English translation — מאמר יהי ה' אלוקינו עמנו תשכ"ד

B'S"D.

Shabbos Parshas Korach,

3 Tammuz

(Maamar 1),

5724

"May Hashem our G-d be with us as He was with our fathers; may He not forsake us nor abandon us."

And known is the talk of the Baal HaGeulah, who said on 3 Tammuz 5687,

"We ask of Hashem Yisbarach,

'May Hashem our G-d be with us as He was with our fathers; may He not forsake us nor abandon us,'

Hashem Yisbarach should be with us,

and He will be with us as He was with our fathers."

And it needs to be understood: a request and a promise are different matters

(and seemingly even opposites),

and nevertheless he says, "We ask of Hashem Yisbarach... should be with us and will be with us,"

that the request is

(not only "should be with us" but also)

"will be with us."

And although the word "Yihi" is a term of request and also a term of promise,

these are seemingly different interpretations

(matters)

[different],

and in the talk he includes both matters together.

And he continues in the talk,

"That this 'May Hashem our G-d be with us as He was with our fathers'

('Yihi' in the language of request and also in the language of promise)

is despite the fact that we are indeed not equal to our fathers."

And it can be said,

that the source for this explanation is what is brought in the Midrash:

"And Shlomo says before the Holy One, blessed be He: A king who hires workers and they do their work well and he pays them their wages—what praise is there for the king?

And when is he praised? When he hires bad workers

who do not do their work, and he pays them their wages—this is a great goodness. And so it says, 'May Hashem our G-d be with us as He was with our fathers.'"

And he explains in the talk that this inability to be compared to our fathers is because our fathers were people of actual self-sacrifice (mesirus nefesh) for Torah and mitzvos.

And it needs to be understood:

After all, the delivery of this talk was in connection with his journey into exile in Kostrama,

that the exile

(and before that the imprisonment)

was because of his actual self-sacrifice for Torah and mitzvos

[and even more so,

that even the very utterance of this talk was actual self-sacrifice],

and nevertheless he says that we are not comparable to our fathers, who were people of self-sacrifice.

And seemingly it can be said,

that since the request of the master of the redemption, "May Hashem our G-d be with us," was

(not only for himself but also)

for all of Israel,

including even those who are called by the name Israel

(only)

nominally,

therefore he said that they are not like our forefathers who were possessors of actual self-sacrifice.

But this explanation is insufficient,

because in the wording "We are indeed not equal to our forefathers" he also included himself.

And it cannot be said that his including himself among those who are not possessors of actual self-sacrifice is in a manner of humility,

because the matter of humility applies specifically to something that is relative.

B)

And behold, in addition to the precise points in the sicha, there is a need for explanation in the wording "May Hashem our G-d be with us"

(which is in the verse itself),

for seemingly,

after saying "Hashem our G-d,"

which is our G-d,

and especially according to what is explained in Chassidus

that "our G-d" means our strength and our vitality,

what need is there for the request that He be with us?

Also, one must understand the statement "with us... with our forefathers,"

for the word "with" applies to something that is secondary to the thing it is with

[like "the heirs of the husband shall divide with the heirs of the father,"

where the heirs of the husband are secondary to the heirs of the father],

and nevertheless it says "May Hashem our G-d be with us... with our forefathers,"

implying that Hashem our G-d is secondary to us and to our forefathers.

And this can be explained based on what is known

that the reason fear of Heaven is referred to with the term "treasury,"

is,

that just as the king's treasury—

the king cannot make a treasury unless he gathers from others—

so too fear

(the treasury of the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He)

is not in the hands of Heaven,

as our Sages, of blessed memory, said:

"Everything is in the hands of Heaven except fear of Heaven."

And one may add,

that the reason the term "treasury" is said specifically regarding fear,

even though this matter

(that the Holy One, blessed be He, needs, so to speak, man)

applies to all mitzvos,

for in order for the fulfillment of mitzvos to be as required, it is through love of Hashem or through fear of Hashem13,

and among the distinctions between love and fear is14,

that love of Hashem comes through a revelation of light from above,

and fear of Hashem comes

(primarily)

through the work of man.

And analogous to fear of a human king,

that the reason the people of the country fear the king is because they accepted him to be king over them15,

for the acceptance of kingship is through the people,

"You shall surely set a king over you"16.

And based on this, one can explain the phrase "May Hashem our G-d be with us as He was with our forefathers,"

for in fear of Hashem

(which is the beginning of service and its essence and root17),

the main thing is the work of man,

and the revelation of light from above

(Hashem our G-d)

is only an assistance to man,

"with us."

3)

Now, the reason for this, that fear comes primarily through the work of man,

one may say,

is because fear is self-nullification.

And particularly the fear of a king,

"You shall surely set a king over you, so that his awe shall be upon you"18,

that the self-nullification of this fear is connected with the fact that he is a servant of the king

[for the nature of a servant is that the awe and fear of the master is upon him],

that the self-nullification of a servant is total self-nullification,

and therefore it comes specifically through man,

for the action that is done in man through a revelation of light from above is like something additional to him,

and therefore the change that occurs in him through this is only in his mental conception,

but not a change in the man himself,

and in order to come to total self-nullification,

the self-nullification of a servant

[for the difference between a free man and a servant is in the very essence of his existence],

it is through man himself accepting upon himself to be a servant of the king.

And one may say that the same applies to self-sacrifice (mesiras nefesh),

for since self-sacrifice is total self-nullification,

and particularly when the self-sacrifice is for matters that according to law

(a command from above)

one is not obligated to give his life for them19,

therefore it is

(primarily)

not through a revelation of light from above, but through man giving his life.

And based on this, it will be understood even more that the request and prayer of the Baal HaGeulah

(in the sicha of 3 Tammuz)

was in the language of the verse "May Hashem our G-d be with us as He was with our forefathers,"

for he spoke then about the matter of the service of self-sacrifice,

and in this very matter, regarding many matters that according to law one is not obligated to give his life for, which come

(primarily)

from man himself,

and since in the service of self-sacrifice the main thing is the work of man,

and the revelation of light from above assists the work of man,

therefore he began his request and prayer

(in the language of the verse)

"May Hashem our G-d be with us."

4)

Now, the term "with" (עם) applies when there is a similarity between two things.

As per the exposition of our Rabbis, of blessed memory,

on the verse,

"and station themselves there with you,"

"with you" (עמך) — those who are similar to you.

For although the term "with" (עם) indicates something secondary

(as mentioned above in section 2),

nevertheless,

it has a similarity to the primary.

And likewise with the term "es" (את),

which indicates something secondary, as per the exposition of our Rabbis, of blessed memory,

on the verse,

"the flesh of" (את בשרו) — that which is secondary to his flesh,

and nevertheless it is similar to the primary,

as per the exposition of our Rabbis, of blessed memory,

on the verse,

"and they shall carry with you" (אתך),

"with you" (אתך) — those who are similar to you.

And it is explained in grammar books,

that the secondary element hinted at by the term "es" is more secondary than the secondary element in the term "with" (עם).

And based on this,

with the term "es" the main emphasis is that the thing

(about which "es" is said)

is only secondary,

while with the term "with" (עם) the main emphasis is on the similarity of the two things.

From this it is understood,

that the main emphasis in "May Hashem our G-d be with us" is not that Hashem our G-d is, as it were, secondary to man,

but rather the similarity, as it were, between them.

And it can be said,

that the similarity between them is in the matter of primary and secondary.

For just as the perfection of man's service is when his service is with his own power,

therefore Hashem our G-d is, as it were, secondary to man

(as mentioned above in section 2),

so too, conversely,

the perfection of man's service is when his service

[both the service with his own power,

and also the service of self-sacrifice (mesiras nefesh),

including even self-sacrifice for matters for which, according to law, one is not obligated to give his life]

is not because he wants to serve G-d, but because he is nullified to G-dliness.

For since his self-nullification to the Holy One, blessed be He, is absolute self-nullification,

therefore,

every single mitzvah

(even when, according to law, one is not obligated to give his life for it)

is for him in a manner that it is entirely impossible not to fulfill it,

even when its fulfillment requires self-sacrifice.

And it can be added,

that through self-nullification to G-dliness,

there is an addition also in the self-sacrifice (mesiras nefesh).

For when his self-sacrifice is because he wants and has decided to fulfill the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, even when it requires self-sacrifice,

behold, there is for him a possibility that it could be otherwise,

and that which in practice he stands in self-sacrifice is only because he decided so.

But when his self-sacrifice is because of his self-nullification to the Holy One, blessed be He,

so that every mitzvah that the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded is for him in a manner that it is entirely impossible not to fulfill it,

then there is no possibility at all that it could be otherwise.

5)

And this is "May Hashem our G-d be with us as He was with our forefathers,"

for in the service of the Patriarchs, the two aforementioned matters are emphasized.

They fulfilled the entire Torah before it was given,

in which it is emphasized that their service was

(not because of a command from Above,

but rather)

with their own power.

And nevertheless they were in absolute self-nullification,

for the Patriarchs themselves are the Chariot.

And the self-nullification of the chariot to the rider is absolute self-nullification.

For the self-nullification of the chariot to the rider is not from the aspect of the will of the chariot

(that it wants to be nullified to the rider and be a chariot for him),

but rather from the aspect of the rider.

And since there are various levels in self-nullification,

therefore,

we ask "May Hashem our G-d be with us as He was with our forefathers,"

that the matter of "May Hashem our G-d be with us,"

our self-nullification to G-dliness,

should be as it was with our forefathers,

the self-nullification of a chariot.

6)

And based on this, we can explain what the master of the redemption said: "We are indeed not equal to our forefathers,

who were actual practitioners of mesirus nefesh,"

in that he included himself in this,

for the true essence of mesirus nefesh is when the mesirus nefesh stems from self-nullification

(as above in section 4),

and since in self-nullification there are various levels

(as above in section 5),

therefore,

it is possible for him to say about himself

(out of humility)

that he is lacking in the matter of mesirus nefesh.

And based on this, we can also explain what is said in the sicha, that in the request "May Hashem our G-d be with us," the interpretation of "yehi" as a language of promise is also included

(He will be with us),

for the fact that prayer

(a request)

and a promise are two different matters is because prayer is a person's request and a promise is from Above,

and even among tzaddikim,

when they have a sense of existence

(at least in a refined way),

prayer and promise are two separate matters.

For the promise of a tzaddik is through his agency as an emissary of the Holy One, blessed be He,

and the prayer of a tzaddik is the request of the tzaddik himself.

However, when the tzaddik is in a state where even his service through his own power

(which ostensibly is "existence")

is in ultimate self-nullification,

then even in his prayer

(request)

there is also the aspect of a promise.

And we may add,

that something similar to this

(that even existence is in a state of self-nullification)

he also drew down upon those who are connected and attached to him.

By implanting in them mesirus nefesh even for matters that, according to law

(a command from Above)

one is not obligated to give his life for them

(mesirus nefesh from the side of the person),

and that even the mesirus nefesh for these matters should be in a manner that is not possible in any other way

(mesirus nefesh from the side of G-dliness).

And therefore, that in the request of the master of the redemption the aspect of a promise is also included, is also from the side of the recipients.

And the promise "May Hashem our G-d be with us as He was with our forefathers, may He not forsake us nor abandon us" will be fulfilled,

and for all the children of Israel there will be light

in spirituality and in physicality.