1

The Additional Cities of Refuge (i)

בערי מקלט הוא אומר...

In regard to the Cities of Refuge it is stated...

By means of the preceding prooftexts, Rambam demonstrated that Mashiach will bring about a completeness in the observance of the commandments of the Torah. Here, when he cites the passage concerning the Cities of Refuge, we find an innovation: When Mashiach comes something will be added to the mitzvah itself. The Torah itself is saying that there will come a time in which the commandments of the Torah will attain completeness. (This explains why Rambam makes a point of saying, “In regard to the Cities of Refuge it is stated...,” instead of [for example] “in Parshas Shoftim.”)

Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XVIII, p. 280


The Additional Cities of Refuge (ii)

The commandment to allocate additional Cities of Refuge when Mashiach comes transforms the Redemption into a necessary condition for the fulfillment of a commandment of the Torah.

Though the coming of Mashiach is indeed explicit in the Torah, it is not part of a specific mitzvah in the Torah (i.e., we do not find an explicit commandment to believe in Mashiach). The commandment regarding the additional Cities of Refuge, however, turns the Redemption into an integral component of a commandment in the Torah. Hence: Just as2 “It is clear and explicit in the Torah that it [i.e., the Torah] is a perpetual commandment that endures forever and ever, with neither alteration nor subtraction nor addition,” and just as3 “this Torah, with its statutes and laws, is everlasting..., and we may neither add to them nor detract from them,” — so, too, there can be no change (G‑d forbid) in the Divine promise of Redemption.

The perpetuity of a commandment is not the same as the perpetuity of the promise of Redemption. The actual fulfillment of a promise depends on the manner in which it was given, in keeping with the conditions and definitions specified by the Sages; even with regard to a promise that has been given in writing without the enumeration of these conditions, one cannot be certain that it will necessarily be fulfilled according to its plain meaning. (Thus, for example, the Gemara4 discusses the verse,5 עד יעבור עמך ה', עד יעבור עם זו קנית — “Until Your people, G‑d, pass over, until this people whom You have acquired pass over.” The Sages say: “עד יעבור עמך ה' — This alludes to the first arrival of the Jewish people [in Canaan, in the days of Yehoshua]; עד יעבור עם זו קנית — This alludes to the second arrival of the Jewish people [in the days of Ezra].... Israel would have been worthy of having a miracle performed for them in the days of Ezra just as a miracle was performed for them in the days of Yehoshua bin Nun, but it was obstructed by sin.”) The fact that a literal interpretation of a text is valid does not mean that the promise it expresses is bound to be fulfilled in that particular way; the eternity of the Torah may well find expression according to a different interpretation. (For example, the text may be speaking on the material or on the spiritual plane, in any case or on certain conditions, and so forth.) A mitzvah, by contrast, literally “endures forever,” with “neither alteration nor subtraction nor addition.”

Accordingly, since the promise of Redemption is a component of one of the mitzvos, it must be fulfilled plainly and physically.

Likkutei Sichos, Parshas Shoftim, 5749 [1989]


Inner Content

כל הספרים מלאים בדבר זה

All the books [of the prophets] are filled with it [i.e., with the concept of Mashiach].

It could be suggested that the ultimate inner content of every verse in the Tanach — even a verse that does not speak (manifestly) about the Redemption, and even a verse whose content appears to be quite the opposite of the theme of Redemption — is the Redemption (for “filled” in the Torah means “completely filled”). This ultimate inner content becomes apparent through the profound study of each verse, by means of the commentators and the like.

From a talk of the Rebbe on Shabbos Parshas Acharei-Kedoshim, 5751 [1991]