood the words of Abbaye to mean that the scholar who included the desert as an example of the public domain spoke of a period when the Israelites travelled through the desert. The other scholar who did not list the desert as a public domain was only concerned with conditions prevailing during his lifetime. Seeing that during his lifetime the desert was not travelled by many people he did not bother to define its status. In actual fact, however, the desert must be regarded as a public domain even in our own times. If this is the correct interpretation of what Abbaye had in mind we are back to square one, i.e. why did the Torah have to tell us that the Israelites were in the desert when this incident took place?

We may be able to explain our verse with the help of another statement in Shabbat 96 where a Baraitha is quoted which defines the sin of the מקשש as lopping the wood off the tree rather than carrying it a distance of 4 cubits. This appears difficult in view of a halachah in Chulin 88 that earth taken from the desert is unfit to be used to cover the blood of wild beasts or birds after their having been slaughtered. The reason given is that such earth is salty and incapable of supporting growth of plants. If this is so, where did the מקשש find trees in the desert that he could lop branches off? The Torah answers this question by writing that the Israelites had been in the desert for quite a while when the incident under discussion occurred. During the years preceding the incident with the מקשש the travelling well accompanying the Israelites had irrigated the desert around their camp so that that part of the desert became capable of producing a variety of plants. It was from these plants that the מקשש lopped off some firewood. This interpretation even fits the opinion offered by Rabbi Acha in Shabbat 96 that the מקשש was gathering in firewood lying on the ground, making a pile of them. This too would have been possible once we assume that the well of Miriam had irrigated the desert around the camp of the Israelites.

וימצאו איש מקשש עצים, they found a man collecting firewood. The reason that the Torah employs the word "they found" is because according to Yalkut Shimoni Moses had instructed the people to spread out and search for any one who was violating the Sabbath. The word מצא is used in a similar sense in Esther 2,23 where the plot to assassinate Ahasverus was being investigated.

מקשש עצים ביום השבת, gathering firewood on the Sabbath. The reason the Torah first mentioned the deed before mentioning the day when it occurred is to tell us that the man was well aware that it was the Sabbath. If the Torah had reported this in the reverse order the meaning would have been that they found him on a day which they (the searchers) knew to be the Sabbath. The present phraseology makes it clear that the man gathering the firewood knew that it was the Sabbath. Our sages in the Sifri have cleverly deduced that the man was aware that it was the Sabbath from the repetition of the word מקשש עצים in verse 23. That repetition indicates that even after the man had been found collecting the firewood and had been warned about it he continued to do it. According to our own approach the repetition of the words מקשש עצים proves that the man had not erred in thinking that his activity was one which was permitted on the Sabbath. The men who found him warned him immediately about the fact that what he was doing was forbidden on pain of judicial execution. The man was guilty of being aware that it was the Sabbath (on which certain work prohibitions apply) as well as that the work he was performing was one of the forbidden categories.

And the LORD said to Moses: the reason that this passage deviates from the norm in that it says, 'And HE said' whereas in all of scripture it says 'And HE spoke' can be explained by the teaching pf the Sages (Yalkut): When Moses saw the event of the Sabbath woodcutter he said to the LORD, "On the weekdays the Israelites don phylacteries (tefillin) and thereby remember the commandments. On Sabbath, (when it is forbidden to don phylacteries) how are they to remember?" The Holy Blessed ONE responded, "I am hereby giving them the commandment to tie fringes, through which they will remember, etc." This is why "And HE Said" is appropriate. It implies soft words that satisfy the heart of a questioner.

Speak etc. and you shall say: Since there is an element of commandment as well as advantage, and honor which come from the commandment, therefore it said both Speaking (in a commanding form) and saying (in a gentle and respectful form).

And the shall make for themselves: The reason this passage is connected via the connecting "Vov-and" is as the sages taught, which I wrote about the previous verse, that Moses said to G-d, "During the week your people don phylacteries (tefillin) and thus remember etc. Thus when G-d comes to instruct him that they make fringes (tzitzit), one might mistakenly think that this commandment will take the place of phylacteries (tefillin), that when you wish you may don phylacteries (tefillin) and when you wish you may don fringes (tzitzit) without the phylacteries, even on the week days, implying that either one of these commandments suffices as the reminder about the commandments. Therefore it said, "And they shall make..." implying that the commandment of phylacteries remains and the commandment of fringes is added.

לדרתם ונתנו…פתיל תכלת. "throughout the generations and they shall put…a thread of blue." There is a good reason for writing the word לדרתם. Inasmuch as the Torah describes the function of the fringes as a means to remind the Israelites of their duties, I could have thought that when there would arise a generation which did not need to be reminded of its duties the people of that generation could dispense with the need to observe this commandment. The Torah therefore had to write: "throughout their generations," in order to remind us that this commandment would remain in force at all times.

Another reason why the Torah wrote the word לדרתם in the middle of the verse describing the commandment is that the commandment consists of two parts. We have the white threads and the blue thread. The former form part of the commandment throughout the generations. The latter is mandatory only at a time when the proper colour is available. G'd was careful to write the word "throughout their generations" before mentioning the blue thread, to make it plain that the first half of the commandment, i.e. the white threads applies always whereas the instructions to make one of the threads of blue wool applied only when the colour was at hand. Menachot 38 rules that the availability or non-availability of either kind of thread is no impediment to fulfilling the commandment with the kinds of threads which are available.

והיה לכם לציצית, "And it shall be unto you as a fringe, etc." It is not quite clear what the words "it shall be a fringe" is meant to convey. Menachot 43, where the view of Rabbi Meir that the penalty for not fulfilling the commandment with the white fringes is greater than the penalty for not fulfilling the commandment with the blue thread is discussed, illustrates this as follows: "Imagine a king who commanded two servants to bring him a golden seal or a clay seal, respectively. Both of them failed to bring him either kind of seal. Which one of the servants will be punished more severely? Clearly, the one who received the instruction to bring a seal of clay will be punished more severely because that command was easy to fulfil. Tossaphot comment that the reason Rabbi Meir chose this parable as illustration for the commandment of ציצית is that one places one's' seal on slaves as a mark of ownership. When the Israelites wear fringes this is evidence that they are servants of the Lord. We have further proof of this in Shabbat 57 where a slave's chain is not permitted to be carried from one domain to another domain on the Sabbath. Thus far Tossaphot. The words והיה לכם לציצית mean that wearing the ציצית will be proof that you are the Lord's servants just as wearing a slave's chain would be proof of whose slaves you are.

וראיתם אתו, "and when you look at it, etc." When you look at the ציציות the symbol of your servitude to the Lord, you will remind yourselves that you are not totally free to do as you please in matters of food, clothing, etc., but you will remember all your duties, i.e. the commandments of the Torah.

ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם, "and you will not deviate to follow the desires of your heart, etc." Normally, man employs his eyes to activate his desires. G'd's commandments frequently require us to do precisely the opposite of what we would like to do. This leads to an inner conflict in man. When we wear the fringes and are reminded to whom we owe obeisance, this makes it easier to comply with G'd's laws. If it were not for the commandment of ציצית we would often find it too hard to deny what our eyes have found alluring.

למען תזכרו ועשיתם, "so that you will remember to do, etc." This is best understood by means of the example given in Menachot 44 of how the fringes kept its wearer from demeaning himself with a harlot. The Torah promises that the fringes themselves will protect you against committing all kinds of transgressions. In this instance the word ועשיתם "you will do," is to be understood as in Kidushin 39 where we were told that when a person is tempted to commit a sin and he resists it, i.e. he does nothing, it is accounted for him as if he had fulfilled one of the positive commandments. Our verse continues with והייתם קדושים, "you will be holy, etc." This may be understood in line with the statement in Vayikra Rabbah 24, that one is not awarded the title "holy" unless one had separated oneself from all matters of sexual licentiousness. The Torah goes on to say: I am the Lord your G'd, etc." This verse establishes G'd's credentials for all that He demands from us. Seeing He had taken us out of Egypt, from underneath far worse conditions of bondage, He is certainly entitled to place the mark of the fringes on us to demonstrate that we are obligated to be His servants. I have explained why the line "I am the Lord your G'd" is repeated at the end of Parshat Behar on the line: "for the children of Israel are. My servants" (Leviticus 25,55).

Now we shall try to understand the mystical dimension of why this whole commandment applies only to garments which are four-cornered. Inasmuch as the fringes are a symbol of our being servants of the Lord, G'd commanded that the symbol should also testify as to who is our Master. Other nations too have their symbols by means of which they can identify who is a servant of whom. G'd decreed therefore that we must not attach these fringes to garments which are not four-cornered so as to symbolize that we are the servants of the Master whose Kingdom extends to the four corners of the globe. This symbolism would be lost if we attached fringes to three-cornered or rounded garments.

G'd commanded that the threads be white to symbolise G'd's attributes of Mercy and goodness, something traditionally symbolised by the colour white. The colour blue symbolises G'd's mastery in the Celestial Regions, seeing the colour blue is similar to the colour of the sky. The number of threads i.e. 8 or 4 folded over, also symbolise His Holy name of four letters. His uniqueness in His Sanctuary is equivalent to the number 8, i.e. a combination of two of His names, י־ה־ו־ה plus א־ד־נ־י. According to Menachot 39 it is a mystical dimension of the halachah that the knot with which the blue thread is tied together with the white threads symbolises the mystical dimensions of kindness and mercy respectively. This is the mystical dimension of what constitutes heaven. This dimension is related to our patriarch Jacob who represents the attribute of תפארת, harmony. Kabbalists who have studied the mystical elements of the written Torah claim that the attribute of תפארת yearns for the attribute of חסד, kindness, the quality attributed to Abraham. This is the reason that the blue thread winds around the white threads, i.e. mercy coils itself around kindness, love. The relationship of the two is similar to the relationship of רוח to נשמה.

I wanted to explain why G'd did not permit any blue except that which is derived from a fish which comes out of the sea, and not from any other source which is itself blue. Perhaps this is what the sages meant when they said in Chulin 89 that the sea resembles the sky. We should also understand that mercy is rooted in the Torah which itself is allegorically compared to the sea.