English translation — כ"ד טבת

12.

Based on what was said above

(section 8-9)

In the precision of "<b>his action </b>which he performed with it" — that the will

(essential)

in the mitzvah is connected

(not so with the intention of the mitzvot,

with <b>the deed </b>of the mitzvot — one can also say a hint in the matter of the yahrtzeit of the Alter Rebbe

(24 Tevet)

(in most years)

in the week of Parshat Va'era]

— from the haftarah:

Among the holy letters that were inserted by "the rabbis shlit"a, sons of the gaon the author z"l n"e"<sup>67</sup>

into the book of Tanya,

there is a letter of condolence<sup>68</sup>

(with an explanation on the letter)

that the Alter Rebbe wrote after the passing of R. Mendele Horodoker — who was

(not only a tzaddik<sup>69</sup>,

but)

but)

a nasi<sup>70</sup>.

In the letter

(and its explanation)

it speaks that also after the passing of the tzaddik there is drawn to his students etc. an illumination from "his deeds and his Torah and his service which he served all the days of his life"⁷¹.

One finds in this a wondrous thing,

that in the letter⁷²

the Alter Rebbe uses the language of today-

ker haftorah⁷³

(who left the life of his spirit)

<b>his action which he served with it</b>".

In general,

when one <b>reads</b> the letter superficially

(and in particular — before reading the explanation)

one might think that the Alter Rebbe used here expressions from verses,

wordplay etc. for the beauty of the rhetoric —

(as was common especially in those days),

in the manner that the commentators of the Tanach say regarding the <b>multiplicity</b> of verses in Tanach.

But when studying the <b>explanation</b> of the letter

(which the Alter Rebbe himself wrote)

one sees how every expression is precise and contains within itself a complete concept.

It is perplexing

(as above)

: why does the Alter Rebbe specifically use the expression,

that is found entirely by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon?

The wonder in this is even stronger: in this "explanation" the phrase "his action which he performed" is indeed not mentioned,

and on the contrary — there&lt;sup&gt;74&lt;/sup&gt;

he emphasizes

(that one receives from a tzaddik)

"through &lt;b&gt;his words and his thoughts&lt;/b&gt;" — not "his action"

(deed)?

And according to the above — that "his action etc." alludes to the superiority of deed

(in the aspect of holiness)

— one can say,

that therefore he brings in the letter the phrase,

because this is a primary matter in the service of the tzaddik,

as follows.

13.

And prefacing a fundamental change between the Epistle and the explanation:

In the Epistle the main emphasis is on the activity of <b>tzaddik</b> — that "he bequeaths life to all living,"

he draws down "life"

(also after passing away)

in the service of G‑d "in each and every one according to the level of his connection,"

and also "in worldly matters ..

the righteous protect the world."

In this "Biyur" the main emphasis is also on &lt;b&gt;the acceptance of his students&lt;/b&gt;— as also after the passing of their master they receive from the service of the tzaddik

(And on the contrary — not only a radiance,

but "from the vitality of the essential spirit of their master").

And based on this one can say, possibly, the above distinction between the letter and the Biyur:

"Action" shows that the power of the actor which is in the action has already become &lt;b&gt;separated &lt;/b&gt;from the human actor

(And it can be said that this is even more separate than "deed"),

and therefore it is right that one should not at all recognize in the action who did it.

And therefore: when it speaks primarily about &lt;b&gt;the students' reception &lt;/b&gt;— the expression "his speech and his thoughts" stands

(in which the attributes of the tzaddik — love, fear, and faith — are luminously revealed).

But not so when one wants to bring out the greatness of the &lt;b&gt;tzaddik &lt;/b&gt;and &lt;b&gt;his &lt;/b&gt;accomplishment — the main elevation is in “&lt;b&gt;his action &lt;/b&gt;which he worked in it”.

Because the &lt;b&gt;essence &lt;/b&gt;of

(tzaddik&lt;sup&gt;75&lt;/sup&gt;

expresses itself

(not so in the matters and influences in which the superiority of his service is evident,

but)

specifically in his &lt;b&gt;actions&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;76&lt;/sup&gt;

(outside of&lt;sup&gt;77&lt;/sup&gt;

Him&lt;sup&gt;78&lt;/sup&gt;

(Regarding that which was discussed earlier concerning mitzvos,

that the essential will of mitzvos expresses itself primarily in the action of the mitzvos).

14.

And this is also what we find by our Nesi'im,

beginning from the Baal Shem Tov,

that their first involvement for the benefit of another was — to do a favor for a Jew <b>physically</b>⁷⁹

— as told in several talks and notes of the Rebbe, the father-in-law⁸⁰

as the Baal Shem Tov and his friends

(the hidden tzaddikim)

used to travel among Jews and sought how to help them materially,

and only afterwards did they occupy themselves with helping them spiritually —

that in a good influence <b>material</b> it is not so apparent that it is connected with a tzaddik

(and the virtue of his service)

— the

the same good could have done another,

superficially,

which is not on the level of tzaddik — and specifically the avodah was the &lt;b&gt;beginning &lt;/b&gt;of their involvement with

Bnei Yisrael.

Because specifically in this their essence is expressed&lt;sup&gt;81&lt;/sup&gt;.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Va'eira 5732)