English translation — בהר-בחוקותי

1.

One has already many times spoken¹

about the connected sedras,

that from that which one connects them in a manner that they become <b>one </b>sedra

(only)

seven aliyos; and even more: one connects the end of the first sedra and the beginning of the second sedra in one aliyah²

(with the same blessing before it and blessing after it)],

It is proven from this,

that both sedras have in themselves a common point in their content,

because of which they can be joined together.

One must understand: What is the common point of the sedras — "Behar" and "Bechukotai"?

And on the contrary: since,

as discussed several times³,

the name of the sedra hints at its content — and at first glance,

the names "Behar" and "Bechukotai" bring out an <b>opposite</b> content:

"Behar" — on a mountain — indicates <b>elevation</b>,

which in spiritual service means,

that a Jew must sometimes⁴

conduct himself with a "breadth" and strength — and his heart was lifted up in the ways of the L-rd⁵

; and for example,

when it comes to a trial,

he must stand

With a strength and audacity to not be affected and to withstand the test — "brave as a leopard"⁶.

In contrast, "In My statutes

(you shall walk)

" — fulfillment of statutes — is connected and requires self-nullification; statutes are fulfilled because "a statute⁷

I have decreed, a decree I have decreed" and "you have no permission to speculate about it"⁸

— thus the Almighty commanded, one obeys the command

(even though one does not know the reason,

or moreover — it is contrary to intellect and reason).

2.

One will understand it with the introduction of the explanation in the name of the sedra

(the first)

— according to the custom of Israel⁹

(that "Torah it is"¹⁰)

— "Behar".

At first glance it is not understood:

The main emphasis is indeed,

at first glance,

in the word "<b>Sinai</b>" — the <b>distinguished</b> mountain upon which the Torah was given¹¹.

One should have called the sedra by the name "Sinai",

or at least "Behar Sinai"¹²

(as

We find by other sedras¹³,

that their name is of two words)

How does the name "Behar" fit,

which does not say about which mountain it speaks here?

The question is even stronger when speaking about the lesson in avodas Hashem that one must derive from “Har Sinai.”

Chazal¹⁴

say,

that the reason they chose specifically Har Sinai to give the Torah upon it,

is because “meichich mikol turya,”

it is lower than all the mountains — which carries within itself a thing and its opposite¹⁵

On one side it shows how there must be <b>lowliness</b>,

“meichich”; but on the other side it is also Sinai — a <b>mountain</b>.

Because although it is demanded of a Jew the movement of lowliness,

it must not be in a manner that one should become like a “doorstep that is trampled”¹⁶

G-d forbid,

rather together with the lowliness there must be a movement of strength and exaltation

(as above).

And these two matters are the difference between the two words "Behar" and "Sinai": "Behar" indicates elevation and strength of the person,

but "Sinai" alone — not emphasizing thereby that it speaks about a mountain — indicates the matter of self-nullification

("Sinai" on account of the bush¹⁷,

that the bush is "the lowest of all the trees in the world"¹⁸).

is therefore understood,

that of the two matters

(elevation and nullification),

is the <b>primary</b> virtue — <b>nullification</b>,

but along with this one ensures,

that it must not be nullification like a <b>trampled</b> doorstep by every “<b>foot</b>”,

rather it must be a movement of strength and elevation

(sometimes¹⁹).

And as our sages of blessed memory said²⁰

that a Torah scholar must have “one-eighth of an eighth”

(of pride),

but not more, heaven forbid.

Now how does it fit to call the parshah by the name “Behar” alone —

(only)

elevation,

and omit the <b>primary</b> — “Sinai” and nullification?

3.

One of the explanations in this:

The service of nullification "lowliness of man"²¹

is connected with "greatness of God",

he is nullified because he feels that the true reality of everything is G‑dliness.

And therefore,

is the true bitul — when the absence of reality is so much,

until one does not even feel that one is batel; because the very thing that &lt;b&gt;one feels &lt;/b&gt;that one is &lt;b&gt;mivatel &lt;/b&gt;

(before the Supreme One),

is a proof,

that there is

(still)

a reality that needs to become batel&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;.

When one is at true bitul,

he does not feel

(feel)

&lt;b&gt;anything &lt;/b&gt;except Elokus.

This is reflected in halacha in nigleh d’Torah:

We have already spoken once at length²³

about the difference between an "eved" and a "shliach,"

that although "shlucho shel adam k'moso"²⁴,

which includes

(also and mainly)

the highest manner in shlichus,

that the shliach at the time of his shlichus becomes the reality of the meshaleiach,

that in the matter of shlichus there are three manners: a)

the meshaleiach gives permission and power to the shliach to do the action in his place,

but the deed of shlichus is attributed to the shliach.

b)

the deed is attributed to the meshaleiach — it is called the doing of <b>the meshaleiach </b>

(through the shliach).

c)

that

(not only the doing of the shliach and his power of action are attributed to the meshaleiach,

but also)

the shliach himself becomes the reality of the meshaleiach],

Nevertheless, it is possible to separate the agent from the principal

(That is why one says "a person's agent is like himself" only in relation to the matter of the agency,

but not in other matters even during the act²⁶)

However, a slave is not an entity in himself at all,

his entire existence is the existence of the master.

And therefore — "what a slave acquires

(everything that the slave has)

his master acquires"²⁷.

Because a shliach is an entity in his own right,

which is nullified to the sender,

And therefore, also during his nullification, a place remains for his existence²⁸

; but this is not the case with a servant: he does not need to nullify himself to the master — he is from the outset only "his property and acquisition" of the master²⁹,

and consequently, he has no existence of his own at all.

4.

From this it is understandable,

that when one holds at the true bittul to Elokus,

it is not a contradiction to toikef and hagbaha — because it is not a toikef and hagbaha of his own existence,

rather the toikef and hagbaha of <b>Elokus</b>³⁰.

And along these lines from our Sages, may their memory be blessed,³¹

regarding a servant — "a servant of a king is a <b>king</b>."

That this does not create the feeling of yeshus and gaavah in the servant,

because this is not his importance and greatness,

rather the <b>king's</b>.

And therefore the parshah is called by the name "Behar" alone — because the completeness of bittul is,

that being a "har"

(that is: when he stands with a strength and elevation),

one needs to secure nothing that here there is throughout a strength of holiness

(and not any own selfhood, heaven forbid)

; one is so much nullified to

G‑dliness,

that from the outset there is no thought of his existence,

and consequently one need not say explicitly that it is "

(a)

har

(which comes because one is in a manner of)

&lt;b&gt;Sinai&lt;/b&gt;".

5.

And this is also the explanation

(in spiritual service)

of the several ways that one can describe "Mount Sinai":

At the beginning of the service,

when one is an entity unto himself,

he must be "Sinai" alone.

There cannot be any matter of "Har" and elevation,

only nothing more than self-nullification alone³².

Since he is an entity unto himself,

he is not yet relevant to the service of strength and elevation of holiness — because by

For him this will be the strength and elevation of his selfhood.

only he nullifies himself and <b>he </b>does an action in place of the sender].

A higher manner is — “Har Sinai”: the serving person can already have a feeling of “har” and elevation,

because he already holds at a inner bittul until that the strength is not &lt;b&gt;his&lt;/b&gt;,

but from Elokus,

But nevertheless he must still have the safeguard of “Sinai” — bittul — which prevents him that he should not fall into yeshus.

Because the bittul has not yet permeated his entire existence.

He holds at the level where he still feels how he is &lt;b&gt;mevatel&lt;/b&gt; himself to the Above.

that he transfers his power of action to the sender until this is considered as the &lt;b&gt;act &lt;/b&gt;of the sender,

and moreover — the agent himself becomes the sender,

nevertheless it is all in a manner that one can separate the agent from the sender].

The highest manner is — "Behar" alone.

The nullification is complete until one need not mention and guard³⁴

that it is "Sinai" — it is not

any place and even a possibility of any other existence besides Elokus.

6.

Even though the matter of "Behar" is a very high level in self-nullification³⁵

— it is, however, a directive for <b>every Jew</b> in his service.

Because in truth the matter is that every Jew — is a mountain,

all of Israel are "kings"³⁶.

When one demands of a Jew that he have strength in a matter of Judaism,

it does not mean that one coerces, heaven forbid, his self-nullification because there is no other choice but to prevent him from evil — rather, the strength itself is

(in inwardness)

the power of the divine soul which is "a part of G-d from above <b>literally</b>"³⁷.

A Jew must know,

that the soul of a Jew "has&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;

not been driven out in exile and not been handed over to the servitude of kingdoms",

and "what&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;

concerns ..

Torah and commandments and customs of Israel, we Jews have no say over ourselves".

"The law of the kingdom is law"&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;

and "Do not provoke a small nation"&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;

— but when it comes to a matter of &lt;b&gt;Judaism &lt;/b&gt;he is a "

(servant of the king)

&lt;b&gt;king&lt;/b&gt;",

and consequently it is — on the contrary: not only does he have the authority of a king,

but even more — he may not at all forgo his honor&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;,

because it is not &lt;b&gt;his &lt;/b&gt;honor,

but it is the honor of the kingdom — of the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He,

who says "And I will dwell &lt;b&gt;in their midst&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;,

his divine soul which is a part of G‑d &lt;b&gt;literally&lt;/b&gt;,

a part of the essence&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;.

7.

According to all the above, one will also understand the connection of "Behar" and "Bechukotai": the two movements in avodah

(which are brought out in the names)

"Behar" — strength and elevation,

and "Bechukotai" — bittul,

are not in contradiction to each other,

but on the contrary: one comes as a result of the other:

As discussed earlier,

the strength and elevation which is meant by "Behar",

is a result of true bittul,

such a bittul that leaves no place for a possibility of another way,

it is from the outset no doubt that the servant is the reality of the Master.

And this movement of self-nullification is brought out in "Bechukotai,"

in the fulfillment of the commandments in a manner of "chokim":

The Alter Rebbe⁴⁴

explains that "Bechukotai" is

(also)

from the term chakikah

(engraved).

The essence of the letters of engraving consists in this,

that not only are the letters united with the thing upon which they are engraved

— what the quality is also present by letters of the writing which are an &lt;b&gt;added&lt;/b&gt; thing to the parchment —

But that the letters have absolutely no existence by themselves,

their entire existence is only the thing in which they are engraved,

Similarly, the entire reality of the letter "Alef" etc. of the tablets had — was the stone of the tablets.

And this is the precision in the name "Chukim" — even regarding "Gezeiros"

(and the like)

: Gezeirah means that the fulfillment of the mitzvos is done out of coercion,

he must break himself and do an act that has no taste;

"Chokah" — what is

(also)

from the language of engraving — shows,

that there is no coercion at all in the fulfillment of the commandment.

The person is nullified completely to the Supreme One and is not an existence for himself

(like letters that are engraved in a precious stone),

&lt;b&gt;and consequently&lt;/b&gt;,

he does everything that is the supernal will.

That this is also the precise language of Chazal&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;

(regarding the fulfillment of the chukim)

"You have no &lt;b&gt;permission &lt;/b&gt;to ponder them."

Which superficially

should have stood "&lt;b&gt;And do not &lt;/b&gt;ponder after Me"&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;?

And one can explain the explanation in this: "You have no &lt;b&gt;permission &lt;/b&gt;to ponder after Me" emphasizes,

that in general one must be a ponderer,

together with

(but after that)

"We will do" must be "We will hear"

(and we will understand&lt;sup&gt;46&lt;/sup&gt;),

one must want to investigate the reasons of the commandments etc.,

only in &lt;b&gt;this &lt;/b&gt;matter — "You have no &lt;b&gt;permission&lt;/b&gt;": you have intellect,

and you &lt;b&gt;must &lt;/b&gt;use it,

but in &lt;b&gt;this &lt;/b&gt;type of commandments you were not given "permission to ponder after Me",

And also in this one is denied only "to ponder":

Fulfillment of the statutes need not be in a manner that is &lt;b&gt;devoid of &lt;/b&gt;the matter of intellect, contemplation, and inquiry and questioning&lt;sup&gt;47&lt;/sup&gt;

etc.,

but on the contrary&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;

: one finds in the Midrash of our Rabbis, may their memory be for blessing, &lt;b&gt;explanations &lt;/b&gt;how statutes are not commands of the intellect,

and many of them are — contrary to the intellect etc.&lt;sup&gt;49&lt;/sup&gt;,

but nevertheless a person must act upon his &lt;b&gt;intellect &lt;/b&gt;so that he should &lt;b&gt;not &lt;/b&gt;be a doubter&lt;sup&gt;50&lt;/sup&gt;

from "one who doubts his Master etc. the Divine Presence"&lt;sup&gt;51&lt;/sup&gt;

— not think that this is a deficiency in statutes relative to rational commandments.

And on the contrary, chok is from the term &lt;b&gt;chakikah&lt;/b&gt;: when the Jew has achieved self-nullification to the Above in such a way that it is with them in a manner of chakikah — there is no thing outside of G‑dliness

(like the letters of chakikah which are a part of the stone)

— then the "existence" of the human

(his intellect and emotions etc.)

is no contradiction to his self-nullification.

Because this has become completely without &lt;b&gt;its own &lt;/b&gt;existence,

but rather the existence of G‑dliness.

Ch.

With this one will also understand the connection of the content

(most)

of the sidrah — about reward of the commandments and their punishment — to the name of the sidrah "Bechukosai",

for superficially it is perplexing:

The concept of chukim

(in plain terms)

is,

that one fulfills them only because they are commandments of the Holy One, blessed be He

(although one does not know their reason and one does not feel any benefit in their fulfillment).

How do they fit in here, the beginning and majority of the parshah,

the promises of <b>reward</b> for the commandments

(and conversely — the punishments for lack of their fulfillment)

— which is an encouragement for fulfillment of the commandments from the aspect of the reward that the person receives?

Then the explanation in this: at the time that a Jew is nullified to the Most High in a manner of <b>engraving</b> — that there is no thing outside of Divinity

(like the letters of engraving that are a part of the stone)

— then also the reward for the commandments is a matter of engraving:

That which mitzvos bring with them reward,

does not create in a person a feeling of doing a mitzvah for the sake of himself and his reward and benefit

(that he will have physical and spiritual good),

rather by him is heard only the "good" of G‑dliness:

Since the Supreme One is the ultimate good,

His mitzvos bring goodness in everything⁵²,

until physical good literally.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Behar-Bechukosai 5740)