English translation — תזריע א

A.

It is a Jewish custom,

that when bringing a child to his covenant of Avraham Avinu, a couple of "kvatters" participate

(a man and his wife etc.).

The "kvatterin" brings the child to the door of the synagogue

(or room)

where one circumcises the child,

and the "kvatter" takes from her the child and brings him to the "Chair of Elijah"¹.

"The custom of Israel is Torah"²

— it is understood,

that also this custom among Jews is "Torah it is"³.

And it is to say,

that on this matter — that which a woman

(although upon her there is not the commandment to circumcise <b>etc. </b>— as will be explained below)

is instituted <b>specifically</b><sup>4</sup>

that she should assist in the commandment of circumcision<sup>5</sup>,

there is a kind of support and hint<sup>6</sup>

in our portion:

The verse "And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised"<sup>7</sup>

— the commandment of circumcision<sup>8</sup>

— stands in the portion of "<b>A woman </b>when she conceives<sup>9</sup>

(and gives birth to a male)

which speaks about "the law of the woman who gives birth etc."<sup>10</sup>

and in continuation of that verse of "a woman etc." itself immediately after it,

Although the commandment of "And on the eighth day he shall circumcise" is the obligation that lies <b>upon the father</b><sup>11</sup>

(to circumcise his son),

but a woman is in this <b>not </b>obligated,

as the Gemara derives<sup>12</sup>

(until there is a discussion and dispute whether a woman is <b>fit </b>to circumcise<sup>13</sup>)

— nevertheless the commandment stands in the portion regarding a <b>woman who gave birth</b><sup>14</sup>,

and where the man

(husband)

is not mentioned at all

(and also in the verse itself "And on the eighth day he shall circumcise the flesh of his foreskin" it does not state

(explicitly)

that this must be done by the father<sup>15</sup>).

What this is,

as above,

(at least)

a hint that a woman<sup>16</sup>

has a connection to the commandment of circumcision,

which is expressed in that she is a kvaterin at a brit.

2.

In several places the custom among Jews is¹⁷

not to take a pregnant woman as a "kwaterin"

(bringing the child to the synagogue).

And since such is the custom of Israel

(in many places¹⁸),

it is understood,

that also this has a place and "Torah it is"

(and according to the well-known responsum of the Rashba*¹⁸,

that even a custom,

a tradition received from elders, men and women etc., one cannot push it aside with questions etc.¹⁹).

For this custom

(that a pregnant woman should not be a kwaterin)

are brought several reasons²⁰

— because of danger,

due to concern for the evil eye and more — but according to what is known about the great precision in the customs of Israel,

it is plausible to say,

that the custom is not connected with an <b>external</b> reason or concern

(from the aspect of danger to the fetus and the like)

rather it has a connection and pertains to the very essence of the matter and custom of kwater.

And it can be said — regarding the reasons for customs in general: the explanation and precise meaning of the expression "custom

(of Israel)

<b>Torah </b>is it"²¹

a)

This is a thing that has a <b>force </b>of Torah and may not be changed

(in the manner of "the custom of our fathers is in our hands",

"do not change the custom of your fathers"²²),

b)

The custom is also a <b>teaching </b>

(Torah is it)

on the content of the particular matter²³

(the commandment)

in which it is.

3.

And one can say the explanation in this,

and with an introduction: in the manner of this

(as is the aforementioned custom of "kvater" at a circumcision)

one also finds at the marriage of groom and bride

(whose purpose is the matter of being fruitful and multiplying²⁴,

the begetting of sons and daughters)

— that a pair of attendants²⁵

(ushers)

lead the groom²⁶

and bride to the wedding canopy²⁷.

And also regarding this, the custom of Israel is that a pregnant woman should not be the underwoman²⁸.

It is written in books²⁸,

that the two customs in relation to a pregnant woman — that she should not be a "kvaterin"

(at a bris milah)

and not a "shushvinah"

(at a wedding)

— "one custom it is".

According to this, it is understood,

that the reason for both customs is also one.

4.

And one must say the explanation simply²⁹

One finds in Shulchan Aruch³⁰

in connection with the "custom of kapparot on the eve of Yom Kippur"³¹,

that

(in addition to the hen for kapparah for oneself)

a pregnant woman also takes a rooster for kapparah for the fetus.

It is only that in this very matter there are two opinions,

whether one rooster and one hen are sufficient,

because if the fetus is a female, then one hen is sufficient for the mother and the fetus together³²

(for two men are atoned through one rooster and two women — through one hen³³)

; or one must have three fowl — two hens and one rooster: one hen for the mother,

and a rooster and a hen³⁴

"for the doubt of the offspring"³³.

And so is the custom,

as the custom of the AriZal³⁵

that a pregnant woman takes three fowls³⁶.

Based on this it is understood in our matter — the two customs mentioned above in connection with a pregnant woman:

The custom of Israel is,

that both the attendants of the groom and bride and the kvatters at a bris milah — should specifically be two — a man and a woman

(or two <b>of each</b>)³⁷.

And therefore the custom of Israel is not to take a pregnant woman,

because then there is yet another one — the fetus

(and the proof,

the fetus needs to have an atonement <b>for itself</b>)

; and consequently it turns out that there are <b>three</b> attendants or kvatters,

and it is also not <b>equal</b>³⁸

the number of men and women,

which it could be that also this is relevant.

H.

Seemingly one can ask on this: The under-firer or kvatterin is the mother

(not the fetus)

— how is this different than when there stand under the chuppah additional people,

about which one is not particular.

Is the difference in simple terms: The others are not there as a groomsman or godfather.

But the fetus,

which is a part of the mother,

he is also automatically as

(a part of)

godfather or bridesmaid.

: The law "if one of them is found to be a relative or invalid their testimony is void" is specifically when they are united all as witnesses — "they all intended to testify",

or when they

(also)

came to the court to testify; but when the relative or invalid at the time of the sighting did not intend to testify and the like,

their testimony

(of the other valid witnesses)

is not void,

because the relative or invalid are not in the category of a witness].

Vav.

As you will well examine in this above-mentioned matter, one could say further: From the custom of kapparos mentioned above regarding a pregnant woman,

it is understood —

not that the fetus is considered as a &lt;b&gt;separate &lt;/b&gt;entity — because if so, it is not understandable: what kind of "kapparah"

(and the like)&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;

does a fetus in its mother's womb need?

— rather

That the fetus changes the reality of &lt;b&gt;his mother&lt;/b&gt;,

adds to her reality in a way that &lt;b&gt;she &lt;/b&gt;herself is considered as two

(three),

and therefore &lt;b&gt;her &lt;/b&gt;atonement is needed

(as a pregnant woman)

to consist of two

(and according to the second opinion,

due to the doubt,

of three)

birds.

And one can say the reasoning in this: When the pregnant woman ate a forbidden thing and it became blood and flesh of her flesh and she needs atonement — her eating became blood etc. from the heart of the woman and from the heart of the fetus etc.

In a different style,

more inclusive: doing a thing that requires atonement comes about through the person who consists of all &lt;b&gt;his limbs etc. and all of them &lt;/b&gt;are atoned for.

And if this is a pregnant woman, &lt;b&gt;she &lt;/b&gt;also has all the parts of the fetus as

(according to &lt;b&gt;her &lt;/b&gt;)

thigh that need atonement.

That is,

that what she takes a rooster lest she give birth to a male,

is not because the rooster is an atonement for the fetus

(perhaps it is a male),

but through that which "she will give birth to a male" is revealed that being a pregnant woman her reality was such,

which also requires a rooster &lt;b&gt;for her atonement&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;.

And based on this, it is understood,

that that which one does not take a pregnant woman as a groomsman or godmother,

is not because the &lt;b&gt;fetus &lt;/b&gt;

(by itself)

is a third

(groomsman or godparent),

but because the pregnant woman herself is considered more than &lt;b&gt;one&lt;/b&gt; woman,

as mentioned above.

7.

It requires, however, further explanation,

why one is precise to take a man and woman specifically:

Granted, by the groomsmen of the groom and bride, one can say that this is corresponding to the groom and bride&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;

; but what is the precision to take specifically a man and woman by kvater

(of the brit milah)?

And as above

(end of section b)

is plausible,

that the precision has a connection

("Torah")

to the content matter of milah.

And it can be said

(in the words of the holy Baal Shem Tov)

With the introduction of the explanation of the matter of groomsmen by a groom and bride:

Their matter of groomsmen simply is⁴³

: Since the groom and bride were until now strangers and distant one from the other,

and therefore it is difficult for them

(from the aspect of shame etc.)

to suddenly transfer themselves into a state of closeness etc. at their wedding — therefore they need the assistance of groomsmen,

who are friends⁴⁴

to the groom and to the bride,

in order to support them,

to strengthen and encourage them in this closeness to each other.

And this is the reason for the custom of Israel that the groomsmen should be a man and a woman — and a married couple — because it is understood and simple,

that to encourage the groom, a man is suitable,

and a married man,

who has already gone through the matter of marriage; and likewise the bridesmaid for the bride — a married woman.

8.

All the matters below are drawn down from their root above — likewise in our matter:

The concept of groomsmen of a man and woman at a groom and bride down here,

derives from that which thus it was at groom and bride in their root and essence — the marriage of the Holy One, blessed be He

with Jews⁴⁵,

on the day of His wedding, this is the giving of the Torah⁴⁶,

there were⁴⁷

thereby two groomsmen: the groomsman <b>of the King</b> — Moses,

the groomsman <b>of the Matronita</b> — Aaron⁴⁸

Moses is the groomsman from the side of the groom — he brings close and draws down Divinity from above downward to Jews

(for example,

(as it were)

as it were,

like the groomsman of the groom who leads the groom to the bride)

; and Aaron is the groomsman from the side of the bride — he elevates and brings close Jews from below upward,

until that they should become united with the Most High

(corresponding to the bridesmaid of the bride,

who leads her to the groom)⁴⁹.

And the need of the attendants at the union of the Holy One, blessed be He, with Jews is because of this, that the soul of a Jew,

descended <b>in a great distance</b> from a high roof to a deep pit into the concealment and hiding of the world,

and there is the feeling of shame and awe

(at the time of closeness)

of the greatness of God,

the exaltation of the Supreme One.

And therefore one must have an attendant from the side of the "bride",

from the side of Jews,

whose level and essence and activity is the aspect of <b>woman</b>

(does the will of her husband)

— to elevate the Jews to the Supreme One; and an attendant from the side of the groom,

whose level and essence and activity is the aspect of <b>man</b>

(and he shall rule over you)

— to draw down Divinity from above downward to and into Jews.

9.

And this is also the reason that the groomsmen are connected with the joy at the time of the wedding⁵⁰,

because⁵¹

the matter of joy derives from that which a new thing is brought about — and this is the matter of a wedding; when a man and woman,

who were separated and distant one from the other since they were born

(for essentially each one is indeed a <b>half</b> of a body⁵²)

— and the groomsmen bring them together,

to a closeness and union — it brings about a wondrous joy.

And so too in spiritual matters: from the aspect of her descent below,

the soul has become

(as if)

separated and distant from the state and level of her unity and attachment with the Above,

like the souls when they are above; and when Jews, as they find themselves below, become attached and united with the Above through Torah and mitzvos

(and they refine and elevate the physical matters,

the holy sparks that descended from their level and became distant and find themselves below within them)

— through this a wondrous joy is brought about.

And it can be said that this is the reason why the Giving of the Torah is called "the day of His wedding and the day of the gladness of His heart"⁵³

: before⁵⁴

the Giving of the Torah was the decree that "the upper ones shall not descend to the lower ones and the lower ones shall not ascend to the upper ones"*⁵⁴

; and at the Giving of the Torah,

when there was the wedding canopy and betrothal⁵⁵

of the Most High with Jews,

the decree was nullified,

there was the connection and union of the Most High with Jews as Jews are found in the world down here,

(and through them with all matters of the world),

and therefore this is — "the gladness of His heart".

Tenth.

According to all the above, the content of the matter of kvater at a brit milah is also understood,

and its connection to the matter of the groomsmen at a wedding:

The completeness and inwardness of the matter of unity of the Most High with Jews is revealed through circumcision; then the matter of "&lt;b&gt;My covenant in your flesh &lt;/b&gt;for a covenant &lt;b&gt;of eternity&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;56&lt;/sup&gt; is revealed,

that the covenant of a Jew with the Most High is sealed in the physical flesh of a Jew.

D.

H.

This novelty of the Giving of the Torah,

is revealed in a revealed manner at circumcision,

that "upper ones"

(spiritualities)

descend "downward",

and "lower ones"

(physicalities)

ascend upward,

until the physical body of a Jew becomes,

as it were,

in covenant with the Most High.

(from the word)

connection and attachment⁵⁷

— is not evident so much in the body of the person who fulfills a commandment as this is by the commandment of circumcision⁵⁸].

Which this also gives an additional explanation in that which the Alter Rebbe says in Shulchan Aruch⁵⁹,

that "the beginning of the <b>entry of </b>this holy soul" is "by the commandment of circumcision"⁶⁰.

And therefore, just as the attendants by a groom and bride are a man and a woman,

because their matter is to assist in the drawing near and union — the attendant from the side of the groom and the attendant from the side of the bride — so too is it in the root of the matter of the connection of a man and a woman,

in the union of the Above One with Jews,

which is revealed at a Bris Milah,

this is expressed

(according to the custom of Israel)

in the kvatters

(similar to attendants)

which consist of a man and a woman,

whose content and matter spiritually is: man alludes to the attendant from the side of the King,

from the side of the Above One,

and woman — to the attendant of the Matronita,

from the side of the Jews.

And therefore, also at a Bris Milah there must be

(just as attendants at a wedding)

specifically a man and a woman.

11.

Based on this it is also understood why joy is a primary matter at a bris milah

(just as it is at a wedding),

which we do not find so much regarding other mitzvos, and as our Sages said⁶¹

that "I rejoice over Your word" refers to the mitzvah of milah

(although regarding every mitzvah it must be "Serve the L-rd with joy"⁶²)

until that the Gemara⁶³

says,

that this is the reason why we circumcise on the eighth: "For what reason did the Torah say milah on the eighth? So that not everyone should be joyous while his father and mother are sad"

(and as understood from the commentaries⁶⁴,

we learn this from the fact that the Torah inserts "And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised" in our parshah immediately after the verse concludes regarding the impurity of childbirth which ends after seven days),

For the matter of joy that comes from a matter of renewal,

as at a wedding where a new thing is brought into being,

that "a man shall leave⁶⁵

his father etc. and cleave to his wife and they shall become one flesh,"

as above,

this is in perfection at the mitzvah of milah,

which opens up the inner connection and union of

(man and woman)

the Almighty with Jews,

"My covenant in your flesh, an everlasting covenant."

it is accomplished &lt;b&gt;immediately &lt;/b&gt;at the birth]&lt;sup&gt;67&lt;/sup&gt;

And through the fulfillment of these two aforementioned commandments — p'ru u'rvu

(which is the purpose of marriage — the marriage of a man and a woman)

and the commandment of circumcision — one merits very soon the true and complete redemption when there will be the perfection in circumcision — "and circumcise&lt;sup&gt;68&lt;/sup&gt;

the Lord your God your heart and the heart of your seed" and the perfection in "marriage

(of Jews with the Almighty)

as it is said&lt;sup&gt;69&lt;/sup&gt;

for your Maker is your husband"&lt;sup&gt;70&lt;/sup&gt;,

and then there will be the groomsmen — "Moses and Aaron will be with us"&lt;sup&gt;71&lt;/sup&gt;.

(From the sichos of the fifteenth of Shevat and Shabbos Parshas Yisro 5741)