Parshas Acharei
1. On the verses1 "דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אליהם אני ה' אלקיכם, כמעשה ארץ מצרים אשר ישבתם בה לא תעשו וגו'" ("Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: I am the L‑rd your G‑d. Like the practice of the land of Egypt, in which you dwelt, you shall not do, etc."), Rashi in his commentary quotes the words "אני ה'" ("I am the L‑rd") and explains: "אני הוא שאמרתי בסיני" ("I am the One Who said at Sinai, 'I am the L‑rd your G‑d'2, and you accepted My sovereignty upon yourselves; from now on, accept My decrees. Rebbi says: It is revealed and known before Him3* that they would ultimately break away into forbidden relations in the days of Ezra; therefore He came upon them with a decree: 'I am the L‑rd' — know Who is decreeing upon you: a Judge to exact punishment, and faithful to pay reward").
The simple explanation of Rashi is as follows: At first glance, it is not understood what the intent of this command is — that Moshe should speak to the children of Israel and inform them that "I am the L‑rd your G‑d." What is novel about this, after the Holy One, blessed be He, had taken them out of Egypt and given them the Torah, etc.? Rashi therefore explains that this was not said as a matter in its own right, but rather as an introduction to what is written afterward: since you accepted My sovereignty at the Giving of the Torah, you must accept the commands — the decrees — stated below. Rashi then adds a second interpretation4: since they would ultimately break away into forbidden relations, He therefore came upon them with a decree, etc.
However, this requires understanding:
a) At the beginning of Parshas Va'eira (on the verse "וידבר אלקים אל משה ויאמר אליו אני ה'" ("G‑d spoke to Moshe and said to him: I am the L‑rd"), where one can likewise ask, as above, what is novel in saying "I am the L‑rd"), Rashi already explained: "'And said to him: I am the L‑rd' — faithful to pay good reward to those who walk before Me, etc. And we find this expression interpreted thus in several places: 'I am the L‑rd' — faithful to punish, etc.; faithful to give reward." If so, it is understood that our verse too should be explained in this way: "I am the L‑rd — faithful to punish" and "faithful to pay reward"; especially since Rashi5 himself emphasizes there, "and we find this expression interpreted thus in several places." Nevertheless: a) Rashi takes pains to explain it here again6; b) and mainly: he explains it [OCR unclear — the end of this question is missing at the page break]7.
b) What (in the plain sense of things8) is the acceptance of "My sovereignty" apart from the acceptance of the decrees and the mitzvos? The very content of accepting sovereignty is that one takes upon oneself all that the king will command, as is also implied by Rashi's own commentary on the verse (which Rashi cites here) "אנכי ה' אלקיך וגו'" ("I am the L‑rd your G‑d, etc."): "'Who took you out of the land of Egypt' — the taking out is worthwhile, that you should be subservient to Me." That is, he explains "I am the L‑rd your G‑d" (whose content is the acceptance of sovereignty) as meaning "that you should be subservient to Me" — to serve G‑d by actually fulfilling His mitzvos9 (as is also evident from Rashi's comment just before10: "Since there are sections in the Torah such that if a person fulfills them he receives reward, and if not he does not receive punishment, one might think that the Ten Commandments are also so; therefore the verse states, etc."). Yet here he divides them: "You accepted My sovereignty upon yourselves; from now on, accept My decrees"11?
c) On the other hand: if the acceptance of the mitzvos is a matter in its own right, separate from the acceptance of sovereignty — then the command to accept the mitzvos should have come before the children of Israel were commanded the first [mitzvah]?
d) What is the precise meaning of Rashi's wording "from now on, accept My decrees"11*, and not "My mitzvos" or the like, as is usual in Rashi's commentary in most places?
e) It has been discussed several times that when Rashi offers two (or more) interpretations of one matter, this proves that each of the interpretations has some difficulty that is not present in the other, and that is why he brings both (for the one is not like the other). Seemingly, in our case, each of the two interpretations is understood according to the plain meaning of Scripture; what compelled him to bring two interpretations?
f) It has also been discussed several times that, as a rule, Rashi does not mention in his commentary the name of the author of the teaching he cites (and the reason is simple — it has no bearing on the plain meaning of Scripture). From this it follows that where he does mention him, this proves that the name of the author of the teaching also bears on understanding the interpretation of the verse. We must therefore understand: what is added to the understanding of the (second) interpretation by stating that it was said by "Rebbi"?
g) The usual expression in connection with "sin" is "to transgress," "to stumble," and the like — yet here Rashi deviated and wrote "to break away (into forbidden relations)"?
h) Rashi's commentary has its source in the Toras Kohanim on this verse, but there it states: "And so we find that they broke away into forbidden relations, as it says12, 'וישמע משה את העם בוכה למשפחותיו' ('Moshe heard the people weeping by their families'). And so Malachi said to them13, 'וזאת שנית תעשו כסות דמעה וגו'' ('And this second thing you do: covering [the altar] with tears, etc.')." Yet Rashi quotes only what we find "in the days of Ezra" (who is Malachi14), and not in the days of Moshe15. This is all the more difficult since Rashi himself explains on the verse "weeping by their families": "Our Rabbis said: 'by their families' — over matters of families, over the forbidden relations that were prohibited to them." Why does Rashi leave aside the example of what happened in that very generation, close to the time this section was said16, and bring instead "that they would ultimately break away into forbidden relations in the days of Ezra" — about a thousand years later?
2. The explanation of all this:
Although Rashi already explained, at the beginning of Parshas Va'eira, the intent of the verse "I am the L‑rd" as "faithful to pay good reward to those who walk before Me, etc., and we find this expression interpreted thus in several places, etc." — nevertheless, our case here is different:
That interpretation is possible only where the words "I am the L‑rd" are said at the conclusion of a command, or in connection with the matter stated before it, so that, in order to emphasize the gravity of the command, the verse concludes and warns: Know that "I am the L‑rd" — that is, I am faithful to pay reward and I am faithful to punish. And indeed this is the case with the commands to which Rashi refers in his general statement, "and we find this expression interpreted thus in several places, etc." — as is evident from the verses that Rashi cites.
The same applies to the verse "G‑d spoke to Moshe and said to him: I am the L‑rd," which Rashi explains is not the beginning of a new matter17 (as it seems at first glance), but rather "He spoke with him sternly for having spoken harshly, saying, 'Why have You done evil to this people?'" (in the previous section), and in continuation of this He said to him "I am the L‑rd" — that is: Why have you questioned My ways? Am I not faithful to pay good reward to those who walk before Me? Similarly regarding what is said afterward, "לכן אמור לבני ישראל אני ה' וגו'" ("Therefore say to the children of Israel: I am the L‑rd, etc."), Rashi explains: "Who is faithful to My word." That is, he clarifies that here too the verse is not introducing a new matter (as one might say at first glance), but rather concludes and reinforces the words of assurance stated before it: "I am the L‑rd" — He Who gives the assurance is faithful to fulfill it.
However, where "I am the L‑rd" is said at the beginning of the address — as in our verse, "Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: I am the L‑rd" — it cannot be explained18 that the intent is to warn or to emphasize that He is faithful to pay reward or to punish, for no command or matter has yet been stated19 to which this warning or emphasis could apply. If so — what is the intent of the verse in "(and say to them:) I am the L‑rd your G‑d"?
Perforce we must say that "I am the L‑rd" is not said here as an opening to the verses that follow20, but is a command and a matter in its own right — i.e., this statement itself is a command. And we already find this expression in the sense of a command in its own right in the Ten Commandments, at whose beginning the Holy One, blessed be He, said "I am the L‑rd your G‑d, etc.," meaning that they should accept His sovereignty, may He be blessed, upon themselves. The same is true in our case.
It is understood, however, that one cannot say that here it is a command to accept His sovereignty, since they had already accepted His sovereignty upon themselves at Sinai; nor can one say that the intent is the acceptance of the mitzvos in general, since that is a detail of the acceptance of sovereignty, as explained above [and also, as stated, according to this, the place of this command would not be here, but before the first mitzvah]. If so, we must necessarily say that this is a new command regarding the acceptance of sovereignty and the mitzvos: a command to accept a special category of mitzvos that they had not yet been commanded, and whose acceptance was also not included in the acceptance of all the mitzvos.
Now, the mitzvah that comes after this new command is the prohibition of forbidden relations, which falls into the category of a "decree" (as will be explained below). This proves that the command "and say to them: I am the L‑rd your G‑d" is a warning to accept mitzvos of a new category — "decrees."
For although at the Giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai the Jewish people took upon themselves to fulfill the mitzvos of the Holy One, blessed be He, there is room to say that they accepted then only such mitzvos as the intellect can tolerate — namely, those that are understood by the intellect, and those that are not understood but at any rate do not contradict the intellect. Mitzvos, however, that the intellect (even holy intellect) opposes — it is possible that they would say that such mitzvos were not included in the acceptance of His sovereignty and His mitzvos.
Therefore, before the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded the section of the mitzvos that fall into the category of a decree21 (forbidden relations (as will be explained below)), He first prefaced by warning them about accepting "decrees" in general (and not specifically the decree of forbidden relations): "I am the One Who said at Sinai, 'I am the L‑rd,' and you accepted My sovereignty upon yourselves" — i.e., just as you took upon yourselves to fulfill the mitzvos, so too "from now on, accept My decrees" — also the mitzvos that fall into the category of "decrees"22.
3. The reason the command concerning forbidden relations is called a "decree":
It is understood that with regard to marriage, distinguished lineage occupies an important and central place, especially when the one seeking the match is himself of distinguished lineage. As we have learned and seen, the Torah elaborated on the lineage of Aharon's wife — that he married "אלישבע בת עמינדב אחות נחשון" ("Elisheva, daughter of Aminadav, sister of Nachshon")22* — to make clear that she was distinguished in her lineage, being (the daughter of Aminadav and also) the sister of Nachshon [as Rashi explains: "From here we learn that one who marries a woman must examine her brothers"]. Likewise, when Avraham sent Eliezer to take a wife for his son Yitzchak, he told him23, "כי אל ארצי ואל מולדתי תלך ולקחת אשה לבני ליצחק" ("But to my land and to my birthplace you shall go, and take a wife for my son, for Yitzchak"), for the daughters of his land and birthplace were of distinguished lineage, being of Avraham's family.
Accordingly, logic dictates that the best match for a man of distinguished lineage is from his own family — and the closer she is to him, the more fitting and suitable she is for the match.
And above all, most fundamentally: the purpose of marriage is "be fruitful and multiply," and that they become "one flesh" — in their children. It is understood that this is more complete when the wife is the "close relative" (literally, "flesh") of the husband24. Yet in the laws of forbidden relations it is the very opposite, and they begin: "איש איש אל כל שאר בשרו לא תקרבו וגו'" ("No man shall approach any of his close relatives, etc.")!
Furthermore: the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world in such a way that its continued existence depended on the sons of Adam marrying their sisters25; Yaakov married two sisters, and specifically his bed was perfect; Amram married his aunt, and Miriam, Aharon, and Moshe were born. In light of all this, the prohibition of "any of his close relatives" is akin to Rashi's comment regarding the Akeidah26: "Yesterday You told me, 'For in Yitzchak shall offspring be called yours,' and then You said, 'Take now your son,' and now You tell me, 'Do not stretch out your hand against the lad.'" Therefore a special command first came concerning the acceptance of "decrees" in general, and afterward came the command concerning the particular "decree" — forbidden relations.
4. However, this interpretation is not entirely clear:
a) Although only now did He begin to command them about "decrees," and therefore there was no necessity that they should already have accepted the decrees upon themselves, nevertheless, simply speaking, it would have been more fitting that at the time He commanded them to accept His sovereignty and His mitzvos in general, He would command regarding all categories of mitzvos, including the decrees. Why does He divide them into two commands, at different times — at the Giving of the Torah regarding the mitzvos in general, and afterward regarding the decrees?
b) Even before the Giving of the Torah, and even for the children of Noach, forbidden relations were prohibited27 — at least the closest relatives (though not two sisters or one's aunt) — and this too is a "decree" (and at the Giving of the Torah further mitzvos were added for them), and regarding all of them they said "We will do"27*.
Therefore Rashi offers a second interpretation: that "I am the L‑rd" is an introduction to the section that follows it, and its meaning is "as it is interpreted in several places" — "I am the L‑rd, etc." The reason the verse deviated and wrote this at the beginning of the address is for added emphasis on the gravity of the command — that at the very outset "He came upon them with a decree"28, since "they would ultimately break away into forbidden relations." Therefore He warned them before the commands about forbidden relations: "Know Who is decreeing upon you — a Judge to exact punishment, and faithful to pay reward."
The reason why specifically regarding forbidden relations there comes a special warning that is not found with all the other prohibitions in the Torah, Rashi explains through his change of wording — "to break away into forbidden relations": with forbidden relations there is possible (and it is revealed before Him that ultimately it will be so) a great defect of breaking away:
"To break away" (לנתק) means to tear out29 and to separate. Its meaning here is to separate the Jewish people from their Father in Heaven — as is explained at length in the words of Ezra concerning the "breaking away" that occurred then.
This is especially so according to halachah, as the Rambam writes30: "This matter (of one who has relations with a gentile woman), although it does not carry the death penalty of a court, should not be light in your eyes, for it entails a loss that none of the forbidden relations entails: the son from a forbidden relation is his son in every respect and is counted among Israel, even though he is a mamzer; whereas the son from a gentile woman is not his son, as it says31, 'כי יסיר את בנך מאחרי' ('For he will turn your son away from following Me') — he turns him away from being a follower of the L‑rd."
And according to the plain meaning of Scripture, too, it is so, as Rashi explains on that verse: "We have learned that your daughter's son born from a gentile is called your son, but your son's son born from a gentile woman is not called your son, but her son."
Because of the gravity of the matter, and since He knew that they would ultimately transgress and break away in the days of Ezra, as recounted in Scripture, it was necessary to warn about this with extra emphasis.
Therefore Rashi did not bring the fact that we find they committed the sin of forbidden relations from the incident of "Moshe heard the people weeping by their families," because there is no element of "breaking away" there; whereas in the days of Ezra there was, as explained above.
And although in this section they had not yet been commanded concerning the prohibition of relations with a gentile woman — nevertheless, since here He begins to command about the prohibition of forbidden relations, which also includes this transgression that severs one from the Holy One, blessed be He (although they would be commanded about it specifically later), He therefore emphasizes the gravity of the matter right at the beginning of the section of forbidden relations, as explained above32.
5. However, this interpretation is not clear-cut either — even more so than the first — for it is difficult to say, according to the plain meaning of Scripture, that the intent of the verse's preface here is on account of an event33 that would occur a long time afterward34, and for a command that would be spelled out in another section. Therefore Rashi must give the first interpretation, and, on the contrary, it is the primary one.
Nevertheless, in order to remove, at least in part, the wonder — that the Torah should speak of something that would happen only after many years — Rashi emphasizes that this interpretation was said by Rebbi:
Rebbi arranged and wrote down the Mishnayos35. And although "דברים שבעל פה אי אתה רשאי לאומרן בכתב" ("Matters of the Oral Law, you are not permitted to say them in writing")36, nevertheless they permitted37 writing them down because of "עת לעשות לה' הפרו תורתך" ("It is a time to act for the L‑rd; they have voided Your Torah")38 — that "since it was impossible not to write it down, for the heart had diminished and the Torah was being forgotten"39, therefore "they voided words of Torah for the time of need"40. Thus Rebbi interprets a verse said by David as referring to the writing of the Mishnah, which would not take place until a long time afterward41. And so too here, he follows his own approach in our case and explains that the intent of the verse is to the time of Ezra, when they would ultimately break away into forbidden relations — "therefore He came upon them with a decree: 'I am the L‑rd your G‑d,' etc., 'and faithful to pay reward.'"
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Acharei-Kedoshim, 5731)
Notes
1) Our parshah, 18:2–3.
2) Yisro 20:2.
3) The fact that Rashi was careful to write (to quote also) "before Him" — because (even according to the plain sense of things) it is understood that if this were known also to the Jewish people (at all times), it would contradict the matter of free choice; therefore he must write "before Him." And although we have not yet learned what is stated (Nitzavim 30:19), "ובחרת בחיים" ("And you shall choose life"), nevertheless, from the general matter of reward and punishment, which was stated many times before Parshas Acharei, it is understood that free choice exists — for if one does not act by his own choice, why should he be given reward or punishment?
*) Our version of the Toras Kohanim reads: "before the One Who spoke and the world came into being."
4) As is evident from the wording "Rebbi says, etc.," and not "Rebbi said."
5) As for the fact that in various places Rashi explains "I am the L‑rd" differently (sometimes "faithful to pay reward and to punish," and sometimes another interpretation) — it is understood that there must be a compelling reason for this in each and every place (i.e., either to rule out the possibility of another interpretation, or because there is a necessity to explain it differently).
6) One cannot answer that since here it adds "your G‑d," it is not comparable to what is stated at the beginning of Parshas Va'eira — for simply, there too it is possible to explain it so. And the fact that sometimes it adds "your G‑d" — that is the way of the verses. One must necessarily say so, because in the two verses that follow this one it likewise concludes "I am the L‑rd your G‑d," and Rashi explains nothing; and similarly at the end of Parshas Acharei, and in very many other places.
7) For even according to the second interpretation, Rashi's intent is not that the reason these words are said is to state that He is a Judge to exact punishment and faithful to pay reward — but rather because "it is revealed and known before Him that they would ultimately break away into forbidden relations, etc., therefore He came upon them, etc." What Rashi writes, "a Judge to exact punishment and faithful to pay reward," is only an explanation of the words, and not an answer to "what does it come to teach us." By contrast, in Rashi's comment on Va'eira, this is also the reason for saying these words.
8) Whereas according to the levels of derush, remez, and sod, they are two separate matters, as is evident from the Mechilta on Yisro there, and elsewhere. This is explained in several Midrashim of our Sages, in discourses of Chassidus, etc.
9) And although the term "subservience" (shibud) means submission and the like — the intent is not that the term "subservience" does not include actual service; rather, that subservience can apply also to mere submission (as in the "lien of Rabbi Nassan," "the lien on land," etc.). But in very many places service is included in subservience: e.g., "ועבדום" ("and they will enslave them") (Lech Lecha 15:13), which Targum Yonasan renders "וישעבדון בהון"; likewise "she was enslaving her harshly" (Rashi, there 16:6); and likewise "ורב יעבוד צעיר" ("and the elder shall serve the younger") (Toldos 25:23), which Onkelos renders "ורבא ישתעביד לזעירא". And elsewhere.
10) [Yisro] 20:1.
11) For Rashi's intent is not that since you accepted My sovereignty at the Giving of the Torah you must fulfill My mitzvos — for if so, Rashi should have written "from now on, fulfill My decrees" (and not "accept My decrees").
11*) Although this is so in the Mechilta there.
12) Beha'alos'cha 11:10.
13) Malachi 2:13.
14) Megillah 15a.
15) But one cannot ask that Rashi should have brought how they broke away into forbidden relations at "Shittim" — "and the people began to commit harlotry with the daughters of Moav" (end of Parshas Balak) (especially since there it was with foreign women — see below, section 4) — because there: a) according to Rashi (primarily), the sinners were only from the tribe of Shimon (Pinchas 26:13); b) they did not break away (of their own accord) into forbidden relations; rather, he caused them to stumble through lewdness (Rashi there 24:14), and they gave their daughters over to harlotry in order to cause them to sin (Rashi, Pinchas 25:15, 18). See Likkutei Sichos vol. 14, p. 5, and note 32 there.
16) And although this is the second interpretation there — nevertheless, since Rashi brings it, it is evident that it accords with the plain meaning of Scripture. One cannot answer that since they did not then transgress the prohibition of forbidden relations, but only wept over the prohibition, it is not possible to say that on account of this He would come upon them with a decree, etc. — for it is evident that this too is a most severe matter, since because of it "the anger of the L‑rd flared greatly, and in the eyes of Moshe it was evil" (and according to the interpretation that they wept "over the forbidden relations that were prohibited to them," one must say that the flaring of anger, etc., was on account of this weeping). At the very least, he should have brought both, as in the Toras Kohanim.
17) And although it concludes (verse 6), "Therefore say to the children of Israel: I am the L‑rd, and I will bring you out, etc." (and even if you say that this is a new command, and not a repetition of what He had already commanded him) — nevertheless, at any rate, the first verse is a continuation of what was stated before it, and not a command, even according to the first interpretation that Rashi gives there.
18) As is precise in Rashi's wording: "and we find this expression interpreted thus in several places" — for this rule does not apply in all places. Therefore Rashi explains in Va'eira (6:29): "I am worthy, etc."
19) As opposed to where the intent is to state Who is speaking (as in Vayeitzei (28:13) — similar to Shemos (3:6) — or in Lech Lecha (15:7), where it adds "Who brought you out, etc.").
20) In addition: if the intent were only to say that they must fulfill the commands written afterward because He is faithful to punish and to pay reward — this is stated in its proper place, at the end of the two following verses.
21) See Rashi, Toldos 26:5, s.v. "My statutes."
22) Some slight difficulty remains from what is stated, "and observe all His statutes" (Beshalach 15:26, and Rashi there); but there the reference is to mitzvos that are "without any reason," whereas in our case it is to those that are contrary to reason.
22*) Va'eira 6:23.
23) Chayei Sarah 24:4.
24) Except that the Holy Spirit forbade some* forbidden relations to the children of Noach. See Rashi, Bereishis 2:24; 39:9.
*) But not all of them — which is why they believed Avraham and Yitzchak when they said "She is my sister" (Rashi, Vayeira 20:12). Regarding the halachah in all this, see Sanhedrin 57b ff.
25) See Rashi, Kedoshim 20:17. Based on this, one can better appreciate the fact that although "the nations had fenced themselves off from forbidden relations" (Rashi, Vayishlach 34:7), they did not also forbid one's paternal sister.
26) Vayeira 22:12.
27) See above, note 24.
27*) Rashi, Mishpatim 24:3.
28) For at first glance the phrase "He came upon them with a decree" is not understood: it should have said "He decreed upon them a decree" or the like. Rather, through this he answers why it began with "I am the L‑rd your G‑d": because of the gravity of the matter, "He came upon them (meaning: He entered the matter from the very outset) with a decree." Also: the phrase "came upon them" connotes enticing and the like, which suits a most severe matter.
29) See Rashi, Emor 22:24.
30) Hilchos Issurei Bi'ah 12:7. See also Tzafnas Pa'neach, beginning of Parshas Pinchas; and there: that he destroys souls from Israel, since their offspring follow her — see Yevamos 100b and Kiddushin 68[b].
31) Va'eschanan 7:4.
32) One can say that this is why it also adds the word "your G‑d" here, although to convey the two things — that He is faithful to pay reward and faithful to punish — it would suffice to write "I am the L‑rd" alone [as implied by Rashi at the beginning of Va'eira; and even if you say that there the intent is either to reward (when said in connection with fulfilling mitzvos) or to punishment (when said in connection with punishment), as the Maskil LeDavid writes — it is stated explicitly in Rashi further on* (Kedoshim 19:16): "I am the L‑rd — faithful to pay reward and faithful to punish"; and what the commentators write requires study] — because this adds to the severity of the warning.
One can further say: the three matters that Rashi writes — a) know Who is decreeing upon you, b) a Judge to exact punishment, c) and faithful to pay reward — are alluded to in the three words: a) "I," b) Havayah, c) "your G‑d" (see also the commentators here). Nevertheless, Rashi reverses the order and writes first "a Judge to exact punishment" and then "faithful to pay reward" (although punishment pertains to the Name Elokim, which is the attribute of judgment (Rashi, beginning of Bereishis), and reward pertains to the Name Havayah, which is the attribute of mercy (Rashi there)) — because regarding a warning, especially a most severe one, it is more relevant to make the punishment known. (But in the verse it must be written "Havayah your G‑d," for it is not at all customary to write "I am your G‑d, Havayah" — and Rashi is explaining the intent of the verse.)
The reason it alludes to these three matters is that this is the order of a warning: first one must make known that the One Who decrees is the Holy One, blessed be He, one's Creator and Master; then one adds that He will also punish him; and on the other hand, if he fulfills the command, he will receive reward.
*) Although we have not yet learned this verse — nevertheless, from the fact that Rashi explains so there without any proof, etc., it is understood that this is the simple meaning of these words. (Consequently, where he explains "'I am the L‑rd' — faithful to pay reward; 'your G‑d' — faithful to punish" (Shelach 15:41), a special explanation is needed there.)
33) This is not a complete refutation, even according to the plain sense — for since the inclination in this matter is so great that even after the warning "they would ultimately break away," it is understood that without this severe warning they would have been liable "to break away" within a short time (as "weeping by their families" proves).
34) And although in Parshas Beshalach (16:32), too, Rashi explains that the intent of the verse is to the days of Yirmiyahu — there it is explicit in the verse, "for your generations," i.e., that its intent is for an event in future generations.
35) Rambam in his introduction to the Yad HaChazakah; Mevo HaTalmud of R. Shmuel HaNagid, at its beginning; Tosafos Rid, Gittin 60a; Meiri on Avos; and elsewhere.
Now, some say that according to Rashi (Shabbos 13b; Sukkah 28b; and elsewhere), Rabbeinu [HaKadosh] only arranged the Mishnayos but did not write them* (and the discussion regarding the opinion of Rav Sherira Gaon in his Epistle — in its two versions — is well known). Accordingly [it is difficult]: if Rashi disagrees with the above, [why] did Rashi nowhere explain (or at least hint at) who wrote it (and likewise the Gemara)? Several of the Rishonim who discuss the writing of the Talmud did not mention that Rashi disagrees; and there are more such matters that require study.
Therefore one can say, in my humble opinion (at least in a strained manner — to remove the above difficulties), that Rashi relied on what he wrote in Bava Metzia (86a, top) in explaining "the end of hora'ah" (although in our version "wrote" is not mentioned). This accords with Rashi (Gittin 60b, s.v. "u'devarim") and with the statement of our Sages (Gittin 59a) that in Rebbi and in Rav Ashi, Torah and greatness were combined in one place.
And in the above-cited Rashi (Shabbos and Sukkah), the discussion concerns [the time] of Megillas Ta'anis, and is in the language of "the Rabbis taught" — i.e., in the time before the sealing of the Mishnah by Rebbi. And although in Eruvin (62b) it refers to the time of the Amoraim — one can say (at least in a strained manner) that it is incidental to the "the Rabbis taught" in Shabbos there. And in Kesubos (19b) and Bava Metzia (33a) — one can say that since it was in the days of Rebbi, it takes the simple matter for granted, that it was certainly already written. Or that the study in the house of study was conducted orally — for since it was possible [to learn orally], the dictum of our Sages again applied, "Matters of the Oral Law, you are not permitted to say them in writing," and when a doubt arose, they went out to look in the book. As written in the later authorities. This is not the place to elaborate.
*) This is also the opinion of R. Yaakov Chagiz in the introduction to his commentary Eitz HaChaim on the Mishnah.
36) Gittin 60b; Temurah 14b.
37) Gittin there, 60a; Temurah there. See also Tosafos s.v. "Aliba," Shabbos 115a; the commentators on the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 334, se'if 12; and the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch there.
38) Tehillim 119:126.
39) Rashi s.v. "keivan," Gittin there.
40) Ibid., s.v. "eis."
41) And although further laws were derived from this verse, as Rashi explains on the verse: "Our Rabbis expounded from it that one may transgress words of Torah in order to make a fence and safeguard for Israel, such as Gidon, and Eliyahu on Mount Carmel, who offered sacrifices on a private altar" — nevertheless, it primarily refers to the writing of the (Oral) Torah, as is precise in the verse's wording, "(they have voided) Your Torah" (and not "Your mitzvos" or the like).
Key Lesson
Accepting G‑d's sovereignty must extend even to "decrees" — commandments that seem to run against reason — for "from now on, accept My decrees." Where a breach could sever a Jew from his Father in Heaven, the Torah warns with extra force, reminding us to know Who commands: a Judge Who exacts punishment and Who is faithful to pay reward.