English translation — נשא ב

A.

After the Torah finishes the story of how the princes brought their offerings "for the dedication of the altar" — the verse says¹

: "This was the dedication of the altar on the day it was anointed, from the princes of Israel: twelve silver bowls

(— the <b>total</b> of the bowls of all twelve princes)

etc."

On this it says in the Midrash²

: "But did they not offer <b>one</b> bowl etc. on the day it was anointed? ..

Rather, Scripture credits them as if <b>all of them</b> offered on the first day

(And the Midrash is not satisfied with this,

but continues:)

And as if all of them offered on the last day."

(And the commentators&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;

explain,

that "as if ..

they sacrificed on the &lt;b&gt;last&lt;/b&gt; day" is derived from what after concluding regarding all the offerings of the princes the Torah says&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;

: "This was the dedication of the altar &lt;b&gt;after&lt;/b&gt; it was anointed").

One must understand: Granted, the superiority in "as if ..

they sacrificed on the &lt;b&gt;first&lt;/b&gt; day" is understood: both from the aspect of the "person" — the one who sacrifices first shows that he is "more beloved"&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;

and is "greater"&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;

than the others; and both from the aspect

The "object",

from the aspect of "&lt;b&gt;dedication of &lt;/b&gt;the altar"&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;

— it is a place to say that the offerings of the later days

(after the first day)

are not a matter of "&lt;b&gt;dedication of &lt;/b&gt;the altar",

because the altar had &lt;b&gt;already been dedicated &lt;/b&gt;through the offerings of the "one who offers on the first day"&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;

— the Midrash safeguards this,

that it is as if each prince was the first to offer&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;

and &lt;b&gt;he &lt;/b&gt;dedicated the altar.

It requires explanation, however: What is the virtue and achievement in the matter of "He considers upon them ..

as if all of them offered on the &lt;b&gt;last&lt;/b&gt; day"&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;?

2.

And one can explain the interpretation in this:

The offering of the sacrifices upon the altar,

The general concept of "service"¹¹,

does

On the "drawing near" of the offerer to the Most High

("Korbanot" from the term "Kiruv"¹²),

as explained in several places¹³.

It is known¹⁴,

that the division of Jews into twelve tribes is connected with the difference in the manner in which each of them "serves his Master",

"Each man according to his blessing he blessed them"¹⁵

"to serve" through all your deeds etc.

(which they are different in this

(<b>as explained </b>in the blessings)

and also in spiritual service¹⁶)

; the service of G-d divides into twelve general ways,

and each prince and tribe has its unique way in the service of G-d.

And it could be said that this is the reason why "the dedication of the altar" was specifically through the twelve princes

— and not through Moshe and Aharon

— because each prince "dedicated" the altar according to <b>his</b> service,

by bringing offerings whose content corresponds to his way in the service of God.

that even though they

all brought the same offerings,

but each prince had by it &lt;b&gt;different intentions&lt;/b&gt;,

according to his opinion and &lt;b&gt;his &lt;/b&gt;tribe

(as his blessing — his own blessing)

— "each one offered &lt;b&gt;according to his own mind&lt;/b&gt;".

and as the midrash&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;

details &lt;b&gt;the different &lt;/b&gt;intentions of all the details of the offerings,

by each prince differently].

Based on this it is understood,

that the "dedication of the altar" was each day of the twelve days&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

each day in a &lt;b&gt;new &lt;/b&gt;manner — which was not &lt;b&gt;at all &lt;/b&gt;in the other eleven days.

— the dedication of the altar was &lt;b&gt;not &lt;/b&gt;completed —

First when each prince and all the princes brought all their offerings

("according to his opinion" which had inaugurated the altar

(also)

with

(and on)

<b>the </b>manner of the service)

was "the dedication of the altar"; for example: only on the twelfth day was the altar <b>inaugurated </b>to offer Jews who are from the tribe of Naphtali,

whose life is "a hind let loose, who gives beautiful sayings"²².

Gimmel.

Based on this one will understand what the midrash says "the scripture credits them as if all offered on the first day and as if all offered on the last day":

Although each day

(of the twelve days)

there was revealed a <b>particular</b> detail in the consecration of the altar

(through the offerings of

the prince who offered on that day)

— there is, however, a special virtue in the first day and in the last day: on the first day was the

(beginning and)

<b>opening</b> of the consecration of the altar,

and moreover <b>the main point</b> — then was brought about the matter of <b>the general</b>

(in addition to the <b>particular</b> of the tribe of Yehudah),

the reality of a consecrated altar came into being; and on the last day there is the virtue,

that in it it was revealed that the altar became consecrated

(also for the <b>last</b> tribe,

the tribe of Naftali,

and through this — consecrated)

for all of Israel as a <b>general in actuality</b>²³.

And this means the midrash "the scripture considers them as if all of them brought on the first day and as if all of them brought on the last day": each prince accomplished not only the detail of the dedication of the altar which is connected with <b>his</b> offerings — but it is as if he also has the quality of the totality of the dedication

(and also — the "potential" of all the details)

And the totality of the dedication of the altar <b>in actuality</b>.

D.

It is understood,

that since the Torah of <b>truth</b> says "as if all of them brought on the first day ..

last day",

it is therefore that each prince is <b>truly a part</b> of "<b>all of them</b>" and both in the qualities of "first day" and in the qualities of "last day" mentioned above.

With this they are mefarshim²⁴

explain what

The midrash says²⁵

there in close proximity before that — "and none of them offered more than his fellow, for if one of them had offered more than his fellow, the offering of one of them would not

(the offering of the tribe of Ephraim which fell on the Sabbath day²⁶)

override the Sabbath."

The reason why the offerings of the dedication of the altar override Shabbat²⁶

is because since "Scripture considered them as if all of them offered on the first day etc. on the last day,"

therefore "it was considered a <b>public </b>offering that overrides Shabbat."

And the proof of this,

is from that "no one offering was greater than another": since each day they brought the <b>same </b>offerings,

it is a proof,

that each of them was not

(only)

a special offering of <b>that </b>prince,

but

(also)

public offerings,

and consequently — the same for all tribes²⁷.

D.

One must however understand: how does <b>this </b>matter fit

(that it is as if all the princes brought the offerings each and every day as <b>public</b> offerings)

with that which is stated in the midrash

(as above)

that "each and every one offered according to his <b>intent</b>"²⁸?

And on the other hand: if the offerings of the princes are

(also)

communal offerings, could they all have offered them on one and the same day?

And in particular, since the princes indeed initially had the intention to do so²⁹,

as it says³⁰

"And the princes brought

the princes the dedication of the altar on the day it was anointed, and the princes brought their offering before the altar" — and nevertheless, the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded that specifically "one prince per day, one prince per day shall bring their offering"³¹?

One must say,

that here there were both aspects and definitions³²

: the offerings of the princes are offerings of the <b>public</b> "all of them" and together with this it is specifically "from his own he brought"³³

and one does not find that it needs to be "handed over nicely nicely"³⁴

And on the contrary <b>according to his view</b> he offered and the verse <b>emphasizes</b> this offering of Nachshon ben Aminadav³⁵

and so forth,

the actual offering of each prince was <b>separated</b> according to <b>his view</b> specifically and consequently also on a <b>separate</b> day,

and as follows.

6.

Another aspect

(in connection with the donation of the princes)

that requires explanation:

Before the princes brought "their offering for the dedication of the altar" but together with them,

they first brought "six covered wagons and twelve oxen"³⁶.

And the Almighty told Moses³⁷

that the wagons and oxen should be given to the Levites <b>for carrying the Tabernacle</b>.

It is not understandable: this donation seemingly has no connection to the

(<b>service in the </b>Tabernacle)

dedication of the altar —

Today why did the princes bring the donation at <b>the </b>same time³⁸?

Also it is not understood: how does it come,

that the princes,

who each of them gave in a manner and emphasis of a donation of the heart³⁹,

brought not a <b>complete </b>thing for himself,

but:

(a)

"a wagon

(<b>one</b>)

for <b>two </b>princes"³⁶

(and not each prince a wagon for himself)

(b)

also regarding the "ox"

(which each prince brought by himself³⁶)

was the donation in a manner that the ox is "a half thing" it must "come to" another ox,

(two cattle on each wagon)⁴⁰?

7.

And one can explain in all this

(in the inwardness and hint of the matter)

Every Jew has two general virtues:

a)

the virtues in which he is equal with all Jews,

because of that which One Father to all of them,

and more than this — from the aspect of

(root)

of the souls, all Jews are &lt;b&gt;one &lt;/b&gt;thing&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;.

b)

the particular virtues,

according to the distinctions of levels that exist among Jews:

Your heads etc. and until the drawing of your waters&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;,

"that in each and every one there is a quality and level that is not in his fellow"&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;,

So that also the type of virtues leads to unity among all Jews,

Because when one knows and feels that "they all need each other" and no one has any "completeness without his fellow"&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;,

it brings about that one should unite with another Jew,

with additional Jews,

so that through this one completes the other.

And as is known that all Jews together constitute "one complete structure"&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;.

And in each of the two types there is an advantage over the other⁴⁴

From the perspective of the first type, the unity is greater,

because this comes from that which all Jews are from the outset <b>one</b> thing; but in the second type, the unity is a result of the contemplation that one must arrive at the other

(and consequently — each one remains a thing by itself,

separate from the other)

On the other hand, however, there is an advantage in the second manner of unity — because its act of unification is also in the <b>particular</b> matters of a Jew

(in which he is <b>separated</b> from another)

— that even in his particular aspect where he feels <b>his</b> advantage,

he also hears there how he is not complete without the other Jew.

Ch.

The ultimate intention is,

that there should be the unification of <b>both</b> advantages — that also when one recognizes his

Individual quality,

he should simultaneously feel

(because he does not have the quality that is in his friend),

but]

that he is &lt;b&gt;one &lt;/b&gt;thing with another Jew,

in complete unity.

The explanation of this: when the Alter Rebbe explains&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;

how among Jews it is in a manner that "all need one another",

because no one has any "perfection without his friend" — he says the expression,

that through this is effected a unity "so that man should not find head and end"

(and as he explains there,

that this is connected with "the aspect of circles",

which in a circle "there is no aspect of head and end").

It is seemingly not understood: that which every Jew completes the other,

until that even the one who is on the level of "legs" has an advantage which is &lt;b&gt;not &lt;/b&gt;in the head

("that one must walk with them and they are also the supporters of the body and the head")

— is only explaining,

that his friend is a head to the nation;

How, however, does there come about, from &lt;b&gt;this &lt;/b&gt;, a unity in a manner "without a person finding a beginning and end"&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;?

9.

And one can say,

that with this the Alter Rebbe alludes to a higher matter,

which binds together both types of the above-mentioned unity: the particular qualities and powers of a Jew are not a separate thing from his essence of the soul,

rather they are connected and come from the essence of the soul

(which

it bears within itself all the particulars)⁴⁶.

From this also comes the inclusion of the powers,

each power

(particular)

includes all powers —

Since the root and source of every power,

is the essential soul which is the bearer of all powers — therefore, in every power

(from the aspect of the "essence" within it)

are included all other powers⁴⁷.

And likewise it is regarding the "single complete structure" of the entirety of Israel⁴⁸

: That which all the particular virtues of all Jews together constitute a "single complete structure",

is it because all Jews are essentially one thing from the aspect of the root of their souls,

since from there the particular virtues derive

(as above)

; and for this reason also the particular virtue of a Jew in itself includes all other virtues of all Jews.

And from this aspect there is a unity

(also from the aspect of the virtues <b>particularities </b>of Jews)

in a manner of "so that man cannot find head or end" — because in this manner there is no superiority of one Jew over another; by every Jew all virtues are present,

and the difference is only regarding revelation and concealment: by one Jew the matter of the "head" stands in revelation and all other virtues are included in it

; and by a second a second virtue stands in revelation and all the re-

maining virtues are in inclusion

(in concealment)

(in concealment)

in her.

in the matter of "one who is engaged in a mitzvah is exempt from the mitzvah"⁵⁰,

that this is because all mitzvos are included in each mitzvah,

and therefore,

although that <b>openly </b>he fulfills only the particular mitzvah,

it is as if he also fulfilled all the other mitzvos

(which are included in the mitzvah latently)].

10.

And this is also the explanation in the manner and order of the donation of the princes for the dedication of the altar:

So that the dedication of the altar should be in the ultimate perfection, there needed to be the unification of both extremes:

The service of each prince

(tribe)

from the aspect of his <b>particular</b> matter — "each one offered according to his <b>understanding</b>" — and therefore it was separated also in time: each offering on a <b>separate</b> day;

But in fact,

in this itself should have been heard,

as also from the side of the particular service of the nasi and tribe, he is <b>one thing</b> with all the other nesi'im and tribes,

And this the midrash says "as if all of them brought on the first day ..

on the last day"

(and as above section d — that this is because the offerings of each day were communal offerings)

— because the offerings of each day contained within themselves

also contain the services

(“the offerings”)

the public of “all of them”;

And for this same reason all the princes offered the <b>same</b> offerings — in each of the offerings there is

(alluded to)

the service of the <b>public</b>,

of all of them

(and the difference is only,

which service stands <b>revealed</b>,

as above)⁵¹.

11.

With this one will also understand the connection of the donation of the wagons to the dedication of the altar:

In order that the unity should be able to be revealed

(And in a manner of — "so that a person should not find a beginning and end")

Even while being occupied with a particular service,

the princes first brought a donation which comes and expresses a unity that is above division⁵²,

which gave the power to bring about

the unity

(complete)

also in the individual service.

And this is the <b>introduction </b>of the donation of the wagons: he gives only a half wagon,

and also his ox can be used only together with another's,

as above section 6 — this brings out⁵³

that each prince individually can accomplish only when his fellow completes him*⁵³.

And therefore the princes brought the wagons etc. all <b>together</b>,

as <b>one </b>donation

(collective),

and also when Moses took it from them,

there were no differences between the donation of one prince and the other⁵⁴.

And only then⁵⁵

comes the Chanukas HaMizbeiach that each prince <b>individually</b> brought the offerings <b>separately</b> — and in this itself⁵⁶

they continued a complete unity.

12.

Just as there are these three matters mentioned above by a Jew —

(a)

That he is initially one thing with all Jews,

without division,

(b)

his individual quality,

(c)

the unification of his essence

(as above)

with the particular —

Similarly, we find these three matters also regarding the Mishkan⁵⁷

(A)

The general holiness of the Mishkan,

which encompasses the entire Mishkan — all its parts and details — <b>equally</b>.

(b)

The particular sanctities of the parts of the Mishkan — sanctity of the Courtyard,

sanctity of the Tent of Meeting and sanctity of the Holy of Holies.

(c)

The unification of both sanctities together

(which, from this aspect, an additional sanctity is added to the particular sanctity).

And based on this one can explain what the midrash says regarding the offerings of the prince of Shimon

— that he offered "according to the order of the work of the <b>Mishkan</b>" — and its language is

: The bowl corresponding to the courtyard of the Mishkan which surrounded the Mishkan ..

Its weight was a hundred and thirty as it is said

The length of the courtyard was a hundred cubits and the Mishkan which was inside it was thirty cubits its length, behold a hundred and thirty.

One silver sprinkling basin corresponding to the courtyard without the Mishkan which was seventy cubits

from the Sifra]..

Another explanation: the courtyard was its length a hundred cubits and its width fifty

cubits ..

Take fifty ..

And make from them strips

In a square its length would equal its width, seventy cubits etc. And about this it says seventy shekels etc.

It is seemingly not understandable:

a)

The thirty cubits of the length of the Mishkan are indeed included in the hundred cubits of the length of the Courtyard — so why does one count again the thirty cubits as an <b>addition</b> to the hundred cubits — and one makes the <b>total</b>: 130 cubits?

b)

Since there is the number of 130

(which contains within itself the attribute of the courtyard with the Tabernacle)

— why did they need to offer an additional offering "corresponding to the courtyard <b>without </b>the Tabernacle"?

c)

What is the reasoning of the one who says that the "seventy shekels" are <b>not </b>"corresponding to the courtyard without the Tabernacle",

but rather corresponding to the entire courtyard

(and especially since from that perspective one must innovate — not count⁶²

the "remnants")?

13.

Based on the above, one can say,

that the three ways mentioned above of how to calculate the length of the courtyard

<b>One hundred and thirty</b> — a number that includes the measure of the courtyard and the Mishkan together and together with it — the measure of the Mishkan by itself,

(b)

the "courtyard <b>without</b> the Mishkan ..

<b>seventy</b> cubits",

(c)

<b>one hundred</b> cubits of the courtyard

(in which is <b>included</b> the length of the Mishkan)]

are in accordance with the three matters mentioned above in the holiness of the Mishkan:

When one speaks about the <b>general</b> holiness of the Mishkan — one counts the length of the courtyard as one hundred cubits,

this includes the entire Mishkan <b>as one</b>;

When one wants to emphasize the holiness &lt;b&gt;particularity &lt;/b&gt;of the Mishkan — one counts "the courtyard &lt;b&gt;without &lt;/b&gt;the Mishkan"

(seventy cubits),

as the courtyard is a holiness in itself;

and the &lt;b&gt;unity &lt;/b&gt;of both holinesses comes out in the number 130: one has both the &lt;b&gt;general &lt;/b&gt;— "one hundred"

(where the thirty of the Mishkan are not a holiness in themselves,

but a part of the general)

; and also the thirty of the Mishkan as it is

(a holiness)

&lt;b&gt;in itself&lt;/b&gt;.

And therefore,

when the prince of Shimon brought offerings for the dedication of the altar — which is connected to the three matters as this is regarding

(and in)

Jews,

as above at length — he in his offerings "corresponding to the work of the Mishkan" also "intended" the same matters as they express themselves regarding the Mishkan.

13.

And this is also the explanation in the two opinions — whether one counts the "seventy shekels" "corresponding to the courtyard without

the Mishkan”,

or that this is the hundred cubits its length and fifty cubits its width as one makes them “its length as its width”:

According to the first opinion,

the main emphasis in the dedication of the altar is the quality of <b>the individual</b>

(that also in this one draws down the matter of unity)

— and therefore the general holiness is not so relevant here

(as it is <b>in itself</b>)

as above section 11]

But according to the second opinion,

the main achievement is the quality of <b>the collective</b>,

and the achievement of the Chanukat HaMizbeiach is that this demonstrates how also in details the quality of the collective is heard;

And according to this opinion, one does not hint at the <b>particular</b> holiness

(as it is in itself),

and therefore he learns that the "seventy" are the count of the totality of the area of the courtyard

(but not the area of the Mishkan which received an additional holiness — <b>particular</b>)

— the quality of the collective.

Simchas Torah, 5742.

<b>Shabbos Parshas Vayikra,</b>

5 Nissan,

5743)